RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/C/M/27 
30 October 2007 
 (07-4687) 
Trade Negotiations Committee 
26 July 2007  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 26 July 2007  
 
Chairman: Mr. Pascal Lamy (Director-General) 
  
Subjects discussed:
 
 
1. Statement by th e Chairman .....................................................................................................1  
2. Reports by the Chairpersons of th e Bodies Established by the TNC...................................2  
3. Statements by participants..................................................................................................... ..9 
 
 1. Statement by the Chairman 
1. In his introductory st atement, the Chairman
 recalled that, at an informal meeting held on 
22 June, there had been a strong reaffirmation of  Members' collective target:  full modalities in 
agriculture and NAMA and commensurate progress in ot her areas of the negotiations in line with the 
mandate. He said that this was the essential step that needed to be taken in or der to conclude the Doha 
Development Agenda (DDA) successfully and soon. 
2. At the informal meeting, he had emphasized that  the Geneva process was and must remain the 
core of the negotiation.  This was vital to ensure the full participation and informed decision making  
desired by all. Since that meeting, he was pleased  to say that the negotiating process in Geneva had 
been significantly reinfo rced and intensified. 
3. He wished to thank delegations for responding to  his call to step up their level of substantive 
engagement in the multilateral process run by the Negotiating Group Chairs. Such engagement 
remained the key to further progress. 
4. Delegations would shortly be hearing from all the Negotiating Group Chairs, and he believed 
that they would be able to conclude from their re ports that some good progress had been made across 
the board over the past few months – in some areas in absolute terms, and in others in terms of 
clarifying the outstanding issues. 
5. The major development had been the circulati on of draft modalities texts the previous week 
by the Chairmen of the agriculture and NAMA groups.  He wished to thank the Chairs on behalf of all 
delegations for their untiring efforts and for the excellent job they – and all the Negotiating Group 
Chairs – continued to do. 
 TN/C/M/27 
Page 2  
 
  6. As the Chairs had underlined, these were draft texts.  They were not negotiated or agreed 
texts.  The negotiation was up to the participants, and the virtue of these text s was that they allowed 
participants to negotiate at a more concrete, intense and specific level. 
7. Both Chairs had made it very clear from the start that their draft modality papers were only 
another step in the process and that they would have  to be revised in the light of the views expressed 
by participants.  They identified  possible areas of convergence and ar eas where gaps still needed to be 
bridged.  That was up to participants to undertake in  the process that the Chairs were running with his 
full support. 
8. Both the agriculture and NAMA negotiating grou ps had met over the previous two days to 
hear initial reactions to the texts.  As the two Chairs  had informed participants in their fax on 5 July, 
delegations had the month of August to reflect fully on the draft texts, and then be in a position to 
return to the process prepared to engage in an in tensive negotiation as from 3 September. He urged all 
Members to fully use the month of August to exam ine the texts in detail, to consult, discuss and 
engage bilaterally among themselves. 
9. It was important that everybody be fit and ready on the starting line at that time.  Participants 
had already come a long way in this Round, and the distance left to go was not so great.  But it would 
require an extra effort.  This effort meant be ing open to compromises, while still respecting the 
mandate, aims and level of ambition of the Round.  It meant intensive work, knowing that there were 
no shortcuts.  And it meant negotiating with each othe r instead of trying to negotiate with the Chairs. 
10. He wished to stress once again that the Round was a Single Undertaking covering a broad 
agenda with development at its heart.  When de legations returned after the summer break, the focus 
could not be exclusively on agriculture and NAM A.  Participants would need to achieve a 
commensurate level of progress in other areas of the negotiations, in line with the full Doha mandates, 
the July 2004 Decision and the Hong Kong Ministeria l Declaration.  This was the only possible path 
to an ambitious, balanced and develo pment-oriented outcome to the Round. 
11. Finally, he wished to update delegations br iefly on the issues of extension of Geographical 
Indications (GIs) and the relations hip between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  He said that after 
the General Council's meeting in February, DDG Yerx a had held consultations  on his behalf in open-
ended and other formats on arrangements for furthe r work on these issues.  In the light of these 
consultations, Mr. Yerxa had enc ouraged delegations to meet among themselves with a view to 
finding more common ground.  More recently, he had c onsulted with delegations  in various formats, 
largely to keep in touch with processes of discu ssion that had taken place between interested 
delegations.  He said that Mr. Yerxa stood rea dy to pursue these consultations, on his behalf, 
whenever developments in the negotia tions made it appropriate to do so. 
12. In summing up, he said it would be necessary to co me back to work on 3 September ready to 
engage in intensive negotiations. 
13. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement.   
 
 
2. Reports by the Chairpersons of the Bodies Established by the TNC 
14. The Chairman  noted that written reports had been circulated in the following official 
documents: 
Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services TN/S/32 
Special Session of the Council for TRIPS TN/IP/17  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Special Session of the Committee on Trade & Environment TN/TE/17 
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body TN/DS/20 Special Session of the Committee on Trade & Development TN/CTD/20 Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation TN/TF/5 
 
15. Ambassador Falconer (New Zealand), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture , said that he did not believe there was a need for him to say much at this stage.  He had 
held a number of negotiating sessions, Members had th e revised draft modalities, everyone had heard 
the initial reactions to the text and he would be re flecting on those comments, as he was sure everyone 
would.  After all, the text was conceived as an ar ticle of planned obsolescence, and for that to take 
place, what was needed was serious reflection ove r August leading to modifications in Members' 
substantive positions in September, so that it coul d be superseded by a further revision as soon as 
possible. 
16. In his negotiating group, he had said that it was his intention to take as long as necessary to 
bring the discussions to a point where a revisi on made sense, which mean t tangible convergence 
which he, as Chair, was able to capture.  He hoped that when the work restarted on 3 September, it 
would possible to start to detect the convergent pos itions which would be needed in order to revise the 
text appropriately. 
17. The only other comment that he wished to make was that he hoped, as everyone reflected 
over August, that two words would be at the forefront of everyone's mind.  The first word was "multilateral".  All participants had avowed that they were going to do this multilaterally now, and 
only success would demonstrate that multilateralism worked. Failure could not now be blamed on 
people going off into a corner;  failure would be a failure of multilateralism.  And the second word to 
bear in mind was the one at the centre of th e Doha Development Agenda – development. 
18. Ambassador Stephenson (Canada), Chairman  of the Negotiating Group on Market Access
, 
said the Negotiating Group had met the previous da y to give preliminary comments on his proposed 
modalities text prepared on his own responsibility, at th e request of the Members.  At that meeting, he 
believed it would be fair to say that Members were not unanimous in their praise for the text.  Indeed, 
the text and the discussion had served best to high light the significant remaining differences amongst 
Members.  The good news, however, was that Member s had been unanimous in their commitment to 
return in September ready to work on revising the text through negotiation and consensus building.  
This text had been his;  the next one had to be theirs. 
19. Many Members had indicated their belief that it wo uld be useful to allow some time for the 
agriculture negotiations to advan ce before taking up the core issues  in NAMA, while recognizing that 
time was short for completing these negotiations.  For th is reason, he planned to initiate bilateral and 
small group consultations during the week of 10 Se ptember, and to convene  the Negotiating Group in 
open-ended format during the week of 17 September. 
20. Members had agreed that, once the work resu med in open-ended format, the negotiations 
should be intense and continuous.  It would importa nt that chief NAMA negotiators be committed to 
almost full-time presence in Geneva and that Senior O fficials be available to participate at appropriate 
moments and at short notice.  He planned to work  as much as possible in open-ended format, using 
small groups to do work on specific issues on whic h consensus could not be reached in open-ended 
discussions. TN/C/M/27 
Page 4  
 
  21. Ambassador de Mateo y Venturin i (Mexico), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council 
for Trade in Services , said that his report contained in document TN/S/32 described the work that the 
Special Session had undertaken since negotiations r esumed early in the year.  Members had continued 
to work hard, conducting intensiv e request/offer negotiations on market access in bilateral and 
plurilateral formats.  The plurilateral talks on GATS market access, which had been stipulated in the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, had been par ticularly useful in understanding and narrowing 
differences between delegations. 
22. Work had also progressed in the other areas of  the GATS negotiations, particularly with 
respect to proposed new disciplines in domestic regulation.  A draft text of possible regulatory disciplines had been circulated, which Members vi ewed as a good basis for further negotiations.  At 
the same time, Members were addressing the i ssues of modalities for least-developed countries 
(LDCs) and special and differential (S&D) treatment in formal and informal meetings of the Special Session.  Overall, Members agreed that services  should form an important component in the 
negotiated package of the DDA. 
23. To stimulate further progress in the negotia tions, he had been conducting a series of 
consultations at ambassadorial level, dubbed the "Enchilada" talks.  During these sessions, his 
intention had been for participants to clarify pos itions on requesting and requested Members' market 
access in 21 sectors and modes of supply.  At this point in the Enchilada talks, certain sectors or 
modes showed a promising convergence in negotia ting positions, while others  demonstrated that 
much further work was needed.   Several amba ssadors had stressed the linkages of the services 
negotiations with other areas of the DDA.  Some ha d taken the view that, in the absence of revised 
offers, there would be a need to "capture" th e progress achieved thus far in the request/offer 
negotiations. 
24. The focus should now be on the way ahead for the services negotiations.  There was a clear 
demand by many Members to have services adequa tely represented in any package containing 
modalities on agriculture and NAMA.  Several view s had been expressed in this regard, and his 
intention was to continue to consult and to clarify how Members wished to proceed.   The next cluster 
of services meetings was scheduled to take place in the period of 17-28 September.  Several Members 
had indicated that they wished to have an intensiv e round of bilateral and plurilateral meetings.  Prior 
to that, he intended to hold another Enchilada m eeting which would, he hoped, among other things, 
set the tone for these request/offer negotiations. 
25. Ambassador Valles Galmés (Uruguay), Chai rman of the Negotiating Group on Rules
, said 
that it had been nearly a year since he last made a formal report to the TNC, in July 20061.  Although 
at that time he had been able to report one successf ul outcome of the work in the Negotiating Group, 
the adoption of a draft decision on a Transparen cy Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements 
(RTAs), like everyone he had been disappointed that the Round in general was encountering difficulties, and he personally had been particular ly disappointed that the overall situation in the 
negotiations was not propitious for the circulation of  texts in the rules area, as he had been mandated 
to do. 
26. In spite of that disappointment, and the peri od of reduced activity that had followed, the 
Negotiating Group on Rules had not wasted the past year.  To the contrary, the Group had begun various informal activities shortly after the summer break and had steadily intensified its work since 
that time.  The pace had been particularly intensiv e since the start of the year as the Group had held 
negotiating clusters in anti-dumping and in subsidies and countervaili ng measures, including fisheries 
subsidies, in February, March, April, June and most recently July, as well as meetings on RTAs last 
December and in February. 
                                                     
 
1  Circulated in document TN/RL/18.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 5 
 
 
  27. He believed that the extra time available had been put to very good use.  A particular focus of 
the work had been fisheries subsidies, where the Group had received some extremely useful new 
papers and explored in depth some particularly  difficult issues, such as S&D treatment and the 
possible role of sustainability conditionalities in the new disciplines it was developing.  Important 
work had also been done in the area of horizontal su bsidies, and the Group had considered a variety of 
new proposals in the area of anti-dumping as well. This work had steadily improved the collective 
understanding as a Group of the issues it was confr onting, and had aided him in looking ahead to 
identify possible ways forward. 
28. That said, he, and he believed others interested  in rules issues, had continued to wait with 
impatience for the time when they could move to the next stage of work, which would be conducted 
on the basis of Chair texts.  However, conditions an d expectations thus far had not been right for the 
release of such texts.  In particular, it was his longstanding view that the issuance of texts on rules 
would be constructive only if they were seen as an integral part of a continuing process in the 
Negotiating Group.  These texts had to be seen as techni cal papers that could serve as the basis for an 
intensive discussion that would lead to subsequent  revisions.  Rather than seeking an immediate 
breakthrough, he hoped that thr ough successive revisions of his te xts the Group could achieve an 
increasingly precise formulation of what could be the final compromise that could contribute to bringing this Round to a successful conclusion.  It  was that successful conclusion of the Round that 
was the real breakthrough that everyone should seek. 
29. In this context, he welcomed the reports by  his fellow Chairmen, those of the Negotiating 
Groups on agriculture and NAMA, regarding the pro cesses they intended to follow over the next few 
months.  He believed that the approach that Ambassadors Falconer and Stephenson were pursuing 
was consistent with the gradualist approach that he believed was necessary in the rules area.  Thus, 
procedural developments in agriculture and NAMA were creating an environment which was 
conducive to the release of texts in the rules area. 
30. He noted the intention of Ambassadors Falconer and Stephenson to circulate revised papers 
on agriculture and NAMA as soon as possible, and he would add hopefully towards the end of 
September.  For the reasons he had explained, he be lieved that this would be an appropriate time for 
him to issue rules texts as well.  Thus, he wish ed to inform the TNC that, absent unanticipated 
developments, he expected to circulate text s on anti-dumping and on subsidies and countervailing 
measures, including fisheries subsidies, at around the same time that tho se revised papers were 
circulated. 
31. He wished to emphasize once again that his texts should be seen as technical papers that 
could serve as the basis for an intensive discussion in the Group.  The discussions should continue 
until such time as he considered that he had a suffi cient basis to produce a revision, and, hopefully, 
further revisions.  These texts were not to be seen as silver bullets that would somehow slay the werewolf of deadlock and serve as the basis for a dramatic and immediate br eakthrough.  He did not 
believe that, at least on these issues, at this time, in  this negotiation, such an outcome was realistic.  
He did, however, believe that such texts, and su ch a process, were the only way that the Group could 
realistically hope to make further progress. 
32. Ambassador Ahmad (Pakistan), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS
, 
said that he was not as close to producing a text as three of the Chairs who had taken the floor before 
him at the present meeting, but he considered it pos itive that there had been, in the last few months, 
more sign than had been evident earlier of dialogu e among interested delegations with a view to 
ensuring a proper understanding of each other's positi ons and concerns and exploring possible ways 
forward.  This was a welcome development, sin ce these negotiations had been characterized for too 
long by a lack of such a dialogue. TN/C/M/27 
Page 6  
 
  33. The negotiations on the GI register were, of course, affected by the overall state of the 
negotiations in the Round as a whole and the linkages that some delegations were making, as well as 
by the existence of other initiatives regarding the prot ection of GIs.  However, he was confident that 
the considerable amount of technical work done thus  far, and the mutual understanding of each other's 
positions and concerns that had been generated, w ould stand the negotiators in good stead in making 
progress once the necessary conditions were met.  He was hopeful that the momentum to the whole 
negotiating process that had resulted from the pape rs of the Chairs of the agriculture and NAMA 
groups would stimulate interested delegations to  be creative in finding new flexibility in the 
negotiations on the GI register with a view to meeti ng each other's concerns, in particular with regard 
to the two key issues of legal effects and participation. 
34. Ambassador Matus (Chile), Chairman of th e Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Environment,  said that, as he had been elected Chairman  of the Special Session only the previous 
week, the report contained in document TN/TE/17  covered mostly work carried out under the 
Chairmanship of his predecessor, Ambassador Toufiq Ali.   He wished, on behalf of the participants in 
the group, to thank Ambassador Ali for his most valuable contribution and commitment to Special 
Session's work.   
35. Turning to the report, he said that some important progress had been made over the past year 
on Information Exchange and Observer Status of  Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) 
under paragraph 31(ii), which was considered perhaps the least controversial part of the mandate.  The 
group now had a set of basic elements for an outcome on which there was broad convergence.  Consultations would have to continue on a few outstanding questions, and certain aspects of the 
document might need to be examined further when the group started looking at legal text.  But 
overall, he believed the group had a solid basi s for reaching an agreement in this area. 
36. On the other parts of the mandate, useful work had also been carried out  in the past year.  
However, he would say that movement towards c onvergence had been somewhat limited, partly due 
to the overall state of the Round. 
37. On the issue of the relationship between WT O and MEA rules, under paragraphs 31(i), the 
group had two concrete proposals for an outcome on  the table.  While these proposals presented two 
rather different perspectives on the mandate, he believed there was scope in September to start 
exploring elements for an outcome.  Some ideas had b een mentioned in this regard at the meetings in 
June and July.  These ideas would have to be fu rther developed and discussed, as Members continued 
to look for a solution to fulfil the mandate. 
38. Finally, negotiations on environmental goo ds and services under paragraph 31(iii) would 
require intensive work when work resumed afte r the summer.  The timing for this particular 
"deliverable" was slightly different than for othe r parts of the mandate, because the work of the 
Special Session had to feed at some stage into th e work of other groups, and here he was referring 
particularly to NAMA. 
39. Previous discussions had contributed to clarifying Members' positions and concerns.  What 
was required now was the will to bridge existing diff erences.  He would urge delegations to pursue 
the dialogue and engage in finding a way forward, w ith a view to achieving a meaningful outcome for 
trade, environment and development. 
40. For his part, he looked forward to the constr uctive engagement of de legations on all three 
items of the mandate as the group pursued its work.  He intended to hold consultations ahead of the 
next Special Session meeting – currently scheduled in the first week of October – to see how to best 
move the process forward.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 7 
 
 
  41. Ambassador Saborio Soto (Costa Rica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute 
Settlement Body , said that since his last written report, th e work of the Special Session had continued 
to be based on revised contributions resulting from informal work among Members, building on the 
work conducted earlier. 
42. Specifically, in order to further advance towa rds a rapid conclusion of the negotiations as 
mandated,  he had conducted, since the beginning of the year, a series of substantive consultations to 
discuss the revised contributions presented by Members to the Special Session.  In total, seven sets of 
consultations had been held between January an d July, each over several days.  These informal 
consultations had been conducted in conjunction with  regular open-ended informal meetings of the 
Special Session, both in order to allow the introducti on of  revised contributions and for transparency 
purposes to report back on the ongoing consultations. 
43. In these consultations, participants had cons idered proposals relating to compensation and 
suspension of concessions, flexibility and Membe r-control, panel composition, post-retaliation, 
remand, sequencing, S&D treatment, strictly confiden tial information, third-party rights, time-savings 
and transparency. 
44. Through this process, he believed that the gr oup had now essentially achieved its objective of 
examining all the revised contributions presented to the Special Session.  His consultations thus far 
suggested that the group still had plenty of work ahead of it to reach agreement on improvements and 
clarifications of the DSU, both substantively and in  terms of legal drafting.  At the same time, he 
believed it was also clear from the present round of consultations that the contributions that had 
formed the basis of this phase of the process constituted a very sound basis for the further 
continuation of the work.  The African and LDC Gr oups had also indicated that they were still 
working towards revising their contributions, and he  hoped that they would be in a position to present 
such revised contributions very soon so that these could also be reflected in further work. 
45. In this respect, he wished to express his very sincere appreciation to participants for the very 
constructive manner with which they had engaged in this process.  He believed in particular that all 
the work conducted by participants prior to submitting revised proposals, including the sincere 
engagement in informal Member-driven processes such as the Mexican group, had greatly contributed to the success of this phase of work.   In particular , the effort made by proponents to sincerely review 
and revise their proposals in light of comments rece ived from other participants in these informal 
processes had been essential in ensu ring that the group had a realistic and constructive basis from 
which to work towards an agreement.  It would re main critical to a successful conclusion of the work 
that participants continue to work in this spirit. 
46. From September, building on the work thus far, he proposed to move to a new stage of the 
negotiation.  This would aim to take the discussion of the various contributions a step further and 
focus more directly on exploring convergences and bridging the gaps that remained in Members' 
positions.  For this purpose, he intended to hold a furt her series of substantive consultations in various 
formats as necessary.   Of course, as had been th e case over the past few months, meetings of the 
Special Session in an open-ended format would conti nue to be scheduled to allow the membership to 
be informed of ongoing work on a regular basis. 
47. In the meantime, he also intended to compile in to a single document all the contributions that 
had formed the basis of the recent work.  He hoped th at this might help to clarify for all delegations 
what the basis for that work had been since the beginning of the year, and he believed it could also 
generally facilitate the conduct of work.  He inte nded to issue the compilation by the end of July. 
48. Finally, in order to facilitate the efficient resumption of work after the summer break, he 
believed it would be very helpful if  the proponents of various contribu tions could think of advancing a TN/C/M/27 
Page 8  
 
  step further in their own work.  He had theref ore asked those proponents whose contributions were 
not yet fully reflected in the from of draft legal text to make every effort to develop such text as appropriate, so that the group could work uniformly from draft legal text.  He had also encouraged 
those proponents whose contributions were already in the form of draft legal text to consider whether 
any further revision of their texts might be useful, to reflect further the discussions and comments 
received in the course of recent consultations. 
49. Ambassador Gafoor (Singapore), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade 
and Development , said he had submitted a written report to  both the TNC and the General Council on 
the work of the Special Session, which was cont ained in document TN/CTD/20.  The written report 
was comprehensive and self-explanatory. He would ther efore leave it to Members to read it at their 
leisure, and he wished only to highlight a few key points. 
50. At the outset, he wished to explain that the work of the Special Session was focussed on two 
main areas, namely the Agreement-specific proposal s and the cross-cutting and other issues.  On both 
these areas, he believed that the Special Session ha d taken a few steps forward since the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference in December 2005. He wish ed to make some specific points on the work of 
the Special Session.  
51. First, on the Agreement-specific proposals, Members continued to engage in text-based 
discussions on seven of the 16 remaining proposals.  There had been intensive discussions on three 
proposals, namely the proposal relating to Artic le XVIII of the GATT and the two proposals relating 
to Article 10.3 of the SPS Agreement.  On these three proposals, he had tabled, on his own responsibility, revised draft text based on inputs from his formal and informal discussions.  He wished 
to point out that a lot of divergence still remain ed on these proposals and that further work was 
required before an agreement could be reached.  On  the three proposals relating to Article 3.5 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, there w as a greater degree of convergence but there were 
also some outstanding issues.  It was his assessment that the revised draft text on the six Agreement-specific proposals, as contained in Annex II of his report, provided a good starting point for continued 
work in the post-summer period.  As for the seven th proposal relating to Article 10.2 of the SPS 
Agreement, new draft language had been tabled by  the proponent only in July.  On this proposal, 
further consultation would be needed in Septembe r before the prospects for convergence could be 
assessed. 
52. Second, there were nine remaining Agreem ent-specific proposals on which convergence did 
not seem possible.  For these proposals, he continue d to hold the view that there was no value in 
addressing them unless and until Members had put fo rward new ideas or new language to take the 
process forward.  For this reason, he believe it was best to set aside these nine proposals and take no 
further action on them for the time being. 
53. Third, with regard to the Category II Agre ement-specific proposals which had been referred 
to other bodies, he had been in touch with the resp ective Chairpersons.  It was his sense that there had 
been no significant development on these proposals.  In  any event, the Chairpersons of the bodies to 
which the proposals had been referred would be reporting on these proposals at the General Council 
meeting the following day.   
54. Fourth, on the duty-free quota-free market access i ssue, the LDCs had continued to stress the 
need for quick and effective implementation of the d ecision.  On this issue, he had organised several 
informal small group consultations to get the key stak eholders to talk to each other.  He believed the 
key stake-holders had a better understanding of thei r respective positions, but the fact was that the 
divergences remained wide, both on the question of preferential rules of origin and market access.  
His sense was that Members were committed to implementing the decision, but the major 
stakeholders would need to reach out to one a nother in order to resolve their differences.   TN/C/M/27 
 Page 9 
 
 
  55. Fifth, on other outstanding issues, including the cross-cutting issues, Members had been 
focusing on possible elements of a Monitoring Mechan ism.  To facilitate discussions, he had tabled a 
draft text in April.  On the basis of discussions, bot h formal and informal, he had tabled a revised draft 
text on 11 July.  It was his sense that the revised draft text, as contained in Annex III of his report, was a good starting point for continuing work in the post-summer period. 
56. Overall, he would say that over the past year and a half, Members had made some progress on 
the various aspects of the mandate of the Special Se ssion.  He continued to believe strongly that the 
work of the Special Session represented an important  component of the development dimension of the 
Doha Round.  The outcome of the Special Session woul d be an integral and indispensable part of any 
overall agreement to conclude the D oha Round.  It was therefore important for the work of the Special 
Session to keep up with the pace and progress in the other areas of the negotiations and to resume as 
soon as possible after the summer break. 
57. Finally, this would be his last report to th e TNC as Chair of the Special Session, as he was 
leaving Geneva, and he wished to make an appeal  to all delegations to treat the Negotiating Group 
Chairs with kindness and respect. 
58. Ambassador Sperisen-Yurt (Guatemala), Ch airman of the Negotiating Group on Trade 
Facilitation , said that the negotiations on Trade Facilita tion continued to make steady progress, in a 
transparent and inclusive manner, on all aspects of the negotiating mandate, based on Members' contributions as compiled in docum ent TN/TF/W/43/Rev.12.  Valuable progress was also being made 
on the identification of trade facilitation needs and pr iorities, development aspects, cost implications 
and inter-agency cooperation.  The textual pr oposals compiled in document TN/TF/W/43/Rev.12 
represented a significant advance, but not agreemen t, and were without prejudice to the right of 
Members to put forward new contributions.  It was also understood that they required further 
refinement and negotiation in line with the modalities set out in Annex D of the July Package and the 
agreement contained in Annex E of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
59. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note
 of the reports by the Chairpersons of the bodies 
established by it. 
3. Statements by participants 
60. The representative of Uganda , on behalf of the African Group , thanked the Chairman for his 
report, and for his tireless efforts to keep the DDA negotiations on course and in a multilateral mode.  
The African Group noted with satisfaction that sin ce the last informal TNC meeting at which the 
Chairman had called on the Chairs to work towa rds producing negotiating texts, the Chairs of 
agriculture and NAMA had delivered their draft modalities texts. 
61. The African Group remained convinced that a transparent, inclusive and bottom-up 
multilateral process, facilitated by the Chairs of the various negotiating bodies, should remain the best approach for Members to achieve a balanced and successful conclusion of the DDA in a manner that 
optimally addressed the concerns of all Members.  The Group wished to thank the Chairpersons of the 
various negotiating bodies for their reports, and it ap preciated their dedicated hard work in facilitating 
negotiations. 
62. The Group wished to re-emphasize that the D oha Round had to remain a development Round.  
This meant that the outcome of the Doha negotiations  had to fully reflect the development aspirations 
of developing and least-developed countries, as contained in the agreed negotiating mandate. TN/C/M/27 
Page 10  
 
  63. He requested that the African Group's statemen ts containing its preliminary comments on the 
agriculture and NAMA Chairs' draft modalities texts at the informal meetings of the respective 
negotiating groups be reflected in the records of the present meeting.
2 
64. The African Group appreciated the efforts that had been made in agriculture and NAMA.  
However, the Group was of the view that the areas  of services, trade facilitation, TRIPS and rules 
were also of vital importance to Africa.  In this re gard, the Group requested that its statements at the 
meeting of the Special Session of the Council for Trad e in Services on 13 July and at the last formal 
TNC meeting be taken note of, since they still remained the Group's position on services. 
65. Similarly, in the area of trade facilitation the African Group wished to restate its call on 
developed countries to address the issue of S&D treat ment, particularly the technical and financial 
assistance which was needed to enable developing and least-developed countries to address the 
constraints that hindered their effec tive participation in the multilateral trading system.  In this regard 
the Group wished to see the joint proposal by the Core Group, African Group, ACP and LDC Group 
given positive attention and consid eration by developed partners. 
66. Finally, the African Group wished to underlin e its commitment to the multilateral negotiation 
process, and to remaining constructiv ely and effectively engaged in th e negotiations so as to achieve a 
speedy and successful Doha Development Round, which was expected to uplift the living standards of 
millions of poor people in A frica and the world at large. 
67. The representative of Brazil, on behalf of the G20, the G33, the ACP, the LDC Group, the 
African Group, the Small Vulnerable Economies, NAMA 11 and the Cotton 43, said that the groups of 
countries for which he was speaking wished to express their assessment of the situation in the Doha 
Round after the circulation of revised draft moda lities by the Chairs of the agriculture and NAMA 
negotiations. 
68. At this moment, when participants were en tering a new phase in the negotiating process, it 
was important to reaffirm some of the central pr inciples accepted by all to guide the Doha Round: 
• this was a development round and these grou ps would be assessing any outcome of the 
negotiations on the basis of the commitment unde rtaken in Doha to put development at 
the heart of the multilateral trading system; 
• agriculture remained the engine of the negotia tions, for it was central to delivering on the 
development dimension of the Round, especially through the substantial reduction and elimination of trade distorting subsidies in developed countries; 
• commitments undertaken in the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the July Framework and 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declar ation had to be fully respected; 
• the objective had to be to arrive at full modalities in both agriculture and NAMA, 
addressing all elements of the mandate, in partic ular special and differential treatment for 
developing countries; 
• only through a genuine multilateral process that was transparent, inclusive, bottom-up and 
Member-driven could results be achieved in which all Members had a sense of ownership. 
 
69. The groups of countries for which he was speaking were comm itted to maintaining their unity 
and cooperation, and to remaining constructively engaged in a process of intensive negotiations among all 
                                                     
 
2  See Annexes I and II respectively. 
3  Known as the G110.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Members that led to final drafts of full modalities in  agriculture and NAMA that were complete, balanced 
and development-oriented. 
70. Speaking on behalf of the G20 , he said that at the informal ag riculture meeting on 24 July, the 
G20 had welcomed the "Draft Modalities for Agriculture" paper.  The task of trying to reach a balance 
in a complex negotiation such as agriculture should not be taken lightly.  The draft text was a good 
starting point for further work in September. 
71. In order to move to a text-based negotiation,  it was important to stress that only full 
modalities, covering all areas of the mandate, with cl arity on contents, could provide a sound basis.  
Some issues had not been addressed at this stage.  Th ere were many gaps to fill.  Different levels of 
precision rendered difficulties in the assessment of the overall balance in the text and in relation to the 
NAMA text.  What was needed now was to improve the text by correcting the imbalances and by 
filling in the gaps in areas that were not covered or not fully developed. 
72. The G20 wished to recall the centrality of ag riculture in this Development Round.  The 
ambition in agriculture had to determine the negot iations in other areas – and not the other way 
around.  This was fundamental to redress historical  imbalances and to avoid future imbalances. 
73. The central linkage in agriculture was between  domestic support and market access.  Whereas 
central elements in the domestic support pillar were now clearer, there was not much clarity on 
important areas of market access.  The G20 had emph asized that the end result in each pillar should be 
assessed on the basis of its compliance with the Doha mandate. 
74. On domestic support, the central linkage was between cuts and disciplines.  Both were 
important and complementary.  The G20 wished to reiterate the need for "very low teens" of overall 
trade-distorting domestic support (OTDS) and effec tive disciplines at the product-specific level for 
the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) and the Blue Box. 
75. On market access, the central linkage was betw een the formula and flexibilities for developed 
and developing countries.  Whereas the picture on th e structure of the formula was clearer, the impact 
both on developed and developing countries remained to  be assessed.  Moreover, the lack of clarity on 
flexibilities and on other layers of protection could hinder outcomes derived from the formula. 
76. As for developing countries, the formula r esults and flexibilities would be assessed taking 
into consideration different realities of tariff stru ctures between developed and developing countries 
and following the overall proportionality of commitm ents.  The G20 welcomed the improvement of 
provisions included for recently-acceded Members (R AMs), tropical and alternative products, LDCs 
and small and vulnerable economies (SVEs).  On co tton, the G20 welcomed the inclusion of the 
demands of the Cotton 4, which the G20 fully supported. 
77. On export competition, the elimination of expor t subsidies by 2013 was correctly preserved, 
but ambition on volume commitments remained to be addressed.  The text s on food aid and export 
credits provide a good starting point for further work. 
78. The commitment was to make this Round a de velopment Round.  As a development Round, 
its results should be development-oriented a nd should correct the imbalances present in the 
multilateral trading system. 
79. Concluding these preliminary observations, he st ressed that the G20 was prepared to engage 
fully in exploring all the implications and technical  dimensions of the draft document for agriculture 
with a view to arriving at full modalities.  Only th en could the consistency of these provisions with the 
mandate and the real level of ambition in the agricu lture negotiations really be assessed.  As stated TN/C/M/27 
Page 12  
 
  before, the agriculture text was a good starting point  for this process and the G20 was prepared to 
engage in intensive work on agriculture with a ll Members in September, on a priority basis. 
80. Speaking on behalf of Brazil
, he said that participants had achieved in the present week the 
goal set out by the two Chairs in their joint communi cation to delegations in early July.  The objective 
had been to have "initial reactions";  not to ne gotiate, nor to provide comprehensive, definitive 
reactions.  This had been the best available course, given the short time available, as well as the 
complexity of the draft texts. 
81. In the two dedicated meetings on agriculture and NAMA held in the present week, there had 
been positive engagement by the membership.  Brazil saw this as a positive indication of the general willingness to see the Round succeed. 
82. At the same time, both texts had received a large number of substantive comments.  Many 
points required further elaboration; several other poi nts had been called into question; yet on others 
draft language was still lacking.  It was clear that a lo t of work would be require d in order to arrive at 
revised texts that could serve as blueprints for full modalities.  It would be wise to treat the texts as 
preliminary – as "steps in the process", as the Chairs  had characterized them.  No definitive decision 
was required, or even useful, at this moment.  Wh en delegations returned in September, there should 
be an intensive and continuous process of  negotiation, starting with agriculture. 
83. It was also evident that there was a substa ntial imbalance between the two texts.  The 
agriculture draft was more open to the concerns of Members and provided a better basis for the 
negotiations in September.  The NAMA text, in c ontrast, tried to constrain developing countries to 
narrow ranges and high levels of ambition.  A major flaw in the NAMA text was the attempt to set a 
level of ambition regardless of the outcome in agriculture.  Brazil had stated time and again that, as 
required by the mandate and by the logic of a de velopment-oriented Round, the level of ambition 
would be set by agriculture.  The outcome in NAM A would follow from that  One should also not 
forget that it would only be possible to assess the ov erall balance of the round once results in all areas 
of the mandate were on the table.  In this regard, he wished to highlight the importance his delegation 
attached to an outcome on rules and on TRIPS and CBD. 
84. The representative of Lesotho
, on behalf of the LDC Group , said that the Group wished to 
thank the Chairman for the tireless efforts that he  had made in steering the negotiations process back 
on the multilateral track and reinvigorating it throu gh the initiation of texts by Chairs of various 
negotiating groups.  The Group also thanked the vari ous Chairs for their reports. The Group believed 
that the multilateral process was the best forum to ta ke the negotiations forward in a truly transparent 
and inclusive manner. 
85. The LDCs believed that the developmental obj ectives of the Doha Round and the quality of 
the outcome of the Round should not be compromised in the interest of meeting artificial and often 
unrealistic timelines.  Therefore they believed th at all work deferred to September should be 
adequately addressed as soon as work resumed after the summer break. 
86. With regard to agriculture and NAMA, the Group re quested that its statem ents at the informal 
meetings of the respective negotiating groups be reflected in the records of the present meeting4, with 
the caveat that those had only been preliminar y comments, as members of the Group were still 
studying the Chairs' papers more closely and we re also awaiting guidance from their respective 
capitals. 
                                                      
4  See Annexes I and II respectively.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 13 
 
 
  87. With regard to services, the content of the inte rvention that the LDCs had made at the last 
meeting of TNC remained as valid at the present as it had been then.  Four years after the adoption of 
modalities for LDCs, and almost two years after Ho ng Kong, Members were still not interested in 
fully engaging on special priority for LDCs, which was an issue of key interest to the Group.  The 
LDCs had tabled a proposal in this regard, on th e mechanism for operationalization of Article IV:3, 
which enabled granting special priority in market access to service s suppliers from LDCs. 
88. The LDCs recognized that some Members had initiated discussions on this issue with them, 
however real substantive and positive engageme nts which addressed their interests were not 
forthcoming, and this was a concern to them at best, a disappointment at worst.  By so doing, Members were denying the LDCs economic growth a nd development, which had been recognized in 
paragraph 25 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declarati on.  Regarding the LDCs request on mode 4, the 
Group remained ready to engage with Members furt her, with a view to reaching improved market 
access. 
89. Regarding trade facilitation, the Group had e xpressed the view on several occasions that 
technical assistance and capacity building was in built, part and parcel of the mandate for 
these negotiations.  Developed country partners we re required to comply with the mandate, by 
contributing towards capacity building in LDCs for their effective participation in the negotiations. 
90. Finally, the LDCs wished to underline thei r commitment to working towards a successful 
conclusion of the Round and towards the realiza tion of its development-oriented objectives. 
91. The respresentative of Canada
 welcomed the proposed modalities texts by the Chairs of the 
agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups, as they woul d be useful for the purpose of intensifying 
discussions in September.  As paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration had stated, 
Members had to ensure a comparably high level of ambition in market access for agriculture and 
NAMA.  Progress on services and rules, along with other parts of the Single Undertaking, would also be essential to successfully concl uding the Doha Round.  To accomplish this goal, however, Members 
would need to address some remaining challenges. 
92. With respect to agriculture, Canada considered  that the Chair's text succeeded in setting out 
ideas and parameters that could help to advance efforts.  For instance, Canada believed it was 
essential to see a result in the higher end of the Ch air's proposed reductions to overall trade distorting 
domestic support if it was hoped to achieve an effec tive constraint on the capacity to provide such 
support.  Together with effective disciplines,  this could lead to a significant outcome. 
93. On export competition, participants were al so beginning to see the shape of a possible 
outcome, although, here again, an appropriate level of ambition and clear disciplines in several areas 
had to be ensured.  Agricultural market access  rema ined the area where the most  work remained to be 
done.  Canada strongly supported an ambitious tariff reduction formula and it believed that the Chair's 
paper gave participants scope to press for such a re sult.  At the same time, a considerable amount of 
work remained on a range of other market access issu es.  Canada had very serious concerns with the 
proposed approaches on sensitive products. 
94. In NAMA, Canada had consistently argued fo r ambitious tariff reductions, a result which was 
not guaranteed by the Chair's current draft text.  Canada would assess a final NAMA result on 
whether new market access for Canadian exporters had been achieved, and whether or not Canada 
was providing new access opportunities particularly  for developing country exports.  Canada was 
prepared to do its part. 
95. On services, he said that the report by the Ch airman of the Special Session was a useful 
reminder to all participants that progress on agriculture and NAMA, while necessary, was not TN/C/M/27 
Page 14  
 
  sufficient if they were to conclude this negotiati on.  And while one had be gun to see the contours of 
services outcomes, it was also clear that what had been revealed at the present meeting did not yet provide the basis of the ambition in services that woul d be required.  This part  of the negotiation also 
required much work, and services negotiators had to be ready to re-engage energetically in 
September.  Despite containing elements that w ould take many Members, including Canada, outside 
their current positions and comfort zones, Cana da saw the proposals as a good launching pad for 
negotiation, with the Chairs setting out where compromises and landing zones might be found. 
96. The representative of Benin
, on behalf of the co-sponsors of th e Sectoral Initiative in Favour 
of Cotton5, thanked the Chairman for his introductory st atement and for the insights he had provided 
concerning the negotiating work ahead.  He said that the Group of co-sponsors of the sectoral 
initiative in favour of cotton endorsed the statements  made by the African Group, the LDC and ACP 
Groups, the G33, the G90, NAMA 11 and the G110.  The Group shared the view that the work should proceed within the basic frame work of the multilateral process, addressing the development 
dimension in the Round and preserving the balance of interests of the various Members and groups of 
Members, particularly the weakest and most vulnerable among them.  The Group thanked the 
Chairmen of the Negotiating Groups for their endea vours, in their respective spheres of competence, 
to move the proceedings forward. 
97. He said that since the launching of the Doha R ound, late July in the WTO had always been 
marked by intense and feverish activ ity dictated by a sense of duty: 
• July 2004 had resulted in the Framework text, finalized at the end of that month; 
• July 2005 had seen intensive preparations in the run-up to the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference; 
• July 2006 had been marked by a situation of which all participants were aware – the 
suspension of the negotiating process – whic h they had succeeded in reversing by 
giving the necessary forward impulse; 
• July 2007 now saw the delivery of the revi sed draft modalities texts by the Chairmen 
of the agriculture and NAMA negotiating groups, to whom the Group wished to express renewed thanks for their efforts. 
98. Such a reminder of circumstances and events was useful in assessing more clearly how far 
participants had come and what yet rema ined to be achieved and taken on board. 
99. The cotton issue was being addressed as part of the agriculture negotiations and deserved to 
be handled with the ambition, expeditiousness and specificity which Members had adopted as criteria 
in this matter of vital importance for the popula tions and economies of 36 African cotton-producing 
countries, including a number of  LDCs. 
100. The Group welcomed the revised elements of modalities which the agriculture Chairman had 
submitted to the membership on 17 July.  It consid ered that these proposals under the three pillars for 
negotiation of the cotton issue might help reach th e anticipated outcome on this matter.  The Group 
supported the proposals in question and urged Members to give them favourable consideration so that 
consensus could finally be reached on this issue, more than four years after the submission of the 
Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton. 
101. The Group endorsed the formula proposed in pa ragraph 42 of the agriculture Chairman's 
paper.  In the Group's view, this provided a logical and credible basis for an efficient and coherent 
                                                     
 
5  Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali, known also as the Cotton 4.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 15 
 
 
  approach to a substantial reduction in domestic support for cotton, with  a view to total elimination of 
the latter. 
102. The Group wished to recall its proposals concerni ng the Blue Box cap relating to cotton, as 
set forth in document TN/AG/GEN/22 of 16 June 2006, requesting that the Blue Box cap applicable to cotton amount to one third of the product-specific cap to be adopted in the agriculture negotiations.  
The Group was also of the opinion that the reference period should be 1995-2000, as stated in 
paragraph 43 of the revised draft modalities in the agriculture negotiations.  As regards market access 
for cotton exports from LDCs, the Group endorsed th e proposals reflected in paragraphs 135 and 136 
of the revised draft modalities text. 
103. Turning to cotton export subsidies granted by  developed countries, the Group had taken note 
of the proposals contained in paragraph 150 of this  text:  "All forms of export subsidies for cotton 
shall be eliminated by developed countries by  the start of the implementation period … ". 
104. The Group nevertheless wished to recall that, as stated in paragraph 11 of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration, the Ministers had set the deadline for developed countries to eliminate all forms of cotton export subsidies at year's end 2006.  This showed yet again that the requested 
expeditiousness in addressing the cotton issue had fa iled to materialize by that date, and that the 
Members concerned with this crucial and vital matter would have to work towards meeting the 
commitments they had undertaken. 
105. The co-sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour  of Cotton wished to draw the attention of 
Members to the need for the development aspects of co tton to be likewise reflected in the revised draft 
modalities text, in accordance with the mandate set fo rth in Annex A, paragraph 5, of the July 2004 
Framework and in paragraph 12 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
106. In this context, the Group suggested strongly that the Evolving Working Table on Cotton 
Development Assistance be maintained on the ag enda of the consultative meetings under the 
Mechanism the Director-General had established fo r the development assistance aspects of the cotton 
issue and that the Table be updated on a regular basis. 
107. Similarly, a mechanism for the management of losses in cotton export income incurred by 
African cotton-producing countries as a result of decl ining cotton prices should be set up and put into 
operation until such time as international cotton trade- distorting subsidies had been fully abolished.  
Work on the outline for such a loss management mechanism shoul d be expedited and finalized 
without delay.  This was the one and only way – by addressing the cotton issue from both the trade-related and the development standpoints – for African cotton to survive, to prevent the early collapse 
of Africa's cotton-producing economies, and for th eir populations to break out of the circle of 
destitution and poverty. 
108. The representative of Japan
 said that the discussions over the past two days had been 
substantive and fruitful.  Japan was ready to resu me discussions in September utilizing the Chairs' 
texts, and it was fully cognizant that it was truly "N ow or Never".  APEC Mi nisters had reaffirmed 
their commitment earlier in the present month to a su ccessful conclusion of the DDA this year.  This 
was not to contradict the basic notion that content could not be sacrificed for timelines.  Of course, 
Members had to secure a sufficient r esult that lived up to the name of a development round.  At the 
same time, in view of the single-undertaking princi ple, Japan suggested to accelerate also work in 
other fields, such as services and rules.  Japan w as pleased to hear at the present meeting the very 
strong determination of the relevant  Chairs, and believed the negotiations should move in parallel as 
much as possible. TN/C/M/27 
Page 16  
 
  109. As the Chairman had suggested in his opening st atement, Members were, at last, approaching 
the last phase in their long and enduring journey.  As  in mountain climbing, the last area was the most 
tough, slippery and dangerous part.  Japan hoped to see everyone progress carefully but decisively.  It 
also hoped that everyone recognized the responsibility of  being in the driver's seat.  It suggested that 
everyone work together to attain an ambitious and balanced result.  Japan w as ready to involve itself 
anytime, anywhere, at any level or in  any form, and it would do its best. 
110. The representative of Jamaica
, on behalf of the G90 and NAMA11 , said the G90 and 
NAMA 11 were committed to contributing to the Doha Round and to securing a successful outcome. 
They supported the multilateral process facilitated by  the Chairs, and sought to raise the trust and 
confidence of Members in the process. 
111. However, they were deeply concerned that  the NAMA Chair's draft text suffered from 
substantial imbalances that would need to be addressed: 
• The draft text presupposed the outcome of  the NAMA negotiations before Members 
had had an opportunity to ne gotiate these outcomes in the multilateral process.  This 
was in sharp contrast with the agriculture  draft text where Members’ positions were 
substantially preserved allowing them si gnificant scope to negotiate further. 
• The draft text changed what had become the principle of the Doha Round, that 
agriculture should lead the ambition of the Doha Round, with the developed countries 
making the greatest reforms in their trade di storting policies.  Instead the draft text 
made developing countries pay first in th e NAMA negotiations and required them to 
make severe cuts in their industrial tariffs. 
• The draft text attempted to re-interpret the mandates of the Doha Round, that had 
called for taking fully into account the special needs and interests of developing 
countries including through less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments by 
developing countries; by asking developing countries to contribute disproportionately 
compared to the contributions requested from developed countries.   
• The draft text called for contributions by de veloping countries that were not consistent 
with their development needs and levels of development. 
• The draft text also undermined an agreem ent reached in paragraph 24 of the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Declaration to ensure that the level of ambition of the NAMA 
negotiations should be comparable to that in agriculture.  
112. The above substantial imbalances in the draft text had to be corrected to secure a fair, 
balanced and development oriented outcome in th e Doha Round.  This coul d be achieved through a 
genuine bottom-up and inclusive process that allo wed for genuine negotiati on and engagement in 
September. 
113. Speaking on behalf of the ACP Group , she thanked the Chairman for his opening remarks and 
also thanked the Chairmen of the negotiating groups  for their reports and their continued hard work 
and commitment.  Over the past two days, Member s had been engaged in informal discussions during 
which they had given their initial reactions to the draft modalities texts issued by the Chairmen of the 
negotiating groups on agriculture and NAMA.  This ha d signalled the start of an intensive process that 
the ACP Group hoped would eventually lead to ag reed full modalities in these two areas after the 
summer break. 
114. During the meetings, concerns had been expressed , particularly by developing countries about 
the draft texts especially in terms of how some of the mandates and principles governing the overall 
negotiations had been interpreted.  In this regard, the ACP Group wished to recall some of the basic  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 17 
 
 
  principles which it believed should guide the negotia tions when they resumed in September. These 
principles had been outlined in document WT/L/6 87, entitled "Declaration on Development Concerns 
and Issues in the Current WTO Negotiations". 
115. The ACP Group hoped that the imbalances which currently characterised the draft texts 
would be addressed during the work after the su mmer break.  The Group had always stressed that 
development should be at the core of the negotia tions in keeping with the overall objectives of the 
DDA.  This should be translated through the inco rporation of principles such as less than full 
reciprocity and S&D treatment – key principles that  had been agreed by Ministers at Doha, which 
would allow developing countries, such as the AC P Group, to undertake lesser obligations than 
developed countries in some areas, including in tari ff reduction commitments.  There should also be a 
balance between the obligations undertaken and the benefits to be accrued by developing countries, 
such as those in the ACP Group, from these negotiations. 
116. Concerns had also been expressed about the status  of the draft texts, in particular the draft 
modalities text on NAMA.  In this regard, the ACP Group recalled the opening statement by the 
NAMA Chair at the meeting the previous day in wh ich he had indicated that the entire NAMA draft 
modalities text was still under negotiation and, like  the agriculture draft modalities text, would be 
revised to reflect the outcome of the negotiations that would start in September.  The Group welcomed this assurance and also the TNC Chairm an's own remarks on this issue.  The Group noted 
that these texts were steps or inputs in the process. 
117. In terms of how the work in September woul d be organized, the ACP Group could agree to 
the timetables outlined at the present meeting.  Par ticipants would begin their work by focusing on the 
negotiations on agriculture during the first few w eeks in September, and then begin working on 
NAMA.   For the ACP Group, it was important that there was transparency, and real and effective 
participation by all Members in the negotiating pr ocess.  The Group also requested that meetings, 
particularly in agriculture and NAMA, not be scheduled in parallel as it would not be possible for small delegations to participate effectively. 
118. The Group took a very cautious approach to th e establishment of deadlines.  Members could 
not afford to sacrifice content.  Ho wever, they should work with ur gency, but also with a diligence 
that would ensure that Members’ concerns and inte rests, particularly those of developing countries, 
were fully reflected in the modalities.  It would al so be necessary to achieve similar progress in the 
other areas of the negotiations, such as services, ru les, implementation issues and trade facilitation, in 
order to conclude the Round successfully, under the Single Undertaking.  The ACP Group wished to 
reaffirm its commitment to the negotiations and its  continued engagement with all Members in the 
process that should lead to ba lanced and fair modalities. 
119. In concluding, she requested that the statements made by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP 
Group at the informal meetings on agriculture and NAMA be reflected in the records of the present 
meeting.
6  Finally, the ACP Group associated itself fully with the statement made by Brazil on behalf 
of the G110. 
120. The representative of the United States  said during the past two days, delegations had been 
providing their initial reactions on the draft texts – some of which, including those of the United States, had been decidedly pointed and sometimes critical.  However none of those reactions should 
be taken as diminishing the significance of the cont ributions by both Chairs, and their dedication to 
helping Members achieve the needed modalities. 
                                                     
 
6  See Annexes I and II respectively. TN/C/M/27 
Page 18  
 
  121. As a general matter, his delegation would firs t underscore its commitment to work with both 
of the draft texts in September.  While it had serious concern with some of the content in each of the draft texts, it nonetheless believed that they had a dvanced the collective work, and the United States 
was prepared to continue serious and concerted efforts in September to build on these texts. 
122. His delegation would also note its strong agreemen t with the agriculture Chairman that there 
should be no assumption that the ultimate solution to the issues would lie in simply landing on the 
mid-point of the various ranges that had been put forw ard.  Indeed, given the lack of clarity in some 
areas of the texts, they were as much snapshots of  the current situation as they were suggestions 
pointing to particular solutions.  However, as great er clarity was achieved in these areas, it should 
help Members to narrow their differences. 
123. In this context, both draft texts served to underscore what the United States believed was a 
continuing fundamental – and still unm et – challenge of the Doha ne gotiations and key to achieving a 
successful outcome:  namely, securing a strong ma rket-opening outcome that would result in 
meaningful new economic opportunities and trade flow s worldwide – in agriculture, industrial goods, 
and services. 
124. On agriculture, as his delegation had outline d earlier in the week, the United States' 
fundamental concern with the draft text – and with the state of play within the negotiations – was the 
uneven treatment across the three "pillars" in ag riculture.  While the domestic support and export 
competition pillars sections of the text were highly devel oped, many key topics in the market access 
pillar remain conceptual at best – with regard  to both developed and de veloping-country market 
access.  Combined with this uneven treatment w as a continued imbalance in ambition across the 
pillars.  Ambition in agricultural market acce ss should match ambition in domestic support. 
125. This assessment meant that the first priority in  September should be to fill in the gaps, on 
Special Products (SPs), Special Safeguard Mechan ism (SSM), sensitive product treatment, tariff caps, 
and other critical elements. 
126. On domestic support, the text called for large reductions in US Overall Trade Distorting 
Support.  For those who had called for "effective cuts,"  it was important to note that US OTDS levels 
would have exceeded the upper bound of the range in th e Chair's paper in 5 of the past 8 years.  And 
his delegation would underscore that, while it had i ndicated that it was prepared to offer more on 
OTDS, its ability to make furthe r cuts depended upon securing significant real increases in market 
access. 
127. The United States remained committed to work ing with Members to ensure treatment for 
cotton that was consistent with the Hong Kong Minist erial Declaration.  However, in the view of his 
delegation, the draft text on cotton failed to ta ke into account reductions to cotton-specific support 
relative to other commodities through the general formul a.  His delegation had stated consistently that 
one could not determine the application of the Hong Kong text until one knew the outcome from the 
basic disciplines.  His delegation continued to be lieve that the only path forward was through that 
sequence.  Finally, it was only logical that Member s who were in compliance with their domestic 
support obligations should not be subject to di spute settlement actions over such measures. 
128. On NAMA, he said that the key to a successful result lay in the coefficients in the Swiss 
formula.  Unfortunately, the range proposed in th e draft text for the approximately 30 developing 
countries applying the formula was too high, and th e gap between the developed and the developing 
coefficients was too wide to achieve the twin go als of creating new market access opportunities for all 
while adhering to the principle of less-than -full-reciprocity in reduction commitments.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 19 
 
 
  129. In terms of both absolute ambition in NAM A and ambition relative to what was under 
negotiation in agricultural domestic support, the propo sed range for the 30 or so developing countries 
fell short. 
130. At the end of the day, it was the new tariffs that everyone's businesses would be paying that 
would help determine whether Members had a worthw hile outcome.  They all needed a result that 
provided meaningful new market access for their wo rkers and businesses.  Without such a result, they 
would not have concluded a truly pro-development Round.  Therefore,  their aim should be to improve 
the balance of contributions as they ensured a high level of ambition overall. 
131. The gap between developed and de veloping country coefficients was too wide, particularly 
when one factored in the array of flexibilities av ailable to developing countries.  And the proposed 
range for the developed countries' coefficient of 8-9 was not realistic, given that many rapidly 
growing advanced developing countries were offe ring little beyond binding currently applied tariff 
rates. 
132. For example, currently, the average applied tariff for the 30 developing countries applying the 
formula was just over twice the average rate applie d by developed countries.  Under any scenario in 
this text, this ratio would widen so that the av erage end rate for developing countries applying the 
formula would be more than three times the averag e end rate for developed countries.  The pattern 
was similar for bound rates. 
133. Furthermore, under any scenario in the draft text, no developed country would have a double-
digit tariff anywhere, whereas even under the Chai r's most aggressive formulation for developing 
countries, high tariffs would remain.  For example,  while the highest U.S. tariff would fall below 8 
per cent, several developing countries could maintain tariffs above 60 per cent.  In terms of relative 
contributions, the developed countries would account  for more than 75 per cent of all the duties 
forgone as a result of the proposed tariff reduction ranges.  The five largest developing countries 
would absorb less than 20 per cent, and all the other formula countries would absorb barely 5 per cent.  
Of course, the majority of developing countries did not have to apply the formula at all. 
134. His delegation agreed with the Chair's assessm ent that sectoral arrangements were a key 
element in the framework to reach the mandate.  S ectorals were a concrete way to improving ambition 
and balance in this Round.  They were an eff ective tool in helping developing countries attract 
investment that would plug their economies into  the global supply networks that were the 
international business model of today. 
135. Turning to services, he said that this was one of  the three critical pillars of the Doha market 
access negotiations, and an essential element in meeting the development promise of Doha.  It simply 
was not possible to develop a competitive, growi ng economy without providing access to world-class 
services in key areas such as financial services, telecommunications, express delivery, and distribution. 
136. As Members focused on achieving agreement on modalities for agriculture and NAMA, they 
should also define what was necessary to achieve a level of ambition for services that was at least on 
par with the level of ambition for agriculture and NAM A.  In the view of his delegation, that meant 
both binding what already was open, as well as making new commitments in services market access. 
137. His delegation therefore believed it would be im portant for the services Chairman to hold 
consultations in September, including possibly open-ended meetings, with a view to producing a 
services document at the time that modalities for agriculture and NAMA were agreed.  Such a 
document would be necessary to set a timetable for revised offers and final negotiations, as well as to 
articulate an appropriate level of ambition for services at this stage of the negotiations.  In the TN/C/M/27 
Page 20  
 
  meantime, all Members need ed to be working at home to prep are the groundwork with their domestic 
regulators and stakeholders for their revised offers. 
138. In conclusion, he said that the only way to ach ieve a Doha success – and the only way to meet 
the development goals of Doha – was through a resu lt that actually expanded international trade.  The 
aim had to remain to achieve a balance that reflect ed the broadest array of offensive interests across 
the market access pillars of agricu lture, NAMA, and services.  The only way to do this was to attain 
the highest level of ambition in each. 
139. For the United States, there was no higher in ternational trade priority than a successful 
conclusion of an ambitious Doha Ro und.  For its part, his delegation would come to the table prepared 
to carry forward the work, fully equipped with the will and flexibilit y necessary.  The United States 
asked that its trading partners do likewise. 
140. The representative of Australia
, on behalf of the Cairns Group , said that earlier in the week, 
the Cairns Group had welcomed the agriculture Chair' s draft text as an important step in moving the 
Doha agriculture negotiations towards their fi nal phase.  The Group regarded the draft as a good 
starting point for intensive re-engagement on the issu es in September.  It thanked the Chair for his 
considerable efforts, and now looked forward to a st rong, transparent and inclusive process in Geneva.  
That was, of course, a necessary, but not sufficient,  condition for success.  There was an urgent need 
for some Members to improve their positions to secu re that essential reform mandate and to address 
the development dimension of the Doha Round. 
141. The market access pillar in particular, required much greater clarity and improvement.  As the 
Group had pointed out before, clarity could not be achieved through the tariff reduction formula 
alone:  a variety of other elements of this pillar need ed to be elaborated if participants were to have 
any clear sense of the practical outcomes. 
142. There was also considerable work required in the subsidies pillars.  In export competition, 
significant efforts were still required to give effect to the mandate for full elimination of all forms of 
export subsidies, including in food aid and export credits.  Improved positions were required by all of 
the major users of trade-distorting domestic support,  including to ensure meeting the mandate for 
effective reductions and ensure effective product-specific limits. 
143. The Cairns Group had worked hard in recent months to contribute ideas to the modalities 
negotiations, including by tabling seven negotiating pa pers across all three pillars in this period.  A 
consistent theme it had emphasized was the need for the modalities to give each Member a clear indication of precisely how agricultural markets woul d be reformed, whether in market access or in 
the subsidies pillars.  Nothing short of that clarity would enable Members to move beyond the 
modalities phase of these negotiations.  The Group woul d continue to contribute significantly to the 
negotiations over the period ahead, to ensure the me mbership had that necessary clarity as soon as 
possible. 
144. Speaking on behalf of Australia
, he said he had five points that he wished to make.  First of 
all, Australia believed that there was a window of opportunity in the present year and it was 
determined to see whether indeed Members could de liver the appropriate ambition to allow them to 
make the necessary progress.  But only an ambitious  result would work.  Secondly, his delegation 
appreciated the text that had been presented by the agriculture Chair.  As everyone was aware, it did 
not agree with everything in that text.  There were  big gaps, and nowhere was that more evident than 
in market access.  In particular, although there was now a broader approach to the treatment of 
sensitive products, Members would need clarity on ho w that architecture would work and precision on 
the results it would produce.  His delegation agreed with Japan that there were some very high peaks 
to climb.  Clarity on all these issues would be essential.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 21 
 
 
  145. Thirdly, Australia appreciated the text that  had been presented by the NAMA Chair.  As 
Members were aware, there was now  a good sense of the structure that should apply.  But there were 
immense gaps in differences on the numbers.  Th is now needed to be the focus of negotiations 
between Members and it should be an exercise that focused on real impacts and real contributions.  
Fourthly, the level of ambition represented by the numbers in NAMA should also be matched by a 
commensurately high level of ambition in agriculture .  Members were well short of what was required 
for agriculture, and agriculture  was essential to the Round and critical for development. 
146. Lastly, a balanced Doha outcome would requi re real contributions from all Members on 
services.  Australia was willing, as it had already dem onstrated, to contribute strongly in this area.  
There had been some indications of flexibility, but  these were the exception ra ther than the rule.  
Overall, Members remained well short of existing levels of liberalisation including in the core 
infrastructural services which would drive deve lopment.  Much more would be required. 
147. The representative of India  thanked the Chairman for his report, as well as his continuing 
efforts to move the negotiations forward.  He al so thanked the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for 
their reports.  His delegation associated itself with the statements by Brazil on behalf of the G110 and 
by Jamaica on behalf of the G90 and NAMA 11.  These statements made it abundantly clear that the 
development mandate of the Round could not be wi shed away and that it had to constitute the 
centrepiece of the outcome. 
148. With the presentation of the draft texts on agriculture and NAMA, the multilateral process 
had now resumed in earnest.  India had already pr ovided its preliminary comments on the two texts in 
the open-ended meetings in the previous two days  and he would not like to dwell on them at the 
present meeting.  His delegation requested that its st atements at those meetings be reflected in the 
records of the present meeting.7 
149. His delegation believed it necessary, however, to  reiterate that there was a deep imbalance 
between the two draft texts and this issue would need  to be fully addressed in the intensive process in 
September.  Additionally, the serious flaws in th e logic and content of the NAMA text had to be 
addressed.  Members could not come to closure on the modalities in agriculture and NAMA without 
addressing these issues.  Proposals had been made at  the present meeting on agriculture which sought 
to reopen the mandate in regard to  dispute settlement actions.  India wished to caution that this issue 
had the potential to cause serious roadblocks in an already difficult negotiation. 
150. Important as they were, agriculture and NAMA did not constitute the entire corpus of 
negotiating interests of Members in the Round.  It  was necessary that the negotiations assume finality 
on all the elements in the Single Undertaking by  the time Members were ready with modalities on 
agriculture and NAMA.  India agreed with the Ch airman that in September commensurate progress 
was needed on all aspects of the Single Undertaki ng.  During the discussion over the past three days, 
his delegation had noted that several Members had been trying to balance their books through 
calculations of gains and losses in agriculture a nd NAMA.  But there were several Members, like 
India, who could only envisage losses in both areas and would need to balance their accounts through 
possible gains in other areas.  Such areas for I ndia included services, as well as rules and the TRIPS-
CBD issue. 
151. His delegation was pleased to hear the Chairm an of the Special Session of the Council for 
Trade in Services speak about the process he en visaged on services after the August break.  His 
delegation believed that the Chair had been able to  engage concerned Members through his Enchilada 
process in a constructive manner, and that this initia tive needed to be taken further.  Obviously, the 
negotiations should centre on efforts to operationalise the guidance given to participants in Annex C 
                                                      
7  See Annexes I and II respectively. TN/C/M/27 
Page 22  
 
  of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  As ma ndated in Annex C, developed countries needed to 
provide clear signals of market openings in sector s and modes of interest to developing countries, 
particularly in Mode 4.  His delegation visualized wo rk in two parts to take the negotiations forward:   
one was the work programme, which should specify the dates for LDC modalities and the next round 
of offers, as well as an intensification of the work on  domestic regulation, with a view to finalizing an 
ambitious text;  and the second part would need to  focus on defining the ambi tion in market access.  
His delegation, therefore, envisaged that at the time of finalization of agriculture and NAMA modalities, there should be a parallel Green Room pr ocess to enable Member s, particularly those 
involved in the plurilateral request-offer negotiati ons, to clearly indicate how they proposed to 
respond to the requests put to them.  Once this was done, the two parts could come together and form 
the core of the services text to be formalized in the TNC. 
152. At this stage of the negotiations, Members ow ed it to each other to be candid about their 
expectations.  For India, the outcome would re main incomplete without a genuine and positive 
response from its major trading partners in areas of its interest, in particular in Mode 4. 
153. Another important area of the negotiations whic h needed attention was rules.  If the rules 
negotiations were to be completed in time, it was es sential that the Chair’s text was made available to 
Members in September.  Any further delay in tab ling the text would not allow Members to do justice 
to the complex issues in these negotiations.  His dele gation was therefore encouraged to hear from the 
rules Chairman that he intended to table his draft te xt in late September.  His delegation would request 
that the timing not be linked with the revised versi ons of the agriculture and NAMA texts and that the 
rules text be made available as early in September as possible. 
154. Similarly, on the issue of TRIPS-CBD, it was necessary to initiate an intensive process in 
September.  This issue was supported by a major ity of developing countries and a positive outcome 
on this had to be an integral part of the outcome of the Round.  His delegation urged the Chairman to 
authorise DDG Yerxa to resume his efforts in early  September to build convergence on this important 
issue. 
155. Finally, he said that now that all participan ts were determined to give primacy to the 
multilateral process, it was essential that no attempts we re made to short-circuit it in any way.  The 
negotiations should continue to be conducted in a transparent, inclusive and purposeful manner 
without the pressure of any artificial deadlines.  Indi a offered its full support and participation in this 
intensive process. 
156. The representative of Colombia
 thanked the agriculture and NAMA Chairs for their papers, 
which she said was an effort to provide new impetu s for the negotiations.  Her delegation was pleased 
that the agriculture and NAMA negotiations we re moving back into the multilateral arena. 
157. The nervousness with which Members had awa ited the draft modalities in agriculture and 
NAMA, and the numerous statements that had been made at the meetings of the respective groups earlier in the week, were evidence that it was the so -called triangle of issues – market access and 
domestic support in agriculture, and market access  in NAMA – that would determine the level of 
ambition of the entire Round. 
158. Much had been said on the development dimensi on of the Doha Round.  For Colombia, this 
meant greater market access and the elimination of di stortions in the trade of products for which it had 
a comparative advantage.  Colombia's experience had shown that the combination of a trade policy 
involving lower barriers to trade and sound m acroeconomic policies provided a good basis for 
stimulating economic development and generating employment.    TN/C/M/27 
 Page 23 
 
 
  159. Colombia did not believe that the developmen t dimension of the Round should focus solely 
on improving the conditions of South-North trade.  Th is Round also had to pave the way for growth in 
South-South trade. 
160. As her delegation had said earlier in the week , it believed that the level of ambition put 
forward by Ambassadors Stephens on and Crawford should be improve d, and it did not believe that 
the lowest common denominator was the onl y formula for reaching consensus.   
161. Her delegation was ready to work intensivel y from September onwards, in accordance with 
the proposed negotiating timetable, and to continue contributing to a successful conclusion of the 
Doha Round.  It hoped that the progress made in September would soon enable Members to produce 
consolidated anti-dumping and subsidies texts, as well as revised offers in services. 
162. The representative of Switzerland  said that his delegation was prepared to step up its 
commitment in the negotiations and to do its utmo st to establish the modalities necessary to conclude 
the Doha Round during the coming months.  It woul d continue to contribute  substantially to the 
multilateral process and to cooperate constructively with all Members in order to reach a final 
agreement that was balanced and acceptable to all. 
163. His delegation had the impression that, since the last TNC meeting, the Chairmen's papers 
had provided the negotiations with two additional working tools that should enable Members to move 
forward in the two essential areas of agriculture and NAMA.  Two days of discussions in the two 
respective negotiating groups had shown that work could resume in September, but Members should 
not overlook the fact that the gaps between the different positions remained wide, and that a fair 
number of questions remained open.  While the di scussions on agriculture might have given grounds 
for timid optimism, in the discussions on industrial  products his delegation had noted a mixture of 
frustration, mistrust and lack of commitment that would be difficult to overcome in the short term.  
But one should remain hopeful and confident, and m ove forward.  Dialogue within the groups should 
now be accompanied by dialogue between the groups. 
164. As regards services, the negotiations should become  more visible.  In addition to a date for 
the submission of offers and ambitious legal langua ge for domestic regulation, there was a need for 
the Chairman's general assessment of the potentia l for liberalization and binding under the GATS.  
A paper to that effect might possibly be made ava ilable to Members at the same time as a text on rules 
for goods with a view to gradually moving forward with an evolving text.  The Single Undertaking 
would not be complete without total fulfilment of  the mandate on trade and environment, acceptance 
of the principle of the extension of GIs, and negotiations on the register for wines and spirits.  
Moreover, many of the subjects of great interest to the developing countries were still pending.  An 
evaluation of the work in September would show whether the watchword should be " hic et nunc " or 
"hurry up slowly". 
165. He wished to present his delegation's views re garding the state of the NAMA and agriculture 
negotiations.  On NAMA, he thanked the Ch airman of the NAMA Negotiating Group for his 
impressive work in providing Members with a text before the summer break.  The Chair had drafted a 
paper that not only reflected many of the elem ents discussed in the Negotiating Group, but also 
included elements on which his own judgment was necessary. 
166. At this stage, his delegation wished to make th ree remarks.  Firstly, it welcomed the fact that 
the NAMA paper had been drafted in close consu ltation with the Chairman of the agriculture 
negotiations.  Indeed, for his country as for other de legations, it was important to have a comparable 
level of ambition in NAMA and agriculture.  In this  connection, he wished to stress that these two 
papers would have to be examined in the light of the principle of the Single Undertaking. TN/C/M/27 
Page 24  
 
  167. Secondly, his delegation noted that the present le vel of ambition in agriculture was very high, 
particularly when it came to the proposed reductions  in the top band for market access.  It regretted 
that the level of ambition in NAMA was still relativ ely modest.  The range of the coefficient for 
developing countries was still too high to improve  market access.  Moreover, the figures in 
paragraph 8 had been fixed, thus establishing in th e text a range of flexibilities in addition to an 
already generous coefficient.  His delegation had ex pected ambition on the part of Members subject to 
the formula – particularly considering that 70 per cent of the duties paid by the developing countries 
were collected by other developing countries.  Unfo rtunately, this reality was not reflected in the 
NAMA Chairman's paper. 
168. Finally, his delegation was convinced that th e sectoral approach had to be substantially 
improved and developed together w ith the definition of the "central modalities".  The same applied to 
non-tariff barriers (NTBs) –  the recent proposal (horizontal mechanism) would provide a basis for work in that area.  Finally, it was essential to move forward in the area of  market access for 
environmental goods. 
169. Speaking on behalf of the G10
, he said that the G10, a group of major importers of 
agricultural products, welcomed the carefully drafte d texts for agriculture and NAMA as an important 
step in moving the negotiations forward.  As for agriculture, the G10 could accept the paper as a 
working basis for an intensification of text-based negotiations after the summer-break.  At the same 
time, it needed to be recognised that the Group coul d not subscribe to all the elements in the paper. 
170. The Group remained dedicated to establishing full  modalities for agriculture with a view to 
achieving a successful outcome of the negotiations in the months ahead.  In that spirit, it continued to 
contribute to the multilateral process and to work constructively with all other Members to reach a 
balanced outcome acceptable to all participants. 
171. The Group would have to further examine the pa per, but nevertheless it wished to make two 
comments of a more general nature.  First, it noted that the level of ambition in market access in 
agriculture was extremely high.  It should be r ecalled that the G10 was a group of net food importers 
who would among the membership make the largest cont ribution in terms of tariff cuts by virtue of 
their tariff structures through the tiered approach. 
172. Second, the Group welcomed the Chair’s recognition that the principle of a "one size fits all" 
solution could not work.  When they resumed work  in September, particip ants would have to go 
further in this direction and add the necessary  flexibilities so as to me et the G10 needs and 
specificities without having to pa y an excessive price in return. 
173. Participants should recognise the enormous amount  of work ahead of them to achieve full 
modalities in the autumn.  Therefore, it was important  to ensure that the ma ndates of the July 2004 
Framework and of the Hong Kong Declaration were followed in order to reach broadest possible 
acceptance. 
174. Furthermore, the recipe for success lay not only in the balanced treatment of all three pillars 
under negotiation – market access, domestic support and strict parallelism in export competition – but 
also in achieving a comprehensive package in cluding successful outcomes in all areas under 
negotiation and an overall  balance between the agri cultural negotiations and other issues in the DDA, 
in particular NAMA, services and rules. 
175. Proportionate burden sharing was key to a br oadly acceptable outcome.  This involved a 
political understanding on maximum concession leve ls by all Members and reasonable solutions 
which addressed the different situations of Members.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 25 
 
 
  176. The G10 reaffirmed its commitment to much inte nsified work with othe r negotiating partners 
in September, with a view to having furt her revisions of the draft modalities texts. 
177. The representative of Indonesia , on behalf of the G33 , expressed the Group's appreciation to 
the two Chairs that had provided new impetus to the DDA multilateral process by providing draft 
modalities text.  The two draft modalities were importa nt documents in the collective effort to move 
the DDA negotiating process forward. 
178. The G33 strongly believed that the multilateral process was central to ensuring transparency, 
inclusiveness, and a bottom-up approach, as well as  the legitimacy of a Doha Development Round 
outcome.  It was therefore committed and stood read y to contribute and engage constructively in the 
multilateral negotiation process.  It hoped this unde rlying spirit would also be shown by all its 
negotiating partners – to be ever committed a nd engaged to deliver th e required development 
dimensions of the DDA for all developing countries. 
179. As they moved towards a more intensified multilateral process, participants should be 
cautious and learn from the past.  He suggested th at they should not impose any artificial deadlines 
and that they let the genuine multilateral process  continue and be given a chance.  Moreover, as a 
Member-driven organization, it should be ensured that  the voice of the majority of the membership be 
given the appropriate recognition.  The G33 therefor e called on the Chairs to give better recognition to 
issues of major concerns and interest to developing  countries, as the majority of this organization. 
180. Turning to the draft modalities text on agriculture , he said that in general the G33 noted some 
positive improvements in the draft text modalities from  the previous challenges paper issued by the 
Chair.  The Group however wished to emphasize at th is stage that the text was still greatly imbalanced 
– both on level of precision and on the issue of substan ce.  This was particularly so for issues of major 
concerns to developing countries and the G33.  It was therefore difficult for the Group to gauge the impact of the text towards achieving the DDA development goals. 
181. The G33 wished to stress that the central p illar in the DDA – and thus agriculture – was 
development.  It could not therefore agree to  put development components of the agriculture 
negotiation as an afterthought or ornament to be adde d after the main issues were resolved.  For the 
Group, the development components in agriculture we re equally important to issues such as domestic 
support reduction and the tariff reduction formula.  By development, the Group meant not just the 
traditional S&D of lesser commitments and longer implementation periods, but rather development 
issues such as tariff escalation, tropi cal products, SPs, the SSM, and cotton. 
182. The market access pillar was where the G33 had major concerns.  This was the pillar where 
the text was currently most imbalanced.  On the general tariff reduction formula, the Group was 
concern that the proposed numbers were currently leaning toward the interests of developed countries 
- lowering their level of ambition while on the other hand increasing the level of ambition in 
developing Members. 
183. On the G33's paramount issue of SPs, the Group was disappointed that the draft modalities 
text had not provided modalities for this issue.  Gi ven the many intensive discussions participants had 
had on SPs, the Group believed that the issue of  SPs merited more concrete draft modalities. 
184. The G33 was encouraged by the acknowledgement that a "one-size-fits-all" approach would 
not work for all developing countries on the issue of SPs.  The Group also concurred with suggestions 
to use the Group's Revised List of Indicators as the basis for further negotiations on the selection of 
SPs.  The Group looked forward to further discu ssions on appropriate SPs modalities and flexibilities 
to address the concerns of all developi ng countries, including RAMs and SVEs. TN/C/M/27 
Page 26  
 
  185. On SSM, the G33 wished to stress that this i ssue was just as important as SPs in protecting 
the livelihood of small resource poor farmers in developing countries.  The SSM should be more 
flexible in its operation and more effective than the special safeguard (SSG).  Its triggers and remedies 
should take into account developing countries institu tional capacities and provide adequate protection 
to poor farmers in developing countries.  This was not  yet reflected in the points raised by the Chair.  
Many of the issues raised in the draft modalities on SSM were also not in line with the concerns that 
had been indicated by the Group in its proposal. 
186. Finally, the G33 reaffirmed its commitment to much intensified work with other developing 
country alliances and its negotiating partners, with a view to having further corrections and revisions 
of the draft modalities text on agriculture in September. 
187. The representative of the European Communities
 said participants were now at a crucial 
moment of their work.  Over the coming weeks, th ey had to seek to build an agreement on modalities.  
In both agriculture and NAMA, they had been presen ted with papers that took this process forward.  
Whilst both papers raised serious concerns for the EC  – as for others – it was prepared to work with 
them, together with the Chairs, to try to bridge th e admittedly substantial gaps that remained.  The EC 
remained totally committed to concluding this Round because it remained the best possible way to 
improve trade and market access, strengthen multila teral rules, and help reach the Millennium 
Development Goals.  It was committed to working with all partners and to return after the summer 
break to try to conclude the negotiations.  His delegation had carefully listened to the concerns 
expressed by others, in particular the developing co untries, which had rightly emphasised that this 
was a development Round. 
188. On agriculture, his delegation had in the presen t week's discussions indicated both several 
areas of real concern, but also its commitment to  work to bring the negotiations to a successful 
conclusion.  The EC had shown subs tantial flexibilities compared to its  initial position.  However, in 
order to make real progress, it had to see signs of  movement on the part of some other partners 
compared to their well known initial positions. 
189. As regards NAMA, the Chair's text took partic ipants collectively fo rward because he had 
proposed numbers and ranges, rather than simply  recording the well known extreme positions.  As 
others had done, his delegation had explained the areas in which the text in its view fell short of its 
expectations and it had indicated the improvement s it would be seeking.  Notwithstanding that, he 
wished to reassure all participants that the EC remained fully committed to the process in NAMA and 
agriculture equally, and indeed acr oss all areas of the Doha Round. 
190. As the Chairman had recalled, this was a single undertaking.  Therefore, participants had to 
make real progress and compromises in all areas of the negotiations.  All of them would first of all 
make a read across between agricu lture and NAMA.  Paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Declaration in 
fact invited them to do so.  In terms of the negotia ting process however, to be able to make this read 
across, meant that they would have to finalise at  one time, simultaneously, the agriculture and NAMA 
modalities.  For that reason, the EC would have real  concerns if there were any attempts to sequence 
the negotiations in such a way that results were sought first on agriculture before moving on to 
NAMA.  It could not envisage opening up a real gap in the two negotiations. 
191. For that reason, when they returned in Septem ber, participants had to allow agriculture and 
NAMA to advance in a coherent manner, and together.  Even, if, due to the density of the material in 
the agriculture paper, discussions might have to start with agriculture, work on NAMA should also 
start without delay.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 27 
 
 
  192. He wished to comment briefly on the treatment  of issues other than agriculture and NAMA, 
and the role his delegation would wish to see the Chairman and the Chairs take to ensure these 
subjects moved ahead properly. 
193. The EC had subscribed to the decision in Hong Kong to front load agriculture and NAMA.  It 
had done so being fully aware of the political reality – namely that a deal on agriculture and NAMA 
modalities was the gateway to a final deal across the board.  However, issues like services – the third 
pillar of the market access agenda – rules, trad e facilitation, GIs, S&D treatment, and trade and 
environment were equally key components of the ag enda, for the EC and for others.  His delegation 
appreciated the Chairman's information that DDG Yerx a was ready to pursue the discussions on GIs.  
All these issues were of fundamental economic and systemic importance and all Members had agreed 
that they formed part and parcel of the Single Undertaking and the final deal.  For example, on 
services, the modalities deal needed to contain clear language as to the level of ambition of the final 
deal – which should be comparable to that of ag riculture and NAMA.  Here a multilateral document 
had to be developed and adopted in paralle l to the agriculture and NAMA modalities. 
194. On development, there needed to be real pr ogress on all aspects of the developments agenda.  
This Round had to make a real difference for de veloping countries, which meant that development 
had to be a priority in all areas of negotiation, be it better market access for developing countries, 
expanded South-South trade, stronger rules that fo ster development, or S&D treatment, notably for 
the poorest. 
195. He hoped it would be clear from his remarks that the EC would only be able to assess the 
overall balance of the final DDA deal, and hence d ecide on its acceptability, in light of the results 
obtained on each and every issue of the negotiating agenda.  He was sure it was the case for most 
delegations.  In this perspective, if a deal on m odalities could be reached in the autumn, it could not 
be limited solely to setting modalities in agricultu re and NAMA, but should also contain all the 
necessary guidance – in terms of political commitments , in terms of procedures, and in several cases 
in terms of semi-final texts – to guarantee a final,  successful phase of the negotiations in all areas. 
196. His delegation therefore urged the Chairman to  take the necessary step s so that as soon as 
work resumed in Geneva early September, and in parallel with the work on agriculture and NAMA, 
the other negotiating groups started work in order to prepare the necessary guidance, principles, and 
texts for final negotiation. 
197. The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the small, vulnerable economies8, said the SVEs 
welcomed the Chairman's opening statement and had taken note of the statements by the Chairman of 
the negotiating groups on NAMA and agriculture.  He requested that the statements made on behalf of 
the SVEs by the Dominican Republic at the informal meeting on agriculture and by El Salvador at the 
informal meeting on NAMA be reflected in the records of the present meeting.9 
198. The SVEs wished to  express thanks to the G20, G33, the ACP Group, the African Group, the 
LDCs, NAMA 11 and several individual delegati ons for recognizing the legitimate interests and 
concerns of SVEs in agriculture and NAMA and for incorporating their concerns in their respective 
statements over the past few days.  In this resp ect, the SVEs wished to express solidarity with these 
groups and endorsed the shared view that the Mini sterial mandates from Doha and Hong Kong had to 
be respected and interpreted w ith development at their core. 
199. The SVEs also shared the view of all of these groups that, despite the concerns developing 
countries had on some aspects of the Chairs' texts on agriculture and NAMA, they were all 
                                                      
8  Known as the SVEs. 
9  See Annexes I and II respectively. TN/C/M/27 
Page 28  
 
  determined to continue their constructive engagement on these issues and all other areas under the 
Single Undertaking. 
200. Consistent with this, the SVEs reaffirmed the importance of achieving comparable progress in 
all other areas of the negotiations and commended the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their 
reports and the continuing work they were undertaking. 
201. The SVEs were heartened that there had been  re-engagement at the multilateral level on 
NAMA and agriculture and they looked forward to continued engagement in September on all aspects 
of the mandate, with the core principles of developm ent, less than full reciprocity, proportionality and 
S&D treatment as central features of these negotiations. 
202. Speaking on behalf of Barbados
, he said that his delegation associated itself with all the 
statements made at the present meeting.  Barbados believed that all Members were in this together, 
and it expected that they would all work togeth er after the summer break for a successful DDA. 
203. The representative of Argentina  said that his delegation supported the statements made on 
behalf of the G110, the G90 and NAMA 11, the G20,  and the Cairns Group, as well as the statement 
that would be delivered by NAMA 11. 
204. First of all, his delegation wished to thank th e Chairmen of the Agriculture Special Session 
and of the Negotiating Group on NAMA for the submi ssion of their draft of negotiating modalities.  
As everyone was aware, the aim of these drafts ha d been to serve as a basis to continue negotiating 
the final modalities for those two key areas. 
205. Argentina had assumed, as a result of the pa use and the reflection by Members after the 
meetings held in Potsdam by the G4 and in the light  of the work carried out in Geneva later on, that 
Members would be, at the present moment, in a favourable position to reach agreement within a 
reasonable timeframe. 
206. However, this was not the case at the present.  Argentina's impression, after a first careful 
consideration, was that there was a deep imbalan ce between the texts that conspired against progress 
in the negotiations in line with the Doha manda te, the July 2004 Framework and the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration. 
207. According to such fundamental instruments, th e "North" in this negotiation had to be the 
centrality of the reform process in ag riculture, so as to terminate with the situation of "apartheid" this 
sector was facing within the multilateral trading system , to genuinely contribute to the expansion of 
word trade and to promote development.  He wonde red how many times all this had been repeated.  
The answer was many times.  However, what was permeating from one of the texts was the alteration 
of the order of priorities in the negotiations a nd, consequently, widening the gap between the 
disciplines applied to agriculture – still with high  levels of protection a nd distortions – and those 
applied to NAMA, where import duties were  moderate and only applied in simple ad valorem  terms. 
208. It had always been clear from the outset of the Doha negotiations that, before any discussion 
of concessions in other areas, agriculture should be th e first area to be tackled.  Everyone was aware 
that agriculture had been lagging behind in the multila teral trading system.  In spite of this, during the 
past few months – and particularly the past week s – a serious turn around had been observed in the 
negotiating process.  Agriculture appeared  now as the variable of adjustment vis-à-vis  the level of 
ambition sought to be imposed on developing count ries in NAMA.  This action, which was totally 
outside any logic, was breaking down the balance of contributions, both within NAMA and between 
agriculture and NAMA.  The provision in paragraph 24  of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration of a 
comparably high level of ambition in market acce ss for agriculture and NAMA had been disregarded.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 29 
 
 
  He stressed that this fact wa s unacceptable for many developing countries, including Argentina.  This 
also represented a dangerous change in the meaning of the Doha Round. 
209. Doha had to promote development, as had been  stated in the mandate.  With this goal, it 
should lead to a substantial reduction of trade barri ers impacting negatively on developing countries, 
favour the implementation of their industrial polici es and establish that the contribution of developing 
countries to the liberalization process was guided by th e principles of less than full reciprocity and 
S&D treatment.  Although these principles and concepts  were contained in the agriculture text, that 
was not the case in the NAMA draft modalities.  The latter sought to impose a final outcome or 
landing zone instead of providing a basis to con tinue negotiations, taking on board the opinions and 
positions of all Members. 
210. Focusing specifically on the documents tabled by the Chairmen, he wished to refer to some 
elements contained in the draft modalities for agriculture.  On domestic support, Argentina 
appreciated the tiers proposed for OTDS, which were cl ose to those of the G20.  It considered that the 
lower level of these tiers should be accepted, as it provided enough flexibility on the present applied 
levels of support of developed countries. At the same time the OTDS should be bound, as provided 
for the AMS and the Blue Box.  On product speci fic limits for the Amber and Blue Boxes, more 
precision was required than what had been contemplated in the draft text. 
211. On the Green Box, the document proposed a revi sion that, in spite of the inclusion of some 
issues of interest to developing countries, incorporat ed doubtful criteria that could lead to a weakening 
of the current disciplines for this box. 
212. On market access, the text adopted cuts a nd tiers close to those proposed by the G20, 
providing also negotiating options for tariff simplific ation and the SSG in Article 5 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  Nevertheless, it did not mention the 100 per cent tariff cap for developed countries,  it increased the range of percentages for sensitive pro ducts and proposed "exceptions" to the mechanism 
of tariff rate quota expansion. 
213. On the formula, it only contemplated a ma ximum average cut for developing countries  
without establishing any minimum average cut for devel oped countries.  The lack of reference to this 
minimum hid the negative impact on tariff reductions caused by the several conditions that continued 
to be attached to the reduction formula (sensitive products, SSG in Article 5, lack of tariff caps and 
partial tariff simplification). 
214. He wished to stress that a complete transformation of specific and compound tariffs into their 
ad valorem  equivalents was essential in order to ensure the effectiveness and transparency of the level 
of cuts.  For the same reason the SSG  in Article 5 should be eliminated. 
215. On SPs and the SSM, Argentina was prepared to further develop the technical work in 
September, also taking into account  paragraph 145 of the Chairman's Challenges paper, that had been 
taken on board in the draft modalities. 
216. On export competition, his delegation agreed th at the final date for elimination should be 
2013, as indicated in the document.   However,  disciplines should include values and volumes, 
avoiding any kind of exception.  On export credits and food aid, some improvements had been made, 
but there was still much to be done in order to secure  effective disciplines.  Finally, Argentina saw no 
room for a "peace clause" in this negotiation. 
217. Turning to NAMA, he said that there was a prove rb in his country – very common in Spanish 
speaking countries – which stated that "second part s were never good".  Unfortunately, his delegation 
could not qualify in any other way the draft NAMA modalities text which had been submitted. TN/C/M/27 
Page 30  
 
  218. The NAMA draft took up the negotiations in  this area in a manner which was 
disproportionate and isolated from the agriculture  market access negotiations.  In this way, it 
disregarded the provisions contained in the fundame ntal documents of the Round.  It ignored the 
negotiating mandate, placed a heavy burden on a gr eat number of developing countries, disregarded 
recent proposals aiming at restoring the balance in the negotiations, and introduced the false principle 
of "real market access". 
219. These reasons, as well as others he would refer to shortly, had led Argentina to the conclusion 
that it was not possible for it to accept the draft te xt of modalities in NAMA as a basis to continue 
negotiations. 
220. In first place, the text neither reflected the development dimension of the Doha Round, nor 
took into account the different proposals which had already been tabled in the Negotiating Group.  
The implementation of the coefficients and flexib ilities proposed therein would seriously damage the 
possibilities of industrial growth for many developi ng countries, including Argentina.  Furthermore, 
this would lead to weakened custom unions am ong developing countries, as would be the case for 
MERCOSUR and SACU, which ha d small and vulnerable economies among their members. 
221. The draft text ignored important negotiati ng positions supported by developing countries, 
such as NAMA 11, the SVEs and countries with a low level of bound tariffs. 
222. It wrongly interpreted the principle of less than  full reciprocity for reduction commitments.  It 
should be recalled that, in previ ous rounds and in the current agri culture negotiations, it had been 
accepted as a general criteria that percentage cuts sh ould be higher for developed than for developing 
countries, taking as a basis the bound tariff rates.  This had been clearly stated in GATT Article 
XXVIII bis, in the Doha mandate a nd in the July 2004 Framework. 
223. By ignoring and disqualifying as extrem e the NAMA 11 proposal, the Chairman had 
prevented the analysis of its rationality.  The draft text  failed to indicate that at least a difference of 25 
points between developed and deve loping-country coefficients in the Swiss formula, as NAMA 11 
had proposed, was needed to reach a balance in th e percentage reduction of bound and applied tariffs 
between these two groups of countries.  The mere me ntion of coefficients, as had been made, without 
clearly stating the results coming from their implementation, had impeded the correct evaluation of the different positions and the verification of whether they were balanced or not. 
224. In the same vein of ignoring what was actu ally happening in the Negotiating Group, the draft 
text came to the conclusion that there was an almost unanimous position supporting the coefficients 
proposed.  For this reason, the opposing view held by an important group of developing countries had 
not been taken into account, in spite of their impor tance in terms of economic weight, total trade and 
number of inhabitants. 
225. Finally, Argentina had reach the conclusion afte r a careful assessment of the NAMA draft text 
that, contrary to what it was stated in paragraph 3, the text did not reflect the balance among existing 
positions.  It was biased and for this reason not consis tent with what was being demanded at this stage 
of the negotiations – to work with the aim of trying  to bridge the existing gaps and build consensus.  
Only in this way would it be possible to successfully  conclude the Round.  For the reasons he had set 
out, he reiterated that his dele gation could not accept this draft text as a basis to continue  
negotiations. 
226. His delegation was confident that the TNC woul d resolve the present impasse by deciding to 
revise the NAMA draft text, in accordance with th e concerns expressed by many of the delegations, 
including his own, both in the Negotiating Group as well as in the present meeting.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 31 
 
 
  227. His delegation believed that the new text to be drafted should be compre hensive and take into 
account the mandate, the basic principles of the Round, the Ministerial instructions guiding the negotiations and the positions already tabled a nd stated in the NAMA Negotiating Group.  His 
country stressed once again its engagement and commitment towards the Round and the multilateral 
trading system.  It was ready to work construc tively in order to overcome the difficulties Members 
were facing, on the understanding that the efforts of  all Members would put the negotiations back on 
track again.  It would thus be possible to achieve the goals of an important and balanced expansion of 
trade for the benefit of all Members, in particular developing countries. 
228. The representative of Mexico
 said that an outsider present at the discussions over the 
preceding days might have had the impression that negotiators were standing on the brink of a 
precipice and hearing voices urging them to take a st ep forward.  However, the reality was totally 
different.  Negotiators were now in a better positi on than one month previously, but the problem was 
that time was running out. 
229. The fact of having the texts tabled by the ag riculture and NAMA Chairs was evident proof 
that the multilateral process was alive, as all Me mbers had requested.  These texts were the outcome 
of their past discussions and the starting point of their future ones.  Members had been unable to 
provide the Chairs with the inputs that they would have required to be able satisfy all the positions 
Members held.  Reaching agreement, or not, depe nded only on Members' willpower to move towards 
the middle ground. 
230. Like the other delegations, Mexico agreed with the elements in the documents that reflected 
its position and disagreed with those that did not.  Although a number of elements were far removed 
from Mexico's own position, it firmly supported both texts as a starting point for pursuing the 
negotiations in September. 
231. He did not wish to repeat his delegation's positi on on each issue which had been set out in the 
respective negotiating groups, but what was clear wa s that a balance had to be found in each area and 
between the texts, so as to arrive at an agreement acceptable to all.  Such a balance should, however, 
be marked by a high level of ambition that would allow developing countries to  derive full benefit 
from the multilateral trading system.  As the Chairman  had said, the final balance had to be reached in 
the light of the Single Undertaking, which required ha rd work in other areas as well as in agriculture 
and NAMA.  This would require more from Members than just repeating their positions;  they would 
have to move towards solutions in the middle gr ound, because those were the ones that would allow 
them to find convergence.  Mexico was committed to  following this path, even in areas in which its 
interests were not fully reflected.  Members now ha d the opportunity to work constructively in favour 
of the WTO, and to conclude the Round successfully. 
232. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  associated his delegation with the 
statements made by the G90 and NAMA 11, NAMA 11 alone, the G110, the G33 and the G20.  His 
delegation had taken note of the Chairman's report in relation to the state of play in the negotiations 
and in that sense, it wished to ad d its voice to those delegations th at had expressed concern because of 
the deep imbalance reflected in  the draft modalities documents. 
233. In agriculture, in general, Venezuela consider ed that the document suffered from, with the 
negotiating group Chairman's own recognition, an inequa lity in the treatment of issues, in particular 
some that were very important for developing c ountries.  The text was far from what could be 
designated as full modalities. His delegation truste d that these loopholes, which in some cases 
reflected the real divergences among Members but wh ich in others were the product of a reduced 
vision of the negotiations and a negotiating process that had looked for shortcuts, should be the first to 
be overcome in September with the aim of achie ving more comprehensive and balanced revisions. TN/C/M/27 
Page 32  
 
  234. Venezuela trusted in the criteria expressed by  the agriculture negotiating group Chairman, 
that advancing in this direction implied concentr ation on substance rather than on imposed or self-
imposed deadlines.  And the mandate, in all phases, s hould guide the process, especially in relation to 
S&D treatment, less than full reciprocity and the proportionality of developing countries’ 
commitments. 
235. In this area Venezuela saw  a fundamental problem with the NAMA text.  While the 
agriculture text opened a deficient door, but a d oor with the possibility of a real negotiation among 
Members to bridge differences, the NAMA text cl osed that possibility.  Not only because the draft 
made it impossible to have space where to reflect Me mbers' differences, but also because, at the very 
beginning, it turned upside down the bases of negotiation. 
236. The NAMA document contained a worrying introd uctory part.  In these paragraphs, two 
fundamental principles of the negotiation were given, according to the Chairman, a "pragmatic" approach.  The aforesaid pragmatism and political r ealism were debatable concepts.  The rejected 
principles – "less than full reciprocity" and the ba lance set out in paragraph 24 – were not simple 
facts, especially in WTO law. 
237. The concept of "less than full reciprocity" was not subject to negotiation.  Consequently, it 
was incorrect to affirm that, quoting from the NAMA te xt:  "there has never been an agreed definition 
of reciprocity".  He wished to recall that this  concept, legally speaking, had been approved by 
consensus by Ministers years ago.  In particular, the Doha Declaration, in  paragraph 16 relating to 
NAMA, and more broadly, in paragraph 50 re lating to general issues of the tariff reduction 
negotiations, mandated to fully ta ke into account:  a) the relevant provisions in Article XXVIII bis of 
GATT 1994;  b) Part IV of the GATT 1994;  and c) the Decision of 28 November 1979 on 
Differential and More Favourable Treatment; Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing 
Countries and all other relevant WTO provisions. 
238. To highlight the non-ambiguity of these concepts, he wished to quote a paragraph of one of 
these instruments. Paragraph 5 of the Decisi on of 28 November 1979 on Differential and More 
Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Pa rticipation of Developing Countries stated: 
“The developed countries do not expect reciprocity for commitments made by them in trade 
negotiations to reduce or remove tariffs and other barriers to the trade of developing 
countries, i.e., the developed countries do not expect the developing countries, in the course of trade negotiations, to make contributions which are inconsistent with their individual 
development, financial and trade needs. Deve loped contracting parties shall therefore not 
seek, neither shall less-developed contracting pa rties be required to make, concessions that 
are inconsistent with the latter's de velopment, financial and trade needs”. 
239. It should be noted that these legal provisions were resorted to individually by each non-
developed Member not as a collective provision. 
240. Thus, these principles were not subject to nego tiation.  They were established law for this 
organization, as well as being the initial basis for th is negotiation as the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
and subsequent documents had confirmed.  Also, it ha d been specified that less than full reciprocity in 
the industrial tariff reduction commitments would be applied in this current Round’s context.  His 
country was not trying to negotiate these principles;  simply said, it would invoke them at the end of, 
and at every moment that was necessary durin g, the negotiation process.  The worrisome NAMA 
document indicated to his country that this moment  was one of those.  The NAMA modalities draft 
contradicted these principles.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 33 
 
 
  241. For various months, NAMA 11 had introduced  numerous conceptual and quantitative 
documents.  In relation to the NAMA 11 data, and b ecause it appeared that they had not been taken 
into account, he wished to refer to the note by th e Secretariat contained in document JOB(06)/210 
entitled Simulation of Tariff Reductions  for Non-Agricultural Products. 
242. Paragraph 5 of Annex B of the Decision Adop ted by the General Council on 1 August 2004 
had established that the reductions would start from the bound rates.  Taking the centre of the 
proposal, a coefficient of 20 for a developing countr y and in the absence of a coefficient like the one 
proposed for developed countries, taking the range  between 5 and 10, the following results were 
obtained:  With a coefficient of 20, his country should make an average reduction of more or less 60 per cent in its bound tariffs, dependi ng on the adopted flexibilities. 
243. On the other hand, Canada would make a per centage cut of little above 43 per cent. This, 
obviously, did not fit the legal principles that he had stated above.  Other examples would be Japan and the United States, who would make reductions little  above 36.5 per cent.  All statistics were from 
the WTO Secretariat. 
244. His country did not accept and would never accept these numbers in these negotiations.  
Economies needed to grow and develop in or der to increase their international trade. 
245. Venezuela believed that adequate policy spaces were needed to grow.  Developed countries 
knew this by their own historic experience.  The Dire ctor-General knew this when he affirmed that the 
granting of policy space had a real value.  This wa s what the negotiations were about.  Members were 
exchanging policy spaces not trade flows.  This nego tiation was not a huge free trade agreement in the 
sense of a bilateral or a regional free trade agreement, even though it was claimed to be one.  The 
"water" across countries and trade sectors was the r esult of previous rounds.  There was water in 
services and NAMA in some countries, and in others  there was "water" in domestic support.  The 
problem was that there were good and bad policy spaces.  Policy spaces generated through legalized 
GATT violations during the Uruguay Round could not be compared to the developing countries 
legitimized policy space that sought to develop their economies. 
246. Taking into account the statement at the presen t meeting of more than one hundred countries, 
gathered as the G90 plus NAMA 11, it was difficu lt to see how the Chairman’s proposals reflected a 
"gravity zone" in these negotiations. 
247. In conclusion, he said it was for these reasons that Venezuela considered this document as the 
Negotiating Group Chairman's position, without legal standing and on his own responsibility, as the 
NAMA Chairman himself had stated the previous  in the NAMA informal meeting.  Venezuela 
rejected this document as a basis for negotiations  in September.  On the contrary, proposals by 
governments with their national positions should be the basis for September’s discussion. 
248. His delegation wished to state that the objection to this text did not mean that it was objecting 
to a more transparent and inclusive negotiation process, something that his delegation and many 
others had requested.  His delegation objected to the draft because it would impede a more transparent 
process.  Also, the draft did not contribute to th e process because it made the negotiation in other 
areas more difficult due to their established connections.   
249. The representative of China
 said her delegation appreciated very much the Chairman's 
assessment of the current situation and the programme he had suggested for the resumption of work 
in September.  Her delegation wished to thank the Chairmen of agricu lture and NAMA for their 
tremendous efforts in preparing the drafts which would help to intensify the multilateral process of 
negotiation.  China fully supported the statements made by Brazil on behalf of the G20 and by 
Indonesia on behalf of the G33. TN/C/M/27 
Page 34  
 
  250. Turning to the modality paper on agriculture, she said that China noted that the paper 
embodied some progress.  As the Chair had pointed ou t, there were relatively fewer square brackets 
in the text and the proposed landing zone seemed to be narrowing.  However, some parts of the 
modality paper required further improvement, pa rticularly in the areas where imbalances still 
existed in terms of the obligations of developing Members vis-à-vis  those of developed Members.  
The level of ambition for the reduction of trade distorting domestic support, the improvement of 
market access to the developed countries and the S& D treatment for the deve loping countries, in 
particular the treatment of SPs and the treatme nt for RAMs, SVEs and the LDCs were China's 
major concerns.  Her delegation wished to en courage the Chair to ma ke earnest efforts to 
adequately address these issues in  his next revised text.   
251. On the NAMA paper, her delegation believed there were still many gaps to be bridged.  For 
example, the spread between the two coefficients  should be wider, which meant an even lower 
coefficient for developed Members and a high coeffi cient for developing Members.  It believed that 
only in this way could the mandate of "less than fu ll reciprocity" be fulfi lled.  Furthermore, the 
concerns of NAMA 11, the paragraph 6 Members, the LDCs, SVEs and RAMs should be properly 
addressed.   
252. China was fully committed to the multilatera l process and was look ing forward to the 
intensification of the process in September.  It hoped that the two Chairs  would come up with a 
much more balanced version of the texts base d on comments from Members, especially from 
developing Members, through broad- based consultations.  It also hope d that Chairs of the services, 
rules and trade facilitation negoti ations, and of other issues, would also intensify work so as to 
make timely progress before the conclusion of the Round. 
253. The two Chairs had put in the negotiators suitcas es a set of homework to make their summer 
vacation meaningful but relatively busy.  China was al l geared up to face the challenge and relevant 
agencies in the capital would carry on in-depth anal ysis of the papers and her delegation would come 
back with additional comments in September. 
254. The representative of South Africa
, on behalf of NAMA 11 , said that a clear majority of the 
Members of the WTO had spoken at the present mee ting with one voice and with absolute clarity.  
They had stated they were the makers of their own history.  They had demanded the right to participate in the process of decision making that would determine the course of their economic development and the lives of their people.  They had done so with great responsibility and dignity.  
They had shown respect for the views and beliefs of  those with whom they differed. The NAMA 11 
was proud to be associated with this cl ear majority of which it was a part. 
255. The events of the previous few weeks and indeed  the previous 10 days were a reflection of 
what was at stake in the Doha Round.  This Round was more than the mere exchange of mercantilist 
concessions between trading partners and the satisfacti on of commercial interests in all their countries.  
It was also about the vital devel opment aspirations and hopes of the majority of developing countries 
represented in the WTO.  These interests and needs ha d been ignored, or, at best, poorly addressed in 
the GATT for more than 50 years. 
256. Indeed, this had been recognized by Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference almost six 
years previously.  In their wisdom they had prom ised to make this round focus on the development 
interests of the majority of developing countri es – and ventured to call this round, the Doha 
Development Round or DDA.  
257. The mandates of the Doha Development Agenda agreed that agriculture would lead both in 
substance and in process.  Developing countries ha d agreed to make a contribution to the Round 
provided this was in accordance with their capacity an d consistent with their development needs.  All  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 35 
 
 
  had agreed to address the specific needs of small economies and to pay special attention to the needs 
of the LDCs. 
258. Those developing countries that were to make  formula cuts in the NAMA negotiations had 
agreed in Hong Kong to make the most onerous commitments made by developed and developing 
countries in any Round through the workings of a Swiss formula on the understanding that the 
principle of less than full reciprocity in reduction co mmitments was faithfully ad hered to.  In addition, 
the central role of agriculture in the Doha Round, and the need for the level of ambition in NAMA to 
be comparable to that achieved in agriculture, had be en a critical element of the bargain that had been 
reached in Hong Kong.  
259. At the present meeting, a clear majority of  developing countries in various groups and 
alliances including the NAMA 11 had requested that the bargains reached in Doha, in the July 
Framework Agreement and in Hong Ko ng be respected and adhered to. 
260. The draft NAMA text had failed to adhere to  the above mandates.  Even the Chair had 
admitted the shortcomings of his interpretation of the mandates.  A Chair's text should facilitate a 
negotiation amongst Members.  It should allow for enga gement.  It should be in clusive.  And it should 
build convergence, in a step by step fashion, so that Members were fully engaged in the process of 
exchanging concession and assessing their contribution against the development mandates of the Doha Round and the overall balance of the Single Undertaking.  
261. The draft NAMA text had taken one step too far.  By jumping ahead of the negotiations in 
agriculture and prejudging the outcome in NAMA, it had not allowed for real engagement.  By 
misconstruing the mandates on the central principle of less than full reciprocity in reduction 
commitments, and prejudging the outcome of the negotiations in NAMA, it would have given rise to 
disproportionate outcomes.  And in failing to balance the commercial interests and pressures from 
developed countries with the development mandates of the Doha Round, it would have produced 
outcomes that would turn the principle of less than full reciprocity on its head, making developing countries pay first, and pay more, than the devel oped countries in their contributions to the Doha 
Round. 
262. By jumping ahead of agriculture, the text had also negated the injunction of paragraph 24 of 
the Hong Kong mandate, to ensure that the level of  ambition in NAMA was comparable with that in 
agriculture.  The draft agriculture text was underdev eloped compared to that of NAMA.  In addition, 
the ranges in the draft agriculture text and the l ack of clarity of the modalities proposed made any 
meaningful assessment of the ambition to be achieve d in the agriculture modalities elusive at this 
stage.  Yet, the relative precision of the draft NAMA text and the very narrow ranges proposed had 
already set a very high level of ambition for developing countries.  
263. Paragraph 24 had been painstakingly negotiate d in the green rooms of Hong Kong and the 
price of a Swiss formula, that would make deep cuts  in developing country tariffs, had been a costly 
one for developing countries to pay.  Developing countries should be afforded the opportunity to 
assess the level of ambition achieved in agriculture, be fore they could commit to working on the bases 
of narrow ranges proposed by the draft text.  The de nial of such an opportunity skewed the process of 
the negotiations in favour of deve loped countries and withdrew a vita l negotiating leverage to secure a 
high level of ambition in agriculture, and thus redu ce the inequitable distortio ns in agricultural trade 
that had denied millions of people in developing co untries the right to develop their economies.  Thus, 
the argument of the Chair that those who sought a high level of ambition in agriculture should not 
lower the ambition in NAMA was fallacious.  TN/C/M/27 
Page 36  
 
  264. The NAMA 11 had made some of these points already in its statement made at the informal 
NAMA meeting the previous day, so he would not repeat  the that statement, but rather request that it 
be reflected in the records of the present meeting.
10 
265. As the representative of Jamaica had just stat ed, the NAMA 11 had joined with the G90 group 
of developing countries in calling for the substan tial imbalances in the Chair's draft text to be 
corrected.  This would be essential to secure a fair balanced and development oriented outcome in the 
Doha Round.  This could still be  achieved through a genuine bottom-up process that allowed for 
genuine negotiations.  The NAMA 11 was confident th at the TNC Chairman would construe this call 
as a genuine attempt to facilitate genuine negotiations that allows all Members to fully participate in 
the negotiating process.  The Chairman's leadersh ip was required to empower the less capable and 
weaker Members of this organization and facilitate their fullest inclusion in the negotiating process.  
In conclusion, he wished to leave delegations to ponder the words of the Nobel Prize economist, 
Amartya Sen, who in his book, Development as Free dom had stated:  "The achievement of social 
justice depends not only on institutional forms (incl uding democratic rules and regulations) but also 
on effective practice". 
266. Speaking on behalf of South Africa , he requested that his delegation's statement at the 
previous day's informal meeting on NAMA be reflected in the records of the present meeting.11 
267. The representative of Uruguay  said that as the annual recess approached, the TNC usually 
made decisions or took stock.  Sometimes, it did bot h.  This meeting would probably be one of those 
occasions when Members would have to limit themselv es to determining where they stood, so that 
they could decide how best to proceed.  
268. In this vein, he wished to draw a comparison w ith the previous year.  Last July, the Chairman 
had informed Members that there had been a breakdow n in dialogue, involving a number of Ministers.  
He had suggested, and all had agreed, that they sh ould suspend matters and reflect.  The way forward 
had been very unclear at that stage.  The break – in contrast to what was happening at the present time 
– had seemed as though it might continue indefinitely .  The attempt to secure guidance or direction 
from those Ministers had been at an end.  His delegation's view was that, at the present time, 
Members were facing a different and perhaps improved situation. 
269. In the political sphere, the desire for a succes sful conclusion to the Round had been widely 
expressed and reaffirmed at both ministerial and pr esidential levels.  Members could not take this 
lightly or forget about it simply because a few weeks had gone by.  If they were to do so, the credibility of those leaders would be in doubt, since there had been widespread belief in the feasibility 
of reaching an agreement, along with a number of  far from insignificant political calls for the Round 
to be concluded within months rather than years.   Such political will – if genuine – could not have 
been so short-lived. 
270. However, things had also changed from the act ual negotiating standpoint.  The plans to speed 
up the negotiation process with mini-ministerial mee tings were a thing of the past.  These meetings 
lacked the requisite advance preparation and there had been no evidence they were necessary, while 
there had been considerable doubt over their legiti macy.  The only justification for them had been 
Members' inherent anxiety to make progress. 
271. But in order to achieve political direction in the face of difficult decisions and tough issues, a 
full multilateral debate was required, with specifi c texts on the table.  Members needed to add 
                                                     
 
10  See Annex II. 
11  See Annex II.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 37 
 
 
  something more to the Doha mandate and to the Ju ly 2004 Framework, and that was what they now 
had, starting with agriculture and NAMA. 
272. These were not legal texts;  they were frameworks.  No doubt they were incomplete, 
imbalanced and contained internal discrepancies too.   However, they had been drafted in good faith 
and they were above all the only in struments available at the present that would guarantee an effective 
multilateral process. 
273. They were the only tools that would bring focus to a discussion which had been going on for 
years and in which Members' primary interests were common knowledge.  The time had now come to 
accommodate those interests.  By all means Members should criticize th ese texts, even them out and 
thus enable the Chairs to revise them, but they had to take great care when doing so that they did not 
destroy a process that was beginning to get back on its multilateral track and that his delegation 
wished to believe would be effective.   All the others had already failed. 
274. He wished to say a few final words regarding s ubstance.  His delegation had said the previous 
day that it was aware of the implications of ha ving to negotiate a Single Undertaking.  The 
significance of this was that it would have to make concessions in sectors where it was less 
competitive and consequently the adjustment costs might  be higher.  He was referring in particular to 
the negotiations on NAMA. 
275. But, if that was the case, if in Doha Memb ers had been willing to include NAMA and other 
areas in a Single Undertaking, thereby launching a multilateral negotiating process with greater scope 
and breadth than the negotiations mandated in the Marrakesh Agreements, and going beyond those 
Agreements, it had been because they  had been seeking fundamental reform in agriculture and in the 
trade of agricultural products.  Therefore, Member s could not be surprised by at present or feign 
surprise. 
276. It could not come as a surprise that they needed  to talk about reducing the current levels of 
protection for industrial products.  Members would have to make decisions that could well entail 
adjustment costs. 
277. Fundamentally and primarily, it should come as no surprise that the NAMA negotiations 
depended on the ambition in agriculture.  Ambition in agriculture would determine whether Members 
were dealing with a genuine deve lopment round.  Ambition in agriculture was a necessary, possibly 
insufficient, but certainly a n ecessary condition for making the Round a  development round.  If there 
was no ambition in agriculture, there would be none in other areas.  Without greater clarity in the text, in particular on market access where Members knew th e blockages, there could only be imbalances 
and difficulties in the NAMA negotiations. 
278. Uruguay was not creating an arbitrary order that was purely in its own interests;  that would 
be irresponsible on its part and that was not its  usual way in such matters.  Uruguay was merely 
recalling the nature of things and the actual orig in of the Round, for the benefit of the process. 
279. The representative of the Philippines
 thanked the Negotiating Group Chairs for their reports 
on the progress being made on various fronts, an d for their continuing commitment under the 
Chairman's stewardship to transpar ency, inclusiveness, a bottom up a pproach and the primary role of 
the membership in arriving at a consensus that would lead to a successful conclusion of the Round. 
280. His delegation also appreciated the valiant e fforts of Ambassadors Cr awford and Stephenson 
in moving the agriculture and NAMA negotiations forward by releasing draft modalities texts to 
prompt further work and intensified negotiati ons among Members in September towards possibly 
reaching a consensus on full modalities in these two v ital negotiating areas of the DDA. Much work TN/C/M/27 
Page 38  
 
  would have to be done when Members resumed in September to correct and revise these draft 
modalities texts to deliver concretely on the deve lopment dimension of the Round.  His delegation 
wished to reiterate that the TNC should remain mindf ul of the mandate that agriculture remained at 
the core of the Round and had to lead the way of ambition in NAMA and not the other way.   
281. His delegation also wished, at the current criti cal juncture, to acknowledge and encourage the 
need for leadership by th e Chairman as Director-General if the ne gotiations were to be shepherded to 
a successful conclusion. This leadership role  included the forbearance to allow the Geneva 
multilateral process to take its course and bear fruit , with the Chairs listening carefully to all the 
various concerns of developing countries whose peop les after all were the intended beneficiaries of 
the DDA. 
282. Regarding the agriculture and NAMA draft moda lities, he associated his delegation with the 
statements made on behalf of the G20,  the G33, the Cairns Group and NAMA 11. 
283. On the agriculture text, while his delegation appr eciated the increased clarity in the elements 
of the domestic support and export competition pillars, it emphasized the need for equivalent clarity in 
market access.  His delegation needed to understand the rationale for the ranges of cuts the Chair had 
provided for the general formula, in order to ensu re that any modality did not place a disproportionate 
burden on those developing countries that had already committed more during the Uruguay Round. 
284. On SPs, his delegation appreciated the acknowledgment by the Chair of the G33 contribution 
of the streamlined list of indicators arrived at earlie r in the year in Jakarta as the starting point for 
negotiations on SP modalities. However, his delegati on did note the contrast between the clarity on 
the modalities for the selection of sensitive products a nd only a proposal of the "possible orientation" 
of the forthcoming intensive work for SPs.  Much re mained to be done to arrive at legal texts that 
were faithful to the mandate of developing countri es being able to self-designate tariff lines to be 
considered SPs.  His delegation also noted that th e Chair had not modified his views on the treatment 
for SPs as reflected in his challenges paper, with  which the G33 had expressed disagreement.  His 
delegation hoped to constructively contribute to the negotiations in September on this issue. On SSM, 
his delegation wished to restate the essential need fo r a sufficient and effective trade remedy that was 
not more onerous than the existing SSG. 
285. Turning to NAMA, he said that much debate  had occurred the previous day over the 
conceptual underpinnings of the draft modalities text, and there would need to be much work done to 
incorporate the sensitivities and deve lopmental interests of the vast majority of developing countries 
who had expressed dissatisfaction with the text for the absence of provisions that addressed their 
concerns.   
286. The Philippines believed that the draft text, as it st ood, and the range of coefficients suggested 
for developing countries failed to incorporate a pr agmatic solution that would address the dilemma of 
developing countries, like the Philippines, which had persevered with low applied tariffs. The 
proposed range of coefficients would disallow such countries the policy comfort they had thus far 
been able to offer their constituents as they  vigorously and purposefully pursued unilateral 
liberalization.  He recalled para graph 14 of the Hong Kong Minister ial Declaration which had called 
for modalities to "take fully into account the speci al needs and interests of developing countries, 
including through less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments". 
287. Annex B of the Hong Kong Declaration had also  acknowledged the need to find a pragmatic 
solution for countries with low applied and unbou nd duties, as these countries had been providing 
real, effective and actual market access through actua l trade flows in the billions of dollars.  The 
Philippines was the lead contributor, having over 9 billion dollars in unbound trade at an average tariff 
of only 7.7 per cent (see document TN/MA/S/14).  In  this regard, he pointed out that the proposed  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 39 
 
 
  single number non-linear mark-up of 20 did not pr ovide a pragmatic and equitable solution for 
countries with low unbound duties and recalled that Annex B of the Hong Kong Declaration had laid 
out acceptable solutions to this problem, including the use of a higher mark-up or two numbers dependent on the level of the unbound applied tariff. 
288. On paragraph 8 flexibilities, which was now in paragraph 7 of the draft NAMA modalities 
text, his delegation joined in the disappointment  expressed by many Members that the bracketed 
numbers remained unchanged, despite the calls  by the NAMA 11, the Philippines and other 
developing countries, to expand flexibilities or be creative in providing additional flexibility in order 
to be faithful to the call of Ministers in paragra ph 14 and 15 of the Hong Kong Declaration and which 
would have allowed for greater ambition. 
289. Ironically, a new flexibility of a third coeffici ent had appeared, which was arguably beyond 
the mandate of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declarati on, which had impliedly called for the use of only 
two coefficients: one for developi ng, and another for developed c ountries.  The new flexibility had 
been ostensibly justified by the objective of in ducing developing countries to forego recourse to the 
paragraph 8 flexibilities, despite the logic of such an inducement being anathema to the guarantee of 
the same by paragraph 8 of Annex B of the July  framework as reaffirmed by paragraph 15 of the 
Hong Kong Declaration. 
290. Paragraph 8 flexibilities had been at the core of the Philippines negotiating position, as for 
many other developing countries, because the pa ragraph represented a c oncrete and operational 
manifestation of the promised S&D and developm ental dimension in the NAMA context.  To now 
penalize a developing country by exacting a lower coefficient for its use of the only flexibility 
recognized by the July 2004 Decision and the Hong Kong Declaration would be unfair and, in his 
delegation's view, contrary to the Hong Kong mandate. 
291. In substance, a carve out had been attemp ted through a third coefficient, by expanding 
paragraph 8(a) flexibilities, which originally only allowed Members to shelter up to 10 per cent of 
tariff lines with a 50 per cent softer cut.  The new flexibility would permit selected Members to shelter 
through the use of a third coefficient up to 100 per cent of their tariff lines with roughly a 25 per cent 
softer cut. 
292. The Philippines had no problem with increased flexibilities, and that was part of the 
Hong Kong mandate –  to address the special needs a nd interests of developing countries.  But these 
flexibilities or additional coefficients had to be b ased on some developmenta l rationale and not to 
induce a greater burden from developing countries.  Ther efore, if there were to be a third or fourth 
coefficient, then the greatest numer ical coefficient should be made av ailable to developing countries 
which had done their part for world trade through unil ateral liberalization and low applied tariffs.  The 
Philippines had always sought balance and fairness.  If ambition was to be demanded, it had to be 
spread out evenly, and if flexibilities were to be hand ed out, then they had also be evenly handed out. 
293. The Philippines would be vigilant in its work  towards ensuring the comparability of ambition 
and outcomes in agriculture and NAMA.  Currently ,  there was enormous asymmetry between the two 
texts – one which basically preserved negotiating pos itions and allowed for fu rther engagement, and 
the other, appearing to present an almost comple te set of modalities.  This asymmetry had to be 
addressed.  He wished to emphasize that agriculture was central to the Round and it had to lead the 
overall ambition with developed Members, not  developing Members, making the greatest 
contribution. 
294.
 On services, the Philippines believed that th ese negotiations had been enhanced by the 
various approaches set out in Annex C of the H ong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  Bilateral 
negotiations remained an important mechanism fo r discussions, with some discussion being at the TN/C/M/27 
Page 40  
 
  heads of delegation level recently.  There had been three rounds of in-depth plurilateral negotiations 
concerning 20 sectoral and modal requests with active participation of capital-based sectoral experts.  
The Group had also finished a series of market  access discussions in th e services Chairman's 
Enchilada talks. 
295. The Philippines shared the goal of other Members to start reflecting on what any 
breakthrough in agriculture and NAMA would mean  for the services negotiations.  However, it 
wished to emphasize two points:  first, any such services breakthrough had to respect Article XIX of 
the GATS, particularly the flexibilities for de veloping countries;  and secondly, any such 
breakthrough had to preserve the request-offer mo dalities for the services negotiations.  From his 
delegation's perspective, any talk about comparab ility or equality to agriculture and NAMA would 
have to be in the context of progressive liberalizati on, which was one of the fundamental pillars of the 
GATS. 
296. While the modalities in agriculture and NAMA were  the vital first steps for concluding the 
DDA, his delegation trusted that other Chairs we re sufficiently engaged with their respective 
negotiating groups to make sure that there w as commensurate maturity in their areas once the 
modalities were concluded.  He re iterated the Philippines' commitment to engage in meaningful and 
constructive negotiations to enable Members fulfill their task of establishing modalities and 
concluding the Doha Round. 
297. The representative of Costa Rica
 thanked the Chairman and the Chairs of Negotiating Groups 
for their reports.  Costa Rica was pleased that si gnificant progress had been made since the last TNC 
meeting.  The multilateral process had been strengthe ned by intensive consultations in various areas, 
in particular agriculture and NAMA.  As a result of the multilateral process and their consultations 
with different groups, the respective Chairs ha d been able to present documents on their own 
responsibility the previous week. 
298. These documents from the Chairs of NAMA and agriculture each contained elements that 
were problematic for Costa Rica.  However, it was his delegation's view that the present meeting of 
the TNC was not the right moment to examine in de tail all the elements and all the national positions 
regarding these texts.  Over the previous week, all Members had heard each other's positions again.  
Members would have the opportunity to discuss NAMA and agriculture in detail during the September negotiations. 
299. Costa Rica believes that these documents were a de cisive step in the right direction, for the 
following reasons.  First, the two documents had sought to reduce the parameters within which 
consensus needed to be reached.  The fact that these documents did not reflect maximalist or extreme 
positions gave his delegation reason to consider that they were a ma jor step in the right direction.  The 
path towards consensus required Members to  narrow the gap between extreme positions. 
300. Second, his delegation believed that this w as a positive step because the texts took different 
elements of the various Members' interests in to account.  These particular elements did not 
correspond to the position of any one WTO Member or group of WTO Members, but to the long 
process of distilling the results of multilateral nego tiations.  Complaints that the position of such-and-
such a group had not been accommodated in all probab ility demonstrated that Members were closer to 
achieving the right balance. 
301. Contributions from different Members and groups  had been of great benefit during other 
stages of the negotiations.  To contribute to a succes sful outcome at this point, each Member had to 
make specific concessions on its own particular ideal  undertaking.  Contributions should now take the 
form of flexibility in regard to one's own positi on rather than demands concerning the positions of 
other Members.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 41 
 
 
  302. The third reason why his delegation believed that  these texts were worthwhile steps in the 
right direction was that the agriculture and NAMA Chai rs had abided by their respective mandates.  In 
particular, they had provided for a high level of ambition for agricultural trade and for NAMA.  This 
level of ambition was not as high as Costa Rica would have wished, but it was high enough to 
stimulate the requisite new trade flows that one  would expect from a round of multilateral trade 
negotiations. 
303. At the present meeting, Costa Rica wished to place on record its support for both texts as a 
basis for the next stage of the negotiating process.  His delegation hoped that, through these negotiations, agreements could be reached in these two areas, which would in turn serve as catalysts 
for a convergence of positions on services, rules, tr ade facilitation and the other outstanding issues. 
304. The representative of Morocco
 thanked the Chairman for his report on the current state of 
play in the negotiation and the Chairs of the Ne gotiating Groups, who had spared no effort to move 
work forward in the various key areas of the DDA.   
305. The issuing of the draft agriculture and NAMA modalities during the previous week had 
prompted discussions which, in Morocco's view, were both useful and important for the weeks to 
come.  His delegation commended the two Chairmen  for their endeavours.  The discussions had 
enabled Members to identify elements of converg ence and to determine the points of divergence on 
which the key actors would have to make progress towards compromise. 
306. His delegation supported the statements by the African Group and the G110, but he wished to 
add a few comments.  At this stage, the importan ce and the sensitive nature of the matters addressed 
in the two texts were such that he would re fer to only a few aspects of these documents.  His 
delegation would subsequently state its position on the remaining points of particular interest to 
Morocco, once they had been reviewed by  the Moroccan departments concerned. 
307. In agriculture, his delegation had noted the positive approach taken to certain issues, 
especially, domestic support.  However, much remain ed to be done in the area of market access, inter 
alia the selection and treatment of SPs, the SSM, and the question of preference erosion.  Morocco 
regarded the designation and treatment of SPs as vital for the developing countries, since this would 
allow them to implement their agricultural polic ies for development purposes.  Similarly, S&D 
treatment as addressed in the Doha Declaration shoul d be an integral part of any final negotiating 
package. 
308. As far as the negotiations on i ndustrial products were concerned,  his delegation believed that 
the text would serve as a useful negotiating basi s.  Turning to key NAMA issues, he wished to 
reiterate the importance of establishing a link betw een the Swiss tariff reduction formula and other 
aspects of modalities in these negotiations.  Morocco strongly urged that a linkage be established with 
the formulation and use of the flexibilities contained in paragraph 8 of Annex B of the July 2004 Framework.  It believed that the non-utilization of these flexibilities should be compensated by a 
higher coefficient "a". 
309. Regarding the mark-up for developing countries to  allow them to bind their customs duties, 
Morocco would not be entitled to this because it ha d bound all of its non-agricultural tariff lines at the 
end of the Uruguay Round.  Morocco would consequen tly be at a disadvantage in applying the Swiss 
formula with the same coefficient as that which would be accorded to the developing countries 
entitled to the mark-up.  It therefore wished to be granted an increase in the value of coefficient "a" to 
be applied by the developing countries.  On the sect oral approach, Morocco wi shed to emphasize that 
these initiatives should be on a non-mandatory basis,  once negotiations on the basic modalities had 
been finalized. TN/C/M/27 
Page 42  
 
  310. The agriculture and NAMA negotiations were of critical importance in view of their 
economic and social impact, but Members should not  lose sight of the other negotiating areas that 
were an integral part of the Single Undertaking. 
311. His delegation appreciated the work done by  the services Chairman.  The Enchilada 
consultations conducted by him had enabled Memb ers to exchange views on sectors where some 
degree of convergence was possible and to identify the work that remained to be done.  His delegation 
encouraged him to pursue these useful consultations. 
312. As a country having made an offer in services and having received a number of collective 
requests, Morocco was eager to  see a balanced outcome among all services sectors and modes of 
supply, particularly in mode 4 but also in othe r sectors in which it had expressed an interest and 
reported collective requests. 
313. Morocco stood ready to work with the service s Chairman and other Members on deadlines, 
general assessment and the rules area , especially domestic regulation.  It  hoped that all participants in 
the negotiations would succeed in better accommoda ting the interests of the developing countries and 
thus reward the courageous efforts of those w ho had committed themselves to tackling these issues. 
314. His delegation was eager for the Geneva process to resume and for the dynamics of 
multilateralism to allow all Members to move the nego tiations forward and to defend their interests.  
The Chairman had said in his opening statement that the distance left to go was not so great, but that it would require an extra effort to negotiate with the dedication, intensity and de termination to achieve a 
successful outcome to the Doha Round, even if it did involve vanquishing "high peaks". 
315. The representative of Paraguay
 said that Members were at the point of concluding another 
period of negotiation in the Doha Round, which had so  far lasted six years, consuming vast resources 
and demanding enormous efforts on the part of the participants.  Members had lived through uplifting 
moments of progress and depressing deadlocks.  They  had, of course, far exceeded the original 
deadline set by Ministers, and in spite of this, the e nd of the road was not even approximately in sight. 
316. Nevertheless, his delegation s till had faith in the multilateral process as the proper means of 
establishing new trade disciplines, setting levels of liberalization and market protection, and reducing 
or abolishing trade-distorting measures.  His dele gation did not believe that  such goals could be 
achieved through other channels, at least not in such  a way as to foster development for those lagging 
furthest behind and hence contributing to global peace. 
317. Having made this statement of faith, Paraguay could not but express disappointment with the 
situation in which Members were, because nothing at present warranted calling this exercise the 
"Development Round".  The most appropriate title might be "Round for the Developed". 
318. Members had gradually changed course, forg etting that the Doha Round was taking place 
pursuant to Article 20 of the Agreement on Agricu lture, the objective being to establish a fair and 
market-oriented agricultural trading system.  Memb ers had also forgotten that the reason for that 
objective had been to finally deal with a sector involving an average of 50 per cent – and in some 
cases 80 per cent – of the developing world's population. 
319. The major developed countries no longer took that fact into account, nor did they ever 
mention it.  They were seeking to turn the initial objective into one that would provide further gains 
for their most prosperous sectors, at the developing  countries' expense.  Worst of all, they were 
putting matters in such a way as to make the devel oping countries appear responsible for the lack of 
results.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 43 
 
 
  320. The most obvious proof of what his delegation was saying was the level of development of 
the proposals for the NAMA modalities compared to those put forward in agriculture, with a 
scandalous background of conditions to the effect th at potential advances in agriculture would depend 
on agreements reached in NAMA and other sectors of in terest.  This was purely and simply a reversal 
of the premises of the Round and an attempt to perpet uate a state of affairs that was unfair as well as 
highly detrimental to the introductio n of the necessary trade reforms. 
321. In his delegation's view, this was a round aime d at remedying the imbalances arising from 
previous rounds, including the Ur uguay Round, and it could not accept that the final outcome should 
be to perpetuate the transfer of  welfare from the developing world to the developed countries, or that 
developing countries should continue to finance th e budgets of those countries and the subsidies they 
provided. 
322. Worst of all, such a bad example discouraged many developing countries from making efforts 
to cooperate in the opening up of markets and the e xpansion of fair trade.  On the contrary, it 
encouraged them in turn to seek measures of exce ption and preferences as a shortcut.  Therefore, the 
Doha Round might prove to be a step backward in the search for a fairer and more equitable trading 
system. 
323. His delegation would pursue the negotiations as of 3 September, since it had no resources 
other than the WTO framework and the strength of its convictions.  The Round would bear fruit once the major trading partners decided to place agricu lture at the centre of the negotiating process and 
made it a priority objective.  His delegation was aw are that it would have to pay for the concessions 
made, but the cost would be commensurate with its ac tual capacities.  It was not prepared to exchange 
real benefits for mere expectations. 
324. The representative of Singapore
 said that his delegation fu lly endorsed the Chairman's 
opening remarks with regard to the work that lay ah ead.  He wished to make five points.  First, the 
tabling of the draft text on agriculture and NAMA represented the crossing of a significant threshold in the negotiations.  The two texts had come at a very critical moment in the Doha Round.  They 
represented the Members' last chance of beginning a serious multilateral process in Geneva.  The two 
texts were not perfect and in fact, based on discu ssions in the negotiating groups over the previous 
two days, it was clear that the two texts needed cons iderable revision.  But they could not be revised 
in a vacuum.  Members needed a serious process of negotiation in September in order to arrive at a 
revised text.  The greater the level of engagement, the sooner Members could get to a revised text in 
both agriculture and NAMA.  The sooner Members got to revised text, the better the chances of 
getting modalities. 
325. Second, any serious negotiation had to take place between Members, and not between the 
Chairs and Members.  In the previous two days, his delegation had heard a lot of criticisms of the 
Chairs.  This was normal procedure in multilateral negotiations.  It was nothing alarming.  But the 
weaknesses of the Chairs' text should not become a r eason to avoid engagement or real negotiations.  
Nothing in the two texts prevented Members fro m negotiating and reaching a convergence that was 
different from what the Chairs had recommended.  Put simply, if Members did not like what they saw in the Chairs' texts, they had every possibility  and in fact every responsibility to negotiate a 
different outcome. 
326. Third, it was important to make a distinction between substance and process.  On substance, 
there were wide divergences, both in agriculture and NAMA.  This was only to be expected.  But this 
divergence in substance was no reason to be pessimi stic about the process.  Nor was it a reason to 
slow down the process.  On the contrary, Members needed to intensify the process in September to 
close the gaps.  The key to a successful and su stainable process was serious and constructive TN/C/M/27 
Page 44  
 
  engagement by all Members in September.  If ther e was such an engagement, it was possible to work 
towards modalities. 
327. Fourth, it was important, from a process and substance point of vi ew, that Members did 
not ignore the other areas of the negotiations, li ke services, rules, tr ade facilitation, S&D 
treatment and the overall question of developmen t.  This was a Single Undertaking of various 
issues and even if agriculture was the lead loco motive, Members had to make sure that the other 
areas of the negotiations did not fall far behind.  The desired balance in the final outcome could 
only emerge when there was progress across the board, on all the major issues. 
328. Fifth, he believed it was important to step back a little a nd take a look at the big picture.  
He wondered what was at stake in  the Round, what the cost and th e consequences of failure were, 
and whether all Members be better off withou t the Round.  The Round was not just about 
numbers and coefficients.  What was at stake wa s the credibility of the WTO and the rules-based 
multilateral trading system it represented.  At the end of the day, all Members would pay a high price for failure.  The price for failure would be paid especially by the smaller and weaker developing countries.  If Members failed, there woul d be greater impetus for alternative arrangements 
and protectionism would loom large.  This would hu rt developing countries.  At the same time, the 
potential benefits from the Round were not insignificant.  Members had come a long way in the negotiations and had built convergence on many issues.  It did not make sense to throw them all away 
in the final phase of the negotiations.  He hope d that Members could preserve and build on the 
progress they had made. 
329. Finally, he wished to convey a message to th e major players in the negotiation and he did not 
need to mention who they were.  This was a moment  for the major players to show political leadership 
and political will.  Members had a very narrow window of opportunity in autumn and their leadership, 
or the absence of leadership, would be noticed, be r ecorded in history and would make a difference to 
the Round.  It could make the difference between su ccess and failure.  But this Round was not just for 
the major players.  He believed that everyone ha d a role to play and could make a contribution, no 
matter how small, to the success of work. 
330. The representative of Nicaragua
 thanked the Chairman for outlining the state of play in the 
Doha Round negotiations a nd welcomed the fact that the multila teral process had finally been re-
initiated with the two texts tabled by the agriculture  and NAMA Chairs.  In this context, she thanked 
the two Chairs for their unstinting efforts and dedication in preparing the texts. 
331. Her delegation firmly believed that the multila teral forum was the only forum in which all 
Members could assess proposals with a view to balanc ing their own essential interests with those of 
the Round in general.  She wished to provide Ni caragua's preliminary assessment on agriculture and 
NAMA, two negotiating areas of vital importance to her country. 
332. For Nicaragua, the Doha Round was a fundamental tool in its long-term national development 
strategy.  Therefore, substantially enhanced ma rket access for its key agricultural export products, 
protection of food security, livelihood security and rural development, and maintaining effective 
policy space were priority components of a successful outcome for this Round. 
333. In agriculture, the subsidies that distorte d international markets and diminished the 
competitiveness of Nicaragua's products, with ta ngible consequences for the well-being of its 
population, had to be reduced well below the applie d levels.  Similarly, the introduction of product-
specific caps and of disciplines on use of the boxes was crucial in order to prevent indiscriminate 
utilization.  Her delegation was concerned about the depth with which this and other issues of 
importance to developed countries were addressed in  the document, as compared to those of vital 
interest to the developing countries, such as SPs, th e SSM, and tropical products.  This was one of the  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 45 
 
 
  major imbalances her delegation had noted in the document.  In market access, maintaining the 
highest level of ambition was essential if this round was truly aimed at facilitating the integration of 
small and vulnerable countries such as Nicaragua in the global trading system. 
334. Regarding SPs, as reflected in the Chairman's  document, self-designation and the use of the 
proposed G33 indicators were necessary to fulfil the mandate.  Her delegation was nevertheless 
concerned that reference to elements such as quant ification and verification of the indicators would 
undermine or minimize the effectiveness of the self designation process.  Nicaragua still considered it 
very important to maintain a percentage of tari ff lines exempted from reduction so that its legitimate 
and urgent development objectives could be addressed .  That being said, her delegation welcomed the 
Chair's proposal regarding the treatment of SVEs .  The flexibilities provided in the document were 
essential in view of the diversity of circumstances in general, and of the tariff structures, of small 
economies. 
335. On tropical products, in addition to working on the basis of the Uruguay Round list "plus" and 
requiring that the developed countries make a deeper  cut than that proposed for the top band, it was 
crucial that no tropical product was arbitrarily excluded. 
336. Lastly, turning to NAMA, for Nicaragua the principle of less than full reciprocity, 
contributions consistent with leve ls of development and the mandate set out in paragraph 24 of the 
Hong Kong Declaration, which called for a comparably level of ambition in market access for industrial and agricultural products, were non-negotia ble structural elements that had unfortunately 
been omitted in the document presented by the NAMA Chair.   
337. To illustrate her point, she recalled that Nicara gua's average tariff on agricultural imports was 
11.9 per cent and  4.7 per cent was being applied on imports of industrial prod ucts.  In contrast, over 
36 per cent of its overall agricultural exports were  subject to duties ranging between 83 and 151 per 
cent in the EC.  In Japan, although the level of such  exports was lower, the duties in this market 
ranged between 103 and 509 per cent.  If the moda lities proposed were implemented those levels 
would remain at over 100 per cent, preventing real market access for its agricultural exports. 
338. This low level of ambition in agriculture was not  comparable to the average 57 per cent that 
Nicaragua would be required to a pply on its industrial imports.  Such  an imbalance was not merely 
undesirable, it was unacceptable. 
339. Since Nicaragua accounted for only 0.031 per cent of global imports of non agricultural 
products and had a per capita income eight times lo wer than that of the countries referred to in 
paragraph 6, her delegation proposed  that the SVEs be covered by the treatment foreseen in that 
paragraph and subject to the same maximum averag e cuts as those established in the agriculture 
document. 
340. To conclude, her delegation full y supported the Chairman's effo rts in achieving the successful 
outcome of the negotiations, and she reiterated its  commitment to an am bitious Round aimed at 
promoting development and eliminating distortions  and imbalances in the global trading system. 
341. The representative of Kenya
 thanked the Chairman for his opening remarks and the Chairs 
of the various negotiating groups for their reports on the current status  of the negotiations and for their 
continuing guidance, to ensure the successful conc lusion of the DDA, in a genuine, transparent and 
inclusive multilateral context. TN/C/M/27 
Page 46  
 
  342. During the informal sessions on agriculture a nd NAMA the previous two days, Kenya had 
made preliminary statements on the draft modalities te xts.  To avoid repeating the contents of those 
two statements, she requested that both statements be reflected in the records of the present meeting.
12 
343. She wished to make brief comments on some of the areas of the negotiations.  On services, 
her delegation was pleased to note that there had been an intensified process of negotiation, both on 
the bilateral and plurilateral basis, with a view to  narrowing gaps between re quests and offers.  While 
it appreciated this momentum, it held the view that  any further progress in services was directly linked 
with progress in agriculture and NAMA. Ultima tely an acceptable outcome in the services 
negotiations had to contain an ad equate development content that was consistent with the mandate. 
344. Her delegation also wished to emphasise that the basic principles as well as the flexibilities 
contained in the GATS should not be undermined in the current negotiations.  This was crucial, to 
ensure a progressive approach and proper sequencing in liberalisation of the services sector in order to 
avoid the consequences of market failures.  In add ition, there was need for maximum flexibility in the 
design and implementation of national policies aime d at building domestic capacity.  This would 
ensure that business opportunities were equitably sh ared amongst foreign and domestic enterprises.  
345. On trade facilitation, her delegation noted that there had been useful discussions on the textual 
proposals that had been submitted by various Memb ers regarding possible trade facilitation measures 
to be implemented.  It was her delegation's hope that the results of  the negotiations would fully take 
into account the principle of S&D treatment for developing and least-developed countries in view of the cost implications relating to implementa tion of obligations in trade facilitation.   
346. Regarding the provision of technical assistan ce and capacity building, her delegation was 
concerned that despite the strong commitments that had been expressed by deve loped countries before 
the adoption of trade facilitation modalities, there ha d not been any concrete framework to date on 
how the developed countries would deliver on their commitment in this ar ea. This had created 
unbalanced progress on the various elements of the modalities on trade facilitation.  In this respect, 
Members should strive to achieve equal progr ess on all elements when they resumed.  
347. Finally, regarding S&D treatment, her delega tion noted the marginal progress that had been 
made thus far. It was concerned about the lack  of real progress and political goodwill to resolve 
expeditiously the outstanding S&D proposals.  Member s should intensify work in this area when they 
resumed. 
348. The representative of Cuba
 thanked the Chairman for his introductory statement and the 
Chairs of Negotiating Groups for their oral an d written reports.  His delegation endorsed the 
statements made by the G110, the G90 and NAM A 11, the G20, the G33, the ACP Group and the 
SVEs, and agreed with many of the points made by NAMA 11, Argentina, Venezuela and Paraguay. 
349. Cuba appreciated the efforts made by the agri culture and NAMA Chairs in preparing the two 
draft modalities texts.  However, as had emerged from the brief preliminary discussions concerning 
the two documents and those at the present meeting,  the opinion of the overriding majority of the 
developing countries was that these texts were still fa r from fulfilling the raison d'être of the Round –  
the development of underdeveloped countries.  The texts were lacking in balance and should be 
completed and radically amended so that th ey could lead to a satisfactory outcome. 
350. The text on agriculture did not meet the ma ndate of full modalities because it failed to 
develop a number of areas contained in the mandate th at were of interest to developing countries, in 
                                                      
12  See Annexes I and II.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 47 
 
 
  spite of the fact that in some areas, SPs and the SSM in particular, there were proposals supported by 
the vast majority of the developing countries – the G33, and the ACP, African, LDC and SVE Groups. 
351. His delegation therefore requested a prompt revision of the text or a supplement thereto, 
including all issues that had not been addressed in de tail.  It also requested that the text be made 
clearer and more specific in other areas. 
352. His delegation hoped that the discussions would resume in September, beginning with areas 
that had been least developed in the texts so that they were neither disregarded nor excluded, because 
failure to reach solutions in such areas would likewise prevent Members' achieving an agreement 
satisfactory to all. 
353. The agriculture text showed imbalances among the three pillars and the flexibilities to be 
granted to developed countries on commercial grounds, compared to those it accorded to developing 
countries.  The text was also unbalanced in rela tion to the NAMA text, which was the worst of the 
two documents, because it failed not only to comply with the mandates of less than full reciprocity, 
development, and S&D treatment, but also to ta ke account of the needs of developing countries. 
354. It had to be recalled that agriculture was still the engine of the negotiations and the starting 
point for ambition in this Round, and that develo ping countries had no reason to pay, either in 
agriculture or in any other negotiating area, for re ductions in trade distortions by developed countries, 
which were far from substantial or  effective and which concerned di stortions that should have been 
eliminated a long time ago, in previous rounds. 
355. Cuba, as indeed many other Members, was not in a position to assess, in the very short time 
since the documents had been circulated, the con sequences and potential costs and benefits of these 
two documents.  Therefore, the views it expressed  were general, prelim inary thoughts, without 
prejudice to the definitive positions it intended to a dopt on the status and content of both documents 
as of September.  Consequently, all the documents  and proposals submitted to date by the Members 
were still on the negotiating table. 
356. The interests of developing-country Members could not be sacrificed to salvage a round 
whose sole justification would be a final outcome which benefited all, and the developing countries in 
particular.  A factor of critical importance to th e conclusion of this round was the establishment of 
modalities that met the needs and aspir ations of  developing countries. 
357. Treatment of developing countries on an e qual footing would be conditional upon their 
becoming actual counterparts.  Cuba would never subordinate its interest s to the interests of those that 
were seeking to turn trade into a instrument of  power and to safeguard their unjust privileges, 
attempting to balance or cancel out the scant bene fits that developing countries would receive under 
their limited concessions, through flexibilities for developed countries such as the peace clause, 
special safeguards, soft disciplines in the green box for domestic support, and so forth. 
358. The documents had shortcomings , jeopardizing issues that were vital for the developing 
countries.  It was difficult to work on texts that failed to accommodate Cuba's fundamental interests. 
359. Developing countries would be placing their future  at risk by changing the conditions needed 
for their development, by dint of debts carried over by the industrialized countries from previous rounds.  If the costs exceeded the benefits they w ould derive from this Round, or if the outcome 
should maintain the status quo of current inequities and injustices in world trade, there would be little 
if no reason to continue with the negotiations.  Members had reached this point because an 
undertaking had been made in Doha to place developm ent at the very heart of the negotiating process.  
Six years later, Members were still witnessing a purely commercial approach in these proceedings, TN/C/M/27 
Page 48  
 
  namely access to developing-country markets th rough tariff reductions, while non-tariff barriers 
imposed by developed countries in the form of  SPS measures, technical regulations and other 
unilateral coercive measures, were eith er maintained or continued to rise. 
360. The only possible solution was to achieve a fair balance of interests.  The texts on the table 
had been crafted to accommodate the industrialized c ountries.  To insist on such an approach could 
indefinitely postpone the conclusion of the Round. 
361. The strategy that had been adopted by the major powers was clear.  Stressing that developing 
countries had a great many flexibilities in these text s, particularly in the NAMA context, and that 
these would jeopardize market access – when most  of the developing countries regarded the 
flexibilities as insufficient – was a trick that would not work.  The objective of the rich countries was 
to secure the tariff cuts proposed by the Chair of  the NAMA Negotiating Group, at a minimum, or 
even at a more ambitious level, which would be un acceptable to the majority.  Their words were mere 
rhetoric to lull the naïve. 
362. Today, Members faced the dilemma of whethe r or not the WTO was a forum capable of 
contributing to development.  Poverty was a main problem, and one that was recognized only by those 
that were compelled to endure it, even if they were  the majority.  Cuba had stated that although the 
mighty might pretend not to believe this, poor na tions had the right to development and would 
continue to fight for it.  
363. At this juncture a strengthening of multilateralis m would be a good thing.  Members could not 
afford the luxury of undermining the foundations of the system with yet another credibility crisis, 
which would erupt if the results of the Round, fa r from improving peoples' living conditions, further 
aggravated cumulative structural problems. 
364. Members were confronted with public opinion and a national and international civil society 
that was well versed in trade issues and accused the WTO of flounde ring in a legitimacy crisis.  
Powerful institutions had collapsed or were under going crises for primarily representing the interests 
of the rich countries, for lack of transparency an d democracy and real and effective participation by 
developing countries, and for failing to change with the times.  The WTO had yet to demonstrate that 
it could serve a higher purpose than generating dividends for a small few.  It was time to realize that a 
bad agreement for most of the developing countries  would be difficult to accept.  The time when 
developing countries blindly undertook commitments had passed. 
365. The representative of Korea
 thanked the Chairs of the Nego tiating Groups for their reports.  
In particular, he wished to convey his delegation' s gratitude to the Chairs of agriculture and NAMA 
for producing draft modalities, on which Members had had a first round of discussions during the 
week.  His delegation had found the discussions ve ry useful and encouraging both in terms of 
substance and in terms of the level of engagement of the membership.  It we lcomed this as something 
very positive for multilateralism, which was the very foundation of the organization. 
366. His delegation did not believe that anybody would doubt that Members were at the most 
critical juncture not only of the Round, but also of the multilateral trading system.  Members had 
missed several deadlines and each time they were somehow able to surv ive those setbacks.  This time, 
however, he was not sure whether Me mbers could afford another setback. 
367. With this sense of urgency in mind, he wished make a number of comments.  He would 
refrain from commenting on the specific substance of  the draft modalities, which his delegation had 
done in the present week and would continue doing in the coming months.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 49 
 
 
  368. First, balance was the most important ingredient of a successful package.  A number of 
delegations had seemed to be mindful of the po ssible balance between agriculture and NAMA during 
the discussions in the past days.  His delegation was also of the view that now was the time to 
consider the overall balance in addition to  the balance within each negotiating area. 
369. In this sense, his delegation was concerned a bout the different levels of specificity and 
perfection in the agriculture and NAMA modalities, as well as about their levels of ambition.  It was 
also disappointed with the lack of progress in se rvices and rules.  His delegation believed that the 
future work should be focused on striking a balance agreeable to all, bearing in mind the mandate.   
370. Secondly, his delegation agreed with those that did not want to have any artificial deadlines.  
The negotiations had to be let to mature while accel erating delegations' effort s to make the modalities 
texts ready for final tuning by Ministers.  Member s had to give a chance to the multilateral process 
driven by the whole membership, under the stewardship of the Chairs. 
371. Thirdly, when Members resumed the discussion in September, the priority  should be given to 
such core balancing issues as SPs and sensitive pr oducts in agriculture, which seriously lacked 
precision in the current texts.  In NAMA, Member s would have to find a way how to narrow gaps 
between entrenched positions.  The services and rul es negotiating groups should also put something 
on the table that Members could work with when assessing the overall balance. 
372. Fourthly, he urged Members to bring with th em what was necessary to proceed after the 
summer break.  Time was definitely not on their si de and there was still trem endous work to be done.  
However, having listened to what Members had to say on each modalities text, he was quite 
concerned about what they could achieve in the negotiations after the summer recess.  He hoped that 
they would have secured their own ro oms for negotiations from September. 
373. He wished to reaffirm his delegation's commitmen t to future work.  Korea was fully aware of 
the benefits of the multilateral trading system and was ready to contribute to it. 
374. The representative of Honduras  thanked the Chairman and th e Chairs of the Negotiating 
Groups for their reports.  She requested that her delegation's statement at the informal meeting on 
agriculture and that by the Dominican Republic, also  on behalf of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, 
Nicaragua, at the informal meeting on NAMA be re flected in the records of the present meeting.13 
375. The representative of Thailand  thanked the Chairman and th e Chairs of the Negotiating 
Groups for their reports.  He expressed his delegati on's appreciation to the Ch airs of the agriculture 
and NAMA groups for their hard work and tremendous  efforts in trying to bridge the differences 
among Members and producing draft modalities in order to move the negotiations forward. 
376. Thailand was firmly committed to the successf ul conclusion of the Doha Round.  It 
recognized the potential value that a balanced a nd ambitious Round could offer for Members and the 
global economy.  As a result, it looked forward to participating actively and constructively in future 
discussions.  It was also it's collective duty and r esponsibility as a Member of the WTO to seriously 
engage in the upcoming negotia tions in order to reach a consensus on major pending issues. 
377. He wished to make few remarks on the progress of the negotiations and the way forward.  
First, his delegation shared the views expressed by many delegations that the draft texts for agriculture and NAMA were a good starting point fo r the modalities build-up process, although there 
remained many areas where his delegation had serious concerns and wanted certain adjustments made. 
                                                     
 
13  See Annexes I and II. TN/C/M/27 
Page 50  
 
  378. On agriculture, considerable work was required in  order to give effect to agricultural reform, 
especially in the domestic support and market access pillars where substantial reductions and 
significant improvements were needed to fulfill the Doha mandate.  On NAMA, although the text 
offered an interesting landing zone based on the Swiss formula, significant gaps existed in areas such 
as flexibilities for various different groups of deve loping countries, non-reciprocal preferences and 
environmental goods where considerable amount of work remained. 
379. His delegation had presented its preliminary co mments on both papers during the previous  
two days and was fully prepared to engage in more  detailed discussion when the meetings resumed in 
September. 
380. Second, agriculture was still th e core issue in the negotiations and its outcome would likely 
determine the level of achievement of the Round in meeting its development objectives.  Judging 
from the tone of the majority of Members over the previous two days, there was clearly a firmly held view that more needed to be done in agriculture to achieve a balance between the two texts.  In 
another words, developed countries would need to be more forthcoming in their concessions on 
agriculture. 
381. Third, besides agriculture and NAMA, one shoul d not forget that there were other issues 
which were part of the Single Undertaking of th e Doha mandate, namely services, rules, S&D and 
trade facilitation.  Progress in these areas was also impor tant in order to build a solid platform for final 
negotiations. 
382. On services, Members should focus on what could be realistically achieved in terms of market 
access, respecting fully the best endeavor effort mandate as contained in Annex C of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration.  Important progress coul d be made should the demanders have realistic 
expectations.  Rules on domestic regulation and emergency safeguard measures would also be 
necessary from his delegation's point of view, to stri ke the right balance in services.  It was his 
delegation's opinion that there wa s no need to produce a Chair's text in services since Annex C had 
already provided adequate guidance. 
383. On rules, Ministers in Hong Kong had mandated the Chair to present consolidated texts that 
would be the basis for the final stage of the ne gotiations.  His delegation hoped that these papers 
would be made available in a timely manner so th at Members could factor in progress in the other 
areas.  His delegation gave full trust and support to the Chair in this regard. 
384. Lastly, it was important for the intensive consu ltations and negotiations in Geneva to adhere 
to a bottom-up and Member-driven approach as we ll as to the principles of transparency and 
inclusiveness. 
385. Finally, his delegation supported the statements  by Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group, 
Brazil on behalf of the G20 and on behalf of the G110.  He requested that the statements made by his delegation at the informal sessions on agriculture a nd NAMA be reflected in the records of the present 
meeting.
14  His delegation would continue  working constructively with the Chairman, the Chairs of 
the Negotiating Groups and all Members to maintain the momentum of the negotiations and to move 
them forward to a successful outcome. 
386. The representative of Zambia  expressed his delegation's appr eciation to the Chairman for 
his commitment to the Doha Development Round.  He thanked the chairs of the negotiating bodies 
for their hard work and their respective reports.  Za mbia fully endorsed the statements by Lesotho on 
                                                      
14  See Annexes I and II.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 51 
 
 
  behalf of the LDC Group, Uganda on behalf of th e African Group and Jamaica on behalf of the ACP 
Group. 
387. It was clear from the various statements made in  the previous two days that the road leading 
to the conclusive end of the Doha  Round was rough, frustrating and painfully slow.  All Members had 
had a full share of set backs, misrepresentations or wrong interpretation of their well articulated and 
defined positions by both Chairs of the Negotiati ng Groups as well as by fellow negotiating partners.  
388. He had carefully and attentively listened to th e various statements and it was clear that all 
delegations had justified and legitimate reasons for maintaining their apparent entrenched positions.  
However, Members were at the present point in  time in the negotiations because these "legitimate 
reasons" had not been aligned to the legitimate goals and objectives of the Doha Round which had 
placed development at the centre of the negotiations .  For Zambia and the LDCs, placing development 
at the centre of the negotiations entailed paving the way for a meaningful and effective participation 
of LDCs in the multilateral trading system through enhanced market access in both goods and services 
by both developed and developing countries, leve ling the playing field through removal of trading 
distorting support and addressing NTBs effectively.  The current state of the negotiations had not 
lived up to this expectation.  Instead, his delega tion had observed Members' lack of enthusiasm to 
engage in a positive manner on key interests of  the LDC Group, such as LDC modalities in the 
services negotiations, and duty-free quota-free market access and accompanying rules of origin, yet the LDCs were being called upon to contribute to the Round. 
389. Whilst his delegation accepted the draft texts as basis for further work, this was with a view to 
amending them so that the development agenda coul d be placed at the centre of the Round.  Unless 
Members got the fundamental principles and the obj ectives of the Doha Development Round back in 
sight to serve as guiding principles in the negotiation, the road ahead would continue to be elusive. 
390. Zambia wished to see the DDA reach its conclusive end successfully and therefore urged 
delegations to seriously ponder and reflect on th is matter over the summer break.  His delegation 
looked forward to returning to the negotiating table in September with vigor and enthusiasm to engage 
positively and move the Round its conclusive end.  Fi nally his delegation wished to stress the need to 
maintain an process that was all inclusive, tran sparent and bottom -up in the negotiations ahead. 
391. The representative of El Salvador
 thanked the Chairman for his opening comments giving an 
assessment of the current status of the negotiations.  Members now had a clearer idea of what the process would involve from now on.  Her delegati on also noted the progress reports presented by the 
Chairs of the various negotiating groups.  They were  a clear indication of the amount of work still to 
be done.  El Salvador endorsed the statements by Indonesia on behalf of the G33 and Barbados on 
behalf of the SVEs.   
392. As to the texts submitted by the agriculture and NAMA Chairs under their own responsibility, 
her delegation had already made preliminary comment s in the negotiating groups.  She only wished to 
point out that, although these instruments contained ce rtain elements that were a source of concern to 
her delegation or, in other cases, lacked certain elemen ts that were of interest to it, in a constructive 
spirit it was prepared to carry on with these and other areas of the Single Undertaking.   
393. She wished to highlight a number of aspects which for her delegation were crucial at the 
present stage.  In agriculture, her delegation was gr ateful to the Chair for having taken up some of the 
concerns raised by SVEs on several occasions.  On  SPs, her delegation considered that there had been 
considerable progress in terms of their designation, pa rticularly as regards taking the G33's revised list 
of indicators as a basis.  With regard to the treat ment of SPs, her delegation wished to emphasize the 
need to exempt an adequate percentage of tariff lines from both reductions and commitments 
regarding tariff quotas.   TN/C/M/27 
Page 52  
 
  394. On NAMA, with regard to SVEs specifically, her delegation recognized that major progress 
had been made regarding the "trigger" for opting for such treatment, and on the architecture proposed 
for addressing the concerns of these Members.  Ne vertheless, regarding th e numbers proposed in 
paragraph 13, Members would have to work hard  as from September in order to establish tariff 
reductions that were in keeping with the SVEs capa city and their development needs, as they did not 
constitute an acceptable basis for addressing their concerns.   
395. Turning to the services negotiations, she said he r delegation considered that these negotiations 
should be conducted in a manner that observed the integrity of the GATS and the negotiating 
guidelines.  Furthermore, it was necessary to take into account flexibilities for developing countries, 
and to this end special attention should be paid  to paragraph 2 of Article XIX, which granted 
developing countries flexibility to open up fewer sect ors, liberalize fewer types of transaction and 
gradually increase access to their markets in keeping with their development needs.  She wished to 
reiterate in this connection the importance of implementing paragraph 8 of Annex C of the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Declaration regarding the speci al needs of small, vulnerable economies.   
396. Lastly, her delegation agreed with the Chairman that Members were now at a crucial stage at 
the end of the process, and there was at present a narrow window of opportunity to finalize the Round 
in the autumn.  While it was not, in her delegation' s view, appropriate to set dates for the completion 
of work, Members had to be realistic:  the Round wo uld have to reach a conclusion that took account 
of the different political and economic realities that  all Members faced.  She hoped they would take 
advantage of this window of opportunity and work together in a constructive manner as from September in order to achieve that objective.   
397. The representative of Chile
 thanked the Chairman for his introductory remarks and the Chairs 
of the Negotiating Groups for their reports, particul arly the two appointed since the last formal 
meeting of the TNC.  It was one year since Memb ers had last received reports from the Groups and 
much had happened in those 12 months.  Although the outside world and delegations themselves had 
often been negative in their views about the Round, the reports before Members at the present meeting 
showed that major progress had been made.  In pa rticular, the technical discussions had brought 
positions closer.   
398. Work of this kind nevertheless had a natural limit, and this was what could happen in 
agriculture and NAMA.  In the previous two days , Members had focussed on these two areas in what 
had been an interesting and necessary exercise.  He believed that the result had been positive.  
Although most of Members had restated their positi ons, emphasizing what was absent from the papers 
of the two Chairs, they had all undertaken, as from Se ptember, to seek the convergence needed for the 
last stretch to the final result.   
399. In agriculture, his delegation endorsed the statem ents by Australia on behalf of the Cairns 
Group, and Brazil on behalf of the G20.   
400. His delegation believed that Members' should also  deal with the other areas, where they had 
fallen behind and in which Chile had a keen interest  as well.  On services, he wished to focus on the 
informal consultations that the Chairman of the Special Session had conducted in recent months.  In 
the stages to come, Chile believed that Annex C of the Hong Kong Declaration continued to afford 
worthwhile guidance for framing forthcoming revised o ffers.  It agreed with those who held the view 
that once there was agreement on th e modalities for agriculture and NAMA, there would be clarity as 
to the level of ambition that should be reached in  services.  The revision of these documents could 
well be the appropriate moment for this.  The negotiations on domestic re gulation were another 
priority for Chile.  It hoped that it would be possible to agree to disciplines based on provisions that already existed in the GATS.    TN/C/M/27 
 Page 53 
 
 
  401. Regarding rules, there had been worthwhile a pproximation in some areas.  For example, the 
progress which had been made in the discussions on anti-dumping seemed to afford relative clarity 
about what was feasible.  The same was not true of  fisheries subsidies and there were still many grey 
areas.  Much the same had occurred with horizon tal subsidies and RTAs, but new ideas had been 
lacking.  His delegation was concerned at the lack of ambition in this area.   
402. In the negotiations on trade and environment, there had also been progress on a number of 
specific paragraph 31 issues, but not in areas whic h were equally important, such as the relationship 
between WTO rules and the specific trade obligations  set out in MEAs, not to mention environmental 
goods.  His delegation therefore urged Members to redouble their efforts in seeking constructive and 
practical solutions allowing them to achieve an ambitious, but also realistic outcome.   
403. Looking back, over the last year Members had come a long way – the transparency 
mechanism for RTAs, the first practical applicati on of the public health amendment to the TRIPS 
Agreement, the decision to extend export subsid ies to a group of developing countries, some 
Members had begun to implement the duty-free, qu ota-free initiative for LDCs, among other things.  
These were concrete results and they showed th at Members had indeed moved forward.  In 
September, Chile wished to see concrete progress a nd to that end it would come back with fresh 
resolve, in the hope that the other Members would re turn with the same energy and political will.  
Chile firmly believed that a faile d Round would improve nothing.   
404. The representative of Nigeria  thanked the Chairman for his sustained effort to reinvigorate the 
DDA negotiations, as well as to ensure  the successful conclusion of the Round as soon as possible.  In 
particular, he wished to acknowledge the extens ive consultations, which the Chairman and the 
Chairman of the General Council ha d continued to hold with Members, prominent world leaders and 
the various regional groupings.  Hi s delegation wished to assure the Chairman that the recent change 
in leadership in Nigeria after the April elections had not affected Nigeria's commitment to the Round 
in particular, and the multilateral trading system in general. 
405. Nigeria remained deeply concerned over the pe rsistent missed deadlin es in the Doha Work 
Programme.  However, it welcomed the full r esumption of negotiations based on a multilateral 
process led by the Chairs of negotiating groups.  He reaffirmed his delegation's commitment to continue to contribute towards the successful conclu sion of the Round.  To that end, he wished to 
underscore that Nigeria was willing and would conti nue to cooperate and work together with the 
Director-General, the Chairs of the Negotiating Gr oups, the Chairman of the General Council and all 
Members.  
406. His delegation thanked the Chairs of the agriculture and NAMA groups, for the draft 
modalities papers they had recently released.  This was an important step in the process. The draft 
modalities were presently being reviewed in capital,  and his delegation looked forward to providing a 
more detailed assessment when negotiations resumed in  September.  His delegation had also made its 
preliminary reactions at the informal sessions of the respective groups.  His delegation urged the 
Chairs to improve their texts by correcting the im balances already pointed out by Nigeria and other 
Members.  He requested that the statements made  by Nigeria at the informal sessions on agriculture 
and NAMA be reflected in the records of the present meeting.
15  
407. On process, Nigeria wished to reiterate a nd emphasise its support for a genuine multilateral 
process that was inclusive, bottom-up and Member-dri ven.  The primacy of the multilateral process as 
the most appropriate forum was to ensure incl usiveness and convergence on a wider variety of 
negotiating areas.  This was the case because what might appear as not so important for some 
delegations could well be the most important for others .  It was also central to the attainment of the 
                                                      
15  See Annexes I and II. TN/C/M/27 
Page 54  
 
  principles of transparency and a balanced outcome .  After having missed so many deadlines since 
2001, his delegation believed it was important and better to achieve a sound and balanced agreement 
that offered prospects for development rather than  pursuing negotiations with the sole objective of 
meeting a time schedule.  
408. With respect to substance, his delegation ag reed that agriculture held the key in the 
negotiations.  A breakthrough in agri culture, particularly the elimination of market access barriers and 
reduction of trade-distorting subsidies in develope d countries, would positively impact on the other 
areas of the negotiations, and ensure that the Round delivered on its development objectives.  
Negotiations should also adhere to commitments already undertaken in the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration, the July 2004 D ecision and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  His delegation 
emphasized the need for comparability in the level of ambition in both industrial market access and 
agriculture based on paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Mi nisterial Declaration.  Furthermore, the full 
modalities to be agreed should satisfy the requireme nts of less than full reciprocity in reduction 
commitments, as well as S&D treatment for developing c ountries in all the areas of the negotiations.  
409. The work ahead remained enormous if Memb ers were to realize the objective of full 
modalities.  Nigeria was fully prepared and committe d to contributing towards achieving that goal.  
Further work needed to be undertaken to reflect the opinions and views of all Members.  His delegation looked forward to working closely with the Chairman and all other Members who believed 
in the integrity of the multilateral process and th e early successful conclusi on of the Doha Work 
Programme. 
410. In conclusion, Nigeria supported the statements  by Uganda on behalf of the African Group, 
Jamaica on behalf of the ACP, Brazil on behalf of  the G20, and Indonesia on behalf of the G33. 
411. The representative of Malaysia
 said that  the previous fortnight had been an eventful one for 
the DDA.  The Chairs of agriculture and NAMA had issued draft modalities for the consideration of 
Members in their attempt to move the DDA nego tiations forward.  The two Chairs should be 
congratulated for what they had done and Members s hould come back early in September to continue 
their deliberations on the two texts. 
412.  The other Negotiating Group Chairs had also pres ented their reports at the present meeting to 
update Members on where they were in the other areas of the DDA negotiations.  Members had to 
move in concert in all areas.  Only on that basi s could they hope for a successful conclusion of the 
DDA. 
413. Her delegation was hopeful that the developmen ts over the previous and current weeks had 
signaled that the cockroach was no longer stuck on a pin.  Members still needed to be pedaling hard 
like the cockroach, but with their feet firmly on th e ground not in the air.  All Members needed to 
move. 
414. The representative of Pakistan  thanked the Chairman and th e Chairs of the Negotiating 
Groups for their reports.  He said that the previo us and current weeks had been quite productive.  
Members had a transparent, multilateral and membe r-driven process guiding their way forward.  The 
two texts by the Chairs of agriculture and NAMA were a major milestone and had provided Members 
a solid foundation for making progress in the negotiations. 
415. As had been widely expected, the text on agri culture had been more favorably received than 
the one on NAMA.  One of the major reasons for this had been that there were far more elements in 
NAMA than agriculture.  Thus in case of agricu lture, on some issues which still needed more 
consultation, only the current status of negotiati ons had been noted for future discussion without 
suggesting any agreed positions.  On the other ha nd, the key elements of NAMA had not received any  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 55 
 
 
  serious discussion in the recent past and no matter what numbers had been proposed, it would have 
been difficult to find consensus or fa vorable comments at the current stage. 
416. Despite all the differences in Members' views,  his delegation believed that the two texts had 
adequately captured the progress made thus far.  They therefore presented a solid basis for moving 
discussions forward when Members resumed in September. 
417. The previous day, several delegations had sought the Secretariat's assistance for new 
simulations, especially in NAMA, on the basis of new numbers or ranges proposed.  His delegation supported this suggestion as it would help clarify who would be contributing what.  It would also help 
clarify many misunderstandings. 
418. Discussions during the current week had also shown that it was not easy to progress on 
NAMA unless there was more precision on the agricu lture text.  While his delegation supported the 
view that it was important to make progress on agricultu re so that the two texts could present at least 
the same level of precision, it did not wish the NAM A discussions to lag too much behind agriculture.  
For many countries like Pakistan, NAMA represented over 80 per cent of trade and NAMA trade also suffered from serious distortions as products exported by developing countries faced serious tariff and 
non-tariff barriers. 
419. While agriculture and NAMA were in the limelight, there had been lot of discussion on 
clarification of Members' position on services in th e Enchilada discussions.  However, his delegation 
was not certain whether Members had made much progress, as "red-lines" for some were a "must have" for others.  His delegation hoped that from October Members would be  moving much faster on 
the basis of revised offers. 
420. His delegation welcomed the offer of the Ch air of the Negotiating Group on Rules to produce 
his text in September and encouraged him to do so without the finalization of other texts. 
421. Finally, his delegation was quite optimistic a bout the successful conclusion of the Round in 
the present year and looked forward to an intensive period of consultations from early September.   
422. The representative of Norway
 thanked the Chairman for hi s opening statement and the 
Negotiating Group Chairs for their valuable informa tion about the state of play as they saw it.  
Members had during the previous two days had a fi rst preliminary exchange of views on the papers 
from the agriculture and NAMA Chairs.  In his dele gation's view, the two Chairs had given Members 
the legitimate basis for the multilateral negotiations  needed to reach the goal Members had set in 
2001.  His delegation was grateful for their work and they stood to be commended for the very important contribution they had made to both the negotiations and the WTO system.  The way in 
which they had faced up to rather than avoide d the very difficult questions presented to them 
commanded Members' fullest respect. 
423. In his delegation's view, the two texts from the Chairs constituted the natural step in building 
common ground for final agreement.  As both Chairs ha d very clearly stated, the texts were not to be 
looked at as the final ones.  On the contrary, they both envisaged that the papers would be revised 
once Members had had intensive engagement on all i ssues, in other words once real negotiations had 
started.  His delegation was ready to follow such a path, and actively engage in that process in a 
constructive manner. 
424. The most compelling reason for his delegati on's approach was its commitment to the 
multilateral trading system based on a set of agreed a nd respected rules.  It firmly believed that this 
system needed to evolve and adapt to the realities so as to remain not only relevant but increase its 
influence in international trade to the betterment of  all Members.  That task was one of the reasons TN/C/M/27 
Page 56  
 
  why Norway had agreed to the DDA and Members s hould not allow themselves to fail.  There could 
still be a possibility to avoid failure if all Memb ers changed their mood of negotiating and tried to 
rebuild confidence so that they could pursue the negotiations with realism and pragmatism. 
425. Concerning the agriculture and NAMA papers, he wished to refer to Norway's preliminary 
remarks made earlier in the week.  Nevertheless, he  also wished to voice at the present meeting its 
concern with the substance contained therein.  What Norway had been asked to contribute, in 
particular in the market access and domestic support pillars in agriculture, was extremely challenging 
for it.  His delegation's examination of the suggestions in the NAMA text did not do much to alleviate that situation.  This was why Norway would be actively engaged through th e fall with a view to 
seeking improvements of the two papers. 
426. Norway would also actively pursue its interest s in the other areas of the negotiations.  His 
delegation had listened carefully to the reports of th e other Chairs on progress or in some cases lack of 
progress in their respective field of responsibility.  Norway remained concerned.  His delegation 
believed that it was appropriate at this juncture to urge every Member to engage actively and to 
contribute, according to their own ability, so that t hose other negotiating areas did not lag behind.  In 
so doing, Members had to fully respect the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
427. Specifically, some of Norway's concerns related to the current state of affairs in the services 
negotiations.  In its four major areas of interest, ma ritime, telecom, energy and finance, the process up 
to now had not produced very encouraging results.  As has been stated on a number of occasions the 
nature of these negotiations was different from th e two other market access issues.  Now that 
Members had hopefully entered into a new phase of  the negotiations, it was only logical that the 
engagement in this negotiating group  also be increased.  His delegation wished to point out that this 
sector was among the fastest growing in the world economy, and one where the relative share of world trade was rapidly increasing on the part of developing countries.  The initiative taken by a 
number of Members in the tourism sector was a good illustration of this and one which his delegation 
welcomed. 
428. The importance his delegation attached to a me aningful outcome in the negotiations on rules 
was well known.  His delegation appreciated the report by the rules Chair at the present meeting and promised to continue to support his endeavors to Members' common best interest. 
429. His delegation also wished to underline its si ncere preoccupation with the development part 
of the DDA.  The development dimension should not  be sidelined. In his delegation's view, Members 
would fail if they did not deliver substantia lly on this important dimension of the DDA. 
430. His delegation was committed to a successful outco me of the negotiations even if the present 
basis for the final stretch did pose very serious , challenges for his country.  He reiterated his 
delegation's readiness to contribute to a common agre ement, but also wished to remind Members that 
there were obvious limits to how much Norway co uld pay.  However, Norway was committed and 
would be back in full force to defend its interests in the fall. 
431. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 associated his delegation with the statement by 
Switzerland on behalf of the G10.  His delegation th anked the Chairman for his efforts over the past 
month, particularly for getting the agriculture a nd NAMA Chairs to produce their own texts at the 
present critical juncture, so as to keep the negotiatio ns going.  It also commended the agriculture and 
NAMA Chairs for the considerable amount of work they had put into the latest texts. 
432. His delegation fully understood that the Chairs' texts alone could not deliver the outcome.  It 
was up to Members now to negotiate and decide am ongst themselves.  But, the texts could certainly  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 57 
 
 
  serve as a good basis for future work, although his delegation did have serious concerns about some 
elements of the texts as they currently stood. 
433. For Chinese Taipei, a balanced and meaningful outcome of the Doha Round should be that it 
served as an important vehicle for generating mo re global trade flows and met the development 
objective.  He believed that all Members shared this  view.  However, in order to achieve that goal, 
there needed to be a balance across the board – not only between agriculture and NAMA, but all 
negotiating issues, including service and rules.  In  the process of achieving that balance, every 
Member needed to make a real contribution. 
434. In this context, he wished to mention Chinese Taipei's main concerns.  First, because it was a 
net food importer, it was a net payer in the agricultu re negotiations.  For Chinese Taipei, the level of 
ambition in agriculture was extremely high and th e price to pay for flexibilities was costly and 
excessive.  It also had little to gain in  NAMA according to the Chair's text. 
435. Second, like all other RAMs, Chinese Taipei ha d made extensive market access commitments 
in agricultural and NAMA during its accession, wh ich many RAMs were still in the process of 
implementing.  According to the texts, RAMs woul d need to make more new concessions than other 
Members in the negotiations, especially those with a high overhang of bound rates.  In other words, 
RAMs could not have new market opportunities, yet at the same time, they would have to open up 
their markets even further.  He  asked how RA Ms could sell such an outcome to their domestic 
constituencies  In his delegation's view, RAMs, shoul d be allowed sufficient flexibilities, in addition 
to longer implementation periods, in  order to provide room for them to make the necessary structural 
adjustments. 
436. Finally, if all of Members were expecting a meaningful outcome to the negotiations, they 
would need to work hard during the summer break .  He assured the Chairman of Chinese Taipei's 
strong commitment to the multilateral trading system  and full cooperation under his leadership.  His 
delegation looked forward to re-e ngaging constructively in the negotiations in September.   
437. The representative of Turkey  thanked the Chairs of the agriculture and NAMA negotiating 
groups for their recent valuable contributions to the DDA and commended them for their solid efforts 
to facilitate agreement amongst Members.  Turkey be lieved that the draft texts were a good basis for 
further discussions despite the fact that it still needed to see the full pi cture for a full assessment. 
438. Obviously, all Members needed to reflect on both  texts but Turkey hoped that the scheduled 
intensified work in September would lead Members to  the goals of Doha Round.  In this context, she 
wished to make clear that Turkey remained dete rmined to work with other Members to reach a 
successful outcome at the end of the Round. 
439. She wished to highlight certain elements of Turkey's position without going into too much 
detail and also to reiterate its expectations with regard to the negotiations.  First, her delegation 
appreciated the achievement Members had made in agriculture.  At the present stage, Members still 
lacked precision since full modalities had not b een possible.  However, her delegation was 
encouraged for September. 
440. The draft text suggested ambitious market access compared to the domestic subsidies and 
export competition pillars.  Therefore, like many ot her developing countries, flexibilities which would 
be detailed in September became much more important to Turkey.  She underlined the importance of 
SPs and the SSM in this regard.  Her delegation would engage in the discussions constructively in 
order to determine full modalities in all aspects of the agriculture negotiations. TN/C/M/27 
Page 58  
 
  441. Second, the priority objective of Turkey in th e NAMA negotiations was to  have real market 
access opportunities after the completion of the Round.  In this respect, her delegation believed that 
Members should not lose sight of the ambitious mandat e set in paragraph 16 of the Doha Declaration.  
However, Turkey was also conscious of the de velopment aspect of the Round which constituted a 
significant element in the negotiations.  Theref ore, Members should pay utmost care while 
establishing the balance between the formula and flexibilities. 
442. Turkey wished to draw Members' attention to  development needs of developing countries and 
LDCs.  As it was well known, the economies of those countries mostly depended on certain 
labour-intensive sectors.  Therefore, special consid eration needed to be given to those sectors to 
ensure sustainability in the economic development of many developing countries and LDCs.  Lastly, 
she wished to reiterate Turkey's commitment to the goals of the Doha Round and the multilateral 
trading system. 
443. The representative of Bolivia
 said that her delegation endorsed the statements by the SVEs, 
the G33, the G20 and the Cairns Group.  Her delegation found the two texts proposed by the agriculture and NAMA Chairs unevenly developed a nd completely unbalanced in relation to each 
other.  While the NAMA text introduced figures subjecting developing countries to unimaginable 
levels of reduction that dispropor tionately benefited the developed countries and penalized the vast 
majority of Members by disregarding their points of  view, the agriculture te xt showed imbalances 
between the domestic support and market access pilla rs, neutralizing progress as could be observed in 
the first pillar, and inadequately developing issues of primary interest to the developing countries. 
444. Given such considerations, one could hardly speak  of full draft modalities but rather of partial 
modalities for agriculture and, for NAMA, yet another unofficial text that certainly did not constitute 
a negotiating basis for the process due to begin in September, containing as it did, figures which were absolutely unacceptable to Bolivia, fo r reasons that she would explain. 
445. Members were facing an attempt to re-interpret the mandate, divesting it of its content in such 
a way as to benefit the developed countries and prom ote their own development instead of that of 
developing countries. 
446. The absence of development that could ensue from implementing an agreement such as that 
set forth in document JOB(07)/126 would adversely a ffect the most destitute populations, including in 
Bolivia – a land-locked country, with a small and vulnerable economy; mostly indigenous population, 
and the poorest country on the subcontinent.  It would cancel out or at best negatively impact the few gains that had been achieved through the Millenni um Development Goals.  In many cases, these had 
been funded by the very countries that were seeking reductions in NAMA, which would imply 
reducing the room for policies used by the deve loping countries in their development processes. 
447. To illustrate her point, she said that the re ductions in NAMA relating to small economies 
were unacceptable, because the Members concerne d would be subject to cuts ranging from 40 to 70 
per cent, whereas the developed countries would make  reductions of approximately 20 to 30 per cent. 
448. Under the less-than-full reciprocity principle, the developing countries would be required to 
make lesser efforts than the developed countries, an d for SVEs the cuts should be even lower.  The 
document reversed the order of priority in the so-called Development Round, benefiting the 
developed countries rather than the legitimate beneficiaries, namely, developing countries. 
449. She wished to recall the importance of tariff levels for developing countries by quoting a few 
examples.  During the process of "autonomous liber alization", which instead had proved to be a 
process of imposition under the conditionalities for "development" aid set by other Bretton Woods 
institutions, Bolivia had significantly reduced and simp lified its tariffs.  This had led to job losses as a  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 59 
 
 
  result of de-industrialization of an emerging industrial plant.  If this was the approach designed to help 
a country industrialize and develop, Bolivia knew it did not work.  Even at the United Nations, the independent expert reporting to the Commission on Human Rights on the effects of economic reforms 
and foreign debt had stated the following, on his re turn from a visit to Bolivia in 2001:  "Bolivia, 
which has implemented orthodox and rigorous neo-libera l policies for the past 16 years, has remained 
one of the poorest countries on the planet".  This had been six years ago, and until its change of 
government, the situation had remained the same for 21 years. 
450. If, conversely, the objective was to condemn count ries such as Bolivia to invariably exporting 
only raw materials, the numbers in the document made very good sense, reducing the policy space 
that today's developed countries had used for th eir own development and in dustrialization processes. 
451. She wished to recall that, in the current situ ation, paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Declaration 
appeared to have been re-interpreted so that now, under the conditions laid down in both documents, 
the level of ambition was to be led by the NA MA.  However, the very essence of the Doha 
Development Round lay in agriculture, not only because of outstanding Uruguay Round commitments 
but also because of developing countries' own leg itimate interests and of the WTO's long-standing 
debt towards these countries. 
452. The level of ambition for agriculture should be the guiding principle for outcomes in other 
negotiating areas, and therefore her delegation could not agree to NAMA becoming the new 
negotiating basis.  To Bolivia's understanding and, sh e believed, the vast majo rity of the membership, 
such was not the meaning, objective,  or principle of these negotiations. 
453. If Members wanted justice, balance in the negotiations and a proper implementation of 
paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Declaration, the obj ect of this Round – namely development – should 
remain at the heart of the proposals contained in th e agriculture and NAMA texts.  In her delegation's 
view, this had not been the case so far, either in the texts or in the negotiating process in general. 
454. Regarding the process, she emphasized that th e NAMA text was not the basis of negotiation 
for Bolivia under any circumstances and the numbers  presented in them were absolutely unacceptable 
for Bolivia. 
455. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 said her delegation was glad to note that the 
multilateral process was heading towards a forward-m oving track for concrete work after the summer 
break.  In particular, his delegation welcomed bot h texts on agriculture and NAMA released by the 
respective Chairs of the negotiating bodies the previous week. 
456. Both texts were work-in-progress but represente d major steps forward.  As recognized by 
Members in the discussions over the previous tw o days, they provided a good starting point for 
Members to negotiate intensively in September.  It was high time Members started negotiating, with 
the month of August for reflection and preparation, if  they were serious about an early and successful 
conclusion of the DDA negotiations and their suppo rt for the multilateral negotiating process.  Her 
delegation looked forward to the c ontinuation of the active engagement that it had witnessed in the 
previous two days and welcomed the process that  the two negotiating gro up Chairs had outlined. 
457. One could not hide from the fact that differences remained, but Members had as guidance the 
mandate from the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the 2004 July Decision and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  Members should not deny  that progress had been made since Ministers had 
last met in Hong Kong in 2005, and since July 2006.   The Chair's texts had certainly provided the 
focus for Members' further work at the multilateral level.  Members had to build on the work already 
done towards an ambitious and balanced outcome of the Doha Development Round, or the efforts TN/C/M/27 
Page 60  
 
  made over several years would be put to wast e and the promise of a development round left 
unfulfilled. 
458. Hong Kong, China looked forwar d to comparably high ambition in the outcome of the Round 
while making the best efforts to live up to its develo pment focus.  Given the nature of its economy, it 
placed a lot of importance to lowering tariff levels  in the context of NAMA.  Within the Single-
Undertaking, her delegation agreed with the Chairman that Members should not forget that there were 
other equally important issues, and it wished to  underline once again the importance of pursuing 
continuous services liberalization a nd robust multilateral trade rules. 
459. Services trade had taken up an enormous part  of the global economy.  Such trade was 
bridging the boundaries of advanced and developing  economic entities.  This was why her delegation 
attached importance to good market opening commitm ents in infrastructural activities such as 
logistics, maritime transport, telecommunications and financial services as well as strong MFN principle and domestic regulation disciplines so  as to ensure that trade was not unnecessarily 
inhibited.  Her delegation was grateful to the ser vices Chair for his quiet but persistent efforts in 
advancing the services negotiations through inform al and formal discussions.  Collective thoughts 
were due on the presentation of the market access package as other tracks advanced. 
460. On rules, the Negotiating Group Chair already had a clear mandate from Ministers.  Her 
delegation looked forward to meani ngful negotiations with other Memb ers in this area in good time.  
It therefore welcomed the clear indication on timeframe  by the Chair at the present meeting.  On trade 
facilitation, the focused discussions needed to con tinue after the summer break with the eventual 
consolidation of the work done.  
461. There were certainly other issues that individual Members would consider important and 
Members should be prepared to work hard in all ar eas in the autumn to achieve the results they had 
collectively pledged.  Members had tried different  means over the years to keep the negotiations 
going but it seemed that they were running out of options and had to bite the bullet as the time had 
come. 
462. The representative of Guatemala
 thanked the Chairman and the Chairs of negotiating groups 
for their reports on the state of play in the negotiatio ns.  In Guatemala's view, agriculture remained at 
the heart of the negotiations and hence his delegation' s objective was to arrive at full modalities.  His 
delegation welcomed the draft text submitted by th e agriculture Chair, and commended his efforts and 
work in directing these negotiations.   
463. The draft text remedied some of the imbalances in the previous challenges paper, primarily in 
the area of domestic support, regarding overall reduction of trade distorting support and the 
introduction of disciplines.  Nevertheless, his dele gation believed that adjustments were still necessary 
in this pillar.   
464. With respect to export competition, his delegati on believed that substan tial progress had been 
achieved on the questions of food aid and export cr edits.  On market access, his delegation believed 
that this was an area which needed to be more cl early defined as Members proceeded with work in 
September.  That being said, he wished to em phasize a few points.  Regarding the formula, and 
specifically in connection with the issue of SVEs, Guatemala believed that the approach outlined in 
paragraphs 51 and 52 of the document was positive.   If Members were to suitably accommodate the 
concerns of SVEs, his delegation believed it was ess ential that the key figures in paragraph 51, which 
specified how small economies were to make th eir reduction contributions, be agreed at 10 ad 
valorem  points and 24 per cent for the average cut.    TN/C/M/27 
 Page 61 
 
 
  465. In his delegation's view, the provisions on acces s to developed-country markets were both 
incomplete and unclear in terms of the contributi ons to be made by these Members.  His delegation 
therefore recommended focusing not only on formula cuts but also on the treatment of sensitive products and fair compensation, elimination of the sp ecial safeguard in Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, tariff simplification, tropical products , and the elimination of tariff escalation.   
466. Regarding SPs and the new SSM, he wished to  point out that these were still of vital 
importance, yet had been left by the wayside.  Members opposing these instruments needed to take a 
positive stand in the discussions, recognizing the di versity of G33 members and the need for more 
favourable treatment than that which was being granted to developed countries.   
467. Turning to the NAMA negotiations, Guatemala welcomed the draft modalities submitted by 
the Chairman.  However, his delegation had comme nts on the document.  The figures proposed for the 
contribution of SVEs, as detailed in paragraph 13, were totally unacceptable.  Furthermore, his 
delegation believed that the document disregarded the principle of less-than-full reciprocity.  His 
delegation's position was that sectoral initiativ es should be on a non-mandatory basis.   
468. The initial reactions by Members to the draft NAMA modalities the previous day had 
indicated that views were poles apart regarding the text, and it was necessary to work on figures that 
would enable Members to bridge gaps rath er than further widen the differences.   
469. In this connection, his delegation saw a marked  imbalance between the draft text submitted in 
the agriculture negotiations and th at in the NAMA negotiations.  It wished to see the concerns of 
SVEs addressed effectively and in accordance with th eir capacities.  The draft text on agriculture had 
recognized these issues and addressed them in a positiv e manner.  His delegation regretted that this 
had not been the case with the NAMA document.  Gu atemala believed that the level of ambition in 
NAMA had to be balanced against the levels of access achieved in the agriculture negotiations.   
470. Lastly, he wished to express renewed apprecia tion for the work done by the Chairs of the 
Negotiating Groups and the work that the Chai rman had accomplished.   His delegation was 
committed to the Doha negotiations, and stood ready to  start work in September with a positive and 
constructive outlook. 
471. The representative of Bangladesh
 said that his delegation recognized the importance of the 
present meeting at this critical juncture of Doha  Round negotiations.  His delegation appreciated the 
Chairman's introductory remarks and his assessment of  the current status of negotiations.  He also 
expressed appreciation for efforts made by the Chai rs of the various Negotiating Groups in producing 
their reports.  He associated his delegation with th e statement by Lesotho on behalf of the LDCs. In 
this context, he wished to flag some issues th at were of concern to Bangladesh as an LDC. 
472. He recalled that Members had agreed that th e Doha Round was to be a development round.  
LDCs expected and hoped that this central idea w ould be the driving force in all the negotiations 
being carried out as part of the Doha Work Progr amme.  An LDC-friendly resolution of these issues 
was critically important to advance developmental interests. 
473. As all Members would agree, the Hong Kong Ministerial Decision on duty-free, quota-free 
market access for LDCs was a framework.  It wa s now the collective responsibility of Members to 
ensure its implementation through concrete modalities both in the context of NAMA and agriculture.  
LDCs demanded nothing less than commercially me aningful market access through implementation 
of the duty-free, quota-free market access Decision.   
474. The Hong Kong Decision had also emphasized the need for simple and transparent rules of 
origin for LDCs.  This was vitally important for enabling LDCs benefit in real terms from duty-free, TN/C/M/27 
Page 62  
 
  quota-free treatment of their products.  His delegation strongly believed that improving rules of origin 
as applied to LDCs should be dealt along with the issue of duty-free, quota-free market access in the 
WTO. 
475. A speedy implementation of the duty-free, quota-free initiative with clear-cut timeline 
towards 100 per cent market access was a sine qua non  for the LDCs.  This was particularly important 
in view of the expected preference erosion that was lik ely to originate from tariff liberalization.  It had 
been well documented that LDCs, such as Bangladesh, would suffer tangible losses in 
competitiveness in markets where they received prefer ential treatment at present.  His delegation had 
noted the proposal by the NAMA Chair to address the concerns of LDCs and developing countries as regards preference erosion.  However, to address the concerns of LDCs in particular, Members needed 
to be more creative in identifying measures to off set the possible negative consequences of preference 
erosion for these countries. 
476. Regarding the demand of LDCs with respect to special priority in GATS and particularly in 
Mode 4, his delegation urged Members to fully engage  in the consultations to address the concerns of 
LDCs. 
477. On S&D treatment, his delegation appreciated the work done by the Chair of the Special 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development.  In this context, it urged Members to expeditiously complete the review of all outst anding Agreement specific proposals.  LDCs had 
demanded an effective mechanism for monitoring the implementation of S&D provisions in all 
agreements. 
478. Lastly, his delegation remained fully committe d to a successful conclusion of the Round as 
early as possible.  Bangladesh was ready to proactiv ely engage in the process and contribute to the 
successful conclusion of Doha Round. 
479. The representative of Viet Nam
 thanked the Chairman for his introductory remarks and 
welcomed the draft texts of the agriculture a nd NAMA Chairs which should serve as the basis for 
upcoming negotiations in September.  He associated  his delegation with all the comments made by 
the RAMs group in various interventions.  He request ed that the statement made by his delegation at 
the informal meeting on agriculture be refl ected in the records of the present meeting.16  He reiterated 
Viet Nam's commitment to work with Member s in the important negotiation process.   
480. The representative of Panama  requested that the statements  made by his delegation on 
behalf of the RAMs at the informal meetings on ag riculture and NAMA be reflected in the records of 
the present meeting.17   
481. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note  of the statements.18 
 
                                                      
16  See Annex I. 
17  See Annexes I and II respectively. 
18  Including the statements re flected in Annexes I and II.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 63 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
 
Statements made by participants at the informal meeting of  
the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture 
held on 24 July 2007 
 
  At their request, the statements made by a num ber of delegations at the informal meeting of 
the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture held on 24 July, are reproduced below as part of 
the minutes of the formal meeting of the TNC held on 26 July. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Statement by Uganda on behalf of the African Group
 
 
 
I.  INTRODUCTION 
 
1. The African Group wishes to express their sin cere appreciation for your dedicated efforts in 
facilitating negotiations in agriculture, despite ail th e difficulties and the divergent interests and levels 
of development of the WTO Membership.  The Group also appreciates your effort in trying to move 
negotiations in agriculture forward.  We recognize that these negotiations are currently at a critical 
stage, and that accordingly there is need for all of us  to be constructive in our approach if this round is 
to be successfully completed.  
2. We appreciate your efforts in producing th e draft modalities text, which as you pointed out 
may not represent precise pre-agreement from the member ship.  In our view, therefore, this modalities 
text represents work in progress, which will need to  be refined into full modalities through further 
negotiations and consultations.  In this regard, the leadership of the Chairs is critical and should 
remain central in this multilateral process.  
3. The African Group would like to re-state a nd emphasize that the Doha Round must remain a 
Development Round.  This means that the outcome of the Doha negotiations must fully reflect the 
development aspirations of the developing and least -developed countries, as contained in the agreed 
mandate of the negotiations.  
4. We take note that the level of specificity in the text differs significantly between the different 
elements of the negotiations.  The Group would also like to stress that the issues that have been given 
less specificity and yet are of great importance to the group must be fully and satisfactorily addressed in your next revised draft.  5. Indeed, we are concerned that many of the issues raised by the African Group throughout the 
negotiations, have not been fully reflected in your dr aft.  We urge you to reflect on them and include 
them in your revised draft.   
II.  PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 
 
 As we wait for instructions from our respec tive capitals, allow me now to make some 
preliminary comments on some specific areas of the draft modalities paper.  TN/C/M/27 
Page 64  
 
  A. Domestic Support 
 
6. The African Group reiterates its position that reductions in trade distorting domestic support 
should result in "real and effective cuts".  The Gr oup notes that the issue of domestic support is more 
developed in your modalities paper in comparison to other issues and you have endeavoured to locate 
points for convergence in some of the areas of Domestic Support. 
 7. The Group agrees that the sought level for OTDS should not allow for further trade distortions in the agriculture sector.  That is why we believe that the level of OTDS should not exceed 
the "low teens". We are also of the view that the base period for calculating the product specific AMS 
should be 1995-2000. 
 8. The Group takes note that some flexibilities have been given to developing members with regard to the reductions in AMS and de minimi s. The Group will carefully study this in the 
assessment of the final result of the final DDA p ackage. The Group appreciates the continuation of 
access to Article 6.2. 
 9. On the Blue Box, we agree on your approach in Paragraph 34 that the Blue box should not exceed 2.5% of the average value of production in the base period 1995-2000 from the beginning of the implementation period.  
10. On the Green Box the Africa Group wishes to re iterate that it stands by its earlier proposal 
that the disciplines to be developed on the green box s hould be stricter to ensure that there will be no 
box shifting. The Group welcomes some changes of the Green Box that would accommodate the 
programs of developing countries.  B. Cotton 
 
11. The African Group welcomes your proposals under the three pillars of the Agriculture negotiations. The Group considers that these propo sals could help in delivering effective and 
appropriate results for cotton.  
12. The Group would also like to stress that th e development aspect of cotton should also be 
taken into account as decided in the July Framework Agreement (Para 5 of Annex A) and in the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Declaration (Para 12). By doing so  the coherence between trade and developments 
aspects for cotton will be observed. In this regard the synoptic table of donor contributions for the 
support to cotton sector in Africa should be kept  outstanding and updated on a regular basis. 
 
13. Similarly the Group stresses the importance of setting up a mechanism to deal with the losses 
of revenue that cotton 3 producer countries in Afri ca are facing, as a result of the decline in world 
cotton prices.  
C. Market Access 
 
14. As regards average level of ambition and th e "tiered formula", the African Group supports the 
view that the average cut for developed countries should be at least 54% and for developing countries 
should be at most 36% allowing for flexibilities fo r SVEs, countries with ceiling bindings and those 
with low homogenous bindings as reflected in para graph 51 and footnote 3 of your draft text. 
 
15. As regards "sensitive products", the proposed  modalities contain some level of specificity, 
while on the other hand "special products" lack such  level of specificity. We note that no numbers 
have been proposed for special products and neither  the treatment of such products. This is an  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 65 
 
 
  indication that we have not progressed enough in this  area to reach concrete modalities. However, we 
reiterate our stand on those Issues.  16. On "special safeguard mechanism (SSM), we  observe that the proposed modalities limit the 
scope of the SSM that will apply, contrary to the proposals made by other developing countries. 
While we understand that further work is still needed on some of this area, we  had expected that the 
draft text would have at least given necessary directions on the way forward.  17. Similarly, while appreciating the complexity of  the issue of tariff escalation, we anticipated 
for the First Revised Modalities to contain some el ements of the proposals that have been made, 
including those from the African Group. 
 18. On the issue of longstanding preferences, th ere is no concrete pr oposal which would have 
given us some degree of comfort and a good orientat ion for further work. While there are references 
to "some trade-based measures", and "lengthening of the implementation period" as one such 
measure, the text does not provide an y concrete solution to the issue. 
 19. On commodities the African Group attaches a lo t of importance to this issue and welcomes 
your language which to some extent accommodates th e group's interests. We request that all the 
elements included in the African Group proposal in cluding clarification of Article XXXVIII of GATT 
1994 should be taken into. 
 
20. With regard to DFQF market access for LDCs your paper restated what is contained in the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. The Group expect ed your modalities paper to indicate how this 
mechanism would be operationalized. We are concerne d that there has been a regression on this issue. 
 D. Export Competition 
 
21. Under this pillar we are concerned that some issues that are of concern to us and 
communicated to you have been left out. For example, on food aid, some issues regarding the declaration of an emergency, the role of the r ecipient government, the role of regional inter-
governmental organizations, and the role of NGOs  or private charitable bodies remain unresolved. 
 
22. With regard to STEs, our group is still reflec ting on your proposal regarding the 5% of share 
of world exports of the products concerned.  23. In the area of export credits, we note that th e flexibilities for LDCs and NFIDCs is not clearly 
spelt out. Therefore there is need to clearly clarif y on the S&D treatment for these countries. We need 
also to stress the importance of implementing the Marrakech decision.  24. Let me conclude by saying that the pro cess can only move fully forward based on full 
modalities addressing ail areas of the negotiations in a balanced manner and fully addressing the 
development dimension as captured in the agreed Manda te. On our part, we wish to assure you of our 
full commitment to the multilateral trading system, an d hence full and constructi ve engagement in the 
DDA multilateral negotiations so that these talks re sult in successful conclusion. The African Group 
has a particular interest in the successful conclu sion of the development r ound, because this Round is 
expected to uplift the living standards of millions of poor people in Africa and the world at large. TN/C/M/27 
Page 66  
 
  Statement by Lesotho on behalf of the LDC Group
 
  1. Thank you Chair for giving me the floor.  
2. The LDCs Group would like to thank you for c onvening this very important meeting at this 
stage of the negotiations.  3. We would like to acknowledge the efforts wh ich the Chair and devoted to putting together 
this document containing proposals on draft modalities for Agriculture. That task, which resulted in 
this package before us today, involved an attempt at  consolidating diverse interests of Members. That, 
one can surmise, should not have been an easy t ask. The LDCs Group, therefore, appreciates and 
commends your efforts  4. The LDCs Group would like to reiterate its  commitment towards the achievement of the 
objectives of the Doha Development Round and wish to firmly and even emphatically underscore the 
centrality of its developmental dimension.   5. Allow the LDCs Group at this stage to make some initial comments on some of the areas that 
are of interest to the LDCs as well as to the rest of the membership.  
6. On Process, the LDCs Group continues to s upport the view that it should be multilateral and 
should seek a balanced package of results. The Group c ontinues to fully subscribe to the principles of 
text based, bottom up, inclusive/participatory and transparent process based in Geneva. These noble 
principles should be fully adhered to. They should not amount to mere pious words or catch phrases 
meant to simply pacify the sceptic s or to placate those on the verge of disillusionment. The LDCs 
Group has noted that there are some important issues that have been deferred to September. The hope 
is that they will be sufficiently and ad equately addressed when that time comes. 
 7. On the substance of the pa per, our Group would like to present its preliminary comments on 
some of key issues of concern and of particular interest to it, as the paper is still being studied. 
 
8. With regard to Duty-Free Quota-Free Market  Access, the Group notes that you have just 
reiterated the contents of proposal 36, contained in  Annex F of Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
The Group expected to have a language on how to operationalize this facility. 
 9. The LDCs Group would like to see effective and commercially meaningful implementation of 
the Hong Kong decision on DFQF market access for LD Cs. In this regard, De veloped countries shall, 
and developing countries in a position to do so, shou ld provide DFQF Market Access for ail products 
originating from all LDCs by 2008, and apply simple and transparent rules of origin in the process. 
For developed countries facing difficulties in providi ng DFQF Market Access,  a specific deadline for 
extending DFQF treatment to 100 % of the tariff lin es should be the end of the implementation period 
as mentioned in paragraph 32 of your previous challenges paper dated 25th May 2007. The LDCs 
Group would like to refer you to its letter, which cl early stipulated the adequate approach to this 
matter.  10. Special Safeguard Mechanism is an importa nt facility for developing countries including 
LDCs. SSM should not be linked to trade liberalizati on. This is because it is a measure intended to 
address import surges, which are not only caused by li beralisation, but could be  consequences of other 
factors. To this effect, facility for developing co untries including LDCs should remain part of the 
outcome of the round.   TN/C/M/27 
 Page 67 
 
 
  11. As regards Domestic Support, the LDCs Group is of the view that the cuts in trade-distorting 
support (Overall Trade Distorting Support) must be su fficiently substantial in order to be effective, 
and thus meet the objectives of the Round set in the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the July Framework Agreement and the Hong Kong. Ministerial Declaration  
12. The LDCs Group welcomes the S&D proposals made  with respect to the cut in OTDS by the 
developing countries, 2 particularly the exemp tion of Net Food Importing Developing Countries 
(NFIDCs) from reduction commitments.   13. In the Export Competition pillar, progress made is  noted, however, as it is the case with other 
pillars, particularly market access, there is room for improvement. 
 14. With regard to Food Aid, the LDCs Group a ppreciates the spirit of the text contained in 
Annex F on Food Aid, particularly because it enabl es prompt response in emergency situations and 
that the safe box food aid will not be subjected to any disciplines. 
 
15. It is important to note that LDCs are among those that are frequently hit by these emergencies. We know that the priority is for the food  to get to those in most need expeditiously. It is 
also recognised that your paper realizes the key role to be played by the recipient government in declarations and appeals, the importance of local / regional sourcing and mone tization of food aid in 
cases of need. We would wish to reiterate the impor tance of recipient governments' involvement in 
needs assessment exercises. 
 16. With regard to export enterprises and expor t credits, LDCs welcome provisions allowing the 
use of monopoly power and flexibilities for use of  export credits. These are important to developing 
countries, particularly LDCs. We have identified a need for further work on S&D provisions for 
LDCs. As regards export credit, there is an unders tanding that LDCs will not be required to undertake 
any reduction commitment in ail elements of e xport competition. However, attempt to develop a 
discipline from export credit with some flexibility  to LDCs appears to be a requirement for 
undertaking commitment. In this context, we require some time to discuss the issue in our Capitals.  
 17. On Cotton, the Group welcomes the proposals in itiated by the Chair on the three pillars of 
Agriculture, which in the view of the Group, could enable appropriate and effective delivery that 
would bear tangible results for those concerned. The Group would like to emphasize the need to take 
into consideration, the developmental aspect of co tton in line with the mandate contained in Annex A 
of the July Framework Agreement and Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. Coherence between 
development and trade should be maintained. 
 
18. The synoptic table of contributions of th e donors for the support of cotton sector should be 
kept outstanding and updated on a regular basis. Similarly, the Group stresses the importance of 
setting up a mechanism for dealing with losses of re venue that cotton producing LDCs are facing as a 
result of declines in cotton prices.  
19. The LDCs Group welcomes your text on commodities that has accommodated its interest. It 
is a tremendous improvement fro m the last challenges paper. 
 20. I wish to reiterate that these are just prel iminary comments. The LDCs Group will continue to 
study the document and remain committed to engage  further in the negotiations under your guidance. 
We would like to reassure you of its readiness to work towards a successful conclusion of the Round 
and towards realizations of its development oriented objectives. 
 TN/C/M/27 
Page 68  
 
  Statement by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Group
 
   The ACP appreciates your efforts in presenting this draft modalities text on Agriculture.  To the extent that this draft assists in fully engaging all the membership of the WTO, at the multilateral 
level, the ACP Group welcomes this process.  As  we have expressed before, for the ACP Group, 
engagement at the multilateral level is paramount.  We  expect, therefore, that your text which we view 
as a work in progress will help us to advance our  deliberations in a multilateral framework.   
  Chair, I would like to reiterate that the prin ciples of transparency, inclusiveness and a bottom-
up approach are of vital importance to the ACP Group.   This we hope will lead to effective and real 
participation by all members.  Further, as you yoursel f have stated, Chair, this process should take as 
long as it takes.  We therefore recommend that a ca utious approach be maintained in setting any new 
deadlines.  This is particularly important as we e xpect the negotiations to proceed in a balanced and 
equitable manner leading to full modalities.  Th e Group will not agree or accept “partial modalities” 
and believes that until complete modalities contai ning all the elements of a decision are fully 
developed, all proposals remain on the table.   Although we note with interest that this text  contains some new inputs for the modalities in 
Agriculture, the document does not contain the same level of specificity within pillars and across 
pillars.  The Domestic Support and Export Competiti on pillars, for example, appear to be more 
developed than that on Market Access.  This la tter point is noteworthy for the ACP Group as the 
Market Access pillar is by far the most important  pillar for the ACP Group and this needs to be 
addressed fully in the upcoming negotiations.     At this time, therefore, let me present our pre liminary views on some of the issues that are of 
key interest to the ACP Group, as we await guidance from capitals. 
 
Market Access Pillar 
 
 Firstly, the ACP Group notes that in the Market Access pillar, modalities language is missing on issues that, from an ACP perspective, are vital to giving effect to the development dimension. This 
is particularly the case in respect of long-standing preferences, tariff escalation, commodities, Special 
Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism. On  the other hand, we note the new elements 
incorporated in the text in connection with the formula and are encouraged by the proposals on the 
treatment of Small and Vulnerable Economies and c ountries with ceiling bindings.  The inclusion of 
other ACP members in this specific proposal is important to the Group as it acknowledges the 
inequitable contribution which w ould have had to be made by AC P members in terms of tariff 
reductions.  However, we note that the numbers whic h are important to us in  paragraphs 51 and 52 
remain within brackets.  It will be important to  the ACP Group that these numbers are maintained and 
agreed, and brackets be removed.     On the key mechanisms of Special Products  (SPs) and the Special Safeguard Mechanism 
(SSM), we fully endorse the statement made by the distinguished Ambassador of Indonesia on behalf 
of the G-33.  The Ambassador in his statement articulated in a fairly detailed manner, some of the specific concerns regarding the draft modalities on SPs and the SSM and the elements of the text that 
will require clarification and further development.     
 Regarding SPs, we are also encouraged by your  reaffirmation of the right of developing 
countries to self designate an appropriate level of  tariff lines as Special Products, as well as your 
suggestion that we should use the G33 Revised list of Indicators as the basis for further discussions. We also find encouraging the various options whic h you have placed on the table for the selection of 
SPs.  Nevertheless, we have to express our concerns  about some of the other elements in the text,  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 69 
 
 
  including your specific proposal that we should quantify concepts such as ‘significant proportion’ and 
that Indicators should be open to verification.  With respect to the treatment of SPs, the ACP Group 
maintains that an appropriate percentage of our SPs  should be exempt from tariff reduction and in that 
regard your position that you still maintain your vi ews which were outlined in your Challenges Paper 
in June is of concern to the Group.   
 
 The ACP also shares the views expressed by th e Ambassador of Indonesia on the elements 
contained in your text on the SSM.    On Commodities, the ACP group would like to reiterate its acknowledgement on the progress 
made on this issue.   We however, are of the view that all elements of the proposal put forward by the 
African Group need to be reflected in final modalities.    On the issue of Longstanding Preferences and Preference Erosion, our expectations have not 
been met by the draft modalities text.  Indeed, in our recent Submission to you, Chair, we had re-
emphasized that it would be difficult for the ACP Group to agree to any consensus on a modalities 
text which does not effectively address our concerns on preference erosion.  This continues to be the 
case since there has been no concrete proposal made on this issue in your revised text. 
  Our views on this subject and its importance to  us are well-known.  The Group maintains that 
trade-related solutions, alongside non-trade rela ted ones, at the multilateral level are the only 
acceptable solutions.  These would effectively address the implications and adjustments as a result of 
the erosion of preferences, thereby ensuring the success of the major economic reforms in which our 
countries are engaged.    Therefore, the ACP Group takes careful note of  your observations that there will be trade-
based measures involved in addressing this issue (and that these will not be restricted to sugar and 
bananas).  It is our strong view that the proposal s made under Paragraph 36 of the Draft Modalities on 
Agriculture of 12 July 2006 (TN/AG/W/3) are impor tant benchmarks for devising such trade-based 
measures.   For the ACP Group, therefore, the proposals in your first draft modalities text of last year 
remain on the table and should form an integral pa rt of full modalities which we have been all calling 
for.  As a reflection of our constructive engageme nt, we are working on a revised list of products 
benefiting from preferences.  In the process, we  will consider the analytical work done by the 
Secretariat in Attachment 2 of your current text.  
 With respect to DFQF market access for LDCs – we support the African Group’s comments 
and those of the LDC Group.  
Domestic Support Pillar 
 
 On the Domestic Support Pillar, the ACP Group maintains its high expectation for effective 
reductions in the level of overall trade distorting su pport in developed countries, significantly below 
current levels.  The ACP Group also has concerns wi th certain elements of the proposed modalities on 
the Blue Box and the Green Box.  The Group will provi de more detailed comments at a later stage.   
 
Export Competition Pillar 
 
 On the Export Competition Pillar, the focus of our  comments at this stage is on the issue of 
Food Aid and the Special and Differential Treatment elements of this pillar.  Here, the ACP Group 
has concerns regarding some of your specific proposals including on the role of recipient countries TN/C/M/27 
Page 70  
 
  and the role of NGOs.  The Group also has some sp ecific concerns regarding the approach which you 
have suggested with regard to State Trading Enterprises (STEs).  
Cotton 
  On the very important issue of cotton, the ACP Group welcomes your proposals under the 
three pillars of the Agriculture negotiations.  Th e Group considers that these proposals could help in 
delivering effective and appropriate results for Cott on.  In addition, we fully associate ourselves with 
the statements made by Benin on behalf of the C- 4 countries and by Uganda on behalf of the African 
Group including those elements related to the develo pment aspects and treating with loss of revenue.  
 
 The ACP Group intends to provide detailed co mments and positions on these and other issues 
raised in your modalities text during the upcomi ng process beginning in September. Please be assured 
of our continued full engagement in this process and of  our support as we seek to arrive at a balanced 
conclusion to the Agriculture negotiations.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 71 
 
 
  Statement by India  
   I would like to begin by thanking you for producing a document which reflects the negotiating realities.  You have capt ured well the progress, or the lack of it, on all aspects of the Ag 
negotiations, with the attendant nuances.  You have shown a mirror to us collectively, warts and all 
and asked us to reflect on how and where we want to take the negotiations. What you have given us 
now is a comprehensive working document which can be the basis of a sustained and serious 
multilateral negotiation.  
 India associates itself fully with the statement made by Brazil on behalf of the G-20 and by 
Indonesia on behalf of the G-33. India also extends  its support to the statements made on behalf of 
other groups of developing countries like the C-4, African Group, ACP, LDCs and the SVEs. 
  You have acknowledged in your introduction that some areas of the negotiations are more 
developed than others. From our pe rspective, several of the issues which are less developed relate to 
critical interests of developing countries. These in clude the issues of SPs and SSMs.  An explicit 
acknowledgement of the obvious is important here  because we cannot envisage an outcome which 
does not have final determinations  on all aspects of the negotiations. 
  I am aware that this is not the occasion for us to go into too much detail on issues of concern 
to us in your draft text.   Nevert heless, I consider it important to fl ag a number of concerns that we 
have.  
1. In your proposals on the formula for tari ff reductions for developing countries, while 
accepting the G-20 thresholds, you have proposed  that developing countries should take 
2/3rds of the cuts of developed countries with a maximum average reduction of 36 to 40%. 
The proposals made by the G-20 in this regard fully reflected the differences in the tariff 
structures of developing countries as compared to developed countries and were designed to 
deliver on overall proportionality.   At the end of  the day, it is the yardstick of overall 
proportionality which will determine for us whethe r we have arrived at an outcome which is 
equitable. We will come back to this issue in September. 
 
2. Secondly, we are disappointed with your  treatment of tariff capping and tariff 
simplification. While tariff capping is barely  mentioned, we can discern very little ambition 
on the issue of tariff simplification, which is of  vital interest to many  developing countries. 
Developing countries have been consistently demanding high ambition on these issues in the 
interest of systemic equity. These are important issues and will have to be addressed 
resolutely as they have a direct bearing on the balance in ambition between agriculture and 
NAMA. 
 
3. Thirdly, in your proposals on the Green Box, you have incorporated a number of proposals furnished by the G-20 and others.  A number of developing country concerns like 
public stock holding for food security purposes, domestic food aid etc. remain unaddressed or 
partially addressed. On develope d country programmes, we woul d have expected some more 
ambition in a number of areas like direct payments to producers and decoupled income support. It is very important that the negotiati ons on the Green Box conclude with clear rules 
and disciplines to ensure that Green Box pr ogrammes remain non-distorting or minimally 
distorting. 
 
4. On the issues of SPs and SSMs, we have  noted your proposals. We are certainly 
willing to engage on the basis of the structure that you have outlined. Nevertheless, it is important for us to highlight that we will n eed to address issues such as thresholds, data TN/C/M/27 
Page 72  
 
  availability etc. in the context of indicators in  a pragmatic manner. Similarly, the issue of 
treatment of special products would also benefit from a pragmatic and need based approach. On SSM, I would echo the caution voiced by the Philippines earlier. The SSM has to be 
designed as an effective instrument to enable de veloping countries to deal with import surges.  
It cannot be defanged so much that it is not able to play that role. 
 
5. On the issue of OTDS cuts, the ambition is clearly defined by the mandate for effective cuts. While we stand  ready to engage  in defining this manda te through numbers, the 
range suggested by you, prima facie, would make  it difficult to achieve this mandate. I need 
not reiterate that the ambition on OTDS cuts will have a very significant bearing on the 
overall ambition of the Round. 
  A final word on the issue of the mandate.  We  have heard some members speak today about 
redlines.   For us, the big redline is the sanctity of the mandate.   We are in a very delicate phase of the 
negotiations and what we need is constructive e ngagement within the boundaries of the mandate.  
Any attempts to go beyond the mandate and to introduce new ideas,  including on the issue of 
privileged immunity from Dispute Settlement would deal a serious blow to the prospects of early conclusion of the negotiations.   We will revert to these and other issues in th e intensive engagements that we envisage in 
September.  We remain convinced that a serious  multilateral negotiation without the pressure of 
artificial timelines is the only way we can achieve an out come which is fair, equitable and sustainable.   
Such an outcome, in the context of this deve lopment Round, would have  to address with equal 
intensity, the issues of distortions in develope d countries and the need for appropriate accommodation 
of the development concerns of developing countries.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 73 
 
 
  Statement by the Dominican Republic on behalf of the SVEs  
   We would like to thank you for your document ci rculated on July 17th, which contains a draft 
revision of Modalities for the Agricultural Negotiations . We reiterate that the most positive aspect of 
this process is that we continue to work on a mu ltilateral basis, conducted by you as the Chairman of 
this Committee, on which all Members have the opportu nity to give their views, with the aim of 
reaching a satisfactory agreement for all delegations.  In this regard, we would like to express the 
preliminary views of the Small, Vulnerable Economies,  regarding the issues of our utmost interest. In 
general, we consider that the document that you have presented goes in the right direction, and 
therefore we are prepared to con tinue advancing in these negotiations. 
  We think that the focus and criteria used by you for the identification of Small, Vulnerable 
Economies is adequate. We have to take into account that for us it was very difficult to find criteria 
that reflected the real situation of our economies,  and that at the same time were balanced. We 
consider that the list of countries contained in A nnex C, reflects appropriate ly the countries which are 
Small, Vulnerable Economies and who therefore, s hould have additional flexibilities, in the modalities 
that we agree.   Furthermore, we support the proposal contai ned in paragraphs 51 and 52, for the tariff 
reduction that should apply to our group. Through the course of these negotiations, the Small, 
Vulnerable Economies group has shown flexibility th rough the different proposals that we have 
presented, with the aim of contributing in this pro cess; in this sense, we would like to point out that 
our support to other sections of your document w ill depend on the acceptance of the current figures of 
10 and 24 mentioned in p. 51.  
 With respect to paragraphs 90 and 97 whic h contain provisions relative to the Special 
Products, and to paragraphs 98 and 110, relative to the Special Safeguard Mechanism, we would like 
to support the intervention of the Ambassador of Indon esia, on behalf of the G-33. With respect to the 
treatment of Special Products, we stress that it s hould include a percentage of tariff lines that would 
not be subject to tariff reduction, nor tariff quota commitments.  
 Finally, we reiterate our willingness to continue  working constructively with you, so that we 
can reach full modalities that reflect  the interests of all Members. 
 TN/C/M/27 
Page 74  
 
  Statement by Paraguay
 
  1. The delegation of Paraguay wishes to begi n by thanking you for the hard work you have 
done, not only in drafting the document that you have  submitted to us, but also in your steadfast 
endeavours to reconcile positions that often differ widely.  Our delegation is  ready to support you in 
order to save the multilateral process, because it believes that this is the area in which equity and good 
faith can prevail in the negotiations.  2. I should also like to associate myself with the statements made by the delegation of Brazil on 
behalf of the G-20 and of Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group, which have clearly expressed some 
of my delegation's views on your draft modalities.  3. However, I cannot but stress the concern of Paraguay, a small and vulnerable land-locked 
economy, regarding the real likelihood of achieving  what is set out in paragraph 13 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration. 
 4. The figures you propose with regard to dom estic support are still far from enabling us to 
achieve the objective of "substantial reductions", as US$13 billion and US$16 billion are still far 
higher than the amounts currently applied.  Conse quently, we shall merely be avoiding any further 
exacerbation of these unjust measures, but not succeeding in reducing them, which is what was 
agreed. 
 5. My country considers that it is not by accord ing exceptions and allowing flexibilities that we 
shall be able to achieve development, offer food security and guarantee means of subsistence for rural 
populations, but by strengthening export opportunities,  thereby allowing participation in the benefits 
that can derive from access to markets.  Accordi ngly, it views with concern the proliferation of 
defensive mechanisms in agriculture, on the part  of developed and developing countries alike. 
 6. We are concerned at the situation that we find in the market access pillar where, while we 
have some figures regarding tariff cuts, these are cancelled out by the successive layers of protection claimed by some developed countries, such as tari ffs without caps, sensitive products, wide scope for 
divergence from the tariff cuts formula, quotas, in tra-quota tariffs, and even the absurd maintenance 
of the safeguard mechanism of the Agreement on Ag riculture.  On this mechanism, my delegation, 
along with others, submitted a document graphically illust rating its lack of consistency.  If to this we 
add the ambiguity regarding the form in which th ese flexibilities will be applied, we do not see how 
we will be able to fulfil our mandate of achiev ing a substantial improvement in market access. 
 
7. As you rightly say in paragraphs 90 and 98 of your document, we still need further 
development of the flexibilities envisaged for deve loping countries with regard to special products 
and the special safeguard mechanism which, as you know, is a matter of great concern to my delegation, which hopes that these instruments will be  used exclusively for the ends agreed by our 
Ministers and will not come to constitute new barriers to trade. 
 
8. I shall finish this statement here.  Let us, as you very rightly propose,  work intensely starting 
in September, on the negotiations on the basis of th is document, which we can accept as a basis for 
those negotiations.  
 We indeed hope that those negotiations will truly focus on development, that they will 
correspond to the mandates give n, and that they will be transparent and inclusive. 
  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 75 
 
 
  Statement by Kenya  
   The Kenya delegation joins others in thanking you for your continuing efforts in leading and 
focusing the negotiations within the multilateral process. 
 
 Kenya too is making preliminary comments pendi ng consultations with the capital. We are 
also building on statements by Uganda speaking on behalf of the African Group, Jamaica representing 
the ACP Group, Indonesia speaking on behalf of the G33 and Benin on behalf of the C4.  We fully 
endorse these statements.  
 
 Chair, we appreciate that you have made ge nuine effort to accommodate the concerns of 
members in the draft modalities text. However we note that the level of precision on the issues 
addressed in the draft text remain unbalanced. In this  connection, we note the way the three pillars are 
addressed in the text reflect different levels of ma turity. The market access pillar in particular seems 
to be lagging behind the other tw o pillars, especially on aspects of in terest to developing countries. 
We therefore suggest that more focus be given to the elements in this pillar.   On domestic support, Kenya would like to em phasize that reductions in domestic support 
must lead to "real and effective cuts" in accordance  with the mandate. On the Blue Box and the Green 
Box we remain concerned about the possibility of box shifting. We will however come back to the 
membership with detailed comments in September. 
  On market access we appreciate and welcome the recognition in the text of the unsustainable 
adjustment burden that countries with ceiling binding s would face in these negotiations as reflected in 
paragraph 49 and 51.  We also welcome the provisi on in footnote three that gives the eligibility for 
SVE treatment for countries that meet the criteri a set out in paragraph 137 of the Draft Text. 
  Regarding Special products, we believe that as suggested in the Draft Text, the G33 indicators 
should be used as the basis for further discussions. In that case, these indicators should therefore be 
inc1uded in Annex B of the Draft Text. Your sugg estion to negotiate thre sholds and parameters 
within the indicators seems to constrain the principle of self designation as provided for in the Hong-
Kong mandate and reflected in paragraph 91 of the text. In addition, given the diversity within the 
G33 member countries it would be difficult to put any thresholds in the indicators.   However, Kenya believes that there is need for a certain minimum percentage of special 
products which should be higher than the number of  sensitive products for developing countries. We 
are concerned that the Draft Modalities text contains  no new developments on the treatment of Special 
Products. Kenya maintains that a certain percenta ge of Special products should be exempted from 
tariff reductions.   Regarding the SSM, we fully endorse the sentiment s that have been put forward by Indonesia. 
However, we wish to highlight that arising from our experiences at the domestic level it would be 
difficult for Kenya to accept a restriction that does not allow tariffs to go beyond the Uruguay Round 
bound level even in special circumstances.   On commodities we appreciate the inclusion of paragraphs 72 to 82 of the draft text. We however suggest that reference should be made to  GATT Article XXXVIII (38) and a new Article be 
included in the Agreement on Agricultu re as proposed by the African Group. 
  On preferences, we are concerned that the draft text has not progressed beyond the position 
taken in the "challenges paper". We underscore that the non-trade solution proposed in the draft text TN/C/M/27 
Page 76  
 
  should only be complementary to the trade solution to be agreed upon. We however acknowledge that 
longer implementation period should be consid ered as a practical outcome in this area. 
  With respect to Export Competition, we unde rscore the importance of effectively addressing 
the mandate on NFIDCs and LDCs in accordance with the Marrakesh Decision. 
 
 Chair, while we appreciate the approach ta ken in the Draft Text on STEs in developing 
countries, we are concerned about the percentage an d the number of years proposed in paragraph 4C 
of the Draft Modalities Text. We propose that these two figures should be in brackets since they have 
not been discussed and agreed upon. 
 
 On food Aid we share the concerns that have been expressed by the African Group.   On the whole we view the text as work in progress.  
 Finally, let me express Kenya' s readiness to  continue to work closely with you and the 
membership in order to ensu re a successful conclusion of the Doha Development Round. 
  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 77 
 
 
  Statement by Honduras  
   On this occasion we wish to thank you for your  document, which contains the first revision of 
the draft modalities, enabling us to continue in th e framework of the multilateral process.  We value 
your efforts to try to reconcile the various positions  of Members, especially those of the developing 
countries and, within that group, those of the sm all and vulnerable economies.  We also wish to 
support the statements made by the delegations of  Indonesia on behalf of the G-33 and of the 
Dominican Republic on behalf of th e small and vulnerable economies. 
 
 Generally speaking we consider that the a pproach proposed for the small economies is the 
right one.  We can support the figures proposed in paragraph 51, although the number and treatment 
for Special Products remains unclear to us.  In this regard we wish to reiterate what we have said on 
previous occasions, namely, that an open economy such as that of Honduras, which does not distort international trade and which has onl y tariffs to protect its farmers, needs at least a percentage of 
Special Products, without tariff reduction.  We ar e pleased to see that you recognize the list of 
indicators for selection of Special Products, submitted by the G-33, and also the possibility of using international and domestic figures;  we think th at when trying to quantify these indicators, the 
approach used should not be so restrictive as to prevent the mandate of self-designation of these 
products from becoming operational.  Similarly, we  urge you to include again, in your second 
revision, your proposal contained in the previous document to the effect  that developing countries that 
do not use Sensitive Products should have access to more Special Products. 
  With regard to Annex F, we are in fa vour of non-governmental organizations being 
recognized on the same footing as United Nations ag encies, and we are also in favour of permitting 
monetization of in-kind food aid. 
 
 Once again, we support what was said by the coordinator of the G-33 regarding the Special 
Safeguard Mechanism, and consider that the a pproach proposed for the small economies serves as a 
basis for continuing our work in the near future;  we are wholly ready to work positively with a view 
to achieving an agreement on modalities that reflects the interests of all Members. 
 
 Let me conclude by turning to a topic that is very sensitive for my country, a topic which 
relates to many elements of the agricultural negotia tions, namely the bananas issue, which is currently 
the subject of several negotiating processes in the WTO, among which there is a commitment to 
negotiate that would cover a number of elements relating to market access within the agricultural 
negotiations.  I do not intend, at this stage, to ad dress each one of these elements.  However, this is a 
matter of concern to me, and I am therefore seeking cl arification:  in Attachment 2 of your paper, we 
find a current bound tariff of 117.5 per cent, which is  equivalent to €680 per tonne.  We also find a 
new bound rate of 29.3 per cent, equiva lent to approximately €176 per tonne. 
  We would be grateful if you could clarify this, since although the bound tariffs in the EC 
Schedules are €75 per tonne and €680 per tonne, betw een 1995 and 2005 all bananas entered the EC 
with a tariff of €75 per tonne, and the tariff of €6 80 per tonne was never applied. In accordance with 
the law and with the different rulings of the WT O, your presumption should therefore be revised. 
  This subject is of the utmost importance for my country, and as you indicated, it is the "big 
ticket" that needs to be resolv ed before reaching an agreement in the Doha framework;  but as I 
mentioned, a number of processes are under way in th is connection, which explains why I wanted to 
call your attention to this particular matter.  TN/C/M/27 
Page 78  
 
  Statement by Thailand
 
   Let me begin by joining othe r delegates in expressing our than ks and appreciation to you for 
your hard work and dedicated efforts in trying to consolidate the concerns of WTO Members in 
agriculture talks and offer us the draft modalities wh ich, in our view, is a great improvement over the 
previous challenges papers.   My delegation endorses the statements by Brazil for the G20 and by Australia for the Cairns 
Group and would like to share our preliminary observations on some of the issues of paramount 
importance to us, bearing in mind the opportunity to  engage in more detaile d discussion in September. 
  We welcome the draft formulation and view  it as a good starting point for the modalities 
build-up process, though there remain many areas where we have serious concerns that need to be 
clarified, especially in the domestic support and market access pillars wher e substantial reductions 
and significant improvements are the main objectives of the Doha Mandate. 
  On domestic support, we think you are on the right track of moving closer to the lower teens. It is necessary to ensure that the overall cut in subsidies will remove the distortion of the farm trade 
practices that hurt farmers from developing countries. And the only way to do th is is to cut subsidies 
at the lower end of the range. 
 
 The OTDS cuts must also be accompanied by effective disciplines on a product specific basis. 
We are worried that the current formulation prov ides more flexible terms on product-specific AMS 
and the Blue Box caps to some countries. Disci plines need to be strengthened to prevent 
circumvention through shifting of subsidies between different boxes and through the use of bias-base 
period. We reaffirm our strong belief that the 1995-2000 levels be adopted as the base period for 
developed countries as levels for ot her periods provide too high a level of subsidies than necessary. 
  On the green Box, particularly the decoupled  income support, the text appears to undermine 
the principle of de-linking payments from producti on and price by allowing Members to update the 
base period. The base year must be made constant to  ensure that the measures have no, or at most 
minimal trade distorting effects or effects on production. 
  On market access, we are concerned that flex ibilities impede the benefits of the formula and 
wish to point out that considerable work remain s to be done in many key areas, namely capping, 
sensitive products, SP, SSG and SSM to boost the level of ambition. 
 
 On the tiered formula, the range of top-tier tariff cuts for developed countries is still lower 
than the 75% reduction proposed by the Cairns  Group and the G20 as the centre of gravity. 
Accordingly, it may have a domino effect to the ove rall market access reform as the top band headline 
has a bearing on the linkage with the cuts in th e lower bands and the other market access elements. 
 
 Capping is also one of the vital elements of the formula. Regrettably,  capping is absent from 
the draft. Without this, the high tariff will rema in much too high and undermine the concept of 
proportionality and the tiered formula.   On sensitive product, the number is beyond reasonable level and the treatment, including 
deviation and expansion of tariff quot a remain unclear due to its complexity. Hence, flexibilities need 
to be reassessed to ensure that there are meaningf ul market opportunities and the integrity of the tiered 
approach remains intact. In our view, a devia tion above 40% could not produce any meaningful 
market access result.   TN/C/M/27 
 Page 79 
 
 
   We also insist on the complete elimination of the SSG from the start of the implementation 
period.   On SP, we look forward to an intensive draf ting process and agree that the designation of SP 
be based on indicators which are transparent, ob jective and verifiable. Furthermore, SP must be 
subject to both tariff reduction and quota expansion to preserve a certain degree of liberalization, 
particularly for those few products on  which our farmers depend for export. 
  On export subsidies, we recognize a number of  positive elements refl ected in the draft, 
including the elimination of an forms of export subsidies by 2013 through both volume and value 
commitments. However, the steps for phasing out of  export subsidies may pose some problem and we 
believe that the 50% reduction in the first year is absolutely necessary.   We welcome the structure outlined in the food aid provisions and the inclusion of the provisions that would prevent the continuation of  export subsidies and commercial displacement, 
including that food aid must be in fully grant form . Nevertheless, there are still problems that need to 
be addressed including disciplines in and outside the safe box, the involvement of the NGOs and the 
monetization of food aid.   It is also important to formulate clear te rms and conditions on expor t financing support in 
order to ensure consistency with real market  behaviour, while taking into account developing 
countries' needs and interests. We thus wonder wh y the draft backtracks from the July framework by 
providing some exception on the 180 days repayment period. We look forward to fuller engagement 
on the export credits issue.   Last but not least, monitoring and surveillance is  an essential element to  ensure transparency 
in all the three pillars. We believe the G-20 and the Cairns Group contributions provide a good basis 
for further work in this area.   In conclusion, my delegation stands ready to  work constructively with you and the other 
members to ensure that the outcomes of this ne gotiation achieve the objectives as mandated by our 
Ministers in Doha. 
 TN/C/M/27 
Page 80  
 
  Statement by Nigeria
 
   My delegation would like to thank you for co nvening this meeting. Like other delegations 
before me, Nigeria would also like to clearly state that we consider the Draft Modalities for 
Agriculture, which you circulated on 11
th July, 2007 as work-in-progress.  In that regard, the 
comments we make here today are essentially preliminary.   However, in doing that we would like to reiterate  the fact that Agriculture remains at the heart 
of the Doha Development Agenda. The reason for th is is obvious as the majority of our population 
depend on the sector for their subsistence and survival, which have for many decades remained 
threatened by the huge domestic agricultural subs idies and extensive agricultural market access 
barriers of developed countries. This situation has continued to aggravate poverty among our already 
impoverished and poor people. Therefore, for Nige ria and most other members of the developing 
world, the issue of agricultural trade liberalisati on is one of livelihoods rather than profits or 
commercial interests. Agricultural trade liberalisat ion remains for us an important aspect of the 
development dimension of the Doha Round.   Since this is our initial reaction to the Draf t Modalities for Agriculture, we would like focus 
mainly on a few broad concerns. First, we have obser ved that while you have attempted to reflect the 
views of most Members, the document does not contain the same detail in all its sections. It also does 
not make specific recommendations in many areas, including but not limited to Special Products, 
Special Safeguard Mechanism, longstanding preferen ces, tariff escalation, tariff simplification and 
commodities. We are, therefore, c oncerned that this approach would lead to partial modalities, which 
we remain unwilling to support or approve. We in sist on full modalities largely because that is the 
only approach that would enable us to empi rically assess not only the overall balance in the 
agriculture negotiations, but also the balance betw een agriculture and NAMA. We also consider full 
modalities as an insurance policy against delaying solu tions on certain issues to a later stage, which 
may be subsequently overlooked or ignored with impunity.   Second, we note that the majority of the key figures which you have proposed that would establish the level of reductions required in do mestic support, agricultural tariffs, and export 
competition appear in the draft texts as ranges. Wh ile some delegations have already indicated their 
unwillingness to support a final Doha Round agreement th at would reflect these ranges, our concern is 
largely more fundamental. For example, with regard  to ODTS, the range you have proposed contrasts 
sharply with the African Group and G-20 group proposals of $10-12billion and $12 billion, respectively. However, regarding tariff cuts, yo u have proposed a maximum average reduction range 
of 36 to 40 per cent compared with the G-20 propos al of a maximum of 36 per cent and the ACP and 
African Group proposal of a maximum of 24 per cent. We consider this punitive, as it obliges us to negotiate outside those ranges that are consistent with our level of development and the policy space 
that we consider necessary for the achievement our development objectives. As one delegation has 
aptly captured it, your proposals have constrained us to negotiate north of the G- 20 wherever we have 
defensive interest and south of the G-20 where we have offensive interests. We, therefore, consider 
this as a contradiction of the spirit of a development round. 
  Third, the Draft Modalities for Agriculture have  ignored the views of the majority who want 
disciplines on the Green Box as well as a monitori ng and surveillance mechanism to prevent box 
shifting and abuse in developed countries. We also observe that you provide no criteria for important 
areas like direct payments; and no indicators or thresholds on criteria for decoupled payments. 
  Fourth, as we sit in this room and listen to delegations, we are becoming increasingly confused about the overall status of the whole draft modalities text. We believe that since the 
beginning of this process, this is about the third or fourth paper to be issued by you in the series. Some  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 81 
 
 
  delegations are referring to this text as the first revi sed draft. The question is, is there no linkage with 
the previous papers? Is the next revision that you would produce going to the last one?  In the face of 
these uncertainties, my delegation would urge you to give priority to those areas that clearly require 
further work, in order to increase the level of comfort within the entire membership. 
 
 In conclusion, my delegation fully supports the statements made by Uganda on behalf of the 
African Group, Jamaica on behalf of the ACP, Brazil on behalf of the G-20, and Indonesia on behalf 
of the G-33. 
 TN/C/M/27 
Page 82  
 
  Statement by Viet Nam
 
   Thank you for giving me the floor to speak on behalf of the delegation of Vietnam on a very 
important moment of multilateral trading system. 
 
 First, like several members speaking before me, I would like to express our sincere thanks for all your works in incorporating information from various discussions under this committee into a 
workable negotiating document before us today. I w ould take this chance to endorse the statement by 
H.E Ambassador of Panama on behalf of recent acceding members of the WTO welcoming the 
positive elements of your first revision of the draf t modalities for the agriculture negotiations and in 
the meantime raising some of the collec tive legitimate concerns of the group.  
  Second, for Vietnam, without prejudice to the upcoming positions of my government along 
the development of these negotiations, and due to the preliminary nature of this meeting as you 
mentioned at the outset, I could not resist my temptation in addressing one of the points of our 
concerns to seek for your clarification, if it is po ssible. This is in relation to simple and clear cut 
paragraph 40 in the second installment of your chal lenge paper acknowledging the fact that the very 
recent acceding member like mine “should not be subjected to further new Doha Round 
undertakings”. However, in your recent revision of th e draft modalities, such treatment, by accident, is 
just once mentioned in the Part II when you are d ealing with market access issue. In my reading of 
your challenge paper, the treatment should also c over the domestic support pillar as well, given our 
commitment of domestic support at a minimal leve l for policy space in our agriculture sector and 
recognizing the already brave and encouraging co mmitment of this member to eliminate export 
subsidies and bind it at zero level right upon accession.  For your upcoming revision, we expect very 
much that our point on this issue will be duly taken in line with the previous structure of your 
challenge paper.  
  Furthermore, on this opportunity, I wish you to put on your record the interest of my country on the issues of tropical product, the selection a nd treatment of sensitive products and any possible 
intention to discipline export tax in agriculture sector.   
 Finally, I thank  you for all of your mediati on efforts and  our delegation is looking forwards 
to constructive engagement with other members al ong this inclusive negotiations process under your 
able, fair and transparent leadership for the successful conclusion of this development round.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 83 
 
 
  Statement by Panama on behalf of the Recently-Acceded Members (RAMs)  
   I am making this statement on behalf of the Recently Acceded Members: Albania, Armenia, China, Croatia, Ecuador, Former Yugoslav Repu blic of Macedonia, Jordan, Kyrgyz Republic, 
Moldova, Mongolia, Oman, Panama, Saudi Arabia, The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and Viet Nam.   The RAM's group welcomes your first revision of the draft modalities for the agriculture negotiations and thanks you for this  opportunity to present our views. 
 
 We support all your efforts and hard work g eared towards bringing the process back to 
Geneva; it is c1ear that your paper is intended to take Members out of their comfort zones with the 
purpose of creating an environment for real engagement in these negotiations. 
 
 Having said that, our group would like to make very preliminary comments on your proposed 
text.   As we have pointed out in previous meeti ngs, as well as in our proposal contained in 
document TN/AG/GEN/24 of 13 March 2007, the ques tion of the appropriate treatment for RAMs has 
been part of the agenda since the negotiations st arted back in 2001. The Doha Declaration, the 
Framework Agreement and the Hong Kong Declaration, incorporate special provisions for RAMs. 
  We strongly believe that the extensive level of commitments made by the RAMs, legitimates 
the position of the group which call for differen tiated treatment within these negotiations. Our 
approach takes into account different realities which exist among member's schedules and seeks to 
achieve a more balanced outcome. 
  On the market access pillar, we appreciate th e fact that your draft modalities incorporates 
some of our views by recognizing the need for RAMs flexibilities as to a longer implementation 
period, a moderation of the cuts made under the tiered formula and an exemption for some low bound 
duties. However, we believe that the numbers atta ched to these flexibilities ar e too low and thus "less 
than moderate".  Both the grace period and the im plementation period should be longer than what you 
have proposed;  the moderation of the cuts  in each band must be higher than 5 ad valorem  points 
compared to the cut they would otherwise have be en required to make; and bound duties at and below 
10 per cent should be exempt from reduction.  
 As regards the domestic support pillar, we  insist on having a longer grace period and 
implementation period. We must reiterate the fact that our "de minimis" levels are low enough in 
comparison with leve1s of almost all developi ng Members, not to mention developed Members. 
Therefore, we must insist that RAMs who have bound AMS commitments maintain their current "de 
minimis" level and should not be subject to any reduction commitments.  
 More importantly, given the more extensive co mmitments made by all the RAMs than those 
assumed by other developing Members in the Uruguay Round, it is only fair that all the RAMs be 
entitled to the S&D treatment provided for developi ng Members in the Market Access and Domestic 
Support pillars as you have alluded to in your challe nge paper. We therefore would request that this 
provision be clearly stipulated in futu re revisions of your draft modalities text. 
 
 We appreciate you took into account that Memb ers of the group which meet the criteria for 
SVEs shall have recourse to such flexibilities. Nevertheless, we are still making our own assessment 
on the treatment that is suggested in the text, and are looking forward to having further clarity on this issue. TN/C/M/27 
Page 84  
 
   
 Finally, let me thank you, on behalf of the group,  for the incorporation in your text of some of 
our concerns and welcome the tr eatment you have envisaged for the small low income countries in 
transition and for the VRAMs (Very Recent1y Acceded Members).  
 Let me reassure you that our group remain s committed to this round and ready to engage 
constructively in these negotiations.    TN/C/M/27 
 Page 85 
 
 
  ANNEX II 
 
Statements made by participants at the informal meeting of  
the Negotiating Group on Market Access 
held on 25 July 2007 
 
  At their request, the statements made by a num ber of delegations at the informal meeting of 
the Negotiating Group on Market Access held on 25 July , are reproduced below as part of the minutes 
of the formal meeting of the TNC held on 26 July. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Statement by Uganda on behalf of the African Group
 
 
 
I.  INTRODUCTION 
 
1. The African Group would like to thank you far the time you spent patiently listening to negotiators putting forward their various differe nt positions from which all members would have 
expected a balanced draft modalities text. 
 2. The African Group fully understands that in a membership of 150 Countries at varying levels 
of development and with competing interests, it cannot be easy to get a compromise position very 
easily. However, as we look for convergence and compro mises, we MUST not loose sight of the spirit 
and principles on which NAMA negotiations are anchor ed that must be consistent with mandates as 
agreed and contained in the Doha Declaration, the July Framework and the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration.  3. Most notable of these mandates is Para 16 of  the Doha Declaration which points out that 
negotiations shall take fully into account the speci al needs and interests of developing and least-
developed country participants, including through less  than full reciprocity in reduction commitments. 
 4. The United Nations Millenniums Declaration in 2000 advocates International Cooperation in 
creating an open, rule-based, predictable Multilate ral trading system that would create proper 
conditions capable of advancing de velopment and help eradicate pove rty. Against this background, 
the Africa group wishes to stress that both NAMA and Agriculture modalities must not be undertaken 
purely from a mercantile perspective of promoting trade but also, ensure that the development 
perspective is addressed. The African group therefor e believes strongly that this sound must deliver 
development and help Africa integrate into the globa l economy which commitment we expected to be 
clearly reflected in the modalities text.  
5. The Africa group is greatly concerned with the "p rinciple that all must contribute'', which you 
say you will not shy away from while proposing modaliti es. The African group is not aware of this 
principle, and would therefore like to know its source. Wh at is very clear to the group is that this is a 
development round for the developing and least de veloped countries and not one where the lesser 
developed pay more than the developed. 
 
 TN/C/M/27 
Page 86  
 
  II.  SPECIFIC INITIAL COMMENTS 
 
6. As we wait for instructions from our respective capitals, allow me now to make a few specific 
initial comments on the draft modalities paper.  A.  The Formula 
 
7. The African Group is of the view that less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments principle has not at all been given any considera tion in suggesting the range of coefficients for 
developed and developing countries. The percentage  reductions to be undertaken by the developing 
countries as suggested in the draft text are massive compared to the apparent minimal contributions to 
be made by the developed countries.  
B.  Flexibilities for developing members subject to the formula 
 8. The flexibilities provided to developing countri es should be able redress the disproportionate 
impact by the formula, In this context, we support the proposal tabled by South Africa alluding to a solution to be found in order to redress the pecu liar situation of customs Union and other regional 
integration arrangements in Africa which will be affect ed in one way or the other by the application of 
the formula. This case is unique in that it has a single customs regime whereas in other regional 
integration efforts, customs union are being sou ght and will be affected as a result of the 
implementation of the outcome of the round, as in  the case of COMES A members. The group would 
therefore have expected that these realities should be addressed in your draft modalities text.  
C.  Flexibilities for developing Members with low binding coverage 
 9. Para 6 countries had made a proposal to increase their scope of binding coverage up to 70% at 
an overall average rate of 28.5% to enable them have sufficient space to expand and strengthen their 
weak industrial base. The draft text ignores this proposal and instead proposes a binding coverage of 
90% at an average level not exceeding 28.5% with out taking into account that the figures were 70% 
and 28.5% are intrinsically related and a change in one would affect the other. 
 D.  Small and Vulnerable Economies 
 
10. The Small and vulnerable economies have  already been subjected to burdensome 
commitments through voluntary liberalization. Howeve r, the draft modalities text practically goes far 
beyond their technical, financial and development capacity, contra ry to '"average percentage 
reductions contributions" the SVEs are hoping for. Fu rthermore, the text is not explicit as to whether 
SVEs would have recourse to paragraph 8 flexibilities since the draft is limiting paragraph 8 
flexibilities to those countries that would apply the formula. SVEs should benefit from a longer implementation period than the othe r developing countries that could apply the formula to allow them 
an opportunity to address the peculiar situations of their economies.  E.  Non-reciprocal preferences 
 
11. MFN liberalization erodes trade preferences on which many African countries depend for export competitiveness. Thus a delicate balance s hould be struck between those with offensive 
interests and those with defensive interests of A frica. The African Group will have to see to a trade 
solution combined with measures to address the er osion of preferences such as compensatory and 
adjustment mechanisms, The draft modalities text on the other hand proposes a "superfluous" trade solution of 7 years. But in reality the length of period is only two years above what the developed 
countries would have to implement their obligations.   TN/C/M/27 
 Page 87 
 
 
  F.  Environment Goods and Services 
 
12. Under this heading, the African Group has indi cated that these negotiations should be carried 
out within the Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session (CTE-SS).  
13. To conclude, these are very preliminary comments from the African Group. The Group will 
make more substantive comments after critically an alyzing the draft modalities text and consulting the 
capitals. In the meantime, the African Group would like to assure you that the Group fully supports your efforts in leading the NAMA negotiations through  well balanced and revised texts in accordance 
with the DDA mandate. Furthermor e and additionally, the Group will remain fully and constructively 
engaged in the negotiations so as to bring th ese long awaited and important negotiations to a 
successful conclusion.   TN/C/M/27 
Page 88  
 
  Statement by Lesotho on behalf of the LDC Group
 
   We join others in thanking you for coming with  this paper which, in brief contains both your 
introductory remarks as well as the modalities.  
 
 The LDCs Group is of the view that while ther e remains still the challenge for clarifications 
around many of its specificities, at a minimum th e paper provides a baseline for Members to begin 
engaging on multilateral basis for the success of this Round.   
 Allow me to provide a snapshot of the initia l reactions by the LDCs Group to your proposed 
draft modalities, as we are continuing to study and the modalities that you have proposed to Members, 
and we will certainly come back with detailed re sponses when the negotiations on different issues 
resume.   
 Allow me also to commence by  addressing the content of the Chairman's introduction to the 
proposed draft Modalities.  We trust that are all one  in regarding the introductory remarks as informal 
and as having no legal status, and that they repr esent the Chair's personal views and that no Member 
will refer to as a basis in the current and future negotiations.  For LDCs, th e substance is in the 
proposed Modalities.  If we are to consider anythi ng from any other document, even from the Chair's 
introductory remarks of this text, they must be br ought the proposed Draft Modalities before there can 
be any form of discussion on  
  Mr. Chair, we all aware of demand of the LDCs for duty-free free access for their products 
into the markets of the developed Members as well as the developing Members that declare 
themselves in a position to provide such access.  The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration reflects the 
unanimous decision of all WTO Members on this issue. A number of developed Members have 
already fulfilled their commitments in this rega rd.  We are awaiting with great anticipation the 
implementation of this commitment by still rema ining countries.  The language that you have 
proposed in this regard in the proposed draft Moda lities does not, in our view, reflect the commitment, 
the mandate and the way clearly laid out by our Mini sters in Hong Kong.  It is the expectation of the 
LDCs that you will remain on with the Mandate of  the Ministerial Decision in Annex F HKMD in 
proposing the method for of duty-free quota-free market access to the LDCs.  
  Needless to harp on the point that operationaliz ing market access would result in real trade 
creation and facilitation. It is being reiterated fo r emphasis.  If LDCs able to expand their exports, 
they would receive an excellent opportunity to benefit from the process smooth and effective 
integration into, and full participation in, the multilate ral trading system that the WTO is striving for.  
We would therefore, continue to urge the re maining developed Members, and the developing 
Members that are so able, to extend duty free qua rter free entry to all products from all LDCs.  
  Members will recall that at Hong Kong, the Mi nisters stressed for the LDCs meaningfully 
utilize any preferential market  access, there be need to ensure that  the rules of origin are simple and 
transparent.  It is, therefore, of deep concern us  that this issue of high importance to the LDCs has 
been omitted from your proposed draft modalities.  Omitting it is tantamount to changing the Ministers decision ultra vires.  That, of course is acceptable.  LDCs and others, therefore, strongly 
urge the Chair to reinstate this key element in orde r to be fully in tune with HKMD.  There can be no 
doubt that improving of origin for LDCs is an in tegral part of the multilateral effort in the NAMA 
modalities.  Let us be fully HKMD compliant.  
 Chair, the LDCs group have put a proposal that could serve as a concrete basis for addressing this 
issue that has yet to be discussed to our satisfacti on.  Let us re-emphasize that improving rules of 
origin is the second key needed for LDCs to ente r the international markets and is part of the  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 89 
 
 
  commitments taken by members in the decision an me asures in favour of LDCs.  They are, therefore, 
part and parcel of NAMA and part of the package to be offered.  It is only with both DFQF and 
improved rules of origin that ma rket access package for LDCs will have full meaning. the issue of 
flexibilities For the LDCs, you have rightly pointed out  that, despite their exemption in participating 
in the tariff reduction formula, the LDCs are expect ed to substantially increase their level of tariff 
bindings, and also, that individual LDCs shall determin e the extent and level of their tariff bindings in 
accordance with their individual development objectiv es.  It is well known that LDCs have already 
lowered their tariffs to a degree, in some cases to the severe detriment of their domestic industries. To 
this we would like to reiterate that LDCs will ma ke their contribution to this Round in accordance 
with their development needs.  
 
 Mr. Chair, at this stage, we must paint out that the manner in which you have dealt with preferences has raised considerable concern our Gr oup.  The coverage of the preferences, the manner 
in which the erosion of preferences will be dealt with, and the time period within which this will be 
implemented, are all issues that will require inte nse scrutiny in our countries.  Each LDC will be 
adversely affected by the approach which yo u suggest, in some cases quite severely.  
  The Group would like to raise another point th at is concern for constituency. That is the 
impact tariff cuts an the LDCs pertaining belongi ng to the same Customs Unions as some developing 
countries.  This issue to be assessed  and dealt with in an appropriate manner so that the LDCs are not 
affected.  
 
 Finally, once again we are continuing study and analyse the draft modalities that you have 
proposed Members, and we will certainly come back  with detailed responses when the negotiations on 
different issues resume.  Let me reassure you th at the Group will continue to engage in the 
negotiations constructively and on the understanding th at Members are prepared to consider measures 
that will bring meaningful benefit to the LDCs, and thereby help us integrate into the global economy 
successfully and meaningfully. TN/C/M/27 
Page 90  
 
  Statement by Jamaica on behalf of the ACP Group
 
   On behalf of the ACP Group, allow me to than k you for convening this meeting to give our 
preliminary reactions to the draft NAMA Modalities te xt issued last week.  The Group wishes also to 
express its appreciation for your efforts at resumi ng the NAMA negotiations at the multilateral level.  
  I wish at the outset, Chair, to emphasize the fact the ACP Group considers your text as an 
input  in the ongoing multilateral negotiations on NAMA.  The text is still being examined in our 
respective Capitals and we will certainly revert to  you after the summer break to express our views in 
a more detailed manner. However, our Group has a number of serious concerns which we would like 
to spell out at this stage.   First, the Group strongly feels that many of the proposals put forward by its Members have not been taken into account.  Second, our members have considerable discomfort with a number of 
the elements contained in the text. 
  Throughout the negotiating process, we have b een insisting on the fact that modalities in 
NAMA must not be crafted from a purely commercia l objective. Rather, modalities should primarily 
aim at addressing the development concerns of de veloping countries in line with the development 
mandate of the Doha Round to  which we are all committed. 
 
 In this regard, we would recall that the UN Millennium Declaration advocates international 
cooperation in creating an open, rules-based, predic table multilateral trading system that would create 
conditions that advance developm ent and help eradicate poverty. 
 
 From this perspective, we reiterate that a ggressive MFN liberalization and ambitious tariff 
cuts in NAMA, as proposed in the NAMA text, will entail severe sectoral adjustment problems arising 
from revenue losses and significant depletion of polic y space which our countries require to promote 
domestic industries.  This is why we hold that the NAMA text is inconsistent with the mandates in the 
(Doha Ministerial Declaration, the July Framewor k, and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration), and 
runs counter to the developmental needs and aspirations of developi ng countries, such as the members 
of the ACP Group. 
  Allow me to quickly run through some of the elements of concern in the text:    Firstly, the agreed principle of "less than fu ll reciprocity in reduction commitments" has been 
ignored and even reversed. Indeed , the level of tariff reductions developing countries will have to 
make is significantly disproportionate when compared  to the contributions by developed economies.  
  Secondly, the principle "that all must contribute" does not appear in the mandate. Yet, this is the principle on which rests the whole architecture of the proposals in the text. As we have said before, we are ready to make our fair share of contribution, in keeping with the principle of 
proportionality and our development le vels. However, the claim that a ll must contribute and the way it 
has been applied is not acceptable.   Thirdly, there is the issue of balance. The text disregards paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration which calls for high comparab le ambition in market access in agriculture and 
NAMA. Instead, we are told that those that woul d seek to lower the ambition "should do it elsewhere 
rather than in NAMA". We do not accept such an a pproach, and we believe that it is not in keeping 
with the mandate. We have been consistently ar guing that balance should be achieved vertically 
within various elements of the NAMA negotiations, within each pillar and across the three pillars of 
Agriculture and horizontally between Agriculture and NAMA.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 91 
 
 
   
 Fourthly, there are concerns regarding the im plementation period proposed for developing 
countries as while developed countries have been gran ted a period of five years to implement lower 
percentage contributions, developi ng countries have been given 9 years to implement what could be 
radical and painful reforms. We wish to recall that developed economies were given 10 years to 
implement their Uruguay Round ob ligations, including those under the textiles and clothing 
agreement. Our expectation therefore is that the implementation period for developing countries 
would, as a minimum, stand at 10 years with a longer period for those countries facing specific 
circumstances.   
 Fifthly the proposal that the Paragraph 6 countries bind 90% of their tariff lines is 
unacceptable. We are not sure how this number has been arrived at given that throughout the negotiating process the Paragraph 6 countries have consistently proposed a binding up to 70% 
represents a just and reasonable solution.  
 Sixthly, the ACP Group also has concerns about the flexibilities for developing members 
subject to the formula. The situation faced or likel y to be faced soon by almost all members of the 
ACP Group given their current or anticipated invol vement in regional customs unions, deserves our 
fullest attention. Almost all ACP members, incl uding LDCs, SVEs, paragra ph 6 countries, will have 
to apply the tariff reduction formula sooner or later. All this to say that the ACP Group as a whole has high stakes on the issue of the tariff reduction formula. 
 
 Seventhly, on the issue of Non-Reciprocal Preference Erosion, we reiterate that MFN liberalization will erode trade preferences on which many of our members depend for export competitiveness. A delicate balance needs to be stru ck between those with offensive interests and 
those with defensive ones. Again, in the light of  this balance, the ACP Group has been calling for a 
trade-based solution combined with other accompa nying measures to address the issue of erosion of 
preferences (such as compensatory and adjustment  mechanisms) taking into account the difficult 
economic reform process under way in many ACP St ates.  To our great disappointment, however, the 
text only proposes an implementati on period of 7 years, i.e. me rely 2 additional years for the 
preferences granting members, whic h is even less than the 9 year s proposed for developing countries. 
Such a short period is unacceptable to the ACP Group. On  the basis of such a schedule, and in view of 
the very small margin that determines competiti veness in industrial tariffs, the ACP preference 
receiving countries will find themselves losing th eir market access after the third year of 
implementation. We would like to reiterate the sen sitivity of the issue for the ACP. We expect a 
reasonable transition period and backloading of the tariff dismantlement.  
 Eighthly, We believe that the level of ambition targeted for SVEs in Para 13 of the proposed 
NAMA draft modalities is too high relative to the Para -6 type of solution they have been proposing.  
In this regard, the ACP Group supports the statem ent made by El Salvador on behalf of the SVE 
group.   With regards to LDCs, we firmly believe that  improving rules of origin for LDCs is an 
integral part of the multilateral effort of the NAMA modalities. The LDCs group recently put forward 
a proposal that could serve as a concrete basis for a ddressing this issue that has yet to be discussed to 
our satisfaction. Improving rules of origin does not necessarily mean harmonisation but rather, 
ensuring that they are transparent and simple and contribute to facilitating enhanced market access.  
This was the commitment taken by Members as re flected in paragraph (b) of the Decision on 
Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries.  Improving rules of origin is therefore part and 
parcel of NAMA and should be part of the multilateral package.    We also wish to comment on the sectoral ne gotiations. Although the sectoral negotiations are 
non-mandatory in respect of participation, the proc ess needs to be sensitive to the significant impact TN/C/M/27 
Page 92  
 
  that some sectorals could have on non-signatory co untries. One such example is the sectoral proposal 
for trade liberalization in fish and fish products, curre ntly on the table, which is expected to have a 
significant adverse impact on preference-dependent ACP countries.   In concluding, we have indicated in these preliminary comments a number of elements 
contained in the text with which the Group has consid erable difficulty.  As you indicated to members 
in your joint memorandum with the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture 
dated 5 July 2007 the meetings held yesterday and t oday were just one step in the process and it is 
expected that intensive negotiations on the texts will continue in September.  You also stated that you 
would expect that the consultations in September would and I quote "put us both in the position – 
indeed oblige us – to further revise those draft texts on the basis of the views expressed in the 
Negotiating Groups".  It is against this backgroun d that the ACP Group looks forward to continuing 
the negotiations at the multilateral level in order to reach fair, balanced and equitable modalities in 
NAMA and indeed, in the other areas under negotiation.   TN/C/M/27 
 Page 93 
 
 
  Statement by India  
   Thank you for your efforts in providin g us with a draft modalities text.   
 
 India would like to support the statements made by the ACP, African Group and SVE’s as 
also to associate itself with the statement made by South Africa on behalf of NAMA 11.  India shares the disappointment reflected in these statements . Before I speak about the issues on which we 
disagree with you, let me make a general point.   
 India has never shirked any engagement in th e NAMA negotiations and has always tried to 
play a constructive role based on the developmen t mandate of the Round. India’s record of 
liberalisation speaks for itself. Year  after year, we have continued our autonomous tariff reduction and 
provided new market access to our trading partners.  Ou r record in this regard is adequate proof of the 
fact that we are not the ones hiding in the trenches. Along with India, a large number of developing 
countries have made huge contributions to the generation of new trade flows since the Uruguay 
Round. In a strange reversal of roles, we see ma ny countries posing as demandeurs in this negotiation 
who have not brought down their tariffs by even one  percentage point since the Uruguay Round. Their 
proselytizing zeal would have carried more convicti on if they had taken even small steps to address 
high tariffs and tariff peaks which affect the trading prospects of the poorest countries.  Let us be clear 
about this fundamental fact. Developing countries have made huge contributions in new market 
access since the Uruguay Round and are prepared to do more. On the contrary, it is those countries 
who have not created any new market access who are shooting from the trenches. We have heard 
some statements from some, who really should know better, that many developing countries are afraid 
to bring down their tariffs because th ey are scared of China. This is  patently absurd as the autonomous 
liberalisation of developing countries has been on an MFN basis.  
 
 The issue therefore in the negotiations, is not  whether the developing countries are prepared 
to contribute, but the proportionality of the contri butions as required by the mandate. As long as your 
proposals reflect this central element of the mandate , they can lead us to an outcome which respects 
the mandate. It is our assessment that your prop osals do not pass this test by a long margin.  
 
 Our preliminary analysis leads us to the conclusion that we have concerns on a number of 
your proposals.  I would like to list some of these issues:  
1. While admitting that it is difficult for th e Chairman to assess w ith confidence whether 
less than full reciprocity has been achieved,  your proposals imply an entirely whimsical 
interpretation of LTFR by shifting the burden of  the contribution disproportionately to the 
developing countries. On average, your proposals will imply that developing countries will need to bring down their tariffs by around twice that by developed countries. 
 
2. Secondly, while you have articulated the principle that all must contribute according 
to their capacity, your proposals demand a huge pr ice from the countries least equipped to pay 
it – the small and vulnerable economies. On average, based on your proposals, SVEs will be 
required to cut their tariffs by more than 50 pe r cent. I need not mention that this is much 
higher than the contribution you envisage from developed countries. 
 
3. After the failure of the G-4 process, the members have pinned their hopes on a 
genuine multilateral process which is by definiti on inclusive of all interests and concerns. 
Your proposals exclude the positions of a large nu mber of countries and have effectively shut 
them out from the negotiations. In effect th erefore, instead of facilitating negotiations 
between the members, your proposals have put many members in the position of negotiating TN/C/M/27 
Page 94  
 
  with the Chair. I am sure you will agree that th is does not make for a healthy and sustainable 
process. 
 
4. Then there is the issue of the relati onship between Ag and NAMA which has been 
referred to by several delegations, both in te rms of sequencing as well as in terms of the 
balance between the two. The Ag text presented by Ambassador Falconer reflects the 
negotiating realities and the range of the possi bilities is necessarily broad on a number of 
important issues. No inferences can be drawn fro m the text for the present, regarding the level 
of ambition which can be achieved, especia lly in the key areas of domestic support and 
market access. On the other hand, the NAM A text proposed by you, by excluding the 
positions of a large section of the membership , defines the likely ambition in NAMA much 
more tightly and precisely than is warranted by the present state of negotiations. This has 
created a huge asymmetry in the negotiations. 
 
5. Sectoral initiatives, a modality favoured by  at best a few Members, are being included 
in the text as a key modality with specific ti melines. It is up to the members to collectively 
decide once the core modalities are finalised, about  the role that sectorals can play in topping 
up their ambition. Your proposals in this regard  prejudge the importance of the sectorals for 
members and in assessing the balance of concessions. 
 
6. On the other hand, we find only procedural  language on NTB’s, an issue stated by all 
members to be of crucial importance. We would have liked to see a clear direction and time 
lines on the horizontal mechanism. Now that a formal proposal has been presented by an 
overwhelming majority of members, we expect it to receive due consider ation in your revised 
effort. Let me add that there is no other proposal in the NAMA negotiations which commands so much support among the members. 
 
7. On the issue of environmental goods, y our instruction to members to initiate 
negotiations prejudges the outcome of the discussi ons in the CTE-SS. It is only when the 
CTE-SS has completed its deliberations that a vi ew can be taken about the work required in 
NGMA. 
 
8. On erosion of non-reciprocal preferences, we note that the solution you suggest only 
allows 2 developed members more time to phase in their concessions. There is nothing in your proposals that would help the preference receiving countries to cope with the problem of preference erosion and improve their competitiveness on a sustainable basis. In the discussions on this issue, members have proposed a number of measures to address this 
problem. These include changes in the preferenti al rules of origin to enable preference 
receiving countries to fully utilize the pr eferences and focused assistance aimed at 
diversification of export portfolios. We would have expected that in a development round, 
such proposals would at least be kept on the table for further consideration. 
  For the present I would like to confine myself to  these remarks. Your proposals have created 
an extremely piquant situation which has sharply polar ized the negotiations. It will require all of us to 
exercise enormous restraint to bring the negotiations  back to a semblance of balance so that we can 
proceed toward an outcome faithful to the developm ent round. I trust the break in August will provide 
you with an opportunity to reflect on how we can collectively restore the balance.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 95 
 
 
  Statement by El Salvador on behalf of the SVEs  
   On behalf of the Small, Vulnerable Economie s, I would like to thank you for the Market 
Access Draft Modalities, circulated on July 17
th, in which you've managed to capture most of the 
various elements that have been discussed in the Negotiating Group ova the past years, and is been 
analyzed by our capital based authorities. We take note that one of the objectives of this document is 
to have an instrument that leads us to a process of real multilateral negotiation' amongst the Members. 
  We accept that this draft text contributes to the multilateral process, wh ich is being conducted 
under your Chairmanship in which all Members have th e opportunity to express their views, so that 
we can get closer to a satisfactory outcome far all delegations.   In this regard, on behalf of the SVEs, we would like to make some preliminary comments on 
the text, specifically in those ar eas of major interest to our dele gations, without prejudice of being 
able to come back with additional co mments either as SVEs or individually. 
  In addition to the mandate's call for additiona l flexibilities for SVEs, we would like to recall 
some principles by which the Small, Vulnerable Ec onomies have been working, so that our legitimate 
needs of development are taken into consideration.  
 First is the principle of Less than Full R eciprocity. Although you state that that there are 
different views regarding this issue, for us the mandate of "Less than Full Reciprocity in reduction 
commitments" means that developing countries should undertake lesser tariff reductions than 
developed countries. In addition, Small, Vulner able Economies should be entitled to even fewer 
obligations. We consider that by asking Small, Vulnerable Economies to undertake average tariff 
reductions that range between forty and seventy percent is difficult for SVEs. 
  Along these lines, there is agreement that reduction commitments will start from the bound rates and therefore we cannot agree with the affirm ation that a percentage reduction in the bound rates 
does not represent a seal contribution. Certainly we  believe that, we have not agreed through the 
different instruments which guide this negotiation that a real cont ribution will be measured against 
reductions in the applied rates. 
  We would also like to remind Members that in spite of our characteristics, most of us have bound a hundred percent of our tariff lines at relativel y low levels. Additionally, we have undertaken 
autonomous liberalization in our markets, and now we are open economies.  Therefore, when we are 
being asked to undertake tariff reductions that are not proportionate with our legitimate developmental 
objectives, we consider that we are being penalized  for those actions which have contributed to the 
objectives of this Organization, and have led to increased trade flows in industrial goods and should 
be taken into account.  All we ask now is adequate flexibility to en able our Governments to nurture 
industrial development.  
 As we have stated in our various communications, we are aware that every Member must 
contribute in this Round. However, SVEs are not prepared to accept the numbers proposed for our 
treatment established in your document, which refl ect contributions that go beyond our capacities, 
with respect to the challenges that we face.  
 In light of the above, we would like to expr ess our specific comments in relation to Small, 
Vulnerable Economies:  TN/C/M/27 
Page 96  
 
  • Even though we recognize that your Draft Modalities Document, takes into account our 
proposal in regards to the criteria and the ar chitecture in respect to Small Vulnerable 
Economies, the averages you proposed in each band, are not acceptable to our Group, since 
these expected contributions go beyond the less than  full reciprocity principle that all Members 
have agreed. We also have difficulties with so me of the other numbers proposed in paragraph 
13 of the Draft Modalities. 
• Although we are operating on the basis that the entire text is in brackets, given that it has not 
been agreed by Members, we note with concer n that unlike other parts of your document, the 
numbers established for SVE's are not in brackets.  We would also like to make reference to the 
ranges that have been proposed for the coeffici ents in the tariff reduction formula, and we 
wander why the SVE's numbers have not been estab lished through a range, but rather through a 
fixed number. 
• With respect to the treatment proposed for F iji, we take note that given its low binding 
coverage, Fiji would be allowed to fall into th e upper band. However, the main issue of ow 
proposal in relation to this Member has nor b een taken on board, and this is the issue of 
allowing Fiji to maintain a 5 percent of unbound lines. 
• We wish to stress that the SVE's have been wo rking constructively along this process, in order 
to accommodate the many concerns expressed  by non proponents' Members, through the 
presentation of several proposals in the aim of  achieving a balanced outcome. However, the 
numbers established in your document are way below our proposed average of 28.5 percent 
which has been expressed on many occasions. 
  Finally, we would like to stress that it is our understanding that the comparable high level of 
ambition stipulated under paragraph 24 of the Ho ng Kong Ministerial Declaration is meant to 
facilitate the development: objectives for developing  countries. Notwithstanding the issues raised 
above, we recognize that as Chair, your task of elaborating these Draft Modalities has not been easy, 
for which we reiterate our appreciation for your efforts, and you can count with our support and 
commitment to continue working with a constructive spirit that has characterized us, in order to find 
the balance that our Group and the rest of Member s of this house need to have a positive outcome in 
this Negotiation. 
  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 97 
 
 
  Statement by South Africa on behalf of NAMA 11  
   The hallmark of a good text is one that has the potential to build genuine engagement, 
negotiation and ultimately consensus.  From the poi nt of view of the NAMA 11, and the majority of 
developing countries in the WTO, this text does not meet this objective. It is unusual for the 
introduction of the a chairs text to become she main critique of the text but in this case the introduction reveals the underlying conceptual bases of the proposals made by the chair in the main 
draft text and thus in critiquing the introduction we  are also critiquing the main proposals in the draft 
text. 
 
 As the statements of the African Group, the LD Cs and the ACP have stated already, we are 
deeply concerned that the Chairs NAMA text suffe rs from some basic flaws that will need to be 
addressed.  
 First, the draft text prejudges the outcome of the NAMA negotiations before members have 
had an opportunity to negotiate these outcomes in th e multilateral process. This is in sharp contrast 
with the agriculture draft text where members positions are substantially preserved allowing them 
significant scope to negotiate further.  
• Paragraph 1 says that the text seeks to prompt real negotiation. However, the ranges in the 
brackets for developing countries that have to apply the formula precludes any real negotiation 
as the range is narrow and excludes the positions of the NAMA 1I group. Paragraph 3 goes on 
to state that the intention of the text is to propose specific outcomes. However, this approach 
does not facilitate engagement. It has largely ex cluded the positions of the NAMA 11. It is in 
sharp contrast to the approach taken by the agriculture chair who has largely accommodated the 
concerns of different members, in th e text, to facilitate the negotiations. 
• In addition, paragraph 1.5 the draft text propo ses to limit the use of Paragraph 8 flexibilities to 
that already provided in the brackets and thus  excludes the proposals of the NAMA 11 for these 
flexibilities to be negotiated upwards. 
• Similarly, on the mark-up for unbound the chairs formulation seeks to close the opportunity for 
further negotiation. 
  Second, the draft text changes what has b ecome the principle of the Doha Round, that 
Agriculture should lead the ambition of the Doha  Round, with the Developed countries making the 
greatest reforms in their trade distorting policies. Instead the draft text makes developing countries 
pay first in the NAMA negotiations and requires them to make severe cuts in their industrial tariffs. 
 
• In Paragraph 9, the text states that whilst the le vel of ambition in Agriculture may be low, and 
concedes that this is "a moving target", the ch air advises members who have an interest in a 
high ambition in Agriculture to strive for this in Agriculture and not lower the ambition of 
NAMA. This is a tall order! However, the chai r thus unilaterally has changed one of the 
cornerstones of the development mandate, namely , that Agriculture is central to the Doha 
Round, and should lead  the ambition of the r ound, and that the deve loped countries should 
make the greatest contribution by reforming their trade distorting agricultural policies.  Instead the text has proposed that it is the developing countries that should lead the level of ambition 
and pay first with the hope that the developed countries will reciprocate in their agricultural 
offers. 
• Indeed it is this logic that has created an enormous asymmetry between the two texts. In 
addition, the draft NAMA text is an almost co mplete set of draft modalities proposed by the 
chair, the agriculture text h as not even been able to ela borate detailed modalities on several 
important issues that are of interest to developing countries. TN/C/M/27 
Page 98  
 
   
 Third, the draft text seeks to re-interpret the mandates of the Doha round. that has called for less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments by developing countries, by asking developing 
countries to contribute disproportionately, compared  to the contributions requested from developed 
countries. 
• In paragraph 6 the chair admits that it is diffi cult for the chairman to assess with confidence 
whether LTFR has been achieved but nevertheless goes on in paragraph 8 to state that he is "confident" that his proposed modalities satisfies th e requirement for less than fill reciprocity in 
reduction commitments. The NAMA 11 has demonstr ated in several submissions to the NGMA 
that at least a 25 point difference in the coeffi cients of developed and developing countries will 
be required to meet the mandate of LTFR. Instead the chairs paper has reduced this spread by 
about half 25 pts and has only offered a reducti on of 1 or 2 points for the developed country 
coefficient. Therefore the imbalance in the contributions between de veloped and developing 
countries will be considerably exacerbated, turn ing the concept of LTFR on its head and thus 
making the developing countries the major contributors of the Round. 
 
 Fourth, whilst we agree with the chair's assertion that all must contribute, the draft text has 
called for contributions by developing countries that  is not consistent with their development needs 
and levels of development. 
• Indeed it the logic of the need to satisfy the commercial interests of the developed countries, 
rather than the development objectives of the Doha round that permeates the chairs text. 
Paragraph 4 of the draft text states that the text has not shied away from making real contributions and in paragraph 12 the chairs says that his starting point is the end point (a la 
Stephen Covey). The end point, the chair decides,  is to reduce the bound rates of members and 
to increase their bindings. It is this emphasis, th at has neglected to provide a balance with the 
development objectives of the Doha Round a nd the NAMA mandates, that developing 
countries have objected to in their statements. 
• The NAMA 11 is concerned that the proposals in the draft text for paragraph 6 countries in 
paragraph 26, 27 and 28 of the te xt is too onerous and not cons istent with the development 
needs of these countries. 
• Similarly, the proposed target averages for the SV Es is disproportionate a nd not consistent with 
their levels of development. 
  Fifth, the draft text has also undermined an  agreement reached at the Hong Kong ministerial 
meeting to ensure that the level of ambition of th e NAMA negotiations shall be comparable to that in 
agriculture. 
• The chair concedes in his text that members ha ve not been able to agree on a methodology for 
comparing or measuring the balance in the le vel of ambition in NAMA with Agriculture, and 
that he could not decide this balance for memb ers. However, he goes on to state that members 
should "focus their efforts on improving ambition elsewhere, rather than reducing it for all in 
NAMA". In other words, developing countries s hould first make onerous commitments to make 
drastic tariff reductions even befo re developed countries have agreed to fulfil their obligations 
ta reduce their trade distorting subsidies and open their markets in Agriculture. This is not only 
unfair and but a negation of the Hong Kong manda te which requires that the level of ambition 
in NAMA should be comparable to the level of ambition in Agriculture. 
• Yesterday we heard the statements and reactions  of the developed countries to the chairs 
Agriculture text. The position of the United States on OTDS is still not clear, even on the ranges proposed by the agriculture chair. Even  on Cotton, the USA is not willing to accept the 
Chairs formulation on the legitimate requests of the Cotton 4. The EU response to the chairs 
text on Market Access for developed countries makes even more unclear what the Market 
Access contributions of the Developed countries are likely to be. You have to be a gambler 
with a lot of money to spare, to bet on the outco me of the level of ambition in the agriculture  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 99 
 
 
  negotiations.  We are not gamblers. We represen t millions of people in developing countries 
who have high hopes for a development outcome in this round and cannot afford to allow an 
unfair and disproportionate outcome in she round to create massive unemployment and de-industrialization in our countries. 
 
 Sixth, the draft text makes loose claims about reflecting the majority view when this is clearly 
not the case. 
• In paragraph 15, 16, and 26 the chair claims to  take positions and make proposals in line with 
the views of a clear majority. The Statements of the Africa Group, ACP and LDCs has demonstrated the fallacy of this argument. 
• The text also suggests that some of us ha ve taken a north-south approach in the NAMA 
negotiations. A bit of history is instructive he re. The NAMA 11 was created after the developed 
countries closed ranks on the formula in Oct ober 2005 and proposed an unfair outcome that 
would have required developing countries to cut their average tariffs by 65-70 percent whilst 
the developed countries only cut their average tari ffs by 25 percent (Swiss 10 for developed and 
Swiss 15 for developing countries). Developed co untries have chosen to close ranks. We 
challenge developed countries to express different  views on the formula. However, we should 
all be aware that the needs of developing count ries are different. Their needs have been largely 
ignored by the trading system for more than 50 years. This is why the mandate refers to the 
needs and interests of developing countries that have to be addressed in this Round. We cannot 
so easily forget the promise made in Doha by all WTO members to make this round a 
development round. 
 
 The above flaws in the draft text must be corr ected to secure a fair, balanced and development 
oriented outcome in the Doha round. This can be achieved through a genuine bottom-up and inclusive 
process that allows for genuine negotiation and en gagement in September to address these flaws. 
  We the NAMA 11 Group of the Developing country members of the WTO are committed to 
contributing to the Doha round and to securing a succes sful outcome. We seek to raise the trust and 
confidence of members in the multilateral process and to strengthen it.  TN/C/M/27 
Page 100  
 
  Statement by South Africa
 
   South Africa fully supports the statement of  the NAMA 11 and the positions adopted by the 
NAMA 11. Indeed South Africa's interests and concerns in the NAMA negotiations have been 
expressed in the earliest submissions of the NAM A 11. In November 2005, South Africa and a group 
of developing countries Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines and Venezuela in TN/MA/W/65, ma de a submission on the need for additional 
flexibilities.  
 This submission made two very important points very clearly:  first that the numbers in the 
brackets of paragraph 8 should be the bare minimu m and that we sought to adjust these numbers 
upwards.  Secondly, we stated that paragraph 8 w as a stand alone provision and should not be traded 
off with the tariff reduction formula. This position was argued by the NAMA 11 in several statements during the past 18 months. 
 
 The particular reasons for South Africa requi ring these flexibilities were presented, not only 
in the NGMA, but also in bilateral discussion with  the major players and in several confessionals our 
delegation held with the Chair. As our views were not being heard very clearly we decided to make 
another formal submission as South Africa on the 13
th of June. This submission, Job(07)/86, made 
two important points: 
• First, that SACU took deep cuts in the UR whic h reduced our bound rates to almost half that of 
the developing country average, and that the cu rrent formula and coefficients being discussed in 
the NAMA negotiations will cause deep cuts in South Africa's bound and applied rates, 
impacting negatively on our industrial sector s and exacerbating already high levels of 
unemployment. 
• Second, that SACU was a Customs Union, with an LDC and three SVEs, that will also bear the 
burden of these cuts, notwithstanding their rights to have no, or significantly lower tariff cuts. 
 
 We note that the chairs text has recognized these concerns of  SACU but was "not able to 
conclude on this question". Howe ver, in another case where flexibilit y was requested, the chair felt it 
wise to provide for such flexibility. We support the granting of flexibility to all developing countries 
based on their development needs. We do expect th at in cases of legitimate requests for flexibility; 
where the formula will have a disproportionate effect  on a particular developing country; or where the 
developing country has some very particular deve lopment needs, such as th e case of SACU, the text 
should have responded in a fair a nd equitable manner. Thus the case for additional flexibilities that 
South Africa and SACU have made, call for the principl es of fairness and equity to be applied. This is 
not an attempt to avoid making a contribution, but to  make a fair and proportionate contribution. This 
is a good precedent for the multilateral trading system to create. 
  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 101 
 
 
  Statement by Kenya  
   Although Kenya is not expected to apply the formula, the choice of the coefficients should 
not constrain the ability of devel oping countries to industrialize. 
 
 On Paragraph 6 , we are concerned that the draft text proposes that countries in Para 6 
increase  their binding coverage to 90% immediately upon the entry into force of the modalities at an 
average rate of 28.5%.  This is unacceptable to Ke nya.  We maintain that the proposal put forward by 
Para 6 countries on a binding coverage of 70% at an  average rate of 28.5% be the basis of further 
discussion on this issue.  This proposal was arrived after taking into account th e levels of development 
as well as the implications on the re gional integration initiatives in whic h Kenya is involved.  Both the 
level of biding at 70% and the average rate of 28.5% are closely co-related and should be 
implemented in a staged manner over the implementation period.  
 On preferences  we are concerned about the limited number of tariff lines that you have 
proposed as contained in annexes 2 & 3.  In additi on we are further concerned about your proposal to 
further filter these tariff lines.  Your proposal for an additional two years implementation period is 
insufficient to address the negative impact of  preference erosion. Furthermore a longer 
implementation period should be accompanied by targ eted technical assistance to preference receiving 
countries.   
 
 Capacity Building   We have noted that the draft modalities text propose that the developed 
countries have five years implementation period wh ile developing countries have only nine years to 
undertake very onerous reforms.  We however expect countries have no less than 10 years for implementation.   
 
 While we recognise that Sectoral negotiations  are non-mandatory, we are however concerned 
that the outcome on some of the sectors proposed in the draft text will have a negative impact in our 
economy.  This is particularly with respect to fish and fish products and textile and clothing. 
 
 On Non-tariff barriers (NTBs)  we supports the horizontal approach and therefore we need 
to intensify negotiations on this issue to obtain r esults that are in line with the mandate when we 
result.   As I mentioned in my opening remarks these are only preliminary comments.  We will come back to the Members with our detailed comments when we result in September. 
 
 TN/C/M/27 
Page 102  
 
  Statement by the Dominican Republic, also on behalf of El Salvador, Honduras,
 
Guatemala and Nicaragua  
   On behalf of the delegations of El Salvador , Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and my own, 
I wish to refer to annexes 2 and 3 of your documen t.  In this connection we wish to express our 
concern and disagreement, as we observe that the lists  of products affected by  preference erosion have 
been shortened.  We consider that the lists c ontained in annexes 4 and 9 of document JOB(07)/80 
should constitute the basis for work on this topic.  Our delegations also wish to reserve the right to 
submit an additional list of products of interest to us.  We agree that part of the solution to this 
problem should consist in the extension of im plementation periods for tariff reduction, but we 
consider that the extended period you propose is insufficient.   Finally, we would reiterate that we are prep ared to contribute to these negotiations, but this 
depends on our capabilities and on the benefits that we  are supposed to derive from a round which is a 
development round.  TN/C/M/27 
 Page 103 
 
 
  Statement by Thailand  
   Like many delegations who spoke before me, I would like to commend you for your untiring 
efforts and dedication in searching for conve rgences among members and proposing the draft 
modalities for NAMA with a view to facilitating the negotiation process. 
  We welcome the draft and believe that it c ontains many positive elements which is a good 
starting point for our fibre work, though we rema in concerned with some issues where further 
improvements are necessary. 
 
 Our remark today will thus be of a preliminary na ture and we plan to engage in more detailed 
discussion when the meeting is resumed in September.   On the formula , we think the range of the two coeffi cients suggested by you are within the 
appropriate landing zone, although we  believe a lower number of coeffi cients for developed countries 
are much more desirable.   On the product coverage , we insist that an agreed list of NAMA products, with no deviation, 
is vital for a comprehensive and equitable liberalization.  
 The 20%-point non-linear mark-up for unbound tariff  is also a positive move to 
accommodate members who want to apply the formula cuts.   Likewise, although we appreciate the need for developing countries to have a longer implementation period , the proposed timeframe appears to be too long
 and could have an 
undesirable effect over the implementation of the ot her issues. We Iook forward to further discussion 
on this issue.   On flexibilities for developing countries members subject to the formula , we appreciate 
your suggestion to remove the square bracket from th e original paragraph 8(a) and 8(b) of the July 
Framework as it would enable us to concentrate on more substantive issues. We also recognize an 
alternative flexibility proposed for developing count ries not using such flexibilities. We are studying 
this option and would like to reserve our detailed comments for the next meeting. 
  On sectoral negotiations , we welcome the language and timet able put forward in the draft 
text. Although participation in sectoral initiative is  non-mandatory, its results should enable us to 
enjoy the benefit over and above the formula modalit y, particularly on products of interest to 
participants.   On non-reciprocal preferences , narrowing down the scope of the products to 13 tariff lines 
for the EC and 16 tariff lines for the US is a pos itive move to deal with the core problems of non-
reciprocal preference erosion. In our view, th e scope of products under Annex 2 and 3 should be 
considered as the maximum that we could base our future discussion on. Improving the rules of origin 
and accelerating a liberalization of other products of export interest to preference beneficiaries could 
also minimize the erosion impacts.   On environmental goods , members should first reach an understanding on environmental 
goods before considering the treatment of  their tariffs and non-tariff barriers. 
  We welcome the improvements in the provisions relating to SVE, developing members with 
low binding coverage, LDCs, and RAMs . We look forward to engaging in more detailed discussion 
after the summer break on these issues. TN/C/M/27 
Page 104  
 
   
 We would also like to associate ourselves with  those who have requested the Secretariat to 
conduct a simulation exercise for those countries applyi ng the formula. It will be useful to assess the 
outcome of members' tariffs reduction based on th e numbers and ranges referred to in your draft 
modalities. 
 
 Last but not least, according to paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong mandate, it is undeniable that 
progress in NAMA needs to have a comparable high level of ambition in market access for 
agriculture. As agriculture still plays the central role in the growth and development of many 
countries, including Thailand, the ambition in agricu lture is therefore vital to determine the ambition 
in NAMA and the other areas rather than the other way round. 
  In conclusion, my delegation stands read y to work constructively with you and other 
members in reaching a successful outcome of the negotiations.   TN/C/M/27 
 Page 105 
 
 
  Statement by Nigeria  
  1. My delegation would like to thank you fo r convening this meeting, which has provided 
Members with the opportunity to make initial reactions to the Draft NAMA Modalities text that you 
circulated on 17
th July, 2007. We would also like to thank you for producing the text, even though we 
do believe that it does not provide a substantia l basis for moving the Doha Round negotiations 
forward. The document is presently being reviewed in our Capital, and we would be conveying our 
assessment in greater detail when negotiations resume in September.  
2. Nigeria would like to recall that this  Round was initiated and launched as the Doha 
Development Agenda, in order to focus on devel opment issues. Although the foreseen outcomes are 
intended to benefit all Members, the overwhelming c onsensus is that they are targeted at making 
particularly strong contributions to economic gr owth in developing countries. This mandate, 
therefore, must remain central in our efforts to wards ensuring a successful conclusion of the Doha 
Work Programme, both as individual Members and as  Chairs of the various Negotiating Groups. Any 
attempt to deviate from the mandate must be seen as a distraction from the goal of successfully concluding the Round as soon as possible. This is a bur den that we must all endeavour to avoid, and 
most of all impose on others. It is on account of this that my delegation is concerned about the 
"compromise" proposals that you have made in the Draft NAMA Modalities, as they are not only inconsistent with the mandate but also insensitive to  the comparability in the level of ambition in both 
market access and Agriculture based an Paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
 3. Since these comments are largely preliminary, my delegation would like to only focus on the underlining assertions on which you have premised your  "compromise" proposals. As already stated, 
this Round is not a market access round but a devel opment round. Poor nations cannot, therefore, be 
pushed into exposing their volatile  and fragile manufacturing sectors to foreign competition in a 
manner that undermines their chances of developing local industries. Modalities on industrial tariffs should not lead to job losses and the de-industr ialisation of developing economies. We cannot, 
therefore, support your approach which imposes a high level of ambition for developing countries to 
fulfil while maintaining a low ambition for deve loped countries to undertake in both NAMA and 
agriculture. 
 
4. On that note, we cannot agree with you that your proposed modalities satisfy the requirement 
of less than full reciprocity in reduction commitme nts, when in actual fact many developing countries 
would be forced to reduce their industrial tariffs by  more than twice the reduction rates of the major 
developed countries. We cannot also agree that your proposals enjoy the unanimous support of the 
majority of the membership, Rather, we contend that you have, indeed, ignored the views of the 
majority. In fact, it remains contentious that the ma jority in this process favour the formula approach 
that you have so eloquently espoused. As has alread y been stated by many other delegations, G-90 
Trade Ministers have never supported the formula appr oach right at the beginning of the negotiations. 
Even after the formula was eventually adopted, a la rge majority of the membership have sought and 
obtained different types of deviations that exempt them from applying it in their tariff cuts. Equally 
significant is the fact that the proposals of the NA MA-11, rather than being isolated as you would 
want us to believe, have enjoyed the full support of  the G-90 Plus. My delegation, therefore, wonders 
what else constitutes the majority in this organization with 150 Members.  5. As a member of the Paragraph 6 countries, Nigeria wishes to re-emphasize our position that 
both figures of 70 per cent and 28.5 per cent are intrinsically linked. As the group has repeatedly 
stated, at both open-ended meetings and group co nsultations organized by you, the 28.5 per cent 
average rate is based on the binding coverage of 70 per cent. Therefore, you leave us no room for negotiation with your proposal to bind 90 per cent of tariff lines at an average rate of 28.5 per cent. 
Your proposal, therefore, is unacceptable largely b ecause of our specific circumstances, particularly TN/C/M/27 
Page 106  
 
  as we stand to loose the flexibility to use tariff changes on certain products to protect our industries as 
well as fully implement the Common External Ta riff (CET) under the ECOWAS Trade Liberalisation 
Scheme, which comprises mostly of LDCs who ar e not required to undertake any commitments in 
these negotiations.  
6. My delegation sincerely sympathises with you over the predicament in which we have found 
ourselves. It is not your own making. It only reflect s the fact that the major players in this process 
have remained unwilling to reach the political-level agreement on the level of ambition in the Round's 
critical components of agricultural market access and subsidy reduction. They have rather continued 
to take refuge in overly complex formulae and sugg ested modalities, instead of reaching the political 
decisions necessary to bring about the successful conc lusion of the Doha Round. This is the challenge 
that you face. As Chair, there is, indeed, very little  you can do in that situation. If Members remain 
unwilling to move, the Round would remain at the cro ss-roads with the risk of outright failure or 
being put on the ice for a very lo ng time. As Chair, my delegation would urge you to assist and guide 
us away, rather than zealously push us over this precipice. 
 
7. On that note, Nigeria reaffirms its full co mmitment to the WTO and the principles of the 
multilateral trading system. We assure you of our suppor t in the task ahead, to ensure that the Doha 
Round fully addresses the prevailing systemic imbalances and achieves the full mandate of a development round. We look forward to working closely with you and all other Members, who 
believe in the integrity of the multilateral proces s and the early successful conclusion of the Doha 
Work Programme. 
 8. My delegation fully supports the statements made by Uganda on behalf of the African Group, 
Jamaica on behalf of the ACP, and Benin on behalf  of the Cotton-4 and the rest of other African 
cotton producing countries. We also wish to extend our solidarity and support to the statements by 
South Africa on behalf of the NAMA-11, and Dominican  Republic on behalf of the Small, Vulnerable 
Economies (SVEs).   TN/C/M/27 
 Page 107 
 
 
  Statement by Panama on behalf of the Recently-Acceded Members (RAMs)  
   I have the honour of presenting this statemen t on behalf of the Recently Acceded Members: 
Albania, Armenia, China, Croatia, Ecuador, Fo rmer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Jordan, 
Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Mongolia, Oman, Panama, Saudi Arabia, The Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Mats u and Viet Nam. Our group welcomes your first 
revision of the draft Modalities for the N on-agricultural Market Access negotiations. 
  We support all your efforts and leadership geared towards bringing the process back to 
Geneva, it is clear that your paper has the ability of  taking Members out of their comfort zones into a 
real engagement in these negotiations.   Having said that, our group would like to make very preliminary comments on your proposed text. 
 
 As we have pointed out in previous meeti ngs, as well as in our proposal contained in 
document TN/MA/W/83 of 26 February 2007, the questi on of the appropriate treatment for RAMs has 
been part of the agenda since the negotiations started back in 2001.   As you have reiterated in the draft text, th e mandate for the modalities as well as the round 
comes from the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the NAMA framework document and the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration. However, we do not find the whole mandate reflected in your deliberations 
on the treatment to be provided to RAMs.  Especia lly that part of the mandate indicated in the NAMA 
framework document, i.e. that RAMs shall have re course to special provisions for tariff reductions in 
order to take into account their extensive mark et access commitments during their accession, which 
many are still in the process of implementing. 
  We strongly believe that the extensive leve l of commitments made by the RAMs during 
accession, legitimates the position of the group which calls for differentiated treatment, while taking 
into account diverse realities which exist among the Member's schedules. 
 
 In this context, and additionally to special provisions for tariff reductions, we insist on having 
a more flexible approach to the elements contained in our formal proposal of February 2007. We must 
reiterate the fact that the present level of our comm itments can hardly be matched by other developing 
countries, while commitments of some  of the Members of our group might even be compared to some 
developed Members commitments. 
 
 As regards recently acceded Members with less than 0.1% of world NAMA trade, we appreciate you took into account that Members of the group which meet the criteria for SVEs shall have recourse to such flexibilities. Nevertheless,  we are still making our own assessment on the 
treatment that is suggested in the text, and are looki ng forward to having further clarity on this issue. 
 
 The group hereby appreciates the importance you ha ve attached to some of our concerns as 
reflected in your text and welcome the treatment you envisage for the small low income countries in transition and for the VRAMs. Finally, let me conc lude hoping that our comments were helpful and to 
reiterate that our group remains ready and willing to engage constructively in order to achieve a more 
balanced result in these negotiations. 
 
__________