RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/40 
19 July 2010 
 (10-3905) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Fortieth Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 19 MAY 2010 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Thawat chai Sophastienphong (Thailand) 
  
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. AGREEMENT SPECIFIC PROPOSALS ..............................................................................................1  
(i) Six Agreement-specific proposals ............................................................................................... 2 
(ii) Remaining Agreement-specific proposals...................................................................................4  
(iii) Category II proposals .......................................................................................................... .......5  
C. MONITORING MECHANISM ...........................................................................................................5  
(i) Preamble....................................................................................................................... ..............5  
(ii) Scope.......................................................................................................................... .................8  
(iii) Structure...................................................................................................................... ..............10  
(iv) Functions ...................................................................................................................... ............13  
D. COMMUNICATION FROM CUBA (TN/CTD/W/32)..........................................................................13  
E. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................17  
 
 A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The agenda as contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/3554 of 5 May 2010 was adopted.  The 
Chairman  informed Members that in light of observations made by some Members on his report to the 
TNC of 22 March 2010, he intended to provide an opportunity to those who wished to express any 
further views on his report under Other Business. 
B. AGREEMENT SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
2. The Chairman  recalled that it had been some time since Members had discussed the 
Agreement-specific proposals.  He stated that, as had already been indicated in the his fax dated 
7 May 2010 to them, he intended to structure th e discussion on these proposals into three clusters, 
namely:  (i) the six Agreement-specific proposals on which Members had been working and had made 
some progress;  (ii) the remaining Agreement-spec ific proposals which the Chairman had set aside for 
a while until Members were in a position to come forth with new language to make progress;  and 
finally, (iii) the Category II proposals.  The last  language considered on the Agreement-specific 
proposals under clusters (i) and (ii) were made av ailable to Members at the back of the room.   TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 2  
 
  (i) Six Agreement-specific proposals 
3. The Chairman
 stated that as a result of Members' hard work significant progress had been 
made on the six Agreement-specific proposals.  The last language considered on these proposals 
showed that a few areas of dive rgence remained.  He hoped that with some flexibility and positive 
engagement, Members could bridge the remaining gaps.   
4. Members appreciated the Chairman's decision to  bring the Agreement-specific proposals back 
to the negotiating table.   
5. In the discussion that ensued, the representative of Pakistan  stated that significant progress 
had been made on these proposals and that Members were close to finding solutions.  He urged Members to demonstrate flexibility so that work could be concluded on these proposals.  That would 
send a positive signal to the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations as a whole.   
6. The representative of India
 stressed the importance of the Agreement-specific proposals for 
developing countries and welcomed the Chairman 's decision to resume discussions on these 
proposals. India appreciated the Chairman's assessmen t that there were few square brackets remaining 
in those proposals.  However, he reiterated that the remaining few were the most important ones as it 
was those that would contribute to making special and differential treatment (S&D) provisions more 
precise, effective and operational.  Finding appropriate early solutions on these proposals was not only important as a key confidence-building measure fo r developing countries but was also crucial in 
making progress on the DDA as a whole.   
7. The representative of Canada
 stated that in his view, and without prejudice to Canada's 
specific position on the six Agreement-specific proposals, those proposals merited additional 
consideration by Members.  Having taken note of  the Chairman's assessment, he underlined the 
importance of work undertaken thus far in the smaller-group meetings where Members could signal 
greater flexibility in putting forward different id eas that could help Members reach agreement on a 
final text.   
8. The representative of the European Union  welcomed the opportunity to resume discussions 
on the Agreement-specific proposals and signalled he r preference for continuing discussions on those 
proposals in the smaller-group setting which allowed for more a open and frank exchange of ideas as 
opposed to the formal meetings.   
Proposals 24-25 – SPS Agreement – Article 10.3 
9. Opening the discussions on the proposal relating to  the Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement, 
the Chairman  reminded Members that owing to their hard work only a few areas of divergence 
remained in that proposal.  He drew their atten tion to the third sentence, which read as follows:   
"In this regard, the SPS Committee shall give [ positive and] expeditious consideration to such 
a request and take a decision [as appropriate]no later than..... ".   
 10. He asked Members if they had had time to re flect on the bracketed areas and hoped that they 
would be able the necessary flexibility so as to make progress on the proposal.   
11. The representative of India
 stated that his delegation had received some textual suggestions 
from the capital as well as from some Members which could be discussed in smaller-group meetings.   
12. The representative of Canada  drew Members' attention a recent adoption of a Decision by the 
SPS Committee on the procedure to en hance transparency of S&D in favour of developing countries  TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (G/SPS/33/Rev.1).  He viewed this as a useful ex ample of the work that could be undertaken by 
experts in addressing, in a practical manner, some of the concerns raised in the Agreement-specific 
proposals related to the SPS Agreement on Articles 10.2 and 10.3.  While helping to create steps 
which ensure appropriate cons ultations among Members, the m echanism also designed clear 
transparency provisions to which would enable a nd inform Members of the actions taken in this 
regard.  It would also facilitate technical assi stance.  Moreover, the Decision of the SPS Committee 
contributed to making S&D for developing countries more precise, effective and operational.  He 
went on to ask whether the new Decision addressed the main concerns that had been raised by developing countries.  In his view, the Decisi on of the SPS Committee merited additional reflection 
by Members in the context of the ongoing discussion s on the Agreement-specific proposals related to 
the SPS Agreement.   
13. The representative of the European Union
 supported the views expressed by the 
representative of Canada and felt that the Decision un derlined the crucial role of experts in addressing 
developing country concerns.  She thought that it might  be worthwhile if the Chairman could organize 
an informal discussion on how the new developmen t in the SPS Committee affected work on the 
Agreement-specific proposals in the SPS area.   
14. In supporting the statements made by the representatives of Canada and the EU, the 
representative of New Zealand  noted the need to review the Decision of the SPS Committee with 
respect to what was being sought in the Agreemen t-specific proposals on Articles 10.2 and 10.3.  She 
also flagged that, notwithstanding the small number of brackets that appeared in the texts, there could 
still be a number of significant issues that need ed to be resolved in those proposals.   
15. The representative of Costa Rica  supported the idea of discussing the Agreement-specific 
proposals on Articles 10.2 and 10.3 of the SPS Agreemen ts in light of the Decision adopted in the 
SPS Committee as referred to by the representative of Canada.   
16. The representative of China  suggested that an SPS expert from the Agriculture and 
Commodities Division of the WTO could be invited to attend the next informal meeting of the Special 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (Sp ecial Session) to shed light on the relevance 
and implications of the SPS Committee's Decision as contained in document G/SPS/33/Rev.1 to the 
Agreement-specific proposals on Articles 10.2 and 10.3 of the SPS Agreement.   
17. At this stage, while not discounting the importa nce of the smaller-group meetings in taking 
specific issues forward, the representative of Pakistan  encouraged the Chairman to consider having 
more informal open-ended meetings  which would allow for the wider membership to engage in the 
important work of the Special Session.  He proposed  that one way could be that during the course of 
formal meetings the Chairman could switch to an informal mode so as to allow for frank and open 
discussions on the issues under consideration.   
18. The representative of El Salvador  supported the representative of  Pakistan as it was important 
to encourage wider participation and transparen cy owing to the sensitivities of the issues being 
discussed.   
19. In light of the comments made and the possible relevance of the Decision of the SPS 
Committee, the Chairman  said that he would continue discussions on the proposals related to 
Articles 10.2 and 10.3 of the SPS Agreement in the in formal smaller-group meetings.  He also stated 
that an SPS expert from the Agriculture and Comm odities Division would be invited to assist in 
Members' discussion on those proposals in light of the SPS Committee's Decision as contained in 
document G/SPS/33/Rev1.  Responding to the proposal  made by the representative of Pakistan, he 
said that he would do whatever possible with a view to making progress.   TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 4  
 
  Proposals 28-30 of the Agreement on Im port Licensing Procedures-Article 3.5 
20. The Chairman
 recalled that on the proposals 28-30 relati ng to Article 3.5 of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures, there was an area of divergence which related to the question of creating a mandatory obligation, or otherwise, on the part of Members.  He drew Members' attention 
to the relevant sentence, with brack eted text, which read as follows:   
"a) Article 3.5 (j) of the Agreement implies [mandatory and] non-discretionary obligations on 
the part of the Members".   
 
21. He went on to say that in his own assessment, Members had made significant progress on the 
proposal.  He then invited Members to share their thoughts on how the only remaining bracket could 
be removed.   
22. As no Member took the floor, the Chairman accordingly noted that he would continue with 
his consultations on the Agreement-specific propo sals in the informal smaller-group setting.   
23. The representative of the United States
 sought clarification from the Chairman whether on the 
six Agreement-specific proposals points of divergence were only limited to the brackets.  It was her 
delegation's understanding that the te xt before Members was the last language considered and that the 
issues of divergence might go beyond the bracketed text.   
24. The representative of Switzerland  endorsed the views expressed by the representative of the 
US and stated that the differences in Members' positions might not be limited to the square brackets in the last language considered.  According to his de legation's understanding, it was Chairman's text and 
it might not be a full reflection of all the existing differences among Members on these proposals.  
Accordingly, he requested that any future report of the Chairman to the TNC correctly reflect the fact 
that the last language considered was based on the Chairman's understanding of the status of work.   
25. The Chairman
 clarified that the brackets in the text  before Members were reflective of the 
divergence that existed at the time when t hose proposals were last considered.   
(ii) Remaining Agreement-specific proposals 
26. On the remaining Agreement-specific pr oposals under cluster (ii), the Chairman  reminded 
Members that they had agreed to put these proposal s aside for the time being pending submission of 
new ideas/language from them.  Despite repeated en couragements by him to put forth new ideas and 
language on these proposals that could help us make progress, to date, no new ideas had been 
received.  In the absence of fresh inputs from Me mbers, it was unlikely that they could make any 
headway on those proposals.  Consequently, he so ught Members' views on how to proceed on these 
Agreement-specific proposals.   
27. The representative of Egypt  stated that he realized the difficulty the Chairman faced in 
making progress on those proposals in the absence of any new ideas/language from Members.  He 
suggested that the remaining Agreement-specific propo sals be kept on the agenda of the next formal 
meeting of the Special Session so as to keep Members' focus on these proposals.   
28. The Chairman  took note of the statement made by the representative of Egypt and agreed to 
keep the remaining Agreement-specific proposals on th e agenda of the next formal meeting of the 
Special Session.    TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (iii) Category II proposals 
29. On the Category II proposals, the Chairman  reminded Members that the Chairpersons of the 
relevant bodies had been periodically reporting to th e General Council.  The  reports had indicated 
that limited progress had been made on these proposals, mainly because a number of issues raised in 
many of the proposals formed an integral part of ongoing negotiations in the respective bodies.  He 
further stressed that in the coming weeks, he planned to meet the respective Chairpersons and 
Secretaries of relevant bodies to get their assessment  of the status of work and discuss best ways of 
expediting progress on those proposals whose substa nce was not being addressed as part of ongoing 
negotiations.  He said that he would report back to the Special Session on results of his consultations.   
30. No Member took the floor on this issue.   
C. MONITORING MECHANISM  
31. The Chairman  recalled that in the preceding months  work on the Moni toring Mechanism 
(MM) had proceeded on the basis of his non-paper of 3 November 2009, focusing primarily on fine-tuning the elements of the Structure, Scope and Functions.  While putting on record his appreciation for Members' pragmatism and commitmen t in carrying the work forward, he drew their 
attention to a further revision of the non-paper (R evision 3 of 30 April 2010) which had been made 
available at the back of the room.  The same had also been faxed to Members on 7
 May 2010 in 
advance of the formal meeting.  He stated that  the changes in the Revision 3 were based on his 
understanding of the views expressed by Members du ring the course of their work in recent months 
and that he had attempted to balance out di fferent positions and docum ent broader areas of 
convergence on the different elements.  He proposed  that Members go through the elements of his 
revised non-paper one-by-one.   
(i) Preamble 
32. The Chairman  noted that the Preamble had not been th e subject of much discussion since, at 
one stage, Members had felt that it should only be taken up once other elements of the Mechanism 
had fallen into place.  As a result, discussions had mainly focused on the Structure, Scope and 
Functions of the Mechanism.  Members were also reminded that the Preamble had an 
objective-setting role and hence was closely linked to the overall mandate under which the exercise of 
establishing the MM was being undertaken.  He further recalled that at the 39th Special Session, some 
Members had felt that without a common understa nding on the mandate, it was difficult to make 
progress on other elements of the MM.  Accordingly,  they had expressed a wish to have a thorough 
discussion on the mandate before moving to other el ements of the mechanism.  To facilitate these 
discussions on the mandate, he had placed at the back  of the room extracts of paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1),  paragraph 17 of the Special Session Report to 
the General Council (TN/CTD/3 dated 26 July 2002) and paragraph 251 of the minutes of the General 
Council meeting of 8 and 31 July 2002 (WT/GC/M/75).   
33. In the discussion that ensued, the representative of New Zealand  welcomed Revision 3 of the 
Chairman's non-paper and said that it was a good b asis to carry on future work.  Appreciating the 
reference to the July 2002 Decision of the Genera l Council in the Chairman's revised non-paper, she 
said that Members would now know the exact nature of  the work to be pursued in this regard.  She 
also believed that the best way to make progress in the work of the Special Session would be to 
continue it in the informal setting of smaller-group meetings.   
34. The representative of Zambia , making a statement on behalf of the LDC Group, recalled the 
Ministerial Mandate in para graph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declar ation and instructions given to the 
CTD in paragraph 12.1 of the Doha Minister ial Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 6  
 
  Concerns, as well as the subsequent Decision taken by the General Council in July 2002.  In her view, 
these affirmed the establishment a MM, as part of the S&D Work Programme.  She stressed the importance of S&D provisions in WTO Agreements in assisting LDCs to address peculiar problems 
affecting their effective integration into the multilate ral trading system and realizing tangible benefits 
therefrom.  It was, therefore, necessary, that  the S&D provisions be precise, meaningful and 
operationally effective.  The MM could, therefore, pl ay a crucial role in reviewing and evaluating the 
utilization of S&D provisions.  It could also mon itor their effectiveness on a regular basis so as to 
ensure that any problems encountered are addressed immediately.   
35. The representative of Argentina
 welcomed the opportunity to exchange views in a wider 
format which enhanced inclusiveness and transparen cy and said that he supported the call for more 
open-ended sessions made by the representatives of Pakistan and El Salvador.  On the MM, his 
delegation welcomed the Chairman's revised non-pa per as it captured the ess ence of work undertaken 
in recent months on the elements of the MM.  On the Preamble, he believed that the actual mandate for establishing the MM emanated from paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.   
36. The representative of Pakistan
 said that he appreciated the Chairman's effort in bringing out 
Revision 3 of his non-paper. He found that it was well-structured and that it formed a good basis for 
future work.  However, he voiced concern on the exclusion of refere nce to paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration in the Preamble of the revised  text.  He felt that the July 2002 Decision of the 
General Council was open-e nded and, therefore, of little help.  On the other hand, the mandate 
provided in paragraph 44 of Doha Ministerial Declar ation was specific and hence a reference to it in 
the Preamble was a necessary elemen t for the setting up of the MM.  In any case, the contents of 
paragraph 17 of the Special Session's report to th e General Council and para graph 251 of the July 
Decision of the General Council needed to be read  with the overarching Ministerial Mandate of 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  He, therefore, felt that the only reference point for 
discussing the context and objectives of MM shoul d be paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  
37. The representative of India  supported the statement made by Pakistan and stated that the 
Chairman's revised non-paper was well structured and incorporated several important elements, in 
particular to the Preamble, that were important fo r context setting.  He stressed the importance of a 
clear understanding of the mandate for progress to be  achieved.  He also called for enlarging the 
participation of smaller-group meetings as well as th e continuation of work in open-ended format for 
purposes of transparency.  He further requested the Chairman to issue a roadmap on how he planned 
to undertake consultations on this issue in the coming months.   
38. While welcoming the Chairman's revised non-paper the representative of Brazil  stated that in 
its current state the non-paper fell short of translati ng some of the expectations of many developing 
countries.  It failed to uphold the desired systemic importance of S&D in the context of the DDA.  He 
noted that for Brazil, the main objective would be to preserve the spirit and rationale of the mandate 
stemming, though not exclusively, from paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration which set 
out the specific parameters of the exercise Members were engaged in i.e., that ''... S&D provisions 
shall be reviewed, with a view to strengthening them in addition to making them more precise, 
effective and operational".  The core objective of the MM would, therefore, be to review the S&D 
provisions with a view to making them precise, effective and operational.   
39. In response to India's request for a roadmap, the Chairman reminded Members of his fax of 
13 April 2010 which contained a detailed schedule of meetings that he planned to hold in the coming 
months.   
40. The representative of China  said that he appreciated the Chairman's revised non-paper as it 
was a good balance between the positions of va rious countries voiced in the smaller-group 
consultations that had been held in the preceding fe w months.  On the Preamble, his delegation's view  TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 7 
 
 
  was that it was the most important element of the ex ercise as it shed light on the purpose and objective 
of establishing the MM.  He noted that significan t differences on the understanding of the mandate 
continued to impede meaningful progress in the negotiations and stressed the need to develop a 
common understanding on this issue for progress to be  made on operative parts of the MM.  He felt 
that the actual mandate for establishing the MM eman ated from paragraph 44 of  the Doha Declaration 
and, therefore, it was essential that an appropriate  reference to it must be made in the Preamble.  
41. Endorsing the statement made by the representa tive of New Zealand, the representative of 
Switzerland  said that he believed the best way to ma ke progress was first, through working on the 
Functions, Scope and Structure of the Monitoring  Mechanism. Once other elements of the MM had 
fallen into place working out suitable language woul d perhaps become easier. He thought that the 
Chairman's revised non-paper was an excellent basis for further work. 
42. The representative of the United States  agreed with the statements made by representatives of 
New Zealand and Switzerland on the ma ndate and found that the first sentence of the Chairman's draft 
factually characterized the mandate for the Monitori ng Mechanism.  She added that as described in 
paragraph 17 of the report of the Special Session to the General Council, the African Group's proposal 
on the MM would have two main functions which read as: 
"(i) The regular evaluation of the utilisation and effectiveness of the S&D treatment 
provisions with a view to ensuring that th e provisions are duly utilised and any problems 
arising effectively addressed; and,  
 
(ii) the provision of a framework for initia ting and considering recommendations that the 
CTD could make to Members on complying with obligations under S&D treatment provisions 
as well as best practice for utilisation of the provisions ".  
 43. She said that her delegation was of the view that the MM could be a means to facilitate 
transparency and ensure better use of S&D provisions.   
44. The representative of Cuba
 emphasized the importance of transparency in the negotiating 
process, especially through holding  more open-ended informal meetings.  She believed that an 
effective and results-oriented MM would contribute to the better integration of developing countries 
in the global economy and urged th e developed countries to show fl exibility in the negotiations to 
facilitate progress.   
45. The representative of the European Union  expressed her appreciation for the Chairman's work 
in putting together Revision 3 of the non-paper.  She stressed that while some developing countries 
had felt that the non-paper fell short of their expect ations, many of the EU's own comments which had 
been made in the smaller-group meetings had also not been reflected in th e new draft.  On the 
Preamble, the she appreciated the reference to the General Council Decision of 2002, which for EU 
was the root of the mandate for the MM.  She pr oposed that the Chairman add paragraph 12 of the 
Decision on Implementation-related I ssues and Concerns to his list of  documents on the mandate that 
had been placed at the back of the room.  In her view, paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-related Issues and Concerns, was a nother decision from which the origins of the MM 
could be traced, in the context of cross-cutting issues.  She recalled that the above-mentioned 
paragraph had the objective of finding ways to ma ke S&D more operational within the WTO system 
and of ensuring better implementation of WTO S&D provisions that already existed.  She further said 
that if the July 2002 Decision of the General Counc il had left the scope of the work open-ended, it 
was possibly intentional meaning that it wanted Members to consult and decide on the functions, 
structure and terms of reference for the MM.  Fr om the EU's point of view, the purpose of the 
mechanism could be to oversee the implementation and effectiveness of S&D provisions.  She cautioned against mixing up work on the MM with  the parallel work on the Agreement-specific TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 8  
 
  proposals.  She also expressed her appreciation at the presence of the LDC Coordinator in the meeting 
and encouraged the LDC Group to regularly partic ipate in the smaller-group meetings as these 
countries most needed S&D treatment in the form of market access, transition periods or technical 
assistance, in order to integrate into the multilateral trading system.  Lastly, she expressed her interest 
in having a frank discussion on what Members wanted to achieve from the MM.   
46. The representative of Canada
 welcomed the Chairman's revised non-paper and agreed with 
the stance taken by the representative of New Zeal and.  He said that there was no causal linkage 
between paragraph 44 of Doha Decl aration and the July 2002 Decision of the General Council.  While 
the mandates in paragraph 44 of the Doha Decl aration and paragraph 12 of the Decision on 
Implementation-related Issues and Concerns prescri bed various areas of specific work, the activities 
related to the MM were neither referenced nor ma ndated in these paragraphs.  Having said that, he 
recognized that in the course of early work in the Special Session, the African Group had put forth a proposal on this issue on the basis of which Members recommended to the General Council in 
July 2002 the establishment of a MM on S&D.  The General Council had approved that 
recommendation, and had agreed that the Special Session elaborate, for the Council's approval, the 
functions, structure and terms of reference for such a Mechanism.  Canada further noted that in the 
Chairman's revised non-paper, this nuance has been reflected by removing a reference to paragraph 44 
of the Doha Declaration.  He expressed his delega tion's interest in engaging with other Members to 
find specific preambular language that drew from th e spirit of paragraph 44 of Doha Declaration as 
indicated by Pakistan and others but he did not see any organic linkage betw een paragraph 44 and the 
mandate for the MM.  Furthermore, he said that  his delegation supported Switzerland's proposal of 
undertaking further work on other elements of the text  and before reverting back to the Preamble at 
some opportune time.  
47. The representative of El Salvador
 stated that negotiations under the S&D Work Programme 
were of utmost interest to her delegation and theref ore, requested that El Salvador be invited to the 
smaller-group meetings.   
48. The representative of Nepal  supported the statement by Zambia  on behalf of LDCs, and also 
thanked the EU for showing its support for LDC issues.   
49. The Chairman  encouraged Members to consult among themselves with a view to bridging 
differences on the mandate.  He also pledged to continue consultati ons in open-ended and 
smaller-group formats with the hope of making progress.   
(ii) Scope 
50. The Chairman  informed Members that in Revision 3 of his non-paper, the section on Scope 
had been  moved ahead of that on Structure.  He recalled that under Scope, Members had been 
expressing views on whether the Mechanism should monitor only S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements or whether it should also monitor S&D contained in the General Council and Ministerial 
Decisions.  In addition, views had also been expr essed on the status of Annex C of the draft Cancún 
Ministerial text.  The Chairman added that in the revised non-paper he has documented his objective 
assessment of the possible middle ground that co uld facilitate an agreement among Members.  
Explaining further, he said that while the la nguage provided that the Mechanism would monitor 
implementation and effectiveness of S&D provisions in all WTO Agreements, as well as in WTO General Council Decisions and Ministerial Declarat ions, it would also allow the Mechanism to keep 
under review any work being done on the Agre ement-specific proposals in other WTO bodies, 
including work done in accordance with paragr aph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration .   
51. The representative of the European Union
 stated that she had concerns on the second bullet 
that spoke of keeping under review the work done under the Agreement-specific proposals as it was  TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 9 
 
 
  her understanding that once the Doha Round was comple ted, there would no longer be a need to do 
so.  She stressed that the functions of the MM we re different from reviewing Agreement-specific 
proposals. 
52. The representative of the United States  echoed the EU's concerns on the second bullet under 
the Scope in terms of keeping the work on Agreem ent-specific proposals under review which, in her 
view, seemed to contradict the mandate on the MM in paragraph 251 of the General Council Decision 
of July 2002.  On the first bullet, she noted that  the scope of the MM would normally be all WTO 
Agreements rather than the General Council Decisi ons and Ministerial Decisions.  Since the outcome 
of the Round would supersede all Ministerial De clarations, her delegation felt that it was not 
necessary to make a reference to the General Council Decisions and Ministerial Decisions.  
53. The representative of Canada  stated that his delegation would continue to reflect on the 
Chairman's formulation of the first bullet.  Expressing initial reaction on the issue of keeping under review the work being done on the Agreement-specif ic proposal in WTO bodies, he stated that there 
would be a body of Agreement-specific proposals th at would be agreed to and ultimately form the 
final package.  For Canada, this would include the 28 proposals agreed to at Cancún, the subsequent 
five proposals adopted by Ministers in Hong Kong, Ch ina and those that the Special Session would be 
able to conclude as a result of the current cons ultations.  These Agreement-specific proposals would 
need to be incorporated into the architecture of WTO rules and, as such, would fall under the scope of 
the MM.  For this reason, he had concerns about any outstanding review of the Agreement-specific 
proposals.  Following current deliberations and the delivery by the Special Session of a final package 
of agreed Agreement-specific pr oposals, the Special Session would then have fulfilled its mandate 
under paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declarati on and brought its work to a conclusion.  For any 
outstanding work on Agreement-specific proposals, the Ministers would have to take a separate 
decision on how to proceed.   
54. The representative of New Zealand
 shared the views expressed by the representatives of the 
EU, US and Canada and stated that the scope of the MM needed to be limite d to provisions in all 
WTO Agreements.  Since any final package on Agre ement-specific provisions  would become part 
and parcel of WTO Agreements at the end of the Round, therefore, the second bullet under Scope 
would become redundant. 
55. The representative of Pakistan , speaking on the first bullet, reiterated Pakistan's position that 
inclusion of reference to the Ministerial Declara tions and General Council D ecisions was imperative.  
In his view, there were plenty of variations not  just of S&D provisions, but also many other 
provisions, which were contained in General Counc il Decisions and Ministerial Decisions and hence 
the need for such reference in the text.  On the second bullet, he noted that in the event that all the 
Agreement-specific proposals were resolved and inco rporated into the WTO Agreements, the problem 
would automatically be solved.  However, in the event that there was some leftover work, it would 
mean that work on those leftover Agreement-specific provisions would need to continue.  Therefore, 
he did not see any reason to exclude this from the Scope.   
56. The representative of Egypt  supported the remarks made by the representative of Pakistan 
particularly those related to the first and second bullets and stressed that the mandate of the MM 
derived from paragraph 44 which stated that the obj ective would be to strengthen S&D provisions.  
He noted that the objective of strengthening th ese provisions would also apply to the second bullet, 
i.e., that Members should, in the MM, be able to review any ongoing work including on the 
Agreement-specific proposals. 
57. The representative of Argentina  took the floor to support the statement made by the 
representative of Pakistan.   TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 10  
 
  58. The representative of Costa Rica
 agreed with the views expressed by the representatives of 
Canada and the EU on the Scope and stated that the MM would apply to S&D in all WTO 
Agreements.  For any work on the leftover Agreem ent-specific proposals, Members would have to 
take a separate decision.   
59. Concerning the second bullet, the representative of Switzerland  noted that indeed, there could 
be a situation where Members would not have concluded work on all the Agreement-specific 
proposals by the end of the Doha Round.  In such a case, Members could possibly look favourably at continuing this work and take a separate decision.  Any such decision would need to be a stand-alone 
decision taken at the time of concluding the work under paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.   
60. The representative of Cuba
 stated that her delegation supported those Members which thought 
that the scope of the MM should cover all WTO Agreements as well as General Council Decisions 
and Ministerial Declarations.   
61. With no more Members wishing to take the floor, the Chairman  moved to the discussion on 
the Structure. 
(iii) Structure 
62. Recalling the discussions on Structure , the Chairman  reminded Members that differences 
continued to exist with respect to the sequencing of the monitoring process, i.e., whether a concern 
first needed to be raised in the relevant technical  body or whether it could be brought straight to the 
MM.  Some Members had held the view that any such review must first begin in the relevant technical 
bodies which, they had argued, had the necessary expertise to discuss thes e issues.  Once these 
technical bodies had completed their review, the pro cess could then be moved to the CTD Dedicated 
Session (CTD DS) which would subsequently proceed  with the examination on the basis of inputs 
received from those technical bodies.  Other Members,  while agreeing with the important role that 
technical bodies could play in the monitoring exerci se, had emphasized their preference to maintain 
the centrality of the CTD DS in this exercise.  In th eir view, the review exercise  needed to begin in the 
CTD DS and only where it was deemed necessary, could the matter be sent to a relevant technical 
body for necessary input.  The Chairman informed Members that the new language in his revised 
non-paper attempted to find a middle ground betw een those two somewhat divergent positions. 
63. The representative of Argentina  indicated preference for the second option because as a first 
port of call on S&D issues, the CTD DS would enable Members to have a much clearer view on what to ask from the technical bodies with re gard to the issue in question.  It was important to maintain the 
centrality of the CTD DS in the monitoring process.   
64. The representative of the United States
 flagged her concerns on the sequencing issue and 
stated that where an S&D provision was also the subject of review in another WTO body with technical expertise over the subject matter, that revi ew needed to be first conducted in the technical 
body first prior to coming to the CTD DS.   
65. The representative of Canada
 stated that firstly, he saw the need for more clarity in 
identifying the role of technical bodies in the Chairm an's text as his delegation remained convinced of 
the view that those bodies needed to be the first point of contact in reviewing the effectiveness or 
operationalization of relevant S&D provisions.  A useful example was the adoption by the SPS 
Committee of the procedures for enha nced transparency of S&D in favour of developing countries 
which clearly demonstrated the abilit y of Members to think creatively on  the issue at hand.  Secondly, 
he felt the need to clarify that the CTD DS had th e possibility to forward proposals or specific issues 
to another WTO body for its action and appropriate  follow up, or to seek inputs from another WTO 
body for further discussion in the CTD DS.  He thought that this process would need to be clarified or  TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 11 
 
 
  more clearly defined in the Chairman's text. Finall y, he agreed that the MM should have a role in 
formulating recommendations but that those recommenda tions needed to be finalized on the basis of 
consensus, keeping in view appropriate hi erarchy to review and approve them.   
66. The representative of New Zealand  noted that given their technical expertise, bodies such as 
the SPS Committee and the Committee on Technical Ba rriers to Trade (TBT Committee) needed to 
have primary responsibility to examine and review an y relevant S&D issues.  In addition, pointing to 
the language in bullet 4 which spoke  about convening the CTD DS periodically, she stated that that 
was too indefinite.  Her dele gation had looked at other WTO bodies and had seen that the SPS 
Committee met regularly thrice a year.  Given that the CTD DS would be a subset of the CTD, she 
assumed that it would meet less than the CTD usually me t.  However, given the fact that a review of 
the CTD DS was envisaged in the Chairman's text af ter three years, it would need to have met a few 
times in order to have received sufficient informat ion about its operations to review and make a 
judgement.  On the fifth bullet that spoke about th e structure of the mechanism to be reviewed, she 
thought that it was not just the structure but the activities and operation of the mechanism that would be reviewed.   
67. The representative of the European Union
 supported the comments made by the 
representative of Canada in highlighting the prim ary role of technical committees in the review 
process and reiterated that any examination of any S&D issue must first begin there.  She also wanted 
to have more clarity on the hierarchy of decision-making that would process any recommendations emerging from the CTD DS.  Like the representative of New Zealand, she too wanted to have more information on whether the review would only concern the structure part of the MM or be open to the 
MM as a whole. 
68. The representative of Brazil
 reiterated that the CTD DS was the focal point for the monitoring 
process and that, therefore, the process must begin there.  In cases where it was absolutely necessary 
that Members needed technical input to undertake th e examination, the matter could be referred to the 
relevant technical body.   
69. On the sequencing, issue, the representative of Pakistan  was of the view that the MM would 
be a stand-alone framework that could provide a forum to Members to discuss the operational 
effectiveness of the S&D provisions.  With this ai m in mind, Members could draw lessons from other 
similar mechanisms, such as the trade policy review mechanism, existing in the WTO.  He pointed to 
the fact that although there were notification requi rements in all WTO Agreements and the relevant 
bodies regularly reviewed them, yet Members needed an overarching trade policy review mechanism.  
This needed to be carefully reflected upon.  Obvi ously there was merit in having an overarching 
mechanism.  There was a rationale behind every separat e forum.  He went on to say that if there was 
an SPS issue being brought to the Dispute Settleme nt Body, one would never question whether the 
matter was first examined by the experts in the SPS Committee.  Therefore, the first port of call must 
be the CTD DS with a proviso  that if the issue so warranted Members could agree, on a case-by-case 
basis, about sending the matter to the technical bodies for expert opinion.  He felt that if Members did 
not treat the CTD DS as the first and prime focal  point for the initiation phase of the monitoring 
process, then his delegation did not see any utility in  having such Mechanism.  On the second bullet, 
he proposed that reference to "at the same time..." could be deleted from the sen tence.  With a couple 
of textual suggestions (in brackets) it would read; 
"The CTD DS can also refer any proposals or specific issues (if required) to the relevant 
WTO body requesting for its (technical) input in a time-bound manner. "1 
 
                                                      
1 Language in brackets reflects further additions  to the Chairman's non-paper from Pakistan. TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 12  
 
  70. On the fourth bullet point on periodicity of the regular reviews, he suggested that the CDT DS 
be convened as necessary, but at least twice a year, to allow for regular reviews of S&D provisions which would bring certainty in periodicity and be in line with the practice of other bodies.  On the last 
bullet, he agreed with the representatives of New Z ealand and the EU that it might not just be the 
structure of the MM that needed to be reviewed and proposed that the sentence be amended to read: 
"The mechanism will be reviewed in future... " 
 71. The representative of China
 noted that in principle, his delegation was comfortable with the 
way the Chairman chose to deal w ith the sequencing issue.  In his view, the MM needed to play the 
central role in monitoring the implementation a nd effectiveness of the S&D allowing experts from 
various technical bodies to provide inputs during the pr ocess.  Bullet 2 in the Chairman's text had left 
the door open for this possibility.  He pointed to bullet 4 of the Chairman's revised non-paper, where 
the text called for periodical convening of the CTD DS and stated that that fell short of providing any certainty in the frequency of the meetings envisaged .  It was something that his delegation was not 
comfortable about.  In his view, the MM, which would be convened under the CTD DS, needed to 
follow the normal practice of other WTO bodies where meetings were held at least twice a year.  On 
bullet 5, he agreed that the review need not be limited to the Structure of the MM. 
72. In the view of the representative of Egypt
, the second bullet on functions explicitly placed the 
MM as the focal point, a role that needed to be reta ined.  The fact that the CTD DS would work on the 
basis of submissions from Members and reports from other WTO bodies, and bearing in mind that the CTD DS could also forward any matter to relevant bodies for input, meant that the text was balanced 
as it did not restrict Members from raising matters in other bodies.   
73. The representative of Mexico
 welcomed  Revision 3 of the Chairman's non-paper and stated 
that in bullet 5, on Structure, they supported the te xtual suggestion by Pakistan relating to review of 
all aspects of the MM.  
74. The representative of Switzerland  stated that his delegation preferred a certain sequencing, as 
some S&D issues that would be brought to the atte ntion of the MM would have a strong development 
component and would need to be viewed from a sy stemic perspective.  Therefore, the MM would 
naturally be in the driver's seat.  In other cases, b est practices, ideas and technical input from the work 
of other the WTO bodies would need to be drawn toge ther for undertaking an informed review of the 
issue at hand.  So technical committees and the MM  would have to work in close collaboration.  
There was a need, therefore, to d esign the text that would allow for this close coordination to happen 
for the sake of the quality of review.  In some areas, technical committees might already be working 
on specific S&D provisions and, in such a case, Me mbers needed to avoid creating ground for forum 
shopping and wait until that Committee had finished it's work.  Members, therefore, needed to be 
pragmatic and aim at a text that allowed for those different possibilities.   
75. The representative of Cuba  noted that the CTD DS was the appropriate forum for discussion 
and examination of any matter related to S&D a nd that only where necessary should Members make 
use of other technical committees.   
76. The representative of Costa Rica  noted that in the monitoring process the role of technical 
bodies was of primary importance and hence any exam ination of S&D-related issue would need to 
begin there.  That did not prevent the CDT DS from carrying out a monitoring.  In his view, the phrase  "focal point" did not mean that the CTD DS w ould have to do all the work.  It could undertake 
work on those areas where it had competence to do so, but on those technical-specific issues related to 
WTO Agreements where there were specific committees in place, the work could always be referred 
to those bodies.  TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 13 
 
 
  77. The Chairman  asked the Special Session to ta ke note of all the comments.   
(iv) Functions 
78. The Chairman  recalled that on the Functions, discussions  in the past had focused on the role 
of the MM to collect, analyze and review all releva nt information related to the implementation of 
S&D provisions.  He said that it was his understandi ng that the work thus far undertaken and the 
views expressed were encapsulated in the revised language.  During the course of work, he had sensed 
some agreement among Members to move the phrase '' aimed at improving the implementation and 
effectiveness of S&D provisions '' from Structure to the second bullet under Functions.  Accordingly, 
he has moved the subject phrase to Functions.   
79. The representative of Ecuador  expressed his interest in collaborating with Members on the 
basis of the Chairman's non-paper so as to work towards setting up a simple, practical, efficient and 
transparent mechanism, which would enable to Me mbers to monitor the S&D provisions with a view 
to making them operational.  
80. Since there were no more speakers, the Chairman  concluded by stating that he did not sense 
any significant change in Members' positions and that it was clear that differences continued to exist.  
He said that he would try his best to bridge the gaps through further consu ltations in open-ended and 
smaller-group meetings in the coming months.   
D. COMMUNICATION FROM CUBA (TN/CTD/W/32) 
81. The Chairman  recalled that at the 39th Special Session, the representative of Cuba had briefly 
introduced a communication entitled ''Negotiations on Special and Differential Treatment''.  At that meeting, it had been agreed that the discussion on the Cuba's communication would take place at the 
next meeting.  In the meantime, Cuba's submission had been circulated to Members.  He requested the 
representative of Cuba to briefly highlight the salient points of the Cuban communication.   
82. Recapitulating the main points raised in th e Cuban communication, the representative of  Cuba
 
stated that effective transfer of technology to th e developing countries was the most significant means 
of implementing S&D.  The communication highlighted the importance of technology transfer in the 
context of development priorities and its value as  S&D for developing countries.  Although there were 
a number of technology-transfer related provisions  in the WTO Agreements, these commitments had 
not as yet translated into reality for developing co untries.  The  TBT and SPS measures also remained 
problematic and needed to be analyzed from a deve lopment perspective.  Transfer of technology was 
crucial to building capacity and necessary technical infrastructure in developing countries to meet TBT and SPS obligations.  In providing some specif ic examples of the difficulties that developing 
countries faced, Cuba's submission called for ac cess to new technologies and its transfer to 
developing countries on preferential terms and where possible free of charge, to facilitate developing 
countries' speedier integration into the multilateral trading system.  She proposed that the Special 
Session examine this in the context of the S&D Work Programme to see what could be done to 
redress the situation.   
83. The representative of El Salvador
 indicated her delegation's interest in Cuba's communication 
and hoped that it could serve as a starting point for launching a fruitful discussion on this issue of high 
importance for the developing countries.   
84. The representative of Mauritius  broadly supported the Cuban pr oposal and looked forward to 
working constructively with Cuba and other Members in finding ways to find solutions to the issues 
raised therein.   TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 14  
 
  85. The representative of Turkey
 stated that technical regulations could cause considerable 
barriers to market access for countries with inadequa te infrastructure.  She feared that after the 
liberalization of markets as a result of Doha Round , technical regulations and other barriers to trade 
may assume greater importance.  The communication from Cuba was a good starting point to initiate dialogue on how to enhance technological capacity and infrastructure in developing countries to meet 
these market access challenges.  
86. The representative of Bolivia
 stressed the importance of access to technology and its transfer 
for Bolivia and shared Cuba's views, particular ly the relationship between trade and technology 
transfer, climate change and intellectual property.   
87. Commending Cuba's initiative in tabling the communication, the representative of Brazil 
stated that issues related to technology transfer we re of high priority for all developing countries.  
Technical Barriers to Trade and SPS measures, as well as the problems of conformity assessments, deserved further discussions from the development point of view and with a focus on technology 
transfer.   
88. The representative of the European Union
 stated that while Cuba's proposal was being 
reviewed by EU's experts in Brussels, her de legation's preliminary reaction was that the 
communication could best be discussed in the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology (WGTTT).  She recalled that a similar proposal had been put forward by Cuba in the Working Group 
in 2006, which had been the subject of some discussi on at that time.  Again, for issues related to SPS 
and TBT Agreements to be usefully  discussed, these needed to be ra ised in the relevant Committees 
where the necessary expertise existed.  In addition, she noted that the kind of solutions provided by 
the adoption, by the SPS Committee, of procedures to enhance transparency of S&D in favour of 
developing countries (G/SPS/33/Rev.1) could be a g ood example in demonstrating how experts could 
devise an appropriate instrument to address potential problems arising from new standards as well as in providing a framework to facilitate technical assi stance in meeting these standards.  Overall, while 
the EU was eager to look at specific requests fo r technical assistance including setting up physical 
laboratories and transferring technol ogy, it would have to be done on a case-by-case basis.  She said 
that the EU was already doing that in the cont ext of its Aid-for-Trade programmes and in the SPS 
field, through the Standards and Trade Developm ent Facility (STDF), which aimed at helping the 
developing countries and LDCs meet SPS measures.  On the broader issue of technology transfer, she 
reminded Members that a Working Group was alread y in place within the WTO which would be an 
appropriate forum to discuss the communication fro m Cuba.  For her delegation, technology was 
generated in the private sector and its transfer  took place via private commercial decisions, notably 
through foreign direct investment (FDI).  The governme nts had very little role to play in such private 
decisions.  It was, therefore, quite difficult for th e EU to see a role for the governments in prescribing 
technology transfer beyond what could be done through Aid-for-Trade and technical-assistance 
programmes.   
89. The representative of Venezuela
 underscored the importance of transfer of technology for 
developing countries and extended he r support for Cuba's communication.  She indicated her interest 
in making substantive comments on the communication at  the next meeting of the Special Session.   
90. The representative of the United States  also recalled that a similar proposal 
(WT/WGTTT/W/12) had been the subject of discussion in the WGTTT in 2006.  It was not clear to her delegation why Cuba had chosen to bring the sa me issue to the Special Session.  At the March 
2006 meeting of the WGTTT, the delegation of the US  had expressed its view that the issues outlined 
in the Cuban proposal could be best addressed in  the TBT and SPS Committees and it continued to 
maintain the same position.  She believed that if C uba wished to pursue its proposal, it would best be 
advised to do so in the appropriate WTO technical  committee.  In paragraph 6 of Cuba's proposal it 
was clear that Cuba wanted to ask for analysing and assessing the application of the WTO  TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Agreements on TBT and SPS.  She believed that th e Special Session did not have jurisdiction over the 
application of either the TBT or SPS Agreements.  She further emphasized that the Special Session 
did not have the technical expertise to fully address the type of technical issues outlined in the Cuban 
proposal.  Therefore, her delegation did not favour any further discussion of Cuba's proposal in the 
Special Session.   
91. The representative of Argentina  stated that it was a fact that developing countries and 
particularly LDCs struggled to access the appropria te technology in order to overcome SPS and TBT 
barriers.  While it may be true that issues related to technology transfer were mainly the domain of 
private sector, that did not stop the public sector, as  a regulator, from playing an effective role in 
technology transfer.  It was also true that wher e technical issues were involved these could be best 
addressed in the relevant technical bodies. However,  where general issues of wide-ranging systemic 
interest, such as technology and its transfer and th e role it could play in trade development were 
involved, there could be merit in considering them  in the Special Session in the broader context of 
S&D.   
92. The representative of Switzerland  noted that the issues raised in the proposal were important 
and that Switzerland shared many of the concerns expressed by Cuba regarding problems that could 
be caused by specific technical standards and regu lations, as well as the usefulness of technical 
assistance and capacity building to address possible trade disruptions caused by these standards.  
However, he did not believe that the Special Sess ion was the right forum to advance discussion on the 
issues raised by the Cuban proposal.  He also we re not sure how the Cuban proposal related to the 
mandate of the Special Session.  In his view, Cuba's proposal might fall within the purview of the 
future MM depending on the scope that Members would decide for the mechanism.  It was, therefore, 
for Cuba to reflect and elaborate more on this quest ion.  He noted that there were other WTO bodies 
or venues, for example, the WGTTT, where the Cuban proposal could be discussed more fruitfully.  Specialized facilities and coordination mechanisms, such as STDF, already existed and had assisted 
developing countries to enhance expertise and ca pacity to analyse and implement international 
standards. On the second proposal in Cuba's communication, both Artic les 10 and 12 engaged 
Members to take account of the special developmen t financial and trade needs of developing country 
Members.  Any problems regarding those provisions  would best be raised before the TBT and SPS 
Committees.   
93. The representative of Pakistan
 expressed his support for the Cuban proposal and noted that 
while the point had been made that the Special Se ssion might not be the relevant body to take up the 
proposal.  His delegation still saw merit in discussi ng the paper because what Cuba had asked for in 
both the first and second sub-bullets of paragraph 16 of its proposal was not very different from what 
Members were already discussing in the Special  Session in the context of their work on 
Agreement-specific proposals.  He, therefore, stre ssed the need to have further discussion on these 
issues in the Special Session. 
94. The representative of Norway  stated that Norway strongly supported transfer of technology to 
developing countries including in the areas of TBT and SPS and, in that context, felt that the role of 
technical assistance and capacity building to developing countries was of crucial importance. However, the proposal from Cuba was too categorical  and binding for donor countries.  He noted that 
much of the transfer of technology took place through private actors and that the Norwegian Government had very little role to  play in that process.  Having sai d that, he further noted that his 
delegation was always willing to look at specific  requests for technical assistance and capacity 
building by individual Members.  
95. The representative of Canada
 supported the comments made by the representatives of the EU 
and US and noted that the mandate of the WGTTT un der paragraph 37 of the Doha Declaration stated 
that:   TN/CTD/M/40 
Page 16  
 
  "We agree to an examination of the relationship between trade and transf er of technology and 
to consider any possible recommendations on step s to be taken within the mandate of the 
WTO to increase flows of technology to developing countries ". 
 96. Given the above mandate, th e representative of Canada
 recommended that the WGTTT 
remained the best place to undertak e an assessment of the Cuban proposal.  He further noted that there 
was a  tri-annual review process that took place in both the SPS and TBT Committees which allowed delegations the opportunity to raise concerns and issues regarding implementation and application of 
the SPS and TBT Agreements.  In his view, that  was a better forum for addressing the specific 
recommendations made by Cuba in  paragraph 16 of its text. 
97. The representative of Ecuador
 expressed support for the Cuban proposal.  He was of the view 
that access to technology and lack of effective initiatives by some developed countries in technology 
transfer, as well as training on the adoption and implementation of technical rules had been a 
continuing problem for developing countries in implementing development strategies.  Technical 
Barriers to Trade and SPS were the areas, among othe rs, where developing countries needed technical 
assistance and access to technologies the most.  Therefore, Cuba's contribution was a significant 
starting point for such a  discussion in the Special Session.  
98. The representative of the Dominican Republic  also supported the Cuban proposal and noted 
that transfer of technology was a major concern especi ally looked at in the context of challenges faced 
from climate change.   
99. The representative of China  also thought that trade implications of technical barriers to trade 
including SPS and TBT measures were becoming a matter of concern for developing countries.  
Access to niche developed country markets was incre asingly becoming difficult due to proliferation of 
technical requirements which the developing country exporters were not equipped to fulfil.  Although 
both TBT and SPS Agreements had provisions for S& D and technical assistance for developing and 
least-developed countries, those were often difficu lt to implement.  Considering the paramount 
importance of the issue to developing countries, he  saw merit in discussing Cuba's proposal in the 
Special Session.   
100. The representative of Nicaragua  also extended support to the Cuban proposal and stressed that 
it was important for the developing countries to ha ve access to appropriate technologies to cope with 
the increasing challenges that the gl obalized world posed in particular  in the TBT and SPS areas.  She 
said that in not very distant past, Nicaragua had al so experienced some of the situations set out in 
paragraph 12 of Cuba's proposal when Nicaragua  had needed to reduce the amount of a certain 
substance in its export product.  But Nicaragua did not have the technical means to measure the levels 
of that substance in the subject product.  Such di fficulties came up consistently and were a continuous 
problem specially when the barriers were more stringent than those contained in the Codex 
Alimenterius.  The Cuban proposal dealt with situ ations that developing countries faced on a daily 
basis.   
101. The representative of Nigeria  noted that it would be useful to look at the Cuban proposal in 
the broader context of S&D debate.  Although the pr oposal was specific in terms of requiring to make 
specific decisions as highlighted in its paragraph 16 of Cuba's communication, he encouraged further 
discussion in the Special Session so as to have a frank and open exchange of views on the overall objectives of the proposal.   
102. The representative of Cuba
 thanked Members, in particular those that had extended support to 
the Cuban proposal, for their comments and positive engagement. She considered this overwhelming 
support from developing countries a success and vowed  to continue working on those issues.  She  TN/CTD/M/40 
 Page 17 
 
 
  hoped that in subsequent meeti ngs, her delegation would have th e opportunity to respond to the 
comments made by some of the Members.   
103. The Special Session took note of Members' statements. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
104. Under Other Business the Chairman  reminded Members that during the TNC meeting held on 
22 March 2010, some Members had made certain obser vations on his report to the TNC.  He informed 
Members that he wished to give them an oppor tunity to share these concerns with the wider 
Membership.  He stated that the Chairman's repor t to TNC was always a factual report based on the 
status of work and was always made on his res ponsibility.  With his primary responsibility toward 
strict neutrality, he had always attempted to reflect  both the areas of progress as well as the main areas 
of divergence.  On the question of not sharing the report with Members prior to the TNC meeting, he 
informed Members that he had informally conferre d with the Chairpersons of some of the other 
negotiating bodies on this issue and that they had c onfirmed that that was broadly the practice that 
they too followed.   
105. The representative of Switzerland  noted that while he appreciated the Chairman's reports as 
useful and balanced, he could not help flagging his delegation's concern on the portrayal of the last 
language considered on the Agreement-specific proposal s as something which was an agreed text.  To 
construe that as such would be misleading.  In his un derstanding, the text could, at best be termed as 
the Chairman's text.  He did not agree with the Ch airman's indication that only a few bracketed areas 
reflected the divergent positions on the text.  For his delegation, the brackets did not indicate all the areas of disagreement.  He, therefore, requested th at in future reports, the Chairman find appropriate 
language that was more reflective of the factual s ituation when highlighting areas of divergence.   
106. The Chairman
 took note of the statement and urged Me mbers to continue having confidence 
in his ability to produce balanced reports that he was required to do under his responsibility.   
107. The meeting was adjourned. 
 
 
__________