WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
TN/CTD/M/45 
11 October 2011  
 
(11-4973) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Forty-Fifth Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 20 JULY 2011 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
  
A. 
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ......................................................................................................... 1  
B.  REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  ........................................... 1  
C.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 11  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The agenda as contained in Airgram WTO/AI R/3781 of 7 July 2011, was adopted as amended 
by inclusion of an item under "Other Business" proposed by Cuba. 
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  
2. Under this agenda item, the Chairman reporte d to Members on developments which had taken 
place since the last formal meeting of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (Special Session) convened on 22 March 2011.  He recalled that at the 44th Special 
Session, Members had agreed that the Chairman's n on-paper Rev.4/Add.1 (hereinafter referred to as 
Rev.4/Add.1) was a good basis for future work a nd had recognized that there was a constructive 
momentum in the negotiations which needed to continue .  It was also decided at that meeting that the 
consultative process would be intensified by holding increased informal small-group meetings; 
including, bilateral and plurilateral meetings, so as to  achieve meaningful progress before Easter.  He 
further noted that in the overall plan of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) which had been 
agreed to by all Members, the Chairpersons of the various negotiating bodies had been asked to 
produce reports in their respective ar eas, so as to ascertain the leve l of convergence and the possibility 
of concluding the Doha Round by the end of 2011.  Therefore, in line with the wishes of Members, 
four small-group informal consu ltations had been held on 29 March, 8 April, 13 April and 
14 April 2011, all before Easter, to discuss elemen ts of the Monitoring Mechanism (MM) on the basis 
of Rev.4/Add.1.  Discussions had also been held  on the six Agreement-specific proposals.  The 
Chairman had also held a few bilateral and plurilatera l meetings in variable geometry with interested 
Members.  The engagement had been intense, constr uctive and encouraging.  This had enabled him to 
prepare a Report to the TNC under his own responsibilit y.  His Report, along with all the reports of 
the other Chairs of negotiating groups, had been circulated by the Chairman of the TNC on 21 April 2011.  This Report had captured developmen ts in the negotiations at the time.  All these 
Reports were on the table when the TNC meeti ng was convened on 29 April 2011 at the level of 
Heads of Delegations.  
3. On the MM, the Chairman reported that Members had witnessed a shifting of red lines, 
especially in the area of the Scope.  Prior thereto, some Members had held the view that the scope of 
the Mechanism should be restricted only to the cove red Agreements, while othe rs preferred inclusion TN/CTD/M/45 
Page 2  
 
  of Ministerial and General Council Decisions in th e scope.  That divergence had been bridged; a 
development that had been reflected in the Annex to  his Report to the TNC meeting of 21 April 2011.  
Similarly, Members had also reached broad conve rgence that although the Mechanism would not be a 
negotiating body, it would be empowered to ma ke recommendations or proposals for initiating 
negotiations in the relevant technical bodies of the WT O.  It had also been ag reed that the Mechanism 
would complement and not replace other relevant M echanisms in different bodies of the WTO.  In 
addition, there had been consensu s that the Mechanism would operate in Dedicated Sessions of the 
CTD (CTD DS), which would be convened at least tw ice a year.  He had also noted in his Report to 
the TNC that there were certain areas where Members continued to have divergent views and more work was required to develop consensus.  These in cluded the language of the Preamble, merging of 
paragraphs 4 and 5 of Re v.4/Add.1, and the need for further clarity on the review procedure.   
4. The Chairman further stated that after the E aster break, two small-group informal meetings 
had been convened on 6 June and 8 July 2011, at  which different formulations relating to the 
Preamble of the MM were considered.  For the Pr eamble language, there were currently two proposals 
on the table that had been submitted by the African Group and the European Union (EU).  As had 
been requested by Members in the small group, these two proposals had been presented in tabulated 
form to facilitate Members' consideration.  Negotiations were still at that stage.   
5. Regarding the six Agreement-specific proposal s, the Chairman recalled that at the 44
th Special 
Session, as well as in his Report to the TNC, he had reported on the status of these negotiations.  
These proposals had last been taken up for discuss ion in a small-group meeting on 14 April 2011.  
Since then, there had been no further development,  and Members' positions remained divided.  At 
these meetings, some Members had felt that the l ast language considered on 19 May 2010 did not 
fully reflect existing divergences on the text.  Others  had felt that the last language considered on 
19 May 2010 captured the progress that had been ma de during and before 2010 and that the text, 
except for a few brackets, was fairly stable.  On the 28 Agreement-specific proposals, the Chairman 
noted that, at the 44th Special Session, the general sense shar ed by Members was that these proposals 
had been agreed to in principle on an ad referendu m basis and that what was required was their formal 
adoption by the Membership at an appropriate time.   
6. The Chairman added that despite the wide range of divergences in different areas of 
negotiations under the broader Doha  Round, Members continued to agree that development would 
remain at the centre of any Doha outcome.  In view  of the difficulties that existed in making progress 
on the broader Doha package, Members had been considering delivering a development package for 
LDCs at the Eighth Ministerial Conference, (hereinaft er referred to as MC8) in December 2011.  The 
Chairman indicated that he intended to continue wo rk after the summer break with the same spirit and 
constructive approach that had been witn essed during the first four months of 2011. 
7. The representative of Egypt noted that for several  years, his delegation had been participating 
amongst a handful of developing country Members in  small-group meetings of the Special Session, 
negotiating a development outcome to the Doha De velopment Agenda (DDA).  This was neither a 
privilege nor a dispensation to his delegation' s long-standing commitment to uphold principles of 
transparency and inclusiveness, but rather a r esponsibility that Egypt carried as the African Group 
focal point on development issues.  It was for th ese reasons of transparency and inclusiveness that 
Egypt and some other developing country Members had specifically requested the Chair to convene the current Special Session.  He recalled that at its meeting on 1 February 2002, the TNC had agreed 
that the mandate of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Decl aration would be pursued by the CTD in formal 
open-ended Special Sessions, and that the proceedin gs of these meetings woul d be reported upon and 
made available to the public six months after they had been issued.  His delegation believed that after 
several years of work in the informal small-gr oup settings, it had become evident that progress was 
difficult to achieve.  Therefore, it was important to  revert back to the open-ended CTD format and 
uphold the primary structure of negotiations as Egypt ha d repeatedly requested fo r the past years, so  TN/CTD/M/45 
 Page 3 
 
 
  as to broaden the representation of developing and least-developed Members in the discussions.  This 
was necessary since developing country interests we re at stake in these negotiations.  Given the 
ominous situation facing the DDA, such a request was no longer a matter of convenience or one that could be dismissed on grounds of efficiency.  Rather , it was an ostensible urgent necessity.  It would 
not be wise to expect that by December 2011, all 153 Members would approve a package in the 
formulation of which they had neither been party nor  been consulted.  If past experience was of any 
relevance, maintaining such a course was but a recipe for disaster, especially if Members were to gauge what they had ended up with after ten laborious years of negotiations.   
8. As this was the first formal Special Session be ing held after the Chairman had issued his 
Report of 21 April 2011 (TN/CTD/26) under his own responsibility on the state of play in the 
negotiations, the representative of Egypt said that it pr ovided an opportunity to the full Membership to 
comment on the Chairman's Report.  More importa ntly, it was also an o pportunity for the wider 
Membership, especially those Members that were no t normally part of the small-group meetings, to 
learn about the status of work, to relay their concerns and views on the issues that had impeded progress, as well as to share their thoughts on the way forward.   
9. He recalled the premise of the negotiations on development issues stating that special and 
differential treatment (S&D) was a fundamental cross- cutting issue and an integral part of the balance 
of rights and obligations in the WTO.  Over time , it had been learnt that as developing countries 
assumed greater commitments in the WTO, their lib eralization commitments deepened and the trade 
agenda broadened, S&D treatment grew in importa nce.  That was why developing country Members 
had called for an overhaul of the S&D regime in tr ade rules at the start of the DDA negotiations so 
that the emerging needs and evolving requirements of  developing countries could be embedded in the 
multilateral trading system and any existing asymmetr ies removed.  Prior to the establishment of the 
WTO, S&D treatment in favour of developing coun tries was allowed in recognition of the special 
challenges faced by them.  The introduction of Pa rt IV into GATT 1947 had formalized the need to 
adopt an international trade policy that took acc ount of the special trade challenges faced by 
developing countries.  That had been augmented by  the Decision on Differential and More Favorable 
Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participati on of Developing Countries.  However, WTO 
Agreements only recognized the special difficulties that developing countries faced in implementing 
the Uruguay Round Agreements.  He added that  this major shift in focus, from addressing 
development challenges to addressing difficulties in implementation, had been based on two 
controversial dispositions;  first, that the level of development was not related to the level of rights 
and obligations under the multilateral trading system ;  and second, that the same policies could be 
applicable to countries with varying levels of deve lopment.  Accordingly, at  the start of the Doha 
Round, the African Group had sought a thorough review  of the concept of the S&D regime in the 
WTO Agreements to create a level playing field for unequal players in the multilateral trading system.  
While some S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements  were mandatory, they had not been complied 
with, as had been demonstrated in various Trade Policy Reviews of Members as well as in the WTO 
Secretariat Note on the Implementation of Special  and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO 
Agreements and Decisions of Oc tober 2000 (WT/COMTD/W/77, dated 25 October 2000).  Therefore, 
since 2002, the African Group had maintained that "S&D treatment should aim to address and resolve 
the imbalances in the multilateral trade rules, to support developing and least-developed country 
Members to undertake adjustments th at were necessary for them to meaningfully benefit from these 
Agreements and to secure adequate  market access in the multilateral trading system that would 
facilitate their rapid economic de velopment" (TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2).  In other words, the African 
Group had maintained the view that trade in itself was not an end, but rather a means to improving 
living standards, eradicating poverty and achieving su stainable development.  This had provided the 
basis for the review of numerous S&D provisions on the basis of 88 Agreement-specific Proposals.   
10. He went on to say that the African Group had also sought, as part of the review of the S&D 
regime in the WTO, the establishment of a MM so  that S&D provisions in all WTO Agreements and TN/CTD/M/45 
Page 4  
 
  those that would transpire out of the DDA, could be kept under regular review in order to ensure their 
implementation and strengthen them  and make them more precise, effective and operational.  
According to the African Group, the functions  of such a Mechanism were to include, inter alia,  the 
monitoring and implementation of and compliance with S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements, 
Ministerial and General Council Decisions.  In addition,  it was to ensure that all S&D provisions were 
operational and effective, as well as to ensure that the proposed mechanism would keep S&D 
provisions under constant review.  This system al so needed to be enabled to make appropriate 
recommendations regarding the opera tion and implementation of S&D provisions.  Such a framework 
for initiating and considering recommendations on complying with obligati ons under S&D provisions 
was therefore, a cornerstone of the African Gr oup's proposals since July 2002, which had been 
endorsed one year later by the General Council in July 2003.  
11. On the Agreement-specific proposals, the representative of Egypt noted that out of the 
88 Agreement-specific proposals submitted main ly by the LDCs and the African Group, 
38 proposals - generally known as the Category II pr oposals – had been referred to other negotiating 
groups and WTO bodies.  In 2003, 28 of the Agreem ent-specific proposals contained in Annex C to 
the draft Cancún Ministerial Text (JOB(03)/150/Rev.2) had been agreed to, in principle, but were 
never formally harvested.  Instead, they had been left to linger for more than eight years awaiting 
formal adoption.  Some of them might have beco me obsolete.  He further noted that the Cancún 
28 proposals were very important as they substa ntiated the concerns raised by developing and 
least-developed Members over the last several year s.  At the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in 
December 2005, Members had adopted five LD C Agreement-specific proposals, contained in 
Annex F to the Hong Kong Declaration, includi ng the Decision on providing duty-free and quota-free 
(DFQF) market access for at least 97 per cent of products originating from LDCs.  To date, most, if not all of those proposals, had yet to become opera tional.  The fact that these proposals were not 
enforceable had affected developing country inter ests.  A case in point was the numerous specific and 
systemic issues that had been raised in the contex t of the CTD regarding Members' interpretation of 
the Enabling Clause and the manner in which devel oping Members' Rights under this Clause had been 
interpreted.   
12. He continued by saying that the lingering Cancún proposals were, therefore, an issue that 
could not be casually overlooked as they substa ntiated concerns raised by developing and 
least-developed Members over the past years and th eir continuous cautioning against erosion of the 
development dimension of the DDA.  In light of the moribund situation that  the DDA currently faced, 
a good case existed for taking a decision to provisionally implement those 28 proposals at the soonest.  
As the Chairman had indicated in his Report to the TNC, those proposals had been agreed to, in 
principle, and had been finalized ad referendum.  What remained was their formal adoption at an 
opportune time, which in his delegation's view was, "yesterday".  As such, th ere was no need to wait 
until the MC8. 
13. On the Category II proposals, he recalled that the Chairman's Report had indicated that no 
progress had been witnessed due to the fact that the i ssues raised in some of them formed an integral 
part of the ongoing work in the respective negotiating bodies.  Given that situation, at some point in time, all outstanding Category II proposals needed to be brought back to the Special Session so as to reactivate work on them.  A MM that would allow Members to make appropriate recommendations or proposals to negotiate could also facilitate work  on these proposals and its early conclusion in a 
time-bound manner.  Given the current stalemate in th e Doha Round of negotiations and the fact that 
some Members had little optimism for concluding the R ound in 2011, coupled with the lack of clarity 
and consensus surrounding the future of the Single Undertaking and how negotiations would proceed 
following the MC8, he requested that the Chairman  brief the Special Session on what had transpired 
in the consultations that were referred to in his Report of 21 April 2011, so that they could have a 
better understanding of the situation.    TN/CTD/M/45 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. On the remaining 16 Agreement-specific proposal s, the representative of Egypt noted that 
work had only proceeded on six of those proposals.   In accordance with the minutes of previous 
Special Sessions, text on those prop osals had been agreed to and fair ly stabilized.  He further noted 
that his delegation could not understand why this fa ct had not been decisively indicated in the 
Chairman's Report to the TNC meeting of 21 April 2011.  He recalled that during the 39th Special 
Session, the Chairman had asked Members if they we re ready to endorse the last language considered 
on those proposals.  At that meeting, no Member had taken the floor to express any reservation to the Chairman's suggestion.  As such, he failed to see why that implicit approval  of the text on those 
proposals was not highlighted in the Chairman's Report and why some Members had now distanced themselves from that agreement.   
15. Reverting back to the MM, he stated that his de legation did not subscribe to the view reflected 
in the Chairman's Report that th e Guiding Principles that had been devised by a small group of 
Ambassadors were an "important br eakthrough" in the work of the Sp ecial Session.  He recalled that 
at the 42
nd Special Session, his delegation had noted that Egypt's final assessment of the Guiding 
Principles would ultimately depend on how they would be translated into legal texts.  At the same 
meeting, his delegation had emphasized that the Guid ing Principles were neither legal, nor exhaustive 
or comprehensive and could also not be cons trued as setting new negotiating mandates.  After 
ten months of intensive small-gr oup consultations, it had become clear that some aspects of the 
Guiding Principles had further complicated the negot iations on the MM.  For his delegation, mandates 
needed to be respected and their reference point  - the one on which his delegation would gauge the 
progress achieved - remained Paragraph 44 of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration, Paragraph 12 of the 
Decision on Implementation Related Issues and Concerns, the General Council's Decision of 
July 2003 which included clear references to the African Group's views, and proposals on the MM.  
16. He said that he continued to hold the view  that the MM would regularly evaluate the 
utilization and effectiveness of S&D provisions, with a view to ensuring that they were utilized 
effectively and that any problems arising regardi ng their application would be addressed by taking 
necessary action that makes those provisions more precise, effective and operational.  The MM would 
have the prerogative to make the necessary reco mmendations and propose amendments to other WTO 
bodies pertaining to S&D provisions so as to make them more precise and operational.  With that objective, the MM would act as a focal point within the WTO to collect and analyse, as well as review 
all information pertaining to S&D provisions.  He added that the Mechanism needed to do so in a 
manner that complemented other relevant WTO bodies.  It would work in the Dedicated Session 
under the auspices of the CTD, meeting at least thre e times a year, back-to-back with formal sessions 
of the CTD, whose terms of reference mandated it "to consider any questions which may arise with 
regard to either the application or the use of sp ecial provisions in the Multilateral Trade Agreements 
and related Ministerial Decisions in favour of developing country Members and report to the 
General Council for appropriate ac tion".  As regards the scope of the MM, he said that Egypt's 
understanding was that the Mechanism would mon itor the implementation and effectiveness of S&D 
provisions in all WTO Agreements, Ministeria l Declarations and D ecisions, General Council 
Decisions, including S&D provisions as set out in Annex C of JOB(03)/150/Rev.2 and in Annex F to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  The Mech anism would also keep under review any work 
undertaken on Agreement-specific proposals in ot her WTO bodies in accordance with Paragraph 44 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  From hi s delegation's point of vi ew, this was important, 
considering the fact that the MM could be made  operational on a provisional basis until such time as 
the DDA would be concluded.   
17. On the mandate of the Mechanism, he stress ed that since the adoption of a Decision to 
establish the MM by the General Council in 2003, Members had differed on the interpretation of the 
mandate and that of Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  It had also become apparent that the 
Guiding Principles gave little assistance to move th e negotiations forward.  The timing of the entry 
into force of the Mechan ism also signified an area of di vergence among Members.  While some TN/CTD/M/45 
Page 6  
 
  Members had advocated that the Mechanism shoul d come into force immediately, others had 
expressed the view that the first task for the Special Session was to  strengthen the Agreement-specific 
S&D provisions in accordance with the Ministerial mandates in Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration, before defining final opera tional modalities of the Mechanism and taking a 
decision on the date on which it should come into force.   He said that in view of the difficulties that 
impeded progress on the Agreement-specific proposal s, it was questionable what the purpose of 
establishing a Mechanism would be if the provisions it was meant to monitor had not been reviewed 
and made precise, effective and operational.  Me mbers also needed to reflect carefully on the 
implication of undue haste in adopting a decision on establishing the MM.  Other issues that remained 
of concern included the text in the Preamble and the legal consistency of the disclaimer, the inclusion 
of which some Members had insisted on. 
18. He lamented the limited progress that had been  made both in the work on Agreement-specific 
proposals as well as on the MM, despite the substan tive arguments and explanations that had been 
furnished by the African Group.  He stated th at the African Group's proposal fell within the 
parameters of what Members had agreed to at th e Doha and Hong Kong Ministerial Conferences.  He 
felt that the progress made on negotiations in the Special Session was not commensurate with the 
intensified work carried out, and that the S&D tr ack was lagging behind other areas of negotiations in 
the DDA.  His delegation was, therefore, deeply concerned that there had been no movement on the 
critical issues of concern to developing countries th at underpinned the MM.  Concern was also raised 
about the process, structure and short-cited positions  maintained by some Members.  He emphasized 
that the differences amongst Members were fundamental  and could not be washed away by clever use 
of language.  In view of this, his delegation had doubts that any progress could be achieved through 
continuing the work in the Special Session at the technical level.  Members needed to seek political 
guidance to ensure that all the political signals that had emanated from various high-level summits, 
ministerial conferences and other high-level gather ings that had been held over the preceding two 
years in Washington, London, Seoul, Toronto, Dea uville, Davos and Blue Sky could trickle down in a 
manner that truly reflected Members' commitment to  achieving a development outcome to the DDA.  
Finally, he expressed his delegation's support to the st atements that were to be made on behalf of the 
African, ACP and the LDC Groups. 
19. Speaking on behalf of the ACP Group, the representative of Mauritius  expressed support for 
the statement delivered by the representative of Eg ypt.  She stressed the Group's commitment to the 
establishment of a MM which would undertake the regular evaluation of the utilization and 
effectiveness of all S&D provisions as contai ned in multilaterally agreed WTO Agreements, 
Ministerial and General Council Decisions, with a vi ew to ensuring that the provisions were truly 
utilized and any problem arising thereto was effe ctively addressed.  She noted that the ACP Group 
remained concerned about the fundamental differe nces amongst Members which continued to hamper 
progress in these negotiations.  Additionally, the AC P Group remained firm in its conviction that 
S&D treatment was an indispensible tool for fac ilitating effective particip ation of developing and 
least-developed countries in the multilateral trading sy stem.  As such, the MM needed to be designed 
in a manner that adequately and effectively responde d to the demands of the developing countries and 
assisted in and supported their integration into the multilateral trading system.  She said that the ACP 
Group attached a lot of importance to the early resolution of the Agreement-specific proposals as well as the early adoption of all the 28 Agreement- specific proposals annexed to the draft Cancún 
Declaration.  She expressed the ACP Group's disappointment at the limited progress made so far on 
the MM and the Agreement-specific proposals. 
20. The representative of Kenya, speaking on be half of the African Group, supported the 
statements delivered by the representatives of  Egypt and Mauritius.  He quoted a 2003 UNCTAD 
study that said the following:  "to talk about special and differential treatment may sound out of 
fashion.  But to talk about how  to update the S&D instruments is particularly timely:  S&D issues, in 
their different names and shapes (such as 'dev elopment dimension', 'preferential regimes',  TN/CTD/M/45 
 Page 7 
 
 
  'vulnerability', 'policy spaces', 'flexibility', 'developmen t-friendly' rules, etc.), will stay with us in the 
multilateral and the regional trade agendas for a l ong while...".  He stated that the African Group 
found those words quite relevant in the current cont ext as Members continued to grapple with issues 
of understanding and interpreting mandates and concepts in their work in the Special Session.  
Despite the challenges experienced, the African Group had always strived to proactively engage in 
advancing the work on S&D in the Special Session .  Since the Chairman's Report to the TNC of 
21 April 2011 had been released, Members had not had an opportunity to formally express themselves 
on the contents of this Report.  Addressing the MM, he noted that the African Group shared the 
Chairman's assessment on the difficulties that ha d impeded progress. The Group's understanding of 
the MM was that it would not only monitor implementation of S&D provisions across the WTO 
Agreements, but also provide a platform where implementation issues relating to those provisions 
could be discussed.  While the African Group apprec iated the Chairman's efforts in furthering the 
agenda of the Special Session, he also stressed that  the Chairman needed to  calibrate the issues under 
negotiations to portray a proper balance that coul d comfort all Members.  He cautioned against any 
arbitrary efforts to present the MM as a possible candi date for the December package, and noted that 
the African Group could only support such a move if the final shape of the MM had the right and 
necessary legal references with an effective and clear function that would deliver on the original 
aspirations and intensions as envisaged in the Afri can Group proposal tabled in 2002.  Short of that, 
he was afraid it was unlikely to enlist th e support of the African Group.  On the 
28 Agreement-specific proposals, he noted that in 2006, the African Group had carried out an assessment on the economic value of those proposals,  which had also been shared with Members.  
While questioning the relevance of some of those pr oposals in the current context, he asked for an 
opportunity for a discussion of that package in the Special Session.  In quoting from a 2006 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Report, he conclu ded by saying that effective implementation and 
monitoring were essential to avoid a repetition of th e disappointment with the special and differential 
treatment offered in the Uruguay Round. 
21. The representative of El Salvador expressed hi s delegation's appreciation for the Chairman's 
Report on the status of work and requested that it be  circulated to all Members so that it could be 
shared with capitals. 
22. The representative of India noted that her dele gation had, in the past, expressed concerns 
about efforts by some Members to circumscribe the scope of discussions on the MM, as well as the 
nature of recommendations it could make to other bodies.  She emphasi zed that the MM needed to be 
an effective and credible instrument which coul d regularly evaluate the operation, utilization and 
effectiveness of all S&D provisions.  It also need ed to propose actions, as appropriate, to strengthen 
those provisions and improve their implementation in order to facilitate the integration of developing 
and least-developed countries into the multilateral trading system. 
23. The representative of Zimbabwe supported the statements delivered by Egypt, Kenya and 
Mauritius.  He made reference to a parallel ongoing  discussion on monitoring and evaluation in the 
context of Aid for Trade that aimed at ensuring th at the aid that was given had adequate follow-up 
procedures.  Picking a leaf therefrom, he reiterate d his delegation's desire to see progress that met the 
needs of developing countries, in light of the historical context in which the MM had been envisaged. 
24. The representative of China  expressed disappointment not only at the stalemate that faced the 
Doha Round as a whole, but also the slow pace of th e work in the Special S ession.  In spite of the 
time and energy that Members had devoted to these negotiations, positions remained divergent on the 
very fundamental issues relating to the MM.  Similarly, he said little progress had been made on the Agreement-specific proposals.  Bearing in mind that the Doha Declaration recognized that 
development issues were essential to the survival of  the multilateral trading system, the Ministers had 
christened the negotiations as th e "Development Round", and had incl uded a number of provisions in 
the Declaration that stress the centrality of developm ent issues.  He said that his delegation still firmly TN/CTD/M/45 
Page 8  
 
  believed that the development dimension was a core  and integral component of the Doha Round, as 
well as for any possible small package for December  2011.  He supported the Chairman on the need 
to intensify the consultative process after the summer break, stressing that negotiations needed urgent 
political will and true constructive engagement, otherwise the prospect  of dragging on in an endless 
debate without any concrete results loomed.  He called on all Members to engage in negotiations after 
the summer break with a positive mind frame, set w ith a will to demonstrate flexibility, where 
necessary, so that substantive progress could be achieved.   
25. The representative of the European Union expressed  her delegation's appreciation for the pace 
at which Members had engaged in the work of the Speci al Session, especially in the first half of 2011.  
In her delegation's view, that had provided evidence of Members' willingness to make progress in this 
area which could have important development deliver ables for the Round.  Work in the past few 
months had focused on discussing the elements of the MM, the foundation for which had been 
progressively set during the past few years of negotiations.  She recognized that significant progress had been achieved in the MM at the end of 2010, as had been acknowledged and welcomed, inter alia , by the Special Session during a number of formal meetings, as well as had been reported in 
the Chairman's Report to the TNC.  The EU believe d that the work ahead fo r Members was to put in 
place the missing elements of the overall architecture.  Seen in that light, the Chairman's Report to the 
TNC could be considered as a good basis for furt her work.  She added that the Annex to the 
Chairman's Report effectively captured the fact that  there was already adequate convergence of views 
on some key areas such as the scope of the MM, how the Mechanism would operate, as well as how 
the reappraisal of the Mechanism would take pl ace.  The Chairman's Report had also rightly 
acknowledged that it was a work in progress and that th ere were a number of issues that needed to be 
resolved before any final product could emerge.  Th ese included, among others, the review procedure; 
notably, how the work in the cont ext of the Mechanism would be co mbined with the work of other 
WTO Committees.  On the Preamble, she said th at although her delegation had not seen any 
compelling need to have a Preamble in the text, he r delegation realized that some Members wished to 
have one.  Therefore, the EU had engaged constructively and put  forward a proposal, which it 
believed represented a good basis for work, bearin g in mind the necessity not to upset the overall 
balance of the text, including its length.  Howeve r, her delegation was disappointed at the way the 
work had progressed in the last few rounds of di scussions and felt that Members were going around in 
circles.  She said that she also detected increasing temptations on the part of some Members to look 
backwards and potentially endanger the progress that had been achieved.  Her delegation could only 
contemplate further work in the Special Session as building on previous  understandings and not 
putting them aside.  Speaking about the Agreement-sp ecific proposals, she stated that more work was 
needed to resolve some of the b asic issues contained therein.  Re garding the 28 Agreement-specific 
proposals agreed to in principle at Cancún, she st ated that eight years had elapsed since those had 
been agreed to in principle, and so it would be n ecessary for Members to check if some of them were 
not outdated.  However, she cautioned against reope ning negotiations, as that would only push away 
any prospect for rapid formal adoption.  Furthe rmore, she said that her delegation was concerned 
about a possible stalemate in the work of the Speci al Session, and stressed the importance of a new 
impetus and guidance from Ambassadors as an impor tant prerequisite to further advancing the 
negotiations. 
26. The representative of the United States expressed his delegation's appreciation for the text on 
the MM that had been annexed to the Chairman's Report of 21 April 2011 and said that he looked 
forward to a more detailed discussion on it.  He ra ised a number of issues that, in his delegation's 
view, needed to be adequately reflected in the Ch airman's Report, such as the role of technical bodies 
in the review process.  He said for example, that  technical bodies such as the Technical Barriers to 
Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committees n eeded to be the first on es to review technical 
proposals on S&D issues raised under the purview of those Agreements, before they could be 
discussed by non-technical experts in the MM.  He al so expressed concerns about the reformulation of 
paragraphs 7 and 8 in the Annex to the Chairman's Report, and sai d that he was not convinced that the  TN/CTD/M/45 
 Page 9 
 
 
  MM needed to meet more frequently than "at least once per year".  Therefore, his delegation did not 
share the Chairman's view that a consensus had emerged on the fact that the MM could meet twice a 
year.  However, he did not preclude the possib ility of multiple meetings, as necessary.  On the 
Preamble, he said that his delegation continued to advocate a simple approach  as was outlined in the 
Chairman's Report of 21 April and also in the Rev.4/Add.1.  In this regard, he noted that there were 
three textual proposals on the preambular language and not two proposals as had been noted by the 
Chairman in his update on work undertaken in recen t months.  His reference was to the text in the 
preambular part of the Rev.4/Add.1.  He furt her stated on the Agreement-specific proposals, his 
delegation did not share the view expressed in the Chairman's Report of 21 April 2011 that some Members had felt that the draft text on the propo sals accurately captured the progress.  In his view, 
the current text on the Agreement-specific proposal s needed to accurately re flect the discussion held 
thus far and unresolved issues needed to be appr opriately bracketed.  On the MM, some Members 
continued to express the view that it could be a fo rum to renegotiate WTO rules, which was a red line 
that his delegation thought had been resolved by the Ambassadors' small-gr oup meeting in the fall of 
2010.  Given this fundamental divergence among Me mbers, though unfortunate, his delegation saw 
little chance of the negotiations on the MM concludi ng before the summer break or by the December 
Ministerial.  He reiterated his delegation's belief that significant progress was made by the 
Ambassadors in establishing Guiding Principles for th e Monitoring Mechanism.  This also included a 
common understanding that the MM would not be a nego tiating forum.  He considered this to be a 
significant breakthrough in the discussions and was concerned that some Members were seeking to 
backtrack from that principle.  He  emphasized that the Guiding Principle that the MM would not be a 
negotiating body and the continued insistence by some  Members to make reference to the mandate in 
Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declarations in th e Monitoring Mechanism were not compatible. 
27. The representative of Ecuador noted that there was a historical debt in the WTO concerning 
development issues and the CTD was a part and par cel of that debt.  His delegation supported the 
statements made by Egypt and Kenya.   
28. The representative of Japan stressed the importanc e and relevance of the Guiding Principles 
for the work in the Special Session, emphasizing the need for consistency in negotiating positions 
between technical experts and their Ambassadors re garding the importance of these Principles.  He 
cautioned against backtracking and welcomed the refl ection of the Guiding Principles in the Annex to 
the Chairman's Report of 21 April 2011, adding that  that needed to be th e basis for future work, 
including on the Preamble. 
29. The representative of Canada noted that he r delegation attached strong value to the 
Ambassador's small-group process and the delicate ba lance that had been st ruck in the Guiding 
Principles.  She also continued to strongly sup port the view that the Guiding Principles were a good 
basis for future work on the MM.  For her delegation, the Chairman's Report of 21 April 2011 and the Annex thereto was a good basis for undertaking fu rther negotiations on the MM.  However, there 
were some elements that needed to be revisited co llectively.  First, she continued to have concerns 
with the Chairman's reformulation of paragraph 8 wherein the original text from the Rev.4/Add.1 
seemed to have been lost.  In particular, sh e was referring to the removal of language from 
paragraph 8 of the Rev.4/Add.1 which read as follo ws; "or any recommendation or proposals to other 
WTO bodies".  She reminded Members that, during the small-group informal  consultations, her 
delegation had strongly cautioned agai nst any reformulation of the te xt that removed this language 
and the current formulation was an unacceptable de parture from the Guiding Principles.  Secondly, 
she remained interested in seeing some text that  could possibly help in addressing the "sequencing 
issue" as well as streamlining the work of the Mon itoring Mechanism.  In that context, she expressed 
disappointment at the non-inclusion of the EU's proposal on the Annex to the Chairman's Report and emphasized the need to address this issue.  She al so indicated her delegation's readiness to share 
specific views on the EU's proposal as well as to the text in Annex to the Chairman's Report in the 
small-group consultations at an appropriate time  in the discussions.  She welcomed the proposals TN/CTD/M/45 
Page 10  
 
  submitted by the EU and the African Group.  She st ated that Canada's position on the inclusion of 
reference to Paragraph 12 of the Ministerial Deci sion on Implementation Related Issues and Concerns 
and Paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration, as well as Paragraph 35 of the Hong Kong Declaration 
was well known and had not changed.  In her view, the only useful and practical reference in the 
Preamble of the MM was to the General Council Decision of July 2002, as it formed the  basis for 
establishing the MM.   
30. She also stated about the Agreement-specific proposals, and noted that Members had only had 
little opportunity to address them and th at a lot of work remained to be  done.  Canada's concerns with 
the text on Agreement-specific proposals went beyo nd the brackets in the cu rrent text.  On the way 
forward, she reminded Members of the need to preser ve the delicate balance that had been struck by 
Ambassadors in the Guiding Principles, which had greatly contributed to Members' work in 
overcoming some of the difficulties.  She cautione d against unravelling the important progress that 
had been made and expressed her de legation's belief that the current text on the Agreement-specific 
proposals was at an advanced stage.  However, further work, including, if needed, by Ambassadors 
would be necessary.  She sought guidance from the Chairman on the proposed way forward in the 
context of the wider discussions.   
31. The representative of Pakistan stated that th e work in the Special Session on the MM as well 
as on the Agreement-specific proposals was very importan t.  According to his delegation, the shape of 
the text of the MM was already there.  Work in the Special Session needed to continue and remain 
isolated from negative impacts resulting from the im passe in the DDA.  This was essential as the 
Special Session was not working on new market access opportunities or formulae.  It was only 
considering the ways and means to improve what ha d essentially been already agreed in the form of 
S&D in the WTO Agreements.   
32. The representative of Brazil noted that his dele gation had been involved in the small-group 
Ambassador meetings that came up with the Guidin g Principles on the basis of which work had been 
progressing in the Special Session.  He was, however, disappointed with the fact that Members could 
not achieve the degree of progress that had seemed possi ble before.  He stressed the crucial nature of 
the development dimension of the Doha Round as  well as of any smaller package that Members 
would consider for the MC8.  Members needed to make  a conscious effort to ensure that the work in 
the Special Session was not negatively affected by what was happening in the overall DDA.  
However, Members would eventually have to reass ess where they stood and what could or could not 
be done in order to make progress in the negotiations. 
33. The representative of New Zealand registered her delegation's broad agreement with the 
Chairman's assessment of the status of work a nd the convergence achieved in the areas of scope, 
functions, operation and reappraisal of the MM.  She also shared the view that the Guiding Principles were an important breakthrough in the negotiations in the Special Session.  Even though her delegation was not involved in the Ambassadors' small-group process, her delegation respected the 
outcome and that needed to be preserved.  She sai d that the Guiding Principles must continue to 
underpin future work in the Special Session.  The ch allenge in recent months had been to translate the 
in principle convergence achieved on those Guiding Principles into legal text as well as closing 
remaining gaps.  She recognized that the text on the MM appended to the Chairman's Report of 
21 April 2011 was produced under the Chairman's ow n responsibility, and said that her delegation had 
a number of concerns, such as the fact was that it di d not reflect all the proposals on the table.  This 
was not at all surprising in the context of the negotiation process.  Her delegation was willing to 
continue working on the basis of the Chairman's text in good faith and on a without-prejudice basis, 
so as to work towards a text that was clear a nd unambiguous.  Any final product on the Mechanism 
that built on progress made so far would be extremel y important in that direction.  She expressed her 
delegation's disappointment at recent efforts made by some Members to reopen issues which the 
Special Session had already discussed at length in th e past and which her delegation had felt had been  TN/CTD/M/45 
 Page 11 
 
 
  adequately settled among Ambassadors in the Guiding Principles.  Such efforts were 
counter-productive and did not assist in making progress.  Regarding the six Agreement-specific proposals, she noted that further wo rk was needed before they could be considered as truly stable. 
34. The representative of Australia noted that the te xt contained in the Annex to the Chairman's 
Report of 21 April 2011 was a good basis for further wo rk.  His delegation was happy to see that areas 
of convergence had been enshrined in the text, a lthough there were still other issues that required 
further work, especially the Preamble.  Similarl y, negotiations on the Agreement-specific proposals 
needed further work, including through appropriate br acketing of text that was not agreed to.  His 
delegation appreciated the significance of the Guiding Principles which provided a good basis for 
future work in the Special Session. 
35. The Chairman  thanked Members for their candid views, noting that the objective of most of 
the interventions seemed to be the same, i.e. to move  forward, albeit in different ways.  He noted that 
a number of suggestions had been made, some more ch allenging than others.  He stated that the month 
of August provided a good opportunity for Members to reflect on what others had said.  He informed 
Members about his intention to continue with  his consultations after the summer break.   
36. Taking the floor again, the representative of Egypt clarified that although his Ambassador had 
attended one or two of the Ambas sadors' small-group meetings that finalized the Guiding Principles, 
it did not mean that he had agreed to them.  In fact, his Ambassador had flagged his concerns and reservations with respect to the Guiding Principles. 
37. The Chairman noted that since he had been th e facilitator of the Ambassadors' small-group 
process, he was fully aware of whatever happened there.  He did not wish to make any further 
comments. 
38. The Special Session took note of all statements made. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
39. The representative of Cuba noted her delegati on's commitment to the development aspects of 
the DDA and supported statements made by Egypt, Ma uritius, Kenya, Ecuador, China, Pakistan and 
Brazil, which had stressed the importance of devel opment issues.  She informed Members that the 
purpose of her statement under "Other Business" was to reiterate her delegation's submission made at 
the 43rd Special Session held on 13 January 2011.  The submission by Cuba pertained to S&D 
treatment relating to technology transfer for the a pplication of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
and Technical Barriers to Trade.  She invited Members to provide their views on Cuba's submission so that a fruitful discussion could take place in the Special Session.  She stated that Members' views 
would help Cuba to improve the substance of its submission and develop a more coherent and 
acceptable position on technology transfer which coul d be beneficial to developing countries.  
Therefore, the issue required a very open, broad-ra nging, participatory and conscientious debate.  She 
hoped the matter could be discussed at the forthcomi ng meetings of the Special Session and reiterated 
that Cuba's proposal did not suggest that technology transfer should be free of charge, except in the 
case of LDCs.  Rather, it addressed the need for secure, timely and preferential access to technology.  
She attributed the lack of progress on the 88 Agr eement-specific proposals in the Special Session to 
the reluctance of some Members to fulfil th eir development obligations.  While technology 
transfer-related issues would mainly pertain to th e private sector, this did not mean that the public 
sector, as regulator of modern society, could not play  an efficient role in this sphere.  Even though 
technology was in the hands of the private sector , conscious policy measures by the government and 
the public sector could facilitate access to such t echnologies by developing countries on a preferential 
basis.   TN/CTD/M/45 
Page 12  
 
  40. The representative of Ecuador supported the statem ent made by Cuba and looked forward to a 
fruitful discussion, at future meetings of the Special Session, on the submission by Cuba.   
41. The Committee took note of the statements. 
42. The meeting was adjourned.  
 
 
__________