RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/22 
20 March 2006 
 
 (06-1254) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Twenty-Second Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 12 & 27 OC TOBER;  14, 18 & 21 NOVEMBER 2005 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Faizel Ismail (South Africa) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS .............................................................................................1  
C. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................27  
 
 A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contained in airgram WTO/AIR/2671 of 
27 September 2005 was adopted . 
B. AGREEMENT -SPECIFIC PROPOSALS  
2. Before moving on to the substance of the agenda, the Chairman  briefed Members on the work 
that had been carried out since th e last informal meeting.  He ha d held small group consultations to 
ascertain what Members felt should be the objectives and ambitions on special and differential treatment (S&D) for the Hong Kong Ministerial C onference.  At those consultations, Members had 
felt that it was important to achieve a pos itive result on all the five remaining LDC 
Agreement-specific proposals.  They also felt that some progress needed to be made on the African 
Group proposals.  In so far as it was possible, Memb ers also highlighted the need to address the other 
outstanding issues.  They also impressed upon him the need to consult and coordi nate efforts with that 
of the Chairpersons of those bodies to which th e Category II proposals had been referred.  At a 
subsequent meeting held with a group of Ambass adors, Members had reiterated the need to give 
priority to the LDC Agreement-specific proposals.   
3. The Chairman added that at the informal meeting held on 26 September, the LDCs had 
requested more time to consult bilaterally.  He was therefore interested to hear whether the bilateral 
consultations had resulted in some progress.  Sub sequently, at the meeting held on 12 October 2005, 
the LDCs had not been in a position to continue  discussions on their proposals and Members had 
therefore had preliminary discussions on the African Group proposals.  At that meeting, the African Group sought further information on comments th at had been made on their proposals.  The 
Secretariat had also been requested to assist the African Group in providing further information on 
earlier comments made by Members on the African Group proposals.  He was pleased that the African 
Group had been provided with the requested informa tion and he now wished to get a sense of where 
the African Group was with its work and whether it w as in a position to begin work on its proposals.   
4. On the question of how to proceed, Ministers had, at the meeting held earlier that week, 
expressed a sense of urgency and a need to intensif y work on the Agreement-specific proposals.  He 
also reminded Members of the mid-November dead lines that the Director-General had set for the 
various Chairpersons to provide inputs for the dr aft Hong Kong Ministerial text.  Unless Members TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 2  
 
made real progress it would be difficult to provide such an input, especially when considering that little time was left.  He impressed upon Members th e need to begin negotiations and fulfil their 
commitment to delivering both on the LDC propo sals as well as on as many of the African Group 
proposals.   
5. The representative of Egypt
 said that the African Group had not been able to hold bilateral 
meetings with other Members on its proposals.  Ho wever, the comments that had been provided by 
Members and the help given by the Secretariat on the African Group proposals was appreciated.  
However, the African Group had not been able to  formulate responses to the comments made on their 
proposals.  The reason was that there were many other areas of the negotiations which were at a critical stage and which made it technically difficult to meet as a group and engage substantively on 
the S&D proposals.  The African Group would theref ore need more time to frame responses to the 
questions made.  He suggested that perhaps the informal meetings scheduled for 26 and 
27 October 2005 be set aside to discuss possible elemen ts for the draft Ministerial text and urged that 
as many African Group members as possible be involved  in the process.  Perhaps Members could then 
provide guidance on how to move forward and structure its work before Hong Kong.   
6. The Chairman
 said that it would have helped make progress if the African Group had been in 
a position to begin discussions on its proposals.  As fa r as the inputs for the draft Ministerial text were 
concerned, the Special Session could simply refl ect the progress made in the negotiations.  He hoped 
that Members would be able to make some progress on the five remaining LDC Agreement-specific proposals, and on as many of the African Group proposals as possible.  That was the objective he hoped the Special Session was working towards.  He was not keen to undertake any discussions on 
elements of the draft Ministerial text until some progress had been made.  The Hong Kong text would 
be a reflection of where the Special Session was in terms of the negotiations and would give some sense of direction for future work.  He was ther efore looking to get guidance on how to restart the 
work and make as much progress as possible so th at the Special Session would have something 
substantive to report when providing elements for the draft Ministerial text.   
7. The representative of Djibouti
 said that he agreed that Members needed to make progress in 
the negotiations as well as begin considering elements for the draft Ministerial text.  However, it was 
not clear how they would do that.  The African Group was not yet in a position to reconvene discussions on its proposals because either the proposal s that it had initially tabl ed had not elicited the 
kind of response they expected or the African  Group did not know on what basis to reconvene 
discussions given the lack of progress in other negotiating areas.  The African Group should not be 
rushed to take positions in areas where there was no substance.  A concrete basis on which to make 
decisions would enable Members to pa rticipate in future declarations. 
8. The representative of Zambia
 said that shortly after the summer break, the LDC Group had 
engaged in bilateral consultati ons on its proposals which had provided the Group with a clearer 
understanding of the challenges th at still remained.  Following tho se consultations the LDC Group 
had discussed those issues and decided to undertake fu rther work.  That work was still continuing and 
once completed the Group would revert to the wider Membership and resume discussions on the 
proposals.  In that regard, she sought Members' indul gence in giving the LDCs more time to continue 
their internal consultations.  However, it was also  important that other Members reflect on the issues 
raised by the LDCs and come up with some new id eas.  While the LDCs were the proponents, it was 
Members' collective responsibility to revisit their positions on the proposals.   
9. The representative of Rwanda  said that he had been encouraged by the level of ambition on 
the need to deliver on issues of importance to LD Cs as reflected in Commissioner Mandelson's letter 
circulated to a number of Ministers.  In that c ontext, he asked whether the representative of the EC 
could inform Members on the level of ambition that the EC had for the LDCs.  He was also interested to hear what other Members' levels of ambition were .  Perhaps it would then be easier to consider how 
they could reach substantive results by mid-November.  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 3 
 
 
10. The representative of Tanzania  said that the LDC Group was wa iting for concrete responses 
from other Members on their proposals.  It would be useful for other Members to indicate those areas that were still problematic for them as that w ould assist the LDCs in ascertaining how to move 
forward.   
11. The representative of Djibouti 
said that Members were finding it difficult to find solutions to 
issues of importance to the LDCs which had a minima l share in world trade.  While it was important 
for LDCs to ensure that situations in their countries were stable, it was just as important to ensure that 
others also played their part.  It led one to ask what could really be achieved for the LDCs through the 
negotiations when minimal requests by LD Cs could not be agreed upon.   
12. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the letter that had been referred to 
by the representative of Rwanda had been circulated to a number of Ministers at the mini-Ministerial 
meeting held in Zurich on 4 October 2005.  He was certain that the letter would be shortly circulated 
to the wider Membership.  Inter alia , the letter presented a set of suggestions and ideas in the 
perspective of the Hong Kong Ministerial on devel opment issues and more particularly, issues of 
concern to the LDCs.  It was not an exhaustive list of issues, nor a waterfront survey of all 
developmental issues.  It essentially highlighted a number of important points that the EC felt were 
relevant in ensuring that the Ministerial Conference  was a success.  It reiterated the EC view that 
Members must make clear cut and concrete commi tments for the LDCs at Hong Kong in terms of 
providing them duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) ma rket access.  That should be a commitment 
undertaken by developed country Members and to a lesser degree, and possibly over a longer 
timetable, by more advanced developing countries.  It was however essential in the first place for 
developed country Members to translate the political  commitments made in the past, including those 
made at the Doha Ministerial Conference, into action.  Commissioner Mandelson had also reiterated 
EC's support for a broader package of LDC Agreem ent-specific proposals based on the five remaining 
proposals with the view that they should be agreed upon at, if not before, the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  Therefore, it was important for Memb ers to begin substantive work on the proposals.  
Time was limited and while Members had the benefit of the intensive work that had been carried out 
on the LDC proposals before the summer break, work remained to be done in terms of clarifying precise language, addressing the technical aspects, as  well as preparing the ground for Ministers on 
the decisions that Members had in mind.  Therefor e, the sooner Members began that work the better, 
and while his delegation appreciated the need for the proponents to prepare themselves, it hoped that 
that work would be completed soon. 
13. As for the remaining African Group proposals, he could confirm that following discussions in 
informal meetings, his delegation had put down the c oncerns and questions that it had raised in order 
to delineate the issues.  Those concerns and questi ons had been shared with the African Group and his 
delegation hoped that they had been useful in pr eparing their responses.  Again the objective was to 
try and reach an agreement on as many of those proposals by the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  
However, unlike the LDC proposals, Members did not have the benefit of having already done 
intensive work.  Therefore, in relative terms there was less time to work on the African Group 
proposals.  If Members were only going to discuss process issues through the month of October, it was difficult to see how they could get into the s ubstance of the proposals and bring them to fruition 
in the time that remained before Hong Kong.  He therefore impressed upon the African Group to 
resume work on their proposals and offered to provide  any additional clarifications that could be of 
assistance.  In his delegation's view, discussions  on the language for Hong Kong should only take 
place once Members were certain that there were c oncrete deliverables to offer Ministers.  His 
delegation therefore preferred to work on the subs tance of the Agreement-specific proposals and then 
discuss the language for the draft Ministerial text in  light of the progress that Members made on the 
proposals.   
14. The Chairman
 said that it was clear that Members were  not in a position to resume work on 
either the LDC or African Group pr oposals at that meeting.  He re iterated the need for Members to TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 4  
 
resume work on those proposals.  A list of tentative meetings to carry out work had been circulated, 
and he hoped that at the formal meeting scheduled for 27 October 2005, he would be able to report on 
the progress made in the informal discussions.  As a result of work in other negotiating areas, there 
were limited time slots for meetings.  He urged those Members engaged in bilateral and internal 
consultations to intensify their c onsultations in preparation for the informal consultations scheduled 
for 18 October.  He hoped that by that time, the LDC Group would be in a position to resume 
discussions on their proposals and that Members woul d be in a position to engage constructively in 
those discussions.  In his view, considerable progr ess had been made on those proposals in the run up 
to July and based on that work Members could work towards further narrowing the gaps.  If the 
political will existed it would not take much time  to make progress on those proposals.  Members 
needed to keep the African Group proposals in mind and provide the African Group the opportunity to 
advance work on its proposals.  The informal c onsultation scheduled for 20 October could then be 
dedicated to discuss those proposals and if the A frican Group was still not in a position to discuss its 
proposals, then Members could continue discussions on the LDC proposals.   
15. The representative of India
 recalled that in a previous meeting some Members had raised the 
issue of the Category II proposals.  At that meeti ng, the Chairman had informed Members that he 
would meet with the various Chairpersons of th e bodies to which the Category II proposals had been 
referred to find out if any progress had been made on  those proposals.  His delegation believed that 
the Category II proposals sought to address substantive issues and that it was important to make progress on them.  In that context, he wanted  to know the result of those consultations. 
16. The Chairman
 said that he had not yet had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the 
various Chairpersons, but had scheduled a meeting w ith them on 24 October.  He would report on the 
progress made on the Category II proposals at th e meeting scheduled for 27 October.   
17. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that her delegation supported resuming work on 
the Agreement-specific proposals as  soon as possible.  She requested the Secretariat to provide 
Members with the relevant documentation prior to any scheduled meetings as it would be difficult, 
especially in light of the large number of meetings, to attend all the Special Session meetings. 
18. The representative of Rwanda  said that his delegation agreed that Members needed to 
continue meeting bilaterally.  In that context, he  requested other Members to consider language that 
reflected their ambitions, and which could result in possible solutions.   
19. The meeting was adjourned  and thereafter reconvened  on 27 October. 
20. The Chairman  said that he intended to inform Members about the discussions that had taken 
place on the various proposals, as well as brief them on the feedback received from the Chairpersons 
of the bodies to which the Category II proposals had been referred.  He had convened a number of 
formal and informal meetings since the summe r break with the intention of expediting the 
consideration of the remaining Agreement-specific pr oposals.  He also stressed that time was limited 
and Members would need to resume their cons ideration of the proposals as soon as possible.  
However, despite the various meetings that had been convened to resume discussions on the 
proposals, neither the LDCs nor the African Group were  ready to resume discussions.  At the meeting 
reconvened on 12 October, the Afri can Group had requested Members to provide, in writing, their 
views on the African Group proposals.  A number of Members had provided the African Group with their comments, which was also assist ed in this regard by the Secretariat.  He had mentioned his 
disappointment at the requests for repeated adjournments, but since the proponents were not ready he 
had had no option but to further postpone the discussions.  Subsequently, limited informal 
consultations were held on 18 and 20 October and again on 24 a nd 25 October.  Unfortunately, 
Members had only been able to take up the re maining LDC proposals, since the African Group 
continued to signal that they were not ready and ha d not yet been able to formulate their final position 
on their proposals.  It was his understanding that the African Group were still working on their  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 5 
 
 
proposals and provided there was still time before the Ministerial meeting, he was willing to facilitate 
consultations on their proposals as soon as the African Group was ready to do so. 
21. He went on to brief Members on the deliberati ons on the LDC proposals.  The consultations 
that had been held over the past few weeks ha d helped move the discussions on the LDC proposals 
forward.  However, Members were still not quite th ere in terms of building the necessary convergence 
to reach agreement on the proposals.  The consultati ons, at the request of the proponents, had focused 
mainly on proposal no. 36 on DFQF market acces s, and proposal no. 84 in flexibilities from the 
TRIMS Agreement.  Initially, the discussions on both proposal nos. 36 and 84 were based on the 
language of 25 July.  The LDCs, in an attempt to  address some of the concerns that had been 
expressed on that language, had put forward revised language on 20 Oc tober.  On proposal no. 36, 
Members had acknowledged that that was an area in which they would need to deliver some positive 
results for LDCs.  However, there continued to  be a number of issues on which Members still 
remained far apart.  Those included whether DFQF market access should be accorded for all  products, 
to all  LDCs, and on the issue of binding  that market access in the WTO.  Despite the fact that there 
was new language on the table, the general fee ling was that unless Members agreed on those three 
issues, drafting changes were unlikely to help Memb ers reach an agreement.  Some Members felt that 
a decision on those issues could only be taken at th e political level, either before or at Hong Kong.  
While that might be the case, he felt that Member s should attempt to put forward some language that 
was simple and reflected where the differences ex isted and leave it up to Ministers to take the 
necessary political decisions.  On proposal no. 84 relating to the TRIMs Agreement, he was pleased 
that Members seemed to be moving closer to conv ergence.  Members had acknowledged the need to 
provide flexibility in the TRIMs Agreement for LDCs .  However, a number of them continued to 
stress the need for some checks and balances.  They al so felt that ultimately ther e needed to be an end 
date for any flexibility in the TRIMs Agreement fo r the LDCs, both for new and existing measures.  
Some alternate language had been ta bled by Members in the last few days and he was attempting, in 
consultation with different Members, to find a form ulation that could be acceptable to all.  Members 
had also discussed some of the other LDC proposals.   Discussions on proposal no. 88 relating to 
paragraph 1 of the Decision on Measures in Favour  of Least-Developed C ountries were based on the 
25 July language.  Some Members still seemed concer ned that the proposal implied an opt out by the 
LDCs from their obligations.  Other Members pointed out that that might have been the impression if 
the first sentence of the proposal was read in isol ation.  Those Members believed that the second 
sentence in the proposal clearly provided Member s the opportunity to discuss and decide in the 
General Council, whether the LDC in question ha d legitimate problems in fulfilling particular 
obligations.  Concerns had also b een raised about the link between th e need for technical and financial 
assistance to fulfil obligations.  However, he belie ved that with a little more work, Members could 
reach an agreement on the proposal.  Members had not been able to discuss proposal no. 23 relating to 
waivers, since the LDCs were still consulting, on a bilateral and plurilateral basis, with Members who 
had raised concerns on the proposal.  It was his understanding that some of those consultations had 
taken place the previous day and on that morning, and he hoped to hear whether there had been any 
further progress.  Proposal no. 38 relating to the Decision on Measures in Favours of Least-Developed 
Countries had not been taken up since there see med to be broad convergence on the language 
contained in the 25 July 2005 text.  It was his fe eling that on that proposal Members were close to 
consensus.    
22. He went on to brief Members about the meetings that he had had with the Chairpersons of the 
bodies to which the Category II proposals had been  referred.  He had met a number of those 
Chairpersons on 24 October to get a feedback on th e current status of the work on the Category II 
proposals;  to ascertain how that work could be ex pedited and whether it would be possible to make 
any recommendations on those proposals by the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.   
23. He said that the Chairman of the Co mmittee on Agriculture in Regular Session,  had informed 
him that in light of earlier inconclusive discussions on the African Group proposal on the framework of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 6  
 
Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries, Members had agreed to pursue the 
proposal on the basis of a revised proposal, as e nvisaged in the Committee's report to the General 
Council on Implementation-Related Issues (G/AG/16).  A  revised proposal had not yet been tabled 
but he had been informed, that at the meetings held in May and June 200 5, the representative of 
Kenya had indicated that the African Group was in  the process of preparing a follow-up proposal.  
The next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for January 2006, in which the proposal, if 
submitted by then, would be taken up.  
24. The Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture
 had reported that 
various aspects of S&D remained s ubject to considerable debate in the ongoing negotiations and that 
the Category II proposals were being addressed as part of the wider discussions in the negotiations on 
S&D.  Members had highlighted the difficulties in taking a decision on any of the referred proposals 
in isolation of the ongoing negotiations.  The nego tiations were currently focusing on developing the 
rules and formulae.  The Chairman had also indicat ed that the manner in which S&D would fit into 
the final outcome would depend on how the basic st ructure of commitments, rules and formulae was 
agreed.   
25. The Chairman of the Committee on Safeguards  had informed him that the African Group 
proposal had been discussed at a meeting held in July 2005.  The discussions revealed an apparent 
lack of consensus on the substance of the proposal  and while the proposal remained on the table, 
progress was not likely unless the proponents were willi ng to redraft the proposal.  The Chairman of 
the Committee on Safeguards had been in contact with  the African Group in order to see how to move 
the issue forward.  
26. The Chairman of the Committee on Sa nitary and Phyto sanitary Measures  had reported that 
Members had been able to address the underlying con cerns raised in the proposals and in order to 
address those concerns, the Chairman had put forwar d a possible approach contained in paragraph 43 
of document G/SPS/35.  One of the bullet points in that paragraph identified elements for further 
discussion in the Committee.  The Committee was likel y to discuss those points in its meeting in 
February 2006. 
27. He said that the Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures  had held several formal 
and informal meetings to consider the S&D proposal s.  At an informal meeting held on 9 May 2005, 
the African Group had presented a revised version of  its proposals, which were more specifically 
targeted to the concerns of African countries.  The Committee discussed the revised proposals at its 
July 2005 meeting but could not reach a cons ensus on them and at its meeting held on 
10 October 2005, Members' positions did not seem to have changed on those proposals.  
28. The Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services  had reported that 
the numerous discussions dedicated to the consideration of the GATS-specific S&D proposals had remained at the exploratory level, with Members seeking clarification about the scope, nature and 
implications of the proposals.  At the Council's formal meeting held on 21 February 2005, the 
proponents had indicated that they were prepari ng a written document for Members to consider.  The 
African Group had also informed the Special Session that text-based discussions were underway in 
small groups and that it would, at the appropriate time, be responding to the Chairman's invitation to 
use his offices to further the di scussions.  The Chairman had informed him that he intended to hold 
informal consultations the following week at which Members were likely to discuss the substance of 
the S&D proposals again. 
29. The Chairman of the TRIPs Council
 had reported that the S&D proposals referred to the 
Council were on the agenda of the Council's meeti ngs in March and June 2005.  Unfortunately, no 
discussions had taken place on any of the proposals at an y of those meetings.  At the July meeting, the 
African Group proposal was discussed but differen ces in Members' views remained.  The Chairman 
had also reported that the LDCs were unable to pur sue their proposal relating to the transition period  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 7 
 
 
under Article 66.1 at that meeting.  The proposals were on the agenda of the Council's meeting held 
during that week.   
30. The Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body  had reported that a 
number of contributions put forward by various Me mbers on issues relating to the participation of 
developing country Members in WTO dispute settleme nt had been the subject of ongoing discussions 
in the Special Session.  Those proposals had also been on the agenda of the Special Session held on 
24 October 2005.  However, no s ubstantive discussions had taken place on the proposals and the main 
proponents, the African Group and India, had requested that the consideration of the proposals be postponed until after the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.    
31. The Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules
, had informed him that since 
December 2004 he had had a number of direct persona l contacts with the coordinators of the African 
Group and the LDCs.  Most recently, and in respon se to invitations sent by the Chairman to the 
coordinators of the LDCs and the African Group, th e Chairman had attended a meeting of the African 
Group at Ambassadors' level on 22 June 2005 at whic h he had briefed the Ambassadors on issues of 
interest to the Group regarding the rules negotiations .  The Chairman had also informed him that at 
the series of meetings held by the Negotiating Gr oup during the week of 26 September, "no Member 
sought to pursue any of the Category II proposals".  On a number of occasions the proponents had not 
been present at the meetings to advance discussions on their proposals. 
32. He had emphasised to the Chairpersons, the importance of making progress on the 
Category II proposals.  He also conveyed the importa nce that Members attached to the proposals and 
the concerns that they had expressed on the lack of  progress on them.  However, it was his sense that 
things had not changed dramatically since the last time those bodies had reported to the General 
Council in July 2005.  He also got the impression from most of the Chairs that, in their view, progress was unlikely to come about unless and until the prop onents became more active in those bodies and 
pushed the process forward themselves.  He assured Members that he would continue to maintain a 
close liaison with the Chairpersons and woul d report to Members as often as possible. 
33. He wished to hear from the Members that ha d been involved in the consultations on the 
progress that had been made and their views on how Members could close some of the existing gaps on the proposals.  Members were supposed to have completed their work by that meeting and he had 
intended to begin work on possible language for the draft Hong Kong Ministerial text.  Unfortunately, 
that would not be possible as Members were still so me way from convergence.  Given the general will 
that existed to make progress on the proposals, and in particular the five LDC Agreement-specific 
proposals, he intended to conti nue his consultations  and try and make further progress on the 
proposals.  The negotiations were in overtime and a great degree of flexibility would be required.  He 
said that he would suspend the meeting so that as soon as progress was made, he could resume the 
meeting.  This would also allow him to keep Members briefed on the status as well as to obtain 
further guidance on how to proceed.  He recalled th at at the last meeting, the representative of 
Pakistan and some other Members, had request ed the Secretariat to provide a list of the 
88 Agreement-specific proposals indicating in which bodies those proposals were being addressed.  That list was available for Members at the back of the room. 
34. The representative of Zambia
, speaking on behalf of the LD Cs, said that in the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration, Ministers had agreed that all S&D provisions would be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more precis e, effective and operational.  The July Package 
had taken that a step further and instructed the Special Session to address all other outstanding work 
including on the cross-cutting issues, the Monitoring  Mechanism and the incorporation of S&D into 
the architecture of WTO rules.  In March 2005, Members had agreed that priority should be given to the five LDC proposals.  Since then, Members had been negotiating those five proposals.  The LDCs 
had been fully engaged in the process and had contin ued to put forward new suggestions in an effort 
to meet other Members' concerns.  That had mean t continually reducing their level of ambition.  TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 8  
 
Unfortunately, other Members had not provided the level of political commitment that could bring about an agreement on the proposals.   
35. He went on to address each of the five LDC propo sals.  He said that the intent of proposal 
no. 23 on the Understanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligations under the GATT 1994 
(TN/CTD/W/4/Add.1) was to grant waivers to LDCs  and avoid the complex system outlined in the 
Understanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligat ions under the Marrakech Agreement.  Some 
developing countries were concerned about this propo sal.  The LDCs saw no way to resolve the issue.  
Agreeing to the inclusion of text which insured that  a waiver would not be granted unless it took into 
account the interests of other developing countries or which had a negative impact on other countries, 
would weaken the proposal to the extent of maki ng it meaningless.  Additionally, replacing the words 
'shall' by 'should' would not only further weaken the proposal but would erode the rights of LDCs 
contained in Article IX of the Marrakech Agre ement.  On proposal no. 36 on the Decision on 
Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries (TN/CTD/W/4/Add.1), the LDCs had proposed a number of alternative texts.  However, none of th em had seemed close to satisfying the demands of 
some Members.  At the heart of the discussions on that proposal, was whether DFQF market access 
should be provided to all LDCs for all products and whether that  access should be bound to ensure 
security, predictability and sustainability.  The LDCs  appreciated the political and technical problems 
posed by a bound zero tariff for LDCs, however the pr oposed alternative text that took that aspect into 
consideration had not been accepted.  The LDCs al so appreciated the difficulties that some Members 
had with agreeing to DFQF access for all products from all LDCs.  Again, the LDCs had suggested a 
phase down mechanism to take those concerns into  account, but that had not been accepted.  While 
the LDCs had attempted to meet the concerns of other Members, short of dropping all three demands 
which would nullify the benefits of providing DFQF market access, it had been difficult to reach an 
agreement.  He said that no delegation seemed to have a problem on proposal no. 38 relating to the 
Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries (TN/CTD/W/4/Add.1).  In fact most delegations did not believe that th e proposal added value to what had already been previously agreed 
in the WTO.  The language of the proposal simp ly reaffirmed existing commitments.  On proposal 
no. 84 on the Agreement on Trade-Related Invest ment Measures (TN/CTD/W/4), the LDCs had made 
major concessions.  Initially the LDCs had b een seeking complete exemption from the TRIMs 
Agreement and during consultations had constantly attempted to take  Members concerns on board.  
To that end the LDCs had modified their proposal to capture the separate treatment of existing and 
new measures;  the notion of a time frame for the notification for existing measures as well as a time 
frame for the duration of a TRIM with the provisi on for an extension from the Council for Trade in 
Goods;  the notion of a time frame for the notificati on of a new TRIM through the CTG and the use of 
a process of negative consensus;  and a time frame on new measures with a provision for applying for an extension.  Despite taking those issues on boa rd, Members seemed just as far from reaching an 
agreement on proposal no. 84 than when the LDCs  had been seeking total exemption from the TRIMs 
Agreement.  On proposal no. 88 on paragra ph 1 of the Decision on Measures in Favour of 
Least-developed Countries (TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2), the in tention had been to provide LDCs with some 
flexibility in complying with the WTO provisions in line with their individual development,  financial and trade needs as well as their administrative and institutional capacities.  The LDCs were still open 
to discussing language that would make the proposal  meaningful and add value while recognizing the 
need to comply.   
36. He went on to say that the LDCs were concerned that time was running out.  Given that 
Members were having difficulties reaching consensus on the five remaining proposals, the prospect of 
reaching any agreement on the remaining S&D pr oposals looked bleak.  The reason why it had 
seemingly taken a long time to resume discussions w as due to the LDCs continued efforts to revise 
their language.  Members were aware of the LDCs' concerns and attempting to address those while at 
the same time taking into account Members' concer ns was not an easy task.  He believed that the 
technical difficulties could be resolved if there was sufficient political will to do so.  However, the 
LDCs did not detect the political will to strengt hen and make the S&D provisions more precise, 
effective and operational as agreed to at Doha.  In  other words, the LDCs saw a lack of commitment  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 9 
 
 
by some Members to the letter and spirit reflected in the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the July Package.  The LDCs had, in their view, exercised  a great deal of flexibility which had its limits. 
37. The representative of Djibouti
 said that  efforts had been made to clarify the S&D provisions 
in order to enable Members to have a clearer picture of things.  As Members made some progress on the proposals, new problems arose.  This left one  wondering what was the point in continuing the 
negotiations on S&D.  The LDCs were a specific gr oup recognized by the international community as 
such, and therefore needed to be accorded differential treatment.  Bu t this would require political will 
and recognition by other Members that the LDCs cons tituted a vulnerable group.  He was certain that 
Members were familiar with the concerns of the LDCs  which constantly faced difficult situations.  If 
they could reach a certain level of development then  that would also benefit developed countries.  The 
more developed LDCs became, the more their involvement in the world economy would be.  They 
could then attract investment, contribute to the de velopment of world trade and in turn control and 
eradicate poverty.   
38. The representative of Rwanda
 said that his delegation supported the statement made by the 
representative of Zambia on behalf of the LDCs.  As mentioned in the Chairman's report on the 
Category II proposals, the proponents had not been pr esent in many of the meetings.  That was not 
because they were not interested in the discussions, but rather because they had constraints and could 
not attend all the meetings.  That would determin e their strategy for Hong Kong in terms of how to 
proceed with the Category II proposals.  At that  very moment, a meeting on S&D in the TRIPS 
Council was taking place and his delegation could not attend.  He asked how the Chairman intended 
to proceed at that meeting, whether Members woul d have a general discussion or whether they would 
focus on some of the proposals.  He was aware that while at times it was better to negotiate in smaller 
informal groups, if the wider membership understood the concerns there could be broader support for 
the proposals.  He said that the LDCs had not seen the gains from the Doha negotiations.  The level of 
gains between developed and deve loping Member countries would vary, with the LDCs losing out, as 
a result of adjustment costs or loss in preferences.  The LDCs therefore wished to balance their losses 
and gains, for example gains from DFQF market access and policy space in the TRIMs area.  The 
LDCs really needed Members to recommit to the Doha Development Agenda.  That would give the 
WTO a positive image by demonstrating that Memb ers were genuinely willing to support weak 
countries. 
39. In response to the representative of Rwanda, the Chairman  said that he was willing to get into 
discussions on the LDC proposals.   
40. The representative of Nepal  said that his delegation fully associated itself with the statement 
made by the representative of Zambia on behalf of  the LDCs.  His delegation hoped that the Doha 
Round, which was considered to be a developmen t round, would include an S&D component.  The 
LDCs' share in world trade was small and declining.   The LDCs therefore aspired to integrate their 
economies into the multilateral trading system.  He  hoped that Members could rethink their positions 
by helping the LDCs to address their difficulties and reach a successful conclusion to the negotiations. 
41. The representative of Tanzania  said that her delegation associated itself with the statements 
made by various LDC Members.  The representative of  Zambia had spoken on behalf of 34 LDCs, all 
of which could not be present due to parallel meetings .  LDC concerns were considered to be at the 
heart of the WTO and therefore Members needed to  demonstrate that practically.  The Doha Round 
was a development round and the proposals tabled by the LDCs were for development.  If Members 
really wished LDCs to integrate into the multilate ral trading system and graduate, which the LDCs 
themselves were aspiring to do, they needed to de monstrate the political will by agreeing to what the 
LDCs were seeking. 
42. The representative of Uganda  said that gauging from the Chairman's report, it seemed 
Members may not be able to deliver on any of  the LDC issues, including in other bodies, by TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 10  
 
Hong Kong.  He therefore did not see why Member s were going to Hong Kong as that would be a 
waste of money.  That money could be put to better use in the LDCs.  The LDCs had hoped that 
Members would deliver in two areas, S&D and agri culture.  The LDCs were hoping to see a reduction 
in domestic support on the part of the major trad ing partners so that commodity prices would rise, 
LDCs could export at higher value, improve their ba lance of payments, and have some surplus to use 
for development purposes.  However, there did not  seem to be hope in that area because what had 
happened at the Zurich mini-Ministerial gave the impression that the LDCs were not going to get anything.  In Zurich, some Ministers had stated that developed countries would need time to reduce 
their bound support.  For instance, if they had agreed in the Uruguay Round to provide $100 in support, they were requesting that they be given time to consider, perhaps lowering that support to say 
$95.  However, the applied support in some of those countries was below 50 per cent.  So the question 
was whether they were really giving anything.  Th ey were not reducing on green, amber or blue box 
support, nor on de minimus.  There was clearly going to be no harvest in that area.  Members were 
merely going to Hong Kong to spectate and return with nothing achieved in terms of market access 
for LDC products.  The LDCs had hoped that sin ce they were not going to harvest anything in 
agriculture, they may be able to harvest some thing on S&D.  However, Members had rejected 
whatever the LDCs had proposed.  From 88 proposals, dow n to 28 that had been agreed to in principle 
but not adopted, then to just five, and still Member s could not reach an agreement.  Members were 
aware that LDCs were extremely poor.  The shar e of LDC exports on the world markets was below 
1 per cent.  Even if LDCs tripled their exports th is would not even affect the market.  They were 
seeking positive results so that they could continue to  stay afloat and not sink, so that they could 
graduate from low levels of poverty, add value to what they produced and obtain better access to other 
Members' markets.  It appeared to him that Memb ers did not care and wished to see the LDCs remain 
where they were.  Perhaps Members assumed that LDCs liked the position they were in and were 
proud of being there.  The LDCs were not proud of where they were, they aspired to graduate.  When 
seeking DFQF market access, the LDCs were seeking the opportunity to attract investment into their 
countries and add value to their products.  Binding that market access would give LDCs the security 
and predictability to attract investment.  LDCs did not have the capacity to take advantage of 
preferential schemes such as EBA or AGOA as they did not have money to invest, or the skills or the 
expertise to do so.  However, binding market acce ss would hopefully attract investors and enable 
them to integrate into the international market.   
43. The representative of Lesotho
 said that her delegation supported the statement made by the 
representative of Zambia on behalf of the LDCs a nd those statements made by other LDC Member 
countries.  It was true that the LDCs had moved considerably from their original positions and had 
always attempted to accommodate other Members' con cerns.  However, patience had its limits and the 
LDCs were merely seeking to be given the chance to  help themselves.  They were not proud to be 
seeking differential treatment from others.  
44. The representative of Brazil  said that it was not completely fair to say that there had been no 
progress on the LDC proposals.  There had been a willingness on the part of all Members, particularly the LDCs, to consider new formulations that coul d help Members reach an agreement.  What had 
been missing was the decisiveness to get to the goal line.  Sometimes, there had been too much 
emphasis on the issue of the principle and sanctity of the WTO objectives and general principles.  He 
believed that it was unfair that those principles be raised when it came to the LDCs, because someone 
familiar with the international economy but not fam iliar with the WTO Agreements, could see that the 
WTO Agreements contained S&D for least-develop ed, developing and deve loped countries.  Once 
one took away the preambles, which were in most cases in favour of LDCs and developing countries, 
it appeared that there were specific S&D provisions only for developed countries.  In his view, it was 
not fair to ask the LDCs to bear the weight of the integrity of the principles of the WTO, when in fact 
what they needed was a certain degree of policy spa ce.  It was also not fair to impose on any Member 
one's own views on what was best for development.   The purpose of development was also a learning 
process and countries had to go through their own ex periences.  Members needed  to continue working 
with a sense of urgency and demonstrate more flex ibility for the LDCs.  It was important to have  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 11 
 
 
meaningful results on at least some of the LDC proposals and not a restatement in preambular language of general principles.   
45. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the Chairman's report on the 
informal consultation process was fair and accurate.  It was clear that the LDCs attached a lot of 
importance to finding a solution to the proposals of  concern to them.  The picture presented by the 
LDCs was a little exaggerated, but understandably so, given the situation that the work was in.  On 
proposal no. 84 on TRIMs, he did not think that the s ituation was as polarised as had been implied.  It 
was true that the LDCs had shown flexibility in moving from their initial proposals.  However, other 
Members had also shown flexibility in moving to wards middle ground and, in his view, Members 
were getting closer to what could be a mutually  acceptable outcome.  The key issues that Members 
needed to bear in mind and that had been me ntioned by a number of LDC Members, included 
integration into the multilateral trading system a nd how Members could ensure that S&D in the WTO 
and in combination with other policy instruments, su pported the efforts of LDCs to integrate into the 
multilateral trading system;  and, as had been menti oned, the need to raise the levels of welfare and 
economic development in LDCs so that they could eventually graduate.  He agreed that the LDCs 
belonged to a distinct group and needed to be accord ed the necessary flexibility to address their needs.  
However in doing so, the objective had to be the even tual integration rather than detachment of the 
LDCs from the WTO.  There was always a risk in  some of the proposals that the result would be 
separation rather than integration into the trading system.  Members had gone a long way on all the proposals and they were getting closer to outcomes th at would strongly support integration and not the 
opposite.  He reiterated that the EC remained fu lly committed to the objective of reaching an 
agreement on the package of LDC Agreement-specific proposals.  Hi s delegation believed that it was 
still feasible and realistic to aim for an agreement that would provide added value for the LDCs on all 
the proposals.  While he fully acknowledged that some of the proposals, particularly the proposal on DFQF market access, raised politi cal issues which were important, significant and problematic for 
some Members, his delegation believed that those di fficulties could be addressed and resolved at the 
political level.   
46. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that his delegation supported the statement made by the 
representative of  Zambia on behalf of the LDCs as  well as those statements made by other LDCs.  
LDCs were the weakest and poorest Members of th e WTO with a meagre share in global trade of 
0.6 per cent.  He implored upon all Members to sup port the integration of LDCs into the multilateral 
trading system.  The Doha Round was a developmen t round and, to make it meaningful, the LDCs 
wished to see the five S&D proposals agreed upon.   
47. The representative of Cambodia  associated his delegation with the statement made by the 
representative of Zambia on behalf of the LDCs as well as those statements made by other LDCs.  
Members were aware of the LDCs constraints su ch as, supply-side constraints, institutional 
constraints, export constraints as well as constraint s in implementing the WTO obligations.  It was not 
clear whether the implications of the Round would be  positive or negative for the LDCs.  In terms of 
preference erosion, there would be a reduction in  LDCs competitiveness since they had very few 
exports.  The Round could even result in more obliga tions for the LDCs to implement.  He said that 
the five proposals were important for the LDCs to gain in several areas including in terms of predictable market access, flexibilit y, policy space and technical and financial assistance to implement 
their obligations.  In that context, he asked Memb ers to demonstrate more flexibility and reach an  
agreement on the five LDC proposals.   
48. The representative of the United States
 said that like some of the other previous speakers, her 
delegation did not share the discouragement th at a number of the LDCs had expressed.  She 
understood their frustration but was not as discourag ed with regard to Members' ability to make 
progress on the LDC proposals.  Her delegation saw real possibilities on a number of the proposals 
and was willing to work on all of them to see if th e differences could be br idged.  The new language 
tabled by the LDCs had been helpful but still require d some clarification.  Members were working in TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 12  
 
good faith to try to sort out their differences.  With  respect to what had been said by the representative 
of Brazil on the principle of the WTO and on what was best for development, she said that there were legitimate differences in that regard, and Members needed to find a pragmatic solution.  In many 
cases, LDCs were seeking fl exibilities that they were already grante d de facto in some areas.  It was 
more a question of what was the right way forward.   Her delegation was willing to be flexible but 
believed that it was important to ensure that LDCs remained within the system.  Integration required 
that all Members work together.  It was a matter  of degree and emphasis and she was certain that 
Members were moving closer to strike the right ba lance.  Her delegation was prepared to continue 
working on the proposals. 
49. The representative of Paraguay
 said that the language on proposal no. 23 on waivers did not 
reflect his delegation's view.  His delegation was aware that the text had been submitted by the 
Chairman, however it was important to keep in mind that his delegation had different wording for the 
last sentence of the proposal.  His delegation had met, on several occasions, with the LDCs to try to 
bridge their differences.  His dele gation had submitted more flexible language.  In spite of that, the 
LDCs were still not satisfied with the proposal a nd had not come up with an y alternative language.  
His delegation was ready to work on language that  would be acceptable and enable Members to reach 
an agreement.  He reiterated his delegation's co mmitment to adopting specific measures for LDCs.  
His delegation was small and had other commitments in and outside the WTO.  However, it had made 
efforts to be present at those meetings where the LD C proposals had been addressed.  The only way to 
make progress and achieve results in the WT O was to negotiate by submitting proposals and 
repeatedly attempting, with patience and persever ance, to make progress.  Nevertheless, there was 
always great satisfaction when at the end of such  efforts, agreements were reached that met the 
essential needs of all parties involved.  He reitera ted his delegation's commitment to achieve results 
on the LDC proposals, as well as its commitment to S&D in general. 
50. The Chairman  reminded Members that the text that he had made available to Members on 
25 July was in no way an agreed text.  It was a working draft to help Members move forward.   
51. The representative of Senegal  associated his delegation with the statement made by the 
representative of Zambia on behalf of the LDCs.  He  said what the LDCs were seeking was the ability 
to implement the WTO Agreements in a flexible and differentiated manner.  That was based on the 
principles of solidarity and sovereignty which al l Members needed to be mindful of.  Members 
needed to discuss and negotiate those principles,  with the knowledge that the LDCs were seeking 
flexibility which was necessary for their developmen t process.  That flexibility would strengthen the 
LDCs' supply capacity and enable them to play a mo re prominent role in international trade.   
52. The representative of Madagascar  said that her delegation suppor ted the statement made by 
the representative of Zambia on behalf of th e LDCs.  Although the situation was extremely 
disappointing, her delegation was optimistic that  Members could, between then and Hong Kong, 
come up with a solution that would benefit the LDCs. 
53. The representative of India  said that his delegation had been involved in the process of 
addressing the LDC proposals and shared, not just the frustration, but some of the disappointment that 
had been expressed by the LDCs on the lack of r eal progress on their proposals.  Members were 
getting close to the deadline and things were unfort unately not looking too good.  Members needed to 
remain optimistic and while his delegation was willing to continue working intensively with others to 
achieve some results, Members needed to keep in mind that the LDCs had made tremendous efforts in 
being practical, rationalizing their proposals as well as revising them in order to meet the concerns of 
other Members.  In his delegation's view, the pr oposals were reasonable, valid and could go a long 
way in assisting the LDCs improve the living standard s of their people as well as help them to further 
integrate into the multilateral trading system.  One factor which had changed over the last few weeks, 
and which he considered to be the only ray of hope, was that some of the Members which had had 
concerns, more specifically on proposal no. 36 wh ich for the LDCs was the key proposal among the  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 13 
 
 
five, had tabled specific concerns making it clear wh at issues needed to be addressed.  He hoped that 
that process would give Members a realistic idea of what could be achieved.  His delegation supported 
the Chairman's call for pragmatism on the part of all Members.  The five proposals were crucial and his delegation remained hopeful that Members could reach an agreement on them by Hong Kong.  His 
delegation was among those that had requested the S ecretariat to compile all the Agreement-specific 
proposals.  That would certainly help Members focus on what they felt were the most crucial 
proposals.  Unfortunately, the feedback from the va rious Chairpersons had not left his delegation 
feeling very positive about the situation.  As ha d been mentioned by the representative of Rwanda, 
there was considerable concern that many of the proponents had not been able to participate in the 
meetings.  At some stage, Members would need to consider how they should  deal with this issue 
which was one of genuine capacity constraints not a l ack of interest.  It was important for Members to 
consider how progress could be made on the Category II proposals.   
54. The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation believed that some progress had been 
made.  At the very least, Members could say that  they had a better understanding of what the fault 
lines were and where significant differences existed.  That was the first step towards bridging the 
differences.  Members were clearly closer on some issues than on others, for e.g. they were farther 
away on proposal no. 36 and to a lesser extent on pr oposal no. 84.  Members needed to have a better 
understanding of what the differe nces were and assess how those c ould be bridged through better 
language.  It was not an easy task and there needed  to be compromise on both sides.  Realizing that 
time was short, his delegation was committed to finding a way forward on all the proposals.   
55. The representative of Singapore  said that Members needed to reach an agreement on the LDC 
proposals at Hong Kong.  The adoption of the LDC proposals could in fact become the major 
outcome at Hong Kong since nothing else in the negotiations seemed to be moving.  As Members were probably aware, the Chairperson of the Gene ral Council had been holding  consultations and had 
met with some Ambassadors where the issue of the LDCs had been discussed.  At those consultations, 
his delegation had expressed strong support for an outcome for the LDCs at Hong Kong.  There had 
been a sense among other Ambassadors that the LDC issues were important and there needed to be 
some outcome on the LDC proposals at Hong Kong.  Members would perhaps n eed to consider how 
they could intensify and elevate the discussions and streamline them with what the Chairperson of the 
General Council was doing.  He was optimistic that  Members could find solutions that would address 
the needs of the LDCs, without  weakening the system.   
56. The representative of Japan
 said that there were three key word s he wished to raise, sincerity, 
flexibility and urgency.  As regards sincerity, as a donor both in and outside of the WTO, Japan was 
committed to help LDCs to get out of the situation that they were facing.  In terms of flexibility, he did not share the view that there had been unila teral concession on the LDC side.  Other Members, 
besides the LDCs, had attempted to close the gaps.  As far as proposal no. 84 was concerned, his 
delegation had attempted to show additional flexibility on the proposal.  With respect to urgency, all 
Members understood that time was limited and like others, his delegation was intensifying dialogue 
with his capital, especially on the more difficult proposal s.  He believed that as work intensified in the 
coming weeks, Members could narrow the existing gaps. 
57. The representative of China
 said that from listening to the discussion he wondered what the 
WTO's role was.  When he first came to Geneva, he had seen many demonstrators at the entrance to the WTO, displaying different banners against the multilateral trading system.  Most of the 
demonstrators were probably fro m developed and developing count ries as the LDCs could probably 
not afford the airfare. He felt that the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference was important for the WTO 
to demonstrate to the world that  it was sensitive to certain issues.   Although his delegation understood 
that some Members had difficulties, there was no do ubt that the LDCs faced many difficulties and it 
was important that Members showed flexibility to their concerns.  He reiterated his delegation's 
commitment to working with others to reach ag reement on a meaningful package for the LDCs.  TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 14  
 
58. The representative of Argentina
 said that it was clear that some progress had been made since 
the Doha Ministerial Conference.  However, one wondered whether this was substantive, given the 
disenchantment among the LDCs.  The report on the f eedback from the Chairpersons of the bodies to 
which the Category II proposals ha d been referred, gave the impression that progress had not been 
made and his delegation therefore shared the frustra tions and concerns of th e LDCs, as well as those 
raised by the representative of Uganda with respec t to agriculture.  The issue of agriculture also 
included the issue of cotton which was of interest not only to developing countries but more particularly to the LDCs.  Within that framework, it did not seem possible to continue to negotiate in 
closed groups.  Members were aware of what had happened with the African Group proposals on 
TRIPs and Health which had a direct impact on de veloping countries and LDCs.  Therefore, all those 
issues needed to be considered in a more global manner.  Some delegations  had made reference to 
integration rather than segregation from the sy stem. The dilemma was not integration versus 
segregation, it was more a question of comprehens ion, solidarity and flexibility.  If there was 
flexibility in some areas, it was inadequate.  At the Cancún Ministerial Conference it was clear that 
issues that should have been resolved earlier were  not.  That was hopefully something that Members 
had learnt from. 
59. The Chairman
 said that that there seemed to be political will for Members to deliver on the 
five remaining LDC proposals by Hong Kong.  He  would continue to work with Members and 
attempt to use the pragmatism that Members had said was necessary to bridge the gaps and reach convergence on the package of five proposals.  In  his own assessment, Members had made some 
progress on the five proposals.  The most difficult was proposal no. 36 on DFQF market access 
because of the complex realities most of the OECD countries would face in fulfilling the objective of 
DFQF for LDCs.  He sensed a will among those count ries to provide DFQF ma rket access but there 
were concerns whether their constituencies could be convinced to commit on the basis of the LDC 
proposal.  He also sensed a willingness on the part of  the LDCs to work on the language of their 
proposal in order to find a way forward and he looke d to Members to show the necessary flexibility to 
move forward in a way that demonstrated their co mmitment to meeting LDC needs and concerns.  On 
proposal no. 23 relating to waivers, although some  Members continued to have some significant 
concerns, he felt that considerable progress had been made and that there was sufficient goodwill 
among Members to provide support to the LDCs.  On  proposal no. 84 on TRIMs, he believed that 
Members were close and had made a great deal  of progress from their initial positions.  Members 
were now attempting to find language that was acceptable to all but there was still a need for 
pragmatism before the necessary convergence could be  reached.  On proposal no. 88, he felt that 
Members were very close to an ag reement.  It was just a question of some additional language that 
would give greater comfort to some Members.  On proposal no. 38, it was his sense that Members had reached convergence and could agree to that propo sal.  He concluded by saying that he would 
intensify his consultations, as well as attempt to meet  with Ambassadors to find ways to bridge the 
final gaps.  In the meantime, he would call on Me mbers at short notice to brief them on how the 
negotiations were progressing.   
60. The meeting was adjourned
 and thereafter reconvened  on 14 November.  
61. The Chairman  welcomed the non-resident Members to the meeting.  He said that in the 
previous week Ministers had participated in the negotiations in Geneva in an attempt to make 
progress.  He informed Members that he had held informal consultations with different groups of 
Members.  He had met with the LDCs to discuss how they felt Members could move forward and 
suggested to Members that they begin building bridges between the divergent positions on which 
basis he would attempt to build a compromise language .  He had explained to the LDCs where he felt 
the difficulties existed on each of their proposals.  While he could attempt to draft some alternate 
language for some proposals, on others there were wi de divergences.  The best way to proceed could 
be to reflect those differences in brackets, and allow Ministers to make the final decision.  He had also 
engaged in discussions with small groups of Members to consider compromise language and had, on 
2 November, put forward a draft text.  He was awar e that some Members had some concerns on that  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 15 
 
 
language and it would require all Me mbers to make some compromises on their original positions to 
reach convergence.  He was aware that a number of Members had strong views on some of the 
proposals.  Some Members wished to see language in cluded which was not agreeable to others and it 
was clear that to go forward Members would need to show flexibility.  Members had stated their willingness to keep working towards harvesting th e LDC proposals at Hong Kong.  The LDCs had 
stated that while they were committed, they did not wish to dilute the language  any further.  However, 
if the language was drafted in a way that retain ed the meaningfulness of the proposal as well as 
reflected a firm commitment and resolve by Members to deliver on the objectiv es set out therein, then 
they would consider any compromise language.  He said  that it was on that basis  that he had drafted 
the language of 2 November.  On 3 November he ha d held further consultations at which the LDCs 
had stated that they still needed time to consult on the newly proposed language and as a result wished 
to retain brackets on those parts of the text that they were not comfortable with.  The 3 November 
language therefore contained several brackets which were not included in the 2 November language.  
At that meeting, other Members had also requested  brackets on words they could not accept.  He also 
pointed out that the language of 3 November includ ed, at the request of the LDCs, the word 'bound', 
'all' products and 'all' LDCs in brackets.  Subseque ntly, the US had said that the word 'shall' in the 
chapeau was difficult for it to accep t, especially if the LDCs were insisting on including their 
preferences, albeit in brackets.  The US also fe lt it was important to include the words 'in accordance 
with the Enabling Clause' in paragraph 36(a).   
62. He went on to say that Members had three options .  The first was to continue negotiations on 
the five LDC proposals in an attempt to secure an agreement;  the second was to stop work on the 
LDC proposals and begin discussions on the Ministerial text which would reflect the progress made in 
the Special Session;  and the third option was to begin discussions on the possible language for the draft Ministerial text as well as try to make further progress on the five LDC Agreement-specific proposals.  Any progress on the LDC proposals, would be reflected as amendments to the 2 November text and then included as an Annex to the draft Ministerial text.  Differences could be 
reflected in brackets.  That would enable Ministers in Hong Kong to have a text on the basis of which 
they could close the existing gaps.  He reminded Members that they had already missed many deadlines.  It was important to provide inputs for the first draft Ministerial text which the 
Director-General was to bring out by the end of that week.   
63. The representative of Zambia
 sought clarification on the text that the discussions would be 
based on.  
64. The Chairman  recalled that he had put forward a te xt on 2 November.  Based on suggestions 
made by some Members at the consultations on that text, he had incorporated some changes.  What 
Members had before them was the 2 November text including those changes.  The LDCs had raised a 
number of concerns with respect to that text and t hose concerns had been reflected in the 3 November 
text put before Ambassadors.  However, as he ha d mentioned earlier, he was happy to bring those 
back as well as include any further amendments that  Members wished to include.  The 2 November 
text was an attempt to help Members move forward and in no way represented his personal views.  He 
had drafted text that he felt Members could live w ith.  Where he could not find compromise language 
he had included brackets.  If Members insisted on including more brackets and new text, then it would 
become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to  reach a consensus and the text would no longer be 
his text.   
65. The representative of Zambia  said that his delegation had a procedural difficulty in that the 
text presented to Ambassadors on 3 November was not the text presented on 2 November. The 3 November text was something that the LDC Gr oup Ambassadors could work with.  The problem 
was that the 2 November text did not contain th e brackets as well as some of the words that were 
included in the 3 November text.  What might have  been helpful was if Ambassadors had been given 
the 2 November text.  It was difficult for the LDCs to revert to the 2 November text when discussion 
at the meeting with Ambassadors was based on the 3 November text. TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 16  
 
66. The Chairman
 said that he had met with Ambassa dors on 3 November and explained his 
2 November text.  He also informed them that th e LDCs had stated that because they had not had the 
opportunity to consult as a group, they would have to include their preferred language in the 2 November text.  When he had met with Minist ers the following week, he had explained to them 
how the language had evolved.  He  was certain that some Members would need to consult further on 
his language and were not in a positi on to give their final positions on it.   He was aware that the LDCs 
would need to consult on the text.  When he ha d met with Ministers on 8 November he had provided 
them with a text to help them understand where thi ngs were.  However, he did explain that his text 
was the 2 November text.  If Members insisted on including words that were important to them, then that could be done.  However, Members needed to understand that once one Member insisted on 
including language in brackets, then all Members woul d need to be allowed to do the same.  That text 
would then form the basis on which Ministers would continue the negotiations in Hong Kong. 
67. The representative of Argentina
 said that he was a little confused with the explanation that 
had been given regarding the differe nt texts.  Taking into account the timelines that had been given by 
the Chair of the General Council and the Director-G eneral, he was not sure of the best way to 
proceed.  As he understood it, the 2 November language, which he would now refer to as the 
14 November text contained several options.  He wondered whether con tinuing the negotiations 
implied, in the light of the present discussion, including more brackets.  It was of course up to Members to decide whether that was what they wished  to do.  Given the limited time and the status of 
work in other negotiating areas, he asked whether it w ould not be more practical to work on the report 
to the General Council after which Members could continue working on the 14 November text.   
68. The Chairman
 agreed that discussions would continue  on the basis of the 2 November text 
which he agreed should now be re ferred to as the 14 November text. 
69. The representative of Switzerland  said that it was clear to her delegation that Members 
needed to pursue the third option, that was to work on possible language for the draft Ministerial text 
as well as continue work on the five LDC proposals.  Her delegation always felt that making progress 
on the five LDC proposals should be Members' priority  and that they therefore needed to do whatever 
was necessary to reach an agreement in Hong Kong.  Whether the Chairman's 14 November text was 
satisfactory or not was something that the LDCs need ed to decide.  Nevertheless, her sense was that 
during the consultations, despite brackets being re moved and reintroduced, Members had not really 
been able to move.  That was why her delegati on had put forward new language on proposal nos. 36 
and 84.  With respect to proposal no. 36, removing  or reintroducing brackets implied that political 
decisions needed to be made on either side, and it was not clear how that could be done in a week.  
The different options for language that had been tabled, for example by the LDCs on 20 October and 
by her delegation on 2 November, demonstrated th at other approaches were still possible and should 
be discussed in order to maximize chances for reachi ng an agreement in the coming weeks.  In her 
delegation's view, Members should not spend time re moving or reintroducing brackets, but rather 
considering other approaches as ha d been done on proposal no. 23 by the delegation of Paraguay.  If 
Members were not able to reach an agreement on the LDC proposals before Hong Kong, a scenario 
her delegation did not wish to see, then Memb ers would need to prioritise addressing the LDC 
proposals after Hong Kong. 
70. The Chairman  said that he was willing to further ne gotiate on the LDC proposals and as he 
had mentioned earlier, Members needed to conti nue work towards either removing the existing 
brackets or reaching a compromise through furthe r discussions amongst themselves.  It was up to 
Members to either work on the basis of his compro mise text, or work on the basis of a text that 
contained everybody's language.  He was still willing to work with Members in small groups to see 
whether they could narrow down the differences and make some progress.  But there needed to be 
some clear direction because he hoped that in th e week that followed, Members could decide on 
language for the draft Ministerial text.  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 17 
 
 
71. The representative of Kenya  recalled that the African Group proposals had been on the table 
since early 2002 and it was only in the middle of 2005 that they had received questions on their proposals.  It had therefore taken about three y ears for Members with resources, to put forward 
written questions.  The African Group with its limited resources, was being expected to respond 
almost instantly.  Given their resource constraints, that was not possible.  In fact the African Group 
was trying to provide the right responses to the questi ons raised.  He said that having listened to the 
representative of Zambia, he was wondering whether the three options on how to proceed were still 
valid.  The question that Members needed to  ask themselves was whether the Chairman's 
14 November text responded to th e mandate contained in paragra ph 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration and whether it strengthened the provision s or made them weaker.  If the provisions were 
being strengthened then Members needed to continue w ith their work, if not then they had to consider 
other options.  Nevertheless, whatever text was forwarded to Hong Kong needed to represent the 
positions of all Members.  Proposal no. 36 of the Chairman's 14 November text, did not include the word 'bound' which was important to the LDCs.  W ithout the inclusion of that word he wondered 
whether the LDCs would wish to continue discussing that proposal.  He reminded Members that there 
were ongoing discussions on the possibility of ha ving a permanent moratorium on duties on 
e-commerce and he did not see the difference in princi ple with proposal no. 6.  The main beneficiaries 
of the moratorium were well known just as the ma in beneficiaries of proposal no. 36 were well 
known.  If Members wished to see the LDCs graduate, then they needed to improve their situation and 
avail them of the necessary flexibilities. 
72. The Chairman
 said that Members had attempted on many occasions to discuss the LDC and 
African Group proposals and had not been able to do so for various reasons, including the fact that at 
many meetings, the proponents had not been in a pos ition to do so.  With respect to the 14 November 
text, he had not included the word 'bound' because it was clear that many Members could not agree to 
that.  All the OECD Members as well as many other developing countries had objected to including that word.  He had therefore not included it becau se he knew that Members would not agree to it and 
he would not be helping the process if he simply  included words that were supportive of LDCs but 
had no chance of being agreed to.  It was his se nse that even if Ministers at Hong Kong had the 
greatest political will to help LDCs they may find it  difficult to agree to the word 'bound'.  That was 
why he had not included certain words in the text as they would simply create divergence and political 
tension between Members.   
73. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation's view was 
essentially that Members should continue to work on the five LDC agreement-specific proposals as 
well as begin discussions on the language for the draf t Ministerial text for Hong Kong.  His delegation 
also remained of the view that it was both realistic  and desirable to reach an agreement on the five 
LDC proposals by Hong Kong.  Members therefore need  not give up.  It was also worth remembering 
that what was potentially on offer would be meaningf ul to the LDCs.  At least two of the five LDC 
proposals were on issues that the LDCs had really emphasised and Members were not too far from 
reaching an agreement.  One of those was on DFQF market access and Members should not be 
distracted by arguments on words such as 'bound'.  What was actually on the ta ble was a step forward 
in terms of actual market access that the LDCs coul d enjoy and that was something that should not be 
treated lightly.  It was a serious issue of benef it to the LDCs.  The second was on TRIMs which would 
effectively give LDCs the flexibility to operate measures which at present they could not introduce 
without being in breach of their WTO obligations.  That was something that the LDCs had requested, 
saying that that would help their development objec tives as it would enable them to attract investment 
on a more stable and predictable basis and would be free from legal challenge in the WTO.  So if the 
LDCs felt that that would support their developmen tal needs, then Members should attempt to find 
some compromise text.  He reiterated that it was impor tant to strive towards reaching an agreement on 
the five LDC proposals at Hong Kong.  Accordingly, his delegation would work with the Chairman to 
move the process forward in the time that remained .  There was still some time for work in Geneva 
and there would be time in Hong Kong.  What Member s needed to do was to clean the text by moving 
towards something which was either agreed, or cl early reflected the political choices that Ministers TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 18  
 
would need to make.  Members needed to also begi n work on the text for the Special Session's report 
to the General Council, based on the assumption that  they would agree to the five LDC proposals.  
That could easily be reflected in the text.  Member s could then continue to work on the language of 
those proposals.  The remaining input for the draft Mi nisterial text would be a report in terms of what 
Members had done since the Doha Ministerial Conf erence, as well as on how the Special Session 
would complete its mandate in the remaining cour se of the negotiations.  Members would need to 
consider how to draft and express the necessary ideas.  He was certain that that work could be carried 
out in parallel and would probably require Members to  meet in smaller groups in order to identify and 
resolve the remaining issues.  With respect to the comments made by the representative of Kenya on 
the African Group proposals, it was true that  some Members had provided written comments 
expressing their views and concerns.  However, those concerns were not really new because they had 
been raised earlier when those proposals had b een discussed, including before Cancún when the 
proposals were last under active consideration.  Putting those concerns in writing was in a way a 
revision process to assist the proponents.  His dele gation was also ready to resume work on those 
proposals and was willing to do so when ever the possibility presented itself. 
74. The representative of China
 said that he had been personally involved in the negotiations on 
the five LDC proposals and was aware of the effort s that had been made, both on the part of the 
Chairman and other Members in those negotiations.  He was also aware that the negotiations were 
very difficult.  His delegation understood the LDCs concerns.  Since the beginning of the negotiations 
on the five proposals, many developing countries including his own, had supported the LDCs and believed that the LDC requests needed to be c onsidered carefully, seriously and generously.  
However, Members had to recognize that some Me mbers had real difficulties with some of the 
proposals, particularly with regard to proposal nos. 36 and 84.  He recalled that on proposal no. 36 in 
addition to the word 'bound' there were a number of other words which his delegation believed were 
very important to the LDCs but, on the other hand , very sensitive to other Members, for example the 
words 'all' products originating from 'all' LDCs .  Those two words were not included in the 
Chairman's 14 November text which therefore fell s hort of the LDCs original demands.  However, he 
agreed with the Chairman's assessment that he had had to strike a balance between Members' 
demands in order to find a solution to the problem.  It was not possible to satisfy every Member.  As a 
general principle, his delegation felt that the text submitted to Ministers should contain as few 
brackets as possible so as to facilitate Ministers' work in coming up with a final decision on the 
proposals.  It would be undesirable not only for the Special Session, but also for other negotiating 
bodies, to forward Ministers a text that contained too many brackets.  To his understanding, that was 
the general feeling amongst all Chairpersons.  Hi s delegation agreed with the representatives of 
Switzerland and the EC that Members still had time to continue negotiations on the five proposals.  
Members needed to do as much as possible to reach consensus on as many of the proposals by 
Hong Kong.  He supported the Chairman's sugges tion to begin considering language for the 
Ministerial text in the following week.  At the same  time, Members needed to continue and spend as 
much time as possible negotiating the five LDC prop osals.  However, if continuing the negotiations 
resulted in too many additional brackets, then hi s delegation would support the Chairman producing a 
text to be forwarded to Ministers in Hong Kong. 
75. The representative of Colombia
 said that the discussions had shown that political decisions 
needed to be taken on the proposals.  Apparently, di scussions at the technical level were not going to 
result in a consensus text for Hong Kong.  Conseque ntly, the Special Session would need to forward a 
text on which the Ministers would have to take a political decision.  The 14 November text was qualitatively different from previous texts because it cont ained brackets.  In view of the little time that 
was left until Hong Kong, his delega tion preferred it if Members could work on a text that had as few 
brackets as possible.  It was unlikely that Members would finish all the work before Hong Kong and 
the text forwarded to Ministers would therefore c ontain brackets.  Members needed to work towards 
reaching a consensus.  Members could, at the same time, work on possible language for the draft 
Ministerial text.    TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 19 
 
 
76. The representative of Hong Kong, China  asked whether the Chairman's discussions with 
Ministers at the recently held meeting had provide d any guidance on how to proceed.  Her delegation 
did not dispute the suggestion that the text forwarded to Ministers contain as few brackets as possible.  However, it was important that whatever text that was forwarded to Ministers, represent as much consensus as possible.  Some Members had also ma de reference to a report from the Special Session 
to the General Council.  She was not certain whether that was the Chairman's intention or whether he 
intended to present a text on the proposals which wo uld perhaps need to be supplemented with some 
observations for the TNC meeting.  Whatever Members came up with would need to be first put to the 
TNC.  She asked whether the Chairman had given any thought to what could possibly constitute the language for the draft Ministerial text, other th an continuing work on the Agreement-specific 
proposals.   
77. The representative of  Japan
 said that his delegation shared the view that Members needed to 
continue work on the five LDC proposals as we ll as begin discussions on language for the draft 
Ministerial text.  A number of Ministers at the mini -Ministerial meeting held the previous week, had 
instructed Members to work expeditiously on the LD C proposals with a view to reaching a consensus.  
Members needed to therefore work towards that end.   With respect to the text on the proposals, he 
said that given the time constraints, Members need ed to continue discussions on as clean a text as 
possible.  If Members could make progress and remove some of the brackets in the text, they might be able to reach consensus.  His delegation still had some problems with the 14 November text and had 
some comments to make on that.   
78. The representative of the United States
 said that, as had been expressed by both her Minister 
and her Ambassador, her delegation wa s fully prepared to keep work ing to find solutions on the LDC 
proposals.  It was also important to begin work on  language for the draft Ministerial text.  She was 
aware that that was going to be a difficult task given the time constraints, but her delegation was prepared to keep working.  She agreed with the representative of the EC that Members needed to 
consider how they would address aspects of the mandate in the following year.  At the Ambassadors 
meeting held on 3 November, her dele gation had indicated that it preferred to work on the basis of the 
Chairman's 2 November text.  Though there were  still some challenges a nd difficulties with some 
aspects of that language, her delegation felt that the language represented a good basis for possible 
agreement.  At that meeting, in response to the LDC request to introduce brackets, her delegation had 
also indicated that it wished to  include certain phrases in brackets.  However, her delegation felt it 
would be more productive to work with a clearer text rather than a text containing all the brackets that 
different Members wanted.  She recalled the challenge  Members faced in Seattle where there were so 
many brackets that it had been impossible for Minist ers to actually address the main issue.  With 
regards to the comments made by the representativ e of Kenya on the African Group proposals, she 
shared the EC's view that Members had not had the kind of dialogue on the African Group proposals 
that they would have liked.  However, her delega tion hoped to have that dialogue soon and that was 
why it had repeatedly made efforts to provide wr itten questions and comments over the past few 
years.  Her delegation appreciated the responses that it had received on some of the questions that it had posed and looked forward to answers to the que stions posed by other Members.  All that would 
form the basis for constructive discussions.  She reite rated that her delegation was prepared to keep 
working and that although there were still some to ugh issues, Members would need to keep things 
simple.  She said that it would be important to cons ider the Chairman's judgement, at least to some 
degree, on the progress that could be made.  Bri dging some of the differences could perhaps be 
accomplished without necessarily following a bracket approach but rather focusing on alternative 
ideas as had been suggested by th e representative of Switzerland. 
79. The representative of Costa Rica
 said that for his delegation the 14 November text was 
balanced and included brackets that reflected difficu lties that had been repeat edly raised by his and 
other delegations during the discussions.  Therefore,  removing brackets where solutions had not been 
found would only result in those difficulties being brought up at a later stage which was risky.  In his delegation's view, having a clean text did not necessarily reflect a higher level of understanding.  TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 20  
 
Concealing the differences from the text would not help as the Ministers were aware of the problems.  In that context, he recommended that the exercise of cleaning the text not go too far.  The mandate 
that Members had agreed to in the Doha Declara tion and the July Package was to assist developing 
and least-developed countries in addressing their con cerns.  In his view, the Chairman's mandate was 
to be fair, neutral, and objective on all the prop osals.  It was for Members to decide what was 
acceptable.  Based on that affirmation, he was c oncerned about giving the Chairman the autonomy to 
put out a text.  He agreed that the text should ha ve as few brackets as possible, but he did not think 
that Members should force reality.  He disagreed wi th the delegation that had mentioned that there 
had been understanding among Ministers on the development issues at the mini-Ministerial meeting held during the previous week.  Apart from market access for non-agricultural goods, the 
development issues had probably been the most divisive ones.  He therefore stressed that care should 
be taken when considering language  relating to development and that  other development-related work 
be also taken into account when addressing that text.   
80. The Chairman
 said that his objective was to be fair to all Members and that was what he had 
attempted to do when drafting the 14 November text .  He hoped that Members were being faithful to 
the mandate of finding ways to provide support to  the LDCs.  With respect to the language on 
proposal no. 23, he knew that he could not draft language that would bridge the position between a 
number of Members including, Costa Rica and the LDCs.  That was the reason why those positions 
were reflected in brackets and would remain th at way until the concerned Members reached a 
compromise.   
81. The representative of Canada  said that his delegation agreed that Members needed to move 
forward by continue working on the LDC proposals as well as considering language for the draft 
Ministerial text.  However, his delegation preferred Members to focus their efforts on the LDC proposals and, if successful, the language for the Mi nisterial text would flow from that.  Although 
different texts had been circulated, Members ha d not really had substantive discussions on the 
14 November text.  That could be done during the course of the week.   
82. The representative of India
 said that his delegation supporte d the option of working on the 
proposals as well as on the language for the draft Mini sterial text.  However, he agreed with the 
representative of Canada, particularly on the point th at the language for the Ministerial text would 
flow from the discussions on the proposals depending on what would be achieved.  He believed that 
Members had made some progress even though so me fundamental differences needing political 
direction still existed.  He asked the Chairman  whether he had managed to receive any political 
direction from his interaction with Ministers at the meeting held in the previous week.  His delegation 
was willing to proceed on the basis of the 14 November text.  However, judging from some of the comments that had been made by Members and the am ount of work that had been put in by the LDCs 
in terms of rationalizing and revising their proposals, it would be useful for the Chairman to ascertain 
where exactly the LDCs stood.  Members needed to c ontinue their work on the basis of a text that the 
LDCs were comfortable with.   
83. The Chairman
 said that he was particularly looking to get guidance from the LDCs on what 
their preferences were.   
84. The representative of Australia  said that his delegation agreed with the representative of India 
that it was vital for the LDCs to be comfortable with where Members were heading and on how they 
would proceed until Hong Kong.  His delegation felt that it was important for any text forwarded to 
Ministers on the LDC proposals to contain as few brackets as possible.  For his delegation, the 
14 November text formed an acceptable basis of fo rwarding work to Ministers.  That said, his 
delegation was prepared to engage in further discu ssions, but at the same time Members needed to 
remain realistic.  As it was, Members had already had many discussions and were aware of the political decisions that were required to be taken.  He was aware that Members felt that they needed to 
keep working because to say otherwi se would give the impression that they were not committed.  He  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 21 
 
 
was of the view that Members were getting to a stage where intensive discussions were not really 
going to change the text much.  In that regard, he  agreed that the language on proposal nos. 36 and 84 
in the Chairman's text could be of value to the LDCs.  Members needed to keep in mind the reason 
why the Chairman had not included the word 'bound' in the language on proposal no. 36.  Australia provided DFQF market access for all products from a ll LDCs without any phase-in or exclusion.  It 
had also changed its rules of origin and provided  market access in a manner that ensured stability, 
security and predictability.  However, for reasons that his delegation had mentioned in the past, the 
inclusion of the word 'bound' was difficult for it to accept.  He therefore hoped that the LDCs could 
consider the Chairman's text as a b asis for an agreement.  With resp ect to language for the Ministerial 
text, he did not feel that it should be taken up only after work had been completed on the LDC 
proposals.  It was not something that would be d one easily and it was likely there would be different 
views on the elements of that language.  It was theref ore useful to set aside sufficient time to have a 
better understanding of the process that the Chairman had in mind for accomplishing that.  He asked the Chairman if he could inform Members on what had been transpired at the mini-Ministerial in 
Zurich. 
85. The Chairman
 said that the reason he had not commented on the mini-Ministerial meeting 
was precisely because of the point raised by the representative of Costa Rica.  Ministers who had 
attended that meeting would have already spoken about the deliberations and, if asked, would 
probably all have different perceptions of the status of the different issues.  He therefore did not wish 
to summarize what had been quite a complex di scussion.  One session on development was held at 
which about 25 Ministers attended.  That session inco rporated issues which related to development in 
each of the core areas of the negotiations, namely , market access, agriculture, NAMA, services and 
rules.  Additionally, there was a long list of issues  which Ministers felt related to development in a 
very specific way, or reflected specific concerns of different groups of de veloping countries.  Those 
included cotton, commodities, sma ll economies, LDC issues and S&D.  Since only two hours were 
allocated to those discussions, Ministers could onl y make limited progress.  He had therefore not 
received any real guidance on how to proceed.  Ho wever, from what he had read from the politics, 
Ministers suggested that Members needed to make as much progress as possible on development 
issues at Hong Kong, especially those which were of direct interest to some of the poorest countries in 
the world.  There had been very little discu ssion on the LDC proposals, however the general 
sentiment had been that Members should reach an ag reement on them.  There were different views on 
the state of affairs on the LDC proposals.  Some Members felt that some progress had been made, 
others felt that there were some existing di vergences amongst Members and amongst the developing 
countries, while others felt that whilst some progress had been made, their views had not been adequately reflected and that the Chairman's 2 Nove mber text did not go far enough.  The discussion 
at the meeting had not been detailed enough to provi de him with adequate guidance on how to move 
forward. 
86. The representative of Pakistan
 said that her delegation agreed that reaching consensus on 
some of the proposals had been difficult since Members had to consider what certain words implied .  
Her delegation was willing to work towards re aching consensus on all five LDC proposals and 
supported continuing work on them as well as consid ering possible language for the draft Ministerial 
text. 
87. The representative of Zambia  said that the LDCs had remained engaged throughout the 
process and had repeatedly revised their language in  an attempt to make progress.  It was not the 
LDCs' intention to stop negotiating and it was cert ainly in their interests to work towards a 
satisfactory outcome.  The issue was on what b asis should that work resume.  The LDCs were 
concerned that the 14 November text did not includ e some of the key elements that the LDCs had 
been reiterating over the past several months.  The LDCs were not wedded to any particular words but 
they were concerned about certain concepts that mu st be included.  Therefore, resuming work on the 
basis of the 14 November text, was problematic to that extent.  For them, the 3 November text was 
preferable.   TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 22  
 
88. The representative of Malaysia
 on behalf of the ASEAN members present at the meeting, said 
that her delegation understood the difficulty in stri king a balance when coming up with text that 
would be amenable to all Members.  Her delega tion supported the 14 November  text and considering 
the time constraints, Members needed to remain r ealistic.  As other Members had mentioned, it was 
important not to lose sight of the mandate to pr ovide LDCs with improved market access for their 
exports.  Her delegation would re main engaged and supported the op tion of continuing work on the 
LDC proposals as well as considering possible language for the draft Ministerial text. 
89. The Chairman  said that the discussions had been useful in guiding him on how to proceed.  It 
seemed that Members agreed that th ey needed to move on the basis of the third option, which was to 
make further progress on the five LDC Agreemen t-specific proposals and simultaneously begin 
discussions on language for the draft Hong Kong Minist erial text.  In line with those suggestions, he 
would continue to consult with Me mbers in smaller groups and attempt to report back either by the 
end of the week or early the following week on pr ogress made on both issues.  He had heard various 
suggestions on both the issues.  With respect to  the negotiations on the LDC proposals, he was in 
Members' hands and would keep wo rking towards making progress.  If there was a better way to build 
consensus he was ready to work with Members towa rds achieving it before the end of the week.  In 
his view Members could work on the basis of the 14 November text.  However, during discussions Members could table language which he would work w ith.  He reiterated his concern that if Members 
insisted on including their own language then the text would contain numerous brackets and would 
not provide an ideal basis for Members to make progress in Hong Kong.  His text already contained some brackets reflecting areas on which there were clearly difficulties.  He was aware of the strong 
political views some Members had on those issues and he had to respect that by including those views 
in the text.  However, the text would no longer be the Chairman's text.  He said that as a basis for the 
language for the Ministerial text he would use th e language contained in the July 2004 Decision, 
which recorded progress made and suggested the way forward.  There would of course be a possible 
Annex to include, with the five LDC proposals, and if Members so wished, a reference to the 
28 proposals that had been agreed to in principle.  The first step would be to meet with the LDCs as 
soon as possible in order to get a full appreciation of what their views were on how to go forward.  He 
reminded Members that it was as much in their hands as in his own to take the process forward.  In 
order to complete their work, Members would need to cooperate and come up with clear positions on 
the proposals.   
90. The meeting was adjourned
 and thereafter again reconvened  on 18 November.  
91. The Chairman  recalled that when Members had last met,  he had informed them that he would 
continue to work in the course of that w eek to make further progress on the five LDC 
Agreement-specific proposals.  Initially, consultations  had been held to discuss whether there was still 
room to continue discussions on the five LDC proposal s.  In that context, he had first met with the 
LDCs to find out how they felt Members should proceed with the negotiations and what could 
constitute possible language for the draft Ministerial text.  He had informed the LDCs that he had 
drafted language on his own responsibility as a ba sis for further negotiations.  The LDCs had 
expressed strong views about the substance of the pr oposals and expressed concern that although a lot 
of time had been spent on negotiating the proposal s, Members had still not been able to reach an 
agreement.  Subsequently, discussions were held with a small group of other Members to discuss the 
remaining five LDC Agreement-specific proposals, both  in terms of substance and the form in which 
Members wished to reflect the di fferences that still existed on a number of the proposals.  While it 
was not an easy discussion, Members had been able to  make some progress.  There were several ways 
in which Members could reflect the differences that existed on the proposals.  One way was to prepare a report explaining the options that different Memb ers preferred on each proposal and the differences 
that existed.  The second possibility was to include  brackets in the text that would show where the 
differences were instead of preparing a report.  The third possibility was to do so in the way that he 
had presented to Members, i.e. to reflect the diffe rent options along with the names of the Members 
that supported those options.  The decision to present the text in the form that was before Members  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 23 
 
 
had been taken at the request of the LDCs.  On proposal no. 23, Members could see that the language 
was the same as the one contained in the 14 Nove mber text, except that the differences had been 
reflected in a different way.  On proposal no. 36, th e LDCs had separated their own text so that their 
position could be shown clearly.  That text did not reflect their original position;  it was a compromise based on the Chairman's earlier proposed language.  The options of the other proposals included the 
Chairman's text as well as language reflecting othe r Members' views, which would be helpful as 
Members engaged further.  On proposal no. 38, Members had made progress and as mentioned 
earlier, there were no objections to the language on th e table.  On proposal no. 84, the language put 
forward by the LDCs was largely built around the language that he had earlier proposed.  Although 
views were initially far apart, Members had manage d to build some common ground in the course of 
the negotiations.  Proposal no. 88 included the LD Cs' option as well the option put forward by some 
other Members.  Unfortunately, Members had not been  able to significantly engage on that proposal.  
He hoped that when discussions resumed Members w ould be able to close the remaining gaps.   
92. The meeting continued in an informal mode a nd thereafter reverted to a formal mode.   
93. The Chairman
 said that in the language for the draft Ministerial text, he had specifically not 
mentioned the 28 Agreement-specific proposals but had made provision for Ministers to decide on the 
matter.  At that stage, Members had no time to enga ge in substantive discussions on the issue.  He 
said that since the last meeting, Members had ma de significant progress on reaching an agreement on 
the text to be provided to Ministers on the LDC pr oposals.  Since the last formal meeting, Members 
had been concentrating on two issues;  the first relate d to the text that would reflect the status of the 
negotiations on the five LDC proposals, and the sec ond related to the language that would form part 
of the Ministerial text.  On the five Agreement-spec ific proposals, he was pleased to report that there 
was an agreed text that would constitute part of th e Annex to the Ministerial text.  That text simply 
reflected the status of the negotiations and ther e was room for Members to provide any additional 
suggestions.  On the language for the draft Minist erial text, Members had had discussions in various 
consultations and he would revise the language based on the suggesti ons made and make the language 
available to Members at the next meeting which would hopefully be held early in the following week.   
94. The representative of Kenya  addressed the questions that had b een raised with respect to the 
African Group's proposed language for the draft Ministerial text.  With respect to bringing back the Category II Agreement-specific proposals to the Special Session, his delegation had in the past explained that it had not been possible to follow th ose proposals in the subsidiary bodies due to the 
African Group's capacity constraints.  He hoped that  that was an adequate enough reason to bring the 
proposals back for consideration in the Special S ession.  If Members intended to complete work on 
those proposals, then they would need to be broug ht back and addressed in the Special Session.  As 
long as those proposals remained under consideration in those subsidiary bodies they would not be 
completed anytime soon and his delegation did not  want them to end up like the implementation 
issues.  Once the Category II proposals were brought back to the Special Session, the African Group 
would be ready to engage.  He recalled that the Special Session had been established by the TNC as a 
negotiating body and that Members had faced a number of problems addressing the Category II 
proposals forwarded to regular bodies, also because  those were not negotiating bodies.  All those 
issues needed to be kept in mind.  With respect to the sequencing of work, the African Group was not 
suggesting that the outstanding issues be discarded, after all those issues included the Monitoring 
Mechanism which was an African Group proposal.  However, the African Group wished to see the 
Agreement-specific proposals addressed as a matter of  priority.  He disagreed with those Members 
that had mentioned that the African Group's sugg estion of 'incorporating a Trade and Development 
framework into the architecture of WTO rules' wa s introducing a new element to the work of the 
Special Session.  As the African Group understood it,  S&D provisions were meant to address some of 
the developmental concerns and since the Doha Round was a development round, there should be no 
problem in considering a trade and development fra mework.  Such a framework could help Members 
resolve some of the Agreement-specific proposals.   Alternatively, Members could pick out those 
provisions that related to devel opment and consider whether they could all be put together in TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 24  
 
developing a framework.   Referring to the 28 Agr eement-specific proposals which had been agreed 
to before Cancún, he said that Ministers had not b een able to make a decision on them because they 
had felt that the proposals were not of much co mmercial value.  Members would need to add 
proposals of more meaningful commercial value before any decision could be taken on those 
proposals.  That had not happened and the Chairman 's suggested language for the draft Ministerial 
text recommended the adoption of those proposals wh ich was unlikely.  He wondered whether there 
was any reason to adopt them since those proposals had not been revisited.  In that regard, he made 
reference to the African Group's submission titled 'A nalysis of the twenty-eight agreement-specific 
proposals' which he suggested Members consider before making any decision on those proposals. 
95. The representative of Guatemala
 said that his delegation wished to be associated with the 
second option on proposal no. 23 along with the dele gations of Costa Rica and Paraguay and the third 
option on proposal no. 36 along with Costa Rica and the US for reasons that had already been mentioned.   
96. The representative of the Philippines
 on behalf of the ASEAN, expressed regret that Members 
would proceed on the basis of text that contained th e different options on the proposals, rather than a 
unified text with brackets.  His delegation felt that the options would make it complicated for 
Ministers.  He recalled that paragraph 44 of th e Doha Mandate instructed Members, among other 
things, to be precise in their efforts to clarif y and strengthen S&D.  The Chairman's option for 
proposal no. 36 effectively fulfilled that mandate  because it provided clarity as to how developing 
countries would participate if and when they were in a position to contribute to the objective of DFQF 
market access.   
97. The representative of Peru  said that her delegation wished to associate itself with the second 
option of proposal no. 23 and the third option on proposal no. 36. 
98. Since no other Members wished to take the floor, the Chairman  said that he would adjourn the 
meeting and reconvene it as  soon as was possible.  He said that while the 18 November text might not 
have been ideal, it did seem to be a good basis for nego tiation.  It clearly reflected the LDCs' views, as 
well as those of other Members.  The explanati on that would be included in the TNC and General 
Council reports, would enable Members to appropriate ly brief their Ministers.  He would, however, 
make efforts to ensure that Members continue work on the proposals.  On the Ministerial text, he said 
that Members' suggestions had been useful and he  would need their goodwill to allow him to revise 
the language in a way that would not create controve rsy.  He would incorporate as many suggestions 
as possible in the language, though he may not be ab le to reconcile the substantive differences.   
99. The meeting was adjourned  and thereafter reconvened  on 21 November. 
100. The Chairman  said that Members had discussed how they would present the language of the 
five LDC Agreement-specific proposals to Minister s, as well as how to deal with discussions on the 
Ministerial text.  He was pleased to state that since then Members had agreed on a text that reflected 
the state of play on the five LDC Agreement-sp ecific proposals and which would form part of the 
Annex to the draft Ministerial Declaration.  The final version of the text was available for Members 
and would provide a basis from which Ministers could work.  He had incorporated some of the changes that had been suggested by some Members at the last meeting.  Subsequently, a few other 
Members had associated their delegations with propo sal nos. 23 and 36.  He said that with respect to 
language for the Ministerial text, Members had had quite substantive discussions and provided 
specific suggestions and views on the language.  He had reflected carefully on those suggestions in 
order to incorporate as many of them as possible.  As Members were aware, there was not enough 
time to debate conceptual issues and find a negotia ted agreement on them.  Therefore, insofar as the 
suggestions were of a nature that could be incorp orated without further conceptual debate, he had 
included them in the text.  He hoped that he had d one justice to Members' suggestions.  In the first 
paragraph he had attempted to incorporate the vi ews reflected in the African Group's submission on  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 25 
 
 
possible language for the draft Ministerial text.  Th at was the inclusion of a reference to the mandate 
contained in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration which was consistent with the Special 
Session's mandate.  In the second paragraph of hi s text, he had distinguished between the LDC 
Agreement-specific proposals and the other proposals and had reflected, as some Members had suggested, that progress had been made on both the LDC Agreement-specific proposals and on the 
remaining Agreement-specific proposals.  He had retained the option for Ministers to adopt the 
decisions contained in the Annex.  Those decisi ons could include the five LDC Agreement-specific 
proposals, and any other decisions that Members might wish to include.  As had been suggested by some Members, he had included a reference that subs tantial work remained to be done.  He had also 
included a political statement which reflected Me mbers' continued commitment to addressing the 
concerns and interests of developing countries, esp ecially LDCs.  The third paragraph related to the 
issue of the Category II proposals, and had been ame nded to read "We instruct the Special Session to 
continue to coordinate its effort s".  He believed that that was the best possible compromise he could 
come up with.  There were differing views among Me mbers, with some Members suggesting that the 
Category II proposals be brought back to the Special Session for consideration and others arguing that 
it was best to continue consideration of those proposal s in those bodies.  As Chairman, he was not in a 
position to change the Mandate.  What he could do was to report those views to the General Council 
and request that the Chairperson of the Genera l Council consult on the question of recalling the 
Category II proposals to the Special Session.  Howe ver, the Special Session would, in the meantime, 
be urged to coordinate its efforts with other bodies in order to ensure that progress was made on those 
proposals.  How the Special Session chose to do th at was up to Members to decide once discussions 
resumed the following year.  In the last paragraph, he had included the need to reinvigorate work on 
the outstanding issues, because a number of Members had stressed the need to do something more on 
those issues.  Those included issues of a general nature which were not of the Agreement-specific 
type, one of which was the issue raised by th e African Group on the need for an overarching 
framework agreement on trade and development, wh ich he felt could be easily included under the 
mandate of incorporating S&D into the architectur e of WTO rules.  Discussions on developing such a 
framework could therefore be addressed under that pa rt of the Mandate.  He hoped that he had done 
justice and struck a balance between Members' views.  Those Members who felt their views had not been effectively reflected in the text, would have the opportunity to make that known when the text 
was being discussed in the General Council.  Howeve r, he still wished to get Members' comments and 
suggestions on ways that th e text could be improved. 
101. The representative of Egypt
 said that he would make a few comments on the suggested 
language and while his delegation would have the opportunity to express its views at the General 
Council meeting, he reserved the right for the Chairman's report to reflect those views.  First, with respect to the second paragraph, his delegation had maintained that it did not believe that some 
progress had been made on the remaining Agreement- specific proposals.  His delegation had in fact 
stated that it was concerned about the lack of progress.  He therefore hoped that would be taken on 
board.  With respect to the Category II proposals, it was clear what the African Group's position was.  
He said that the African Group would consider ci rculating its suggested language for the draft 
Ministerial text as a way to reserve its right to revert to the issue.  His delegation had expressed concerns about the inclusion of the word 'reinvi gorate' in the third paragraph because it assumed a 
kind of priority on the outstanding issues while side lining other issues.  Also, in that paragraph there 
did not seem to be the inclusion of the African  Group's suggestion of a trade and development 
framework, instead there was a mention of incorpora ting S&D into the architecture of the WTO rules.  
If the Chairman wished to maintain  the word 'reinvigorate' in the te xt, then perhaps the notion of a 
trade and development framework c ould be included instead of the notion of incorporating S&D into 
the architecture of the WTO rules.   While the present draft was clearly an improvement from the first 
one, his delegation reserved its right to revert to some of the issues he had raised.   
102. The representative of Zambia
 commented on the second paragraph.  He said there were two 
possible scenarios that Members could be faced with at  the Ministerial Conference.  The first was that 
Members would not reach an agreement on the Annex in which case the first sentence making TN/CTD/M/22 
Page 26  
 
reference to the progress made on the LDC Agreem ent-specific proposals would not be valid.  If 
Members did reach an agreement, then that referen ce would be adequate.  Therefore, taking that into 
account, his delegation suggested that the first sentence  be modified to read "We take note of the work 
done on five of the LDC Agreement-specific proposals".  He sought clarification as to what progress the Chairman was referring to in the second senten ce which read "We also note that some progress 
has been made on the other remaining proposals".   
103. The representative of India
 said that he had three brief comments.  First, his delegation like 
the delegations of Egypt and Zambia, was not certa in what progress the Chairman was referring to in 
the second paragraph.  The idea that Members had achieved some progress on the other proposals was 
perhaps stating more than had been actually achie ved on the other proposals.  Second, the issue of 
DFQF access for LDCs needed to be reflected some where.  He recalled that the Chairman had, at 
another meeting, mentioned that it was possible to  reflect the issue somewhere else in the draft 
Ministerial text.  If that was the case, then it did not matter but if not, then it would need to figure somewhere in the language.  He agreed with the representative of Zambia that if Members did not 
agree on the five LDC proposals, stating that pr ogress had been made was overstating the case.  
Including the notion that work had been done would capture what Members had done more 
accurately.  Third, it was important to come up w ith a more neutral expression for the outstanding 
issues.  The outstanding issues were part of th e Mandate and his delegati on intended on working on 
them, but a more neutral expression would be helpful. 
104. In response to the representative of Egypt's view  on the inclusion of the word 'reinvigorate' in 
the last paragraph, the representative of the United States
 said that she believed that 'reinvigorate' was 
the appropriate word to use since Members had ha d no discussion on that element of the Mandate for 
a year and a half.  There was therefore a need to resume work on those issues and that meant 
reinvigorating the discussions as appropr iate.  With regard to the third paragraph, it was not fair to say 
that there had been a total lack of progress on the Ca tegory II proposals.  She recognized that in some 
areas there had been more discussion than in others , but there had been serious engagement in some 
of the negotiating groups as the Chairman had pointed  out.  Therefore, one possibility was to include 
language along the lines of 'the relative lack of progress '.  With respect to the suggestion made by the 
representative of Zambia of including the notion of 'work done', she said that even if no agreement was reached on the LDC proposals, there had been a ra ther dramatic shift in the WTO in terms of the 
need to address issues of importance to the LDCs as a matter of priority and therefore merely stating that work had been done did not quite capture that notion. 
105. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation agreed with what 
had been mentioned by the representative of the United  States.  In particular, his delegation felt that it 
was fair to convey the idea of reinvigoration in the last paragraph because Members had prioritized the Agreement-specific proposals which had resulted in  no work on all other elements of the Mandate.  
It was therefore a question of conveying the message that that situation needed to change if Members 
were to complete all elements of the mandate in th e course of the negotiations.  He also agreed that it 
was inaccurate to convey the impression that no pr ogress had been made whatsoever, particularly on 
the LDC proposals where the debate had considerab ly progressed in terms of narrowing down the 
positions.  His delegation remained hopeful that t hose positions would continue to be narrowed down 
in order to enable Members to reach an agreement in Hong Kong.  However, even if that did not 
happen, positions were much closer than they ha d been during discussions in the run up to the July 
Decision. 
106. The representative of India
 asked whether Members could consider including the word 
'resume' instead of 'reinvigorate' as that would ma ke the intention of getting back to work on the 
outstanding issues clearer.   
107. The representative of Canada  said that his delegation wished to maintain some stronger 
language in the last paragraph.  Even the word 'rei nvigorate' seemed to indicate that at some point the  TN/CTD/M/22 
 Page 27 
 
 
work was active which was not the case.  His de legation preferred a wo rd along the lines of 
'reinvigorate' rather than 'resume'. 
108. The representative of Egypt  agreed that 'resume' would be a better option. 
109. The representative of Brazi l said that he was a bit struck by the sentence that st ated that some 
progress had been made on the other remaining proposals.   He agreed with the suggestion of replacing 
'reinvigorate' with 'resume'.  
110. The Chairman  suggested that the final drafting be left to him.  He had heard Members' views 
and it would not be possible to negotiate every wo rd.  There were clearly differences of emphasis 
reflecting different Members' perceptions.  He was not  going to make too many changes to the draft, 
he would simply attempt to strike a balance.  He would then submit the text to the General Council as 
the final draft on which Members would have the ri ght to comment on.  As long as Members did not 
have fundamental objections, the text could be forw arded to the General Council.  There were clearly 
some differences in perception and emphasis, but he had not heard any fundamental objections to the text.   
111. He thanked Members for their support and contri bution to the process.  The debate had been 
enriching and he had, in spite of the difficult mo ments, found it helpful that Members had always 
worked towards fulfilling the Mandate contained in pa ragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  
Although he was disappointed that Members had not made sufficient progress, he was mindful that 
there was still time to do so.  He hoped that in H ong Kong, Members could use the text on the five 
LDC proposals as a basis to make progress.  He believed that although Members had not reached consensus on all five proposals, they had made good progress.  At least Members had agreed on one 
proposal and were close to agreement on another three proposals.  He thanked the LDCs for not 
accepting to continue on the basis of the Chairman's  proposed text.  Members were still far apart on 
the issue of DFQF market access for LDCs.  He sa id that his overall sense was that the Special 
Session was not just dealing with Agreement-specific  proposals but rather dealing with very complex, 
abstract and conceptual issues which struck at the h eart of the WTO and the values that it held.  It was 
for that reason that the negotiations had been so complex and difficult.  He looked forward to the 
discussions that would take place in Hong Kong and s ubsequently on some of the issues.  He felt that 
the proposal that the African Group might table on the development framework could contribute to the debate that Members had begun earlier that year. 
C. O
THER BUSINESS  
112. Since no issue had been raised under "Oth er Business" the meeting was adjourned . 
 
 
__________