. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/119
2 December 2002
(02-6634)
Committee on Market Access
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS
(DOHA MINISTERIAL DECISION 1.2)
Meaning to be given to the phrase "substantial interest" in
paragraph 2(d) of Article XIII of GATT 1994
Report
1. Mandate
1. Prior to the Doha Ministerial Conference, and as requested by the Chairman of the General
Council, the former Chairperson of the Committee on Market Access had undertaken consultations in
her  personal capacity, on the meaning to be given to the phrase "substantial interest" in
paragraph 2(d) of Article XIII of GATT 1994.  The results of the consultations were reported to the
Chairman of the General Council and are contained in document WT/GC/50. A background paper by
the Secretariat, a proposal by Korea, and a possible text on "Substantial Interest" were also annexed tothat document.  One outcome of the Doha Ministerial Meeting was paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial
Decision  on Implementation-Issues and Concerns (W T/MIN/(01)/17) relating to this matter which
reads as follows:
"Noting the issues raised in the report of the Chairperson of the Committee on Market Access
(WT/GC/50) concerning the meaning to be given to the phrase "substantial interest" in
paragraph 2(d) of Article XIII of the GATT 1994, the Market Access Committee is directedto give further consideration to the issue and make recommendations to the General Council
as expeditiously as possible but in any event not later than the end of 2002."
2. Work undertaken over the year
2. The Committee has discussed this implementation issue in the context of 3 formal meetings
(15 March, 12 June and 23 September - minutes of  which are in G/MA/M/31 to 33 and 33/Add.1(to
be issued)) and 5 informal meetings (26 April, 26 July, 7 October, 29 October and
21 November 2002).  In terms of documentation submitted in connection with this subject, St. Lucia,
the proponent of this implementation issue, ma de two submissions circulated in documents
G/MA/W/30 and G/MA/W/30/Add.1.  A statement made by Ecuador at the Committee's formal
meeting of 12 June 2002 was circulated in document G/MA/W/32.  Sri Lanka circulated a non-paper
at the 21 November 2002 informal meeting of the Committee, and the Secretariat prepared two
documents which were circulated  as JOB(02)/34 and JOB(02)/92.
3. A number of delegations expressed sympathy at the difficulties faced by small and
medium-sized economies.  Some Members felt that the Chairman should pursue discussions in order
to clarify the three points identified in the former Chairperson's report circulated in WT/GC/50 as
requiring further consultations.   However,  Ecuador indicated that WTO jurisprudence had already
interpreted Article XIII:2(d) of GATT 1994 and that any revision of this interpretation would alter the
balance of rights and obligations of Members under that Article. While other delegations appreciatedG/MA/119
Page 2
the concerns raised by Ecuador, certain of them stated that the problem was precisely that smaller
economies under the current interpretation of Article XIII:2(d)  had no rights. St. Lucia stated that her
delegation's proposal was not meant to be retrospective and would not apply to existing quota
arrangements.  Instead it referred to future quota allocations thereby taking account of expressed
Members' concerns including those raised by Ecuador. One delegation viewed this implementationissue as one which would result in some Members benefitting at the expense of others, while another
delegation noted that quotas in themselves benefitted some Members at the expense of others.  Certain
delegations suggested that this issue might be more suitably addressed in the Committee on
Agriculture in Special Session especially as proposals on tariff rate quota administration were being
tabled in that forum.  However, the opinion of others was that this issue was a systemic one which
should continue to be addressed in this Committee.  A point was made that linkage with
Article XXVIII had resulted in difficulties in the pre-Doha process and any such linkage in the currentexercise would cause problems.
4. There was a divergence of views as to the recommendations to be made to the General
Council.  Some delegations felt that the Committee should continue to work on this implementation
issue, especially in light of the recent submissi on by Sri Lanka. Additionally, one delegation noted
that  implementation issues were an integral part of the work  programme established in the Doha
Ministerial Declaration, and were consequently of equal importance as negotiations being held in
other areas of work.  Moreover some delegations believed that failure by the Committee to submit
recommendations to the General Council would amount to the lack of fulfilment of the mandate given
by that body to the Committee. While, some other delegations believed that the Committee hadthoroughly exhausted discussions on the issue and should report accordingly to the General Council.
3. Conclusion
5. In light of the above, the Committee reports that there is a lack of consensus on the
recommendations to be made to the General Council on this implementation issue.  It refers the matter
to the General Council for consideration.
__________