RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/26
21 December 2000
(00-5588)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 12 OCTOBER 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Christophe Kiener (Switzerland)
Table of contents
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including
factual information on waivers expi ring on 31 October 2000 (G/MA/SPEC/15) ..................2
2. Submission of HS96 documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.23)................................................5
3. HS2002 Changes - Report by the Chairman ..........................................................................64. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ..............................................7
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/M A/IDB/2/Rev.9)...............................7
(b) Progress Report on the work done by the Secretariat .................................................................9
(c) Review of the Operation of the IDB and IDB related technical assistance activities in
accordance with paragraph 19 of document G/MA/IDB/3 entitled  "Dissemination ofthe Integrated Data Base " (G/MA/IDB/W/Rev.2) ....................................................................11
5. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project – Report by the Secretariat..................12
6. Review of paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article
XXVIII of  the GATT 1994 ....................................................................................................16
7. Observer status of international intergovernmental organizations
(G/MA/W/11/Rev.2).............................................................................................................. ..18
8. Status of notifications of quantitativ e restrictions (G/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.7).................18
9. Draft Report (2000) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods
(G/MA/SPEC/16) ................................................................................................................. ...19
10. Other Business.............................................................................................................. ...........20
(a) Hong Kong, China – autonom ous liberaliza tion actio n............................................................20
(b) Date of the next meeting.................................................................................................... .......20G/MA/M/26
Page 2
The above agenda as reproduced in document WTO/AIR/1397 was adopted with the addition
of items under 10 (a) and (b).  An annotated agenda was circulated in an informal document (Job No.
5885).
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including factual
information on waivers expiring on 31 October 2000 (G/MA/SPEC/15)
1.1 The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/SPEC/15 which contained
the draft periodic report of the Committee.  He noted that this report, which would be finalized in the
light of the discussion at this meeting, would be  submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods for
examination at its meeting of 16 October 20001.  The report contained in its Annexes I and II tables
summarizing factual information on the waivers under process submitted by the Members concerned.
In this context, he requested the Committee to take note of the requests that had been presented by theMembers concerned regarding the extension of their respective waivers and of the reasons for doing
so.
1.2 As could be noted in this document, the waivers were divided into three different groups:
(1) waivers granted in connection with the introduction of HS96 changes into the WTO schedules;(2) waivers related to the transposition of pre-Uruguay Round schedules into the Harmonized System
(Nicaragua and Sri Lanka); and (3) a waiver concerning the renegotiation of the Schedule of Zambia
following the introduction of the Harmonized System .  All the waivers expired on 31 October 2000;
if the requests were approved, the waivers would be extended until 30 April 2001.
1.3 As far as the first group of waivers was concerned, a draft decision on a further extension for
examination by the Committee was circulated in document G/C/W/228 dated 3 October 2000. To date
22 Members had forwarded to the Secretariat requests for the extension of their waivers. The list of
those Members was reproduced in both documents G/C/W/228 and G/MA/SPEC/15.
1.4 He reported on the informal consultations held on 2 October 2000 on the question of the
HS96 waivers, following a request at the Committee's informal meeting of 22 September  2000.   At
the 2 October 2000 meeting, certain delegations stated  that, in their view, it was time to change the
present practice of a collective decision for HS96 waiver extensions to individual waiver decisions,
i.e. in future each waiver request should be considered individually and decisions made accordingly.
Certain other Members were not in favour of this approach, and it was agreed that the Chairman
would consult with the delegations concerned. It appeared now that those Members who had
expressed reservations were ready to go along with the practice of a collective decision for HS96
waiver extensions this time.
1.5 The representative of the United States stated that his delegation could support the extension
of the collective waiver to April 2001.  However, he wished to make it clear that this was the last
collective waiver that the United States would support.  His delegation expected countries that had
submitted documentation to proceed in an orderly fashion.  His delegation would be in a position to
support requests for waiver extensions from those countries that were advancing in their work.  On the
other hand, his delegation was concerned that so many years after this process had started, there were
still countries that had not submitted documentation and continued to request waiver extensions. Hisdelegation wanted to revert to the original practice of individual waivers, which had been the normal
procedure within this body.  The collective waiver was an expedient that had been used, in light of the
complexity of the issues and the number of countries involved.  His delegation believed that  the
situation was different now and it was time to re-establish the normal procedure. Particularly, since
the collective waiver did not permit a differentiation between countries that were genuinely in aprocess of coming to a resolution of this matter and countries that were not.
                                                     
1 The final periodic report was issued as document G/MA/111 dated 12 October 2000.G/MA/M/26
Page 3
1.6 The representative of Canada supported the United States on this matter.
1.7 The representative of Japan agreed with the representatives of the United States and Canada.
His delegation had concerns about the HS96 transposition exercise and encouraged the Members
concerned to expedite this process.
1.8 The representative of Morocco stated that Morocco was on the list of countries that had not as
yet submitted any documentation.  In this connection, he wished to inform the Committee that
Morocco had received technical assistance from the WTO in May 2000 in order to prepare the
documentation necessary to carry out the transposition of Morocco's schedule from the HS92 to
HS96, and to complete the work related to the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database project.Morocco had carried out the transposition of its schedule from HS92 – HS96, but the latter did not
include the 10-digit tariff lines like the national nomenclature. Given the technical nature and the
volume of the work, the time-period accorded by  the last waiver extension had been used to do this
work.  At present, Morocco's schedule of concessions in HS96 was being finalized. The extension of
the present waiver would enable Morocco to pr epare the remaining documentation such as the
concordance tables which would be supplied to the WTO within the time-period of the new extension.
1.9 The representative of India stated that India was not one of the Members under waiver since
its transposition work was concluded, but India had a systemic point to make.  Her delegation had an
open mind regarding how the transposition issue should be handled in respect of certain Memberswhose schedule remained pending even after the deadline of April 2001.  In this regard, India
appreciated the flexibility shown by the US and other delegations that would have preferred an
individual waiver approach even in this instance.  However, any decision taken at this meeting could
not prejudice any future decision that Members might have to take in April 2001 concerning this
matter.
1.10 The Chairman stated that he had not understood the US statement and Canada's support to
establish  any link between the decision to be taken at this meeting, and the decision to be taken in six
months time.
1.11 The representative of Egypt stated that Egypt was one of those countries who had requested a
waiver extension and Egypt understood the concerns raised by the US and others. However Egypt's
request for a waiver extension had been made for substantive and technical reasons.  Egypt had
responded to questions raised on its schedule by two Members in May 1999.  His delegation had
hoped that this would conclude the process.  However, Egypt had received an additional two
questions on new issues recently from one of these two countries, at a time when it was expecting to
finalize the process.  Egypt was doing its best to respond to these questions but was not sure ifadditional questions would be forthcoming.  So the point was that if there were any questions, they
should be submitted at one time in order to finalize the issue soon.  In sum, the waiver extension was
being sought because new questions had been received at a time when Egypt was expecting to finalize
the process.
1.12 The representative of Mexico noted the statements made by the representatives of Canada, the
US and Japan.  As Mexico understood it, what was said today did not prejudge in any way a decision
which might be taken in April 2001 on this particular point.
1.13 The representative of Panama noted the concerns expressed,  in particular by the
representatives of Canada, US and Japan.  As already indicated at the informal meeting of this
Committee at which this point was discussed, Panama had expressed its concern with such a position.
Panama was one of the two countries which still had to submit documentation and he wished to make
it clear that this was due to the difficulties involved in the exercise.  Panama had requested technicalG/MA/M/26
Page 4
assistance which was provided by the Secretariat.  After having gone through considerable work of
preparing the correlation tables, and as a result of the technical assistance, other problems had come to
light which Panama was now trying to correct.  The documentation was now in the verification phase,
and Panama hoped to submit it soon. However, he was concerned by the position taken by certain
Members. The reasons behind the lack of submission of the documentation were varied and serious.Panama did not want to see countries which were having difficulties in doing this work prejudiced
because of reasons which were beyond their control.  Like some previous speakers, he was pleased to
hear that there was no link between the decision taken today and the decision or decisions to be taken
in April 2001 on this matter.
1.14 The representative of New Zealand stated that  New Zealand was one of the countries that had
still to finish the HS96 transposition exercise.   As a further update to the information provided at the
informal meeting of 22 September 2000, she informed the Committee that New Zealand had
responded to the questions received from two Me mbers. She hoped that these responses would enable
these Members to lift their reservations so that Ne w Zealand could complete its transposition within a
very short time.
1.15 The representative of Uruguay noted the points made by US, Japan and Canada.  Like the
delegations of India, Mexico and Panama, Uruguay's position was that the decision taken today did
not in any way prejudge any future decision that Members might take in this area.
1.16 The representative of Argentina thanked delegations for their flexibility in granting the waiver
at least on this instance in a collective manner.  At the same time, this decision did not imply a link
with any future decisions that Members might take . He was referring specifically to the comments
made by some delegations.  As to the future, he was sure that the Committee would reach a consensus
on a formula which would enable it to carry this exercise forward.  As far as Argentina was concerned
and in particular in the time-period since the last waiver extension, one of the reservations on itsschedule had been lifted but there were still three pending.  His delegation had requested responses
from one of the countries concerned.  He urged countries still having questions to submit them as
quickly as possible so that the process could be completed as quickly as possible.
1.17 The representative of Brazil stated that his delegation was optimistic about the dynamics of
the process, since the methodology of dealing with  these issues had changed.   He thanked the
Committee for the flexibility shown on the request for a waiver extension, but like India, Mexico,Panama and Uruguay, Brazil was of the view that today's decision should not prejudge any future
decision to be taken on this matter.   Brazil was in contact with the countries to which it still owed
answers and there were also some countries which owed Brazil responses.  His delegation hoped to
expedite the process.
1.18 The representative of Honduras supported those speakers who had made the point that the
decision the Committee took at this meeting did not in any way prejudge future decisions that might
be taken.
1.19 The Committee took note of the statements and agreed  to forward the draft decision contained
in document G/C/W/228 to the Council for Trade in Goods for further action.1.20 The Chairman stated that details concerning the Members which had requested an extension
of their respective waivers for either the transposition of their schedules in the Harmonized System or
the renegotiation of their schedule following the introduction of the Harmonized System werecontained in Annex II of docum ent G/MA/SPEC/15.  These extensions concerned Nicaragua, Sri
Lanka and Zambia.G/MA/M/26
Page 5
1.21 The requests and the draft decisions related to these extensions,  circulated in documents
G/L/391, 393, 394 and G/C/W/225, 226 and 227  would be considered by the Council for Trade in
Goods at its meeting of 16 October 2000 and then forwarded to the General Council for adoption.
1.22 The representative of Sri Lanka stated that the relevant factual information on Sri Lanka's
request for the extension of a time-limit for the current waiver which expired on 31 October 2000 was
given in document G/L/391 of 26 September 2000.  Sri Lanka had concluded Article XXVIII
negotiations with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.  Negotiations with the EU and US were
currently progressing.  To conclude this negotiat ion with the two Members, Sri Lanka would require
at least one more extension.  With the positive and flexible approach adopted by all Members
concerned, his delegation was hopeful of concluding the negotiations in the near future.  Hence, his
delegation requested that the Committee consider favourably and recommend granting a furtherextension of six months so as to enable Sri Lanka to conclude its negotiations.
1.23 The Committee took note of the statements, and agreed
 to forward the draft decisions to the
Council for Trade in Goods for further action.
2. Submission of HS96 documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.23)
2.1 The Chairman stated that according to the provisions contained in the General Council
Decision of 3 May 2000, extending the time-limit of the waivers granted to Members that had
requested it until 31 October 2000 (WT/L/351), it was envisaged that the Members concerned would
submit by this date the complete documentation related to the introduction of HS96 changes in theirWTO schedules, and that in special circumstances they could request technical assistance from the
Secretariat.
2.2 Document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.23 reflected the pres ent situation concerning the submission of
the required documentation.  From the document, it could be noted that three Members presentlyunder waivers had not yet submitted the required documentation. Two of these countries had
requested technical assistance from the Secretariat. To date, apart from the three Members that had
not yet submitted the required HS documentation, the submissions of twenty-one Members, whether
they had requested an extension of waivers or not, remained pending due to ongoing consultations
and/or negotiations.
2.3 He also reported on the informal consultations that had taken place on the HS96 transposition
exercise.   He recalled that at its 27 June 2000 formal meeting, the Committee had agreed to continue
informal consultations on the question of HS96 submissions.  At the consultations held on 18 July
2000, the Committee had agreed to his proposal that a special informal meeting of the Committee be
held which would be dedicated to the review of the status of HS96 submissions.  This meeting was
convened for 22 September 2000, and a detailed review of HS96 submissions had taken place on thebasis of an informal list detailing the situation of HS96 submissions.  This list had been faxed to all
Members on 4 September 2000 along with the fax convening the informal meeting.  The 22
September 2000 meeting had been useful in moving the process forward, as clarifications were
provided and certain reservations even lifted during that meeting.  In light of its success, he proposed
that another meeting of this kind be held sometime in November 2000. A revision 5 of the informallist detailing the situation of HS96 submissions would be issued along with the fax convening the
meeting.
2.4 The representative of Canada, thanked the Chairman for arranging the first informal meeting
on this subject.  Canada thought it a very useful process. He supported the Chair's proposal to hold
another such meeting. He recalled that at the meeting of 22 September 2000, Canada had lifted its
reservation on Argentina's HS96 submission, but had maintained its reservation in relation to
Article XXIV.  Canada had also indicated that it was prepared to lift its reservation on Guatemala'sG/MA/M/26
Page 6
HS96 documentation, once Guatemala had notified certain changes.  Since the meeting of
22 September 2000, Canada had lifted its reservation on Paraguay, however, also maintaining the
Article XXIV-related reservation.  Canada had responded to Brazil and indicated that Brazil's
proposed modifications would address all but one of Canada's concerns;  if Brazil addressed that
concern and notified the other changes, Canada could lift its reservation.  Canada had also respondedto El Salvador which had provided Canada with additional information and now there was only one
issue left unresolved.  Canada had written to Malaysia indicating that if it made the corrections that
had been agreed to, Canada could lift its reservation.  Canada had placed a reservation on Mexico's
HS96, but there were only a few issues and those had been specified and hopefully a clarification
could be obtained from Mexico which could probably resolve this matter.  Canada had received a
letter from New Zealand, and his capital was looking at it presently.
2.5 The representative of Switzerland stated that Switzerland was now in a position to lift its
reservation on the US schedule. She also supported the Chair's proposal to hold another informal
meeting to discuss the status of HS96 submissions.  It had been extremely useful in the past.
2.6 The representative of Australia supported the Chair's proposal for another informal meeting in
November 2000.  Australia  had found this exercise extremely useful in moving the process forward.
At this particular point in time  he wished to indicate that Australia had lifted a reservation.  It had
sought clarification on another pending reservation, and was working towards finalizing the remaining
three submissions.
2.7 The representative of Japan supported the Chairman's proposal to hold another informal
meeting to expedite the process.
2.8 The Committee took note of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal to hold
another informal meeting in November 2000 to review the status of HS96 submissions.
3. HS2002 Changes - Report by the Chairman
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the last formal Committee meeting of 27 June 2000, it was
agreed that informal consultations should be held on the subject of HS2002 changes.  At the informal
consultations on 18 July 2000, it was agreed that the Chairman along with the Secretariat should
prepare a paper on a possible procedure to incorporate future HS2002 changes to schedules of
concessions.  The paper with Job no. 5247  was distributed to all Members through a fax conveningthe informal meeting of 2 October 2000.  At this meeting, the Committee heard some preliminary
comments on the paper.  There appeared to be a general favourable reaction to the ideas contained the
document, however, there were several elements which needed to be  further discussed, such as
deadlines.  The urgency of concluding this exercise as soon as possible was also stressed in light of
fact that the HS2002 changes are to enter into force in less than 15 months time. It was agreed that the
Committee would revert to this item at a future informal meeting when capitals would have had more
time to examine the document.  Additionally, he had requested those delegations having specific
comments to submit them in writing so as facilitate the process.
3.2 The representative of the United States stated that Members had started a process which he
hoped would result in an orderly way of dealing with  this issue.  Cooperation between the WCO and
WTO Secretariats as well as WTO Members would be necessary over the coming months in order to
establish a system that would allow Members to mo ve forward in an expeditious manner.  The WCO
was working on the concordance tables.  With the help from the WTO Secretariat, and using the CTS
exercise as a starting-point,  electronic tools migh t be developed with would allow Members to look at
the changes.   Complex issues could be identified in advance, for example those items which were
sensitive and needed to be handled in a particular manner or those HS2002 changes which wereG/MA/M/26
Page 7
elective or had multiple conversion options.  If those issues could be identified in advance, the process
would move forward more quickly than would otherwise be possible.
3.3 The representative of the European Communities expressed the EC's support for this
initiative. Like most Members, the Communities believed that the 1991 procedures were no longer
adequate as had been shown by the amount of time taken to complete the HS96 exercise. The
Secretariat's informal paper contained some interesting ideas, and his delegation could support the
principal of electronic verification and that of a multilateral review of the transposition process. But,
his delegation still needed to look at the modalities proposed more closely and expected to make a
written submission shortly.
3.4 The representative of the Philippines stated that the informal consultations on the HS2002
changes were productive. She wished to know when the WCO concordance tables would be made
available.
3.5 The Chairman stated that the concordance tables should be available by the end of
November 2000.3.6 The representative of Australia stated that his delegation looked forward to working towards a
system which might avoid the problems that Members had experienced in the transposition from
HS92 to HS96.  Like the EC, Australia was also inte rested in multilateral modalities for this.  Since
under current procedures Article XXVIII called for bilateral negotiations, his delegation would lookto a system whereby the initial negotiator rights issues were taken into consideration.  His delegation
would also be proposing some specific comments.
3.7 The representative of India welcomed any suggestion which would help address the problems
that Members had faced in dealing with HS96 transpositions. India had heard certain suggestions
regarding how it could be done.  Her delegation hoped that the Chairman's future consultations would
take into account all suggestions made so that Members together could agree on a multilateral
solution.
3.8 The Committee took note of the statements.
4. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB)
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.9)
4.1 The Chairman stated that document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.9, which had been circulated to all
Members, presented the situation as of 3 October 2000 with regard to the furnishing of PC IDB
submissions.  He noted that 74   Members and 2   acceding countries had provided IDB submissions.
The Secretariat had informed him that, since the document had been circulated, a submission had beenreceived from Singapore relating to bound rates (1999 to 2004), and from the US relating to imports
for 1999 and ad valorem equivalents for 1999.   Since the meeting of the Committee on 27 June 2000,
one Member had submitted documentation to the IDB for the first time.  He reminded Members that
the deadline for submitting 1999 imports had been 30 September 2000.
4.2 The representative of Canada stated that his delegation was encouraged that new submissions
were coming forth.  However, his delegation was still concerned by the low rate of submissions
particularly the follow-up submissions. He en couraged the Chairman to continue informal
consultations, especially as Canada had made a proposal on which he hoped consultations would be
pursued.G/MA/M/26
Page 8
4.3 The representative of Mexico indicated that with reference to the document on the status of
submissions to the IDB, and the columns "National Correlations" and "Other References", it would be
better to establish clearly whether a country had an obligation or whether it was relevant to provide
the national correlations. Often, there was no need to submit national correlations because no changes
had been introduced to the national tariffs.  Members also needed to determine whether or not theheading "Other References" was relevant to any particular country.  This might help remove some of
the "No's" that were present in these columns.
4.4 The Secretariat stated that as a follow-up to the discussion at the 2 October 2000 informal
meeting of this Committee, she could clarify the Secretariat's practice with respect to recording
Members' provision of national correlations and other references in the status of submissions
document.   "No" in the two columns in questi on meant that, at the time of submission, national
correlations and other references were not submitted, and no reference was made by Members as to
whether this information was needed.  The Secretariat could only determine whether correlation tables
were needed until after the processing in the case of tariff to tariff correlations, or during the
processing when matching imports in year 1 with ta riffs in year 1.  The Secretariat would, if possible,
like to avoid the extra administrative burden required to reflect this post submission information in thestatus of submission document. However, delegations were welcome to submit clarifications to the
Secretariat, which could then be reflected in the documentation.
4.5 The representative of Mexico stated that he was worried that more responsibility was being
given to Members to make yet another notification.  His initial concern was more optical in nature and
was linked to the presentation of the column. Under the column on "National Correlations" there were
a whole series of "No's".  But, this did not mean that Members had not been meeting their obligations.
As mentioned earlier, countries did not make changes to their national tariffs every year. The
Secretariat could give some thought on how this problem could be resolved.
4.6 The Chairman stated that some thought had already been given to this matter. One possibility
would be that in those cases where Members indicated that the correlation table was not necessary, the
space could be left blank or it could be indicated that the correlation table was not applicable or
necessary.  But this was a Member driven organization, and it would be for Members to tell the
Secretariat in the context of their notifications whether such tables were necessary or whether the
previous one applied.
4.7 The representative of the European Communities stated that he understood the concerns of
Mexico that this table should not give any false im pressions, particularly with respect to the columns
on "National Correlations" and "Other References".  However, his preference would be to see "Yes"
in all other columns, even if the columns on "National Correlations" and "Other References"
contained only "No".
4.8 The representative of Argentina thanked the Secretariat for having corrected the information
in this document with respect to Argentina. It might also help overcome the problems raised by
Mexico, if the same process was used.  Basically, Argentina had informed the Secretariat that the
correlation tables that Argentina had submitted for 1996 corresponded to all years.  Argentina hadwanted to have it clarified that there was no pending documentation from Argentina.  If there was any
requirement for a technical clarification, it could be done at a subsequent date.  In fact this situation
was reflected by the Secretariat, and the new version of the table for Argentina showed that Argentina
had submitted the correlation tables for all the years.  He believed that if a similar criterion was
adopted for Mexico, Mexico's problem could also be solved.
4.9 The representative of Mexico stated that he did not believe that there was a divergence of
views between Mexico and the European Communities on this matter.  He agreed with the
Communities that it would be very nice to have only "No" in the "National Correlations" and "OtherG/MA/M/26
Page 9
References" tables with "Yes" everywhere else.    With respect to Argentina's statement, he thanked
Argentina for its understanding of Mexico's situation, but stated that Mexico's concern was a systemic
one. Mexico had been referring to a more general problem of having "No" under the columns on
"National Correlations" and "Other References".  There could be some reference in these column
headings to the fact that this information was submitted only when appropriate.
4.10 The Committee took note of document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.9 and the statements.
(b) Progress Report on the work done by the Secretariat
4.11 The Secretariat reported on the activities undertaken since the 27 June 2000 meeting of the
Committee.   The Secretariat's oral report would be circulated to delegations at the meeting, and
would be faxed to Heads of Delegations after the meeting.
4.12 On IDB dissemination, the Secretariat had continued to load information onto the IDB
Internet site on a monthly basis. As of 30 September 2000, there was information for 200 country-
periods on the site, comprising 214 individual files.  185 of those files were in the approved area and
29 files were in the provisional area.  59 Members and two acceding countries or territories wererepresented.
4.13 Release 4 of the IDB CD-ROM was distributed on 30 June 2000. It contained tariffs and
imports for 49 Members and two acceding countries , covering 128 country-periods.  Release 5 was
scheduled for distribution to Members in mid-December 2000. It would contain all files approved bythe end of November 2000. Release 5 would replace Release 4. As usual, two copies would be
supplied to each delegation and extra copies would be available on request.
4.14 On the use of IDB information since June 200 0, with the approval of the Members concerned,
IDB information was used as input for a seminar to be given by the Agriculture Division in China.
The Statistics Division was requested to produce an update of a report entitled "Tariff Treatment of
Products of Special Interest to Developing Country Members" for the Committee on Agriculture. The
report was circulated as document G/AG/NG/S/14 on 15 September 2000.  The information source
was the Uruguay Round Trade Negotiations files and, for a few Members, the IDB.  Another
document was also prepared for that Committee and was circulated as an addendum to "Tariff
Information on Agricultural Products" (G /AG/NG/A/10/Add.1) on 15 September 2000.  This
document illustrated potential uses of the IDB and the CTS in the agriculture area, and containedsamples of data selection and reports that could be produced from the IDB and CTS.  The Statistics
Division had just received a request from the Development Division to contribute tariff and trade
information to a WTO study on 'Market Access for Least Developed Countries'.
4.15 On Trade Policy Review information, on 27 June 2000, the Chairman had contacted ten
Members identified by the Secretariat asking them to authorize the use of information submitted in the
context of Trade Policy Reviews.  Four Member s (Iceland, Kenya, Nicaragua and South Africa) had
since replied in the affirmative. In addition, two other Members (Israel and Switzerland) had
authorized the Secretariat to use their TPR info rmation. The Secretariat was currently checking for
other cases where TPR data could be included in the IDB. The Members concerned would becontacted. She recalled that at the Committee's June 2000 meeting, she had indicated that formal
Secretariat requests for TPR information would in  the future automatically include a request for
authorization to use that information for the IDB.  The TPR Division had informed her that this new
letter had so far been sent to two Members, Pakistan and the Czech Republic.
4.16 On IDB technical assistance, the latest activities of the Secretariat had been tabled in
document G/MA/IDB/W/5/Rev.2 of 2 October 2000.  Currently, seven official requests for technical
assistance, either in the form of national seminars or national missions, were being processed by theG/MA/M/26
Page 10
Secretariat. The regional seminars would be held in Namibia (nine English speaking countries), China
(for APEC) and the Czech Republic (for the Central and Eastern European countries).  The national
missions had been requested by Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Qatar and Chad. The Chad request was for a
Brussels-based mission.  The Secretariat was investigating the possibility of extending this to all
Brussels-based WTO representatives.
4.17 With regard to the PC data entry software project being developed by SIECA, the Inter-
American Development Bank and the WTO, the Secretariat was informed in August 2000 that the
user manual in English and Spanish was due to be finalised. A meeting with the SIECA representative
was scheduled for that afternoon.
4.18 In Geneva, a presentation on statistics and the Integrated Data Base would be given to
participants in the Third Short Trade Policy Course for Least Developed Countries on
17 October 2000, and an IDB workshop for non-resident missions during Geneva week. Also, the
Secretariat had been invited to give an IDB presentation at a seminar on Trade and Investment
Information Networking in the ECO Region in Turkey at the end of the month.
4.19 As reported in the participation document (G/MA/IDB/W/5/Rev.2), ten hands-on workshops
had been given by the Secretariat.  She also recalled that at the 2 October 2000 informal meeting on
IDB participation, she had mentioned that the Secretariat was evaluating the usefulness of the hands-
on workshops from two perspectives. One was an evaluation of the workshops from the perspective of
participants and the other was an assessment by Secretariat representatives. Participants were asked tofill in feedback forms. They showed  that overall, participants were satisfied with the workshops and
indicated that their expectations were met; however, they would have liked more practical exercises;
follow-up workshops were not generally required, unless the IDB tools were to be modified;
Secretariat assistance in using IDB tools could still be necessary.  From the Secretariat's perspective,
difficulties were experienced with the lack of homogeneity in delegations' PC skills.  To overcomethis problem, the Secretariat's suggestion would be to try and organize future sessions according to the
level of PC skills.  Also, if specific points of interest could be communicated to the Secretariat
beforehand, the IDB team could more easily tailor the workshops to delegations' needs.   Further
workshops could be arranged if required.
4.20 On the technical side of the IDB, on the IDB Reporting Tools, the Secretariat had created a
new report - Principal Products, following suggestions of participants in the workshops that were
given for delegations.  The new report contained the same information as the tariff line detail report.
However, the report was presented in the sequence of tariff lines having the largest share of imports
for the selected trade weight.  The user could select the number of tariff lines to be printed, for
instance the top ten tariff lines in terms of imports for a given trading partner.
4.21 The Secretariat had introduced selection of products by HS codes according to the WTO
definition of agricultural products and other products.  This selection could be done at the level of HS
chapters, HS 4-digit codes or where applicable, HS 6-digit codes.
4.22 The Secretariat was in the course of improving the performance of the reporting tools.  For
the selection of products, the difference was remarkable.  Product selection that previously took
several minutes could now be carried out in seconds.  The Secretariat was now working on improving
the response time for other parts of the application.  The new English version (2.0) of the Reporting
Tools would be posted on the Internet File Transfer Facility in a few weeks, followed by the French
and Spanish versions of the application.
4.23 On the IDB Internet Analysis Facility, since the June meeting of the Committee, the
Secretariat had completed an application that loaded both IDB and CTS files to the SQL Server
database and performed limited verification of the data.  Fifty-six CTS files and 15 IDB files had beenG/MA/M/26
Page 11
loaded to the development server.  Detailed program specifications for the data selection query had
been prepared and the Secretariat was working on developing this software and the detail tariff line
report.  When this was completed, the Secretariat would load the SQL database with all IDB files and
move the application and data to the production Intranet environment.  After in-house testing was
carried out, any corrections would be introduced and re-tested.
4.24 The Secretariat had also initiating the technical work to set up the infrastructure of the server
housed at the International Computing Centre (ICC),  which would be used to make the application
available to Members via the Internet.  This included transfer of the data, security mechanisms and
eventual transfer of the application.
4.25 The representative of the United States stated that his delegation was concerned by the
decrease experienced in IDB participation in most recent years as compared to the years 1996/97.  He
encouraged a process of consultation whereby the Committee could find out why countries that had
submitted in the past had found it impossible to continue submitting, and then why certain countries
had never been able to make an IDB notification.
4.26 The representative of Hong Kong, China commended the continued efforts of the Secretariat
in this area of work, such as the organization of seminars, workshops etc.
4.27 The Committee took note of the Secretariat's report and statements.
(c) Review of the Operation of the IDB and IDB related technical assistance activities in
accordance with paragraph 19 of document G/MA/IDB/3 entitled  "Dissemination of the
Integrated Data Base" (G/MA/IDB/W/Rev.2)
4.28 The Chairman stated that at the formal Market Access Committee meeting of 27 June 2000, it
was agreed the informal consultations should continue on this subject, and these were held on 18 July
and 2 October 2000.   At the 2 October 2000 mee ting, a revision to document G/MA/IDB/W/5/Rev.1
was distributed.  A discussion also ensued from a Canadian proposal to have a special informal
session of the Committee dedicated to the review of the status of IDB submissions.  There was
general support for this proposal, although difference s existed as to the format of such a review, such
as whether the review should target countries and if so based on which criteria etc.  It was agreed that
the Chairman along with the Secretariat should come up with a proposal for a possible approach
taking into account the various viewpoints made at the informal meeting.
4.29 The representative of Canada encouraged the Chairman to conduct the consultations and to
circulate the paper as soon as possible.  Canada t hought that this was an issue whose importance had
been demonstrated by the Secretariat's report. From the report, it was obvious that people found the
IDB an interesting database and he had counted at least four references in the report of instanceswhere other people had asked to use the database within this Organization to help advance their work.
Therefore he encouraged the Chairman to accelerate e fforts in this matter.   He also wished to join
Hong Kong, China on a very important point: the progress made in this area could be attributed to the
work of the WTO Secretariat through both technical assistance and its own internal efforts. He
thanked the Secretariat for its work in this area.
4.30 The representative of the European Communities expressed concern at the status of
submissions to the IDB, and also supported the consultations launched by the Chairman in order to
find the right procedures to remedy this situation.  The paper to which the Chairman had made
reference was awaited with impatience. His delegation could support the Canadian idea of carryingout a multilateral review of the situation, as was done with the HS96 situation.  As his delegation had
already mentioned at previous informal meetings, it was of the view that the number of delegations
concerned did not necessarily make it possible to carry out the review in as systematic a manner as inG/MA/M/26
Page 12
the case of HS96.  This was why his delegation was amongst those who believed that the multilateral
review of the IDB situation, if it was to be efficient, had to be targeted.  His delegation believed, for
example, that the least developed countries be fo llowed carefully by the Secretariat, with a report
which could be made as to their status in one of the informal meetings.  It was also necessary to
concentrate on those Members whose volume of trade was above a given level and which either hadnot made any notifications to the IDB or which had made notifications which were now outdated. As
a criteria, he had suggested looking at those Members which had not submitted to the IDB import
trade data more recent than 1996 or import tariffs more recent than 1997 or even 1998.  If, the
Committee were to establish certain common sense criteria then a good exercise could be launched.
4.31 The representative of Switzerland thanked the Secretariat for the IDB workshop, which had
been very useful.  As regarded the Canadian proposal to carry out a multilateral review of the status of
IDB submissions, Switzerland supported this idea because in the case of the HS96 it had been very
useful and had enabled Members to make considerable progress.  Switzerland would also examine the
European Communities' proposals, which were based on common sense and should enable the
Committee to make further progress.
4.32 The representative of India joined Hong Kong, China in thanking the Secretariat for work in
this area. India was one of the countries that ha d benefited enormously from technical assistance by
the Secretariat in this regard, and India welcomed continued interaction with the Secretariat so that
her delegation could understand the system even better.  She noted that under this review of the
operation of the IDB, a number of initiatives were underway.  Additionally, the Chairman hadmentioned that he was continuing to contact various Members having undergone trade policy reviews.
She also noted the activities of the Secretariat in ex tending technical assistance in different settings,
whether in Geneva or outside Geneva, at bilateral and regional levels.  Her delegation hoped that
these initiatives would help achieve the objective of securing higher participation by Members in the
IDB, to which India attached importance. In that light, India had also heard the Canadian proposal andher delegation was reflecting on it. At the informal meeting held on this matter, India had indicated
some of its concerns regarding the proposal;  it welcomed the Chairman continuing his consultations
on that proposal or any others that may be submitted by Members.
4.33 The representative of Mexico stated that his delegation wished to see a greater degree of
participation of Members in the IDB.  His delegation also supported the Chairman’s intention to hold
informal consultations on the proposals made on this subject.
4.34 The Committee took note of the statements.
5. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database Project – Report by the Secretariat
5.1 On the tariff phase of the project, the Secretariat  reported that at the latest count, the
Secretariat had consolidated the tariff concessions of 111 Members (including Switzerland).
Provisional database files had been sent to all these Members for approval. The approval process for
four developing Members (India, Panama, the Philippines and Uruguay) was not yet completed.
Processing of the concessions of the latest WT O Members, Albania and Croatia, was outstanding.
5.2 Between June and the end of October 2000, the CTS team had been concentrating on
finalising, to the extent possible, the tariff phase of the CTS database project. This had been possible
thanks to the continued generosity of the UK Government. The tasks undertaken could be summarized
as followed:  the modifications requested by a number of Members during the approval process had
been incorporated in their files and a revised version forwarded to them. There were still somemodifications to be incorporated in Member's file s;  processing notes for individual Members were
completed, but other processing documents would be completed by the end of this month;  a series of
seminars aimed at familiarising IDB staff with the CTS database had just been completed;   theG/MA/M/26
Page 13
Secretariat had  gone as far as it could in developing a methodology for linking the CTS with the IDB.
Further substantive work in this area would be contingent on discussions with Members, and on the
availability of adequate resources; in addition, the Secretariat had started to combine approved CTS
files into one SQL server database.  So far, over 50 files had been loaded.  Once completed, such a
consolidated database should facilitate access and future dissemination of the CTS information.
5.3 A number of Members had committed to processing their Schedules themselves for inclusion
in the CTS database. They were Australia, Cana da, the EU, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland and the United States.  Canada, the EU, Hungary, Norway and the United States had
submitted draft database files to the Secretariat.  The database files of Hungary and Norway had been
finalised.   The Secretariat’s comments on the conformity of the files of Canada and the EU with the
CTS format were currently under review by those Members.  The draft database file submitted by theUnited States was up for review by the Secretariat in the immediate future.   The tariff concessions of
Japan would be completed for review by that Member at the end of this month.
5.4 On agricultural commitments, a request for funding for the inclusion of the agricultural
commitments of developing Members in the database was sent to the UK Government at the end of
August 2000.  The Secretariat had been subsequently informed by letter of 20 September 2000 that its
proposal was being discussed, and that a more substantive reply could be expected in the near future.
Lastly, the Secretariat had forwarded, in July 2000, the format on agricultural commitments to the
Members who had committed to doing this work themselves.  In this connection, the EU and Hungary
had included agricultural commitments in their submissions to the Secretariat.
5.5 The Chairman stated that in order to help the potential donor, the UK, consider the possibility
of financing the processing of agricultural commitments of developing country Members into the CTS
database by the Secretariat, he had taken the initiative to write to the Members who had committed to
prepare their own schedules in order to request them to submit the necessary information as soon aspossible.  So far  New Zealand and Iceland had responded to this letter saying that they were working
on their tariff submissions and that this should be available as soon as possible.   Furthermore, in the
Secretariat report it had been mentioned that some developing Members had asked for an extra time-
limit for the approval of the electronic schedules prepared by the Secretariat.  He encouraged these
Members to do the necessary so that approval could be given as soon as possible.
5.6 The representative of the United States stated that his question related specifically to the
matter of linking the CTS to the IDB.  It had always been his impression that the CTS was being
developed in such a way that it would be able to form the submission of bound tariff rates required for
the IDB. He wished to have more information on the difficulties envisaged by the Secretariat for
completing this process.  If an approval process was needed for delegations to authorise the
Secretariat to load the CTS files into the IDB, he would have no objection to that.  His delegation wasin a position to designate its CTS submission as the one which it believed to fulfil the requirements
for bound tariff submission under the IDB and would expect that to be reflected in documentation. He
wished to hear from the Secretariat, how this would be accomplished within existing resources. He
was concerned about the idea that additional resources might be required to do this. Once the CTS
was created, it would also contain the IDB submission and the question was how the Secretariatwould be able to process this submission into the IDB.
5.7 The Secretariat stated that the expertise of the CTS team was being used to figure out some
modalities to link the bound duties in the CTS with the information in the IDB. There would be extra
work involved in linkage of these two databases.
5.8 The representative of the United States stated  that he was not so interested in how the work
would be done, just that it could be done, particularly  within existing resources.  It should not come as
a surprise that these CTS files were to be regarded as IDB submissions for the bound tariffG/MA/M/26
Page 14
requirement of the IDB.  So the question was, if the United States and presumably other Members
wanted to fulfil their requirements in the IDB for bound tariff submissions with the CTS file, could
this be done?  Presumably it could be done, so the question was then could the Secretariat do this
using existing resources?
5.9 The Secretariat stated that at the moment the answer would be “no”.  The work that was being
done at the moment to establish the link between the CTS and the IDB was being done by the CTS
team, and not the IDB team.  The CTS team was being funded by the UK government.  When it came
to systematically trying to link or use the CTS information for the IDB, extra processing would be
involved in order to standardize some of the in formation and check the information in the CTS in
respect of the bound duties against the information contained in the IDB.  It would also involve a
situation of updating the data from year to year.  The CTS was basically a one-off database at themoment, but if the information in the CTS was to be used to cover the information required in the
IDB, additional work would be required.
5.10 The representative of the United States stated that the bound tariff submission by his
government to the IDB would be a reflection of what was in the CTS database.  He found it hard to
understand reasons for processing difficulties. It was his understanding that the ability to link the CTS
submission with the IDB was intended from the start.  Now, to have the CTS submission as an orphan
that could not be submitted was potentially a source of real concern.  This matter needed to be
pursued further to find out what the difficulties were and what resources would be necessary in order
to take care of this problem.
5.11 The Chairman stated that his intention would be to follow up this issue with the Secretariat
first and then if necessary convene an informal meeting and hold consultations.5.12 The representative of Australia stated that his delegation was committed to the CTS project.
While  Australia had yet to make a submission, he assured the Committee that Australia was working
towards the completion of its CTS submission as quickly as possible.  Australia had never, from the
inception of this exercise regarded it as a tariff only exercise.  Australia had always sought to include
information on agriculture and domestic support, which required time and a lot of resources.   As to
the Chairman’s letter, he stated that Australia’s reply would be with the Chairman the following day.
On the issue raised by the United States,  he felt that there was need for some technical clarification
on what would be required in terms of establishing and maintaining the links, whether initially orongoing,  between the CTS and the IDB.  He felt that it might be useful to have a technical round
table on that very issue with the Secretariat.
5.13 The representative of Canada stated that Canada had finished preparing its agricultural
commitments for submission to the CTS database, however it was currently under review.  The
submission would not be made imme diately, because Canada was hosting a meeting in Banff on the
subject of agriculture, and attention had been diverted from the CTS project.  However, it was
Canada’s intention to provide its agricultural commitments data in the next three weeks.  Like the
United States, Canada had noted the remark in the Secretariat’s report about the need for extra work
on linking the IDB and the CTS.  His delegation shared the United States' surprise at the problemsindicated, because Canada too had viewed its submission to the CTS as being the IDB submission on
bound tariffs.  Canada wished to continue discussing this matter at an appropriate time to get some
further clarification on what the technical problems were.
5.14 The representative of the European Communities stated that his delegation had made a
complete CTS submission, which included agricultural commitments.  The Communities had also
replied to the Chairman’s letter to clarify their situation because the Chairman in his letter, had
indicated that the Communities’ submission was partial as far as agricultural commitments were
concerned.   His information was that this was not the case.  There had only been some conformityG/MA/M/26
Page 15
problem with the format proposed by the Secretariat, which had already been discussed by the
Communities’ experts at their meeting with the Statistics Division.  He had been told that these issues
would be resolved before the end of this month. So for all relevant purposes the Communities’
submission was complete.   The Communities attached great importance to the CTS exercise.  The
problem of the availability of extra funding by the UK, as had been mentioned by the Secretariat, wasa very relevant and urgent problem.  With that in mind his delegation urged the countries who were
supposed to prepare their own schedules to make the notification as soon as possible with a view to
facilitating a positive decision by the UK.    In this connection, his delegation had taken note of the
statements made by some of the delegations concerned.  On the point raised by the United States, and
without going into details, his delegation agreed that it was a very relevant issue.  His delegation’s
understanding had always been that as soon as the CTS database was available, it should be possible
to feed into the IDB the bound tariff data.  If one looked at the table reflecting the status of IDBsubmissions, it would be noted that very few Members had notified bound duty rates.  So far, his
delegation had ignored this issue because it had expected that upon completion of the CTS project, the
IDB column concerning bound tariffs would be filled in automatically.  Needless to say the
correlation with import statistics and applied tariffs should be fully possible. It was useful that the
United States had raised this issue today.  His delegation hoped to contribute to a discussion on thissubject. Finally, the fact that the Committee was discussing this type of issue showed that the CTS
project was close to completion which in itself was good news.
5.15 The representative of New Zealand stated that New Zealand was still one of the countries
which had to finalise its consolidated tariff schedule.  In fact, her delegation had sent a reply to the
Chairman’s letter that week.  She assured all Members that New Zealand was fully committed to this
project and that her delegation was working hard to complete its submission as soon as possible. Her
delegation appreciated receiving the format for the agricultural elements of the CTS and this would
enable it to make an integrated submission before the end of the year.
5.16 The representative of Uruguay informed the Committee that his delegation had analysed the
CTS submission prepared by the Secretariat.  Th e submission had now been sent to capital with
comments but to date no reply had been received.
5.17 The representative of Mexico stated that bound tariffs were very important in the WTO
context.  He was not referring specifically to the CTS or any other type of instrument, but to bound
tariffs which were also particularly important for developing countries.  The consolidated tariffschedules in the database were not consolidated loose-leaf schedules.  The former were non-binding,
unlike the latter.  This was an important distinction to make especially in light of the proposals which
were being put forward to transfer automatically bound tariffs from the consolidated tariff schedules
database to the IDB.  The IDB column referred to bound tariffs, while the consolidated tariff
schedules were designed to help countries in case of a possible exchange of concessions.  As a result,some further thought needed to be given to this idea of an automatic transfer of bound tariffs from the
CTS database to the IDB.
5.18 The Chairman stated that his understanding was that there was no such proposal for an
automatic transfer of bound tariffs from the CTS database to the IDB.  However some delegations
were of the view that in their own case regarding their data, they would like to be able to use the data
in the CTS database as a submission to the IDB.   IDB submissions would continue to be made
individually.
5.19 The representative of Venezuela stated that his delegation had reviewed the submission
prepared by the Secretariat and had submitted comments. From the Secretariat report, he had
understood that comments made by the developing country concerned on its schedule had been
incorporated into the database and the new data sent back to the country concerned to be reviewed.G/MA/M/26
Page 16
Venezuela had not received the new version of its consolidated schedule with the modifications
incorporated in it.
5.20 The Chairman requested the Venezuelan representative to consult directly with the Secretariat
on this matter.5.21 The representative of Switzerland stated that her delegation supported the CTS database
project. It was very important for all Members, and Switzerland welcomed the day when it would
become operational.  As mentioned by Australia however, this exercise required a great deal of time
and resources.  Her delegation would do everything possible to complete the agriculture part as soon
as possible.  The tariff side had already been done by the Secretariat and Switzerland was grateful for
that.
5.22 The Committee took note of the Secretariat report and the statements.
6. Review of paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of 
the GATT 1994
6.1 The Chairman recalled that at the 27 June 2000 meeting of the Committee, it was agreed that
the Committee would revert to this item at its next meeting in the autumn.  It was also agreed that if
by that time no submissions were received, this item would be considered closed at that meeting.  He
informed the Committee that no submissions had been received.  He proposed that the Committeereport to the Council for Trade in Goods that th e review of paragraph 1 of the Understanding was
carried out and that, for the time being, there was no basis for any modifications to the criteria
mentioned in that paragraph.
6.2 The representative of Panama enquired whether a provision existed anywhere for a future
review, should that be necessary.6.3 The Chairman stated that there was no provision provided for any future review. However, if
the Committee wished, it could consider reverting to this matter in, for example five years time.
However, these provisions had never been used in the five years that they had existed.  Since the
review had started, no delegation had come forward with a contribution, suggestion or statement.  He
therefore suggested that on the basis of the agreement reached at the 27 June 2000 meeting, theCommittee report to the Council for Trade in Goods the outcome of the review.  However, if the
Committee wished it could recommend that another review be undertaken in the future.
6.4 The representative of Panama stated that his delegation did not have an immediate  view on
whether a future review was necessary or not.  He wondered whether it would be possible for
additional time, i.e. two or three weeks, to be given to his delegation to look at this matter.  If within
that time, no comments were forthcoming from his delegation, then the Committee could proceed in
the manner suggested by the Chairman.
6.5 The Chairman stated that the review had to conclude before the end of this year. He was not
sure about the utility of setting additional time for review, as the Committee was reviewing the use of
a measure that had never been used.   However, it would still be possible for any delegation to request
that this matter be reviewed in the C ouncil for Trade in Goods in the future.
6.6 The representative of the United States stated that there had been an understanding reached at
the June 2000 meeting that the Committee’s last meeting of the year would be a deadline for
delegations to make submissions on this subject.  So, his preference was to close this issue with
respect to the official mandate given to the Committee, but taking into account the fact that it was
always possible for any delegation to raise any issue in front of the Committee. It also made sense forG/MA/M/26
Page 17
the purposes of the periodic report to the Council fo r Trade in Goods that this had to be the deadline
for the Committee.
6.7 The representative of Pakistan was of the view that the Committee needed to reflect on this
subject a little further.  He saw no harm in keeping this issue open notwithstanding the fact that no
submissions on this matter had been received to date.  But, that should not foreclose the opportunity
of any future movement in this regard.  With reference to what the Chairman had stated on the
possibility of reopening the issue in the Council fo r Trade in Goods, he wondered whether this aspect
would be reflected in the report to be fo rwarded to the Council for Trade in Goods.
6.8 The Chairman stated that the Committee had been mandated by the Council for Trade in
Goods and that it would need to report back to that body by the end of the year.  Since, this criteria
had never been used it would be very difficult for the Committee to report on its use. Frankly, he did
not think that between now and the end of the year the situation would change fundamentally.
Furthermore, for the time being no additional formal meetings of the Committee had been scheduled
before the end of the year.
6.9 The representative of Australia stated that his delegation shared the assessment of the United
States and the Chair in relation to the matter under discussion.  Australia believed that the agenda item
could be concluded, but that this did not necessarily preclude delegations from raising the matter
subsequently in the event that the criteria was used  in the future.  He recalled that until now the
criteria had never been used and it was therefore hard to make an assessment.  He also recalled that ata previous meeting, the Swiss delegation, whose in tervention in the Council for Trade in Goods had
resulted in this matter being transferred to this  Committee, had noted that there had not been any
submissions and on that basis was prepared to withdraw the item from the agenda.   On that basis he
felt that the Committee should conclude this agenda item, all the while keeping in mind that that this
did not prevent Members from raising this matter again in the future should they wish.
6.10 The representative of Panama stated that his delegation would have no difficulty concluding
this agenda item on the understanding that if the criteria was ever used, there could be a further
review.  Moreover, this understanding should be reflected in the Committee’s report.
6.11 The Chairman stated that following this discussion, his proposal would be to reflect in the
Committee’s report to the Council for Trade in Goods the fact that the Committee had undertaken the
review. The Committee had reached the conclusion that nothing in the Understanding required
modification for the time being.  However, a sentence would also be included in the report which
would leave open the possibility for any Member wishing to do so to raise this issue in the future.
6.12 The representative of Mexico enquired as to where a Member would be able to raise this
issue.   The Understanding had given the mandate for the review to the Council for Trade in Goods.
The latter had requested the Committee on Market Access to undertake the review.  So perhaps the
Committee should report to the Council that it had concluded the review and that there had not been
any action.  He hesitated about the need to instruct the Council to leave the matter open and to allow
any delegation to raise this point in the Council or in the Committee.
6.13 The Chairman proposed that the Committee report to the Council that it had completed the
review, and at the same time indicate that in the future any Member would be free to raise this matter
when necessary.
6.14 The representative of India sought clarification regarding the Chairman’s conclusion. She
wondered whether he had said that the review wa s over or that the mandate given to the Market
Access Committee by the Council for Trade in Goods had been fulfilled, and that factually it would
be reported that the review was conducted and the Committee agreed that nothing required to beG/MA/M/26
Page 18
changed.   She thought that the review being over  was a matter for the Council for Trade in Goods to
decide if her understanding of the provisions was correct.
6.15 The Chairman agreed with India that it was not for the Committee to take the final decision,
but simply to indicate to the Council what the outcome of the Committee’s review was.  He proposed
that the Committee conclude on that basis.
6.16 The Committee so agreed.
7. Observer status of international intergovernmental organizations (G/MA/W/11/Rev.2)
7.1 The Chairman drew attention to document G/MA/TAR/W/11/Rev.2 which set out the
situation with respect to requests from international intergovernmental organizations.   The
Committee had received one new request for observer status in the Committee from the Gulf
Organization for Industrial Consulting.  Consultations were presently underway in the General
Council on such requests for observer status and on that basis he proposed that the Committee revert
to this matter at a later stage.
7.2 The Committee so agreed.
8. Status of notifications of quantitative restrictions (G/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.7)
8.1 The Chairman recalled that Members were required to make notifications every two years of
the Quantitative Restrictions they maintained pursuant to the Decision on Notification Procedures for
Quantitative Restrictions which was contained in document G/L/59.   More specifically, paragraph 1
of the Decision stated that "Members shall make complete notifications of the quantitative restrictions
which they maintain by 31 January 1996 and at two-yearly intervals thereafter, and shall notify
changes to their quantitative restrictions as and when these changes occur."
8.2 Additionally document G/MA/NTM/QR/2 whic h set out the "Format for Notification of
Quantitative Restrictions" pursuant to the decision G/L/59 indicated that "While the Decision does not
oblige a Member to notify the fact that their governments do not maintain quantitative restrictions,
Members are encouraged to provide such information for transparency purposes."
8.3 Since the inception of the PC database in 1997, 28 Members (EC =1) had made notifications
of quantitative restrictions they maintained.  24 Members had indicated that they did not maintain any
quantitative restrictions.   With respect to notifications in 2000, reference was made to document
G/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.7 which provided an update of the situation.  Since this document was
circulated, the Secretariat had informed him that three more notifications had been made, and that
they would be included in the next addendum to th is document. It would appear that the majority of
Members had not been complying with their notification obligations pursuant to this Decision. He
pointed out that the sole purpose of this database was to promote transparency and in this light he
urged all Members to make the necessary notification so that a more complete and accurate picture
could be obtained by the time of the next review in two years time.
8.4 The Secretariat had also informed him that there was a problem in registering  in the database
quantitative restriction notifications made by some Members in the area of textiles and clothing.  He
noted that the Decision allowed Members which ha d made notifications under other WTO provisions
to simply notify that fact together with the relevant cross-reference to the Secretariat and the
Secretariat was to input such notifications into the database.  In the case of textiles and clothing and inrespect of some countries, a problem had arisen in that the format used to notify under the provisions
of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) was not always compatible with the format to be
used for the database.   More specifically, in some of the notifications made under the ATC, the quotaG/MA/M/26
Page 19
levels were set out according to categories which contained many HS lines.  These categories were
different in each of the countries concerned.  The database called for information by individual HS
lines.  However, it was not possible for the Secretariat to identify and separate these individual HS
lines from the category groupings in the textile notifications.  To deal with this situation and any
future such situations, i.e. where  there was a pr oblem to include the quantitative restriction in the
database, he proposed that the Secretariat introduce an explanatory note in the country notes that it
maintained, explaining that for example, the AT C quota lists were contained in other documents,
giving the reference symbols of these documents, without attempting to incorporate them in the QR
database.
8.5 The representatives of Canada and the European Communities requested to have a written
paper on the subject.  The representative of Canada  questioned the need to modify the format in the
QR database given that the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) would lapse on 1 January
2005.
8.6 The Chairman clarified that the Secretariat's proposal was precisely not to change the format
of the QR database, but to make a reference in the country notes to the document symbol in which
these notifications were contained.  As the representative of Canada had mentioned the ATC would
expire in a few years so it was hardly worthwhile changing the format of the  database for this reason.   
He indicated that the Secretariat would prepare a note on this matter for the Committee's next formal
meeting in the spring of next year.
8.7 The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the "Decision on Reverse Notification of
Non-Tariff Measures" dated 1 December 1995.   In the Decision, it was envisaged that "the
Committee shall, at two-yearly intervals on the occasion of the review of the notifications of
quantitative restrictions, review the reverse notifications of non-tariff measures received on the basis
of Secretariat analyses.".   However, only one reverse notification had been  received in 1996, and itwas felt that it would be preferable to await more notifications before issuing a document.  However,
no additional notifications had been received and the Secretariat had informed him that it would be
issuing a document containing information on this  notification soon.     He proposed that the
Committee revert to this matter in the Committee's spring meeting next year when a document would
be available for the Committee's consideration.
8.8 The Committee so agreed.
9. Draft Report (2000) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/16)
9.1 The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/SPEC/16, which contained
the draft annual report of the Committee.  This report would be finalized in the light of the discussion
that had taken place at this meeting, and would be submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods for its
meeting scheduled for 15 November 2000.  The report provided a factual summary of the activities of
the Committee in 1999.
9.2 The Committee adopted its report2 subject to its finalization in light of the present meeting.
                                                     
2 The final report was issued as document G/L/401 dated 31 October 2000.G/MA/M/26
Page 20
10. Other Business
(a) Hong Kong, China – autonomous liberalization action
10.1 The representative from Hong Kong, China informed Members of a unilateral action that
Hong Kong, China was taking in the area of tariffs.  In its pursuit to achieve progressively the APEC
free trade goal Hong Kong, China had committed to bind another 10% of its imports at zero per centin the year 2000 on an autonomous basis and to notify such additional tariff concessions as legally
binding commitments to the WTO.  Hong Kong, China took its commitments in APEC seriously.
Being a staunch supporter for liberalization Hong Kong, China had decided to implement its
commitments faithfully despite the uncertainty of the launch of a new round.  Enhanced market access
through further reduction and elimination of tariffs was an important facet of trade liberalization
work, germane to the core business of the WTO.  Hong Kong, China hoped that this contribution
could help inject some impetus to further preparatory work for non-agricultural tariff negotiations inthe WTO and to encourage others to exercise political will and translate their support for free trade
into concrete actions.  His delegation would be submitting this notification to the Secretariat shortly.
The additional concessions included 359 tariff lines with bindings at zero per cent, accounting for
another 10% of Hong Kong, China's imports.  They included a comprehensive range of products
covering 49 HS chapters including chemicals, ru bber products, textiles and clothing, foot ware,
ceramic products, machinery and electrical products and toys etc.  Taking into account these
additional concessions, Hong Kong, China's  zero per cent  tariff bindings would cover 56% of its
imports at present.  Finally, he wished to point out that Hong Kong, China did not impose tariffs and
all its applied rates were virtually at zero per cent.
(b) Date of the next meeting
10.2 The Committee noted that the next formal meeting of the Committee was scheduled for
spring 2001.
__________