WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/41 
12 August 2003 
 (03-4187) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
 
  
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
 
Communication from Turkey
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 8 August 200 3, has been received from the Permanent 
Mission of Turkey. 
 
_______________ 
  Introduction
 
 
1.  In response to the draft modalities document  (TN/MA/W/35), prepared by the Chair of the 
Negotiating Group on Market Access and on the basis of the documents presented by various 
Members, this communication is intended to set out Tu rkey’s views in this process.  Turkey reserves 
its right to extend or modify its proposal contained in the present document.        
2.  Firstly, we would like to point out that Turk ey attaches great importance to the negotiations 
on market access for non-agricultural products.  We strongly believe that the outcomes of these 
negotiations will allow the strengthening of  the development of international trade. 
 
Turkey applies European Communities’ (EC) co mmon external tariff for non-agricultural 
products since 1996 as a result of the establishment of the Customs Union.  By adopting EC's 
common commercial and competition policies, Turk ey has launched market access conditions for 
third countries that are similar to the EC’s.  He nce, Customs Union relationship with the EC is 
guiding Turkey to a large extent in determining its general approach in the negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products.   
3.  Turkey fully supports the mandate provide d by the Doha Ministerial Declaration and is 
prepared to actively engage in th ese negotiations.  To this end, we  would like to present our views on 
certain issues as follows.  
 
Tariff Bindings
 
 
4.  Although Turkey’s current coverage of bound tariffs is 36.3 per cent, we believe that 
achieving 100 per cent binding rate for all Members should be one of the principal objectives of these negotiations.  In this regard, Members should commit themselves to bind all non-agricultural tariffs at 
the conclusion of the negotiations.  
 
Modalities of Tariff Reduction
 
 
5.  Discussions in the Negotiating Group indicate that pursuing a formula approach is the preferred method for all the Members.  However, Turkey  is of the view that any formula to be set out 
upon the arithmetical average of the Members’ base  rates would lack in meeting the objective of TN/MA/W/41 
Page 2  
 
 eliminating high tariffs, tariff peaks and tariff escalat ion.  This would only provide the continuation of 
the imbalances among the Members as a result of gr anting an advantage to the ones initially having 
high tariff averages regardless of their level of growth.  
 
6.  Thus, it is Turkey's perception that, instead of adopting a formula made up of different 
variables or coefficients for different country grou ps, using a formula such as the one below with a 
constant coefficient where 15 per cent is set as  a ceiling base rate for all Members would be the 
compromised calculation method for improved global trade.   
⎪⎪
⎩⎪⎪
⎨⎧
+= <+= ≥
  )50()50*(y         15         )50 15()50*15(y         15
)(
XX
XX
xf  
 
   x = initial duty   y = final duty 
 Base Rates
  
 
7.  Developed Members should use their MFN applied rates on 14 November 2001 for all tariff 
lines as the base rates. 
 
8.  For the developing Members, base rates should be the bound rates.  On the other hand, as an 
exception, selected unbound tariffs that are not exceeding a pre-determined level such as 2.5 per cent 
of the total volume of their imports in 2001, could be exempted from any reductions provided that they would be subject to consolidation upon the ap plied rates that were in force on 14 November 
2001.  However, some products and product groups such as textiles and clothing, leather products and 
footwear, which are of utmost importance in developing Members’ exports should not be included in 
this list of exceptions. 
 
9.  The rest of unbound rates for the developing  Members should be consolidated at a ceiling of 
15 per cent.  Afterwards, reduction commitments will be fulfilled according to the formula given 
above.  
 
Non-ad valorem duties
 
 
10.  Members should convert all their non-ad valorem duties to ad valorem equivalents. The 
calculation method that will be used for this purpose should be applicable to all Members on the same 
criteria. 
 
Implementation period  
  
11.  We believe that there should be different  timetables for the implementation of tariff 
reductions depending on the status of the Members. In this context, developed Members should 
complete their tariff reductions immediately by the beginning of the year following the end of the 
negotiations.  
 
12.   Developing Members should be allowed to implement tariff commitments in equal stages, 
within five years following the end of the negotiations. 
  TN/MA/W/41 
 Page 3 
 
 
 Sectoral tariff elimination  
 
13.  Negotiations on the tariff reduction should be conducted within the context of a general 
formula. There should not be simultaneous or supplementary negotiations on any products or product 
groups.  
 
Nuisance duties  
 
14.  Nuisance duties should not be treated diffe rently than the general tariff reduction.  
 Non-tariff barriers
 
 
15.  Turkey considers non-tariff barriers as an in tegral part of the negoti ations and believes that 
after their definition, non-tariff barriers should be unde rtaken together with the reduction of tariffs. In 
this context, a modality, which enables all Members without any exceptions to eliminate non-tariff 
barriers, should be adopted for a significant improvement in market access.  
Newly acceded Members  
 
16.  Newly acceded Members should be subject to  the same conditions with the other Members, 
by averting the erosion of implementation of their commitments undertaken as part of their accession.  
 
Least-developed Members  
 
17.  In parallel with the basic principles of the negotiations, least developed Members should bind 
all their unbound tariffs at leve ls, which they may determine. These Members are expected to 
participate in a voluntary basis to a ll other parts of the negotiations.  
 
Environmental goods  
 
18.  Any approach, proposing “production and processing methods” should not be used in the 
negotiations on the environmental goods. 
 Conclusion
 
 
19.  Unless Negotiating Group on Market Acces s will reach an agreement on all the issues, 
specifically on non-tariff barriers, any decision regarding the adoption and implementation of the 
results of the negotiations should not be taken.  
 
__________