RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/C/M/3
10 September 2002
(02-4723)
Trade Negotiations Committee
18-19 July 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 18-19 July 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Mike Moore (Director-General)
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, the Chairman welcomed his successor, Dr. Supachai
Panitchpakdi, to the meeting and invited him to say a few words.
Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi thanked the Director-General for giving him the opportunity to
attend the present meeting.  He expressed his appreciation for the efficiency shown by everyone
involved in the transition process, in particular Mr. Moore who had been making a personal effort to
give him all the cooperation he needed.  He was sure that the present meeting was a crucial one and
that it came at a crucial time.  He did not think it would be an exaggeration to say that nearly the
whole world was watching what happened in this meeting and in the next couple of weeks or months.He was certain delegations were aware of this, so he wished them every possible success, including
the opportunity to be as cooperative, compromising and flexible as possible so that the final outcome
would allow everyone to share in its benefits.
Subjects discussed:
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC2. Future work
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/2
Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services:  TN/S/2
Negotiating Group on Market Access:  TN/MA/2
Special Session of the Council for TRIPS:  TN/IP/2
Negotiating Group on Rules:  TN/RL/2
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body:  TN/DS/2Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment:  TN/TE/2
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development:  TN/CTD/2
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.TN/C/M/3
Page 2
3. He intended to make some remarks about future work under agenda item 2, and he suggested
that delegations could take the same approach.  Therefore he intend to first open the floor for any
comments on the Chair's reports and then move on to the second agenda item.  But before this, some
of the Chairpersons had some more recent information to share with participants.
4. Mr. Harbinson (Hong Kong, China), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on
Agriculture, said that the latest formal meeting of the Special Session had taken place on 20 June and
his report to the TNC was contained in document TN/AG/2 dated 26 June.  At the 20 June meeting, he
had made an oral report on the informal discussions that had taken place in the area of export
competition.  These discussions had been held through inter-sessional informal consultations on 3 and
4 June and an informal Special Session held on 17 and 18 June.  The discussions had been based on a
previously-circulated tabulated annotated agenda.  The purpose of this annotated agenda had been tohelp focus the negotiations on areas where modalities or rule-related elements might need to be
developed in order to fulfill the mandate set out in the Ministerial Declaration.  As his report to the
formal Special Session had indicated, very useful discussions had been held on the different aspects of
export competition and it had been encouraging to see all participants working in a focussed,
business-like and interactive way.  However, although some participants had been active in puttingforward suggestions for modalities, in some areas others were more reserved, with the more active or
reserved participants changing from one issue to another.  In order to develop a sound basis for an
overview paper in December, more intensive and interactive work was needed.  He would also need
to pursue a number of the issues that had been raised in future consultations.  Having considered his
oral report, a number of participants had raised a variety of specific points that they asked to bereflected in the Secretariat Summary Report of the Special Session (contained in document
TN/AG/R/2 and Corr.1).
5. Ambassador Jara (Chile), Chairman of th e Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services, said the services negotiations were proceeding well, on schedule and on track.  Thus far,
more than 140 proposals were on the table but the number of new proposals had reduced since the
season for requests had opened since the beginning of the month.  Although these were bilateral, and
confidential in nature, it was well known that many delegations had made requests and others were in
the making.  Delegations were thus busy analyzing these requests or preparing their own ones.  This
meant that most of the work over the next month would be of a bilateral nature and therefore the
organization of work would reflect this.  Another issue of great importance, and to which most, if not
all, participants attached great priority, was the development of modalities for the treatment ofautonomous liberalization.  This was of particular interest to developing participants.  He had been
undertaking consultations on this matter, and, in addition to what was contained in his report, he had
found these consultations very encouraging.  He had a reasonable expectation that, by the time of the
October meeting of the Special Session, a consensus would be reached in this area, therefore
facilitating and reinforcing the efforts participants would then be making towards liberalization intrade in services.  Attention was also being paid to technical assistance and capacity building, which
would be matters of great importance.  In the contacts he had had with delegations, he had been
persuaded that flexibility was required as it was not possible to determine at present what kind of
technical assistance and capacity building would be specifically required over the next year or more.
Finally, he wished to point out that it was very impor tant for participants to also focus their attention
on what kind of work would have to be done on a sectoral multilateral level over the next months.
6. Ambassador Girard (Switzerland), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access,
said that, as participants would be aware from his written report circulated in document TN/MA/2, the
formal meeting of the Negotiating Group of 11 April had been suspended on the item of the "WorkProgramme for the Market Access Negotiations".  Since that time, he had been holding intensive
consultations on a bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral basis on this subject.  While there had been a
lot of progress, it was unfortunate that he had to report that it had not been possible to reach a
consensus on a "Programme of Meetings" as it was now called;  or more specifically on the target date
for agreement on the modalities for the negotiations.  As he had reported to the Negotiating Group atits informal meeting of 5 July, it was his sense that the Negotiating Group had gone as far as it couldTN/C/M/3
Page 3
on this matter, and that the issue could now only be resolved at a higher political level.  He had also
expressed the view that it would not be useful to hold the meeting of 11-12 July, as planned in the
Programme of Meetings, in light of the current situation.  At the same time, he would note that if a
solution were to be found in the near future, which he believed was of critical importance, then his
intention would be to hold a meeting of the Negotiating Group before the summer break, if agreeableto the participants of the Group.  In this respect, some ideas had been aired in the last couple of days
regarding a possible solution, which was encouraging, and he would pursue them in the following
hours.
7. He wished to thank all participants for their cooperation and flexibility.  Although a total
consensus had not yet been reached, a lot of progress had been made.  In fact, at this point in time, the
Group had, but for the target date for modalities, a credible, balanced Programme of Meetings or as hewould prefer to call it a "road map", up to well into 2003 which would permit the Group to begin to
fulfil in a serious manner the mandate given by Ministers.  To conclude on a more positive note, he
wished to refer to the Market Access Seminar which had been organized from 29 to 31 May under the
auspices of the Negotiating Group, in connection with technical assistance and capacity building.  The
Seminar had lasted three days, and from the feedback he had received he believed that participantshad found the Seminar very useful in that it had permitted participants who were new to market access
to familiarize themselves with the procedures and critical aspects of market access negotiations for
non-agricultural products while it had allowed others to refresh their memories in that area.  In the
area of studies, as agreed at the 11 April formal meeting of the Negotiating Group, the Secretariat had
met with delegations having requested studies, and had already begun work on some of thoserequests.  In sum, although the Group had not reached the end of the road with regard to the
Programme of Meetings, part of the ground work was already under way.
8. Ambassador Chung (Korea), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS, said
that his report on the second Special Session of the Council for TRIPS held on 28 June could be found
in document TN/IP/2.  As the second Special Session had had an extensive discussion on substantive
issues, he could say that the work was proceeding in the right direction.  The group had succeeded in
developing a road map for how to get from where it was now to where it needed to be by the Fifth
Ministerial Conference.  He wished to thank the part icipants for their cooperation in this.  He believed
that participants had started making progress in clarifying the outer limits of the exercise which they
were undertaking.  He would expect that, if this was to continue in the next two meetings in the latter
half of this year, the Special Session would have identified most of the issues and options so as to beable to formulate a common negotiating basis at an appropriate time.  However, the fact remained that
positions were still wide apart, and delegations woul d need to show flexibility in the months ahead so
as to make it possible to develop a common basis for the negotiations in good time.
9. Ambassador Groser (New Zealand), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules, said that
his written report (TN/RL/2) was strictly factual and was not intended to give any sense of the
direction of the work, so he wished to supplement it with his personal view of the underlying dynamic
in the Negotiating Group.  Broadly speaking, he believed that the Group was in excellent shape, both
in terms of the letter and the spirit of the mandate.  He had often been told informally that he was
chairing a very difficult and sensitive Group, and he was sure that would turn out to be the case.  Butit was not accurate with regard to the present situation because the Group was not saddled with a
number of rigid internal timelines to be met on highly sensitive issues before they were ripe.  On the
contrary, the mandate allowed the negotiators to exercise a fairly high degree of sophistication in their
political judgement about how best to proceed to the negotiating end-game.  This mandate referred to
initial and subsequent phases without defining them.  He felt this was helpful because it allowednegotiators to take into account both the internal negotiating dynamic as it developed within the
Group, and also more importantly certain obvious key external developments which bore down on the
framework within which the negotiations were taking place.  There had only been one procedural
argument – the treatment of fish subsidies – and a solution had been found by treating it as a distinct
item within the subsidies heading for organizational clarity.  He believed this had met the interests ofboth perspectives on this issue without prejudicing their views.TN/C/M/3
Page 4
10. In all three areas of the mandate, the first requirement had been, consistent with Ministers'
instructions, to clarify the provisions that participants wished to improve and elucidate in the course
of the negotiations.  This was proceeding well, with obviously the demandeurs out in front of those
who had more difficult political problems in certain areas.  But even there, it was possible to see
certain statements of negotiating orientation.  This also applied to the implementation issues that fellwithin the negotiating framework, and he wished to thank two of the leading developing countries for
having being very constructive in responding positively and helpfully to his request to put the
proposals on the table and make them part of the framework.  He urged all delegations to continue to
accelerate their work to submit their negotiating proposals.  He knew how difficult this was, but it
would be important to have all the chess pieces on the table to be able to begin the game when the
moment arrived.  He was aware that many delegations believed some of the issues were deeply
intractable and had already been well discussed.  But he believed that in some areas a somewhatdifferent political environment existed.  For example, in the area of anti-dumping, the traditional users
of these measures had successfully exported their model of fair trade to many other countries, and
with the growth of South-South trade, anti-dumpi ng actions were now being taken by developing
countries on other developing countries' exports.  This had certainly broken down any concept of a
North-South divide.  The issues might be the same, but the context had changed.
11. The context had also changed for the Group's third area of work – regional trade agreements.
Here also the discussion was based on the same issues as in the past, but what had shifted was not the
issues but the interests.  It was clear that there had been a recent proliferation of regional trade
agreements, and all participants were now involved in one or more such agreements.  This hadchanged the environment – every participant was a non-member of an increasingly large number of
regional trade agreements.  The vast majority of participants were clearly still committed to the
multilateral trading system, if only because they knew that regional trade agreements were not really
an effective mechanism for tackling some trade policy issues, such as export subsidies and anti-
dumping.  He was thus not pessimistic about the work of the Group.  Even though the issues before itwere old issues, he believed there was now a more interesting environment in which to explore
solutions.  Finally, he urged delegations to ensure the attendance in the negotiations of capital-based
officials responsible for implementing in the areas of countervailing duties and anti-dumping, because
these issues were highly detailed and technical, and because this would avoid more pressure being put
back on the dispute settlement process later on.
12. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that since the last meeting of the TNC, the Special Session had continued its work on the
basis of the Ministerial mandate.  As participants would recall, this negotiating process had some
distinctive features.  In particular, his group was operating under quite a tight deadline, since
Ministers have instructed it to come to an agreed text on clarifications and improvements to the DSU
by May next year.  This would require a lot of hard work, the more so as the outcome of thesenegotiations was not to be treated as part of a single undertaking.  In the first six months, he believed
some good progress had been made as he had mentioned in his previous report.  The third formal
meeting had been held three days previously, and he wished to update the TNC since it was too recent
to have been reflected in his written report.  He had been encouraged by the fact that three new
proposals had been submitted to the Special Session since the previous meeting.  The proponents ofthese contributions had introduced them and the group had had a very useful first discussion on them,
which had touched on a diverse range of issues.  With these proposals, and another one which had
been announced at the meeting, the total number of proposals before the Special Session would reach
seven.  These contributions covered a broad range of issues.  In that sense, he believed participants
should be pleased that the work was getting under way.  However, he wished to sound a note ofcaution and draw participants' attention to the importance of completing this initial phase of work
soon.  In the light of the very short deadline, a target date for the submission of proposals had been
identified, i.e. the summer break, which effectively meant the end of this month.  The existing
proposals already covered a substantial number of areas identified as priorities by various participants.
Other delegations had also indicated that they were working towards additional proposals.  TheSpecial Session would be meet again on 10 and 11 September, and he believed it would greatlyTN/C/M/3
Page 5
enhance the quality of the work if the group could feel comfortable by that time that it had achieved a
"critical mass" of proposals fully reflecting participants' interests in these negotiations.  He thus
wished to reiterate his encouragement to participants to submit very soon any additional proposals
concerning areas which they would like to see addressed in the negotiations.  This would allow the
group to move confidently towards the next stage of its work, which would involve a detaileddiscussion of the specific issues reflected in the various proposals.  In order to proceed smoothly into
this phase, he had outlined to delegations at the last meeting how he saw the work progressing until
the end of the year.  In that period, he anticipated that the group would undertake a detailed
examination of the negotiating proposals, issue by issue, clarify their content and implications, and
explore the scope for consensus.  The group would have to move very efficiently in this process in
order to complete its work in the best possible conditions by May next year, and he would be looking
forward to the continued active engagement of all participants in this process.
13. Ambassador Biké (Gabon), Chairperson of th e Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Environment, said that the meeting of the Special Session held on 11 and 12 June was covered in
her report in document TN/TE/2.   She wished to point out that this document was in fact a report,
notwithstanding the title in the French version.  She would highlight a few points of this report.  Onprocedural issues, an agreement had been reached on the phases of work, the details of which could be
found in the report.  There had also been agreement on a fourth meeting this year, which would be
devoted to an Information Session with the MEAs and UNEP.  This meeting would be held on
12 November.  She wished to point out that in the French version of her report, the text of paragraph 2
had not fully captured the sense of the English text with regard to the reservation expressed by thePhilippines and the insistence of that delegation that there be draft negotiating guidelines.  With
regard to substantive issues, useful discussions had taken place on the three elements of paragraph 31
of the Ministerial Declaration.  On paragraph 31(i), participants continued their efforts to develop a
common understanding of the mandate.  All participants seemed to agree that it would be useful to
use the Secretariat document entitled Matrix on Trade Measures Pursuant to Selected MEAs  as a
starting point for the discussions.  This could obviously be accompanied by submissions by
participants on definitional issues and on principles and parameters to govern the WTO-MEA
relationship.  On paragraph 31(ii), participants generally considered that cooperation and information
exchange were essential to allow an efficient relationship between WTO and the MEAs, and that the
question of observer status was important and should be urgently examined, since the group had a
special interest in this question.  The fourth meeting of the group would be important, when the
Information Session would take place with the ME A Secretariats and UNEP.  On paragraph 31(iii),
preliminary discussions took place on the defini tion of environmental goods, and she hoped deeper
discussions would take place in future meetings.  She wished to recall the links the Special Session
had in this area with the Negotiating Group on Market Access and the Special Session of the Council
for Trade in Services.  To conclude, the work of her group was advancing at an acceptable pace.
However, she had some concerns that when the more serious part of the discussions started, someform of legal assistance would be needed in the group.
14. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, said that document TN/CTD/2 contained his report on the work of the Special
Session to the TNC.  It would be seen that the Special Session had had quite an intensive period of
work since the last report to the TNC, both in te rms of the number of meetings, formal and informal,
and the number of submissions that had been submitted and considered.  As TNC would be well
aware, the Special Session, under the mandate cont ained in paragraph 12.1(i) and (ii) of the Doha
Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, was required to report to the General
Council with clear recommendations for decision by July 2002.  The Special Session had focused itsefforts in recent days on the preparation of the required report.  Since the fifth Special Session on
2 July, four open-ended informal consultations had been held on Agreement-specific issues,
institutional issues, cross-cutting issues and on th e "way forward" and consultations had been carried
out as well on a draft of the proposed report to the General Council.  He had anticipated, on the basis
of the group's work plan, that it would have been possible to adopt the report to the General Council
the previous day at the sixth Special Session.  However, given the different views on a number ofTN/C/M/3
Page 6
issues, the group had not yet been able to do so, but it would be making every effort to finalize, in the
next few days, the report to the General Council, including such recommendations as would be
possible at this stage.  Among the issues to be dealt with in the consultations was the question of a
proposed new deadline so as to provide more time for the continuation and completion of the work in
respect of the Special Session's mandate.  There were many proposals, Agreement-specific andinstitutional in nature on the table, and a significant number of issues that had been raised in
submissions and discussions required more in-depth consideration.  For this reason, an important
section of the draft under consideration dealt with the way forward.  He urged, and indeed was
confident, that Members would show the flexibility  and goodwill that would ensure the finalization of
the report which the group was required to submit to the General Council by the end of July.
15. The Chairman thanked all the Chairpersons on be half of all participants for their hard and
difficult work over the past few months.  On the issue of IGO observerships, some creativity in this
area would be necessary.  He could not report that a solution to this problem was near at the present,
but further work was being done on this.  On technical assistance, which had been raised by some
Chairpersons in their reports, he would return later to this matter.  He had suggested that Chairpersons
could have some input into the process of how technical assistance resources were managed in thefuture, an idea he would include in a report to his successor.  This was in no way to preempt the
proper work done by the Committee which had the responsibility for this, but it would help the
process if those who were on the front line, the Chairpersons themselves, could share some of their
advice.
16. Overall, the work was moving at a steady and deliberate speed.  All participants were aware
that time was the only thing could not be replaced or recycled.  He believed a good start had been
made on the negotiations, far better than many predicted outside and far better than people were
suggesting a few days previously.  All were aware of the challenge in the area of market access and
the special problems that Chairperson had, and from what had happened in the past few hours, he hadreason to be a little more optimistic that things could come closer together in that area.  However, he
believed participants were in a position where they could not indulge in the luxury of spending too
much time in the next few months over issues of process.  The focus in Geneva, in capitals and at
cabinet tables had to be on the substance and on the Doha Development Agenda – everyone knew
their duty.  He sensed there was a constructive mood in the room at the present meeting.
17. The representative of Hong Kong, China thanked the Chairpersons for their reports.  From
these reports, and observation of the process so far, his delegation noted that there was a general sense
of engagement amongst delegations.  Work in the past six months or so had mainly focused on
working out work programmes, and considering modalities for negotiations.  Deliberation on more
substantive issues had also commenced in some of the areas.  His delegation would like to register its
appreciation of delegations' hard work.  Indeed, it had noted that in such areas as rules and the DSUreview, to name just two, Members were actively preparing and submitting negotiating proposals.
The general interest in work on substance was obvious in these areas, and his delegation hoped that
this interest could be sustained and grow in the next phase of work so that results could be yielded.
On services, the first important milestone had been reached: the tabling of initial requests.  A number
of delegations had already submitted their requests and would engage in bilateral discussion from nowon.  Quite some others had indicated that their requests would be coming in soon, including Hong
Kong, China.  But as participants entered into substantive market access negotiations, they needed to
make sure that they took rule-making work in services equally seriously and made progress there as
well.  Work on the development of disciplines on domestic regulation, the emergency safeguard
mechanism, subsidies, government procurement, as well as on establishing criteria and modalities forautonomous liberalization were all important and should be taken forward in parallel with the market
access negotiations.
18. Progress in some other areas has been relatively slow.  The Special Session of the Committee
on Trade and Development had met six times, but it seemed unlikely that clear recommendationswould be made to the General Council on the various  Special and Differential (S&D) issues raised byTN/C/M/3
Page 7
developing countries as envisaged in the Doha mandate.  His delegation did not underestimate the
complexity of the issues involved and the poten tial long-term systemic implications surrounding
them.  It thus believed that quality should not be sacrificed for time.  This was one area in which
continuous hard work was essential.  For Hong Kong, China, progress thus far on non-agricultural
market access was particularly disappointing.  Hong Kong, China believed that the non-agriculturalmarket access negotiations were beneficial for all.  But one Negotiating Group meeting had been lost
simply because participants had yet to agree on a deadline for completion of the modalities.  He
appreciated that delegations all had their specific concerns, but he would urge them to make use of the
present meeting to exercise flexibility and reach consensus on the deadline for modalities.  Indeed,
this had been possible in APEC, where interests amongst member economies also diverged.  APEC
Ministers had agreed on a deadline of 30 April 2003.  Once again, he urged Members to move on this
issue today, so that they could at last embark on substantive deliberations on the modalitiesthemselves.  Finally, he wished to react to the remark by the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on
Rules on the involvement of implementing officials from capitals in the negotiations on anti-dumping.
In his view, this would only make the negotiations more difficult, as had been the case in the Uruguay
Round.  Involvement of capitals was certainly needed, but not implementing officials.  Capitals
should be involved at a higher policy level to ensure full engagement on the concepts involved andproduce meaningful results.
19. The representative of Chile said that the present TNC meeting was the first at which
participants had the opportunity to look at the conduct of the negotiations and the substance.  It was
also the last one to be chaired by the Director-Gen eral Mike Moore.  It was therefore a good occasion
to pay tribute to his work and leadership and wish him success with the new challenges and
opportunities ahead of him.  His political courage, vision of fairness, and firm defense of the
multilateral trading system had been instrumental these past years.  His delegation would also like to
take this opportunity to express its willingness to work closely with Dr. Supachai as the next Chair of
the TNC, as well as with his incoming team.
20. Chile was pleased to see that progress had been made since Doha.  Almost all the decisions to
get the negotiations going had been made, including th e venue and dates for the next Ministerial.  This
had allowed the negotiations to get into the substance of their mandates.  The first stage had almost
been completed.  His delegation had, however, some reasons for concern.  Firstly, it was extremely
worried that the Negotiating Group on Market Access had been unable to agree on the target date on
which there should be agreement on modalities.  It would be very regrettable if inflexible positionsdid not allow this matter to be resolved.  This situation was unfair and unreasonable and it was
affecting the essential interests of developing countries.  The more time participants remained stuck
on procedural issues, the less time they would have to negotiate.  With less time to negotiate, the
major trading partners would only engage with e ach other.  The smaller players thus would get
crowded out and only reap marginal benefits, if any at all.  Moreover, with limited results on marketaccess, it was doubtful that a critical mass would be achieved to move in the direction of substantial
agriculture reform, as well as on rules.  Chile called upon Members to settle this matter now at the
TNC.  If the TNC could not do it, who would?   Secondly, his delegation was worried about some
events taking place outside the scope of the TNC.  One such issue was the lack of progress in the
ongoing discussions on implementation and S&D, and he would return to this point later.  Otherswere related to actions undertaken outside the Organization but that had a negative impact on the
work here in Geneva as also in capitals.  The latest one was the recent entry into force of the US Farm
Bill.  This legislation without a doubt conveyed the wrong message about the willingness of a key
player to engage meaningfully in the negotiations.
21. This led to a second issue.  Credibility in the negotiating process had to be maintained.  To
this end, it was of the utmost importance that the deadlines agreed upon in Doha be respected.  One
slip and the whole exercise would be undermined.  World markets were not having their best days, the
outlook was mediocre at best and there were clear threats to economic confidence in regions such as
Chile's own.  If the Doha Development Agenda ( DDA) fell behind schedule, it would certainly be
read negatively, making a bad situation worse.  All the countries present owed it to their poor to pushTN/C/M/3
Page 8
ahead and bring to its conclusion a round that was a promise of gainful employment and improved
standards of living.  In this context, there was a lot to be done.  Work on S&D and the implementation
agenda had to be brought to a successful conclusion at the earliest possible time.  Lack of progress in
these areas could threaten the prospects of the ro und.  One such example was the commitment to "find
an expeditious solution" by the end of this year to the problem faced by Members with a lack ofmanufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector to make effective use of compulsory licensing.
In Chile's view, this was a crucial issue and the deadline had to be met.   All the evidence showed that
present S&D disciplines had not worked to fully meet the needs and interests of developing countries.
Here Members had an opportunity to be bold and to think of different approaches for dealing with
these demands.
22. So, what was required?  There was an increased call world-wide for trade liberalization,
transparency, accountability, rule of law and good governance.  But many, particularly poorer
developing countries, were not full partners in this process.  This was not good for peace, security or
for their integration into the benefits of globalization.  Thus, the system had to harness and bring
together all the forces at play.  But many, mainly least-developed and other developing countries,
would only be able to participate fully if enough flexibility was provided for.  Today, the multilateraltrading system demanded increasingly higher standards of obligations, which were perceived by many
as too intrusive.  Current allowance for flexibility in the system appeared to be insufficient to meet
these and tomorrow's requirements.  Even developed countries had needed flexibility, although they
had had too much of it.  One only had to look at agriculture, textiles, clothing, steel, shipbuilding, etc.
This had to be a system where all Members participated, where all negotiated and took ownership ofresults.  But it also had to be a system that had enough flexibility to allow the more disadvantaged
Members to establish their own timetable and conditions to assume obligations, particularly in areas
not yet fully covered by the WTO Agreements.  The system should not impose obligations on
economies not yet prepared to fulfil them, or indeed where such obligations were unnecessary or
would manifestly become empty words on paper.  If Members foresaw results with greater à la carteflexibility than had been the case with traditional "transition periods", they would gain in
inclusiveness, compliance and levels of ambition.  This approach would certainly enhance the word
"development" which was an essential aspect of the current round, by acknowledging the different
stages of development of Members.
23. Members should also have a vision of where they envisaged or wanted the WTO and their
countries to be in 10 to 15 years' time.   Did they want to go through periodic rounds – the launchingof which was increasingly difficult and where trade offs were becoming less apparent?  Shorter
periods of transition inevitably implied less ambitious results than those to be expected with longer
time-frames.  They could think about setting a higher level of ambition for this round, through the
achievement of increased tariff reductions and better and clearer trade disciplines within a longer
time-frame than in past rounds.  For example, why did they not envisage substantial cuts orelimination of tariffs in 10-15 years with longer  time-frames for LDCs or even for some sensitive
agricultural products?  They would then be avoiding the political complexity of launching new
rounds, increasing predictability and certainty in the multilateral trading system and reducing the
effects of trade diversion stemming from FTAs.  This negotiating approach would also be consistent
with developments taking place in other trade fora.   For example, APEC was committed to free tradein goods and services by 2010.  The Free Trade Area  of the Americas was to be launched in 2005.
The EU was fully engaged in its enlargement and in the deepening of the single market.  In addition,
there was a growing network of free trade agreem ents signed and in the making around the world.
24. The issues he had outlined were all political ones.  These were the issues Ministers should be
looking at in Cancún to give shape and context to the final stage of the negotiations.  But in order to
get moving, to have a successful Cancún, participants should visualise the benefits that could be
gained under the DDA.  This was all about opening markets.  By Cancún, developed countries, in
particular, should give a very clear indication of what they were prepared to do in their markets, in
particular in the most sensitive sectors which tended to be of greater interest to developing countries.This was a negotiation; Chile did not and should not expect something for free.  It was willing toTN/C/M/3
Page 9
adopt greater commitments and more disciplines.  But nobody should ask for more liberalization
when markets could be closed so easily with anti -dumping duties, with smart and thinly disguised
environmental measures, subsidies, technical regulations, etc.  Thus, the negotiation of rules and the
resistance to relax disciplines were very much part of the market access assessment and overall
balance.  One of Mike Moore's legacies was the increased attention paid to technical assistance andcapacity building.  However, much remained to be  done in these areas.  But it was important to be
clear:  for the DDA, technical assistance and capacity building would always be late and never
enough.  No one should be fooled by this.  Rather, this was a long-term endeavour which should be
sustained politically and financially over time.
25.  He wished to add a final word on the Dispute Settlement negotiations.  The deadline was
May 2003.  Time was very short and although not all the proposals were on the table, the issues raisedby some might alter the fundamentals of the current mechanism.  If participants were to be
responsible and analyze the systemic implications of all proposals, it was not likely that the work
would be finished by May.  Furthermore, in other areas, such as rules, some ideas had been floated
which touch upon the DSU.  Consequently, participants not only needed to act cautiously, but also to
consider requesting Ministers to provide an additional mandate for the Dispute Settlementnegotiations.  If there was an early understanding on this, the work could be undertaken on a
preliminary basis between May and the Cancún Ministerial.  In sum, the TNC was meeting to assess
progress, to decide where agreement had eluded participants and, most importantly, to give direction
and momentum to the negotiations.
26. The representative of Uruguay thanked the Chairpersons for their reports and welcomed Dr.
Supachai to the TNC.  He said that in the last week many points of view on the state of the
negotiations had been expressed, ranging from exaggerated pessimism to cautious optimism.
Uruguay believed the necessary path had been followed in the time needed to do so.  In the eight
months since the Ministerial Declaration had been adopted at Doha, and taking into account theenormous number of issues in the work programme, several important stages had been successfully
completed.  It was important to recall the importance of  respecting the guidelines in the Principles and
Practices, as well as the structure of the negotiations, contained in the Statement by the General
Council Chairman of 1 February.  Some Members had expressed the view that the lack of progress in
certain areas would compromise the success of the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  Uruguay believed
that, at 14 months from the Conference, it was premature to think about its possible results.  What
participants should do instead was to combine forces so as to arrive at the Conference with all the
problems resolved.  This was Uruguay's approach and its commitment, and it believed the present
situation should not be dramatised, even though it was fully aware that certain sectors would require
special priority attention.  In this respect, it wa s important that capitals lent their support and
involvement to the process leading up to Cancún.
27. He wished to make a few observations on aspects of the process which were important to
Uruguay.  First, the need to respect the deadlines established at Doha.  This was fundamental to
ensure success at Cancún, and to protect the agreed objective of concluding the negotiations not later
than 1 January 2005.  Some issues important to developing countries had to be taken care of and
resolved before the end of the present year.  Among these issues, he would highlight two:  S&D andthe understandings necessary on certain key aspects of implementation.  Another key deadline which
had to be respected was the establishment of modalities in agriculture no later than March 2003.
Second, although from a substantive point of view the negotiating phase had not yet started, his
delegation believed progress had been made since Doha.  In the case of agriculture, the work
programme had been agreed, which was very useful for the following stages.  Substantive discussions
had also been held which had clarified positions.  In the case of services, many Members, including
Uruguay, had already submitted initial requests within the established time-frame.
28. On the need to establish a date for modalities in the market access negotiations, his delegation
believed it detected a collective feeling that th e present situation was uncomfortable for all the
countries which wanted to move ahead in the preparations for Cancún, and which wanted to do so in aTN/C/M/3
Page 10
balanced and equable way.  His delegation wished to thank the Chairman of the Market Access
Negotiating Group and also recognize the flexibility shown by most participants, in particular
developing countries.  His delegation urged support for the Negotiating Group Chairman's draft text,
which would allow negotiations to move ahead in this important sector.  In some way, it was a
paradox that as participants were blocked in their discussions on the end date, they had not evenstarted substantive discussions.
29. In conclusion, he wished to sincerely thank, also on behalf of his country, the Director-
General for his management of the Organization.  The Director-General should be well satisfied with
the excellent work he had carried out.  When he had assumed the post three years previously, a few
months before Seattle, the WTO was in the middle of an identity crisis.  A dangerous climate of
suspicion, incertitude and disagreement reigned between Members at that time, apart from enormousdifferences in positions on the main issues in the international economic agenda.  Thanks in great part
to his efforts, his leadership, and his style and good humour, the organization had been able, in
November 2001, to launch a new round of negotiations  with a wide and ambitious mandate in the
interests of all its Members.  This had given infl uence, transparency and credibility back to the
multilateral trading system.  He would be remembered for many things, but Uruguay would rememberhim most of all for having been a great fighter for the interests and objectives of developing countries.
In particular, he had always advocated, as he had done at the Monterrey Summit, that the best
contribution developed countries could make to growth and poverty reduction in these countries was
by opening their markets to them.  Uruguay was very  grateful to him, and wished him every success
in his new functions, whatever they might be, in the knowledge that the WTO would always have inhim a source of inspiration and support.
30. The representative of China thanked the Chairpersons for their reports, which were most
useful in Beijing, as in other capitals.  The DDA had been launched eight months ago.  Although
some achievements had been made on the preparation of the negotiations, the overall progress of thenegotiations was slower than China had expected, which posed great challenges for achieving the
objective of concluding the negotiations by 1 January 2005 as set out in the Doha Declaration.  At the
present, a number of uncertainties still existed in the world economy, the gap between North and
South was widening and trade protectionism was rampant.  Under such circumstances, all participants
had the responsibility of demonstrating the necessary determination, wisdom and creativity to advance
the negotiating process.  China believed that the successful conclusion of the negotiations would be
important to accelerate recovery and growth in the global economy, to maintain public confidence inthe multilateral trading system and to put the development of economic globalization on the right
track.
31. China believed that the following issues should be resolved in order to achieve the objectives
set out in the Doha Declaration.  First, implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements.  Fullimplementation of these Agreements, particularly those on textiles liberalization and market access
for agricultural products, which were of significant interest to developing-country Members, would
enhance the confidence of these Members to participate in the multilateral trade negotiations.
Therefore, resolving implementation issues before the end of this year through concrete and effective
measures was the key and a precondition to a breakthrough in the current negotiations.  Secondly, thedevelopment issue.  In the current negotiations, concerns of developed countries and more
importantly, those of developing countries should be addressed through a practical approach.  The
DDA set out the issue of economic development as it s major objective.  In the trade area, economic
development of developing Members was becoming increasingly important.  Without the
development of these economies, there would be no real international trade.  The reality was thatdeveloping countries only enjoyed comparative advantage in a few areas, such as agriculture and
textiles.  Therefore, market access for agricultural products, textiles liberalization, market access to
developed countries and the revision of relevant rules were logically of great concern to developing
countries, and should be addressed as priorities.  This was the means to gradually achieve a balance of
interests of the various parties in the negotiations.TN/C/M/3
Page 11
32. Thirdly, special and differential treatment.  S&D provisions were important elements of the
WTO Agreements.  These provisions were of great importance to developing-country Members,
particularly the least-developed, and represented their major rights in the multilateral trading system.
The Doha Declaration clearly provided that the go al for reviewing S&D provisions was to strengthen
them and make them more precise, effective and operational.  Such goals were critical to achieving abalance between rights and obligations for developing Members in the negotiations.  China believed
that S&D should not be merely a slogan, but rather an integral part of various agreements and of the
concrete actions to be taken by developed Members.  Fourthly, the issue of newly-acceded Members.
These Members had made broad commitments in their accession negotiations.  Their efforts in
implementing their respective commitments in a cons cientious manner should be considered as their
contributions to trade liberalization and the new round of negotiations.  However, these commitments
should not be taken as an excuse to force other Members, especially developing countries, toundertake the same level of commitments.  Fifthly, capacity building for developing Members.  Since
the Doha Ministerial Conference, the WTO had made a lot of effort towards enhancing capacity
building for developing-country Members.  With the overall development and deepening of the
negotiations, it was necessary to further strengthen this capacity building for these Members so as to
ensure their effective participation in the negotiations in order to achieve their equitable rights.  As adeveloping country and a new Member, China was participating in the current multilateral trade
negotiations in a positive and comprehensive manner.  The Chinese Government attached great
importance to this process.  In almost all negotiating groups, China had sent capital-based officials to
participate.  It had tabled its request in services on time, and it was prepared to table proposals on
agriculture, non-agricultural market access, rules and DSB before the end of the year.  The ChineseGovernment was serious about all these undertakings.  In order to promote the negotiations and to
seek a balance of interests among various parties in the multilateral trading system, China was willing
to continue working with all participants and to play a constructive role in the negotiations in the
future.  To conclude, he wished to express gratitude  to the Chairman and to the Chairpersons of the
negotiating bodies for their efforts devoted to this process.
33. The representative of Kenya, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, congratulated the
Director-General for the good work that he had done in upholding the spirit of the WTO.  She
welcomed the Director-General Designate, Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, whom the African Group
wanted to assure of its cooperation and commitment to the improvement of the multilateral trading
system for the benefit of all Members.  She thanked the Chairpersons of the various negotiating
groups for their reports, which were a clear reflection of the progress made so far.  Participants hadmade some progress in some areas, while they appeared to have stalled in others.  The record was not
too impressive thus far, and the African Group would like to see more progress and enhanced
momentum in this respect.  While some groups had focused on the substance of their respective
mandates, it was disappointing to note that the Negotiating Group on Market Access had not made
any progress, including drawing its work programme for the year 2003, in spite of the Chairman'stireless efforts to bridge the differences held by different delegations.  The African Group, as always,
had shown a lot of flexibility and expressed its wish to accept the Chairman's proposal as a package
for the sake of getting on with the work in this ar ea.  It urged other delegations to follow the African
Group's spirit of accommodation so that work on ma rket access could commence without any further
delay.  It hoped that in the meantime the WTO Secretariat was proceeding with the studies that hadbeen requested by a number of countries on the impact of previous liberalization.
34. The African Group noted the progress made in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development.  It believed that the outcome of the discussions in this body was important as it
would determine whether the Doha mandate addressed the development concerns of Africancountries.  The Group, therefore, expected a concrete outcome that would not only operationalize
S&D treatment but also enhance the capacity of developing-country Members to take advantage of
the trading opportunities created by the multilateral trading system.  It noted from the report by the
Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture that substantial work had already
been undertaken on export competition and that this was to be followed soon by discussions onmarket access.  Any trade protective measures that went against the spirit of the Doha DeclarationTN/C/M/3
Page 12
should be avoided at all costs.  The African Group was encouraged to see that negotiations in services
had entered the request/offer stage.  Indeed some of the Group's members had received detailed
requests on various sectors and would be responding in due time.  However, the Group noted that
there had been a lack of agreement on guidelines fo r the treatment of autonomous liberalization.  This
issue was important to Africa given that the countries of the region had undertaken substantialautonomous liberalization and any offer from the Group would depend on how this matter was
resolved.  The Group urged Members to show commitment and flexibility in order to speed up
progress on this issue.
35. In Doha, Ministers had recognized that for all Members to participate effectively in the
implementation of the Doha Work Programme, including the successful conclusion of the
negotiations within the agreed period, technical assistance and capacity building to developing andleast-developed countries was essential.  The African Group appreciated the assistance given thus far,
but it believed that capacity building should not only address the skills to negotiate but also improve
the knowledge base of the subject under discussion so that Members could negotiate from informed
positions.  In conclusion, the African Group was ready to cooperate with the Chairman and the
Chairpersons of the various negotiating groups to ensure that meaningful progress was achieved whilerespecting the deadlines set by Ministers in Doha.
36. The representative of Japan expressed his delegation's appreciation for the huge efforts that
the Director-General, the Secretariat and the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies had made thus far
in the negotiations.  Having had personal experience of both the collapse of Seattle and the positiveoutcome at Doha, he could not but feel that the WTO had certainly come a long way.  Much gratitude
was due to the untiring efforts of Mr. Moore, who had made this possible.  Japan welcomed the
opportunity to take stock of what had been ach ieved thus far, since the launch of the Doha
Development Agenda, and to clarify what should be done from the present until the Fifth Ministerial
Conference and how to meet different benchmarks on the way.  Japan welcomed the fact thatsubstantive discussions had now started in good earnest, and it was, on the whole, very much
encouraged by the generally positive reports by the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies.  Progress
had been made in areas such as agriculture and services, according to the benchmarks of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration.  Japan had also taken note of the progress being made in other areas of the
negotiations, such as rules.  However, particip ants needed to overcome the deadlock in the
non-agricultural market access negotiations and keep them on track.  Japan believed the timeline for
these negotiations should be in line with the schedules in other negotiations, such as agriculture.Japan was perplexed that no consensus had yet been reached as to the target date of establishing
modalities.  Moving into substantive discussions was of particular importance in the context of the
process towards the Fifth Ministerial.  Japan was now preparing a submission, hopefully in time for
the September meeting.  Japan was glad to see progress in the working groups on investment,
competition, trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement, and it urged Members tocontinue to work on possible elements of rules as well as technical assistance and capacity building so
as to agree on modalities at the Fifth Ministerial to start negotiations.
37. In the next stage of work starting from the present meeting, participants had to start
discussions on how to make sufficient progress to ensure the success of the Fifth MinisterialConference in order to conclude the negotiations successfully on time.  In this regard, continued
political attention was needed.  Japan intended to contribute to advancing the Doha Development
Agenda by submitting as many papers as possible and encouraged other Members, where appropriate,
to table submissions in order to move the discussions into high gear.  Participants needed to tackle the
area of rules in earnest, in particular anti-dumping, so as to fight against the increased pressure ofprotectionism.  Japan, along with other Members, had already submitted two papers indicating
provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that should be clarified and improved, and it was satisfied
with the general reactions to the papers.
38. Turning to development issues, he said that on trade-related technical assistance and capacity
building, Japan supported the work of the Secretariat to establish the 2003 Technical Assistance Plan,TN/C/M/3
Page 13
recognizing the need to focus more on the DDA through incorporating the real needs of each
developing Member and each negotiating group.  It was essential for Ministers and senior officials in
developing Member countries to regard this as a priority issue and to submit their concrete requests
for the 2003 Plan to the Secretariat by 31 July.  The key to success of technical assistance in the WTO
was to focus its scope on the specific commitments in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  On thereview of S&D treatment, Japan welcomed the efforts of all Members to tackle this issue seriously in
order to formulate recommendations to the General Council by the end of July.  It was of significant
importance for all Members to find common views on the principles and objectives of S&D before the
specific elements raised by African, LDC and other developing Members could be effectively
discussed.  Furthermore, the July report should include the appropriate direction of future work
towards an additional report by a new realistic deadline to be agreed upon.  On TRIPS and access to
medicines, Members needed to tackle the compulsory licensing issue for WTO Members with nomanufacturing capabilities in the pharmaceutical sector from September at a higher level in order to
find an expeditious solution by the December deadline.  As all participants were aware that only two
and half years were left to conclude the negotiations, they should concentrate their efforts in
accelerating the substantive discussions across the board.  In this regard, the role and initiative of the
Director-General as the Chairman of the TNC was crucial.  Japan stood ready to support theDirector-General and extend all possible cooperation.
39. The representative of Norway thanked the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies for their
reports.  This was the third meeting of the TNC, bu t in reality it was the first substantive one.  The
first meeting was taken up by the establishment of the Committee and the second came too early forany substantive discussion on the start of the negotiations, so, in many ways, the TNC's work was
starting at the present meeting.  Of course, the TNC's task was to supervise the negotiations and to set
a good pattern for the work, so the quality of the documentation was a crucial issue.  He believed that
the documents for the present meeting were good, but built on somewhat different styles, and perhaps
the future TNC Chairman could discuss the format of the reports with the individual Chairpersons.
The way the reports on services and on trade and environment had been set up was good, and as the
work progressed, it would be important to include substantive issues and highlight where there were
problems.  In the oral reports made by the Chairpersons, there had been some very substantive reports,
in particular the report made by the Chairman of the Rules Group and he would agree with everything
said.  Finally, he thanked the Secretariat for the Job(02)/78 containing the checklist of deadlines,
which he had found useful in reminding Members wh at they had agreed to do, and he hoped that the
Secretariat would update it at regular intervals.
40. Turning to the present situation, he said that there were great uncertainties in the external
scene.  Everyone knew what those were, and he did not wish to go into details, but perhaps he could
use the example that, in another area in the General Council, Members were talking about a circuit
breaker in order to move things ahead.  He was fe arful that there might be a circuit breaker in the
autumn which would stop things and that would be a catastrophe.  He agreed with the Director-
General that the work had progressed well.  In most groups, work had started seriously and on a good
basis.  Of course, in the early autumn, the work would have to move from the general to the more
specific, and that was always difficult because it meant that negotiating positions would have to be on
the table.  As the Chairpersons had said, that could be done with the good will of everybody.
41. However, the Market Access Negotiating Group was out of tune with what is happening in
other groups.  As reflected in the Negotiating Group Chairman's reports, the matter had been referred
to the TNC, so it was up to this Committee to decide what to do further.  He understood from the
Chairman's comments that there was some hope that there might be developments shortly, in whichcase some ideas might be set out in the TNC since this was obviously a matter all Members had to
agree to, it was not only a question that concerned two or three Members.  He hoped the Chairman's
efforts were successful in bringing about a proposal which the TNC could consider.  If that was not
the case, he proposed that if there was no consensus proposal by the end of the meeting, then
Members should agree to accept the TNC Chairman's judgement on the situation and what the datesshould be.  As everyone was aware, this was done in other areas, such as that of disputes, where it wasTN/C/M/3
Page 14
set out in the DSU that when Members could not agree on the selection of panellists, the decision was
left to the Director-General.  As far as he understood, everything had been agreed for the market
access negotiations, apart from the date for agreement on the modalities, on which three months had
been wasted in discussing a difference of one week.  He believed the situation to be serious, and one
could not run the risk of not being able to start the market access negotiations until some time in thefuture.  All the work was under a single undertaking, the time-frame was very short indeed, and these
negotiations needed to fit in with the other areas of negotiation.  Furthermore, by the end of the year a
number of highly difficult implementation issues would be added to the list of negotiating issues,
through paragraph 12(b) of the Ministerial Declaration, and at the Ministerial meeting in Cancún, the
expectation among many countries would be that all the Singapore issues would be added to the list of
negotiating issues with just over a year remaining.  It was clear that the situation was getting rather
unrealistic, and that was one of the main reasons why the issue of the date in market access had to beresolved promptly.  Participants really had to get down to business.
42. The representative of Hungary said that, in the light of the Chairpersons' reports, his
delegation believed that the progress thus far in most negotiating areas had met or had come close to
the expectations that the membership could realistically have had.  Obviously progress had beensomewhat uneven, which, by posing some risks, inevitably gave rise to some mild concerns.
Agriculture had definitely been the success story thus  far;  the clear intentions of all participants to
move the negotiations forward at a rapid pace was evident not only from the number of meetings, but
also from the constructive spirit and very active participation.  Hungary was pleased with these
developments.  However, certain factors, if not handled adequately, could pose a future risk to thesmooth continuation of work in this area.  Hungary fe ared that the lack of sufficient progress in other
negotiating areas, in particular in non-agricultural market access and the improvement of geographical
indication protection, could chip away at the speed of  agricultural reform.  It was concerned by the
situation in the negotiations on non-agricultural market  access.  It would be extremely difficult for his
delegation to imagine meaningful overall progress in the round without sufficient results in that area.Hungary was also concerned about the lack of adequate progress and constructive engagement
regarding the improvement of geographical indication protection, both through setting up an effective
multilateral register for wines and spirits as well as through extending the scope of Article 23 of the
TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines and spirits.  Hungary considered these important
implementation issues to be directly relevant and indeed linked to the agricultural reform process.
43. On the Singapore issues, Hungary was satisfied with the useful, substantive discussions thus
far this year in the relevant working groups.  It believed that this thorough and substantive work was
laying solid foundations for the necessary decisions to be made at the Cancún Ministerial.  It also
welcomed the dialogue which had begun in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
Environment with wide participation.  However, Me mbers should not lose sight of the much broader
set of very important issues on which the regular Committee on Trade and Environment, inaccordance with paragraph 32 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, was to report to Ministers in
Cancún.  Furthermore, Hungary hoped a solution to the pending issues in the area of TRIPS and
health would be found by the end of the year, so that a forceful and positive message would be sent, in
particular to Africa.
44. A supportive external environment was a prerequisite for the successful conduct and eventual
conclusion of the negotiations.  Hungary believed that the governments of each and every WTO
Member, but in particular the major trading powers,  had to shoulder part of the responsibility for
maintaining such an environment by abstaining from  measures that could fuel protectionist pressures
in other parts of the world.  In the past few months, this preoccupation had not always been detectablewhen the introduction of trade measures had been considered by Members.  As a result, the pressure
on other governments to take trade defence measures or to expand subsidization had increased both in
the industrial and agricultural sectors.
45. Turning to the work on S&D treatment in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
Development, he said that, in Hungary's view, very  important work had been started that incorporatedTN/C/M/3
Page 15
not only the many specific suggestions on how individual S&D provisions could be made more
precise, effective and operational, but also, and inevitably, a great number of fundamental cross-
cutting issues which needed to be addressed so that the Special Session could make the kind of
progress on specific proposals that the demandeurs were looking for.  Hungary was particularly
grateful to Paraguay, which, by submitting a very interesting paper on the Enabling Clause, hadprompted a discussion on many of the fundamental i ssues that went into the heart of S&D.  Clearly,
these issues merited further in-depth discussion and thorough consideration.
46. In another area of S&D treatment, Hungary wa s concerned about an issue raised in the
services negotiations.  The Special Session of the Council of Trade in Services was currently trying to
finalise modalities for the treatment of measures undertaken autonomously.  In the discussions, a large
group of developing countries, referring to the differences in levels of development of Members, hadinsisted that all developing countries should be exempted from having to face requests from the rest of
the membership for recognition and credit.  This proposal would create a situation that Members not
falling into the category of developing countries, for example Members from his country's part of the
world, could face requests for credit from all developing-country Members, including from those that
were at a higher level of development.  Such a limitation would not be in line with the relevantprovisions of the GATS and would not be justif iable politically and economically, and therefore
would not be acceptable to his delegation, as also to many others.  Finally, he thanked the Chairman
for the fine job he had done during the first few months of the negotiations, and for his contribution to
the satisfactory state of affairs.  He also welcomed Dr. Supachai, who would soon assume this hard
job.  Hungary was sure that the change at the helm  would be smooth and not have any negative effects
on the negotiations, and it wished to assure Dr. Supachai that it would continue to be an active
participant and that it looked forward to working with him.
47. The representative of the Czech Republic expressed his delegation's appreciation for the
excellent work that had been done by the Chairman as well as the Chairpersons of the negotiating
bodies to transform the mandate agreed by Ministers into a series of practical steps in order to
advance the negotiations launched in Doha.  The pr esent meeting had a twofold purpose.  Firstly, to
assess the situation in the process, and secondly, to focus participants minds on prospects for the Fifth
Ministerial Conference.  The Cancún Conference would be a significant milestone for the Doha
Development Agenda.  It would pr ovide a window of opportunity to take stock of progress, give
necessary direction to the process and address a number of important decisions.  His delegation
believed that participants had at their disposal a ll the necessary elements to look to the future with
optimism.  The optimism of his delegation was rooted in the agenda agreed by Ministers in Doha.  It
was sufficiently broad-based to embrace the various interests and concerns and to give a better sense
of equity to the multilateral trading system.  Furthermore, it contained an appropriate framework – a
round of negotiations within a single undertaking that offered the opportunity for package-deal
negotiations and the necessary cross-sectoral trade-offs.  However, these were just the basicfoundation stones.  There was much more to be done to ensure the success of the Conference.  Some
important work had been undertaken thus far and his delegation was generally satisfied at the overall
pace of progress made in the various bodies.
48. Considerable effort had been made to place the development dimension at the heart of
Members' collective endeavours.  In the high-level briefing on technical assistance and capacity
building held two days previously, it was clear the considerable amount of work which had been done
in this area.  For the first time, the negotiations were proceeding hand-in-hand with technical
assistance and capacity building.  Both were essential to enable developing and least-developed
countries and countries in transition to prepare for effective participation in the substantivenegotiations and better understand the nature and possible implications of the issues on the table.  The
specific needs and concerns of these countries had never been discussed so intensively and in such a
result-oriented manner.  Members had been seriously exploring the possibilities of making S&D
provisions more effective.  In this area, Members had achieved an important level of mutual
understanding on which they could effectively build in further deliberations.TN/C/M/3
Page 16
49. From the reports by the Chairpersons and from what his delegation had seen in the
negotiating groups, it was clear that negotiations were proceeding well in some areas.  That certainly
applied to the negotiations on the continuation of the reform process in agriculture, where the work
was much better than originally expected.  In services, the negotiations had entered a new, more
intensive phase with the submission of initial requests for specific commitments.  The work was alsomoving in the right direction in the negotiations aimed at reinforcing the dispute settlement system.
The progress in the Negotiating Group on Rules was also impressive.  But in painting a generally
positive picture, one should not lose sight of the fact that the transposition of the Doha mandate had
been far from easy and that progress was unbalanced with respect to some negotiating groups.  In
particular, his delegation had serious concerns with regard to the lack of progress in the Negotiating
Group on Market Access.  Further liberalization of trade in non-agricultural products was central to
the balance that every participant wanted to achieve in the ongoing negotiations.  However, it wouldbe extremely difficult to assess the broad parameters of the overall liberalization package in goods and
services if there was not a timely decision on the modalities for negotiations on non-agricultural
products.  His delegation therefore urged delegations to resolve this outstanding issue as soon as
possible and in a manner that constructively took into account the known positions of all participants.
It was time to stop talking procedure and get down to real business.  The issue at hand should notdivide the house and an early agreement was surely within grasp.  All participants had both offensive
and defensive interests and were willing to pursue them with a view to improving prospects for their
products in foreign markets.  Any substantial delay in this area could have a negative impact on the
overall process.  Only a balanced package of results as agreed in Doha would have a chance of
success.  The comprehensive character of the negotiations was no accident.  Nor was the principle of asingle undertaking, according to which nothing was agreed unless everything was agreed.  In the
context of the road map to Mexico, for his delegation this principle meant that Members needed to
come to an agreement on modalities of negotiations in the areas of investment, competition, trade
facilitation and transparency in government procurement by the time of the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  This also meant that Members had to finally resolve the issue of the extension ofgeographical indications for products other than wine and spirits.
50. He was sure that everyone would agree that new momentum had to be injected into the
process in order to move it into a higher gear.  This could be done through bringing to the table ideas
and proposals in a timely manner.  There was no more time for procedural manoeuvring.  It was
crucial, in order to maintain the timetables Ministers had established, that participants pursued not
only their own interests but carefully noted those of others.  Everyone was aware that this was notgoing to be an easy exercise.  Most of the issues were highly complex, with widely diverging views
among delegations.  However, whatever the difficulties and complexities might be, participants had
no other choice than to do their utmost to comply w ith the deadline given to them by Ministers.  The
Czech Republic stood ready to extend all possible cooperation to attain this ambitious goal.
51. The representative of Korea thanked the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies for their
reports.  At the first TNC meeting in February, agreement had been reached on the negotiating
framework for the DDA.  Four months had passed since then, and it could be noted that a sixth of the
total negotiating period had gone by.  In general, most of the procedural issues regarding the
negotiations had been settled, and most negotiating groups had moved on to more substantive issues.However, participants could not be complacent.  In  fact, taking into account the tight time-frame of
the negotiations, especially with the Fifth Ministerial ahead, his delegation was concerned about the
relatively slow pace of the negotiations thus far.  The different negotiating groups had shown uneven
progress in terms of meeting their intended schedules.   Considering the fact that the negotiations were
to be concluded within a single undertaking, the various groups should make an effort to pace theirnegotiations so that no group lagged too far behind the others in terms of progress.  As such, his
delegation was concerned that the work schedule for the Negotiating Group on Market Access had not
been agreed.  This was one of the key areas of the negotiations since both developed and developing
countries could benefit greatly from the outcome.  His delegation hoped that all Members would
exercise flexibility in their respective positions so  that agreement could be reached at the earliest
possible time.  The negotiations on agriculture and services were making steady progress.  In theTN/C/M/3
Page 17
services negotiations in particular, a number of Members, including Korea, had submitted their
requests.  However, the number of requests submitted was not enough to provide a comprehensive
picture.  Korea urged those countries which had not done already so to submit their initial requests as
soon as possible.  On the development dimension of the DDA, the work on technical assistance
programmes in the WTO had shown much progress.  Constructive work on implementation issues andon the review of S&D provisions was being carried out in the relevant subsidiary bodies.  Taking into
account the technical nature of this work, adequate  time was needed to fully examine the complex
issues involved, with their systemic implications.
52. As could be seen from the schedule of future work circulated by the Secretariat, there were
many tasks to be completed by the time of the Fifth Ministerial.  If countries held fast to entrenched
positions or limited themselves to making general statements, substantive progress would not comeabout.  Therefore, constructive interaction was necessary to narrow down the differences, and
participants needed to raise their efforts a notch high er in the lead up to the Ministerial.  In this, more
involvement on the part of high-level officials from capitals as well as Ministers would also be
necessary.  Finally, he thanked the Chairman for his relentless efforts to make the launch of the
negotiations come about, and this would surely be recorded in the history of international trade.Korea hoped that he would continue to work for the ongoing development of the multilateral trading
system and the WTO.  On the other hand, the incoming Director-General, Dr. Supachai, had received
the very important task of concluding the negotiations on a successful note.  Korea firmly believed in
the leadership and competence of Dr. Supachai a nd it would provide its utmost cooperation in all
possible areas.
53. The representative of India expressed the appreciation of his delegation for the Chairman's
important contributions as Chair of the TNC and as Director General.  His delegation also welcomed
Dr. Supachai and wished him total success during his tenure.  In his opening statement, the Chairman
had referred to the distinction between process and substance and the need to get on with substancerather than process.  To his delegation, there was a close interrelationship between process and
substance.  There could be substantive discussions only if the process was such that all delegations
were in a position to adequately prepare themselves.  Hence, the process was as important as
substance and would in fact contribute to a satisfactory outcome on substance.  The reports presented
by the Chairpersons of the negotiating groups and special sessions gave a mixed picture.  On the plus
side, there was no doubt at all that substantial work had been done since Doha.  The entire negotiating
structure was in place.  The work programme had been decided in most cases.  In almost all thenegotiating groups and special sessions, substantive work had commenced in earnest.  There had been
significant contributions both in writing and from the floor by a large number of delegations.  There
had been genuine effort on the part of many delegations to engage constructively in the negotiations,
to place concerns on the table and to listen to the views of other delegations.  However, in order to
achieve the goals within the time limit laid down by Ministers, it was necessary also to turn thespotlight on areas where progress had been halting and on other inhibiting factors.
54. The Doha work programme was a composite package, negotiated over several months.  While
the finishing touches might have been given at the Ministerial Conference in November last year, the
bulk of the work had emanated from the preparatory process in Geneva.  The Doha package consistedof two elements, both carefully negotiated, namely, a sequence of events with clearly defined
deadlines, and substantive issues defining the content of the negotiations.  Both these elements formed
integral parts of the package.  According to the Doha package, certain events were to take place on
31 July and 31 December 2002, 31 March 2003 and at the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  He was
afraid that there was a grave danger of the sequence being broken at the first milestone itself, namely,31 July.  Developing countries were all the more concerned because the first deadline related to issues
that were of vital importance to them.  Delegations would recall the painful negotiations that had
taken place before Doha on implementation issues and other issues of concern to developing
countries.  In fact, many developing countries had been clearly of the view that implementation issues
needed to be addressed upfront before taking up consideration of other issues on the agenda.However, in a spirit of compromise, they had agreed on a time schedule for addressing these issues,TN/C/M/3
Page 18
which had been incorporated in the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  An important segment of this time
schedule related to S&D treatment, on which they would have expected substantial progress by the
deadline of 31 July.  A number of proposals had been put on the table, a large majority of them
coming from the African Group.  His delegation was disappointed that it had as yet not been able to
substantively discuss even one of them.  Lack of time or the complexity of the issue could not be asufficient reason as many proposals had been on the table as early as April this year.  It was also
clearly known that the Ministers had given a firm deadline which negotiators were expected to meet.
Likewise, the proposals contained in paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 and paragraph 10.3 of the Decision on
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, also due for resolution by 31 July, had not been
effectively discussed.  Members had already failed to meet one deadline – the decision contained in
paragraph 9.1 to complete work on harmonisation of rules of origin by the end of 2001.
55. On the one hand, developing countries perceived some lack of enthusiasm on the part of
certain Members to discuss issues of high priority to them.  On the other, they observed many
examples of unilateral protectionist action by certain developed countries when their own industry
was threatened in any way.  They observed also that negotiations in all areas were not proceeding at
an even pace, thus jeopardising the balance of the package.  There was a disquieting disharmonybetween the spoken word and the practised deed, which was sought to be explained away by domestic
compulsions.  Everyone should remember that there were domestic compulsions everywhere.  An
overtly protectionist action in a developed country created uncertainty and confusion in political and
commercial circles in developing countries and there would be pressures for like response.  This was
particularly relevant in a context in which many parts of the world faced situations of economic melt-down on account of erratic financial flows, and wher e even the solutions offered by international and
multilateral institutions were increasingly being que stioned.  Considering the commitment of all
delegations to the process initiated at Doha, Members had to make sure that the package their
Ministers had put together at Doha did not evolve  in a lopsided fashion in the post-Doha process.
56. He wished also to draw attention to the proposals made by his delegation and fourteen other
delegations regarding the preparatory process and the conduct of the Ministerial Conference.  There
had also been another set of proposals from a group of nine delegations.  The Chairman of the General
Council had indicated his intention to engage in serious consultations on these proposals after the
summer break.  His delegation attached the highest priority to resolution of this issue before the next
Ministerial.  There were many significant issues being discussed in several negotiating bodies where
progress was needed.  Reference had been made to TRIPS-related issues, TRIPS and public health,geographical indications, the relationship with the CBD, traditional knowledge and others.  There
were issues relating to the services sector, particularly on how to provide credit for autonomous
liberalization, and rules issues.  Members should seek to correct the unbalanced evolution of the
package.  Developing countries would also like to sense a greater degree of commitment on the part
of all Members to address the problems that they had raised.  In the months to come, his delegationlooked forward to creative measures to restore balance in the Doha work programme and to address
the concerns of developing countries.
57. The representative of Brazil thanked the Chairman for his contribution to the work of the
WTO and welcomed Dr. Supachai to his new functions.  The present meeting provided a timely
opportunity to make an assessment of the situation in terms of fulfilling the Doha mandate.  In overall
terms, Brazil believed the process was moving in the right direction, even if the pace was uneven and
not entirely satisfactory.  It was clear to everyone that developments outside the scope of the work
programme had not contributed to building confidence and encouraging flexibility in Geneva.  Even
so, from Brazil’s perspective, work in Geneva had been far from meaningless and, like Uruguay, itbelieved the difficulties should not be dramatised.  Brazil strongly believed that it was here, in these
premises, that issues had to be confronted and a spirit of cooperation had to progressively evolve.
Nobody should question the capacity of the negotiating groups and the TNC to overcome obstacles
and generate solutions, whether procedural or substantive.  Governments had to invest political will in
the Geneva process, and Brazil was certainly prepared to do so.TN/C/M/3
Page 19
58. Turning to individual items in the DDA, he wished to highlight a few areas which deserved
priority attention.  On agriculture, discussions had made it clear that the phase-out of export subsidies
remained a priority.  Brazil looked forward to upcoming discussions on market access and on
domestic support with a view to completing the work within the time-frames prescribed by Ministers.
It took note of assurances by major powers to the effect that they remained as firmly committed toagricultural reform as before.  Although Brazil was still examining the different aspects of the
recently-disclosed blueprint for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, a preliminary analysis
indicated that it might be seen as a step in the right direction.  However, he wished to reiterate that, for
Brazil, there could be no satisfactory overall result for the present round in the absence of substantive
agricultural outcomes in all three pillars.  Brazil woul d ascribe special attention, in this context, to the
domestic support pillar.  On implementation, a true demonstration of political engagement by
developed countries was yet to be witnessed in honouring the Doha mandate.  Paragraph 12 of theMinisterial Declaration was being reinterpreted, in “development unfriendly” ways, as if delegations
in Geneva were free to revise instructions agreed by consensus at the Ministerial level.  The work on
implementation had to be pursued in good faith.  An intensification of work on the different
implementation tracks, including those dealing with S&D, textiles, anti-dumping and subsidies, was
of the essence if Members sincerely wished to live up to the much advertised "developmentalsensitivity" of their agenda.
59. Brazil had been gratified to note that the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules had
unambiguously acknowledged the need for the Grou p to respond to implementation items in that
setting, in compliance with paragraph 12(a) of the Ministerial Declaration.  Proposals stemming fromthis source – in addition to a number of other pape rs, including two substantive contributions from the
so-called group of “friends” of anti-dumping negotiations – had provided much of the necessary input
for a productive initial phase under the rules mandate.  Brazil believed the Negotiating Group on
Rules had covered sufficient ground for participants  to start thinking bey ond the so-cal led “initial
phase” of identification of provisions in the relevant instruments.  Trade and environment could beconsidered one of the most sensitive and intricate topics in the agenda.  This had not prevented
participants from moving ahead on the basis of several thought-provoking papers.  Brazil remained
committed to finding ways of mainstreaming the con cept of sustainable development into the current
round, in line with paragraph 51 of the Ministerial Declaration.  It was also committed to important
results at the Johannesburg meeting.
60. On the services front, initial requests had been tabled by a number of delegations including
Brazil, which augured well for a fruitful follow-up.  While Brazil welcomed the steady pace of the
services negotiations, he would caution that, in the absence of corresponding progress in other key
areas, this pace would obviously become unsustainable.  Regrettably, consensus had not been
forthcoming as regards the setting up of a work programme for market access in non-agricultural
products.  Agreement should be within participants' grasp.  Brazil urged delegations to showflexibility, as work in this group should start as soon as possible.
61. In terms of the DSU review, Brazil believed that, while some changes were necessary –
indeed overdue – the DSU as a whole had been working properly and its current framework should
not be put into question.  The DSU had to evolve and adapt to the needs of a changing environment.Brazil favoured a limited and focused approach, compatible with the May 2003 deadline.  Brazil
would continue to engage in the ongoing discussions  within the TRIPS Council with a view to finding
an expeditious solution to the problem identified in paragraph 6 of the Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health.  It had become clear, even to those who had initially opposed action in
this area, that Members' collective achievement in this area constituted a true milestone.  Members
had to live up to their promise by completing the work accomplished at the Fourth Ministerial
Conference.
62. Serious work was taking place in WTO and the negotiating process was moving ahead.
Conversely, developments outside the purview of WTO activity, which ran counter to the objectivesof the Doha Declaration, put an unexpected challenge to Members.  They could not afford toTN/C/M/3
Page 20
underestimate the potentially damaging impact on the world economy of the present signs of financial
instability and exchange rate fluctuation.  The moment called for vision and leadership.  Such
developments increased Members' responsibility.  In other words, in light of recent trends it had
become all the more important to promote growth and development through increased trade
opportunities.  The WTO was equipped to take up this challenge and move forward with the Dohaagenda.
63. The representative of the United States said that, like others, his delegation welcomed the
present meeting focused on the future work in ad vancing the Doha agenda.  The US commitment to
the success of the negotiations remained as strong today as it had been leading up to and at the Doha
Ministerial.  In a little more than a year, the TNC would be finalizing its preparations for the Fifth
Ministerial Conference in Cancún.  Ministers were scheduled to meet there at what would be the mid-term of the WTO's three-year enterprise, to review progress and provide the guidance needed to arrive
at a final result by 1 January 2005.  The situation today in the global economy was even more
compelling than when Ministers had met in Doha that there be a successful trade liberalization round.
In Doha, Ministers had been convinced that the best  way for the WTO to contribute to global growth
and development was to embark on a wide-ranging agenda that held the promise of benefits for all theMembers of the WTO, but with special emphasis on the interests of partners in the developing world.
All economies needed that impulse to liberalization even more in today's economic environment.  His
delegation had been heartened by the common sense of purpose that was evident amongst delegations
to meet the deadlines assigned by Ministers, and to continue the positive spirit that guided
deliberations in Doha.  Members would succeed if they continued to be pragmatic, flexible andmaintain their sense of shared responsibility and their common objective.  In operational terms, this
meant that while they might have differences, Members should proceed on the assumption that
partners were prepared to work in good faith to arrive at Cancún ready to enter the final stages of the
negotiations.  The pace of progress in the meantime in various areas might differ, but at the end of the
day, all Members had agreed that these areas were part of an overall package of results whereeveryone should gain.
64. The United States understood that each and every aspect of the negotiations was important.
Some issues were important to the United States itself because of direct US interests.  Others were
important because the United States recognized that to shape an agreement, it would have to work to
find an appropriate balance among all of the countries involved.  The United States fully embraced its
role in finding such balance.  His delegation was gratified that many countries had joined it in makingsubmissions in the negotiations, so that Members did not find themselves in a situation where only a
few were making contributions.  The United States had made submissions on a wide range of issues in
the negotiations to help move the process forward.  More would follow, reflecting US interest in
forging consensus in achieving greater market access and strengthening the rules and disciplines of
the system.  Since meeting in Doha, Members had made considerable progress.  First, they hadreached agreement on the procedures and structure needed to conduct the work.  Procedural
agreements had given way to more substantive discussions and negotiations.  The present meeting
today provided an opportune time to check and compare their shared expectations for progress in the
months ahead, and to reinforce their commitment to that progress.
65. On technical assistance and capacity building, the membership was delivering on its Doha
commitments.  At the outset, it had given energy to the process by meeting and beating the targets for
the voluntary Global Trust Fund, which was now operational.  The United States was proud of its
contribution to this effort, along with the enha ncements of its own bilateral trade and capacity
building efforts.  It appreciated the opportunity that the US technical assistance team fromWashington had had this week to meet with individual delegations to focus on the 2003 WTO
Technical Assistance Plan as well as the US bilateral assistance programmes.  As had been said
during the Director-General's briefing last Tuesday, the challenge now was to be practical about
shaping the 2003 Plan as it related to the membership's objectives for Cancún, and the 2005 deadline.
His delegation encouraged those who had not yet done so to make their requests for assistance by theend of July as requested by the Director-General, so that the Plan could be finalized in the fall.  As hisTN/C/M/3
Page 21
delegation had said on Tuesday, the United States would submit its data on its technical assistance
support programmes in accordance with that deadline.  His delegation was particularly appreciative of
the African Group's efforts to provide the Committee on Trade and Development with suggestions on
how to improve the situation with respect to technical assistance, and it looked forward to further
discussions.  It was important that Members worked together to shape the assistance and determinewhat was needed, particularly what worked, and where they needed to be innovative, so as to
contribute to the negotiations and to countries' long-term development objectives.
66. Turning to the negotiating agenda, he would start with agriculture, because like many other
countries, the United States considered it to be the centrepiece of the negotiations.  The immediate
goal was to make sufficient progress this year so  that the Chairman would be able to produce an
overview paper for consideration by year end, so that modalities could be established by the 31 March2003 deadline.  He wished to reassure delegations that the United States was taking an ambitious
approach to the negotiations.  The previous month, the United States had called for the elimination of
export subsidies, and significant agricultural reform.  The US agriculture team was consulting
domestically with Congress, the farm community and others so the United States could be similarly
ambitious in the other pillars of the negotiation – market access and domestic support.  His delegationlooked forward to the upcoming meetings at the en d of July and in September where it expected to
advance the negotiations in both areas and share its views with its negotiating partners.
67. Similarly in services, the United States had embarked on a bold course of liberalization,
tabling, by the 30 June deadline, initial requests of nearly all WTO Members to liberalize trade inservices, including in areas such as financial services, telecommunications, express delivery, and
energy, computer, distribution, audiovisual and environmental services.  The reasoning for this was
simple.  Liberalizing services had a force multiplier effect reverberating across an entire economy.  To
the extent that the services sector was opened, modernized and made transparent, countries received
an important economic boost, and the competitiveness of their firms, farms and workers would beenhanced.  The World Bank had estimated that services liberalization could yield income gains for
developing countries about 4.5 times greater than gains for these countries from trade liberalization in
goods alone.  The US requests had been carefully shaped to take into account the differing levels of
development of partners.  What was needed now was a critical mass of requests to be tabled so that by
31 March of next year Members could take the market access negotiations to the next step and table
initial offers.  This in turn would energise the wo rk in services on rules, particularly in improving
rules in such areas as domestic regulation, for the benefit of all Members.
68. In TRIPS, the United States had been active as it had pledged in Doha, when Ministers had
made the historic declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.  The United States had embarked on
substantial consultations with its partners and had proposed a framework to ensure that poor countries
without their own production facilities were able to gain greater access to drugs needed to combat
HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria and other public health crises.  The United States was determined to conclude
an agreement by the end of the year that provided a solution enabling Members without sufficient
pharmaceutical production capacity to use effectively the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement.  The
United States was committed to a solution that addressed the legitimate concerns of poor countries
without creating loopholes in the TRIPS Agreement that would benefit the narrow commercialinterests of only a few Members.  The US proposal , along with the contributions of others, should
enable Members to quickly agree on the substance of a solution and then turn to the appropriate
mechanism to implement it.  The United States was gratified that the General Council this month had
implemented the US proposal at Doha to extend until 2016 the transition period during which least-
developed countries would not have to provide patent protection for pharmaceuticals.  In addition,responding to the requests of least-developed countries, the TRIPS Council had also approved in June
a waiver that would exempt least-developed countries from having to provide exclusive marketing
rights for any new drugs in the period when they did not have to provide patent protection.  The
United States believed that this action should provide the necessary momentum to ensure that
delegations could resolve the compulsory licensing assignment that Ministers directed them toaccomplish by the end of the year.TN/C/M/3
Page 22
69. At the same time, the United States had been an active participant in the discussions on
geographical indications, where Doha included particular milestones.  It was participating
constructively in negotiations to establish a multilateral system to notify geographic indications for
wines and spirits.  It had made submissions providing its ideas on how the work could be advanced.
The United States had asked Members to consider a voluntary and non-burdensome information-based system.  The potential expansion of coverage of GIs beyond wines and spirits was an issue
where there was no consensus among Members.  Like many other Members, the United States
continued to believe that the costs clearly outweighed the advantages and expected that its partners
would carefully assess the costs of taking on such new obligations.
70. The way forward for negotiations on non-agricultural market access had been elusive.  These
negotiations were part of the single undertaking and it was reasonable to expect that progress in thisarea would need to keep pace with other areas in  the negotiations.  However, his delegation was
heartened to hear the Negotiating Group Chairman's report that discussions were continuing on
various ideas for removing the remaining impediment to adopting the Negotiating Group's
Programme of Meetings.  His delegation urged all to resolve this issue urgently, so that the work
could move on to the substantive agenda.  For many Members, the Doha negotiations meant marketaccess.  This was an area where substantial gains could be achieved, but only with the participation of
all Members.  The World Bank had recently estimated that 70 per cent of duties collected on
developing-country exports of manufactures were levi ed by developing countries.  The United States
had already tabled contributions in this area of the negotiations and it intended to work cooperatively
with its partners in advancing this aspect of the negotiations.
71. The Doha agenda also provided a number of milestones with respect to other issues of
concern to developing countries, including milestones in July, December, March, May, and finally at
Cancún.  The Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session had nearly completed its
work to prepare recommendations on S&D, as required, for General Council consideration at the endof the month.  There had been significant engagement on the issues, and the Committee's Chairman
was to be commended for his efforts in helping all Members to navigate through a very difficult topic.
Members were poised to take the work forward in a positive manner.  Not surprisingly, various views
had emerged during the work, including the sense that Members needed to look carefully at their
approaches to S&D, given the varying levels of development of trading partners and the need to
differentiate and tailor responses accordingly.  Whether the subject had been agriculture, subsidies or
textiles, the discussion had showed that a single approach was not necessarily the best.  The specificDoha mandates for various issues subject to negotiation identified S&D as an issue to be reflected in
the course of the work.  His delegation looked forw ard to working cooperatively with others to ensure
that this was done in the most effective manner.
72. As part of the recommendations which would be submitted to the General Council at the end
of the month, the United States supported the establishment of an appropriate monitoring mechanism
on S&D.  It pledged to work with the Committee's Chairman and the other members of the Committee
in developing this idea and bringing it to fruition.  He wished to reassure delegations that his
delegation was prepared to engage in a discussion of ideas on specific S&D provisions.  But a note of
caution was in order.  In several cases, the issues raised were part of the ongoing negotiations or hadbeen the subject of previous debate and review under the heading of implementation.  Members
would need to have realistic expectations in this area.   The United States believed S&D was not an
end in and of itself.  Rather, it was a tool to foster economic development, adjustment and integration
into the multilateral trading system.  The certainty and predictability of adhering to a rules-based
system, combined with thoughtful recourse to S&D provisions had been shown to be the best way topromote long-term economic growth.  A number of Members had raised the issue of differentiation in
this context, and the United States agreed that this  was an area that deserved more attention in future
work.
73. The Council for Trade in Goods had held extensive consultations on textiles, pursuant to
Members' collective commitment at Doha to review again the tirets discussed at Doha.  His delegationTN/C/M/3
Page 23
wished to thank the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods for his stewardship of this issue.
While no consensus had emerged, the discussion had been serious and not perfunctory.  The
engagement had been significant.  Members had reco gnized the complexity of the issues involved and
their implications.  The United States remained co mmitted to the continued full implementation of the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing agreed in the Uruguay Round.
74. On the question of implementation more broadly, the United States was gratified at the work
that had been done since Doha.  As an example, the work of the Committee on Subsidies had been
particularly significant.  It appeared that the Committee was close to agreement on a number of
requests submitted pursuant to Article 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement related to export subsidies.
On other issues, there also had been thoughtful engagement.   The United States took seriously the
provisions of paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration on implementation and intended to pursue thediscussions responsibly.  Members' collective expectations should reflect the reality that some of the
issues simply might not be the subject of consensus at the end of the day, while others might only
carry the potential for achieving consensus within  the context of the broader Doha negotiations.
75. Finally, he wished to turn to the situation in the United States regarding Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA).  President Bush, Ambassador Zoellick and the other members of the cabinet were
working hard with the Congress to secure passage of TPA.  The United States recognized that this
domestic procedure was important to its partners.  Legislation had been passed in both Houses and
most recently, Conferees had been appointed to prepare a final agreement that could be ratified by
both Chambers.  The process had not been easy, but his delegation was confident that it would prevailin obtaining legislation that would enable the United States to continue its leadership in strengthening
the multilateral trading system through these important negotiations.
76. Like others, the United States had faced challenges, including passage of new farm legislation
that dealt with one of the three pillars of the agricultural negotiations.  The United States understoodthe concern being expressed by its trading partners;  concerns which had led some to question US
commitment and resolve to an ambitious outcome of the Doha agriculture negotiations.  He wished to
be very clear and direct on this point.  The United States was committed to an ambitious outcome to
the agriculture negotiations in all three pillars – market access, export competition and trade-distorting
domestic support.  The Farm legislation did not impose any new restrictions on market access.  US
tariffs and its preference programmes such as GSP, the African Growth and Opportunities Act, the
Caribbean Basin Initiative and the enhanced Andean Trade Preference Act were unchanged.  Nor didthe Farm legislation introduce any new export subsidies.  The United States maintained its support for
the commitments taken in the Uruguay Round, and the Farm legislation reflected that in the form of
an unprecedented "circuit breaker" provision that required the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure that
the United States honoured its international commitments in the WTO.  In contrast to others, the
United States had a comprehensive, forward-lookin g, trade liberalizing proposal for the agricultural
negotiations.  It was committed to the Doha mandate of substantial improvements in market access,
substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support and elimination of agricultural export
subsidies.  He wished to reiterate that the United States would be active in all areas of the
negotiations, including areas in which the United States was not a demandeur.  The United States
stood by its commitments at Doha and the compromises achieved there.
77. The fact that all delegations were in the present meeting, assessing the progress in the
negotiations was a testimonial to the focus and persistence of Mike Moore during his tenure as
Director-General.  It was a remarkable achievement to have lifted up this Organization from its low
point at Seattle, brought Members to the successful agreement on negotiations at Doha, and launchedthem on their way to the mid-term review of those negotiations at the Fifth Ministerial in Cancún.  He
wished to express the gratitude of the United States delegation and the Government for that
tremendous accomplishment and contribution to the international economic system.
78. The representative of Costa Rica welcomed Dr. Supachai, wishing him success in his new
functions, and thanked the Chairpersons of the negotiating groups for their reports and their efforts toTN/C/M/3
Page 24
ensure that the Doha agenda kept advancing.  Costa Rica wished to reiterate its commitment towards
the negotiations agreed to by Ministers in Doha, and it would undertake every effort to ensure their
successful conclusion by 1 January 2005.  Like others, his delegations believed it was a collective
responsibility to ensure that the Fifth Ministerial in Cancún was successful, which was a necessary
step for a successful outcome in 2005.
79. Almost eight months had gone by since Ministers had met in Doha, and Costa Rica
considered that the work so far was, on the whole, satisfactory in most negotiating areas.  The DSU
review work was progressing satisfactorily, with several proposals on the table.  Costa Rica was itself
elaborating a further proposal in this area, and it attached high importance to this work.  Costa Rica
was also satisfied with progress in services negotiations, which was now in the phase of initial
requests and where Members were about to embark on bilateral negotiations.  However, Costa Ricawas concerned at the slow progress achieved in other areas, in particular in market access for
industrial products.  His delegation recognized that the Negotiating Group's Chairman had done all he
could to reach consensus in the Group, and it thanked him for his efforts and commitment.  Costa
Rica believed that the improvement of market access for industrial goods was a priority area.
Through these negotiations, it hoped for substantial improvement in access to markets in bothdeveloped and developing countries.  It was therefore very concerned at the lack of progress in this
Group and the fact that a whole meeting had been lost in discussion of aspects of the work which were
not substantive.  It was necessary to redouble efforts to find a solution and catch up on lost time, or
else this delay could be contagious for the entire Doha agenda.  Like others, Costa Rica would prefer
the deadline for agreement on modalities to be 30 March 2003.  It was unthinkable that thesenegotiations could go ahead without Members defini ng what was going to happen and within which
time-frame, or with them hoping to negotiate in the last months before the final deadline without
having established modalities and reviewed Members' schedules.  Costa Rica urged flexibility on the
work programme, and hoped that agreement would be reached on a deadline situated in the first few
months of 2003.  In the areas of implementation and S&D, Costa Rica trusted that the necessaryprogress would be achieved.  However, it hoped that  work in these areas would not reduce the level of
ambition of the Doha agenda as a whole.  Costa Rica attached importance to the areas for which there
was no negotiating mandate as yet, namely the Singapore issues.
80. Costa Rica recognized the importance of technical assistance and capacity building aimed at
improving the participation of developing countries in the Doha agenda, as well as in the
implementation of its possible results.  He wished to thank the Secretariat for the efforts it hadundertaken to fulfill the mandate in this area.  The Director-General, the Secretariat, other
international organizations and donor countries had all significantly contributed to this, and his
country had already benefitted from various activities.  Costa Rica would shortly submit its specific
needs in this area, as well as some ideas which it be lieved could help the mandate to be carried out to
the greatest benefit of all.  However, he wished to emphasize that it was up to the developingcountries themselves to assume part of the responsibility to ensure that technical assistance worked
well.  It was most important that they identify th eir specific needs with precision and that they make
certain that the necessary conditions existed within their countries so that these major efforts might
reach fertile ground and then bear fruit.
81. Turning to the overall question of deadlines, he said that the document drawn up by the
Secretariat seemed to be useful, revealing the hard work ahead in the months before the Cancún
Ministerial Conference.  Like Uruguay, Costa Rica believed it was most important to respect the
deadlines agreed on by Ministers.  The success of the Fifth Ministerial, and the Doha agenda itself,
depended on meeting these deadlines.  Finally, he wished to express Costa Rica's deepest appreciationto the Chairman for the work he had done in the TNC.  Throughout his term of office in the WTO, he
had left such deep tracks on the multilateral trading system that they would have to be followed.  He
had shown the path leading towards an organization which fulfilled its basic objective of promoting
trade liberalization in order to generate growth and development for everyone.  He fully supported the
statement by Uruguay in this respect.TN/C/M/3
Page 25
82. The Chairman said that, as delegations were aware and as they had suggested, consultations
on outstanding issues had been continuing as the meeting progressed.  He would therefore invite the
Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access to report on further developments in his work.
83. Ambassador Girard (Switzerland), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access,
said that, as he had indicated earlier in the meeting, some suggestions had been made regarding a
possible solution to the deadlock on the Programme of Meetings for the Group.  On this basis, he had
been talking to many delegations about the suggestions made.  His conclusion from these informal
discussions was that there could be a consensus on a reformulation of part of the text he had circulated
on 1 July, specifically with regard to the target date for agreement on the modalities for the
negotiations.  The second bullet point of paragraph 2 of the text would read: "a common
understanding on a possible outline of modalities by the end of March 2003 with a view to reachingan agreement on those modalities by 31 May 2003".  If it was confirmed that a consensus existed on
this text, then a very difficult problem would have been solved, in which case he would wish to thank
all the participants.
84. The Chairman proposed that the Trade Negotiations Committee take note of and welcome the
positive understanding that had emerged, encourage the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on
Market Access to follow up as necessary with his Group to make it operational, and to reconvene a
substantive meeting as soon as possible.
85. The Trade Negotiations Committee so agreed.
86. The representative of Colombia congratulated the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on
Market Access for his success.  He thanked the TNC Chairman for his work, not only as TNC Chair
but also as Director-General.  His ability to take the Organization along a path which was more
inclusive and more sensitive to the needs of developing countries, and the changes he had made to thestructure of the Secretariat had allowed growth and consolidation in the Organization.  This had been
clearly reflected in the success of the Doha Ministerial Conference with the launch of a
comprehensive round of negotiations, and the setting up of the negotiations in the previous few
months.  Participants were now entering into substance in all areas, despite the difficulties which had
come up in the international arena, in particular wi th regard to trade.  All these successes had come
about thanks to the Chairman and the Chairpersons of the negotiating groups.
87. The negotiating mandate was balanced, and should allow progress in core WTO areas such as
market access in goods and services, rules and dispute settlement.  It was crucial to move ahead with
work in the whole set of negotiations without prejudg ing any decision that Ministers might take at the
Cancún Ministerial Conference.  It would be a grave mistake to start to play at postponing progress on
the agenda, in particular with regard to issues of interest to developing countries such as S&D,implementation or agriculture, in the belief that  additional concessions could be obtained in the
negotiating mandate in order to satisfy the ambitions  of some major trading partners.  Good faith and
progress in the negotiations would be a more fruitful strategy than the artificial generation of recurring
crises which, in an organization with such a wide membership compared to GATT, would lead to lack
of trust and a perception of inequality and affect the final results of the negotiations.
88. With regard to S&D, Colombia had concerns in two areas.  First, the way in which the
discussions on the operationalization of S&D had been used to divert attention away from the
imbalance between economies at different levels of development and towards an area which could
only lead to unnecessary divisions among developi ng countries.  Second, exotic interpretations of
S&D which some Members seemed to have for the second millennium.  Ideas had been advanced
which would transform S&D into a "thank you for the negotiations" exercise.  If S&D was to be so, it
would be close to fiction, as had been heard in the past.  Colombia hoped that these ideas would
disappear after the summer break.TN/C/M/3
Page 26
89. Colombia, despite its economic, social and political difficulties, had always been a
constructive and active Member of the WTO.  It hoped that the current work and the negotiations
would provide it with real benefits and possibilities for progress, in particular for the poorest and most
vulnerable in its society.  In practical terms, Colombia would judge this on the basis of real progress
in areas such as S&D and implementation.  The results in market access were fundamental, as werethe elaboration of rules to stop the use of inappropriate trade remedies which nullified advances in
market access.  One important issue was export subsidies, and a group of developing countries would
be submitting a proposal on this issue in the Subsidies Committee.  Colombia had supported with
enthusiasm the launching of the new round in Doha because it believed that the negotiations would
not only improve the outlook for growth in the world economy, but also facilitate economic
development in developing countries through a multilateral trading system with more open markets,
clear rules and more facilities to allow these countries to participate more equally in the benefits of thesystem.  This was the challenge, and obtaining it would depend fundamentally on the willingness of
developed countries to undertake reforms which were possibly the most difficult for them to accept
politically, but without which the round would be condemned to failure and raise questions about the
process of globalization.  Colombia was optimistic;  on the level, paved terrain up to now, the vehicle
had lived up to its expectations.  But when the process entered more rocky terrain, it would becomeclear whether it would be possible to achieve what Ministers had set out in the Doha mandate.
Colombia hoped this would be possible.
90. The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation appreciated what the Chairman
had done to bring the process to the present point, and it was now up to Members to address the
challenge of carrying it forward.  When all the deadlines and technical terms were digested, Members
should above all else keep their eyes firmly on what the goal and objective actually were in this whole
exercise.  The Doha Development Agenda held the possibility of gaining literally hundreds and
billions of dollars for the welfare of Members' citizens across the board and a great deal of that would
accrue precisely to developing countries and make a contribution towards diminution of poverty inthose countries.  This aspect of the work should not be over-exaggerated, but it was a real possibility.
In order to maintain that sense of perspective, Members would have to make some very difficult
decisions.  It would be important to think about th e deadlines in the process in terms of how Members
could best garner the kind of support they needed to make decisions that would ensure those returns
from the negotiations.  It would be necessary to th ink about the deadlines not just internally, but also
in terms of what they meant and how they would be presented outside the Organization, because at
the end of the day, there would have to be political support in capitals to deliver the outcome.  Thissupport could not be built overnight.  The myth that some last minute deal could be done was just that
– a myth.  While it was essential to meet all of the deadlines, there had to be a staged preparation of
the public for what was being done in the process and that was how the deadlines should be viewed.
91. By the end of the year, it would be important to deliver a message that Members were in
business and serious, and delivering outcomes that were realistic and practicable.   In this context, an
understanding of some Members' priorities in areas like implementation and S&D was very important.
As an example, the proposal by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
Development for a monitoring mechanism was the kind of practical proposal that was very positive
and showed that Members were serious about the issu es on the table.  In the area of TRIPS and Public
Health, it was not just a matter of meeting a deadline, it was above all a matter of dealing with a real
issue but also a matter of demonstrating to the outside world that the WTO was capable of dealing
with something that affected people's lives, making the right decision and on time.  Such an action
would have an enormous advantage in advancing the process in a positive way, and that was why that
particular deadline was important – because of the role it should play in the process.  Next was thecluster of largely market access and agriculture deadlines in March 2003, and the addition of the non-
agricultural market access date was clearly valuable to ensuring the integrity of the process.  But
March represented a real political challenge, because it was not just a matter of agreeing on modalities
but rather providing a clear shape and direction for the negotiations on the key issues of market access
in the areas of agriculture, services and goods.  The gains from the negotiations would be principallyin those areas, and if Members wanted to be taken seriously by the outside world, then by March theyTN/C/M/3
Page 27
would have to make it fairly clear in a way that could be understood that they were seriously going to
put in place a platform capable of delivering that kind of result.  So March was not a technical
deadline, it was a highly political one.  If Members failed at that time on these undoubtedly highly
sensitive areas, or if they came up with something that was too obscure, then the rest of it would
become a secondary issue because it would not grab the public imagination and prepare the public forthe outcome in 2005.
92. Between March and the Cancún Conference, Members would not be able to afford to think of
that as being only a time to produce reports for Ministers.  Here also, a staged strategic process would
be needed.  By the time of the Conference, it would be necessary to see the colour of people's money,
in other words the clear dimensions of the negotiated outcome.  This meant that the market access
modalities prepared in March would have to be given a more tangible and clear political content bythat time.  But this did not mean issues such as establishing modalities on the Singapore issues or
concluding negotiations on the multilateral register for geographical indications.  That type of issue
would be important, but their level of importance w ould depend on being able to discern the firm and
full content of what was going to be achievable in the agricultural, services and non-agricultural
product areas.  After all, that was the reason why Members would then want more institutional andrules-type modalities to be negotiated in areas like competition and investment – precisely because a
more significant market access component would need a government structure to support it beyond
that point.  That was New Zealand's view of where the process was going.  Members sometimes
forgot that they also had to deal with the outside world, and that world was intensely political.  It was
therefore important to remember that the deadlines were there for a political reason, not just as amanagement issue to allow Members to get through to the next period of work.
93. The representative of Singapore said he wished to express the appreciation of his delegation
and his Government to the Chairman for his extensive contribution as Director-General.  He thanked
the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies for their written and oral progress reports, in particular theChairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access for his untiring efforts in trying to find a
solution to the problem over the deadline for the establishment of modalities in his Group.  Much time
had been lost in trying to establish a work programme for this particular negotiating body.  Now that
this particular hurdle was close to being resolved, the next meeting of the Group should be held before
the end of the month.  Singapore hoped that there would be substantive progress in negotiations in this
area by the time of the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  By then, participants should have agreed on the
modalities for the negotiations, identified the non-tariff barriers and embarked fully on negotiations.Even as the Group worked towards the establishment of modalities, it would be useful for the
Secretariat to undertake an analysis of the different modalities that would help developing and least-
developed countries identify the option or options best suited to meet their needs and to give them
effective market access for products of interest to them.  Some basic analysis had been done during
the market access seminar and a more comprehensive study would be a useful analytical tool.
94. In the two other market access negotiating groups, agriculture and services, the negotiations
were largely on track.  Singapore was heartened by  the diligent work done by Members and the Chair
of the agriculture negotiating group.  In services, there were now enough initial requests on the table
to allow for meaningful bilateral negotiations, as well as the preparation of initial offers.Nevertheless, more developing countries should be encouraged to table their initial requests so that
the negotiations would be more balanced in terms of the interests of both developed and developing
countries.  For WTO rules, there had been fairly good progress.  Substantive proposals had been
tabled by various Members, and the negotiating group had also started substantive debate on the
proposals.  This should continue so that the initial phase of the negotiations could be finished asexpeditiously as possible.  On S&D, there was a whole plethora of proposals, and for Members to
achieve the S&D mandate, there had to be a prioritisation and focusing of demands and needs.  The
Chair's proposal to roll over the 31 July deadline was an opportunity for Members to articulate their
priorities and the do-able goals for S&D issues.TN/C/M/3
Page 28
95. The important aspect of technical assistance and capacity building should not be overlooked.
A good start had been made by raising Sw F 30 million for the DDA Trust Fund.  The question now
was to manage these funds efficiently and deliver the assistance effectively.  The key was to prioritise
needs, optimise resources, maximise synergies and ensure that there was no duplication of work.  One
important element in the whole exercise was for all parties to have a common understanding on whatconstituted an "adequate" level of technical assistance.  As everyone was aware, it would be difficult
to ensure that all needs were met in the short time available before Cancún.  From the outset, it was
critical that Members reached some understanding on the adequacy aspect of technical assistance so
as to avoid a situation where expectations were unnecessarily raised or demands unfulfilled by the
Fifth Ministerial Conference.  Members should therefore engage in regular stock-takes in this area
before the Conference, to assess whether the technical assistance rendered had been meaningful and
effective.  The first such stock-take could perhaps take place at the end of the year to ensure thatexisting programmes were focussed on the DDA objectives, and to explore ways to further fine-tune
and improve the delivery of technical assistance.  In conclusion, Singapore appealed to Members to
look for ways to continuously move the process forward.  Otherwise, if this round failed, they risked
weakening the WTO and the multilateral rules-based system that it offered.  In that event, one could
expect to see countries intensifying their efforts to conclude RTAs and FTAs.  If that happened, thesmaller, poorer countries would be the main losers.
96. The representative of the  European Communities welcomed the reports by the Chairpersons
of the different negotiating and working groups.  It was clear that there was no room for complacency
or satisfaction regarding progress so far and Members should be concerned about the lack of progressin some areas and as well as the unevenness of progress.  All Members had a stake in the round,
which could deliver major benefits in terms of economic growth and reduction of poverty and this
opportunity should not be squandered.  It was important to recall that Members at Doha had agreed
that the conduct as well as the conclusion of the negotiations would be carried out as a single
undertaking. However, different negotiations were proceeding at different speeds with some makingno progress at all.  If this continued it would be harder to judge the overall balance at key decision
making points in the process, and it would make further progress even more difficult. Absence of
progress in some areas could ultimately impede work elsewhere.
97. He noted that negotiations in agriculture and services were steaming ahead and important
progress had been registered. However, this was not the case for several other issues, including
geographical indications, which belonged to the original built-in agenda. Some partners had seemedreluctant to admit that progress on this issue rema ined of paramount importance to many, including a
number of developing countries.  On non-agricultural market access, the lack of progress had been of
concern.  There had been only one substantial submission so far - that of his delegation - and little, if
any, discussion or negotiation. The current procedural deadlock, with some, led by the his delegation,
pressing for the immediate start of negotiations and agreement on modalities by 31 March 2003 andothers arguing for further delay was disappointing. Over the past few days it had become clear that his
delegation had misinterpreted the motivations by some Members to delay proceedings in this area.
His delegations had, erroneously, thought that the countries insisting on delaying results, some of
which had the world's highest tariff and non-tariff barriers and others which relied virtually
exclusively on agricultural exports, wanted such delay because their enthusiasm with market opening
in this sector was limited. These Members had now succeeded in persuading his delegation that the
opposite was true and that they wanted to move ahead expeditiously to allow negotiations in this area
to catch up with the rest.  He interpreted this as a demonstration of their desire to see improved market
access for non-agricultural products as a key contri bution to development, opening up both developed
and developing country markets.  He disagreed with those participants who had argued that artificialdeadlines and a couple of months here or there did not matter. His delegation, on the contrary,
believed that the real deadline of the Fifth Ministerial and the conclusion of the negotiations on the
basis of the principle of a single undertaking on 1 January 2005 were of the utmost importance.
98. In this context his delegation supported the compromise recently brokered by the Chairperson
of the Negotiating Group on Market Access, on the unde rstanding that participants effectively reach aTN/C/M/3
Page 29
common understanding by the end of March 2003 and allowing for the additional time until the end of
May  to flesh out the details.  His delegation expected the negotiating group to be convened within the
next two weeks and looked forward to the active participation of other delegations, including through
the submission of proposals, in the negotiations. He noted that rules issues were showing some
movement and that useful discussions on the DSU,  on anti-dumping, subsidies and regional trade
agreements had taken place. The issue of TRIPS and health was also moving towards the
indispensable concrete result by the end of 2002.  In contrast, the discussions on trade and
environment, notwithstanding the modesty of the mandate, had shown that some delegations
continued to be in a process of denial.  His delegation expected to see a good faith effort from all
Members in order to demonstrate the sensitivity of this organisation to broader public concerns and
the ability to establish rules that would reduce risk of trade friction.
99. He noted that work on the Singapore issues had begun reasonably well.  It was becoming
increasingly understood that these four subjects were not North-South issues, but systemic matters
which could bring gains to all provided that the right rules were designed and that specific needs of
developing countries were adequately reflected.  His delegation firmly believed that this was possible.
However, participants needed to intensify discussions on the substance of all four issues between nowand Cancún and establish the concepts on which rules in these areas could be based.  In that way
Ministers, in keeping with the principle of the single undertaking, could agree on the modalities of
negotiations on these issues and give the go-ahead for the second and determining phase of the DDA.
He recalled that the four Singapore issues were part of the single undertaking.  He referred to the
potential of the round to contribute to development.  The DDA was only potentially a developmentagenda and the proof was yet to be seen.  It was important to have made a good start made in the
TRIPS and health area and the issue of implementation was also moving reasonably well with many
of the proposals being addressed in substance in the rules negotiations.
100. He noted that participants would have to work more intensively on development issues and
expressed concern that no agreement had been reached on how to give the Committee on Trade and
Development as well as the Committee on Trade and Environment strong monitoring roles across the
negotiations.  A decision on this was a matter of urgency.  He welcomed the commitment to work for
the mainstreaming of sustainable development expressed by Brazil and agreed with Hungary on the
need to underline the importance of trade and environment work mandated by paragraph 32 of the
DDA.  More progress on technical assistance was also needed and he applauded the WTO Secretariat
for the efforts made in this area in such a shor t space of time after Doha.  Concerning the WTO's
Work Programme on Technical Assistance his delegation wished to see a closer tie-in of programmes
to the Doha declaration and more done at the regional level.  Regarding the longer term development
aid linked to trade it would be preferable to see a step change in terms of quantity, quality and
coordination of delivery.  His delegation was committed to this and had introduced trade and Doha
related assistance as a priority in the next five-year cycle of development aid, which together with thatof the European Union member states provided  50-60 per cent of the world's total aid flows.
101. On S&D, his delegation was open to negotiate proposals made and expected that such
negotiations would be one important element among the decisions to be taken at Cancún.  However, it
was important to clear about whether, and if so wh at, kinds of differentiation were genuinely good for
development.  For example, it was still somewhat unclear if blanket exemptions from the rules were
conducive to poorer Members' integration.  The experience of the WTO and of development policy
over the last thirty years suggested otherwise.  Similarly, it was not clear if it was logical, when
negotiating market access or elaborating rules, to ignore the differences between individual
developing countries in terms of their level of development or capacities.  His delegation was notconvinced that "one size fits all" policy was the best solution and this needed to be addressed if the
round were to be a development round in more than name.  In sum, his delegation believed that the
development potential of the round could only start to crystallise and become a reality if negotiations
across the board were intensified.TN/C/M/3
Page 30
102. He said that the negotiating processes needed to accelerate.  The General Council and the
TNC should convene more often to check progress and allow active and rapid intervention by our
ambassadors if progress was not being registered across the board.  Ministers would also be in
frequent contact to give important direction to the work.  Similarly, his delegation would welcome the
intervention of the Director-General if he felt that the round was not moving in the manner decided byMinisters and if the coherence of the single undertaking was not being respected.  His delegation had
made proposals on all aspects of the Doha work programme and would continue to provide
leadership.  Some delegations confused this with his delegation being a "demandeur" on all issues
including S&D.  He looked forward to working closely with other delegations in sharing the
responsibility and redoubling the efforts in the run-up to Cancún so as to allow for the round to
conclude successfully a the end of 2004.
103. In concluding, he expressed the appreciation of his delegation to the Director-General for his
achievements over the past three years.  The early days had been particularly difficult with Members
insisting more than ever before on the so-called Member-driven nature of the WTO.  However, Seattle
had  clearly shown that very few Members wanted to drive this Organization the same direction and
the result had been a Member-driven disaster.  He paid tribute to the manner in which the Director-General had patiently and with ever-growing confidence and forcefulness put the Seattle experience
behind himself as well as the membership.  Over th e past three years, but particularly since Seattle,
the Director-General had been trotting the globe with the persuasive message that the WTO was not
only for the big, rich and for the powerful, but that the WTO Secretariat was there to serve all its
Members.  He said that the Director-General's hour  of glory had come at Doha when brokering the
final compromises in an effective, friendly but firm and persuasive way.  The fact that Members were
gathered at the present meeting to take stock of the progress of the DDA was, to an important extent,
the Director-General's achievement.  His delegation would never forget the Director-General's sterling
performance as a stern, but fair taskmaster during th e last 24 hours of Doha.  He wished the Director-
General some well-merited rest although it was inevitable that he would soon be rushing off toanother high octane career.
104. The representative of Thailand expressed his appreciation for the reports from the
Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies.  Eight months after Doha and six months after the
establishment of the TNC and its subsidiary bodies was an opportune time for participants to review
and take stock of the development made so far in all negotiations.  His delegation was concerned
about the slow pace of the current negotiations under the TNC where intensive discussions on detailedgroundwork for negotiations in many areas had made little progress.  The timetable was slipping and
negotiations on several vital issues had barely begun. The negotiations on market access for
non-agricultural products and on GATS rules had just been agreed upon and negotiations on anti-
dumping had begun with hesitation due to the lack of participation of one Member.  Also,
negotiations on the DSU which were to be concluded no later than May 2003 had progressed slowly.He said that different approaches among Members to the review of S&D in the Special Session of the
Committee on Trade and Development had delayed the process so far.  It was now doubtful if this
committee would be able to report to the General Council with clear recommendations for a decision
by the deadline at the end of July.  Concerning non-agriculture market access his delegation
welcomed the consensus on the programme of meetings as a result of the continuous efforts by theChairperson and the flexibility shown by Members.  He urged the Chairperson to continue his efforts
and supported his intention to hold a formal meeting by the end of July or beginning of August in
order to make up for lost time and to send a positive signal for the negotiations of in one of the core
areas of the WTO.
105. The past few years had seen a dramatic increase in the abuse of anti-dumping measures and it
was imperative to strengthen disciplines on anti-dumping investigations and reduce the degree of
discretion of investigating authorities to prevent abusive actions.  To this end his delegation had co-
sponsored papers that had already been submitted for deliberations of the Negotiating Group.
However, his delegation had been disappointed by the absence of in-depth discussions on theseproposals due the lack of engagement from some major Members.  He urged Members to activelyTN/C/M/3
Page 31
participate in the negotiations in order to streng then disciplines in this area which would in turn
prevent the abuse of anti-dumping measures and av oid the consequence of trade restrictive effects.
106. On the improvements and clarifications of the DSU, his delegation had submitted two written
proposals concerning the Understanding on 10 October 2001.  The first proposal aimed at increasingthe number of the Appellate Body Members.  The second proposal sought to regulate the so-called
"carousel" practice.  He expressed regret that discussion of this proposal had been delayed until a later
phase of negotiations.  He reminded Members of the mandate given by the Doha Declaration that "the
negotiations should be based on the work done thus far as well as any additional proposals by
Members".  Thus, Members' proposals submitted before the Ministerial Conference at Doha would
have to be taken on board and deserved serious consideration.  The delay to take up the carousel issue
would result in a failure to discharge the mandate and the deadline assigned by Ministers.
107. The important issue of S&D had been pending since the preparation for the Seattle Ministerial
Conference.  The Doha Declaration had reaffirmed that provisions for S&D were an integral part of
the WTO Agreements and had agreed that all S&D provisions should be reviewed with the objective
to strengthening and making them more precise, effective and operational.  The deadline had been setfor the Committee on Trade and Development to report to the General Council with clear
recommendations for decisions by July 2002.  In view of the limited progress made so far, his
delegation was sceptical that Members would be able to meet the deadline.  Failure to tackle this
important issue could make the whole negotiation process and the multilateral system falter.
Improved S&D treatment would help developing count ries ensure that they would not be deprived of
their rights and obligations as they pursue furthe r integration into the world trading system.  He
encouraged the Chairperson of the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session and
Members to continue their efforts in trying to respect the Doha mandate by producing a positive
report and providing clear recommendations to the General Council for decisions within the specified
deadline.
108. Concerning future work, his delegation believed that preparations for Cancún would be
different from the Ministerial Conferences in both Seattle and Doha.  The Cancún meeting would be
more of a stocktaking exercise on issues pending from Doha whereas Seattle and Doha both had the
objective of launching multilateral trade negotiations.  The success of Cancún would depend on three
important factors, i.e. the outcome of the rema ining implementation related issues, the effective
delivery of technical assistance and capacity-building for developing countries and the progress of on-going negotiations.  He believed that a satisfactory outcome on all three factors would allow for an
agreement at the Fifth Ministerial Conference on negotiations on the Singapore Issues.
109. The representative of Switzerland said that negotiations were composed of five elements, i.e.
preparation, launching, negotiation, conclusion and implementation, and that there seemed to be a
consensus that participants had reached the negotiating phase.  This phase was built on three pillars,
namely substance, process and perception.  If participants looked at the work done so far from a
merely formal point of view it would be possible  to reach a rather optimistic conclusion.  However,
from a substantive point of view the result was more nuanced.  For several years efforts had been
made to ensure that all Members of the WTO could participate actively in the work and it was apositive feature that participation in the negotiating groups was on the increase.  This participation
also led to a widening of ideas on the table and more  complex situations.  To think that a result could
be reached without taking into account all the points of view would be inconceivable and dangerous.
The challenge before participants was how to balance the need of time to solve problems with the
deadlines that had been set by Ministers.  He urged all participants to show pragmatism in finding asolution to this challenge.
110. With respect to substance, his delegation believed that it was indispensable in the coming
weeks for all proposals in all the subjects under negotiation to be placed on the table.  He agreed that
negotiations on agriculture were progressing in a satisfactory manner which undoubtedly hadsomething to do with the fact that these negotiati ons started much earlier than other areas.  However,TN/C/M/3
Page 32
his delegation had a number of concerns in this area which had to do with economic considerations.
These concerns should be reflected in the negotiating documentation as was the case for other aspects
of the negotiations.  Progress in the field of services was satisfactory and many delegations, including
his own, had begun the process of placing requests on the table.  He noted that this widening of
bilateral negotiations would lead to a complex process, but there was reason to be optimistic.  Heexpressed disappointment with the lack of progress in other areas of the negotiating agenda.  Failure
to engage in substance could result in the unbalancing of overall negotiations.
111. In terms of process, his delegation welcomed the fact that a consensus had been achieved on
future work on market access for non-agricultural products.  He agreed with previous delegations that
this area was part of the backbone for a future package which would allow all Members to obtain
benefits.  He noted that the Geneva process was only a part of the overall negotiation process.  Withmost procedural issues solved it would become easier for the capitals to engage politically in the
process.  Nevertheless, before ministerial involvement was sought it would be necessary to make use
of all possible resources in Geneva and in the capitals in order to solve a maximum of issues.  Failure
to do so could result in a situation, not unlike some previous experiences, where Ministers would be
expected to take decisions on an unmanageable number of issues.
112. Concerning perceptions, he noted that many international fora had expressed opinions on
what should be expected from the WTO and from the negotiating process.  The risk of disappointment
was significant and Members would have to find lang uage which would place such expectations in a
realistic context.  In this respect, progress on trade and environment was disappointing and it wasdifficult to envisage how the WTO could be a valid interlocutor in view of the important conference
to be held in Johannesburg later this summer.  In noting the proliferation of regional agreements he
said that the rationale for many medium-sized economies to enter into such negotiations was an effort
to avoid that exporters faced discrimination on preferential markets for others.  In many capitals
regional trade agreements were considered as important as the multilateral track at the WTO.  In thislight, negotiations in the field of rules to accommodate these types of agreements were of great
importance.  These negotiations had only just been initiated and Members would have to dedicate
more effort in the coming weeks.  His delegati on agreed with Hong Kong, China on the danger of
leaving the anti-dumping negotiations to the specialist s.  He believed that while it was important and
imperative to involve specialists in negotiations it remained equally important to ensure that the
overall state of the negotiating agenda was kept in perspective.
113. It was clear that the general economic environment would be a factor throughout the
negotiating process.  The regrettable decision in March on steel was compensated somewhat by the
fact that this issue would be managed within the WTO's institutional framework.  The Swiss
Parliament currently had before it a proposal for agricultural reform which should allow it to evolve in
this process of reform until 2007.  This reform was the focus of opposition by a number of interestedparties and the recent initiative of an important trading partner on the other side of the Atlantic would
not prevent our his Government from continuing with its task.  With respect to the development
issues, his delegation understood the disappointment expressed by a many countries of the failure to
reach an agreement by 31 July.  However, it was significant that Members agreed on the direction of
this very complex and important issue.  It was also clear that finding a quick solution would bedifficult, but his delegation was willing to dedicate the necessary resources to ensure a successful
outcome.  He hoped that Members would be able to reach a solution on access to drugs by the end of
the year and as a result make a first contribution of the WTO towards solving a very general and
complex problem.  The second solution which the WTO might offer in this field was in the
negotiations on customs tariffs since a decrease in customs tariffs would help access towards thesedrugs.  In conclusion, he agreed with Singapore that the WTO, with the help of other international
organizations, had undertaken significant work on technical assistance and training.  He noted that the
primary demandeur in these negotiations was the multilateral trading system and as a result it would
be more appropriate to speak of the Doha Development and Demandeurs Agenda.TN/C/M/3
Page 33
114. The representative of Bangladesh complimented the Director-General and Chairperson of the
TNC for his leadership to the WTO and to the TNC.  He thanked the Chairpersons of the negotiating
committees for their commendable efforts and comprehensive reports.  The task facing the
membership was not easy as the Doha Declaration, and associated documents, gave Members a vast
negotiating agenda.  During preparations for Doha , the LDCs repeatedly had pointed out that they
were taking on burdens far beyond their capacity.  Many topics were new to this group of countries
which often had not experienced them domestically or in the course of international trade relations.
Despite an extreme hesitancy, the LDCs agreed to the inclusion of the full range of subjects with the
understanding that specific concerns to LDCs wo uld be taken on board.  In particular, special
provisions should be made for LDCs wherever indicated in the Declaration and associated documents.
In addition, what the LDCs had expected from the membership was a serious effort at capacity
building of both the ability to implement the agre ements and the ability to negotiate with a better
understanding of the issues.  Over the past few months it had become evident that other countries
were facing difficulties in coping with the burden that the negotiating process, and its substance,
implied.  In the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development where his delegation
had submitted a number of proposals many countries found it difficult to examine all proposals.  His
delegation hoped that these proposals did not over-burden these countries.  However, if negotiationswere to stay on track it was essential that issues of interest to his delegation also be considered.
115. Regarding market access for non-agricultural products, it was clear that this area was at the
core of the issues under consideration.  The Doha Declaration clearly outlined some fundamental
elements that should be taken into consideration and in this respect paragraph 16 remained the basisfor negotiations.  This paragraph explicitly acknowledged the fact that all countries were not at the
same level in economic development, which affected their ability to take advantage of the
opportunities for trade.  Accordingly, there was a n eed for differentiated treatment of countries.  The
LDCs had reduced tariffs on imported products, particularly on industrial products and the impact of
such actions on existing industries, and on the potential for development of industries, had beenconsiderable.  The experience of individual countries had demonstrated that the current provisions in
the GATT and other Agreements were not sufficient to enable the LDCs to protect, or develop, their
own domestic industries.  The LDCs even faced barr iers in the implementation of existing provisions
since they had to assess both the impact of further reduction of tariff on domestic industries and
ascertain which additional steps should be taken to encourage the development of industries in these
countries.
116. He said that many countries, both developing and developed, had offered duty-free access to
products from either all, or selected, LDCs and noted the intention of others to provide such access.
He looked forward to early implementation of their decisions.  At the same time, his delegations
found that in several cases tariffs facing products from LDCs were 10 or 15 times higher than tariffs
levied on products from developed countries in the same market.  This was an unacceptable situationand he called on those countries concerned to take action, on an autonomous basis, and demonstrate
their good intentions.
117. Equally important was the fact that paragraph 16 of the Doha Declaration specifically
provided for studies and capacity building measures to assist the LDCs to participate effectively in the
negotiations. He emphasized the need for genuine capacity building measures in the LDCs and
expressed hope that partners in the multilateral trading system would appreciate these concerns, and
facilitate the participation of LDCs in the negotiations.  He underlined the commitment of the LDCs
to the implementation of the Doha Declaration and associated agreements in letter and spirit.  The
special needs of LDCs had been recognized in the Agreements, particularly through S&D provisionsand it was his delegation's hope that development partners would recognize this and make the special
and differential provisions a reality: This would allow the LDCs to participate more effectively in
multilateral trade and, together with other WTO Members, advance shared goals.
118. The representative of Cuba expressed his appreciation to the Chairpersons of the bodies
established by the TNC for their reports and welcomed Dr. Supachai to the meeting.  His delegationTN/C/M/3
Page 34
considered the development oriented mandates of the Doha work programme of great importance.
The challenge facing Members now was to make substantive progress on these within the deadlines
laid down in the Declaration.  Since Doha, unfortunately the atmosphere of the negotiations and the
prospects for them had been damaged by a series of unilateral trade measures which had been taken
by one of the world's major trading partners.  These measures had affected key sectors such as timber,steel and others and had led to mistrust regarding the commitments adopted by the Ministers at Doha.
The present meeting was important because it took place precisely halfway down the road to the Fifth
Ministerial Conference in Cancún.  It was also an opportunity to assess progress made so far.
Although some delegations had expressed optimism, his delegation believed that Members had not
made as much progress as could have been hoped for on sensitive and substantive issues for
developing countries.  These included S&D, implementation, textiles, agriculture and the link
between the TRIPS Agreement and finding a solution to the serious health problems facing themajority of developing countries.  They also included the treatment of small economies and an
analysis of the link between trade, debt and finance and between trade and transfer of technology as
well as the process of to accession to the WTO by LDCs and developing countries.  He emphasized
that progress on development-related issues was fundamental to making progress in other areas of the
negotiations.  His delegation believed that for an organization which was made up of a majority ofdeveloping country Member States higher priority should be attached to proposals from these
countries than to increasing the burden on new commitments.
119. Regarding work on S&D and questions relating to implementation, his delegation subscribed
to the view that these were not new negotiations, but rather an attempt to repair the damage which hadbeen done to developing countries with the adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements.  It was a
matter of urgency to make headway in the negotiations in accordance with the negotiating mandates
as laid down by Ministers.  His delegation warned of the danger of a last minute agreement which
would subject developing countries to fierce pressure and which would hurt these countries in the
long run.
120. The representative of Nigeria thanked the Chairpersons for their reports.  He expressed his
appreciation for the efforts of the Chairperson of the TNC to get the negotiations off to a good start
and welcomed Dr. Supachai to the meeting.  His delegation hoped that the negotiations would bring
positive results for all Members.  He supported the statement made by Kenya on behalf of the African
Group and emphasized the importance of technical assistance and capacity building.  Despite efforts
made so far in assisting developing countries in  their preparations through the Doha Development
Fund, it was important to note that time was required for this assistance to have an impact.  The
continued support of developing countries to build and develop necessary capacity to participate in
the negotiating process would determine the outcome of the negotiations.
121. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked the Chairpersons for their reports and
welcomed Dr. Supachai to the meeting.  Although some delegations were not happy about progress on
some issues his delegation agreed with the Chairperson that, overall, Members had done a good job so
far.  He urged all delegations to maintain the mo mentum and dedicate more efforts to those issues
where progress had been limited.  On the Negotiating Group on Market Access, his delegation shared
the view expressed by previous speakers that the negotiation in this group still faced some majorchallenges in order to draw a roadmap to the next Ministerial Conference.  He encouraged all
Members to exercise greater flexibility towards this objective.
122. Regarding the negotiation on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and
registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits, he expressed his delegation's gratitude tothe Chairperson for his attentive stewardship and for the fruitful and well-focused discussions held so
far.  In light of the deadline set up by Ministers, Members should begin to narrow down the
differences and start a drafting process to fulfil the mandate and present the agreed solution to the
Ministerial Conference next year.  As for the Negotiating Group on Rules, he expressed his
appreciation to the Chairperson for his leadership in bringing vivid and meaningful discussion to thegroup.  The recent discussion on anti-dumping issues would serve as a solid foundation to clarify andTN/C/M/3
Page 35
improve some issues underlying the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On fisheries subsidies, Members had
engaged in meaningful exchange of views.  However, more substantive discussions aimed directly at
finding a consensus on the issue of subsidies and countervailing measures were needed.
123. On the issue of trade and environment, he thanked the Chairperson for her efforts.
Discussions on this issue would enhance the commer cial, environmental, and development interests of
all WTO Members thus producing a win-win-win outco me.  More in-depth discussions were required
to prevent WTO rules from interfering with the spec ific trade obligations in the MEAs.  The existing
mechanism for cooperation and information exchange between UNEP/MEAs and the WTO had
worked well and any proposal to enhance, institutionalize and/or regularize the existing mechanism
would be most welcome and could even provide a spillover effect.  In concluding, he congratulated
the Director-General for an excellent job done over the past three years.  His delegation believed thatnot only had many of the Director-General's initiatives brought great success in Doha but they had
also laid down a solid foundation for the further development of this multilateral trading system.
124. The representative of Nicaragua thanked the Chairpersons for their reports and for their
dedication.  His delegation also thanked the Chairperson for his work as Director-General over the
past three years and for his open-mindedness and flexibility which had always allowed for
constructive discussions to take place.  His delegation wished the Director-General the very best
success in the future.
125. His delegation was relatively satisfied with the way in which the agricultural negotiations
were moving ahead although Members were not making  headway as fast as could be desired.  There
had been a certain amount of unease because some of the proposals which many Members had made
as part of the run-up to Seattle were being repeated.  It was important to make progress in this matter
as a matter of urgency.  Developing countries had already shown considerable flexibility in the
discussion on the three substantive issues.  However, it was clear that more work was needed oncertain areas, including the transparency of consultations.  This would ensure that all Members could
see their positions duly reflected in the documents which emanate from the consultations.
126. In the area of services, his delegation was pleased that Members had made significant
headway and had managed to establish a greater level of definition of the substance.  The work had
been very inclusive and the fact that all Members were participating stood testimony to that.
However, in terms of overall balance of the negotiating agenda his delegation was concerned that thescales had tipped a too much towards services.  He emphasized that the deadlines established in the
area of services were indicative in nature.  This was in particular true of those deadlines dealing with
the submissions on which the Secretariat had interpreted recently.  As to autonomous liberalization,
his delegation was concerned that this concept which had originally been designed for the benefit of
the developing countries was being interpreted in a wide range of ways.  It would be important to
return to the original definition of this concept and seek substantive progress.
127. The issue of market access for non-agricultural products was of great importance and progress
should be made as a matter of priority.  Until now the process had been bogged down and it was
important for all Members to show a spirit of compromise.  The recent announcement by theChairperson of the group was encouraging and would hopefully be followed up by real progress.
Members should not look at negotiations as a series of separate and diverse issues because all the
negotiations were interrelated.  Only through a universal strong commitment to find a compromise
could Members move ahead.
128. As to rules, TRIPS, DSU and trade and environment, very detailed and interesting exchanges
of ideas had taken place.  However, much more substantial work needed to be done to allow Members
to meet the deadlines adopted in Doha.  Concerning the important issue of S&D, his delegation
expressed regret that little progress had been made.  Proposals so far appeared likely to generate a
deadlock rather than an agreement.  Nicaragua w ould like to see the present meeting articulate a firm
commitment to make progress on this issue.  His delegation had often expressed its desire toTN/C/M/3
Page 36
strengthen the multilateral trading system since this was the only way to bring about economic
recovery and strengthen young and fragile democratic systems and fight against poverty.  It would be
important to continue to emphasize the development focus of the DDA and to keep the needs of those
developing countries that were still not benefiting from the international trading system at the
forefront of the negotiating agenda.
129. The representative of Argentina said that he would like to join others in expressing his
delegation's gratitude to the Director-General.  Under his tutelage the WTO was again sailing the high
seas and it was now up to the in-coming Director-General to carry on with the negotiations despite the
difficult international economic environment and bring the ship safely into harbour.  He expressed the
hope that Members would be able to help Dr. Supachai succeed in that endeavour.
130. His delegation agreed with Chile concerning the importance of the present exercise and he
endorsed the comments made by India about the need to respect the Doha deadlines.  Progress had
been made in the last six months, but primarily on procedural matters.  However, content and
substance had not been added to that in a way which would allow Members to be more satisfied with
achievements so far.  He warned Members not to forget that the Doha Round had been entitled aDevelopment Round.  Failure to honour this objective would greatly reduce the possibility of a
successful conclusion to the round.  For his delegation three areas of negotiations were relatively
more important than others, although he recognized that all negotiating areas played a crucial part in
the success of the round.  These were market access for non-agricultural products, agriculture and
rules.  In these groups it was difficult to see any substantive progress.  Some had not even succeededin building consensus on procedural matters.
131. The Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development was of particular
importance and the proposals made should be analyzed bearing in mind the objectives of paragraph 44
of the Doha Declaration and paragraph 12 of the Implementation Decision, i.e. the need to enhanceS&D and make them more specific, more objective and more operational and applicable for all
developing countries.  Delays in the negotiating groups were usually due to the lack of commitment
and lack of willingness to make concessions show n by the most important Members.  The world's
major trade powers continued to focus on their domestic problems without realizing what was
happening beyond their own borders and without understanding the systemic importance that this
round might have on the problems with which they are so absorbed.  All Members were paying
careful attention to the discussions on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in the EuropeanUnion, to what had been decided on agriculture in the United States recently and to how the
multiplicity of protectionist measures which were being applied in many parts of the world had an
adverse effect on the economic situation of developing countries.  Furthermore, many of the deadlines
for the implementation of these policies which had such a distorting effect were for 2006 which was
precisely the moment when the effects of this round of negotiations were supposed to materialize.  Inthis context, it was impossible not to have a rather  pessimistic view of the possibility of achieving
equitable, fair and just results from the present round which would assist Members in building on
what little had been achieved at the end of the Uruguay Round for the developing countries and which
would promote the positive aspects of globalisation and ensure that Members made progress before
the next Ministerial Conference.  His delegation was convinced that Members had to make progresson matters of substance as a matter of urgency.  Although what was important for one party might not
necessarily be equally important for others the challenge ahead for all Members was to strive towards
ensuring the integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system.  This could only
be done through a spirit of compromise in accord ance with the commitments set out in the Doha
declaration.
132. The representative of Canada thanked the Director-General for his excellent work and able
leadership at the helm of the WTO.  He expressed appreciation for the transition measures which the
Director-General had put in place and welcomed Dr. Supachai to the meeting.  Canada was pleased
that negotiations were off to a promising start as indicated by the individual reports of theChairpersons.  He noted the number of written proposals which had been submitted to date, and, inTN/C/M/3
Page 37
the case of services negotiations, the fact that initial requests were being filed in conjunction with the
30 June 2002 Doha deadline.  Canada had made a number of proposals and submissions and would
make others in the months ahead.  He said that the initial progress on the Doha Development Agenda
was in line with a series of very positive and constructive actions that Members had collectively taken
since Doha.  These included taking an early decision on the date and venue of the next  MinisterialConference, establishing the TNC structure and securing funding for and delivering the WTO
Technical Assistance Plan.  In this context he noted that Members were already working on the plan
for 2003.
133. While the Doha Agenda naturally presented both substantive and procedural challenges,
Members needed to continue moving forward on all fr onts.  In this regard, the draft report of the
Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development which was to besubmitted later this month to the General Council reflected the engagement and the willingness of
WTO Members to move forward on S&D.  Canada recognized the fundamental importance of S&D
and believed that Members must undertake further concerted work to understand how these provisions
could best be used to address the needs and interests of developing countries.  The serious work
programme suggested in the Chairperson's draft report seemed to provide a practical means to discussthe principles and objectives of S&D provisions, wh ich in turn would help in discussing individual
proposals.  He said that although the DDA was progressing well, his delegation remained concerned
that the substantial work on the negotiations on non-agricultural market access had not yet started.
This was an important area and an integral part of the Doha work programme.  He was pleased to hear
that the Chairperson of that group had succeeded in finding a solution on modalities and he urgedMembers to engage on the substance as soon as possible.
134. He was convinced that progress on all fronts would ensure that benefits from the DDA
materialized for every WTO Member and the mandated task was to focus on the substantive work
ahead.  In this respect, a number of delegations had expressed concern that certain trade policydevelopments had slowed or threatened to slow the post-Doha momentum.  However, the meeting had
also heard several delegations today, and in particular the United States, underline their commitment
to the course on which Members had embarked at Doha and their intention to work hard toward
successful outcomes.  This had been a timely and important reassurance which Canada was pleased to
join.  Finally, Canada was pleased to point out to WTO Members that Prime Minister Chrétien, at the
G8 Summit which he chaired in Kananaskis had announced that Canada would eliminate all quotas
and tariffs on the vast majority of imports, including textiles and apparels, from the LDCs as of1 January 2003.
135. The representative of Pakistan congratulated the Director-General on his leadership,
dedication, persistence and hard work with in advancing the work of the WTO.  He also thanked the
Chairpersons for their hard work in facilitating positive movement in the areas mandated under theDoha Declaration.  However, it was for the Members to engage in good faith and sincerity to achieve
positive results.  If some delegations felt that progress lacked in certain areas then it was for the
membership as a whole to do some soul searching.  His delegation expressed its appreciation for the
efforts of the Chairperson of the Negotiating Group on Market Access in finally breaking the impasse.
136. Pakistan was committed to the Work Programme mandated by Ministers at Doha as well as
the various deadlines and benchmarks and sequence of work for the fulfilment of the Ministerial
Mandate.  Failure to meet these targets and deadli nes would only indicate a lack of seriousness and
commitment on the part of Members to fulfil this mandate and it would send a dangerous signal as to
the lack of sensitivity on issues of interest for a wider membership of this organization.  He said thatpositive and meaningful engagement to achieve progress on implementation-related issues was
required, e.g. the implementation-related issues on textiles and clothing and the review and
operationalization of S&D provisions.  These issues had deadlines under the Doha mandate and lack
of progress in these areas would not reflect well on the performance of the membership of this
organization.  Pakistan had always been optimistic in its approach and would continue to be so.  As aresult, his delegation was confident that in th e coming days, following positive and meaningfulTN/C/M/3
Page 38
engagement in substantive deliberations, Members would be able to make positive progress on all
issues across the board and, in particular, issues of interest to developing countries.  This would
require Members to show collective responsibility and commitment.
137. The representative of Jamaica said that the TNC meetings provided useful opportunities to
take a bird's eye view of the work of bodies established by the TNC.  This was perhaps most
important for smaller delegations who struggled to  keep up with the hectic pace of the post-Doha
agenda.  He said that the concerns his delegation had expressed regarding the anticipated difficulty in
servicing a comprehensive negotiating agenda had proven to be justified.  The pace of work, which
should not be confused with the progress of work, was already overwhelming both his Geneva
delegation and the capital, especially since Jamaica was engaged in several major concurrent trade
negotiations.  He welcomed the important technical assistance and capacity building to which theDirector-General had devoted much time and attention.  However, the usefulness of this in the short
term should not be exaggerated.  The fact was that countries like Jamaica would remain at a distinct
disadvantage in negotiations until sustainable capacity had been built.  Human resources constraints,
lack of technical expertise, and institutional weakness affected the ability to draft proposals, to
respond to proposals and requests, and to carry out analysis.  As a result his delegation had missedimportant deadlines and was working overtime to try to ensure that it did not miss others.  He urged
Members to show flexibility in order to accommodate those countries which were having difficulty
keeping the pace.  Although the quantum leaps which were being made in structuring and in providing
technical assistance were important, innovative ways should be found to facilitate the participation of
capital-based officials and technical experts in the work of the negotiating groups.  This would greatlyserve to reduce the tilt of the playing field.
138. For Jamaica, the overall balance at the Ministerial Conference had been determined by a
balance which comprised both negotiating and non negotiating issues in the Doha Work Programme.
S&D, the work programme on small economies, implementation issues, and technical assistance andcapacity building were among them.  Some other key areas and issues were services, agriculture and
geographical indications.  Jamaica believed that the pace and the progress of work since Doha had not
been bad, especially when compared to past experience.  This appeared to be particularly the case in
services, agriculture and rules where his delegation had a particular interest in the issue of RTAs.  He
was pleased that the difficulties in non-agricultural market access had been resolved.  He said that
Jamaica had supported the earlier compromise put forward by the Chairperson of the Negotiating
Group on Rules.  He emphasized that developing countries needed realistic deadlines.  Among others,progress on S&D, implementation issues as well as the work programme on small economies would
be the litmus tests for Jamaica on whether the bargain struck in Doha was being kept.  At this point,
progress in some of these areas was not in keeping with that being made in other areas.  The next
meeting of the TNC would have to see tangible evidence that this had changed.  In concluding, he
expressed his appreciation for the efforts of the Director-General to right the WTO ship and sail itthrough narrow straits and for his commitment to the cause of developing countries.  He wished the
Director-General success in his future endeavours and welcomed Dr. Supachai to the Organization.
139. The representative of South Africa reminded Members of the growing expectations of the
developing world and all progressive minded people  of the world, on the work of the TNC and the
Doha Development Agenda.  At a number of recen t Global Summits, the Finance for Development
Conference in Monterey, the World Food Summit in Rome, and the G8 meeting in Kananaskis,
political leaders had tasked the WTO and other international organizations to find expeditious
solutions to the fundamental development challenges facing the world.  The World Summit for
Sustainable Development in Johanne sburg would also implore the WTO to see how this Organization
could contribute to the world wide challenge to reduce poverty and halt the degradation of the
environment.  In other words, Members faced a historic responsibility.  This responsibility was
heightened as the major economies of the world faced increasing calls for protectionism.
Retrogressive steps taken by some countries to increase already protected markets in steel, agriculture
and textiles contributed to the already high levels of scepticism of the political will of the richcountries to open their markets to producers in poor countries.  There was a growing perception thatTN/C/M/3
Page 39
developed countries only paid lip service to trade liberalization and were preaching the benefits of
free trade to developing countries whilst succumbing to their own protectionist lobbies.  As the world
waited for Trade Promotion Authority in the United States and the reform of the Common
Agricultural Policy it was worthwhile considering the existing fundamental imbalances in the global
trading system.
140. Whilst two thirds of all poor people in developing countries lived and worked in the
agricultural sector, and were dependant on agriculture for their livelihoods, this was the case for less
than five per cent of the population of the major economies.  Yet the trade policies of the North
combined billions of dollars of domestic support, export subsidies and extremely high tariffs to
protect their large farmers.  This had resulted in a devastating impact on the livelihoods of small and
poor farmers in the developing world.  It was now well established that this contributed to a viciouscycle, contributing to the decimation of the productive and export competitiveness of developing
countries, raising debt levels and increasing poverty.  Whilst the developed countries had historically
based their industrialization on labour intensive produ ction, in sectors such as clothing, textiles and
steel, these sectors now occupied relatively in significant roles both in employment and production
levels, as the developed economies had graduated to higher value added sectors in manufacturing andservices.  However, the opportunity for developing countries to increase their employment and
exports in these sectors of natural comparative advantage to them had been severely stifled by a
combination of high tariffs, tariff peaks, tariff escalation and import quotas.  Added to this were an
arsenal of contingent protection measures and standa rds that continue to hamper growth and industrial
development of many developing countries.
141. South Africa believed that the DDA provided pa rticularly the developed countries with the
opportunity to address the challenge of redressing these imbalances and inequities in the global
trading system.  Firstly, confidence could be built in the process by acting to address all the
outstanding implementation issues.  Adjusting the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing would require
political courage and leadership by some major economies, but this was a small price to pay for
regaining lost ground in the momentum of the negotiations and developing good will and confidence
amongst Members.  He saluted the workers, producers and the government of Canada for their
leadership in making up for this historic deficit by providing duty free, quota free access for all LDCs
and he urged other developed countries to follow this lead.  Secondly, the work on S&D was complex
and would require patience.  However, he was convinced that with the necessary technical expertise
and political will, Members would be able to find appropriate and legally secure solutions tomeaningfully integrate developing countries into the global economy.  Thirdly, on TRIPS and public
health, Members needed to ensure that the injunction that Ministers had provided in Doha, i.e. to
ensure that the TRIPS Agreement did not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public
health, was adhered to.  Solutions to assist Members with no manufacturing capacity in the
pharmaceutical sector should be legally secure and certain.  Fourthly, as Members began the work onrules and sought to reduce the protectionist usage of trade remedies caution was required not to make
the same error in extending additional protection such as geographic indications to create new areas of
protection and rent.  Appropriate and effective protection should nevertheless be developed for
indigenous and traditional knowledge.  Fifthly, whilst technical assistance and capacity building
currently undertaken by the WTO and including the proposals for the 2003 programme had made agreat contribution to raising the knowledge and aw areness of the WTO in developing countries, this
would need to be complemented by a much wider capacity building framework.  This framework
would also need to incorporate a range of other trade policy institutions and UN agencies if it were to
meaningfully address the challenges confronted by developing countries.  These challenges included
building institutional structures for trade policy development and participation by stakeholders at anational level, developing programmes to build the supply capacity of developing countries and
contributing to the diversification of export products particularly amongst LDCs.  Whilst several
efforts had been made to build greater coherence amongst the existing agencies, the WTO had to rise
to the challenge and provide the necessary leadership, ensuring partnerships with those institutions,
including UNCTAD, ITC, UNDP, WCO, World Bank and the IMF etc., which had greater expertiseand capacity to deliver technical assistance.  Drawing on the expertise and existing capacity of largerTN/C/M/3
Page 40
developing countries, and existing regional organizations would help ensure that the programmes
were both relevant and appropriate to the needs of developing countries.
142. South Africa was fully committed to contributing timelessly and constructively to the Doha
Development Agenda.  He said that capital-based officials had been participating actively in the workprogramme on agriculture, services, rules and the Singapore issues.  He was pleased that a solution
was in sight on the work programme for non-agricultural market access.  South Africa would be
working to ensure that the developing country co ncerns on high tariff, tariff escalation and tariff
peaks, including non-tariff barriers were addressed in the Negotiations.  He noted that the Chair of the
Secretariat of the New Partnership for Africa n Development (NEPAD), Professor Nkuhlu, recently
addressed the Committee on Trade and Development.  He had explained that the re-integration of
Africa into the global economy was one of the pillars of this bold new programme for the recovery of
the African Continent.  African leaders had agreed that building effective institutions for economic
governance was an important foundation for Africa's recovery.  The market access and agriculture
initiative of NEPAD sought to build supply capacity, diversify production and increase value-added
exports and build institutions on the Continent for trade policy development so that African countries
could participate effectively in shaping their integration into the world economy.  African leaders haddecided to participate actively in the DDA and to contribute positively to strengthening a fair and
balanced multilateral trading system.  South Africa welcomed Minister Long from the Peoples
Republic of China to this meeting of the TNC.  He also extended a welcome to all acceding countries
and urged Members to avoid creating discriminatory practices in the WTO that would make the lives
of some Members more difficult than that of others.
143. South Africa looked forward to welcoming those who would be coming to Johannesburg to
participate in the World Summit for Sustainable Deve lopment.  This conference would be one of the
largest global conferences ever held with some 85,000 participants.  In concluding, he expressed his
delegation's gratitude to the work of the Director-Gener al over the past three years.  During his visit to
South Africa the Director-General had engaged and befriended his country's President and Ministers,
Parliamentarians, Trade Unionists and Intellectuals.  Above all, the Director-General would be
remembered in South Africa for having left local journalists and television viewers totally perplexed
about what sort of people could pay for their cows to be flown first class around the World.
144. The representative of Mauritius expressed his appreciation for the Director-General's
contribution to the WTO and for his leadership in steering the Doha Ministerial Conference to a
successful conclusion.  Mauritius was particularly thankful for the inclusion of the Work Programme
on Small Economies as an integral part of the DDA.  The dynamic role played by the Director-
General in striking the balance under the DDA would certainly be remembered and he hoped that the
completion of this agenda under the new leadership of the incoming Director-General, would be
among the legacies left for the shared benefits of all Members of the WTO.  He welcomedDr. Supachai and assured him of the continued support of Mauritius.  He said that the timeline set out
in document Job(02)/78 was a reminder that Members faced a significant challenge.  This challenge
was perhaps even more daunting for his delegation and other small economies given the known
capacity and resource constraints.  He noted that several Members had referred to the mixed results
achieved so far.  He believed that for a meaningful outcome to emerge a higher understanding andgoodwill among delegations to meet the interests of all Member, and particularly the small economies
and the LDCs, was needed.
145. The representative of Indonesia thanked the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies and
welcomed their reports on the development of work under various special sessions.  While it was clear
that more efforts and innovative ideas were needed, Indonesia believed that the present stocktaking
exercise could be used as reference for the future work on specific issues as mandated under the Doha
Ministerial Declaration.  He expressed his delegation's appreciation to the Chairperson for his
relentless effort and the great responsibility in carrying out the task which Members had been
entrusted with by Ministers in the Doha Declaration.TN/C/M/3
Page 41
146. He drew specific attention to the report by the Chairperson of the Special Session of the
Committee on Trade and Development.  His delegation believed that it would be important for the
General Council to take note of the various cross-cutting issues and proposals raised in written
submissions and discussions in these special se ssions.  The Special Session of the Committee on
Trade and Development should also further examine these issues without prejudging whether thesewere part of the mandate under Paragraph 12 of the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and
Concerns of 14 November 2001 and paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  Although
there had been significant developments in several areas of the negotiations, his delegation was
concerned over the slow pace of progress on S&D.  He urged Members to overcome differences so as
to allow this issue to catch up with other areas of the negotiations. Indonesia commended the
Chairperson of the Negotiating Group on Market Access for his tireless effort in trying to reach a
consensus.  This was an area where both developed and developing countries would benefit.Indonesia placed considerable importance on the elimination of tariff peaks, tariff escalation and
non-tariff measures for products of particular interest to developing countries.
147. The representative of Lithuania, also on behalf of Croatia
, Georgia , Jordan , Moldova  and
Oman, thanked the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies for their reports.  He agreed with other
delegations that developments in the negotiations of the DDA had generally been positive and
expressed satisfaction that the procedural part of the work had largely been completed with Members
ready to enter into substantive negotiations.  He congratulated the Chairperson of the Negotiating
Group on Market Access for having brokered a compromise which would allow for the group to enter
into substantive discussions.  It was important that no negotiating body lagged behind others as thiscould create an imbalance in the overall negotiation package.  He said that Ministers in Doha had
recognized the extensive market commitments made during the accession processes of these
countries.  Although these countries remained committed to participate in the negotiations of the DDA
and fully supported and recognized the benefits of trade liberalization, they were convinced that
commitments made during the accession processes should be taken into account and credit should begiven for them in the current negotiations.  The negotiating body in which this issue had been most
extensively discussed so far, was the Special Session of the Council of Trade in Services.  This was a
reflection of the specific approach of these negotiations as well as their advanced state-of-play,
particularly regarding the discussions on autonomous liberalization.  He thanked the Chairperson of
the Special Session of the Council of Trade in Services for both his written and oral reports and
supported the Chairperson's cautious optimism to reach a solution by October on the modalities of
autonomous liberalization, including the concerns of particular importance to his group of countries.He thanked the Chairperson for his understanding of these problems and expected a similar positive
approach by the Chairpersons of other negotiating bodies.  In concluding, he thanked the Director-
General for his work and congratulated him on his achievements over the past three years, especially
since his group of countries had all acceded during the tenure of the Director-General.
148. The representative of Slovak Republic thanked all the Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies
for their reports.  The work which had been carried out in the negotiating bodies had generally
evolved in a positive way, but her delegation remained disappointed over the lack of progress on
non-agricultural market access, TRIPS, Trade a nd Environment and development issues.  She was
concerned that lack of progress in some areas co uld hamper progress elsewhere.  Important progress
had been achieved in agriculture and services, although there was much work still to be carried out.
In services it was clear that further efforts were needed to bring the work on modalities on the
treatment of autonomous liberalization to a successful conclusion and further flexibility would be
required by all Members.  Concerning scope of modalities, her delegation agreed with the
representative of Hungary that recognition and credit for autonomous liberalization should be equallyavailable for all Members.
149. Her delegation was concerned about the problems in non-agricultural market access and
urged Members to show more flexibility.  It would be very difficult to achieve an overall balance in
the single undertaking without a result in this area.  The Slovak Republic attached particularimportance to three issues in the area of TRIPS, i.e. TRIPS and Public Health, extension of additionalTN/C/M/3
Page 42
protection for the geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits and establishment
of multilateral system of notification and registration.  The lack of substantive progress with respect to
the extension of additional protection for geographical indications was a source of great concern to
her delegation.  Trade and environment was also an area where more efforts should be made in order
to push the work forward in the right direction and where more flexibility shown by Members was
desirable.  On Singapore issues, her delegation was satisfied with the useful and substantive debate so
far as well as with the technical assistance provided on these particular issues.  In concluding, the
Slovak Republic believed that it was time to move beyond procedural aspects in the negotiating
bodies and enter into the substantive work in a pragmatic and flexible manner in order to fulfil the
mandates agreed by Ministers in Doha.  She was convinced that through substantive work an adequate
balance in all negotiating bodies could be found.
150. The representative of Australia expressed his disappointment with the lack of overall progress
made so far.  However, his delegation was neither disenchanted nor discouraged.  Considerable
progress had been made in certain areas, particularly in the way the Organization had stepped up the
level of technical assistance and capacity building.  This was a significant achievement and one for
which the Director-General deserved particular credit.  Australia was broadly satisfied with theengagement among those with major interests in the key areas of the agenda.  However, certain
external developments have impacted negatively on the negotiating environment and his delegation
hoped that soon all major participants would have a clear and unencumbered mandate to get down to
business.  He welcomed the assurance from all the major developed countries that their commitment
to the negotiations remained as strong as in D oha and looked forward to these words being followed
by action.  Australia remained convinced that the main development dividend that Members could
extract from these negotiations would be delivered in the form of improved and expanded market
access.  For a large majority of participants the big benefit from these negotiations would come from
the elimination of agricultural export subsidies which at one fell swoop would give farmers in Africa,
Asia and Latin America the encouragement and incentive to build a livelihood on the basis of a moreeven playing field.  Similarly, benefits would also be derived from substantial reductions in the
billions of dollars spent in North America and Europe on other trade and production distorting
subsidies.  Finally, substantial reductions in tariffs on agriculture, fisheries, wood products, textiles,
handicrafts and manufactured goods would benefit a large number of Members.
151. There were other areas of the agenda where developing countries stood to benefit and the
potential dividend in terms of real trade and investment reward were likely to come from these areas.Several delegations had observed that progress in the various negotiating areas had been patchy.  This
was not  surprising considering the breadth of the Doha mandate.  It was becoming increasingly clear
that few people fully appreciated just how large this venture was, and that once detailed negotiations
were engaged it would be a very resource intensive and physically draining exercise.  For example, in
the TRIPS area alone Members faced an agenda that covered up to 15 distinct subjects.  Theseincluded issues from public health to geographical indications, complex patent issues, issues relating
to the convention on biological diversity and traditional knowledge and folklore.  On some of these
issues Members were only at the forefront of a common understanding of their technical aspects, their
legal complexity and their potential impacts on domestic economies and on international cooperation
and international trade.  These discussions were not limited to the TRIPS Council alone, but werebeing debated in a variety of international fora, each with its own mandate, perspective and priorities.
This fact was, however, not a serious concern.  His delegation believed that the overriding concern
remained to ensure that all the major areas moved broadly ahead in tandem.  Australia was pleased by
the outcome of discussions this week on non-agricultural market access and wished to compliment the
Chairperson of the group for his efforts.  In this respect, he stressed that it was imperative that thethree major market access issues, i.e. agriculture,  services and industrial products, moved ahead in
parallel.
152. His delegation had been somewhat surprised by the intervention by the European
Communities in which it declared that agricultural negotiations were steaming ahead.  This view was
not shared by a large number of delegations, but more particularly millions of farmers who werecontinuing to suffer through low commodity prices resulting from the overproduction encouraged byTN/C/M/3
Page 43
rich country subsidies and the disastrous impact of export subsidies, export credits and surplus
disposals masquerading as food aid.  He said that three things in particular had influenced the
negotiations on agriculture negatively so far. First, there had been the procedural delay in getting
started.  So far Members had only dealt with only one pillar of the agriculture negotiations and it
would be ten months since Doha before the membership had concluded the first substantive runthrough of all three pillars.  Second, negotiations were then hit by the U.S. farm bill whose economic,
political and psychological impact was still reverberating in Geneva and in capitals.  Third, when
Members gathered to discuss export subsidies, one major delegation that otherwise took pride in
having tabled proposals in all areas of the negotiations, declared that it was not going to say anything
until there was progress elsewhere.  On behalf of the Cairns Group, Australia appealed to the
European Communities, other Western European delegations, the U.S. and Japan whose policies have
grossly distorted world agricultural markets for the past 50 years, to show leadership in dealing with
this critical area of the negotiations.  It was not acceptable when some of these delegations replied that
they were prepared to move ahead if other Members legitimized alternative forms of protection like
mandatory labelling, PPMs, animal welfare, intellectual property and environmental measures to
avoid the competition that these delegations were pushing for in other areas of trade.  He said that all
Members realized that none had come away from Doha satisfied with the mandate.  However, allMembers had made concessions which led to what Ministers regarded as a balanced package.
Australia was concerned that some delegations who had been unable at Doha to convince their
partners of the desirability of negotiating in certain  areas, e.g. relating to the environment and rules
relating to mandatory labelling and precaution, were now seeking through the back door to introduce
them.  He said that Members could end up regretting having decided in Doha not to embark on awholesale review of all WTO agreements and he ur ged those delegations who would like to read into
the Doha mandate authority to do this, not to seek to reopen the package agreed by Ministers.  In
concluding, he commended the Director-General for the pivotal role he had played as head of the
WTO over the past three years.
153. The representative of Paraguay thanked the Director-General, both in his capacity as the head
of the Organization as well as the Chairperson of this TNC, for his remarkable contribution to the
creation of a multilateral trading system and for having been one of the driving forces behind creating
greater opportunities in this new millennium for fair and equitable trade liberalization within the
framework of the WTO through the launching of the DDA.  He hoped that Members would succeed
in using this instrument in the best possible manner.  He welcomed Dr. Supachai and assured him of
the support and cooperation of his delegation.  Paraguay thanked all the Chairpersons of thenegotiating bodies for their reports.  These reports reflected the realities of the negotiating process so
far and placed the membership in a position to observe the imbalance in the level of progress between
the various bodies.  However, negotiations had begun and ultimately Members would achieve the
positive results within the timeframe envisaged.  His delegation associated itself with the
interventions by Chile and Uruguay.
154. Paraguay had listened with great attention to what had been said by the delegation of the
United States and that of the European Communities.  He hoped that as developed countries and the
main trading partners in the DDA they would work c onstructively and effectively with those countries
which had not yet reached an economic level with an acceptable standard of living that met the basicneeds of their peoples.  It would be important to fulfil the mandate and the deadlines contained in the
Doha Declaration, particularly on agriculture.  Prog ress was needed on the three pillars, i.e. the
elimination of subsidies, the opening up of markets and that domestic support should be non-distortive
of trade.  This was a very important issue since Paraguay's economy depended on agricultural exports
and any increase in tariffs was acting as an obstacle to adequate development of the industrial sector.He congratulated the Chairperson of the Negotiating Group on Market Access on his ability to secure
a consensus.  This sent an excellent signal and was the type of example which his delegation wished
to see more frequently within the WTO.  Paraguay believed that it was important to maintain the
dynamics of the liberalization of trade in services and special attention should be drawn to the fact
that Members had initiated the request process in relation to specific commitments as laid out by thedeadlines at Doha.  His delegation remained committed to this process and would shortly initiate aTN/C/M/3
Page 44
number of bilateral meetings to establish a better understanding of the position of others and to
explain the position of Paraguay.  His delegation thanked the Chairperson of the Special Session of
the Council on Trade in Services as well as all those Members who were encouraging and promoting
the establishment of modalities to deal with autonomous liberalization.  He believed that through a
clear and transparent mechanism, Members should be able to grant assistance to the developingcountries for their autonomous liberalization and that this would in the interest of both developed and
developing countries.  His delegation was convinced that multilateral trade in services would be more
efficient and have a more solid basis if the membership succeeded in establishing methods which led
to transparency, standards and horizontal disciplines.
155. He emphasized that standards and disciplines, which had been established under the GATT
and had been reaffirmed in the WTO Agreement, had ensured greater liberalization of trade and moreparticipation of the developing countries and the LDCs in the process of globalization.  These
instruments were principally the most-favoured-nation and national treatment clauses.  In addition,
special and differential treatment provisions had been incorporated in all the conventions of the WTO.
At the same, to ensure that trade was fair and equitable the enabling clause had been approved during
the Tokyo Round in 1979.  This clause included three elements whose application should beinseparable, i.e. the application should be general, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory. His
delegation could not accept a situation where the application of this principle to some countries led to
damage or prejudice for others.  Although some flexibility was always possible there had to be limits
to such flexibility so that it did not lead to harmful repercussions for third parties.  If such harm
happened it would signal a break from the principles of non-discrimination and flexibility and thiswas not acceptable to his delegation.  As a result, Paraguay, together with a number of other
delegations, hoped that the application of the enabling clause would be done both in letter and in
spirit, as was agreed in 1979.  Similarly, he wished  to see the agreement reached at Doha, i.e. the
membership of the WTO agreed that measures on S&D be strengthened, be more specific, efficient
and operational.  On the work of the Special Session of the Committee of Trade and Development, thedeveloped countries had urged developing countries to submit specific and concrete proposals.  His
delegation would seek to comply with this manda te within the dates foreseen despite the limited
resources available to his mission in Geneva.  It was therefore regrettable that only two developed
countries had presented proposals in this area.  His delegation would continue to focus and negotiate
on this issue as this was of crucial importance to the development dimension of the multilateral
trading system.
156. The representative of the Philippines associated his delegation with the words of thank you
expressed by Uruguay, United States and Costa Rica to the Director-General.  His delegation
subscribed to the benefits of open markets, the vital role of WTO in income and employment
generation and poverty alleviation.  The WTO rule played an important role for developing countries
in terms of transparency, predictability and stability.
157. The Uruguay Round had taken developing countries to entirely new and uncovered grounds.
This had been challenging, frustrating and unsettling to some developing countries' economic and
socio-political structures.  Developing countries were still grappling with implementation and
enforcement problems reflected in a large number of issues which Ministers had decided to address inDoha.  The lack of meaningful progress continued to restrict the markets in major sectors like textile
and clothing and subsidized exports and contingency protection caused market displacements
especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.  He said that inequitable rules still governed an
already unequal relationship leading to frictions and disadvantageous transitions which would delay
fuller integration and impose burdensome compliance and enforcement adjustments.  The Dohamandate on S&D provisions was relatively modest a nd sought to review and make them more precise,
effective and operational.  He was concerned that discussions in the Special Session of the Committee
on Trade and Development were moving deeper into issues of principles and objectives, talks of
graduation and other cross-cutting issues which threatened the fundamental principle of S&D in the
WTO framework.TN/C/M/3
Page 45
158. Negotiations in agriculture and services had achieved appreciable progress and developing
countries had embraced this with greater vigour and confidence.  This was partly due to a more
adequate preparation of these issues as well as a better understanding of the interests at stake.  It was
also helped by the fairly clear objectives and detailed operating guidelines and procedures.  A large
number of developed countries had lamented the slow progress in non-agricultural market access, theenvironment and geographical indications and argued that these were major issues in their quest for a
symmetry and balance within the concept of single undertaking.  One delegation had openly blamed a
number of countries, including the Philippines, for refusing to accept deadlines despite the fact that
the same delegation had contributed to the paralysis in the committee for close to three months.  Only
few Members had decried the fact that apart from the lack of progress on implementation and S&D,
other deadlines had been repeatedly extended, i.e. rules of origin, credit for autonomous liberalization
and the emergency safeguard measures, since these were only of interest to developing countries.  Onenvironment, a great number of Members supported the Australian three-phased approach, i.e. a study
phase, a problem definition phase and a problem resolution phase.  Although this approach was
simple and logical, his delegation believed that there was a need to establish negotiating guidelines
before moving to the negotiating phase. He was concerned that certain Members were attempting to
drive discussions far beyond the mandate in proposing that RTAs were also MEAs. It was ambitionslike these that made developing countries careful, deliberate and slow when dealing with new issues
that had been introduced during the last 24 hours of the Doha green room process.  This was also why
such guidelines were needed.  Orderly procedures and correct processes would allow Members to
prepare through careful understanding of terminology, technical issues and complexities of the issue,
as well as undertake rigid consultation with domestic stakeholders, establishing expectations,accountabilities and the outer limits of a pro-active participation.  It would help developing countries
mobilize the necessary negotiating resources.
159. He supported the statement of India concerning the fact that process and substance were
inter-related and that a good process would allow for good substantive discussions.  Clear proceduralguidelines, including modalities, would bind Members to a common path in negotiations.  Above all,
such guidelines would protect developing countries from the imposition of greater ambitions, i.e.
negotiating insolence and surprises. There were seve ral examples of this in the past negotiating
process, e.g. the issue of "counterfeits" which took Members into uncharted TRIPS or TRIMs territory
and into a full-blown framework on investment and competition policy. His delegation was
determined to be the driver of its own best interests.
160. Concerning future work his delegation asked for consideration and a certain amount of
tolerance from the more enlightened and experienced partners.  Developing countries would need
time to work out the approaches and parameters for negotiations, especially for new, complex and
uncharted issues.  He asked these partners to deal with developing countries as equals while trying to
honour the commitments to address implementation issues and S&D provisions.  The Philippineswould use the technical assistance and capacity building resources which, to the credit of the Director-
General, had been made available in a short period of time.  His delegation would, however, seek to
make this assistance more dedicated to the priority concerns of his country and ensure that it was
delivered in a neutral manner designed to build longer term objectives.  He asked the developed
country partners not to rush developing countries into deadlines.  As in the Uruguay Round manydeadlines were bound to pass.  His delegation was aware of the political and environmental value of
solid outcomes at Ministerial Conferences and his delegation hoped that Members would be able to
reach convergence in the major areas of goods, services and agriculture.  Where no negotiating
mandates existed, as was the case on some new and complex issues, Members should avoid being too
ambitious and instead focus on building solid support for the overall agenda while at the same timeavoiding placing added burdens on the developing c ountries.  He said that an over-loaded negotiating
agenda would break the Organization and damage its more fundamental and permanent objectives.
161. The representative of Ecuador expressed his government's congratulations to the Director-
General for his historic contribution to the destiny of the WTO and to the DDA in particular.  He alsowelcomed Dr. Supachai who would be the firs t Director-General of the Organization from a
developing country and it was therefore very appropriate that the WTO signalled such a strongTN/C/M/3
Page 46
commitment to a development agenda.  He urged all Members to unite in their efforts to assist Dr.
Supachai in making headway on the DDA.  However, the basic responsibility rested on the shoulders
of the major trade partners in the world.  As the founders of the international trading system they were
also the main beneficiaries.  The benefits which these countries had enjoyed over the years should
now also benefit developing countries. Nevertheless, developing countries certainly had aresponsibility to make a contribution as well.  Ecuador had been making a contribution, as had many
other developing countries including in the recent process of expansion of the WTO. This contribution
had been made under the aegis of the International Monetary Fund.  There had been the famous
autonomous liberalization cases within the WTO which meant that developing countries had opened
their economies without necessarily receiving reciprocal benefits for it.  His delegation believed that
developing countries had paid the entry fee into the WTO and understood that responsibility for its
success was shared by developed countries and by developing countries alike.
162. He emphasized the importance of respecting the deadlines established by Ministers in Doha.
This required all Members to take a pragmatic and practical view of the work ahead.  This included
taking a pragmatic and constructive approach to seek solutions in the important area of S&D as well
as ensuring that it was borne in mind in every specific area of negotiation.  For his delegation this areawas a sine qua non  for the success of the round.  He believed that there were considerable trade and
commercial potential in the developing countries. However, at the same time some developing
countries were extremely vulnerable.  As a result it would be important to take a practical approach to
each individual part of the negotiations and bear in mind the two factors of the asymmetric reciprocity
and S&D.  He thanked the Chairpersons for their reports.  His delegation was of the view that thework done so far had involved almost everyone and as such the responsibility was evenly shared
among delegations.  Recognizing the shared responsibility would be a first step towards meeting the
targets Ministers had set out, including on capacity building.  His delegation believed that capacity
building was a special feature of the overall Doha mandate and it would be of great importance to
ensure that this work was pursued in order to allo w developing countries to participate more actively
in the work of the WTO.  In concluding, he wished the Director-General well in his future
endeavours.
163. The representative of the Russian Federation supported previous speakers who had argued
that commitments taken by the newly acceded countries should be fully taken into consideration by
the Members of WTO when the final package was completed.  He believed that the countries
currently in the process of accession would subscrib e to this point of view.  He agreed with the
People's Republic of China that some of the commitments taken by countries during their accession
process, especially those which were not fully in compliance with standard requirements, should not
necessarily be made as a precedent and should not necessarily be followed by other countries in the
process of accession.
164. The Chairman thanked delegations for a healthy discussion and said that important progress
had been made.
165. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the reports of the bodies established by it and
of the statements made.
2. Future work
166. The Chairman recalled his statement at the last TNC meeting in April where he had
emphasized the need to have a more precise road map to Mexico.  That road map was now in place.
He noted that an important deadline would be 31 July.  It was now about substance and about real
negotiations.  He said that he had talked with a number of Ministers and Minister Derbez had also
consulted with a Ministers on how they could be involved.  This engagement was healthy.  The
present meeting had also demonstrated the importan ce of senior officials getting closely involved in
Geneva to ensure that this Member-driven and Ministerial-led Organization could focus on thechallenges in the run-up to Cancún.  Although there was much work to be done he remainedTN/C/M/3
Page 47
convinced that the road to Mexico was not an impossible one.  He said that Dr. Supachai had a major
challenge before him now that the road map had been  laid out and the time-tables had been reiterated.
167. The representative of Malaysia stressed the importance of the present meeting as it provided
the membership with a first review of the state of play of the negotiations in general and the fulfilment
of the expectations created at Doha.  The various reports by the Chairpersons of the Negotiating
Groups showed that the momentum and pace since Doha had been uneven.  On many issues of great
importance to developing countries progress had been excruciatingly slow or even absent.  It was now
for Members to refocus the attention on what was wanted from the current negotiations.  In his
delegation's view, the principal focus of the negotiations was to address market access concerns across
the board and to overcome the inequities in global trade.  In doing so, Ministers had noted the myriad
of problems facing many developing countries and th is provided the negotiations with a development
dimension.  Members needed to look at the development dimension from the perspective of helping
developing countries export and grow in an ope n international trading environment which in turn
would make them importers of goods and services .  Member should be mindful that whatever the
level of development of individual developing countries, various asymmetries remained between the
developed and the developing world that needed to be addressed and corrected.  As a result, theconceptual debate as to whether all or some developing countries should be allowed to avail
themselves of the S&D provisions was unhelpful.  He recalled that Ministers specifically mandated
that Members should identify S&D provisions that could be made mandatory and that those which
were not mandatory should be made more effective.  Ministers had also decided that a report on this
area should be presented to the General Council with clear recommendations for a decision by July.However, there was still a lack of substantive discussion on the specific proposals and discussions
seemed to be diverted to cross-cutting issues which were not specified in the Ministerial mandate.  He
urged Members to refrain from discussing the rights of developing countries to S&D, as this would
not be desirable from a political perspective.
168. Malaysia believed that it was important to show tangible progress by the deadlines agreed to
in Doha, and to work progressively towards extended deadlines that were realistic.  Anything else
would be a disservice to all Members, but especially to the developing countries.  The membership
would collectively run the risk of making the DDA irrelevant and would expose the WTO to further
criticism from those quarters that had been viewin g the Organization as development-unfriendly as a
matter of principle.  He was concerned that there seemed to an increasing tendency on the part of
some Members to interpret the concept of the single undertaking selectively and pursue only items oftheir interest while neglecting other components of the Doha Declaration.  This selective pursuit of
agendas and the lack of progress on the Doha promises and expectations was a recipe for failure.
169. He encouraged Members to move away from the negative expectations that the Cancún
Ministerial would be a failure if positive results had not emerged by then and recalled that the FifthMinisterial Conference was neither a re-launch of a new round, nor was it to end the negotiations.
Malaysia saw Cancún as an important point at which to assess the overall progress in the negotiations.
At the present time, however, Members needed to continue working together to reach results that
could serve the interests of all.  He noted that the last thing the Organization needed from the present
meeting was the notion that the process had to be moved elsewhere in the form of mini-ministerialmeetings.  Ministers had a role in certain trying circumstances that necessitated their involvement but,
at this juncture, he remained convinced that the Geneva process was adequate. His delegation
believed that calls for ministerial meetings only seven months after Doha reinforced a self-defeating
belief that officials in Geneva and senior officials from capitals could not accomplish much by
themselves.  The very recent agreement on market access for non-agricultural products had clearlydemonstrated what capital-based officials and Geneva-based representatives were capable of doing. In
concluding, he emphasized that the measure of success in the run-up to Cancún would largely be
determined by progress between now and December on a number of issues for which deadlines were
imminent.  Members needed to look for mutually acceptable solutions in an environment of plain and
honest talk as opposed to confrontation.TN/C/M/3
Page 48
170. The representative of Mexico agreed with those previous speakers that had emphasized the
need to successfully conclude the DDA in order to maintain and strengthen the multilateral trading
system.  To ensure the success of the Doha Work Programme it was essential that the Ministerial
Conference to be held next year in Cancún give  clear guidance and provide further impetus into the
final stages of negotiation.  The objective of a constructive and productive Ministerial Meeting inCancún could only be achieved if Members avoided overloading the meeting agenda.  In this respect
he noted that Members faced three important challenges.  Firstly, before the Ministerial Conference
Members needed to take the decisions for which there were specific deadlines in the Doha mandate.
Leaving these questions open until Cancún should not be an option.  Secondly, delegations needed to
go as far as possible with the technical work in those areas where decisions from the Ministers at
Cancún would be required.  To this end, it was essential that the discussions in Geneva took place
without any disruption.  However, it was equally important that officials in the various capitalsredoubled their efforts and attended the negotiating meetings in order to facilitate the decision
making.  Thirdly, Ministers should be involved in the process on a constant basis.  It would be
important over the next 14 months to take advantage of every international meeting where Ministers
would have the opportunity to exchange views on the negotiating process.  He said that the work
ahead represented a big challenge for all Members, but interpreted the recent agreement on theprogramme of meetings for the Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products
as a sign of good faith and commitment to this.
171. In concluding, he expressed his delegation's gratitude to Mike Moore for his invaluable
contribution to the international trade system.  His human qualities, personal warmth and, above all,sense of humour would enable him to continue to make a substantial contribution to the improvement
of the WTO and the world in general, wherever and however he intended to continue his professional
life.
172. The representative of India referred to the recent submission co-sponsored by his delegation
on procedures to be followed at the Ministerial Conferences (WT/GC/W/471).  India believed that
Members would make life easier for themselves if they adhered closely to the mandate agreed by the
Ministers.  Ministers had defined in various ways and in various paragraphs the manner in which
particular issues were to be taken up, e.g. S&D issues.  He recalled the precise wording agreed on by
Ministers regarding this issues, i.e. "we therefore agree that all special and differential treatment
provisions shall be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise,
effective and operational."  He was confident that delegations would be able to deal with these issuesin an objective manner which in turn would allow fo r the membership to meet the required deadlines.
India agreed that the various elements of the Doha Work Programme constituted a single undertaking.
However, regarding the Singapore issues Ministers had decided that negotiations would take place
after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on the basis of a decision to be taken by explicit
consensus at that Session on modalities of negotiations.  He believed that it was important to recall thedecision of the Ministers on these issues.
173. On the issue of deadlines his delegation did not subscribe to the view that the negotiations
could operate with one category of deadlines which was less serious and which Members could ignore
and another category of deadlines which was treated with a greater sense of commitment.  He wouldfind such an approach difficult to accept and stressed that equal emphasis should be given to all
deadlines.  He agreed with Malaysia regardin g the mini-ministerial meetings which had been
discussed.  Such meetings could cause problems, particularly for Ministers of developing countries
who dealt with more than one subject, as they would often be unable to attend such meetings.
Although it was important to devise ways in which a deadlock in the negotiations could be handledhis delegation felt that Members had to proceed carefully in this respect.
174. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the statements.TN/C/M/3
Page 49
175. In closing the meeting, the Chairman informed delegations that after consultations with
Dr. Supachai the next meeting of the TNC would be  held on 3-4 October.  Thereafter, at least one
more meeting of the TNC was foreseen on 4-6 December.  He recalled that at the previous TNC the
representative of the Solomon Islands, a non-resident, had raised the issue of capacity-building and
technical assistance.  This was clearly an important issue and the recent briefing on these issues hadseen a useful interaction among delegations.  There was little doubt that the WTO could improve its
performance with respect to capacity building and some important lessons had already been learned.
He said that he would be reporting on this to the non-resident Members shortly.  In concluding, he
thanked delegations for the kind words offered.
_______________