RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/31 
25 October 2007 
 
 (07-4625) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Thirty-first Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 28 SEPTEMBER 2007 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Thawat chai Sophastienphong (Thailand) 
  
 
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON ....................................................1  
C. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ..............................................................................................2  
D. THE MONITORING MECHANISM ...................................................................................................9  
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contained in airgram WTO/AIR/3069 of 
18 September 2007 was adopted .   
B. CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2. The Chairman-designate proposed that, followi ng the consensus for him to replace former 
Chairman, Ambassador Burhan Gafoor, the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (Special Session) confirm his appoint ment as Chairperson.  Ambassador Thawatchai 
Sophastienphong's Chairmanship was accordingly confirmed.  
3. On behalf of all Members and the Secretariat, the Chairman  thanked the former Chairman, 
Ambassador Burhan Gafoor, for his tireless efforts a nd hard work in taking the work of the Special 
Session forward.  Without his guidance, Members would not have made the kind of progress that they had.  He wished him well in his future endeavour s.  Members which took the floor during the meeting 
also expressed their gratitude to Ambassador Gaf oor for his dedication and commitment to the work 
of the Special Session.  In particular, the representa tive of Singapore, on behalf of ASEAN, stated that 
she was confident that the newly appointed Chairman would ably steer the work of the Special 
Session which was vital to achieving a balanced and fruitful outcome in the Doha Development 
Agenda (DDA), not just for developing and least -developed countries, but for all WTO Members.   
4. Before moving on to the substance of the agenda, the Chairman
 went on to brief Members on 
how he intended to proceed with the meeting.  He said that the mandate for the Special Session was 
contained in paragraphs 35 to 38 of the Hong Kong  Ministerial Declaration.  That mandate, which 
would continue to guide the work of the Special  Session, focused on three main areas.  First, 
completion of the review of all the outstanding Ag reement-specific proposals with a view to reporting 
to the General Council, with clear recommendations for a decision, second, coordinating efforts with 
the other WTO bodies in order to complete work on  the Category II proposals, and third, resuming 
work on all other outstanding issues, including on the cross-cutting issues and reporting on a regular 
basis to the General Council.  Members had on the agenda consideration of the Agreement-specific TN/CTD/M/31 
Page 2  
 
  proposals and the Monitoring Mechanism.  He said th at while it was not his intention to get into 
substantive discussions on any of the agenda items, he did intend to give Members the opportunity to 
make any comments that would help him better unders tand their positions on the different issues.  He 
was aware of Members' current preoccupation with  the negotiations on non-agricultural market access 
(NAMA) and agriculture, and while the focus was currently on those negotiating areas, he echoed the 
sentiments of his predecessor that the Special Sessi on must keep up with the wider process and not get 
left behind.  At the time when agreement would be  reached on the other negotiating areas, the Special 
Session needed to be prepared to table something.  Therefore, work in the Special Session needed to 
continue, albeit at a different pace.   
C. 
AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
5. The Chairman  said that the Special Session had been mandated to complete the review of all 
the outstanding Agreement-specific proposals.  It w as his understanding that there were 16 remaining 
Agreement-specific proposals under consideration in the Special Session and that Members had, for 
the past year and a half, been concentrating thei r efforts on seven of these proposals.  These included 
proposal no. 13 on Article XVIII of the GATT, two proposals on Article 10.3 of the Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, one proposal on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement and three 
proposals on Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import Licen sing.  At the last formal meeting held on 11 
July, the Chairman had put forward revised la nguage on proposal no. 13 on Article XVIII and 
proposal nos. 24 and 25 on Article 10.3 of the SPS Agre ement.  He had been given to understand that 
these revised texts were a result of informal c onsultations, as well as language proposed by some 
Members.  India had also tabled revised langua ge on its proposal, proposal no. 79 relating to 
Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  No revised la nguage had been put forward on proposal nos. 28, 
29 and 30 relating to Article 3.5 of the Agr eement on Import Licensing Procedures because the 
Chairman had felt that there was a fair degree of  convergence on these proposals.  As mentioned at 
the last formal meeting, the revised texts that  the Chairman had put forward on Article XVIII and 
Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement were in no way defi nitive or final.  The texts were an attempt to 
capture the progress that had been made over the past  year and a half, and his aim was to take that 
work forward.  The texts would, therefore, be u sed as a basis for the Special Session's work over the 
coming months and it was his hope that Members would build on it and reach convergence.   
6. He went on to provide Members with the opportu nity to give their views on the remaining 
Agreement-specific proposals one at a time.  He  said that the language on proposal no. 13 on 
Article XVIII of the GATT provided an interpretation of the provisions therein and sought to ensure 
that these provisions were implemented in a manner th at would facilitate the attainment of the goals 
contained in Article XVIII.  It stated that, while taking account of other Members' rights, developing 
and least-developed country Members would not be  expected to undertake measures that would 
undermine the attainment of these goals.  The proposal also sought a review and simplification of the procedures for recourse to Article XVIII.   
7. On behalf of the African Group, the representative of Uganda
 said that special and differential 
treatment (S&D) was crucial for Africa's developm ent.  All the 28 Agreement-specific proposals, as 
well as the remaining 16 Agreement-specific proposal s were important to the African Group.  In 
particular, it was important to carry out a review of  Article XVIII in order to address the needs and  
concerns that the African Group was attempting to a ddress.  In light of the developments that had 
taken place in the negotiations to reduce and bi nd tariffs, the African Group felt that it was now 
necessary to revise the language currently on the tabl e.  These developments related to the need for 
developing and least-developed countries, as well as  small and vulnerable economies, to bind their 
tariffs both in the industrial and agricultural sectors.   That would lead to complete elimination of the 
flexibilities which these countries presently enjoyed.  As a result, developing countries wishing to 
promote the development of new or recently established industries w ould no longer have the 
flexibility to do so.  Most African countries exporte d primary products and the only way to promote  TN/CTD/M/31 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the development of new industries was to add value to those products.  That was one of the areas 
where Article XVIII could help.  The present proce dures for recourse to Article XVIII were complex 
and rigid, which was the reason why the African countr ies had not been able to seek recourse to these 
provisions.  The adoption of simplified procedures for recourse to Article XVIII was important, and 
the African Group felt that should be addressed in the context of the current negotiations to take into 
account the additional obligations that developi ng countries were going to be undertaking. 
8. The representative of Norway  said that the mandate of the Special Session was important and 
integral to the Single Undertaking.  His delegation agreed with the Chairman that, when there was a 
breakthrough in other areas of the negotiations, th e Special Session should not be found wanting.  A 
lot of work had been carried out on the remain ing Agreement-specific proposals and his delegation 
felt that it should be possible to agree on a packag e of decisions that would make S&D provisions 
more precise, effective and operational.  He agreed with the representative of Uganda that Article XVIII was lengthy and complicated.  Howeve r, his delegation had struggled to see what the 
practical implications of the different textual propos als that had been tabled would be.  To ensure 
predictability and credibility of the multilatera l trading system, it was necessary to uphold the 
principle of due process.  It was also important to avoid purely unilateral decisions from a Member 
that believed it was entitled to use the provision and to take the rights of other Members into 
consideration, particularly developing  and least-developed county Members.  
9. The representative of the United States
 pledged her delegation's continued engagement in 
fulfilling the mandate given by Ministers at Doha to  make the S&D provisions more precise, effective 
and operational.  On the proposal relating to Article  XVIII of the GATT, she said that her delegation 
wished to remain practical.  Her delegation ha d strong concerns with respect to launching an 
open-ended time-consuming review of Article XVIII, and was con cerned that no information had 
been provided as to why Article XVIII had not been  invoked.  Her delegation's criteria for evaluating 
the proposal remained to ensure th at the text was consistent with the drafting records of Article XVIII, 
including the related legal decisions.  The proposed fl exibility would also need to be consistent with 
demonstrated need.  The goals of Article XVIII in cluded both the provision of precise flexibilities for 
developing countries and the protection of Members' rights as secured by the GATT.  It was important that that balance be maintained.   
10. With respect to the way forward, the representative of Egypt
 said that his delegation recalled 
that the texts relating to proposals no. 13 on Artic le XVIII of the GATT and 24 and 25 on Article 10.3 
of the SPS Agreement were circulated at the meeti ng held on 11 July 2007.  As far as his delegation 
was concerned, those texts were not the basis for negotiations.  The basis to continue discussions 
should be the language that was being discussed be fore 11 July.  His delegation had not agreed on 
either of the languages as a basis for further work. 
11. The representative of Canada  said that the Chairman's summary had provided a good sense of 
where Members were and where they were headed in the future.  He said that Members had made 
good progress and had been able to adopt some pro posals at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  
There were proposals that remained to be addressed and he believed that Members could make progress on some of those proposals.  He said that his delegation had had difficulties with the proposal no. 13 relating to Article XVIII of the GA TT because it was not clear what the concerns over 
its functioning were.  He noted that Members had faced the same challenge in 1987 when they were 
reviewing Article XVIII.  The challenges, then a nd now, remained the same.  The Article had been 
rarely invoked and the reasons on the need to strengthen and clarify it remained unclear.  His 
delegation continued to see a need to maintain an inherent balance between the rights and obligations 
implicit in Article XVIII. 
12. The representative of Lesotho
 associated the LDCs with the statement made by Uganda on 
behalf of the African Group.  TN/CTD/M/31 
Page 4  
 
  13. The representative of th e European Communities
 shared the Chairman's view that while the 
focus was on the agriculture and NAMA negotiations, the Special Session should not be left behind.  
His delegation agreed that the work of the Special Session was integral to the DDA and was 
committed to reaching an agreement on the outstanding work.  In order to reach agreement on a pro-development package, all Members would need  to exercise the flexibility necessary to reach 
consensus.  He said that on the proposal rela ting to Article XVIII of the GATT, his delegation 
believed that the text went in the right direction.  However, that did not mean that more work was not 
needed.  Members needed to review how the pr ocedures for recourse to Article XVIII could be 
applied in order to address the concerns of the proponents.  His delegation remained committed to 
finding a solution on that issue. 
14. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 said that the African Group seemed to have some 
new ideas to put forward on Article XVIII and, if that was the case, it would be useful if that could be 
circulated in advance.  Article XVIII was comple x and Members would need time to understand what 
was being proposed, and its implications, a nd then be able to respond accordingly. 
15. The representative of Uganda  said that the African Group intended to circulate language on 
Article XVIII in the coming weeks.   
16. Moving on to proposal nos. 24 and 25 on Artic le 10.3 of the SPS Agreement, the Chairman  
said that the language on these proposals related to two proposals tabled by the African Group and a group of developing countries on the SPS Agreement.  It sought flexibility in providing time-limited 
exceptions in whole or in part for developing co untry Members from their obligations under the SPS 
Agreement.  The language incorporated an idea tabl ed by New Zealand for th e SPS Committee to take 
a decision by the third meeting at which a request was considered.  It went further by including a 
time-limit of 12 months in which a decision shoul d be taken.  In this regard, the process of 
considering such requests would take into account the individual financial, trade and development 
needs of the requesting Member.  The proposal also  stated the need for Members to facilitate the 
provision of technical assistance if requested by a developing country Member in relation to its 
request.   
17. The representative of New Zealand
 said that as noted by the Chairman, her delegation had 
suggested alternative language on the proposal with  the intention to provide greater clarity for 
developing countries in making use of the mechanis m that already existed under Article 10.3.  Her 
delegation's proposal contained three elements:  first,  to make it more explicit that developing country 
Members had the right to make requests pursuant to  Article 10.3;  second, to ensure that the SPS 
Committee would consider any requests it received;  a nd third, that a decision would be made within 
an explicitly reasonable time-frame.  Prior to the summer break, the former Chairman had tabled a 
revised text which drew, in part, on her delegati on's proposal specifically regarding the time-frame.  
Her delegation was pleased to see that addition.  However, other elements  remained on which her 
delegation continued to have funda mental concerns.  As previously stated, her delegation could not 
support proposals that would amend or interpret the Article to make it mandatory to grant exceptions 
on request.  Her delegation also shared the concern of  other delegations regarding the use of the term 
"positive consideration".  However, it was good to  see that other Members, including Egypt and 
Hong Kong, China had made sugges tions and proposals that, in part if not in whole, contained 
elements with which her delega tion could work.  Her delegation looked forward to more detailed 
discussion on the proposal.   
18. The representative of Costa Rica  said that in the past, his delegation had expressed concerns 
with certain elements contained in the proposal.  He agreed with New Zealand that there were 
elements contained in the language that were work able.  His delegation supported the language that 
had been proposed by New Zealand and felt that the current language went in the direction of 
automaticity.  TN/CTD/M/31 
 Page 5 
 
 
  19. The representative of Japan  said that the language on proposal nos. 24 and 25 still required 
further clarification.  While the proposals belonged to Category I, it was impor tant to coordinate and 
consult with the SPS Committee on its wording and c ontent.  It was important to receive further 
clarification on the issue of facilitating technical a ssistance if requested by a developing country 
Member in relation to its request for a specific time-limited exception.   
20. The representative of Argentina  said that his delegation had always supported the mandate 
contained in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  S&D signified the recognition of the 
difficulties faced by developing and least-developed countries in fully benefitin g and participating in 
the multilateral trading system.  S&D was an instrume nt to overcome those limitations.  Many of the 
proposals that had been tabled were important a nd served to promote economic development and his 
delegation was willing to consider them further.  W ith respect to the proposal relating to Article 10.3 
of the SPS Agreement, he said that it was important  to maintain the current balance in the SPS 
Agreement in order to ensure an effective instrument for development. 
21. The representative of the European Communities  said that some of the elements that his 
delegation was not comfortable with in the proposal had already been raised by other Members.  With 
respect to the notion of facilitating technical assistan ce, it was not clear what was being expected from 
Members.  He underlined the need to work in c onjunction with the SPS Committee in order to reach a 
more coherent and realistic outcome.  
22. The representative of Australia  said that in the past his delegation had queried the need to 
clarify, interpret or amend Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement, which as far as his delegation was 
concerned had never been invoked.  Nevertheless, hi s delegation had listened to  some of the concerns 
raised, for example, that there was no certainty th at the SPS Committee would, in fact, consider any 
request and do so within a reasonable period of time.   In this context, his delegation had found the 
suggestions made by New Zealand as useful in seeking to address those concerns without going too 
far and prejudging the outcome of the Committee's consideration of the request.  His delegation 
considered New Zealand's ideas as a good basis for any agreement on that proposal.   
23. On proposal no. 79 relating to Article 10 .2 of the SPS Agreement, the Chairman  said that the 
language tabled by India sought to ensure that where the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary 
protection allowed scope for the phased introducti on of new SPS measures, developing countries be 
provided with a period of at least six months  to comply with these new SPS measures.   
24. The representative of India  reiterated that the objective of tabling their proposal was based on 
practical problems faced by exporters when the time- frame for complying with onerous and expensive 
SPS measures had led to restrictions.  At the time the proposal was tabled, his delegation had clarified 
that its intention had been to provide at least six months to comply with restrictive and non-liberalizing SPS measures.  Furthermore, the conditions for the introduction of emergency 
measures were different from what his delegation wa s seeking and were separately provided for under 
the SPS Agreement.  Article 10.2 of the SPS Agr eement allowed for phased introduction of new SPS 
measures and it was important to accord longer tim e-frames for compliance on products of export 
interest to developing country Members, so as to maintain export opportunities.  He said that several 
developing country Members had noted that Article  10.2 had not been implemented in a satisfactory 
manner.  In its review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement, the SPS 
Committee only took cognisance of this problem but  had not suggested any concrete measures to 
overcome the situation which developing countries had been facing.  A number of countries were 
involved in protracted discussions over tolerance limits  for pathogens' test, be it pesticides or residues.  
It was discouraging to see that these issues came up primarily in cases where importing countries had 
set their own limits which exporting countries found difficult to meet.  In reality, these acted as 
non-tariff barriers.  That was all the more so wh en importers introduced measures that went beyond TN/CTD/M/31 
Page 6  
 
  health concerns and established SPS norms.  After co nsultations with some Members, his delegation 
had tabled revised language in June 2007.  
25. The representative of Australia
 said that the proposal on Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement 
continued to be of great concern to his dele gation.  Phased or otherwise, SPS measures were 
science-based and for that reason, as it had stated in  previous meetings, it could not accept the idea of 
a mandatory minimum time-frame for compliance with Members' SPS measures.  That would 
undermine the right of Members to set their ow n scientifically-based SPS measures and implement 
them in a manner consistent with the risks identified.   That applied regardless of whether the measures 
were emergency in nature, or otherwise.  The existing flexibility in Article 10.2 of the SPS 
Agreement, together with paragraph 3.1 of the Decision on Implementation Related Issues and 
Concerns, was as far as his delegation could go on the issue. 
26. The representative of Pakistan  said that her delegation supporte d the proposal tabled by India 
and believed that reaching an agreement on the proposal would enable developing countries to 
address some of the problems their exporters experi enced when having to comply with SPS measures.   
27. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation believed that it was already 
meeting its obligations under Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Best efforts were always made to 
allow Members time to comply with new SPS measu res.  Her delegation did not think that the 
problem could be addressed through textual proposal s.  Her delegation could not support making the 
notion of granting longer time-periods for comp liance with phased SPS measu res mandatory, because 
Members should never be put in a position where safety would have to compete with mandatory 
requirements for delayed implementation of necessary SPS measures.   
28. The Chairman  said that the last three proposals, 28 to 30 related to Article 3.5 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing.  The language on these proposals related to three separate proposals 
tabled by the African Group, Thailand and I ndia on Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Importing 
Licensing Procedures.  The language stated that while all Members would endeavour to provide 
import statistics for products subject to import licensing, for purposes of Article 3.5 (a) to (iv), 
developing country Members would not be expected to provide these statistics unless they could do so 
without taking on additional administrative or fina ncial burdens that went beyond their capacity.  It 
also sought to define the obligations in Article 3. 5(j) and attempted to address the concerns expressed 
regarding the allocation of licenses.  One alternative was provided in brackets.   
29. The representative of Thailand  pointed out that the fact that no one had taken the floor on the 
proposals relating to Article 3.5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing, confirmed what the Chairman 
had stated earlier, that there was relatively mo re convergence on these proposals.  Having seen that 
over the past year there had been considerable pr ogress made on those proposals, one of which had 
been tabled by his delegation, he did not underestim ate the effort that Members still needed to make 
in order to reach an agreement on these proposals.   His delegation did, however, consider the 
proposals as being among those on which there was a gr eater likelihood of reaching convergence.  He 
reiterated his delegation's commitment to lis tening to new textual ideas on the proposals. 
30. The Chairman  said that the discussions had certainly helped him to get a better idea of 
Members' positions on the different proposals.  It was clear that he would need to hold small group 
consultations at which Members would have the oppor tunity to provide more substantive comments.  
He said that he would maintain a transparent pro cess and communicate any developments to the wider 
Membership.  He also intended to maintain the te xt-based approach that Members had been engaged 
in, so as to avoid broad, repetitive discussions.  He  believed that would enable Members to build on 
the progress already made.  He reiterated that th e language which Members had before them on the 
different proposals was in no way agreed but it was useful in that it provided a basis on which Members could continue their work.  Members were, of course, free to suggest or table alternate  TN/CTD/M/31 
 Page 7 
 
 
  language that would help move the process forward.   He said that he was aware that there were a 
further nine Agreement-specific proposals on which Me mbers were yet to reach an agreement.  These 
proposals had been set aside by his predecessor because he was of the view that it would be difficult to reach convergence on these proposals on the basis of the existing language.  While he was willing 
to address these proposals, he felt that it would be worthwhile for him to do so only after Members 
had put forward new language or ideas.  He did not see any value in continuing discussions on the 
basis of the existing language, if it was just to re peat well-known positions.  He, therefore, intended to 
keep those proposals aside until such  a time that Members wished to  take the discussions forward by 
tabling new language and ideas.   
31. He went on to say that the Hong Kong Minister ial Declaration had also  mandated the Special 
Session to continue coordinating its efforts w ith the other WTO bodies to which the Category II 
proposals had been referred in order to ensure that progress was made on these proposals.  He was 
aware of Members concerns with the lack of progress in this area, and he would shortly contact the various Chairs, to see how progress could be made on these proposals.  It was clear from some of the reports already received, that a number of the pro posals were being dealt with as part of the ongoing 
negotiations.  The challenge would be to find a wa y to expedite progress on those proposals that were 
not being addressed as part of the ongoing negotiations.   
32. Members went on to address the duty-free quota -free (DFQF) market access issue under the 
agenda item relating to the Agreemen t-specific proposals.  The Chairman
 said that the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Decision to provide LDCs with DFQF market access was a significant one.  However, its 
significance would only be truly realised once it w as effectively implemented.  He was aware that 
there were a number of issues, including on rules of  origin as well as market access, that the LDCs 
wished Members to address in order to ensure effe ctive implementation of the decision.  As a result, 
the LDCs had tabled two submissions on which engage ment had been rather minimal.  He was also 
aware that a number of concerns had been raised with respect to addressing these issues in the Special 
Session.  As Chairman, he would listen to Members and ensure that he served the process as best as 
he could.  He was aware that the former Chairman  had encouraged the stakeholders to meet among 
one another to resolve their differences.  This was something that needed to continue.  At the same 
time, he knew of the LDCs' desire for him to beco me more involved in facilitating dialogue among 
the stakeholders.  He was willing to facilitate such a dialogue but it was important not to forget that 
Members themselves needed to be willing to engage and find the solutions.   
33. On behalf of the LDCs, the representative of Lesotho  said that the LDCs fully recognized the 
vital contribution that trade could play in alle viating poverty, as well as in promoting economic 
growth and development.  Howe ver, to attain such noble aspirations, a pragmatic trigger was 
necessary to stimulate the flow of investment, expa nsion of production and e xports.  It was for these 
reasons and in order to ensure effective implementation of the DFQF market access decision adopted 
at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference that the LD Cs had tabled two submissions, one on rules of 
origin contained in document TN/CTD/W/30 and th e other on market access  contained in document 
TN/CTD/W/31.  Unless the DFQF market access deci sion was implemented in line with the two LDC 
submissions, the development dimens ion of the Doha Round would not be  realised in its true sense.  
For the LDCs, putting development at the centre of  the negotiations entailed paving the way for 
meaningful and effective participation of LDCs in  the multilateral trading system.  This would be 
realised first, through enhanced market access for both goods and services of export interest to LDCs 
in both developed and developing country market s, and second, by levelling the playing field by 
removing trade distorting support and effectively addressing non-tariff barriers.  While the LDCs 
were cognisant of the efforts that had been made by a few Members to pave the way for 
implementation of the decision, they also noted that the current state of the negotiations had so far not lived up to the LDCs' expectations.  Instead, Member s lacked enthusiasm to engage positively on key 
issues of interest to the LDCs, such as on the LD C modalities in the services negotiations, the DFQF 
market access decision, including the accompanying simp lified rules of origin.  He stressed the need TN/CTD/M/31 
Page 8  
 
  to ensure that the implementation of the modalities of the DFQF market access decision were integral 
to the final modalities of the DDA package and stated that that w as the reason why the LDCs strongly 
believed that the outstanding elements relating to  the decision should be addressed in the Special 
Session.  The ultimate goal for the LDCs was to attain DFQF market access for 100 per cent of LDC 
exports accompanied by simplified and transparent rules of origin, which would prevent trade 
deflection and address more accurately the LDCs ' actual manufacturing capacities and enhance 
efficiency in their production processes.  The LD Cs appreciated the willingness of some Members to 
grant DFQF market access for 100 per cent of LDC exports from the start of the implementation 
period as provided for in the Hong Kong Ministeria l Decision.  However, there was a need to fulfil 
the other part of the mandate, which was to provide  simplified and transparent rules of origin.  The 
LDCs urged those Members not in a position to immediately provide DFQF market access for 
100 per cent of LDC exports, to ensure that the ke y products of export interest to the LDCs were 
included in the initial lines to be offered DFQF mark et access and to give an indication of when and 
how the remaining products would be offered such market access.  Developing countries in a position 
to provide DFQF market access to LDCs were ur ged to do so in accordance with the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Decision.  He concluded by urging de veloped and developing country Members to honour 
the commitment they made at the Hong Kong Minister ial Conference in a manner that would translate 
into concrete deliverables for the LDCs, the margin alized countries in the WTO.  He assured the 
Chairman that the LDCs remained ready to engage constructively. 
34. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that the Special Session had a crucial role to play in 
ensuring that the Doha Development Round lived up to its nomenclature.  He supported the statement 
made by Lesotho on behalf of the LDCs.  He w as certain that the Chairman was aware of the LDC 
concerns with respect to the DFQF market access d ecision.  The LDCs had tabled two submissions to 
the Special Session in parallel with the Negotia ting Group on Agriculture and the Negotiating Group 
on Market Access.  Unfortunately, there had been no initiative or engagement by any Member except 
for one on the submission on market access.  The LDCs were seeking faithful implementation of the 
DFQF market access decision.  He said that the LD Cs had repeatedly requested Members to engage 
on their key concerns.  The previous Chairman had made efforts to initiate meaningful engagement 
but, unfortunately, due to inadequate responses fro m other Members, his efforts had not succeeded.  
His delegation appreciated the previous Chairs' effo rts, however, he urged the newly elected Chair to 
make more intense efforts to fac ilitate engagement among the stakehol ders.  He reiterated that since 
the DFQF market access issue was pa rt of the Single Undertaking, it should be discussed in the 
negotiating bodies, including in the Special Session.   The Regular Session of the CTD would review 
and monitor the implementation of the decision as pe r the Hong Kong Decision.  He said that the 
LDCs were the most marginalized group of countri es in the multilateral trading system and providing 
them with DFQF market access, along with simple an d transparent rules of origin, would not have any 
adverse effect on the economies of developed and em erging developing countries.  Instead, the LDCs 
would benefit and hopefully be successful in inte grating into the multilateral trading system.   
35. The representative of Zambia  associated her delegation with the statement made by Lesotho 
on behalf of the LDCs.  As alluded to in that st atement, the LDCs consider ed the Special Session as 
playing a critical role in helping the LDCs inte grate into the multilateral trading system.  Her 
delegation welcomed the Chairman's willingness to f acilitate dialogue among the stakeholders and she 
urged other Members to make use of the time that  the Chairman would avail to them to address the 
issue.  
36. The representative of Turkey  said that her Government attached great importance to building 
trade capacity for the LDCs and that her Governme nt had been providing DFQF market access for 
industrial goods originating from all LDCs from 1 January 2006.  Moreover, Turkey had recently 
taken a decision to contribute US$1 million to the Trust Fund of the Enhanced Integrated Framework 
(EIF) for trade-related technical assistance for the LDCs.  In addition, Turkey was supporting debt 
relief initiatives for the LDCs.  As a donor country, Turkey would continue to support the Poverty  TN/CTD/M/31 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Reduction and Growth Facility of the IMF.  It was also committed to the advancement of bilateral 
commercial relations with the LDCs and the Turkish private sector was actively encouraged to invest 
in the LDCs.  An additional US$5 million had been  allocated to finance small- and medium-scale 
regional development projects in the LDCs.  Offici al Development Assistance provided by Turkey 
had steadily increased over recent years and re ached US$750 million in 2006.  A fund of 
US$15 million had recently been allocated for the implementation of projects through the Turkish 
International Cooperation and Development Agency (T İKA) in the LDCs, landlocked developing 
countries and small island developing states.  
D. THE MONITORING MECHANISM  
37. The Chairman  said that the Monitoring Mechanism was one of the outstanding issues on 
which Members had been able to agree to begin work .  At the last formal meeting, discussions on the 
Monitoring Mechanism were based on the revised non-paper put forward by the former Chairman.  
While the majority of Members felt that the revised  non-paper provided a good basis for further work, 
clarifications were sought on a number of elements contained therein and the need to further fine-tune 
some of these elements was emphasized.  While it w as clear that work would need to continue in 
small group meetings, he wished to hear Members'  views on the non-paper.  He informed Members 
that the Secretariat was in the process of colla ting information received from other WTO bodies and 
negotiating groups on the monitoring mechanisms that  were currently in place in their respective 
areas.  This was a request that had been made by  a number of Members and once that information was 
received, it would be made available.    
38. The representative of Switzerland  said that the Monitoring Mechanism was important and the 
non-paper contained in the last report to the Ge neral Council was a good basis on which to continue 
work.  The language contained therein was precise  enough, yet leaving necessary room for future 
developments.  Some minor refinements would pe rhaps be required before Members could reach 
convergence. 
39. The representative of Norway  said that his delegation believed that the Special Session had 
made substantial progress during 2007.  His delega tion favoured a simple and practical structure 
anchored in the CTD – whether in dedicated sessions , a Sub-Committee, or in the Regular Session of 
the CTD, with periodic debates in the General Council.  When deciding on the format of the 
mechanism's structure, it would be important to consider all the different monitoring arrangements 
that were being developed in the WTO, such as in  the area of Aid for Trade and Trade Facilitation, 
where different forms of monitoring were being co nsidered.  Since the mechanism would be new, it 
should be allowed to "evolve" in th e future and would need to have clear terms of reference from the 
outset.  With respect to the scope, his delegati on believed it needed to be "forward-looking" and 
monitor both the existing S&D provisions from the Uruguay Round and those S&D provisions that would result from future negotiations.  
40. The representative of Costa Rica
 said that in principle the non-paper on the possible elements 
of the Monitoring Mechanism had been useful in spurring discussions on the mechanism.  His 
delegation agreed that the Monitoring Mechanism should be simple and practical and not duplicate 
other existing mechanisms.  As stated by Norway, it needed to have clear terms of reference from the 
outset.  His delegation had some concerns on a numbe r of elements contained in the non-paper.  The 
two main concerns related to bullet 4 in the st ructure, which related to the mechanism giving 
sufficient visibility to the importance of S&D issues in the WTO.  It was not clear what that meant 
and his delegation was not certain how that would be implemented within the proposed Monitoring 
Mechanism.  Addressing that would probably be tied in with discussions on what S&D itself actually 
meant.  His delegation was also concerned about how  bullet 5 of the structure on the levels at which 
the mechanism would function, would relate to bullet 2 of the scope which related to the effectiveness 
of S&D provisions that would result from the Doha Round of negotiations.  The mandate contained in TN/CTD/M/31 
Page 10  
 
  paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declarati on referred to making the existing S&D provisions 
more precise, effective and operational.   
41. The representative of Argentina
 said that his delegation considered the Monitoring 
Mechanism to be important and that the non-pape r provided a good basis to continue work.  His 
delegation believed that the Monitoring Mechanism s hould not constitute a parallel structure and that 
Members should focus on the effective monitoring and implementation of existing S&D provisions, 
as well as those arising from the Doha Round of  negotiations.  The mechanism should facilitate 
consultations among Members and come up with a ppropriate recommendations.  Information on other 
mechanisms in place in the WTO would give Member s a better idea of what was currently in place, 
and would help inform the discussions, and would avoid duplication.   
42. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that it was useful to keep in mind that when 
Members had started their work on the Monitoring Mechanism, they had begun on the basis of a list 
of possible elements of a Monitoring Mechanism.  Discussions had of course evolved, but it was important to ensure that the terms of reference were specific and that greater clarity and detail was provided to the existing elements.  While the non-pa per was a useful basis to continue work, what 
may be finally agreed could be in a different form.   
43. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation believed that the 
non-paper was a good basis for further work.  In his delegation's view, the Monitoring Mechanism 
needed to be flexible and forward- looking.  It also needed to be  practical and result-focused.  He 
agreed with other Members that had stated the n eed to avoid duplication with similar monitoring 
taking place in the house.  With respect to structure,  he said that it would be useful to channel the 
exercise through the CTD, which of course would not prevent Members from making their views 
directly known to the General Council.   
44. The Chairman  said that the discussions had provided him with a better idea of the elements on 
which further work would be required.  Members w ould of course get an opportunity to provide more 
detailed comments in the upcoming consultations th at he intended to hold.  He said that the 
scheduling of future meetings would largely de pend on the wider process.  He had, however, 
tentatively scheduled an open-ended meeting in the last week of October.  In the meantime, he 
intended to hold informal consultations on a ll elements of the mandate, especially on the 
Agreement-specific proposals and the Monitoring M echanism.  As he had mentioned earlier, he 
intended to contact the Chairpersons of the bodies to which the Category II proposals had been 
referred, to consider additional ways in which to expedite progress on these proposals.  The meeting 
dates, once finalized, would be communicated to Members well in advance to give them adequate 
time to prepare themselves.   
 
 
__________