RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/41 
23 September 2010 
 
 (10-4861) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Forty-First Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 20 JULY 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. AGREEMENT –SPECIFIC PROPOSALS .............................................................................................7  
D. MONITORING MECHANISM ...........................................................................................................7  
E. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................7  
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The agenda as contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/3587 of 9 July 2010 was adopted . 
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  
2. As a background to the meeting, the Chairman  noted that at the 40th formal Special Session, 
Members had resumed work on the Agreement-specific proposals as well as on the Monitoring 
Mechanism.  At that meeting, a number of Members had expressed their desire in continuing to work 
on the two issues in an informal setting so as to faci litate a more open and fra nk exchange of views.  
Consequently, in the previous months, work in  the Special Session had taken place in expanded 
smaller-group private consultations. 
3. On the six Agreement-specific proposals, the Ch airman informed Members that he had held 
informal consultations on these proposals on 9 June a nd 5 July 2010, with the objective of building on 
the progress that had been achieved thus far.  Judging from the views expressed by Members during 
these consultations, the Chairman sensed that Memb ers had divergent positions on the status of the 
last language considered on these proposals.  In e xplaining further, the Chairman noted that some 
Members had held the view that the text was based  on the Chairman's own understanding of the status 
of work on those proposals, and that differences were  not restricted only to the bracketed text.  These 
Members had flagged a number of areas, other than the bracketed text, on which they had concerns.  For them, the whole text on these proposals was wo rk in progress and hence open for negotiations.  
These Members had stressed that the Chairman reflect th at fact in his future reports to the TNC.  On 
the other hand, some other Members had felt that the last language considered on these proposals had 
evolved over time, on the basis of various proposal s submitted by Members, and that with further 
demonstration of some flexibility by Members,  the few remaining gaps could be bridged. 
4. The Chairman
 went on to state that he had a different perception on the status of the last 
language considered and that it was without prej udice to the views expressed by Members.  His 
understanding of the status of Members' work on the six Agreement-speci fic proposals was that TN/CTD/M/41 
Page 2  
 
  Members had made significant progress on those proposals.  He had hoped that, on the basis of the 
progress made, they could bridge the remaining gaps by focusing on the bracketed text.  However, he 
also recognized that the WTO wa s a Member-driven Organization, guided by the principle of 
"nothing is agreed unless everything is agreed".  Th is clearly meant that Members had the right to 
introduce new ideas and flag concerns at any stage of the negotiating process.  He, therefore, strongly 
urged Members to review their positions, encour aging them to avoid unravelling the progress 
achieved thus far, unless they really had fundamental  concerns with any elements of the language.  
The Chairman also noted that even though he agreed  that the text on the Agreement-specific proposals 
was put forward by him, it was based on an objective understanding of the situation.  To him, it was a 
matter of concern if Members were to distance themselves from something which had evolved on the 
basis of their own ideas and inputs. 
5. On Proposals 24-25 concerning Article 10.3 of the Agreement on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the Chairman reported that for some Members, the 
concerns raised in the proposal had been ade quately addressed through a Decision of the SPS 
Committee on the Procedure to Enhan ce Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in favour 
of Developing Country Members in November 2009 (G/SPS/33/Rev.1).  He further reported that at 
the meeting of 9 June 2010, at the request of some  Members, he had invited an in-house expert from 
the SPS Committee to provide Members with an objec tive assessment of the relationship between the 
Decision referred to above, and proposals 24-25 on Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement.  While 
informing that that SPS Committee had not received any notification on the usage of Article 10.3 of 
the SPS Agreement, the expert had also noted th at it was his personal assessment that the new 
procedure on transparency related more to Proposal  79 on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement than on 
the proposal in question relating to Article 10.3.  At that meeting, some Members had also flagged 
their concerns with respect to areas other than those in the brackets. 
6. On Proposals 28-30 on Article 3.5 of the Agreement Import Licensing Procedures, the 
Chairman reported to the Members that some Members had questioned continuing work on the 
proposal as it could potentially prejudge the outcome of the agriculture negotiations.  Other Members 
however saw a clear benefit in continuing discussi ons on the proposal in the Committee on Trade and 
Development in the Special Session (Special Session).  In brief, the Chairman informed Members that 
on that proposal, he did no t have anything particul ar to report as progress. 
7. Reporting on the status of work on Proposal 79 on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement, the 
Chairman reminded Members of the views of the in-house expert from the SPS Committee, in 
particular alluding to paragraph 3 of the new Deci sion on the Procedure to Enhance Transparency of 
Special and Differential Treatment in favour of Deve loping Country Members.  The expert's view had 
been that paragraph 3 of the Decision seemed to address the concerns raised in the proposal in 
question.  In that light, some Members had felt that  since the issue seemed to have been addressed, the 
proposal had become redundant and needed to be set  aside.  Other Members had not agreed with that 
view and had stated that paragraph 3 of the Decision adopted by the SPS Committee only reproduced 
the language of the Doha Ministerial Decision on Im plementation-related Issues and Concerns on that 
issue.  For them, the objective of proposal 79 was to  review the language of the Ministerial Decision 
so as to make it more precise, effective and operational whereas the decision by the SPS Committee 
was more related to transparency.  
8. Moving on to the Monitoring Mechanism, the Chairman informed Members that 
consultations had proceeded on the basis of  his revised non-paper of 30 April 2010. 
9. Regarding the Preamble,  he noted that the issue  remained as to whether the mandate 
stemmed from paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration or from paragraph 17 of the Special 
Session's report to the General Council (TN/CTD/3 of  26 July 2002) read with paragraph 251 of the 
minutes of the General Council meeting in July 2002.   The proponents continued to hold the view that  TN/CTD/M/41 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the mandate of the Monitoring Mechanism emanated from paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration and 
that the objective of the Monitori ng Mechanism would be to ensure that Special and Differential 
Treatment (S&D) provisions were made precise, eff ective and operational.  On the other hand, some 
other Members believed that the mandate containe d in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration only related to the work on Agreement- specific proposals.  For them, the mandate for the 
Monitoring Mechanism stemmed from paragraph 17 of the Special Session's report to the General 
Council (TN/CTD/3 of 26 July 2002) read with pa ragraph 251 of the Minutes of the General Council 
meeting in July 2002.  Clearly, their main con cern remained that the proposed Mechanism did not 
become a permanent negotiating forum even after th e conclusion of the current  round of negotiations.  
For those Members, the Monitoring Mechanism w ould only serve as a forum to raise S&D-related 
concerns, share information on implementation of S&D provisions and hence mainly be a 
transparency exercise.  Accordingl y, in the Chairman's view the discussions on the issue of mandate 
remained polarised with no common understanding on the issue being seemingly foreseeable for the 
moment. 
10. On the Scope,  the Chairman informed Members that ther e was still an issue as to whether the 
Mechanism should monitor only S&D provisions and issues in the WTO Agreements, or in addition 
to the forgoing also include the S&D provisions  in General Council Decisions and Ministerial 
Declarations.  Views continued to be expressed on whether the mechanism should keep under review 
any work being done on the Agreement-specific proposals in other WTO bodies, including work 
being done in accordance with  paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
11. On Structure , the main area of contention remained the sequencing issue.  For some 
Members, the centrality of the Monitoring Mechan ism was of primary importance and hence they 
continued to prefer that the first forum for revi ew of S&D provisions be the Committee on Trade and 
Development in Dedicated Session (CTD-DS).  Other Members continued to see greater merit in initiating any such review in the relevant WTO bodies,  which in their view, we re better equipped with 
the requisite technical expertise.  The Chairman's  revised non-paper had atte mpted to bring together 
elements of both options by propos ing that the review could begin in  the CTD-DS while also allowing 
Members to make, at the same ti me, submissions to other WTO bodies.  The revised non-paper also 
suggested the possibility of referral of any releva nt issue to other WTO bodies for providing technical 
input.  Nonetheless, Members' positions remained divergent on the issue. 
12. On Functions , discussions had progressed on the role of the Monitoring Mechanism to 
collect, analyze and review all relevant informati on related to the implemen tation of S&D provisions.  
In the Chairman's assessment, this  was one area where an enhanced  degree of convergence existed. 
13. In the ensuing discussion, Members appreciated the Chairman's assessment of the state of 
play in both areas of work that the Special Se ssion was undertaking and expressed their support for 
the process comprising of informal private open-e nded consultations supplem ented by the formal 
Special Session meetings. 
14. The representative of India
 stated that a lack of convergence on the mandate of the 
Monitoring Mechanism had inhibited progress in substantive discussions on all elements of the 
Mechanism.  Underscoring India's views, he stated  that the mandate for th e Monitoring Mechanism 
emanated from paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministeria l Declaration and that the earlier the divergences 
on the mandate were resolved, the better would it  be for the Special Session to make concrete 
progress in its work.  On Agreement-specific proposals, he was under the impression that barring a 
few brackets, the last text considered on the six Agreement-specific proposals had been fairly 
stabilized.  In the past, the Chairman's periodic re ports to the TNC had reflected that position and on 
no occasion had any Member expressed any view to the contrary.  In highlighting the centrality of the 
Monitoring Mechanism and the Ag reement-specific proposals in the development dimension of the 
Doha Development Round, he further cautioned that  any attempts at unravelling the text on the TN/CTD/M/41 
Page 4  
 
  Agreement-specific proposals would only distance Me mbers from finding solutions in tune with the 
development mandate of the Doha Round. 
15. The representative of Pakistan
 found that although the Chairman's report on the status of work 
undertaken was realistic yet it was less than encouraging.  Alludi ng to the work on Monitoring 
Mechanism, he stressed that Memb ers needed to recognize the centrality of the development focus of 
the Doha Round.  Despite that development focus, he  went on to say that it had been disappointing to 
note that the Special Session had been register ing the least progress in comparison to all other 
negotiating areas.  In explaining the rationale behind establishing the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) in the 1960's, he argued that although there were Agreement-specific specialized 
bodies in the WTO which normally dealt with legal and technical issues, th e CTD was envisaged as a 
forum where Members could raise specific developm ent concerns related to those Agreements.  
Therefore, clearly, there was a value-addition in se tting up the CTD.  He also noted that the Special 
Session had been established to discuss specific development issues in light of the broader 
development agenda agreed by the Ministers at Doha.  On the status of the last text considered on the 
six Agreement-specific proposals, he stated that the text had evolved as a result of months of intense 
and inclusive process in which Members had expressed a number of views and ideas.  In his view, the 
text on those proposals was a realistic and objective reflection of the state of play.  Therefore, he found it difficult to understand that at that late  stage some Members would choose to distance 
themselves from the text on those proposals.  He  cautioned that unless such tendency was reigned in, 
it could permeate in all other negotiating areas in the Doha Round, which would be tantamount to 
stifling the DDA. 
16. The representative of El Salvador
 expressed appreciation for the Chairman's report and 
thanked him for inviting his delegation to the Sp ecial Session consultations.  He asked if the 
Chairman could consider circulating his report on the work done so far to the Membership in order for 
them to better analyse the situation. 
17. While underscoring the importance of the S&D Work Programme in the Doha Round, the 
representative of China  noted that two thirds of the WTO Membership comprised of developing 
countries which played an increasingly important and active role in the WTO processes.  He stated 
that Part IV of the GATT 1994 and S&D provisions  in various WTO Agreements, providing extra 
time and technical assistance to developing countrie s in fulfilling their obligations, increasing their 
trading opportunities through greater market ac cess disciplines, provided a solid foundation for 
developing countries in their efforts to achieve thei r development goals.  Howe ver, it was al so a fact 
that there were a number of imperfections in the S&D provisions in the existing Agreements and that 
was exactly the reason why the Ministers at Doha  had agreed to set up the S&D Work Programme 
with a view to making those provisions precise, ef fective and operational.  The Doha Declaration 
recognized the development issues as an essential element of the outcome of the Round.  Although overall negotiations in the Round ha d not been smooth, China and other developing countries still 
firmly believed that the development dimension rema ined the core and integral part of the Doha 
Round.  He stressed that a satisfactory solution to the concerns raised by the developing countries in 
the S&D Work Programme would boost the chances for a successful conclusion of the Round.  There 
was no denying the fact that some progress has been  made in the work on th e Monitoring Mechanism 
as well as on the Agreement-specific proposals.  However,  it was also true that the work in the Special 
Session had lagged behind other areas of  negotiations in the Round.  Memb ers needed to take that fact 
into account while discussing the way forward.  Un ravelling the progress achieved thus far on the six 
Agreement-specific proposals would only impair th e negotiators' confidence and slow down the pace 
of negotiations.  He stressed the need for politi cal will and constructive engagement to facilitate 
progress with a view to fulfilling the Ministerial Mandate. 
18. The representative of Argentina 
called upon Members to demonstrate flexibility owing to the 
systemic importance of S&D in the DDA.  TN/CTD/M/41 
 Page 5 
 
 
  19. Speaking on behalf of ASEAN Group, the representative of the Philippines  noted that 
ASEAN members wanted the S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements to be precise, effective and 
operational so as to deliver on the development promise.  The ASEAN Group was always under the 
impression, during the past few months, that c onvergence on the six Agreement specific-proposals 
had been achieved.  Their understanding on that issue also stemmed from the contents of the 
Chairman's periodic reports to the TNC in the past  months.  She, then, cautioned that any expression 
of reservations on the last language considered at that late stage could unravel the delicate balance 
Members were trying to achieve. 
20. The representative of Brazil  supported India, Pakistan, China and Argentina among others 
and emphasized the centrality of the development di mension in the DDA, as well as the importance of 
S&D in that regard.  On the M onitoring Mechanism, he stressed that the mandate stemmed from 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  We lcoming the resumption of work on the six 
Agreement-specific proposals, he further noted that a little bit of flexibility on the part of Members 
could help bridge the remaining gaps. 
21. The representative of Nigeria  stated that the mandate fo r the Monitoring Mechanism 
emanated from paragraph 44 of the Doha Declar ation and hence the objectives of the Mechanism 
would include, among others, making the S&D provi sions precise, effective and operational.  
Expressing disappointment at the slow pace of progress in the work of the Special Session, he called 
upon all Members, in particular the developed on es, to demonstrate nec essary political will as it 
would send a positive signal to the Doha negotiations as whole. 
22. The representative of Hong Kong, China  also flagged his concern with the slow progress of 
work on the Agreement-specific proposals and stated that the current progress was hardly 
commensurate with the efforts put in by th e Chairman and Members in the smaller-group 
consultations. 
23. Referring to the Agreement–specific pr oposals, the representative of the EU  expressed doubts 
about the accuracy of what was being portrayed by so me Members as the state of play in negotiations.  
She noted that on proposal 79, dealing with Artic le 10.2 of the SPS Agreement, the EU had made 
textual suggestions in the past that had not been captured in the last language considered and yet the 
current text had no brackets.  Her delegation sou ght clarification from the Chairman on whether the 
absence of brackets meant that the text was stab ilized, a position her delega tion obviously differed 
with.  In addition, she made reference to the Decision on Procedure to Enhance Transparency of 
Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing Countries adopted by the SPS Committee 
in December 2009, and stressed that the Decision to ok care of India's proposal.  Her delegation did 
not agree with the views that had been voiced by some Members that the EU were making last-minute 
reservations on the Agreement-specific proposals.  On the contrary, she stated that the EU 
continuously flagged those concerns since the beginning of work on those proposals, including in areas that went beyond the brackets.  Therefore, it w ould be incorrect to stat e that the EU and some 
other Members were attempting to unravel the progress made.  In her view, the Agreement-specific 
proposals had been set aside in 2008 not because th e text on those proposals were seen as stabilized, 
but rather to give priority to the work on the Monitoring Mechanism, which at the time, Members 
viewed as necessary.  She went on to express her delegation's satisfaction on the progress thus far 
achieved both on the Agreement-specific proposals as well as the Monitoring Mechanism.  In that 
context, she recognized that the Chairman's non-pa per of 30 April 2010 was an attempt to bridge the 
differences.  However, it was also a fact that the non-paper did not have any brackets.  She inquired 
whether the absence of any brackets in the non-pape r meant that it was an agreed text.  Obviously 
Members continued to have fundamental differe nces and hence it was only a work in progress. TN/CTD/M/41 
Page 6  
 
  24. The representative of Costa Rica
 said that he was not of the view of some of the previous 
speakers who had expressed disappointment on lack of  progress in the work of the Special Session, 
and noted that progress had, in fact, been made by  Members in agreeing, in principle, on 28 proposals 
in Cancún as well as the adopting of five LDC-specifi c proposals by Ministers in Hong Kong, China.  
In adding his voice to the views expressed by the EU, he pointed to the complex nature of the 
proposals that were currently being dealt with.  In  his view, the focus of the Special Session during 
2009 on the Monitoring Mechanis m was not because the six Agreement-specific proposals had been 
settled but it was mainly due to the fact that  Members considered it necessary to take up the 
mechanism.  On the last language considered on th e Agreement-specific proposals, he stressed that it 
was at best the Chairman's text and hence a work in progress which did not preclude the possibility of 
introducing new ideas.  For Costa Rica, the whole of  the text on those proposals was in brackets.  On 
the Monitoring Mechanism, he stated that the mandate stemmed from paragraph 251 of the Minutes 
of the General Council meeting in July 2002. 
25. Sharing the views expressed by the EU and Costa Rica, the representative of New Zealand  
expressed her concern to the fact that some of the concerns raised by her delegation pertaining to the 
Agreement-specific proposals had not been adequately  reflected in the Chairman's text.  For her 
delegation, the entire text on those proposals rema ined work in progress.  She hoped that flexibility 
and constructive engagement in the coming months could help narrow the remaining gaps.  On the 
Monitoring Mechanism, she noted that in th e absence of a common understanding on the mandate, 
progress would remain hampered. 
26. The representative of the United States  emphasized that her delegation was not raising any 
last-minute reservations on the last language cons idered on the six Agreement-specific proposals, as 
the same concerns had been raised repeatedly in the smaller-group meeti ngs which had not found 
reflection in the Chairman's text.  It was her understanding that discussions  would continue on all 
parts of the text on those proposals. 
27. The representative of Canada  stated that the last language considered on the 
Agreement-specific proposals was based on the Chairman's own understanding, without prejudice to 
any individual Member's positions, and hence was not  an agreed text.  He suggested that in the 
Chairman's future reports to the TNC, this fact be clarified.  He went on to say that Canada reserved 
its right to make further suggestions to the text  on the Agreement-specifi c proposals, including on 
areas that were currently shown as falling outside the brackets. 
28. In responding to the remarks made by the EU on proposal 79 by India on Article 10.2 of the 
SPS Agreement, the representative of India  stated that the text as it currently stood was a proposal by 
India and not the Chairman's text.  That explaine d why the brackets containing textual suggestions 
made by several delegations had not been incorporated  there.  He also clarified that in the course of 
various consultations, the textual suggestions coming from different Members had been considered by 
India.  Furthermore, on the Decision adopted by the SPS Committee and its relation to the proposal by 
India, he stressed that the Decision in G/SPS/33/Re v.1 focussed on transparency.  On the other hand, 
the work in the Special Session w as primarily based on the mandate contained in paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration i.e. to make S&D pr ovisions more precise, effective and operational.  
Obviously, it went beyond transparency.  In view of this, he stressed the n eed for the Special Session 
to continue its work on the proposal by India. 
29. Wrapping up the discussion, the Chairman  stated that he would continue consultations on 
both the Agreement-specific proposals and the Moni toring Mechanism in the coming months with a 
view to making progress.  On the Agreement-specific proposals, he stressed that he did not intend to 
issue any revised text and urged Members to be pragmatic and make efforts that could help to 
capitalize on the progress made.  TN/CTD/M/41 
 Page 7 
 
 
  30. The Special Session took note of the statements made. 
C. AGREEMENT –SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
31. The Chairman  asked Members if they wished to share any thoughts or inputs that could 
facilitate meaningful progress on the Agreemen t-specific proposals, including on the remaining 
Agreement-specific proposals which had been placed on the agenda of the meeting at the request of 
some Members.  He also reminded Members that al though he had been encouraging them to put forth 
new ideas and language on those proposals that coul d help make progress, he had received none.  In 
the absence of fresh inputs from Members, it was unlikely that Members would make any headway on those proposals. 
32. As no Member wished to take the floor, the Chai rman stated that for the time-being, he would 
continue to set aside the remaining Agreement-spec ific proposals and would only revert to them when 
Members were in a position to table new ideas. 
33. On the Category II proposals, the Chairman in formed Members that he had recently been in 
touch with the Secretaries of the relevant bodies with  a view to obtaining feedback on the status of 
work on those proposals.  On the basis of the info rmation received from those bodies, he reported that 
only limited progress had been made on those proposals,  mainly because the issues raised in many of 
the proposals formed an integral part of the ongoing negotiations in the respective bodies.  He 
indicated that he planned to continue to liaise cl osely with the Chairs and the Secretaries of these 
bodies to discuss the best ways of expediting prog ress, also on those proposals whose substance was 
not being addressed as part of ongoing negotiations. 
34. No Member took the floor. 
D. 
MONITORING MECHANISM  
35. The Chairman  asked Members if they wished to share any ideas or thoughts that could 
facilitate progress in fine-tuning the elements of the Mechanism based on Revision 3 of his non-paper 
of 30 April 2010.   
36. No Member took the floor. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
37. Since no matter was raised under ''Other Business'', the Chairman  informed Members that he 
would soon communicate the date and agenda for the next meeting. 
38. The meeting was adjourned. 
__________