WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
TN/CTD/M/44 
17 June 2011  
 
(11-3027) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Forty-Fourth Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 22 MARCH 2011 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
  
A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ......................................................................................................... 1  
B.  REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  ........................................... 1  
C.  OTHER BUSINESS  ......................................................................................................................... 6  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairman proposed a minute's silence for the victims of the earthquake and tsunami in 
Japan.  The agenda, as contained in Airgra m WTO/AIR/3717 of 10 March 2011, was adopted. 
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  
2. In accordance with the WTO principles of in clusiveness and transpar ency, the Chairman 
reported to the Membership on his informal consu ltations undertaken in small groups since the last 
formal session held on 13 January 2011.  He in formed Members that during this period, five 
small-group informal meetings had been held on 21 January, 3 February, 17 February, 3 March and 
16 March.  In addition, plurilateral meetings in variable geometry had also been held with interested 
Members.  The Chairman further noted that in spite of the busy schedule at this time in the 
negotiations, representatives of developed countries,  especially the US, EU, Canada, Australia and 
New Zealand, those of developing countries like In dia, Egypt, China and Pakistan, as well as the 
coordinators of the African Group (Kenya), the ACP Group (Mauritius) and the LDC Group (Bangladesh), had all actively participated in the informal consultations.  The constructive 
participation of a cross-section of the Membership in these deliberations had reflected the importance 
being attached to the mandate of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
(Special Session).  Members were aware that development would remain the centrepiece of the Doha 
Round.  In the five small-group informal meetings , consultations had been held on the Monitoring 
Mechanism based on Revision 4 (hereinafter referre d to as Rev.4) of the Chairman's non-paper of 
16 December 2010.  Consultations were also held  on the six Agreement-specific proposals based on 
the last language considered on 19 May 2010.   
3. Regarding the Monitoring Mechanism, the Chai rman informed Members that Rev.4 of the 
Chairman's non-paper had captured informal inputs provided by the Ambassadors' small-group deliberations as "Guiding Principles", as well as those of the Chairman's previous consultations with 
the Membership before and after receipt of input  from the Ambassadors.  Although certain Members 
held the view that the "Guiding Principles" were  neither complete, nor comprehensive or legally 
binding, all Members agreed that they addressed  systemic issues and provided a good basis for 
forward movement.  He further recalled that during the first two informal meetings held on 21 January 
and 7 February 2011, Members had had a line-by -line discussion of the text of Rev.4 of the TN/CTD/M/44 
Page 2  
 
  Chairman's non-paper.  These discussions had been held in a positive and constructive manner.  A 
number of technical proposals had also been ta bled and discussed.  There had been a general 
agreement that the text of Rev.4 of the Chairman 's non-paper required re-arra ngement with a view to 
placing textual formulations under mo re relevant headings so as to facilitate structured discussion and 
convergence.  Based on guidance provided by the Me mbership, he had subsequently circulated an 
Addendum to Rev.4 of the Chairm an's non-paper of 16 December 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 
Rev.4/Add.1) at the informal m eeting of 17 February 2011.  Text ual formulations had been placed 
under the headings of Preamble, Scope, Functions /Terms of Reference and Reappraisal of the 
Mechanism.  The objective of this exercise had been to facilitate discussion on the Monitoring 
Mechanism, and in the meetings that followed , consultations were based on Rev.4/Add.1.   
4. The Chairman further noted that Members were making progress and seemed to have broader 
convergence on the concepts enshrined in different elements of the Mechanism.  Although there was 
no difference of opinion on the scope of the Mech anism, i.e. that the Mechanism would apply not 
only to special and differential treatment (S&D) pr ovisions contained in multilaterally agreed WTO 
Agreements, but also to those contained in Mini sterial and General Council Decisions, the African 
Group had proposed to add the 28 Agreement-specific proposals agreed to, in-principle, at the Cancún 
Ministerial to the scope of the Monitoring Mechanis m.  In that context, the African Group was yet to 
make a textual proposal that would then be consid ered by Members in small-group meetings.  The 
Chairman recalled that some Members had requested that the current status of the afore-mentioned 
28 Agreement-specific proposals be ascertained from the Legal Affairs Division of the WTO Secretariat for clarity.  He noted that the 28 Agr eement-specific proposals, which had been agreed to, 
in principle, at Cancún, had yet to be formally adopt ed.  However, the fact re mained that there was an 
informal consensus on those proposals.  The Chairman further recalled that it had been agreed that the 
Monitoring Mechanism would act as a focal point  within the WTO to analyse and review the 
implementation of S&D provisions.  There was also  a consensus that the Monitoring Mechanism 
would not be a negotiating body per se .  However, it would be empowered to make recommendations 
or proposals for initiating negotiations in other WTO bodies.  Members had also agreed that the 
Monitoring Mechanism would operate in dedicated sessions of the CTD (CTD DS).  He stressed that 
he was sharing these elements of possible consensus for purposes of illustration only.  
5. On the elements of the Mechanism which requi red further deliberations, the Chairman noted 
that Members were continuing to discuss the natu re of the relationship between the Monitoring 
Mechanism and other technical bodies of the WTO.  Members differed in their perception on whether 
the issues relating to S&D should first be raised in technical Committees/Counc ils before they could 
be taken up by the Monitoring Mechanism or whethe r they first needed to be discussed in the 
Monitoring Mechanism.  The issue had been deba ted at length and, in his view, convergence would 
require more work based on textual proposals that were  yet to be tabled by Members.  In addition, the 
Chairman noted that some Members had also desi red legal clarity on the concept contained under 
Functions/Terms of Reference that the Monitoring Mechanism "shall not prejudge the legal nature of 
the S&D provisions under consideration nor affect  Members' rights and obligations under the WTO 
Agreements".  He had, therefore, approached th e Legal Affairs Division and would inform Members 
of the outcomes of his consultations at forthcoming meetings. 
6. The Chairman also noted that the African Group had made a textual proposal, as a room 
document at the informal consultations on 3 Ma rch 2011, for the Preamble to the Monitoring 
Mechanism.  Members had indicated, at that meetin g, that they wished to seek guidance from their 
respective capitals before the langua ge could be discussed.  He said that the African Group proposal 
would be deliberated upon in the small-group consultations.  In the Chairman's view, since the last 
formal session, considerable movement had been  witnessed on Rev.4/Add.1 of the Chairman's non-
paper.  As such, there was need for more hard work in order to accomplish the task.   TN/CTD/M/44 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7.  Continuing with the briefing on the work undertaken in the Special Session on the 
Agreement-specific proposals, the Chairman info rmed Members that the six Agreement-specific 
proposals had been considered in the meeting of 17 February 2011.  The basis of the discussion had 
been the last language considered at the informal  consultations held on 19 May 2010 and that the 
objective had been to narrow down the gaps in  Members' positions.  While discussion on the 
Agreement-specific proposals had generally been welcomed, some Members had expressed the view 
that the text of 19 May 2010 fell short of accura tely reflecting the previous discussion on these 
proposals.  For these Members, the areas of diverg ence extended beyond the bracketed text and more 
work was required to develop convergence, including on  other parts of the text that were not kept 
under brackets.  Those Members had requested the Chairm an to reflect their view in any future reports 
to the TNC and other bodies of the WTO.  Some ot her Members, however, had felt that the draft text 
of 19 May 2010 was a fair reflection of progress ach ieved in deliberations on those proposals in 
long-drawn process of consultations up to 2010.  The understanding of those Members was that the 
text, with the exception of a few brackets, was fair ly stabilized.  Re-opening the entire formulations 
would, in their view, send a negative signal to  the overall negotiations.  Notwithstanding those 
differences, Members had engaged positively in the discussion and had reflected a commitment to 
move forward.  Regrettably, it had not been po ssible, thus far, to narrow down divergences.   
8. Regarding proposal 79 relating to Article 10.2 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(SPS) Agreement, the Chairman informed Memb ers that no discussion had taken place on this 
proposal, due to paucity of time.   
9. In general, while it could be said that Me mbers had seen some convergence and progress, 
they still had a long way to go.  He also remi nded Members that the TNC and General Council had 
agreed to a work plan whereby all chairs of nego tiating groups would provide texts in their respective 
areas of the DDA by Easter.  Therefore, he encour aged Members to have informal consultations 
amongst themselves with a view to narrowing th eir differences and finding mutually acceptable 
language to reflect common understanding.   
10. In terms of his work plan, the Chairman noted that he intended to in tensify the consultative 
process with an increased number of informal, smal l-group meetings to achieve meaningful progress 
by Easter.  Small-group informal meetings would be followed by open-ended informal and formal 
meetings to brief the wider Membership on the state of play and, if possible, to take decisions.  He stressed that convergence on issues being discussed  in the Special Session would facilitate progress 
on other parts of negotiations under th e Doha Round.  He reiterated that  he remained available to all 
Members for any bilateral or plurila teral consultations and inputs.  
11. In the discussion that ensued, th e representative of the United States noted that his delegation 
was continuing to review and e ngage with other Members on the Chairman's non-paper Rev.4/Add.1 
which, in his delegation's view, was largely in line with the Guiding Principles.  His delegation 
thought that significant progress had been made by Ambassadors in establishing "Guiding Principles" 
for the Monitoring Mechanism, which included the common understanding that the Monitoring 
Mechanism would not be a negotiating forum.  That was a significant breakthrough in the discussions.  
However, his delegation was concerned that some  Members were seeking to backtrack from this 
principle.  He emphasized that the Guiding Prin ciple that the CTD DS would not be a negotiating 
body and the request that was being made by some delegations to preserve the mandate of Paragraph 
44 of the Doha Declaration in the Monitoring Mech anism were not compatible.  In addition, his 
delegation continued to see utility in ensuring the in volvement of the technical bodies in any review 
of issues under their area of expertise.  As had b een seen throughout the Special Session's discussions 
on SPS and import licensing Agreement-specific pr oposals, it had been quite difficult for non-
technical experts to try and work through very techni cal issues.  His delegation wanted to avoid this in 
the future discussion in the Monitoring Mechanism.  He further stated that his delegation, as well as 
some other delegations, had provided some textual suggestions in that regard, at the informal TN/CTD/M/44 
Page 4  
 
  meetings.  On the Agreement-specific proposals, he noted that Members had only had a limited 
opportunity to discuss those proposals thus far in 2011, and asked the Chairman to provide some 
thoughts on when he intended to review them furthe r.  In order to make progress in the negotiating 
group, his delegation was of the view that it w as necessary that the current text on these proposals 
accurately reflected the discussions thus far, by bracketing unresolved issues.  On the 28 proposals 
agreed in principle, in Cancún, he said that his delegation's understanding was that those proposals 
were agreed to on an ad referendum  basis in Cancún, and that any proposed action on them would 
now have to be reviewed by their capitals. 
12. The representative of India noted that the Chai rman's report provided a fair synopsis of the 
work carried out in the previous months and asked  that it be circulated to Members.  On the 
Monitoring Mechanism, he expressed disappoint ment that progress made thus far was not 
commensurate with the Chairman's efforts.  What concerned his delegation most was that it had not been able to see any movement on the critical issu es underpinning the Monitoring Mechanism.  That 
said, he agreed with the Chairman on the issues he  had listed in his opening remarks, on which some 
progress had been detected and agreement reached .  His delegation was willing to consider the 
proposal from some developed Members that the M onitoring Mechanism would not be a negotiating 
body, as long as it was empowered to make recommendations to other WTO bodies to launch negotiations on S&D provisions reviewed in the Mon itoring Mechanism.  In that context, he was 
concerned at the efforts to circumscribe the scope  of discussions in the Monitoring Mechanism, as 
well as the nature of the recommendations which it  could make to other bodies.  His delegation 
looked forward to a clarification from the Legal Af fairs Division of the WTO regarding the language 
"shall not prejudge the legal nature of the S&D pr ovisions under consideration nor affect Members' 
rights and obligations under the WTO Agreements ".  Additionally, his delegation was concerned 
about the lack of progress on the sequencing issu e, even though it had been recognized that the 
Mechanism would act as a focal point within the WT O to analyse and review implementation of S&D 
provisions.  It was his delegation's assessment that these Guiding Principles were there to overcome 
fundamental differences which could neither be wi shed away, nor addressed with clever use of 
language.  He looked forward to sustained and c onstructive engagement in efforts to shape a 
Monitoring Mechanism that was faithful to the Doha mandate and the Ge neral Council Decision of 
2002.  On the work plan, he noted that there was a hectic schedule of meetings in all negotiating 
groups, which put immense pressure on the delegates.   However, his delegation would remain guided 
by the Chairman's judgement.  
13. The representative of the European Union recalled that at the previous open-ended session, 
they had already indicated that Rev.4 of the Chai rman's non-paper was a good basis for discussions, 
because it captured a careful balance of give and ta ke that had been presented to negotiators by a 
small group of Ambassadors in the second half of 2010.   She noted that her delegation had heard that 
the "Guiding Principles" were neither exhaustive nor final.  She also agreed that the Ambassadors did 
not give ready-made legal language, nor did they have the time to cover all the issues.  But, to her 
delegation, it was undeniable that in the cour se of many hours of discussions, Ambassadors had 
managed to reach what had escaped negotiators for many years, i.e. a breakthrough on the main 
elements of the Monitoring Mechanism, which i nvolved compromises from all sides.  The EU was 
still keen on honouring this agreement.  Her dele gation was disappointed that the impulse they had 
felt at the end of 2010 when the Ambassadors had pr ovided their input, had not materialized as much 
as expected and that there was an apparent risk of erosion.  She stressed that her delegation would not 
be in a position to accept any major departure fr om the substance of what was agreed to by 
Ambassadors.  On the Preamble of the Chairman's  Rev.4/Add.1 non-paper, she understood that some 
delegations were very attached to having a Prea mble.  Her delegation could work on the basis of 
having one.  She stressed that the Preamble should provide a context and background to the 
Monitoring Mechanism and the reason that led to  the decision to create it.  In her view, the 
preambular language needed to be directly related to the Monitoring Mechanis m.  Therefore, general 
statements on S&D or cross references to a separate track of negotiations on the Agreement-specific  TN/CTD/M/44 
 Page 5 
 
 
  proposals in the preambular language were not appr opriate.  It was also not wise to go back to 
discussions that had held Members from moving fo rward for many years.  On Functions of the 
Monitoring Mechanism, there was a need to focus on the effective implementation of S&D and not on 
the Mechanism being a negotiating body.  This, however, did not preclude recommendations for opening negotiations as applicable in other WTO bodies.  There was also need to respect the 
instructions received from Ambassadors that any r ecommendations should not affect the legal nature 
of S&D provisions or the rights and obligations of Members.  Additionally, she noted that it was wise 
to foresee, at the beginning of the review process, appropriate input, from technical committees and designing any possible remedial action.  Similarly,  there was need to preserve the ability of any 
Member to bring S&D matters to the attention of an y relevant technical committee for consideration, 
i.e. the Mechanism may not be the exclusiv e gateway for dealing with S&D.  On the 
Agreement-specific proposals, she agreed that during the past months there had not been much focus 
on the six proposals, and that Members had only ha d one opportunity to refresh their memories on 
these proposals, since these had last been dealt with  in 2008.  Additionally, since these proposals had 
been tabled, there had been developments in some areas, notably on SPS, that needed to be taken into 
account. 
14. The representative of Canada stated that hi s delegation supported the "Guiding Principles" 
which continued to inform the discussions in th e Special Session.  On the Agreement-specific 
proposals, he said that his delegation continued to have concerns with various aspects of these 
proposals and wished to see their views appropriately reflected in the text. 
15. The representative of Japan appreciated the sen timent of the Committee in observing silence 
for the victims of the tsunami and earthquake in Jap an at the beginning of the meeting.  On the 
Monitoring Mechanism, he noted that while ther e might have been some back-tracking on some 
issues such as the mandate, discussion based on th e "Guiding Principles" was moving in the right 
direction.  His delegation looked forward to cont inued discussion based on those Principles.  On the 
Agreement-specific proposals, he stressed the need  for the text to accurately reflect Members' 
positions as pointed out by some other Members, as well as for reports to the TNC to clearly reflect 
the status of the text on those proposals. 
16. The representative of China recognized that some  progress had been made in the work of the 
Special Session and that Members had devel oped a better understanding on the objectives and 
operations of the Monitoring Mechanism.  However,  divergences existed on the most important parts 
of the Mechanism.  In his view, the negotiations  on S&D lagged behind other topics in the Doha 
Round.  Members, therefore, needed to enhance thei r engagement in a construc tive manner in order to 
achieve a breakthrough.  In that re gard, he added, that the recent proposal tabled by the African Group 
on the Monitoring Mechanism was a valuable contri bution to the negotiations and deserved serious 
consideration by the Membership.  In recognizing th at the "Guiding Principles" were a valuable input 
to the negotiations, he stressed that those principl es were neither legal, nor final or binding.   
17. Appreciating the constructive momentum in th e negotiations, the representative of Ecuador 
highlighted that Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declar ation enshrined the fundamental principles that 
needed to guide Members in the negotiations on  S&D.  It was necessary to review the S&D 
provisions with a view to making them more prec ise, effective and operational.  Therefore, his 
delegation considered that the Monitoring Mechan ism needed to have the capacity to analyse, 
evaluate and follow the effective implementation of S&D in the WTO.  The "Guiding Principles" 
embodied an important element of the work, but th ey were not exhaustive.  Ecuador also supported 
the African Group's position on including Annex C to th e draft Cancún Declaration in the scope of the 
Monitoring Mechanism. 
18. The representative of Bangladesh stressed that the Monitoring Mechanism needed to focus on 
making S&D provisions more preci se, effective and operational. TN/CTD/M/44 
Page 6  
 
  19. The representative of Australia noted that the Chairman's Rev.4/Add.1 non-paper was a very 
good basis for moving forward.  Her delegation w as willing to work with the Chairman towards 
achieving the aim of having texts by Easter. 
20. The representative of Pakistan stated that the very nature of the negotiations was to have 
precision and effectiveness of the S&D provisions.  Ther e was, therefore, in his view no give and take 
per se , as it was something that was already agreed as pa rt of the structure of the WTO.  Some issues 
including the Preamble remained outstanding, but they needed to be resolved quickly. 
21. The Special Session took note of all statements made. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
22. No Member raised any item under this Agenda item.    
23. The meeting was adjourned.  
 
__________