RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/CTD/M/35 
16 April 2009 
 
 (09-1827) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Thirty-Fifth Special Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 30 MARCH 2009 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Thawat chai Sophastienphong (Thailand) 
  
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS ...........................................1  
C. OTHER BUSINESS .........................................................................................................................3  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contai ned in airgram  WTO/AIR/3337 of 17 March 2009 
was adopted.   
B. REPORTING ON WORK UNDERTAKE N OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS  
(i) Agreement-specific proposals 
2. The Chairman  said that the meeting had been held to update the wider Membership on the 
work carried out since the beginning of the year.  While he did not expect Members to engage in 
substantive discussions, they were free to raise any i ssue related to the work of the Special Session.  
He recalled that as indicated at the last formal m eeting held in December 2008, as well as in his last 
report to the TNC (TN/CTD/23), future work would c ontinue on all elements of the work programme 
in line with the mandate contained in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, with a view to 
concluding this work as soon as possible.  While he  had initially intended to continue work on both 
the Agreement-specific proposals and the Monitori ng Mechanism, he had taken a decision at the 
beginning of the year, to initially concentrate effo rts on the Monitoring Mechanism.  He recalled that 
Members had, up until November 2008, been cons idering a number of the Agreement-specific  
proposals.  However, it had become clear at the time, that Members were merely reiterating 
well-known positions and not demonstrating the necessary flexibility to move forward.  As a result, he 
had decided that for the time being, it would be best to concentrate efforts on the Monitoring 
Mechanism on which Members had been engaged cons tructively.  As a result, no discussions had 
been held on the Agreement-sp ecific proposals in 2009 and he intended to keep it that way until 
Members indicated their willingness to move from th eir positions or table new ideas or language that 
would help to take the work forward.   
3. With respect to the Category II proposals, the Secretariat had completed the initial stage of 
identifying those proposals that were being addressed either in part or entirely as part of the ongoing 
work in the different WTO bodies to which they had b een referred.  The next st ep was for him to meet 
with the Secretaries of these bodies in order to cl arify the initial assessment and then to consider how 
best to move forward.  In his view, this work was important in establishing the status of the proposals.  TN/CTD/M/35 
Page 2  
 
  In addition, it would help Members identify the out standing proposals and cons ider how to expedite 
progress on them.  He would keep Members updated on any progress in this regard. 
(ii) Monitoring Mechanism 
4. He went on to say that since the beginning of 2009, the focus of the work had been on the 
elements of a Monitoring Mechanism.  Up until th e end of 2008, discussions had been based on the 
non-paper contained in Annex II of his last re port to the TNC (TN/CT D/23), as well as two 
submissions;  one tabled by Egypt, India and Pakist an and the other tabled by Brazil, both of which 
had been distributed at the meetings held in Ma rch and December 2008, respectively.  Since the 
beginning of 2009, discussions ha d continued on the basis of these submissions, as well as three 
additional submissions.  The first was tabled by the delegation of Canada, the second by the 
delegation of the United States and the third by the de legations of Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, and 
Pakistan.  All three submissions had been made avai lable at the back of the room and built on what 
was already on the table.  He pointed out that the submission, dated 23 March 2009, tabled by the 
group of developing countries, replaced the earlier submissions tabled in 2008 by Brazil and by 
Egypt, India and Pakistan.  While he did not go  over each submission individually, he provided 
Members with an idea of some of the issues th at were being addressed in the discussions.   
5. He said that so far, Members had generally seemed to agree that the elements of the 
Mechanism should be divided into the Preamble, Stru cture, Scope and Functions.  While this was of 
course not cast in stone, these were currently the diff erent sections being considered.  He went on to 
highlight some of the issues being addressed under each section.  The Preamble, sought to provide 
clarity on the objectives of the Monitoring Mechanis m.  While there were a few differences on what 
the objectives of the Mechanism should be, the ge neral understanding was that the Mechanism would 
play an important role in reviewing the implemen tation of special and differential treatment (S&D) 
provisions with a view to making them more precise , effective and operational.  In his view, it was a 
matter of finding the appropriate wording that wo uld capture this notion.  With respect to the 
Structure of the Mechanism, among other things, Members wanted a Mechan ism that was simple, 
practical and efficient and complemented already existing or proposed monitoring mechanisms.  In 
addition, the Mechanism needed to allow for the regular review of i ssues relating to S&D in order to 
improve the implementation and effectiveness of S& D provisions.  Some Members believed that such 
regular reviews should take place at the technical leve l and only, when necessary, at the higher level.  
Others preferred more specificity.  In his view, th is was an issue that could be addressed through some 
redrafting.  The Scope of the Mechanism was one area where Members would need to carry out 
further work.  The majority of Members felt that  the Mechanism should monitor all S&D provisions 
in the WTO Agreements, which would include, exis ting and future S&D provisions, as well as those 
contained in General Council Decisions, Ministeria l Declarations and Decisions.  However, there 
were others that preferred limiting the monitoring to  just those S&D provisions contained in the WTO 
Agreement, which would exclude those S&D prov isions contained in General Council Decisions, 
Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.  One or two Members preferred limiting the Scope of the 
Mechanism to monitoring just the existing S&D pr ovisions.  In addition, it had also been proposed 
that whatever work that remained to be complete d on the Agreement-specific proposals, also be kept 
under review by the Monitoring Mechanism.  During  ensuing discussions, the Chairman said that it 
had been proposed that for reasons of transparen cy and predictability, the monitoring take place on 
the basis of a list of S&D provisions.  However, a number of Members pointed out that coming up 
with a list would not be helpful.  On the other ha nd, some Members felt that having an "illustrative", 
"non-exhaustive" list would provide transparency and predictability with respect to what provisions 
would be monitored.  In this regard, it was suggested that the Secretariat revise document 
WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1, not so much as for the purpo ses of a list, but so that Members were aware 
of what S&D provisions existed.  He recalled th at the document entitled "Implementation of Special 
and Differential Treatment Provisions in WTO Agre ements and Decisions", prepared in 2001, had 
served as the basis on which Members had pursued  the Work Programme on S&D and contained,  TN/CTD/M/35 
 Page 3 
 
 
  among others, all the S&D provisions that existed at the time.  In his personal view, updating that 
document would be useful, in indicating all the existing S&D provisions in the WTO Agreements.  
Members agreed  that the Secretariat proceed with the update of the document.   
6. Finally, turning to the Functions  of the Mechanism, the Chairman  recalled that his non-paper 
had not contained a section on functions.  However,  he said that Members had felt that it would be 
important to have a section indicating how the Mech anism would function in practice.  Among others, 
it had been proposed that the Mechanism act as a fo cal point in the WTO to analyse and review all 
relevant information related to the implementa tion of S&D provisions.  The monitoring would be 
carried out on the basis of a report to be compiled by the Secretariat.  This report would include information from other WTO bodies and could in clude information on the frequency that S&D 
provisions were invoked;  any identified problems regarding the implementa tion of the related S&D 
provisions;  and any available assessments of the e fficiency of S&D regarding its declared goals.  
Members were still building on and clarifying certain  elements of the Mechanism's functions and a 
number of proposals had been put forward.  He be lieved that with further work, Members should be 
able to reach some common ground on these elements.   
7. The Chairman
 said that he had drawn the attention of those Members in the smaller group of 
the importance of making progress on the Monitori ng Mechanism despite what was going on in the 
other negotiating areas.  The Monitoring Mechanis m on S&D would form an important part of the 
overall surveillance system of the WTO and would be be neficial to all Members.  He, therefore, urged 
Members to remain constructively engaged in the process of establishing a Monitoring Mechanism on 
S&D. 
8. The representative of China  said that his delegation attached great importance to the work on 
the Monitoring Mechanism and would remain seriously  engaged in the process.  He said that the 
recent joint submission tabled by a number of developing countries represented a good compromise 
text and served as a strong basis for future negotia tions.  In this respect, he requested that his 
delegation be added as a co-sponsor to the submissi on.  He hoped that the submission would provide a 
breakthrough in the negotiations.   
9. The Chairman  concluded by informing Members that work over the coming months would 
continue to focus on the Monitoring Mechanism.  This work would continue in the small group setup, 
with any developments being brought back to the wider Membership.  The Agreement-specific 
proposals would be addressed if and when Members put forward new ideas or language.  The dates 
for future meetings would be comm unicated to Members beforehand.   
C.  OTHER BUSINESS  
10. No matter was raised under other business. 
 
__________