RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/C/M/6
20 March 2003
(03-1608)
Trade Negotiations Committee
4-5 February 2003
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 4-5 February 2003
Chairman: Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi (Director-General)
Subjects discussed:
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
2. Outstanding implementation issues – (paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration) – Report by the Chairman
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/7
Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services: TN/S/5
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body: TN/DS/5Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development: TN/CTD/6
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.  He said
that no reports had been issued by the Negotiating Groups on Market Access and on Rules, and by theSpecial Sessions of the Council for TRIPS and of the Committee on Trade and Environment since
these bodies had not held any meetings since the last TNC meeting in December.
3. Thinking back to the last meeting of the TNC,  he had the feeling that almost all Members
agreed that the progress made last year had been uneven.  At the end of the meeting, he had suggested
some areas where delegations could concentrate their efforts to press forward.  That was 2 monthsago.  He hoped that delegations had had a good rest over the break as it was certain that there would
not be much time to rest in the months ahead.  Although there were few significant developments to
report since December in all areas, it was important to send the clear political signal that Members
were entering a more intensive phase, a phase of real negotiation.  The present meeting of the TNC
should signal a further change of gear.  There was no longer any time left to wait for others to move.Positions remained far apart in some areas of the work, but he remained optimistic that progress was
possible, even in the seemingly intractable areas, and there were welcome signs of movement on a
few issues.  But more was needed.
4. Members were a third of the way through the time Ministers had given them to conclude the
negotiations.  Delegations were all fully aware of what the 7 months remaining before the Mid-TermTN/C/M/6
Page 2
Review at Cancún would mean in terms of the work  in Geneva.  Obviously, much hard work would
be needed, and the process would need to intensify rapidly.  The benchmarks in the process were
clear.  Members knew what they had achieved so far, and what had not been achieved.  He sensed that
delegations knew what had to be done to ensure a successful Conference in Cancún and he did not
believe that anyone was under the illusion about what an unsuccessful Conference would mean for theround, for the WTO, and ultimately, for the people whom delegations represented.
5. He suggested that delegations should all ensure the full engagement of capitals in the process.
Senior officials and Ministers obviously had an important role to play in this process, as they had
done in the lead-up to Doha.  They had every interest in being actively involved, because the
outcomes of the Geneva process were precisely what  they would have before them in Cancún.  For
this reason, he was considering the possibility to convene an upcoming TNC meeting at Senior
Capital-Based Officials' level, to underline the importance of the negotiating targets and increase thebreadth as well as the depth of capitals' involvement.  Such a meeting could be envisaged in early
April, and perhaps another in mid-year, as Members entered the home straight to Cancún.
6. In referring to the question of scheduling of meetings, he said that this issue had been raised
by several delegations at the last TNC meeting.  Following a meeting with the Chairpersons, Deputy
Director-General Abbott had established an overall Programme of Meetings for 2003, covering boththe bodies under the TNC as well as regular bodies.  This was being circulated to all delegations,
together with a cover note setting out some of the considerations used in putting together this
programme.  Mr. Abbott would, of course, continue to monitor closely the development of the
meeting schedule in cooperation with the relevant Chairpersons.
7. Mr. Harbinson, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, said that as
reported in document TN/AG/7, the January Special Session had completed the substantive and
comprehensive review of possible modalities that was required by the agreed work programme.
Participants on the whole had engaged in the disc ussions in an active way.  On one or two points,
there had been indications from some that they could be flexible and on a few technical issues there
had been some common ground.  However, little or no progress had been made overall and on criticalissues in building bridges between positions.  There had been few signs of a willingness to
compromise and significant differences continued to exist on the level of ambition for reform and the
methods to be employed to achieve that.  With less than eight weeks to go before the deadline of the
end of March for establishing modalities, this was a matter of serious concern.  He had repeatedly
called for a change in gear, but so far these exhortations had fallen on deaf ears.  He renewed and
redoubled his appeal in the light of the rapidly approaching deadline.
8. The way ahead under the agreed work programme was clear to everyone.  As Chairman, he
had to prepare a first draft of the modalities, for consideration at the next Special Session from 24 to
28 February.  He said that participants had so fa r not provided much guidance as to the possible
solutions to the many problems in these negotiations.  Although he had wondered whether more
discussion was needed, there seemed little likelihood that more time would make the task any easier.
Accordingly he would proceed to circulate a first draf t of modalities in line with his responsibility.  It
was his intention to circulate that draft as much in advance of the next Special Session as possible.  In
the light of some speculative reports he had seen, he emphasized his commitment to making the draft
available to all participants at the same time, and of course in the three languages.  In the meantime,
and in the period up to the next Special Session, he strongly urged participants to continue their work
both in Geneva and in capitals, including through bilateral and plurilateral contacts.  The objectivehad to be to have a much more productive meeting at the end of February, which would hopefully
allow him subsequently to produce a second draft of the modalities approximating a final version.
9. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that the written report circulated in document TN/DS/5 provided an accurate overview of
events in his group since the last meeting of the TNC.  Having completed 3 stages in the year 2002,
participants at the January meeting had begun detailed discussions based on specific draft proposals.TN/C/M/6
Page 3
He said that to some extent his group had become victim of its own success since the call for
proposals had produced a considerable number of new proposals which added to the challenge of
these negotiations, due both to the short time-frames and lack of any specific mandate from Ministers.
Many of these proposals touched on fundamental issues of the DSU and therefore they needed
thorough and detailed discussions.  So far 14 such draft textual proposals had been placed on the tablebut further proposals were expected, including from developing countries and least-developed
countries (LDCs).  The challenge over the coming months was to discuss these proposals in detail and
attempt to launch a consensus-building process.  He hoped that a convergence of views would be
forthcoming during these discussions, especially among delegations that had similar ideas.  He
encouraged delegations to work together to pu t forward common proposals.  As mentioned in his
written report, he expected a number of informal open-ended meetings to be needed in addition to the
already scheduled formal meetings.  He concluded by thanking delegations for the friendly andbusiness-like atmosphere which had characterised discussions so far and which had emphasized the
common understanding that the improvements and clarifications of the DSU was a common goal of
all Members.
10. Ambassador Jara (Chile), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services, said that the report of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services was contained
in document TN/S/5.  The negotiations were progressing in a satisfactory manner and it was important
to ensure that this continued.  Since the end of June the previous year, requests had been submitted by
several Members which had generated a great deal of activity in bilateral negotiations.  Although the
process of exchanging request was purely bilateral and therefore provided neither the Chairman nor
the Secretariat with any formal means of monitoring what was being submitted, informal accounts hadindicated that negotiators were focusing on specific issues in a wide range of sectors.  To the best of
his knowledge, there were now around 30 Members which had made requests and that was a positive
sign.  He also had indications that other Members, particularly developing-country Members were
preparing requests to be submitted in the near future.  In addition, he sensed that both comments and
the general direction of proposals suggested that there was a drive to achieve liberalization of trade inservices.  He said that from 31 March the process would move to a new phase which would be more
intensive and focused.  He anticipated that this process would involve capital-based experts coming to
Geneva.
11. He said that services was one item on a broad negotiating agenda.  This view had been
expressed and linkages had been made at meetings of the Special Session on Services and it was his
duty to reflect those at the present time.  It was crucial to ensure that those linkages were used in a
positive manner and continuing to make progress in the area of services would contribute towardsmaking progress elsewhere.  On the outstanding issue of modalities for the treatment of autonomous
liberalization, work had continued.  Although cons ensus had not yet been reached, he was optimistic
that Members were getting very close.  It was his hope  that Members, at the next formal session at the
beginning of March, would be able to agree on those modalities along with a statement by the
Chairman that would address the particular concern of recently-acceded Members.  On the modalitiesfor the special treatment of least-developed coun try Members, the informal meeting on 30 January
had seen a very good discussion of a draft text that was submitted by a group of least-developed
country Members.  The spirit of the discussion and the specific nature of the comments made on the
text had been very encouraging and promising of early progress.  Members were now waiting for a
revised draft of such modalities to be prepared by these least-developed country Members and thiswould hopefully advance the exercise to establish such modalities as mandated by Article 19 of the
GATS.
12. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, said that the written report of his group was before Members in document
TN/CTD/6.  The Special Session had to report to the General Council the following week and the two
matters on which Members needed to agree were the same as was the case in December, i.e. a
package of Agreement-specific proposals and the Way Forward.  Delegations had been working
intensively and constructively towards ensuring that this third deadline was not missed.  If this spiritTN/C/M/6
Page 4
could be maintained he remained cautiously optimistic that progress could be made and a report be
finalized.  However, it was a fact that many and substantive differences remained.   Over the past few
days some areas of convergence had appeared and delegations had also had the opportunity to look at
new language on some proposals.  He said that much work remained and more flexibility and
accommodation were necessary.  He would be continuing consultations on the Agreement-specificproposals and the Way Forward over the next few days in the hope of finalizing the report and
submitting it to the General Council.  Members knew what was at stake on this issue and were fully
aware of how important the work of the Special Session was to many Members and to the Doha
process.  He urged delegations to do everything possible to ensure that a third deadline was not
missed.
13. Ambassador Biké (Gabon), Chairperson of th e Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Environment, said that she had engaged delegations in consultations on the issue of observer
status.  The next meeting of her group was scheduled for 12-13 February and she encouraged
delegations to take in active part in this meeting which would address very complex issues at the very
heart of the negotiating mandate on environment.
14. Mr. Abbott, Deputy Director-General, said that he had met with the Chairpersons of the
negotiating groups to discuss the question of scheduling of meetings.  The document containing the
overall Programme of Meetings for 2003 attempted to do three things.  First, it took note of the
schedule of meetings as far as 31 March.  This was the first seven pages of the schedule.  Second, it
had been agreed that this important matter would be kept under review for the period after 31 March,
so as to ensure the necessary flexibility to ad apt the rhythm of meetings on certain negotiating
subjects to the situation.  Third, the Secretariat would submit a new programme as soon as possibleafter that date, for the following two months and make a further report at the end of May.  He said that
this solution was not as concrete and firm with resp ect to the full year as some delegations would have
liked.  However, the organization was facing a difficult situation where flexibility was, at least for the
moment, more important than predictability.  In suggesting this approach, he hoped to have responded
to a certain number of concerns that had been expressed by the Chairpersons of the negotiatinggroups.  In particular, some of them had noted that there was a reluctance among Members to commit
to a programme of meetings in one area without knowing the overall workload of the negotiations.
This was understandable in light of the discussions on achieving balance and a certain symmetry
between different areas.  In other cases, there had been hesitation to  fix meetings beyond a certain
date, such as 31 March.  As a result, the schedule of meetings should be considered as very firm for
the next 2 months but the dates shown beyond that were only indicative.
15. He said that at this point it was difficult for many negotiating bodies and their Chairpersons to
anticipate the meetings required at later stages.  New circumstances could well require new
approaches, with more frequent open-ended consultations or more frequent meetings in general.  This
was why he had focussed on the situation at the present time, while emphasizing that maximum
flexibility could be necessary at a later stage, and the programme through April and May could be
developed subsequently, since some parts of the negotiations would be approaching importantmoments by the end of May.  Eventually, a programme through June and July and indeed through the
month of August if necessary, could be fixed.  He said that the Secretariat had begun conversations
with the appropriate Chairpersons, including thos e of the General Council and the TNC to determine
how best to organise work in the weeks immediat ely preceding the Cancún meeting.  He concluded
that it would be inevitable that the demand for meetings both in the negotiating context and in theregular work programme would exceed the capacity to avoid the occurrence of overlapping meetings.
The Secretariat would do its utmost to reduce such occasions to the minimum and, where it was
unavoidable, to ensure that the different expertise required at such meetings could be present.  This
would hopefully go a long way towards reducing the impact on Members.
16. The representative of the European Communities asked if it would be possible to have an
early indication on the schedule of meetings during the month of August.TN/C/M/6
Page 5
17. Mr. Abbott, Deputy Director-General, said that although at this point it was difficult to
anticipate the burden of meetings during August, the Secretariat would make every effort to
communicate this to Members at the earliest possible stage.
18. The representative of Australia said that the point raised by the European Communities
concerning the meeting schedule during August was a relevant one.  Although he agreed that it would
be difficult to anticipate the burden of meetings at such a late stage before the Ministerial Conference,
it would perhaps be worthwhile to give some thought to identifying a possible period where no
meetings would take place.
19. The Chairman said that his immediate response was that it would be very optimistic to think
that Members would not have to use the month of Au gust to continue working.  It was understandable
that people would need holidays with their families and that a certain amount of planning was needed.
However, in complying with the pr inciples guiding the scheduling of meetings to allow delegations to
participate fully in the work, predicting that far ahead would be a difficult task.  He hoped that as the
work leading up to Cancún advanced, the situation concerning August would become clearer.  In the
meantime, he would ask Deputy Director-General Abbo tt to continue with his consultations with the
Chairpersons and the Members on how to organize the meetings leading up to Cancún in a way to
accommodate both the workload and the need to have a recess.  As far as the Secretariat wasconcerned, it was clear that nothing could be left to chance when it came to the process leading up to
Cancún.  However, it remained for Members to decide how they wished to approach the issue of
holidays in the period leading up to the Ministerial Conference.
20. All the delegations who spoke thanked the Chai rpersons for their reports and for their hard
work.  They also thanked the Chairman for his opening remarks.
21. The representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, while welcoming
the progress made since Doha in certain areas, wished to underline the African Group's concern that
the first deadlines that had been set at Doha for is sues of importance to the African countries, such as
TRIPS and Public Health and implementation, had not been respected.  The African Group continued
to hope that suitable solutions to these issues would be found rapidly, and the Group recalled the greatimportance it attached to an equitable treatment of all the issues on the Doha agenda.  The report from
the Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session had in fact heightened their concern; the little
progress made since the last meeting of the TNC led them to recall that, according to the work
programme established in March 2002, the work should be far more advanced at this point with
Members deepening their work, providing a clearer outlook of the general direction and possible
scope of modalities.  The recent review of the Chairman's overview paper had unfortunately shown
what little will there was among Members, in particular the largest among them, who were stillhesitating to show how, and at what price, they envisaged reaching a compromise on establishing the
modalities everyone was hoping for.  The African Group wished to underline that European
Communities, one of the major partners, had recently submitted a comprehensive proposal reflecting
its objectives in respect of reform of the three pillars and the Group believed that time has come for
other partners to do likewise.  Furthermore, the Group welcomed the intention of the Chairman todistribute the first draft of modalities, which it would look at with an open mind.
22. Another issue in these negotiations on which Members had not reached agreement in the
regular Agriculture Committee concerned the implementation of the Marrakesh Decision on LDCs
and net-food importing developing countries, in particular the establishment of a revolving fund.  As
explained by the representatives of the FAO and the World Bank, the forthcoming reforms in thecontext of this pillar would no doubt bring about an important increase in the price of foodstuffs
imported by these countries and in the view of the African Group, very little effort had been made to
meet this concern, be it in the Special Session or in regular sessions.  Finally, the African Group was
concerned by the progress in the discussions on non-trade concerns and special and differential (S&D)
treatment, since these were important elements in negotiations.  The Group had raised a ceratinnumber of non-trade concerns relating to food security, poverty reduction and rural developmentTN/C/M/6
Page 6
affecting African countries, but unfortunately the discussions seemed to be diverging from the
original objectives in the way in which these issu es were being addressed.  The same held true for
S&D treatment, and the Group hoped that Members would seriously address these issues before the
modalities were fully established.
23. With regard to S&D treatment, little progress  had been made since the last meeting of the
TNC in the work on the reform of this treatment under paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  The
African Group noted with regret that only four proposals had been agreed despite intensive
consultations, which had not led to a result in line with the Group's ambitions.  The African Group,
which had put forward new proposals in a spirit of flexibility in order to enable Members to make
progress, would continue to engage in a constructive dialogue in the Special Session of the CTD.  The
Group wished to thank the Chairman of the Special Session for his constant efforts to arrive at
concrete results in this area.
24. Finally, he wished to reiterate the African Group's concern at the number of meetings which
had been scheduled or which would be scheduled over the coming few months.  This multitude of
meetings, which were often held in English only, constituted a major barrier for the African
delegations, which were mainly small and were therefore not in a position to participate effectively
and fully in all the activities scheduled.  The African Group appealed to the Chairman to ensure thatthis particular reality would be taken into account in the short but very intensive period remaining
before Cancún.
25. The representative of Morocco said that his delegation had noted with satisfaction the
Chairman's intention to convene a meeting of the TN C at senior-official level.  His delegation agreed
that this would serve as an opportunity to involve capitals to a greater degree and also to enable all
Members to turn their attention to the preparations for Cancún.  It believed this was a kind of response
to the mini-Ministerial meetings, which it believed were a rather discriminatory and selective
approach in that they did not include all Members and which unfortunately did not meet all its
expectations.  Morocco supported the Chairman with  regard to holding such a high level meeting of
the TNC and it was convinced that such a meeting would certainly meet the expectations of allMembers that Cancún should be prepared under the best possible conditions and, in particular, under
full transparency.
26. The representative of Slovenia, speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Po land, Romania and the Slovak Republic, said that it
was important for Members to evaluate the progress made so far and to seek the best way forward.  It
was clear that a new impetus was needed to accelerate the process and ensure more balanced progress
in all areas.  This impetus should be provided by the enhanced role of the TNC as the body to monitorand evaluate progress in the various areas.  It could also be provided by various forms of informal or
semi-formal gatherings, by different ways of interaction among Members.  That was a necessary part
of the whole process, if progress was to be made and solutions were to be found.  However, Members
should not lose sight of the need to maintain full transparency and inclusiveness of that process.  The
active participation of all Members in all events related to the negotiations was a must for the essenceof the negotiations themselves and mainly for consensus building.
27. On TRIPS and Public Health, regardless of the missed deadline for an agreement, a good
basis for an overall acceptable compromise solution existed.  There was no other way but to continue
discussing the existing proposals and hammering out an agreement that all Members could live with
and that would still be within the spirit and the goals of the Doha Declaration.  These countries were
disappointed at the latest developments in solving the TRIPS and Public Health problems and at the
Members inability to reach an agreement within  the mandated deadline.  The countries for whom
Slovenia was speaking remain committed to reaching a multilateral solution as soon as possible,
which would be the way to implement the mandate from Doha in a legally secure and predictable
manner.  Although these nations continued to support the Chairman's text of 16 December 2002, therecent submission by the European Communities , was a good attempt to move forward.  TheseTN/C/M/6
Page 7
countries were conscious of the tight deadline to reach a solution and hoped that Members would be
able to deliver the solution before the General Council's meeting on 10 February 2003 in a manner
which would not undermine the WTO's credibility.  These Members felt that the credibility of the
WTO hinged on successfully dealing with this issu e, which was imperative, not only because of the
human dimension of the problem, but also because failure to find an expeditious solution early in2003 could have serious negative implications for all ongoing negotiations.
28. Concerning the outstanding implementation issu es, there was no other way but to intensify
the work and seek acceptable solutions.  This was also a matter of credibility for the entire process.
Implementation issues were an integral part of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and Members,
including the countries for which he was speaking, needed to approach them from both a systemic and
a specific interest.  Therefore, it was most unfortunate that the deadline, mandated by Ministers in
paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Declaration, had not been met.  Deadlines were part of the delicateoverall balance of interests in the Doha Declaration and failing to meet some of these deadlines could
have an adverse impact on the DDA Work Programme as a whole, possibly leading to delays also in
the other areas of the negotiations.
29. The countries for which he was speaking strongly supported the TNC Chairman's efforts to
find appropriate ways forward for the outstanding implementation issues under paragraph 12(b) in theshortest possible period of time and no later than the next TNC meeting in March.  However, the fact
that consultations were ongoing with a view to finding appropriate action pursuant to paragraph 12(b)
did not prejudice the implementation issues from being an integral part of the Work Programme that
Members were conducting.  These countries were prepared to lend any support necessary to bring the
outstanding issues to a conclusion.
30. The representative of Chile expressed concern about the pace of the negotiations on
clarifications and improvements of the Disput e Settlement Understanding (DSU).  This was
notwithstanding the value Chile attached to the efforts undertaken by the Chairman of the Special
Session of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in li ght of the increasing number of proposals tabled.
Considering the task given to Members by Ministers, it was difficult to envisage a different processthan the one Members had embarked on last year.  Important progress had been made under that
structure.  Members were now confronting a new stage and Chile was worried that following the
previous year's strategy would render no results by the May deadline.
31. While the current approach of reviewing proposals on the basis of a compilation might have
had some benefits, it certainly made discussions more difficult.  At the last meeting, Members had
spent two and a half days covering 7 articles of the DSU.  There were still another 18 provisions,
including some of the most contentious ones, where an important number of proposals had beenintroduced, as well as a few others that were in the pipeline.  Chile believed that the remaining 4
meetings, until the March cut off date, were not enough to complete the work in a satisfactory
manner.  Scheduling additional meetings was not the issue.  Even though Chile assigned special
importance to this negotiation, it recognised that other important negotiations were going on, that
there were limited resources and that covering all of them was increasingly difficult.
32. Structuring the discussions on the basis of legal texts disregarded the fact that some concepts
or ideas were strongly opposed by a large number of Members, including some of the major ones.
There was certainly a need for proponents to address those concerns, for instance why they believed
there was currently a problem that needed a solution, and to clarify the objectives and implications of
the changes proposed.  These valid apprehensions could not be addressed and clarified under thecurrent format.  Quite the contrary, the use of legal texts confused the issue even further.  If Members
wanted to comply with the deadline imposed by Mi nisters, they needed to change the structure of
these negotiations.
33. His delegation urged Members, especially the proponents, to be realistic and to moderate their
levels of ambition.  During the discussions the previous year, a certain degree of convergence hadTN/C/M/6
Page 8
been reached on some proposals and ideas, while on others Members had been clearly far from a
consensus.  Members needed to be pragmatic and focus their limited time and attention on those
proposals and ideas where consensus could be reached by May.  Chile looked forward to working
with the Chairman to identify consensus areas.
34. The representative of Brazil said the present meeting of the TNC was taking place at a critical
moment.  Some negotiating groups were on track, such as the one on Rules or the Special Session of
the Council for Trade in Services.  Other areas had suffered setbacks, in particular two of special
importance to developing countries, namely S&D and implementation.  Members were still
witnessing conflicting signals on the central topic of agriculture, as the 31 March date for agreement
on modalities approached.  Even if some elements seemed to be in place, the risk of derailment
threatened the negotiating process as a whole.  Although it was premature to speak of a crisis,
Members had a responsibility to reinvest the political will required to regain credibility.
35. Brazil remained committed to the success of the Doha round, driven by the legitimate
expectation that it would provide better access for its export products, as well as more equitable rules
and regulations.  At the same time, Brazil was comm itted to strengthening Mercosul and to fostering
closer ties with its South American neighbours.  His country was also engaged in major regional and
bilateral trade negotiations and intended to pursue an aggressive trade policy that was supportive ofefforts to improve living standards, combat poverty and eliminate hunger.  As President Luís Inácio
Lula da Silva had recently stated in Davos, the construction of a more just and democratic
international economic order would be an act of political intelligence as well as an act of generosity.
And some could be more generous than others.
36. Unfortunately, so far the DDA had been little more than an empty slogan.  Members should
retain their commitment to the development dimension of the round, which required progress on
agriculture, S&D and implementation.  On agricu lture, Members continued to witness a stubborn
resistance to serious reform by those whose export subsidies and trade distorting domestic support
penalized the developing world.  Meanwhile the mandate on S&D was being reinterpreted by some as
a pretext to divide developing countries in order to limit their rights and increase their obligations.
37. The implementation file continued to be treated by several developed countries as a mere
irritant.  The fact that the Doha Declaration had inscribed these items in the single undertaking had
been questioned by some.  Recent setbacks were discouraging and should not be taken lightly.  But
there was still an opportunity to generate a more constructive dynamic, as Members moved forward
towards the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  In order to achieve this, an ambitious text on agricultural
modalities was needed in line with the Doha mandate.  While Members remained collectively
responsible for pursuing the goals set by Ministers in this key area, Brazil's delegation also looked tothe Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session for inspiration, leadership and professionalism in the
coming days and weeks.
38. Members also needed a convincing blueprint for dealing with implementation, which
combined procedure with substance.  This entailed the creation of a process capable of dealing with
the individual proposals which could not be subs umed in an existing negotiating group or Special
Session.  Brazil would by paying special attention to the proposals on TRIMs, TRIPS and CBD.
Members needed a new spirit of cooperation and dialogue on the S&D front so that substantial and
timely progress in this vital area could be achieved.  Members should ensure that discussions on
market access was fully taking into account the Doha mandate in terms of less than full reciprocity
expected from the developing world.
39. In the rules negotiations, Brazil's participation had been commensurate with the central
importance it attached to this subject.  Brazil's last contribution, together with a number of like-
minded countries, focused on Article 15 and was illustrative of the kind of movement they would be
pressing for on all fronts.  A sense of realism would be required in the DSU review front, where a
focused, circumscribed agenda would have to be defined soon in order for Members not to disperseTN/C/M/6
Page 9
their efforts and risk compromising the advances already made in a number of items and to abide by
the May 2003 deadline.
40. The adoption of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health remained a landmark
decision of great impact in the fight for access to more affordable medicines in the developing world.
It constituted an achievement in itself.  Members ha d to continue to search for a multilateral solution
to the problem identified in paragraph 6 within the scope of the Doha Declaration.
41. The representative of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the Least-Developed Countries , said
that before and after the Doha Ministerial Conference, the LDCs had been told repeatedly that the
Doha negotiations represented a development agenda, and that the current round of negotiations was a
development round.  These words no doubt reflected the deep commitment of the authors to
incorporate the development dimension into the negotiations.  So far, there had been developments in
the negotiating process, but little of the progress on the development dimension that had beenexpected.  The negotiations were not yet over and the LDCs still hoped to see the flavour of
development reflected.
42. On agriculture, Members had had extensive discussions from 22 to 24 January on the issues
raised in the Chairman's overview paper of 18 December 2002.  The Chairman's paper expressed a
divergence of views on the three main pillars: market access, domestic support and export subsidies.The major stakeholders, upon whom the fate of the negotiations rested, had not come up with the
anticipated concrete proposals.  It was clear from the overview paper that there was a wide range of
support for LDCs not being required to undertake reduction commitments, as was also stated in the
text of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Despite this specific provision, the issue of voluntary reduction
commitments from the LDCs had been raised.  This move was clearly contrary to the existingprovisions and spirit of the Agreement.  Many LDCs had undertaken extensive reforms in the field of
agriculture, particularly in the reduction of domestic support measures.  The LDCs had hoped that
development partners would create conditions that offered effective market access and a level playing
field for LDC primary products.  Not only had these not been achieved, LDCs were now being
requested by some to make "voluntary" reduction commitments.  The LDCs found such a request tobe both a violation of the Agreement and unrealistic.  Some LDCs, exporting primary products, were
suffering badly as a consequence of the actions ta ken by others to protect and promote their own
primary products.  The LDCs urged the membership to accelerate the process of finalizing the
modalities of the negotiations so that Members could come closer to fulfilling the mandate of the
Ministers.
43. With regard to the work on S&D proposals in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, LDCs hoped that  immediate action would be taken to address their needs.  This
had been the key to the development component of the Doha Agenda.  Ministers at Doha had given
the mandate to make all S&D provisions precise, operational and effective and it was in that context
that LDCs had submitted proposals at a very early stage.  In the beginning, there had been little
evidence of serious engagement, and later, there had been little progress in the discussions.  Members
had not treated this issue as negotiations in line with the mandate from Doha.
44. There appeared to be a wide divergence of views with regard to strengthening the existing
provisions.  In fact, in certain cases, an attempt was being made to interpret the provisions in a much
weaker manner than the language in the Agreements.  There was also an attempt to pass on key issues
to other negotiating bodies, thereby bypassing the mandate given by Ministers.  This was a disturbing
trend.  He emphasized that the Special Session of the CTD was the most appropriate forum to discussall S&D provisions, and the LDCs were prepared to continue to work under the Chairman.
45. A number of proposals had been submitted by Members, including the LDCs, on different
aspects of the dispute settlement process and he thanked the Secretariat for compiling them since this
was useful in order to understand the issues as well as the perspectives of Members.  These were
being discussed sequentially in the order of the DS U provisions and the LDCs were approaching theTN/C/M/6
Page 10
discussions constructively.  The LDCs had also submitted draft modalities for the special treatment of
LDCs in the service negotiations.  He thanked the Chairman of the Services Special Session for
convening an informal open-ended discussion on the LDC proposal, which had been welcomed in
general by the Members.  Many had commented on different aspects of the draft modalities and the
LDCs were considering those comments.  The LDCs considered the negotiations on services of primeimportance.  Since the LDCs were weak at the bilateral level, and individually lacked the necessary
expertise and knowledge, their aim was to establish modalities for negotiations that could safeguard
their legitimate interests.  At this stage, the modalities of negotiations should take into account the
levels of development of LDCs.  The LDCs hoped the membership would appreciate their
vulnerability in services negotiations, and support this endeavour.  At the same time, with the growing
contribution of the Services sector to LDC econom ies, and to the world economy, measures should be
taken very early on in the negotiations to create a level playing field for the LDCs.  The LDCs wouldcontinue to stress the importance of the services sector to their countries and to create modalities that
addressed their needs.
46. The representative of Honduras said that, since the Doha Ministerial Conference, the work
undertaken had not met the desired goals which led his delegation to wonder where the organization
was headed.  The heavy workload of his delegation required it to establish priorities.  Many ofHonduras' proposals had been taken on as options or mutually exclusive instruments as in the case of
agriculture.  Honduras wished to make it clear that the elements contained in those proposals were
complementary and necessary to implement the Doha Mandate.
47. The representative of Kenya associated his delegation with the statement by Morocco on
behalf of the African Group.  As the reports from Chairpersons of the various negotiating bodies
under the TNC had indicated, the negotiations had entered a delicate stage and it was time to change
gear to meet benchmarks set by Ministers in Doha.  Members were expected to establish modalities
for further commitments on agriculture by 31 March 2003, but had yet to narrow existing differences
on this issue.  Kenya urged the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture to
intensify his efforts so that Members could accomplish this important task within the agreed time-frame.  Kenya wished to highlight issues that were of paramount importance and hoped that they
would be reflected in the Chairman's upcoming modalities paper.
48. The main objective of the negotiations in agriculture was to remove all forms of distortion,
and this should be clearly spelt out in the Chairman's draft modalities paper.  Kenya also expected the
very useful contributions by developing country Members – who had not participated actively during
the Uruguay Round negotiations – to be taken into consideration.  Of particular importance to Kenya
was how S&D would be treated in the modalities paper.   As an integral part of the negotiations, his
delegation expected modalities to include development concerns such as food security, among others.
Thus it hoped that the issues raised by a number of developing countries, including Kenya, regarding
the establishment of the development box would be given prominence as part of practical and
concrete S&D in the modalities paper.
49. In the services negotiations, Kenya welcomed the efforts by the Chairman of the Special
Session of the Council for Trade in Service in carrying out consultations with the aim of reaching
consensus on the modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization.  His delegation
encouraged Members, in a spirit of flexibility, to support the Chairman’s initiative and finalize the
modalities expeditiously.  Kenya concurred with the Chairman's report that market access negotiations
in services were moving forward quickly and hoped that negotiations in other areas of crucialimportance to his delegation such as agriculture would also move forward to create balanced progress
in all areas of the negotiations.  His delegation wished to stress that those sectors and modes of
interest to developing countries should receive favourable consideration in the negotiations so that the
objectives of the GATS were achieved.  Members should recognise the technical difficulties faced by
developing countries in drawing up requests and offers in services.  As a result, Kenya wanted toemphasize that the deadlines for the submission of initial requests and initial offers should be
considered as indicative benchmarks.  Indeed, the pr ocess of preparing initial offers would be difficultTN/C/M/6
Page 11
for a number of Members since an assessment might be needed at the national level prior to a
commitment.
50. His delegation had taken note of the report, and appreciated the work, of the Chairman of the
Special Session of the CTD.  Unfortunately, Members were not willing to achieve meaningful
progress and commitments in addressing S&D as mandated by Ministers in Doha.  Kenya hoped thatafter missing two deadlines, Members would intensify their effort in strengthening and
operationalizing S&D provisions, yet only a handful of proposals were likely to be concluded by next
General Council meeting.  The Doha Work Programme would be judged to be a development round if
substantial work on S&D was accomplished to the satisfaction of developing countries and LDCs.
The rate of progress in S&D was likely to affect progress in others areas, therefore, his delegation
urged Members to reflect on this matter and see what else could be harvested before the next General
Council meeting.
51. Kenya had been disappointed that consensus could not be reached on TRIPS and Public
Health by December of last year, and welcomed those countries that announced that they would not
take action against Members that wished to address public health problems through compulsory
licensing.  Kenya, like others Members, saw this as a temporary measure while Members searched for
a permanent economically viable and legally binding multilateral solution.
52. It was unfortunate that a country that had adequate production capacity was not restricted
from using compulsory licencing to address its health  problems provided that it abided by the TRIPS
Agreement, yet those with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity might have to abide, according to
some proposals, by additional conditions, including limitations on the diseases that would constitute
health problems to make use of the compulsory licencing.  It appeared that some Members hadforgotten that the goal of the solution was to help those countries that had insufficient or no
manufacturing capacities to use compulsory licencing to have access to medicines as if they had
manufacturing capacities.  This was the cardinal point that should not be lost sight of so that a
practical, economically viable and legally binding solution could be found.
53. Kenya believed the solution should lead to the amendment of Article 31 of the TRIPS
Agreement, so as to incorporate regional trading arrangements as the domestic market, that would
attract investment in the pharmaceutical sector.  To Kenya, this was the permanent and practical way
of solving capacity problems faced by African countries.  Kenya welcomed the Deputy Director-
General's report on the scheduling of meetings and hoped that the concerns of small delegations
would be taken into consideration.
54. The representative of Egypt thanked the Chairper sons of the four negotiating bodies for their
reports on recent work carried out since the TNC met in December and said that little progress had
been achieved since then, which might be attributed to a lack of time between the two meetings of the
TNC and the end of year holidays.  Her delegation was dissatisfied with the state of progress as called
for by Ministers in Doha, in spite of the tireless efforts exerted by the Chairman of the CTD Special
Sessions in reviewing and strengthening S&D provisions.  The deadline was being extended de facto
for the third time, even without a true realization of the Doha mandate on the horizon.  Egypt believedthis should be a matter of serious concern not only to developing countries, but rather to all Members
since it struck at the credibility of the agreements reached in Doha.  Egypt called on all Members, and
developed partners in particular, to exercise the necessary political will to fulfill the mandate and
restore confidence in the round as a whole.
55. The representative of Colombia noted that, in spite of the efforts made by the Chairpersons,
there was failure to make progress, and this failure to meet the deadlines set by Ministers in Doha was
a matter of grave concern for the negotiations.  The inability to achieve agreement on implementation,
TRIPS and Public Health and S&D was very worrying, since positive developments in these areas
would enable Members to concentrate on the negotiating issues.  Time played a very important role in
building consensus in these negotiations and, for this reason, failure to meet the deadlines showed notTN/C/M/6
Page 12
only a worrying inability on the part of the organization to make progress, but it also destroyed the
very careful sequence which had been built up among the different issues.
56. From this point of view, the deadlines for modalities on non-agricultural market access and
for negotiating offers on services continued to  be the fundamental elements of the negotiations
mandated by Ministers in Doha.  In particular, the degree of ambition on agriculture would be thecornerstone of the negotiations and as such, until a clear definition of this area existed, the rest of the
round would be affected.  The scope and results of this round of negotiations would depend on its
success in the liberalization of all goods and services and elimination of subsidies and distortions.  It
would be a determining factor for the single unde rtaking and, in the final analysis, would enable
Members to determine whether this round would be a mini-round or a round which would have
greater significance for the progress of the multinational trading system.
57. In the agriculture negotiations, the challenge faced by the Chairman of the Special Session
would be to draw up a first draft text on modalities, which was sufficiently provocative that it
prompted a true discussion among Members on what  would be possible, and to expand the level of
ambition with longer deadlines while balancing the other areas of the negotiations.  In this discussion,
the leadership of the Chairman of the TNC would be paramount, because this was an issue which
would clearly go beyond the purview of agricult ure and would require a comprehensive overview.
58. In the services negotiations, Colombia was one of many countries which continued to work
on submitting requests as soon as possible since it attached great importance to these negotiations.
However, his delegation wished to draw attention to the close link between the progress in these
negotiations and that made in other areas of market access, particularly agriculture.  In the industrial
goods negotiations, Colombia particularly welcomed the ambitious proposals submitted because thisdemonstrated the determination of certain Members to commit to a broad and comprehensive round,
which would bring benefits to all Members.  In the rules negotiations, his delegation was following
the identification of disciplines to be negotiated, and believed that on the basis of the concept or
symmetry between the agreement on subsidies and that of anti-dumping considerable progress could
be achieved.  Colombia, like Brazil, expected disciplines on S&D treatment to be strengthened.  Onthe dispute settlement negotiations, like other Members, Colombia was deeply concerned by the
pending 31 May deadline.  His delegation was aware of the efforts carried out by the Chairman of the
Special Session of the DSB to make progress in this area, but given the limited time available, the
review of legal texts could not be undertaken until proposals were identified.  Colombia was
concerned that since 1998, the DSU has been under constant review, but it had provoked
misunderstandings as to what Members could ask from the system.  Colombia believed that the
system could not provide the measures and instruments which Members found in their own domesticcourts.
59. As to the link between the different issues an d the central role played by agriculture, his
delegation believed that in the present situation, those countries which were demandeur, in what had
been named the Singapore issues, should make a great effort to make the actual inclusion of new
issues on the agenda viable.  For Columbia, given the present circumstances, it would only be possibleto consider the expansion of the competence of this organization to new issues if it was convinced that
progress was being made in the trade in goods and services in all sectors, and in particular agriculture.
Furthermore, Columbia would have to be assured that the commitments required would make it
possible to allow room for development policies, as this was the central issue of the DDA.
60. As to future work, the date for agreement on modalities in agriculture and, in second place,
those in market access for industrial goods and the related services deadline would determine the
coverage of these overall negotiations.  If Colombia did not see any major progress in these areas and
also the commitment from the most important Member s to carry out deep rooted reform, it would not
be possible to make progress in trade liberalization.  Colombia believed that the negotiating dynamic
had to have the opportunity to show progress.  However, Colombia urged the Chairman of the TNC toinitiate an informal process to identify which elements of the Work Programme and what type ofTN/C/M/6
Page 13
Conference the system needed under the present circumstances.  This process was also required in
order to insure transparency, and it had already proved itself as a decisive factor in the successful
preparation of the Ministerial Conference in Doha.  Colombia also welcomed the Chairman's intention
to hold meetings at senior-official level, since it would be extremely useful to have capitals more
involved in the process.
61. The representative of Cuba expressed disappointment at the low rate of progress on the DDA,
in particular S&D treatment, implementation issues, TRIPS and Public Health and agriculture.  On
TRIPS and Public Health, it was essential to reach a multilateral solution which was both stable and
binding because the lives of so many people were at stake and in the agricultural negotiations, her
delegation continued to be very concerned about the lack of progress, in particular on S&D treatment.
Agriculture was not a matter for negotiation.  The Doha Declaration stated that S&D treatment would
be an integral part of all the aspects of the negotiations, so that developing countries would have theirdeveloping needs, such as food security and rural de velopment, taken into consideration.  Cuba noted
that despite the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture urging that bridges
be established to overcome existing gaps, no flexibility was found on the part of many of the major
group Members representing the two extreme positions in these negotiations.
62. However, a number of developing countries that were not represented in those groups had
suggested an intermediate solution which would have made it possible to include many of the interests
of all of the Members.  In the light of the Uruguay Round, the establishment of the modalities for
future commitments, Cuba, like a great number of deve loping countries, did not wish to see itself set
aside from the final results to emerge from this negotiating process.  Cuba encouraged the Chairman
of the Agriculture Special Session to take into consideration the interests of the great number ofdeveloping countries which, although they were not represented in the two major groups, represented
a very high percentage of the organization’s membership and took an active part presenting specific
proposals in the negotiating process.
63. Her delegation was alarmed by the lack of progress on implementation issues.  On many
occasions, the need to respect the calendar had been refered to, yet on implementation issues andS&D treatment, no progress had been made and deadlines had not been met.  Regarding
implementation, despite the fact that the Chairman’s consultations on these issues, the TNC had no
decisions before it, and once again, the solution was being delayed.  Unfortunately, the very spirit and
letter of the Doha Declaration was being ignored and indeed the complaints of the LDCs were not
being heard.
64. Cuba wished to reiterate the need for priority and urgent attention on all issues related to
development, and in particular those aspects relating to implementation and S&D treatment.  Itwelcomed the efforts of the Chairman of the Special Session on CTD to push this question forward,
but no results had been achieved.  Developing countries had shown great flexibility in agreeing to
extend the deadline to allow time for the disc ussion of these issues, so it was now time for the
industrialized countries to show their political will.
65. On the preparatory process for Cancún, her delegation was concerned that a great number of
meetings had been scheduled over the coming months and smaller delegations would be unable to
attend all the meetings of interest to them.  It hoped that the calendar of meetings would allow smaller
delegations to participate in the entire process.  Regarding the many meetings referred to as mini-
Ministerials, which were being organized in parallel with the process in the WTO, Cuba viewed these
meetings as selective and discriminatory.  Her delegation believed that these were methods whichwent against the overall spirit of the WTO since they were in contradiction to transparency, divided
the membership and made it more difficult to build consensus.  The serious issues which affected all
Members should be discussed within the WTO and not in parallel meetings, the purpose of which was
to impose last minute solutions benefiting only a minority and ignoring the rightful claims of the
developing world.  Cuba supported Morocco's statem ent on behalf of the African group as well as the
statement made by Bangladesh on behalf of the LDCs.TN/C/M/6
Page 14
66. The representative of Pakistan supported the Chairman’s proposal for a senior officials
meeting in April and said advance notice for such a meeting would be preferable.  His delegation
shared the concerns expressed by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on
Agriculture about no change in gear taking place and his appeals for progress falling on deaf ears.
Pakistan welcomed the proposal by the European Communities.  Turning to S&D, he said there hadseemed to be a lot of optimism at the beginning of the year, but now the same old story was apparent.
No real progress was being made and Members we re ignoring this development aspect of the DDA.
67. In the area of services, Pakistan noted with satisfaction that more than 30 countries had
submitted their requests to other Members.  However, his delegation was concerned that the
modalities for credit for autonomous liberalisation had not yet been established, which had a direct
bearing on the market access negotiations.  On the assessment of trade in services, his delegation
recognized that this was an on-going activity in the Council for Trade and Services, but despite the
commencement of this work in 2000, no conclusions had been drawn in overall terms as well as on
sectoral terms as was required.  These results would directly impact, not only on market access from
an individual country's perspective, but also on the overall conduct of the negotiations.
68. On the question of mini-Ministerial meetings, Pakistan fully shared the concerns of Cuba,
since these meetings were happening more frequently.  Pakistan was concerned because they werevery opaque and seemed to be a kind of parallel forum.
69. The representative of Paraguay said the Chairpersons' reports reflected the meagre level of
progress made so far.  Paraguay was concerned with the flexibility with which the deadlines
established in Doha were extended precisely because these negotiations were the cornerstone for
developing economies.  His delegation wished to note the imbalance in the progress in thenegotiations between the different bodies.  Without being alarmist, the credibility of the WTO was at
risk and many Members should ask themselves whether the multilateral system was the answer.
70. For his delegation, the DDA was a good instrument and ther efore, Paraguay was committed
to helping to ensure that Members complied with  what had been agreed at the Ministerial level
including the deadlines established in Doha.  In this context, agriculture was the center of thenegotiations for many developing Members, and in particular for Paraguay, which attached to it great
importance since its economy depended on agricultural exports.  The tariff escalation in force at
present prevented an appropriate development of Paraguay's industrial sector.  For this reason,
Paraguay had high hopes in the proposal on modalities which the Chairman of the Special Session of
the Committee on Agriculture was to put forward.
71. In these negotiations, it was essential to make progress on three areas: the elimination of
subsidies, the opening of markets and to insure that domestic support did not distort trade.  Hisdelegation hoped the Chairman's proposal would be very ambitious given the Ministerial mandate
from Doha and that Members would be sincere in this  process.  The levels of ambition of modalities
in agriculture, in percentages and in liberalization time-frames, would determine the level of ambition
and the hopes for progress in the rest of the negotiations throughout the round.  Respecting the
deadlines in these negotiations was essential in or der to sustain credibility in the WTO negotiating
process, and his delegation hoped not to see a repeat of past formulas which had not responded to the
needs of developing countries.
72. Paraguay hoped that the negotiations under the DDA would be centered on Geneva, since it
was concerned that some developed countries were promoting a dispersion of the discussions towards
other forums.  This meant that poorer countries with less influence and those that had a far smallershare of world trade were, once again, being discriminated against and such an approach did not
contribute to development.
73. His delegation appreciated the efforts by the Chairman of the Special Session on the Council
on Trade in Services, particularly on the establishment of modalities for autonomous liberalisation.TN/C/M/6
Page 15
Paraguay believed that paragraph 6 of his report should reflect the statement by Brazil on behalf of
Mercosur that the number of meetings should take into account the overall approach in Deputy
Director-General Abbott's report.
74. His delegation believed it was important to maintain the dynamics of liberalisation in trade in
services, and that multilateral trade in services would be more efficient and sound if progress inestablishing transparency, rules and disciplines on a horizontal basis were made.  In line with its
position, Paraguay was participating in the request process.  It had received requests from various
Members, and its offers would be directly linked to the degree of ambition reached in the agricultural
negotiations.  Similarly, its joint proposal with other Mercosur Members in the non-agricultural
market access negotiations reflected its overall view on market access negotiations, in that progress
made in agriculture would be a determining factor.
75. Paraguay congratulated the Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD for his efforts and
tremendous patience shown in his work.  An important understanding had been reached in December
2002 as a result of which the Enabling Clause would be applied in both spirit and letter as had been
agreed to in 1979, so that S&D treatment would be non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory.  Paraguay
hoped that Members would abide by the agreement at  Doha to reinforce S&D treatment provisions,
by making them more precise, effective and operational while also ensuring that these provisions didnot act against some developing countries.
76. The representative of Thailand said that the Chairpersons’ reports did not convey very good
news, especially on the most important issues for developing countries: TRIPS and Public Health,
S&D treatment and implementation.  There was no sign that these issues could be solved in the
foreseeable future.
77. The report of the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture had
indicated that little headway had been made in building bridges, and this raised concerns due to the
limited time ahead to comply with the 31 March deadline to establish modalities.  In this connection,
her delegation welcomed the European Communitie s commitment to the negotiation process.  The
challenges ahead for the Members were to raise the level of ambition on these issues to correspond tothe mandate given in the Doha Declaration.  Thailand was encouraged that the Chairman of the
Special Session on Agriculture would table the first draft of modalities at the next Special Session,
and was looking forward to participating in the Ch airman’s consultations.  Thailand hoped that the
deadline for this issue would be respected, otherwise the confidence of developing countries in the
WTO would be at risk.
78. The question of the credibility of the WTO was also applicable to TRIPS and Public Health.
The failure to meet the previous year's deadline as mandated by Ministers at Doha already indicated anegative impact on the future state of the negotiations.  Members should adopt political will and make
every possible effort to find an acceptable solution to these issues in a multilateral context, so that it
could be operationalized.
79. Thailand appreciated the efforts of the Chairman of the Special Session of the CTD in trying
to bring about a fruitful result to the Committee’s task s.  Although much remained to be done, and the
polarization of Members’ positions remained to be bridged, Thailand still hoped that this important
task mandated to Members at Doha will be fulfilled.  Members could not fail to resolve this important
issue for it would not only affect the trust of Members, but also the trust of the public in the
organization.  Her delegation strongly encouraged Members to work harder in the coming days and
adopt more flexible attitudes and positions, especially in the areas where common ground seemed tobe near.
80. The representative of Korea shared the concerns expressed by other delegations on the slow
and uneven pace of the negotiations.  However, his delegation was not too pessimistic for it was rare
to see a convergence of views at this early stage of the negotiations.  Nevertheless, the Members'TN/C/M/6
Page 16
failure to meet the deadlines for TRIPS and Public Health, S&D treatment and implementation issues
not only affected the progress of the DDA negotiations, but also eroded confidence in the multilateral
trading system by the outside world.  Korea appreciated the ongoing work of the relevant Chairmen,
and believed that all Members had to have a common understanding on the way to break the logjam.
81. Members needed to keep in mind that the greatest challenge was time and needed to exert
their best efforts to avoid transferring these issues to the already over-burdened Ministerial in Cancún.
Members should not succumb to the temptation of reopening or expanding agreed to elements, but
rather focus on the remaining divergences.  Delegations should refrain from the tactical approach of
holding off on certain issues as a means of making gains in other negotiating areas, for if the burden
of failure was imposed on these issues, and others, it was inevitable that the entire DDA process
would quickly become a debacle.
82. Undoubtedly, agriculture was the most critical issue through the end of March, and Korea
appreciated the efforts of the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture and
the Secretariat in preparing an overview paper which concisely summarised the current situation in a
balanced manner.  Korea shared the Chairman’s concern that there were still wide gaps among the
Members’ positions.  The first meeting this year to review the overview paper witnessed a continued
lack of movement towards a compromise.
83. With a view of avoiding another serious breach of the DDA time-line, Korea would like to
stress a number of points.  The key to making headway would be a practical and realistic approach by
the Members.  Ambitions should go in parallel with realities.  The harmonization formula, as
proposed by some Members, could wipe out some countries' agricultural sectors and their supporting
communities.  It should be recalled that the objective of the negotiation was the "substantialprogressive reduction" in agricultural support and protection as set out in Article 20 of the Agreement
on Agriculture.  The balance of interests and burdens among Members should be sought to work out a
compromise.  A domestic political consensus was required to accept the final outcome.  A
comprehensive package should be provided for the Members to assess their standing for the rules-
related elements were closely linked to the level of commitments, and without knowing whereMembers stood on the rules-issues, commitments could not be made.
84. As urged by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, Korea
would closely cooperate with him and other Members to work out a balanced and realistic outcome,
including the first draft of modalities to provide sufficient time for close examination and
consultations by the Members.
85. On services, it was crucial for all Members to submit their initial offers by the end of March,
so that full-fledged bilateral market access negotiations could start soon afterwards, and to allowsubstantial results in the negotiations.  Korea shared the view that meaningful progress in the
discussions was needed on the rules relating to services trade, including emergency safeguard
measures, subsidies and domestic regulations in tandem with market access commitments.  However,
it was necessary for Members to take a more realistic approach and for proposals to proceed in a more
practical way.  Indeed, on the road to Cancún, delegations had many other challenging tasks aheadand Korea wished to underline the importance of a realistic and flexible way of thinking in moving
forward.
86. The representative of Venezuela said that despite the efforts of the Chairman of the Special
Session of the Committee on Agriculture and many Members, he was concerned about the lack of
identifiable convergence on issues, given the pending deadlines.  Reaching agreement on agriculturewas an objective Venezuela was committed to.  However, meeting the deadlines could not be to the
detriment of developing countries' interests.  That was a fundamental objective of the negotiations
under way, so that countries like Venezuela could meet the social needs of rural areas and food
security.  These were issues that were key factors in the modalities which included the relationship
between the three negotiating pillars, the extension to all developing countries of a safeguardTN/C/M/6
Page 17
mechanism that was easily and effectively applied and to make operational provisions on S&D
treatment.  In order to live up the deadlines and pr epare for Cancún, the substantial elements that his
delegation mentioned should be included in the modalities to be established.
87. Venezuela took note of the report submitted by the Chairman of the CTD Special Session and
praised his efforts, yet that little progress had been achieved could not be ignored.  The resultsobtained in this area would be carefully analyzed by Venezuela and other developing countries as they
formed an integral part of the package for Cancún.  Clearly, there had to be a positive balance in favor
of development issues before decisions could be taken on issues which were of no interest to
Venezuela, namely the Singapore issues.
88. In the negotiations on the DSU, there was a risk of not reaching any concrete results by the
deadline of May 2003.  As in other cases, Members risked not living up to the commitments made in
Doha.  Venezuela was grateful to the Chairman of  the DSB Special Session for his efforts, however
the process was deadlocked.  For Venezuela the mandate was clear; Ministers had indicated that the
negotiations should be geared towards improving and clarifying the DSU.  Unfortunately some of the
proposals seemed to be out of line with the mandate and rather than trying to improve the DSU, an
attempt was being made to substantially change its pillars.  If the WTO had anything to be proud of, it
was the DSB, which had demonstrated its diligence and which should be preserved.  The DSU wasnot perfect, but it could be improved and this issue was what the mandate set out – to improve and
clarify the DSU.  On the negotiating table there were a number of realistic proposals that sought to
improve the DSU in a gradual way, particularly with respect to inconsistencies between the
procedures and their interpretation.  Venezuela urged all Members to consider how to structure these
negotiations in the time remaining so that in May, an agreement would at least be discernible in terms
of some basic and non-controversial elements.
89. The representative of Mexico said that the report of the Chairman of the Special Session of
the Committee on Agriculture showed that there continued to be great divergence between positions
and Mexico was concerned that time was running out to agree on modalities by the deadline.  Many
Members had said that agriculture was the cornerstone of the round, and Mexico agreed.  Membershad to be ambitious particularly in the area of subsidies to successfully complete a productive round.
Mexico hoped that the Chairman's paper would meet the deadline established in the Doha Declaration.
In the services negotiations, Mexico saw no major problems.  These negotiations were closely linked
to the other market access negotiations and Members could only move forward if a proper balance
was achieved.  Mexico was concerned about S&D trea tment because this was a very important topic
and progress here was a necessary condition to achieve a positive results for the round.  It was clearly
part of the negotiating mandate and Members needed to resolve it to achieve the proper balance.Expectations in this area exceeded reality, and many of the proposals needed reworking and Members
had to recognize that there were conceptual differ ences with respect to the strategies and policies
required to promote development in developing countries.  However, his delegation did not doubt that
Members were capable of achieving the necessary progress by the next meeting of the General
Council.
90. In the dispute settlement negotiations, there was a major opportunity to resolve the
substantive problems related to the DSB.  This was a mechanism that was fully operational, but the
incentives were somewhat out of balance.  A serious analysis of the most serious problems facing this
machinery was needed, as was the way in which the proposals were ranked in order to resolve these
problems.  Members were looking only at minimalist solutions with little vision and that was a matterof concern to Mexico.  Realism should not be confused with lack of vision.  If in the Uruguay Round
Members had been "realistic," they would have had an unresponsive DSB out of sync with reality.
This opportunity should not be lost and parliaments should not be asked to change laws to make
merely cosmetic changes.
91. Members were entering a key phase of the negotiations and there were some significant issues
that had to be resolved, such as implementation and TRIPS and Public Health.  A number of decisionsTN/C/M/6
Page 18
had not been taken by the deadlines, and this showed in some cases that there was a clear lack of
political will and, in other cases, that there were problems with the design of the Ministerial
Declaration.  Members should be careful not to unbalance the package since they all needed to be able
to sell the result at home, and there could be serious consequences for the tactics now being adopted.
Members had to move faster to reach Cancún with the technical work finished, so that Ministers couldtake the necessary political decisions.
92. The representative of Croatia, speaking also on behalf of Albania, Georgia, Jordan, Lithuania,
Moldova and Oman, said that these countries had recently acceded to the WTO and had made
extensive market-access commitments in their respective accession processes, which had been
recognized by Ministers in paragraph 9 of the D oha Declaration.  At the same time, these countries
had expressed their readiness to participate actively and constructively in the ongoing negotiations,
which had been translated into a concrete engagement in the current negotiating process.
93. On services, these delegations shared the assessment that the negotiations were proceeding
positively.  They had been fully engaged in the work on the issue of autonomous liberalization
engaging in constructive discussions with other Members, and would like to see the process finalized
soon.  The recently-acceded Members had shown a high level of flexibility both in formal meetings
and in informal consultations and they hoped that such an approach would be matched by adequateflexibility from other Members with respect to their concerns, which unfortunately was not yet the
case, although a solution should not be far away.
94. The importance of the negotiations on agriculture to the countries for which he spoke could
not be overstated.  The state of these negotiations reflected the importance and high stakes involved
for all participants.  Recently-acceded countries had made a very strong case that their specificsituations resulted from extensive market-access commitments during the accession process, often
going far beyond those that had been made in the Uruguay Round.  These countries had presented
proposals on the need to include specific flexibilit y provisions for recently-acceded Members in the
modalities for future commitments in this area.  These had been recognized and included in the
Chairman's overview paper as well as in the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture's report.As the first draft of the modalities was expected in the forthcoming days, the countries for which he
spoke believed that this draft should comprehensively reflect the specific interests of and proposals
made by Members, including recently-acceded Members.
95. The representative of South Africa said that he wished to raise a few concerns so that
Members could all redouble their efforts to put the negotiations firmly back on track.  While his
delegation appreciated the Chairman's efforts to move the issues of implementation and S&D forward,
it believed that no substantive or meaningful discussion was taking place on the issues of developmentand sustainable capacity building.  South Africa wished to participate in the process of strengthening
the WTO's capacity to implement the Doha mandate.  No more time should be wasted and Members
should use the coming months to produce positive reports for Ministers at Cancún.
96. His delegation had worked hard the previous year to contribute to a multilateral solution on
TRIPS and Public Health, and had been convinced that these efforts had resulted in a constructivecompromise in the Chairman's text of 16 December 2002.  South Africa appreciated the efforts of all
those that moved from their initial positions in the interests of building a consensus.  In Davos, South
African Minister of Trade and Industry Alec Erwin, had engaged with pharmaceutical companies,
who had insisted on particular wording that sought to limit the scope of diseases.  Minister Erwin had
warned them that their actions threatened the intellectual property rights system, which South Africawas committed to protecting in the WTO.  He had explained to them that the issue was not one of the
list of diseases, but the urgency of the situation or  emergency in public health.  As stated in the
African Group statement of 20 December, there were already sufficient safeguards built into the
16 December text to prevent abuse, and South Africa remained committed to working with the
Chairman to find a multilateral solution.  Since this issue was absorbing the meagre resources of smallTN/C/M/6
Page 19
missions, it was not wise to continue with any furthe r intense work if those that remained outside of
the 16 December solution were unwilling to come in on the basis of the Doha Declaration.
97. Agriculture was the driving force of this round of negotiations for almost all Members and
South Africa was concerned that while the European Communities had tabled their paper on
modalities, there were many signs that the political will to establish these by the end of March was notstrong.  South Africa wished to warn that a slippage of a core issue of the negotiations – of major
concern to developing countries added to the failure to meet the deadlines of concern to developing
countries, in implementation, S&D and TRIPS and Public Health – would have a domino effect on
both the political will and capacity of many countries to participate in other areas of the negotiations.
98. South Africa thus believed there was great danger of overloading the Cancún agenda if
Members continued to fail to meet agreed deadlines and were unable to build consensus in Geneva.  It
remained committed to ensuring that the WTO was strengthened and that the DDA was fully
implemented.
99. The representative of Uganda associated his delegation with the statements by Morocco on
behalf of the African Group and by Bangladesh on  behalf of the LDCs.  Uganda had regarded the
Doha Work Programme as being ambitious from the outset, but it had gone along with it because it
had been assured that the development dimension would be well catered for.  Foremost in thedevelopment dimension was the issue of S&D treatme nt.  Like other delegations from Africa, Uganda
had taken this issue very seriously and had devoted a lot of its resources to it, putting forward concrete
proposals on the specific Agreements and on the architecture.  But from the report of the CTD Special
Session Chairman, it was clear that not much discernable progress had been made.  In the light of this,
Uganda felt a sense of frustration and at times  wondered whether the development agenda would
actually be reflected in the Work Programme.  Uganda still remained optimistic and hoped that the
Chairman would be able to move the work forwar d, yet his delegation was disappointed when it heard
suggestions that these negotiation issues should be taken to separate negotiating groups.  These fears
were borne out by the experience in the work on implementation issues, which had taken a similar
route and on which hardly any progress had been achieved to date.  Uganda was thus very reluctant totravel that same route with respect to S&D.
100. Another area of interest to Uganda was agriculture.  In this area, Uganda had high ambitions
in terms of reducing domestic support and export subsidies, and in market access.  The mandate for
these negotiations stressed that S&D treatment was an integral part of the work, and Uganda was
therefore concerned about proposals being tabled that did not take this into account, trying instead to
make LDCs take higher commitments, even beyond what had been set out in the Uruguay Round
Agreement.  Uganda hoped that the Agriculture Special Session Chairman's paper on modalitieswould take S&D treatment into account.  Uganda urged the other large major trading partners to join
Japan, which at the last meeting had indicated that it was favorable to LDCs not undertaking reduction
commitments, in line with the Uruguay Agreement.  On TRIPS and Public Health, Uganda fully
subscribed to the statement by Kenya.  Uganda appreciated the efforts of the Chairman of the Council
on TRIPS, who had provided a useful compromise, and it hoped that a solution would be found.Uganda welcomed the moratorium in this area announced by the United States, but as Kenya had
indicated, Uganda's preference was for a multilateral solution, and this moratorium should not disrupt
Members from finding one.
101. At the present meeting, references had been made to mini-ministerial gatherings, and Uganda
had no problem with regard to this type of event, but it had always maintained that the results shouldnot be parachuted into the TNC.  Uganda noted that, while the LDC coordinator had been associated
with this type of event in the past, the LDC coor dinator had been progressively marginalized at the
recent events.  Uganda hoped that the coordinator would be invited in the future, so as to be able to
report back to the LDCs.  Furthermore, Uganda fully supported the Chairman's suggestion to convene
meetings at the level of senior officials.  Finally, in light of the dismal progress made, Uganda calledon all Members to re-examine their positions, so that they would not leave a large number of issuesTN/C/M/6
Page 20
unresolved for Ministers at Cancún.  It urged all Members to renew their political commitment, in
particular with regard to development.
102. The representative of Israel welcomed the TNC Chairman's concerns on the participation of
small delegations in the negotiating process and thanked Deputy Director-General Abbott for his work
on scheduling meetings.  Israel saw the proposed way forward in a positive light, but it wished to flagits concern on the issue of informal meetings and consultations which were not part of the official
schedule and which continued to be difficult for small delegations to follow and participate in.  Israel
fully appreciated what was involved in fulfilling the mandate given by Ministers at Doha and in the
success of the DDA, but it believed that more could be done to allow for more efficient participation
of all Members interested in helping this process forward.  While Israel agreed that in some
negotiating groups there was a good process, there were others it was concerned about.  Like many
others, his delegation was disappointed with the postponement of important deadlines.  On the
negotiations aimed at clarifying and improving the DSU, Israel had similar concerns as those raised
by Chile and others at the present meeting.  Israel's main concern was that Members would not be able
to fulfill the mandate in the time-frame available.  Israel believed that Members needed to be more
pragmatic and realistic approach in order to succeed on all fronts.
103. The representative of Indonesia said that, while recognizing that there was a need for more
efforts and innovative ideas, his delegation hoped the present stock-taking exercise would be helpful
in encouraging Members to give an extra push to th e negotiations so as to fulfill the mandate in the
Ministerial Declaration.  Indonesia appreciated the efforts made by the Chairman of the Agriculture
Special Session in trying to move the negotiations forward, and it agreed with his assessment that the
positions of Members were still far apart on many critical issues, sharing also his view on theimportance of meeting the end of March deadline.  However, Indonesia wished to remind Members of
the critical importance of agriculture to the social and economic development of many developing
countries and of the valid concerns of these countries, particularly concerning food security, rural
development, employment and poverty alleviation.  These issues should not be sacrificed for the sake
of meeting deadlines or bridging the differences in positions.  His delegation recognized that if therewas to be meaningful reform in agriculture, it was important to have a high level of ambition in the
first draft of the modalities text, particularly on export subsidies and domestic support.  Modalities
which did not allow the commitment to undertake fundamental reform in the areas of domestic
support and export subsidies by those who were responsible for the grave distortions and which failed
to allow developing countries to effectively address food security and rural development would have
no chance in rectifying the current imbalance in the Agreement on Agriculture.  This would be
difficult for Indonesia to accept.
104. On the issues of S&D treatment and the outstanding implementation issues, Members were
aware that developing countries and LDCs attach an importance to seeking a prompt solution.  At the
General Council meeting in July 2002, developing c ountries and LDCs had shown their flexibility by
accepting the extension of the deadline to continue discussions on S&D provisions.  However, his
delegation was disappointed at the lack of progress in the discussions, for it found that so far not muchsignificant progress had been achieved on the proposals submitted by developing countries and LDCs.
As the next deadline nears, Indonesia urged all Members not just to show greater political will to
move the negotiations forward, but also to show mo re flexibility so an agreement can be reached.  In
the DSU negotiations, his delegation understood that the work had moved to a new phase by
discussing specific legal texts in the last Special Session of the DSB.  In terms of process, Indonesiabelieved this to be a positive development towards concluding these discussions by the end of May
2003.  This had also enabled Members to discuss each proposal in greater detail without limiting the
legitimate right of each Member to discuss its own proposal.  His delegation encouraged the
Chairman to continue this process and hoped Members would be able to complete the first reading of
the text discussion by the March meeting.  Indonesia believed it was too early at this stage for theChairman to draw up, on his own responsibility, a li st of possible elements reflecting areas where
agreement might be reached or proposals that enjoyed broad support from Members.  As the WTO
was a Member-driven organization, sufficient opportunities should be provided to all Members toTN/C/M/6
Page 21
discuss their own proposals.  It was then up the Members themselves to determine if they wished to
maintain the proposals in the process of negotiations.
105. The representative of China said that, despite the hard work of all the Chairpersons and the
efforts exerted by many Members, all the negotiating deadlines had been missed in the three priority
areas of S&D treatment, outstanding implementation issues, and TRIPS and Public Health, eventhough the deadline for S&D issues had been extended until the end of December 2002.  At the
present, another three deadlines were being faced in the negotiations on modalities in agriculture and
non-agricultural market access and in the negotiations on the DSU.  China was concerned about
whether these three new deadlines could be met, and since the WTO's image had already suffered,
missing these would be another blow to its credibility.  On the three priority areas with missed
deadlines, China appealed to all Members, particularly major developed Members, to take specific
steps to accommodate the special difficulties and needs of the developing Members and LDCs so as toconvince them that they could benefit substantially from, and be fully involved in, the multilateral
trading system, including the ongoing negotiations.
106. With regard to TRIPS and Public Health, his delegation believed that unilateral action was not
the solution, since it was not an option to replace multilateralism with unilateralism on any issue
related to the WTO.  This was particularly the case when there was a clear mandate from Ministers,and doing so could only erode the multilateral trading system.  In the agriculture negotiations, China
appreciated the efforts of the Agriculture Special Session in the work on modalities.  To ensure an
accelerated and balanced progress in all areas of the negotiations, it was of primary importance to
obtain remarkable achievements in agriculture.  The majority of Members believed progress on
agriculture would have substantial and substantive impact on all other areas of the negotiations.  Inthis regard, the key was to have ambitious modaliti es agreed within the deadline, to facilitate the
negotiations for the full and efficient integration of agriculture into the multilateral trading system.  At
the same time, the specific situation and difficulties of the developing countries should be taken into
special account.
107. On services, China appreciated the hard work by the Chairman of the Services Special
Session.  It hoped to see concrete progress in the negotiations of rules in the services area, in
particular in sectors such as maritime transport and modes of supply, particularly mode 4, which were
of great export interest to developing countries.
108. With regard to the special difficulties faced by recently-acceded Members in areas related to
market access, China fully supported the intervention by Croatia on behalf of recently-acceded
Members.  These Members had made extensive market access commitments for their membership in
the WTO, which had been recognised and reflected in the Ministerial Declaration, and they neededmore time to digest and implement these commitments  to adapt them to different sectors of their
economies.  Since these commitments were up to the limits of their economic and social capacities, it
would be difficult for them to make further substa ntive concessions related to the new negotiations.
Taking this factor into serious account was important for the successful continuation and conclusion
of the negotiations.
109. The representative of Costa Rica said that the next few months would be decisive and there
was a need for more effort and flexibility, and for the common objectives of economic growth and
development to prevail in Members' positions, which had now become entrenched.  In terms of time,
Members were more than two thirds of the way fr om Doha to Cancún, but the same could not be said
about progress on the substance.  There was a need to focus work on finding approaches to achievingconsensus.  The relevant mandates agreed at Doha should be completed by the time of Cancún, and a
"second best" solution would cause harm to everyone and to the system.
110. The report by the Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session showing that little or no
progress had been made in some of the areas of agricultural negotiations meant that there was a
serious lack of balance in the package of negotiations.  This endangered the important progress whichTN/C/M/6
Page 22
had been made in other areas.  It was necessary for agriculture to move forward at the same pace as
the other negotiations to ensure that there would be positive results in all areas.  It was absolutely
necessary that those who still believed, by conviction or by strategy, that they had no need to be
flexible in these negotiations understand that they were endangering not only the rest of the
negotiations, but also economic recovery and development, which were urgent matters for developingcountries.
111. Like in many developing countries, trade was one of the main components of Costa Rica's
development strategy, because it believed that a higher level of sustainable development could be
reached through its own efforts and by taking advantages of its natural advantages.  The results of this
round were necessary to Costa Rica, and it did not believe this was possible without achieving the
objective of establishing an equitable market-oriented agricultural trading system through
fundamental reform, which would create substantial improvements in market access, eliminate allforms of export subsidies and reduce substantially trade-distorting domestic support.  For Costa Rica,
it was unthinkable that one could speak about the problems faced by developing countries and, at the
same time, ignore the devastating impact that agricultural subsidies had on the producers and the
people of developing countries.  She wondered how  the two issues could be separated when it was
known that the highest levels of poverty were found in the rural areas of developing countries.  Costa
Rica had noted the exhortation by the Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session to redouble efforts,
but it believed that prolonging the negotiating process would not make it easier to obtain results, and
so it hoped that the circulation of the draft text on modalities would allow the necessary consensus to
be built.
112. Costa Rica wished to reiterate its support for substantial improvements in market access for
non-agricultural goods in the negotiations under the Doha mandate.  The idea that developed countries
were the only ones which exported industrial goods was now old.  In fact, more and more countries
were taking advantage of trade liberalization in this area.  For this reason, Costa Rica believed that it
had a great deal to gain from these negotiations, including improvements in market access conditions
between developing countries, or South-South trade.  However, it was concerned at the lack ofcoherence between the positions of some Members, in particular on the different levels of ambition.
113. On the report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services,
Costa Rica noted with satisfaction that the negotiations had reached the bilateral negotiating stage,
and it was confident that consensus would soon be reached on the multilateral disciplines, namely
autonomous liberalization and special treatment for LDCs.  Costa Rica was also pleased with the
progress reported by the Chairman of the Special Session of the DSB and the beginning of the review
of legal texts, which would allow Members' proposals to be studied in greater depth.  However, thisstage and the one that followed, moving towards a consensus text, would require greater efforts so
that the deadline established by Ministers could be respected.  For that reason, it was important to
consider the way in which Members could focus their work and move rapidly to a phase which would
allow them to agree on improvements acceptable to all.  In the area of rules, Costa Rica supported the
negotiations.  In the negotiations on antidumping, it was confident that in depth discussions ofproposed amendments prior to Cancún would enable Members to move towards the reforms needed in
this Agreement.
114. Costa Rica wished to express its deep concern at the lack of results in the work on
development-related issues.  Results in this area were of great importance to many developing
countries and were essential part of the commitments made by Ministers at Doha.  The issue of TRIPSand Public Health required greater efforts, because of its the humanitarian dimension.  Furthermore,
Costa Rica hoped that progress would be made on S& D treatment and implementation-related issues.
Finally, Costa Rica wished to indicate that there we re other issues which, even though they were not
under the purview of the TNC, were essential parts of the package for Cancún.  It would be difficult to
assess progress in the lead-up to the Ministerial Conf erence without taking into account such issues of
enormous importance as investment and trade facilitation.  It was thus essential to begin to think in
broader terms about the package for Cancún.TN/C/M/6
Page 23
115. The representative of Nicaragua said that it was clear that Members were currently facing a
problem that could not be solved through technical work while there was no real political will and
openness to dialogue.  It was also clear that just proposing new technical elements or drafting was not
enough to allow consensus to be reached.  In a number of areas, much effort had gone into drafting
text in an attempt to meet the diverse needs and interests, but solutions had yet to be found.  Thisindicated that the solutions necessary were not technical but rather political.  With some exceptions,
all the cards were now on the table and there were no technical difficulties that were actually forcing
Members to continue their bluffing.
116. Nicaragua agreed with the Chairman of the Agriculture Special Session on the need to review
a number of key issues in his overview paper because it was urgent to move towards convergence.
This process needed to take into account the aspirations of each and every one of the participants, but
this had not happened in the case of Nicaragua  and other developing Members.  Although his
delegation was pleased to see some of the points it had made in the Chairman's paper, there were yet
others which had not been taken into account, and it was confident that the final version of the
document would contain a comprehensive view of all th e proposals by Members.  In order to be fully
objective, the characteristics and proposals of each Member should be included.  Some groups of
Members had come forward with proposals representing their interests, but there were otherdeveloping countries which were not members of any particular group, and therefore it was important
to include the views of all developing countries and not just some.  Despite some subtleties in the
views of developing countries, they all shared the same aspirations.  They might approach these in
different ways, but they were all aiming at the same objective.
117. The mandate in agriculture contained not only deadlines, but also specific instructions from
Ministers to establish an fair and market-oriented agricultural trade system, achieve substantial
improvements in market access, reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export
subsidies, and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support.  Furthermore, S&D
treatment was to be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations.  All Members should recall
that, even if the deadline had to be respected, it was even more important to respect this mandate.  Forthe Chairman's first draft of the modalities to be able to serve as a basis for future work, it would have
to be inclusive.  Nicaragua urged all Members to participate constructively in this work, and to start to
look for common ground.
118. On S&D treatment, Nicaragua appreciated the efforts of the Chairman of the CTD Special
Session.  The lack of progress in this work was unfortunate for all involved, and was evidence of a
lack of political will.  The solution would be found by only resolving the differences on substance, but
rather by also focussing on S&D treatment as a horizontal issue linked to each of the WTOAgreements.  As in the case of agriculture, his delegation urged Members to reorient their negotiating
efforts in line with the mandate, and not to engage in reinterpretations of it.  Delegations had been
asked to review the existing provisions in order to  strengthen them and make them more operational,
and it was the Ministers who would give the green light to implement the results of this review.
Finally, he wished to point out that developing-country economies were greatly dependant on stabilityin international trade, and they suffered dramatically from any disturbances in it.  The two issues he
had referred to were key to definitive economic recovery in these countries.  Liberalization of
agricultural markets would enable their economies to grow and S&D treatment would protect them,
and if this were to occur, all Members would have triumphed.
119. The representative of India hoped that the monthly meetings of the TNC leading to the
Ministerial Conference in Cancún would result in a significant change in the prevailing atmosphere.
Members had started the Doha Work Programme with great expectations and in the belief that it
would have a definite development focus, and th at Members would work together to achieve real
progress.  Unfortunately, the work done since Doha largely belied this expectation.
120. Ministers had given delegations only three years to complete the Work Programme and in the
fifteen months since Doha, not one significant result had been achieved.  The Ministers, besidesTN/C/M/6
Page 24
having laid down the content of substantive work, had also deliberately prescribed deadlines so that
work could proceed in a phased manner taking into account, in particular, the limitations of small
delegations.  All the deadlines had passed without concrete results being achieved, and delegations
were still debating the same issues.  India believed that unless Members had the political will to
translate activity into results, progress would not be made.  His delegation wondered whether theCancún Ministerial Conference could resolve in five days what delegations had failed to negotiate in
two years.  He also wondered whether delegations were not placing a burden on Ministers which was
humanly impossible to carry out.
121. Most developing countries, including India, felt a deep sense of disappointment in the manner
in which the negotiations were progressing.  Developing countries expected a certain degree of
balance in the manner in which the negotiations proceeded.  This balance was inherent in the
deadlines laid down in the Doha Ministerial Declara tion, and it was presently absent in the work.  He
recalled that in 2000 and 2001 many developing count ries, including India, had had reservations about
proceeding with a new Work Programme until these imbalances were corrected.  However, in the
interests of the multilateral trading system, they ha d resolved to set aside their concerns and join the
consensus with the expectation that these issues would be taken up as a priority and solved by
December 2002.  There was concern in his country that not even a single S&D treatment orimplementation issue had yet been effectively addressed.  India was finding it difficult to answer its
stakeholders' questions on the DDA.  The accepta nce of some of these S&D and implementation
issues, which were of commercial and economic value, would enable India to continue the
negotiations with a positive frame of mind, especially to convince domestic constituencies of
progress.  Developed countries needed to engage positively in trying to resolve these issues ratherthan looking at them from a purely technical point of view.
122. India also had a feeling of despondency in other areas.  In the agriculture negotiations, there
was little real expectation that the modalities deadline of 31 March 2003 would be adhered to and
failure to achieve this deadline, as well as the other deadlines on development-related issues, would
definitely have an impact on the other deadlines set by Ministers before the next MinisterialConference.  The net result would be an enormous overload at Cancún, which the system might find
impossible to sustain.
123. There were indications of a serious mismatch between the expectations of certain countries
and groups of countries and what could actually be achieved.  His delegation believed that the
problems faced by many developing countries, including India, were not fully understood and
appreciated.  In agriculture, for example, the problem of market access was of crucial importance to
several developing countries whose huge rural populations were predominantly dependent onagriculture as a means of living.  Therefore, India could never agree to any situation that endangered
the lives and means of living of millions of its small and marginal farmers and agricultural labourers.
His delegation also shared the view of African Group on the importance of non-trade concerns, such
as food security and poverty reduction.  These issues were of first priority to India.  When his
delegation heard of various formulae intended to sharply bring down tariffs without effectively andsubstantially bringing down domestic support and e xport subsidies, or by merely juggling with the
boxes, it perceived a complete lack of understanding of the real situation prevailing in countries like
India.  His delegation believed market access was not equal to tariffs alone, it was rather a function of
several factors, including tariffs, export subsidies, domestic support, non-tariff measures and SPS
measures.
124. In the negotiations on non-agricultural market access, India would like to see considerable
progress, particularly in areas of export interest to developing countries, as set out by Ministers at
Doha.  However, here again, it was necessary to ensure that the negotiations were conducted strictly
in accordance with the provisions of GATT Article XXVIII bis and paragraph 16 of the Ministerial
Declaration.  The concept of less than full reci procity should be fully integrated into the final
outcome, and the revenue and developmental needs of developing countries should be fully
recognized.  A plethora of extremely complicated formulae had been put forward by variousTN/C/M/6
Page 25
countries, some of which India was still struggling to understand.  India hoped that a simple method
of achieving results could be found, and it urged all delegations to study India's clear and
uncomplicated proposal, which would deliver what was possible without having to resort to complex
mathematics.
125. There were also other areas were progress was needed.  Members had to complete their work
on dispute settlement by May, and they had to start submitting offers on services by March, although
the process of making initial requests had not been completed.  In the area of rules, the situation
continued to be uncertain and there was no indication as yet regarding the contours of a possible
outcome.  His delegation believed it was time to attempt to take stock, fully and objectively, of the
situation and the manner in which Members intended to advance until Cancún.
126. India believed that success at Cancún depended on three significant factors.  First, there
should be political will to resolve issues and also engagement at the political level even on technicalissues.  Second, it was important that the Chairpersons, when they presented their proposals on
modalities or their reports, should strictly adhere to the decisions taken by the TNC and enumerated in
detail in the Statement by the Chairman of the General Council at the first meeting of the TNC on
1 February 2002.  This Statement, endorsed by the General Council, enjoined Chairpersons to be
"impartial and objective", "ensure transparency and inclusiveness in decision-making", "facilitateconsensus among participants", and "in their regular reporting to overseeing bodies, Chairpersons
should reflect consensus, or where this is not possible, different positions on issues".  It was important
that the proposals or reports of the Chairpersons fully incorporate these principles.  Third, there had to
be intense work in Geneva in preparation for the Ministerial Conference.  Such work could not be
done by a group of countries alone, but should involve the entire membership.  The involvement ofsenior capital-based officials, particularly during the last two or three months before the Ministerial
Conference, could perhaps result in a more manageable agenda for Cancún.  This would require a
series of intensive meetings, almost on the model of the Ministerial Conference, to precede the
Cancún meeting itself.  There should also be a clear perception of what could and could not be
achieved while taking into account the concerns of all groups of countries, particularly developingcountries.
127. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that the statements made at the present meeting had showed the basic problem being faced
in the dispute settlement negotiations, namely the very different levels of ambition among the various
participants and the different understandings of the phrase "improvements and clarifications", as
contained in the group's mandate.  What constituted an improvement or clarification to some,
represented a fundamental change to the DSU to others, who considered that this went beyond themandate.  This was the kind of debate which made his task as Chairman rather difficult.  He was often
being advised, including at the present meeting, to  focus the negotiations on specific issues on which
there was consensus, but there was no single issue which he could identify with a clear conscience as
having consensus.  It was rather a question of there being various levels of support on the different
issues, and in the next weeks, the group would have to see where the highest level of common interestlay.  Even delegations which had submitted rather ambitious proposals had stated that proposals
which had been opposed should be dropped, but he was sure that the proponents of any proposal
would be unhappy if he, as Chairman, decided to do so.  Members would have to be cooperative and
patient in the coming period, devoting their efforts to consensus building and the search for
convergence.  He was sure that the outcome of this work would be a clearer picture of the scope of theexercise.  He believed it was the role of the Chairman to help and guide delegations, but not to
negotiate with delegations – that was what delegations should be doing among themselves.
128. The representative of New Zealand said that the statements at the present meeting had largely
been by developing countries, expressing varying degrees of unhappiness, and a developing-country
colleague had pointed out to him that no devel oped country had taken the floor.  New Zealand
probably had more to gain in a relative economic sense from these negotiations than any other
Member, and his delegation was hardly happy with the progress, but it was by no means despondent.TN/C/M/6
Page 26
From the comments at the present meeting, it appeared that the unhappiness expressed was, of course,
about the missed deadlines.  Perhaps not much progress was being made with respect to timelines, but
his delegations had no doubt about the underlying commitment.  In mid-2002, all delegations were
congratulating themselves over the progress made, in particular in the light of events at that time.
Such an atmosphere could only ever last until the next crisis, because the system always movedforward in discontinuities, which was precisely the present situation.  His delegation believed that the
work was on track and that a useful package of results would be obtained.  The question of timelines
was another matter.
129. Ambassador Groser (New Zealand), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules, said that
his overall assessment of the work in his group was virtually identical to that of the previous meeting.
His group was meeting in the course of the present week and he would not imagine that this meeting
would alter that situation.  The question of timelines was not important for his group, since there werenone, as he had stated previously, and the flexibility which resulted from this had facilitated progress
rather than inhibiting it.  Broadly speaking the group had two different sets of issue before it.  The
first was related to RTAs, on which the group was making excellent progress, and he was confident
that this would continue.  The second was related to trade remedies and subsidies, which were deeply
sensitive issues, and here the group was still in the identification phase.  Many of the issues beingdiscussed were genuinely technical and difficult, a nd it would be premature to try to move to real
engagement between Members before he was advised by them that all the pieces of the puzzle were
on the table.
130. The representative of Malaysia said that the present meeting seemed to be a replay of the
December meeting, but it had been striking that no developed country had taken the floor, which his
delegation took to mean that they were in a listenin g mode.  It would be good for them to listen to the
chorus of caution, regret and concerns, which was natural in the light of the lack of progress.
However, his delegation agreed with New Zealand that there were ups and downs in a negotiating
process.  Perhaps this was a down phase, but that  did not mean that delegations would not continue
working; in fact they would continue up to the eve of Cancún.  But delegations had to bear in mindthat they were not only listening to each other at the present meeting – outside there were people
waiting to report on the meeting, so that the outside world would know whether the work was moving
ahead or not.  The meetings of the TNC were markers, in terms of seeing the state of progress of the
work, and this was helpful as the work continued.  It was not a question of declaring failure at this
stage.  His delegation had often stressed that Cancún was not the end of the negotiations – that was
rather 1 January 2005.  To Malaysia, Cancún was just  another marker.  Certain decisions would have
to be taken there, but the markers set down at each TNC meeting would indicate whether certainissues were ripe for decision at Cancún or whether they still had to be negotiated, and which issues
required further guidance from Ministers.  The present meeting had shown that there were genuine
concerns about some issues, such as agriculture, and developed countries should listen to them.  Many
developing countries had concerns about development issues, and there was a need to really make the
DDA a development agenda.  Some Members had even started questioning why there should be S&Dfor certain developing countries, and this did not help.  His delegation was realistic.  But being
realistic meant that when the work did not move, further decisions from Ministers at Cancún were
necessary.
131. The representative of the European Communities said that he would have been willing to
make a statement in the formal meeting, but he wa s waiting to do so in the informal segment of the
meeting.
132. The representative of Australia said he also wa s waiting for the informal segment to make his
statement.  However, he disagreed with the asse ssment of the situation by New Zealand, and noted
that there were substantial disappointments in some areas.  It was easy to look at one particular area in
which there were no deadlines or objectives and to see an optimistic picture, but this was not the caseeverywhere.TN/C/M/6
Page 27
133. The representative of the Philippines said he would have been surprised if no developed
country had taken the floor at the present meeting, in particular since he had been waiting to react to
their statements.  He hoped that these countries were in listening mode, and that the concerns raised
by developing countries would alert them to their responsibilities.  On TRIPS and Public Health, his
delegation believed that beneficiary countries and the concerned public could only decry the inabilityof a large organization like the WTO to address the specific issue from Doha concerning LDCs and
developing countries with limited or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector.  The
entry into the equation of the strong lobbies of the pharmaceutical companies had clearly thwarted the
initial goodwill and firm resolve shown by devel oped countries at Doha.  This development could
only cast a shadow of doubt on the capability of the WTO to rise above the partisan and commercial
interests of Members for a humanitarian cause, which the Doha Declaration had been intended to
address.  Without a solution which preserved the full integrity of that Declaration, he wondered ifanything could be decided with firmness in Cancún.
134. In the negotiations on services, with over 30 requests on the table, and bilateral discussions
taking place, one should not diminish the importance of the difficulties expressed by developing
countries, such as Kenya and his country, that for various technical, policy and other reasons, they
might not submit offers by 31 March.  If that was the case, developed countries should be prepared toaccept the provision in the Guidelines for the negotiations that developing countries should not be
expected to offer commitments in many sectors and measures of services liberalization.  For most
developing countries such as his, preparedness was a long-term issue that traversed the spectrum of
substantive understanding, information access, assessment of experiences, broad-based domestic
consultation and the issues of emergency safeguard measures, specific commitments, domesticregulation and credit for autonomous liberalization in the various services committees, which seemed
to have been sidelined in the discussions in favour of request and offers and the promise of positive
engagement.
135. In the agriculture negotiations, the Philippines hoped that all Members were committed to
establishing modalities by 31 March, because even at the last meeting of the Agriculture SpecialSession a developed country had suggested that this  would have to wait until Cancún.  He wished to
stress that the modalities could not set out levels of ambition lower than the Doha mandate, because as
the lynchpin of the negotiating process, a lowering of ambitions in agriculture would spell breakdown
for other negotiating areas, such as services and non-agricultural market access.  The continuation of
massive export subsidies and domestic support and the promise of real reform in global production
and trade in agricultural products could no longer be postponed, because this  would only wipe out the
possibility of market-based agricultural production and export programmes, and also affect the cost ofand market access potential of various agricultural-based exports of developing countries.  The
Philippines believed that the future growth and development objectives were hanging in the balance
of these agricultural negotiations, and therefore modalities which were favourable to real reform were
the only solution possible to the present crisis.
136. On S&D, his delegation appreciated the efforts of the Chairman of the CTD in Special
Session to carry out substantive and focused discussions of the Agreement-specific issues and the way
forward.  This was the only way there could be an outcome.  The work on operationalizing S&D
would influence the way S&D would be incorporated into all the agreements being negotiated.  While
S&D provisions were based on best efforts, developing countries would always be disadvantaged in
their relationships, and their negotiating positions, with developed countries.  In the dispute settlementnegotiations, his delegation believed there was a disconnect in the progress of work, as the Chairman
of those negotiations had reported.  The main problem was that widening the scope of the substantive
discussions on the various proposals could not replace what some Members believed should be a
focus on quality outcomes, since this was the first opportunity to address certain substantive
deficiencies in the present dispute settlement process.  Finally, his delegation would carefully examinethe Programme of Meetings being circulated by Mr. Abbott to see if it would be involved in two or
more meetings of importance to it, considering the number of meetings scheduled, both in the
negotiations and in the regular work.TN/C/M/6
Page 28
137. The representative of Bulgaria supported the statement by Australia on the present situation,
in which it had been made clear that the situation was serious in those areas in which there were
deadlines.  Australia had not mentioned which areas were concerned, but this could not have included
agriculture since the deadline had not yet expired.  For this reason, he imagined Australia had been
referring to implementation, where the deadline had expired, including on the issue of geographicalindications.
138. The representative of Japan said the statements at the present meeting had contained much
pessimism as to the future of the work.  This re minded him of the stock market analyst who had said
wisely that when one looked at the stock market, one could either take a bullish approach or a bearish
approach, bullish meaning positive, bearish meaning pessimistic, and a bearish analysis always
sounded more sophisticated than a bullish one.  He believed Members should not fall into the trap of
self-fulfilling prophecy in being pessimistic about the negotiations.  Japan considered it indispensableto maintain balanced progress in the context of a comprehensive negotation.  A comprehensive
agenda included not only market access related areas such as agriculture, non-agriculture and services,
but also areas such as the strengthening of rules, in particular on anti-dumping.  It also could not be
comprehensive without covering the Singapore issues.
139. On agriculture, his delegation shared the Agriculture Special Session Chairman's views that
overall Members were still far apart on many of the critical issues set out in overview paper, and that
a considerable effort would have to be made by Members in order to meet the end-of-March deadline.
Japan urged all the Members to show flexibility in order to establish realistic and comprehensive
modalities, and it considered the formulae and figures put forward by some Members to be unrealistic.
When there were differences among Members, delegations should first devote their efforts to reachingconsensus.  It would be inappropriate to hastil y draw up draft modalities pursing only one certain
direction.  In this connection, there was no room for Japan and for many others to accept the idea of
extreme and one-size-fits-all tariff harmonization which lacked flexibility for product-by-product
coverage and denied consideration to non-trade conc erns, which was a part of the Doha mandate.  The
Chairman's overview paper issued in mid-December had stated that:  "What is now required is toconcentrate on the key aspects, keeping in mind that the negotiations on agriculture do not end at the
end of March 2003 and that there will be time thereafter to address matters not directly required for
the purpose of establishing draft Schedules of further commitments."  However, Japan believed that
the modalities had to be comprehensive in accordance with the Doha Declaration, and not exclude
some elements of rules.
140. In the work on S&D, the question was whether Members could submit a recommendation to
the General Council the following week based on the CTD Special Session Chairman's 22 proposals
and a recommendation on how to proceed.  Japan could, to some degree, understand why the African
and the LDC groups had submitted much revised texts.  However, at this late juncture, Japan wished
to urge Members to reach an agreement on as many proposals as possible at the General Council
based on the Chairman's text.  On implementation, Japan believed it was not appropriate to treat all
outstanding implementation issues in an identical way.  The diversity of the outstanding issues did notallow a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather called for a case-by-case approach.  While respecting the
importance of every issue, Members should concentrate their resources where they could be best used.
141. In the services negotiations, Japan appreciated the fruitful discussions held among Members
who had already submitted their initial requests.  As it had repeatedly pointed out, it was important for
each Member to submit its initial offer by the end of March in accordance with the deadline set by theDoha Declaration.  Japan wished to emphasize that it was critical for developing countries to observe
this deadline in order to move the entire round forward.  On the Singapore issues, Japan believed that
constructive discussions had taken place in the respective working groups.  Members should continue
their efforts to clarify different the issues, so as to be able to launch negotiations at Cancún.  On the
DSU review, the negotiations were now at a new st age.  However, various proposals were on the
table, and there remained differences in Members' positions on many issues.  In order to meet the May
deadline, Members needed to concentrate their efforts for reaching consensus on the points whereTN/C/M/6
Page 29
consensus was possible.  This would help maintain the momentum and the credibility of the various
negotiations taking place in Geneva.
142. The Chairman said that, at the last meeting in December, he had noted that everyone had seen
some progress in the negotiations.  The only problem was that this progress had not been even.  At the
present, the progress had become more uneven.  He said this because issues were beginning toaccumulate as the next deadlines approached.  Some delegations had referred to the credibility of the
WTO, and some had mentioned that Members should not allow the agenda, which was primarily a
development agenda, to be a hollow message, and that it should be translated into real actions and
agreements.  He wished to reiterate his guarded optimism that, although some deadlines had been
missed, not everything had been missed.
143. There were areas where Members could do better.  That this was the case was not through
lack of effort – Members had worked hard and sought solutions until the very end of 2002, such as onthe issues before the General Council.  Therefore, Members should not lose hope of moving forward.
The outside world might be expecting huge leaps forward in this work, but that was not how it
happened in the WTO.  There was movement, but somewhat too slow, and that aspect had to be
addressed, as also the uneven pace.  Various expressions of serious concern at the lack of progress in
areas related to development issues had been made at the present meeting.  This was not purely adevelopment round, but rather a balanced round.  But some of the issues related to development were
to be handled in the first year of the work, and Members needed to address them, and to intensify their
efforts in that respect.
144. In the area of TRIPS and Public Health, there was a general feeling that a multilateral solution
needed to be reached as soon as possible, and work was continuing in this direction.  He hoped thatMembers would put every effort into meeting the next deadline in this area.  On implementation-
related issues, he would report under agenda item 2.  In the work on S&D treatment, Members had
come close to agreeing, in particular on a number of specific issues, and here also, efforts should be
intensified.  The Chairman of the CTD Special Session was still working hard on this, and he offered
him his full cooperation as TNC Chairman.  It was encouraging that Members were ready to continueworking on S&D issues in the lead up to Cancún, since these issues were part of the round.  On
agriculture, the March deadline was approaching, and the Chairman's first draft of modalities would
shortly be circulated.  This paper would have to reflect the levels of ambition that could be detected
among the Members.
145. Members would need to intensify their efforts in many areas, and the meeting schedule would
have to reflect this.  Efforts could not be intensified by reducing the number of meetings.  As
Chairman, he would organize more meetings, in consultation with the Chairpersons, so as to help findthe path leading to convergence on Members' posi tions.  In the meantime, Members needed to build
linkages.  Much as they wanted to see substantive progress in areas such as agriculture, Members
would also need to advance in other areas.  As he had said before, his strategy was for progress in a
balanced way in all areas.  He was sure that the efforts to make progress in other areas would provide
additional momentum in agriculture.  This was why he had suggested holding an informal segment atthe present meeting, so that the various positions in different areas could be spelled out and to see
linkages between them as Cancún approached.
146. He appreciated delegations' positive reactions to his suggestion to convene an upcoming TNC
meeting at Senior Capital-Based Officials' level, perhaps in April.  he would advise delegations of his
intentions in this respect well in advance so that they could all be prepared.
147. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the reports of the bodies established by it and
of the statements made.TN/C/M/6
Page 30
2. Outstanding implementation issues – (paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration) – Report by the Chairman
148. The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting in December, the TNC had received reports from
the relevant WTO bodies which had addressed, as a matter of priority, the outstanding implementation
issues for which no specific negotiating mandate had been provided in the Ministerial Declaration inthe course of 2002 in line with paragraph 12(b) of the Declaration.  These reports had been submitted
to the TNC for appropriate action, again in line with the provisions of paragraph 12(b).
149. Although encouraging progress had been made in some areas, the reports and the discussion
at the meeting had shown that there did not appear to  be agreed solutions available at that stage on the
outstanding implementation issues, with the exception of one issue in the area of SPS.  Equally, the
discussion had made it clear that Members did not seem to be able to reach agreement on an approach
to the question of how the TNC should handle these issues.
150. Members would recall that, at the end of the meeting, he had suggested that delegations
should reflect further during the holidays on the reports, as well as on what had been said.  He had
indicated that, as part of his overall responsibilities as TNC Chairman, he would consult informally on
possible next steps.  In this context, he had outlined five possible courses of action for any given
issue.  These categories had been:
1. resolving the issue;
2. agreeing that no further action is needed on the issue;
3. referring the issue to a negotiating body;
4. continuing work in the relevant subsidiary body under enhanced supervision by the TNC
and with a clear deadline, perhaps June 2003; and,
5. undertaking further work at the level of the TNC.
There had seemed to be general agreement among delegations that these categories covered the range
of options available to Members at that juncture.
151. Over the past few weeks, he had held informal discussions with a number of delegations,
including the Chairpersons of the 8 Councils and Committees which had been handling
implementation issues, on possible ways forward on these issues.  The objective of these discussions
had been to seek a way in which this framework of options could assist Members in their pursuit of
mutually agreeable solutions in these important areas, without overshadowing other aspects of their
work as they moved towards Cancún.
152. His consultations had made it quite clear that it would be important for the present meeting to
establish some clarity as to the further process for dealing with these outstanding issues.  As a result,he had asked the Chairpersons of the 8 bodies which had been handling implementation issues to
assist him in carrying out his further consultations as TNC Chairman.  In particular, he had asked
them to consult and advise him further as to how  they saw the possibilities for progress on their
respective issues in terms of the 5 categories he had outlined.
153. He wished to emphasize that this was not the same as just referring the issues back to the
respective bodies.  In fact, he believed that all Members agreed that those bodies should not undertake
further work on the paragraph 12(b) issues while his consultations were continuing.  In other words,
he had asked the 8 Chairs to act as "Friends of the TNC Chair" and to consult on an informal basis,
under the aegis of the TNC,  in order to provide him with their best advice and assessment of possible
ways forward.  He had emphasized to them that he was committed to providing them with any supportthat they might need in that endeavour.TN/C/M/6
Page 31
154. He realized that Members were about to elect new Chairpersons for the WTO bodies.
However, he had decided that his overall consultation process as TNC Chairman would benefit from
the experience and knowledge that these Chairs had accumulated over the previous year on these
issues, so as to provide him with their best advice and assessment on possible solutions to these
pending issues.  To ensure continuity, he had also asked his Deputy Directors-General to assist theChairs in the conduct of these consultations.
155. The December TNC meeting had clearly emphasized the urgency of finding appropriate
solutions to these issues and, as such, he had asked the 8 Chairs to provide him with their advice prior
to the next TNC meeting in March, so that he could make a further report at that time.  How the TNC
handled the implementation issues in terms of the five categories could be considered then.
156. The representative of Bulgaria said that the Chairman, in his remarks, had stated that the
reports on outstanding implementation issues considered by the TNC in December 2002 had been
submitted for appropriate action under paragraph 12(b).  However, there had been general agreement
that the reports had not suggested appropriate action in the sense of that paragraph, and this had been
made quite clear at the December meeting, so things should not be confused.  These were factual
reports but not reports under paragraph 12(b) for appropriate action.
157. His wished also to comment on the issue of whether the bodies should suspend work on these
issues for the time being.  In his statement at the informal General Council meeting held on 31
January 2002, which had been distributed in document Job(03)/13, the Chairman had said that: "In
fact, I feel that those bodies should suspend work on these issues for the time being".  The Chairman
had now said that he thought that everyone agreed that those bodies should suspend work on those
issues for the time being.  Bulgaria did not have that feeling.  His delegation had believed thatMembers were going to take a decision on the five options outlined by the Chairman and that would
be the decision, so his delegation was very hesitant to agree to any decision Members would now take
to suspend work.  So his delegation did not believe that all Members agreed that these bodies should
suspend work.
158. He concurred with the Chairman on the need for the present meeting to establish further
clarity on the further process.  On one procedural aspect, namely if Members did not take a decision at
the present meeting on the suspension of work in th ese bodies, he wondered what the legal situation
would be – whether the work would be suspended or not.  That was important, not just for these
implementation issues, but also for all issues under the DDA and in the negotiations.  He asked what
happened when there was a deadline and the deadline had expired;  was it assumed that the work was
suspended until there was a further mandate from the TNC or not.  This was now the question for the
implementation issues, and on 1 April it would include agriculture, and then the DSU review.  Onething was clear to his delegation – whatever was done on implementation issues, the same procedural
approach had to apply for the other instances when the deadline expired.  If a decision was not taken
at the present meeting, his delegation would be watching very carefully what happened in the Special
Session of the TRIPS Council in two weeks.  Whatever happened or did not happen there, would
happen in the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture after 1 April, in the Special Session ofthe DSB after 1 June, and so on.  This was a systemic issue of the utmost importance, because some
delegations were interested in some issues, while others were interested in other issues.  These
interests not only did not coincide, but they also were very different.  The Doha Declaration had
established a very delicate balance of interests also for deadlines.  Members had to be at least
consistent in their procedural approaches in addressing one or another issue.  His delegation hopedthat there would be more clarity by the end of the present meeting, as indicated in the Chairman's
statement.  If this was not the case, whatever precedent created would remain the precedent.
159. The representative of the European Communitie s suggested that the TNC take note of the
procedure the Chairman had outlined in his written and oral statement.   His delegation had the
impression that Bulgaria was complicating the issue, since the Chairman's suggestion was perfectlyclear.  All the outstanding implementation issues we re at the level of the TNC and the Chairman hadTN/C/M/6
Page 32
indicated at the last meeting of the TNC that he was willing to conduct consultations, on his
responsibility, in order to report to the TNC in Ma rch on how to deal substantively with each of the
outstanding implementation issues, which, of course, would be dealt with on an equal footing.  He had
also mentioned the different options which could be put to the Members on that occasion.  His
delegation was perfectly happy with the procedure, which in fact had already been agreed at an earliermeeting of the TNC, and he did not see the difficulties raised by Bulgaria.
160. The representative of Australia, referring to the statement by Bulgaria, said he also wondered
how Members should proceed with the implementa tion proposals.  A TRIPS Council meeting would
take place before the Chairman reported back to  the TNC in March.  Under the procedure suggested
by the Chairman, the TRIPS Council would not be able to continue the discussion on a number of
implementation issues which it had looked at the previous year.  Contrary to the point made by
Bulgaria, his delegation believed that Members had not missed the deadline insofar as the TNC was totake appropriate action on those reports, and the TNC had yet to take that appropriate action.
However, his delegation was concerned that if the TNC waited until March to take a procedural
decision on the 8 implementation issues considered by the TRIPS Council, and if Members did not
have any discussion at the TRIPS Council meeting in February, then they would have missed an
opportunity to continue a very valuable discussion on those issues.  Some of these issues had hadrelatively scant attention, in a substantive sense, among experts in the TRIPS Council.  The European
Communities's answer to this question was that the discussion would take place at the level of the
TNC and they would bring down their TRIPS people to the meeting of the TNC every time to discuss
those issues.  But that was not a luxury that many delegations could enjoy.  The issue was one of
substance, since there were a number of implementation issues that had been discussed a couple oftimes in the TRIPS Council, but on which there had not been a good exploration of the issues.
Australia was not trying to kill those issues, but these were substantive issues where there had not
been much meeting of the minds.  His delegation's concern was that, if there was simply a general
discussion in the TNC between now and Cancún, the issues were not going to be ripe for negotiations
and the sponsors of the proposals would come up with even greater negative reaction about any ideathat Members negotiate on them.
161. The Chairman said he had noted Australia's concerns, but that he would continue his
consultations as he had suggested.
162. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the report by the Chairman and of the
statements.
163. In closing the meeting, the Chairman said the next meeting of the TNC would take place on
4 and 5 March 2003.
__________