14. The representative of the European Communities emphasized that several delegations had already put on the table proposals and communications quite a long time ago, and that there had been many discussions and interventions. Looking back at the content of the proposals and communications, including the comparative table submitted by the EC and their member States (document IP/C/W/259), he believed there was already so much material that a significant amount of preparatory work would not be necessary. For his delegation, from this session until the Fifth Ministerial Conference, the process would be a single one, in other words there would be one round of negotiations. There was no question that a study phase should be entered. It was a negotiating process; if there were a need for study, it should have been asked for earlier since the issue had already been discussed for several years in the Council. The Special Session should not shy away from imposing target dates and it would be helpful for the Chair to remind participants that they should try to meet such dates. To his knowledge, it was also not uncommon in other areas to proceed in that way. Target dates were important for getting the process going and for getting end results some time in the Summer or Autumn of 2003, and also in light of target dates in other areas. It would be useful for the Special Session to know what was going on in these areas and to make sure that progress occurred in parallel. For these reasons he appreciated the Chair's efforts to be constructive in order to make sure that in the June meeting there would be a focused discussion that would help make progress.
15. With regard to the note identifying issues, he held the view that this was certainly one useful way of proceeding, but that another more ambitious way would be via an annotated agenda, which was not an uncommon way of proceeding in the WTO. He wished to add another element for consideration, namely the comparative table made by the EC and their member States. He recalled that, in order to be constructive, his delegation had suggested to have the Secretariat make a comparative table of the various proposals; this had apparently not been acceptable to the entire membership. The EC and their member States had themselves, therefore, decided to produce a table in an objective and neutral manner. No delegation had indicated to the EC that the table was biased and did not reflect the content of the various proposals. Inspiration could be drawn from this table for the drafting of the note on issues ahead of the June meeting - by the end of May, so that delegations would have enough time to prepare themselves in order to effectively use the paper. If Members had difficulties with the EC table, he would not object if the WTO Secretariat were asked to make such a table on an objective basis. With regard to the timing of papers, he would urge that proposals, if any, be made available as from this Session or at the latest by early September so that participants would have time to study them. With regard to the common negotiating basis for the final phase of the negotiations, he said it would be useful if the text could be produced for the November meeting, whether by the Chairperson on his own responsibility or on the basis of a paper by a group of delegations.
