RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/C/M/5
4 February 2003
(03-0695)
Trade Negotiations Committee
4-6 December 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 4-6 December 2002
Chairman: Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi (Director-General)
Subjects discussed:
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
2. Outstanding implementation issues - reports by relevant WTO bodies pursuant
to paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
1. The Chairman introduced the reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC.
These reports had been circulated in the following official documents:
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture: TN/AG/5
Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services: TN/S/4
Negotiating Group on Market Access: TN/MA/5Special Session of the Council for TRIPS: TN/IP/4
Negotiating Group on Rules: TN/RL/3
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body: TN/DS/4
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment: TN/TE/3 and 4
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development: TN/CTD/5
2. He noted his understanding that this last report was without prejudice to the position of any
Member on the nature of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development.
3. The negotiations had been running for almost one year, and his assessment was rather mixed.
Progress had been made on all fronts, but in an uneven way, and perhaps not as quickly as needed.  As
he had said before, more clarity was needed in negotiating positions so participants could begin to
forge consensus.  And all the areas of negotiation n eeded to move forward together so all participants
could have an early idea of the possible overall balance of gains and concessions under the single
undertaking.  He believed that this time around there might well be no room for a last minute deal.
4. Participants were at an important point.  With a number of deadlines now before them, they
all had to be aware of the danger involved in puttin g too much off for later.  The same held true for
the deadlines in March and May next year.  They could not risk overloading the agenda for Ministers
at Cancún.  If that Ministerial Conference was not a success, then he feared the whole round could beput in jeopardy.  He could not stress enough how important it was to have a good result from that
meeting.TN/C/M/5
Page 2
5. Everyone knew that the Doha Development Agenda was a key element of multilateral
cooperation that would stimulate economic growth, bring greater stability into international economic
relations and help developing countries grow their wa y out of poverty.  If history had taught anything,
it was that in periods of economic difficulty the temptation to turn inwards and to seek to address
difficulties purely in a national context is greatest.  But history had equally taught that such a courseof action could be fatal.  It was precisely at times like these that it was important to remind oneself of
the importance of securing and advancing open markets.  Participants had to resist together this
temptation to turn inwards, by making an all- out effort to move forward in their endeavour.
6. The collective responsibility facing participants was enormous.  But he firmly believed they
were up to it.  This Round could conclude successfully and on time.  But for that to happen, courage
and leadership were needed now.
7. Mr. Harbinson, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, said that
his written report  in document TN/AG/5 covered the November Special Session of the Committee on
Agriculture and associated meetings and consultations. These activities had been devoted to follow-up
work on some of the issues arising during the course of the year.  Very useful discussions had takenplace at the informal Special Session on Additional Specific Inputs, Special and Differential
Treatment in the Context of Domestic Support, th e Special Safeguard for Food Security Purposes,
Export Credits and Tariff Quota Administration. Notably, no less than 27 specific inputs in writing
had been received from a total of over 100 participants.
8. Perhaps not surprisingly, given this high level of activity and the detailed discussions that had
followed the various presentations, it had not been possible to complete the agenda.  Among the items
that remained were the completion of discussions on tariff quota administration, food aid, state trading
enterprises in the context of export competition an d "other" specific issues or concerns. In some of
these areas additional inputs had also been received from participants.
9. Overall, he believed that this recent work had yielded a number of positive results.  The
discussions had produced much food for further thought and, in one or two areas, it had been
encouraging to see some common ground emerging.  The areas where most progress had been made
were export credits and tariff quota administration.  These had benefited from some more focused
informal technical work which had been conducted since September.  It was his hope to extend the
scope of this type of work to other rules-related areas, including those issues which it had not beenpossible to address in the time available in November.
10. But, although there had been some welcome progress, there was no point in hiding that in
most areas of the negotiations the gaps in positions among participants remained wide.  This was
particularly so in terms of the general level of ambition needed to achieve the objectives set out in theDoha Ministerial Declaration.
11. It was his general impression that the Committee had had a reasonably productive series of
meetings in the present year, and he commended participants for their hard work and good spirit.
However, the high level of activity had not been matched by movement in positions.  It had beenevident for a while that, in key areas, participants were having difficulty in getting beyond a rather
repetitive restatement of national positions. While necessary and informative, this method of
proceeding could not continue any longer, as the deadline for establishing modalities was now
looming.
12. Delegations would be aware that, under the agreed work programme, he was tasked to
produce an "overview paper" by 18 December.  In his view, this must set the scene for a new, more
intensive, and more productive phase.  He hoped that all participants would reflect deeply on the
difficult task ahead and resume their work in a different frame of mind, attuned to the need to find
accommodations in line with the Doha mandate.  He was reassured when, as had often happened,participants restated their strong commitment to th e Doha deadlines.  These words were shortly to beTN/C/M/5
Page 3
put to the test.  He looked forward to a very intensive period of work over the next three months or so,
culminating in the establishment of modalities by the end of March next year.
13. Ambassador Jara (Chile), Chairman of th e Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services, said that his report had been issued in document TN/S/4 and he would not repeat what it
contained but rather offer some personal views on the negotiations on services.  These negotiations
were proceeding well and in earnest.  However, this was hearsay because the negotiations were almost
100 per cent bilateral and confidential.  Therefore, he did not have an exact count of what was
transpiring behind closed doors in the request/offer process.  But, he believed that, counting the
European Communities as one, more than 30 Members had submitted requests to other Members.
This was a good sign because it revealed that the number of Members involved was increasing, and he
had indications that more developing countries would submit requests.  On the other hand, virtuallyall Members had received requests from one or more other Member, which was also a good sign in
terms of the interest and engagement in the process.  He also had indications that many of the requests
made demonstrated the interest of Members in actually liberalizing trade in services and not just
freezing an existing situation with regard to their regulations.
14. The modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization continued to be an outstanding
item that required further attention by participants.  This was mentioned in his report but he wished to
highlight it because of its intrinsic importance.  There remained some difficulties that would require
more hard work, and although some Members had shown flexibility, still more was needed in order to
reach an agreement.  These modalities were required by Article XIX of the GATS, which was why theSpecial Session would continue its work towards a successful conclusion.  However, he believed it
was appropriate in the TNC to place these modalities in their correct perspective.  At the end of the
day, the modalities could only be applied in the context of bilateral negotiations between participants.
They did not, by themselves, create or add any legal obligations, nor did they establish any automatic
right to credit or recognition.  By the same token, they did not subtract from any rights or obligationsof Members.  Anything that participants might agree on bilaterally would, at the end, prevail.
Therefore, these modalities had to be taken for what they were.  They would only constitute a
consultative point of reference to help the bilateral negotiations.
15. Also outstanding, and in his view politically linked to the treatment of autonomous
liberalization, was the situation of recently-acceded Members which had been raised in the context of
that work.  The Special Session was trying to find an appropriate format and language to reflect theconcerns of these Members, such as a statement by the Chair to be made at the time the modalities on
autonomous liberalization would be adopted.  The recently-acceded Members had repeatedly made
the point that in the process of accession they had made extensive commitments and therefore, some if
not all of them, found it difficult to make additional commitments in some sectors.  There was
language in this regard in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  He had hoped that by the meeting of theCouncil in Special Session the following Monday enough progress would have been made to adopt
the modalities and to make the Chair's statement on recently-acceded Members, however, his
consultations in different formats indicated that more work was needed, as also more flexibility.  I
wished to underline this need, and the importance of movement in this respect, and to request from
Members the appropriate political will and understanding so that an early consensus could be reached.This would greatly facilitate the negotiations. In addition, there was also a requirement in the GATS
to develop modalities for the least-developed country  Members.  The Special Session was waiting for
a contribution of a text from these Members.
16. He had stated that the negotiations were progressing in a satisfactory manner, but he should
point out that some Members had indicated formally that the services negotiations were part of a
much broader negotiating agenda and, therefore, participants should ensure that progress was
achieved in a balanced manner across the broad front of the negotiations.  The TNC Chairman had
reflected this well in saying that progress had been made but it was not even.  Linkages had thus been
made, and participants should do their best to draw these linkages in a positive way.TN/C/M/5
Page 4
17. As the date of the submission of initial offers approached, namely March 2003, and in
keeping with its technical cooperation responsibilities, the Secretariat had organized a three-day
workshop, on 27-29 November 2002, on the scheduling of commitments and drafting of initial offers.
From what he had been told, this had been a highly successful endeavour.  For this event the WTO
had financed the participation of one capital-based official from each developing and least-developedcountry participating in the negotiations.  No doubt this event had been exceptionally demanding on
WTO resources, not only financially but also in terms of the time and effort devoted to it, but in his
view this had been very much worthwhile and fruitful.
18. Ambassador Girard (Switzerland), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access,
said that since the last meeting of the TNC, the Negotiating Group on Market Access had met twice,
on 4-5 November and 2-3 December.  His written report in document TN/MA/5 provided a summaryof the discussion at the November meeting, and he wished to supplement that report with an overview
of the discussion at the meeting held just prior to the TNC.  It had been a most productive meeting.
Several new proposals on the modalities on tariffs had been introduced and discussed, and important
clarifications had been made to proposals tabled previously.  Many substantive statements had been
made, and participants had had a focussed debate on various issues pertaining to modalities.  Thediscussion on non-tariff barriers had been less intensive and more general, which was only to be
expected at the present stage.  However, he hoped that, following the notification process which had
been set in motion, more clarity and precision would be brought to this area of the negotiations, which
he wished to stress was part of the market access negotiations as a whole.  The Group had also
discussed environmental goods.  Clearly, this was a difficult subject as it required, depending on theway one wanted to tackle it, an understanding among Members on what should be considered as
environmental goods.  His intention was to get in touch again with the Chairperson of the Special
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment in order to discuss the outcome of this
discussion and to compare it with what was happening in her group, so that the efforts made in the
two groups on this subject could be reinforced.
19. In general, in spite of the initial delay in the work of his Group, he was very pleased with the
way in which the discussions had been advancing and the very substantive work done by participants.
In fact, since day one participants had been addressing the specifics of modalities.  A lot of progress
had been made in terms of clarification, and the phase of defining parameters had begun.  The Group
had also established a calendar of meetings up to 31 May 2003.  However, he wished to express his
concern regarding the limited number of dates which had been available for the Group to hold itsmeetings early the following year.  In any case, part icipants had demonstrated a lot of flexibility, for
which he was grateful.  In the new year, the Group would have before it an overview of the proposals
submitted by 31 December, and a compilation of non-tariff barriers notified to the Group.  The Group
would need to focus more on issues and reinforce its operationality.  However, on the basis of the
work done thus far, he suggested that the Group could enter with some confidence into the phasebeginning in January 2003, which should lead to modalities by 31 May.
20. Ambassador Chung (Korea), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS, said
that his report on the fourth Special Session of the Council for TRIPS could be found in document
TN/IP/4.  He wished to make brief comments on the work achieved in this first year after Doha and
on what remained to be done.  First, he had presented, after consultations, to the March meeting a
roadmap for how to get from Doha to where the Spec ial Session needed to be by the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  The Special Session had agreed to work on the basis of an informal note he had put
forward at the second meeting in June, in which he had attempted to draw a list of points and issues so
as to have a more organized and structured discussion.  He believed all participants had played by therules of the game, responding in a positive way to the suggestions he had made for a clear discussion
and exchange of views on their interests and concerns.  There had been a good discussion on the
points raised, including those relating to the "mechanics", namely the procedures, costs, and other
aspects of the system being envisaged.  He believed that delegations had made their best endeavours
in explaining their positions and proposals for a system. In this regard, the discussions at the thirdTN/C/M/5
Page 5
meeting in September and the fourth meeting in November had proven to be useful.  In the light of all
these elements, he believed that part of the road to Cancún had been travelled.
21. However, the fact remained that positions were still wide apart.  This was mainly due to the
fact that all the proposals on the table reflected two approaches which were, from a systemic point ofview, very different.  These approaches were on the one hand, a database system to which Members
would have regard when deciding what geographical indications to protect nationally and, on the
other hand, a registration system which, once a name had been registered at the multilateral level,
would create a presumption of protectability at the national level in a Member unless the notified
name had been opposed by that Member.
22. His sense was that, to get from where it was at the present to the Cancún target date, his group
would need to work harder.  Delegations would need to show flexibility in the months ahead so as to
make it possible to develop a common basis for the ne gotiations in good time.  Therefore, in addition
to three formal meetings next year before Cancún, he  intended to hold as many informal consultations
as necessary.  He had also indicated that, while he would prefer that a common basis for negotiations
emerge from delegations, it seemed increasingly unlikely that this would happen.  If that was the case,he would prepare one on his own responsibility, w ithout prejudice to the positions of Members and
without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations.  As he was aware that he would have only one
opportunity to make such an intervention, he would work very carefully in producing this paper.
With regard to the timing of the introduction of this paper, while he understood concerns about
introducing the Chair's text prematurely, he beli eved the group also needed to be aware of the
mandated deadline for its negotiations.
23. Ambassador Groser (New Zealand), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules, said that
he wished to make some remarks to elaborate on his written report in document TN/RL/3.  He
believed there was now quite a high degree of understanding amongst delegations that the mandate ofthe Rules Group was very sophisticated and subtle.  He still had confidence that the Group could
move seamlessly, in due course, to the subsequent phase of work.  His responsibility as Chair was to
ensure that there was enough proposals on the table before commencing a real negotiation.  The work
on anti dumping was proceeding well, although some major Members could do better.  There was a
lot of materiel on the table in the form of pro posals, including a large number of implementation
issues.  On the work on countervailing duties, there was steady progress with some interesting issues
on the table.  Some issues had been well discussed in the regular committee, but a negotiation wasfundamentally different, and he would encourage participants not be discouraged in this area.  On
subsidies, with the exception of fisheries subsidies, there had been until recently little on the table.
The Group was now starting to make progress in this area, although it had been lagging until the
present.  On regional trade agreements, there was a lot on the table, which was why he moved into
informal mode.  This was much more productive and seemed to be appreciated by all delegations.Important issues on transparency were starting to be identified, in the hope that the blockage in this
area in the WTO could be removed.  Overall, there was no sense of complacency in saying that the
Group was on track and no-one denied that there were some acutely difficult issues.  Finally, the
discussion was starting to be informed by some informal linkages coming in from other negotiating
groups as they acquired critical mass, in particular the Negotiating Group on Market Access.
24. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that the latest status of the Special Session's work was reflected in his report contained in
TN/DS/4.  Since his previous report, two meetings of the Special Session had been held in October
and November, and he would make two general observations on where his group stood at the presenttime and on the work to come.  He believed the current state of play in the DSB Special Session was
satisfactory overall in at least two respects.  Firstly, he believed the group had now clearly achieved
the objective of having before it a critical mass of proposals which reflected a broad range of
perspectives.  Some 18 contributions had been officially circulated, many of which overlapped in their
subject matter.  Of course, the sheer number of subjects on the table also increased the challenge ofcompleting the work within the mandated deadline, but he believed the most important point was toTN/C/M/5
Page 6
welcome the engagement shown by various groups of players.  This included some major current
users of the Dispute Settlement system, but also Members or groups of Members which had not thus
far been active users of the system and who were also actively contributing to the efforts of the
Special Session in seeking to improve or clarify the DSU.  He believed this was an important
achievement of the work thus far.
25. Secondly, on the basis of these submissions, the group had been able to engage constructively
in the task of exploring the numerous negotiating issues put forward, in a systematic manner.  It had
continued the issue-by-issue discussion initiated at its September meeting, and he expected to
complete a first examination of all issues in th at format by the next meeting in December.  He
believed this work had been very useful, and important in giving all delegations an opportunity to
explore the details and implications of the proposals.  The issues under consideration were nownumerous, and sometimes very complex or far-reaching, so this exploration was necessary for
participants to be able to fully assess what was at stake in each proposal.  This should provide a good
basis for the next phase of the work, which was to lead to an agreed text.
26. The second issue he wished to address was the future work.  As he had just noted, the group
had thus far been successful in gathering a significant number of proposals for the improvement or
clarification of the DSU and in exploring their elements in a manner allowing participants to assess
them.  Some might even say that it was too successful, because the number of issues it had to consider
by the mandated deadline of May 2003 was considerable.  It now had effectively less than 6 months to
conclude these negotiations and reach an agreed text.  The group had almost completed the necessarygroundwork that should allow it to move to the next phase, namely the consideration of specific texts.
However, he did not believe that, on the basis of the discussions thus far, it was possible at this stage
to identify or single out specific issues or areas on which all participants might agree that consensus
could be sought.
27. He intended, therefore, to propose to engage participants in a further discussion based
principally on specific texts put forward by them.  This was a matter which he intended to revert to
and discuss with participants at the next meeting in mid-December.  The group would clearly need to
work very intensively in this phase in order to clarify as early as feasible the possible basis for an
agreed text.  The short time-frame for the conclusion of the work certainly heightened considerably its
challenges. But the number of proposals now before the group was a testimony to participants'
commitment to this process and their desire to engage in constructive debate.  So he would count onparticipants' continued dedication over the remaining few months.  Finally, he wished to express his
appreciation for the professional and matter-of-fact approach by delegations during the discussions.
This attitude would clearly also be needed in the following months.
28. Ambassador Biké (Gabon), Chairperson of th e Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Environment, said that  her group had met twice since the last TNC.  A formal meeting had taken
place on 10-11 October and her report was contained in document TN/TE/3, while the report on the
informal meeting held 12 November was in document TN/TE/4.  At the October meeting, the Special
Session had taken up the three points of paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration.  A useful discussion
had taken place on the fundamental issues under paragraph 31(i), in which participants had examinedthe key concepts of the mandate, namely the definition of a MEA, specific trade obligations and
relevant WTO rules.  A number of participants had stressed that it was too early to prejudge the
outcome of the negotiations in this area since the work was still in the preparatory phase.  It had been
agreed that the Secretariat would produce a compilation of the proposals submitted on this point.  On
paragraph 31(ii), suggestions had been made on ways to improve information exchange, such as theinstitutionalization of MEA information sessions, th e creation of a two-way information flow between
the WTO and MEA Secretariats and the organization of WTO side-events at the Conferences of
Parties of MEAs.  Two issues had been discussed with regard to the question of observer status:
(i) observer status in the Special Session itself;  and (ii) the criteria for the granting of the observer
status to be established under paragraph 31(ii).  With respect to the first point, a suggestion had beenmade that observer status in the Special Session be granted to UNEP and MEA Secretariats on an adTN/C/M/5
Page 7
hoc basis, without prejudice to the consultation s under the TNC and General Council.  In general,
participants had expressed support for an expeditious resolution of the observer status question in the
Special Session.  On the second point, two proposals had been made – that a positive presumption be
established in favour of granting observer status to the Secretariats of MEAs and UNEP, and that the
Special Session Chair consult with the Secretariats of MEAs and UNEP to identify the WTO bodiesto which they could contribute.  However, no decision had been taken on these proposals.  Some
delegations had maintained that since the TNC and General Council were considering the question of
observer status, the Special Session should await their decision.  However, other participants had
countered that it was important not to empty the paragraph 31(ii) mandate of the substance set out by
Ministers, namely that the Special Session had a role to play in this respect.
29. On paragraph 31(iii), participants had been informed of the consultations that had taken place
between the Chairs of the Negotiating Group on Market Access, the Special Session of the Council
for Trade in Services and the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment.  The
consultations had been aimed at avoiding duplication of work under paragraph 31(iii) and to enhance
information flow between the three negotiating bod ies.  Several delegations had mentioned the work
that had been conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) on environmental goods, with some
suggesting that it could be taken as a basis for work under this mandate.  The point had also been
made that technical assistance would help identify the environmental goods of export interest to
developing countries.
30. On 12 November, an informal meeting had been  devoted to information exchange with the
Secretariats of various MEAs and UNEP on paragraph 31(ii), in which executive secretaries of several
MEAs had taken part.  This had been the first meeting of this type to be held in the context of the
negotiations.  On the question of information exchange, a number of MEA representatives had
stressed that this was essential to ensuring mutu al supportiveness between MEAs and WTO rules, and
that cooperation between the WTO and MEA Secretariats contribute to sustainable development.
Specific proposals on information exchange had been made by the representatives of certain MEA
Secretariats, such as that: (i) consultations begin between the WTO and Parties to MEAs, and not just
MEA Secretariats;  (ii) all relevant WTO Committees, and not just the Committee on Trade and
Environment, be encouraged to engage in information sessions with MEA Secretariats;  (iii) the WTO
create opportunities for information exchange with MEAs Secretariats at their Conferences of Parties;
and, (iv) MEA Information Sessions be given greater attention in future. It had also been proposed to
group MEAs having common interests in certain issues, such as trade in illegally harvested wood or
dangerous chemicals.  The representatives of the MEA Secretariats had called for observer status to
be granted for the Special Session and relevant WTO bodies.  By way of example, they had pointed to
their own rules on observer status which allowed other organizations to participate in their work by
simply expressing an interest in doing so.  She wished to point out that the International Tropical
Timber Organization had insisted on this, and had deplored the weak relationship it had with the
WTO.  In her view, there was a real wish on the part of the MEA Secretariats to cooperate closely
with the WTO and to be granted observer status.
31. An informal consultation on the structure of work under the paragraph 31(i) mandate had also
been held, since no agreement had been reached in the formal meeting on how to undertake this work.
This had taken place on 12 November, and Member s had decided that the Special Session would
focus on specific trade obligations in relevant MEAs, and that this would not preclude addressing any
definitional or other issues.  In conclusion,  the Special Session had concluded its schedule of four
meetings for 2002 and 18 submissions had been received.  The procedural phase had thus beenconcluded and the Special Session would move on to an analysis of the negotiating mandate.  She
wished to note the real willingness of Members to progress in these negotiations and the clear
dynamism in the work.  These were good signs, since the work would move on to some fundamental
issues.TN/C/M/5
Page 8
32. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, said that his report on the work of the CTD Special Session since the TNC last met
was contained in TN/CTD/5.  There were two minor amendments he wished to make to the report in
the interest of accuracy.  In paragraph 2, the sentence which read:  "Annexed to this report is the list
of Agreements discussed at each meeting." should read  "Annexed to this report is the list ofAgreements on which proposals relating to specific provisions were discussed at each meeting."
Correspondingly, the heading of Annex 1 should  read: "Agreements on which Agreement-specific
proposals were discussed during "back to back" meetings".  The report indicated that seven meetings
had been held since the last TNC, and that a number of submissions had been made.  It indicated the
areas on which discussions had taken place – Agreement-specific proposals, cross-cutting issues and
institutional proposals, primarily the Monitoring Mechanism.  The report pointed to the fact that,
despite an increased level of engagement, there were still significant differences amongst Memberswhich needed to be bridged.
33. Since the report had been prepared, five additional submissions had been received from
Members, adding to the eight submissions referred to in paragraph 1 of the report.  The fourteenth
Special Session of the CTD had also been convened the previous day, as foreshadowed inparagraph 11 of the report.  A draft report to the General Council had been made available to
Members at that meeting, and it had been given preliminary consideration.  The draft report
(TN/CTD/W/25) would be discussed again later in th e week with a view to its adoption.  The Special
Session had also had consultations on Agreement-specific proposals and on the question of the Way
Forward, both being particularly pressing issues given the state of the work and the impendingdeadline for reporting to the General Council.  The draft report circulated to Members the previous
day provided three options on the Way Forward.  It  was his view that the Special Session should
recommend a single option to the General Council.  He wished to emphasize that the draft report did
not, at this point, include any recommendations for decision on Agreement-specific proposals.  As
Members were aware, more than 80 of these proposals had been submitted by developing countries tothe Special Session.  In recent days, the level of  engagement, which had been increasing since the
summer break, had intensified.  He had held consultations on a list of 30 or so proposals, drawn up on
his own responsibility, and identified by him as proposals which the discussions held in the Special
Session had seemed to indicate might possibly be amenable to agreed solutions.  A group of countries
had also put forward a contribution that constituted their suggested decisions on a number of
Agreement-specific proposals.  Notwithstanding these developments, he was very concerned at the
wide gap that existed between the expectations of proponents, as contained in their proposals, andreaffirmed in their statements, and the responses that were being made.
34. Many Members had emphasized the importance of making good progress in the work of the
Special Session, and had often drawn attention to possible wider implications for the Doha process
should there be failure to do so.  He frankly believed that much would depend on delivering in thepresent month as ambitious an outcome as poss ible on the Agreement-specific proposals, and on
providing, as well, and in the light of experience so far, clear and judicious guidance to the General
Council in respect of further work.  He would conclude by stating that he did not believe much could,
or would be achieved, if some Members chose now to simply dig themselves deeper into entrenched
positions.  Levels of ambitions sometimes needed to be raised; sometimes as well expectations neededto be lowered; and, above all, especially when deadlines were imminent, clear signals needed to be
exchanged regarding acceptable bottom-lines on all sides.  He did not believe it was too late for a
constructive and more intensive interactive process to yield results in narrowing gaps on some
Agreement-specific proposals, and, importantly also, on the Way Forward.  The Special Session had
only a few days now in which to do this and he certainly hoped that Members would respondcommensurate with the urgency and the widely-acknowledged importance of the task.
35. The Chairman thanked the Chairpersons for their reports.  Everyone was very aware of the
great efforts they were all putting into their work, and he was very appreciative of these efforts.  Since
the October TNC meeting, he could detect substantial progress being made on all fronts, andTN/C/M/5
Page 9
participants should be heartened by this and keep it in mind as they move ahead to meet the
forthcoming deadlines.
36. All the delegations who spoke thanked the Chai rpersons for their reports and for their hard
work and their continuing efforts to move the resp ective negotiations forward.  They also thanked the
Chairman for his opening remarks.
37. The representative of Japan said that from the Chairman's statement and the various reports
his delegation understood the sense of urgency running through the respective discussions held thus
far.  Although the negotiations in general had seen substantial discussions, Japan agreed with the
Chairman that the progress in different groups had been uneven.  More balanced progress was needed.
More realistic and flexible approaches had to be adopted in areas where there was a wide gap in thepositions if the important benchmarks of the Doha Declaration were to be met.
38. On TRIPS and Public Health, Japan was concerned that, in spite of the commendable efforts
by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council and the good will on all sides to translate the spirit of Doha
into concrete language, consensus had not yet been found on some of the issues.  Any attempt to addto, or to diminish, the agreements of Ministers at Doha would make forging consensus difficult.
Members had to show maximum flexibility to work  towards narrowing down their differences on this
basis.  The following week was the last chance for Members to demonstrate that the WTO remained
relevant and responsive to the present, and to development and humanitarian issues.
39. On Special and Differential (S&D) treatment, Japan commended the untiring efforts made by
the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) and took
note of his report which stated that further work would be needed to fulfil the mandate given by
Ministers at Doha, despite the fact that a significantly increased level of engagement had been shown
by Members.  Japan was prepared to be fully engaged in this work until the very last minute.  It wouldbe necessary to decide whether future work would be needed.  S&D was indeed a complex and
difficult issue;  however, progress had been made .  In fact, Japan was among the Members who had
suggested possible language for some 30 Agr eement-specific proposals.  Japan had strongly
committed itself to work with other Members in order to produce as many doables as possible before
the December deadline and to continue to do so even after then.  As the report had suggested, there
remained other important issues that required further work, including the establishment of the
Monitoring Mechanism, cross-cutting issues, and issues relating to paragraph 12.1(iii) of theMinisterial Decision on Implementation.  Therefore, Japan believed that Members should agree on a
new deadline and a new structure for further work so that they could deal with the Agreement-specific
proposals in a more efficient and focused manner.  Japan was ready to work with other Members in
this regard.
40. Japan considered it indispensable to maintain balanced progress in the comprehensive
negotiations.  The comprehensive agenda included not only agriculture and services, which were part
of the built-in agenda, but also improvement in market access for non-agricultural goods, and the
strengthening of rules and disciplines, such as anti-dumping.  It could not be comprehensive without
negotiations on multilateral rules on investment, competition, trade facilitation and transparency ingovernment procurement.  In this regard, Japan wished to point out that although the 2003 meeting
schedules of some negotiating groups, including agriculture, services and rules, had already been
established, it had been only the previous day that the calendar of meetings for the non-agricultural
market access negotiations had been agreed, after having pursued very narrow slots left after some
other negotiating groups had secured their meeting rooms and interpreters, as mentioned by theChairman of the Group.  Despite the fact that the work programme for the non-agricultural market
access negotiations provided for the end of March as an important target date for reaching a common
understanding on outlines of modalities, it had not been possible to schedule a meeting in the month
of March, mainly because of constraints on meeting rooms and interpreters.  Japan wished to draw the
attention of the TNC Chairman, Members, and the Secretariat to the fact that such an important issueas the negotiating schedule for next year was being decided primarily on a first-come, first-servedTN/C/M/5
Page 10
basis.  In order to make steady progress in all areas of the negotiations and work, Japan intended to do
its utmost to contribute towards the road to Cancún, and would like to request the Secretariat to
coordinate with the Chairs of the relevant groups to set the dates of meetings for 2003 as soon as
possible in a structured manner so that the work could be organized in the most efficient way to
ensure a successful Ministerial Conference.  It had to be structured so that all areas could work inparallel – no areas should be more advanced in terms of scheduling of meetings.
41. At the beginning of 2003, deadlines on agriculture, services, and non-agricultural products
would arrive between March and May.  It was important that the negotiations in all of these areas
made parallel progress.  In agriculture, Japan wished to reiterate its firm belief that Members needed
to agree on the basic elements and architecture of modalities before they could discuss figures.  This
was the best way to move forward.  Negotiations on figures without a common basis would onlyconfuse the process and retard it.  Members needed to be more realistic.  With regard to services,
more active participation by developing Members was required in order for the March deadline for
offers to be met.  Japan was prepared to assist them, and if there was any need for technical assistance
for developing Members, it would wish to be informed.  With regard to market access negotiations on
non-agricultural products, active participation by some developing Members was again to be
encouraged.  Japan welcomed the fact that the United States had finally submitted a proposal on
modalities, following the early submissions by Japan, the EC and others.  Japan would carefully study
the proposal to see whether it would contribute to advancing negotiations.  On the DSU negotiations,
Members should keep in mind that the negotiations were outside the single undertaking.  For the sake
of the organization's credibility, it was extremely important to meet the May deadline, and Membersalso had to be realistic in this area.  Japan would continue to support the Chairman of the DSB Special
Session and to do its best for achieving consensus on this issue.
42. The representative of Brazil agreed with the Chairman that there was need to make credible,
concerted and timely progress in all areas of the negotiations.  Nine months had lapsed and work was
still lagging behind in crucial areas such as agriculture, implementation and S&D treatment.  Despite
Members' collective efforts, they had not succeeded  in meeting important deadlines in the past and
they ran the risk of not completing the work in time before the upcoming timelines.  Deadlines set by
Ministers in Doha had been specifically established for those areas where Ministers deemed an early
harvest important.  If Members did not fulfill these deadlines, they would discredit the mandate and
send the wrong signal to the world.  The business of the WTO was to facilitate and expand world
trade while rendering it more equitable, not to complicate it, nor to condone present inequities.  At thepresent disquieting juncture, Members should remind themselves that they were dealing with a
development agenda.
43. On agriculture, Brazil regretted that key partners had not come forward with proposals
indicating their level of ambition, while some had presented proposals only at the last minute, withoutany figures.  The Cairns Group, for its part, had presented a comprehensive negotiating proposal
covering all three pillars, and its negotiating partners knew where it stood on the entire range of
issues.  Brazil's expectation was that the document the Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session
was to deliver on 18 December would emphasize the proposals that were in line with the Doha
mandate.  Respecting the timeframe established by Ministers was essential to ensure credibility to thenegotiating effort.  Brazil urged those delegations who seemed reluctant to engage not to continue to
hold back.  At such an advanced stage of discussi ons, one should be very careful not to overplay one's
hand.  There was a clear and present risk of undermining the entire negotiating round.
44. On market access for non-agricultural products, Brazil continued to reflect, along with its
Mercosul partners, on appropriate modalities for these negotiations and had not as yet excluded any of
the possibilities from consideration.  Whatever the modalities to be eventually agreed upon, Brazil
deemed it of the greatest importance that they fully take into account the concept of less-than-full
reciprocity, as embodied in the mandate, particularly if Members wished to give effect to the much
vaunted development dimension of this Round.  Re gardless of Brazil's specific views on them, the
tabling of ambitious proposals by several participants in the negotiations had certainly helped toTN/C/M/5
Page 11
stimulate debate in Geneva.  With respect to services, a number of developing countries, including
Brazil, had made an effort to meet the deadline of 30 June by presenting their requests to a number of
trading partners in the negotiations.  This was co nsistent with Brazil's attitude of active and
constructive participation in the services negotiations.  It hoped to see the same attitude shown by its
trading partners as regards the deadlines in the ot her areas of the single undertaking involving market
access, notably agriculture.
45. On the area of S&D treatment, Brazil noted with frustration that almost no progress had been
achieved thus far, despite the deadline of 31 December.  Regrettably, after nine months of difficult
and intense negotiations none of the 87 proposals tabled by developing countries had deserved serious
consideration.  In addition to the absolute lack of progress in such an important matter for developing
countries, Brazil viewed with great concern the attempt by some developed countries to questionestablished rights accruing to developing countries through the introduction of notions of
differentiation and graduation.  This was not consistent with the Doha mandate and was preventing
the CTD in Special Session from making concrete progress.  A round that claimed development as its
main motive could not credibly achieve its objectives through tactical manoeuvres to divide
developing countries.
46. Trade and environment was an area where it was safe to say that discussions had been fruitful.
A wide range of countries had tabled papers on paragraph 31(i) and the vivid discussions of the last
two meetings could attest to the high level of en gagement of most delegations in the negotiations.
Notwithstanding the complexity of the mandate, developed and developing countries had showngenuine interest in the issues at stake, acting constructively in the three different parts of the mandate.
Rules was another area where discussions, thus far, had been satisfactory.  Brazil wished to point out
that there was a certain asymmetry in the pace of the discussions on anti dumping and subsidies.
Whereas anti dumping had received a considerable degree of attention, the same could not be said of
subsidies, where fewer papers had been presented, most of them very recently in the latest twomeetings of the Negotiating Group. Brazil hoped the Group could expedite its work, especially in the
area of subsidies.
47. The representative of the European Communities shared, by and large, the Chairman's
assessment of the state of play.  Members would be  looking to the Chairman in the coming months,
and they might also need him in a proactive role on some issues.  Much hard work had been done, and
the Community commended the membership for its active involvement, which was quite different to
the Uruguay Round.  On most issues, there had been well informed discussions, which was necessary
before moving into negotiating mode.  The many negotiating proposals on the table in the different
groups were proof of the active involvement of all Members.  It might be true that progress was
uneven and that positions were still quite wide apart on many issues.  But the Community was
confident that is was possible to catch up and for Members to narrow their divergences as deadlines
approached and potential trade-offs became clearer.  One of the tasks of the TNC was to look at these
potential trade-offs.  In order to create the right environment in the coming months, and to be able to
move into a higher gear in each area, it was paramount to meet the immediate deadlines.  The
Community urged all Members to work hard towards this.
48. On TRIPS and Health, there had been some recent backtracking on a number of issues.  The
10 November paper was very good, and the Community commended the Chairman of the TRIPS
Council for the work he put into it.  Members should build on this paper and not try to undo the
different elements it contained.  There was still time to come to a positive result, and such a result was
politically indispensable.  The Community was fully  committed to contributing to it, and it urged all
Members to show the same commitment to a good compromise.  The compromise should be aimed at
those countries who were most in need, and for whom the system had been devised.
49. The Community believed the same held true for S&D;  Members had to come to a meaningful
package before the end of the year, and they should work as was necessary for this.  This packageimplied a meaningful set of doables, and the Community believed that this could be achieved.  WithTN/C/M/5
Page 12
some further effort, decisions could be taken on some doables, on the way forward, on how to
rationalize the work after December and on the Monitoring Mechanism, which should be the way to
give guidance to the further work in negotiating groups and other bodies.  The Community was
encouraged by the agreement on LDC accessions, which was also part of the package.  The
Community had just made a submission on S&D, which set out its firm commitments on these issues.For many Members, a good approach on implementation, with clear decisions on how to go forward,
was instrumental to the whole package of the Doha Development Agenda.
50. The Community was encouraged by the work done in the Negotiating Group on Market
Access, notwithstanding the fact that this had started later.  A range of interesting proposals were on
the table, most of which pointed to the need for a formula as part of the modalities.  The Community
agreed with Japan on the need to find time slots for meetings before the second half of February inorder to go into the depth of the proposals and to identify the lines of convergence between them. The
Group would have to catch up the time allocated to other groups.  On services, the work was well on
track and the Community was actively engaged, having submitted many requests bilaterally.  The
Community agreed that more developing countries should be actively engaged in the request/offer
process, and it had the impression that these countries still considered services as a defensive interest,apart from Mode 4.  The Community believed that services trade had great potential for developing
countries, because it was a sector where the growth perspective was larger than in manufactured
goods.  Like Japan, the Community realized there were difficulties for these countries to formulate
requests, and it was willing to support them in every possible way, by technical assistance and
otherwise, to allow them to take part fully in these negotiations.
51. The representative of India said that it was clear that many meetings had been held and
proposals submitted, but that a lot more required to be done in the coming months to build a critical
mass of agreed measures that could translate into an agreement.  The task the membership was faced
with was daunting.  At the October TNC meeting, the Chairman had assured delegations that hewould play an active role in addressing the various issues raised by Members.  His delegation was
reassured by this statement and was confident that under the Chairman's leadership, Members would
be able to move forward.  At the present meeting, the Chairman had correctly assessed the progress in
the work, noting that the balance of progress had been uneven.  It was essential for the balanced
evolution of the Doha package that there was simultaneous progress on all fronts, particularly on
matters of concern to developing countries.  This would be a necessary prerequisite to the success of
the work programme.
52. At Doha, Ministers had confirmed their collective responsibility to ensure internal
transparency and the effective participation of all Members in paragraph 10 of the Declaration.  The
question of internal transparency was being addressed in the General Council, and the suggestions that
had been put forward by India along with other Memb ers had arisen from their own experiences in the
preparatory process for the Doha Ministerial Conference and at Doha itself.  He wished to reiterate the
high importance that India attached to an early satisfactory conclusion of work on this issue,
preferably before the preparatory process for the next Ministerial Conference started.  This would be
an important confidence-building measure and would reassure developing countries that all their
efforts in Geneva would be useful inputs at the Ministerial Conference.  The issue of effectiveparticipation of all Members should also be addressed immediately.  Over the previous few weeks,
there had been a phenomenal spurt in the number of formal, informal and plurilateral meetings being
held, and even a medium-sized delegations such as India's had found it difficult to keep up with the
pace of meetings.  This undermined the effective participation of Members in the negotiations.  It was
essential that the capacity constraints of developing Members be fully taken into account whendeciding on the number and schedule of meetings.
53. At the October TNC meeting, the Chairman had rightly identified the four areas of priority as
agriculture, S&D treatment, implementation and TRIPS and Public Health, and an assessment of the
programme in some of these areas would give some indication of how far the work had progressed ondevelopment-related issues.  For India, and many other developing countries with large populationsTN/C/M/5
Page 13
engaged in agriculture for their livelihood and employment,  S&D treatment and agriculture would
always be important.  During India's domestic consultations with stakeholders, the need to treat
developed and developing countries differently during the negotiations on agricultural market access
had been reiterated.
54. He thanked the Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD for his tenacity and immense
capacity for sustained high quality work.  If the results had not met expectations, it was in spite of his
best efforts.  He recalled that Ministers had asked that the work on S&D issues be completed by
31 July 2002, and this deadline had been extended to the end of December by the General Council.  It
had been understood that the Chairman was to continue his efforts on the various proposals, and as
agreed at Doha, he would report to the General Council.  The proposals put forward by developing
countries and LDCs were fully in line with the mandate given by Ministers, namely to review S&Dprovisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and
operational.  While his delegation reserved its substantive comments for the General Council meeting,
he wished to register his government's strong disap pointment at the lack of satisfactory results in this
work.  This was an area which India was pursuing actively, not as a negotiating ploy.  India's specific
concerns on S&D treatment were extremely important to it from the point of view of market accessand increase in trade.  It was necessary that at least the core issues be agreed, so as to create faith in
the negotiating process in this multilateral forum.  Unfortunately, there had been an attempt to raise
theoretical and philosophical issues on the nature and content of S&D and treatment rather than
resolving specific issues which were on the table.  The Chairman of the Special Session had requested
a constructive and interactive approach to resolve specific problems.  India's preferred option on theissues on which no recommendation could be finalized by December was to have them resolved in
dedicated sessions of the General Council, and it was against these issues being transferred to
negotiating bodies.
55. Progress in the work of the other negotiating groups had been satisfactory.  There had been
increasing contributions to this work from developing countries, despite their serious capacity
constraints.  His delegation would participate actively in this work.  However, some of the recent
proposals in the Negotiating Group on Rules were a cause for concern among developing countries.
The Chairman of the Group had suggested that some major Members could do better.  However, it
should not be such that these Members became so active that other Members are excluded from the
work because of the kind of proposals being tabled.  The European Communities had rightly pointed
out the importance of services in the negotiations, and India had been actively participating in therequest and offer process.  Mode 4 was of special importance to India, and it looked forward to an
innovative approach in order to address the demands of developing countries in this area.
56. Japan had mentioned that discussions on the Doha agenda should be comprehensive and
should include the Singapore issues.  India believed  that the agenda was already overloaded, and it
noted the discussions on these issues was taking place in the respective working groups and that a
decision on how to proceed to work on modalities was to be taken by explicit consensus at the next
Ministerial Conference.  Finally, his delegation wi shed to reemphasize the need to adhere to the
deadlines agreed at Doha.  These deadlines were well spaced out and would ensure that work in the
various negotiating groups would not peak at the same time.  Evenness in the pace of the work wasimportant for capacity-constrained developing countries and would facilitate their effective
participation in the negotiations.
57. The representative of Kenya, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, noted that while some
progress had been made in some areas, momentum needed to be enhanced in others, especially those
where initial deadlines had passed or were about to pass.  The African Group was therefore in
agreement with the Chairman that progress had been made on all fronts but in an uneven way.  On
agriculture, useful discussions had taken place but differences still existed among Members' positions.
The African Group, within its limited resources, had participated actively and presented proposals on
modalities especially on S&D treatment.  In spite of this, there had been a lack of specific proposalsfrom some key players.  On the other hand, most of the proposals tabled, although acknowledging thatTN/C/M/5
Page 14
S&D was an integral part of these negotiations, had not covered this issue comprehensively.  It had
indeed been very surprising for the Group to note that one such comprehensive proposal tabled earlier
lacked a S&D component for developing and least-developed countries.  While differences still
existed, the Group hoped that the Chairman's over view paper would assist in narrowing them.
58. While the Group noted that the negotiations on trade in services were moving forward at a
promising pace, the expected progress seemed to have been affected by a lack of agreement on the
modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberali zation, as noted in the Chairman's report.  The
African countries attached a lot of importance to the finalization of the modalities as they had
undertaken extensive autonomous liberalization in services sectors.  The African countries would
expect Members to show flexibility in order to conclude the work on modalities for granting of credits
on autonomous liberalization.  The Group would also like bring to the attention of Members that thediscussions taking place in the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Services were likely to
have an impact on the negotiations in services.  For instance, the discussions on subsidies and
emergency safeguard measures would have a direct bearing on the extent of commitments that
Members would be willing to undertake.  On the dispute settlement negotiations, the African Group
had presented proposals whose recommendations included, among others, collective retaliation andfinancial compensation for the loss of business.  This had been motivated by these countries need to
use the dispute settlement mechanism to enforce th eir rights in the multilateral trading system.
59. On S&D treatment, the African Group had had a lot of hope that concrete results would be
achieved during the extended period.  However, the Group felt frustrated and disappointed at thedismal progress made thus far.  It questioned the genuineness of some Members in pursuing this issue,
and hoped the General Council would give further political guidance.  Should another extension be
found necessary, the TNC might wish to assess the impact this would have on other deadlines that
were approaching and the overall work programme for 2003.  The Group was therefore in total
agreement with the Chairman that one needed to be  careful in putting off too much for later.  The
Group had, of course, committed its limited resources and focused on S&D, hoping that the
strengthening and operationalization of the relevant provisions would resolve most of their
implementation problems.
60. Another area of great concern to Africa was the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
Following the mandate by Ministers, the Group had actively participated in the discussion seeking to
find a solution for countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceuticalsector, the majority of which were in Africa.  The Group believed that if the discussions continued on
the same line as they had been conducted to date, then it was unlikely that the desired solution would
be forthcoming, particularly one meant to address the public health problems afflicting Africa.  The
Group urged Members to give the WTO a human face and to facilitate Members to address the
problems identified in paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health by finding aneconomically viable and legally workable solution with no additional obligations, while respecting the
deadline set by Ministers.
61. As it had mentioned at the last TNC meeting, the African Group wished to express its concern
regarding the increasing number of informal meetings.  It was the wish of the Members of the Groupto participate in the discussions taking pla ce in the WTO, both formally and informally.
Unfortunately their delegations were small and could not cope with the numerous impromptu
meetings that were being held almost on a daily basis.  The Group had been promised that the
concerns of small delegations would be taken into consideration when arranging for such meetings,
but this did not seem to have happened.  The Group wished to appeal to the Chairman that future
meetings should be programmed in a manner that would allow small delegations to participate in the
discussions.  In this regard, the Group would call on the Chairman to explore the possibility of
reducing informal meetings to a minimum.  In conclusion, the African Group was ready to cooperate
with the Chairman and the Chairpersons of the va rious negotiating groups to ensure that meaningful
progress was achieved while respecting the deadlines set by Ministers in Doha.TN/C/M/5
Page 15
62. The representative of Hungary said that after the first year of the Doha round negotiations,
Hungary was basically content with the progress made thus far.  Negotiations in all the respective fora
were going ahead and the negotiating bodies were dealing mostly with substance, which was a
favourable development.  Nevertheless, in spite of this generally positive evaluation, Hungary saw
with increasing concern growing imbalances among the various subjects.  This already appeared inthe process of negotiation, in the time devoted to the various issues, but it was more evident in the
substantive issues.  This was becoming a major pr oblem in the negotiating process, and the Chairman
had called attention to the unevenness of progress in the different negotiating fields.  The clearest
example of imbalance was in the various agricultural-related issues.  The negotiations in the Special
Session of the Committee on Agriculture were proceeding apace, with a clear deadline for the
establishment of modalities for commitments by 31 March 2003.  There were still important
differences, of course, among participants, but the work was progressing and nobody questioned theimportance and desirability of a substantial outcome.  In sharp contrast, all the negotiations related to
the protection of geographical indications (GIs) were in a kind of limbo.  There was an outstanding
mandate for negotiations on a multilateral register for wines and spirits since 1995, and  it was
precisely the agricultural demandeurs who were blocking any substantive outcome.  The negotiations
on the extension of GIs were in an even worse state.  The same participants now proposed to stop allwork in this field with immediate effect.  Hungary wished to make it very clear that all aspects of
agricultural reform had to move together, strengthened protection for GIs included.  If the agricultural
demandeurs blocked progress in this area, they were de facto threatening to block a successful
outcome of all the agricultural talks.  Hungary e xpected that continued, parallel work on GIs would be
agreed upon at the present TNC meeting, leading to substantive results in all areas.
63. He wished to confirm once again that agricult ure remained one of the most important topics
for Hungary as well.  A successful outcome also required a balance even within this negotiating
subject.  Hungary was ready to put all of its agricultural policies on the table with the clear
expectation that all other Members also did the same.  But when the very demandeurs of a substantialoutcome refused to contemplate equivalent disciplines for their policies, it clearly prevented
meaningful negotiations.  Hungary expected all instruments of export support policies, such as export
credits, food aid and state trading enterprises, to be submitted to disciplines similar to those on export
subsidies.  It expected the most competitive agricultural producers to provide meaningful market
access and not to take cover under S&D treatment, which was really justified in this sector only for
LDCs, net food-importing developing countries and low-income countries with predominantly
subsistence farming.  Hungary did not expect full reciprocity from developing countries, but it alsoneeded improved market access conditions for its own products.
64. Hungary was pleased with the speeded-up negotiations on industrial market access.
Considering that the liberalization in this sector had been going on for over 5 decades, a substantial
and balanced outcome was long overdue.  Compared to its general level of development, Hungary hadopened its market to a major extent.  While its industrial exports had grown dynamically towards the
most demanding markets, such as those of the EU and the United States, there was a huge and
growing imbalance in its trade with other parts of th e world.  Experience had shown that this was to a
large extent due to major differences in market access conditions.  Even countries with competitive
industrial sectors maintained high barriers to imports.  It was Hungary's expectation that as a result ofthese negotiations there would be generally lower and more balanced protection levels in various
Member states.  For this reason, Hungary supported ambitious goals and approaches which would
result in a certain harmonization of tariff levels.
65. Hungary supported a substantive outcome of the services negotiations.  Hungary had received
and submitted a number of requests and it was engaged in bilateral talks with its partners. Success in
these negotiations also depended on the solution of some rules-related issues, of which Hungary
considered the guidelines for the treatment of autonomous liberalization as especially important.  It
expected that these guidelines would take into accoun t the interests of all participants.  Turning to the
negotiations on rules and on trade and environment, Hungary also supported substantial outcomes.  ItTN/C/M/5
Page 16
was ready to deal in a meaningful way with the clarification of WTO provisions applicable to
Regional Trade Agreements.
66. S&D for developing countries was a major aspect of the DDA negotiations.  Hungary
remained committed to take such concerns on board, especially in the case of the most vulnerableMembers.  Therefore, Hungary again called on ot her Members to follow its example by providing
fully duty-free and quota-free access for all products of LDCs.  It also supported a decision to speed
up the accession processes of such countries.  Hungary was also ready to deal in a meaningful way
with other aspects of S&D, taking into consideration the levels of development of the countries
concerned.  Hungary continued to support special treatment for countries in need of such preferential
conditions, but it was, however, understandably reluctant to provide economic assistance to countries
which were richer and more developed than itself.  Hungary was convinced that such a position wasthe well founded in the S&D-related provisions, including Part IV of GATT.
67. Participants had a difficult period ahead of them leading up the Cancún Ministerial
Conference.  In order to have a chance for success there, they could not afford to miss any of the
deadlines as it would have far-reaching consequences for all other areas.  With regard to the need tomeet deadlines, he wished to touch on the negotiations pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, whose deadline was the end of
2002.  Although this issue was clearly outside the scope of the round, Hungary feared that a failure to
find an expeditious and workable solution could adversely affect the negotiating atmosphere in the
new round.  Hungary had been active in the prepara tion of the relevant Declaration at Doha and had
taken part in the paragraph 6 negotiations in a constructive manner.  It expected that the outcome
would be in line with both the TRIPS Agreement as well as the negotiating mandate.  At the same
time, recognizing the interest of some trading partners to have a clear picture of which Members
would not use the system in full, Hungary was ready to consider the possibility of opting out from the
paragraph 6 solution on the import side in a limited way, retaining the right to use it only in cases ofnational emergency, other circumstances of extreme urgency and public non-commercial use.
Hungary expected that all other Members in similar situations would opt out at least under the same
conditions at the same time.
68. The representative of Norway said that he agreed to a large extent with the Chairman's
assessment of the situation, but perhaps he would even be a bit more optimistic because his overall
impression was that the work was in very good shape considering the expectations that Members hadhad.  If Members had asked each other a year ago where they would have been in December 2002,
very few would have guessed that they would have come as far as they had in most areas.  Thus he
was an optimist at this stage.  Having said that, he also agreed that there were certainly no reasons for
complacency, since there were a lot of uncertainties ahead – everyone was aware that there were some
important deadlines, the first coming up in a few days.  Moreover, in the period March to May thefollowing year there were other deadlines and he wished to first touch on some of these issues.
69. First, although not all of the issues with deadli nes in December were part of what were called
the four baskets of the Doha negotiations, they were all the same extremely important.  Other speakers
had also touched upon the issue of TRIPS and Health, and his delegation shared the concerns of theEuropean Communities, amongst others, that Members had to reach an outcome in that work.  His
delegation felt that the talks had actually moved backwards since the document dated 10 November
was circulated and that, of course, was cause for some concern.  Another concern was that some of the
key issues which were being discussed at the present were exactly the same issues as were being
discussed before Doha, and these issues had been the main reason why the Declaration on TRIPS andPublic Health had not been finalized before Doha and why Ministers had had to be involved.
Generally, on this and some of the other issues, including implementation, his delegation believed that
it was very important to respect the parameters laid down in the Doha Declaration.  A year ago, before
Doha, Members had been free to discuss what they would have liked to have in the negotiations or
not.  But now they were operating under a Ministerial Declaration where the parameters had been laiddown and they had to respect both what they liked in that and what they did not.  Turning to S&D, hisTN/C/M/5
Page 17
delegation believed this was an extremely important area but also a difficult one.  It meant giving
meaningful S&D treatment to developing countries while at the same time, in the view of most
Members, maintaining a uniform multilateral trading system, not a two-tier or a multi-tier system.
The time spent on this issue thus far had not been sufficient to expect great results, but his delegation
hoped that within a week or so there would be at least some results and that Members would take a
pragmatic look at how they would organize their work further without turning this into a matter of
contention.
70. The deadlines in the period March to May 2003 in agriculture, services and non-agricultural
market access were all important.  However, parallelism in the negotiations and in ambitions was
important.  For example, there were no definitive deadlines in the area of rules and, as the Chairman
of the Negotiating Group on Rules had said, the work here should move gradually to the next phase ina seamless way.  But one still had to keep in the back of one's mind that it would be necessary to look
at the various areas in connection. In that respect, Japan had made a good point by mentioning the
calendar of meetings, because one would increasingly see competition for slots among the various
negotiating processes and obviously this was an area where the TNC needed to exercise some
coordination.
71. Members should congratulate themselves that the services negotiations were going very well.
Of course, the Chairman of the Special Session had made the point that, at this stage, most of the
work was on a confidential basis in bilateral negotiations, and that was exactly what had been
foreseen.  In agriculture, the Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session had his delegation's fullunderstanding for his predicament in drafting his overview paper shortly.  At both the last TNC
meeting and the present one, the importance of having proposals on the table had been mentioned and
delegations fully understood that, but one should try to avoid the danger of unrealistic expectations.
In the final analysis, one had to realize that there would have to be trade-offs between exporting
interests and the interests of countries who were fighting to keep a viable agricultural sector in theircountries.  Different countries were working under different conditions in agriculture – not only
industrial countries, but also developing countries – and that was one of the reasons why everyone had
acknowledged the concept of non-trade concerns.  So in the end, his delegation believed that a good
result would be achieved, building on the Uruguay Round Agreement.
72. The issue of market access for non-agricultural products was quite different from agriculture.
One main difference was that there had been eight rounds of trade liberalization over the last 50 yearsor so.  The work thus far in the Negotiating Group had been encouraging, because there was the
prospect of a non-tariff world for non-agricultural products on the table.  There had been quite a
number of interesting proposals, including from the European Communities and the United States,
both of which contained the formula approach and were based on no exceptions across sectors, which
his delegation believed was important.  It was necessary also to stress the importance of this area fordeveloping countries, and the need for their contributions.  One of the issues which would have to be
studied in close detail was how to integrate the developing countries and to recognize S&D in this
area.  In the rules area, his delegation agreed with the Chairman of the Negotiating Group that the
work was going well.  There were, of course, connections between the rules group and other areas, in
particular market access, but everyone realized that and the Chairman was well aware of it.  The mainproponents were also well aware of the fact that th e work needed to be in harmony with developments
in other areas.
73. On trade and environment, the statement by the Chairperson of the Group had been
interesting, and his delegation was pleased by her optimism for the future because of its concernsabout the lack of progress thus far.  To date, the discussion had been about the interpretation and the
constraints of the negotiating mandate, and his delegation hoped that the group could now turn to the
substantive matters in that area.  Finally, everyone was aware that the Special Session of the Dispute
Settlement Body had a shorter time-frame than the others, and his delegation hoped that both the TNC
and all participants would put a lot of emphasis on that over the next few months.  It was veryimportant that this area should set the tone for Cancún by respecting its time-frame and by deliveringTN/C/M/5
Page 18
substantial results.  That would be a good omen for the Cancún meeting and for the negotiations in
other areas.
74. The representative of Nicaragua said that the reports by the Chairman and the Chairpersons of
the negotiating bodies reflected the belief of many Members that the results of the work thus far fell
short, perhaps 20 per cent short of what Ministers had instructed at Doha.  Nicaragua had often stated
its determination to carry out the liberalization process.  For this reason, in 2001 and 2002 and despite
its limited resources, Nicaragua had submitted with other Members over 25 proposals on almost the
whole range of negotiating subjects.  In agriculture alone, Nicaragua had submitted in 2002 a number
of specific proposals on each of the elements under the three pillars.  These contributions might be
modest compared with other larger Members, but they were an example of its determination, and of
the fact that it was convinced that the only viable option was to negotiate constructively in order toachieve broader and unhampered access to markets.  A good proportion of the membership had
echoed the Chairman's statement of 15 October when  he urged Members not to wait for someone else
to make the opening move, but unfortunately this did not seem to have resulted in prompt reactions.
Everyone had difficulties in adapting heavy bureaucratic machinery to the new negotiating reality of
the present.  Nevertheless, many Members have been able to move ahead in the negotiations andothers would do so towards its conclusion.  But this  would not be to everyone's satisfaction, since
everyone will have to make sacrifices, not just the those who had to do so in the Uruguay Round.  If
there was equality in the level of sacrifice, th en no-one would owe anything to anyone in future
negotiations.
75. On agriculture, Nicaragua viewed with satisfaction the involvement of so many Members in
the negotiation, although some had yet to offer their opinions and what they were proposing.  It was
important that the proposals had a high level of ambition, and many Members had already explained
that the negotiations could only move ahead on the basis of such ambitious proposals.  Nicaragua
believed that this was in keeping with the requirem ents of this area of negotiation.  For the first time
since the process was initiated a few years ago, one was able to see who was who and what each
participant wanted to get out of this negotiation, since in the present last stage of the negotiation
Members, far from sticking to positions of groups or traditional blocks of countries, were joining
together more on the basis of  their needs and the realities that they were living.
76. The work on services had made solid progress.  It was starting to be clear that the developing
world was much more active in the presentation of initial requests, and the Secretariat and theChairman of the Special Session had achieved good synergy and this could be observed from the
quantity and quality of requests tabled by Members and in the valuable technical assistance being
delivered.  Nicaragua believed this should be replicated in the regular Services Council and its
subsidiary bodies to make it easier for specific commitments to be assumed once the implementation
of what was now being negotiated started.  With this in mind, Nicaragua believed that horizontalsubjects should be pulled out of the rut in which they were at present languishing.  In the work on
market access for industrial products, an appreciable number of proposals had been tabled and
Nicaragua was surprised at the levels of ambition di splayed by most of these proposals.  It was good
to think in terms of a world with few customs duties or very low rates of duties, however, but
implementing such measures in a short space of time could pose difficulties to many countries whichearn foreign currency through this means.  On S&D treatment, his delegation wished to underscore
the importance of strengthening S&D as agreed in the Doha Declaration, which set out that the
relevant provisions should be made more precise, effective and operational.  His delegation
commended the Chairman of the CTD Special Session for his work.  In his report, he had made it
clear that  it would not be possible to conclude the work, despite all the efforts made.  His delegationcalled on all Members to implement the mandate in the Declaration and not to defer decisions on this
issue.
77. Nicaragua welcomed the decision taken in September 2001 to grant observer status to a
number of international organizations and MEAs in the Committee on Trade and Environment.  Anumber of requests for observer status were still pending and Nicaragua believed that these should beTN/C/M/5
Page 19
considered in the light of the positive benefits it could offer for development, for the environment and
for trade, as set out in paragraph 32(i) of the Ministerial Declaration.  The negotiations should take
place in the light of the Johannesburg Summit at which it had become clear that economic growth and
trade issues should be dealt form a balanced perspective, in keeping with countries' needs, and in
harmony with the principles of sustainable development and the right to development.  In addition,Nicaragua believed that it would be important to maintain and improve the exchange of information
between the secretariats of MEAs and the relevant committees of the WTO.  For this reason, it
believed that it would be important to institutionalize the procedures which had taken place thus far
on an ad hoc basis between the relevant bodies.  Turning to the issue of environmental goods and
services, Nicaragua had received a number of specific requests from other Members to liberalize its
market in these sectors.  This was an issue of concerns to Nicaragua, since, up to the present, there
was no clear and balanced definition of what could be considered environmental goods and services ina commercial sense.
78. By March 2003, the current phase of the services negotiations should be concluded, which
implied an immense effort to understand what would be negotiated and its magnitude.  Nicaragua
believed that appropriate assistance and tools, both technical and theoretical, would have to be madeavailable by the relevant international bodies in order to clarify and define developing countries'
needs, potential and export opportunities.  This would help bring the negotiations to a successful
conclusion and make them reflect better existing realities.  Finally, his delegation supported the
statement by Kenya, on behalf of the African Gr oup, with regard to the multiplication of informal
meetings.  This was a real problem for small delegations such as his, since it was extremely difficultto follow all the meetings in which his country w ould have a legitimate interest.  His delegation urged
the Chairman to take this situation into account urgently. All  Members were determined to take an
active part in the negotiations, but also to survive the process.
79. The representative of Poland said that the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market
Access had used the word "operationality" in the context of the future work of his Group.  He
wondered whether this referred to a possible wa y to switch the work of the Group towards informal
mode.  If that was the case, Poland found such a solution interesting and very useful.
80. The representative of Mexico said that from the Chairpersons' reports, it was clear that there
had been progress in a large number of negotiating groups, such as market access, services and
dispute settlement, in which constructive and creative work was being done.  However, Mexico'sconcerns were focussed on those groups where significant progress was not being made, such as
agriculture.  It was particularly concerned about the issue of S&D treatment, as well as the question of
TRIPS and Public Health.  The Doha mandate had set the first milestone of these negotiations for this
December, when important decisions had to be taken in areas of great significance for developing
countries.  These decisions would prepare the ground for the next phase of the negotiations, whenMembers would start to work in earnest on the main  market access issues – agriculture, industrial
products and services.  Thus far, Members had fallen short of their goals on these issues, and the
work had not been satisfactory.  They were far from taking decisions on most of these matters, and
were on the verge of sending a negative signal to the world at large on the ability of this Organization
to come up with positive substantive results for the world economy and the inhabitants of theircountries.  The negotiations were important for the people of their countries because, as the Chairman
had said before, Members should focus on the end-users, the consumers.  Members were bogged
down on a number of issues, and that was because they were paying attention to specific interest
groups, particularly producers, and they should not forget the end-users.  Furthermore, Members were
putting the whole negotiating process at a risk.  If they continued to put off difficult decisions, thenthey would arrive in Cancún with a mountain of unresolved issues.  This Organization had already
lived through a similar Ministerial Conference and that had been an experience which no-one wished
to see repeated, least of all Mexico.
81. The good news was that there were still a few days before the deadline.  Work was continuing
and it was still possible to achieve positive results in time, even though they would probably be partialTN/C/M/5
Page 20
results. However, some kind of results would enable the momentum of the Doha process to be
maintained and ensure the continuation of the productive work that was taking place in the majority of
the negotiating groups.  But if Members were to achieve this, they had to take decisions in the three
areas for which the mandate set out this deadline.  Some of these decisions might not be easy, they
might not be comfortable and they might not meet initial expectations.  But delegations wereemployed to find common ground to enable them to achieve results of benefit to all.   They were
meant to take the necessary decisions, to put them into effect and, above all, to be pragmatic, to see
the big picture and to take the long term approach.  All this was crucial if Members were to
successfully conclude this multilateral round of trade liberalization.
82. The representative of Hong Kong, China said the Chairman's assessment of the present status
of the negotiations had been realistic.  His delegation was heartened to note the substantive progress
achieved on all fronts and that things were generally on track.  But as the Chairman had rightly said,
the extent of progress had been uneven.  Despite the encouraging progress in some areas, there was
nevertheless no room for complacency.  Participants had to continue their good work so as to meet the
various timelines in the run-up to Cancún and beyond.  In those areas where the gaps were still wide
and positions remained entrenched, participants had to re-double their efforts to narrow thedifferences and to unblock the logjam in the coming days and weeks.
83. On non-agricultural market access, his delegation was pleased to note the active engagement
among Members.  More proposals, including from developing Members, were coming forward.  His
delegation would encourage others to come forward with proposals before the deadline set for the endof the month.  It was in particular encouraged by two common threads in many of the proposals that
had been put forward.  The first was to set a high level of ambition to maintain the relevance of the
multilateral trading system which was being threatened to some extent by the proliferation of  RTAs.
The second was that sectors which were of export interest to many developing countries but sensitive
to developed Members, such as textiles and footwear, should not continue to be sheltered from tradeliberalization.  At the same time, his delegation fully appreciated the concerns of many developing
countries that bringing down their tariffs drastical ly would require major adjustments on their part,
including finding other sources of revenue.  To address these concerns and to fulfill the Doha mandate
on S&D treatment and less-than-full reciprocity woul d be a major challenge for everyone.  Hopefully
with good will and hard work, Members would be able to agree on the negotiating modalities by next
May.
84. Turning to services, his delegation was encouraged by the fact that more developing countries
had submitted or were about to submit their requests.  As noted by the Chairman of the Special
Session, the modalities for the treatment of autono mous liberalization remained a difficult issue and
required flexibility and compromise by all Members.  His delegation hoped the forthcoming Special
Session would bring some good news on this.  Services was an increasingly important area to bothdeveloped and developing Members. His dele gation hoped that positive momentum could be
maintained.  Agriculture was one of the biggest challenges in this round of negotiations.  His
delegation was glad to hear the European Communities confirming that it would be putting forward its
specific proposals very soon.  But as the Chairman of the Special Session had noted, there was still no
convergence of opinions in many areas.  He had the unenviable task of drafting the overview paperthat was due later in the month.  Obviously, courage, leadership and flexibility would be needed on all
sides if Members were serious about meeting the March 2003 deadline and avoiding any spill-over
effects on other areas.
85. On rules, the work was generally on track.  His delegation agreed with Japan on the
importance of the anti-dumping negotiations to ensure that potential gains from the market access
negotiations would not be undermined.  On S&D treatment, his delegation appreciated that the
Chairman of the CTD Special Session was still working very hard on the draft report to the General
Council.  It was clear that work in some areas would not be completed by the December deadline.
Again, political compromise and flexibility by all quarters was urgently required for Members toTN/C/M/5
Page 21
move forward on at least some of the Agreement-specific proposals and to find a pragmatic way to
carry on the work the following year.
86. Although TRIPS and Public Health was not a negotiating subject, it was an area to which
many developing countries had attached importance.  Everyone shared the commitment tooperationalize the solution by the end of the month. Delegations had worked intensively in the past
few weeks, including on weekends and over lunchtim es.  For many, this reflected the ability of this
Organization in responding sensibly to legitimate expectations of the outside world.  His delegation
understood that there were still differences among Members on the scope of the solution and a few
other issues.  Only a further demonstration of flexibility by all Members could break the logjam.  His
delegation believed Members would have a better chance of success if they proceeded on the basis of
the Doha Declaration and the elements paper put forward by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council on10 November, which had been accepted by most, if not all, as a good basis for further work.
87. Finally, the Doha Development Agenda was ambitious and no-one had ever envisaged that its
timely conclusion by end of 2004 would be an easy ta sk.  His delegation was concerned that there was
a tendency to defer some of the difficult unsettled issues to Cancún.  As the Chairman had said, thiswould overload Ministers and run the risk of jeopardizing the whole Agenda.  While it was natural for
Members to strive for their national interests in the negotiations, they should not lose sight of the
broader picture and their shared common interest to make the Doha Development Agenda a success,
particularly at a time of global economic downturn and uncertainty.
88. The representative of Paraguay said the Chairman's opening remarks were timely and
realistic.  At the same time, his delegation expected more from the Chairman because it believed he
had the capacity to inspire Members and to lead th em to a satisfactory outcome to the development
round.  This was a unique opportunity for developing countries to achieve a higher level standard of
living for their peoples.  His delegation believed that the Doha Declaration constituted a solid basis onwhich Members could work, negotiate and seek consensus which would be of advantage to all of
them and which would enable them to carry out a successful development round.  Paraguay agreed
with the Chairman that Members needed to be flex ible, but flexibility would have to come from both
developed and developing countries.  It did not wa nt a repeat of the Uruguay Round where it had been
developing countries which had showed flexibility, and it still had significant concerns over this.
Members needed to show flexibility to achieve a positive result in each of the negotiating areas.  The
results thus far had indeed been uneven.  There had been significant progress in the area of services,in environment and in non-agricultural market access, but elsewhere things were moving slowly.
Given that the outcome would be a single undertaking, Paraguay believed the work should move
forward more uniformly, not speeding ahead in so me areas and remaining bogged down in others.  It
called on all Members to do their utmost to enable the work to move forward evenly.
89. His delegation supported the statement by Brazil, which currently held the Chair of Mercosur,
of which Paraguay was a member.  Agriculture was his country's priority, since its economy was
based on agriculture.  The Cairns Group had submitted a number of specific proposals, but which had
remained without response from a number of participants to date.  However, his delegation was
pleased to hear that the European Communities would submit their proposals shortly and it hoped thatthese proposals would match the Cairns Group's proposals so that agriculture could move ahead in the
same way that services had.  Significant divergences still existed on agriculture, but Paraguay
believed that agricultural efficiency should prevail to allow developing countries the opportunity to
obtain market access, without distortion from domestic  support or subsidies.  Developing countries
wanted equal opportunity in agriculture.  If all countries were to operate under the same conditions,on a level playing field, developing countries could compete effectively, but in a distorted market
their chances were heavily reduced.
90. In services, there had been significant progress, as the Chairman of the Special Session had
noted.  But there were also a number of noteworthy inadequacies.  Paraguay had submitted specificproposals which had not met with any response to date.  There was also the matter of autonomousTN/C/M/5
Page 22
liberalization which Paraguay hoped would take developing countries into account.  Trade in services
could be of great value, not only to developed countries but also to developing countries. Paraguay
had undertaken a high level of autonomous liberalization but it had not received reciprocity in other
areas of interest to it, such as in agriculture.  This was why progress had to be made evenly.  If
progress could be made in services, then it should be possible to make progress in agriculture.  If itwas not possible to move forward in step, then it would be very difficult to reach agreement
anywhere.  Progress had also been made in the area of environment, and Paraguay welcomed this.  As
a developing country, Paraguay believed the environment should be preserved at whatever cost.  It
believed in sustainable development, so as to protect the source of its livelihood – forestry and
agriculture.  Headway had also been made in other areas, such as the non-agricultural sector, but
Paraguay expected reciprocity on in that area also.
91. Another priority for Paraguay was S&D treatment.  Developing countries should enjoy a
range of advantages so that they could play an effective part in international trade.  For this, S&D
treatment should be limitless.  Despite the enormous efforts of the Chairman of the Special Session,
there had been no progress whatsoever and the necessary decisions were being put off while the
deadline was looming.  The need for S&D had long been recognized, but it should also be recognizedthat S&D treatment should not prejudice the interests of other developing countries.  Making S&D
provisions more precise effective and operational would obviously not create difficulties.  However,
difficulties would arise if the Enabling Clause was not respected and if developed countries gave
specific privileges or advantages to certain countries only, whether on economic or political grounds.
Often, privileges granted through waivers were harmful to other countries and should be avoided.Paraguay believed there should no discrimination at all in S&D treatment, as established in the
Enabling Clause.  Paragraph 3(a) of the Enabling Clause set out that:  "All S&D treatment should be
designed to facilitate and promote the trade of developing countries and not to raise barriers to or
create undue difficulties for the trade of any other contracting parties."  This meant that S&D
treatment should not harm other developing countries and it should be respected.  Paraguay believedthat this was of the utmost importance because many waivers granted by developed countries to
developing countries did harm the exports of Paraguay.  His delegation, despite its extremely small
size, was prepared to continue working day and night on S&D treatment, so that the objectives could
be achieved before the deadline.  It would put all its efforts into finding mutually-satisfactory
solutions, in accordance with the principles established by the Enabling Clause, that were equal, non-
reciprocal and non-discriminatory.
92. The representative of Egypt concurred with the conclusion of the report by the Chairman of
the Special Session of the CTD that the work had not been completed in most, if not all areas under
the Special Session. Thus, Members had failed to fulfil their mandate, and they needed to face this
reality and assume their failure.  Egypt had carefully examined the counterproposals submitted by a
number of countries in response to the developing countries' proposals, and, frankly, had not beenable to identify one single counterproposal that addressed even partially the concerns of developing
countries.  They were merely cosmetic drafting that neither strengthened S&D provisions nor made
them more precise, effective, or operational.  The most significant submissions that developing
countries had tabled and which covered supply-side constraints, competitiveness, and market access
had been ignored.  On the way forward, Egypt be lieved that the diverging views among Members as
to how to approach these negotiations were sometimes diametrically different, which explained why,
despite the efforts deployed by everyone, Members were not able to move forward.  Continuing on
the same path through a simple extension of deadlines had already proved its limits.  Egypt believed
that the Trade Negotiations Committee and the General Council needed to give political impetus to
this process.  Furthermore, Egypt agreed with Braz il with regard to his concerns about the raising of
issues such as differentiation and graduation. Those controversial issues could not in any way help
satisfactory progress in the negotiations.  With re gard to the monitoring mechanism, although it was a
part of the African proposals, Egypt considered it as an element of the outcome and not an end in
itself.  Finally, Egypt wished to flag that the negotiations on S&D provisions were part and parcel of
the overall negotiations.  The negative outcomes of these negotiations would inevitably affect theTN/C/M/5
Page 23
other tracks, and vice versa, and the failure to meet the mandated deadline would have a domino
effect on the other deadlines.
93. Egypt welcomed the progress in the negotiations in the Special Session of Committee on
Trade and Environment.  It believed that the agreement reached on how to pursue the mandate underparagraph 31(i) was coherent with the fulfilment of the mandate, since focusing on specific trade
obligations in relevant Multilateral Environmenta l Agreements was the most rational way to examine
the relationship between those obligations and existing WTO rules.  With regard to the report of the
Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Services, Egypt noted that the negotiations
were progressing generally in a satisfactory manner, but it believed that Members should not lose
sight of the fact that services was only one item on the agenda of the bigger negotiation package.  This
did not mean Members should aim at a slower pace in the services negotiations, but rather that they
should ensure progress in other areas.  Egypt also noted that requests were being exchanged actively
and participants had been engaged in bilateral consultations.  It believed this should continue and even
increase with the submissions expected by the deadline for initial offers in March 2003.  In this
process, Members should not lose sight of what they had agreed in the negotiating guidelines,
including the appropriate flexibility stipulated for developing countries, the right to choose sectors inwhich commitments would be undertaken, the special attention that should be given to sectors and
modes of supply of export interest to developing countries, as well as due respect to be given to
national policy objectives.
94. With regard to the report of the Chairman of the Special Session of the DSB, Egypt welcomed
his statement about the engagement of participants, including developing Members as reflected in
their many proposals.  These proposals stressed achieving an equitable outcome of the negotiation that
should include solutions to clearly facilitate and support the full participation of developing countries
in the Dispute Settlement Mechanism.  Egypt looked forward to continuing these discussions on an
issue-by-issue basis, however it noted that, in paragraph 8 of his report in document TN/DS/4, the
Chairman had stated that the negotiations would continue next year on the basis of the "highest
common denominator".  Egypt would appreciate cl arification on the meaning of this language.
95. The representative of Honduras said he wished to focus on two items which were a reflection
of the state of play in the negotiations, namely agriculture and services.  Generally, the negotiations
had been quite substantive, but progress had been unequal and Honduras believed that it should be
more balanced.  With regard to the negotiations on agriculture, his delegation wished to thank theChairman of the Special Session for the sensible, fair and balanced way in which he had conducted
the process.  At the same time, he wished to hi ghlight the fact that Honduras, like many other
developing countries, had taken an active part in this process through the submission of written
contributions on the three pillars of the negotiations, specifically on issues related to food security,
rural development and S&D treatment for developing countries.  In this regard, Honduras trusted thatits proposals, in particular those which related to a new special safeguard mechanism and to
protection for products considered to be sensitive by developing countries, would be duly reflected in
the overview document on modalities to be circulated on 18 December.
96. Turning to the negotiations on services, Honduras considered that positive headway had been
made, but, at the present, this did not reflect the interests of developing countries.  Honduras had
reached this conclusion by comparing the progress made on the negotiation of specific commitments
under paragraph 15 of the Doha Declaration, and the slow progress on the issues of safeguards,
information exchange on subsidies, and work under GATS Article XIX.3 on the assessment of trade
in services, modalities for LDCs and modalities fo r autonomous liberalization.  With regard to the
negotiations on specific commitments and the initial request received by developed countries,
Honduras was concerned to note that what was set out in GATS Article XIX.2 had been forgotten,
with requests for commitments which would go fu rther than developing countries' national policy
objectives and levels of development.  In this respect, Honduras hoped that the developed Members
which had presented initial requests to Honduras would take into account the principle of flexibilitycontained in this Article, which had been reaffirmed under paragraph 12 of the Guidelines andTN/C/M/5
Page 24
Procedures for the Negotiations.  These guidelines allowed developing countries such as Honduras to
open fewer sectors, liberalize fewer types of transactions, progressively extending market access in
line with their development situation and, when making access to their markets available to foreign
service suppliers, attaching to such access conditions aimed at achieving the objectives referred to in
GATS Article IV.1.  In the same vein, Honduras hoped that its trading partners would take oncommitments in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to it, and that this would be reflected
in the initial offers which were to be circulated by 31 March 2003.
97. The representative of the Slovak Republic said that some of the work in the negotiations had
been positive, however his delegation was concerned about the lack of progress and unwillingness to
achieve it in many areas.  Now was the right time to build bridges between different positions, taking
into account the importance of transparency and in clusiveness of all issues into the negotiating
process to achieve a balanced outcome.  The Slovak Republic attached great importance to the
negotiations on agriculture, which remained the main interest of many Members.  It was ready to
engage in good faith in further negotiations in this area and the fact that many participants had
brought forward new ideas on a wide range of matters was positive.  On the other hand, the work on
agriculture was far from achieving success and further flexibility was needed to narrow positions.From this reason, the Slovak Republic concerns stemmed from the deepening of gaps in positions and
the unwillingness to move forward.   There was still a long way to go and very short time left to meet
the March deadline.
98. With regard to market access for non-agricultural products, the Slovak Republic was satisfied
with the way in the negotiations were moving ahead and the work undertaken thus far was positive.
Many specific proposals were on the table,  some containing concrete numbers which could be a good
basis for further negotiations.  The Slovak Republic, as a founding Member of the WTO, had
undertaken considerable liberalization commitments in this area.  It expected that the present
imbalances in the openness of industrial markets would decrease and that Members with comparablelevels of development would contribute to this process.
99. The Slovak Republic was generally satisfied with the overall process and the work carried out
in the Special Session of the Council for Trade in  Services.  However, there were still two issues
pending, namely modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization and modalities for special
treatment for least-developed countries. The Slovak Republic attached particular importance to the
former issue, and it regretted that after more than one year of efforts, consensus was far from being
reached on some issues.  In this regard, it urged Members to revisit their positions and to show more
flexibility, bearing in mind that the modalities would not be legally binding and that they would
should serve in bilateral negotiations only as a reference.  His delegation had appreciated the GATS
Scheduling Workshop held the previous last week, which had been useful for both capital as well as
Geneva-based experts in the preparation of initial offers.  His delegation was also satisfied with thebilateral services negotiations, in which it had engaged actively, and looked forward to continuing.
100. In the area of TRIPS, where there were important deadlines regarding TRIPS and Public
Health and some implementation issues, the Slovak Republic wished to express its deep
disappointment over the latest developments.  On  TRIPS and Public Health, his delegation remained
convinced that there was already a good textual basis submitted by the Chairman of the TRIPS
Council.  However, there were certain issues which remained open and where consensus needed to be
found.  Some of these issues were very sensitive, including for his delegation.  The Slovak Republic
was convinced that the solution found should not lead to a priori exclusion of some Members wishing
to benefit from it only in a limited way and under specified conditions.  It still hoped that a solutioncould be reached as expected.  On the TRIPS implementation issues, his delegation was very
concerned and disappointed about the fact that the TRIPS Council had not been able to adopt its
report on its work in this area because of a lack  of understanding by a group of Members opposing the
extension of additional protection of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits.
His delegation disagreed with the proposals to consider the discussions as completed, which meantthat no further action would be taken.  On contrary, it believed that discussions should continue withinTN/C/M/5
Page 25
the TRIPS Council, and that they should lead to a concrete decision on the extension of additional
protection.
101. The Slovak Republic was satisfied with the discussions in the Negotiating Group on Rules,
where the process was moving in right direction.  Turning to implementation issues in general, wherethere were important deadlines at the end of the year, he wished to stress his country's concern that
these deadlines would not be met in most cases.  The work on implementation issues had been
slowing down and there was an urgent need to intensify it in 2003.
102. The Slovak Republic believed that only a transparent process could lead to a balanced
outcome acceptable to all.  In this regard, he wish ed to highlight S&D as an integral part of the
negotiations.  The Slovak Republic understood the difficulties faced by LDCs and other Memberswith lower levels of development and it supported longer implementation periods or less stringent
obligations for them.  It was ready to support S&D treatment for those developing countries whose
circumstances required it.
103. The first year of the negotiations had been a very important one, with many substantial
proposals submitted by many Members, with many interesting ideas expressed during the meetings
and with tremendous efforts made in many areas.  Members should bear in mind that there was less
than one year remaining until Cancún, when many important decisions would have to be made.  For
this reason, the work need to be intensified.  In conclusion, he wished to point out that the
negotiations had to be carried out as a single undertaking.  However, different negotiations wereproceeding at different speeds, with some making less progress.  If this trend continued, it would be
hard to judge the overall balance of the process, making further progress even more difficult.  The
absence of progress in some areas could ultimately impede work elsewhere.
104. The representative of Switzerland said his delegation shared, by and large, the Chairman's
assessment of the situation.  The negotiations initiated in Doha seemed to be well under way. A large
number of proposals had been submitted on a broad range of issues.  Members had deepened their
thinking and clarified their positions.  The work programme was well known and it foresaw an
intensification as the Cancún Conference approached.  Early next year, a different stage of the
negotiations would start in which the pace would quicken.  The first deadlines requiring action by
Members were close.  In the first half of 2003, Members had to come up with modalities for
agriculture and for market access for non-agricultural products, present initial offers in services andconclude the dispute settlement negotiations.  Success would only happen in this ambitious task if
there was balanced progress in all areas.  This would also be the key to success at the Cancún
Ministerial Conference.
105. On the negotiations on access to services markets, work was well under way with intense
activity on the basis of Members' requests.  The submission of offers in March next year would be the
start of a new phase in the negotiations.  But such a positive assessment should not conceal the real
difficulties faced by some Members who had not been  in a position to advance their interests in the
request/offer process, including many LDCs.  This situation was a cause of concern to his delegation,
and targeted, swift and efficient technical assistance was required.  The issue of how autonomousliberalization measures should be dealt with had not been resolved although some progress had been
made.  His delegation believed that the latest proposal by the Chairman of the negotiating group was
an excellent basis for consensus.  However, no major progress had been made on rules issues, mainly
on the sensitive issue of the emergency safeguard clause, and Members should display enough realism
and flexibility to allow progress to be made.
106. Some important work had been under way in the area of agriculture for almost three years.
Rarely had such in-depth work taken place on aspects of such a complex negotiation, but the
differences which had emerged during this work could not be hidden.  The work had run aground on
the modalities to be adopted for the negotiations.  The question was whether to continue with thereform process on the basis of the tried and tested instruments of the Uruguay Round or to departTN/C/M/5
Page 26
radically from this approach.  Switzerland's position was well known.  It was determined to contribute
to the collective effort under the terms of the Doha mandate and it was also prepared to clarify its
position.  But in order to do so, it had to obtain certain guarantees as to the instruments and pace of
reform in order to preserve a multifunctional type of agriculture.  In this regard it maintained that the
flexible and balanced framework achieved under the Uruguay Round should be used to structure thepresent negotiations.  This was the only means of achieving tangible results within the tight deadline.
It was also very important to Switzerland to be ab le to fully exploit its agricultural production in the
context of increased international competition.  This concerned differentiating between products on
the basis of characteristics offering added value and to which consumers were sensitive.  Labelling
and the extension of the protection of GIs were the instruments which Switzerland suggested to
preserve or increase this added value.  That was why it was in favour of establishing a registry which
would enable effective legal protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits.
107. On to market access for non-agricultural products, recent developments in the work in this
area products had been encouraging.  The Negoti ating Group had had high quality discussions on the
basis of substantial contributions.  Most participants had put forward their views and the Group had a
clear picture of Members' positions on the modalities for the negotiations.  The time was now right tomove onto the next phase, namely elaborating modalities acceptable to all.  On rules, the quality and
precision of the submissions had varied according to the subject, as pointed out by the Chairman of
the Negotiating Group.  Interested Members now had to make a supplementary effort to clarify their
positions on a certain number of key points.  It was not surprising that the where participants had been
more active was that of trade remedies, notably anti-dumping measures. For Switzerland, thisfollowed from the fact that these measures were closely linked to the question of market access.  It
would indeed be curious if tariff obstacles were to be dismantled without at the same time reducing
the potential for abusive use of the instruments which could cancel out the good work done in the area
of reducing tariffs.  As in the past, Switzerland would continue to work actively to pursue these
objectives.
108. The work in the negotiations on dispute settlement had been intensive, particularly in
informal mode, and a numerous proposals had been submitted.  Switzerland believed this work was of
fundamental importance since the dispute settlement system was the glue that held the trading system
together and there was room for improvement.  But time was short and Members needed to redouble
their efforts if they wanted to achieve an outcome before the deadline.  Switzerland believed that a
certain number of issues deserved particular attention, notably the sequencing of Articles 21 and 22,the strengthening of the Appellate Body, the partial professionalization of the roster of panelists and
the establishment of remand authority for the Appellate Body.
109. Trade and environment was a particularly important part of the negotiations for Switzerland.
The Doha programme represented an opportunity to promote sustainable development by puttingtogether ambitious sectoral initiatives for environmental goods and services.  This was a win-win
situation.  Members should not let this opportunity slip through their hands, and they should find a
pragmatic solution to the problem of defining the products to be covered.  The other dimension of
trade and environment was the clarification of the relationship between MEAs and WTO rules, and in
reply to Switzerland's proposals, some Members had requested that work focus on identifying
problems raised by specific commercial provisions of MEAs.  Switzerland did not contest the
usefulness of such an analysis, but it believed one also needed to look at the systemic questions raised
by the relationship between environmental agreements and WTO rules.  Its objective was to find a
mechanism which could ensure coherence in the wo rk of the international community and prevent
legal conflict.
110. Finally, on S&D treatment, the Chairman of the Special Session had made an excellent
presentation of what was at stake in the work in this area, highlighting the difficulties involved.
Switzerland believed that it was possible to achieve a tangible result by the end of the year and it was
determined to work in this direction.  The recent submissions should enable consensus-basedTN/C/M/5
Page 27
solutions to be found to numerous proposals by developing countries.  Furthermore, there was also
room for restructuring the work of the CTD with a view to greater efficiency.
111. The representative of Canada said that as they reached the end of the year, Members could
look back on a fairly productive year, and a particularly busy fall period.  A year where the
discussions had moved from the procedural phase to the substantive phase.  As everyone knew from
the Chairpersons' reports, much substantive work remained to be done.  There were many complex
issues before Members, at only nine months away from Cancún.  However, they should not forget that
at this time the previous year, they had just retu rned from Doha, where they had overcome the shadow
of Seattle, and the aftermath of September 11, to launch a new round of negotiations.  Many sceptics
had  said then that they could not do it.  A year later, the same pessimists were saying that they could
not move forward, that they could not achieve the goals set out in Doha in relation to substantialreform of agriculture trade, improved market access, and the fuller integration of developing countries
into the multilateral trading system.  Canada believed the critics would be wrong again.
112. Of course, it was not an easy process.  But, in fact, Members had moved forward since Doha.
There were many examples.  Members would be receiving in the next few weeks the much anticipatedoutline paper from the Agriculture Chairman on modalities.  They would continue to examine and
discuss the numerous proposals put forward in the past months in groups such as non-agricultural
market access and dispute settlement.  Delegations had been holding bilateral discussions on services.
Members were also honouring the commitment made by Ministers in Doha to provide more and better
trade-related technical assistance so that some Members could more effectively participate in thenegotiations.  They were on the verge of approving guidelines to facilitate the accession of LDCs to
the WTO.  And they had been working long hours to address the numerous proposals put forward to
address S&D treatment and implementation.  His delegation shared the desire of the Chairman of the
Special Session of the CTD for a single, focussed recommendation on S&D treatment to the General
Council to ensure a productive way forward.
113. While concerned about the impending deadlines, Canada remained optimistic.  However at
this critical stage, Members needed to recognize a few things.  First, notwithstanding their work since
Doha, and the multitude of meetings, they would need  to pick up pace if they were to keep the time
commitment handed down by Ministers.  Second, they all needed to fully engage in the negotiations
and be constructive.  They needed to encourage and welcome proposals, to welcome ambition and to
exercise flexibility in their initial assessment so as to allow as fulsome a discussion as possible on all
proposals.  Third, Doha was a balanced package that required progress on all fronts.  A balance of
interests had to move forward in parallel.  Significant issues with clear mandates that were not moving
would only cause a drag on the entire negotiating system.  Fourth, Members could not permit an
unrealistically large number of unresolved issues to be back-loaded to Cancún.  That was the Seattle
model and they should avoid it at all costs.
114. Another broad issue that loomed large was the TRIPS and health file.  The human imperative
was clear – 40 million people infected with Aids, some 30 million in Sub-Saharan Africa.  The stakes
for the Organization were also great.  It was a publicly visible, emotional issue, for the world’s public.
Members should remember the original reasons behind the Declaration – it had been for the poorest ofthe poor found in some of the most remote regions of the world, to get them affordable drugs in the
most efficient way.  Leadership and understanding had to come from all quarters – developed, LDCs,
and developing countries.  After capitals completed their assessments of their delegations' work to
date and negotiators returned to Geneva, everyone needed to add value from where they had left off,
and get the job done, on time.
115. Like many others, Canada believed that making progress on agriculture was central to making
progress on the Doha Development Agenda as a whole.   It looked forward to the Chairman’s paper in
this area.  At the start of the present meeting, the Chairman had delivered a sobering and much needed
wake-up call.  He had said that gaps between Members remain wide, that there had not been muchmovement, and that his December paper had to signal, among other things, a more intensive periodTN/C/M/5
Page 28
ahead.  Canada agreed with these elements.  An essential element in moving forward on agriculture
would be to ensure that there was a very ambitious result in achieving substantial reductions in trade
distorting domestic support.  Finally, it was equally critical, both for making progress on agriculture
and for making progress in the round more generally, that the deadline of 31March 2003 for
establishing modalities in agriculture be respected.  In this regard, Canada was concerned to hearsome Members link GIs with progress on agriculture negotiations.  For most Members, particularly in
the developing world, the agriculture negotiations were the most important in this round.  The
inability of some Members to make constructive proposals on agriculture should not be blamed on the
fact that they had been unable to build sufficient  support for their positions in other areas, including
on GI extension.  Ministers at Doha had give a clear and unambiguous mandate to negotiate on
agriculture, and every Member owed it to the othe rs to move forward on the basis of that mandate.
116. He wished also to draw Members’ attention to the issue of observership for international
intergovernmental organizations to the negotiations, specifically in the Committee on Trade and
Environment in Special Session.  Canada supported the report of the Chairperson of the Committee in
this regard.  It was among those who supported a quick resolution to this issue given the very specific
mandate of that group.  Members should give positive consideration to observer status for MEASecretariats and UNEP in that group if it was to do the work given to it by Ministers.  The
Chairperson had also mentioned in her report that some delegations had urged her to wait until the
General Council and the TNC had dealt with observer status.  As General Council Chairman, he
would say that progress was not being made there, and that such an argument amounted to objecting
to giving observer status to MEA Secretariats and UNEP in the Special Session.  Canada believed thisneeded to be resolved.
117. The representative of Korea said that, thanks to the efforts and leadership of the Chairpersons,
some progress had been made in the year that had passed since the new negotiations had been
launched at Doha.  Major issues had been identified and positions had been clarified.  Yet the progresshad been hardly satisfactory.  Some important deadlines were fast approaching, and in most areas
positions were still far apart.  In order to harvest tangible results by the deadlines, Members needed to
move forward with realism and flexibility.
118. Agriculture was undeniably the key issue in the whole Doha negotiations, and he wished to
make three points on this area of work.  First, consideration of the realities should precede ambition.
The current stalemate represented a huge discrepancy between the over-ambitious proposals ofexporting countries and the realities of importing co untries.  Ambition was valid only when it could
be realized.  Second, the modalities should ensure that a balance of interests would be achieved.  It
would be difficult to agree on modalities that imposed a one-sided burden on a certain group of
Members.  Third, the Uruguay Round formula could accommodate the realities of a large number of
Members and at the same time ensure a balance of interests among the Members.
119. On the services negotiations, his delegation was pleased to note that several developing
countries recently had submitted their initial requests, and several other key developing Members had
signalled their intention to do so shortly.  However, Korea was concerned that a large number of
Members had still not submitted their initial requests.  If the requests came too late, it would bedifficult for Members to make their initial offers on time.  In addition, maximum benefits could only
be achieved from this exercise when there was wide participation.  Members needed to make
collective efforts so that more of them could particip ate in the exchange of initial requests and offers.
120. In the area of non-agricultural products, Korea believed that the final package had to reflect
the interests of both developing and developed-country Members in a balanced manner.  In this
respect, the modalities should be able to effectively address tariff peaks and escalations as well as
high tariffs.  The recent proposal by the United States offered an ambitious roadmap toward this end.
However, as in the case for agriculture, the key questions were whether the realities supported the
ambition and whether the burden would be shared in a fair and equitable way.TN/C/M/5
Page 29
121. On anti dumping, Korea welcomed the strong interest that a large number of Members had
shown in clarifying and improving the disciplines on anti-dumping measures.  Indeed, clearer and
stronger disciplines were crucial to prevent misuse or abuse of such measures for protectionist
purposes.  Such disciplines were all the more important now that a proliferation of anti-dumping
measures was seriously eroding the gains from expanded market access.  Therefore, Members shouldremain focused on finding ways to clarify and improve the disciplines on these measures.  For many
Members, including Korea, a meaningful outcome in this area was vital to the success of the entire
negotiations.
122. On the review of S&D treatment, it was clear that Members could not agree on everything
before the end of the year.  The issues needed to be grouped into what could be achieved and what
should be further discussed.  In this light, Korea welcomed the recent initiative of the Chairman of theSpecial Session of the CTD to concentrate on the issues that offered the possibility of tangible results
by the end of the year.  Here again, Members had to work within the mandate, which was to make the
provisions on S&D treatment more effective and operational, and they needed an ethic of pragmatism
as they approached each issue.  Discussions of politically sensitive issues such as tiering and
graduation of developing countries, which were not even in the mandate, could only impede theprocess.
123. While not directly under the TNC's purview, he  wished to comment on two important issues
which would be addressed the following next week .  Members' success on these two issues indirectly
impacted on everything else, so Korea believed they merited some observations.  First, on PublicHealth and the TRIPS Agreement, it was disappointing that, despite the admirable efforts of the
Chairman of the TRIPS Council, Members had not been able to come to an agreement.  Given the
high profile of this issue, a failure to meet the deadline by the end of the year would seriously damage
confidence in the WTO as well as in the Doha negotiations.  Korea believed the key to finding a
compromise lay in not seeking more than was in the Doha Declaration.  In particular, if one continuedto attempt to redefine the scope of diseases, or introduce a new criterion for importing countries, it
would only make it harder to reach an agreement.  Korea suggested working with what was said in the
Doha Declaration and the good faith of all Members.
124. Second, investment.  For Korea, the negotiations on multilateral rules on investment was an
integral part of the single undertaking launched at Doha.  The discussions over the past several
months had highlighted the possible benefits of establishing such rules in the open global economy oftoday.  The discussions had also proved that the existing core principles of the WTO system could
work as the basis for new rules on investment.  Korea hoped that the Members would be able to agree
on negotiating modalities by the time of the Cancún Ministerial Conference so that the could start the
negotiations in earnest afterwards.  Indeed, on the road to Cancún Members had many challenging
tasks.  In order to conclude the Cancún Ministerial on a successful note, the next few months wouldbe crucial.  Korea wished to underline the importance of a realistic and flexible way of thinking in
moving forward.
125. The representative of the Czech Republic said that the present meeting provided Members
with a timely opportunity to take stock of where they stood stand in the ongoing negotiations and
implementation issues.  It was an important indication of prospects for the success of the Ministerial
Conference at Cancún and whether the time was already ripe for starting to put the various pieces of
the Doha Round together.  The objective of the meeting was to build new momentum for the
negotiations and to provide the political guidance for the period ahead.  It was an opportunity for
Members to underline the links between the negotiating  subjects and to move things forward by way
of benefiting from these links and using them in a positive manner.
126. Gratifying as the progress was in several areas, a lot remained to be done in respect to a
number of specific issues and any complacency would be out of place.  The Chairman had made a
similar assessment when pointing to the mixed, uneven and not sufficiently speedy progress.  Whilesharing the Chairman's assessment, his delegation wished to add that each Member had its ownTN/C/M/5
Page 30
priorities and topics and each one operated under certain political constraints.  However, these factors
should not prevent Members from looking for balance within various positions, interests and concerns
and making necessary trade-offs.  This was what a package deal type of negotiation under a single
undertaking type was about, and this was the only viable way of proceeding if Members wanted
success at Cancún.
127. On agriculture, there seemed to be a kind of misunderstanding in this area.  Many Members
had put on record the view that there would be no progress in the Doha Development Agenda without
meaningful results in agriculture.  However, the question was not whether the results were meaningful
or not.  It was quite obvious that these results would have to be meaningful, but that was not the real
point.  The real point was rather how to ensure the participation of  all Members in the continuation of
the reform process so that everybody could benefit from it.  Successful negotiations required seriousengagement on the part of all.  To bridge the gaps in the agriculture negotiations, Members should
carefully listen to what others were saying a nd show sufficient understanding for their views and
concerns, rather than submitting proposals which focused exclusively on their individual or collective
interests.  Overall, a more reasoned approach was needed, striking a  proper balance between trade
and non-trade concerns and taking account of the needs and specific interests of various Members.This could be done if the ideological prejudices were removed and if Members demonstrated
sufficient good will.  In searching for such an approach, his delegation counted very much on the
Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, who had its full confidence in his
ability to shape an overview paper in a manner which fully reflected the variety of views, interests and
concerns expressed to date.
128. In the area of non-agricultural products, important momentum had been provided to the
negotiations through the consideration of various submissions on possible modalities for the
negotiations on market access.  Despite the serious work and progress to date,  the level of ambition
and expectations of various delegations continued to be miles apart.  Some Members seemed toapproach these negotiations from a defensive perspective and did not put them in the context of
possible gains resulting from new market openings.  His delegation was confident that this was going
to change.  To be successful on tariffs, his delegation would advise looking for a formula-based
approach in which all could benefit and in which every Member found something for himself.  This
way of proceeding corresponded to the call for liberalization across all non-agricultural products, with
no a priori exclusions and with particular emphasis on products of interest of developing and least-
developed countries.  It was also in line with the need for a contribution to the liberalization processby all, while keeping with the level of developmen t of individual Members.  In order not to allow
erosion of the results of the tariff negotiations, it was important that these negotiations proceed hand
in hand with the efforts aimed to reduce, and where possible eliminate, non-tariff barriers.
129. Since the non-agricultural market access negotiations were still lagging behind those on
agriculture and services, his delegation wanted to believe that Members would have sufficient time
prior to Cancún to catch up.  In was in this spirit that it joined the consensus on a schedule of
meetings of the Negotiating Group on Market Access.  However, his delegation considered the three
negotiating opportunities scheduled until the end of May 2003 to be a minimum and expected that
some additional time would be allowed for intersessional informal work of a technical nature.
130. On the third leg of the market access package of the Doha Agenda, his delegation appreciated
the progress that had been achieved so far both on the multilateral and bilateral fronts.  This progress
allowed his delegation to look to the future with some optimism, while not losing sight of the links
which might exist between the negotiations on services and other negotiating areas.  It hoped thatMembers would be able to find a way forward in the rules-related aspects of the negotiations.  Finally
on services, his delegation was ready to continue to participate constructively in the negotiations on
the outstanding issues regarding the treatment of autonomous liberalization and modalities for the
special treatment of LDCs.TN/C/M/5
Page 31
131. Turning to the rules area, he wished to reaffirm the importance the Czech Republic attached
to the objective of clarifying and improving disciplines under the agreements on anti-dumping and
subsidies and countervailing duties, while preserving the right of Members to recourse to these
instruments.  Thus far, the negotiations had been of a rather conceptual nature.  What was needed now
was more intensive and focussed interaction to deepen understanding of various concepts and issues.The same applied to the work on disciplines and procedures governing regional trade agreements
where the negotiations were progressing in the right di rection.  With regard to dispute settlement, his
delegation was in favour of a sufficiently broad and balanced substantive package which could attract
consensus by the May 2003 deadline.  Although some important progress had been achieved in the
area of trade and environment, a meaningful convergence of views was still lacking.  His delegation
recognized that some of the issues under consideration were difficult and complex.  However, an
agreement was within reach and his delegation stood prepared to play its part in finding appropriatesolutions.
132. On the Singapore issues, namely trade and investment, trade and competition policy,
transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation, his delegation was glad to note the
constructive engagement that had been shown by Members.  Much useful work had been done toclarify various aspects of all four issues.  This work represented a very good basis on which Members
should be able to move ahead with a view to pr eparing for the necessary decisions to be taken at
Cancún.  The time was now opportune for the establishment of respective institutional frameworks
which would adequately reflect development needs of Members.  This unique opportunity should not
be missed and the Czech Republic remained committed to working towards the attainment of thisobjective.
133. With regard to the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification
and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits, his delegation continued to be
concerned about the lack of substantive progress given the deadline from Ministers.  This issue hadbeen on the table for a couple of years and Member s should be ready to do  more with a view to
arriving at an agreement by the time of the Cancún Ministerial.  The roadmap outlined by the
Chairman of the Special Session of the TRIPS Council was a very useful instrument which enabled
Members to have a more structured exchanges.  But much more remained to be done.  From this
perspective, his delegation welcomed the intention of the Chairman to hold, in addition to three
formal meetings before the Conference, informal consultations as soon as necessary.  His delegation
would refrain from commenting on the issue of extension of the additional protection of geographicalindications to other products than wines and spirits, preferring to do so under the agenda item dealing
with outstanding implementation issues.
134. Finally, in the area of S&D treatment, considerable efforts had been made in the Special
Session of the CTD.  To some extent these efforts had already produced a sufficient level ofunderstanding, but the action envisaged to be taken in respect of many of the issues was still lacking.
However, this should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment on the part of Members.  On the
contrary, the level of engagement had been equal to the importance they all attached  to this systemic
problem.  However, the issue at hand was highly complex and required more time for further
consideration.  For this reason, his delegation supported the continuation of the work in the SpecialSession, and it pledged its support on the clear understanding that a meaningful package of doables
would be adopted before the end of the year.
135. The representative of Chile said that his delegation shared the optimistic view of events thus
far in the statement by Canada.  It was a view of prudence and caution but a positive one.  His
delegation also agreed with Canada that the finalization of the results in the work on TRIPS and
Public Health should take on a human dimension.  This meant Members had to display political
courage and boldness, and hopefully this would be the case.
136. On agriculture, his delegation believed that progress had been unequal, as mentioned by
others and by the Chairman.  This was a very critical area, with impacts and repercussions on all theTN/C/M/5
Page 32
other areas of the negotiations.  Some specific and ambitious proposals had been submitted, and there
had been a good technical discussion, but proposals by some of the main actors were missing.  Some
had said that it would be sufficient to go on with agricultural reform on the basis of the modalities
used for the Uruguay Round.  One Member had stated that before looking at figures, it needed to
know the architecture.  But with the same architecture, one could build either build a doll's house or amansion.  It was not only a question of architecture,  but also the dimensions of what was being built.
His delegation was looking for a large house that could accommodate the whole family and all their
friends.  The architecture of the Uruguay Round was a doll's house so only dolls could live there.
That would not be sufficient and was not part of the Ministers' mandate.  In its statement, Hungary
had established a close link between the agriculture negotiations and GIs, saying that it had been
waiting a long time in this area.  Chile had been waiting since 1947 for agriculture to be integrated
into the multilateral trading system.  At their Conference in 1988, Ministers had stated that agriculturewas a long-term endeavour.  Many years had gone by and some were still saying it was a long-term
endeavour.  There was no moral authority to put these two issues at the same level.  Agriculture was
much more important, much more urgent and had been waiting much longer.  In addition, he
wondered what the protection of geographical indications had to do with further trade liberalization.
He would suggest that wider obligations in the area of intellectual property in this area would lead toless trade.
137. In the area of the negotiations on dispute settlement, Members had not reached consensus on
all the issues, but there were some good ideas and they would need to continue their work.  Some
proposals went beyond the negotiating mandate, which spoke of improving and clarifying the DSU.Some proposals would imply an increase in the Organization's budget, which seemed to be a delicate
issue.  Members did not have much time until May 2003, so they should focus on the issues where
they could reach agreement.  In this regard, his delegation disagreed with the Chairman of the
Negotiating Group that the discussions should focus on proposals containing specific texts.  At this
juncture, Chile could make many proposals but did not have a specific text to submit in a proposal.  In
addition, even the most perfect text might not find consensus in May, and there would be no outcome.
For this reason, Chile urged the Chairman himself to select the issues on which consensus might be
possible and to make his own best effort, taking into  account the discussions thus far.  The rest could
be left for later, under an additional mandate if necessary, and in this way there would be results on
many issues in May, if only on a provisional basis.
138. In the negotiations on rules, there had been progress and his delegation gave the Chairman of
the Negotiating Group top marks.  His delegation was also satisfied with the progress made in the
market access negotiations for non-agricultural goods.  A considerable number of far-reaching
proposals had been made in this area based on a long-term vision.  Chile believed this was appropriate
to the present reality within this Organization and also in the global economy of today.  Chile had
submitted such a proposal, calling for the highest possible level of ambition, which should beimplemented in the largest possible time-frame to allow adjustments to be made in Members'
economies so that liberalization became a tool for development and one which generated economic,
social or political problems.  Statements had been made which suggested the need for realism and that
one should not be too ambitious.  However, references to being realistic, both in this area and in other
areas of the negotiations, had to be put into the context of what was happening in trade liberalization.Bilateral and plurilateral free trade agreements contained not only provisions to eliminate tariffs
amongst the partner countries, but also disciplines in such important areas as services and investment,
where the greatest possible liberalization was being sought.  The trade liberalization being achieved
through these bilateral or plurilateral agreements was indicative of the desire on the part of businesses,
workers and politicians to move towards liberalization and to achieve better disciplines on a globallevel, be it within the WTO or outside the WTO.  This was the reality of the situation, and this
Organization had to face that challenge.  It could not lag behind because countries that could not
participate in these bilateral or plurilateral processes, and which could only participate on a small
scale, would be marginalized in the global liberalization process.  Chile had high ambitions in this
respect, but it wished to underline again the important linkages that this area had with other areas ofnegotiation, such as agriculture and rules, in particular anti dumping.TN/C/M/5
Page 33
139. On S&D treatment, Chile believed that this was not the right time or place to redesign or
question S&D treatment.  It was rather a question of improving it.  With regard to the report by the
Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD, good progress had been made, it just had not yet been
brought to fruition.  Chile hoped that this could be done in the near future, and believed that  moretime would be needed to take the process forward.   On the issue of IGO observership, his delegation
shared the concerns expressed by Canada that this had not been solved and the impact of this on the
negotiations on trade and environment.  Chile hoped that, at least for the purposes of these
negotiations, a solution could be found.
140. The representative of Zambia, speaking on behalf of the Least-Developed Countries
, said the
Chairman's assessment of the current situation had been very precise. Indeed, it needed urgent and
closer attention and basically calls for all Members to redouble their efforts in order to rescue the
DDA, particularly given the prevailing world econom ic environment.  He wished to thank all the
Chairpersons for their dedication and hard work as demonstrated by their reports.  The fact that these
bodies had realized differing levels of success was not linked to their efforts, but rather demonstrated
the level, or the seriousness, of engagement that Members had shown.  In this connection, hisdelegation joined others in urging Members to redouble their efforts and to work harder as they
approached the deadlines set by their Ministers, including the revised deadlines.  His delegation was
not pessimistic, but after nine months of negotiations, the world expected more from Members than
what the various Chairpersons had reported.  The bigger picture of what they were doing here
involved real people and included issues that the various groups, including the media, in the differentcorners of the world were currently and busily discussing.
141. He would not comment on all the Chairpersons' reports, but rather restrict his comments to
the two or three areas that the LDCs viewed as most crucial.  First, S&D treatment.  The LDCs
believed that incorporating S&D into the architecture of WTO rules was of paramount importance totheir ability to participate in the multilateral tradin g system.  However, as the report by the Chairman
of the Special Session had shown, the work still faced great difficulties, and it was looking more and
more as if a successful conclusion might elude Members, at least by the end of month deadline.  The
LDCs agreed with the Chairman on the need to raise ambitions by some delegations and lower
expectations by others in order to facilitate consensus.  However, they believed that expectations
could not be lowered any further than was necessary to stay within the limits of the instructions
Ministers had given at Doha.  Several delegations had indeed referred to the importance of respectingthe Doha Ministerial mandate, including Norway and Canada.
142. S&D was a cross-cutting principle that had an effect on almost everything that the LDCs were
trying to achieve.  In the negotiations on agriculture, they were concerned that many of the proposals
put forward did not adequately address the issue of S&D, and yet it was an integral part of thenegotiating mandate.  The LDCs wished to see the modalities to be agreed lead to an improvement in
S&D provisions over and above what they had been granted in the Uruguay Round.  Similarly, in
services, the LDCs had reminded their trading partners, under the principle of equity and fairness, to
take into account the measures they had already undertaken in liberalising their services sectors.
While reports indicated that trade in services might be one of the saving graces of the work at present,the LDCs were disappointed by the lack of agreement on modalities for the treatment of autonomous
liberalization, as the Chairman had pointed out.  The solution to this was only a question of flexibility
on the part of the LDCs negotiating partners, who should remember the extent of the liberalization the
LDCs had undertaken as result of their other international obligations.
143. Of crucial importance to the LDCs was the need to reach an acceptable and practical
settlement on TRIPS and Public Health.  The need for a speedy settlement of this issue was a matter
of public record, as many delegations had pointed out.  There was a need for all Members to
remember that this issue was not just another matter of business as usual, but rather concerned saving
millions of lives which were at stake.  It was a matter of life and death.  The LDCs believed it waspossible, before the deadline expired at the end of the year, to address in a cooperative manner theTN/C/M/5
Page 34
problems identified in paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
Economically and legally viable and workable solutions were needed, which would only require a
human touch and understanding to operationalize.
144. The LDCs joined Kenya, on behalf of the African Group, in voicing concern at the
proliferation of meetings, formal or informal, since many of these meetings were important to all
delegations.  As delegations tried to meet deadlines, meetings were being called on each day of the
week and at all hours of the day and night.  The LDCs were concerned at this, because as they had
previously stated, their small delegation could not cope, and this practice would only serve to deprive
them of their attempts, and indeed their right, to effectively participate in the business of this
Organization.
145. The representative of the United States said that her delegation appreciated the leadership
provided by the Chairman and the Chairpersons as well as the candid assessments they had provided
regarding the state of play of negotiations and the way forward.  The United States had made clear the
importance it attached to meeting the year-end deadlines in four areas.  First, the United States
remained hopeful that a mutually-supportive solution could be found regarding TRIPS and health.  Inthis connection, her delegation applauded the untiring efforts of the Chairman of the TRIPS Council
and it would make every effort to achieve a successful outcome.  Second, based on realistic
expectations and practical needs, Members could devise a package on development-related issues –
implementation, S&D, the monitoring mechanism, and streamlining the accession process for LDCs –
that would complement and support the DDA in all its  facets.  Third, the Chairman's report on trade-
related technical assistance and capacity building was also essential for development-related issues
and would help Members prepare for the next phase of work.  Fourth, the United States was hopeful
that Members could chart a course for the early dead lines the following year that dealt with the core
issues of the DDA – agriculture, services and non-agricultural market access.
146. In less than a year, Ministers would be meeting in Cancún.  In the new year, the United States
believed that Members would need to shape the agenda for the Ministerial and the issues where
Ministerial attention and direction would be needed.  The agenda agreed at Doha extended well
beyond the core issues of market access.  The United States had been an active participant in the
various areas of discussion because it recognized that these areas were needed for balance.  It
respected the agreement at Doha and intended to be a constructive partner in forging a consensus on
the broad agenda Ministers had put forward.
147. On services, the United States was actively engaged in all aspects of the current phase of the
GATS negotiations, looking ahead to the next deadline of 31 March 2003 for the submission of initial
offers.  It had submitted requests in line with the time-frame established by the Ministerial
Declaration.  It was fielding teams of sectoral experts for the bilateral rounds.  It was seeking toengage all Members to which it had submitted requests to present and clarify these requests, and it
had been interested to receive the same information in return, where requests had been presented to it.
It had also participated actively in ongoing rules and other work, namely safeguards, subsidies,
procurement, domestic regulation, and classification.
148. The United States looked forward to continuing at the same pace in 2003.  It had noted on
previous occasions that liberalization of services held enormous potential gains for developing
countries – some $900 billion annually.  Services were the key to meeting infrastructure needs for
economies to grow.  Given the importance of services  to growth and development, the United States
remained concerned that more Members had not yet submitted requests and would encourage them todo so in order to ensure that they be considered in  the context of the United States' initial offer due in
March.
149. Her delegation was grateful to the Secretariat's Trade in Services Division for hosting the
successful Scheduling Workshop, which had been aimed at helping developing countries.  It hadfound the workshop to be not only informative, but also interactive all around, and it appeared to haveTN/C/M/5
Page 35
clarified many areas for Members with respect to scheduling and preparing offers.  Her delegation
also appreciated the hard work of the Special Session Chairman on completion of the mandated
autonomous liberalization modalities.  The text, which the United States believed was not perfect, was
an acceptable basis on which Members should be able to reach consensus.  Finally, the United Sates
eagerly awaited the draft text being prepared by LDC Members, part of another requirement of GATSArticle XIX, to establish modalities for special treatment of LDCs in the negotiations.  The United
States also wished to see this text completed soon, having first proposed ideas for these modalities in
a written submission in July 2000.  It was high time to wrap this up.
150. The United States had just recently made its contribution to the negotiations on non-
agricultural market access, proposing modalities that were far-reaching and ambitious, consistent with
its approaches in services and agriculture.  Like in agriculture, it believed Members needed to take adifferent approach than they had in the Uruguay Round.  The United States had listened carefully to
its partners about the importance of keeping everything on the table, and had devised a method where,
over time, Members would achieve a single set of obligations applicable to all – where industrial
tariffs would be eliminated along with non-tariff barriers that impeded access.
151. The United States was enthusiastic about the prospect of securing far-reaching results that, if
adopted, would significantly open markets around the world, particularly on products of interest to
developing countries, whether those products were in the labour-intensive area or other fields.  Some
Members had said that the United States was being too ambitious, while others had applauded its
initiative.  Her delegation aimed to work with others to see whether this proposal could be broadlyaccepted as the modality for the negotiations.  The United States' goal was simply to ensure that there
was an ambitious outcome in this part of the negotiations.
152. Not surprisingly, this led her to agriculture and her delegations' continuing concern about the
pace of work in an area which all Members recognized was central to the DDA.  The United Stateshad joined others in calling for a different appr oach to the negotiations rather than automatically
extending the Uruguay Round modalities.  The good news was that there had been progress and there
were a number of specific and reformist proposals on the table.  The common thread in each of the
proposals was their call for substantial reform, liberalization and a new approach to the three pillars in
the Agriculture Agreement – market access, export competition and domestic support.
153. The Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session had to be in a position to forge the needed
consensus on modalities by the end of March.  The United States looked forward to his paper at the
end of the year and his plans to provide more specificity in his February paper.  It noted that it had
been difficult for some to come forward and be spec ific.  This would be a challenge for the Chairman,
but the United States expected that he would continue to reflect the ambitions of those who had made
the effort to participate and who had tabled detailed proposals to move this process forward.  Giventhat the state of trade liberalization in agriculture was decades behind the rest of the trading system's
trade liberalizing accomplishments and the importance of agriculture to so many Members, it would
be unrealistic to adopt a level of ambition that did not address this state of affairs.
154. Her remarks had focused primarily on the core market access issues of services, industrial
market access and agriculture, but the United States had a keen interest in the other issues on the
agenda and would work to forge consensus where possible.  The previous week, the Rules
Negotiating Group had had an extensive discussion of trade rules.  The United States had taken the
opportunity to supplement earlier contributions on concepts for the rules negotiations to focus on
questions of investigatory procedures in anti-dumping and countervail cases, as well as the importantquestion of subsidies and development.  It looked forward to continuing the work.
155. Similarly, the United States was working to further understanding in a number of areas which
were of great concern to Members.  For example, it continued to raise questions in the Trade and
Investment Working Group to ensure that whatever Members agreed to begin building in this area didnot limit the value of an agreement over the long term.  In this respect, the United States hoped thatTN/C/M/5
Page 36
others would look again at its recent submission on including portfolio investment in any negotiation
on investment.
156. With regard to the report by the Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on
Trade and Environment, the United States supported her efforts to organize future discussions toaddress methodically the complex issues arising from the mandate in paragraph 31(i) of the Doha
Declaration regarding specific trade obligations  in multilateral environmental agreements.  It
welcomed her invitation to delegations to engage in more concrete analysis by expressing views on
examples of such specific trade obligations.  It believed that this provided a sound focus for
productive work without, as she had noted, prejudicing the views and interests of any Member.
157. Finally, she wished to comment on the issue of development.  Ministers had agreed to the
DDA precisely because further trade negotiations – liberalization, strengthening and writing of new
rules – were essential if the WTO was to continue to create opportunities for growth and development.
The United States' aim in all the discussions was to be practical as Members looked further at the
issue of development and S&D.  There had been good success in the Subsidies Committee in
addressing in a tangible fashion specific concerns.  In a similar vein, the work on standards, in bothSPS and TBT, was promising, and a discussion had been engaged with the small economies on issues
of greatest concern.  Working together, Members could shape policies that yielded tangible results
that furthered the process of integration.
158. The United States also very much welcomed the agreement that had just been reached on the
Decision on Accessions of Least-Developed Countries.   It believed that membership in the WTO, and
indeed the accession process itself, could yield important benefits in advancing the development
interests of these countries.  The United States looked forward to working with LDCs in the accession
process to produce meaningful and tangible results as soon as possible.  On S&D, there was clearly
still some intensive work to be undertaken before the year's end.  The United States and othercountries had put some concrete ideas forward in the spirit of trying to find common ground and
achieve development-friendly results.  It was fully  engaged and prepared to put in all the time and
effort that was needed to work towards practical so lutions to specific issues and to create a roadmap
for future work.
159. Looking ahead, while Members had all worked hard and there had been an encouraging
degree of engagement, the hardest work lay ahead.  The United States was committed to playing itspart in moving forward towards a successful Ministerial in Cancún and a successful outcome to the
negotiations.  Its goal continued to be ambitious results in the three market access areas and a
strengthened system of rules and disciplines that were applicable, and of benefit, to all Members.  The
United States looked forward to working with others to achieve such results, and to further
discussions the following week on this important topic.
160. The representative of Malaysia said his delegation fully concurred with the Chairman's
assessment, which correctly reflected the state of play in the negotiations.  He wished to focus on
those issues where deadlines were near, namely TRIPS and Public Health and S&D treatment.  On
TRIPS and Public Health, everyone had acknowledged that this was a humanitarian issue, and that ithad nothing to do with economic considerations.  His delegation saw that the initial euphoria and
readiness to find an early solution to this issue seemed to have fizzled out.  The progress that
Members had thought was being made in the early stages had somehow eluded them.  Instead of
moving forward, they seemed to have moved backwards.  His delegation deeply appreciated the hard
work of the Chairman of the TRIPS Council, and the fact that he was still very much determined tofind a solution to this issue.  It was also somewhat encouraged that many delegations, including major
ones, who had said that they were also quite determined to find a solution to this issue.  However,
Members seemed to be in a state of impasse.  Some might differ on this evaluation, but his delegation
was cautiously optimistic that, with the kind of acknowledgement that had been made and the
commitment shown by some of the major delegations at the present meeting,  Members would be ableto find a solution to this issue.TN/C/M/5
Page 37
161. S&D was another issue of critical importance to many delegations.  Members had to find a
way to resolve some, if not all, the proposals submitted in this area, because they had not yet reached
a stage where they had been able to find a solution to even one proposal.  Of course, Malaysia
welcomed the contributions recently made by a group of countries, and the way forward would be to
ensure that these issues were discussed in good faith and with the necessary political will.  Malaysiawished to underline that, unless solutions were fo und to some of these proposals in the following
days, it would have problems in dealing with othe r issues which would come up early the following
year.  Members had come to a stage where they had to go beyond words and act with a sense of
urgency, demonstrating the political will to negotiate in good faith on these two issues.  His
delegation was cautiously optimistic that Members would be able to find solutions to both issues in
the small amount of time remaining.
162. Finally, he wished to respond to the statements by a number of delegations on the Singapore
issues.  Japan had referred to the need to have a comprehensive agenda, mentioning the issues such as
trade facilitation, investment, transparency in government procurement and trade and competition.
That statement had contained nuances, but the statement by Korea had been even more surprising to
his delegation, going even further and stating that the issue of investment was part of the singleundertaking.  His delegation was disappointed that some delegations had raised these issues in the
present forum, since it believed that it was not the right place to do so.  Despite the lack of progress
achieved on the issues which were supposed to be development-oriented and for which there were
deadlines, many developing countries had participated actively and constructively in the discussions
on the Singapore issues in the various working groups.  His delegation believed that, at this stage,jumping the gun and prejudging the outcome on these issues was not helpful.  On the contrary, it
believed it would be counterproductive and make those Members which had been participating
constructively in the discussions on these issues rethink their positions.  His delegation appealed to
delegations to refrain from raising thes e issues in the present forum.  If  these issues were raised in the
right forum, patience would bring adequate rewards.
163. The representative of Nigeria supported the statement by Kenya on behalf of the African
Group, and those of Brazil, Chile, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Paraguay and Zambia on behalf of the
Least-Developed Countries.  The reports by the Ch airpersons of the negotiating groups showed that
there had been a very slow pace in progress on the subjects of interest to developing countries. His
delegation believed the reason for this was the fact that it was obliged to wait for its partners to move.
It had seen an apparent lack of interest in these subjects by a number of key delegations, especially onagriculture, in particular reduction in domestic support and export subsidies, and on S&D and
implementation issues.  Even TRIPS and Public Health, which had been a success in Doha, was yet to
be resolved, despite the good will shown by Ministers from all sides, both at Doha and in several
other fora after Doha.  Millions of people, especially from Africa, had begun to praise the WTO as an
institution that was beginning to wear a human face, but their frustration would be enormous if thismatter remained unresolved.  Nigeria relied on the assurances given by its key partners that efforts
were being made to resolve these issues.   However, it urged that these subjects be addressed quickly
if the Doha Development Agenda was to retain its name.  The DDA took into account disadvantaged
position of developing countries and the ongoing negotiations were aimed at correcting the
imbalances in the WTO Agreements.  Therefore, those delegations who were expecting developingcountries to pay for everything they got, or were insisting on reciprocity in every subject, should
reflect on the facts of Doha in order to advance the cause of the negotiations.
164. A delegation had referred to the linkages in the negotiations, as Malaysia had just mentioned.
While the principle of the single undertaking should guide the results of the negotiations, thedevelopmental aspects of the exercise should not be sacrificed or ignored.  Another delegation had
referred to the need for early completion of work in the DSU review in order to give a positive signal
to the public that the Doha agenda was on course.  One needed to add that the deadline for the work
on S&D, as well as the numerous uncertainties which had emerged in the DDA, were already sending
negative signals and causing great concern in capitals.  Perhaps the TNC and its Chairman, togetherwith the Chairpersons, would begin to look into the issue of linkages which emerged and ways toTN/C/M/5
Page 38
reduce the impact of delegations sticking to th eir known positions.  These two problems had to be
resolved if the negotiations were not to be bogged down.  Nigeria supported the call for observers to
be admitted to the negotiations in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment,
since the work of the MEAs impacted seriously on trade and the WTO's agenda.
165. He wished to conclude by reiterating three points.  First, to call on his country's partners to be
more flexible in their approach and to understand the peculiar situation of developing countries.
Secondly, the issue of TRIPS and essential medicines should be resolved by the end of December.
And finally the doables in the areas of agriculture, S&D and implementation should be put on the
table as soon as possible to move the process forward.  These were the bare minimum that could give
his delegation greater confidence in the negotiations.  Delay in these areas, or leaving surprises for the
last moment, would not achieve the result intended for Cancún nor for the DDA.  His delegationcalled for flexibility on all sides, and it would continue to support the efforts by the Chairman and the
Chairpersons to achieve consensus on all the issues under consideration.
166. The representative of Indonesia said that while there had been development in several areas of
the negotiations, his delegation was seriously concerned over the slow pace of progress on some other
issues which were of importance to many developi ng countries.  On agriculture, his delegation
commended the excellent work of the Chairman of the Special Session.  Worthwhile progress had
been made in this area, commensurate with the Chairman's outline and the Work Programme adopted
in March.  His delegation was encouraged that many negotiating proposals had been submitted during
the November meeting.  For Indonesia, the most important issues were S&D treatment in the contextof domestic support measures, and special safeguard measures for developing countries for food
security measures.  However, his delegation joined others in the concern that there was still a lack of a
proposal from a group of developed countries.  As the stage was rapidly approaching for a purposeful
discussion of modalities, his delegation hoped that a response from this partner would result in good
future commitments and an appropriate level of ambitions.
167. On non-agricultural market access, Indonesia hoped that there would be substantive progress
by the time of the Fifth Ministerial Conference, and it urged that appropriate meeting slots be found to
allow the group to move forward quickly.  On the negotiations on rules, the Negotiating Group had a
flexible mandate, involving an initial phase and a subsequent phase, and the TNC was the appropriate
place to talk about linkages with other aspect of the negotiations.  There were many issues in other
groups that would bear down on the Group, notably in the three market access negotiations.  Hisdelegation was pleased with the Group's work, and it encouraged the Chairman of the Group to
continue the good work.
168. With respect to the report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD, it was
important to recognize that there were many issues, some of which were contentious.  But moreimportantly, there was a lack of serious engage ment by developed-country Members.  It was
necessary to bridge the differences on many proposals as soon as possible.  This had not been an easy
exercise, nor an easy task for the Chairperson, and much difficult work remained to be done.  His
delegation supported the statements on this area by Brazil, Egypt, India and Malaysia, and that by
Kenya on the importance of S&D for developing countries.  Developing countries were not preparedto discuss any approach that would result in differentiation among them.  Members needed to
continue working on this issue, so that it became part of the progress, not an obstacle to it.  Indonesia
supported the suggestion by India that future discussions in this area should take place in dedicated
sessions of the General Council.  Finally, his delegation urged the Chairman to undertake further
informal consultations with the Chairpersons and with delegations to discuss the best approach toaddressing these issues, so that Members could have an indication of the status of the negotiations and
what should be done next year.
169. The representative of Argentina agreed with the Chairman's assessment of the state of the
negotiations.  His delegation had noted the Chairman's urging of Members to move forward and it
hoped that other delegations had taken good note of this. The present meeting of the TNC had beenTN/C/M/5
Page 39
particularly useful by the quality of the discussions, which had been very constructive.  Certain
statements had been striking, such as that of Canada, which had taken an in-depth approach with an
optimistic frame of mind regarding where these negotiations could lead to.  When the major media
were reflecting the views of those who believed in a time-frame of 2006 or 2007 as opposed to 2004,
optimistic messages such as this were most welcome.  The same applied to the statement by theUnited States, and while his delegation could not agree with some of the points made, it recognized
the need for the type of leadership shown by the United States.
170. His delegation agreed with those who had said that compliance with the mandates that had a
deadline on 31 December was crucial because of the effect this could have on the negotiations.  This
work required commitment, ranging from the willingness to be constantly available to meet when
circumstances required to flexibility on the substance.  His delegation was ready to demonstrate suchcommitment.  On TRIPS and Public Health, his delegation had been very active and its position had
been clear from the outset.  Being aware of the hum anitarian, human rights and systemic implications
of this issue, it had decided to go along with any consensus, despite believing that the solution being
discussed was not the most effective nor the most appropriate one.  Like others, his delegation
believed that the TRIPS Council Chairman's 10 November document was a good basis for a solution.
171. The issue of S&D treatment was another crucial part of the negotiations, due to its
implications, insofar as this was a development round.  There was clearly a considerable level of
frustration at the missed deadlines in this area from those who had the greatest interest in the issues at
stake, and his delegation shared that frustration.  It seemed clear that the task was now one of damagelimitation, since there did not seem to be grounds for success in the work at the present stage.  Like
others, his delegation was concerned that some matters which were not on the agenda had been raised
in the course of this work, and those raising them had not shown a sense of  political timeliness in
doing so now.  When consensus was reached on specific results and benefits from this work on
development issues, that would be the appropriate time to raise issues linked to differentiation andgraduation.  On the specific issues, his delegation would join any consensus that emerged amongst the
main demandeurs.  His delegation did not agree with those whose assumed that they would have to
bear the cost of the measures resulting from these negotiations, because it believed that the return
would outweigh the costs, and if progress was not made in this area, there would be much greater
costs than those implicit in any such measures.
172. Turning to the issues on the agenda of the negotiations, he wished to begin with agriculture
due to its implications for development.  After the two previous subjects, agriculture would be a big
test for the negotiations.  But it was not the S&D component which was relevant here.  Obviously,
agriculture incorporated S&D treatment like all other areas of negotiations, but what was unique in
agriculture was precisely the opposite.  What Members had to do in agriculture was to overturn
differential rules which ran counter to the interests of developing countries.  What they needed to dowas lift the burden which, since 1947, had fallen more heavily on countries that did not subsidize nor
protect their agricultural products, and that concerned mainly developing countries.  The way to do
this was simply to comply with the Doha mandate.  In so doing, one had to be aware that the balanced
overall results of these negotiations had to come from all areas of the negotiations and not just from
the Committee on Agriculture.  Argentina, together with other countries in the Cairns Group, haddone what was necessary, and was waiting for the others to do the same.  His delegation welcomed
the statement by the European Communities that it would be shortly submitting a proposal.
173. In services, Argentina was one of the approximately 30 countries that the Chairman of the
negotiating groups had indicated were participating in the present process of initial requests, and italso had a special interest in the pending multilatera l work.  In March, it would make its initial offer,
which would obviously reflect the state of play of the negotiations overall.  In the work in this area, it
believed that attention should be given to two aspects.  First, the relationship between the level of
ambition in services and the level of ambition in other areas needed an adequate balance.  Second, the
relationship between the negotiations on commitments and those on rules needed to be carefullymonitored.  For developing countries, it was important to be able to count on clear rules for trade inTN/C/M/5
Page 40
services.  There had been no substantive progress in the work on safeguards, subsidies, autonomous
liberalization and how to deal with special cases such as LDCs.  All of these elements would help to
ensure progress in these negotiations.  The work on market access for non-agricultural goods had
progressed.  His delegation supported the statement by Brazil that the Mercosur countries were
assessing the issue of modalities and had not excluded any option.  Argentina welcomed the high levelof ambition that some Members had shown, although it was concerned to see that the Doha mandate
on less than full reciprocity had not been taken into account in the majority of the proposals,
particularly by the developed countries.
174. At the present meeting, a number of delegations had underlined the importance of an adequate
and smooth rate of progress in all areas of negotation.  Argentina believed that the reference in
paragraph 47 of the Doha Declaration to the single undertaking concerned not only the results, butalso the conduct of the negotiations.  That entailed that the TNC had to supervise not only the balance
of the final result but also the balance in the process.  This was a task that the TNC had to take into
account.  Although it agreed with the importance of holding an appropriate number of meetings, his
delegation believed that there should not be absolute symmetry between the negotiating groups in
terms of progress and the number of meetings.  This was not a linear comparison, since there were anumber of variables to be taken into account in the different groups.  Therefore, there should be a
margin of flexibility in order to ensure balance across the board.
175. The representative of China said that his country believed that one of the main objectives of
the present round of negotiations was to address the imbalance of interests between developed and
developing countries left over by the previous rounds, particularly the Uruguay Round.  The DDA had
taken those issues as priorities.  More than one year had passed since the Doha Ministerial
Conference.  During the year, a number of proposals had been put on the table and countless meetings
and consultations had been held.  Some progress had been achieved in some sectors, but more efforts
remained to be made in other sectors.  Therefore, China appealed to Members to redouble their effortsto create a favorable environment for the new negotiations.
176. China attached great importance to the agricultural negotiations, which was the core issue of
DDA.  It looked forward to an early submission of specific proposals by the major players as
promised to the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture.  This would facilitate the work of
the Special Session and so contribute to the progress of negotiations in this crucial area.  In the
Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-Agricu ltural Products, work was on the track, and his
delegation appreciated the efforts made by all parties concerned.  However, as the Chairman of the
Group had pointed out in his report, the work on non-tariff barriers seemed to lag behind that for
tariffs.  Members should accelerate their work towards a significant reduction in non-tariff barriers,
including irrational SPS and TBT measures, so as to improve overall market access for industrial
goods.  China hoped that, through Members' joint efforts, the modalities could be established by31 May 2003.
177. The negotiations on trade in services were doing well, and China had participated actively in
the process.  It hoped the requests by developing countries for the assessment of the implications of
the GATS implementation on their economic and social development, the establishment of anemergency safeguard mechanism, the facilitation of mobility of natural persons for providing services
and credits for autonomous liberalization actions would be taken into account and be duly satisfied.
There should be balanced progress in the negotiations and in the development of trade among the
various areas of this sector.  In this regard, China welcomed the proposal regarding the
implementation of paragraph 15 of the Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade inServices.  The review and evaluation exercise was a very important aspect of the current services
negotiations in order to ensure more active participation by developing Members in world services
trade and to promote their economic and social development.
178. China shared the views of most other developing-country Members on the state of play in the
deliberations in the Special Session of CTD.  The mandate set out in Doha Ministerial Declaration andTN/C/M/5
Page 41
the relevant Decision was explicit and specific.  The focus had been placed on the improvement of the
existing S&D treatment provisions in the WTO Agreements.  All the proposals had been tabled before
the deadline in June, and, regrettably, not much substantive progress had been achieved in the
additional months.  The improvement of S&D treatment was not only important to developing-
country Members, but also of crucial importance to the DDA.  China therefore strongly urgeddeveloped-country Members to take concrete action in the discussions to meet the deadline.  Failure
to meet this deadline would have a negative impact on the overall negotiations.
179. China appreciated the enormous efforts that the Chairman of the TRIPS Council and various
Members had made in the past year for the fulfilment of Doha mandate to find an expeditious solution
to the issue of the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  It firmly supported, and would be
constructively involved in, the efforts by Members to reach consensus on the solution to this issuebefore the deadline of the end of the year, so that necessary pharmaceuticals could be accessible at
affordable prices to developing countries confronted with grave public health problems.  With regard
to the legal mechanism for the solution, China was in favor of an authoritative interpretation of
Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, and it believed that this would provide more efficient flexibility
in providing a permanent, stable and predictable solution to the problem.  However, China had alsoexpressed its flexibility on other solutions.  China had no objection to using a waiver of a short term
nature as an alternative for a temporary solution to the problem, if that was the common desire of
Members.  In that way, an agreement could be reached by the end of the year, followed by further
work for a permanent solution, provided that developing countries could be assured access to
affordable pharmaceuticals for public health purposes from the beginning of 2003.  A waiver shouldbe a waiver, and numerous conditions should not be added to it.  China firmly believed that, if all
Members made efforts, the sought-after consensus on the solution to this issue would be achieved
before the deadline.
180. The representative of Colombia agreed with the Chairman's cautiously optimistic view of the
process of negotiations in the past year.  It was a good sign that comprehensive proposals had been
submitted in the majority of the negotiating areas.  There had been proposals which had been qualified
as ambitious in agriculture by the Cairns group and the United States, in non-agricultural goods by the
United States, New Zealand, Chile and the European Community, in the rules group, by the group of
friends of anti-dumping negotiations, in dispute settlement by Japan and Mexico, and in S&D
treatment by the African Group among others.  His delegation believed that that was a good thing,
since at this stage of the negotiations, each Member or group of Members had to put on the table,clearly and transparently, the degree of ambition that they had in the various areas.  It therefore did
not think it appropriate to qualify any proposal as unrealistic and much less as non-constructive.  It
would be embarrassing for everyone if others were to achieve in the future what had been qualified as
unrealistic in this process.  It was by negotiation itself that Members would determine whether any of
these ambitions would become reality.  Consequently, no proposal should be disqualified for beingtoo ambitious.  However, Members should avoid s ubmitting proposals which did not go further than
the Uruguay Round, or that were not specific enough to move the work forward.
181. The mandate set out by Ministers in Doha contained a delicate balance.  Within this mandate,
all Members had something to gain from these negotiations.  In the previous few months, some areashad made greater progress than others.  At present, this was not particularly worrying since it was
precisely those imbalances which represented an incentive for the less-advanced areas of negotation to
move forward.   However, it was clear that by Cancún there had to be a balanced result in order to
ensure that the round was concluded by the deadline established at Doha.  However, his delegation
was concerned by the situation in the negotiations on agriculture.  This was an area of the greatestimportance for the developing world.   Consequently, it urged those Members which had not
submitted proposals to do so as soon as possible, and those which had submitted proposals without
figures to complete their proposals.  This was th e only way in which the Chairman of the Special
Session on Agriculture would be able to properly reflect those ambitions in the document he would
circulate.  That document would have to highlig ht those proposals which met fully the Ministers'
mandate for these negotiations.TN/C/M/5
Page 42
182. His delegation was also concerned by the lack of progress in the work on S&D treatment.
Like Brazil, Chile and others, his delegation believed that the discussions were going off on tangents
that could only create divisions in the developing world.  His delegation wished to thank the
Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD for his work.  In the area of market access, his delegationhad further concerns, since many of the most ambitious proposals did not include S&D treatment or
simply referred to longer implementation deadlines.  This did not respect the objectives of the
Development Round.  S&D treatment could not be limited to the benefits which developing countries
would achieve as a result of the round.  It would have to include provisions which would facilitate the
full participation of these countries in world trade flows, reduce the cost of adjustment and transition
to new agreements and ensure the positive impact of  the rules of the multilateral trading system in
their processes of development and eradication of poverty.
183. Like many others, his delegation was also very concerned with the issue of Public Health.
This was a humanitarian issue and there could be no doubt that failure to resolve it would affect the
legitimacy of the WTO's image in the face of public opinion.  The longer Members took to reach a
solution, the greater would be the pressures and difficulties.  The Doha Declaration had establishedclear parameters – no Member could change or remove anything which was included in that mandate.
Colombia urged all Members to show flexibility, in the hope that a solution would be found very
shortly.
184. On rules, his delegation believed that this work was an integral part of the market access
negotiations, and it was therefore pleased by the progress made.  It hoped that Members would be able
to move on smoothly to the second stage of the negotiations in this area.  In the negotiations on
services, there had been a great deal of progress, but one should not lose sight of the fact that 80 per
cent of the Members of this Organization had not yet put in their requests.  This had to be improved
and those Members who had not yet been able to do so should be assisted.  Furthermore, Membershad to respect the deadlines in the Doha Declarat ion.  They should not use the negotiations already
concluded as hostages to negotiations on other issues.  Only through making balanced progress would
they be able to determine whether there were issues  mature enough to be included in the negotiations
at Cancún.  The strategy of delaying mandated negotiations would lead a lowest common
denominator approach which would condemn the new round to failure.
185. In conclusion, Colombia was relatively satisfied with the conduct of the negotiations.
Deadlines were approaching which would determine Members' capacity to maintain momentum in
these negotiations, but Colombia remained optimist ic.  It would continue to work constructively
together with the other Members since it believed that its future development and growth depended on
a successful outcome to the negotiations.
186. The representative of Uruguay agreed with others that, since Doha, progress had been made
in the negotiations although this had not been even and important areas had lagged behind.  However,
from the statements made at the present meeting, it appeared that opinions on which areas were
lagging behind varied according to which delegation was speaking.  Most delegations had continued
their usual practice in the TNC of noting the Chairpersons' reports and then setting out their individualvision of the situation in the different negotiating areas.  For this reason he wished to set out
Uruguay's views on the role of the TNC.  The role and importance of this Committee could not be
limited merely to a general assessment of the negotiations in the light of the Chairpersons' reports.
This was necessary, but not sufficient.  Uruguay attached more importance to the role of leadership
that this Committee should exercise in the negotiating  process.  This meant that Members should use
it to try to define and agree on some basic guidance in order to free up any negotiating areas which
were blocked, and to give additional political momentum to areas which were not making the progress
appropriate to the circumstances or to their mandates.
187. This leadership function would become more necessary as the negotiations moved ahead and
Cancún approached.  His delegation believed it would be worthwhile for Members to reflect on theTN/C/M/5
Page 43
best way to use the small amount of time available to them in this Committee.  It was not a question
of totally abandoning the assessment function, but, compared to a simple reiteration of known
positions,  his delegation would prefer a more open and interactive discussion, at the level of Heads of
Delegation, on key areas in which there were difficulties with the aim of reaching understandings to
guide the work.
188. In this spirit, his delegation would be pleased if the present meeting could agree on some
general guidance on the following elements of the Doha mandate.  First, the need to move ahead in
each area of negotiation, aiming for balanced results in the overall context of the negotiations and not
just within any one area.  This was an important principle, and he wished to underline that it was a
fundamental ingredient which all Members would have to accept if there was to be a successful
conclusion to the new round.  Second, the absolute need to respect the deadlines agreed by Ministersin Doha.  This was another fundamental requirement in  order to maintain the credibility of the process
and to reaffirm this round's objective of promoting development, taking into account of the interests
of all and preparing the road to Cancún.  Third, th e need to maintain coherence between the level of
ambition in the different negotiating areas.  For example, it did not seem rational that certain
proposals were ruled out or qualified as too ambitious or unrealistic by some Members in areas wherethey themselves maintain inefficient, highly subsidized and protected production, when these same
Members had not hesitated to submit even more ambitious proposals in other areas where, on the
contrary, they had comparative advantages.
189. On the basis of these criteria, his small delegation, representing a developing country and
operating with limited resources, had worked constructively in all areas, submitting concrete
proposals in agriculture, services, market access, S&D treatment, dispute settlement and others.
Uruguay was ready and willing to comply with the agreed deadlines, and it seemed only fair to expect
the same attitude from all Members.
190. In line with the views he had expressed, he wished to comment only on some important areas
of work.  On agriculture, he wished to emphasize two points that Uruguay believed should be fully
taken into account in the Agriculture Special Session Chairman's draft text to be circulated on 18
December.  First, the document should reflect the proposals which were in line with the level of
ambition that Ministers had agreed on at Doha – t hose which were aimed at substantial improvements
in market access, reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies and
substantial reductions in domestic support.  Uruguay firmly believed that this document should notreflect proposals which were not in line with these objectives, or those which sought to maintain the
status quo, or, in the worst case, to go back on what had been agreed in the Uruguay Round.  It should
also not attempt to interpret proposals or positions which had not even been submitted or outlined in
concrete negotiating proposals.  Second, the drafting of this document had to take into account the
principle he had mentioned, which had been the basis of agreement on a broad-based round whichreflected the interests of all concerned.  This meant aiming for balanced results in the overall context
of the negotiations and not just in agriculture, as some Members were.
191. On services, there had been a number of statements at the present meeting asking developing
countries to submit their initial requests.  Uruguay had made a major effort to prepare its initialrequests, and these had been submitted to various Members in June.  In line with the Doha objectives
related to development and with the aim of increasing developing-country participation in trade in
services, Uruguay expected that its requests, which addressed the various services sectors and modes
of delivery which were on interest to it, would be met with positive responses.  With respect to the
modalities for autonomous liberalization in this area, Uruguay, together with more than 20 otherMembers, had actively and constructively participated in the work and made joint written submissions
on developing-country aspects of this issue.  This group had shown flexibility in the process, and
hoped that other Members would also show flexibility  so that the work could be concluded.  On the
dispute settlement negotiations, his delegation supported the statement by Chile.  The focus of next
few months should be on identifying what it would be possible to agree within the deadline, namely,the issues where there was the best possibility of consensus.  He wished to reiterate that this did notTN/C/M/5
Page 44
prevent Members from agreeing to extend beyond May 2003 the process of analysing the more
complex issues, or those where divergences were more pronounced.
192. On S&D treatment, his delegation joined other developing countries in expressing
disappointment at the lack of results and at the miss ed deadlines.  This situation was one of the utmost
concern, and it was dangerous for the overall results of the negotiations.  His delegation thanked the
Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD for hi s efforts, and it was certain that it was possible to
reach concrete results in some areas before the end of the year.  In this respect, his delegation
welcomed the statements by a number of developed countries on their willingness to continue
working in the coming days to comply with the Doha deadline.  His delegation was also confident that
a solution could be found in the coming days to the differences which remained on the issue of TRIPS
and Public Health, an issue which was particularly important for its humanitarian implications.
193. The representative of Thailand said that her delegation shared the Chairman's concerns that
Members should not risk overloading the Cancún ag enda, and it hoped the work would move forward
on all fronts in months ahead under his able guidance.  She wished to share her delegation's
assessments and concerns on a number of issues.  On services, her delegation believed that this wasone area that had been making steady progress towards the benchmark set out in the Doha Ministerial
Declaration.  However, it should be recalled that the agenda for the services negotiations extended
beyond market access liberalization.  Given the fact that the services sector in most developing
countries was still underdeveloped, another area which also needed to be addressed was how to ensure
that developing countries could fully and effectively adjust to greater opening of their markets so that
their development objectives would not be adversely affected in the process.  This was why Thailand
had been an active supporter of the negotiations on Emergency Safeguard Measures.  It believed that
such a mechanism would provide developing countries with the necessary breathing space and safety
valve in times of difficulties that might arise from greater market access liberalization.  Therefore, in
order to achieve a balanced outcome, Thailand urged Members to ensure that the market accessnegotiations moved in tandem with the negotiations on additional rules on services trade, so that they
could all mutually benefit from the negotiations.
194. On agriculture, Thailand was disappointed by some major players who had not yet identified
their levels of ambition after three years of negotiations.  It was regrettable that, at this stage of
detailed elaboration of modalities, they could only identify the approach preferred without identifying
the levels of substantial market access improvements and reduction commitments on trade-distortingdomestic support which were acceptable to them and how long they needed to phase out export
subsidies.  There would be only three months after the Chair circulated his overview paper for
Members to negotiate and to agree on the modalities for the negotiations.  In this regard, her
delegation was encouraged by the European Communities' statement  that their modalities proposal
would be on the table sooner rather than later.  Her delegation hoped that the proposal would bespecific and ambitious enough so that it would not undermine the mandate set out by Ministers in
Doha.  Otherwise, it would be difficult for Members to come up with the agreed modalities by March
next year.  Given the fact that three quarters of Members were developing countries, most of which
were dependent on agricultural trade to generate growth and development, Thailand strongly believed
that substantial progress in the agriculture negotiations would be a precondition to a successfulconclusion of this new round of trade negotiations.  It would remain actively engaged in these
negotiations and committed to the deadline and the mandate set out in Doha.
195. In the area of non-agricultural products, the negotiations had been very constructive and
substantive.  Thailand wished to encourage al l Members to maintain the momentum of the
negotiations so that the modalities could be agreed upon by May 2003 as scheduled.  In this respect, it
was currently studying other Members' proposals and hoped to be able to indicate its preferences
soon.  In view of the notable rise in the use of non-traditional protectionist measures, such as the
application of overly-stringent health and environmental regulations, as well as the abuse of trade
defense measures, such as anti-dumping and safeguard measures, Thailand believed that thenegotiations should not only aim at the removal of both tariffs and non-tariffs measures but also toTN/C/M/5
Page 45
strengthen the trade remedy rules so as to ensure  that liberalization efforts would result not only in
expansion of trade but also in fair trade.  Moreover, Thailand insisted that the modalities should take
fully into account the special needs and interests of developing and least-developed countries through
the principle of less-than-full reciprocity, as clearly stated in paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration.  The results of the non-agricultural market access negotiations should be well balancedwith the market access negotiations in agriculture and services.  There needed to be parallel
development and progress in these three sectors of the negotiations in order to ensure that Members
would equally benefit from all the negotiations.  On this issue, Thailand wished to confirm its
commitment to liberalizing its market through the WTO negotiations, despite the fact that it had
undertaken an autonomous initiative to liberalize its market since the Uruguay Round.
196. On the rules negotiations, Thailand noted with satisfaction that the negotiating group had set
the date for its first meeting and tentative dates for two more meetings before the summer break next
year.  Thailand believed that Members should go beyond the stage of identifying the problems to the
substantive phase of the negotiations by first looking into alternative solutions and finding those
acceptable to them all.  In the dispute settlement negotiations, Thailand was concerned at the state of
work on its proposals on the "carousel" issue and on the increase of Appellate Body members.  Ithoped that these proposals would be taken up seriously in the Special Session without any delay.  It
also hoped that extensive discussions would take place as soon as early next year with a view to
finalizing the mandate in May and that no issues would be left for last minute discussions.
197. In their work on S&D Treatment, Members were committed to addressing this issue by the
end of December, after having missed the deadline in July.  Thailand, however, noted with great
disappointment that with only less than a month left, there was still no substantial progress on this
issue.  If another deadline was missed, Thailand believed that there would be a crisis of confidence in
the credibility of this Organization.  Members could not keep on promising something that they did
not really intend to work out.  Thailand wished to register its concerns on the notion of differentiatingamong developing Members of the WTO.  This was inconsistent with the Doha mandate and would
only impede the process.  Thailand still hoped that , within the following few days, Members would
work harder to send as many recommendations as possible to the General Council.  This was not only
important to fulfill the Doha Ministerial mandate, bu t also to show that the concerns of developing
countries were sincerely and seriously taken care of.
198. Finally, TRIPS and Public Health was another issue that was due to meet the deadline in the
next few days.  Regrettably, until now there wa s no sign that Members could find an expeditious
solution to this problem and report to the General Council before the end of the year.  In other words,
another deadline would be missed.  When Thailand had joined other Members in endorsing the
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, its goal had been not to weaken the TRIPS Agreement but
to seek clarification and to assure the public that the TRIPS Agreement would not be an obstacle tothe public health policies of Member countries.  Her delegation had joined 12 others in submitting a
proposal to support an authoritative interpretation of Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement as the most
suitable approach.  The time left was very short and Members still had to find a solution that could
solve the real problem.  Strong political will was needed, so that health benefits would not be
superseded by trade benefits.  Thailand was willing to work with the Chairman and the relevantChairpersons in a constructive manner to reach a solution consistent to what had been mandated in
Doha.
199. The representative of the Philippines supported the statement by Thailand. Since his
delegation shared all views expressed in that statement, he wished to add only a few points.  In the
area of agriculture, at this point of the negotiations, there was active and intensive engagement by
developing countries in the debates and through submissions of several proposals.  This reflected their
collective concerns about the existing inequities, imbalances and shortcomings of the multilateral
framework under the Agriculture Agreement and the need to correct them.  While many developed
Members might be preoccupied with the issue of balancing agricultural concessions across the broadrange of the Doha negotiating agenda, these developing countries sought to redress the imbalancesTN/C/M/5
Page 46
within the sector itself.  The only way this could be corrected was through establishing a modality that
clearly integrated the interrelationships and linkages of the three pillars in the negotiations in a
fundamental way.  The developing countries' proposals addressed this issue and the Philippines
expected that they would be seriously considered in the Chairman's overview paper and given priority
consideration in future negotiating discussions.
200. On TRIPS and Public Health, his delegation appreciated the hard work by the Chairman of
the TRIPS Council, but it hoped that this work w ould not end up with a dismal failure. For his
delegation, any solution should carry the basic elements of a pragmatic and truly workable plan which
should be permanent in nature.  The scope of the work on S&D treatment covered a subset of the
implementation-related issues and various Agreement-specific proposals from the LDCs and the
African Group, and his delegation lamented the absence of meaningful outcomes, or even meaningfuldiscussions.  As his delegation had witnessed in the meetings, the report by the Chairman of the
Special Session of the CTD had highlighted the considerable time devoted to discussions on systemic
and cross-cutting issues.  Although this was part of the Special Session's mandate, it had offered an
alarming opening for issues such as differentiation, tiering and graduation to be raised in the context
of the established framework of S&D treatment, as handed down from the GATT 1947, the EnablingClause, the Uruguay Round Decision on measures for least-developed countries and other WTO
Agreements.  Paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration contained the clearest mandate for the
work of the Special Session, providing for a review of the provisions with a view to strengthening
them and making them more precise, effective and operational.  Unfortunately, the discussion on
systemic and cross-cutting issues had diverted the work into areas clearly beyond the mandate.  Thisdistressing situation would invariably affect the positions of developing countries in the negotiations,
because paragraph 50 of the Declaration stated that the negotiations should take fully into account the
principles of S&D and other measures he had just mentioned.  The question was how could the
principles of S&D be taken fully into account when it was under challenge in the same negotiations.
Quite ominously, one important proposal in a very important area of negotiations already carried thisimprint of this "customized" approach to S&D.  In line with the suggestion by Uruguay, his
delegation suggested ideas on this could be exchanged in the TNC, because it was a fundamental issue
of concern to all Members.
201. On non-agricultural market access, his delegation shared the optimism of the Chairman of the
Negotiating Group that the robust, focused, in-depth and widely participative discussions on the
proposals on modalities would lead to an early consensus on this next year.  The Philippineswelcomed the ambitious proposal from the United States, which, apart from some development
aspects, was a big challenge to developed and developing countries.  For developing countries such as
the Philippines, the modalities finally adopted should include, as integral part, the clear mandate to
reduce or, as appropriate, eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high
tariffs and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers, for products of export interest to developingcountries, particularly LDCs, and that the negotiati ng outcomes in themselves should take fully into
account the special needs of these countries, as a group and not differentiated, through less-than-full
reciprocity and the principles of S&D he had outlined.  The points he had made on S&D treatment
thus applied to all areas of negotiations, particularly agriculture and non-agricultural market access.
The challenge of S&D treatment would affect the negotiations in these areas.
202. On the schedule of meetings, his delegation understood that this was now arranged on a first-
come first-served basis.  Until recently, delegations had benefitted from the guidance of a Deputy
Director-General on an even-handed, balanced and global basis, in particular for small delegations
such as his.  With the current negotiating and pr e-negotiating agenda, involving formal, informal and
extra-normal meetings, and the physical resource constraints and critical deadlines, it was essential to
have some guidance from the Secretariat on how this could be rationally managed.  Without this, one
would not be sure that the heads of small delegati ons would be able to be present to provide the
"singular" or "single-handed" undertaking the WTO would require.TN/C/M/5
Page 47
203. The representative of Botswana associated her delegation with the statement by Kenya on
behalf of the African Group.  Botswana shared the disappointment that very little progress had been
achieved under the various negotiating mandates.  The little progress that had been achieved was both
uneven and unbalanced.  It was therefore important for Members to achieve a more balanced outcome
in the negotiations.  In particular, her delegation noted with great disappointment that very littleprogress had been achieved in the TRIPS Council in relation to the mandate in paragraph 6 of the
Doha Declaration.  It was a matter of deep regret and concern that delegations tended to engage in a
restatement of known positions, without showing commitment and determination to move this matter
forward.  For her delegation, this was not helpful at all, especially since it represented a country that
was the worst affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.  Botswana therefore urged delegations to exhibit
greater political will and determination to move this vital matter forward.
204. With respect to S&D treatment, her delegation noted with regret that very little progress had
been achieved on the 87 proposals that had been made by the developing countries, in particular the
African Group.  The Doha mandate was quite explicit on this issue, and therefore Members did not
need to spend time trying to reinstate or renego tiate that mandate.  They needed to respect the
deadlines set by Ministers at Doha.  Failure to observe these deadlines had the potential to undermineand discredit the negotiation process.  Her delegation was concerned that, after failing to achieve the
initial deadline of July 2002 for the completion of the negotiations on this matter, it was most likely
that Members would not be able to achieve the revised deadline of 31 December.  Her delegation
could only express optimism that delegations would s how flexibility to enable the Special Session of
the CTD to present good news to the General Counci l the following week.  Her delegation appreciated
the Special Session Chairman's painstaking efforts to move this matter forward.  Finally, on the
negotiations on services, her delegation was again concerned that there continued to be disagreements
on the modalities for autonomous liberalization.  Botswana again urged delegations to exercise
restraint and flexibility in order to facilitate an early resolution of this matter.
205. The representative of Bolivia agreed with the Chairman's assessment that the work had
progressed, but in an uneven way.  It was important to try to remove this inequality and to make
parallel progress in all areas of the negotiations.  For Bolivia, it was a major concern that the
December deadlines be respected in the three areas where there were difficulties in reaching
consensus, namely implementation, S&D treatment and TRIPS and Public Health.  These three areas
were of particular importance to developing countries and especially to countries with small
economies, such as Bolivia.  Like others, his delegation believed that the established deadlines shouldbe respected in all the negotiating areas, since these were a reflection of the political will of Members.
Members should not afford themselves the luxury of extending any deadline, since this would affect
the subsequent deadlines.  For this reason, in the small amount of time left, Bolivia wished to see
results which would be positive for all Members, in particular developing countries.
206. Agriculture was the foremost area of negoti ation for developing countries, and Bolivia was
disappointed by the work in this area.  Only a few days were left before the Special Session Chairman
would present his paper on modalities, and some major trading partners had not made their proposals
known.  This situation was worrying, in particular in the light of the experience of the Uruguay
Round, which had shown that last minute solutions were not the most beneficial to developingcountries.  For this reason, Bolivia urged its trading partners who were reluctant on agricultural trade
liberalization to submit proposals with the same level of ambition and detail as their proposals in the
areas of services and non-agricultural market access.  The work would not be able to advance in other
areas while agriculture was discriminated against.  With respect to the criticisms levelled against the
ambitions of the Cairns Group, of which Bolivia formed part with its small and vulnerable economy,his delegation could only respond that it agreed with the critics – the proposals had to be realistic but
also ambitious.  The status quo could not be maintained in agriculture;  this had to change and Bolivia
believed its trading partners had to understand that this situation could not continue for another 50
years and accept the need for change.  To think otherwise was just a protectionism dream.  His
delegation supported the statement by the United States in this respect.TN/C/M/5
Page 48
207. Since the beginning of the GATT, there had been eight rounds of negotiations aimed at
liberalizing trade in non-agricultural products.  For this reason, Bolivia was concerned at the level of
ambition of some of the proposals, which was as if this sector had been discriminated against like
agriculture.  One should not lose sight of the role th at tariffs played in some countries' income, and the
autonomous liberalization measures that had been undertaken in some developing countries.  OnTRIPS and Public Health, his delegation agreed with Kenya and others, in particular Canada, that the
solution not only had a human side, but also responded to the spirit of paragraph 6 of the relevant
Doha Declaration.  His delegation also agreed with  China in this respect.  The TRIPS Council should
focus on this aspect, so as to find the most imaginative and ambitious solution possible with regard to
its depth and form, so that medicines would rapidly reach the people who needed them most in
countries with little or no manufacturing capacity at a low cost.  The solution should also not overlook
development aspects, such as technology transfer and assistance with the creation of a climatefavourable to foreign direct investment in the pharmaceutical sector in these countries.
208. In the negotiations on services, his delegation was pleased that the work had reached cruising
speed.  The work should also address the issues of interest to developing countries, such as
autonomous liberalization, safeguards and subsidies.  He wished to recall that his country hadautonomously undertaken almost full liberalization without waiting for a round of negotiations, since
it was committed to trade liberalization and believed it was a way to achieve a sustainable level of
development.  Since Bolivia had an open servi ces sector and was comm itted to the DDA, it would
present its initial requests to its trading partners the following month.
209. With respect to the schedule of meetings, his delegation agreed with those who had said they
were overwhelmed by the number of informal meetings.  The effective participation of developing
countries was centered on their attendance at negotiating meetings, and for this reason the meeting
schedule had to take this into account once and for all,  so that this issue would not need to be raised at
future TNC meetings.  The meeting schedule should al so help ensure parallel progress across in all
negotiating groups.
210. Finally, in the context of the Doha Development Round, Bolivia wished to share with
Members a concern and a proposal.  Its concern was how to ensure that all Members kept the notion
of development in mind throughout the negotiations, not only in words but also in actions.  In
consequence, Bolivia would suggest that every proposal submitted should carry a footnote which
specified in what way the proposal contributed to development.
211. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, with regard to the work done thus far, while it
might all be on the right track, it did still seem to be moving at different speeds.  Although it was true
that substantive discussions had started, with only two years left before the deadline mandated by the
Doha Declaration, there still remained an enormous  amount of work to be done.  Since this round
could only be concluded as a single undertaking, overall balance was important, so all the negotiating
areas should be pushed at the same pace, with no issue being allowed to fall behind.  For this reason,
Chinese Taipei was trying to demonstrate flexibility and accelerate its work so as to contribute to a
successful outcome to the negotiations.
212. On the issue of S&D treatment, for example, which Chinese Taipei considered to be a
centrepiece of the DDA, only limited progress seemed to have been made thus far.  His delegation
hoped that Members would commit more effort to this, so that the interests of developing and least-
developed Members could be properly taken into account and their full participation in the further
liberalization of global trade obtained.  Chinese Taipei also attached great importance to theagricultural negotiations and it supported continued reform.  Agriculture had other functions,
however, in addition to trade, such as food security, rural development and environmental protection,
which benefited human lives and which should all be taken into account.  Therefore, the discussions
should take into account the special situations that existed in different Member countries.TN/C/M/5
Page 49
213. The United States had submitted an ambitious negotiating proposal at the recent meeting of
the Negotiating Group on Market Access.  Chinese Taipei believed that this proposal envisioned a
clear goal and drew a roadmap of liberalization.  It would be more achievable if it allowed Members
more flexibility in its implementation, and also took more account of the needs of least-developed and
developing Members.  But the proposal was certainly worthy of further exploration.  Chinese Taipeiwas pleased to see more proposals being submitted by Members to this Negotiating Group, which
would definitely contribute to the development of the negotiating modalities.  It would submit its own
proposal shortly.
214. While Chinese Taipei was quite satisfied with the progress of the services negotiations, it
would urge Members to submit their initial offers by 31 March 2003, so that they could all engage in
more substantive talks.  In the interest of efficiency, it suggested that Members identify at an earlystage those service sectors that were their negotiating priorities.  Furthermore, if more time was
dedicated to discussion of the issues of emergency safeguard measures and credit for autonomous
liberalization, it would help Members to submit their initial offers as scheduled.
215. Chinese Taipei would like to reiterate its concerns regarding those newly-acceded Members
that were still in the process of implementing significant market access concessions.  It would
therefore urge Members to take this situation into account where it existed, by allowing such newly-
acceded Members more flexibility in the negotiations.
216. Finally, his delegation wished to share wi th Members its views on mini-ministerial
conferences, such as the one hosted by Australia in November.  While it recognized the need for this
type of meeting, and that they were outside the jurisdiction of the WTO, it was unavoidable that such
a meeting would have some impact on the work in  Geneva.  Therefore, those Members who had not
participated in the meeting should be offered a full briefing on the issues discussed.  His delegation
also understood that similar meetings might be organized in the future, and of course it hoped to havethe opportunity to participate and make its contribution.  His delegation made this plea in the interests
of maintaining the transparency of the work and the spirit of equal cooperation amongst Members.
217. The representative of Cuba said that, unfortunately, her delegation did not share the optimism
expressed at the present meeting by some delegations on the progress in the post-Doha process.  To be
realistic, one had to accept that the actual results obtained in the work programme adopted at Doha
were uneven, which was to the detriment of developing countries.  The first deadline were only a fewdays away, and there were huge differences separating positions, which could be seen in the
Chairpersons' reports.  His delegation had taken note of these reports, in particular on agriculture.  In
this area, it agreed with Kenya on behalf of the African Group, and hoped that the Chairman's paper
would reflect all the proposals and positions pu t forward in the work on the different pillars.
218. The Chairman had, on various occasions, urged that the deadlines should be respected, so he
could understand the concerns, discouragement and frustration that missing the deadlines provoked in
the vast majority of the Members, the developing and least-developed countries.  These countries had
been hoping for real and effective commitment from the developed countries in resolving the issues of
implementation, S&D treatment and TRIPS and Public Health.  Ministers had given these issuespriority so that results would be achieved by 31 December 2002 at the latest.  The priority and
urgency attached to finding satisfactory solutions ha d not been reflected in the results thus far.  This
situation provoked doubts on the developed countries' real political willingness to respect the
commitments made at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
219. She would take up implementation under the second agenda item.  With respect to S&D
treatment, despite the efforts made by the Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD, far from
arriving at solutions to the multiple proposals submitted, some Members had tried to introduce new
interpretations of the principle of S&D, which had been an integral part of the rules of the
international trade since the beginning of the GATT/WTO system, and of the Havana Charter.  In thisrespect, Cuba agreed with Brazil that it could not accept any move to depart from the mandate agreedTN/C/M/5
Page 50
by Ministers, which had been to review all S&D prov isions with a view to making them more precise,
effective and operational.
220. At the present meeting, many delegations had referred to the issue of TRIPS and Public
Heath.  Although this issue was not within the purview of the TNC, the lives of millions of humanbeings depended on its satisfactory and rapid resolution.  The response given on this issue thus far had
been far from approaching the commitment to prov ide access to medicines for all countries with
insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector.  Cuba supported the
statements by Kenya on behalf of the African Group  and by Zambia that the only acceptable outcome
would be to find a solution which was rapid, sustainable, predictable and legally sound.  The TNC
was also not the forum in which to address the Singapore issues, and her delegation could not agree
that these issues be raised in it, as some delegations had done at the present meeting, and it agreedeven less that they be linked to the negotiations.  In this respect, her delegation supported the
statement by Malaysia.  It would be the Fifth Ministerial Conference which would decide by explicit
consensus whether negotiations would be launched in these areas or not.
221. Finally, the current situation was neither fair nor reasonable.  Time was passing, and the lack
of discipline in taking with the first decisions under the DDA put into doubt the credibility of the
whole negotiating process.  Cuba had faith that the Chairman's wisdom and experience would help
this process to achieve the results it was waiting for.
222. The representative of South Africa said his delegation agreed with the Chairman's observation
that progress in the negotiations, whilst generally on track, was very uneven.  In particular, it was
concerned that the deadlines for some issues, which were of particular interest to developing
countries, were in danger of being missed yet again, notably on the issues of S&D and TRIPS and
Public Health.  The latter issue was of immense importance not only to the developing world but to all
of humanity who were concerned to save the lives of those who were sick from diseases and in needof life-saving pharmaceutical drugs and products.  South Africa had not attempted to increase the
scope of diseases and product coverage beyond those that the Ministers had provided for in
paragraph 1 of the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.  Yet others had tried to limit this scope.
It was an indictment of all Members that whilst the vast majority of those in need of these drugs lived
in developing countries, the major share, some 85 per cent, of the market for pharmaceutical drugs
remained in the North.  There was no doubt that the lack of income of the majority of people in
developing countries reduced the affordability of drugs and has a direct impact on the loss of life.
223. It was clear to South Africa that Members needed to take measures to increase the access and
affordability of these drugs to those in dire nee d.  Rebalancing the TRIPS Agreement with a view to
reducing the price of drugs was essential.  Thus, South Africa had argued for the solution on
paragraph 6 to allow developed-country generic exporters to participate in the provision of drugs tocountries in need, and it had called for a provision that stimulated manufacturing capacity in
developing countries and encouraged technology tr ansfer.  The mechanism should allow for greater
regional co-operation and stimulating production for regional markets by creating economies of scale.
This mechanism should be made available to all those who need it.  There was also no doubt that
Members needed the solution to be legally certain, predictable and permanent so as to encourageinvestment.  For these reasons, South Africa believed that an amendment of Article 31(f) would be
necessary, as soon as possible, with a waiver being only a transitional measure.
224. His delegation wished to commend the tremendous efforts made by the TRIPS Council
Chairman to narrow the gaps between Members and to find an acceptable solution.  South Africa hadtabled a non-paper on this issue on 5 November with a view to creating a basis for consensus to
emerge amongst all Members.  It had consulted extensively amongst developing countries.  It had
been encouraged by the draft text tabled by the Chairman on 10 November to try and bridge the gaps
and create the basis for a consensus.  South Africa believed that this text provided a good basis for a
solution, with some minor changes that it had communicated to the Chairman.  It had had anopportunity to test this amongst some Ministers in Sydney.  South Africa believed that, while manyTN/C/M/5
Page 51
developing countries had moved significantly from their initial positions, some of the majors had in
fact hardened their positions in the previous week and were reflecting little flexibility to move.  It
further believed that a solution was still possible by  the end of the year and would be working hard to
find a solution.  His delegation hoped that the delegation of the European Communities was right in
saying that good things come at the end.  Indeed, that had been the experience in South Africa, so itremained optimistic.
225. On the issue of S&D, South Africa believed that Members had done too little work, too late
and that they were in danger of missing the deadline yet again.  However, his delegation saluted the
Chairman of the Special Session of the Trade and Development Committee for his tireless efforts and
looked forward to engaging on the proposals he would be making for Members' consideration.
Movement on these issues was critical to give momentum to the negotiations and encouragedeveloping countries to make the necessary sacrifices and to deploy scarce resources, to fully
participate in these negotiations.  His delegation also urged the TNC Chairman to give attention to the
scheduling of meetings so as to avoid too many overlapping meetings, thus allowing his delegation,
and many developing countries with more limited resources, to participate effectively in the
negotiations.
226. Turning first to the market access issues, he sa id that agriculture remained the most critical
issue for developing countries in these negotiations.  Removing the existing high levels of protection,
domestic support, export subsidies and high tariffs, particularly by some major developed countries,
that distorted world markets, could create the basis for developing countries to export themselves outof poverty, as the Chairman had observed.  South Africa urged the European Communities to table
their proposals on modalities as soon as possible to allow for a fuller debate.  It was unfair for the
European Communities and some other countries to create linkages between all other issues and
agriculture, and then to delay the tabling of their proposals on modalities.
227. In the area of non-agricultural market access, his delegation was encouraged by the bold and
robust proposals being put forward by the industrialized and developed countries.  It was prepared to
engage on these proposals with a view to addres sing the historic deficit that developing-country
exports of labour intensive products, such as clothing and textiles, footwear and steel, had suffered in
developed-country markets.  It was high time that attention was given to addressing the issues of tariff
escalation, tariff peaks and high tariffs in developed-country markets.  While it was true that
developing-country tariffs remained relatively high in labour intensive sectors, it should be recognizedthat these countries were late developers and were still in the process of industrializing their
economies and building their competitiveness, a process that many industrialized countries knew and
understood very well from their own experience.  However, developed countries had continued to
protect these same labour intensive sectors in spite of the fact that they had industrialized their
economies, thus stifling the industrial development of many developing countries.  Thus, while SouthAfrica was willing to engage on a robust process of tariff liberalization, this had to be on an
asymmetrical basis, with due regard to the different stages of industrial development of developing
countries and the supply-side support required by industrializing countries to build their
competitiveness and diversify their productive sectors.
228. On services, good progress was being made, as the Chairman of the Special Session had
reported.  While South Africa was engaging with its partners on a bilateral basis, many of its own
requests were stilling going through a process of c onsultation with key stakeholders at home.  Thus, if
any Member had not received a request list from hi s country, he wished to assure them that they
would indeed receive one after Christmas.  South Africa hoped that the issue of autonomousliberalization would be resolved as soon as possible, recognizing the efforts that many countries had
made in liberalizing their service sectors.  It was, however, encouraged by the progress that had been
made on some issues, according to the Chairman's report.
229. South Africa noted that progress was being made in the Special Session of the Committee on
Trade and Environment, and many delegations were participating constructively.  South AfricaTN/C/M/5
Page 52
remained committed to drawing on its experience in the World Summit on Sustainable Development,
recently held in Johannesburg, to contribute to these negotiations.  Likewise on rules, South Africa
was encouraged that the work process was underway and it would be contributing substantively,
especially to the work on anti-dumping to reduce its use as an instrument of protection.  On the
Singapore issues, although there had been no report on this at the present meeting, his delegation, bothin Geneva and from the capital, had been contributing to the discussions.  It was encouraged that this
process was also on track, although lack of capacity had prevented many countries from participating
effectively in these discussions.
230. In conclusion, South Africa shared the concer n expressed by Mexico that if Members wanted
a successful Ministerial Conference in Cancún, they should ensure that they all contribute to meeting
the deadlines agreed to.  Ironically, the challenge was on some developed countries who would needto make greater efforts to contribute to meeting these deadlines.  He was referring here to the three
critical issues:  (1) TRIPS and medicines – where some developed countries would need to come back
to the negotiating table with a mandate that was mo re flexible;  (2) S&D treatment – where there was
a need for an agreed package of measures, to give real meaning to the will of Ministers expressed in
Doha to make the Doha Round a Development Round, and to encourage developing countries to
participate; and, (3) agriculture – there was no other single issue that the whole world was looking
forward to more than the process of elimination of the massive distortions in agricultural markets that
had made a mockery of the WTO commitment to trade liberalization and development.  Thus, South
Africa urged those who had yet to put proposals on the table to do so soon.  The road to Cancún
would become much clearer to all Members when this happened, making a successful outcome morefeasible.
231. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that he wished to touch upon the areas of the
negotiations where his country had a special concern on horizontal issues, namely agriculture and
services.  The Kyrgyz Republic sought Members' agreement on a level playing field for thosecountries which had joined the WTO after Marrakesh.  There was a need for recognition that some
new Members had, at the end of their accession process, extremely low bound tariffs in agriculture,
binding on all tariff positions with no exception, an absence of non-tariff measures irrespective of
their nature and a maximum degree of openness of their services sectors.  He wondered whether these
facts implied that these Members' schedules were less liberal and could not be compared with the
most advanced schedules of other Member.  For his delegation, the answer was no.  On the contrary
their goods and services schedules were well ahead of the more developed counties, but this did notmean an unwillingness on their part to move towards more liberal free trade.  However, he also
wondered why these commitments did not receive an appropriate evaluation on part of other
Members.  He wished to leave this question open to the TNC.
232. It was not necessary to be a top negotiator to be able to distinguish, from Members' schedules
of commitments on goods and services, between a fully open market and one which was highly
protected.  Those Members who had already initiated bilateral negotiations with the Kyrgyz Republic
on services had had the opportunity to look at its schedules, and some of them had gone even beyond
that.  Nevertheless, the Kyrgyz Republic welcomed these requests.  The central question was to find
an appropriate decision to recognize the existing level of liberalized sectors in services, and to some,this was clear, given the commitments in the protocols of accession.  As highlighted in the report of
the Chairman of the Services Special Session, the work on modalities for autonomous liberalization
was under way.  For his delegation, the principle disagreement revolved around the absence of due
attention being paid to the high level of commitments by one particular group of small countries
whose effective membership had begun after 1995.
233. His delegation had recently begun to have doubts about the notion of recently-acceded
country.  Whenever his delegation had asked for the floor, be it in the Committee on Agriculture, the
TRIPS Council, the CRTA or the Committee on Government Procurement, it had stressed the fact that
the Kyrgyz Republic was a newly-acceded country.  According to the Doha Declaration, only a smallnumber of countries were allowed to be recognized as newly-acceded countries, namely those whoseTN/C/M/5
Page 53
accession had become effective after the Seattle Conference.  His delegation acknowledged that the
Declaration had been adopted by all Ministers, and that it traced, but not in detail, the way towards the
whole negotiating process and the work programme, and that it took into account the special needs of
Members.  But this text could not be read in such  a way as to narrow the facts, and to exclude the
interests of those states which had acceded to WTO just before Seattle.  In the case of the KyrgyzRepublic, it had acceded eleven months before the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  He wondered
whether it was appropriate for Members to take into consideration only the date of accession and
disregard the facts.  The facts were what had been undertaken autonomously in terms of market
opening before WTO accession.
234. The Kyrgyz Republic believed that only the actual commitments recorded in the protocols of
accession of those countries which had acceded after Marrakesh should be taken into account,irrespective of the date of accession.  As he had stated in the Special Session on Agriculture, the most
thorough consideration should be accorded to vulnerable transition economies.  In the areas of both
agriculture and non-agriculture market access, he wished to stress again the very advanced
commitments of his country.  In the Special Session on Agriculture, there had even been a proposal to
the effect that only one measure should be available temporarily to regulate domestic economicpolicy, compared with the many measures available to those who had been in a position to sign the
Agriculture Agreement at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round.  In conclusion, The Kyrgyz Republic
called on the TNC Chairman to undertake consultations to facilitate an understanding among
Members on the issue his delegation had raised.
235. The representative of Pakistan said that , following the precise and guiding introductory
remarks by the Chairman, and the statements by the Chairpersons, who had had a difficult job in
trying to be optimistic as well as pessimistic, most of the statements at the present meeting had been
on the pessimistic side.  However, after the positive statements by Canada, the United States and
others, some delegations who had been on the border line now felt that maybe the work was on theright track.
236. Like many other countries, agriculture was very important for Pakistan and almost 25 per cent
of its GDP was dependant on it.  Since Pakistan ha d started doing away with price controls, it was
producing too much wheat, sugar cane and rice.  It had large surpluses but it could not sell them in the
international markets because it did not subsidize exports and thus could not compete with those who
gave farm subsidies.  Pakistan's rice not only faced quotas but also high tariffs, which were bothad valorem  as well as specific.  It had been almost ten years since the conclusion of the Uruguay
Round, and Pakistan had hoped that after agriculture had come within the ambit of WTO it would find
more markets, but unfortunately, this had not been the case.  The Economist newspaper of the
previous week had summed it up by saying that Amer ica's farm bill and the EU's failure to agree on
CAP reform were making a mockery of the idea that the Doha round was to be a development round.
237. In the area of non-agricultural market access, several Members had recently tabled well-
thought out and far-reaching proposals for a tariff-free world, the importance of which could be
judged from the press coverage they had received.  But these proposals had not taken into account
S&D treatment, and his delegation hoped this had not been deliberate.  Again in the words of theEconomist, through these proposals budding manufacturing industries in poor countries would suffer
and poor countries would get nothing in exchange.  His delegation agreed with the Chairman of the
Negotiating Group that there had been no focussed discussion on non-tariff barriers, although
everyone agreed that they could be as trade distorting as tariff barriers.  With regard to environmental
goods, there had been some useful discussions, but his delegation was not sure if Members wouldever be able to clearly describe such goods for different tariff treatment.  One example would be
washing machines using less detergent or less water;  everyone would claim that their machines used
less.  Japan and others had raised the question of scheduling of meetings, and the issue before this
Negotiating Group was really at the heart of the WTO, so his delegation supported the suggestion that
the Secretariat should find more time for meetings of the Group.TN/C/M/5
Page 54
238. On TRIPS and Public Health, the Doha Declaration had categorically affirmed the Members'
right to protect public health and promote access to medicines.  There had been a general agreement
that a solution would be worked out before the end of the year.  One had seen the optimism on this at
the last TNC.  But despite the fact that developing countries had been providing flexible solutions,
there was no outcome as yet.  On the Negotiating Group on Rules, his delegation agreed with thefocussed and interesting analysis of the work of this Group by its Chairman.  The point he had made
about the heavy politics behind the issue of anti-dumping rules was worthy of note.  If Members could
discuss it professionally and not politically, his delegation was sure they could make more progress.
Finally, on S&D and implementation issues, his delegation thanked the Chairman for his personal
interest in these issues, but Members seemed to be making no progress at all.  His delegation
welcomed the recent paper by the European Communities, but it did not see anything concrete in it,
since it seemed to suggest further study, and perhaps to continue in that way forever.  This arearequired more work.
239. The representative of Costa Rica agreed with the Chairman that in the past year there had
been progress and substantive discussions in the different areas of negotiation.  Costa Rica assessment
was optimistic, but with some anxiety.  There had been progress and much intensive work, butCancún was not far away and too much remained to be done.  Most of all, Costa Rica was concerned
that the negotiations in some areas were lagging behind the progress made in others, since those areas
could become the dead-weight which sank the whole lot.  This was an outcome which Costa Rica
would not let happen, for the credibility of multilateralism, because the global economy needed
increased trade, and because it would not resign itself to being a developing country forever.  Cancúnwas nine months away, and if there was not a sharp pu ll on the rudder to rectify the bearing, it would
be difficult to get there with all the ships.  In this regatta, everyone knew that they would either all
win or all lose.
240. On TRIPS and Public Health, an issue which had a humanitarian side, it had not been possible
to reach consensus, despite all the efforts made thus far.  Members had to realize the relevancy of
reaching a significant outcome to this issue which responded to the Doha mandate.  His delegation
wished to thank the Chairman of the TRIPS Council for his work on this issue.
241. Costa Rica was particularly concerned that the negotiations on agriculture had started to lag
behind the other areas.  His delegation thanked the Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session for
his excellent work, but like others, it believed that he could only go as far in his work as Memberswould let him.  The ultimate responsibility for the su ccess or the failure of these negotiations was in
the hands of the Members.  Costa Rica shared the concerns expressed by Brazil and others at the lack
of concrete proposals by a number of Members, including the total lack of proposals from one of the
major actors in these negotiations.
242. Costa Rica was also concerned at the contradictory level of ambition that some Members
were showing in the different negotiations on goods.  In the agriculture negotiations, a number of
Members were looking for a general framework,  without specific numbers but including the
weakening of the existing multilateral disciplines in clear contradiction to the Doha mandate, while in
the negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products, these same Members had presentedvery ambitious and concrete proposals.  In agriculture, these Members were expressing the need to be
realistic, while in market access for non-agricultural products, they had remembered the need to be
ambitious.  In agriculture, they were signalling the impossibility of making concessions which would
eliminate distortions and facilitate development for all Members, while in market access for non-
agricultural products, they had flagged the economic benefits which improved market access wouldbring for all.  In agriculture, they did not want the market to operate on the basis of comparative
advantage, while in the other group they proclaimed the benefits of more trade.  When his delegation
saw such incoherent and contradictory positions and attitudes, it could not avoid remembering
Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde.TN/C/M/5
Page 55
243. Costa Rica had actively participated in both negotiating groups, expressing the view that both
negotiating mandates were ambitious and had to be respected.  He wished to insist once again that
balanced results in the negotiations had to be across the board, and not limited to any one area, as
Uruguay had also underlined.  For this reason, everyone had to be committed to showing flexibility,
because only an agreement which had overall balance, and on which all Members had shownflexibility, would offer them benefits in the areas which interested them.  The maths of the alternative
scenario were simple – if there was no agreement, everyone would lose.  He wished to join others in
their expectations of the Chairman's overview paper on agriculture to the effect that it should reflect
the proposals submitted that were in line with the Doha mandate.
244. With respect to the review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Costa Rica was pleased
by the number of proposals submitted and the active participation of many Members in the intensivediscussions.  There had been some valuable proposals submitted, many of which were aimed at
reinforcing Members' rights in dispute settlement  and strengthening compliance with WTO rules and
disciplines.  Costa Rica was also pleased to see progress being made, and it was confident that this
exercise would be different from the one in 1999 and would lead to agreement on improvements to
the disciplines in dispute settlement.  It had noted with satisfaction the proposal by Mexico on theissue of remedies for prompt compliance with WTO Agreements and commitments, and it saluted
Mexico's courage and vision.  Mexico had belled the cat by proposing solutions to a problem which
seemed to have become one of the main deficiencies in the WTO dispute settlement system, and was
probably the main legal shortcoming.  Costa Rica believed there was a need to work with a view to
both the medium and long term, because the absence of solutions, if they were not agreed in thepresent process, would become an increasing source of distrust in the system.  Little time was left
before May, and it might be necessary to take decisions then on the issues which had progressed
sufficiently to be agreed.  But it would also be necessary to agree on clear dates for the continuation
of the work on the other issues which were no less important but which had not been sufficiently
considered by May.
245. His delegation believed that the report by the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules
had well reflected the work of the Group, and it believed with his assessment that the Group had made
considerable progress in identifying a large number of elements, which had been well discussed.  On
anti dumping in particular, there had been a large number of proposals submitted and good
discussions, and although more needed to be done , substantive progress had been made.  Costa Rica
believed critical mass had been achieved, which should allow the process to move on to the secondphase in which Members would clarify and improve the Agreement.  It believed the seamless
transition mentioned by the Chairman was near.
246. On the important issue of S&D treatment, his delegation wished to thank the Chairman of the
Special Session of the CTD for his hard work in trying to narrow the differences and reach consensuson many of the proposals in this area.  These differences still existed.  Costa Rica believed the
suggestion in the Committee's draft report to divide the proposals by category and to then take them
up in stages was useful, and would help find common ground and thus fulfill the mandate.  However,
this suggestion would need to be refined before being approved by the General Council.  Costa Rica
shared the concerns expressed by Brazil, Korea and Norway on the issues of graduation orcategorization of developing countries and that these issue had hindered the discussion rather than
helped it.  Costa Rica hoped results would be achieved before the end of the year.
247. Finally, although not issues under the TNC, Costa Rica wished to underline the importance to
a positive outcome at Cancún of the progress which had taken place in other areas, such as trade andinvestment and trade facilitation.  The fact that these issues were not under the TNC did not make
them less important than the issues which had been discussed at the present meeting since Members
would have to take stock of the results in all th e areas of work under the Doha mandates.  For this
reason, when Costa Rica called for flexibility and balance in the progress of the work in the Doha
mandates, it was also referring to these issues, which were very important to Costa Rica as adeveloping country.TN/C/M/5
Page 56
248. The representative of Singapore said the Chairman's introductory remarks had provided a
realistic assessment of the current situation.  He wi shed to confine his remarks to two critical issues
where there were fast approaching deadlines of 31 December, namely S&D and TRIPS and Public
Health.  With respect to S&D, Singapore was disappointed that not much progress had been madesince July.  On the contrary, Members seemed to have regressed in the negotiations, since, in July,
they had at least agreed in principle to establish a monitoring mechanism.  However, it now seemed
that several delegations were suggesting that they  could not move ahead on a monitoring mechanism
until they had seen the substance of what would be agreed on S&D.  It had become a chicken and egg
problem.  From the perspective of his delegation, it was critical that Members demonstrated some
progress on S&D by the end of the year, especially since this deadline itself had been rolled-over once
before.
249. In this regard, Singapore believed that Members should aim to do two things in tandem.  First,
they should re-double their efforts to try and achieve an outcome on the monitoring mechanism by the
end of the year.  Singapore saw the establishment of a monitoring mechanism as something doable by
that time.  Secondly, they should aim to reach agreement by then on some of the S&D proposals thatwere on the table.  It recognized that not all the S&D proposals could be agreed upon, at least not by
the end of year.  There would also be some proposals on which they might never be able to reach
agreement at any time in the near future.  But, th ere had surely to be some that all Members could
agree upon by the end of the year.  It would require all of them to show some flexibility.  Unless they
were prepared to demonstrate good will, Singapore feared that they would end up with a nil return onS&D at the end of the year.  This would send the wrong signal as they tried to work towards a
successful meeting in Cancún the following year.
250. His delegation was also concerned that discussions on S&D seemed to have been held
hostage to some extent by the issue of graduation or differentiation of the higher income or advanceddeveloping countries.  Specifically, several developed-country Members had been saying that
progress on this issue was conditioned upon graduating such developing countries so that they were
not able to take advantage of S&D provisions.  His delegation could appreciate the intellectual
underpinnings of this argument, since it also believed that only developing countries in real need of
the S&D provisions should benefit from them.  This was the spirit in which Singapore was
approaching the negotiations on S&D.
251. However the proponents of graduation or differentiation had to realise by now that this was an
issue which needed to be handled carefully.  Their continuing insistence on some form of explicit
graduation could only engender resistance from many developing countries, and strangle the
negotiations.  Indeed, his delegation hoped and trusted that this was not the intention.  Singapore
believed that the higher income developing countries did not intend to unreasonably use S&Dprovisions.  Their concerns over graduation or differentiation were more political.  A far more
constructive way forward was for Members to continue negotiating S&D issues in good faith and at
the end of the process, those Members with high in comes could opt out of the relevant provisions, in
whole or in part.  What was more important was that this issue should not be allowed to hold back
progress in an area which was important to many developing countries.
252. Turning to the issue of TRIPS and Public Health, he said that, like S&D, this issue appeared
to be going nowhere, despite the fast approaching 31 December deadline.  What was particularly
frustrating was that Members had seemed to have this issue more or less under control just a few
weeks previously.  The draft text produced by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council dated10 November had appeared, in view of his delegation and of many others, to have struck a careful,
delicate balance taking into account the interests of the various parties.
253. However, in the past couple of weeks, the situation appeared to have gone downhill.  This
was indeed very unfortunate.  Rather than building on the good work of the Chairman, Members hadseen positions move apart.  They were in danger  of unravelling what Si ngapore had thought was aTN/C/M/5
Page 57
good package put on the table by the Chairman.  His delegation was not sure whether some
delegations were advancing their real positions or in fact merely posturing.  But the point was that the
31 December deadline was uncomfortably close, and Members did not have much room for taking
unreasonable negotiating positions over the next few weeks.  Where necessary, they should be
prepared to live with and accept some constructive ambiguity in the legal text in order to garner a
political consensus among Members.  This was especially so if, in the process of trying to clarify
matters, they ended up inadvertently subtracting or adding to the mandate of their Ministers in Doha.
254. If Members failed to meet the deadline, Singapore believed the consequences would be
extremely serious.  Certainly the negotiating agenda for next year, which was already full, would be
further complicated.  However the extremely negative signal that such a failure would send was what
Members should be worried about.  It would reinforce negative perceptions of the WTO and itsperceived insensitivity to the needs of poor countries.
255. His delegation was particularly disturbed as to how the negotiations on TRIPS and Public
Health had, of late, been side-tracked by the issue of beneficiary countries.  Here once again, the issue
of higher income developing countries had been raised.  In response to concerns raised by certaindelegations, many, if not all, of these advanced developing countries had shown flexibility by
effectively agreeing to exclude themselves from the system by, for example, stating that they would
only use it in extreme circumstances of national emergencies that could not be foreseen at this point in
time.  Yet this commitment was not sufficient for ce rtain delegations, and they were down to haggling
on the form this commitment should take.
256. Just why so much valuable energy and time was being spent on what was essentially an issue
of form puzzled his delegation.  He wondered what was happening about the real issues of substance
Members should be addressing, issues such as the legal mechanism, safeguards as well as disease and
product scope.  He wondered if Members should not focus their energies on these more importantissues.  These were far more significant issues at the very core of the TRIPS and Public Health
negotiations where positions were still worryingly far apart.  His delegation believed that once these
other more important issues were resolved, the issue of beneficiary countries would sort itself out very
quickly.  This was especially so as the issue of beneficiary importing countries was, in his delegation's
view, a matter more of form than substance, and one therefore not impossible to resolve.
257. He had chosen to focus on S&D and TRIPS and Public Health as these were critical issues
where Members were are in urgent need of showing results in less than a month.  The clock was
ticking.  How successfully they handled these issues would have a profound systemic effect on the
other deadlines coming up the following year, and on the overall course of the negotiations under the
DDA.  Singapore appealed to Members to bear this in mind as they came to the end of what had been
a very busy year, and faced a 2003 which, if anything, would be even more challenging.
258. Finally, he wished to refer to the point raised by Japan on the need for a more structured way
to schedule meetings next year of the negotiating bodies and special sessions.  His delegation
supported Japan's proposal and urged the Chairman to look into this matter.  As Japan had correctly
pointed out, it was important to make progress on all fronts.  The negotiations had to move in tandemon all fronts and no one set of negotiations should be allowed to lag behind, just because a meeting
room or staff to service the meeting could not be found.
259. The representative of Peru agreed with the Chairman's assessment that progress had been
made, but in an uneven way.  Peru was concerned that in some areas of major interest to developing
countries, such as agriculture and S&D treatment, there had been unsatisfactory developments.  It
would be necessary to correct this situation or else run the risk of not having an agreed and balanced
package for Cancún.  In the area of agriculture, there had been an enormous effort by a large number
of Members to submit proposals, either individually or in groups, which had allowed substantive
discussions in the recent meetings.  However, Peru believed that although there were great differencesin the level of ambition in the proposals, it was vita l to continue working to narrow the gaps so as toTN/C/M/5
Page 58
avoid compromising the results in other areas under the single undertaking.  The reference to S&D
treatment in the Doha mandate should not be overlooked, and it should be properly reflected in the
reform programme, which meant going further than only extended transition periods.  Her delegation
appreciated the useful technical work which had been carried out by the Secretariat on tariff quotas
and export credits, and called for similar work on food aid and the special safeguard mechanism.  Herdelegation was looking forward to the Chairman's ov erview paper, which it was sure would reflect in
a balanced way the principal interests of all parties, marking the start of a new more intensive and
decisive phase of work.
260. With respect to the negotiations on non-agricultural market access, her delegation had
actively participated, with a positive and constructive focus, in various bilateral meetings with
countries which had made initial requests.  It hoped to submit shortly its initial requests to its tradingpartners so that this process could continue.  At the multilateral level, Peru had submitted, together
with other developing countries, a proposal on the implementation of paragraph 15 of the Guidelines
and Procedures for the negotiations which referred to the implementation of the objectives established
in Articles IV and XIX:2 of the GATS in favour of developing countries.
261. Despite these positive developments, her delegation wished to draw the attention of the TNC
to two areas of concern.  First, the lack of progress in some areas of the services negotiations, such as
the modalities for autonomous liberalization and the establishment of an emergency safeguard
mechanism.  Second, the attempt to incorporate issues related to market access in the case of
government procurement into the negotiations on rules.  Peru considered the resolution of theseproblems was an essential element which would impact positively or negatively on the services
negotiations, as would progress in the agriculture negotiations.
262. The work programme adopted in Doha had be en named the Development Agenda.  However,
the paradox was that, despite the large number of proposals made, Members had not been able tomake concrete recommendations, with the agreed time-frame, to make S&D provisions effective and
operational.  For Peru, the most pressing issues in this area were linked to improving the S&D
provisions of the SPS and TBT Agreements, and the DSU.  Peru was disappointed that questions had
been raised in the discussions on the objectives and aims of S&D treatment and on trade preferences,
as well as on other issues which were attempts to divide and differentiate developing countries, and
also create new categories.  Peru hoped the General Council could give the necessary political
impulse so that a rapid solution could be found to the real concerns of developing countries.
263. Peru noted with satisfaction the progress made in the Special Session of the Committee on
Trade and Environment.  A number of Members had submitted proposals in this area, and Peru was
examining them with interest.  Close cooperat ion would be necessary between this group, the
Negotiating Group on Market Access and the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Serviceswith respect to the definition of environmental goods and services.
264. Another area of interest to Peru was that of TRIPS and Public Health.  Her delegation thanked
the Chairman of the TRIPS Council for his untiring efforts to find a consensus solution to the
problems faced by countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceuticalsector.  However,  Peru was seriously concerned that consensus had not been reached, and that there
were even wide differences on the scope of a possible solution.  Developing countries had reiterated
throughout the process that this solution had been clearly described in paragraph 6 of the Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  It had to be permanent, legally safe and
easily administered.  The decision should not imply that the countries which would use it had to takeon new obligations, otherwise the solution would be impracticable.
265. Finally, with respect to the review of the DSU,  Peru believed it was time to move on to the
negotiating phase, in which it would be necessary to identify the proposals which could enjoy
consensus.  In this process, Members had to be realistic in order to be able to work on the proposalsTN/C/M/5
Page 59
which were ripe and well accepted.  This would be necessary if the review was to be concluded within
the agreed deadline.
266. The representative of Uganda said that the Chairman's remark that there had been progress,
although uneven, had painted the correct picture.  His delegation was grateful that the negotiations
had been inclusive, open and transparent, and it hoped that this would continue.  Uganda was
disappointed at the progress on S&D, which was an important issue to Africa and to the LDCs.
Because of this, these countries had made great efforts to submit proposals, but, unfortunately, these
had not been well responded to.  Singapore had emphasized the importance of respecting deadlines,
and the deadline in this area was an important one, and if it was respected, this would send a positive
message to the outside world.  At the last TNC meet ing, the Chairman of the Special Session of the
CTD had been correct when he had said that all Members needed to consider very quickly and veryseriously what flexibility meant, and go beyond rhetorical expression so that they could reach specific
decisions.  Uganda believed his call should be heeded.
267. Another important deadline was in the area of  TRIPS and Public Health.  Uganda and the
other countries in sub-Saharan Africa had been encouraged by what had happened in this area atDoha, and considered it to be a great achievement.   The TRIPS Council had been instructed to work
out modalities for implementing paragraph 6 of the Ministerial Declaration adopted then.
Unfortunately, although progress had been made on other aspects of TRIPS, Members seemed to be
regressing in this work.  Kenya on behalf of the African Group had urged Members to give WTO a
human face, and to facilitate Members to address the problems identified in paragraph 6 by finding aneconomically viable and legally workable solution with no additional obligations, while respecting the
deadline set by Ministers.  The African Group had submitted a useful proposal with regard to finding
an interim solution in the form of a waiver while a long term solution was worked out.  Uganda still
believed that a solution could lie in that direction.  He wished to recall the statistics which had been
published on World Aids Day on the number of deaths caused by the Aids pandemic.  As the workcontinued in WTO on this issue, his delegation was afraid that the outside perception of this
Organization would be that of a gravedigger who wa s not conscious of the gravity of the situation he
was facing.  His delegation hoped it would be possible to send out a message of hope by the end of
the year.  It urged all Members to redouble their efforts, since they had come a long way and they
should not despair, but it was important that what they came up with was not less than Doha.
268. Turning to agriculture, he said that this issue was particularly important to Uganda, since it
employed most of its people, and was the only ar ea where diversification was possible for it.  The
main problems in this sector were domestic support and export subsidies, and it hoped that it would be
possible for the heavy subsidizers to come forward with concrete proposals.  There had been some
useful proposals, but as Kenya on behalf of the African Group had noted, some of them had not
addressed the question of S&D treatment.  However, paragraph 14 of the Ministerial Declaration wasvery clear, stating that S&D treatment for developing countries "shall be an integral part of all
elements of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the Schedules of concessions and
commitments", and Uganda hoped that future proposals would not sideline this issue.  In this regard,
it welcomed the proposal by the Cairns Group which attempted to address some of Uganda's concerns
with regard to S&D treatment.
269. With regard to the negotiations on industrial tariffs, Uganda had taken note of the proposals
thus far, including by the United States, and it would be studying them.  However, its major concern
was their impact on the erosion of existing preferences and whether arrangements would be made to
address this.  For countries such as his, tariffs formed an important aspect of their fiscal revenue, andthis was an issues they could not take lightly.  The impact of the proposed reforms on their tax base
would have to be studied carefully.  For these countries, which did not have anti-dumping or
safeguard measures for protection, tariffs were a form of defence, so they would also be looking at
these aspects.TN/C/M/5
Page 60
270. Uganda had always stressed the importance of integrating the LDCs in the WTO process, so it
welcomed the progress made in finding ways to accelerate of LDC countries.  It hoped that it would
be possible to go even further and ensure that many of them would be admitted before Cancún.
Another important issue was implementation, and the clock was ticking in this area.  Uganda agreed
with India that unresolved issues in this area should be addressed in dedicated sessions of the TNC.
271. The representative of Senegal said that S&D treatment was crucially important to developing
countries, including the LDCs, and any delay in this work led them to question the spirit of the Doha
Declaration.  Some Members seemed to link this wo rk to the single undertaking, and this was not the
understanding of Senegal, given the deadline which had been agreed for it.  This was an urgent
matter, since many of the concerns in this area had been on the table for some time, and responses
were necessary in order to make progress.  There had been progress on some proposals, but theoverall progress was disappointing.  There was no doubt that everyone had made efforts, but one had
to remember the initial deadline.  The CTD Special Session Chairman's draft report contained some
interesting elements on the way forward, and this should be seen as a basis to build on, in particular
with regard to Annex III.
272. In the agriculture negotiations, Senegal attached much importance to the objectives of food
security and rural development in general, given its situation.  In this respect, the future framework
should contribute to the attainment of these objectives by countries in the same situation as Senegal.
This would certainly depend on the flexibility granted to these countries, and thus far no-one seemed
to challenge the continuation of the exemptions  granted to LDCs in the Uruguay Round, but the
policies applied by other Members could also have a negative impact on their agricultural sectors,
both in domestic and international markets.  Any flexibility should be accompanied by binding
disciplines on those countries which heavily subsidized their exports through domestic support or
export subsidies.
273. Senegal's concerns in the area of services had been well highlighted in the report by the
Chairman of the Services Special Session, namely autonomous liberalization and modalities for S&D
treatment for LDCs.  Since these were incorporated  in the Guidelines for the negotiations, it was
evident that they should allow his country to formulate its requests and offers under appropriate
conditions.  Senegal agreed with Switzerland that there should be an emphasis on technical assistance
for the LDCs and developing countries which faced technical difficulties in this respect.  In the area of
non-agricultural market access, his delegation wished to underline the importance of developedcountries offering developing countries reciprocity which was less than full.  Senegal's concerns in
this area, which were also shared by many other developing countries, were customs revenue, which
represented some 30-40 per cent of Senegal's total revenue, and the existing environment in which its
only way of protecting its enterprises was customs tariffs.  On the dispute settlement negations,
Senegal welcomed the Chairman's optimism on the wo rk thus far, since he had recently been less
optimistic.  Senegal was not a major use of the dispute settlement system, having used it once only.
Acceptance of the African Group proposal for financial compensation for developing countries in
their use of the system would be a useful and efficient contribution to the system.
274. On environment, Senegal agreed that the WTO had a role to play in sustainable development.
Developing countries had legitimate concerns on the additional burden that an agreement in this area
could impose, in particular with regard to market access for environmental goods and the linkages
between MEAs and specific trade obligations.  In the discussions on environmental goods, some
appeared to believe that a definition of such goods was not necessary and a list would suffice, but
Senegal believed that specific criteria would be needed so as to define, within the overall objective ofthe exercise, the coverage, such as whether agri cultural equipment would include only industrial
equipment, or also include that for domestic use, and this had a fiscal effect.
275. In conclusion, the development dimension had been seen from the start as being central to the
DDA, hence its name.  Concrete results had to be obtained in all the areas of the DDA related todevelopment, which would be a turning point in the evolution of the WTO.  Finally, the proliferationTN/C/M/5
Page 61
in the number of meetings had been raised as a matter for concern by a number of delegations.
Senegal believed that the negotiations would benefit from a higher level of credibility if it took better
into account the real constraints faced by small delegations and their attempts to participate fully in
the system.  This could be achieved by rationalizing the meeting schedule.
276. The representative of Djibouti said the Chairman had made an important point by saying that
Ministers at Cancún would be expecting to consider concrete results from the present process.  His
delegation supported the statements by Zambia on behalf of the LDCs and Kenya on behalf of the
African Group, and he wished to highlight the areas of importance to Djibouti.  Agriculture was an
important area since the whole negotiations depended on it, and the Chairman of the Agriculture
Special Session had highlighted the wide gaps in positions in the negotiations in this area.  The
Chairman of the CTD Special Session had underlined the problems in his work and the problems hehad in finding consensus.  On environment, the Chairperson of the negotiating group had stressed the
importance of the work in this area to developing countries, and that she would attempt to find a
solution to the question of observer status for IGOs in her group.  Senegal welcomed the statement by
the United States on the importance of the accession process for LDCs.  Senegal also welcomed the
statement by Switzerland on the importance of helping LDCs through market access.
277. The representative of Ecuador said that three years had now been spent in negotiating on
agriculture and services.  These three years represented 75 per cent of the working life of the built-in
agenda agreed in the uncompleted Uruguay Round, since the peace clause would expire in a year's
time.  This meant that the subsidies and support which were distorting world trade could not continueunchallenged.  These had been potentially extended at Doha for one year, and now there was a move
to extend them further.  This was the overriding perception when the biggest agricultural power in the
world had not thus far said how it intended to dismantle those subsidies and honour the commitment
of the DDA.  Even worse, there were signs, supported by other major trading partners, that their aim
was to maintain the Uruguay Round modalities, the results of which had been totally unsatisfactory.
278. The imbalance which had been highlighted by most delegations at the present meeting was no
accident.  It could be a strategy resulting from cold calculation, or a serious collective error, and it was
affecting not only the single undertaking agreed in Doha, but also the areas of implementation and the
so-called new issues.  The reason for the imbalance was clear – the agenda was overloaded to such an
extent that even the Secretariat, a model among international organizations, had begun to crack.  This
also held true for the Members, even the larger  delegations, who were unable to attend more than
4,000 meetings a year on such a wide variety of subjects that was unprecedented in a round of
negotiations.
279. He wished to highlight a fundamental element which had been a common theme in the
statements at the present meeting – the established time-frames had to be respected.  This wasessential to re-establishing balance and manageability in the core negotiations on agriculture, services
and industrial products.  His delegation suggested that Members should be firm on this, and that they
should not extend the time-frames if consensus was not achieved on a given issue with that time-
frame.  A lack of consensus was a decision in itself, albeit a negative one, and there was no room for
threats nor fantasies in such a situation, because this would only worsen the imbalance.
280. Everyone had a responsibility to give credibility to these negotiations, as the Chairman had
said.  Members had to commit themselves to not extending deadlines, and he wished to give three
examples.  First, a great deal of fruitless work on trade and development had been carried out with
enthusiasm by the Chairman of the CTD Special Se ssion and developing countries.  But it was clear
that maintaining this work would mean that many developing countries, attracted by this mirage,
would leave to one side the core of the negotiations on S&D treatment in agriculture, services and
industrial products.  The second example was related to the very credibility of the round itself, namely
TRIPS and Public Health, which had been brought to the public's attention with much fanfare.  If, in
the following few days, no agreement was reached on this issue, which was so sensitive to developingcountries, it would become clear to the public that there was a hidden agenda behind theseTN/C/M/5
Page 62
negotiations which was that the DDA had little to do with development.  There was not even the
possibility of immediately applying a waiver to see whether the large transnational pharmaceutical
companies were right in being reticent to implement what had already been agreed at Doha.  The third
example was in the area of dispute settlement, where much work had also been done under the
excellent leadership of the Chairman of the negotiating group and with the unfettered enthusiasm ofMembers.  There were so many proposals that it was not clear when the task could be completed, not
even the process under way since Seattle.  As the Chairman of the group had said, it was going to be
difficult to reach consensus on priorities, but nevertheless everyone knew that the priority was the
sequencing in the stage of last resort.  But, as things were going, no results would be achieved and the
credibility of the dispute settlement system would continue to be in doubt, because, as had been
demonstrated statistically in the group, there was a de facto waiver which allowed Members to
maintain illegal measures for five years at no cost since the last resort did not work.  Nevertheless, thesituation would go on unchanged.
281. In conclusion, Ecuador believed that all deadlines should be respected in order to encourage
compliance with the respective mandates.  So the Christmas tree would have to be taken down even
though Father Christmas had not distributed all his presents and the same was likely to happen atCancún.  It was not a good idea to plan a huge Christmas tree for the end of the round in December
2004, adding to it the things from now and from Cancún, since it would be so big that no-one would
be able to reach anything hanging from it, not even what was on the lower branches.  This meant that,
in Christmas 2004, the calendar would be extended under the protective complacency of the peace
clause, at which time it would no longer be possible to conceal the fact that it had expired.  There wasstill time to dispel the illusions projected by the major negotiators, and this would not be done through
building capacity but rather through determination.
282. The representative of Haiti supported the statement by Zambia on behalf of the LDCs.  As an
LDC, Haiti was looking for special treatment in most of the negotiating areas.  Non-agricultural
market access was an area of interest for developing countries, in particular LDCs.  Haiti wished to
see more access to developed-country markets, which in some case, still maintained high tariffs on
some products produced by LDCs.  The emphasis should be on eliminating high tariffs, tariff peaks
and tariff escalation, while also facilitating access for products from LDCs.
283. All the subjects under negotiations in the rules area were sensitive issues.  Haiti supported the
elimination of the use of anti-dumping measures, which hampered the production and exportation ofproducts from LDCs, who were generally the victims.  At the most, the result should be a multilateral
instrument which was more in the favour of these countries who were often not able to respect their
obligations under the existing Agreement.  In the area of subsidies, Haiti's position was differentiated.
While it was favourable to eliminating export subsidies used by developed countries to distort trade in
agricultural products, it believed that developing countries, in particular LDCs, should be allowed touse such measures to develop their export sectors.  With regard to regional trade agreements, Haiti
believed that they should not be used to unde rmine multilateral rules.  These agreements should
continue to be governed by the rules and principles  of the WTO, in particular the provisions of GATT
Article XXIV.  Such agreements should be used to facilitate economic development, not to erect
unnecessary barriers to trade.
284. Agriculture was an area were the stakes were very high for developing countries and LDCs,
including in market access, domestic support, export subsidies and non-trade concerns.  Greater
access to developed-country markets should enable developing countries and LDCs to develop
production and exports of their products.  Besides addressing the high tariffs that constituted realobstacles to access to these markets, the negotiations should also be aimed at eliminating non-tariff
measures on products from developing countries and LDCs, in particular those applied through SPS
measures.  In order to facilitate agricultural pr oduction, the LDCs which were in a position to do so,
should be allowed to use certain measures of suppo rt without facing action from other Members.  In
the area of export subsidies, developed countries should commit to eliminating them or at leastprogressively reducing them.  But on the other hand, the LDCs which were in a position to do soTN/C/M/5
Page 63
should have more flexibility in using such subsidies in order to develop and increase their agricultural
exports, which played a major role in their revenue.  Such a step would also enhance the standard of
living of rural populations working in the sector concerned.  The existing provisions on the use of
export subsidies by LDCs should also be maintained.  Furthermore, non-trade concerns relating to
food security, rural development, structural adjustment, environmental protection and other aspectsrepresented crucial issues for developing countries and LDCs.  In this respect, Haiti welcomed the
efforts of the Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment.  In the
establishment of Members schedules of concessions and obligations, Haiti would urge the inclusion of
S&D treatment for LDCs.  These countries should not be subject to obligations which were more
constrained than under the Uruguay Round.  The same would apply to the rules and disciplines which
would result from the negotiations and which would apply to this sector in the future.
285. The negotiations on services were taking place in the context of what was set out in the
GATS.  In this process, full consideration should be given to the special need of LDCs, who should
continue to be exempt from the obligation to undertake constrained obligations in the sectors and sub-
sectors of interest to them.  They should also not be obliged to take part in a liberalization process in
services in the public sector, nor sectors which had the potential for future development.  Theimplementation of Mode 4, namely the movement of natural persons, was an area of these
negotiations of particular interest to Haiti.  In the area of TRIPS, beyond the important issue of Public
Health, the extension of  protection under GIs to  products other than wines and spirits was of
particular interest to Haiti.  Certain products, such as Haiti's Barbancourt rum, could benefit from
better protection through GIs in the context of the TRIPS Agreement.  Therefore, a list of productswhich could form the basis of negotiations in this area should be established.  Furthermore, particular
attention should be paid to the work on the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore.  The
Dispute Settlement Understanding was an area which required clarifications and improvements of its
very complex provisions.  The emphasis here should be on reforming the dispute settlement system
through a framework accompanied by a more flexible and simpler procedure.  In particular, LDCsshould be able to have recourse to it under more favourable conditions so that they could handle the
disputes in which they were involved.
286. His delegation was grateful to the Chairman of the CTD Special Sessions for his tireless
efforts to establish a basis for consensus in the work on S&D treatment.  The monitoring mechanism
he was attempt to put into place was an important aspect of the negotiations.  Haiti supported S&D
treatment, since it was an important aspect of the multilateral trading system which had to betransformed into a permanent mechanism aimed at taking into account the needs and specific
concerns of developing countries and in particular the LDCs.  The mechanism had to be more precise,
effective and operational.  It had to become a genuine instrument to promote the real integration of
LDCs into the multilateral trading system through a system of rules which would be more restrictive
on developed Members.  This would guarantee the commitments undertaken by these Members in thecourse of multilateral trade negotiations.  In this connection, S&D treatment had to be designed to
differentiate among the participants in the multilateral trading system in recognition of the differences
in their levels of economic development.  This meant that developed countries had to continue to
recognize the inability of LDCs to take on obligations which were too onerous for their economies.  It
also had to be designed to envisage, in the contex t of multilateral trade agreements, the establishment
of rules and disciplines which were more flexible and more favourable for LDCs.  Furthermore, S&D
treatment had to be designed to allow LDCs to be waived from such rules and disciplines for suitably
long periods by highlighting those agreements which were sensitive for them.  It should also allow for
automatic extension of the implementation periods in case of difficulty.  Corrective measures should
also be envisaged for the case where developed countries did not respect their obligations towardsLDCs.  In addition, a framework should be established to provide ongoing technical assistance
through programmes to facilitate the implementation of the multilateral agreements by LDCs.
Finally, a specific framework should be put in place to take into account the particular characteristics
of LDCs.  Haiti hoped decisions would be taken at the present meeting on future work in this
negotiating group so that everyone could be proud of their achievement.TN/C/M/5
Page 64
287. The Chairman invited the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC to comment on the
discussion, if they so wished.
288. Mr. Harbinson, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, said that
many interesting points had been made on agriculture during the discussion, which could be construed
as last minute guidance to him in terms of his work on his overview paper.  However, it remained
clear that his group was in need of a new phase in order to breach the gaps which were still so evident
on major issues.  Canada had referred to his remarks at the start of the meeting as a wake-up call, and
that was exactly what he had intended his remarks to be and he hoped that all Members would reflect
deeply on the fact that there was so much to do in  such a short time.  For the immediate future, he
intended to hold some more focussed technical cons ultations.  Following the circulation of his paper,
he hoped that Members would come to the January Special Session in a different frame of mind, andthat the next TNC discussion would have a more active flavour.
289. Ambassador Girard (Switzerland), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access,
said that some delegations had asked questions about the work of his group in their statements, and he
would contact those delegations to reply directly.
290. Ambassador Chung (Korea), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS, said
that he was pleased to note the full commitment by Members to his group's mandate to establish a
multilateral system.
291. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that Egypt had asked what was meant by the phrase the "highest common denominator"
which he had used in his written report and he would answer in general terms.  For the negotiations in
his group, there was no specific mandate as such – no goals and no scope had been defined by
Ministers.  The outcome of the negotiations woul d be determined by the issues on which consensus
had been reached.  For him, as Chairman, the aim was to achieve the highest possible level of
consensus, and this was he was trying to do with the assistance of delegations.
292. Ambassador Biké (Gabon), Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Environment, said that her group had an essential question to resolve, which was that of observer
status for IGOs.  It would seem that the majority of Members agreed with the suggestion that observer
status could be granted on an ad hoc basis to the MEAs and UNEP.  She hoped that Members wouldagree in that sense.  As she had said, the work on substance would start next year, and there was much
work to be done on some difficult issues, such as environmental goods and services and paragraph
31(i), and she was confident that the Members' dynamism and good quality of work would be
maintained.
293. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, said that he wished to thank the many delegations who had reiterated their
willingness to make every effort to ensure acc eptable progress in the work of his group by the
deadline.  All Members clearly considered this to be an important issue in wider systemic terms, as
well as in relation to the DDA itself.  As Chairman, he would continue his efforts to bridge the widegaps that existed, and he pledged that his group would seek to ensure, as far as possible, an outcome
acceptable to all Members.
294. The Chairman said that he wished to reiterate his thanks to the Chairpersons of the
negotiating groups, who had been totally dedicated in their assignments and who had spent long hours
to move their agenda forward inch by inch.  He thanked them also for their cooperation with him in
mapping out the work programme and in keeping him, at all times, abreast of their groups' activities.
He wished also to thank all the delegations who had greatly contributed to the continuing effort with
their thoughtful statements, which sometimes might have seemed to be repetitive, but which had been
useful, nevertheless, in giving him strong and clear signals as to in which direction the work should begoing.  He was sure that everyone was correct to have concerns about the way things were going.  ButTN/C/M/5
Page 65
everyone should also be realistic in admitting the positive trend of the rising level of participation
since October.  Participants needed to keep up this esprit de corps, maybe with a sense of compassion
to give it a human touch, particularly when they were dealing with development issues.
295. He had looked at his notes from the TNC meeting on 3-4 October, and he had noticed that
everyone had been trying at the time to emphasize the need for more proposals, the need to broaden
aspects of negotiations and the need for progress on technical assistance.  It was clear that, since then,
participants had moved forward substantially on all these fronts, building up strong momentum.  Still,
from the discussions at the present meeting, it was also clear that they were cognizant of the breadth
and complexity of the issues before them.  Participants should recognize the sense of urgency, not
waiting until the last minute to make their moves.   The WTO definitely could not afford to go to
Cancún with an overloaded agenda, with too many unresolved issues.
296. Delegations had generally agreed with his opening remarks on the unevenness of progress at
this stage, and that progress was needed across the board.  He wished to go over some negotiating
groups and suggest some areas where participants should concentrate their effort to press forward.  On
agriculture, participants seemed to place high expectations on the Chairman's 18 December overviewpaper.  But in actual fact, this overview paper's quality depended to a large extent on the quality of the
Members' papers as submitted and to be submitted.  Participants should also be thinking ahead to the
even more critical first draft paper on modalities, due to be issued in February 2003.  They could start
working now on the level of specificity and ambition that would be needed in the modality framework
and together be prepared to work on entrenched positions.  He expected all delegations to engage inmore interactive discussion in future TNC meetings on some of these aspects.
297. On services, although the negotiations continued to progress in a very positive manner,
delegations were requesting more developing-country participation.  It would certainly be helpful in
this respect to make clear that the GATS posed no threat to national social or cultural policyobjectives in sectors like education and health care.  And as the WTO continued to advance in its
technical cooperation programme, developing countries would feel more confident in making their
proposals.
298. On non-agricultural market access, there seemed to be concerns that it might not be possible
to strike a balance with other negotiations.  The WTO would have to meet the requirements for
scheduling adequate and appropriate timeslots for meetings.  Apart from this, some delegations hadsuggested linkages between the market access negotiations and those in the areas of trade remedies.
Ambitious proposals would be welcome to incorporate developing countries' areas of interest and to
contribute towards the already fast expanding South-South trade.
299. On trade and environment, a number of delegations had raised the issue of observer status
with the suggestion that some form of solution could be near at hand.  Some delegations had noted the
importance of this issue in the light of the relevant part of the mandate of that group.  He wished to
encourage the Chairperson of the Special Session to  look further into possible approaches to this
question to facilitate the work of her Group in this respect.
300. As for other groups, a lot of hard work remained to be done in the TRIPS Council Special
Session, especially to bring Members' positions closer, while on rules, the Chairman himself had
given the indication that participants needed to treat the issue of subsidies more seriously.  The DSB
Special Session was endowed with the luxury of a multitude of proposals on which a balanced paper
could be crafted by May next year.  Although this was not an organic part of the single undertaking, itwas one area that lent strong support to the credibility of this institution.
301. Besides agriculture, the work of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
Development seemed to have been referred to most frequently at the present meeting, and rightly so.
The Doha mandate had reaffirmed special and differential treatment provisions as an integral part ofthe WTO Agreements.  This was a litmus test of the development content of the Doha Agenda.TN/C/M/5
Page 66
Members had come a long way since the July deadline thanks to the Chairman and the contributions
from both developed and developing countries.  Al though the whole S&D work programme could not
be completed by the end of the year, Members should do their very best to establish certain
agreements, particularly in identifying readily workable specific proposals as had been tabled by
various developing countries and a future roadmap to guide this work programme forward.  It wasmost gratifying to take note that there was great trust placed in the Chairman's guidance by all parties
concerned, and he detected a growing sentiment to rally support behind the Chairman's position.
302. As part of the year end package to establish the core of the Development Agenda, besides
S&D treatment and the facilitation of Least-Developed Countries' accession, for which Members had
now achieved agreed guidelines, the issue of TRIPS and Public Health was the most prominent for its
humanitarian background, as many delegations had alluded to at the present meeting.  And as it wasmore of a humanitarian issue than a pure trade one per se, Members could not count upon only their
trade acumen to decide on the final agreement.  They had to equally rely on their sense of
responsibility, their compassion and the most urgent need of the ultimate consumers or beneficiaries.
It would indeed be to their collective discredit if they missed the deadline to find an expeditious
solution for the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health  issue.  If they failed to succeed in this
endeavour, which not only had global public support but also political consensus, he feared the worst
for the rest of their more complicated undertakings.  He realised that this was not a TNC issue, but
this achievement would give strong impetus to the negotiations.
303. As for the future work, the TNC might need to meet more often to address, besides the
substantive part of the negotiations, also the linkages between different negotiations in a broader
context.  General statements could then be turned into more specific ones, clarifying and moving
positions with focussed interactive interventions.  He had taken note of the comments on the schedule
of meetings of the negotiating groups.  This would require careful management, striking a balance
between flexibility and predictability.  He would ta ke up the scheduling of meetings for next year as
soon as possible to allow a balanced time allocation to all negotiating groups, and to underscore his
principle of balanced and concerted movement on all negotiating fronts.  Everyone would make their
best efforts to take into account the special needs of small delegations.  He thanked all delegations
again for their active contributions to a very useful session.
304. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the reports of the bodies established by it and
of the statements made.
2. Outstanding implementation issues - reports by relevant WTO bodies pursuant to
paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration
305. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 12(b) of the Ministerial Declaration provided that the
outstanding implementation issues for which no specific negotiating mandate had been provided in
the Declaration would be addressed as a matter of priority by the relevant WTO bodies, which would
then report to the TNC by the end of 2002 for appropriate action.  He pointed out that there were a
number of other implementation issues on which reports were due to be submitted to the GeneralCouncil the following week, in line with the Ministerial Decision on Implementation.  The focus at
the present meeting was exclusively on those outstanding implementation issues which were governed
by paragraph 12(b).
306. Written reports had been circulated in the following official documents:
Council for Trade in Goods: G/L/588
BOP Committee: WT/BOP/R/66
Committee on Trade and Development: WT/COMTD/45
Customs Valuation Committee: G/VAL/49
Market Access Committee: G/MA/118TN/C/M/5
Page 67
SPS Committee: G/SPS/24
TBT Committee: G/TBT/W/191
307. He understood that a report by the Safeguards Committee, adopted on 5 December, would
also be circulated shortly1.  This report concluded that, in the light of the Committee's technical
discussions on the outstanding implementation issue in this area, the Committee had not been able to
suggest a course of action due to a lack of consensus.  He noted that no written report had been issued
in the case of the Council for TRIPS, and for this reason, he intended to invite the Chairman of the
Council for TRIPS, Ambassador Pérez Motta, to ma ke a brief statement.  In view of the time
constraints at the present meeting, he did not propose to ask the other Chairpersons to introduce their
reports.  However, he understood they would be available to join in the discussion as necessary.
Before giving the floor to Ambassador Pérez Motta, he wished to make a number of points.
308. First of all, he wished to thank the Chairperso ns for the considerable efforts he knew they had
all put into seeking appropriate solutions to the is sues before their committees.  This work had not
been easy for them, and he believed they deserved the gratitude of all delegations.  In looking at the
reports, he believed it was clear that, despite all the hard work that had been done, Members did notseem to have reached agreement on definitive solutions on most of the issues before them.
309. In preparing for the present meeting, he had consulted with the Chairpersons concerned and
with a number of delegations to seek their advice on how the TNC could handle the issues in each
area.  He had to report that his consultations had showed that significant differences also persistedabout what action the TNC should take.
310 However, on the basis of suggestions he had heard, he believed that the possible courses of
action for any given issue included:
• resolving the issue;
• agreeing that no further action was needed on the issue;
• referring the issue to a negotiating body;
• continuing work in the relevant subsidiary body under enhanced supervision by the
TNC and with a clear deadline, perhaps June 2003; and,
• undertaking further work at the level of the TNC.
But he had to add that he had not yet detected an emerging consensus on any of these options.
311. He said that the aim at the present meeting, should be to reach consensus on appropriate
action in respect of these issues.  The appropriate action might not be the same in all areas.  Inparticular, wherever possible, Members should identify any areas where resolution of the issues
concerned was close at hand, and consider how a positive outcome could best be reached.  Any
indications of such areas would be welcome.  If the work in the TNC was to add value, as it should,
he suggested that it would not be productive for delegations to repeat the discussion of the technical
details of each of the issues before them, since this work had already taken place in the subsidiarybodies.  This should be a forward-looking debate, and one which kept the overall picture firmly in
mind, in line with the TNC's mandate in paragraph 46 of the Doha Declaration.
312. The representative of Bulgaria noted the Chairman's outline of the possible courses of action.
This issue was important to his delegation.  He said that Ministers had called for appropriate action by
the TNC on these outstanding implementation issues.
313. Ambassador Pérez Motta (Mexico), Chairman of the Council for TRIPS, said that the
outstanding implementation issues dealt with by the TRIPS Council this year under paragraph 12 of
the Doha Declaration were those which appeared in paragraphs 87, 88, 91, 93, 94 and 95 and in two
                                                     
1  Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/59.TN/C/M/5
Page 68
proposals from the LDCs, dated 22 October 2001.  Unfortunately, the TRIPS Council had been unable
to adopt a report on these issues for submission to the TNC.
314. All the delegations who spoke expressed their appreciation to the Chairpersons of the various
Councils and Committees both for their reports and for their sustained efforts since Doha onimplementation issues referred to the relevant bodies.
315. The representative of the European Communities said that Ministers had agreed in Doha that
negotiations on outstanding implementation issues should be an integral part of the work programme
and of the single undertaking. On the paragraph 12(a) issues, negotiations had been referred directly
to the negotiating bodies. The other outstanding implementation issues had been referred to the
regular bodies which had to report by the end of the year to the TNC for appropriate action. Thisparticular mandate of the regular bodies was now expiring and it was up to the TNC to take
appropriate action on how to bring forward the nego tiations.  Members now had these reports. Some
of the outstanding implementation issues appeared ripe for early decision while on others there was a
total lack of consensus at the technical level. Hence the need to address these issues at the level of the
TNC.  His delegation believed that all these outstanding issues had to be dealt with on an equalfooting and could not accept that some of them were shoved under the carpet. Amongst the
outstanding implementation there were some, such as geographical indications (GIs), which were of
particular importance to his delegation and were ul timately linked to the overall progress of the DDA
negotiations. He stressed that quite a few Members shared this position and quite a few delegations
had their own particular implementation interests.  His delegation believed that the obvious way toaddress the outstanding issues would be to find th em a similar negotiating home as had been done for
paragraph 12(a) issues. That some Members appeared to oppose this was regrettable as it went against
the letter and spirit of paragraph 12. This implied that the Chairman of the Special Session of the
Council on TRIPS would be stuck with wine and spirits for some time to come which was neither
encouraging for him nor for the Organization.
316. The Community believed that it would be difficult for any Member to disagree that it was
time to deal with the outstanding paragraph 12(b) implementation issues at the level of the TNC. To
this effect his delegation proposed that the Chairman of the TNC undertook to conduct consultations
on all outstanding paragraph 12(b) implementation issues, in close contact with the Chairs of the
relevant WTO bodies, and to report back to the TNC for appropriate action. The Chairman of the
TNC was well placed to conduct such consultations as there were important interfaces betweenoutstanding implementation issues and the overall ne gotiations.  His delegation saw this as precisely
the kind of situation in which the TNC Chairman could play a pro-active role and was confident that
such an approach would allow for the TNC to harvest some doables and to build bridges on questions
where more fundamental divergences of views persisted.  In addition, this approach did not prejudge
substantive views which any Member might have on a particular issue.  He asked that this proposal beconsidered by delegations with a view to taking a decision at the present session of the TNC.
317. The representative of India expressed his delegation's deep reservations about the slow
progress on the resolution of S&D and implementation issues within the mandated time-frame. S&D
and implementation issues were asymmetric in the Uruguay Agreements insofar as promises maderemained unfulfilled.  In order to win the confidence of the developing world and to allow developing
countries to satisfy domestic constituencies and stakeholders, it was extremely important that the
implementation issues were resolved in a timely manner which also addressed the concerns of the
developing world.  This would create greater confidence in the current negotiations and allow for
progress in other sectors.  He said that pursuant to the decisions at Doha, outstanding implementationissues, falling under paragraph 12(b), as well as the further work that was required to be undertaken in
respect of some of the implementation issues on which decisions had been taken at Doha, had been
dealt with in the regular WTO bodies.  The Chairpersons had reported on the work done so far in
these bodies and it was a matter of deep disappointment that agreement had not been possible at an
early stage on any of the issues under negotiation.  However, the work done so far was no doubtuseful and provided Members with a basis on which to build future work.  It was also clear from theTN/C/M/5
Page 69
reports that technical aspects of the issue had been fully addressed in these bodies.  India believed that
it was time to progress to the decision-making, building on reports received from these bodies. India
and many other developing countries attached the highest importance to the early resolution of these
issues. He was also conscious that work in the regular bodies had reached a stage beyond which there
was very little scope for progress in these bodies. India had provided clarifications to its proposals andit was essential that a decision was taken on at least on some of these issues by 31
 December 2002.
His delegation believed that the rest of the work on outstanding implementation issues could be dealt
with in the TNC and supported the proposal by the representative of the EC. The TNC could address
these issues in dedicated sessions next year, with a view to resolving these issues and concerns at the
latest by July 2003. His delegations considered that only through such a process would delegations be
able to effectively fulfil the mandate given by Ministers at Doha.
318. On the issue of TRIPS and Public Health, his delegation urged Members to proceed in good
faith while giving primacy to the humanitarian, rather than the commercial aspects.  He cautioned that
the eyes of the international community were watching how the WTO handled this sensitive issue.  He
said that it was important to ensure that the supply of low cost medicines reached those in need
quickly and without getting bogged down in a legal minefield. The solution should be simple andeffective and adhere strictly to scope of products and diseases as covered in the Doha Declaration on
TRIPS & Public Health without circumscribing it further. He believed that the TRIPS Council
Chairman's paper of November 10 could be worked upon further to arrive at a solution.  Finally, India
fully endorsed the views expressed by Kenya, Zambia, Malaysia and China.
319. The representative of Egypt expressed her disappointment with the outcome on the
discussions on implementation issues. No meaningful resolution had been reached concerning most of
the issues and the overall lack of accommodation to the concerns of developing countries was
disappointing.  She said that ever since the Uruguay Round Agreements had taken effect, developing
countries had experienced difficulties in the implementation of some of those agreements dueprimarily either to the lack of clarity in certain provisions or to the failure of many developed
countries to fulfil their obligations under the agreements.  The Declaration of the Second Ministerial
Conference in May 1998 reflected an agreement by all Members of the Organization at ministerial
level by stating that:  "Full and faithful implementation of the WTO Agreement and Ministerial
Decisions is imperative for the credibility of the multilateral trading system and indispensable for
maintaining the momentum for expanding global trade, fostering job creation and raising standards of
living in all parts of the world". The Ministers also decided that they would further pursue theirevaluation of the implementation of individual agreements and the realization of their objectives at the
Third Ministerial Conference.  The Declaration stated that: "Such evaluation would cover, inter alia ,
the problems encountered in implementation and the consequent impact on the trade and development
prospects of Members".  Unfortunately, this mandate had been carried around since 1998 and the
deadline had been extended from Seattle to Doha and lastly to the end of this year. Egypt believed that
a faithful resolution to all implementation issues was no longer a confidence building measure but a
matter of credibility for the multilateral trading sy stem in general, and the current negotiations in
particular, since implementation issues had been recognized as an integral part of the Doha Work
Programme and placed on a priority basis.
320. This situation was highly aggravated by a similar lack of progress on two other fronts of
developmental nature, namely S&D and TRIPS and Public Health.  She said that the TNC was now
called upon to take appropriate action.  Egypt believed that the first step was for the TNC to
operationalize its supervisory role and provide the necessary guidance to achieve progress on
implementation issues. This could be done through dedicated sessions of the TNC similar to theImplementation Mechanism or Special Sessions of the General Council that had addressed the issue
between Seattle and Doha and achieved some results as reflected in the Decision adopted in Doha on
implementation-related issues and concerns. This practice had also been followed on other issues, for
example the discussions on electronic commerce.  Finally, Egypt hoped that all Members concerned,
particularly the developed partners, would work seriously towards reaching acceptable solutions to allTN/C/M/5
Page 70
implementation issues with a view to achieving an ear ly harvest in this area.  She remained confident
that with the necessary political will from all parties this objective was attainable.
321. The representative of Cuba said that this meeting was being held at a very important stage in
the process leading up to the Fifth Ministerial in Cancún.  Barely seven months remained before that
meeting and a large number of issues on the agenda were still unresolved.  He agreed with the
Chairman that deadlines had to be respected.  Unfortunately, on implementation and other issues
which had been identified as priority issues by Ministers in Doha progress remained disappointing,
particularly because paragraph 2 of the Doha Declaration stressed the needs and interests of
developing countries as being at the centre of the work programme.  For the very first time in the
history of GATT and WTO, decisions had been made  and work programmes had been established in a
number of issues of the greatest interest for developing countries.  Much of that work was expected toconclude at the very latest by December 2002 and other issues had a deadline at the Fifth Ministerial.
He said that an example was implementation, particularly those issues covered in paragraph 12(b) and
the issues which were submitted to the various subsidiary bodies with the request of providing reports
to the TNC at the end of 2002.
322. He recalled that at the October meeting of the TNC, the Director-General had said that
Members had to consider as a priority the outstanding implementation issues.  Since then two months
had passed and it was with great disappointment that his delegation noted that the spirit and the letter
of paragraph 2 of the Doha Declaration had been ignored.  The call by the Director-General for a
timely solution had gone unheard, because the results of that call had been virtually non-existent and,once again, the lack of political will in the principle industrialized nations had become apparent.  This
alarming situation was reflected in the reports of the subsidiary bodies which were simply statements
of fact and did not provide any solutions for an effective or appropriate solution as recommended in
the last sentence of paragraph 12 of the Declaration.  Cuba was very concerned that in looking for
solutions before the December deadline the effective participation of all Members in the consultationshad not been encouraged, rather the contrary.  There had been green room type meetings, including
outside the Organization, with a view to promoting solutions which would not benefit all developing
countries equally.  He recalled the ongoing debate on procedures and negotiations in the preparations
for Ministerial Conferences.  It was critical that procedures be interactive and open since this was the
only manner in which a true consensus could be built.  It was therefore important to establish
transparent, open and fully participatory mechanis ms for all decision-making processes within the
WTO in order to guarantee the progress of work before and during the Fifth Ministerial Conference.
323. He stressed that it was urgent to find an effective solution to development issues, particularly
implementation, as well as all those which had a deadline in 2002.  The developing countries had
already shown flexibility by extending the deadlines fo r the analysis of these issues and it was now for
the industrialized nations to show the political will to find solutions to the graver problems faced bythe developing world.  His delegation believed that developing countries were being asked to pay for
a third time since the asymmetries and imbalance which had been established in the Uruguay Round
had yet to be resolved.  The tactic of delaying decisions on implementation in order to seek linkages
with other negotiating areas, so as to force developing countries to adopt new commitments, was of
grave concern to his delegation.  Cuba would find it difficult to make other commitments if thecurrent deadlines were not met.  He supported the proposal by the representative of Egypt concerning
the need for dedicated sessions on implementation.  A positive outcome to correct the inequalities and
the asymmetries of the past was still possible. The alternative would be a repetition of Seattle.
324. The representative of Brazil said that Ministers at Doha had committed themselves to place
the needs and interests of developing countries at the heart of the WTO work programme.
Discussions on S&D in the CTD Special Session and the examination of outstanding implementation
issues, however, had mostly met with a persistent unwillingness to engage on the part of the
developed countries.  The rare demonstrations of interest in implementation items on the part of
developed countries were unrelated to any discernable development objective.  Although it had beenenvisaged that implementation issues would be the subject of agreement at an early stage of theTN/C/M/5
Page 71
negotiations, the possibility of an early harvest clearly had become more and more remote.  At the
first TNC meeting on 1 February 2002, it had been agreed that negotiations on outstanding
implementation issues would take place in the relevant bodies.  This had been explicitly incorporated
in the negotiating structure established by the TNC for the Doha Round in document TN/C/1 which
Members had endorsed by consensus.  However, in the different reports from the committees therewas very little to indicate that these issues were being addressed as a matter of priority, or that the
Ministerial determination to find appropriate solutions to them was being translated into a
corresponding effort at the technical level. His delegation acknowledged that some productive work
had taken place, such as on anti dumping, but on the paragraph 12(b) front there was reason for
serious concern.  With the exception of an SPS proposal, which had been met with consensus, work in
the remaining subsidiary organs had been inconc lusive.  While two reports, namely on BOP and TBT,
recognized the need for further discussions, the reports by the Committees on TRIMs, TRIPS, CustomValuation, Trade and Development did not even pr ovide any orientation for the future.  This was
discouraging and it remained incumbent upon the TNC to ensure that this essential aspect of this trade
round, which had development at its core, be adequately taken on board.
325. As regards items under paragraph 12(b) of the Ministerial Declaration, the subsidiary bodies
had gone as far as they could and it was improbable that sending the items back would produce more
meaningful results.  This was a serious matter which touched upon the fundamental integrity of this
round.  He said that consideration should be given to the establishment of a negotiating mechanism
under the TNC for the 12(b) implementation items. Paragraph 46 of the Ministerial Declaration
allowed Members to do so at any time.  He agreed with Uruguay that the TNC was not only a forumfor individual assessments of the overall state of pl ay, but also a forum to resolve deadlocks.  Brazil
supported the efforts of the Chairman and agreed with the proposal of the representative of the
European Communities that the Chairman should consult Members on all outstanding paragraph
12(b) implementation issues and report back to the TNC for appropriate action.  The option of
conducting dedicated sessions on paragraph 12(b) items as had been suggested by the representativesof India and Egypt was a constructive one.  His delegation would be ascribing particular importance
to two of its proposals in the 12(b) implementa tion context on TRIMs and on the relationship between
the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
326. The representative of Argentina supported the statements by India, Egypt and Cuba.
However, he was greatly concerned that this very important agenda was being contaminated by some
matters that were not of such great interest and importance to developing countries.  His delegationcould not accept that all of the issues before Members had to go through as a single package.  He
asked for clarification of the proposal which had been made by the European Communities.
327. The representative of the European Communities said that he would make his statement
available in writing to those delegations which were interested.328. The representative of the Slovak Republic said that the Doha Ministerial Declaration had
provided a clear mandate in paragraph 12 to address outstanding implementation issues in the relevant
WTO bodies and to report to the TNC by the end of 2002 for appropriate action.  In some areas
Members appeared close to taking a decision on appropriate action while in others a consensusseemed far away.  It was disappointing that the TRIPS Council had been unable to reach a consensus
concerning the extension of additional protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits.  The
lack of political will of some Members to properly address the needs of others had led to the present
situation in which there was no direction for appropriate action to be taken for the next year.  The
Slovak Republic believed that all outstanding implementation issues should be treated equally and itwas unacceptable that the issue of GIs be withdrawn from the package of paragraph 12(b) issues.
This would go against the mandate given by Ministers at Doha and could have an impact on progress
in the overall negotiations.  The TNC had been established according to paragraph 46 of the Doha
Declaration to supervise the progress of negotiations and as a result it should take appropriate action
on this matter.  In this regard, the Slovak Republic supported the proposal made by the EuropeanTN/C/M/5
Page 72
Communities to ask the Chairman to conduct consultations on all outstanding implementation issues
under paragraph 12(b) and to report back to the TNC for appropriate action.
329. The representative of Australia expressed regret that only eight of the nine regular committees
which had been addressing the list of outstanding implementation issues under paragraph 12(b) of the
Doha Declaration had been able to submit a repor t. The absence of a report from the TRIPS Council
was of serious concern to his delegation particularly since the Chair of this body had devoted
considerable personal energy in recent months to chairing the Council and in working tirelessly to
produce a neutral, factual, comprehensive and balanced report.  His delegation believed that this
report represented an impartial summing up which in no way prejudiced the position of any Member
who had participated in the substantive discussions throughout the year.  Nevertheless, the report had
been blocked by a small group of Members who apparently had felt disappointed that the report failedto produce the conclusions and recommendations that they had wished to see reflected.  No effort had
been made by these countries to discuss the substance of the report or to amend the Chair's draft.
These countries had instead to decided to block a balanced and factual report.  This placed the TNC in
a difficult position and it would therefore be appropriate for the TNC to defer any decision on what
action was appropriate until a report had been presented.  His delegation was disappointed that agroup of developed countries had sought to exploit the implementation agenda to pursue negotiations
on an issue on which there was no consensus, where a genuine lack of comprehension about the
relationship of the issue to the work of the WTO remained, and where a strong undercurrent of
cultural and linguistic insensitivity prevailed. The issue of amending the TRIPS Agreement to give
monopoly rents to the owners of geographical terms which were currently being used extensivelyaround many parts of the world should never have been portrayed as a genuine implementation issue.
It had been lumped together with other implementation issues solely because one or two developing
countries had submitted an ambit claim to the Secretariat shortly before Doha and it had automatically
and without any concurrence from the rest of the membership been placed in a document.  This issue
was now polluting the implementation debate.
330. He agreed with the assessment that reports before the membership indicated a lack of
consensus on most tirets.  However, a couple of issues appeared ripe for a result by the end of the
year.  He understood this was the case with the item on SPS where the Committee was now in a
position to take a decision which would satisfactorily address the concern of the developing country in
question. It would also seem possible, with a little more work, to reach a solution in the area of TBT
and perhaps Safeguards.  For the remaining issues, Australia believed that the only appropriate actionin the circumstances was for the TNC to refer the issues back to the regular committees and groups
for further consideration.  His delegation could contemplate some enhanced supervision by the TNC,
although setting a another deadline for June seemed  unrealistic. He could not support the proposal to
give the TNC Chairman the task of finding a solution to these technical and complex issue since he
would already have enough on his plate in 2003.  He did not believe that having the TNC convene inspecial dedicated meetings would solve the problem.
331. The representative of Chile said that it was for the TNC to deal with pending matters in terms
of implementation on the basis of the reports which the subsidiary bodies had submitted.  The scarce
progress so far was no surprise insofar as the outstanding matters were the most difficult and sensitiveones.  It was increasingly clear that these outstanding issues would require a broader framework for
negotation.  He said that Members were facing three different situations.  First, there were certain
issues where a solution could be found in the subsidiary bodies. In these cases it would make sense to
allow the subsidiary bodies to continue their work and find a solution.   In the second group, there
were a number of issues on which no immediate solution could be foreseen.  Some Members hadargued for the TNC to become substantively involv ed in the solution of the issues in this second
group.  His delegation did not agree with these delegations.  The overall responsibility of the TNC
was to supervise the trade negotiations.  The TNC was not the General Council, it was not
administering the various WTO Agreements and therefore it was not a forum for technical and
detailed discussion with respect to various aspects of implementation which, although important intheir own right, were not covered by a negotiating re mit.  The role of the TNC was to deal with thoseTN/C/M/5
Page 73
implementation items where there was a consensus to establish a specific negotiating mandate and
where solutions could be found within the framework of negotiations. But to ask the TNC to directly
find solutions to the various issues would not result in progress.  His delegation did not have a
problem in dealing with the outstanding matters in the TNC to see whether or not it was feasible to
find a framework, a mandate for negotiation to deal with the outstanding  matters. The third groupdealt with the so-called non-existent report by the TRIPS Council.  He hoped that the blockage to this
report would be lifted very soon since it would be impossible for the TNC to take any decision
without having the complete set of reports for consideration.
332. The representative of Romania said that implementation issues were at the core of the DDA.
The credibility of this Organisation hinged on finding some solution in the TNC, in a relevant time-
frame.  The reports from the regular committees clearly showed that there was no consensus on howto deal with these outstanding implementation issues. It was worrying that that there did not seem to
be any encouraging perspectives to make further progre ss at this particular level.  She said that her
experience as Chair of the BOP Committee had shown that, even if delegations did consider that some
items warranted further discussion, further political will and flexibility were required.  Her delegation
supported the proposal by the European Communities to send the outstanding issues to the TNC  and
have the Chair initiate consultations.  The TNC Chair should work closely with the Chairpersons of
the relevant WTO subsidiary bodies and report back to the TNC with conclusions and proposals, for
appropriate action.
333. The representative of Japan expressed satisfaction that some positive progress had been made,
such as in the area of TBT. However, several other items had fallen short of reaching consensus.
While all Members did not necessarily share a single interpretation of the phrase "appropriate action",
the TNC had to move forward.  In that spirit, delegations had to give consideration to how best to use
the resources towards meeting th e DDA. Because of the diversity of out-standing implementation
issues, there could not be a one-size-fits-all solution for all issues. His delegation believed that acase-by-case approach, while respecting the importance of every issue, was the right solution.
334. The representative of the Czech Republic said that particularly in the area of the extension of
the additional protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits his delegation was
disappointed by the collective inability to give practical effect to the directive of Ministers to report to
the TNC by the end of 2002 for appropriate action. It was regrettable that the efforts of so many
Members had not resulted in a situation where the guidelines on the negotiations in this area couldtake more definite shape.  His delegation had never been enthusiastic about the idea which had
appeared earlier in the year during the discussions on the structure of the negotiations. The idea had
been to treat the subject matter of extension of GI s as an outstanding implementation issue subject to
paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. For his delegation, this had always been an issue
with a clear negotiating mandate.  However, the Czech Republic had decided to join the consensus onthe understanding that progress in dealing with this issue would be made on the basis of a
recommendation to the TNC for appropriate action.  Since then his delegation had been working very
hard, together with many others, to explain its ambition and better understand the views and concerns
of others. Particular focus had been placed on the benefits which the extension of the additional
protection to products other than wines and spirits wo uld have for all Members. In this approach, his
delegation had been guided by the conviction that it was a systemic issue which was of particular
relevance to the overall objective of strengthening the multilateral trading system and giving it a sense
of more equity.  He had never doubted the consistency of this approach with the objective of the
reform process in agriculture to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system.
Nobody could disagree that practices based on fr ee-riding on the reputation of genuine GIs had
nothing to do with fair trade. It was therefore disappointing that some Members, rather than showing
more understanding, seemed to have proposed that, in the absence of an agreement on this issues to
date, the only thing that could be done was to close the book.  In other words, these Members
suggested inaction to be considered as the appropriate action to be taken by the TNC. For his
delegation, inaction was not an option.  He said that although two different schools of thoughts couldbe identified at this point, this did not mean that it would be impossible to find common ground.  HeTN/C/M/5
Page 74
did not believe that failure to agree on GIs at the present meeting would be the end of the story.  The
current Round of negotiations would offer other opportu nities to broker compromises.  His delegation
supported the proposal by the European Communities regarding all outstanding paragraph 12(b)
implementation issues and agreed that the Chairman should undertake consultations on the way
forward.
335. The representative of Korea said that the reports from the subsidiary bodies showed that they
had discussed the implementation issues in sufficient detail and with the seriousness that these issues
rightly deserved. Although few tangible results had been reached and stark differences between
proponents and opponents remained, Members should be cautious about making narrow assessments
about the final outcome.  A number of the so-called paragraph 12(a) issues were being addressed in
various negotiating bodies and delegations had also accomplished tangible results on otherimplementation issues outside paragraph 12(b). Thus, it was more appropriate to make the assessment
from a more global viewpoint.  From the reports received, it was clear that a new framework for the
remaining issues was needed.  Members had considered these issues for quite a while, and given the
thorough work that the subsidiary bodies had undertaken, simply extending the deadline would not be
the optimal choice.  Korea did not agree with t hose that had argued that the TNC should become
involved in the unresolved issues, because this  would lead to an overloading of the Cancún
Ministerial Conference.  He supported the Chairman's suggested course of action as both practical and
realistic at this juncture.
336. The representative of Canada said that when discussing implementation Members should not
lose sight of the progress that had been made to date.  More than 40 issues had been dealt with at the
Doha Ministerial Conference and, for those Doha decisions where additional work had been required,
there were positive results in the Anti-dumping Practices Committee (paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4), the
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Committee (paragraph 10.6) and the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures Committee (paragraph 3.3).  In  addition, over half of the outstanding issues
had already been incorporated into the mandated negotiations, and progress had been reported on
some of the paragraph 12(b) non-negotiating implementation issues, notably by the Committee on
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. It was evident from the various committee reports that there
were no easy answers to the outstanding paragraph 12(b) implementation issues.  However, it
remained imperative that these proposals and related expectations were well managed in the WTO
bodies, and in this regard it would appear appropriate that the disposition of the remaining issues
should reflect the decisions taken in the different WTO committees that were tasked with examiningthese issues.  In other words, this would mean that, for those issues where the reviewing committee
had recommended further review, these committ ees should be charged with this task.
337. For those issues where the reviewing committees had reported no consensus and had not
recommended further review, delegations should carefully consider what other options remainedavailable for these matters.  He noted that one of the Chairman's five categories included those issues
for which further work was not necessary.  Many Members had referred to the extension of GIs.
Canada believed that this was not an implementation issue per se , but an attempt for new negotiations
on a new agreement. Such an agreement would be complex, onerous and contrary to the notion of
trade liberalization. He agreed with the view expressed by Chile and Australia that the TNC could notmove forward in the absence of a report from the TRIPS Council.  The suggestion that the TNC
should take up all the paragraph 12(b) outstanding implementation issues in dedicated sessions was
not desirable, given the General Council's past experience in this regard and the fact that the expertise
remained with the technical bodies.  He emphasized that there was no agreement for the outstanding
paragraph 12(b) issues to move into negotiating fora following the December deadline. Such a movewould be a misinterpretation of the Doha mandate, which only provided for negotiations on seven
areas and Canada did not have a mandate to negotiate beyond these.
338. The representative of China pointed out that the end-2002 deadline set by Ministers in Doha
for implementation issues was approaching, but from the reports submitted by the relevant WTO
bodies, his delegation believed that the mandate given by the Ministers at Doha in paragraph 12(b) ofTN/C/M/5
Page 75
the Ministerial Declaration had not been fulfilled.  Although these bodies had discussed the
implementation issues before them, not much substantive progress had been made and further work
remained to be done to address these issues of great concern to developing-country Members in a
meaningful manner.  It seemed to his delegation that the situation regarding the outstanding
implementation-related issues remained almost the same as it had been before and at the DohaMinisterial Conference.  Among other things, the issues concerning implementation of the Agreement
on Textiles and Clothing contained in paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the Doha Declaration remained
unresolved, and his delegation looked forward to an early solution to these issues.
339. Resolution of the outstanding implementation issues would have a substantive impact on the
negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda.  Members should redouble their efforts, first, to
build confidence for the developing-country Members in the multilateral trading system and second,to pave the way for the smooth running of this round of new multilateral negotiations.  Since all the
regular bodies, with the exception of the SPS Committee, had either failed to reach any consensus or
made no recommendations, it was high time that the TNC decided to take appropriate action.  It was
not appropriate to send these issues back to the regular bodies, as there was no hope of making any
progress.  His delegation supported the proposal by  India and others that the TNC should deal with
these issues directly, as they were an integral part of the Work Programme. His delegation also
supported the idea that these issues should not be left until the Fifth Ministerial Conference, and
believed that Members should try their hardest to reach proper solutions to them over the next couple
of months.
340. The representative of Hungary expressed disappointment that not much progress had been
made on implementation issues.  He welcomed the Chairman's effort to put forward a number of
options for dealing with these issues. Since an agreement on at least some of these issues appeared
some way off his delegation favoured referring these issues to the negotiating bodies which already
dealt with similar questions.  However, even the second option did not seem to be workable due to thewide differences among Members, and as a result there seemed to be no alternative to following the
proposal of the European Communities to continue consultations, under the guidance of the TNC
Chairman, to identify what kind of action the TN C could and should take as mandated by paragraph
12 of the Doha Declaration.  He noted the balanced proposal of the European Communities to apply a
similar approach to all the outstanding issues and to make sure that none of these issues were left
behind.  At this stage, this approach was the only equitable solution.  Hungary attached particular
importance to the issue of an extension of GIs for products other than wines and spirits.  Hisdelegation disagreed with assessments made by Australia and Canada that this issue was an
exploitation of the issue of implementation.  He said that he was not aware of any kind of reservation
made by either of these countries on paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration.  The second sentence of
paragraph 18 clearly refered the to extension of GIs issue to the Council for TRIPS pursuant to
paragraph 12 of the Declaration on implementation.  It was therefore disturbing that these delegations,one year after Doha, questioned one of the key parts of the Doha Declaration and accused the
proponents of this issue of inventing the extension of GIs as an implementation issue.  If those
countries had not been happy with this approach, they should not have given their agreement to this
approach at Doha.  To question this part of the mandate at this juncture was very unhelpful.  He said
that, under paragraph 18, the extension of GIs had been clearly designated as one of the issues to behandled under implementation.
341. He similarly found it intriguing that, on the substance of this issue, some delegations had
argued that an extension of GIs would hurt cultural and linguistic sensitivities.  This was surprising
coming from countries which were extremely critical of non-trade concerns.  It appeared that for thisparticular case of agricultural reform, these delegations had suddenly developed such sensitivities on
behalf of their own producers who wanted to use geographical names which did not belong to them.
His delegation believed that this was just one further example of the pick and choose approach which
had characterized the core of the agricultural negotiations.  These countries were extremely radical
when it came to other countries' agricultural poli cies, but when it came to their own, namely export
credits, state-trading enterprises, food aid, export taxes or SPS measures, then all these issues were notTN/C/M/5
Page 76
to be handled with the same severity as proposed for other participants' policies.  This was the kind of
selective liberalization which would lead Members down a dead end street and it was equally true for
the issue of extension of GIs.  Delegations had tried to find a solution under one aspect of GIs ,
namely Article 23.4 for wines and spirits, but Members were not closer to a solution than seven years
back.  As a result, his delegation could not agree to an approach which would refer the extension ofGIs back for further discussion in the regular body.  This would be a continuation of the same
stalemate and playing for time strategy which had been seen for the past year.  He therefore urged that
this issue, along with the other implementation issues, be taken up at the level of TNC for a decision
at its next meeting.
342. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation took a particular interest in a number of
implementation issues that fell into the category covered by paragraph 12(b) of the Ministerial
Declaration.  He noted that it was the importance of these and other implementation issues which had
led Ministers to establish one of the earliest deadlines for reporting.  Against this background, it was
therefore particularly concerning that the Chairpersons' reports on implementation issues referred to
subsidiary bodies had indicated little or no progress in almost all areas, with perhaps the notable
exception of the SPS Committee.  Given this situation, the TNC, which had an obligation to takeappropriate action on the matters falling under paragraph 12(b), should be allowed a bit of time to
decide how to take these matters forward.  Simply  referring the implementation issues involved back
to the subsidiary bodies that had considered and reported on them was not the way forward.  He
supported the view that the Chair of the TNC should carry out consultations with a view to a decision
on how and where these issues should be assigned for future work.  Such discussion would also needto contemplate establishing an institutional machinery for further consideration of these issues.
343. On specific implementation issues, he regretted that it had not been possible for the TRIPS
Council to agree on a report to be submitted.  He stressed that Jamaica had a particular interest in
some matters before the TRIPS Council.  Concerning negotiating rights, tiret 99, the treatment of this
issue was also important.  The aim of the proposal was to address the disadvantages faced by smaller
trading partners in the concession exchange and other aspects of trade negotiations.  While discussion
of this issue had some relevance to the Market  Access Committee, his delegation agreed with the
conclusion of the Committee that this matter was of a much wider scope and therefore could not be
fully addressed within the limited mandate of that Committee.  This proposal would benefit from
discussions in the TNC which had a broader remit than that of the Market Access Committee.
Jamaica recognized that greater elaboration of the objectives and parameters of this proposal would beneeded.  The contribution by St. Lucia in document G/MA/44, as well as its contribution circulated at
the present meeting would be very important in this respect.   On Safeguards, Jamaica considered the
proposal for raising the de minimis threshold for safeguards to be important.  This was important for
small economies who relied on a few export products and whose economic survival depended on
uninterrupted market access.
344. The representative of Norway said that his country had no real great national interest in any of
the outstanding implementation issues with the exception of the anti-dumping area.  However, to his
delegation's satisfaction this issue had gone to the negotiations.  He was more concerned about the
possible consequences that disagreement in this field could have for the wider negotiations and in thiscontext two aspects stood out.  The first aspect dealt with the integrity of the Doha mandate itself
insofar as some of the statements by Members seemed to have called the text of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration into doubt.  Paragraph 12 in the Doha Declaration stated that:  "We agree that
negotiations on outstanding implementation issues shall be an integral part of the Work Programme
we are establishing, and that agreements reached at an early stage in these negotiations shall be treatedin accordance with the provisions of paragraph 47 below."   The next sentence started with "in this
regard" combined with "we shall proceed as follows " and followed by parts (a) and (b).  He found it
difficult to understand how this could mean anything else than both (a) and (b) were negotiating
items.  However, these issues were treated differently because at Doha Members had only set up
negotiating machinery for the areas covered in (a).  He said that to his delegation it was quite clearTN/C/M/5
Page 77
delegations were negotiating, and he cautioned against calling into doubt what was quite plain
language.
345. The second set of problems touched upon the fundamental integrity of the WTO and the work
which had been undertaken since before Seattle.  He did not agree with Australia that the issue of GIshad been added to the list of questions just before Doha.  The reference document which delegations
had started work on in 2000 was the so-called the 19 October 1999 text in which paragraphs 21 and
22 had listed the implementation issues currently under discussion.  Paragraph 21(g) of that document
included a provision for the extension of the GI system.  In other words this issue had been proposed
as an implementation issue in either late 1998 or in early 1999 and had been with Members since then.
It was therefore incorrect to say that that was not a real implementation issue because Members had
not defined what these implementation issues were.  The implementation area was a mixed bagcontaining proposals by developing countries, including the GI issue, where there was disappointment
with the results from the Uruguay Round.  Some issues implied changing agreements and others
implied working out new understandings, and statements questioning their validity was, from a
systemic point of view, very dangerous. He agr eed with those delegations that had expressed
disappointment on the absence of a written report from the TRIPS Council. He supported the fiveoptions outlined by the Chairman and agreed with the procedural proposal made by the European
Communities.  His delegation was open to the suggestion of setting up a special group or committee
under the TNC to deal with implementation issues.  He urged the Chairman to include this issue in his
overall consultations on the way forward.
346. The representative of Colombia said that paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Declaration had been
the result of very intense debate.  He expressed concern about the lack of progress on various tirets of
paragraph 12(b) with the exception of Sanitary and Phytosanitary issues.  Colombia had submitted a
proposal on Safeguards which unfortunately had not managed to generate a consensus.  This issue
was of critical importance for developing countries, particularly since in the long run  it would havean impact on the industrial goods negotiations.  With  positions so far, apart he believed that the best
solution would be to ask the Safeguards Committee to come back to this issue only if there were new
elements which would allow consensus to be reached on the strengthening of the S&D treatment
within the framework of the Safeguards Agreement.  He said that it was most unfortunate that there
had been a lack of progress in the implementation of paragraph 12(b).  Having failed in this area so
far, it would be very important to reach agreements in the area of Public Health and S&D treatment.
His delegation did not believe that the TNC should consider all the implementation issues, since someof these were of a technical nature. The TNC should only consider those issues which required
political decisions.  The relevant subsidiary committees should retain those issues which still required
technical consideration.  He said that, although he was not against special TNC sessions devoted to
implementation in principle, such sessions should be only for those issues which required political
consideration and not technical debate.  He regretted the absence of a report from the TRIPS Counciland hoped that Members would be able to agree to make it available soon.
347. The representative of Switzerland said the current discussion on implementation issues
touched upon both the way ahead for the work of the subsidiary bodies and the mandate in paragraph
12 of the Doha Declaration.  Apart from the concrete result on SPS, it was quite clear that thesubsidiary bodies had not been able to conclude their work.  Most reports showed deep divisions and
it appeared that the technical bodies had reached a juncture where they were unable to continue to
debate a number of politically sensitive issues.  He believed that it was illusory to think that the
technical bodies could make any progress and a new impetus to the process was needed.  The answer
could be found in paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration, which clearly established the TNC as thebody responsible for supervision of the outstanding implementation issues.  It was to this body that
the subsidiary bodies had to report and it was up to the TNC to decide what action was appropriate.
The letter and the spirit of paragraph 12 made it clear that the TNC was in a position to intervene
directly to deal with implementation issues. Such intervention was now increasingly necessary as
there were politically sensitive matters at stake.  His delegation believed that the TNC should eithertake on the outstanding implementation issues itself, or provide clear instructions to the technicalTN/C/M/5
Page 78
bodies.  This was increasingly desirable since the solution to some problems which had been
identified required political arbitration.  Such arbitration was the role of the TNC.  He was convinced
that some evolution on these issues was possible, an evolution which contained a new role for the
current negotiating bodies.  On GIs, Switzerland's position was well known.  However, he failed to
understand the position of those who opposed the quest ion of dealing with this issue.  He wondered
how these countries could reaffirm their commitment to the Doha Declaration while at the same time
claim that issues explicitly mentioned in paragraph 18 of that Declaration and incorporated by
reference in paragraph 12 of that same Declaration, were outside the scope of the current negotiations.
348. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that the implementation dossier had been with
the membership for over three years and that, despit e the hard work in the various subsidiary bodies,
the results on the whole were somewhat patchy.  Significant progress had been made in some areassuch as an “early harvest” on extending the phase-out period for a number of small economies under
Art.27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement and agreement on some anti-dumping issues with a December
deadline.  In other areas such as textiles and clothing to which Hong Kong, China attached much
importance, the outcome was disappointing.   On the specific outstanding implementation issues
under paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, progress had been rather limited.  Hisdelegation appreciated the efforts of the Chairman in finding a roadmap to deal with these issues.
However, the current debate was not particularly helpful.  Instead, he believed it was time to look for
a pragmatic way to continue the work.  He had taken note of the concerns that little progress would be
made if the issues continued to be tackled in the subsidiary bodies.  However, there were some
success stories where subsidiary bodies could be useful in resolving highly technical implementationissues as long as the political will was there.  His delegation was in favour of a case-by-case approach,
where technical issues such as those concerning TB T and Safeguard should continue to be discussed
in the subsidiary bodies.  Escalating all issues up to the TNC would most likely not eliminate the
current deadlock. Nevertheless, Hong Kong, China still believed that the Chairman could play a
proactive facilitating role to help bridge the gaps in some of the issues through informal consultations.It would not be realistic to expect him to work on all the outstanding issues at the same time and his
delegation would trust his judgement as to which specific issues to take up in his consultations.  For
the rest of the issues, the TNC should enhance its monitoring role while the relevant subsidiary bodies
redoubled their efforts in identifying solutions.  He cautioned that while implementation issues were
close to the heart of many developing countries, Members should not lose sight of the fact that
achieving enhanced market access remained the prime goal in the Round.  After all, market access
was essential to development efforts and would bring substantive benefits to developing Members.An amicable and early solution on the outstanding implementation issues was needed so that the
membership could concentrate its efforts on other central issues in the DDA,  including market access.
349. The representative of Mexico said that it was obvious that Members had not fulfilled the
mandate on implementation.  These issues had proved more complex than could have been anticipated
and as a result further work was necessary.   However, taking the sensitive issues to the next
Ministerial Conference, as had been suggested by some delegations, was not only undesirable but
indeed irresponsible and Mexico felt that Members should make every effort to reach agreement
before Cancún so as to avoid overburdening that meeting.  He said that, on the basis of his experience
in the TRIPS Council, bringing the technical issu es into the TNC would not improve the chances of
progress.  It would be the same individuals as had discussed them in the TRIPS Council who would
discuss them in the TNC.  Elevating these implementation issues to the TNC would not facilitate
decisions at this juncture since what was missing was the political will to reach agreement.  As to the
implementation issues in the TRIPS Council, Mexico would not be able to agree to a discussion of
these in the TNC until such time as a report had been received by the TNC.   On the procedural issueshe shared the views expressed by Korea, Australia, Canada and others.
350. The representative of New Zealand said that looking at the Doha Declaration against the
background of his experience in the Uruguay Round he had been astonished in two ways.  It was
astonishing that the mandate on agriculture, the one issue which had totally dominated the UruguayRound, was both clear and the most operationally effective part of the entire Doha drafting process.TN/C/M/5
Page 79
At the same time he had been very surprised by the fact that colleagues had not been able, for good
reasons, to do what was normally done at the launch of a negotiation, namely to define the scope of
the negotiation.  History would regard the DDA as somewhat unusual in the sense that, unlike most
negotiations, the scope of this negotiation would be been seen to have been launched in three discreet
phases: first, the built-in-agenda phase which launched a scope far too limited in services andagriculture, second, the big breakthrough at Doha  and third, the conference at Cancún.  He had long
considered that these phases would cause a lot of problems in the lead up to the final definition of the
scope of this negotiation because delegations who wished to keep things out, or delegations who
wished to put things into the scope, would positio n themselves in other elements of the negotiation
accordingly.  However, Members would have to cope with the reality that the scope of this
negotiation had not yet been fully defined.  He said that with respect to implementation issues under
12(a) there was no problem.  As Chairman of the Ru les Group he had been very grateful for the way
the proponents of the implementation issues had successfully and without rancour migrated the issues
into becoming an integral part of negotiations in the Rules Group.  Progress on these issues was now
up to negotiators.
351. Concerning the 12(b) issues, he believed that some of those related to development were
being handled in a constructive way and some could benefit from further constructive work in the
committees.  Others were clearly tactical.  It had been said, perhaps in exaggeration, that the
proponents of some of these issues had forgotten th e reasons for introducing them into this list in the
first place.  He said that there was one issue which had nothing to do with development, but which
had been smuggled into this implementation list like a stowaway into the developing-country ship,
and furthermore, by a passenger who had quite enough money and enough weight to pay their way.
In arguing for the extension of GIs to other products than wines and spirits the European
Communities had made a reference to cheese.  He said that if any country would be disadvantaged by
such an extension to dairy products, it would be Ne w Zealand which had a third of world dairy trade.
According to worst case reasoning, New Zealand could lose hundreds of millions of dollars a yearfrom such an extension.  This had nothing to do with liberalization, but on the contrary moved in the
opposite direction.  Several proposals submitted by New Zealand had demonstrated a readiness to
eliminate the remaining protection it had.  However,  just as this was not a small issue for European
cheese producers, it would not be a small issue for other cheese producers, or indeed agricultural
producers, world-wide.  This issue had to be dealt with by sophistication if a solution were ever to be
found.  He said that the key issue before Members at this juncture was how to deal with these
implementation issues on a procedural level.  He agreed with Japan  that a one-size-fits-all solution ofthe type suggested by the European Communities would not probe fruitful.  He believed that the series
of options outlined by the Chairman was useful and would provide delegations with some breathing
space.  It was not realistic to imagine a full TNC debate on the issue of GIs, nor on any other technical
implementation issue, unless one sought to completely block any progress overall.  However, the
TNC had an important oversight role and it would be  correct to allow the TNC to monitor the work on
these implementation issues during the first 6 months of 2003.
352. The representative of United States said that implementation issues did not only include those
covered by paragraph 12(b) but also the work required by the Doha Decision on implementation
measures and paragraph 12(a). She believed that there had been serious engagement, debate anddiscussion, and the reports from the Chairs had indicated where there had been a consensus on how to
move forward and where differences remained. A number of practical results had been reported.  The
forthcoming meeting of the General Council would show that there was a considerable overlap
between many of the items under consideration at the present meeting and other implementation work
and the CTD's work on S&D Treatment.
353. Under the decisions taken on implementation at Doha there had been a number of important
tasks that had required further substantive work by subsidiary bodies and they had acquitted
themselves well on this account.  The Committee on Subsidies had recently completed work on
decisions under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies, which was an S&D provision and ofmajor economic importance to quite a number of developing countries.  The Committee onTN/C/M/5
Page 80
Anti-Dumping had also produced results on two issues.  She said that on paragraph 12(a) issues,
proposals had been put forward and Members were engaged. On paragraph 12(b) issues, the reports
showed that on some issues, such as TBT and SPS, Members had been able to produce specific
results.  On other issues, it appeared that further discussion in the relevant subsidiary body was
needed. Finally, on some issues, it had become clear that delegations had taken the discussion as faras it would go and that differences among Members were so fundamental that further efforts would
not yield results.  In turning to the issue of extending a higher level of GI protection to products
beyond wines and spirits, she said that discussions had revealed that there was a clear division among
WTO Members on this issue. These discussions had revealed a clear lack of consensus to recommend
the initiation of negotiations.  It had become clear that a substantial number of Members opposed
extension negotiations for several reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that there had been no
demonstration that the existing protection for GIs under the TRIPS Agreement was insufficient.  Inaddition, there were objections to the burdens that extension would impose on governments, the
unwarranted costs to producers and consumers, an d the imbalance resulting from the fact that the
relevant GIs of a few Members would number in the hundreds, while the majority of Members had
few, if any, such GIs.  Nevertheless, her delegation was ready to continue discussions on this issue in
the TRIPS Council, without prejudice to an outcome.
354. Although it was clear that paragraph 12(b) left it to the TNC to take appropriate action on
these issues, it was increasingly clear to her delegation that a one-size-fits-all approach would not
work. What was needed was a practical approach that allowed delegations to focus their attention
where it could be usefully applied and avoided wasting energy on issues that had been taken as far aswas possible.  She did not believe that taking these issues up for work in the TNC or in Special
Sessions of the General Council would be an efficient or effective approach since the issues at stake
were highly technical and would require more time and expertise than the TNC or the General
Council could apply to them.  The United States did not think that supplementing such Special
Sessions of the TNC or the General Council with smaller consultations would cure the weaknesses ofthis approach.  On those outstanding issues where further discussion was warranted, she believed that
Members needed to carry out the work in a way that allowed them to devote the time and expertise
that was necessary to help all Members work through the equities and form views on possible
outcomes.
355. The representative of Bulgaria said that the first two options outlined by the Chairman were
different from the other three options.  The first two options were substantive, as they referred to the
finding of an appropriate solution in terms of paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration.  In other words,
they refered to appropriate action.  The other three options were procedural and taking a position on
option 3, 4, 5 would mean that appropriate solutions or actions had  not been found by the TNC as
was required by the language of the Doha Declaration in paragraph 12.  These three options would
mean that such appropriate action had not been taken under 12(b) and as a result options 3,4, and 5did not constitute per se  appropriate action in the sense of paragraph 12(b) and from that point of view
there were no reports for appropriate action which would constitute an appropriate solution in the
sense of paragraph 12 and in particular in 12(b).  The factual reports before Members were not reports
for appropriate action.  They were not the reports envisaged in paragraph 12(b), but were reports
about the discussions that had taken place in the respective bodies.  His delegation had not been ableto agree to the report presented by the Chair of the TRIPS Council because it did not contain a
proposal for appropriate action in the sense of 12(b).  The proposed factual report would not constitute
a fulfilment of the mandate which the TRIPS Council had under 12(b).  His delegation did not object
to the Chairman of the TRIPS Council making a factual report on this.  He had made one and could
distribute it if he so wished, but this report and no other report for that matter, constituted anappropriate solution in the sense of the first sentence of paragraph 12 and none of the reports
contained proposals to the TNC for appropriate action.  He was prepared to take a decision on options
3, 4 or 5 if Members could agree but with a clear understanding that this did not constitute appropriate
action and that the appropriate action had yet to come as a result of options 3, 4 and 5.  As to which
option was the best, Bulgaria would like to support the proposal made by the European Communitiesto initiate consultations in which his delegation would like to be involved.  He said that he would likeTN/C/M/5
Page 81
to avoid the situation which had occurred prior to  the first meeting of the TNC when his delegation
had been excluded from some consultations.  Delegations that had an interest in some issues should be
invited to such consultations.
356. The proposal by the European Communities envisaged to examine that option in the Chair's
proposal which would refer the outstanding implementation issues to the negotiating bodies, namely
option 3.  He agreed with the Czech Republic that this was the only practical option.  The Chairman
would not need authorization from the TNC to conduct these consultations.  However, his delegation
could not support referring matters back to the subsidiary bodies.  Members had been unable to deal
with most of these issues due to a lack of political will.  There was also the purely practical problem
of overlapping meetings of the regular subsidiary bodies with the negotiating bodies.  He said that
paragraph 12 clearly stated that implementation issues were within the negotiations launched by theDoha Declaration. Members should solve the procedural problem of an increasing number of
meetings which particularly affected small delegations like Bulgaria.  He emphasized the importance
of respecting the deadlines established in Doha and in particular the deadline which would expire for
implementation issues under paragraph 12 at the end of the year.  This was the first significant
deadline established by Doha and it formed part of a delicate balance in the Doha Declaration.  Time-frames were part of the overall balance of interests in the Doha Declaration and the failure to meet the
deadlines on implementation issues, including those which were of special interest to his delegation,
would limit his delegation's ability to take next steps under the calendar established by Doha.
Whichever procedural steps could be taken at this point would not change the fact that Members had
been unable find appropriate solutions under paragraph 12 and had failed to take appropriate action inthe sense of paragraph 12(b).
357. On the issue of GIs he believed that most of what needed saying had been said.  However, it
remained a fact that the extension of the additional protection for GIs to products other than wines and
spirits had been supported by the vast majority of the membership of this Organization.  Over 80Members had spoken in favour of this and it was a very small minority of the membership who kept
blocking progress on this issue.
358. The representative of Argentina said that paragraph 12(b) was a very complex matter.
However, it was fairly plain to understand that the subsidiary bodies of the WTO responsible for these
issues which should have submitted reports to the TNC had failed to do so.  Members had received a
series of reports which, apart from one, showed a fundamental lack of consensus.  He agreed withthose who had said that under paragraph 46 of Doha Declaration the TNC was in charge of
supervising the negotiating process and that the sp ecific negotiations should take place in the
subsidiary bodies.  He said that the absence of a consensus was not something new to the
Organization and as such Members should be used to dealing with it.  The key to unlocking this
situation was increased political will.  Argentina co uld not go along with the proposal to elevate these
issues to the TNC as this would not improve the chances of finding a solution.  The fundamental
problem remained the absence of adequate political will among Members.   He said that from the
discussion it was clear that two basic options existed, either Members continued dealing with this
under the Chair's option 4 with a clear limit within the framework of the subsidiary body or Members
took the matter to the TNC.  His delegation favoured instructing the subsidiary bodies to continuetheir work since this would allow work to begin immediately.  Any action to be taken in the TNC
would have to be prepared and examined at its next meeting which meant waiting for another two
months and this was not an appropriate way to move forward.
359. He noted that the TRIPS Council had been unable to prepare a report for the TNC as a result
of the lack of consensus on the specific proposal to extend Article 23 protection to other goods.  In the
debate on this matter in the TRIPS Council, various  positions had been put forward.  However, in
paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration Ministers had simply noted that matters relating to a possible
extension of protection provided for in Article 23 for wines and spirits to other products would be
dealt with in the TRIPS Council according to paragraph 12 of the Declaration.  As far as hisdelegation was concerned, the TRIPS Council had met its mandate insofar as it had discussed theTN/C/M/5
Page 82
matter and been unable to reach a consensus with respect to beginning negotiations on this topic.  As a
result his delegation believed that no further action was necessary on this issue, in other words, the
second option of the Chairman's framework.  He noted that Article 24 of the TRIPS Agreement
stipulated that Members agreed to begin negotiations to improve protection of geographical
indications as set out in Article 23 which referred to additional protection for geographical indicationsof wines and spirits.  He said that document  Job(99)/5868/Rev.1 of 19 October 1999, to which
reference had been made, had been a draft that had never been approved, at least by Argentina.    The
concept of implementation, in any language, meant to  put into effect an agreement that had already
been reached.  An agreement that had not been reached could not be put into effect.  Within the
framework of this Organization, it seemed quite clear that there was no agreement, no consensus on
this issue.  All the present discussions on this is sue resulted from the creative engineering used in a
drafting exercise, which had resulted in this unfortunate situation.  However, since Doha hisdelegation had stated that it was not prepared at all to accept this interpretation and therefore it would
enter into negotiations only when there was an agreement to do so.
360. The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation would like to see the mandate given by
Ministers in Doha in paragraph 12 being implemented so that all the implementation issues it referred
to would be addressed.  He noted that Canada had indicated that only seven unresolved areas
remained to be addressed.  As far as his delegation was concerned, this count was incomplete and he
insisted that all implementation issues referred to in paragraph 12 should be addressed.  As to the
procedural approach outlined by the European Co mmunities, involving asking the Chairman of the
TNC to undertake further consultations, his delegation believed that the Chairman could not be deniedsuch a role.  However, Malaysia preferred to approach these issues entirely through dedicated sessions
of the TNC.   This was perhaps not the most elegant way insofar as this would require the presence of
all the technical experts.  Nevertheless, such an ap proach would be preferable to merely throwing the
issues back to the subsidiary bodies which would achieve little.  His delegation firmly supported the
idea of addressing these issues in dedicated sessions of the TNC.
361. The representative of Venezuela noted that it was important to remember that developing
countries had expressed their concerns about implementation in those committees where discussion
was mandated by Doha and in other committees.  The developing countries had stressed that a
solution to the problem of implementation had to be found in order to achieve balance in the
agreements of the Uruguay Round where S&D treatment had not been sufficiently effective for these
countries to meet their commitments.  At the highest levels, at the Doha Ministerial Conference, theimportance of dealing with these issues in a systemic and effective manner in order to achieve a
beneficial outcome for developing countries had been noted.  In Doha, Members had received a very
clear mandate to negotiate and identify appropriate action for all these implementation issues and
concerns.  Venezuela regretted the failure to make progress in fulfilling that mandate.  The TNC had
the task of supervising progress in all the negotiations and also in the implementation of paragraph 12of the Doha Declaration and it would be very helpful if the TNC were to give the necessary impetus to
those committees negotiating implementation issues.  It would be highly unfortunate if delegations
returned to the next TNC without any tangible outcome on these issues.  He said that Members had
agreed to initiate a work programme in order to enter into a new round.  The decisions on
implementation and S&D treatment were integral parts of those negotiations. His delegation, withothers, had expended considerable efforts to have these issues included in the Ministerial Declaration
and expected Members to take them seriously.  He expressed disappointment with the lack of progress
on these issues and said that it would be very difficult to go to Cancún unless this situation changed.
362. The representative of Pakistan said that it had been very obvious from the discussions so far
that there had not been much progress on implementation issues.  Pakistan did not believe that options
1 or 2 as outlined by the Chairman would serv e any purpose. Option 1 would essentially sweep the
implementation issues under the carpet and option 2 would simply continue the discussions in the
subsidiary bodies where they had been for the last three years.  He believed that option 3 suggested
raising the issues to a higher level.  He said th at any attempt to forget about these implementation
issues would have a negative impact on many other issues.  It had been clear from the large majorityTN/C/M/5
Page 83
of the statements that Members did not expect any results from the discussions in the subsidiary
bodies.  As a result, Pakistan believed that the only remaining option was to raise the level at which
these issues were being discussed. In this respect he supported the suggestion by the representative of
the European Communities that the Chairman should engage in consultations on these issues,
including with the Chairs of the various committees  with the objective of coming back to the TNC.
He said that several delegations, developing and developed, had expressed support for this approach.
Pakistan supported the discussion of these matters at the level of the TNC.
363. The representative of Turkey said that his delegation was one of the proponents of the
extension of the protection provided by Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement.  This extension would
mean that the GI protection in Article 23 of th e TRIPS Agreement would also be applied to all
products other than wines and spirits.  For Turkey, this would be a necessary correction of the TRIPSAgreement, which provided Article 23 protection to only wines and spirits for the time being.  The
issue was addressed by the Doha Declaration in an explicit manner as one of the outstanding
implementation issues and he believe that developing countries would benefit from such an extension,
as also mandated by Ministers in Doha.  He confirmed his delegation's support for the proposal in
document TN/C/W/7 and requested the TNC to take the necessary action in line with the mandateprovided by Ministers in Doha.  He supported the statement by the European Communities regarding
the next step of the TNC to fulfill its mandate to take appropriate action.
364. The representative of Uruguay said that his delegation had read with great care all the reports
of the committees and that it was apparent that the results had been very disappointing.  It had also
been apparent that the results had not been uniformly distributed.  He agreed that it was impossible to
apply a single formula to all these issues and as a result Members had to consider them on a case-by-
case basis.  He had taken note of the Chairman's proposal to group the various issues into five
categories and of the proposal of the European Communities which also had received some support.
365. The proposal by the European Communities basically suggested that Members should send
the entire package of 12(b) issues to the TNC, and make the Chairman responsible for undertaking
consultations and report to a future meeting on the results of those consultations, including possible
future action.  His delegation had several difficulties with this course of action.  Firstly, such a
proposal seemed to suggest that it would be impossible to have concrete results in the next few weeks
on some issues.  This would mean postponing the implementation of the entire package and would
remove pressure from the process as well as weaken the current impetus.  He believed that Membersshould make a concerted effort to achieve some results in the coming weeks.  It might mean a small
package but the proposal of putting all the issues in to a single basket would weaken the pressure upon
the membership which would be bad, not only for the overall progress in negotiations, but also for
progress on these particular issues.   The second problem with this proposal was that it suggested that
the subsidiary bodies should not continue working.  This would disregard the fact that the bodies hadshown some results in the areas of SPS, safeguards and market access.  The third difficulty with the
proposal was that it placed a tremendous burden on shoulders of the TNC Chairman, which was not
necessarily compatible with his other responsibilities as Chairman and as Director-General.  Finally,
this proposal ignored the fact that within the is sues there were divergent views where some countries
felt that the implementation of the agreements had been insufficient or had not responded to the spiritor the letter of the agreements of the Uruguay Round and needed to be corrected and amended.  The
other view was that certain proposals would mean that opening up agreements, which would have
systemic implications and could unbalance the rights and obligations of Members.  He said there were
also other disagreements, because some Members felt that some of the issues had been overtaken by
events and were no longer valid questions for discussion. Another view related to the feeling amongsome delegations that the proposals in 12(b) had nothing to do with implementation.  His delegation
believed it was high time to recognize this.
366. In order to make progress and to implement these measures, a new mandate was needed.
Some delegations felt that in some areas Members had talked themselves to a standstill with nopossibility of coming to a conclusion and that the issues had to be set aside.  Placing all these issues inTN/C/M/5
Page 84
a single package and handing them over to the TNC Chairman for his consultations would not seem
the most positive way of resolving these differences.  He recognized that the TNC could not wash its
hands of this matter.  The Doha Declaration stated clearly that the TNC had a part to play as far as
paragraph 12(b) was concerned, and Members should accept that responsibility and make a decision.
It would have been logical to have made such a decision on the basis of recommendations by thesubsidiary bodies but since they had recommended virtually nothing, it was up to Members to bear
that responsibility.  In order to fulfill this mandate, he believed that there was no other alternative than
to break the issues down into categories.  His delegation supported the Chairman's proposal, which
provided a clear role for the TNC and allowed Members to group the various issues in different
categories.  This approach would allow Members to achieve rapid results in some areas while passing
other matters on to the existing negotiating groups.  In addition, delegations would be able to pursue
work in the subsidiary bodies on those issues where some progress had been made and where therewas a chance of reaching a resolution, and where the complex and technical issues were most likely to
be resolved.  He agreed that these subsidiary bodies should work under the very close supervision of
the TNC.  He said that the Chairman's proposal also allowed for the possibility of the TNC continuing
consideration of those issues where there were divergent views without in any way prejudging the
results.  He concluded by saying that among the different suggestions on the way forward, theproposal by the Chairman was the best compromise solution.  It provided the TNC with clear
responsibility in the monitoring and supervision of the issues, left the door open for further
consideration of the issues without prejudging the results and did not in any way compromise the
positions of any Member.
367. The representative of Singapore said that judging by the discussion of implementation one
could be excused for thinking that there were only one issue at stake, namely the extension of GIs to
products other than wines and spirits.  His delegation had no significant substantive interest in most of
the implementation issues, but was more concerned about the systemic implications of the current
difficulties.  Failure to make progress on the implementation issues could have a spillover effect onother areas of work of the WTO and affect the momentum of the Doha negotiations.  He said that the
one positive thing to take away from the present meeting was that delegations at least had had a
chance to let out all their frustrations.  However, it was important not to let the discontent get out of
hand.  It seemed clear that Members had reached a point on implementation issues where a pragmatic
way forward was required.  On this point a number of options had been aired, including the
Chairman's five options for a way forward. Of thes e options only three appeared pragmatic.  Apart
from the options presented by the European Communities and India along with some developingcountries, the third option was the Chairman's suggestion that the subsidiary bodies continue work
with enhanced supervision by the TNC.  He said that the proposal made by India and a few others for
dedicated sessions of the TNC did not seem very workable.  It was difficult to see how dedicated
sessions of the TNC would succeed in enhancing the level of discussions since the same technical
people would still be doing the talking.  In practical terms and given the increasing difficulty offinding meeting slots, rooms and staff such an approach would seem unrealistic.  There was simply
not time for this approach under the current tight timeline leading up to Cancún and if Members began
dedicated sessions on implementation, similar sessions would have to be held on agriculture, market
access and everything else.
368. He was not convinced of the argument presented by the European Communities for the TNC
Chair to undertake consultations with delegations to move the process forward on implementation
issues.  It was not clear whether it would be a good idea to place the TNC Chairman in the firing line
at this early point in the negotiations.  His intervention should be saved for the right time further down
the road to un-block a crisis situation.  Singapore did not believe that the current situation qualified as
a crisis.  This left only one real pragmatic proposal which was the proposal from the Chairman to
continue work in the regular bodies under enhanced supervision by the TNC Chair.  This would entail
keeping a close eye on the work in these regular bodies, breathing down the necks of the Chairmen of
the regular bodies and occasionally intervening whenever necessary to move the process forward.  His
delegation believed that this option was the best way forward.TN/C/M/5
Page 85
369. The representative of Bolivia said that his delegation would like to see tangible positive
results for all Members, particularly for developing countries, on these implementation issues. It
would be important to meet the Doha mandate and emphasize the development aspect of the DDA.
He thanked the Chairman for the five options which he had outlined.  His delegation was flexible with
respect to the way of making progress.  At this juncture it was important to identify a procedure whichwould help to find solutions to the benefit to all Members.  It was clear that as Members moved
forward on these issues, the remaining problems were going to be more difficult, either from a
technical or a political point of view.  The poli tical decision on how to move forward was now with
the TNC and not with the subsidiary bodies.  He said that any decisions should be taken on the basis
of the reports submitted by the subsidiary bodies and take into account the degree of progress that had
been made on each of the topics.  His delegation was concerned that outstanding matters relating to
implementation were being reduced and conditioned by a single issue.  Although his delegation wasquite sympathetic to this issue, implementation matters had to be seen against the concerns of
developing countries as had been recognized very clearly at the second WTO Ministerial Conference.
This particular issue had been turned into a barrier which could determine the further process.  His
delegation believed that priority should be given to those implementation issues that could have the
greatest impact on populations in developing countries particularly the LDCs but also for the peoplein net food-importing countries.  This was not an objection to the legitimate right of some developed
Members to defend their trade interests, but turning this one particular issue into a matter of priority
under the development agenda was not conducive to the overall objective of the negotiations.  He said
that Ministers had envisaged an early harvest, rather than waiting for all the fruits to be ripe at the
same time and running the risk that some fruits had rotted and been lost in the meantime.  Bolivia felt
that the overall responsibility remained with the Ch airman of the TNC.  However, this responsibility
would be particularly important later in the process and not at this early stage of the negotiations.
370. The representative of St. Lucia expressed serious concern with respect to the progress and
direction of the ongoing negotiations which woul d likely create binding rules on WTO Members with
serious implications for government policy, domestic regulation and fiscal viability, but without
adequately addressing the problems of developing countries.  His delegation had endeavoured to
participate in the multilateral negotiations through various national, sub-regional/regional and other
initiatives. The multifaceted WTO processes, however, proceeded at a pace which exceeded the
ability of his delegation to influence the process.  He was grateful to the Caricom states and other
similarly situated and sympathetic WTO Members which continued to advance his delegation's
concerns in it's absence.
371. With respect to Tiret 99 of Job (01)/152/Rev.1, reflecting outstanding implementation issues
raised by Members, Saint Lucia appreciated the work that had been undertaken in the Committee on
Market Access and through Secretariat documentation (Job(02)/93) provided to facilitate the
Committee’s deliberations.  His delegation continued to maintain the view that the scope of thisimplementation issue exceeded the mandate of the Committee on Market Access and believed that the
issue was sufficiently fundamental and of cross- cutting importance that the TNC should retain the
matter as a recurring item on its agenda. The legitimacy of the progressive liberalization process
would depend on its capacity to address the needs of all WTO Members, including those who lacked
the capacity to effectively participate in multiple  negotiating fora, particularly where the basic
premise on which negotiations took place was not sens itive to St Lucia's fundamental interests.  His
delegation came to the table encumbered with the negotiating practices of the GATT 1947 which were
an underlying cause of existing implementation concerns and it was therefore of great importance that
the same concerns were articulated repeatedly when the membership addressed former practices
which were the source of growing marginalization.  He would continue to use every effort to advancehis delegation's case in the negotiations on agriculture, highlighting the particular circumstances of
SIDS and other vulnerable small developing countries.
372. The DDA had broadened the progressive liberalization process to such an extent as to
effectively preclude any realistic opportunity for sm all delegations to advance their interests in each
negotiating forum, i.e. addressing the in-built inequities of the rules-based system and the negotiatingTN/C/M/5
Page 86
process itself based on modalities on which Members were to undertake further commitments for
future liberalization.  Addressing these concerns at the level of the TNC would facilitate focussed
participation on issues of fundamental importance to his delegation.   He hoped that the TNC could
agree to maintain the issue of the methodologies and modalities of trade negotiations and regulation as
a standing item on its agenda, since this would facilitate the targeting of his delegation's limitedresources.  Saint Lucia had voiced its concerns in WTO document G/MA/W/44 and looked forward to
an opportunity to pursuing this discussion further in the TNC which had the competence to provide
appropriate instructions to all negotiating groups, thereby assisting in alleviating the already
substantial burden imposed by the extended negotiations on his delegation's limited resources.
373. The representative of the European Communities said he wished to react to the statement by
Argentina.  He did not want to enter into a polemic at this stage on procedures, because it was not
normal to try to settle issues by procedural blockage in this Organization.  Bulgaria had explained
why it had put a reservation on the circulation of the report of the TRIPS Council, and had said that it
was quite content to lift this reservation.  The Community suggested putting the document in the
meeting room, since everyone had read the draft and there was no need for more procedural
discussion.
374. The representative of Hungary said that he wished to react to some of the statements made.
An interesting phrase had been used by Argentina – "creative engineering".  This phrase had been
used because a certain subject which Argentina did not like, namely GIs, had been included in the
Doha Declaration and therefore Argentina continued to criticise it and not to be associated with thatpart of the Declaration.  His delegation had become used to the somewhat selective treatment of
agricultural policies by the so-called fair-trading Members, but this was now a selective validation of
a Declaration which had been, as Hungary understood it, approved and decided by consensus.  It was
a serious matter when certain aspects of an agreed text were considered as non-existent due to this
"creative engineering".  Another issue raised was about the nature of the implementation issues andspecifically paragraph 12. The exact words of this paragraph were:  "We agree that negotiations on
outstanding implementation issues shall be an integral part of the Work Programme".  That work
programme contained the very essence of the DDA and covered agriculture, industrial market access
and all the other issues, so it was rather injurious to say that some aspects of the implementation
issues belonged to the work programme and the negotiations, and others did not.  Hungary did not see
this differentiation.
375. Just recently, on 29 November, a proposal had been submitted by a group of 14 countries to
the Council for TRIPS on GIs containing the phrase:  "We recommend that the TRIPS Council advise
the Trade Negotiations Committee that the Council has completed its discussion and that no further
action be taken".  This was what had created the crisis in the TRIPS Council and was the kind of
procedural blockage that the European Communities had referred to.  At the present meeting, it hadbeen said that there was no agreement on this issue and it should be simply dropped.  As far as he was
aware, there was no agreement thus far on most of the implementation issues, so he wondered if this
meant that they should they all be dropped.   Or, to go even further, there was no agreement in the
agricultural negotiations on any issue for the time being, so he wondered if Members should stop
negotiating.  Hungary did not believe that this attitude, which was basically a procedural blockage,was very helpful.  Finally, the last question was what should be done.  From the various statements it
seemed that the present meeting was a kind of crossroads, in as much as certain decisions had to be
taken.  He would not call it a crisis, but it was certainly a rather difficult situation.  Various ideas had
been suggested, such as trying to group the issues into various headings, or a case-by-case approach,
but whatever the final outcome, it was the TNC which had to do this work because there was no otherforum which could deal with this, even at a procedural level.  His delegation saw no other option than
the Chairman taking the issue in hand, with the aim of trying to find agreement, by the time of the
next TNC meeting, on how the work could be continued.
376. The representative of Argentina said that he wished to respond to the two delegations that had
referred to what he had said earlier.  First, with respect to the statement by Hungary, he wished toTN/C/M/5
Page 87
clarify that, in his statement, he had been referr ing to a specific issue contained in the agreements
reached at Doha and no delegation could accuse Argentina of trying to retreat from any commitment.
In fact, it was quite the opposite.  Argentina was firm in its acceptance and recognition of legitimately
agreed commitments.  In this specific case, that was not the situation.  In this case, as he had said
earlier, Argentina had already warned at the Doha Conference that the process through whichauthority was being exercised, and in which rules were being developed, through linkages to other
documents which were only Job documents, and which therefore in many cases were not documents
that had been accepted by consensus, was a practice which would have damaging consequences on all
the other agreements reached.  Despite its concerns about this process, Argentina had not blocked
agreement at Doha, nor had it blocked the Compilation of Outstanding Implementations Issues
(Job(01)/152/Rev.1).  Instead, Argentina had simply indicated its reservation on the specific issue of
extension of GIs to products other than wines and spirits, a matter which obviously could have veryserious economic implications for it, as also for others as highlighted at the present meeting.
Argentina had not been prepared to accept inclusi on of this issue in any negotiating agenda, which
was why it had submitted a communication reflecting this position in November 2001.  His delegation
could not accept that any delegation even hinted that Argentina was stepping back from its
commitments.  That was simply not the case.
377. With respect to the statement by the European Communities, he had not understood the point
being made. The lack of consensus in the TRIPS Council on the report had concerned one delegation,
but not the delegation of the European Communities.  It seemed that the European Communities was
saying that the other delegation was withdrawing its objection to the report.  He wondered whetherthis meant the report was being accepted or not.
378. The representative of the European Communities said that he had not been speaking on behalf
of Bulgaria.  He believed that Bulgaria had had a reservation on the factual report circulated in the
TRIPS Council, and, after all, to all Members.  In  the view of the Community, this report did not
respond to the mandate in the Doha Declaration.  But he understood that Bulgaria was quite happy to
lift its reservation.  Everyone had already read this report, so he had suggested getting down to
business.
379. The representative of Bulgaria said that Argentina, in referring to the TRIPS Council report,
had stated that it could not agree that all the issues listed in that document were implementation
issues. Argentina was obviously not referring to the extension of additional protection for GIs toproducts other than wines and spirits, but rather to the other implementation issues.  It would be
interesting to know which of them Argentina accep ted as implementation issues and which it did not.
Argentina was obviously not referring to GI extension because paragraph 18 of the Doha Declaration
explicitly said that this issue would be addressed under paragraph 12 of the Declaration.  That meant
that it was explicitly mentioned in the Doha Declaration as an implementation issue, and as far as heknew, this had not been contested in the statemen t by Argentina circulated at Doha.  And since
Argentina had mentioned that statement, he would re call two other statements at Doha, both of which
Bulgaria had been party to, which had explicitly said that the issue of GI extension was part of the
negotiations launched in Doha.  Bulgaria had made it clear in Doha that it could accept the Doha
package only on the understanding it had set out in this statement.  Furthermore, he had notunderstood the second point in the statement by Argentina in the present meeting, which had been a
question to the European Communities, and both of th ese delegations had been  referring to Bulgaria.
He did not understand what it mattered exactly.
380. The Chairman asked whether, in the light of what had been said at the present meeting, he
could assume that the reservation on the TRIPS Council report had now been lifted and that the report
could therefore be considered as to have been presented to the TNC.
381. The representative of Bulgaria asked what did it matter.  To answer the Chairman's question
directly, he could not accept that report as a report for appropriate action under paragraph 12(b)TN/C/M/5
Page 88
because it did not contain such appropriate action.  He could accept it as a report on what had been
discussed in the TRIPS Council on outstanding implementation issues.
382. The Chairman thanked delegations for their very useful contributions to the discussion on
outstanding implementation issues.  In the light of what had been said at the present meeting, he
assumed that the reservation on the TRIPS Council report had been lifted, and that the report could
therefore be considered to have been presented to the TNC.  The discussion had also showed that
there was now consensus regarding the implementation issue considered by the SPS Committee.  He
thanked the Chairperson of the SPS Committee and all delegations concerned for their hard work and
positive attitude.  This was really an example of how a committee could develop concrete procedures
to address a specific concern.
383. On the other issues, although encouraging progress had been made in some areas, there did
not yet appear to be any agreed solutions.  Equally, he believed that the discussion at the present
meeting had made it clear Members did not yet seem to be able to reach agreement on an approach to
the outstanding implementation issues before the TNC, with the exception of SPS.  He believed he
had no choice but to suggest that all delegations reflect further during the break on the reports theyhad received and on what they had heard at the present meeting.  For his part, he would consult
informally, as part of his overall responsibilities as TNC Chairman, on possible next steps.  The TNC
should then come back to the question of its action on these issues at its next meeting.
384. However, he believed the progress in some areas, such as TBT, should not be underplayed.
He would, therefore, encourage delegations also to  continue working with each other and with the
Chairs of the relevant bodies, to see if the outcomes which appeared to be within reach in some areas
could be achieved by the time of the next TNC meeting.
385. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the reports by the relevant WTO bodies and
of the statements.386. The representative of Brazil asked the Chairman to clarify that it was understood that the
matters relating to implementation were still on the table.387. The representative of Bulgaria supported the request for clarification by Brazil.  Taking note
did not mean that Members had taken appropriate action under 12(b), so they should continue to deal
with these issues until appropriate solutions in the sense of paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration
were found.
388. The Chairman confirmed that all the issues were still on the table, and that he would continue
his consultations and report back to the TNC.389. In closing the meeting, the Chairman said the next meeting of the TNC would take place on
4-5 February 2003, to be confirmed.  After this m eeting, he expected the TNC would have to meet
about once a month, and maybe more as Cancún approached.  The formal meetings would also have
to be increasingly complemented by informal meetings and consultations.  Everyone knew the comingmonths would be a busy period and the schedule of  meetings of the TNC and the bodies established
by it would require careful management.  The TNC would continue to keep this matter under close
scrutiny, in line with what was set out in the Principles and Practices agreed earlier in the year.
__________