RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/29 
16 July 2007 
 (07-3014) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Twenty-Ninth Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 5 JUNE 2007 
 
Chairman: Ambassador Burhan Gafoor (Singapore) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ..............................................................................................1  
C. AGENDA ITEM C :  THE MONITORING MECHANISM .......................................................................4  
D. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................12  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contai ned in airgram WTO/AIR/3021 of 24 May 2007 
was adopted .   
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
2. The Chairman  began by making some general comments on the work of the Special Session 
of the Committee on Trade and Development and the larger process taking place in and out of Geneva.  He said that Members were in the final ph ase of the negotiations and within a few weeks, the 
Chairs of the Negotiating Groups on Agriculture  and Non-Agricultural Market Access would be 
expected to table their draft texts.  Naturally, the Chairs of the other negotiating groups would be 
expected to follow, including the Chair of the Special  Session.  When that time came, it was important 
that the Special Session should not be found wan ting.  More importantly, Members needed to 
remember that the time for general discussions was over and that they needed to continue to engage in 
text-based discussions.  He recalled that Memb ers had been discussing the Agreement-specific 
proposals for many years and said that it was important to preserve and build on the progress already made and avoid re-opening the issues.  It was ti me for Members to narrow the divergences which he 
hoped would be possible at that meeting. 
3. He went on to say that since the last formal m eeting held on 26 April 2007, he had held some 
small group consultations on the Agreement-specifi c proposals.  The informal consultations had 
focused on two proposals, namely proposal no. 13 on Article XVIII of the GATT and proposal no. 79 
on Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).  He had focused on 
those two proposals because they required a lot of work and were the proposals on which Members 
had made the least progress.  Unfortunately, no pr ogress had been made on those proposals at the 
consultations.  He said that his intention at that meeting, was to begin with the consideration of 
proposal no. 13 on Article XVIII of the GATT and then move on to address proposal no. 79 on 
Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Subsequently, he  would go on to address the other five remaining 
proposals on which Members had managed to come up with revised texts, namely proposal nos. 24 
and 25 on Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement and proposal nos. 28 to 30 on Article 3.5 of the TN/CTD/M/29 
Page 2  
 
  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Disc ussions on the proposals, with the exception of 
proposal no. 79, would be based on the language cont ained in Annex II of his report to the General 
Council (TN/CTD/19).  Under that agenda item, he would also brief Members on the consultations he 
had held on the duty-free quota-free (DFQF) market access issue.  He said that on proposal no. 13 on 
Article XVIII of the GATT, discussions had not b een easy, and there remained wide divergences of 
views.  He asked if there had been any change in  Members' positions on that proposal since the last 
informal consultation.  He suggested that Memb ers address the proposal paragraph by paragraph 
beginning with paragraph two, since it was hi s sense that there were no real problems with 
paragraph one. 
4. Discussions on the proposals continued in an informal mode. 
5. During discussions on Article XVIII, a number of developed country Memb ers reiterated that 
the proposal sought to reinterpret Article XVIII by introducing new elements and this was something 
they were not willing to accept.  One Member propo sed that the paragraph relating to developing and 
least-developed country Members not being expect ed to undertake measures that would undermine 
the attainment of the goals of Article XVIII, be restricted to developing and least-developed country 
Members dependant on primary products.  Another Member stated that that went too far from the 
existing language of Article XVIII.  The proponents re quested that paragraph four relating to the need 
to take due account of other Members' rights be delete d.  However, some other Members stated that if 
they were to agree to grant the type of flexibilit y that was being sought in the proposal, it would be 
important to ensure that the rights of other Memb ers be taken into account.  If that paragraph was 
deleted, they would not be able to agree to th e preceding paragraphs.  With respect to the last 
paragraph relating to future cons ideration of the procedures of Ar ticle XVIII, it was suggested that 
Members consider whether they wished to simplify the existing procedures of Article XVIII or 
develop new ones.  The need to involve due pr ocess in the proposal was also highlighted.  On 
proposal nos. 24 and 25 on Article 10.3 of the Agre ement on the Application of the SPS Agreement, 
one Member reiterated that it had a problem with prescribing a fixed-time period for the Committee to 
take decisions on granting time-limited exceptions for developing countries.  New Zealand tabled 
revised language on the proposals.  While some Me mbers supported the language, the proponents felt 
that it did not strengthen or operationalize Article 10 .3.  In their view, it merely reiterated what was 
already included in Article 10.3.  On proposal nos. 28 to 30 of Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, the proponents stated that they  wished to remove the reference to "beyond their 
capacity" in the sentence "...developi ng country Members shall not be expected to do so in cases 
where this will cause them additional administrati ve or financial burden beyond their capacity".  
However, some Members stated their preference to  retain the phrase, arguing that if developing 
countries had the capacity to provide import statisti cs with respect to products subject to import 
licensing, it was important for them to do so fo r transparency reasons.  On proposal no. 79 on 
Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement, a number of deve loped country Members stated that the decision 
contained in paragraph 3.1 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns that 
provides an interpretation of the phrase "longer time-fra me for compliance" referred to in Article 10.2 
of the SPS Agreement, reflected the maximum flexibilit y that they were willing to concede.  In their 
view, making the provision mandatory would undermine Members' rights to introduce measures to protect human, plant and animal life.  Discussi ons on this proposal remained general as the 
proponents were yet to table decision-type language. 
6. Thereafter the meeting reverted to a formal mode. 
7. The Chairman
 concluded the discussions by stating that out of the 16 remaining 
Agreement-specific proposals being considered in the Special Session, Members had been able to 
come up with some revised text on six of the propo sals.  This language was contained in Annex II of 
the General Council Report (TN/CTD/19) and include d texts on proposal no. 13 on Article XVIII of 
GATT, proposal nos. 24 and 25 on Ar ticle 10.3 of the SPS Agreement and proposal nos. 28 to 30 on  TN/CTD/M/29 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Pro cedures.  Additionally, Members had considered 
proposal no. 79 on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement on which it was his sense that the divergences 
were conceptual rather than textual and, therefor e, reaching convergence was proving to be difficult.  
His inclination was to set it aside, but as had b een suggested by one Member, he would discuss that 
with the delegation of India which had tabled the proposal.  As stated in his report to the General 
Council and at previous meetings of the Special Sess ion, it was his sense that on the nine remaining 
proposals, Members would be unable to build conver gence based on the language currently on the 
table.  Absent new ideas or new language there w ould be no value in continuing discussions on those 
proposals as that would only lead to a repetition of known positions.  It was, therefore, his intention to set aside those nine proposals and take no further action on them for the time being.  He would carry 
out further informal consultations  on proposal no. 13 on Article XV III of GATT and proposal nos. 24 
and 25 on Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement.   
8. The Chairman
 said that under this agenda item, Members would also consider the 
implementation of the DFQF access decision adopt ed at Hong Kong.  He briefed Members on the 
informal small group consultations that he had held  as a follow up to the earlier series of confessionals 
held in April with the different stakeholders.  The aim of the consultations was to facilitate a dialogue 
between the stakeholders, and provide them with an  opportunity to have a candid and open discussion 
amongst themselves.  During the consultations, the stakeholders updated one another on the domestic 
processes they were undertaking to implement the deci sion.  With regard to the LDCs' submission on 
rules of origin, more than one Member had expr essed the view that it would be impractical and 
unrealistic to negotiate preferential rules of orig in, especially given the di fferences that already 
existed in harmonizing non-preferential rules of orig in.  A suggestion was made to hold a workshop 
on rules of origin which would provide the LDCs wi th a better understanding of the preferential rules 
of origin regimes of the different stakeholders.  He  said that anything that contributed to facilitating 
dialogue and enhancing the understa nding between the stakeholders was welcome.  However, those 
that had proposed the idea of holding a workshop woul d need to bring it to fruition.  On market 
access, he said that while it was clear that diffe rent Members were undertaking their own domestic 
processes to implement the decision, it was important fo r the LDCs to be kept informed of the various 
processes being undertaken to implement the decision .  What tariff lines were ultimately covered by 
the 97 per cent and what was left out was importa nt.  This was something that could be discussed 
bilaterally between the LDCs and other stake holders.  He added that during the informal 
consultations, the LDCs had signalled their intention to meet bilate rally with other stakeholders on the 
issue.  That was something that he had c ontinued to encourage because, ultimately, the 
implementation of the decision was up to the Members.   As Chairman, he woul d continue to facilitate 
a dialogue between stakeholders.   
9. The representative of Zambia  said that its rules of origin experts were expected in Geneva and 
would be available until the end of June to meet with  stakeholders on the rules of origin issue.  While 
her delegation appreciated the suggestion to hold a workshop on rules of origin, it was important that 
any such event lead towards the key objective of adopting preferen tial rules of origin that would 
enable the DFQF market access decision to be effectively implemented. 
10. The representative of Mali  stated that DFQF market access would allow LDCs to participate 
meaningfully in the multilateral trading system.  He emphasized the need to simplify the rules of 
origin so that real benefits would accrue from the decision.   
11. Concluding the discussion on this agenda item, the Chairman  reiterated the need for 
stakeholders to consult among themselves.  He no ted that the rules of origin issues were often 
technical and with such issues it was often useful to include the participation of the relevant experts.  
He encouraged other interested stakeholders to c onsult with the LDCs so as to move the process 
forward.   TN/CTD/M/29 
Page 4  
 
  C. 
AGENDA ITEM C :  THE MONITORING MECHANISM  
12. The Chairman  stated that discussions on the possible elements of the Monitoring Mechanism 
would continue on the basis of the non-paper circ ulated at the last formal meeting held on 
26 April 2007.  He said that he had prepared the non-paper on the basis of responses to the questions 
he had put to Members on the possible structure a nd scope of the Monitoring Mechanism as well as 
its relationship with other entities.  He had also considered earlier submissions made by Members on 
the Monitoring Mechanism contained in JOB(06) /229.  The non-paper therefore attempted to 
summarize and synthesize the different ideas that ha d come up in the informal consultations.  It 
contained two sections, one on structure and the ot her on scope.  From the discussions it was clear 
that Members wished to establish a Monitoring M echanism that was simple and efficient and that 
allowed for a regular high-level review.  They al so highlighted the need for a review based on a 
bottom-up, horizontal and transparent process that would allow information sharing and compliance 
monitoring.  He said that in his view, the Monitori ng Mechanism could function at two broad levels.  
However, the monitoring could be carried out at four  different levels.  The first level could be, in a 
technical committee;  the second level, in the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD);  the 
third, at the General Council level;  and the fourth at the Ministerial Conference level.  The proposed 
structure also provided for a future review of the mechanism.  He said that both the structure and the 
scope were closely interlinked.  The first two bullets  of the scope related to the monitoring of existing 
special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions and those S&D provisions that would result from the Doha Round.  The third bullet provided an opportunity for Members to make recommendations to improve the implementation and effectiveness of S& D.  Members had highlighted the need for the 
Monitoring Mechanism to be forward looking and allow Members to raise an y issues as long as they 
were related to the implementation a nd effectiveness of S&D provisions.   
13. To facilitate the discussions he began by posing th ree questions to Members.  First, he asked 
whether the non-paper was a fair approximation of  what Members expected of the Monitoring 
Mechanism and what they considered as a possibl e landing zone on the Monitoring Mechanism.  
Second, he asked whether Members could identify any elements that were problematic and third, he 
asked Members to specify, what in their view, were the missing elements not included in the 
non-paper. 
14. The representative of Switzerland
 said that that the non-paper formed a good basis for future 
work on the Monitoring Mechanism.   With respect to missing elements, she felt that bringing in the 
experience of other international organizations, such  as the International Trade Centre (ITC) would be 
valuable in considering how to improve the impl ementation and effectiveness of S&D provisions.  
She was not certain whether that would come unde r the structure or scope of the Monitoring 
Mechanism.   
15. The representative of Egypt  said that the non-paper provided a good basis for continued work 
on the Monitoring Mechanism.  Regarding the two broad levels of monitoring suggested in the 
structure, he said that it was important to have so me clarity on the link between the CTD and the other 
WTO bodies.  Considering the WTO structure, his delegation saw no link between, for example, the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade and the CT D.  A clear mandate from the General Council 
would be needed to require those Committees to repo rt to the CTD.  It was important that as a result 
of the Special Session's work, the General Counc il adopt the functions, structure and terms of 
reference of the Monitoring Mechanism in a wa y that it would allow communication between the 
different WTO bodies and the CTD.  He highlighted his delegation's preference to create a 
Sub-Committee on S&D as a subsidiary body of the CTD.  He said that his delegation had reservations on the words "as appropriate" containe d in the second sub-bullet of bullet five which 
stated that the General Council would review and take decisions as appropriate.  In addition, his 
delegation believed that it would be important for the CTD to report regularly to the General Council.    TN/CTD/M/29 
 Page 5 
 
 
  16. The representative of Nigeria  drew Members' attention to the last two bullets on the scope and 
asked how they could be brought together with the bu llets relating to the two levels of monitoring in 
the structure.   
17. Responding to Nigeria's comments, the Chairman  stated that the dedicated sessions of the 
CTD could essentially be the focal point for gather ing information, receiving reports and considering 
and reviewing S&D provisions.  If after considerat ion and review, the dedicated sessions found it 
appropriate to take a decision or make a recomme ndation, then that would be forwarded to the 
General Council or the Ministerial Conference.  The CTD dedicated sessions could also request 
information or feed information downwards, to the different technical bodies dealing with the 
different S&D issues. 
18. The representative of Canada  said that the non-paper was a true  reflection of the consultations 
that had taken place.  He agreed that the M onitoring Mechanism needed to be simple and 
forward-looking in order to help th e integration of Members into the multilateral trading system.  That 
objective could be achieved by allowing for a botto m-up and horizontal process that fully respected 
the balance of rights and obligations of Members.  He  also agreed that it was important to ensure that 
a review of S&D provisions was given sufficient visib ility.  The proposal to provide for two levels of 
monitoring, i.e. reports received from other WTO bodies, consideration by the CTD and subsequent 
action by the General Council, was consistent with  his delegation's view.  The process would ensure 
coherence, transparency, implementation and appr opriate follow up.  His delegation fully endorsed 
the two-tier approach suggested by the Chairman.  However, the proposal required more discussion 
and fine-tuning.  He expressed reservations on the idea of Members making direct submissions to the 
General Council, as his delegation preferred that a detailed review take place at the first level as 
opposed to such a review taking place at the General Council level.   
19. The Chairman  proceeded to invite Members to provide  specific views on, first, the structure 
and then the scope, bullet by bullet.   
20. The representative of Pakistan  found the non-paper comprehensive and appreciated the 
inclusion of the possibility of reviewing the struct ure, as necessary.  Her delegation looked forward to 
further discussions on the time-frame for the dedicated  sessions to report to the General Council if for 
instance, it was not meeting and asked whether urge nt issues could be placed on the agenda of the 
CTD Regular Session.   
21. The representative of New Zealand  said that the non-paper was useful and provided a good 
basis for future work.  Her delegation was not  in favour of creating unnecessary bureaucratic 
structures on reporting requirements and therefor e supported a minimalist approach that would 
provide Members with an opportunity to review S&D issues.  Her delegation favoured a structure that 
drew on existing processes.  
22. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that her delegation was not particularly 
convinced of the need to make reference to paragra ph 44 of the Doha Declaration in the first bullet of 
the scope.  She asked what the impli cations of including that reference would be.  She agreed that the 
Monitoring Mechanism should be simple, practical and efficient and complement existing monitoring 
mechanisms.  She said that it was perhaps useful  to get information on existing monitoring 
mechanisms before agreeing to the elements of  the Monitoring Mechanism.  Referring to the 
Chairman's last report to the General Council, sh e said that her delegation was concerned with the 
implications of annexing th e non-paper to the report.   TN/CTD/M/29 
Page 6  
 
  23. The representative of Mexico
 said that the non-paper was a good basis for moving towards 
convergence although work needed to be done on the Monitoring Mechanism.  She echoed the 
concern raised by the representative of Hong Kong, Ch ina with respect to annexing the non-paper to 
the General Council report.   
24. The Chairman  agreed with the representative of Nige ria that there was a link between the 
scope and structure of the Monitoring Mechan ism.  In response to the representative of 
Hong Kong, China, he said that the Annex to his l ast report to the General Council had been included 
simply for transparency.  Additionally, in his re port he had clearly stated that the non-paper was 
neither agreed nor exhaustive.  He said that from informal consultations he had held on the 
Monitoring Mechanism, his sense was that the first two bullets of the scope relating to the monitoring 
and implementation of S&D provisions in the exis ting agreements and those that would result from 
the future agreements, were fundamental to th e scope.  With respect to the point raised by 
Hong Kong, China regarding the reference to paragr aph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, he 
said that the argument could go both ways, i.e. that  the paragraph 44 mandate was to consider the 
S&D provisions on the existing agreements making th em more precise, effective and operational, or 
that the mechanism would consider prospective S& D provisions.  The idea was that the Monitoring 
Mechanism would encompass both.   
25. The representative of New Zealand  stated that monitoring the implementation and 
effectiveness of the existing S&D provisions was qu ite a complicated issue.  S&D provisions could 
not always be subjected to quantitative and qualitativ e monitoring methods.  There were for example, 
some provisions arising from the Uruguay Round that  could be monitored on the supply and demand 
side.  In some situations, the bene fits generated were passive and therefore quite difficult to measure.  
From a practical perspective, her delegation was interested in initially focussing on monitoring the 
new commitments resulting from the Doha Round because those could be easily monitored.  At a later 
stage, monitoring functions and coordination in rela tionship to other agreements could be built in as 
necessary as Members gained more confidence w ith the structure of the mechanism.   
26. The Chairman  said that it was his understanding that the delegation of New Zealand had a 
preference to do away with the first bullet as it preferred monitoring to initially focus on provisions resulting from the Doha Round.   
27. Responding to the proposal by New Zealand, the representative of Nigeria
 suggested that the 
new mechanism monitor both the Uruguay S&D prov isions as well as those resulting from the Doha 
Round.  He suggested combining the first two bullet points of the scope and stated that the mechanism 
could begin with monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of S&D provisions in the existing 
agreements.   
28. The representative of the European Communities  stated that while the non-paper was a good 
basis for further work, Members were still a long way from coming up with what could be an 
operational text to put to the General Council.  Members needed to now put flesh on the bones and 
establish a monitoring mechanism.  There were a lot of areas on which Members agreed.  His 
delegation did not favour creating something too bur eaucratic that would take up the time of the CTD 
and other WTO bodies.  What was important in th e process was to ensure transparency.  In his 
delegation's view, transparency and monitori ng covered both existing and new S&D provisions 
resulting from the current negotiations.  The value added of the monitoring mechanism would depend 
on the extent to which it would be able to identify and respond to problems that might arise or issues 
that would be raised in the future.  In that  sense, the Monitoring Mechanism would be largely 
demand-driven.  It would be Members themselves that would identify the problems they wished to see 
addressed.  The overall purpose of the exercise should be to support a general objective of improving 
the operation, implementation and the effectiven ess of S&D provisions.  Members should avoid 
creating something whose purpose was anything bu t to improve and make S&D provisions more  TN/CTD/M/29 
 Page 7 
 
 
  effective.  Similarly, Members should avoid crea ting unnecessary duplication or overlap with other 
monitoring processes.  The value-added that the CT D could provide was to have a broader approach 
and to consider the provisions from a systemic angl e and consider how far those provisions served to 
the development objectives of Members.  Bearing in mind that a new monitoring process was being 
created for Aid for Trade, it was important to c onsider what form the Monitoring Mechanism would 
take because it would be strange to have one dedicated session of the CTD for Aid for Trade and then 
another on the S&D Monitoring Mechanism.    
29. Referring to the first two bullets of the scope, the Chairman  stated that Members had three 
options;  to keep the two bullets as they were;  to  combine them in a way that removed reference to 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration;  or, to simplif y them by stating something to the effect that the 
mechanism would monitor the implementation and effectiveness of S&D provisions without making 
any reference to existing agreements or future commitments.   
30. The representative of Bangladesh  said that his delegation was ready to work on the basis of 
the Chair's non-paper.  His delegation believed th at the Monitoring Mechanism should cover existing 
as well as future obligations and all the other d ecisions taken by the General Council on existing 
agreements.  In monitoring the implementation of the S&D provisions, it would be important to keep 
in view the spirit and objective of those provisions.   
31. The representative of Egypt  stated that his delegation wished to retain reference to 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
32. The representative of Kenya  stated that paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
contained the mandate of the Special Session's work.  Therefore, there was no harm in retaining that 
reference.  However, he did believe that overloading the bu llets should be avoided.   
33. The Chairman  said that it seemed that most Members wished to maintain the two bullet points 
as they were.  On the third and fourth bullets, th e Chairman asked whether it was necessary to include 
the reference to recommendations.  The notion of  improving the implementation and effectiveness of 
S&D provisions was something that he believed would be acceptable to all Members as it was 
included in the first two bullets of the scope.  The notion of enabling developing countries to fully 
integrate into the multilateral trading system was also  something he did not think would be a cause for 
concern.   
34. The representative of Argentina  said that the monitoring of S&D provisions should be part of 
the ordinary work of the existing bodies and that  parallel discussions should be avoided.  The 
monitoring of S&D provisions needed to also perhap s consider those aspects related to Aid for Trade 
that could contribute to the discussions.   
35. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that the proposed  Monitoring Mechanism 
should be able to address the concerns raised by Members and come up with recommendations, if 
necessary, with the objective of improving the implementation and effectiveness of S&D provisions.  The reference to provide recommendations seemed to  prescribe that recommendations would have to 
be made regardless of whether it was necessary or not.  Even when considering the mandates of the 
different committees it was difficult to be prescriptive.   Her delegation was not attempting to suggest 
a deletion of the notion of recommendations being ma de.  Rather, Members needed to come up with 
specific language to reflect what they were aiming to do in order to make the language operational.   
36. The representative of Mexico
 said that like the representative of Hong Kong, China her 
delegation thought that there needed to be greater clarity on the third bullet of the scope relating to 
making recommendations.  As long as there was no clarity or more details on the objective of the 
mechanism it would be a problem for her delega tion to accept that reference to recommendations.  TN/CTD/M/29 
Page 8  
 
  Her delegation was flexible but needed Members to provide explanations as to why they wished to 
maintain the reference.   
37. The representative of Pakistan
 stated that her delegation di d not have a problem with the 
reference "provide recommendations" because the latte r part of the sentence made it clear that the 
recommendations would improve the implementation and effectiveness of S&D provisions in case the 
Monitoring Mechanism found this  to be necessary.  The body could make recommendations on a 
case-by-case basis.  Her delegation was therefore comfortable with "recommendations as necessary" 
as the word "necessary" covered all kinds of situations.   
38. The Chairman  said that he understood that reference to "provide recommendations" had 
raised some concerns.  In his view, it woul d become a mandatory requirement to provide 
recommendation.  This was the concern that had been  raised by some Members.  One way to address 
that would be to include something along the lines of  "provide recommendations as necessary" so as 
to build in flexibility.  Some concerns raised on S&D would perhaps require recommendations, others 
would not.   
39. The representative of Egypt  stated that his delegation's understanding of the issue was that the 
CTD would provide recommendations for a decision by the General Council.  The General Council 
would then take the appropriate decision in orde r to improve the implementation and effectiveness of 
S&D.  The Monitoring Mechanism as such woul d not provide recommendations because it was not a 
body.  Similarly, assuming there was a Sub-Comm ittee on S&D, it would pr ovide recommendations 
to the CTD.  The CTD would th en forward those recommendations  to the General Council for a 
decision to improve the implementation and effectiveness of the S&D.   
40. The Chairman  agreed with the representative of Egypt.  The recommendations would be 
made by the CTD dedicated sessions and then th ose recommendations would be transmitted to the 
General Council.   
41. The representative of Kenya  said that recommendations did not only need to be one-tracked 
and made to the General Council.  The African Group envisaged the CTD deliberating on S&D issues 
and providing recommendations to developing coun tries on how they could implement and benefit 
from the S&D provisions.  The elements of the Mon itoring Mechanism as currently contained in the 
non-paper were something that his delegation could work with.  In his view, the issue of "as necessary" was taken care of at the level of  the General Council as that was where decisions 
would take place.  If a country was being recommende d to take certain steps to benefit from the S&D 
provisions without making a recommendation to the General Council, there would be no need to 
include "as necessary".   
42. The representative of El Salvador
 sought clarification on the relationship between the 
proposed Monitoring Mechanism and other al ready existing monitoring mechanisms.   
43. The representative of Mexico  said that from the discussions it seemed Members had different 
interpretations of what the scope and the struct ure of the Monitoring Mechanism would be.  Her 
delegation was looking to come up with elements of a Monitoring Mechanism that  were clear and left 
no room for misinterpretation.  Most Members had the notion that it was just developing and least-developing country Members that could rai se issues under the Mon itoring Mechanism.  
However, the paragraph relating to that implied that any Member could raise any issue to the 
Mechanism.  At the same time, it was not clear what issues were being referred to.  It was important to have more clarity on that. 
44. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that the scope should incl ude reference to the fact that 
recommendations should be provided for a decision by the General Council.   TN/CTD/M/29 
 Page 9 
 
 
  45. The Chairman  said that on that paragraph there w as a certain relationship between the 
structure because in the structure at the second level the General Council w ould take decisions as 
appropriate.  In that sense, decisions would be ma de based on the recommendations made to it by the 
dedicated sessions of the CTD.  It was, however, cl ear that there was a need  to streamline the point 
relating to taking decisions in the structure to th e point relating to making recommendations on scope.  
On the possible scope of the Mon itoring Mechanism, the first two bullets and the last bullet seemed 
acceptable.  It was the third bullet relating to maki ng recommendations that needed further clarity.  It 
raised the question of who would provide the recommendations, to whom those recommendations 
would be provided and for what they would be pr ovided.  That was something that Members would 
need to address. 
46. On the last bullet relating to the Monitoring Mechanism providing a forum in which Members 
could raise any other issues related to the implem entation and effectiveness of S&D provisions, the 
representative of Nigeria  asked whether the idea was to make a distinction between the concerns 
raised on S&D and any other issues.  He asked wh ether there were any other issues that had been 
identified by Members that were different to those concerns.  Knowing what they were would enable 
Members to consider whether it would be useful to retain that bullet. 
47. The representative of Mexico  agreed with the representative of Nigeria.  That was one of the 
bullets that needed further clarity and that c ould be subsumed in the previous third bullet.. 
48. The representative of Switzerland  requested keeping the last bullet because the Monitoring 
Mechanism needed to be large enough to address any ot her issues that were related to the operation of 
S&D.  In her delegation's view, "a ddress concerns" in the previous bullet related more specifically to 
the operation of particular S&D provisions.  The la st bullet would allow Members to address issues 
that went beyond specific S&D provisions which c ould relate to different provisions or the 
inter-linkage of different provisions.   
49. The representative of Kenya  said that the last bullet could be retained, provided it was 
confined to the implementation and the effectiven ess of S&D provisions.  There were issues that 
could arise in the future that were not covered by  the first three bullets and therefore retaining it 
would enable the Monitoring Mechanism to accommoda te future developments.  That could include 
addressing some of the issues which had been raised  in the Agreement-specific proposals and that 
required further in-depth analysis.   
50. Following the clarification by the representativ e of Kenya, the representative of Nigeria  said 
that his delegation had no problem with retaining the last bullet. 
51. The representative of Mexico  said that her delegation wished to keep the first and the second 
bullets in the scope separate because that would enable Members to address issues related to the 
Agreement-specific proposals.  With respect to the last bullet, her delegation would not object to retaining it for the time being but wished to receive more concrete examples of issues that would not be covered by the first three bullets. 
52. The Chairman
 said that during informal consultations that had taken place, Members had 
mentioned the need for the Monitori ng Mechanism to be forward looking  so that if there were issues 
that Members wished to raise in the future, they would have the opportunity to do so.  Subsequently, the question of what those issues would include w as raised.  The general feeling was that Members 
should not just raise any issue they wished to.  Th at was why it had become clear that it was important 
to narrow that down to issues relating to the impl ementation and effectiveness of S&D.  While "any 
other issues" could be a cause of concern for those that had not followed the discussions, it had been 
made clear that "any other issues" were to be conf ined to anything that related to the implementation 
and effectiveness of S&D provisions.  It was, therefor e, difficult to provide concrete examples of what TN/CTD/M/29 
Page 10  
 
  might occur in the future.  He suggested that Members move on to addressing the structure of the 
Monitoring Mechanism.  He said that the first fo ur bullets of the structure were declaratory and 
probably would not be a cause for concern.  On the fifth bullet relating to the levels at which the 
Monitoring Mechanism would function, he recalle d that the representative of Egypt had suggested 
that at the second level the General Council should re view and take appropriate decisions, rather than 
take decisions as appropriate. 
53. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that the CTD should carry out a review and then make 
recommendations on the basis of submissions made by Members.  The General Council would then 
take a decision on the basis of the recommendations  provided by the CTD, not take decisions on the 
basis of submissions made directly to it by th e Members as was currently stated in the second 
sub-bullet of the fifth bullet.   
54. The representative of the European Communities  agreed with the representative of 
Bangladesh that the monitoring should take place in  the CTD and recommendations then made to the 
General Council.  When that was to be discussed  at the General Council level, any Member could 
then make its inputs.  In addition, any Member could raise any issue including on S&D to the General 
Council.  He said that the fifth bullet was perhaps not ordered correctly, it should be the CTD's inputs 
that were complemented by inputs from individua l Members.  What would be forwarded from the 
CTD to the General Council  commanded a consensus in the CTD, which in some sense had a higher 
status, and on the basis of which the General C ouncil would then take a decision.  The General 
Council would take a decision in its own wisdom ranging from taking a purely procedural decision 
that took note of points made and reports submitted,  through to an operational decision that put into 
place recommendations concerning the operation of the WTO Agreements or processes.  Members 
could not prejudge what decision the General C ouncil would take.  Whichever wording Members 
decided on would need to respect the autonomy and decision-making authority of the General Council.   
55. The representative of Kenya
 said that his delegation could go along with the proposal made 
by the delegation of Egypt that, at the second level,  the General Council should carry out a review and 
take appropriate decisions.  He said that Members should not foreclose the possibility of submissions 
being made directly to the General Council for discu ssion.  If it were just left for the CTD to make 
recommendations to the General Council, Members w ould be restricting the process which was not 
helpful.  The sixth bullet provided for a review of the structure, and therefore, for the time being, it 
was important to maintain it.  At that stage, Me mbers had not yet come up with a structure and it was 
best to be as flexible as possible and if neces sary, it could be removed in the future.   
56. The Chairman  said that any Member had the right to make a submission to the General 
Council and deleting reference to that  could be problematic.  The question was whether the fifth bullet 
required any further clarifications. 
57. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that she had requested that the CTD to receive 
reports and information from othe r international organizations and expert sources.  That could be 
added in the first sub-bullet of the fifth bullet.   
58. The representative of Kenya  sought clarification as to whether the representative of 
Switzerland was proposing that international organiza tions provide inputs at the first level of the 
monitoring process or at the second level. 
59. The representative of Switzerland  clarified that she was proposing that international 
organizations provide inputs at th e first level of monitoring.    TN/CTD/M/29 
 Page 11 
 
 
  60. The representative of Mexico  said that the proposal to include reports from international 
organizations was too open-ended.  She, therefore,  proposed that if Members were interested in 
including such a reference, it be narrowed down to in clude those organizations that were observers or 
that were closely linked to the work of the CTD.  Her delegation did not wish to keep the notion of 
providing inputs to any international organization.   
61. The representative of Egypt  agreed with the representative of Mexico that the reference to 
other international organizations need ed to be narrowed down.  In that  context, he suggested including 
"other relevant organisations". 
62. The representative of El Salvador  sought clarification as to whether the mechanism would 
function informally or formally.  He asked how the reporting from other WTO bodies would be 
carried out.  He inquired whether a Member would ha ve to request that a report be made to the CTD 
or whether the reporting would begin in the relevant  Committee and then be referred to the CTD.  His 
delegation had noted the suggestion made by the repr esentative of Egypt and would revert to that at a 
later stage. 
63. The Chairman  said that the Mechanism would have to function in a formal manner.  The point 
had been made that other committees be required to  submit reports to the CTD in a sense making it 
clearer and formal. 
64. The representative of Canada  said that on the fifth bullet, his delegation felt that it would not 
be efficient for Members to make submissions direc tly to the General Council.  It was best to have 
discussions take place in the dedicated sessions of the CTD and the CTD then make reports to the 
General Council.  At that point, individual Members,  if they so wished, could then raise issues at the 
General Council level.  Members making submis sions directly to the General Council would 
complicate rather than facilitate the process.  Me mbers were currently engaged in a theoretical 
discussion on the Monitoring Mechanism, but in order to really understand the possible elements of the Monitoring Mechanism, the deta ils would need to be made clearer.  For example, how discussions 
would translate into recommendations was somethi ng that his delegation wished to get a better 
understanding on, as well as on how that would relate to other processes in the WTO.  His delegation 
looked forward to engaging in more detailed discu ssions on some of the more operational modalities. 
65. The representative of Switzerland
 did not see the need to include reference to the General 
Council making appropriate decisions because th e General Council always made decisions by 
consensus.  It was best to keep the current wording as that would al low the General Council to take or 
not to take a decision depending on the outcome.  With respect to Members making submissions 
directly to the General Council, she said that if th at was already a practice carried out, it was best to 
remove it from the fifth bullet and concentrate on bu ilding on those elements that actually related to 
the monitoring. 
66. The representative of Nigeria  proposed that since the General Council already took 
appropriate decisions, the words "as a ppropriate" be deleted from the text. 
67. The Chairman  said that the discussions had been useful, in that new ideas had been put 
forward to improve the text.  With respect to the st ructure, the first four bullets which were mainly 
declaratory and underlined general points of importa nce, did not seem to be a cause of concern for 
any Member.  On the last bullet, relating to the revi ew of the structure, it was also his sense that no 
Member had a problem.  The focus had been on th e fifth bullet relating to the two levels of 
monitoring which were in fact linked to the third bu llet of the scope.  It was clear that Members would 
need to carry out more work on those two bullets.  He said that his intention was to provide a revised 
version of the non-paper for subsequent discussions .  With respect to how the elements of the 
monitoring would be made operational, he said that Members had two options in terms of TN/CTD/M/29 
Page 12  
 
  transforming it to a decision.  One option was to dr aft each of the bullets in a way that represented a 
resolution or decision by the General Council.  Th e other option was to keep the elements as 
contained in the non-paper as defining the paramete rs of the Monitoring Mechanism and then have a 
sentence that alluded to the fact that Members ag reed to establish a Monitoring Mechanism guided by 
the parameters contained in the non-paper.  It was his view that the modality of transforming it into a 
decision was something Members could consider at a later stage, the substance was what Members 
needed to concentrate their effort s on.  He said that the scheduling of the next meeting would depend 
on the wider process. 
68. The representative of Kenya
 indicated that the element of when the Monitoring Mechanism 
would begin to function had not been included in  the non-paper and was something that Members 
would need to address at some point.   
69. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that when revising the non-paper it was 
important to keep in mind the original mandate  given by the General Council to establish a 
Monitoring Mechanism.  While she agreed that what was important was the substance, it was 
important to keep in mind how the parameters of the Monitoring Mechanism would be presented.   
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
70. No issue was raised under Other Business, and the meeting was accordingly adjourned . 
 
__________