RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/27 
18 May 2007 
 
 (07-2026) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Twenty-Seventh Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 19 MARCH 2007 
Chairman:  Ambassador Burhan Gafoor (Singapore) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ..............................................................................................1  
C. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................5  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contai ned in airgram WTO/AIR/2974 of 6 March 2007 
was adopted . 
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
2. The Chairman  began by recalling the three elements of the Special Session's mandate, namely 
to (i) complete the review of all the outsta nding Agreement-specific proposals and make clear 
recommendations for a decision;  (ii) coordinate  its efforts with other WTO bodies and negotiating 
groups so as to ensure that the work on the Categor y II proposals was completed;  and (iii) resume its 
work on all other outstanding issues, including on the cross-cutting issues and report on a regular basis to the General Council.  He said that at the informal open-ended meeting held on 
15 February 2007, he had mentioned the need fo r Members to continue discussions on the two 
submissions tabled by the LDCs on the duty-free quota-free (DFQF) market access decision.  That was a discussion that usually took place under the ag enda item on the Agreement-specific proposals.  
At that meeting, he had also informed Member s on how he intended to proceed in the following 
months.  He recalled that there were 16 rema ining Agreement-specific proposals; eight under 
Category I and eight under Category III.  Members had engaged in de tailed text-based discussions on 
the eight Category I proposals.  As a result of work  carried out over the past year, Members had been 
able to come up with revised language on six of the Category I proposals, namely on proposal 
no. 13 relating to GATT Article XV III, two proposals nos. 24 and 25 relating to Article 10.3 of the 
SPS Agreement and three proposals nos. 28, 29 and 30 relating to Article 3.5 of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing.  He said that at the informal open-ended meeting, Members had agreed that the 
Chairman undertake informal small-group consultations  so as to have more focussed discussions on 
the Agreement-specific proposals, which he had accordingly done. 
3. The Chairman
 went on to inform Members of the deve lopments in the informal consultations 
he had held on the Agreement-specific proposals.  Members had had in-depth, text-based discussions 
on the six Category I proposals and on one Category III proposal, proposal no. 79 relating to the SPS TN/CTD/M/27 
Page 2  
 
  Agreement.  On proposal no. 13 relating to Artic le XVIII of GATT, discussions had continued on the 
basis of the revised language of 6 March 2006.  Wh ile Members were not able to further revise the 
language, the discussions had led to several new ide as being put forward.  Those ideas had been put 
together by the Chair in a "catalogue of ideas" whic h was made available to Members.  He said that 
the language in the brackets represented the ideas th at had emerged during the consultations, while the 
language not contained in brackets represented the revised language of 6 Ma rch 2006 which Members 
had earlier endorsed as the basis for carrying out furthe r work.  Members also had before them a room 
document dated 19 March 2007 which wa s a compilation of the previously revised language on six of 
the proposals.  That language would enable Members to keep track of the discussions as they evolved.  
He said that during the consultations, discussions  on proposals nos. 24 and 25 relating to the SPS 
Agreement were based on the revised language of 31  May 2006.  That language  had not been further 
revised.  On proposals nos. 28, 29 and 30 rela ting to Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing, discussions had continued on the basis of  the revised language of 6 March 2006.  Again, 
Members were unable to further revise the language  and there were one or two issues which still 
needed resolving.  During the consultations, Member s had also considered proposal no. 79 tabled by 
India on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  He reca lled that he had decided to take up that proposal 
along with proposals nos. 24 and 25 on the SPS Agreemen t because it had seemed that with a bit more 
work, Members could reach convergence.  Duri ng earlier discussions on that proposal, he had 
proposed that the delegation of India provide Me mbers with some decision-type language, on the 
basis of which Members could work.  During the small group consultations, Members had engaged in 
discussions on the basis of some language provided or ally by India.  Unlike the other six proposals, 
Members had not got into text-based discussion on that proposal.  However, he was willing to 
continue considering that proposal along with the other SPS proposals.   
4. The Chairman went on to say that the work of the Special Session over the last year had 
enabled Members to come up with revised langua ge on six of the remaining Agreement-specific 
proposals.  The revised language on those proposals did not mean that all the issues had been 
resolved.  It provided a basis for an eventual p ackage and represented a first approximation of what 
was possible.  It was his sense that the small group meetings had enabled Members to get a better 
sense of what was possible and what was not possibl e.  On the nine remaining proposals, eight of 
which belonged to Category III and one which belong ed to Category I, his candid assessment was that 
it would be difficult to build convergence based on th e language currently on the table.  If Members 
were to build convergence on those nine proposals,  the stakeholders needed to put forward new 
language or new ideas.  Without that new language or those new ideas, it would not be worthwhile to 
spend time on those proposals.  Members had al ready had a first reading of these proposals in 
July 2006 and discussions had also taken place in a small group context.  Engaging in  another round 
of general discussions on those proposals would not be useful.  This was not meant to be a judgement about the merit of the proposals;  it was more from a process point of view in terms of ensuring that 
Members utilized the time available in the best pos sible way.  He said that his intention at this 
meeting was to consider the six proposals in an ope n-ended setting.  After that, he would devote some 
time to proposal no. 79 on the SPS Agreement.  As he had mentioned earlier, he did not intend to take 
up the remaining nine proposals at this meeting;  in fact, his intention was to set them aside until 
Members put forward new ideas or new language.   
5. The representative of China
 recalled that at the small group meeting the Chairman had 
encouraged Members, especially those which had strong concerns on the proposals, to reach out to 
each other and consult among one another to find solu tions to all the proposals.  That was something 
that the wider Membership needed to keep in mind. 
6. The Chairman  concurred with the representative of China and said that it was important that 
delegations talk with one anothe r and find the areas of convergence in order to get a sense of what 
was doable.  He was pleased that some delega tions were already consulting amongst themselves on 
some of the proposals.  TN/CTD/M/27 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7. The meeting continued in an informal mode.   
8. During discussions on Article XVIII, which were based on the "catalogue of ideas", most 
Members signalled their willingness to proceed on the b asis of three of the paragraphs.  In their view, 
the paragraph relating to developing and least-d eveloped country Members not being expected to 
undertake measures that undermined the attainment of  the goals of Article XVIII was too open-ended.  
The paragraph relating to Members undertaking to elaborate a multilateral framework on the 
provisions of the Article XVIII was also considered unclear.  One Member alluded to the fact that 
there were fundamental differences between the bala nce of rights and obligations under Article XVIII.  
Some developed country Members questioned the inte nt of the proposal.  In response, the proponents 
stated that the proposal specifically attempted to  help them achieve their developmental goals, 
something that was at the heart of the Doha Round of negotiations.  Another Member pointed out that 
Article XVIII was a development-related provision who se procedures needed to be simplified in order 
for it to serve its purpose.  On proposals nos. 28 to 30 on Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing, most Members were willing to continue to work on the basis of th e language on the table, 
even though they had some concerns.  In partic ular, reference was made to the need to ensure 
practicality in the distribution of licenses, especia lly the allocation of new licenses.  On proposals 
nos. 24 to 25 on Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement, the proponents stated that they had certain reservations on the Chairman's revised text.  On proposal no. 79 on Ar ticle 10.2 of the SPS 
Agreement, it was pointed out that SPS measures were  rarely phased and where they were, there was 
a link between the phase in period and the scientific justification on which the measure was based.  This therefore made it difficult to accept longer tim e-periods for developing countries or to phase in 
new measures.  To the extent that it was possible to allow longer time-frames for compliance, they 
could be considered on a case-by-case basis.  Anot her way to respond could be through the provision 
of technical assistance, for example, through the Standards Development Trade Facility (SDTF).  In 
response, the proponents stated that the mere f act that SPS measures were rarely phased in 
demonstrated the need to look at the operationabili ty of this provision and the resultant practical 
problems which warranted the need for gr eater clarity of the provision.   
9. The meeting then reverted to a formal mode. 
10. On behalf of the LDCs, the representative of Uganda
 asked whether the DFQF market access 
issue would be discussed at the next formal meeting and how exactly Members would proceed on the issue.  He also asked whether the developed count ry Members were willing to take further issues 
related to the DFQF market access decision at  the next meeting of the Special Session. 
11. The representative of Zambia
 echoed the questions raised by the representative of Uganda and 
said that it was important for the LDCs to know  when the DFQF market  access issue would be 
discussed so as to enable them  to prepare themselves.   
12. The Chairman  recalled that at the last formal meeting, Members had had before them the two 
submissions tabled by the LDCs, one on rules of orig in and the other on market access.  He said that 
he was prepared to devote time to continuing the discussions on those submissions and would look to 
the LDCs to provide any updates on consultations unde rtaken by them with the other stakeholders.  
He also said that the DFQF market access issue was not one that involved drafting, but rather one that 
was related to the implementation of a decision adop ted by Ministers at Hong Kong.  In his view, it 
was important that the key stakeholders remain in  contact with one another to see how to take the 
question of implementation forward.   
13. The representative of the United States  announced that there had be en a technical error in the 
e-mail address that had been announced in the US  notice requesting comments from the public on the 
US implementation of the DFQF market access deci sion.  The error had not been realised until 
14 March and unfortunately any submissions that had been sent prior to 14 March 2007 had not been TN/CTD/M/27 
Page 4  
 
  received.  The deadline had therefore been exte nded to 15 April 2007 and her delegation would be 
publishing an additional Federal Register notice a nnouncing that.  Her delegation would also be 
making another submission to the CTD Regular Session with respect to this particular implementation 
issue.   
14. The representative of Zambia
 said that the LDCs had responded to the communication issued 
by the US authorities but unfortunately it had been caught up on the error that the US had just 
announced. 
15. The representative of Switzerland  said that her delegation would shortly provide information 
on the process that the Swiss Government was unde rtaking to implement the DFQF market access 
decision.  She added that her delegation had always  been open to discussing the implementation of the 
decision in whichever forum the proponents felt most appropriate.   
16. The representative of Egypt  said that his delegation strongly supported the cause of the LDCs.  
His understanding of the LDCs concerns was that th ey wished to know beforehand the format and the 
manner in which the discussions on the DFQF w ould be undertaken.  Considering the many 
discussions that had taken place on the issue, there was clearly some concern that the meetings may 
not result in a fruitful outcome.  He suggested th at preliminary discussions be held between the 
stakeholders in order to structure future  discussions in a more focused way.   
17. The Chairman  said that the DFQF market access issue would be taken up at the next meeting 
of the Special Session scheduled for 26 April 2007.  He recalled that when the LDC submissions had 
been last considered, it was the sense that Members should continue discussions on those 
submissions.  It had also been suggested that questions and clarifications sought on the two 
submissions should be provided to the LDCs in writi ng.  His sense was that if Members were going to 
engage in discussions that were different to those that had already taken place, it was important that 
they provide the comments and clarifications on th e two submissions in writing.  That would avoid 
repetitive discussions.  As the Chair, he was happy  to facilitate consulta tions among the various 
stakeholders so as to have a better sense of how to structure the discussions in the April meeting.  He 
suggested that all Members which had a stak e in the issue undertake their own small group 
discussions.  How Members progressed on that i ssue would ultimately depend on whether the 
stakeholders could build convergence among one another.  
18. The Chairman went on to inform Members of th e informal discussions he had held during the 
previous week with a number of Members to discuss ideas on the Monitoring Mechanism.  The 
intention of the discussions had been to get a be tter idea of where Members were on the Monitoring 
Mechanism and what they had in mind with respect to its possible structure and functions.  To focus 
the discussions, he had put a number of questions to Members, including, what the structure of the Monitoring Mechanism should be;  what exactly the Monitoring Mechanism would do;  and what 
relationship the Monitoring Mechanism would have with other existing monitoring entities.  He said 
that the questions, which had been made available to  all the Members, were not meant to prejudge the 
outcome or Members positions, but were simply aime d at focusing the discussions on the Monitoring 
Mechanism.  He hoped to hear Members' responses to the questions at the upcoming formal meeting 
of the Special Session scheduled in April.  In the meantime, he was available to meet with any 
delegation that wished to discuss the issue.  He sa id that in the lead up to the April meeting, he 
planned to hold a series of informal meetings to  continue work on the Agreement-specific proposals 
and on the Monitoring Mechanism.   
19. The representative of Uganda
 said that the African Group submission on the Monitoring 
Mechanism detailed what could constitute possibl e elements of a Monitoring Mechanism.  His 
delegation believed that that submission could be a basis for discussions on the Monitoring 
Mechanism.  He urged Members to consider the A frican Group's submission so that when they next  TN/CTD/M/27 
 Page 5 
 
 
  met, they would have a better idea of what the African Group envisaged on the Monitoring 
Mechanism.   
20. The representative of Hong Kong, China  asked whether the Chairman could share any 
observations from the discussions that had taken place on the Monitoring Mechanism.   
21. The Chairman  said that the discussions had been very preliminary.  Members felt that the 
questions of structure and scope were  interrelate d, because the structure would depend on the scope 
and vice versa.  The structure was also related to the relationship with other entities.  He said that 
while the questions had attempted to dissect the is sue, it was important to bear in mind that the 
different elements were interrela ted.  However, the questions had been thought to be useful and 
Members had expressed their willingness to continue  working on the Monitoring Mechanism.   
22. The representative of the Egypt  added that the structure and the scope while interrelated, were 
both related to the achievement that Members w ould make on the Agreement-specific proposals.   
23. The Chairman  concluded by making some general remarks.  He said that the work of the 
Special Session was related to the larger process.  It  was therefore important for the Special Session to 
continue to work intensively so that once ther e was movement across the board on other issues and 
the Doha process entered its concluding phase, the Sp ecial Session too would be prepared.  This was 
the reason why he was pushing Members to go as far as  they could, because it was important to begin 
considering the possible package on S&D.  He l ooked forward to the continued and constructive 
participation of all Members in the upcoming discussi ons.  He said that the next formal meeting was 
scheduled for 26 April 2007.  As for the informal consultations, Members would be informed well in 
advance. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
24. No issue was raised under Other Business.  Before concluding the meeting, the Chairman  
thanked the outgoing Director of the Developmen t Division, Mr. Alberto Campeas, for his work and 
dedication, and for  providing leadership in the work of the Development Division.   
25. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________