RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/24 
7 June 2006 
 (06-2707) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Twenty-Fourth Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 7 APRIL 2006 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Burhan Gafoor (Singapore) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ............................................................................................1  
C. ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES .............................................................................................7  
D. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................15  
 
  A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as containe d in airgram WTO/AIR/2789 of 27 March 2006 
was adopted .  
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
2. The Chairman  began by updating Members on the status of the Category II proposals which 
had been referred to other WTO bodies and negotiati ng groups.  He noted that paragraph 37 of the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration had mandated the Special Session to "continue to coordinate its 
efforts" with the other bodies, so as to ensure that  the work on those proposals was completed on time.  
In pursuance of that mandate, he had written to  the Chairpersons of the bodies to which the 
Category II proposals had been referred, stressing the need to expedite work on those proposals, and 
also requesting them for an update on the status of work on the proposals.  The Chairpersons had also 
been asked to communicate the dates of the meeti ngs at which the S&D proposals were likely to be 
taken up, so as to inform Members in advance of those meetings.  He had received responses from the Chairpersons and, as requested, copies of the respon ses were available at the back of the room.   
3. The Vice-Chairman of the Safeguards Committee
 had informed him that despite the large 
number of meetings that had been held, no consensu s had been forthcoming on the proposals.  In the 
Vice-Chairman's view, it was difficult to make progress as there was no consensus among Members.  
In addition, the proponents had not been actively pursuing the proposals.  The Vice-Chair therefore 
considered that, without prejudice to any new deve lopments or any action that the proponents might 
take in the future, the proposals re ferred to the Committee would be set aside.  The next meeting of 
the Committee was scheduled for 24 April and the S& D proposals would be taken up at that meeting 
only if the proponents so indicated. 
4. The Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules  had indicated that although the S&D 
proposals had been on the agenda of the Group's me etings on several occasions, discussions had been 
only of a preliminary nature.  Except for a proposal  on Article 27.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies TN/CTD/M/24 
Page 2  
 
  and Countervailing Measures, the proponents had either not attended the meetings or had not been in 
a position to provide justifications and clarifications  on their proposals.  The Chairman had scheduled 
a meeting cluster for the Negotiating Group in May, June and July at which he would be pleased to 
take up the proposals, if the proponents so indicated.  
5. The Chairman of the TRIMs Committee
 had indicated that although the Committee had held 
several formal and informal meetings to consider  the S&D proposals, Members had been unable to 
reach an agreement on them.  The main divergence had been on the coverage of countries that should 
be allowed to temporarily deviate from the prohib ition to apply TRIMs.  F undamental differences in 
Members' positions still remained concerning the co untry coverage and the temporal horizon for the 
application of the proposals.  Discussions were ongoing, based on which the Chairman would decide 
whether or not to hold further consultations on the proposals.  In any case, the S&D proposals were 
due to be discussed at the next formal meeti ng of the TRIMs Committee scheduled for 9 June. 
6. The Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in Regular Session  had informed him that 
with regard to the African Group proposal on the framework of the Decision on Measures Concerning 
the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Pr ogramme on Least-Develope d and Net Food-Importing 
Developing Countries, the discussions had not advan ced since he had last reported to the General 
Council in December 2005.  In that report, he had stated that from the consultations undertaken on the 
proposal, it was clear that the African Group was not going to revise its original proposal.  For some 
Members, the proposal as it currently stood was unviab le as it dealt with questi ons which were largely 
outside the WTO's terms of reference.  The Chai rman had said that some of the proponents also 
recognised that certain aspects of the Marrakesh Deci sion could be more effectively dealt with as part 
of the DDA negotiations.  The Chairman had assu red him that the Committee was ready to take up 
any amendments that might be tabled.  However, if the circumstances remained the same when the 
subject was discussed at the next meeting scheduled on 12 May, then he would have to inform the General Council that the situation remained unresolved.  
7. The Chairman of the TRIPs Council
 had informed him that at the Council meeting of 14 to 
15 March, Members had authorized him to report that  the situation, as reported by him in July 2005 
and contained in document IP/C/36, was unchanged.  The Chairman said that in view of this, no 
further action was presently contemplated in the Coun cil.  The Chairman had also stated that despite 
the fact that the S&D proposals had been put on the agenda of the Council's meetings in 
December 2004, March and June 2005, none of th e proponents had taken up the proposals at any of 
those meetings. 
8. The Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body  had indicated that the 
discussions that were due to take place on the Ca tegory II proposals at the meeting scheduled in 
October 2005 had, at the proponents request, been  postponed to after the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference.  The Special Session had since scheduled  a number of meetings and the Chairman also 
intended to schedule a discussion on the Category II prop osals.  The Chairman had also indicated that 
he would keep him informed of the date of that meeting, as well as on any progress made.   
9. The Chairman of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee  had informed that following 
consideration of the proposals at various meeti ngs, the SPS Committee, on 30 June 2005, had adopted 
a report contained in document G/SPS/35, whic h among other things, reflected the underlying 
concerns the proposals were attempting to address as  well as described the action that had been taken 
to address those concerns.  The African Group had i ndicated that it was still considering revising 
some of its other proposals.  The Chairman had al so informed him that a one-day workshop on the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement had been held on 31 March 2006.  The workshop identified 
tools that were already available to assist developing country Members in utilizing the SPS Agreement.  The SPS Committee had sch eduled an informal meeting on S&D, prior to its next regular 
meeting scheduled to be held on 28 to 30 June 2006.  If the African  Group submitted further revisions  TN/CTD/M/24 
 Page 3 
 
 
  to its proposals, then an additional informal meeting would be convened during the intervening 
period. 
10. The Chairman of the Special Session of the Council on Trade in Services  had informed him 
that in July 2005, the African Group had submitt ed a paper compiling responses to questions and 
comments regarding the S&D proposals in the GATS.  It  had been agreed at its meeting in September 
2005, that the Special Session would revert to that issue at its first meeting held in 2006.  At an 
informal meeting of the Special Session held on 7 February 2006, several Members had noted the 
importance of considering S&D in the Special Session this year.  The Chairman had urged Members, to contribute further and to table new submissi ons on S&D in the GATS.  The African Group had 
since been holding informal consultations with Me mbers on some of its proposals, in an effort to 
narrow the differences.  The issue would be discussed  at the next Special Session meeting which was 
taking place that day.   
11. The Chairman said that the only body from wh ich a report was still awaited was the Special 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture.  As soon  as that report was received, he would update 
Members on the status of those proposals.  He sai d that the reports from the Chairpersons of the 
different bodies clearly presented a stark picture of the situation.  The reality was that Members had 
not been able to make much headway on the Category II proposals.  Ministers had mandated Members to complete that work by the end of 2006.   However, the reports by the Chairpersons had 
shown that progress had not been forthcoming.  The Chairpersons had also highlighted that, in their 
view, the proponents needed to take the lead a nd engage in a dialogue with other Members and 
thereafter, if necessary, redraft their proposals.  Some  of the Chairpersons had also stated that unless 
the proponents indicated that some developments ha d taken place and signalled their desire to take up 
the proposals, they would not be on the agenda of the coming meetings.  Clearly, it was up to the proponents to communicate their intention before th e scheduled meetings and to prepare themselves 
in order to actively pursue those proposals in those meetings.   
12. The representative of Kenya
 said that his delegation was not surprised at the reports that had 
been given by the various Chairpersons, because in 2003 when the proposals were being categorized 
the African Group had informed the then General Co uncil Chairman of the difficulties it would have, 
due to its capacity constraints, of following the pro posals in other bodies.  The fact that Kenya was the 
focal point for all S&D issues made it difficult especi ally when parallel meetings were held, as was 
the case with the Special Session of the Committee on Trade in Services, a meeting which was being 
held at that very moment.  He was expected to defend those proposals in that Committee, yet he had 
to be also present in the Special Session of the CT D.  This problem had been identified in 2003, but 
the then General Council Chairman had still gone ah ead and categorized the proposals, referring the 
Category II proposals to different bodies.  In the r un up to the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, the 
African Group had again raised this issue and requested that all the Category II proposals be brought back for consideration in the Special Session.  Me mbers had again opposed that request for reasons 
that were not convincing.  He now hoped that the reports that had been given by the various 
Chairpersons would convince them of the need to bring back the Category II proposals to the Special 
Session of the CTD.  As long as those proposals re mained in the subsidiary bodies, the problems 
would remain.  Some of the Chairpersons had s uggested setting aside some of the proposals if the 
proponents did not show interest.  He said that the proponents were interested and probably more so 
than what they had been when th e proposals were initially categorized .  He requested the Chairman to 
assure the other Chairpersons that the proponent s wished to see those proposals addressed and a 
decision taken in the General Council to bring the proposals back to the Special Session of the CTD.  He said that the proponents had attempted to revise some of  the proposals but other Members had still responded negatively to the proposals.  He ga ve the example of the TRIMs proposal which had 
been initially drafted in favour of the least-devel oped and developing country Members.  Since some 
Members had stated that not all developing count ries would need further flexibility in TRIMs, the 
African Group, in the belief that Africa needed it more than any other continent, had revised the TN/CTD/M/24 
Page 4  
 
  proposal seeking the flexibility only for African countries.  However, Members had opposed the 
revised proposal even more.  So even in cases wher e the proponents were showing flexibility, they 
were not making any headway.  Members would th erefore need to consider other approaches to 
ensure that progress was made on the Category II proposals.   
13. With respect to the status report received  from the SPS Committee, the representative of 
Egypt
 said that progress had been made on the African Group proposals on Article 9.2 of the SPS 
Agreement on which they had tabled revised langua ge at the last meeting.  That language was 
welcomed by Members and the African Group was comm itted to further revise its other proposals.  
He said that in several reports there were nuances th at the proponents had not been present at some of 
the meetings.  The reasons for this had already been explained.  He also refe rred to paragraph 3 of the 
report by the Chairman of the Committee on Agricu lture in Regular Session which stated that "it 
became clear that the African Group did not intend to revise the original proposal as previously 
announced".  He clarified that this was because the African Group had intended to revise its proposals 
after receiving feedback from other Members on its proposals which had not been forthcoming.  That 
paragraph also stated that "disappointment was expressed by the proponents at the absence of any 
counter-proposal".  The problem was that sometime s Members did not provide any alternate language 
on the proposals; they just expressed concerns on the proposals.  In order to revise proposals, 
Members needed to engage in discussions that were not dismissive of the proposals but which rather 
provided concrete suggestions.  There was a feeling that some of the proposals would be addressed as 
part of the ongoing negotiations and would therefore not  need to be addressed separately.  Therefore, 
in some cases progress on the proposals was linked to  progress in the Doha negotiations.  So it was 
also an issue of anticipating when the final out come in the negotiations would be reached.   
14. The Chairman  clarified that he had merely reported what the Chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Regular Session had stated, which wa s that some of the proponents too recognized that 
certain aspects of the Marrakesh Decision could mo re effectively dealt with as part of the DDA 
negotiations.  The Chairman had however assured hi m that the Committee was ready to consider any 
revised proposals that might be tabled.  He said th at none of the comments that he had made on the 
Category II proposals reflected his own views.  They were all based on the reports that had been forwarded by the Chairpersons of the other bodies, copies of which had also been made available to 
Members. 
15. The representative of Zambia
 said that her delegation was concerned at the assumption that 
the proponents were not interested in the Categor y II proposals.  As had been mentioned by the 
representative of Kenya, the proponents faced capac ity constraints and the lack of progress was an 
indication that there was a problem in the process.   Members had only been able to make progress on 
the LDC proposals because of the amount of time that had been dedicated to addressing those 
proposals.  Perhaps the only way Members could make progress on the Category II proposals was for 
them to addressed in the Special Session as the other bodies did not have sufficient time to address 
them.  
16. The representative of India  said that since the Chairman had pointed out that the situation was 
not positive, he himself could perhaps suggest alte rnative ways in which the situation could be 
improved.  The Chairman would recall that he had earlier stated that he realized the importance of the Category II proposals to developing countries and would raise the issue with the various 
Chairpersons.  He asked the Chairman what he felt was the best way to move forward with the 
proposals.  It was a matter of concern that the pr oponents faced capacity constraints because of which 
progress was not forthcoming.  Members needed to c onsider whether bringing the proposals back to 
the Special Session would help.  It was clear that for a variety of reasons there was no progress on the 
proposals being dealt with in the different bodies and it was important to consider how to get out of the logjam.  TN/CTD/M/24 
 Page 5 
 
 
  17. The representative of Switzerland  said that her delegation was not certain that Members' 
participation in the Special Session was necessarily be tter than that in the other Committees.  Perhaps 
the situation related more to the issues being dealt ra ther than the forum.  Fo r example, in the Special 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture, there were integrated teams working on particular issues.  
Therefore, the Category II proposals that had been  forwarded to that Committee for consideration 
were not being dealt with as an integral part of the formal meetings, but rather as a separate issue.  In 
that context, perhaps something could be done to streamline work on the Category II proposals into the main work of those Committees.  Another reas on for lack of progress was that some of the 
proposals were difficult and finding solutions had not been easy.  There was no single reason as to why progress had not been forthcoming.  Her dele gation did not feel that bringing the Category II 
proposals back to the Special Session for considera tion would solve anything or make the situation 
any better. 
18. The representative of Pakistan
 said that work in the Committ ee on Trade in Services had been 
coordinated by providing timetables on when issu es would be discussed.  In that context, she 
suggested that a matrix be established, listing the bodies where the proposals were being addressed as 
well as the dates at which they would be addressed .  That would enable the proponents to prepare 
themselves and know when discussions on the proposals would take place.  
19. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation was aware that the issue was 
one of expertise versus practica lity.  Her delegation had taken seve ral steps to try and address the 
issues that had been raised by the proponents by  encouraging the Chairpersons to hold special 
consultations.  In fact, her delega tion had tried to reach out to various groups such as the LDCs.  She 
agreed with the representative of Egypt that th e revised language by the African Group on the SPS 
side had constructive elements, which had reinvigora ted the discussions.  Perhaps with the ideas that 
had been suggested to expedite progress on the prop osals, progress may be forthcoming.  However, 
her delegation did not favour bringing back the Category II proposals to the Special Session.  Her 
delegation believed that the expertise provided in those bodies, especially at this point in the 
negotiations, was critical.   
20. The representative of Australia  said that her delegation shared the view that it would not be 
appropriate to bring back the Category II proposals to the Special Session.  There were several 
reasons for that.  First, it would be a mistake to think that if the Special Session had dealt with those proposals, somehow more progress would have been ma de on them.  Second, there were a number of 
good reasons why the Category II proposals were bei ng dealt with in the different bodies;  one of 
which was that that was where the e xpertise to deal with those proposal s existed.  The reasons for lack 
of progress were complicated and were not really re lated to the forum in which the proposals were 
being discussed but to their content.  Members had fundamental concerns  about some of those 
proposals;  there was lack of clarity on the objective of certain proposals;  and in some instances, the 
proponents had not actively pursued the proposals.  In the March TRIPs Council meeting, although 
the proposals were on the agenda, none of the propone nts took the floor in that meeting.  Her 
delegation sympathized with small delegations and the difficulties that they faced in attending two 
meetings at the same time.  She was not however certain this was the main reason why progress had 
not been made.  Perhaps Members could consider  requesting the relevant  Committees which were 
dealing with those proposals to hold dedicated se ssions to address the Category II proposals.   
21. The representative of Ecuador
 said that her delegation supported the request made by the 
representative of Pakistan.  Also as the representativ e of Australia had suggested, the Chairpersons of 
the bodies addressing the Category II proposals, should consider holding  special sessions to address 
the Category II proposals.  In her delegation's view, th at was the most viable way of moving forward.  
Once a schedule of meetings was put together and special sessions scheduled, then she was certain 
that Members would be able to attend the meetings and progress could be made. TN/CTD/M/24 
Page 6  
 
  22. The representative of India
 said that Members should not exaggerate the inability of the 
Special Session to address some of those proposals and the fact that expertise to address the Category II proposals only existed in the various bodies.  Members had already dealt with some 
difficult issues in the Special Session, such as  the proposal on TRIMs and the proposal on duty-free, 
quota-free (DFQF) market access, which could have arguably also been referred to the negotiating 
group on NAMA or Agriculture.  In the Special Sess ion, Members had made the effort and got their 
experts when needed and dealt with the proposals in small groups.  Clearly those were issues that 
could not be dealt with in formal meetings such as the one they were having, but could be dealt with 
in small groups.  Progress woul d be forthcoming, provided there was political will to move. 
23. The representative of Kenya
 said that Members needed to look at the mandate contained in 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Decl aration and paragraph 12 of the Decision on 
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns.  It wa s clear in those mandates that the Special Session 
of the CTD had been directed to undertake work on the S&D proposals.  Had Ministers at the time of 
taking that decision felt that the issue of expertise was important, then they would have given suitable 
directions in this regard.  He asked whether the question was one of the proposals lacking clarity or 
rather of Members not willing to adhere to the mandate.  His delegation had no problem with the 
holding of dedicated sessions to address the Category II proposals if the majority of Members felt that 
was the best way to proceed.  However, it was impo rtant that those sessions did not clash with other 
important meetings. 
24. The Chairman  said that he would be guided by what the Ministers had agreed at Hong Kong.  
With respect to the Category II proposals Minister s had asked the Special Session to continue to 
coordinate its efforts with the various bodies to  ensure that they completed their work by 
December 2006.  In that sense, th ere was scope for the Special Sessi on to consider creative ways to 
coordinate its efforts with the other bodies.  The s uggestion made by the representative of Pakistan of 
creating a matrix also seemed useful.  Tentative da tes for upcoming meetings were already available 
and could therefore be incorporated into the ma trix.  Although the reports were not very positive, 
there was the possibility of making progress in so me areas, for example in the SPS area.  The 
proponents had raised a genuine pr oblem relating to their inability to attend all meetings and it was 
important that efforts were made to avoid possibl e clashes of meetings.  With respect to the ongoing 
Special Session of the Committee on Trade in Servi ces, he said that the Special Session of the CTD 
had scheduled its meeting much in advance and had made that schedule available to Members.  In that 
sense, Members should have sought alternate sche duling with the Chairman of the Committee on 
Trade in Services.  He said that he would do his best to impress upon the other Chairpersons to avoid 
clashes of meetings.  However, Members would also need to be vigilant against clash of meetings, 
because as the Chairman he could avoid clashes of  the Special Session with other Committees, but he 
could not decide for other Chairpersons as to when they would hold their meetings.  With respect to 
the suggestion to hold dedicated sessions to discuss the Category II proposals in the other bodies, he 
would raise that with the other Chairpersons at the meeting which he intended to hold shortly with 
them.  In addition, he would inform the Chairper sons of the sentiments and concerns expressed on the 
Category II proposals.   
25. The Chairman went on to say that he was aw are that the decision on DFQF market access was 
of great importance to the LDCs as well as other stak eholders.  He was also aware that there had been 
an exchange of views between interested delega tions and that consultations on the issue were 
continuing.  His sense was that all Members we re committed to fully and faithfully implementing 
what Ministers had decided at Hong Kong.  That was an encouraging sign.  It was his understanding that no delegation wished to make any statements at  that stage.  He therefore proposed that Members 
move on and address the Category I Agreement-specific proposals.  He said that the intention was for 
Members to make as much progress as possible on the remaining Category I proposals and to then 
move on and address the other outstanding issues.  He said that he had held some informal 
consultations with several delegations on the rema ining Category I proposals and his sense was that  TN/CTD/M/24 
 Page 7 
 
 
  stakeholders were committed to moving towards a middle ground;  a sign that was encouraging.  He 
said that at the last meeting, Members had discussed proposals 28 to 30 on Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing and proposal 13 on  GATT Article XVIII.  Revised language had 
been prepared and circulated on the basis of tho se discussions.  However, more work was needed to 
be carried out on those proposals.  He proposed th at Members take up the proposals on Article 10.3 of 
the SPS Agreement which consisted of two proposals;  proposal 24 which had been tabled by a group 
of developing countries and proposal 25 which had been tabled by the African Group.  The last language considered on those two proposals containe d three sets of brackets which he hoped could be 
further narrowed.   
26. During discussions (which were held in an informal mode) on proposal nos. 24 and 25 on 
Article 10.3 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the proponents clarified that 
they were seeking flexibility from the provision  of the SPS Agreement for developing country 
Members when importing from other Members.  While Members appreciated this clarification, a number of them stated that it was not clear why the proponents were seeking additional flexibility, 
since no developing county had sought recourse to Article 10.3 in the past.  One Member stated that 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declara tion had mandated Members to review and make 
existing S&D provisions more precise, effective and operational and that utilization, or lack of it, 
should not prevent Members from fulfilling that mandate.  Members also had a preliminary discussions on proposal no. 22 relating to the Unders tanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligations 
under the GATT 1994.  A number of Members stated  that they had had difficulties agreeing to a 
similar proposal for the LDCs and although they had been able to compromise their position at 
Hong Kong, they could not agree to the mandatory  language being proposed for all developing 
countries.  It was agreed that discussions would continue on these proposals.   
C. A
LL OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES  
27. While introducing this agenda item, the Chairman  said that paragraph 38 of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration had mandated the Special Session to "resume work on all other outstanding 
issues, including the cross-cutting issues, the Mon itoring Mechanism, and the incorporation of S&D 
treatment into the architecture of WTO rules, and report on a regular basis to the General Council".  
He said that it was clear that Members needed to resume their discussions on all the other outstanding 
issues.  However, as Chairman, he had no preconceive d ideas as to what should be the focus, priority 
or outcome of that work.  That was something fo r Members to decide.  He sought Members' guidance 
on how to proceed on the outstanding issues.  He w ould carefully listen to what Members had to say 
and see whether there were areas of convergence.  
28. The representative of Kenya  said that paragraph 13 of the African Group submission 
contained in  document TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 sp ecified the African Group's understanding of the 
cross-cutting issues.  Some of the elements containe d in paragraph 13 were yet to be discussed and he 
hoped that Members would get the opportunity to do so.  This paragraph identified issues such as 
"clear legal rights to enforce the provisions as binding obligations" and "provisions setting out the 
details and mechanisms for implementing and complyi ng with the binding provisions".  In that sense, 
the notion of "binding provisions" referred to strengthened S&D provisions.  Paragraph 13 also 
mentioned "appropriate institutions  to determine issues concerning implementation and compliance 
with the obligations" and identified the CTD Regul ar Session and its subsidiary bodies as well as the 
Dispute Settlement Body and the General Council as being the bodies where that evaluation could be 
carried out.  Also of interest to Members was sub-paragraph (e) which related to the Monitoring 
Mechanism, the role of which was to monitor th e implementation and compliance of the strengthened 
S&D provisions.  The African Group had tabled  a further submission contained in document 
TN/CTD/W/23 explaining what was meant by the M onitoring Mechanism.  The paper spelt out the 
functions of such a mechanism, including a regular  evaluation of the utilization and effectiveness of 
the S&D provisions with a view to ensuring that th e provisions were fully utilized and problems, if TN/CTD/M/24 
Page 8  
 
  any, effectively addressed.  The mechanism coul d also provide a framework for initiating and 
considering recommendations that the CTD may make  to ensure compliance with obligations under 
S&D provisions.  Though the African Group was still in terested in the establis hment of a Monitoring 
Mechanism, it was important to first strengthen the S&D provisions.  Therefore, the question was 
whether to begin discussing the elements of the M onitoring Mechanism right away or to wait until 
some progress had been made on strengthening the Agreement-specific proposals.  Additionally, the 
African Group had also proposed the creation of a de velopment framework.  That proposal requested 
the Fifth Ministerial Conference to take a decisi on on the elaboration of a multilateral framework on 
the provisions of Article XVIII and Part IV of  GATT 1994;  in other words, it had proposed a 
development framework that would help those countri es which were at low levels of development to 
make use of the flexibilities provided in the current and future WTO Agreements.  These were the two 
areas that the African Group was keen to discuss furt her under the agenda item on outstanding issues. 
29. The representative of the European Communities
 welcomed the reminder of the submissions 
made by the African Group on the Monitoring M echanism.  He agreed that the Monitoring 
Mechanism and the idea of establishing a broade r development framework both merited further 
discussion.  His delegation welcomed the opportunity to resume discussions on the outstanding issues 
and recognized that the work on the Agreement-spec ific proposals was important but was not the limit 
to the work that Ministers had mandated the Special  Session to carry out.  Different elements of the 
Special Session's mandate were mutually supportive.  He made reference to earlier submissions tabled 
by his delegation on the cross-cutting issues contai ned in documents TN/CTD/W/13, W/20 and W/26.  
While those submissions remained valid, his delega tion realized that a lot of time had since passed 
and Members did not necessarily have the same pos ition they had had when those submissions had 
been tabled.  Therefore, some elements of those submissions might no longer be relevant.  However, 
work on the outstanding issues could begin with discu ssions on the Monitoring Mechanism.  That was 
something that the General Council had, on the basis of the recommendation made earlier by the Special Session, agreed to establish but had remitted the task of working out the functions, terms of 
reference and structure of the Monitoring Mechanism back to the Special Session.  At present, the 
Monitoring Mechanism was an empt y vessel.  For the Monitoring M echanism to be useful, Members 
would have to ensure that it was forward looking and performed a function relevant to the landscape 
that would emerge after the conclusion of the DDA negotiations.  In his delegation's view, there were 
a number of broad areas in which the Monitoring Mechanism could usefully contribute.  It could ensure improved transparency by monitoring how the S&D provisions were working within the WTO 
system to help developing and least-developed countries better integrate into the global trading 
system, taking into account their different levels  of development.  This work would include 
monitoring all the existing S&D provisions in the lega l texts and the provisions that would come into 
force after the end of the Round.  Basically, this would cover all the types of S&D provisions which 
had been detailed by the Secretariat when Members had first began their work on S&D.  The 
Monitoring Mechanism, which could function thro ugh the CTD, could also work as a transparency 
mechanism which would be tasked with preparing regular factual reports on the utilization of S&D 
provisions drawing on inputs from other WTO bodies and from individual Members.  This  would 
enable Members to have a global overview of how  S&D was operating in the WTO system.  On the 
basis of such an assessment, Memb ers would be in a position to track the trends in the utilizations of 
S&D provisions and to identify best practise, and on that basis to draw appropriate recommendations.  
In addition, his delegation would be interested in exploring the contribution that the mechanism could 
make to a more focused identification and possibl e responses to the needs of developing countries in 
trade-related technical assistance and capacity build ing.  The Monitoring Mechanism could also help 
Members in the implementation of their rights and obligations.  Clearly, this would require a more 
proactive role in assessing and tracking the need a nd use of the S&D provisi ons and would help in 
addressing problems as and when they arose, there by promoting the further in tegration of developing 
and least-developed countries into the multilateral tr ading system.  The Monitoring Mechanism could 
also have a troubleshooting role in terms of dea ling with problems, that might arise as Members 
implemented the results of the Doha negotiations.  It would essentially be a more dynamic process  TN/CTD/M/24 
 Page 9 
 
 
  responsive to the needs of Members, capable of  evolving in the light of the experience and 
expectations of Members.  He said that these ideas were yet to be fully de veloped and his delegation 
was interested in hearing what other Memb ers may have to say on those issues.   
30. The representative of the EC went on to say that  in its earlier submissions his delegation had 
set out its thinking on the broad principles and objectives of S&D.  Many of those principles and 
objectives remained valid even as Me mbers neared the end of the negotiations.  He suggested that if 
Members were willing, those principles and objectives  could be developed into a set of guidelines to 
help facilitate the operation of S&D provisions in  the post-DDA period.  The Monitoring Mechanism 
would of course be an important element of that.  Members were aware of the deadline for the completion of the Round and some Members were scep tical about the ability to develop these ideas in 
the time they had.  However, his delegation rema ined convinced that it was still possible to make 
progress in this area and that this progress would help  in finding solutions in other elements of the 
outstanding work, including on the Agreement-specif ic proposals.  If Members were able to work 
productively in this area, then they would be able to ensure that S&D provisions remained a proactive 
and dynamic tool to assist developing countries, and in particular the LDCs and other marginalized 
developing countries, which were least well placed to benefit from the commercial opportunities that 
would come out from the Round.   
31. The representative of Japan
 said that it was clear from the mandate of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration that the Special Session ha d been given a specific timeline for completing 
work on the Agreement-specific proposals.  It had al so been mandated to resume work on all other 
outstanding issues.  In a sense, Members had al ready fulfilled the mandate on the outstanding issues 
as that work had been successfully resumed.  Cons idering the overall objective of S&D, which in his 
view was contained paragraph 44 of  the Doha Ministerial Declarati on, it would be useful to begin 
discussions on the Monitoring Mechanism which Memb ers had already agreed to establish as well as 
consider the utilization of the existing S&D provisi ons.  Given the time constraint, it was important 
for Members to have a common understanding on what  to discuss under this agenda item.  His 
delegation felt it was worth concentrating on discussi ons on the Monitoring Mechanism.  He proposed 
four elements which Members could discuss in id entifying the basic elements of a Monitoring 
Mechanism.  The first, was to consider what the objective of the Monitoring Mechanism would be, in 
terms of why such a mechanism should be created.  The second, was the scope of the mechanism, in 
terms of what should be reviewed and monitored.  The third, was the structure of the mechanism, in 
terms of where and how often the review should be  carried out in the individual WTO bodies.  The 
fourth, was how to coordinate the review that w ould be undertaken.  He said that the Monitoring 
Mechanism was an important element of the work  on the outstanding issues, its establishment should 
not be rushed.  There was first a need to ha ve a common understanding of its elements.   
32. The representative of Canada  said that a considerable amount of time had passed since 
Members had last discussed the outstanding issues and this meeting was a good opportunity to take a 
fresh look at things.  To his delegation, the M onitoring Mechanism was one of the most concrete 
elements of the outstanding issues and was perhaps the best point on which to begin discussions.  As 
had been mentioned by the representative of the EC, it was at the moment an empty vessel and 
Members would need to develop its elements, some  of which had been proposed by the representative 
of the EC.  His delegation was aware of the need for Members to be pragmatic and realistic.  His delegation was aware that even though there was no fixed timeline attached to completing work on 
the outstanding issues, these too needed to be completed before the end of the Round.  Members 
therefore had a lot to accomplish in very limited time.   
33. The representative of Mexico
 sought clarification from the representative of the EC on the 
elements of its earlier submissions which it fe lt were no longer relevant.  She noted that the 
representative of the EC had stressed the need to further integrate developi ng and least-developed 
country Members into the multilateral trading system , taking into account their different levels of TN/CTD/M/24 
Page 10  
 
  development.  She asked whether the EC had some thing specific in mind in terms of the different 
levels of development.  She also sought clarifica tion about what the representative of Japan had meant 
when he had mentioned that a review could be carri ed out in other bodies and asked about the sort of 
procedure that they may have had in mind. 
34. The representative of China
 said that his delegation had revisited some of the proposed 
elements of the Monitoring Mechanism that had b een tabled by the African Group.  His delegation 
believed that many of those elements were valid and deserved careful consideration and discussion in 
the Special Session.  Although his delegation was flex ible on the elements of the mechanism, it would 
be important to ensure that it had a simple stru cture that would help Members in making the S&D 
provisions more effective and ope rational.  The Monitoring Mechanism could possibly have two 
layers of review.  The first, at the level of th e CTD which could have a standing item on its agenda 
relating to the monitoring of the implementation of S&D provisions.  Alternatively, a dedicated 
session of the CTD could be established which woul d be at the same level and would address the 
same issues.  The second layer could revolve ar ound the establishment of a Special Session of the 
General Council or a standing item on the agenda of  the General Council.  If necessary, an additional 
third layer could be introduced which could invo lve the preparation of a special report to each 
Ministerial Conference.  The African Group had suggested that a sub-co mmittee under the CTD be 
created to carry out the monitoring.  In his de legation's view that would not be necessary because 
making the monitoring system more effective was a matter of goodwill.  Once there was political will 
the mechanism would be implemented effectively.  With respect to the terms of reference, his 
delegation believed that all the points raised in the African Group's submission as well as by the 
representative of the EC were relevant and deserved further consideration.  In addition, discussing the 
possibilities for technical assistance and capacity buil ding for the utilization of S&D provisions would 
be helpful.  If Members found, after the review, that the S&D provisions were not proving to be 
effective and operational, then they could develo p recommendations in this regard.  That was 
something that could be considered under the Mon itoring Mechanism's terms of reference.  With 
respect to the broader cross-cutting issues, his delegation shared the views expressed by the 
representative of Mexico relating to the earlier subm issions made by the EC.  He too felt that some 
issues were not relevant to the mandate of the Sp ecial Session, or even to that of the WTO.  
Discussing those elements could confuse the situation.  In his delegations view, it was not necessary to discuss issues such as the definition of a devel oping country or graduation.  Members would never 
be able to reach a common understanding on tho se issues and discussing them would only waste the 
time of the Special Session.   
35. The representative of Egypt
 said that his delegation was aware of the mandate relating to the 
other outstanding issues and the past submissions that had been tabled in that regard.  The Monitoring 
Mechanism was important to African countries, as a result of which the African Group had tabled a 
submission in 2002.  In light of the developments that had taken place since, the African Group would 
build on that proposal.  He suggested that discussi ons on the Monitoring Mechanism be structured on 
the basis of those three el ements which were not too different to  those that had been proposed by the 
representative of Japan.  The first, was to consid er the objective of the mechanism and what it was 
going to do.  The second, was the way in which it was going to fulfil that objective.  The third, was the scope and terms of reference of the mechanis m.  In his view, the objective of the mechanism 
should be to regularly evaluate the utilization a nd effectiveness of S&D pr ovisions.  This should 
provide an avenue through which Members could make recommendations and propose ways to fully 
utilize the S&D provisions.  This could be done either in the CTD or along the lines of how trade policy reviews were carried out.  His delegation was flex ible in that regard.  As for the third element, 
that is the scope and terms of refe rence, this could be a little controve rsial.  With respect to scope, he 
agreed with the representative of Ch ina that there could be layers of reviews in terms of the current 
S&D provisions as well as those that would result fr om the conclusion of the Round.  However, since 
it was not clear how the S&D provisi ons would evolve, it made no sense  to decide on the scope of the 
Monitoring Mechanism at this stage.  It was lik e buying an insurance policy for an unborn child.  For  TN/CTD/M/24 
 Page 11 
 
 
  the time being, it would be best to focus on th e current S&D provisions.  As for the terms of 
reference, a number of elements had been raised in  the different interventions and submissions.  Some 
Members had acknowledged that some elements co ntained in earlier submissions may no longer be 
relevant.  He hoped that Members would be able to indicate those elements.  His delegation was 
willing to begin work on the cross-cutting issu es by focusing on the Monitoring Mechanism.  
36. Without precluding the importance of other cro ss-cutting issues that might come later, the 
representative of Switzerland  agreed that work on the outstanding issues could resume with 
discussions on the Monitoring Mechanism.  In that  regard, the African Group submission was a good 
starting point.  She shared the views that had been raised by some of the other delegations and believed that a number of submissions that had been  tabled would be useful for the discussions.  Her 
delegation's submission (TN/CTD/W/14) also, containe d elements that were not very different from 
the African Group's submission.  Perhaps putting toge ther all the different elements relating to the 
Monitoring Mechanism would facilitate the discu ssions.  It was important to discuss the possible 
functions of the Monitoring Mechanism.  In her vi ew, these could be twofold.  First, the mechanism 
could monitor the implementation of obligations un der the Doha Round.  Second, it could monitor the 
effectiveness of S&D provisions.  Members could also consider how the provisions operated in 
reality.  Her delegation felt that the Monitoring Mech anism should be structured in a flexible way and 
should have enough in-built flexibility to evolve.   
37. On behalf of the ASEAN Members, the representative of Malaysia
 said that her delegation 
was willing to resume discussions on the outstanding i ssues.  There were certain issues that had been 
implicitly mentioned in the discussions about whic h she echoed the caution that had been raised by 
the representatives of Mexico, China and Egypt.  If Members were not careful then raking them up 
could impact further discussions on the outstanding issues.  Since there was no specified deadline to 
complete work on these issues, there wa s no reason to rush through the work. 
38. The representative of Kenya  said that his delegation shared some of the views that had been 
expressed by the EC regarding the monitoring of strengthened S&D provisions.  Coherence would 
also be an element to be considered.  The A frican Group submission had in this context made 
reference to the role of international organizati ons such as UNCTAD and other international financial 
institutions.  The elements of the Monitoring Mech anism suggested in the African Group submission 
were broadly along the lines of the elements suggest ed by the representative of Japan and he believed 
that was a good basis to begin discussions.  The African Group submission reasoned why a 
Monitoring Mechanism should be established and had elaborated its possible functions.  The 
Monitoring Mechanism should not duplicate what w as being done in other bodies, but should instead 
make use of information from other bodies to he lp Members analyze and ascertain whether S&D 
provisions were being utilized, and were proving to be effective and ope rational.  With respect to the 
structure, he agreed with the representative of China that Members needed to raise the profile of this 
review, and the suggestion of reporting to the Ministerial Conference was certainly something 
Members should consider.  It was clear that Me mbers were beginning from a common platform and 
what was now required was for them to have a common understanding on what they wished to establish.   
39. In response to the query raised by the dele gation of Mexico, the representative of the EC
 said 
that he did not think that this was the time to go through all of the EC's three submissions and 
highlight the points that were no longer relevant.  With  respect to his reference to different levels of 
development, he said that from the time he had co me to Geneva and begun work on S&D issues, the 
objective of S&D and the work programme of making S&D provisions precise, effective and 
operational had been constantly repeated.  The thr ee words precise, effective and operational had been 
repeatedly used in the context of the Agreement- specific proposals.  These words were, however, also 
relevant in understanding the nature of special a nd differential treatment a nd how it could be made 
into a user friendly element of the WTO system.  It was evident that the term "developing countries" TN/CTD/M/24 
Page 12  
 
  covered a large number of Members which were not a ll at the same levels of development.  As had 
been mentioned earlier by the representative of Keny a, one of the objectives of S&D was to assist 
those countries that were less developed than othe rs.  It was evident to all Members that some 
developing countries were in a better position than ot hers in terms of their sh are and participation in 
world trade.  If Members failed to take that into acc ount then they would be failing in their task.  It 
was therefore important to recognize that not all de veloping countries were in  the same situation and 
were at different levels  of development.   
40. In response to the question of coor dination, the representative of Japan
 clarified that his 
suggestion was for instance in areas such as the SPS Agreement where the CTD might find it difficult 
to follow the utilization of the SPS provisions.  In  such cases, an initial review process could be 
undertaken in the SPS Committee, the results of whic h could be then forwarded to the CTD, which 
could gather all such information and then see how to improve the implementation of the S&D 
provisions.   
41. The representative of India  said that a clear distinction had been drawn by Ministers in terms 
of the work that the Special Session was required to  carry out and the timelines attached to different 
aspects of that work.  Members were expect ed to come up with recommendations on the 
Agreement-specific proposals by December 2006.  They  were also expected to resume work on the 
outstanding issues and report on those issues on a regular basis.  It was important for Members to keep in mind this priority and in that regard he a ppreciated the fact that most Members had alluded to 
this.  With respect to the Monito ring Mechanism, his delegation agreed with the broad structure that 
had been suggested, thought it would need to revisit some of the s ubmissions that had been tabled 
earlier.  Given that negotiations were in the final st ages, it was important to keep in mind that the bulk 
of the monitoring would have to be of the new a nd strengthened S&D provisions that Members finally 
adopted.  The work on the Agreement-specific pr oposals, once completed, would provide a clearer 
picture of what the Monitoring Mechanism should do and how it should do it.  Members also needed to bear in mind that Annex F of the Hong Kong D eclaration already provided for a certain type of 
monitoring in the CTD.  These were parallels that Members could consider.  His delegation's concern 
was that there was still a lack of clarity about how  different elements of the Monitoring Mechanism 
would be put in place.  Therefore, issues such as when, at what stage and how the Monitoring 
Mechanism would work were important for the discu ssions of the Special Session.  As for the other 
cross-cutting issues, Members were treading on danger ous ground.  He had listened carefully to the 
explanation given by the representative of the EC about  "different levels of development".  While his 
delegation was open to discuss these issues, Members needed to be clear in their mind about what 
they were trying to achieve and the path they wish ed to proceed.  The representative of the EC had 
stated that there was a lot of heterogeneity am ongst developing countries, but there was a similar 
heterogeneity amongst devel oped countries, which too were at very different levels of development.  
In the same way that some count ries used the term "advanced deve loping countries", a term which 
was inappropriate and not recognized in any inte rgovernmental organization, the term "advanced 
developed countries" could also be used to describ e countries which had a greater role in the world 
trading system.  Members, therefore, needed to be  careful and decide what they really wished to 
discuss.  It was for them to determine whether they  wished to proceed on a path of confrontation or 
convergence.  Once there was a clear understandi ng on this then Members would know where the 
discussions were headed and could formulate their response accordingly.  His delegation was willing 
to listen with an open mind but it was important to know what the aim of the work was.  If it was to 
come up with differentiation amongst, or divisions between, developing countries, then his delegation 
would  strongly oppose it. 
42. The representative of the United States
 said that the earlier submissions tabled on some of the 
outstanding issues could be a useful basis on which to resume work.  Members had learnt a lot in 
terms of each others positions during the course of  the earlier discussions on these issues.  There had 
been other developments in the negotiations since th en, which would need to be taken into account as  TN/CTD/M/24 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Members resumed their discussions.  The renewed discussions presented an opportunity for Members 
to reconsider the merits of some of the ideas that had been tabled in 2002.  Her delegation appreciated 
the fact that a number of Members had said that they were willing to engage on these issues.  Her 
delegation was interested in considering ways that would make S&D more effective through a 
collaborative process of review and examination.  Her delegation's goal had always been to work 
towards greater participation in the multilateral tr ading system and it believed that the WTO was an 
important tool towards that end.  An important  assumption was that all Members had a responsibility 
towards the system and that the b asic objective was to come up with S&D provisions that were more 
effective, focused in delivery and attuned to the needs of countries wishing to advance their 
development goals through trade.  Her delegation was aware of the little time that remained and the 
need therefore to be practical.  Her delegation hoped to keep things simple.  She agreed with those 
that had mentioned the need to sift through previo us submissions and identify those ideas that were 
more reasonable to work with in the limited time th at Members had.  In that context, the suggestion 
made by the representative of Japan was useful.  Her delegation was open as to how Members decided they would proceed on the issues of the effectiveness of  S&D;  problem solving;  individual needs and 
concerns;  and the idea of incorporating offensiv e market access elements.  Her delegation believed 
that continuing discussions in dedicated in formal sessions was a good way to proceed. 
43. The representative of Costa Rica
 agreed that a lot had happened since Members had last 
discussed the outstanding issues.  He said that th e representative of India had been correct in 
highlighting the issue of the mandate.  With respect  to the Monitoring Mechanism, he said that 
Members could build on the structure that the repr esentative of Japan had suggested.  His delegation 
was ready to revert to earlier submissions and consid er additional elements to work on.  According to 
his delegation, S&D was supposed to provide flexib ility to all developing countries, irrespective of 
the size of their economy.  His delegation believe d that whatever work Members carried out for 
developing countries, was for all developing countri es and not for some.  Sometimes proposals tabled 
to resolve problems faced by a group of developing  countries, could result in discriminating against 
other developing countries.  That was some thing that Members needed to avoid.   
44. The representative of Kenya  clarified that the African Group had made a proposal in 2002 to 
establish a multilateral development framework, based on the provisions  of Article XVIII and Part IV 
of the GATT 1994.  Though it had been mentioned that S&D was for all developing countries, there had been instances when certain S&D proposals had been challenged by other developing countries.  
If S&D was for all developing countries, why had these other developing countries questioned some 
of the S&D proposals.  When WTO provisions themselves discriminated between developing 
countries, countries had not challenged this.  He gave  the examples of Annex VII of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the provisions for Net Food Importing Developing 
Countries and asked why no one had complained about that.  Similarly, some developing countries 
had been given preferential treatment to assist them  in moving away from growing narcotic crops, but 
no one had complained about that either.  He ha d recently read about a panel report in which a 
Member of the WTO opposing preferences and waiver s had argued that the reference to developing 
countries in the WTO did not automatically mean that it applied to all developing countries.  Therefore, much as he understood the position of some developing countries,  he did not understand 
the concern with respect to the African Group pr oposal on a development framework, when the entire 
Doha Work Programme was about development. 
45. The representative of Japan
 agreed that there was no time line to complete the work on the 
outstanding issues.  However, Members needed to have a focused discussion on those issues.  It was 
not as if Members were required to come up with c oncrete results on the outstanding issues before the 
end of the Round, but they needed to reach some convergence and make some progress.   
46. In response to the representative of Ke nya, the representative of Costa Rica  said that it was 
clear that there were differences in view about what S&D meant.  For his delegation, S&D was a TN/CTD/M/24 
Page 14  
 
  mechanism that could help developing countries in tegrate into the multilateral trading system, and 
help them develop without deviating from the basi c rules.  In many cases, what was being sought 
were exceptions to the principles and rules of the WTO which in his delegation's view was not right, 
because this meant that the interest of other de veloping countries would be prejudiced.  The 
representative of Kenya had given the example of so me developing countries taking the view that a 
reference to developing countries did not necessarily include all developing countries.  His delegation 
certainly had difficulties with such a view and that  was the reason why it had certain concerns with 
the granting of waivers and the erosion of preferences. 
47. The representative of Brazil
 said that this type of discussion had the tendency to develop into 
an acuminous debate, because Members had different  views on certain fundamental and philosophical 
issues about S&D.  Real S&D was one that pr omoted development, by ensuring that trade 
liberalization benefited developing countries.  Enhanced market access was therefore important in labour intensive sectors such as services, manufactures , agriculture, textiles and steel.  Unfortunately, 
those were precisely the areas where the greatest rest rictions existed.  This was where there was a 
need for  exemptions and flex ibilities because a large number of developing countries were not in a 
position to undertake those commitments, at least not  to the same extent as the advanced developed 
countries.  The problem with preferences, was that at the beginning, preferences were intended to be  
generalized and non-discriminatory.  Over time, give n the unilateral nature of most preference-giving 
schemes, they developed into discriminatory sch emes and generated a di vision among developing 
countries that received preferences and those that di d not.  There was a perverse collusion of interests 
among the most protected sectors in the developed countries and a number of developing countries 
receiving some kind of rent from the persistence of that protection.  Lobby groups often stated that 
those distortions should be maintained because so me developing countries benefited from them.  
Those were issues Members needed to address and find solutions for.  The idea that somehow the 
problems Members faced in the WTO were because some developing countries which were better off 
did not wish to share the benefits with other c ountries was completely misleading.  Members needed 
to go back to the original rationale for S&D.  It was a lot like other public policies.  Nobody 
questioned the provision of free schooling even though it benefited some more than others.  The idea 
was that those who needed it the most should be nefit the most.  When discrimination involved 
something regressive like the provision of subsidi es to the opera, the question could arise as to why 
public money was being used for people who did not r eally need it.  That could then lead to the 
establishment of categories of people that may or may not need that kind of subsidy.  The basic 
problem in this case was that the initial policy its elf was regressive in the first place.  Ideally, 
Members needed to liberalize those sectors which had the most distortions, in particular in developed 
country markets.  Members had not yet been able to do that.  Also, what Members were unlikely to 
achieve in the few months that re mained until the end of the Round, was to  establish some sort of 
mechanism to identify those who should, and should  not, be eligible for S&D provisions.  That was 
something that the Monitoring Mechanism could perhaps do in the future.   
48. The representative of Kenya
 said that he agreed with the representative of Brazil that real 
S&D would be to liberalize trade in a way that crea ted benefits for developing country exports.  But 
that was dependent on a country's ability to export pro ducts.  There was, theref ore, a need for special 
and differential treatment that would help countri es develop capacity to export.  This was why the 
proposed development framework was based on Ar ticle XVIII and Part IV of GATT 1994, also 
because these provisions did not discriminate among de veloping countries.  The concern that there 
could be some form of implicit discrimination in  the development framework could be addressed once 
Members got there.  The African Group's intention w as to ensure that Africa was truly industrialised; 
in as much as that it did not just attract shopping mall s but instead produced products that were sold in 
those malls. 
49. The Chairman  said that he sensed a constructive mood among delegations and a willingness 
to have a fresh look at some of the ideas that had been tabled in the past.  The discussions had been  TN/CTD/M/24 
 Page 15 
 
 
  positive and had, to a large extent, made Members' views and concerns clear.  However, a discussion, 
no matter how positive, was not an end in itself;  and what was important was that discussions should 
lead to convergence.   He said that Members needed to do three things.  The first, was to "crystallise" 
their thoughts and ideas in terms of what they ha d in mind, in particular with respect to the 
Monitoring Mechanism.  There were a number of u seful ideas that had been raised in the discussion 
and in earlier submissions.  Clearly, the Monitori ng Mechanism meant different things to different 
Members and it was therefore necessary to build some commonality of views.  It would be useful for Members to put their ideas on the Monitoring Mechanis m on paper and then share it with others.  The 
second, was for Members to "converse" and conti nue the discussions once thoughts had been further 
crystallised.  The third, was to reach "convergence" on the different ideas.  He said that he was not 
proposing a timetable for a work plan as it was cl ear that Members would need to have further 
discussions, perhaps in an informal context.  He sa id that he would facilitate those discussions and 
urged Members to engage amongst themselves on what their expectations were;  what they felt were 
the areas that could be taken up;  and how they wish ed to move forward.  He indicated that the next 
meeting was scheduled for 8 May, at which his intention was to continue discussions on the 
Agreement-specific proposals.   
D. O
THER BUSINESS  
50. No issue was raised under "Other Business". 
 
__________