RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/39 
4 May 2010 
 
 (10-2344) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Thirty-Ninth Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 19 MARCH 2010 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Thawat chai Sophastienphong (Thailand) 
  
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS ...........................................1  
C. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT PR OVISIONS IN THE WTO AGREEMENTS AND 
DECISIONS JOB (09)/94..................................................................................................................5  
D. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................6  
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting was contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/3524 of 5 March 2010.  
The representative of Cuba indicated that sh e wished to introduce a communication entitled 
"Negotiations on Special and Differential Treatme nt", which she proposed could be discussed in 
detail at the next meeting.  In addition, under "Other  Business", the Chairman said that he also wished 
to share his thoughts with Members on his report to the TNC scheduled for 22 March 2010.  The agenda was accordingly adopted.   
B. 
REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  
2. The Chairman  stated that since his last report in December 2009, work in the Special Session 
had continued in small groups on the basis of his revised non-paper of 3 November 2009 on the 
Monitoring Mechanism.  The work  on the Monitoring Mechanism had focused on consideration of its 
various elements, especially the Structure, Scope and Functions.  He also noted that, with a view to 
eliciting specific responses from Members on some of the issues where differences remained, he had circulated a set of questions.  A copy of these ques tions had been placed at the back of the room.   
3. The Chairman 
recalled that it had been previously agreed that the Preamble  would only be 
addressed once other elements of the Monitoring M echanism had been put in place.  However, the 
legal standing of the Preamble vis-à-vis  the operative parts of the text had frequently come under 
discussion.  He noted that on the basis of an informal opinion from the Legal Division, without prejudice to the positions of Members, the Secretaria t had clarified that although the Preamble formed 
an integral part of a Decision, it provided more of a context to the rights and obligations set out 
therein rather than having an obligation-setting role .  To that extent, the Preamble shed light on the 
meaning and interpretation of specific provisions.  Notwithstanding the clarification, Members had 
continued to have somewhat different  positions on where references such as "aimed at improving the 
implementation and effectiveness of SDT provisions" should be placed.   TN/CTD/M/39 
Page 2  
 
  4. Linked to that discussion was the issue of the mandate, on which Members had continued to 
have divergent views.  While some Members felt that the Monitoring Mechanism should be mainly 
geared towards ensuring transparency, others viewed  it as an instrument to make the S&D provisions 
more effective and operational.  It was obvious that at some stage in the work of the Special Session, 
Members would need to address this fundamental issue.   
5. On the Structure
, the Chairman  informed Members that the main area of contention continued 
to be the ''sequencing issue'' i.e. whether a concern fi rst needed to be raised in the relevant technical 
body or whether it could be brought straight to th e Monitoring Mechanism.  He noted that some 
Members held the view that any such review must first begin in the relevant technical bodies which, 
they argued, had the necessary expertise to discu ss these issues.  Once these technical bodies had 
completed their review, the process could then be  moved to the CTD Dedicated Session which would 
subsequently proceed with the examination on the basis of inputs received from the technical bodies.  
The Chairman added that other Members, while agre eing with the important role that technical bodies 
could play in the monitoring exercise, had emphasize d their preference to maintain the centrality of 
the Monitoring Mechanism.  In their view, the revi ew exercise needed to begin in the CTD Dedicated 
Session.  Only if the Dedicated Session deemed it necessary, could the matter be sent to a relevant 
technical body for necessary input.  That, in their vi ew, would ensure that th e Monitoring Mechanism 
kept control over the review process;  otherwise,  the Monitoring Mechanism would be reduced to a 
mere overseeing role, undermining its position as the focal point for special and differential treatment 
(S&D) concerns.   
6. On Scope , the Chairman informed Members that there was still no agreement on whether the 
Mechanism should monitor only S&D provisions in th e WTO Agreements on the basis of an annexed 
non-exhaustive list of provisions, or whether it should monitor all S&D provisions, including those 
contained in General Council and Ministerial Decisi ons.  He stressed though that in his view, there 
were no fundamental differences in Members' positions  and he hoped to bridge this gap in the near 
future. 
7. On Functions , the Chairman stated that the discussi on had focussed on identifying different 
elements that could constitute the Secretariat Repor t which would be used as part of the monitoring 
exercise.  Members had also been debating on the role of the Monitoring Mechanism to collect, 
analyze and review all relevant information re lated to the implementation of S&D provisions. 
8. In his assessment, it was clear that progress had been slow since he had last reported to the 
wider Membership.  He was, however, encouraged by the positive engagement of Members and their 
commitment to proceed with the work.  In terms of moving forward, he thought that based on the 
work undertaken thus far and his understanding of  Members' positions, it was perhaps time for him to 
revise his non-paper, which he intended to do in th e following weeks.  This revised non-paper would 
form the basis of future work in  the Special Session.  He also in formed Members that it was his 
intention to hold more open-ende d consultations while continuing the work in smaller groups as had 
been the case in the past.  Recognizing the utility of small meetings and his in tention to keep holding 
them, he stressed his desire to inject fresh thinki ng into the process by opening up these meetings to 
the wider Membership.   
9. The representative of India  said that he wished to make two points:  one on transparency;  and 
the other on the substance of the report the Chai rman had just made, as well as the one that the 
Chairman intended to make to the TNC.  On transp arency, the representative of India wished to draw 
the Chairman's attention to the established practi ce followed by other Chairs of negotiating groups 
who, generally shared an advance copy of their reports to the TNC with Members for reasons of 
transparency.  He further noted th at such practice helped delegations to reflect on the reports and 
contribute better to the discussions.  In addition,  while it was understood that the report was produced 
under the Chairman's responsibility, he stressed  that transparency could only smoothen the  TN/CTD/M/39 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Committee's further work.  On substance, the delega tion of India requested the Chairman to clearly 
highlight in his report to the TNC that Members continued to differ on the existence of a clear 
mandate for the Monitoring Mechanism.  While a group of developing countries was of the clear 
opinion that the mandate of the Monitoring Mech anism emanated from paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration, some other Members differed with this viewpoint and regarded the 
Monitoring Mechanism as a mere transparency exercise.  The repr esentative of India stressed that 
fundamental differences on the mandate remained wh ich inhibited progress in substantive discussions 
on the functions of the Mechanism.  In his view, it was therefore, important that such differences were 
identified and highlighted in the Chairman's report to the TNC.  Identifying divergences could be a 
step towards substantive engagement and efforts to  bridging gaps.  He acknowledged that though the 
work in smaller groups had served a useful purpose,  Members needed to cha nge gear, inter-spacing 
such small-group meetings with mo re open-ended meetings in order to elicit greater participation 
from developing countries including LDCs.  In th at context, India welcomed the Chairman's 
suggestion to have more open-ended meetings in order to infuse new id eas.  In view of the systemic 
importance of the S&D Work Programme in the Special Session for the multilateral trading system, 
emphasis was also laid on the n eed for transparency and inclus iveness in the S&D negotiations. 
10. The representative of Pakistan  welcomed the Chairman's propo sal to undertake further work 
in an open-ended format.  While not discounting th e usefulness of the smaller group consultations, the 
Chairman needed to continue complementing this  exercise with more ope n-ended consultations.  
From Pakistan's point of view, the issue of th e mandate of the Monitoring Mechanism was very 
crucial and the representative of Pakistan underlined the need to reflect all the divergences on this 
issue in the Chair's report to th e TNC.  Pakistan further supported India's request to have the 
Chairman's report to the TNC shared with Members be fore hand.  It also requested that the Chairman 
put in black and white the way forward, i.e his work plan for the coming months to engage more Members through frequent open-ended sessions so as to generate renewed momentum.   
11. The representative of China
 stated that China, together with other developing countries, 
attached great importance to the Monitoring Mechan ism; not only because it was an integral part of 
the Doha Development Agenda, but also because it could restore people's confidence in the WTO as a 
rules-based and development-oriented organisation.  However, he noted that not enough substantive 
progress had been made in the small-group consulta tions.  Members continued to have divergent 
positions on a number of issues on the Chairman's n on-paper and even differe d on the mandate of the 
Monitoring Mechanism.  In his view, without a common understanding on this fundamental issue, 
progress could not be achieved.  The representative of China, therefore, suggested that the Chairman 
reflect accurately the divergences on the mandate in his report to the TNC and focus future work on 
the mandate.  Thus far, the consultations in a small group had only enabled a selected group of 
Members to engage in the process.  New momentum and fresh ideas were needed in the negotiations.  
China, therefore, welcomed  the Chairman's deci sion to hold frequent open-e nded meetings to allow 
more Members to join the discussions.  In addition,  China supported India and Pakistan's request to 
have, if possible, an advance copy of the Chairm an's report before its presentation to the TNC.   
12. The representative of Egypt  stated that significant differences on an understanding of the 
mandate continued to inhibit m eaningful progress in the S&D negotiations.  He believed that the 
current impasse needed to be brought to the atten tion of senior officials.  The representative of Egypt 
also supported the Chair's intention of involving mo re developing and least de veloped countries in the 
discussions in open-ended format.  He stressed th at Members had a mandate that needed to be 
fulfilled.  In his view, the main reason why th e Monitoring Mechanism was proposed was that 
Members were cognisant of the fact that while some S&D treatment provisions were already 
mandatory or relatively precise, they had not been operational or complied with.  The Monitoring Mechanism would thus assist in their operationa lization and utilization as well as monitoring the 
effectiveness of those provisions as entailed in  the WTO Agreements and the General Council 
Decisions and Ministerial Declarations.  The repr esentative of Egypt also supported the Chairman's TN/CTD/M/39 
Page 4  
 
  intention of holding more open-e nded consultations as a well as endorsed previous speakers' views on 
transparency.  He also hoped the Chairman could ci rculate, to Members, his report to the TNC in 
advance, if possible.   
13. The representative of Brazil
 expressed support for many of the points made by India, 
Pakistan, China and Egypt and joined them in e xpressing concern about the little progress made in the 
S&D negotiations.  In his view, the slow pace in the negotiations was mainly due to fundamental 
differences among Members on the interpretation of the mandate.   
14. While not discounting the possi bility of open-ended meetings, the representative of the 
European Union  stated that, in her view, the work in sm all groups had been useful and had led to 
some progress, albeit at a slower pace than they would have wished.  She added that work in small 
groups had not been totally exhausted.  In partic ular, there had not been a full discussion on what 
Members' expectations were from the mechanism,  and the types of outcomes and outputs it would 
produce.  Therefore, on their side, the EU knew ve ry little on what other Members wanted out of the 
mechanism.  It was important to have a full discussi on on this issue so as to bring clarity on the goals 
Members wanted to achieve.  On the Chairman's repo rt to the TNC, she stated that the report, as had 
been in the past, had been under the Chairman's re sponsibility and the EU fully trusted the Chairman's 
judgement. 
15. The representative of Canada  agreed with the EU on the usefulness of small-group 
discussions in helping Members explore various issues of the Chairman's non-paper.  He recognized that there were differences of views on the mandate.  He also agreed with the EU that there had not 
been a full opportunity to discuss the mandate issue in the small group.   
16. The representative of the United States
 expressed support for the ongoi ng work in the Special 
Session on the Monitoring Mechanism for S&D treatm ent and believed that there had been progress, 
albeit slow, in the small-group cons ultations, particularly with respect to discussions on the structure 
and functions of the mechanism.  On the Chair's re port to the TNC, the US supported statements made 
by the EU and Canada.  She also agreed that th ere had not been a full discussion on the interpretation 
of the mandate and that it looked forward to such a discussion in the small group as and when 
appropriate.  On the Chairman's re port to the TNC, the US fully trusted the Chairman's judgement and 
hence did not agree with statements made by I ndia, Pakistan, Egypt, China and Brazil.   
17. The representative of Australia  found that although progress ha d been slow, the small-group 
consultations had helped to clarify differences among st Members and was a useful format to continue 
to find ways to bridge those gaps.  She also welc omed the idea of more open-ended meetings as these 
would infuse new ideas and transparency into the process.  While supporting the EU, Canada and the 
US on the mandate issue, they expressed their intere st in a more fulsome discussion on the purpose of 
the Monitoring Mechanism in sm aller groups as the best way forward in these negotiations.   
18. The representative of New Zealand  stated that although the work in smaller groups had led to 
greater clarity in the elements of the Monitori ng Mechanism, it had become clear that a shared 
understanding on the mandate would be fundamental to agreeing on the details.  It was also true that 
the issue of mandate had not been properly discu ssed in the small group.  Although New Zealand was 
open to the Chairman's suggestion on holding more ope n-ended meetings, yet it  felt that smaller group 
consultations were more efficient. However, sh e did not see any harm if these consultations were 
inter-spaced with open-ended meetings  at appropriate intervals.  She also noted that any Member that 
was interested could make such interest known an d join in the consultation at any stage.   
19. While supporting the Chairman's idea of consultations in a wider format as these would be 
more inclusive and provide more value-addition, the representative of Mexico  requested that the 
Chair's report be circulated in advance of the TNC.    TN/CTD/M/39 
 Page 5 
 
 
  20. The representative of Venezuela  fully endorsed the Chairman's idea of more open-ended 
meetings which would produce mo re enriching discussions and woul d possibly help make progress in 
the negotiations. 
21. The representative of Cuba  supported the idea of holding open-ended meetings where the 
majority or all developing country and LDC Member s could participate.  She also supported an 
advance circulation, amongst Members, of  the Chairman's report to the TNC. 
22. Concluding the discussion on this agenda item, the Chairman  stated that as it had been the 
case in the past, reports to the TNC had alwa ys been under his responsibility and assessment.  
However, he assured Members that, as in the past , the report would be fact ual and would highlight 
areas of divergences among Members on the elements of the Monitoring Mechanism.   
C. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT PROVISIONS IN THE WTO AGREEMENTS AND 
DECISIONS JOB (09)/94  
23. Document JOB(09)/94 prepared by the Secret ariat on the request of Members had been 
circulated to Members.  The Chairman  recalled that at the November 2009 meeting, the US had 
proposed amendments to the document which had b een forwarded to all Members for comments.  
Subsequently, a few Members had sought clarificati ons and proposed further amendments.  At that 
time, the Chairman had suggested that further pr oposed changes, if any, be circulated among 
Members for their consideration before being in corporated them into a revised document.  
Accordingly, based on the amendments and comments received, the document had been revised.  This 
revised document had been again circulated to Members on 5 March 2010 for their comments.   
24. The Chairman  informed the meeting that the first proposed amendment related to 
paragraph 12 on page 17 of th e section relating to the Agreement on Agriculture.  The change 
included reference to the fact that some of th e S&D provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture 
related to NFIDCs and as a result 2 footnotes had b een added to Articles 16.1 and 16.2 to indicate this 
fact.  He also reminded Members that Ar ticle 15.2 originally only appeared under "transitional 
time-periods" but since it also related to special treatm ent for LDCs, it was proposed that it also be 
included under the provisions for LDCs.  The ne xt proposed amendments could be found in 
paragraph 22 on page 23 of  the section relating to the "Transparency of Special and Differential 
Treatment"  under the Agreement on the Application of Sa nitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  He 
informed Members that it had been proposed that the word "necessary" be replaced by "warranted".  
In addition, the remaining changes reflected an upd ate by the Secretariat pursuant to the adoption of 
document G/SPS/33/Rev.1 on 18 December 2009.  The fi nal amendment related to the extension of 
the "Waiver for Preferential Tariff Trea tment for Least Developed Countries" .  He added that 
reference to the extension of the waiver was al ready included in the document under the Decision on 
Preferential Tariff Treatment of Least-Developed Countri es.  It had also been proposed that since this 
was a Decision, it should appear sep arately in the Decision section.  As a last point, the Chairman 
informed Members that addition of provisions woul d automatically be reflected in the total numbers 
table found at the beginning of the document. The Ch air noted that Members had had time to consider 
these changes and that the Secretariat had only recei ved one minor suggestion relating to the proposed 
changes sent to Members on the 5 March.  In this minor suggestion, it had been proposed that in 
paragraph 22 on page 23 of th e section relating to the "Transparency of Special and Differential 
Treatment"  under the Agreement on the Application of San itary and Phytosanitary Measures, the date 
of "October 2009" be changed to "December 2009" since it was when the revision of the procedure to enhance transparency was actually adopted.  Having said that, the Chairman asked Members if they 
were ready to finalise the document so that it coul d be circulated as a WTO document.  No Member 
took the floor.  Accordingly, the Chair asked the Secretariat to go ahead and incorporate the proposed 
amendments and circulate the document as an o fficial WTO document.  It was so decided. 
25. At this stage, the Chairman
 invited Cuba to introduce its Communication. TN/CTD/M/39 
Page 6  
 
  26. The representative of Cuba
 introduced a communication entitled "Negotiations on Special and 
Differential Treatment".  The communication highlighted the importance of technology transfer in the context of development priorities and its value as  S&D treatment for developing countries.  The 
representative noted that the WTO was almost celebrating its 15
th anniversary and yet transfer of 
technology commitments in the WTO Agreements had not yet translated into reality for developing 
countries.  Cuba proposed that the Special Session should examine this in the context of the S&D 
Work Programme and see what could be done to redress the situation.  The second section of the 
proposal carried out an assessment of the relevant pr ovisions in the Agreements on Technical Barriers 
to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary M easures (SPS).  Cuba believed that transfer of 
technology was crucial to build capacity and necessary technical infrastructure in developing 
countries to meet TBT and SPS obligations.  The communication provided some specific examples of 
difficulties that developing countries faced.   
27. The Chairman  noted at this stage that since the do cument was not available in the three 
official WTO languages, it was not possible to have a detailed discussion on it.  He proposed a 
detailed consideration of the submission at the next meeting.  It was so agreed. 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
28. Under "Other Business", the Chairman  informed Members that his report to the TNC 
scheduled for 22 March 2010, would be made unde r his own responsibility and that it would be 
factual and follow the structure of his previous reports, highlighting devel opments and progress made 
in the work since the beginning of 2010.  He stated  that he intended to inform the TNC that work in 
the Special Session had focused on the Monitoring Mechanism, on the basis of his non-paper of 3 
November 2009.  Members had demonstrated a cons tructive approach and engaged in meaningful 
discussions.  With the objective of achieving clarity on Members' views on various issues, he had circulated a set of questions.  As a result of th e specific responses these questions had elicited, there 
had been discernible movement on some of the issu es which had been impeding progress.  He noted 
that there was, at that moment, greater cl arity on the legal status of the preamble vis-à-vis  the 
operative parts of the Monitoring Mechanism and that Members seemed to be coming closer to the 
need or otherwise of attaching a list of provisi ons that the Monitoring Mechanism would have the 
"jurisdiction" to review.  He also noted that Me mbers continued to have divergent views on a number 
of issues, including their perception of the ma ndate under which the Monitoring Mechanism was 
being established, as well as the whole "sequencing issue".  He stated that while some progress had been made, it was also clear that further techni cal work was needed before agreement could be 
reached on the different elements of the Monito ring Mechanism.  More importantly, the Chair 
stressed that he needed to inform the TNC of his in tention to keep up the intensity of his consultations 
with Members with the objective of further fine -tuning and building convergence on the different 
elements of the Work Programme.  He added that it was his intention to try and issue a revision of his 
non-paper on the Monitoring Mechanism in the week s that followed and then continue text-based 
discussions on that basis.  He further added that, su bject to Members showing the requisite flexibility, 
he hoped that Members could, in the months that fo llowed, come to a point where they would be as 
close as possible to an adoption of a package of Agreement-specific proposals and the possible 
finalization of the elements of the Monitoring Mechanism.  
29. Before concluding, the Chairman
 thanked Ms. Vonai Muyambo who had very ably served the 
Special Session for the last few years and who had assumed other responsibilities in the house.  On behalf of the Members and himself, the Chairman put on record appreciation for Ms. Muyambo's hard 
work and dedication in providing Secretarial support in carrying on the work of the Special Session of 
the Committee on Trade and Development.   
30. The meeting was adjourned. 
_________