RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/MA/M/7
10January 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-0140)
Original: English Committee onMarket Access
MINUTES OFTHE MEETINGS OF18OCTOBER and1NOVEMBER 1996
Chairman: Mr.Jean Saint-Jacques (Canada)
Agenda oftheMeeting Page
1. Observers 2
2. HS96 Changes -Submission ofdocumentation 2
3. Establishment ofConsolidated Loose-Leaf Schedules onGoods 3
4. Further Trade Liberalization 4
4.2 Proposal byAustralia 4
4.3 Proposal byCanada 7
4.4 Proposal bytheEuropean Communities 9
4.5 Proposal bytheUnited States 9
5. Draft Report oftheCommittee totheCouncil forTrade inGoods inthecontext
oftheSingapore Ministerial Meeting 10
6. Other business 11
6.1 Submission ofnational tariffs for1996 11
6.2 Notification ofQuantitative Restrictions 11
6.3 Dateofnextmeeting 11
7. Resumption ofthemeeting on1November 1996 toaddress theDraft Report
oftheCommittee totheCouncil forTrade inGoods 11G/MA/M/7
Page2
1. Observers
1.1 Before proceeding totheadoption oftheagenda, theChairman stated thatwithrespect to
observers, inaddition tothecountries which wereacceding totheWTO and,asagreed atthelastmeeting
oftheCommittee, theFAO, IMF, ITCB, UNCTAD, WCO andtheWorld Bank hadbeeninvited to
thismeeting. Hesuggested thatpending finalization oftheconsultations bytheChairman oftheGeneral
Council ontheapplication ofthe"Guidelines forObserver Status forInternational Intergovernmental
Organizations", theabove organizations beinvited asobservers tothemeetings oftheCommittee on
anadhocbasis.
1.2 TheCommittee soagreed.
1.3 Theagenda ofthemeeting contained inWTO/AIR/447, dated 7October 1996, wasadopted.
2. HS96 Changes -Submission ofdocumentation
2.1 TheChairman reminded theCommittee that,according totheprovisions contained inthe
DecisionoftheGeneralCouncilof18July1996(WT/L/173)extendinguntil30April1997thetime-limit
ofthewaiver concerning theintroduction oftheHS96 changes, theMembers concerned wereexpected
tosubmit thecomplete documentation required fortheintroduction oftheHS96 changes intotheir
WTO schedules by30September 1996.Document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.3 showed thepresent situation
regarding thesubmission oftherequired documentation. Ascould benoted fromthedocument, out
ofthe37Members covered bythewaiver, 12Members hadeither submitted onlysome preliminary
dataornodataatall.
2.2 Therepresentative ofNorway expressed concern thatanumber ofcountries hadnotsubmitted
therequired documentation bytheagreed deadline; heurged theMembers concerned, tosubmit the
documentation assoonaspossible. Hesuggested thattheSecretariat update thedocument concerning
thestatus ofsubmission ofHS96 documentation onamonthly basis. Thedelegates oftheEuropean
Communities andSwitzerland supported theintervention made byNorway.
2.3 Therepresentative ofVenezuela informed theCommittee thatVenezuela 'sdocumentation on
HS96 changes hadarrived andwould besubmitted verysoon.
2.4 Thedelegate ofEgypt informed theCommittee thathisauthorities were intheprocess of
finalizing thedocumentation related toHS96 changes andwould submit itassoonaspossible.
2.5 Therepresentative ofIceland informed theCommittee thattheconsolidated loose-leaf schedule
ofIceland containing HS96 changes wasinitsfinalstageofpreparation andwould besubmitted shortly.
2.6 TherepresentativeofBrazilnotedthathisauthoritieshadsubmittedinJanuary1996therequired
preliminary documentation; however, duetounforeseen technical difficulties ithadnotbeenpossible
tomeetthedeadline fortheremainder ofthedocumentation, which wasinitsfinalstageofpreparation
andreceived ahighlevelofpriority.
2.7 Thedelegate ofPoland regretted thathisdelegation hadnotbeenabletosubmit therequired
HS96 documentation bythedeadline butitspreparation wasinthefinalstages anditwould besubmitted
shortly.
2.8 Thedelegate ofMexico stated thathisdelegation hadsubmitted thenational tariff for1996
containing theHS96 changes, andhoped tosubmit thefinaldocumentation veryshortly.G/MA/M/7
Page3
2.9 Therepresentative ofElSalvador ,speaking alsoonbehalf ofHonduras ,reported thattheir
authorities hadexperienced technical difficulties inimplementing theHS96 changes. TheCouncil of
Minsters ofCentral America haddecided on8August 1996 topostpone thedateofimplementation
from 1September 1996 to1January 1997. Inviewoftheproblems mentioned, ithadnotyetbeen
possible tosubmit therequired documentation.
2.10 TheChairman noted theprogress made bythoseMembers whohadnotsubmitted thenecessary
documentation. Heurged allMembers concerned tosubmit thedocumentation assoonaspossible.
TheChairman alsonoted theproposal made bythedelegation ofNorway, supported bySwitzerland
andtheEuropean Communities, foramonthly update bytheSecretariat oftheinformation onthe
submission ofHS96 documentation contained indocument G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.3.
3. Establishment ofConsolidated Loose-Leaf Schedules onGoods
3.1 TheChairman recalled thatadraft Decision concerning theEstablishment ofLoose-leaf
Schedules onGoods hadbeenunder examination forsome time. Following informal consultations,
theSecretariat hadprepared arevised textoftheDecision which wascontained indocument
G/MA/TAR/W/6/Rev.1 dated 4October 1996. Inthiscontext, theChairman pointed outthefollowing
changes thatneeded tobemade tothetext: inthetitleoftheDecision thewords "tariff concessions"
werereplaced bythewords "onGoods". Thetitlewould therefore read: "Establishment ofConsolidated
Loose-Leaf Schedules onGoods ".Thesame correction hadtobemade inthefirstlineofparagraph
1.Referring totheinformal consultations hecarried outonthismatter, theChairman asked the
Committee iftheDecision could beadopted withtheabove mentioned modifications.
3.2 Thedelegate ofSwitzerland ,while notopposing approval oftheDecision, expressed concern
withrespect totheelectronic verification. Hestated hehadhoped thattheelectronic verification could
proceed onafirst-come, first-served basisforthose countries thathadalready submitted anelectronic
version oftheirloose-leaf schedule.
3.3 Therepresentative ofNorway expressed concern because theDecision didnotprovide afinal
deadline. While recognizing thepositive aspects oftheproposal, thelackofadeadline reduced
transparency andcreated anunclear andundesirable situation forthose whohadalready submitted
theirschedules. Heagreed thatpriority should begiven totheloose-leaf schedules already submitted.
Members should devote theresources necessary topresent, assoonaspossible, consolidated loose-leaf
schedules inanelectronic format since those would beimportant tools infuture tariff negotiations.
3.4 Thedelegate oftheUnited States supported theDecision andpointed outthattheschedules
included tariffconcessions andagricultural commitments; shesuggested thatagricultural commitments
beadded, inaddition tocommitments, totheendofthesentence inthelastlineofparagraph 1ofthe
draftdecision.
3.5 Thedelegate ofNewZealand shared theconcerns expressed bySwitzerland andNorway.
Hisdelegationhadnotyetsubmittedaconsolidatedscheduleinloose-leafformat.Hewonderedwhether
countries would berequired toverify loose-leaf schedules submitted fromthispoint onward? Hewas
notagainst theproposal butwould liketosee,forreasons oftransparency andcertainty, some effort
made toverify theschedules already submitted.
3.6 TheChairman asked Members toconsider theproposal made bytheUnited States thatthe
lastlineofparagraph 1ofthedraft decision should read"Inrespect ofeachtariff concession and
agricultural commitment". Herecalled thatparagraph 9ofthedraftcovered tariff andagricultural
commitments, andthattheideawastofollow thesame format asintheUruguay Round schedules.G/MA/M/7
Page4
3.7 Therepresentative ofMexico stated thatArticle 4oftheAgreement onAgriculture referred
onlytocommitment ormarket access commitment, andtherefore thetextoftheDecision should just
referto"commitments".
3.8 TheChairman summarized thattherewerethreeproposals: toadd"agricultural commitment",
toaddjust"commitment", ortoannex atableonagricultural commitments.
3.9 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed preference fortheinsertion of
just"commitment". Henoted thatinparagraph 7there wasareference totheentry intoforce on
1January 1995; heassumed thatthose whohadimplemented theiragricultural commitments afterthat
datewould begoverned bytheprovisions paragraph 9.
3.10 Itwasagreed thattheword "commitments" would appear inthelastlineofparagraph 1of
thedraftdecision.TheDecisionontheEstablishmentofConsolidatedLoose-LeafScheduleswasadopted
bytheCommittee andreferred totheCouncil forTrade inGoods forformal approval.
4. Further Trade Liberalization
4.1 TheChairman drew theattention oftheCommittee tofourpapers concerning initiatives on
further trade liberalization submitted byAustralia, Canada, theEuropean Communities, andthe
United States.
4.2 Proposal byAustralia
4.2.1 Aproposal forfurther tariffnegotiations onindustrial products contained indocument G/L/96
dated 23July1996 wassubmitted byAustralia totheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
4.2.2 Thedelegate ofAustralia explained thatherauthorities weresubmitting theproposal because
thebuilt-in-agenda didnotinclude commitments forfurther negotiations intheareaoftradeinindustrial
products. Australia believed thatthiswasanoversight resulting fromthefactthattheUruguay Round
didnotproduce acovering agreement onindustrial tariffs similar towhatwasagreed inother areas.
InAustralia 'sviewthisomission didnotindicate theintent ofWTO Members tosideline issues related
toindustrial tariffs, which remained ofimportance toallWTO Members. Australia wasproposing
torecommend thatfurther tariff negotiations inindustrial products begin intheyear2000atthesame
timeasfurther negotiations foreseen inthebuilt-in agenda onagriculture andservices. Furthermore,
thattheMarket Access Committee commence preparatory work in1997which would provide analysis
andaninformation exchange ontechnical issues allowing Members tounderstand theissues involved
insuchnegotiations andtoidentify theirinterests. Australia emphasized thatitwasnotseeking to
reopen agreements onindustrial tariffs, butrather toensure thatthefuture work programme ofthe
WTO wasbalanced andthatitreflected theinterests ofallWTO Members. Without acontinuation
clause onindustrial tariffs, itwould bedifficult toachieve thatbalance. Suchacommitment tobegin
negotiations onindustrial tariffs would alsoensure abalance between bothdeveloping anddeveloped
countries. Thealternative tothecomprehensive approach Australia wassuggesting wasapiecemeal
sectoral approach thatwould notnecessarily serve theinterests ofthewidest number ofWTO Members.
Therepresentative ofAustralia stressed thatthisapproach didnotenvisage theacceleration ofUruguay
Round commitments orbeginning negotiations inthenearfuture. Theproposal wasconsistent with
andcould build onproposals suchastheInformation Technology Agreement. Australia would like
toseearecommendation reflected inthereport oftheMarket Access Committee onthisproposal.
4.2.3 Thedelegate ofNewZealand expressed fullsupport fortheAustralian proposal forthereasons
outlined byAustralia. Healsopointed outthatwhen "industrial products" werereferred to,thisarea
oftariff negotiations covered alsoawide range ofresource-based products thatwere notstrictlyG/MA/M/7
Page5
industrial, suchasfisheries andtimber products which were ofinterest toawiderange ofcountries
inthisorganization.
4.2.4 Therepresentative ofEgypt considered theAustralian paper anewproposal. Inherview,
Singapore should focus ontheimplementation oftheUruguay Round, andnotonnewissues oron
advancing thework programme inthebuilt-in-agenda. Itwastruethatthebuilt-in-agenda didnot
include anycommitment forfurther negotiations intheareaofindustrial products. Whether thiswas
anomission oramistake didnotmatter; thefactwasthatthisissue wasnotinthework programme
andwasnotpartofthedelicate balance agreed intheUruguay Round. Theissue hadtobelooked
atwithin thegeneral framework ofbalanced rights andobligations aswellasthemutuality ofinterests
andbenefits resulting from theUruguay Round, andnotonlywithin thescope ofindustrial tariffs,
orevenindustrial tariffs versus non-tariff measures. Singapore wasneither theright place northe
right timeforsuchaconsideration. Furthermore, onecould notcompare market access ortariff
liberalization onindustrial products withtheAgreements onAgriculture andServices. Asconcerns
agriculture, agroup ofcountries wasnotsatisfied withtheresults, andtherefore abuilt-in work
programme forfurther liberalization inagriculture wasagreed. Thesame applied fortheAgreement
onServices where there wasabuilt-in-agenda forthecontinuation ofservices negotiations. With
respect toindustrial products there wasacceptance oftheresults, andnoimmediate work programme
forcontinued liberalization wasnecessary. Forthese reasons Egypt could notaccept theAustralian
proposal atthispointintime. Egypt wasnotagainst liberalization, infactithadundertaken autonomous
liberalization across theboard offering tariff cutsof25percent. However, theAustralian proposal
wasnotappropriate atthispoint intimeanditsimplications onthegeneral balance would needtobe
discussed more deeply.
4.2.5 Therepresentative ofKorea supported theposition ofEgypt withrespect toindustrial tariffs.
Heproposed thatnorecommendation bemade toMinisters atSingapore inthisarea, since itwould
gobeyond thebuilt-in-agenda oftheUruguay Round. Theexclusion ofindustrial tariffs from the
built-in-agenda wasnotaninadvertent omission, butconstituted acarefully considered decision taken
during theUruguay Round negotiations. Forthisreason many delegations, including Korea, hadnot
examined theissueandthepossible impact offurther liberalization oftheindustrial sector. Moreover,
therewasnotimetodothework before theSingapore Ministerial Conference, andtherewasnoreason
tobring thismatter totheattention ofMinisters lessthantwoyears aftertheWTO Agreements had
come intoeffect.
4.2.6 Thedelegate ofIndia,supporting thestatements made byEgypt andKorea, stated thatitwas
nottheappropriate timetoconsider further liberalization ofindustrial tariffs. Theresults oftheUruguay
Round hadtobeimplemented fullybefore undertaking anyfurther liberalization. AsinIndiatheviews
were polarized overtheUruguay Round, thebenefits ofwhich were considered tobenearzero, it
would bedifficult toproceed onfurther liberalization. Therefore, hisdelegation could notsupport
theAustralian proposal.
4.2.7 Thedelegate ofMorocco reiterated theposition ofhisdelegation asalready explained inother
fora. Like theprevious speakers hebelieved thattheexclusion ofindustrial tariffs from the
built-in-agenda wasnotanomission, butrather aquestion ofbalance within theoverall package of
theUruguay Round. With respect tothesubstance oftheAustralian proposal, itcontained twosub-
proposals namely, (1)tobegin preparatory work in1997, and(2)totakeupglobal industrial tariff
negotiations. Hisdelegation wasnotinaposition giveitssupport toeither ofthese twosub-proposals
andthere wasnothing thattheCommittee could recommend totheMinisters forSingapore inthis
respect.G/MA/M/7
Page6
4.2.8 Therepresentative ofBrazil indicated that,asstated byhisdelegation inother fora,developing
countries, especially those facing serious adjustment processes, hadtodigest thetrade liberalization
process agreed intheUruguay Round. TheSingapore Ministerial Conference should focus on
implementation. TheAustralian proposal wentmuch beyond thebuilt-in-agenda anditwastoosoon
toengage inanypreparatory work forfurther tradeliberalization intheareaofindustrial tariffs. This
wasnotanissue toberecommended toMinisters atSingapore.
4.2.9 Thedelegate ofCanada ,supported theAustralian proposal, stated thatpreparatory workshould
begin withtheviewofstarting tariff negotiations alsoonindustrial products in2000. Thisshould be
considered tobecomplementary tothebuilt-in-agenda.
4.2.10 Thedelegate ofSriLanka supported forthestatements made byEgypt, India, Korea, Morocco,
andBrazil.
4.2.11 Therepresentative ofHungary welcomed theproposals forfurther tradeliberalization. While
herdelegation would support theAustralian proposal forbeginning tariff negotiations onindustrial
products intheyear2000, itdidnotseetheneedtostartpreparatory workforsuchnegotiations in1997.
4.2.12 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities pointed outthatwhile hisdelegation was
interested infurther tariff liberalization ithadasyetnottaken anyposition oneither theCanadian or
theAustralian proposal. However, itwould havenoobjection iftheCommittee would agree tocarry
outsome technical work onthecollection ofdata.
4.2.13 Thedelegate ofPakistan stated thatthetimehadnotyetcome toconsider anyfurther
liberalization ofindustrial tariffs. Thedeveloping countries inparticular werestillgoing through the
process ofassessing theimpact oftheUruguay Round, anditwastooearly toexpect those countries
toagree toanother round ofindustrial tariff reductions.
4.2.14 Thedelegate ofVenezuela thought thatthethrust oftheMinisterial Conference inSingapore
should focus ontheresults oftheUruguay Round. With respect tothesubstance oftheAustralian
proposal, hisdelegation would beinterested instarting negotiations onindustrial tariffs around 2000,
likeinagriculture andservices. There wasnoneedtobegin preparatory work atthisstage.
4.2.15 Thedelegate ofJapan saidthatwhile hisdelegation wasinterested infurther tradeliberalization,
theAustralian proposal waspremature.
4.2.16 Thedelegate ofNorway recalled thathiscountry wasgenerally positive tofurther market
liberalization intheindustrial sector. Heinformed theCommittee thatNorway would autonomously
accelerate theimplementation ofitsUruguay Round commitments byreducing itstariffs forindustrial
products tobound levels on1January 1997. Additionally, tariffs under 3percentwould bereduced
tozero. With respect totheAustralian proposal, heexpressed reservation asconcerns thebeginning
ofpreparatory work in1997.
4.2.17 Thedelegates ofMexico ,Czech Republic andIceland ,while expressing some support for
theAustralian proposal, haddoubts withrespect totheideaofbeginning preparatory work in1997.
Intheirview, thiswaspremature andwould havetobedone inlightofother developments inthe
built-in-agenda.
4.2.18 Therepresentative ofColombia stressed thattheSingapore Conference should focus on
implementation. Herdelegation would notbeabletogivesupport tolaunching industrial tariff
negotiations in2000. Inherviewitwasalsopremature tolaunch preparatory work intheyear1997.G/MA/M/7
Page7
4.2.19 Thedelegate ofSwitzerland while supporting, inprinciple, theAustralian proposal pointed
outthatasconcerned thetiming offurther negotiations, thewording intheAgreements foragriculture
andservices was"notlaterthan". Hisdelegation believed thatpreparatory work fornegotiations at
thisstage waspremature.
4.2.20 Thedelegate ofArgentina stated thathisdelegation supported further tradeliberalization, but
didnothaveaposition yetontheAustralian proposal. Hepointed outtheAustralian proposal referred
toindustrial tariffs only, andshould notbemixed upwithagriculture andservices. Healsopointed
outthatalthough negotiations onindustrial tariffs werenotpartofthebuilt-in-agenda, theAgreement
establishing theWTO did,inthePreamble, provide forsubstantial reduction oftariffs andotherbarriers
totrade.
4.2.21 Thedelegate ofthePhilippines ,speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, saidthat,
negotiations onindustrial tariffs werenotforeseen inthebuilt-in-agenda, andshedidnotbelieve that
thiswasanoversight.
4.2.22 Thedelegate oftheCôte d'Ivoire stated thathercountry expected from theWTO full
implementation ofthecommitments undertaken within theagreed deadlines.
4.3 Proposal byCanada
4.3.1 Apaper onfurther tariffliberalization hadbeencirculated byCanada indocument G/MA/W/9,
dated 11October 1996, forconsideration bytheCommittee. Thedelegate ofCanada explained that
thepaper wasintended topromote thenotion thattariff liberalization wasanimportant andcentral
pieceofachieving further tradeliberalization. Hisdelegation wished tobring thismatter totheattention
ofthisCommittee because ithadaspecific mandate toprovide aforum fordiscussing tariff-related
matters. Headded thatthepaper wasseeking toestablish awork programme toassure thatfurther
tariff liberalization would beconsidered byWTO Members. Itproposes thatMembers explore ways
toachieve further liberalization emerging frominitiatives ofindividual Members orfromplurilateral
initiatives, allwiththesame goalofbreaking newground inachieving further tariff liberalization.
Thiswaswithout prejudice toanyoutcome. TheCanadian proposal wasnotprescriptive, butrather
invited Members tokeepopenthepossibility todiscuss, explore, andifconsensus emerged, toachieve
further liberalization. Some examples oftheways further tariff liberalization could beachieved were
presented inthepaper, likeacceleration ofUruguay Round tariff reductions, expanding membership
inexisting zeroforzerotariffagreements, establishing newzeroforzeroinitiatives inadditional sectors,
expanding membership inchemical harmonization, andidentifying additional sectors fortariff
harmonization atlower rates. These wereallideas thatMembers should constantly payattention to
inorder toseeiftherewasanypossibility ofbreaking newground. Theproposal wasnottoprescribe
anoutcome, buttokeeptheideas onthetablewiththeultimate objective ofachieving further tariff
liberalization.
4.3.2 TheChairman ,noting thesimilarities between theAustralian andCanadian papers, suggested
thatinorder toexpedite themeeting hewould assume thatdelegations 'general comments withrespect
tothefirstpaper would beequally applicable tothesecond, unless naturally theywished toaddress
theCanadian paper specifically.
4.3.3 Thedelegate ofArgentina noted thattheCanadian proposal putmore stress onplurilateral
zero-for-zero agreements thantheAustralian proposal. Hisdelegation supported theideaofnew
zero-for-zero initiatives inadditional sectors.
4.3.4 Thedelegate ofHungary saidthatonlybroad participation andcomprehensive product coverage
would serve thetrade liberalization objective. Therefore, shedidnotbelieve thatsectoral orG/MA/M/7
Page8
zero-for-zeros initiatives would provide widespread benefits toallMembers. However, shesupported
thenotion oftariff harmonization.
4.3.5 Thedelegate ofJapan requested clarification oncertain aspects oftheCanadian paper, notably
withrespect totheestablishment ofawork programme, concerning thereference tobenefits forthe
largest number ofMembers andbroad participation ofMembers, andwithrespect toadditional
harmonization proposals.
4.3.6 Therepresentative ofMexico indicated thathisdelegation wasnotinfavour ofsectoral
approaches, astheywere nottheappropriate waytoachieve trade liberalization.
4.3.7 Therepresentative ofMorocco found thattheCanadian proposal focused onplurilateral sectoral
initiatives, which wasnotthemainpurpose theCommittee wasestablished. Herequested clarification
onwhatCanada meant withrespect toacceleration ofUruguay Round tariffreductions andexpansion
ofmembership inexisting harmonization orzero-for-zero initiatives. Also, hewondered howthe
Committee could ensure widest possible participation.
4.3.8 Thedelegate ofPakistan indicated thathisdelegation didnotsupport acceleration oftariff
cutsorsectoral approaches.
4.3.9 Thedelegate ofNorway welcomed theCanadian proposal, noting thathisdelegation supported
theprinciples onwhich itisbased.
4.3.10 Thedelegate ofNewZealand ,expressing some support forsectoral approaches, saidthatit
wasimportant tokeepthese initiatives under review. With respect toplurilateral agreements, hedid
notshare theviews expressed byothers. Plurilateral initiatives werepursued onanMFN basis and
constituted bound tariff commitments; therefore discussing andpursuing theminthisCommittee was
appropriate.
4.3.11 Thedelegate ofSwitzerland stated thatconcerning acceleration, thisapproach wasnotworkable
because implementation wasalready underway. Concerning thesectoral approach, hewould favour
increased participation inexisting aswellasinclusion ofnewsectoral initiatives. Healsosupported
thestatement made byNewZealand withrespect totherelevance ofsectoral initiatives being discussed
inthisCommittee, assuchconcessions were granted onanMFN basis.
4.3.12 Therepresentative ofEgypt pointed outthatprogressive liberalization should notbeachieved
mainly onasectoral orselective basis.
4.3.13 Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthattheCanadian proposal wascomplimentary tothe
Australian proposal.
4.3.14 Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthathiscountry wasnotready foraccelerated tariff cutsor
expansion ofsectoral initiatives. Itwasnecessary tohaveaclearviewoftheimplementation ofthe
commitments undertaken intheUruguay Round before taking decisions onfurther tariffliberalization.
4.3.15 Thedelegate ofIceland expressed hisdelegation 'sinterest insectoral initiatives onfish.
4.3.16 Thedelegate ofIndonesia reminded Members ofthecomments made bythedelegate ofthe
Philippines ontheAustralian paper.G/MA/M/7
Page9
4.3.17 Therepresentative ofPoland stated thathisdelegation wasstillexamining theproposals. The
Australian proposal wasmore flexible withrespect toachieving abalance. TheCanadian proposal
pursued sectoral initiatives thatmight notensure thebalance necessary toattract many Members.
4.3.18 Thedelegate ofCanada saidthatinhisview anytariff matter fellunder thisCommittee 's
mandate. Asconcerned acceleration, itwasimportant tonotethatCanada wasnotnecessarily seeking
acceleration byallMembers inallareas. Asconcerned plurilateral initiatives, while these would not
bebinding onthose whochoose nottoparticipate, thegoalwastoseekbroadest participation.
4.4 Proposal bytheEuropean Communities
4.4.1 ThedelegatefromtheEuropeanCommunities,referringtoacommunicationfromhisdelegation
onbehalf ofagroup ofMembers contained indocument G/MA/W/10, noted thattheUruguay Round
achievements inpharmaceuticals provided foraperiodic review process which hadjustbeencompleted.
Asaresult, 465products hadbeenadded tothepharmaceutical coverage list.Thiscontributed tofurther
tradeliberalization astheseproducts would bebound inthetariffschedules andtheconcessions applied
onanMFN basis.
4.5 Proposal bytheUnited States
4.5.1 Therepresentative oftheUnited States ,referring toacommunication circulated indocument
G/MA/W/8 concerning thenegotiation ofanInformation Technology Agreement (ITA), indicated that
theUnited States viewed theWTO asapermanent vehicle forongoing tariffliberalization. Thefocus
nowwasondelivering newtariff initiatives forSingapore. Shewanted toinform theCommittee the
work thatwasgoing onbilaterally andplurilaterally onanInformation Technology Agreement. As
stated inthecommunication, thiswasaninitiative toeliminate tariffs oninformation technology products
suchascomputers, semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, telecommunications
equipment, andcertain scientific instruments. While thiswasasectoral initiative, itwasworthy to
notethatthese products were thebackbone ofother sectors. Forexample, theautomobile industry
wasthelargest userofsemiconductors, thusthebenefits from participation inthisagreement were
much wider thanjustfortheproducts directly covered. TheUnited States would beinterested in
discussing thedetails withallinterested countries andwasproviding apaper thatindicated basicproduct
categories thatwere tobecovered bytheAgreement. They hoped thattheCommittee would take
noteofthisAgreement.
4.5.2 Thedelegates fromCanada ,Norway ,andSwitzerland expressed interest intheInformation
Technology Agreement andalsowelcomed theinformation onpharmaceutical liberalization provided
bythedelegate oftheEuropean Communities.
4.5.3 Therepresentative ofKorea supported theproposal fortheInformation Technology Agreement,
andstated thatKorea reserved itsrighttonegotiate thespecific product coverage. Healsonoted that
thiswasaproposal foraplurilateral agreement andcountries would participate onavoluntary basis.
4.5.4 TherepresentativeofMexicoindicatedthathiscountrywouldexaminetheUnitedStatesproposal
withgreat interest; participation would depend ontheproduct coverage intheproposal andonthe
participation ofother WTO Members.
4.5.5 Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthattheUnited States proposal hadbeenconveyed tohis
authorities whowould examine ittodetermine ifitwould beintheirinterest tojoin.
4.5.6 Therepresentative ofNewZealand asked forclarification about thestatus oftheAgreement
atthepresent time, andabout theproduct coverage.G/MA/M/7
Page10
4.5.7 Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic expressed greatinterest intheinitiative, andindicated
thathisdelegation wasstillconsidering alltheelements, especially theproduct coverage. Participation
should beasbroad aspossible. Herequested more information inorder tomake afinaldecision.
4.5.8 Thedelegate ofAustralia supported theproposal andhoped forbroad participation.
4.5.9 Thedelegate ofIceland stated thathisdelegation found theinitiative mostinteresting andwas
giving itfullconsideration. Healsolooked forward toreceiving further information.
4.5.10 Therepresentatives ofSingapore andPakistan welcomed theproposal andwere interested
indiscussing itfurther.
4.5.11 Thedelegate oftheUnited States expressed appreciation fortheinterest intheinitiative and
saidthatthediscussions werecontinuing inparticular ontheproduct coverage. TheU.S.delegation
wasinterested tohearfrom other countries which products were ofinterest tothem. Theobjective
wastohaveasbroad aparticipation aspossible. Itwashoped thatagreement could bereached by
thetimeoftheSingapore Conference. Thegoalwastostartimplementation in1997, andtocomplete
implementation bytheyear2000. Oneimportant issue concerned theclassification ofproducts tobe
covered. Agreement wasnecessary inthisrespect inorder toensure comparability ofcommitments.
Thistechnical work wastaking some time.
5. Draft Report oftheCommittee totheCouncil forTrade inGoods inthecontext ofthe
Singapore Ministerial Meeting
5.1. Thedraftreport oftheCommittee wascontained indocument G/MA/W/7/Rev.2. Thereport
hadbeenrevised totakeintoaccount comments made bydelegations. TheChairman suggested to
examine thereport paragraph byparagraph forapproval.
5.2 With respect toparagraph 5,thedelegate oftheUnited States saidthatitwasdifficult to
ascertain ifresults oftheUruguay Round hadbeenimplemented byallMembers. Many countries
hadnotsubmitted theinformation totheIntegrated DataBasenorcompleted theconsolidated loose-leaf
schedule. Shesuggested thatthisquestion beaddressed intheCommittee.
5.3 Withrespect toparagraph 10,thedelegations ofEgypt ,India,andBrazil stated thatthefactual
partofthereport should beclarified toreflect theposition ofseveral delegations; inparticular, that
theproposals werepremature atthistimeasMembers should concentrate ontheresults oftheUruguay
Round andnotonnewinitiatives. TheCommittee agreed thattheparagraph would bere-drafted to
reflect thatdivergent views were expressed withrespect totheAustralian andCanadian proposals,
while theviews ontheITAandpharmaceutical initiatives were more positive.
5.4 Onparagraph 12,itwasdecided that"thedevelopment ofanelectronic verification process"
would beinserted. Some delegations voiced theirdisappointment atthefactthattheDecision onthe
Establishment ofConsolidated Loose-leaf Schedules onGoods didnotinclude adeadline forthe
verification exercise.
5.5 Onparagraph 19,Recommendations, theCommittee could notreach aconsensus.
5.6 TheCommittee adopted thereport taking intoaccount theamendments agreed upon during
themeeting, withtheexception ofthesection onRecommendations forwhich further informal
consultations were necessary.G/MA/M/7
Page11
6. Other business
6.1 Submission ofnational tariffs for1996
6.1.1 TheChairman indicated thatdocument G/MA/TAR/3, giving thepresent situation of
available 1996national tariffs hadbeenprepared bytheSecretariat. Heurged Members whohadnot
yetdeposited theircurrent national tariffs todoso,since these documents represented animportant
toolforthedaily work oftheOrganization.
6.2 Notification ofQuantitative Restrictions
6.2.1 TheChairmanpointedoutthattheSecretariathadprepareddocumentG/MA/NTM/QR/1/Add.2
showing theadditional notifications ofquantitative restrictions submitted recently totheSecretariat.
6.3 Dateofnextmeeting
6.3.1 TheChairman noted that,according totheschedule ofmeetings, thenextmeeting ofthe
Committee wasplanned for21November 1996.1
7. Resumption ofthemeeting on1November 1996 toadopt theDraft Report
oftheCommittee totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
7.1 TheChairman stated thatatthelastmeeting theCommittee hadadopted theCommittee 'sreport
withtheexception ofthepartonthe"Recommendations". Atthattime, there were anumber of
proposals onthetablewithrespect torecommendations forfurther trade liberalization. These were
placedinsquarebrackets.ThelastdrafttextofthereportwascontainedindocumentG/MA/W/7/Rev.3.
Inanattempt tobridge thegapbetween those countries wanting therecommendations onfurther trade
liberalization andthose thatdidnotwantrecommendations, hehadproposed, informally, asolution
thatconsisted ofrevised paragraphs 10and11which incorporated thediscussion onthese
recommendations inthefactual partofthereport, andarevised paragraph 21thatremoved theparts
contained insquare brackets.
7.2 TheCommittee agreed totheproposed changes.
7.3 Thedelegate ofAustralia expressed disappointment thatthere wasnorecommendation on
liberalization andpointed outthatthisissue would betaken upinother forum.
7.4 Thereport wasadopted bytheCommittee andsubmitted totheCommittee onTrade inGoods
asdocument G/L/132.
1AfterconsultationwithanumberofdelegationstheChairmandecidedtopostponethemeetinguntilearly1997.