RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/C/M/4
21 November 2002
(02-6450)
Trade Negotiations Committee
3-4 October 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 3-4 October 2002
Chairman: Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi (Director-General)
Prior to taking up the first agenda item, the Chairman said that it was a great honour to be
able to serve as Chairman of the TNC.  He wished to assure delegations that it was a role which he
would approach with the utmost seriousness and dedication.  The Ministerial Conference in Cancún
would take place in less than one year, and there was much to do between the present meeting and
then.  All participants knew that they had to make rapid substantive progress in all areas to be able to
have a successful Conference.  He was confident that this could be done, and he intended to take an
active part in this collective undertaking.  He was, indeed, confident that success could be achievedbecause there were some very good people working at the heart of the process.  He thanked the
General Council Chairman for all the assistance he had provided him in the previous few weeks, and
said he looked forward to working closely with him.
Subjects discussed:
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
2. Future work
1. Reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC
1. The Chairman introduced the reports by the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC.
These reports had been circulated in the following official documents:
Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture:  TN/AG/3 and 4
Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services:  TN/S/3
Negotiating Group on Market Access:  TN/MA/4
Special Session of the Council for TRIPS:  TN/IP/3 and Corr.1
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body:  TN/DS/3Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Development:  TN/CTD/4
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 also
noted that, on this occasion, reports by the Negotiating Group on Rules and by the Special Session of
the Committee on Trade and Environment had not been issued for the simple reason that these bodies
had not held any meetings since the last TNC meeting in July.TN/C/M/4
Page 2
3. He would first invite any of the Chairpersons who so wished to take the floor to update the
TNC on recent developments.  Following this, the floor would be open for any comments from
participants.
4. Mr. Harbinson, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, said that,
in accordance with the work programme adopted in March 2002, the Committee on Agriculture had
held two Special Sessions since the last mee ting of the TNC, one on market access on 2-3 and
6 September and one on domestic support on 23-25 and 27 September.  In addition, the Committee
had held intersessional consultations addressing these two areas at the end of July and in early
September and had conducted a technical consultation on tariff quota administration the previous
week.  His short factual reports on the two Specia l Session meetings were contained in documents
TN/AG/3 and 4.  At the formal Special Session meet ings, he had also presented oral reports on the
work carried out informally.  As on previous occasions, these reports either had been, or would
shortly be, made available to participants in written form and would also be attached to the
Secretariat's summary reports of the meetings.  The Chairman's reports summarized in a substantive
and reasonably comprehensive way the discussions that had taken place.  With these activities, the
Committee had now been through a technical elaboration of possible modalities in the three broadareas of Export Competition, Market Access and Domestic Support.  The Committee had prepared
assiduously over the last two and a half years.  The amount of work it had done was, indeed, rather
impressive.  It might, however, not be very surprising that, thus far, many participants had had a
tendency to stick fairly closely to what might be characterised as maximal positions.  In some cases
too, the Committee could benefit from greater specificity or detail in terms of approaches tomodalities.  He knew that all participants were fully committed to the timetable and framework of the
Doha Development Agenda (DDA), including the agriculture negotiations.  The time had clearly
come, therefore, to change gear.  The clock was running fast.  The Committee did not have much time
in hand if it was to meet the deadlines that it had been given.  Participants now had to start delivering
on the commitments made by their Ministers.  In many areas there was common ground on which tobuild.  But in critical areas more work and much more flexibility was needed.  He hoped to start
seeing movement towards convergence before and at the November Special Session, and strongly
urged participants to fresh efforts in this direction.
5. Ambassador Jara (Chile), Chairman of th e Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services, said that besides his report contained in TN/S/3, he wished to bring a few issues to the
attention of the TNC.  The negotiations were moving into a new phase.  The multilateral discussions
of negotiating proposals were now shifting towards more bilateral discussions focussed on specific
requests.  This had had implications on the way the work of the Special Session had been organized.
In fact, Members were devoting more time to bilatera l talks than to meetings at a plenary level.  In
this respect he wished to highlight four issues.  First, safeguards.  Although the issue of safeguards
was not part of the work of the Special Session but was part of the regular session of the Council for
Trade in Services, it was a matter which had a bearing on the negotiations, and was recognized as
such in the guidelines which had been approved for the conduct of the services negotiations.  The
Working Party on GATS Rules had been pursuing its work in this important area.  The group had
made progress on this issue, notably with the adoption of a Work Programme.  Since the conclusion
of those negotiations was subject to a 15 March 2004 deadline, it was important to keep themomentum gained prior to the summer break.  He underlined this because it stood to reason that an
appropriate safeguard mechanism, or mechanisms, would greatly facilitate liberalization by Members
as it would provide them with a greater level of co mfort.  Thus, this was an issue which had a political
and commercial impact on the negotiations directly.
6. Secondly, subsidies.  This was also mentioned in the Guidelines and it was also a horizontal
issue.  The Special Session had also been engaged in discussions over subsidies, particularly on the
need for increased transparency with respect to domestic subsidy programmes.  Again, it was
important for Members to remain focused on this item, since it was of particular relevance for the
market access negotiations.  There had been widespread support for discussions on this matter,although some procedural doubts had been raised which the Special Session would endeavour toTN/C/M/4
Page 3
overcome.  He wished to point out that transpar ency was almost completely lacking in terms of
subsidies in the services area.  It was, of course, difficult for Members to engage in liberalization if
they were not aware of what kind of subsidies existed in services.  In his view, this was an important
item and progress in this area would greatly facilitate liberalization and, thus, the negotiations.
7. Thirdly, autonomous liberalization.  An open-ended informal meeting had been held on 8 July
and difficulties remained on some outstanding points.  His consultations with Members were on-
going, and another open-ended informal meeting would be held on 16 October.  Resolving these
outstanding issues would require flexibility on the part of Members.  It was his impression that there
was a certain sense of urgency on this matter, since these modalities might become a useful
instrument during the bilateral negotiations, particularly for developing countries.  He hoped that, as a
result of his consultations, he might be in a position to present a revised draft that was acceptable toall Members, so that it could be approved at this month's meeting of the Council.
8.  Fourthly, modalities for the special treatment for least-developed countries.  The Special
Session was actively considering this issue.  A very interesting and positive contribution had been put
forward by the least-developed country Members th emselves.  There was a feeling that the Council
needed to accelerate its work on this important matter, and with that in mind, an open-ended informal
meeting had been convened on 7 October.  He hoped these modalities could be agreed upon shortly,
as it would help the participation of least-developed countries in the negotiations.  Finally, he wished
to add that the exchange of initial requests had continued since his last report.  Although these were
bilateral and largely confidential, the process seemed to be moving along well.  He was optimistic thatfurther progress could be made and that more Members would engage in putting forward their
requests.  This also required considerable organizational effort on the part of Members, the Secretariat
and himself in order to ensure that when sectoral experts came from capital they could meet their
counterparts.
9. Ambassador Girard (Switzerland), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access,
said that his written report circulated in document TN/MA/4 provided a summary of the discussions
that had taken place at the meetings of the Negotiating Group on 2 August and 12-13 September.  His
objective was not to repeat what was already in the report, but to offer his personal assessment of the
state of play in the Negotiating Group and of some  elements of its work.  His sense was that the
Group was moving forward at a good pace.  The last meeting on 12-13 September had been only the
second substantive meeting, but the number of submissions and the statements as well as their qualityin terms of entering into the substance of issues had been very encouraging.  While recognizing this
was a good start to the market access negotiations, he would, at the same time, like to see the basis of
the discussion and of the submissions broaden.  There were many delegations which had yet to
indicate their positions on various aspects of the negotiations.  He understood that for some
delegations, work on this was underway and submissi ons would be forthcoming, and he would like to
encourage this as much as possible, so that the substantive discussion could be pursued and deepened
at the next meeting from 4 to 6 November.
10. A few elements in the discussions at the last two meetings had been striking and he wished to
share them with the TNC, but he stressed that this was a personal assessment.  In doing so, he wishedto assure delegations that he had the Principles and Practices adopted by the TNC on 1 February very
much in mind, in particular that "In their regular reporting to overseeing bodies, Chairpersons should
reflect consensus, or where this is not possible, different positions on issues".  On consensus issues
first, he felt on relatively safe ground in saying that almost all, if not all the participants who had taken
the floor had stressed the importance of special and differential (S&D) treatment and had emphasisedthe need to appropriately take it into account in defining the modalities for the negotiations.  Although
this was the only consensus issue that he could identify at this time, he believed it represented a major
one.  Additionally it showed that participants felt very much committed to the spirit and letter of the
Doha Declaration.  Regarding other issues, the vi ews expressed had been diverse, which was only
natural at such an early stage of the discussions.  In addition, as he had already mentioned, moreactive participation as well as additional submissions were needed before the Group could have aTN/C/M/4
Page 4
satisfactory picture of the specific interests and positions of participants.  Therefore, he would limit
himself to mentioning a couple of issues on which the exchange of views had been particularly good
and certainly instructive for the participants, including those who were still in the process of
developing their ideas.
11. On the question of tariff reductions, a number of participants had appeared to support the use
of a formula for these negotiations.  The possibility of using a sectoral approach or a request and offer
procedure had also been mentioned.  The question of modalities was clearly one of the most important
to be treated by the Group, also as the S&D treatme nt dimension was to be appropriately taken into
account in this matter.  He had found the beginning of the debate on the issue of tariff reductions quite
enlightening.  It had taken place in a very business-like and open manner and he hoped that it could be
pursued in the same vein.  He would say the same of the discussion on the use of bound rates orapplied rates as a negotiating base.  Although a trend could already be perceived regarding the
preferences expressed, as on other issues further discussions would be necessary to enlarge the picture
of participants' positions.  Numerous other ideas had been mentioned in this context, such as the
possibility of narrowing the gap between bound and applied rates.  The second major element of the
mandate of the Group was the one on non-tariff barriers, and here, in his view, the discussion hadbeen of a somewhat different nature.  In this case, participants had been primarily trying to find the
proper way to deal in an efficient manner with this important issue, taking into account the complexity
of the matter, the fact that some other bodies had also been mandated to address the issue, as well as
some lack of specificity in the mandate of the Group regarding this subject.  A number of these
aspects had been addressed in a very interesting way in a submission by one participant, which hadalready stimulated discussions.  But here again, the Group had a lot of work ahead of it.  In addition,
as mentioned in his written report, a long overdue exercise of updating would be attempted regarding
the identification of non-tariff barriers that economic operators were confronted with when exporting
to markets.
12. Finally, he wished to mention that participants had had a brief exchange of views on the
question of market access for environmental goods, a question which was also dealt with by the
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment.  In his view, the general feeling had
been that the Group could certainly provide a useful contribution on this matter, and to this end a
somewhat "organized" dialogue with the Special Session of the CTE and regular exchange of
information between the Chairs of the two bodies wo uld be a useful and pragmatic approach.  To sum
up, he would say that the Group had made what he considered to be a good start, as witnessed by thenumber of interesting submissions already tabled and the substantive discussion which had taken
place in its first two meetings.  The Group now needed to deepen and enlarge the debate through
additional notifications and new submissions.  It also needed, as time went by, to try to focus more its
discussions on the basis of the various elements contained in particular in paragraph 16 of the Doha
Declaration.  On a final and more personal note, he wished also to mention the good support providedto the Group by the Secretariat and the productive dialogue that had been initiated between the
Secretariat and participants in connection with the various studies undertaken by the Secretariat.
13. Ambassador Chung (Korea), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS, said
that the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines and spirits had a mandated deadline to conclude by the Fifth
Session of the Ministerial Conference.  To accomplish this, delegations would have to move more
swiftly.  In general, he could report that the TRIPS Council Special Session was moving in the right
direction and progressing in good faith.  At the first meeting, the group had agreed on the work
programme and at the second meeting it had had substantive discussions on the four categories ofissues identified for the negotiation and found general common ground on two areas, namely the
definition of geographical indications and the purpose of notification and registration, although
differences still remained on the details.  At the third meeting, the group had focussed on the issue of
the mechanics related to procedures, costs and the possible role of the Secretariat.  And for the
purposes of the discussion, the WTO Secretariat had circulated a note on multilateral notification andregistration systems which he hoped would provide Members with some practical ideas and optionsTN/C/M/4
Page 5
about the system the group was trying to develop.  Although the discussions had been useful thus far,
there still existed a large gap between the different approaches advocated by delegations.  And he
hoped that given the short time-frame that the group was operating under, all delegations would
deepen their active engagement in the future negotiatio ns, in particular at the November meeting, in a
manner infused with a sense of urgency.  A summary of the third session of the TRIPS CouncilSpecial Session was contained in documents TN/IP/3 and Corr.1.
14. Ambassador Groser (New Zealand), Chairman of  the Negotiating Group on Rules, said that as
the Chairman had remarked, the Group had had no meeting since the summer break.  In this case, he
would simply elaborate on his last written report co ntained in document TN/RL/2.  The atmosphere in
the Group had been very good and that was important.  The Group was dealing with one issue in
particular, namely anti-dumping, which had a lot of heavy politics behind it and the work would be alot easier if the very excellent professional atmosphere in the group continued.  As he had mentioned
before, at the last Group meeting there had been one very difficult procedural problem to resolve – the
treatment of fish subsidies.  He had thanked delegations on both sides of that debate for their
cooperation, and looking back, he believed they woul d be hard pressed to draw any other conclusion
than the procedural compromise arrived at had not damaged either of their substantive positions.  Hementioned that only to make a general point – in this Group there were enough problems as it was,
and if the Group continued to approach procedures in this way, by seeing the primacy of practical
considerations, he believed this would be in everyone's interest.
15. The Group had three broad areas of work, namely regional trade agreements, subsidies and
anti-dumping.  It had a very politically intelligent mandate.  It did not have to establish modalities or
basic principles.  It had, in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Doha Declaration, very precise instructions
from Ministers:  to indicate the provisions that participants "seek to clarify and improve".  The
question in the mind of any Chairperson was: "Is the Group falling behind?".  Compared with those
groups that had to establish modalities, the answer for his Group was clearly no.  Compared withthose groups which, unlike the Rules Group, had very tight deadlines, the answer was also no.
16. On regional trade agreements, he would make a proposal at the Group's next meeting to move
into open-ended informal meetings on one aspect of the regional trade agreement mandate, the easiest
aspect to deal with politically, namely transparency.  Delegations could tell him at the Group's
meeting their views on that proposal.  The reason he was raising it in the TNC was that he wanted to
make a broader point to Heads of Delegations.  In all negotiating groups there was always a problemwhen the issues became technical and complex, and the people with the knowledge necessary to
negotiate these issues might not always have a broader perspective.  The purpose of a TNC meeting
was to take a broader view which was what he was trying to do.  So he would encourage Heads of
Delegations to talk to their negotiators and allow this process to go forward.  Clearly delegations
could block him if they wished, but his remarks ha d the purpose of establishing something which had
not yet occurred in the Rules Group – a slow movement into open-ended informal meetings.  He
believed this would have benefits which would spread through to other aspects of the Group's work.
There were very sensitive issues in the regional trade agreements part of the mandate, but he believed
they were not sensitive in terms of timetable per se , whereas the other aspects of the Group's work
were very sensitive in terms of broader political timetables.  So he believed the Group could makesome progress in this area, and he would like to have the cooperation of Heads of Delegation when he
made that proposal at the next meeting.  However, with respect to anti-dumping and subsidies there
were more difficulties and it was clear that there was not the critical mass which would allow a
similar move.  One did not hold informal meetings just for the sake of it.  In the areas of anti-dumping
and subsidies, the demandeurs were further ahead, which was natural.  They were acting in apolitically sophisticated manner and the open secret of the Rules Group was that there had been what
he would described as an informal cease-fire while trade promotion authority went through.  In
mentioning this, the last thing he wanted was an ou tbreak of hostilities, but there was pressure which
would slowly mount in this area.TN/C/M/4
Page 6
17. The Group had a flexibile mandate, involving an initial phase and a subsequent phase.  Many
people had asked him whether he intended to try and lead the process to a definition of the end of the
initial phase and the beginning of the subsequent phase.  Like any Chairperson, he could be blocked
by process.  But his working hypothesis, or even  personal wish, was that one day the Group would
move seamlessly to the point where he might dare to make the observation that it had passed from theinitial to the subsequent phase.  Perhaps this might not prove possible because it would require the
cooperation of all sides in the debate.  The Group had clearly not finished the first part of the process
and did not have critical mass.  These were difficult issues, so he would simply encourage that process
to continue and urge a continued sophisticated approach from the demandeurs.
18. The TNC was the place to talk about linkages with other aspects of the negotiations.  There
were many linkages with other groups that would bear down on the Rules Group, notably those withthe three market access negotiations.  When the shape of a market access package emerged across the
three areas, it would have certain implications for some of the areas in the Rules Group.  In
conclusion, he was quite comfortable about the Group's work, but he was watching this like a hawk.
He was not complacent about the Group's slow steady pace, but this had been appropriate for a
number of reasons.  He did not think the Group had fallen behind, but he did think it necessary tomove in the one area that was not related to the broader political timetable.  He urged Heads of
Delegations to talk to their negotiators and look at it in the way that he felt one should look at it,
which was by merging the technical and the substantive with the broader political perspective.
19. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that, compared to the Rules Group, the work of his group was somewhat faster.  The
reason for this lay in the specifics of the group's work relating to improvements and clarifications of
the Dispute Settlement Understanding, and these were also handicaps.  First, there was no specific
mandate provided by Ministers for the work;  second, there was a short deadline of May 2003; and
third, the exercise was not part of the single undertaking, so the outcome should be self-balancing,meeting the interests of all participants.  These three specifics represented an important challenge to
the Members but also to the Chair.  Nevertheless, he wished to express a certain degree of satisfaction
that the work had speeded up since the last TNC meeting.  On the one hand, this had been facilitated
by the fact that a certain balance had been achieved in the proposals submitted, with submissions by a
number of developing countries, including the LDCs, which provided the possibility of discussions
taking into consideration the interests and views of all countries and groups of countries in the
organization.  The discussions had taken place in  a business-like and professional atmosphere,
focussing on issues of substance and with a clear intention of moving the process forward.  However,
he was concerned by the indications received from some delegations that further submissions dealing
with new issues were in the works, and he would recall that the proposed target date for submissions
had been the start of the summer break and he had provided flexibility around that date.  Submissions
had been received even up to the end of September.  But his concern was that if new submissionscontinued to arrive in the coming weeks or even months, they might have the potential to delay the
negotiating process, or make it more difficult than it should be.  The group's work programme had
been agreed, under which it was supposed to conclude the issue-by-issue discussions based on
proposals at the November meeting.  He wished therefore to stress again what was contained in
paragraph 5 of his written report, and urge all Members to submit their proposals as soon as possibleand to help the group and himself achieve the outcome as mandated by Ministers.
20. Ambassador Biké (Gabon), Chairperson of th e Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Environment, said that, as the Chairman had pointed out, her group had not met since the last
TNC meeting, so she wished only to raise a few points in connection with the group's future work and
to make a few comments.  The next meeting of the group would take place on 10-11 October, and she
expected further progress to be made at that meeting since new submissions had been received.  The
MEA Information Session would take place on 12 November, and she was pleased by the number of
positive responses from MEA Secretariats and also the high level at which they would be represented.
She wished to mention also the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development, at which severalaspects of the mandate for the negotiations under way in her group had been underlined.  She wouldTN/C/M/4
Page 7
not comment on the results of the Summit, but she wished to recall that several subjects had been
discussed there, including the relationship between MEAs and WTO rules, liberalization of
environmental goods and services, and fisheries subsidies.  These discussion indicated the importance
of the mandate of her group.  She wished also to comment on a few matters, including some concerns.
First, as she had mentioned at the last TNC meeting, the mandate given by Ministers to her groupasked it to define the criteria for the granting of observer status.  This mandate was precise, and a
positive evolution on this issue in the TNC or in the General Council would be needed.  Second,
several delegations had mentioned the need for technical assistance linked to the negotiations on trade
and environment.  This had not been foreseen in the Doha Work Programme and as the group moved
ahead in its work, and in particular in examining the various submissions, such assistance would take
on a particular level of importance.  Finally, as mentioned by Ambassador Girard, she was pleased
that the Chairs of the Negotiating Group on Market Access, the Special Session of the ServicesCouncil and herself had agreed on a common approach between them as Chairs with regard to
discussions on environmental goods and services.  It would be extremely useful to have periodic
meetings between the Chairs on this difficult matter, which involved the elimination of tariff and non-
tariff barriers, and the definition of environmental goods and services.
21. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, said that since his last report to the TNC in mid-July, the Special Session had
finalized its report to the General Council as mandated in the Doha Decision on Implementation-
related Issues and Concerns.  The General Council, at its meeting on 31 July, had approved the report
contained in TN/CTD/3.  In doing so, the General Council had instructed the Special Session toproceed expeditiously to fulfill its mandate, as contained in paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial
Declaration and paragraph 12 of the Implementation Decision, so as to be able to report to the General
Council with clear recommendations for decisions by a new deadline – 31 December 2002.  As a
consequence of this, the Special Session was now charged with continuing work to the end of
December on, inter alia, a large number of agreement-specific proposals, several cross-cutting issues,and the functions, terms of reference and structure for a monitoring mechanism for S&D treatment.
He wished to make just four points at this stage.  Firstly, it was important to be frank and recognize
that many quite difficult and contentious issues were before the Special Session and had been raised
in the discussions.  Secondly, the time-frame for the work to be carried out on these matters was
extremely short – a mere two months, considerin g that the General Council to which the Special
Session must report by the end of December was actually scheduled to meet in the second week of
December.  Thirdly, the Special Session, more so than other bodies, was facing an impossiblesituation regarding meeting slots, since no slots had been reserved beyond the end of July and by the
time the General Council had extended the July deadline, the meeting schedule to the end of the year
had already been booked solid.  Fourthly, everyone recognised the importance of progress in this area
for the overall balance of the work.
22. Against this background, it was evident that all Members now needed to show flexibility,
accommodation and the will to achieve results.  He believed all Members needed to consider very
quickly and very seriously what this meant, not only as a rhetorical expression but in terms of the
specific decisions and actions that could be taken to facilitate the work of the Special Session in the
circumstances and specifically to make progress and achieve results.  Members had been requested toprovide detailed responses to the agreement-specific proposals that had been submitted by the end of
October, and if the time-frame were met, this should facilitate progress on this aspect of the work.
The first formal meeting of the Special Session subsequent to the summer break would take place on 7
October.  The schedule of meetings and programme of work for the period September-December had
been discussed at an open-ended informal meeting on 23 September and Members had agreed to anindicative work programme.  Every effort was now being made to take into consideration delegations'
justified concerns about the timing and dates of some of these meetings.  But these efforts were
constrained by the situation regarding the overall meeting schedule as he had mentioned.  Both in
terns of quantity and substantive content, the Special Session had a full plate of work before it.  He
believed that the stakes were quite high and he urged Members to rise to the challenge of deliveringacceptable results by 31 December.TN/C/M/4
Page 8
23. The Chairman thanked all the Chairpersons for the very impressive work they have
undertaken in the previous few months.  Even for the groups which had not met since the last TNC
meeting, the thoughts and perspectives offered by the Chairpersons were necessary to keep the work
on track.  It was due to the Chairpersons' efforts that participants were now able to move tosubstantive negotiations in all areas, and he believed they deserved the gratitude of all.  He would, of
course, work in close cooperation with all of the Chairpersons in the run-up to Cancún.  He would be
meeting frequently with them and keeping in cl ose contact to support and assist their work.
24. The Chairpersons and all the representatives who spoke welcomed the Chairman, in his
capacity both as Director-General and as Chairman of the TNC, as well as the Deputy-Directors
General.
25. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing
Countries, said the Group wished to draw to the at tention of all Members that negotiations on two
important elements of the DDA had the deadline of December 2002.  These were implementation
issues and the work on S&D treatment issues.  On the implementation issues covered by paragraph12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, it had been decided in Doha that these should be addressed
as a matter of priority by the relevant WTO bodies.  These bodies had been required to report to the
Trade Negotiations Committee by the end of 2002 for appropriate action.  On S&D issues, the
Ministers had agreed that all S&D provisions would be reviewed with a view to strengthening them
and making them more precise, effective and operational.  The Committee on Trade and Development(CTD) had been instructed to carry out this task and to report to the General Council with clear
recommendations for a decision by July 2002.  The CTD Special Session, which was tasked with this
responsibility, had not been able to complete the work within the time-frame and the General Council
had, on 31 July, extended the deadline for completion of work on S&D issues to 31 December.
Developing countries attached the highest importance to these issues, which were importantcomponents of the Development Agenda agreed upon in Doha.  Members would recall that these
issues had been brought to the table of the WTO by developing countries during the preparatory
process for the Seattle Ministerial Conference and had been under discussion since then.  Developing
countries would like these implementation issues to be addressed as a matter of priority.  Developing
countries had been participating actively in the various WTO bodies considering these issues.
Developing countries were concerned with the lack of  progress in these two issues and other issues of
critical interest to them.  It was important to make progress on these issues.  Early completion of workon these issues would allow developing countries, most of which had limited resources at their
disposal, to participate more fully in the negotiations.  Developing countries would like to flag for the
attention of the TNC the need to adhere to the deadlines agreed upon in Doha.  Completion of work
on these issues within the deadlines would also have a positive impact on progress of work in the
other areas of the DDA.
26. The representative the Slovak Republic, speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, the
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovenia, said these
countries commended the Chairpersons of the different negotiating bodies for their efforts to direct
the agenda forward and to prepare reports for the present meeting.  It was obvious from the reports,and in particular from what had been seen since the last meeting of the TNC in July, that the overall
picture continued to be a combination of both, positive and negative factors.  In general, these
countries saw the work in the different negotiating bodies in a rather positive way, however they were
concerned about the lack of progress in some areas, as well as the unwillingness to achieve progress.
They noted different speeds of proceeding in different negotiations, which might lead to the situationwhere the mandates given by Ministers in Doha could not be observed.  Everyone should bear in
minds that there was less than one year remaining to Cancún, where many important decisions would
be made.  Nobody should forget that the conclusion of negotiations was based on a single undertaking
principle.TN/C/M/4
Page 9
27. Regarding the negotiations on agriculture, the group of countries on behalf of which he was
speaking evaluated positively the number and intensity of the meetings.  However, further flexibility
in the context of constructive discussion was needed.  Members of the group had expressed their
concerns about the lack of sufficient responsiveness to their respective proposals from certain partners
thus far.  In this regard, the group had expressed the view that the future agreement should be built onthe framework of the Uruguay Round results, with built-in flexibility provisions in the area of market
access and domestic support that would be necessary to address specific non-trade concerns.
Members of the group expected that flexibilities would be built into the modalities in order to address
the specific concerns raised in their respective proposals.  In the services area, the negotiations were
proceeding in a positive way.  The group welcomed that the market access negotiations had started
with the submission of initial requests.  At the sa me time, the group hoped that rule-making, to which
it attached considerable importance, would keep pace with the market access negotiations.  The groupalso hoped that work on modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization and for special
treatment of the least-developed countries would be concluded.  Regarding the modalities for
autonomous liberalization, he wished to underline that no group of the WTO Members should be
excluded from the possibility of obtaining credit  for their autonomous liberalization measures.  He
wished also to stress that the countries on behalf of which he was speaking attached great importanceto negotiations on non-agricultural products.  These countries were pleased to see that the work had
moved forward in the right direction, with the end of  procedural discussion and the start of substantive
work, and they hoped that the task of drafting modalities would be accomplished in a timely manner.
28. Important deadlines were to be met in 2002 for the following three issues:  (i) paragraph 6 of
the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health;  (ii) S&D treatment provisions;  and (iii)
Implementation issues.  Members were under time pressure to be able to meet these deadlines.  The
issue of TRIPS and public health was making some progress and the countries on behalf of which he
was speaking hoped a quick but at the same time permanent and effective solution would be reached
by the end of the year.  On the other hand, the majority of the members of the group had to expresstheir concern about the work carried out regarding the issue of geographical indications, where they
saw a lack of substantive progress.  It should be recalled that this issue was of importance to many
WTO Members, including a significant number of developing countries.  The members of the group
on behalf of which he was speaking believed that only an inclusive and transparent process, both in
Geneva and outside it, could lead to an outcome acceptable and assumable to all.  The members of the
group had specific interests in various issues in th e ongoing work and they expected their interests to
be taken into account.  A few countries of the group had particular concerns as recently-accededMembers in a number of negotiating areas.  The group noted the extensive market-access
commitments already made by these countries on accession, and it understood their concerns which
should be carefully considered in the negotiations.
29. The representative of Zimbabwe, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, thanked the
Chairpersons of the various negotiating groups for their reports, which clearly reflected the current
status of progress in the groups.  The African Group noted from the reports that while substantial
progress had been made in some specific areas, others seemed to be lagging behind.  For instance, the
African Group was disappointed that the July 2002 deadline on S&D Treatment had not been adhered
to, given the importance that the Group attached to this deadline in the overall process that had beenagreed by Ministers at Doha.  However, the Group considered that the new deadline of 31 December
2002 was an appropriate and reasonable extension and that it would be respected by the Members.
With respect to the services negotiations, the African Group expected flexibility to be shown by
delegations towards the finalization of modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization and
for the special treatment of the least-developed coun try Members.  These issues were crucial to the
African Group and their conclusion would definitely  inject further confidence in the negotiations.
The Group also wished Members to take note of the technical difficulties that most Members of the
Group were facing in the preparation of initial requests in services.  However, they were doing their
best and most of the Members of the Group were in the process of submitting these initial requests.TN/C/M/4
Page 10
30. With regard to technical assistance, the African Group wished to emphasize that the new
phase in technical assistance and capacity building should focus more on upgrading technical skills
and capacity to enable the Members of the Group to negotiate on various subjects under discussion.
Besides, provision of relevant analytical studies was crucial to enable these Members to understand
the issues and therefore participate fully in the discussions from an informed position.  The AfricanGroup wished also to express its concern regarding the number of informal meetings which seemed to
outnumber formal meetings.  As it had always stated, the African Group's delegations were small and
could not cope with the numerous impromptu meetings that were being held almost on a daily basis.
The Group wished to register its unhappiness with this practice and it hoped that the situation would
be addressed as a matter of urgency, to the benefit of all.
31. The representative of Zambia, speaking on behalf of the Least-Developed Countries
,
supported the statement made on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries, noting its
emphasis that the deadline of 31 July set by Ministers for finalizing the review of S&D provisions had
passed without much to show for it.  The General Council had extended the deadline to December.
Not much time had passed since then, but the LDCs were quite alarmed to hear some delegations
advancing the view that the Special Session of the CTD should relinquish its functions to thenegotiating bodies.  This appeared to disregard the mandate that the Ministers had given to the CTD,
and on this basis it was quite unacceptable.  The LDCs earnestly urged the TNC, at the present
meeting, to clearly come out and declare that it  was the Special Session of the CTD with the full
mandate and full responsibility to finalise, within the time-frame of the new deadline, the review of all
S&D provisions.  The LDCs appealed to the Chairman to see to it that this meeting of the TNC cameout clearly in agreement with this position.  It would be unfortunate indeed if some delegations failed
to respect the deadlines set, particularly with rega rd to presenting their positions.  The LDCs would
consider such a failure as unnecessary and as an uncooperative attitude towards the mandate the
Ministers had given to the CTD.  In view of the difficult economic situation prevailing in the LDCs,
the implementation of Doha Ministerial Meeting in regard to S & D was vital.  The Group of LDCMembers had made extensive proposals in the Special Session of the CTD on how best to improve
their development prospects.  They looked forward to quick progress on these proposals, as they
derived directly from the idea of the Doha Agenda.  The paragraphs on least-developed Members, as
set out in the Doha documents, very clearly emphasised the development needs of these Members,
including the need for enhanced market access.
32. The second set of issues the LDCs wished to raise for consideration related to implementation
issues.  It was common knowledge that these issues had been pending for an overly long period of
time.  Ministers at Doha had realised that these issues were overdue for resolution and appreciated the
gravity of the situation.  In this regard, the Minist ers had clearly directed that these issues should be
resolved as a matter of priority within the releva nt bodies.  These issues remained implementation
issues;  the sole task was to implement them.  The LDCs wished to see expedited and concreteprogress within the relevant bodies on all implementation issues.
33. The LDCs wished to specifically single out the question of implementing Article 66.2 of the
TRIPS Agreement.  The TRIPS Council had just two meetings left before the end of the year, which
was the deadline for submission of reports and the consideration of these reports in the context ofestablishing a mechanism for ensuring compliance with the Article.  The least-developed country
Members had been keen to see this question finalised, and to this end they had presented views and
positions on how best to move forward.  They w ould note that the mechanism for compliance with
Article 66.2, which the Ministers had required to be established, was not yet in place.  Of all the S&D
provisions, this was the clearest one in terms of being mandatory, and it had indeed merited a specialparagraph in the Decision on Implementation Issues.  That little progress had been made on this issue
should be a matter of serious concern.
34. Finally, he wished to raise one further issue of particular interest to least-developed country
Members – technical assistance.  The Doha Declaration had clearly recognised this as a priority.While some progress had been made towards encouraging more relevant and focused technicalTN/C/M/4
Page 11
assistance to least-developed country Members, a lot remained to be done.  The LDCs wished to see a
clear and consistent focus on addressing their supply -side constraints.  They would not wish to see a
convenient focus away from this vital element of ensuring the development prospects of such
Members.  They look forward to support for the view that the IF and JITAP programmes should be
extended to all least-developed country Members in the short term.  They took the opportunity to flagthis issue in the present meeting because tec hnical assistance was integral to the Doha Work
Programme, and future progress should equally be integral in the provision of technical assistance
along the lines they proposed.
35. The representative of the European Commun ities thanked the Chairpersons for their hard
work.  He wished to comment on a few of the areas covered by their reports.  On agriculture, he
thanked the Chairman of the Special Session for the important work he had done, which had beeninteractive.  This work had involved a considerable number of Members, which was a positive omen.
He wished to confirm the Community's full engagement in the negotiations on agriculture.  Much had
been done since Doha, but the Community acknowle dged that there was still more to do.  The
positions were at present too far apart, delegations needed to work in a realistic manner to try to
broach positions and, at this stage, try to come closer on the basic architecture of a future agreement.This had to be done in full respect of the Doha mandate on agriculture, and he wished to underline
that the presentation of somewhat radical and self-serving proposals that departed from the mandate
were not that helpful.  All countries, both developed and developing, had big interests in these
negotiations.  The negotiations had to deliver a balan ce of interests, including in each sector, in which
the concerns of all the parties, demandeurs and others, were properly taken into account and where thedevelopment angle was properly addressed.  The Community might not be the principal demandeur in
agriculture, but it did have, nonetheless, important demands and it wanted those demands to be
addressed.  Some of them had already been mentioned in the statement by the Slovak Republic, and
he would also address some of them, such as geographical indications, under agenda item 2.  The
Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for TRIPS had mentioned only one aspect ofgeographical indications, and from the Community's perspective a lot more would need to be done.  In
the end, the Community would base its judgement on whether there was an effective, operational and
legally-binding outcome on this issue.
36. On industrial tariffs, he thanked the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access for
his work.  There had been a somewhat difficult start to the work, but it had been worth it because the
group had started to catch up with other subjects.  There had been a first substantial discussion onmodalities which had shown that the majority of participants understood the need to learn from the
mistakes of the Uruguay Round.  Most understood that they needed to agree on an approach, a
formula, that would cut tariffs in the ambitious manner set out in the mandate, and at the same time
meet the desire of developing countries for real improvements to access in labour-intensive sectors
where they enjoyed comparative advantage.  The Co mmunity was willing to work in the direction of
such aims.  Finally, on trade and environment, he agreed with the Chairperson of the Special Session
of the Committee on Trade and Environment on the need for a reference to work done at the
Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development,  where the Director-General had also been
present.  It was important to integrate sustainable development into the Doha negotiations.  It was
urgent, therefore, to establish the means to revi ew and monitor the developmental and environmental
outcomes of the negotiating agenda, as foreseen in paragraph 51 of the Doha Declaration.  This
should amongst the next decisions, along with, perhaps, the monitoring mechanism for S&D
treatment proposed by some Members.  The Community encouraged the Chairman of the General
Council, in consultation with the Chairpersons of the Committees on Trade and Development and the
Committees on Trade and Environment, to make specific proposals to Members on these points.
37. The representative of China said that from the outset, China had supported the current round
of multilateral trade negotiations, and this support had been expressed on more than one occasion,
even before Doha when China had still been an Observer.  His delegation believed that the main
objectives of the round should be:  (i) to redre ss the imbalance of interests between developed and
developing countries left by the previous rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, particularly theTN/C/M/4
Page 12
Uruguay Round;  (ii) to improve and further strengthen the multilateral trading system;  and (iii) to
send out a positive signal to the world so as to  help the international community to build its
confidence in revitalizing the world economy.  China believed these objectives were fully consistent
with the content of both the chapeau and the operative sections of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
38. China appreciated the efforts made by the Chairpersons of all the bodies under the TNC and
their factual reports on the state of the negotiations in the various areas.  According to China's
assessment, the work done thus far within the framework of the DDA had been quite normal,
particularly at the initial stage of the negotiations, but the substantive progress had been generally
slow and limited.  The key to accelerating the negotiations was first and foremost to address the
concerns of developing countries in the areas of implementation, including problems with the
implementation of the Agreements on Textiles and on Agriculture, and various S&D issues.  A failurein the appropriate and effective treatment of these issues would frustrate developing-country
Members, including China, and affect their confidence in the multilateral trading system.  It would
also have a negative impact on the negotiations in other areas.  In this regard, his delegation fully
shared the views expressed in the statement by Malaysia on behalf of the Informal Group of
Developing Countries.  China appealed to the relevant developed Members to give due considerationto the concerns of developing Members, thus facilitating the negotiating process.
39. The representative of India said that Ministers at Doha had reaffirmed the basic objectives of
the WTO as enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement.  The Ministers had declared:  "International trade
can play a major role in the promotion of economic development and the alleviation of poverty.  Werecognise the need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased opportunities and welfare gains
that the multilateral trading system generates.  The majority of WTO Members are developing
countries.  We seek to place their needs and interests at the heart of the Work Programme adopted in
this Declaration."  The Ministers had then set forth a comprehensive Work Programme designed to
achieve this objective.  Subsequent economic developments in various parts of the world had clearlyindicated that balanced global development could contribute to sustained growth as real incomes
increased, employment grew and markets expanded.  It was in the interest of all countries to ensure
that the objectives of Doha were fully and completely realised.
40. The Chairman's first task would obviously be to ensure that the Work Programme proceeded
systematically in the manner in which the Ministers had envisaged.  While defining the broad
framework of the Work Programme, the Ministers had also laid down certain milestones in the formof deadlines to be achieved.  These deadlines needed to be adhered to if the final goal of completion
of the Work Programme by 1 January 2005 was to be achieved.  This was particularly important for
developing countries, which had small missions in Geneva and were, therefore, incapable of taking on
a backloaded agenda.  If Members missed particular deadlines and pushed work forward, there was a
real danger of slowing down the process, which had to be avoided.
41. Developing countries were, by and large, disappointed with the results achieved at the first
deadline laid down by the Ministers, which had been July 2002.  Now they were looking forward to
the next deadline, December 2002.  Members had a heavy agenda on their hands during the
intervening few weeks.  They needed to engage in  constructive negotiations of the various specific
proposals put forward by the African Group, the LDC Group, India and several other developing
countries on S&D Treatment.  In an open-ended informal meeting of the Committee on Trade and
Development Special Session, the Chairman of that body had put forward a Work Programme and
schedules of meetings for further work until early December 2002, which had been broadly agreed to.
India hoped that the Secretariat would be able to find appropriate slots for holding these meetings sothat quick progress could be made.
42. One of the major achievements of the Doha Ministerial Conference had undoubtedly been the
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  Ministers had instructed the Council for
TRIPS to find an expeditious solution by the end of 2002 to the problems faced by WTO Memberswith insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector.  While technicalTN/C/M/4
Page 13
discussions had taken place in the TRIPS Council, it was important to find an adequate solution by the
end of the year.  This would require more intensive interaction both formally and informally.
43. The Ministers had given high priority to the resolution of implementation related issues and
concerns.  These issues had been divided into two broad categories – those that had specificnegotiating mandates under the Declaration, and other issues to be addressed as a matter of priority by
the relevant WTO bodies.  These bodies were to report to the Trade Negotiations Committee by the
end of 2002 for appropriate action.
44. His delegation fully endorsed and supported the statement made by Malaysia on behalf of the
Informal Group of Developing Countries.  Members would need to pay particular attention to the
issues that had been referred to various WTO bodies for report to the TNC by the end of the year.  Hesuggested that it would be appropriate to review the progress made on each implementation issue in
each of the relevant bodies and systematically monitor the progress of work from the present meeting
onwards.  It was extremely important to have a focussed approach to this work so that concrete results
could be achieved by end December.  His delegation would urge the Chairman to create a mechanism
for regular, perhaps weekly, monitoring of work in this area, identification of problem areas in
different bodies and holding formal and informal consultations to ensure intensive and continuous
engagement.  His delegation's understanding from discussions with all other delegations was that
there was genuine appreciation of the need to address implementation issues effectively by the end of
the year.  His delegation was sure, therefore, that all delegations would be prepared to fully engage in
intensive consultations in the weeks to come.  India hoped that there would be agreement on allissues.  In case there was a lack of consensus on some issues, Members had to also begin to think
about the manner in which these issues could be handled and resolved by the TNC.  There were also
other issues on which Ministers had mandated specific action by the end of 2002.  These include
paragraphs 1.2, 4.5 and 8.3 of the Decision on Implementation-related Issues and Concerns.  Members
would need to review action on these decisions and ensure that the deadline was not breached.
45. On the scheduling of meetings, his delegation believed it would be appropriate for the
Secretariat to re-examine the scheduling of meetings, in consultation with the Chairpersons, to see
whether time could be found for further meetings.  There were many instances of some meetings
ending much earlier than scheduled, while at the same time other meetings were spilling over into
evenings and weekends.  His delegation realised that this was a difficult exercise because it would not
be easy to anticipate the duration of each meeting.  However, in the light of actual experience duringthe past few months, perhaps more slots could be f ound for issues as and when they arose.  Another
point he wished to raise related to the reports submitted by Chairpersons of Negotiating Groups and
Special Sessions to the TNC.  The structure of the reports varied considerably, and perhaps a certain
degree of uniformity would facilitate discussions in th e TNC.  Finally, he wished to refer to the issue
of autonomous liberalization, as mentioned by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Council forTrade in Services.  Particular attention should be pa id to this issue, whether it related to services or
goods.  Countries should not refrain from undertaking autonomous liberalization in particular sectors
because the present negotiations were taking place.  That danger always existed that unless a system
of credits for autonomous liberalization was built in, the normal liberalization that might have
otherwise taken place was delayed.
46. The representative of Cuba said that, like others, her delegation supported the statement by
Malaysia on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries.  It also associated itself with the
statements by the African Group and the Group of Least-Developed Countries.  The two main areas of
interest for a large number of developing countries within the DDA were implementation and S&Dtreatment.  Cuba was concerned by the lack of progress in these areas, and in particularly by the lack
of time now available to allow the deadlines to  be met while recognizing the need to maintain
transparency within the process.  From the beginning of the preparatory process for the Third
Ministerial Conference, Cuba had worked together with other developing countries to find solutions
to the imbalances resulting from the implementatio n of the Uruguay Round Agreements.  With a view
to making progress on the proposals which had been made, Cuba had agreed to a number ofTN/C/M/4
Page 14
suggestions, including sending the issues to the subsidiary bodies.  Despite all the efforts which had
been made, there was still no adequate and permanent solution to any of the proposals.  The deadline
of the end of the year was approaching and regrettably it seemed that nothing positive could be added
to the lack of results in July.  For this reason, Cuba appealed to Members for significant progress on
these issues in the short time remaining.  Cuba wished  to reiterate that its response to other initiatives
within WTO would be conditioned by the progress made on these issues.  A successful outcome on
implementation would have an obvious effect on the credibility of the multilateral trading system, in
particular for developing countries, and a failure would have serious repercussions for all Members.
In this regard, her delegation supported the suggestion by India for a mechanism for monitoring the
work on implementation.
47. Another area of particular interest to Cuba was the Work Programme on S&D treatment.
Here also, developing countries faced the situation where, despite the efforts of the Chairman of the
CTD Special Session, no real progress had been made and the deadline for completion of the work
had been changed.   As her delegation stated at the July General Council meeting, this situation came
about through a lack of political will on the part of the main industrialized countries to commit
themselves in the discussions.  S&D treatment was an issue to which Ministers in Doha had accordeda high priority, and it was for this reason that Cuba was concerned by the evolution in the discussions
away from the effective implementation of S&D provisions towards an exercise in re-interpretation of
these provisions.  As in the case of implementation, fulfilling the mandate contained in paragraph 44
of the Doha Declaration within the extended deadline of 31 December was part of the package
adopted in Doha and the outcome would have a serious effect on the balance contained in thatpackage.  Another important area for Cuba was the issue of public health and the TRIPS Agreement.
Here also Ministers in Doha had given priority to further work on this issue.
48. In conclusion, she wished to refer to a recently published joint World Bank-IMF study on
market access for developing-country exports.  The study showed that in the US and Canada, tariffpeaks were concentrated in textiles and clothing, while in Europe and Japan, tariff peaks were on
agriculture products, food and shoes.   The study said that these protectionist measures created
difficulties for countries taking their first steps in developing new technologies.  The study went on to
say that agricultural subsidies in rich countries amounted to US$311 billion in 2001.  The
beneficiaries of the subsidies were mainly large agribusiness corporations and much of this support
increased with the level of output, contributing to  excess production that competed with developing-
country farmers for markets.  Her delegation wondered how these actions could be matched to thecommitment to trade liberalization in the mandate  for the Doha Work Programme, to improved
market access for the products of interest to developing countries, and to S&D treatment for less-
developed countries.  These questions remained without responses for her delegation for the present.
49. The representative of Thailand said that the issue of greatest concern to her delegation was
agriculture.  Thailand wished to express its disa ppointment that some major opponents to reform had
not yet come forward with specific proposals on modalities for the current agricultural negotiations.
These negotiations could be moved forward and completed within the time-frame mandated by the
Doha Ministerial Conference only if there were proposals from opponents as well as proponents to
reform.  It was high time for those Members to at least send clear signals on what they really expectedfrom these negotiations and her delegation urged them to table their proposals as soon as possible.  On
anti-dumping, her delegation shared the concerns of the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules.
Members should work harder to achieving the mandate in this area.  With that in mind, her delegation
suggested that a roadmap with indicative benchmar ks should be drawn up for the purpose of guiding
Members in the right direction at a constant pace.  This was an important issue which needed politicalinput and her delegation believed that the TNC should be instrumental in giving instruction to the
Negotiating Group on Rules in this regard.
50. On implementation-related issues and S&D, her delegation associated itself with the remarks
made by Malaysia on behalf of the Informal Gr oup of Developing Countries.  Her delegation was
concerned with the progress on both implementation issues and S&D issues, reports on which wereTN/C/M/4
Page 15
due to be made to the TNC and the General Council by the end of the year.  Thailand urged all
Members to be more flexible and to adhere to the deadlines in order to avoid a negative impact on
works in other areas.  On S&D issues, her delegation could go along with the suggestion to review the
schedule of meetings, and it believed that additional meetings might be needed as necessary,
considering that there was a multitude of work to be completed by the end of the year.  Having saidthat, her delegation would urge Members to collaborate constructively in substantive discussions.  It
was high time to show the spirit of this organization – that the concerns of developing countries were
being taken care of.  Thailand did not object to discussions on cross-cutting issues, in particular on the
objective and principles of S&D, because it believed that this would help strengthen the S&D
principles in Part IV of GATT 1994 and make S&D treatment more operational as instructed by the
Ministers at Doha.  Nevertheless, to Thailand's disappointment, some Members had been diverting the
subject by proposing what they called graduation and Thailand strongly opposed this idea.  This wasnot only because it was beyond the Doha mandate, which clearly instructed Members to review S&D
provisions with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise, effective and
operational, but also because it was not relevant to discuss the issue of graduation while all
developing countries were still struggling with the existing S&D treatment which was non-
operational.
51. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that , after listening to the Chairpersons' reports, his
delegation understood that the pace in each negotiating group might vary and that Members had a big
challenge ahead of them.  Having said that, his delegation was satisfied with the progress of the
negotiations overall.  All the efforts made by Members so far demonstrated that they were pushing thenegotiations ahead with great enthusiasm.  His delegation would work with all other Members
continuously in order to achieve the ambitious goals set in Doha.
52. Turning to the negotiations on non-agricultural market access, his delegation looked forward
to more vigorous discussions in future meetings, especially on non-tariff barriers (NTBs), since itconsidered the trade-distorting effects generated by NTBs might not be less than those by tariff
barriers.  His delegation therefore urged Members to respond positively to the Chairman’s proposal
that Members notify non-tariff barriers which their business community encountered when exporting
in order to facilitate these discussions.  On the agriculture negotiations, his delegation believed that
agriculture possessed some special characteristics and was different from the industrial or service
sectors.  Agriculture could provide non-trade functions or public goods, such as food security,
environment protection, poverty alleviation, and ru ral development, which could not be efficiently
created by market mechanisms.  In light of this, his delegation believed that those elements should be
properly considered in the negotiations.
53. His delegation was satisfied with the progress reached in the services negotiations.  However,
Members needed to make immediate decisions on some crucial issues, such as the treatment ofautonomous liberalization and the establishment of emergency safeguard measures so as to move the
negotiations forward.  In the request-and-offer exercise, his delegation had engaged in several
bilateral consultations with other delegations, and it planned to meet with more Members.  His
delegation hoped its efforts could help it to prepare its initial offers and submit them by next March as
scheduled.  With regard to S&D treatment, his delegation believed that in order to safeguard thefuture of the multilateral trading system it was essent ial that the particular needs and interests of the
developing and the least-developed countries were fully taken into account.  His delegation believed
that experts from the different negotiating groups s hould be thoroughly involved in the review process
on agreement-specific provisions, in order to deal with any technical problems that arose and to help
speed up the process.  Nevertheless, Members still had to face the fact that if they wished to reachconsensus on these complex issues by the deadline of 31 December, they could not escape the
responsibility of making the necessary difficult political decisions.  In conclusion, his delegation
wished to reiterate its view that newly-acceded Members had made significant commitments during
their accessions, some even beyond the results of the Uruguay Round.  These Members needed a
reasonable period of time to make necessary adjustments.  His delegation therefore urged Members totake those accession commitments into account during the course of the negotiations.TN/C/M/4
Page 16
54. The representative of Indonesia supported the statement by Malaysia on behalf the Informal
Group of Developing Countries.  Like many devel oping countries, Indonesia believed that full and
faithful implementation of the WTO Agreements and Decisions was imperative to the credibility of
the multilateral trading system.  The reality was that the Uruguay Round Agreements had not yet beenfully implemented.  It was important to ensure that the problem of implementation of the existing
agreements and decisions was sufficiently addressed and resolved before embarking on new
commitments.  Implementation problems did not only involve the inability of Members to fulfill their
obligations, but they also related to measures which might not violate the letter of the agreements but
were clearly in contravention with their spirit.  And in the end, this raised misgivings over the general
trading conditions for developing countries.  Indonesia recognized the inability of developing
countries to comply with their obligations was par tly due to the existing substantive and operational
provisions often went beyond their capacity.  Developing countries facing various problems in
implementing the WTO Agreements were not proposing an overhaul of the agreements, but simply
proposing amendments with a view to improve th em.  Only by meaningfully addressing these
implementation problems could it be ensured that developing countries secured a share in growth of
international trade commensurate with their economic development.  With regard to the discussionson S&D treatment, he wished to reiterate that S&D was crucial to developing countries like Indonesia,
and therefore Indonesia urged Members to make extra efforts to overcome differences in this area, in
order to be able to make progress in other areas of negotiations.
55. The representative of Argentina thanked the Chairpersons for their reports and their hard
work.  He associated his delegation with the statement by Malaysia on behalf the Informal Group of
Developing Countries.  This was the development round, and it was tied to the issues of
implementation and S&D treatment.  Even though these issues could hold different levels of interest
and importance to different developing countries, Argentina saw them as issues crucial to making
progress in other areas of work.  On the agriculture negotiations, all the meetings in the workprogramme in this area had taken place as well as informal intersessional meetings, which showed the
major efforts that had been made to advance the work.  However, Argentina had to express its
preoccupation over the small level of willingness to negotiate shown by some delegations with regard
to specific issues which should be the subject of negotiation.  These delegations continued to insist on
diverting attention towards other issues which were either outside the agriculture negotiations or
peripheral to them.  When one looked at the central issues in the negotiations, the three pillars, one
could see these delegations' clear interest in repeating the Uruguay Round exercise.  Argentinabelieved that this would freeze the status quo to the benefit of those delegations' countries but at the
expense of developing countries.  Without substantive new commitments in export subsidies, market
access and domestic support, there would be no real change in the existing situation nor would the
Doha mandate be respected, and this would not be acceptable to many Members.
56. Turning to intellectual property, and specifically the question of whether a negotiating
mandate existed for the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines and spirits, Argentina and other countries had made a joint
negotiating proposal.  This proposal on a registration system which reunited all the conditions set out
in Article 23.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.  The principal characteristics of the proposal were voluntaryparticipation, facilitation of the protection of geographical indications, and reduced costs at the
multilateral and national levels.  In this way, the system could be established on the form and within
the time-frame set out in the Doha Declaration.  Progress in these negotiations depended on the
willingness to engage of some Members who want ed to increase the obligations under the TRIPS
Agreement and to include issues which were outside Article 23.4 and the Doha mandate.  In the areaof trade and environment, Argentina had submitted a proposal which attempted to clarify paragraph
31 of the Doha Declaration, in particular with resp ect to the relationship be tween the specific trade
obligations contained in the MEAs and the WTO Ag reement.  The discussions on the interpretation
and the scope of the mandate had brought out the aspirations of some Members to assign to these
negotiations a breadth which was difficult to reconcile with the letter of the mandate.  Argentinareaffirmed its readiness to continue working on this issue within the mandate established by Ministers.TN/C/M/4
Page 17
It was clear that Argentina was prepared to participate in the present round, bearing in mind the
balance which had to be struck in it and the hopes of many countries.
57. The representative of Uganda associated his delegation with the statements by Malaysia on
behalf the Informal Group of Developing Countries, Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group and
Zambia on behalf of the LDCs.  He wished to draw the attention of the TNC to paragraph 50 of the
Doha Declaration, which stated that:  "The negotiations and the other aspects of the Work Programme
shall take fully into account the principle of special and differential treatment for developing and
least-developed countries embodied in:  Part IV of the GATT 1994;  the Decision of 28 November
1979 on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of
Developing Countries;  the Uruguay Round Decisi on on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed
Countries;  and all other relevant WTO provisions".  As his delegation reviewed the Chairpersons'reports and the progress made in individual areas, it would measure how this paragraph was being
accommodated.
58. Turning to the agriculture negotiations, this was an important area for developing and least-
developed countries.  Paragraph 13 of the Declaration was also very specific, stating that:  "We agreethat special and differential treatment for developing countries shall be an integral part of all elements
of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the Schedules of concessions and commitments and as
appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be negotiated."  Paragraph 14 went on to say that:
"Modalities for the further commitments, including provisions for special and differential treatment,
shall be established no later than 31 March 2003."  The Chairman of the Special Session of theCommittee on Agriculture had reported that there had been a good number of submissions, and his
delegation welcomed those submissions which had indicated how S&D provisions would be
accommodated and hoped that all submissions would take this aspect into account.  His delegation
would be worried in these provisions were diluted in such proposals.  Uganda would engage in these
negotiations, in the hope that in the final outcome it would not be worse off than in the UruguayRound, but rather would have improved possibilities for market access and production.  On the
services negotiations, he wished to emphasize the importance of agreeing to modalities for
autonomous liberalization, and his delegation looked  forward to receiving the Chairman's paper on
this issue.  In the area of market access negotiations for industrial products, his delegation would be
looking for adequate provisions to deal with the erosion of preferences.
59. The representative of Peru said that her delegation was concerned that no real progress had
been made in the CTD Special Session, which had a Ministerial mandate to report at the end of the
year with clear recommendations for a decision.  It was similarly concerned that no concrete progress
had been made on the outstanding implementation issues.  It was important to respect the deadlines
set out on these issues in the Doha Declaration and Decision.  One area of vital interest for Peru was
the negotiations on agriculture.  Her delegation was disappointed by the lack of engagement shown bysome developed Members in this area.  Despite the fact that the phase of presenting concrete
negotiating modalities had started, these Members continued to repeat their general positions without
submitting specific negotiating proposals.  Peru could not accept the inclusion in these negotiations of
issues outside the negotiations, such as:  extension of geographical indications to agricultural
products, an issue which was being well discussed in the TRIPS Council;  incorporation of theprecautionary principle, which fell under the SPS Agreement;  and eco-labelling, an issue under
discussion in both the TBT Committee and the Committee on Trade and Environment.
60. The agriculture negotiations should address, in a practical manner, the three pillars.  With
regard to export subsidies, these should be phased out in the briefest possible time, taking into accountlonger time periods for developing countries.  Disciplines on export credits should be developed, and
in the area of market access, there was a need to substantially reduce tariffs and eliminate tariffs peaks
and tariff escalation, and special consideration should be given to products arising from
diversification from production of illicit products in developing countries.  There should be an
expansion in tariff quotas.  The special safeguard for developed countries should be abolished, and atthe same time a mechanism should be developed to allow developing countries to use such safeguardsTN/C/M/4
Page 18
under certain circumstances.  It was also important to eliminate the Blue Box.  Finally, it would be
necessary to adopt an effective mechanism of net food-importing countries.
61. On paragraph 6 of the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, her delegation
was confident that an effective solution would be quickly found to address the concerns of Memberswith insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector.  Her delegation wished
to underline the importance of respecting the deadlines set out in the Doha Declaration, since that was
the only way which allow Members to go to Cancún with a package acceptable to all of them.
62. The Chairman said that he had taken note of the various suggestions made by delegations,
such as that on using a degree of uniformity in the Chairpersons' reports, and he would reflect on them
and see how they could be taken into account in the work.  From the discussion and the Chairpersons'reports, he believed it was clear that much work had been done in all the negotiating bodies, but
nobody denied that still much more work needed to be done in crucial areas.  He was somewhat
concerned that the positions of some delegations had not been clarified to the extent needed at this
critical juncture of the work.  Many oral statements had been made in the meetings which had taken
place so far.  Some areas were naturally further forward, particularly those which had started earlier,although there were still some problems in those ar eas.  Those which had started in Doha were facing
a shortage of written inputs.  The fact remained that detailed written submissions were essential to
progress in substantive negotiations.  This was even more the case when delegations' statements
tended to continue to repeat well-known positions.  There was a need to move forward.  The
Chairpersons of some of the negotiating bodies had called on delegations to submit their remainingpapers or inputs as soon as possible, and he would join them in exhorting all participants to make the
greatest possible efforts to respond rapidly.  This was essential if the deadlines that were coming up
fast were to be met.
63. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the reports of the bodies established by it and
of the statements made.
2. Future work
64. The Chairman said that the reports from the Chairpersons of the bodies established by the
TNC and the comments made by delegations on them had confirmed his impression of the current
situation.  That was, the negotiations had got off to a reasonably good start, but much more remained
to be done in a very short period of time, and time was running quickly.  The present meeting had to
mark the start of a new phase of the negotiations – the phase of substantive engagement.  Only by
accelerating the work, where necessary producing and discussing concrete proposals, could
participants make real progress across the board.  The work needed to be directed not only towardsmeeting individual key deadlines, but also towards starting to build a sense of the negotiations as a
whole.  This was the prime function of the TNC, and it was a vital one if participants were to arrive at
a balanced package.  To succeed, this negotiation had to be more than the sum of its parts.  The
negotiating agenda contained many important individual areas, but the connections between them had
to be positive – the package had to be meaningful as a whole.
65. Everyone knew that the overall time-frame was tight.  Working back from the deadline for
concluding the negotiations, which was in some 27 months time, one could see that Cancún
represented a landmark deadline in the process.  The Conference in September of next year was set to
act as a mid-term review.  This meant that by then participants would need a clear picture of what wasachievable across the negotiating agenda.  Only on that basis would Ministers be able to provide the
necessary additional political guidance in order to conclude the Work Programme successfully and on
time.
66. He had recently circulated a revised Timeline to Cancún to all participants, and while he was
sure all delegations were aware of what it contained, he wished to underline the importance of theTN/C/M/4
Page 19
deadlines in the period from March to May 2003.  During this period participants would face
deadlines in the negotiations on Agriculture, Serv ices, Non-agricultural Market Access and Dispute
Settlement.  Many believed that what happened then would define the rest of the process.  Participants
would face an uphill battle at Cancún if they did not grapple successfully with these intermediate
deadlines.
67. Working back from next Spring, December obviously represented another set of important
deadlines, many of which were Implementation issues and other issues of particular concern to
developing countries.  Members needed to find a way to generate continuing movement on all these
issues, so that they became part of the forward process, not an obstacle to it.  Preparing for the
December meeting of the TNC would be among his top priorities in the coming weeks.
68. It was important to meet all of these deadlines.  But a deadline was not an end in itself.
Deadlines were important because they allowed participants to measure how they were advancing.
And all participants knew they had to advance the substance of the negotiations progressively across
all areas of the negotiating agenda as a whole.  The TNC was where participants oversaw the
negotiations – and where they connected the elements  – in the light of the Single Undertaking that
Ministers had agreed on.  This Committee was where all the work in the different negotiating bodies
came together, and this was the spirit in which he would be working.  This was a collective
undertaking, involving all its participants, and its outcome had to be a balanced package which could
offer gains to a wide spectrum of those participants.  In his work as TNC Chairman, he would aim to
build consensus proactively through an equitable, balanced, transparent and inclusive approach.
69. As part of the new phase of our negotiations he had mentioned, delegations should expect the
TNC to be more active.  In line with this, he would be an activist as TNC Chairman – working closely
with the Chairpersons to support and help them wher e he thought it might be useful in the interests of
advancing progress in the negotiations.  He would also be active in consulting with delegations, firstof all as they prepared for the important issues that would be on the table in December.  With his staff,
he would work hard to encourage and urge participants to negotiate with a full sense of the urgency
and importance of the issues before them.  He woul d, of course, also work in close cooperation with
the Chairman of the General Council as set out in the Principles and Practices agreed earlier this year.
70. He wished to briefly to touch also on one administrative matter, namely the issue of
scheduling of meetings.  The Principles and Practices set out that the TNC would keep the calendar ofmeetings under surveillance.  His discussions with the Chairpersons who had reported earlier in the
meeting and also with other Members had left him in no doubt that there were some practical
problems in this area.  This question had many aspects – how to apply the relevant guidelines in a way
which helped not hindered the work, other purely physical limitations, such as the number of meeting
rooms and the availability of interpreters, and the limitations faced by small delegations.  It seemedlikely that this problem could only worsen as the negotiations intensified.  The difficulty of fitting a
practically infinite amount of work into a finite amount of time available to do it would require some
careful consideration by all concerned.  In order to address this problem, he had decided to ask one of
his Deputies to work together with the Chairpersons and with the smaller delegations, in the first
instance, to ensure that participants would be in a position to meet the deadlines while also taking intoaccount the constraints those delegations were facing.  The coming months would be a busy period for
everyone, and he was sure that with careful management and appropriate mechanisms it would be
possible to respect the mandate to conduct the negotiations in a transparent manner among
participants, in order to facilitate the effective participation of all.
71. He firmly believed a successful outcome was essential for the future of the societies in all
Member countries.  A larger degree of openness and predictability in international relations could
only come about if Member had the same set of rules and if they set their sights on similar objectives.
That was precisely what this Organization could offer.  The DDA had been launched in a world
economic situation which had been widely regarded as being weak.  It had not improved since then,TN/C/M/4
Page 20
and the outlook was uncertain in many ways.  This was why it was even more important to deliver on
this Round.  The future prospects of many, many people depended on it.
72. The representative of the European Communities said that Members were now entering a new
phase in their negotiating process and would need to shift to a higher gear with the full involvement
and engagement of the entire membership.  He welc omed the Director-General's tasking of one of the
Deputy Director-Generals to ensure that everybody in the membership was fully involved.  Members
had by now quite a few negotiating proposals on the table but engagement needed to be extended and
deepened.  Members were approaching the point where they needed to build bridges between
positions which might also imply abandoning somewhat self-serving maximalist positions and a need
to move towards the middle ground.  This would be a process of give and take where every Member
needed to take into account the overall balance of the negotiations both within sectors and betweenthem.  Hence the importance of the role of Chairpersons and above all the importance of the role of
the TNC under the Chairman's guidance.  Although Members were starting this new phase on a
positive note, registering progress in the work and also registering the passage of TPA in the United
States, the medium-term political and economic picture remained worrying – risk of recession in the
US, sluggish economic performance in Europe, contraction in Latin America, recession often inducedby serious debt overhang in many parts of Asia, lo w or no growth in Africa where levels of poverty
and other indicators of welfare were worsening, dramatic reduced flows of foreign direct investment
world wide and the political and economic instability that might result from potential events in the
Middle East.  Against this sobering background, it was doubly important to press ahead ambitiously
with all the issues of the DDA.
73. The WTO could not resolve alone all the problems facing the world economy, but it could
reduce the negative impact, accelerate the return to sustainable growth in the medium-term and help
countries to trade to overcome poverty – a point which had been made by the Chairman in his recent
statements.  So no complacency was warranted.  Members had to feel concerned and understand theircommon responsibility in the months ahead to negotiate ambitious results in market access and no less
ambitious rules to support market access.   As the Chairman had stated, the end of year deadlines and
those at the beginning of the next year were the fi rst test of Members' ability to prove that the WTO
could make a difference.  Members had to reach a decision on TRIPS and access to medicines that
genuinely brought relief to poor countries with little or no capacity to manufacture life-saving drugs.
The EC was confident that Members would achieve this if they were all flexible and did not lose sight
of the broader picture and the major developmental issues at stake.  This would be the number onepriority for the Community for the rest of the year and he hoped that it would hear similar
commitments from other Members.  The EC also wanted to see progress before the end of the year on
other subjects which many developing countries  regarded as important signs of the WTO's
development credentials.  Rules of origin, implementation and S&D treatment were all key parts of
the DDA where Members needed to register substantial progress by the end of the year.  That was notgoing to be easy, in particular, S&D treatment was both complicated and seemed to be viewed
differently by, and have different implications for developing countries at different economic levels.
Nonetheless, Members should try to clarify the issues  by the end of the year to make progress and the
EC was ready to play its part, and thus respond constructively to the appeal made in the statement by
Malaysia on behalf of the Informal Group of Deve loping Countries, a point which had been echoed by
many delegations.
74. Under agenda item 1 he had referred to the importance of the end of March deadline on
agriculture, and the Community attached the same importance to the deadlines in services and market
access for non-agricultural products.  However, the extension of geographical indications was animportant part of the deadlines at the end of the present year.  Some delegations seemed unwilling to
recognize this, but the real issue would not go away by itself or by stonewalling it;  this was what a
single undertaking was all about.  The EC expected to see substantial progress on this issue by the end
of the year.  Regarding the question of institutional improvement, which was also part of the future
work, some institutional improvements were being discussed in the framework of the General Council
and he commended the General Council Chairman for his engagement and the work he wasTN/C/M/4
Page 21
conducting on them.  He EC wished to mention two of these issues in the TNC context.  First, on the
DSU review, Members should conclude the work by the middle of the next year, as they were tasked
to do.  The Community believed this was possible, bu t it rejected firmly the views of those who were
only contemplating a limited procedural package by the Doha deadline.  The EC wanted broader
conclusions allowing clearer and more predictable arrangements within the DSU.  Second, Membersalso needed to seek practical steps to facilitate the accession of LDCs, as set out in the Doha
Declaration.  The EC called for an early agreement on a set of simplified and accelerated procedures
for those LDCs which were presently in the accession process and procedures which were
commensurate with their ability to contribute.
75. Regarding the Singapore issues, he said that work on all four subjects had gone rather
smoothly thus far.  Members had had substantive discussions, delegations had engaged and the work
programme was fulfilling its aim of clarifying and focussing on the scope of work to be pursued after
Cancún.  On all four issues, Members should aim at  an intensification of the work in 2003, with a
second reading of the ideas and issues which had been canvassed this year.  This would enable the
necessary decisions to be taken at Cancún, decisions based on a thorough appreciation of the systemic
benefits to Members of multilateral commitments in all four areas.  Finally, technical assistance andcapacity building were crucial components of the whole DDA, in fact, they were part of practically all
the negotiating subjects.  All delegations and the WTO Secretariat were currently working hard to
draw up the 2003 Technical Assistance Plan.  The EC  was trying to ensure that the plan met the
expectation of its developing partners and that the funds available in the DDA Trust Fund were used
in the most effective way.  The EC urged the WTO Secretariat, as was its intention, to enhance itscooperation with other international organizations and bilateral donors to achieve synergies and to
exploit comparative advantages in the various subject areas of the DDA.  The EC also urged
continuity and proximity in the programmes which were being contemplated.
76. The representative of Uruguay said he wished to highlight two points which his delegation
considered important and which the Chairman had mentioned in his opening remarks.  His delegation
believed these points should emerge from the present meeting as conclusions acceptable to all
delegations.  The first point was that Members had entered a new phase of the negotiations and that
they should act in consequence.  Before the summer break, the negotiations had been focused on
procedure, which Uruguay considered had been necessary to establish clearly the rules of the game, in
particular taking into account the broad and complex negotiations ahead.  Since the end of that stage
and since the summer break, a new phase had started in which Members had to change focus andrhythm and put more effort into achieving the objectives set by their Ministers at Doha.  As an
example of this, the events at the last two Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture were a
cause for concern to his delegation.  It was concerned because while a number of Members had
submitted concrete negotiating proposals in line with what had been established for the present phase,
another group of Members had only mentioned general elements without submitting ideas or concreteproposals.  This would not help progress in the work, and was even paradoxical since the same
Members had submitted proposals in other areas which were very concrete and much more ambitious
than those presented in agriculture by others.  These Members had also made progress in agriculture
conditional on other subject areas which were not even in the Doha negotiating mandate.  His
delegation believed it was clear that if substantial progress was not achieved in the negotiations onagriculture, where some Members had been waitin g for liberalization for some fifty years, there
would be no progress in other negotiating areas.
77. The second point was the urgent need to respect the deadlines contained in the Doha
Declaration.  The success of the Cancún Conference would depend on this.  The Chairman had issueda revised Timeline in which it was clear that in December the outcomes of several areas of work
would be examined, in particular implementation, S&D treatment, and manufacturing capacities in the
pharmaceutical sector and the effective use of compulsory licensing.  His delegation was concerned
that the work in these areas was not promising in terms of achieving its objectives.  For this reason,
his delegation supported the suggestion by India that the Chairman should be involved in the work soas to ensure that the deadlines were respected, and it was pleased to hear that the Chairman had suchTN/C/M/4
Page 22
intentions.  In the light of this, it was clear that if Members did not maximize their efforts to comply
with the December deadline in the areas he had mentioned, as well as the March 2003 deadlines in
other areas, in particular the establishment of modalities in agriculture and the submission of initial
offers in services, the Cancún Ministerial Conference would be complicated.  Uruguay was committed
to the deadlines agreed at Doha and would act accordingly.  It hoped that all Members would bear inmind the importance of complying with the agreed ma ndates and deadlines.  In doing so, they would
be rendering a great service to the Fifth Ministerial Conference and to the host country and they
would ensure a successful Conference.  Such success was becoming more and more necessary in the
face of growing uncertainty in the world economy.
78. The representative of Norway said that he agreed with the Chairman that there had been a
good start to the work, which was going on seriously in all the groups.  Since the last session of the
TNC in July, there had been many constructive and good developments, such at the passage of TPA in
the United States, which was of fundamental importance for the progress.  So the conditions were set
for progress and Norway believed that Members could achieve it.  But it was also quite clear that, as
had been mentioned in the Chairs' reports, the stage reached in the various groups was uneven.  The
negotiations on agriculture and services had been under way for two years, so it was not unusual thatthey had reached another level.  However, it was important to stress that Members were working
under a single undertaking, which meant that they had to see things in connection – everything was
linked with everything.  The Chairman had said that Members needed a clear picture at Cancún and
Norway would underscore this.  Members had deadlines in some areas but not in others, but that
should not be an argument for lagging further behind in those areas where there were no deadlines,particularly, in the rules area.
79. Uruguay had said that unless there was progress in agriculture, there would be no progress in
other areas.  Norway could say exactly the same thing, but perhaps striking out agriculture and
introducing market access and anti-dumping instead.  Members needed to be quite clear that byCancún those areas which had had less time than others to progress would need to catch up.  Of
course, agriculture was important and Members should respect the deadlines in that area, and Norway
believed that Members were willing to work seriously towards that end.  He also wished to comment
on issues which had deadlines in the autumn and which were directly or indirectly linked to the
negotiations.  Members had worked in Special Sessions under the General Council for one and a half
years on implementation.  After that, this issue had been refered to Ministers at Doha and during that
process some of the issues had been resolved.  But as Members knew, many of these issues were stillwith them and his delegation was slightly unclear on the treatment of some of them, such as the anti-
dumping and subsidies issues.  It had been decided in paragraph 12 of the Ministerial Declaration that
issues where there were negotiating mandates would go to the negotiating groups.  Norway believed
that it was perhaps not realistic to expect the resolution of some of those issues if there was no focus
and it hoped that Members would take them up in parallel with other negotiating items under theseheadings.  The rest of the implementation package, would be reported to the TNC at the end of year,
and a TNC meeting would be necessary early next year to receive the reports and then decide on
further action as appropriate.  This entailed that Members would have to decide which implementation
issues coming from the permanent machin ery would go into the negotiations.
80. Regarding the work on S&D, Norway agreed with the European Communities that it was
important to progress and fulfill the mandate.  Of course, the substance was important and should not
be left aside, but perhaps it would be a good idea to aim at agreement on the Monitoring Mechanism
by the autumn deadline.  Another area which had a bearing on the overall situation was the question
of TRIPS and health.  The last meeting of the TRIPS Council had not resulted in much progress onthis issue, but the TRIPS Council Chairman was to conduct consultations and Norway hoped that
would lead to a result.  In Norway's view, this was one of the most important tasks Members faced
before the new year.  Finally, his delegation was pleased that the Chairman would take an active role
in the conduct of the negotiations and in assisting the various Chairs as appropriate in order to achieve
progress.  However, in doing so the Chairman should not forget that Members had been working onTN/C/M/4
Page 23
internal transparency over the previous couple of years, and it would be important for him to inform
all delegations of his activities.
81. The representative of the United States said that since the last meeting of the TNC, she was
pleased to be able to report that Trade Promotion Authority had been approved by the US Congress.
Members had followed this legislative process closely over the past year and they had reacted
positively to US Congressional actions, giving momentum to their negotiations.  As Members moved
now into the next stage of the negotiations, it was essential that they move forward both efficiently
and effectively.  They had done well thus far in avoiding the pitfalls of previous negotiations where
they had wasted precious time on procedural issues.  However, the key to meeting the goals set out in
Doha would be engagement on substance.  It was in  that spirit that the United States had tabled
proposals, and other contributions, in various negotiating groups, including in particular a recentcomprehensive proposal on agriculture.  In this vein, the United States welcomed the proposals
presented by the Cairns Group and looked forward to  seeing further proposals from other key players.
As the European Communities had mentioned ear lier in the meeting, the recent conference on
sustainable development in Johannesburg had been linked directly to the negotiations in WTO.  The
one point that had come out loud and clear in Johannesburg had been that the single most importantcontribution that the WTO could make to sustainable development was fundamental reform in
agriculture.
82. The United States had been heartened in recent months to hear the overall commitment of
delegations to reach consensus on TRIPS and access to medicines and it joined others in making theoverall commitment to reach a positive conclusion by the year end.  Turning to other areas of work,
she said that Ambassador Zoellick had made clear the United States' position on the importance of
development issues to the negotiations.  He had had the opportunity to discuss this point with his
counterparts in many regions, including most recently during his visit to the Caricom countries.  The
United States intended to participate in the work  being undertaken by the Chairman of the Committee
on Trade and Development Special Session in a constructive spirit, mindful of the need to examine
the proposals that had been submitted, as well as complete the rest of the work assigned to that body.
Working together, Members would want to test the practical import of the proposals and how they
might facilitate developing-country integration into the system, particularly South-South trade, as well
as participation in the new negotiations.  Establishing some general principles under which Members
could conduct their work would be helpful in making practical decisions.  Similarly, her delegation
would engage on the topic of implementation through the process outlined in paragraph 12(b) of theDoha Declaration and it did not see the need for any additional structure or oversight.  The United
States would be tabling additional proposals and other substantive submissions throughout the fall in
various negotiating groups and it looked forward to constructive engagement on all topics.
83. The representative of Malaysia wished to high light certain issues regarding the future work.
Members had to recognize the need to have a clear and frank assessment on all the issues whether
they were under negotiation or under study by a given date.  This would give an indication as to the
issues that needed to be resolved, as well as pointing out the difficulties faced by delegations.  In
doing so, Members needed to work on the premise that the consensus rule should prevail, fundamental
problems should not be brushed aside, transparency had to be upheld at all times and the interests ofdeveloping countries had to take centre stage.  The first date would be in December when the various
negotiating groups and working groups would report to the TNC and the General Council.  Until then,
Malaysia suggested that the TNC Chairman should meet the Chairs of the negotiating groups on a
regular basis to discuss, inter-alia, the more proble matic areas to allow the Chairman to strategize on
his next course of action.  In this context, Malaysia welcomed the Chairman's remarks that he wouldassume a pro-active role.  The Chairman would also need to have regular informal consultations with
delegations to look at the best possible solutions .  By the end of the year, Members would have an
indication of the status of the negotiations  and the work to be done before Cancún.
84. The second date would be before the Easter break when another assessment would have to be
made.  This assessment would be crucial because Members would by then have only three workingTN/C/M/4
Page 24
months before Cancún.  Hence, thereafter Members needed a cut-off point to decide the shape of the
issues to be taken up by Ministers in September.  He wished to reiterate that the Cancún Conference
was a mid-term review to acknowledge the status of the negotiations and to allow Ministers to provide
the necessary political push and direction as appropriate for Members' work in the future.  In this
regard, Malaysia suggested a deadline of the third week of July.  By that time Malaysia wouldenvisage senior officials deciding on what coul d be achieved in Cancún, which would be a genuine
reality check of where matters stood.  Only this would help Members plan Cancún realistically and
manage it well.  Malaysia cautioned against pushing extremely difficult issues to be forwarded to
Ministers as the dynamics of Ministerial Conferences did not necessarily provide the best answers to
problems.
85. The representative of Brazil said that the Chairman's opening remarks had been precise and to
the point, and his delegation supported his overall assessment of the situation and welcomed his
disposition to fully engage in some of the critical  areas of the negotiations.  Brazil believed that the
meetings of the TNC should give Members an opportunity to asses the overall progress of the
negotiations and compare their respective perceptions of the different items in the Doha agenda.  This
was where, as the Chairman had rightly pointed out, everything came together.  Members had to takeadvantage of this forum to detach themselves from day-to-day business and try to see the whole
picture so as to maintain their collective focus on target.  After all, while Members might be apart on
many of the specifics of the negotiations, they shared a common objective – they wanted to succeed,
and they wanted to succeed in the exact terms in the exact time-frame mandated by their Ministers in
Doha.  Brazil was encouraged to note that the Chairman was committed to completing the Roundwithin its prescribed time-frames.  Brazil's assessment was that work was being processing in a
broadly satisfactory manner, the process was already moving and proposals had been tabled in several
negotiating groups.
86. However, Brazil wished to echo the statement made by Malaysia on behalf of the Informal
Group of Developing Countries, and emphasize the importance Brazil attributed to giving further and
renewed impetus to areas of crucial interests to developing countries in the DDA.  Members needed to
devote attention to implementation under the paragraph 12(b), to some questions under paragraph
12(a) such as Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and to S&D treatment, whose deadline for
completion expired at the end of the year.  Lack of progress on these areas would lead to the
hardening of negotiating positions adding new hurdles to the complex situation which Members
would probably be confronted with at the Ministerial in Cancún.  It would be highly desirable thatdelegations who had a special role in these topics could show increased flexibility and willingness to
make concessions.  Concrete results on both implementation and S&D treatment by 31 December was
fundamental for a positive outcome in other areas of the negotiations.
87. Besides implementation and S&D treatment, there were other important deadlines to meet in
the period leading up to the Fifth Ministerial.  Members were no doubt faced with an overloaded
agenda to be addressed within very tight schedules and they should make the most of the time
available.  Members should do the utmost to engage in negotiations and come to a satisfactory
conclusion in Geneva, otherwise they would be over -crowding the list of unresolved issues at Cancún,
and at the same time encouraging alternative negotiation procedures and fora and that would benecessarily more restricted.  This should be avoided.  Meeting the deadlines established at Doha was
essential if Members were to give credibility to the negotiations.  As the Chairman had mentioned,
Members had to enter a new phase of substantive engagement with an eye on both the individual
deadlines and on the negotiations as a whole with a view to achieving a balanced package.
88. Agriculture was by all means the centrepiece of the Doha package.  In the past few weeks,
one had witnessed a number of important statements from different sources converging to the same
point.  Developed countries' subsidies and market access barriers generated deleterious consequences
to developing countries and to developed countries themselves.  The World Bank and the IMF,
international organizations like the OECD, the UN Summit on Sustainable Development and therespective NGOs, like Oxfam, had issued almost simultaneously the same, clear and resoundingTN/C/M/4
Page 25
message – agriculture trade should be liberalized and subsidies dismantled.  The evidence available
was hardly questionable, subsidies, high tariffs and tariff escalation had hurt, and if Members did not
act expeditiously they would continue to hurt the prospects of development in developing countries
and would simultaneously downgrade consumers welfare in developed countries.  A handful of
influential groups entrenched behind protectionist walls and generous treasuries had continued toextract large benefits at the expense of consumers and producers.  It was inconceivable that at this
stage in the process of global trade negotiations, the most inefficient producers of agricultural
commodities still found themselves in a position to had large shares of export markets.  It was a
serious matter that went beyond the bad allocation of resources and inefficiency.  It brought about
serious consequences – it displaced developing countries' exports, it brought down the prices of
agricultural products while compromising their export revenues, deteriorating terms of trade and
brought very negative consequences to their trade balance.  Unless meaningful results were obtainedin agriculture, the DDA would not be concluded and if that happened, the credibility of the rules-
based multilateral trading system would be impaired and all of Members would stand to lose.
89. Time and again developing countries were being told about the virtues of the agreements and
formula arrived at in the Uruguay Round.  The mere suggestion of this possibility, understandably,generated the impression that those who benefited fr om the present situation believed that in the end
nothing was supposed to change.  Developing countries were also being told that agriculture reform
was a long term process and that they should not be too ambitious in order not to endanger their
partners' disposition to compromise.  To those who said that, Brazil would reply that one should first
ascertain whether such disposition really existed and then talk about level of ambition.  So far noproposals had been tabled, circulated or presented, no indications on these countries' levels of
ambition in terms of tariff-cuts and subsidies reduction and no time-frame for the phasing out of
export subsidies.  At this stage, it would be unreasonable to expect the other side to make specific
concessions, as the end game was still far off, but in Brazil's view it was reasonable to expect more
concrete indications of commitment from those who were expected to move forward.  Proposals,gestures or inklings – whatever would give develo ping countries a modicum of comfort, a sense that
they were negotiating for real and not bargaining for time.  Having heard the Chairman of the Special
Session of Agriculture, his delegation felt compelled to second him in stressing the importance of
Agriculture negotiations, to caution against the unwarranted hurdles Members had been facing and to
warn about the consequences of a continued deadlock  in this crucial segment of the negotiations for
the global package.
90. Brazil had been actively engaged in the negotiations and had tabled proposals along with
other members of the Cairns Group in all areas of relevance.  Other important players had also put
their proposals forward.  Regrettably this effort had not been matched by the European Communities
and by some other delegations.  Brazil was not asking for concessions at this stage, it wanted
however, to be reassured that the commitment was there.  Brazil wanted to hear from those who hadso far refrained from putting forward proposals more than recrimination, self-serving comments and
general expressions.  Brazil certainly wanted to k now what they thought of its proposals, but it would
very much appreciate to have the opportunity to reciprocate and be able to comment on a European
proposal.
91. The representative of Japan said that his delegation had two general comments to make.  First,
Japan shared the recognition that some negotiations including agriculture and services were
proceeding relatively smoothly and steadily.  But what was important was to ensure similar progress
in other fields such as non-agricultural market access, rules and the Singapore issues.  After all,
Members were playing in the whole ballpark of the single undertaking, and this ballpark was farbigger than a mere market access round, as had clearly been agreed by Ministers at Doha.  The name
of the game was overall balance.  Every participant in this game should be reminded that without
progress in other fields, the harvest in his favourite field would be far less than bountiful.  Japan also
believed that ensuring balanced progress across the various negotiating groups was essential to
promoting the positive engagement of all Members in the whole endeavour of the DDA, therebycontributing to the credible functioning of the multilateral trading system under the WTO.  In thisTN/C/M/4
Page 26
regard, Japan was looking forward to seeing positive leadership and contributions by a major player
of this ballgame in various negotiating groups.
92. The second point was the importance of submitting proposals which were realistic and
pragmatic enough to accommodate the divergent views and interests of Members.  Some Membersmight be inclined to make rather unrealistic and extreme proposals as a part of their negotiation
tactics.  But those proposals would not constitute good or solid bases for negotiation.  What was
worse was that such proposals could be rather detrimental to the progress of Members' work since
extreme proposals from one camp tended to invite counterproposals in the other direction.  Given the
time constraints Members were facing, they should be focusing on points of convergence rather than
divergence, so that they could build compromise upon such common ground.
93. Turning to the negotiations on the DSU, he said that the work had been steadily moving
forward, thanks to the accelerated and very intens ive efforts by Members under the leadership of the
Chair of that group.  In this regard, Japan wished to emphasise that a realistic assessment of where
possible consensus might be found was extremely important in order to meet the deadline of May next
year.  Finally, with the new TNC Chairman, Sept ember had started with many Members expressing
their wishes for progress and renewed sense of vigour and urgency.  Japan would be second to none in
working hard with him for the final success of the DDA.
94. The representative of Ecuador said that while his country fully supported a successful
outcome to the DDA, it was concerned to see that success being threatened.  Although it was true that
the reports from the Chairs of the negotiating groups reflected that serious work had been undertaken,
it was also true that there was a serious problem.  This was related to the very origin of the
negotiations which had started as part of the built-in agenda resulting from the Uruguay Round and
which had yet to be concluded.  At the center of these negotiations was agriculture, where Members
were supposed to be negotiating the continuation of the reform process established in the AgricultureAgreement.  This reform process concerned principally developed countries, which accounted for 90
per cent of the subsidies which distorted international markets for agricultural products.  These
distortions held back the economic development and poverty reduction prospects of developing
countries, whose hungry and jobless agricultural workers emigrated in great numbers to developed
countries, causing social conflict.  This could be avoided by deepening the reform process of the
Agriculture Agreement.  Everyone knew that the ag reed goals which should have been achieved in the
implementation period of the Agreement had not been met, which obviously required a greater andmore radical level of commitments with different modalities so that Members did not suffer new
frustrations and disappointments.  Unfortunately no progress had been made in this regard.
95. Everyone was aware that the coverage of these negotiations had been widened to facilitate
substantial progress in agriculture, so that a wider panorama of give and take could stimulate thesubmission of truly substantial offers.  To date, there had not been even a hint of this happening.  If
this continued, Members would have to be courageous enough to recognize that there was no Round,
and that they were going nowhere and wasting time discussing a thousand and one subject while
discussions on the most important one had come to a halt.  Ecuador urged the Chairman to address
this problem.  It was necessary work at sensitizing those whose inaction was jeopardizing thenegotiations, because without substantial progress in agriculture there was no Round.
96. The representative of Poland said that in approaching the future work, his delegation was
guided by realism.  There were solid and promising factors playing in favour of an ambitious package
in the New Round, however there were also danger s on the way towards it, both in the negotiating
process, such as maximalist positions, as well as in  the difficult external economic environment in the
world and in individual countries.  The Doha Ministerial Declaration had set out the architecture of
this package, but its final content had still to be seen.  In Poland's view, the negotiating process should
move ahead in such a way as to enable all particip ants to dispose of enough elements in order to make
a preliminary assessment of their potential benefits and costs, as well as the potential consequences ofa hypothetical failure.  This was indispensable for moving effectively ahead in the negotiations.TN/C/M/4
Page 27
Members should do their best to arrive at such a point well before the Cancún Ministerial Conference,
but in the meantime, they should not engage in procedure and tactics.
97. Being engaged in the New Round should not allow Members to lose sight of a very important
WTO accession process and its connections with the Round.  The management, organizational andtechnical infrastructure of the process were important and Poland had great confidence in the
Chairman and the WTO Secretariat.  This involved, inter-alia, internal transparency and overcoming
objective limitations which made full participation of all Members not an easy task.  Poland believed
that timely delivery of the minutes from formal and informal meetings would be welcomed especially
by Members who could not attend all meetings and consultations.  Poland would welcome
continuation of the useful practice of transmitting information from smaller consultations through
either the Chairs of the respective bodies or the DDGs, and the Chairman could also be active in thisrespect.
98. The representative of Canada said that the work of the TNC would only grow in importance
as Members moved deeper into the substance of the negotiations and as the timelines tightened.  In
that spirit, Canada would very much welcome the Chairman's activism – active with the negotiatingChairs, active and transparently so in consulting the Members, and active in trying to keep the big
picture in mind.  As the Chairman had noted, time was a key factor, all Members needed to pick up
the pace, and the current international economic environment brought further urgency and importance
to the ongoing negotiations.  Canada welcomed the opportunity to have this kind of a discussion on
advancing the collective Doha Agenda and the issues of interest to all Members – developed anddeveloping alike.  Canada believed that it was increasingly important for Members to discuss, in a
horizontal and balanced way, how to advance this Agenda.  The discussion at the last TNC meeting in
July had been the first time that had been done in the TNC and was a first step in this direction.  The
present meeting built on that, and this had to b ecome the rule for TNC meetings.  This level of
discussion was a recognition of the broad nature of the negotiations.  Progress needed to be made inmany areas to ensure that the balanced agenda that had been agreed at Doha could be achieved, that
the interests of all could be addressed, and that all could benefit from further multilateral
liberalization.  That was why the Chairman was correc t in saying that Doha was bigger than sum of its
parts.
99. With the procedural decisions largely in the past, Members were now in a new phase of the
Doha Agenda, with substantive negotiations well underway.  Canada welcomed the substantialprogress in some groups since the last TNC, together with the passage of TPA, and it looked forward
to continued progress in these and other domains and to a more intensive and constructive
engagement among Members on meaningful proposals and thoughtful ideas.  Of particular interest to
Canada were the core areas of agricultural reform, improved market access to all markets of the
world, and rules that provided assured access for all Members.  There was much substantive work todo and deadlines to be met.  Members needed to try to anticipate the impending deadlines and
contribute to the creation of the ultimate solution to those deadlines.  Canada also recognised that not
all areas were moving as fast as some Members might like, but there were perhaps no easy issues.
However, the important requirement was that the bala nce of interests should move forward, that there
be a healthy give and take to allow Members to deepen and further the new phase that they had justentered.  For this reason, Canada would continue to examine and analyse all positions and proposals
and to work to address issues of a cross-cutting nature, such as S&D treatment.  There was obviously
considerable interest in this area, and at the same time, a considerable amount of work remained and
the impending deadline was fast approaching.
100. Canada believed that all Members, developing and developed countries, were working to the
same end – to facilitate the full participation of all WTO Members in the global trading system.
Canada looked forward to working creatively, generously and realistically with all of its partners, and
it hoped to achieve in this area what Members had been able to achieve together in trade-related
technical assistance.  Furthermore, of particular significance to the integrity and stability of thetrading system and its accompanying rights and obligations, was Members' collective work onTN/C/M/4
Page 28
Dispute Settlement.  All Members had a huge interest and stake in achieving progress, and therefore,
they had to strive to meet the agreed deadline of May 2003.  Finally, one should not forget that Doha
had been a significant success at a key time in the international community.  It was true that much
hard work lay ahead, time was not a friend and Cancún was less than a year away, but he wondered
what Members would be discussing at present if Doha had not been a success.  In that context,Canada remained confident that by moving the balance of interests forward Members could and
would meet the ambitious goals set by their Ministers in Doha.
101. The representative of Switzerland said that the meetings of the TNC were the occasion to take
stock on the ongoing work and to underline the substantive and political links between the various
negotiating subjects.  In this context, he would address these areas, starting with services.  The
negotiations in this area were well under way, most Members had actively participated in therequest/offer process since the end of June.  Switzerland believed that the bilateral negotiations were
taking place in a generally constructive and positive atmosphere.  However, as mentioned by the
Chairman of the Services Special Session, some difficulties had emerged in the area of rules, notably
with regard to emergency safeguard measures, and on the question of autonomous liberalization.  In
both cases, Switzerland believed that all Members should show realism and flexibility.
102. Work had been under way on agriculture for almost three years, and the many proposals on
the main pillars of the negotiations had led to in-depth discussions.  As the Chairman of the
Agriculture Special session had said, this work had without doubt advanced the collective
understanding of the different positions held by Members.  But this could not hide the divergenceswhich had emerged during the discussions.  In line with the Doha mandate, Switzerland intended to
carry on the reform process in the long term with the aim of making agriculture more receptive to
market signals.  However, some flexibility would be needed in the choice of measures and the rhythm
of such reform so as to take account of non-trade concerns.  This flexibility was necessary to
encourage the domestic willingness to undertake re form.  Switzerland's many concrete proposals in
this area built on this general approach, and it would be willing to elaborate further on its position.
But it would be easier to do so once Members had agreed on certain fundamental parameters of the
reform, since Switzerland's contribution to the process would depend directly on the appropriate
measures available to preserve multifunctional agriculture.
103. Switzerland believed that, in general, the flexib le and balanced framework put in place in the
Uruguay Round should be used to structure the pres ent negotiations, since the Doha Declaration built
on this framework.  It also believed it was necessary for Switzerland, like others, to emphasize its
agricultural production in the context of increased international competition.  This meant possibilities
of differentiating products on the basis of characteristics offering added value to which consumers
were sensitive.  Labelling and the extension of protection under geographical indications were
instruments which should be put in place to preserve or increase this added value.  Switzerlandregretted that its proposals on this issues had met with opposition from Members who were asking it
to make major efforts in other areas.  Some Members' proposals to abolish the blue and amber boxes,
which the Doha mandate referred to in terms of substantial reductions, were troublesome to
Switzerland.  The same was true for the proposal to impose considerable restrictions on the use of the
green box, which remained the principal instrument available to take non-trade concerns into account.
104. On non-agricultural market access, he said that it was important for the Negotiating Group to
have a clear picture of the positions of all Members on the modalities before the end of the year, and
Switzerland intended to submit such a proposal.  In the rules area, Switzerland was pleased that so
many papers had been received on the negotiating subjects in its mandate.  But it was aware that, dueto the heterogeneous and technical nature of the issues, the work would be necessarily complex, as the
Chairman of the Group had stated.  This was why Switzerland would make its best efforts to advance
the negotiations, which it believed were a fundamental pillar of the Doha Work Programme and
which, in certain cases, had a considerable impact on effective market access.  As the Chairman of the
Special Session of the DSB had reported, intensive work had taken place in that group on both formaland informal modes, and Members had submitted many proposals.  Switzerland was satisfied withTN/C/M/4
Page 29
this situation, but if a result was to be reached by May 2003, the work in the next phase would have to
focus on certain essential questions which could form a balanced package.
105. Switzerland attached much importance to the wo rk on clarifying the relationship between the
MEAs and WTO rules.  It had submitted proposals and ideas aimed at generating an in-depthdiscussion.  Other Members had recently submitted papers which also contained reactions to its
proposals, for which it was grateful.  Switzerland hoped that the discussion would now move from the
negotiating mandate towards a rational consideration of the relationship itself.  In the work on the
establishment of a register for geographical indications it had become apparent that Members
continued to disagree on this issue.  The proposed approaches differed totally on the nature and legal
status of such a register.  Switzerland was concerned by this situation since this work was to conclude
by the next Ministerial Conference.  It believed that the resulting instrument should allow efficientlegal protection of geographical indications for wines and spirits.  The Special Session of the
Committee on Trade and Development had an ambitious task before it, but one which was
fundamental to the WTO system.  Switzerland believed this entailed not only responding to the many
specific proposals, but also defining the general principles which should direct the S&D treatment
granted to developing countries.  At the next meeting of that group, Switzerland would present itsproposals on these cross-cutting issues as well as on the modalities for addressing the specific issues
and for the Monitoring Mechanism.  In doing so, Switzerland wished to reaffirm its willingness to
contribute constructively to the conclusion of this work.  In conclusion, he would outline
Switzerland's three main concerns at the present:  first, the need to maintain a higher pace in the work
of the individual negotiating groups;  second, the need to make progress at least in parallel and inharmony across the groups;  and third, the need to meet the end of year deadlines.
106. The representative of Nicaragua said that the task facing the Chairman to bring the
negotiations to a successful conclusion was huge, and if there was not rapid concrete progress in the
work, it would risk failure.  Nicaragua would continue to act positively and contribute to the resultsexpected under the Doha mandate.  But it was concerned by the situation with regard to the deadlines
established in the Doha Declaration, in particular those on the modalities in the agriculture
negotiations and on S&D treatment and implementation.  These deadlines were fast approaching,
unlike the end of the discussions in these areas.  Some Members had already submitted proposals
aimed at achieving what had been agreed and at reaching results, and Nicaragua believed this was
how all Members should work in this manner from now on.  Nicaragua had submitted, jointly with
other Members, very specific proposals in its major areas of interest, such as agriculture.  However, itwas surprised that some others, far from emulating these efforts by submitting specific proposals,
were confining themselves to making statements to  the effect that it was too early to talk about
formulas and related issues, or that some Members were showing inflexibility or that they were not
cooperative.  At the least, this was not the case of those who had submitted proposals.  Progress
should be made on the basis of the proposals on the table.  For Nicaragua, those proposals had to bethe basis for the modalities.  If not, there would be no substantial reduction commitments, and, in turn,
no new market access commitments, which would raise the possibility of a total and complete failure
of the New Round.  Nicaragua believed that work  on other issues on the Doha agenda depended, in
one way or another, on what was achieved in agricultural reform.  On the principle of a single
undertaking, these negotiations could not be separated.
107. For Nicaragua, it was of the highest importance to obtain results which led to better access for
its products and services.  As mentioned by others, the World Bank had recently stated that rich-
country subsidies were diminishing the capacity of developing countries to better themselves and
reach a better standard of living for their populations.  This was why the World Bank had encouragedthese countries to dismantle these subsidies as rapidly as possible and to make efforts to at least set
out a time-frame for this by the Cancún Ministerial Conference.  Improved access for goods and
services was also necessary for developing countries such as Nicaragua to allow them to diversify
their production activities to other more profitable areas.  This was necessary because of the serious
situation these countries were facing with the fall in price of many of their export products.  Inparticular, the price of coffee had fallen the previous day to US$56.55 per 100 pounds, and there wereTN/C/M/4
Page 30
also similar, or worse, problems in the sugar cane and meat sectors.  The message was clear –
developing countries had to oppose any move to maintain the status quo in trade.  They had to believe
in new areas to be developed, and not necessarily only the Singapore issues, an area in which
Nicaragua did not oppose negotiations.  This was more a question of S&D treatment, of the
relationship between trade, debt and finance, of reform of the classification of services, ofimprovements to the DSU and of many other issues which were at present held hostage to work on
two or three other issues on the negotiating agenda .  Members had to move forward in these areas so
as to be able to meet the agreed deadlines in December and March 2003, and so that Cancún would be
a success.  Finally, he wished to end on an optimistic note – if Members managed to overcome the
present paralysis on the two or three issues he ha d mentioned and conclude their work on time, his
delegation would be the first to organize a celebration for the success of Cancún.
108. The representative of Guatemala said her delegation thanked the Chairs of the negotiating
groups for their reports, but it had noticed a worrying discrepancy between its own perception of the
situation and the optimism reflected in some of the reports.  The calendar showed that delegations
were half way between Doha and Cancún, but on the ro ute that they had been given at Doha to follow
to get to Cancún, there remained a fair stretch before they arrived at the midpoint of their journey.Less than three months were left to meet the deadlines for the work on implementation and S&D
treatment, both of which were of particular interest to developing countries.  And less than six months
were left until 31 March 2003, when the modalities for further commitments in agriculture had to be
established, which also coincided with the deadline for initial offers in services.  In some countries,
agriculture represented 2 or 3 per cent of the production and generated 2 or 3 per cent of theemployment.  For these countries, agriculture was a marginal activity from the point of view of their
economies and rural life.  The situation was quite different in Guatemala, where agriculture
represented 35 per cent of the GDP, and was the principal generator of foreign exchange and main
source of employment.  For this reason, Guatemala attached a high level of importance to the
commitment to substantial reform in agriculture, and it supported without reservation the vision and
principles of the Cairns Group and participated in the Group's struggle in favour of the liberalization
of agricultural markets.  In particular, Guatemala fully supported the Cairns Group's proposals on the
three pillars.  It was pleased that its Latin-American neighbours which did not belong to the Group
identified with the imperative of substantial reform of agriculture.  Some Members seemed to have
forgotten this commitment to substantial reform, and they were jeopardizing the entire outcome of the
broader negotiations, which included issues of more interest to those who refuse to support this
substantial reform.  When these Members expected developing countries to open their markets, whilethey would not eliminate their export subsidies and substantially reduce their high levels of domestic
support, what they were asking developing countries to do was to become even more exposed and
vulnerable.  The promise implicit in the Development Round was not being kept and Guatemala's
patience was not infinite.
109. The representative of Bulgaria supported the statement by the Slovak Republic on behalf of a
number of Members, including his country.  Bulgaria strongly supported the work on S&D treatment.
As it had stated in Doha, the process of globalization had put development in the focus of the work of
the WTO and if the multilateral trading system was to maintain and enhance its credibility, it had to
demonstrate a special sensitivity to the special needs and concerns of its less-advantaged participants.Bulgaria strongly supported a review of the S&D tr eatment provisions with a view to strengthening
them and making them more precise, effective and operational.  However, it believed that this was
possible only on the basis of objective criteria and economic indicators.  Rights and privileges, and
flexibilities for the fulfilment of obligations should not be given to subjectively defined categories of
countries, but on the basis of objective criteria only.
110. If Members did not know to whom they were giving the special rights and privileges and who
would be the holders of these rights and privileges, they would not be strengthening S&D treatment of
disadvantaged Members.  On the contrary, maintaining the uncertainty about the beneficiaries of S&D
treatment weakened its efficiency and credibility  and undermined the very legal system on which it
was based and from which such rights and privileges would be derived.  If S&D treatment was to takeTN/C/M/4
Page 31
the form of special rights and privileges, it was absolutely necessary to know to whom they belonged.
If the practice of "self-selection" was followed, with the corresponding right of other Members to
reject the claim of individual Members to S&D treatment, the result was legal uncertainty.  Bulgaria
believed that it was this uncertainty that could be divisive, and not the granting of rights and
privileges based on objective criteria and economic i ndicators.  There were two ways of avoiding such
uncertainty.  One would be to adopt a general definition, on the basis of economic indicators, of the
category of developing countries.  Another way w ould be to define, on a case-by-case basis, who the
beneficiaries of each S&D treatment provision would be, again on the basis of objective criteria and
economic indicators.  These two ways were not mutually exclusive.  If there was no general
definition, then, of course, only the second option would be available.  This would be less efficient
and more time consuming in the negotiations.  Bulgaria believed that agreeing on a definition of the
category of developing countries would facilitate and speed up the work on S&D treatment and wouldthus help to achieve the task mandated by the Doha Declaration.  On the deadlines in the Work
Programme, he said it had become clear that Memb ers attached special importance to the time-frames
and deadlines which they had agreed to at Doha.  Bulgaria also attached special importance to those
deadlines.  However, the issue Bulgaria was partic ularly interested in was an implementation issue
and the deadline for it was the end of the year.  If Members did not reach an appropriate solution forthat issue, then they would not meet the promises of their Ministers in the Doha Declaration and this
would, of course, influence Bulgaria's position on ot her issues, the deadlines for which followed the
one he was referring to.
111. The representative of Venezuela said that the Chairman, in his difficult task of leading the
present negotiations with a development objective, would not be alone on the road to the next
Ministerial Conference, he would be able to count on the assistance of her delegation along with
others.  Sometimes in the eye of the storm of discussion, Members lost sight of this objective, but by
using development as a compass they would be guaranteed to reach the safe haven of Cancún.  The
challenge of the present time, where human development was an absolute necessity, was to navigatein a balanced manner.  Her delegation was concerned at the unwillingness to move towards
development in some negotiating areas.  A commitmen t in this direction was a fundamental issue for
Venezuela.  No substantial progress had been made under the mandates on implementation and S&D
treatment.  Commitments had been made in these areas at Doha, and developing countries were not
prepared to accept new promises in the next Ministerial Declaration without having first obtained
substantial provisions favourable to development.  Some Members seemed to still have doubts as to
whether the work on implementation issues was part of the negotiations.  If this work constituted thebasis and incentive for the participation of developing countries in these negotiations, it was obvious
that its inclusion in the negotiating agenda was the engine that would drive a successful result to the
whole process.  There should be a clear willingness to make progress on S&D treatment in the
Committee on Trade and Development, taking into account the contributions of the other negotiating
bodies, so as to give a global development profile to these provisions.  Developed countries had toconsider the developing countries' proposals with a sense of balance and equity.   If Members did not
commit themselves to the substantive objective of this process, Venezuela did not see how there could
be a successful outcome.  S&D treatment provisions had to go beyond the mere extension of time-
frames and technical assistance.  At this stage of the negotiations, the work on implementation and
S&D treatment had to have a substantive link with the structure of the WTO Agreements througheffective provisions which allowed developing countries to be included with good faith in the benefits
from world trade.
112. With regard to agriculture, there was a need for more discussion on the flexibility which had
to be included in new commitments in order to allow developing countries to deal with a number ofissues, such as poverty, rural development, food security, governance and international peace.
Therefore, the development of an easily accessible special safeguard mechanism aimed at protecting
the interests of developing countries was a necessity.  Tariff peaks and subsidies which distorted trade
had to be excluded from sound and transparent trade practices that would competitiveness between
agricultural products to be promoted.  In the negotiations on market access for non-agriculturalproducts, her delegation appreciated the documents prepared by the Secretariat and it believed theyTN/C/M/4
Page 32
provided a good basis for preparing the negotiations, allowing all developing countries to participate
in the process.  In the area of trade in services, market access concessions should be made in those
sectors in which developing countries had real potential for providing services.  Finally, her
delegation believed that it shared with the Chairman the responsibility of concluding the negotiating
process as a single undertaking which concretised the balance between the obligations assumed and
real development possibilities, taking into account the specificities of each Member.  Without
realizing it, the Organization had reached a crossroads which demanded new and targeted efforts, and
which also threatened the multilateral trading system .  The trilogy of the principles of justice, equity
and the common good represented the values that would ensure the success of these negotiations.
These values had to be adopted, not only to comply  with the deadlines agreed by Ministers at Doha,
but also to respect the basic concepts of the Doha Declaration.
113. The representative of Chile associated his delegation with the statement by Malaysia on
behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries with regard to implementation and S&D
treatment.  His delegation agreed with the Chairm an on the need to comply with the forthcoming
deadlines, and would stress, in particular, the political and ethical need to comply with that
established for the work with regard to public health.  He thanked the Chairman of the RulesNegotiating Group for his in-depth report which was a good basis for reflection for delegations.  On
agriculture, his delegation shared the concerns expressed by Uruguay, Brazil and others.  Certain
expressions had been used in the present meeting by some delegations, such as the European
Communities, which had referred to certain positions as being radical and self-serving, and his
delegation believed such expressions did not help and that they were almost insulting.  If anyone wasdoing anything wrong, then what they were doing was only being ambitious.  The guilty ones in this
area were those who were regressive in their atti tude, promoting a status quo with very limited scope
for reforming agriculture, in which case it was not a bad thing to be ambitious.  Chile wanted to apply
the rules of the market and it wanted all Members to use instruments which did not distort trade.
They could use instruments to deal with their non-trade concerns, which everybody else also had, butonly those which did not distort trade.  Chile agreed with Chinese Taipei that the market alone was
not sufficient, but it did not wish to pay the cost of some other Members' non-trade concerns, and for
this reason it was ambitious.  Some delegations had quoted the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank,
others had mentioned what had been said in Johannesburg, referring to social, economic, ethical and
political needs, so one could see the level of support these ambitions had.  What was happening at the
present was not a good thing for the Doha negotiating agenda.  Some Members were not helping the
process, keeping an attitude which Chile believed was jeopardizing the heart of the developmentagenda.  Some seemed to be waiting for the end-game in the negotiations, without advancing a
negotiating position before then.  As Norway had said, everything was linked to everything.  If the
agricultural agenda did not move forward, there would be little room for anything else to move.  This
was a very dangerous game that some Members are playing, and it was certainly even more dangerous
when they used expressions such as radical and self-serving.
114. With regard to dispute settlement, Chile believed that the process was positive and
constructive.  There had been some proposals with important consequences, but this did not mean that
there was no consensus on many issues.  Some Members had made proposals to improve the system,
while others had made proposals which responded to the domestic and political needs of theircountries and which did not have the support of the majority.  A more serious attitude would be to
confine the work to the proposals aimed at improving the system.  Chile believed that the number of
proposals was too large, so the group would not be able to conclude its work by May 2003.  An effort
would be needed at the political level to limit the scope of the work so as to have a viable package in
May.  In the negotiations on a multilateral register of geographical indications, there were twopositions, and Chile's was based on a voluntary register.  His delegation was disappointed that every
time that it suggested analysing the cost of an ob ligatory register, including administrative costs for
consumers and trade costs, or whenever it suggested looking at the legal consequences of such a
system, other delegations refused to enter into specific and detailed discussions on these issues.  It had
also not been possible at the last meeting of the group to agree on asking the Secretariat draw up a listof points that governments could focus on to evaluate the costs and consequences of the systemTN/C/M/4
Page 33
proposed by certain delegations.  Faced with that attitude, Chile would not be able to pursue this,
because it could not accept having a solution imposed on it without being able to look at the viability
of it from various points of view.  Finally, his delegation continued to be concerned about the
situation in certain negotiating groups where it had not been possible to admit Observers, when in
other negotiating groups this did not seem to be even a critical matter.
115. The representative of Hong Kong, China th anked the Chairman for his very reassuring
introductory remarks and was pleased to hear that he would take an active role to ensure that
Members achieve a successful conclusion of the current negotiations within the time-frame prescribed
by their Ministers.  He noted, however, that some  Members were optimistic about the progress while
others were less so.  Despite a typically slower pace of business over the summer break following the
July TNC meeting, Hong Kong, China noted that there had been a number of positive developments.First, a remarkably smooth transition in the Secretariat.  Second, steady progress in the Negotiating
Group on Market Access after resolving the problem over the deadline at the last TNC meeting.
Hong Kong, China looked forward to substantive discussion on proposals on modalities in the
November meeting of the Negotiating Group.  Third, Members had agreed to extend the deadline for
S&D treatment to the end of December to allow them more time to discuss the various proposals onthe table.  Members already had an indicative work programme, including a number of evening
meetings.  Fourth, proposals from various delega tions, including many developing Members, had
been put forward.  This indicated that the level of interest and engagement had steadily increased.
Last but not least, with the passage of TPA in August, Hong Kong, China would expect the United
States, which was one of the biggest markets for global trade, to be able to engage more actively inthe negotiations.
116. There was, however, no scope for complacency.  On the whole, the progress made in the
various negotiating groups was still uneven and patchy.  Concerns had been expressed by Members
about the slow progress in some areas such as agriculture, implementation and S&D treatment, andHong Kong, China shared such concerns.  While it would be unrealistic to expect that all subjects
could move ahead in tandem, it would be critical for Members to ensure that no subject was falling far
behind the others and creating a bottleneck.  The Cancún Ministerial was less than twelve months
away.  This was indeed time for Members to move into a new phase and they had to develop a clear
roadmap to Cancún.  In his introduction, the Chairman had already highlighted the various deadlines
leading to the landmark deadline at Cancún.  It went  without saying that it was of utmost importance
that Members keep to these deadlines.  If they le t some of the difficult deadlines slip, it would mean
too many key decisions could gravitate towards th e Fifth Ministerial.  That Ministerial meeting
already had its fair share of deadlines and difficult issues to tackle.  Members should therefore
endeavour to resolve as many issues as possible in Geneva and not overload their Ministers unduly
with too many unresolved problems at Cancún.  After all, the deadlines set by Ministers were not just
indicative targets, they were firm instructions that had to be respected.
117. Hong Kong, China wished to put in a strong plea concerning the December deadline, which
was a critical one, relating to TRIPs and public health, S&D treatment and the outstanding
implementation issues.  These were issues close to the hearts of many developing Members.  If
Members failed to address them properly, it would have a spill-over effect on the negotiations as awhole.  Both TRIPS and public health and S&D treatment were complex issues.  But if Members
could collectively exercise a greater degree of flexibility, his delegation was hopeful that they could
achieve some respectable results by end of the y ear.  In Hong Kong, China's view, the outstanding
implementation issues were more worrying.  Progress in the relevant subsidiary bodies had been slow.
Although, the relevant Chairs and interested delegations were still working hard on them, butMembers clearly needed to inject some additional im petus to energise the process.  Hong Kong, China
believed that Members should take a critical look at the list of implementation issues and explore
various possible ways to address them.  It should remain their goal to have all of the issues resolved
by December.  But realistically, they should perhaps begin to consider how to tackle some of the more
problematic issues which might have a lesser chance of being unresolved by end of the year.  Hewondered whether Members should refer such issues to some of the negotiating groups or whetherTN/C/M/4
Page 34
they should continue to be addressed in the relevant regular bodies.  Hong Kong, China did not yet
have an answer, but Members should start thinking  ahead to avoid any last minute hiccups.  Hong
Kong, China was fully committed to a successf ul Round under the DDA a nd looked forward to
working closely with the Chairman and Members in  taking forward the negotiations as mandated by
Ministers.
118. The representative of Korea said that one quarter of the agreed time-frame for the
negotiations had now passed.  Korea believed the negotiations were progressing smoothly.  However,
taking into account the fact that the negotiations were to be concluded in a single undertaking, it was
imperative that progress be made in a parallel and balanced manner across all the negotiating groups.
In this sense, Korea wished to make a few comments.   First, to successfully conclude the negotiations
within the agreed time-frame, Members should focus on how progress could be brought about in allareas leading up to the Fifth Ministerial.  To achieve this, it was crucial that Members adhered to the
deadlines for each negotiating area.  Second, while si gnificant progress had been made in some areas
of negotiation, there was still much divergence in positions.  Korea believed that the excessive level
of ambition contained in some proposals, which did not take into account the realities faced by other
Members, was one of the main causes for such divergence.  To make more meaningful progress,Members should take a more realistic and pragmatic approach within the bounds of the mandate of
the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
119. Third, Korea had listened carefully to the statement made by the Chairman of the Informal
Group of Developing Countries.  Taking into account the importance of the issue of development forthe entire negotiations, Korea hoped that meaningful progress could be made within the set time
period so that the momentum of the entire negotiations was maintained.   In this regard, Korea
especially noted the Director-General's initiative to take on a more proactive role to bring about
positive outcomes in the work on S&D and implementation issues.  In order to help maintain credible
momentum in all areas, active involvement on the part of the high-level capital-based officials wasvery important.  In the same vein, his delegation supported any efforts to ensure Ministers'
involvement in, and oversight of, the Geneva process.  In addition, the utilisation of other regional and
multilateral fora, such as APEC, could also serve as an opportunity to provide further discussions on
matters relating to the negotiations.
120. The representative of China said his delegation fully supported the Chairman's analysis of the
present situation in the negotiations, and it intended  to work closely with other Members to meet the
deadlines set at Doha.  China agreed with Brazil and Uruguay that agriculture was the centrepiece of
the negotiations.  The use of export subsidies and trade-distortive domestic support measures were the
main causes of imbalance and distortion in international agriculture trade.  China believed that export
subsidies and trade-distortive domestic support should be the priority issues to be dealt with in the
agriculture negotiations.  On services, Members were in the process of submitting, within the limits oftheir resources, their requests and offers as required by the Doha Declaration.  The reality Members
were facing was that the development level of most developing Members in the service sector was
quite low.  Members should also keep in mind that services liberalization under the GATS had to help
developing Members increase their participation in trade in services.  Before developing Members
made offers, sufficient time should be given to them to assess the implications on their economic andsocial development of other Members' requests.  Negotiations on other issues, in particular on issues
of interest to developing Members, should also proceed in parallel with the negotiations on specific
commitments.
121. In the negotiations on non-agricultural market access, China believed, bearing in mind that
the deadlines of reaching an agreement on the proposed modalities was 31 May 2003, that appropriate
studies and the capacity-building measures were need ed to assist not only LDCs but also developing
Members to participate effectively in the negotiations.  In that sense, the preparation of the data was
highly necessary for them to evaluate the effect on their economy of the previous round of
negotiations as well as the future impact of the current Round.  As stated in the Doha Declaration,
newly-acceded Members had made intensive market access commitments on accession including onTN/C/M/4
Page 35
agricultural and non-agricultural products, and in services.  Further tariff reductions and concessions
would predictably have a serious impact on their domestic industries and fiscal revenue.  During the
current discussion on modalities, the situation of the newly-acceded Members should be fully taken
into account by allowing more flexibility and granting credits.  China wished to echo the proposal
made by India that the reports by the Chairs should be more uniform, to include all the necessaryelements of the negotiations, such as the progress made to date, the major differences on the issues,
and the focus on the major issues they were going to t ackle in future meetings, so as to ensure that all
Members had a general picture of the situation and the efforts that would be needed in each area.
122. The representative of Paraguay supported the statement by Malaysia on behalf of the Informal
Group of Developing Countries.  His delegation was following the development round with much
attention, since Paraguay believed that fulfilling the Doha mandates was an absolute necessity for itsfuture development.  It believed that Members should fulfill the existing mandates and not invent new
ones, and it would make every effort and work with the Chairman and other Members to reach fair
and reasonable agreements.  The present negotiations were most important to Paraguay, and it was
participating as actively as possible, taking into acco unt that its delegation was very small, in all the
committees where it believed it had an interest.  Similarly, it was making proposals, such as onautonomous liberalization in the services negotiations, on the use of mediation in the dispute
settlement negotiations, on the right to invoke the Enabling Clause to avoid unjust discrimination in
the S&D Work Programme, and on agriculture with the Cairns Group.  This latter area was the most
fundamental issue for his country, since its economy was based on agriculture.  Paraguay could not
industrialise its economy since it was prevented from doing so by tariff escalation.  He would notrepeat the arguments put forward by Uruguay and Brazil, although his delegation agreed with them,
but he wished to add a couple of points.  Firstly, Paraguay believed that Members should move
forward as set out in the Doha mandate, in orde r achieve fundamental reform in the agricultural
sector.  The immobility which some delegations were looking for was contrary to this mandate.
Members had to achieve fundamental reform and not just be content with maintaining a status quowhich was seriously harmful to developing countries.  Perhaps for some developed countries this
would be an advantage, but Members were in the WTO to negotiate, so that everybody could have
advantages not just some.  Secondly, much use was being made of the word flexibility, but this
appeared to mean that some Members should give way while others did not yield at all.  Paraguay
believed that the meeting agreed deadlines was vita l so that the Doha round could really become the
development round.
123. The representative of Colombia agreed with the Chairman's assessment of the work thus far,
and wished to add one word – hope – because this was what the agricultural negotiation meant to
Colombia, since it believed that real access to agricultural markets would make an important
contribution to the reconstruction of its society.  Cancún was getting closer and it was important for
Members to think about the elements that they considered necessary to making the developmentagenda a reality.  In this context, the political commitments of all Members at Doha, in particular the
major trading partners, as reiterated recently by the United States, was an essential element but it was
not the only one.  Colombia had seen the way in which the Bush Administration had defended TPA,
and it wished to express its gratitude and recognition for the significance it had for the WTO.
Colombia believed that the process now needed comprehensive proposals in areas which were key todeveloping countries, especially agriculture.  However, it was also concerned that major commitments
on agriculture were being made conditional to a comprehensive result in the short term in other areas,
such as geographical indicators.  Colombia appealed to certain Members which, given their
importance in the international market, should identify their aspirations in the areas on which the
wellbeing of citizens of developing countries depended.  Without their positions, there could be nonegotiations.  Colombia was aware of the deep changes that this Organization had experienced and
would take up the challenge to carry the negotiations forward.  As difficult as such discussions might
be, it believed that this was the only means through which a result could be reached that would have
the acceptance and commitment of all Members.  With regard to market access for non-agricultural
products, Colombia believed that it was important to maintain the impetus achieved in the definitionof modalities.  However, Colombia believed progress in this area depended on having less uncertaintyTN/C/M/4
Page 36
in the area of anti-dumping.  Fulfilling the mandates on S&D treatment and implementation were
determining factors for the overall process, and Colomb ia believed it was essential to comply with the
obligations in these areas agreed at Doha, in partic ular with regard to subsidies.  Finally, Colombia
was optimistic about the negotiations on dispute settlement.  The number and quality of the proposals
and the discussions thus far would enable Members to soon identify a number of elements that wouldallow consensus to be reached in May.
124. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation fully supported the statements by
Malaysia on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries, and by Uganda who had
reminded Members that development was at the heart of the Doha Work Programme.  Jamaica wished
to emphasize that Members had to reflect on this orientation both in areas of substance and in the
process itself.  Jamaica considered that one of the consequences of placing development at centrestage should be adherence to deadlines on matters of  interest to developing countries, such as S&D
treatment and implementation issues.  Furthermore, where deadlines had been missed, placing
development at the heart of Members' work should mean remedying this failure as quickly and as
fully as possible, and Jamaica hoped that this would happen.  Jamaica also had particular interest on
other substantive areas, such as the question of clarifying and improving disciplines and procedures
relating to RTAs, the negotiations on services, and the development of modalities for market access in
non-agricultural products and in the agricultural negotiations.  Jamaica recognized that it was
incumbent on small, vulnerable economies to put forward their case on these matters and they were
endeavouring to do so.  Regrettably, in regard to some negotiating issues, they had not been able to do
this as expeditiously as they had intended or as they would have liked.  In those areas where proposalshad actually been put on the table, a higher level of responsiveness would help in persuading capacity-
constrained capitals to endeavour to work even more intensively on completing outstanding proposals
and would also help to keep the entire Doha  process within the stipulated time-frame.
125. Turning to the process, he said that this also had a development dimension.  One practical
aspect was a need for flexibility in regard to some areas where developing countries, especially small,
vulnerable ones, had difficulty in keeping to agreed timelines.  This was the case with the services
negotiations, where in the cases of Jamaica and other members of Caricom, as well as other
developing countries, services requests were still under preparation.  Another such area was the DSU
review, where some Members, including Jamaica, were finalising proposals for formal submission.
Jamaica fully understood the point made by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute
Settlement Body and it hoped not to create too much difficulties.  Jamaica was pleased by the TNCChairman's prompt response to the scheduling difficulties raised by delegations and would certainly
work constructively with the designated DDG to arrive at a solution.  The paradoxical situation was
that in the present phase Members needed time-slots for meetings, including some important ones,
while at the same time many of them could not find time to attend those already scheduled.  This
begged for rationalization, taking into account the principles of transparency and effectiveparticipation as mentioned by the Chairman.
126. Jamaica joined those who had drawn attention to internal transparency as a matter of
continued concern.  Some progress had recently been made in this area, but as had been stated in
another context in relation to freedom, the price of promoting and preserving internal transparencywas eternal vigilance.  Members would be relying on the Chairman, in his activist role, to defend
internal transparency in the work.  In many areas of the Doha Work Programme, the matter of
technical assistance and capacity building had been identified as vital to addressing imbalances in
negotiating capacity.  Much had also been done in this area and Jamaica was aware that the Chairman
would be continuing this important work.  But the hectic pace of the negotiating process and theambitious time-frame to which Members had subscribed at Doha were factors which had to lead to
some questioning of the extent to which the many institutional and human resource weaknesses that
existed in many developing countries could be effectively remedied to make a decisive difference in
the narrow negotiating window Members faced.  It was imperative that the situation be kept under
review, since so much of what had been agreed  to by developing countries at Doha had been
influenced by the undertaking to build capacity.  Like many other Members, Jamaica would beTN/C/M/4
Page 37
looking at the overall balance of the negotiating agenda.  But Jamaica was not looking for balance in
the classic sense, for Jamaica, balance meant progress that was heavily weighted in favor of the
interests of developing countries.  Jamaica did not believe that this was unreasonable and believed
that this was consistent with the Doha Declaration.
127. The representative of Australia agreed with the Chairman that the world was facing a
troubling economic outlook which was much weaker  than it had been twelve months previously.
Australia sympathised with the challenge posed by the increasingly difficult schedule of meetings, but
could not see how to avoid the need to accelerate the number of meetings if Members were to meet
the deadlines.  His delegation would work with its partners to meet those deadlines.  Australia was
committed to reaching pragmatic, sensible and constructive solutions in the area of S&D and
implementation and would participate actively in all other areas of the negotiations.  Australia wasconcerned by the European Communities's remarks at the present meeting on agriculture, namely that
there were radical and self-serving proposals which departed from the Doha mandate and that this was
not helpful, that Members needed a balanced outcome in the area agriculture, and the European
Communities' insistence on preconditions before it would make any proposals.  Australia assumed
that the European Communities had been referring to the proposals submitted by many developingcountries, by the United States and by the Cairns Group for fundamental reform in agriculture.  The
European Communities had spoken about the need for ambition in other areas, but had implied clearly
that ambition in agriculture had been anathema to one major party in these negotiations.
128. He wished to recall the mandate in agriculture; it was ambitious, it provided for fundamental
reform, that in relation to the three pillars there would be substantial improvements in market access,
phase out of all forms of export subsidies and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic
support.  During the last agriculture meeting, there had been hilarity about the cost of keeping cows in
Europe, but what might have escaped some delegations was that this example epitomised the
fundamental challenge which lay at the heart of these negotiations.  A European Minister for Tradewas recently reported as pointing out that the average cow in Europe received roughly $2 a day in
subsidies and other help from governments.  This was about twice the daily income of 1.2 billion of
the world's poorest people.  If anything underlined the debilitating impact of continuing high levels of
domestic support in a few wealthy countries, it was this figure.  That Minister, most other world
international world leaders, most NGOs, all other international organisations, analysts, economists,
journalists and commentators, and the Chairman, ha d consistently noted that fundamental reform of
international trade in agriculture should be the centrepiece of these negotiations.  This had beenrecognised again recently by world leaders in Johannesburg.  He did not want to understate the
importance of non-agricultural market access, textiles, services, rules, S&D and implementation, but
Members knew that the single most important development dividend which the Doha Round could
deliver was in the area of agriculture.  This meant removing the inequities in the past and to give
everyone a fair go – to give farmers in poor countries an incentive to produce.  Every Member wasprepared to take account of non-trade concerns, as they had been asked to by their trading partners,
but not if they were an excuse for reform and not if they amounted to S&D treatment for rich
countries.
129. The agriculture proposals by developing countries, by the Cairns Group and the United States
had been tabled and were perfectly consistent with the Doha mandate.  These proposals had to be
contrasted with the silence from others who had also committed themselves to the Doha Declaration.
The way Australia interpreted what some Members were saying was that their vision on agriculture
encompassed two objectives:  one was a very small increment on the Uruguay Round commitments,
essentially to retain the status quo, and the second was to take away whatever benefits that might beentailed by these commitments by having negotiations on other extraneous or unrelated issues, some
of which were not even covered by the Doha Declaration.  Members had all agreed to a single-
undertaking, they had all accepted that everything was linked to everything else, so the notion that the
agricultural negotiations would need to result in  a self-balancing outcome was deeply disturbing.
Members had been told since before Doha, and even since before Seattle, that the EuropeanCommunities, Japan and other protectionist agricultural countries needed to have broad andTN/C/M/4
Page 38
comprehensive negotiations to help to pay for the co ncessions they knew they were going to have to
make on agriculture.  These broad negotiations would cover many issues that remained controversial
to many Members, such as investment, competition policy, environment, eco-labelling, food quality,
geographical indications and animal welfare.  He could refer to these countries' ambitions in all these
areas, but he would only address the issue of geographical indications.   Here, the demandeurs liked topretend that what they were proposing was not ambitious, not extending rights and obligations and,
most of all, not self-serving.  On wines and spirit s, there had been a consensus that the purpose of a
multilateral register was to facilitate the level of protection in the TRIPS Agreement – not to add new
rights and obligations.  And yet their proposal was to fundamentally alter the balance of the TRIPS
Agreement.  It would eliminate exceptions and create an international agreement which would go way
beyond anything Members had in the area of intellectual property rights.  There was no such
agreement on patents, copyrights or trademarks, but all of a sudden, Members would have a newinternational regime on geographical indications.  Australia believed that those who worried about the
implications of undermining national sovereignty in the area of intellectual property rights should
think very carefully about what was being proposed, and not focus on the question of the costs that
might be entailed.
130. The representative of Hungary said that his delegation saw growing imbalances in the
progress made on the various negotiating subjects, and it believed that this had important
consequences for the future work.  He wished to first address imbalances in the process itself.
Agriculture was clearly very important for a large number of countries, including his, and it had
received the major share of delegations' energies and negotiating time.  There had been a series ofmeetings in many different formats, which had clearly been necessary.  However, where Hungary saw
an imbalance from the process point of view, was that there had been much less readiness to be so
generous with time and opportunities for negotiations on issues which might cause concern to the
same countries who were demandeurs in the agriculture, in particular the time available for the
negotiations in the TRIPS Council Special Session on the registry for geographical indications.
131. Turning now to substance, Hungary believed the imbalances were more pronounced than on
process.  Starting again with agriculture, a number of statements had been made where countries
which could be considered as demandeurs in the agriculture negotiations complained about what they
saw as a lack of progress and of response to their specific negotiating proposals.  They expressed their
concerns about the effects of this on the whole negotiating round.  While Hungary clearly had an
interest in making progress in the agriculture negotiations, it believed that the guidelines should be theDoha mandate and Article 20 of the Agriculture Agreement.  If Article 20 was compared with the
issues raised by the demandeurs during the agriculture negotiations, it appeared that there was a
problem in the calendar.  Many of the statements made by these delegations dealt with the issues as if
there was no Ministerial mandate delineating and limiting the issues to be discussed.  There had been
many demands for the elimination of agricultural policies which had not been not specified forelimination in the Doha Declaration, such as the elimination all forms of domestic support and TRQs
and a major reduction in tariffs aimed at full elimination of tariffs for agricultural products.  There had
also been demands for elimination of the special safe guard, in spite of the fact that the Agreement on
Agriculture specifically provided for the mainte nance of this measure until the end of the reform
process.  So Hungary believed there was a major problem in this ambitious approach that simplydisregarded what had been agreed amongst Ministers and set out in the Doha Declaration.  In that
Declaration, Ministers had referred to the elimination of export subsidies, but in a somewhat
ambiguous form.  If they had had the intention to instruct the Agriculture Committee to negotiate the
elimination of other forms of support, they woul d have set that out, but this was not the case.
132. Another major problem of imbalance was that while Hungary, together with some other
Members, was ready to put the totality of its agri cultural policies on the table, there was a reluctance
from the demandeurs to put their own policies on the ta ble.  The mandate referred to dealing with all
forms of support, but the demandeurs wanted to concentrate negotiations only on one specific form,
namely export subsidies.  There was much reluctance to deal in a meaningful manner, or at all, with
such forms of support as export credit and food aid.  It was being said that these were not exportTN/C/M/4
Page 39
subsidies and therefore a totally different approach was to be used.  This was clearly a much less
stringent approach than was the case for export subsidies.  On state trading companies, two
remarkable assertions were being made.  First, it was being said that these were not trade distorting
and second, that Article 17 of the GATT was amply sufficient to deal with the issue.  These assertions
were especially remarkable for a country like his, which up to some 12 years ago had had aneconomic regime based on state trading companies exclusively.  There was a mandate to eliminate
distortions from international agricultural trade.  Hungary's position was that state trading companies,
in particular those with monopoly rights, distorted trade, and it was surprised to hear the view that
obligations under Article 17 were sufficient to prevent these distortions.  Hungary would invite the
demandeurs to put their agriculture policies on the table.  This would allow technical work to be
undertaken in all areas, to be followed by negotiatio ns about figures.  But it was difficult to look at
figures at the present in areas such as export credits and food aid.
133. There was also a lack of progress in other areas, including the agriculture-related area of
geographical indications, on both the setting up of a multilateral registry for wines and spirits and the
extension of the Article 23 protection to products other wines and spirits, which was part of the
implementation agenda.  Here also, the same countries who were demandeurs in the agricultural fieldwere extremely reluctant to work with Hungary and others on a meaningful solution.  The TNC had
been reminded that some of these countries had put a proposal on the table, but this proposal
amounted to nothing more than having a computer in the WTO Secretariat to which Member states
could feed the names they wished to protect which would serve as a reference for national authorities.
Hungary believed that this would not facilitate the protection set out in Article 23 of the TRIPSAgreement, and as such it fell short of the mandate contained not only in the Doha Declaration, but
also in the TRIPS Agreement itself.  Clearly, the continued lack of progress in this agriculture-related
area had negative implications for the agricultural negotiations.
134. Finally, Hungary shared the importance attached by many Members to the solution of the
long-standing problem of TRIPS and Public Health, and it continued to work actively on this issue in
line with both the Doha mandate and the TRIPS Agreement.  Similarly, in the area of implementation,
Hungary was ready to look at developing-country concerns and to see how they could be met,
including extension of geographical indications.  Hungary believed that that the work on S&D
treatment was extremely important, and it would contribute specific ideas to this work.  The
negotiating process was becoming more and more burdensome for many delegations, especially the
smaller ones.  This caused growing burden on everyone, and Hungary welcomed the Chairman'sintention of putting one of the DDGs in charge of the scheduling of meetings.  The statement by the
Slovak Republic on behalf of several Members including Hungary had referred to the importance of
inclusiveness and transparency in the negotiating process, and this had also been mentioned by
Norway and others.  Hungary believed that the wh ole process, in Geneva or elsewhere, should be
based on the principles of transparency, inclusiveness and representativeness.
135. The representative of Mexico said that the first decisions to be taken in the Trade
Negotiations Committee were fast approaching.  In ju st nine weeks decisions would have to be taken
on three issues which were of fundamental importance to developing countries: the relationship
between the TRIPS and Public Health, S&D treatment and implementation.  The issue of TRIPS andPublic Health was an issue which the TRIPS Council  would in fact report to the General Council,
however he wished to stress that it was of paramount importance to find a way to operationalize the
decision taken by Ministers in Doha.  Proposals were on the table, a good working paper had been
drawn up by the Secretariat and there was a clearly expressed will on the part of all Members to arrive
at a decision at the end of the year.  However, the differences were still wide, and Mexico hoped thatover the next few weeks there would be enough flexibility and responsibility shown by all delegations
to try to breach the gaps.  In the cases of S&D treatment and implementation, decisions had to be
taken also by the end of the year.  Developing countries had to determine their strategies and
methodologies and, above all, establish their priorities in dealing with this issue.  On the other hand,
developed countries had to manifest their political will and their clearcut commitment to ensuring that
the benefits of the multilateral trading system reac hed all countries.  Because of the difficulty inTN/C/M/4
Page 40
reaching a decision in these areas, it was possible that some Members might wish to put off these
decisions.  That might be an easy way out in the short term, but it would involve a high cost for all
Members in the long term and for the agenda in general.
136. Turning to the following year, there were important deadlines by which certain decisions had
to be taken and Mexico was concerned about the progress in agriculture.  Mexico was a demandeur on
agriculture and its position was close to those of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Guatemala, Chile,
Nicaragua and others.  Mexico had concerns about the process in this area;  Members were clearly not
working at the same rhythm, and there was only one formal meeting left in the present year.  It would
be very difficult to initiate the agreed process in the following year with all proposals on the table and
with a Secretariat document which would enable Members to try to find convergence.  All Members
should work with a sense of urgency on this issue,  and Mexico hoped that they would show a sense of
responsibility so that by March agreement could be reached on modalities.  Another very important
issue was the review of the dispute settlement mechanism.  Decisions in this area could not be
postponed, nor should Members look for a minimalist solution.  They should set their priorities,
decide which issues would make a difference to the dispute settlement mechanism, and take the
necessary decisions before the Ministerial in Cancún.
137. Finally, he wished to make a proposal.  Concerns on the upcoming deadlines had been
expressed by many delegations.  Decisions on some sensitive issues would have to be taken, and
Members were facing constraints in terms of time and human resources.  He wished to suggest that
the work be restructured for the following nine week s.  It would not be appropriate to start holding
meetings outside normal working hours so as to finish the work on these important issues on time.
During this period, delegations would be also spending much time in meetings on other issues which
might not be of the same level of priority.  So he suggested that Members should agree on a
restructured work programme as soon as possible, to allow them to focus on the important issues with
a sense of urgency and to carry out the mandate given to them by their Ministers.
138. The representative of Argentina said that in the light of the Chairman's opening remarks and
the suggestions made by delegations, his country believed that the organization of the work in the
coming months should be left in the hands of the Chairman.  Argentina had full confidence in the
Chairman's judgement on what efforts would be needed in order to achieve the best possible progress
towards the objectives.  It was ready to intensify the pace of work and to seek consensus in as much as
its limited capacity for manoeuvre allowed.  Argentina had a great deal at stake in these tradenegotiations.  For almost one year, foreign trade had been its sole source of foreign currency.  This
was an exceptional situation and obviously a temporary one, and under these conditions, his country
had to study with extreme care every element of the negotiations which would have an impact on its
interests.  Although Argentina's situation was extreme, the circumstances which its financial markets
were going through, affecting capital flows, might not remain unique to Argentina.
139. With regard to agenda item 2, he wished to outline some general considerations which his
delegation considered important and to set out Argentina's vision of the perspectives in the negotiating
process.  First, his delegation agreed with others that the negotiating process had entered a particularly
critical stage and given the present rate of progress and in spite of Members' commitments to makeefforts, compliance with the deadlines was not guaranteed at all.  Second, apart from the question of
deadlines, his delegation believed that the current c limate in the negotiations was not in line with the
spirit which was supposed to guide the development round, namely to contribute through trade to
reducing the gap which separated countries.  Third, his delegation believed that this goal could only
be achieved if, as indicated in the Doha mandate, priority was given to progress on issues of interestto developing countries over the issues put forward by other Members in unclear terms, such as the
need for a balanced package.  Such positions might be legitimate if this were a negotiation among
equals or if these negotiations had not been marked, as was the case, by a history of unfair, unequal
distribution of the benefits of past liberalization.TN/C/M/4
Page 41
140. Fourth, thus far his delegation had not detected, in the negotiating behaviour of those who
could be expected to show it, any sign of a change in position aimed at the convergence which
developing countries and part of the international community were awaiting.  Fifth, on the contrary, in
an attempt to undermine an essential pillar which allowed this organization to operate, namely S&D
treatment, there had emerged, if only peripherally, initiatives and suggestions aimed at dividing thedeveloping countries.  Argentina was not one of the main demandeurs in this area, but it looked on
these initiatives with great concern, as was no doubt the case for all developing countries.  Sixth, the
change in position should include as a central component the submission of a negotiating proposal in
agriculture which would respect the letter and spirit of the Doha mandate and the Agreement on
Agriculture.  This would obviously mean setting aside the extreme position where any concession in
the area of agriculture would be made conditional on the extension of protection in geographical
indication to products other than wines and spirits.  Such a proposal should also recognize that, afterthe experience of the Uruguay Round, developing countries could not agree to pay for such ambitions,
including those on precaution and labelling, more than the benefits they would receive from further
liberalization in agriculture.  From the many statements made by delegations, it would appear to be
sufficiently clear that without acceptable progress in agriculture, nobody could be optimistic about the
whole negotiations.  Finally, the events of 11 September 2001 had focused the attention of theinternational community in the weeks before Do ha, and in the same way the present vulnerable
international situation should encourage WTO to send an optimistic signal to markets.  The present
vulnerabilities were substantially larger than in the recent past and concerned the area of trade, where
there was a substantial risk of protectionism and trade war, and the area of finance, including the
problems he already had referred to regarding the flow of capital and the difficulties which some
countries faced in obtaining support in extreme circumstances.  Obviously all this had implications
from the social point of view in many countries, and finally there were major risks in terms of
international peace and security.  For all these reasons, the optimistic signal to markets that Argentine
believed should be sent from this organization had to have three aspects:   it had to be rapid, it had to
be concrete and specific, making it clear that the negotiations had been unblocked, and it had to beconvincing on the intention to eradicate the many systemic risks involved in maintaining a world
trading system which was biased against the needs and interests of developing countries.
141. The representative of the Czech Republic said that solid technical ground had now been laid
to prepare for more substantive negotiations, however it was apparent that Members were not yet in
true negotiating mood.  They had to adapt to a new situation and be ready to move into a more
substantive phase.  Like many others, the Czech Republic continued to be concerned about theunevenness of progress made thus far, but it held a firm belief that this situation was going to change.
Members would have to accept that this was an exercise under a single undertaking.  Such a
negotiation was not an ultimate objective, but rather an instrument indispensable to enabling the
agenda to be rendered fully operational, to addressing the many complex issues in a bold manner and
to allowing for necessary cross-sectoral trade-offs.  For this reason, Members could not afford asituation when some negotiating topics leaped ahead while others went slowly.  The price for such a
luxury would be excessively high.
142. In the area of agriculture, the Czech Republic was satisfied with the pace and intensity of the
work, which seemed to be proportional to the timetable Members had set to arrive at an agreement onmodalities for the further commitments.  However, his delegation had concerns about the unbalanced
approach on the part of some who had been vigo rously pursuing their own points and interests while
leaving aside other elements of the reform process in agriculture.  His delegation believed that the
only sensible way of being able to make progress in this area was to proceed on all fronts and provide
the same treatment and opportunity to all issues that were relevant to the objective of establishing afair and market-oriented agricultural trading system , including those that were related to non-trade
concerns.  What was also lacking was a substantially higher level of understanding of the specific
needs and concerns of various Members.  Country-specific situations could be usefully addressed
through flexibility provisions and Members should not hesitate to use this potential in their efforts to
direct the negotiation forward.  To be more specific, his delegation had made some important effortsto explain the difficulties and challenges his country was facing in the process of consolidation of itsTN/C/M/4
Page 42
transition to a market economy, and it was his delegation's strong expectation that those difficulties
and challenges would be properly taken into account in the ongoing negotiations.
143. Members had made a strong case for the need to preserve a proper balance between trade
liberalization and rule-making.  As to the latter, his delegation saw some movement in terms of theuniverse of issues to be addressed in the areas of anti-dumping, subsidies and also regional trade
agreements.  The same went for the negotiations on the dispute settlement mechanism, in which it was
important that developing countries had taken the steps to bring to the Special Session of the Dispute
Settlement Body their ideas and concerns regarding possible improvements and clarifications of the
DSU.  The Czech Republic attached particular importance to the timely completion of the unfinished
business in the area of TRIPS and Health.  A solution to the problems of Members with insufficient or
no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector was one of his delegation's priorities untilthe end of the year.  The Czech Republic believed that such a solution should reflect the overall
architectural structure of the TRIPS Agreement and its relevant provisions.  As for the issue of
geographical indications, the Czech Republic had full respect for the views of those who were
concerned about the administrative costs associated with the establishment of a register for wines and
spirits and the extension of additional protection to other products.  However, these concerns wereonly one part of the story.  Equal attention had to be given also to interests of those who had invested
a lot in the production of goods, the quality and reputation of which were attributable to their
geographical origins, and who indeed suffered from widespread abuse, imitation or usurpation of
terms associated with distinct regional products.  On the top of that, some Members had always
maintained that they were not looking for something which would be expensive and burdensome, butrather for the instruments that would help them to address the problem of free-riding on the reputation
of genuine geographical indications.  His delegation believed that Members did not have any choice
other than to try to narrow down the existing differences and redouble their efforts to strike a
meaningful balance between the various interests and concerns that were at stake in this area.
144. On the Singapore issues, the Czech Republic appreciated that the respective bodies had been
working towards a better understanding of the points mandated by Ministers for discussion.
However, it was apparent that new momentum would have to be created so that Members could come
to an agreement on those issues.  It was also his delegation's expectation that at certain point in time
Members should have a clear idea of how to organize the future work, so that they could prepare for
decisions on the modalities of negotiations in these important areas of the single undertaking by the
time of the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  It was true that Members had not been able to meet theoriginal deadline concerning the review of S&D tr eatment provisions, but this might be explained by
the complexity of the issues involved.  It was im portant that Members had agreed on the continuation
of the work and his delegation looked forward to m eaningful progress in this area before the end of
this year.  At the same time, the Czech Republic was mindful that the development dimension of the
Work Programme was not limited just to the activities of the Special Session of the Committee onTrade and Development.  Development aspects were properly represented throughout all negotiating
groups and topics and a lot had already been done to assist developing countries and economies in
transition to fully participate in the process.  Finally, his delegation remained fully committed to all
the deadlines agreed both in Doha and afterwards, and it would spare no effort to work with other
Members to meet them.  The Czech Republic pledged its full support to the Chairman and had nodoubt that he would spare no effort to ensure that the principles of transparency and inclusiveness
were well respected throughout the whole process.
145. The representative of Uganda said that his delegation believed that there should be an
expeditious outcome, in a transparent manner, on the issues of TRIPS and public health, S&D
treatment and implementation.  On S&D treatment and implementation, Uganda did not share the
perception that outcomes in these areas would be beneficial only to developing countries.  If looked at
broadly, Uganda believed that such outcomes would expand trade and thus be beneficial to the entire
Membership.  In fact, if the question was studied closely, meaningful S&D treatment might benefit
those who were reticent to make progress in this area more than the ones who were being looked at asthe beneficiaries at this stage.  Uganda also expected movement on market access and believed thatTN/C/M/4
Page 43
Members could refine their proposals in order to take into account Uganda's fears about fiscal revenue
and the erosion of preferences.  In the area of agriculture, the Membership was certainly aware that
Uganda was one of the countries which had a great stake in agriculture – it was life and death – and
therefore it expected to see specific proposals which could make the process move forward.   In
Uganda's judgement, the most difficult outstanding areas at this stage were domestic support andexport subsidies, and those who would be able to open the door to further progress in these
negotiations knew who he was referring to.
146. The representative of Pakistan said that while the Chairs' reports had, in certain cases,
provided some rays of hope, his delegation shared the disappointment expressed by some delegations
over the lack of progress in areas of critical im portance for many developing Members.  As Members
were aware, Ministers at Doha had set certain deadlines and it had been unfortunate that those set forJuly 2002 had not been met.  However, Pakistan felt that the commitment of all delegations, the
Chairman's guidance and his resolve for personal in volvement should augur well for future work, and
in carrying out the Ministers' mandate.  Pakistan believed that all the work mandated by Ministers was
equally important.  It was quite natural that some areas carried a higher degree of importance for
certain Members.  This did not, however, imply that only those areas should attract the focus of theirefforts.  There had to be a balanced approach and progress had to be evenly distributed.  Progress and
tangible results in areas such as implementation and S&D treatment provisions would go a long way
in restoring his delegation's confidence and that of other developing Members in the multilateral
trading system.  It would also encourage them to fu lly participate in the negotiations on other issues.
In Pakistan's view, the Ministerial at Cancún was not an occasion to merely report to the Ministersabout what Members had not achieved.  Rather, dele gations should be reporting about what they had
done, what progress they had made since Doha and how close they were to fulfilling their mandate.
This would be possible if delegation kept in view the deadlines and made every effort to meet them,
even though extended in one case.  Such an approach would also facilitate reducing the number of
issues that the Ministers might have to resolve, and would also help attain the objectives set for1 January 2005.  Finally, Pakistan fully endorsed the statements by Malaysia on behalf of the Informal
Group of Developing Countries and by Jamaica on internal transparency.
147. The representative of the Iceland said that his delegation agreed with the Chairman that the
negotiations had entered a new phase.  The groundwork had been laid allowing Members to start
engaging in more substantive work.  Members had started after the summer break on a positive note
and although they were in the preliminary stages in most areas, the discussions were on track.Agriculture, S&D and implementation had been the three areas most frequently mentioned by
Members, and on the two latter issues, his delegation agreed that these issues were at the heart of the
negotiations, and that they had to be addressed in a meaningful and constructive way in all areas of
the negotiations.  Furthermore, it was of major importance to meet the deadlines if further progress
was to be made in the negotiations.  Iceland had been particularly encouraged by the mention by theEuropean Communities of the importance of integrating the principle of sustainable development into
all areas of the negotiations.   That was exactly the point of the mandate Members had in the Doha
Declaration with regard to addressing the problems fisheries subsidies were creating for trade, the
environment and sustainable development.  This was an issue of major importance to Iceland.
Obviously, there was still a long way to go and views were quite far apart.  A lack of results in thisarea it would seriously undermine the credibility of  the organisation and its Members.  Iceland was
convinced that the fine line between the differen t views in this area could be found, and obviously
Iceland and the other demandeurs in this area needed to do their homework in creating the building
blocks for an eventual agreement.  Although these discussions were in the preliminary stages, they
were on track and his delegation was convinced that, in light of the importance of this issue theywould yield results as a part of an overall balanced package.
148. The word ambition had become the catchword of the present meeting, particularly in the
context of agriculture.  A number of Members had presented their views and goals on the negotiations
in agriculture.  In the discussions thus far, one might have thought that the meaning of this word hadbeen patented.  However, like most things, ambition could take many shapes and forms and it meantTN/C/M/4
Page 44
different things to different people.  No one had a monopoly on its meaning nor was it acceptable that
this word be hijacked into the services of one camp or the other.  Iceland was fully committed to the
Agreement on Agriculture, the reform process it had launched for the future and the mandate given to
Members by their Ministers in Doha.  Iceland's challenge and thus its ambition lay in participating and
eventually completing that process without sacrificing a number of core values to which it adheredalongside trade liberalisation.  Its ambition was to provide its population with a secure supply of safe
food, to maintain the viability of its rural areas, to  promote environmental values such as afforestation
and soil conservation, to preserve cultural heritage and agricultural landscapes and to maintain,
throughout a process of reform, a vibrant and viable agricultural sector, which was a prerequisite to
the attainment of Iceland's policy objectives, of which trade liberalisation was but one.  Iceland was
under no illusion about the future of its limited agriculture, which could not be competitive, under the
scenarios foreseen by many as its trade regime in this sector.  It was his delegation's conviction thatthe demise of Icelandic agriculture would not be in the interest for the multilateral trading system.
This was why Iceland had repeatedly emphasised that Members had a platform from which to depart
in the Uruguay Round Agreement and the structure within which they had hitherto been pursuing the
reform process.   Iceland's values and positions were covered by the existing Agreement.  On the
negotiations overall, Iceland agreed with others that, although the discussions were on track, there wasno time for complacency and time was not on the side of Members.  Although the movement in these
discussions might be in slow motion for the time being, at least there was a lot of action taking place.
And that was what counted at this stage.
149. The representative of Costa Rica stressed the importance of meeting all the deadlines in the
Work Programme under the single undertaking.  In this regard, his delegation agreed with the
Chairman that the role of the Trade Negotiations Committee was to act as the forum for evaluating
progress and giving momentum to the work.  On the agriculture negotiations, Costa Rica fully shared
the comments made by many others, including Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and
Thailand, on the slow substantive progress made.  The Chairman of the Agriculture Special Sessionhad referred to the need for some Members to abandon the extreme positions they had held since
before Doha and to recognize that the success of  the round largely depended on this area of the
negotiations.  Costa Rica agreed fully with this evaluation.  Together with other members of the
Cairns Group, Costa Rica had worked intensively to contribute to these negotiations over the past few
months through serious and well balanced proposals on the three pillars.  At the present meeting,
some Members had said how dissatisfied they were to see proposals which they described as
unrealistic and not serious.  He wondered if these Members really believed that proposing reforms totrade in agriculture that were in line with the Doha mandate was unrealistic.  Costa Rica believed that
what was in fact unrealistic was to call these negotiations the development round and then expect
them to conclude without true efforts being made by some developed countries to change their
policies in the area of agriculture.  Like others, Costa Rica believed that the success of this round
depended on the balance in the final package.  It did not exclude any sector a priori, and it was readyto continue working hard on the agricultural negotiations in the belief that the agreed deadlines should
be met.
150. Costa Rica supported the statement by Malaysia on behalf of the Informal Group of
Developing Countries on S&D treatment and implementation.  It was important to meet the agreeddeadlines in these areas and find solutions satisfactory to all.  These were important issues for many
developing countries and successful outcomes would facilitate progress in other areas and thus
contribute to a successful outcome to the Doha agenda.  Progress was being made in the negotiations
on services, and in this area, Costa Rica was interested in the conclusion of the multilateral work in
the area of rules in conformity with the progra mme of work, which it believed would benefit the
negotiations.  Progress had also been made in the negotiations on dispute settlement, and the
discussions thus far had been useful.  However, Costa Rica recognized that the work would have to
progress more rapidly, and it urged all delegations to submit their proposals as soon as possible.  In
this area of work, Costa Rica agreed with Chile that Members should not lose sight of the importance
of proposing changes aimed at strengthening dispute settlement system, and not only at addressingtheir individual domestic concerns.  Costa Rica was pleased by the work done thus far by theTN/C/M/4
Page 45
Negotiating Group on Rules, however, it agreed with others that the discussions needed political, and
not just technical, impetus.  It was also pleased to see the work on market access for non-agricultural
products moving forward, and it hoped that the discussions would become more in-depth and
substantive.  Costa Rica hoped for ambitious results in this area.  On the work multilateral system of
notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits, Costa Rica fullysupported the view expressed by Australia, and the idea of having a voluntary system.  This register
should be simple and should not require Members to establish new legislative and administration
instruments, but rather should allow them to make use of what they already had.
151. Finally, Costa Rica was confident that the work on the issues of trade and investment, trade
facilitation, and trade and competition policy would pr ogress in the following year to such a degree
that Members would be in a position to agree at the Cancún Conference on the initiation ofnegotiations on rules in these areas.  Costa Rica did not see agreement on these issues as being the
price to be paid for fundamental changes in the rule s on agriculture.  Such reform in agriculture had to
be undertaken because there was a mandate to do so and because there was an absolute necessity to
put an end to the unjustified discrimination in this  area compared to industrial goods.  The need for a
negotiating mandate for these other issues was based on the merits of the issues concerned, as hisdelegation had mentioned on other occasions and Costa Rica was ambitious in these areas.
152. The representative of South Africa thanked, on behalf of his government, all Members who
had contributed to the success of the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development held in
Johannesburg.  He also thanked the Chairman for his contribution to the debate on trade andsustainable development that he had participated in as Director-General with his country's president.
South Africa believed the contribution of the Summ it would be an important platform to advance
discussions in the WTO and in the Committee on Trade and the Environment on trade and sustainable
development.  The Summit had firmly put the focus of the debate on the need to alleviate poverty and
South Africa challenged all Members to commit themselves to achieving the UN millennium targetsto reduce poverty by half by 2015.
153. South Africa also thanked all Members who had recognised the need to address the
challenges faced by the African continent and supported the New Partnership for Africa's
Development (NEPAD).  South Africa also appreciated the Chairman's support for the broad aims and
objectives for this bold and ambitious programme initiated by African leaders.  In particular, his
delegation looked forward to close collaboration with the WTO in building the capacity of the Africancontinent to participate in a meaningful way in the DDA.  Whilst his delegation looked forward to the
ongoing debate on the 2003 plan for technical assistance and capacity building, it urged that the
following guidelines needed to be taken into accoun t.   Firstly, the focus of the plan should be on
improving the quality and substance of technical assistance, rather than on generating large numbers
of training programmes.  Secondly, mechanisms needed to be developed to assist countries toundertake a needs assessment of their capacity building requirements.  Thirdly, whilst his delegation
recognised that the WTO had an important role in training and capacity building, it would be a
disservice to the Membership and the international community if it did not co-ordinate its efforts with
other multilateral institutions more suited to building capacity in their particular areas of
specialisation.  Thus, there was a need for coherence also in ensuring that trade liberalization andtrade policy was integrated with the broader economic and development strategies of developing
countries.  South Africa believed that there would be a need for the current programmes and the 2003
plan to be guided by an advisory structure nominated by Members.  Furthermore, South Africa was
concerned by the tendency of some Members to negate their own positive contribution to the capacity
building effort by insisting on their own views be ing presented in the programmes and on their own
nationals being participants in the implementation of the WTO's technical assistance programmes.
These practices would not build confidence.
154. South Africa saluted the recent actions by Brazil and Australia to highlight the distortions in
global agricultural markets caused by the trade policies of the major developed economies.  There wasno doubt that these policies had a devastating effect on the livelihoods of poor people in developingTN/C/M/4
Page 46
countries.  A number of recent studies had pointed to the enormous negative developmental impact of
these practices.  South Africa urged these Members to fully commit to providing redress.  Thus far,
the proposals, or the lack of specific proposals, in the agricultural negotiations had not encouraged
Members that they were abiding by the political commitments made in Doha.  Furthermore, South
Africa believed that the tendency of some Members to draw linkages between agriculture and issuessuch as geographical indications, precaution and mandatory labelling was both unfair and
unconstructive, given the huge historic deficit that needed to be addressed.
155. South Africa wished to remind Members that the key implementation issues that they had
committed to resolve at Doha had not been fully addressed.  His country was committed to working
with developed countries and other developing countries to ensure that the deadline was not missed
yet again.  Turning to S&D treatment, he said that this was indeed a complex issue.  Yet, if Members
aimed to give real meaning to the DDA, with the emphasis on the word development, they would
redouble their efforts and work together to find a meaningful and appropriate solution to the many
proposals that had been tabled.  South Africa also wished to underline the need to address a matter of
grave concern and importance to the lives of people, particularly in the developing world, namely the
issue of TRIPS and public health.  The fact that 85 per cent of the global market for patentedmedicines resided in the developed countries and only 15 per cent of this market was shared by the
vast majority of people in the developing world, was a fact that should be of concern to all Members.
The devastating effects of diseases such as malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases
could only be redressed if Members found appropriate solutions in the negotiations to enable greater
competition in the pharmaceutical sector and the conc omitant reduction in the price of medicines, thus
providing both access and affordability to the sick  and needy.  His delegation looked forward to
working with the Chairman in strengthening the WTO and ensuring that the DDA made a real
contribution to building confidence in multilateralism and that the WTO was seen as an institution
that could provide real solutions to the many challenges of the world economy.
156. The representative of the Philippines said the Chairman's opening remarks had struck the right
note with regard to the need for responsible and competent leadership motivated by a high sense of
urgency and this had led to a productive meeting.  The Philippines looked forward to a collective
sense of responsibility in the successful implementation of the DDA in its entirety, which would
centre on the more dramatic parts of the negotiations which usually captured the imagination and the
castigation of the public.  The next phase would call for negotiating flexibility, statesmanship and
vision, and under the Chairman's activist intervention and guidance and with the active engagement ofall under the modalities that had been agreed upon in the various sectors, the Philippines was certain
the process would move quickly and with success.  It had been clear from the Chairs' reports and from
delegations' statements that, while there had been a fair amount of forward movement, there had been
less overall progress.  For example, developing countries such as his had lamented the lack of
meaningful progress on implementation and S&D treatment.  On the other hand, developed countriessuch as Japan and the European Communities had complained of the lack of progress on the
Singapore issues and on non-agricultural market access.  Despite these tactical imbalances, the bigger
picture had to focus on the trinity of negotiations on agriculture, services and non-agricultural market
access.  One should not lose sight of the importance of outcomes in the negotiations on these issues,
and the other issues were perhaps less important.  The Philippines agreed with Brazil and others thatagriculture was key to overall success.  This had been the case during the Uruguay Round, with the
Blair House agreement, and it would also be the case in the present negotiations.  Perhaps with the
United States' new negotiating authority and the European Communities' insistence that this was an
important issue, there could be a much-needed breakthrough in this sector.  The Philippines agreed
with South Africa that agriculture should not be used to extract concessions and obligations in othersectors because of the fundamental distortions in this sector through subsidies and market support,
including all forms of prohibited and disguised market restrictions which weighed heavily on many
Members.  If this were to be the case, it would require enormous counterbalancing concessions.  A
breakthrough in agriculture would consequently allow progress in the negotiations on services and
non-agricultural market access.TN/C/M/4
Page 47
157. As could be seen from the Chair's report, the negotiations on services were well advanced,
with active engagement in the request/offer phas e, so the Philippines believed these negotiations
would produce their own sectoral balance.  However, his delegation was concerned at the failure to
reach consensus on the issues of safeguards and modalities for autonomous liberalization.  Fast
progress in the negotiations on non-agricultural mark et access was also possible, due to the experience
gained by negotiators during the Uruguay Round.  In these negotiations, developing countries wanted
to ensure that tariff peaks and escalation, and non-tariff barriers would be effectively addressed by the
modalities to be agreed by 31 May 2003, and that, in the final analysis, they would see the benefits
from such negotiations which had eluded most of them during the Uruguay Round.  At the TNC
meeting in July, he had expressed concern over the level of ambition of some Members, who were
stretching the discussions beyond the negotiating mandate of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  At the
present meeting, Australia had also mentioned this, referring to the issue of the extension ofgeographical indications.  He suspected that similar ambitions might lie in the area of environment
after the statements made referring to sustainable development, but clarification would be needed on
the context and forum in which this issue might be  addressed.  The Philippines welcomed the issue of
sustainable development as references in the Johannesburg Declaration and in the Preamble to the
Marrakesh Agreement and, at the most, as a guide to future interpretations of WTO law, but not as anegotiating issue in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment with the aim of
creating rights and obligations.  The Philippines believed that the most striking ambitions were on
what had been termed multifunctionality.  This concept had been brought back to the discussions on
agriculture, and it was a distortion of the existing S&D treatment for developing countries.
158. Reference had been made by some delegations to the present unfavourable economic
conditions, which were further deteriorating rather than recovering.  This served as a double-edged
sword to negotiators from vulnerable countries such as the Philippines, because it raised the spectre of
protectionism in a more vigorous way.  As the negotiations progressed, the Philippines believed that
Members should show their constituencies that what they were aiming at was a win-win-win situationfor all, and this should be constantly highlighted in the work.  The Philippines welcomed the
Chairman's focus on the deadlines, and it believed th at all meetings leading up to a deadline would be
critical.  While his delegation welcomed the suggestion by Mexico to restructure the work programme
taking into account new priorities, it believed this might be difficult because the present structure, and
its procedures and modalities, had been painstakingly discussed and to tinker with it would bring back
unnecessary debate over this.  Furthermore, delegations had consulted with their capitals on the work
programme and it would be difficult to do this again.  However, his delegation had an open mind onthis idea, provided it could accommodate the best interest of all Members.  In the end, there was so
little time left before Cancún and Members would need time to be able to bring into the negotiations
the much-needed support of their constituencies.  The Philippines hoped that that the Chairman's
constructive intervention in the process would result in greater transparency, a stronger identification
of individual Member's interests and a win-win-win situation for all.
159. The Chairman invited the Chairpersons of bodies established by the TNC to comment on the
discussion, if they so wished.160. Mr. Harbinson, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, said that
the discussion had served to underline again the centrality of agriculture as a subject in the
negotiations.  It had also illustrated the tendency which existed for delegations on both sides of the
discussion to tend to regard others of a different persuasion as acting in an extreme way or in an
unbalanced way.  It was perhaps not surprising that delegations would tend to adopt these rather
maximal positions up to the present, but he believed  that this highlighted the need for a completely
new approach in the work on agriculture, given that the clock was running quickly.  This had also
underlined the appeal he had made in his initial remarks for more work, more flexibility, more realism
and more specificity where necessary.  However, he was not pessimistic.  Members had prepared
rather assiduously over a period of about two and a half years in these negotiations, and the positions
were well known, the gaps were well known and everyone knew what they had to do.  The opposingviews on agriculture were strong, but there was also a very strong common interest in establishing theTN/C/M/4
Page 48
modalities on time, because everyone knew that it would be very difficult to move ahead with the
DDA as a whole unless the deadlines on agriculture were respected.  He hoped that the present
meeting would serve as a wake up call to all Members, and that from now on the beginnings of some
movement towards convergence would be seen, which would enable participants to establish the
modalities by the end of March next year.
161. Ambassador Jara (Chile), Chairman of th e Special Session of the Council for Trade in
Services, said that, unlike agriculture, the services negotiations were navigating in calm waters thus
far, and he would try to steer a course in order to keep them away from storms.  However, the
discussion at the present meeting had underlined the importance that many Members attached to
reaching agreement as soon as possible on modalities for autonomous liberalization and for least-
developed Members.
162. Ambassador Girard (Switzerland), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Market Access,
said that the discussion appeared to echo his init ial comments that the substantive discussion in his
group had started rather late and that although it had started well, it needed to be deepened and
broadened.  In this regard, he had been encouraged by the delegations who had indicated theirintention of putting submissions on the table or of activating their participation in the debate.  He
believed that this was a very encouraging sign and he looked forward to the next meeting of his group.
163. Ambassador Groser (New Zealand), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules, said that
his initial remarks had been aimed at setting out his analysis of the complex matrix of issues in his
group and of the timetables related to the internal negotiating process of the Doha Round, and also
some other time considerations of a political nature that needed to be taken into account.  He had also
presented an outline of the negotiating process that he thought would be most conducive and that
flowed logically from that analysis.  From the stat ements made during the meeting, he would draw the
personal conclusion that there was what he would describe as a watchful consensus that the process inthe Rules Group was on the right track.
164. Ambassador Balás (Hungary), Chairman of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement
Body, said that the task of his group was extremely ambitious and all available time would be needed
to try to fulfil the mandate.  Some of the statemen ts made in the present meeting implied that perhaps
it would be useful, at this stage, to lower the level of ambition and to look for a more limited result,
with another attempt at a later stage.  However, as Chair, he was guided by the Ministers and theirmandate, which did not allow for such a second life, ended in May 2003 with the instruction to
produce an outcome.  He would fulfil his task as Chair and work as efficiently as possible to achieve
the highest possible level of agreement on the highest number of issues.  In this respect, he invited
delegations to work also in that direction.  Clearl y, a point would come when the Chairs of all groups,
including his, would have to decide what areas were ripe for consensus.  However, he believed hisgroup was far from that point, and, for the time being, all the negotiating proposals merited equal
attention and equal discussion.
165. Ambassador Smith (Jamaica), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade
and Development, said that the statements made at the present meeting largely spoke for themselves.
He believed they had underscored what everyone already knew, which was that many Members saw
progress in the work of his group as something of a litmus test for the treatment of the interests of
developing countries under the Doha Work Programme.  Some of the statements had referred to the
complexity of some of the issues that his group was addressing, including their political and technical
complexity, including references to issues such as differentiation, graduation and even theidentification of developing countries in the context of the possibility of mandatory S&D treatment.
These were widely recognized to be difficult issues.  But what he believed was important was the
large number of Members who had not only underscored the importance of these issues, but also
indicated their willingness to constructively seek to further the work of the Special Session.  He
believed that was an undertaking that his group desp erately needed to see fulfilled in the next two
months.TN/C/M/4
Page 49
166. The Chairman said he took the fact that the present session was longer than the previous ones
to be a positive sign that everyone believed in everything which had been discussed, and in the need
for active engagement, not only from the Chairman but also from all participants.  He believed that, in
the short to medium term, delegations could expect more extensive meetings, although in the finalphase of the work programme, he hoped the meetings would become shorter and shorter because
participants would have reconciled all their controve rsies.  He wished to thank everyone for their
cooperative spirit, and for making so many constructive statements, containing suggestions which
would be the raw material from which the final outcome of the DDA would be crafted.  He wished
also to thank delegations for the thoughtful support they had given to the active role he wished to play
as Chairman in consultations to prepare for the important questions Members would face at the end of
the year.
167. If one looked at the statements made by leaders at the World Summit for Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg, as South Africa had mentioned, he believed Members should be
encouraged and more motivated to find their way out of the intricacies in their negotiations.  Because
the leaders had shown courage at that Summit by reaffirming their commitment to the WTO's agenda,to the very letter of the DDA, and because they had made the explicit wish that trade be made a useful
vehicle for sustainable development, Members should take heart.  They should make use of that
momentum to carry on their work here in Geneva.  They should also take heart that the multilateral
trading system was being mentioned in all kinds of international discussions and debates – the
Monterrey Conference and every segment of the discussion in Johannesburg had involved discussionson trade.  Sometimes trade was mentioned as a culprit for something, but most of the time it was
mentioned rather as a means to find a way out of the evolving economic uncertainties that the world
faced and would face to a larger extent as it moved on to the year 2003.  Members could only counter
these uncertainties by strengthening predictability, by achieving what they were supposed to achieve
within the time that they had been mandated to do so.
168. The Chairpersons of the negotiating bodies had gone to great lengths in the execution of their
duties, not always under comfortable circumstances.  Nevertheless, they had kept the negotiating
process moving forward.  He was greatly appreciative of their efforts.  Some of their remarks at the
present meeting were worth repeating, and he would make some quotations:  "in critical areas more
work needed to be done", "need to broaden aspects of negotiations", "need more submission of
proposals", "cooperation of Heads of Delegations needed", "urged Members to submit their proposalsas soon as possible", "need progress on technical assistance", "need slots for more meetings", and, last
but not least, "we have deadlines to meet".  He would add that he stood fully behind all these remarks
and would like delegations to take them all seriously.
169. He had circulated a revised timeline
1 to all delegations to make sure that everyone was keenly
aware of the key dates and deadlines established so far.  He had done this on his own responsibility
and without prejudice to any participant's position on the issues listed.  He was certain that delegations
were already aware of all these dates, but by reiterating them he hoped that everyone would keep all
of them in mind when they considered their tactical and strategic moves as the process reached the
middle game of the negotiations.  His greatest concern was that participants had not yet fullycompleted their opening plays.  From a negotiating point of view, he understood that negotiators set
out positions in sectors they were most comfortabl e or confident with, and then waited to see what
others were doing before venturing into areas where they believed it might be necessary to make
concessions.  Negotiators rarely wanted to talk about making concessions, but at the end of the day,
all negotiators had to make some concessions in their bid for a successful outcome.  He fully realisedthat the different negotiations did not always proceed at the same pace and did not all have the same
deadlines, yet he believed that everyone realised that the final date was the same in most areas.  Under
the single undertaking, there was only one final date.
                                                     
1  Circulated in document Job(02)/78/Rev.1, dated 27 September 2002.TN/C/M/4
Page 50
170. So the key to a successful endgame was for everyone to understand that, while delaying
tactics might seem useful as a tactical move, they would never secure a final outcome.  Such tactics
could only result in delaying the whole Work Programme and lead to a waste of opportunities as the
process lost steam.  He did not really believe that anyone was intentionally adopting this unwanted
tactic, but all participants needed to do their own analysis and internal consultations, either in theirown country or in groups of countries.  So he recommended that the timeline be respected, so that as
the period between the middle game and the endgame approached, all deadlines could be calibrated to
be more in tune with one another.  By the middle of the next year, participants should be in a position
to advance across a broad front in all areas.
171. Participants had also made many thoughtful, constructive and sometimes memorable
statements, such as:  "development of the DDA", "everything was linked with everything else","development had to be centre stage", "transparency had to be upheld", "positions were still too far
apart", "disappointment with a lack of a specific proposal for agriculture", "agriculture lay at the heart
of our negotiations", "need to respect all deadlines" and, "there were Members who were not helping".
He was not so sure he would agree with the last one, so maybe he could rephrase it to the effect that
"there were Members who had still to make their moves".  A wide range of views, different prioritiesand concerns had been expressed.  The issues whic h had come up most frequently were Agriculture,
S&D Treatment, Implementation, and TRIPS and Public Health.  Clearly there were some strongly-
held views in these areas and everyone woul d have to work hard to reach consensus.
172. He was encouraged that there was a widespread sense of the globality of the negotiations, of
the need to make progress across a broad front and to build a balanced overall result.  Of course, at the
present stage this could also mean that everyone was waiting for the other person to move first.  There
might be different intermediate deadlines in diff erent areas, but participants would need to move
together into the endgame.  He urged delegations to break out of defensive positions – one could not
remind oneself often enough that this was not a zero-sum game.  It was certainly about nationalinterests, but it was also about everyone's shared interest in a system which delivered for all its
Members.  Everyone had a shared responsibility to move these negotiations on to a timely and
positive conclusion.  This was the spirit in which he would be working hard with all delegations in the
coming weeks and months.  He intended to focus his attention first on the upcoming deadlines and the
issues which cut across specific negotiating areas, but he would keep the overall balance in mind at all
times in line with the TNC's mandate.
173. The Trade Negotiations Committee took note of the statements.
174. In closing the meeting, the Chairman informed delegations that the next meeting of the TNC
would be held on 4-6 December 2002.
_______________