RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/29
10 July 2001
(01-3423)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF 15  AND 27 JUNE 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Yair Shiran (Israel)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Submission of HS96 Documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.25) ...........................................1
2. Procedures for the Introduction of HS2002 Changes........................................................33. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ..........................................5
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.11).........................5
(b) Progress report on the work  done by the Secretariat ..............................................................5
(c) A Multilateral Appraisal of the operation of the Integrated Data Base and related technical
assistance activit ies .......................................................................................................... .......7
4. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database (CTS).................................................................8
5. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........9
(a) Situation of schedules of WT O Members (G/MA/W/23/Rev.1) ............................................9
(b) Date of the next meeting.................................................................................................... ...10
Introduction
The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1563 on 5 June 2001.  An annotated agenda indicating the documents needed for the
meeting was circulated as Job No. 4024.  The agenda was adopted with the additions of items 5(a) and
5(b).
1. Submission of HS96 Documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.25)
1.1 The Chairman stated that according to document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.25 which reflected the
present situation concerning the submission of the required documentation, it could be noted that 21
Members, whether currently under waiver or not, remained pending due to ongoing consultationsand/or negotiations.
1.2 He reported that informal consultations had continued on the subject of the HS96
transposition exercise.  Since the last formal meeting on 21 May 2001,  a further informal meeting had
been held on 21 May 2001 during which the same process of reviewing each Member continued, withthe informal list "Revision 8" as the basis for the discussions.  He considered this process to be useful
in achieving progress and recommended that further meetings of this kind be held between now and
the next formal meeting in September.   A new revision of the informal list giving the situation of
HS96 submissions would be issued together with the fax convening the next meeting.
1.3 The delegate of Egypt informed the Committee that her country had already provided an
answer to the questions raised by the Australian authorities regarding butter and stearic acid inG/MA/M/29
Page 2
connection with the documentation submitted by  Egypt in document G/MA/TAR/RS/50/Rev.1, with
the hope that the explanations given by Egypt would satisfy Australia.
1.4 The Chairman reminded delegations to send copies of their correspondence relating to HS96
to the Secretariat.1.5 The delegate of Australia confirmed that his authorities had received the communication from
Egypt and said that from an initial examination of the responses, they felt that further bilateral
consultations with Egypt on this matter would be necessary.
1.6 The representative of New Zealand informed the Committee that his delegation was very
close to finalizing New Zealand's Schedule XIII for HS96 rectification work, which had been slowed
down recently since the documentation had not been supplied from the capital in the correct electronic
format to transmit to the Secretariat. His delegation was aimed to rectify the situation and hoped to
submit the full documentation within the next two weeks; the documentation would reflect the
negotiations carried out with the three delegations concerned.
1.7 Referring to document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.25, the delegate of Morocco pointed out that the
date of submission of the Moroccan documentation needed to be corrected to read 04.12.2000.
1.8 The representative of Argentina informed the Committee that his delegation had replied to the
United States and to the European Communities on 21 March and 12 June 2001 respectively.1.9 The representative of Paraguay indicated that his authorities had replied to the delegations
that had raised reservations and were now awaiting a reply from them.1.10 The representative of Uruguay noted that his delegation still needed to reply to the European
Communities and that it would do so within the next few days.1.11 The representative of the European Communities confirmed that his delegation had received
communications from Argentina and Paraguay and was still expecting a reply from Uruguay.
Moreover, his delegation was eager to see New Zealand's documentation in order to verify that the
agreement reached was correctly reflected.  He hoped to settle all the remaining problems as soon as
possible.
1.12 The delegate of Australia urged the delegation of the United States to reply in the very near
future so that the negotiations on Australia's HS96 documentation could be concluded.1.13 The delegate of El Salvador stated that as far as her country was concerned, there were still
three replies pending: a communication had been sent by her authorities very recently to Canada; her
delegation was expecting a reply from the United States and, as far as Australia was concerned, their
reply had been held up because of a problem of translation. She expressed the hope to solve those
three cases in the very near future.
1.14 The representative of Canada indicated that his delegation looked forward to receiving the
communication promised by El Salvador and encourag ed other delegations that were in the process of
finalizing their work on their documentation to complete it; he added that his delegation was ready to
lift the reservations as soon as  the required changes were notified to the Secretariat.
1.15 The delegate of Morocco referred to the two lists of questions that the European Communities
had forwarded to his delegation and to which replies had been given;  moreover, reservations had
been made by three other delegations, i.e by Australia, Canada and the United States.  He pointed out
that these reservations had been made because one of the concordance tables had been missing in theG/MA/M/29
Page 3
submission of HS96 documentation by Morocco.  He informed the Committee that his delegation had
submitted the missing documentation which had been circulated by the Secretariat.  He therefore
hoped that the three delegations  mentioned would be in a position to lift their reservations.
1.16 The Committee took note of the statements made and the Chairman  suggested that the
Committee continue to examine the situation of individual members in informal sessions. It was  so
agreed.
2. Procedures for the Introduction of HS2002 Changes
2.1 The Chairman recalled that at the last formal Committee meeting of 21 March 2001, the
Chairman had provided an update of the situation concerning the proposal to have new procedures to
implement HS2002 changes as many delegations had ex pressed an interest in moving ahead in this
direction.   At that time, revisions of Job N o. 5247 had been issued and discussed, and had been
generally well received by Members.  Furthermore, since the last meeting, two more informal
meetings had been held with more input and feedback from Members.  Job 5247/Add.1/Rev.2 had
been further revised in Jobs 5247/Add.1/Rev.3 a nd Rev.4 (Job(01)/72/Rev.1). In addition, another
draft had been circulated the previous day in G/MA/W/27.  Thus, the Chairman believed that theefforts which had been put by Members in this exercise would ultimately enable the Committee to go
ahead with procedures for HS2002 changes.  He added that the discussions which took place in the
informal meeting had indicated movement towards consensus but capitals would still need more time
to examine the document which had just been amended.  The chairman hoped to move towards
approval at the meeting and suggested to suspend it for this agenda item and to reconvene in aboutone week's time, to formally endorse the Decision in its final format.  The Secretariat would produce a
version in a "decision format" in the next few days, so that the meeting could reconvene on 25 June.
The would allow enough time for the Decision to be  addressed in the Council for Trade in Goods and
the General Council at their meetings in July.
2.2 The representative of the United States indicated that the procedures suggested by the
Chairman were acceptable to his delegation.  On the assumption that the meeting of 25 June would
approve this document, he wished to inform the Committee that his authorities had completed the task
of assembling the materials necessary to submit their HS2002 changes and that they were currently in
the review process in the legislative branch.  His delegation was confident to be in a position to
submit the documentation in a month's time.
2.3 The delegate of Australia stated that his delegation could support the document and the
process which the chairman outlined to move towards the adoption of a final decision.  He understood
that while the document would be sent to the capitals for approval the Secretariat would draft a
Decision on this matter and was wondering whether it would not be possible to obtain the text of the
Decision to send it to capitals at the same time. He further welcomed the news given by the delegateof the United States concerning the submission of its HS2002 documentation.  He informed the
Committee that his country was in a similar position but was unfortunately not able to give any
specific date regarding the submission.
2.4 The Chairman  confirmed that the same text as contained in the document would be prepared
in a Decision format and would be circulated to all Members as soon as possible.2.5 The Committee took note of the statements made and suspended the meeting for this agenda
item until 27 June 2001.
2.6 On 27 June 2001, the meeting resumed.G/MA/M/29
Page 4
2.7 The Chairman recalled that this meeting was a continuation of the meeting which took place on
15 June 2001.  This resumed meeting had been announced by fax on 21 June 2001, along with document
G/MA/W/28 containing the procedures in the form of a WTO Decision.  The Chairman pointed out that
with respect to document G/MA/W/28, there had been no change in substance of the procedures, only
with respect to formatting the document as a Decision.  In addition, he pointed out a typographical errorin the document related to the first sentence:  the reference to "Article IV:1" should be changed to
"Article IV:2".
2.8 The Chairman believed that delegations had the opportunity to examine the document in its final
format, and stated that the purpose of the meeting was hopefully to reach consensus on the final text, so
that it could be forwarded to the CTG the following week.
2.9 Referring to page 4 of the document, the representative of Mexico pointed out an error
concerning the text of footnote 8 which in his view should refer to the paragraph at the bottom of page 3
and not "at the top of this page".
2.10 The delegate of Argentina informed the Committee that she had received instructions from the
capital that the examination of the proposed text by the competent authorities had not been completed and
therefore, her delegation was not in a position to join a consensus on the approval of  the text.
Nevertheless, depending on the proposed course of action, her delegation could agree with a proposed
date for acceptance of the text but on an ad referendum basis  subject to the receipt of a position from her
authorities.
2.11 The delegate of Japan said that his delegation could go along with the proposal made by the
Chairman and stated that in order to streamline the entire work of introducing HS2002 changes into WTO
schedules, Japan did not have any objection to the emerging consensus on the proposed HS 2002
procedures, especially the question of which part  of the loose-leaf text was to be subject to
verification.  Japan would follow the procedures once they have been approved, for example by
submitting any necessary documentation for electronic verification.  However, his authorities were
required to undertake domestic legal procedures to make such modifications and rectifications to its
schedule legally effective.  As stated in the previous informal meeting, his delegation was still looking
at their constraints concerning the format of text to be certified by the Director-General.  Although
they were making efforts to find a better way to address their problem, if the problem continued to
exist, Japan could not help but submit its entire schedule for certification in order to incorporate
HS2002 changes.  He asked for Members' understanding on their domestic constraints, but could go
along with the present procedures.
2.12 The delegate of Canada said that his delegation could accept the proposal to accept the text ad
referendum but with reference to the statement made by Japan, he hoped that it would continue
seeking ways to address the problem internally,  because if Japan would submit its entire schedule,
this would pose a problem to his authorities.  They  would not be able to agree to sign off on HS2002
changes because they would have to go through the entire document which would be difficult and
time-consuming; the procedures were only designed to go through the HS2002 changes, so while his
delegation appreciated Japan's past and current efforts he encouraged Japan to continue its efforts toavoid such a situation later.
2.13 Referring to the question whether the entire schedule or part of the loose-leaf schedule should
be submitted or not, the delegate of Korea reported that after having consulted his capital on this
matter, they preferred that the entire loose-leaf schedule be submitted.  However, given the
importance that the procedures be adopted, his delegation could show flexibility and could join the
consensus on this matter.G/MA/M/29
Page 5
2.14 The delegate of Egypt reiterated his conviction about the need to introduce the HS2002
changes into the schedules.  His delegation believed that the decision would further facilitate and
simplify the introduction of those changes.  Electronic verification would certainly speed up the
process.  Developing countries might however face some difficulties in verifying their schedules;  for
example Egypt had introduced HS96 changes to its schedule in the year 2000 and required waiversduring this process.  Egypt accepted the maintenance of the waiver which helped with the verification
procedures.  His delegation indicated they could go along on an ad referendum  basis.
2.15 The Chairman suggested that, as one delegation needed further time to examine the document,
and if Members agreed, the Committee would approve the document on an ad referendum basis and that
delegation would have until 2 July 2001 to indicate they could not join the consensus; otherwise the text
of Decision would be deemed to be approved.  He added that the correction proposed by Mexico wouldbe incorporated in the text.
2.16 The representative of the European Communities thanked the delegations of Japan and Korea for
their efforts in joining the consensus on this important issue, and he understood that there was only one
country, Argentina, that needed internal consultations, thus the Decision was adopted  ad referendum for
Argentina and the deadline of 2 July concerned only Argentina.
2.17 The Chairman confirmed that the ad referendum approach was offered to Argentina, unless other
delegations requested it as well.
2.18 In concluding, the Chairman  reiterated his proposal that since one delegation needed further time
to examine the document, Members could agree that the Committee approve the decision at this meeting
on an ad referendum basis and that the delegation concerned would come back by the close of business
on 2 July 2001 to inform the Secretariat whether  it could not join the consensus otherwise the decision
would be deemed to be approved.  It was so agreed.
3. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB)
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.11)
3.1 The Chairman stated that document G/MA/IDB /2/Rev.11 had been circulated to all Members
giving the situation as of 5 June 2001 with regard to the PC IDB submissions.  There were 82
Members and four   acceding countries that had provided IDB submissions at that time. Since the last
revision of the Status of Submissions, four additional Members and two acceding countries hadsubmitted documentation for the first time to the IDB.  Since the document had been finalized, new
submissions had been received from Hungary and China on imports for the year 2000. He reminded
delegations that the deadline for furnishing 2001 tariff information was 30 March 2001.
3.2 The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
(b) Progress report on the work done by the Secretariat
3.3 The Secretariat gave a progress report on the work done on the IDB. The report was available
to delegations at the meeting, and would be faxed to Heads of Delegations after the meeting. With
respect to IDB dissemination, the Secretariat had continued to load information onto the IDB Internetsite on a monthly basis and as of 31 May 2001, there were 244 country periods on the site, of which
225 were in the approved area. Sixty-five Members and two acceding countries or territories were
represented.  New passwords for the IDB Internet File Transfer Facility had been implemented on
11 June 2001.  These passwords had been communicated to Heads of Delegations on 27 April 2001.
Release 6 of the IDB CD-ROM had been distributed to Heads of Delegations on 13 June andcontained tariff and import information for 185 country periods, representing 62 Members or accedingG/MA/M/29
Page 6
countries and territories.  As usual, two copies had been supplied to each delegation and extra copies
would be available on request.
3.4 As concerned the use of IDB information, since March 2001 the Statistics Division had been
collaborating with the Development Division on a report on preferential schemes for the Committee
on Trade and Development.  At the request of the Director of the Development Division, the
Committee had been informed at its 23 May meeting on data requirements and pointed out that certain
crucial data elements were missing from the IDB. The Division was also collaborating with the
Economic Research and Analysis Division in quantifying  the amount of world trade that could be
covered by multilateral tariff negotiations at the request of a WTO Member. That request had been
initiated following the release of the Secretariat Special Study on Market Access.
3.5 As concerned the use of information from the Trade Policy Review Division, it was noted that
trade and tariff files received in the context of th eir work had been regularly sent to the Statistics
Division. Those data sets had been treated as unofficial IDB submissions until authorization had been
obtained from the Member concerned. Whereas explicit authorization from a Member had been
requested in the past, for about a year now, the letters sent by the Trade Policy Review Divisionrequesting information included an automatic request for authorization of the use of data in the IDB.
That procedure concerned all files received since the end of last year.  The Secretariat was working
through the backlog of a number of TPR files that could be used for the IDB, but for which
Members' approval was required. In the context of the Multilateral Appraisal, all Members for which
the Secretariat had identified relevant informati on in the TPR files had been reminded in the follow-
up letters by the Chairman, in order to grant authorization to use this data for the IDB.
3.6 As concerned technical assistance activities, since the last Committee on Market Access
meeting, a regional seminar on the IDB for eight English speaking African countries had taken place.
Instead of Namibia, as previously mentioned, the seminar was held in Cape Town.  After the seminar,the two statisticians from the Integrated Data Base Section of the Statistics Division involved moved
to Pretoria for an additional day of in depth consultations on the IDB with the South African
authorities. Through the seminar, a number of national data sets were found to be suitable for the IDB.
Since the seminar, new data from South Africa had been submitted.  It was recalled that the next event
would be a regional seminar for 20 Central and Eastern European countries to be held in Prague
during 25-27 June.  As with the African seminar, part of the time would be devoted to a hands on
workshop where the three IDB staff involved would go over, with each participant, their nationalimport and tariff information. Secretariat staff members would then stay on for further consultations
with the Czech authorities. Mrs. de Verteuil would be presenting the IDB in a joint Singapore-WTO
market access seminar taking place in Singapore during the week following this meeting.  National
missions were scheduled for Pakistan and India in July and August respectively.  Additional requests
were under consideration for Chile for teleconferencing; for Chad for its Brussels based mission andwhich the Secretariat intended to extend to all Brussels based WTO representatives; and for Burundi,
Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, the Dominican Republic, Mongolia and Sri Lanka.
3.7 The Secretariat had also had further contacts with the Inter-American Development Bank
regarding the FTAA Hemispheric Database. It was planned that a presentation of that database wouldtake place in July. Delegations would be kept informed on the exact date and place of that
presentation.
3.8 As concerned software developments, it was reported to the Committee that a new
version (2.1) of the IDB Reporting Tools in the three official language versions had been posted on
the Internet site on 28 May 2001. The new version contained a technical correction and another minor
modification. With respect to the IDB Internet Analysis Facility further functionality had been
developed for calculation of trade aggregates, trade selection criteria and saving and re-using queries.G/MA/M/29
Page 7
The International Computing Centre (ICC) was curr ently setting up the infrastructure to make the
application available to Members via the Internet.
3.9 The representative of Canada stated that his delegation was encouraged that Members were
asking for technical assistance. It had been demonstrated by other cases that technical assistance was
leading to real results in terms of obtaining submissions. He thanked the Secretariat for its work and
efforts in this important area, and for improving the IDB and the software.
3.10 The Committee took note of the statements made.
(c) A Multilateral Appraisal of the operation of the Integrated Data Base and related technical
assistance activities
3.11 The Chairman stated that after agreement at its last formal meeting on 18 December 2000, the
Committee had scheduled a series of informal meetings on the "Multilateral Appraisal of the
Operation of the IDB and Related Technical Assistance Activities".  Three regions had already been
covered: 19 March 2001, North and Latin America; 15 May 2001, European region, including the
Baltic States and the Commonwealth of Independent States; and 11 June 2001, Africa.
3.12 To support the discussion at those regional informal meetings the Secretariat had prepared
documents G/MA/IDB/W/8 to 10. Following a sugges tion made at the second regional meeting the
Secretariat had compiled a 'Checklist of issues' iden tified so far during the first two meetings on the
Multilateral Appraisal of the IDB. It listed problems encountered by Members in complying with theirIDB notification requirements as well as ideas and remarks made by delegations which could help
improve IDB participation. That list had been circulated at the regional meeting on Africa, and an
updated version, taking into account the discussions at the regional meeting on Africa, was available
today.
3.13 The last regional meeting, covering Asia and the Middle East was scheduled for 4 July 2001.
The documentation for that meeting was under preparation and would be issued soon.
3.14 The Chairman stated that in the meeting on the European region
, which included the Baltic
States and the Commonwealth of Independent St ates, 12 out of the 19 WTO Members concerned
contributed to the discussion. He summarized the main points as follows: with respect to submitting
the information several delegations mentioned the coordination efforts that had to be undertaken withthe various national institutions involved. The cooperation and assistance extended by the Secretariat
to national compilers and delegations during the preparation of IDB submissions had been
appreciated. Some delegations pointed out resource constraints in fulfilling all WTO notification
requirements and one delegation reported problems in submitting their detailed import statistics
because of confidentiality constraints. As concerned technical assistance, many delegations werelooking forward to the forthcoming IDB seminar in Prague for Eastern European countries. In
addition, the delegation of the European Communities stated that technical assistance on statistical
issues was available for countries acceding to the European Union.
3.15 In the meeting on Africa eight out of the 41 Members covered participated.  Seven Members
made presentations. A number of problems were highlighted. For example, the small size of Geneva
based delegations and the difficulty to attend all WTO meetings. The importance of internal
coordination within government services was also stressed.  The designation of a national focal point
or special group for IDB issues was considered very  important. However, great efforts would still be
required in order provide regular and timely submissions to the IDB. Another problem cited was thetranslation into an official WTO language. Other difficulties encountered included the concordance
between import and tariff data and the submissions of national correlations. It was acknowledged that
the cooperation and assistance extended by the Secretariat to national compilers and delegationsG/MA/M/29
Page 8
during the preparation of IDB submissions was ap preciated and had improved IDB reporting.  The
importance of technical assistance activities was stressed  by several Members and the recent IDB
workshop in South Africa was very much appreciated. It was suggested that the Secretariat could play
a more pro active role in data collection activities in the region. It was also suggested that it could be
helpful if one developing Member who had made a positive report on IDB participation could shareits experiences with the Committee. Five delegations from Latin America, who were not able to
participate in the first regional meeting on the Americas made contributions at subsequent meetings.
With respect to follow-up activities, letters had been sent to all Members covered in the first two
regional meetings. The letters included a factual summary of the discussion. In addition, those
delegations who did not make a contribution were invited to do so at subsequent Multilateral
Appraisal meetings. For Members not having yet made any submission to the IDB, the letter included
indications of supplementary sources of information that could be of use in this area. Similar followup letters were being prepared for Africa.
3.16 As indicated in document G/MA/IDB/4, the Secretariat would prepare a report of all the
regional meetings for the consideration of the Committee on Market Access after the conclusion of
the Multilateral Appraisal of all regions.
3.17 The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
4. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database (CTS)
4.1 The Secretariat gave a progress report on the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database
project.  As concerned the tariff concessions, the Secretariat had consolidated the tariff concessions of
114 Members, including Switzerland. One hundred and seven out of 114 files had been finalized.
Outstanding issues with respect to the Members' tariff concessions handled by the Secretariat related
to the latest WTO Members' file, Croatia, which had been processed in May and which was still in the
approval period; the comments forwarded by Bulgaria, the Philippines and Venezuela had to beincorporated into their database files; and three Members (India, Singapore and Uruguay) indicated
that comments would be forthcoming with respect to their database files.
4.2 With respect to the Members who had committed to processing their tariff Schedules
themselves for inclusion in the CTS database, the files of Canada, the European Communities,
Hungary, Japan, Norway, and the United States had been finalized. The CTS tariff submissions of
Australia and Iceland were in draft form.  The CT S tariff submissions of New Zealand and Poland had
not yet been submitted to the Secretariat.
4.3 As concerned agricultural commitments, the Secretariat recalled that it was possible to go
ahead with the processing of the agricultural co mmitments of developing Members thanks to the
generosity of the United Kingdom Government.  All the files had been sent to Members for approval.The last file was sent on the 15 May 2001. The Secretariat had received comments from four
Members (Bulgaria, Brazil, Thailand and Nicaragua) and their database files had been modified
accordingly. Two Members (Philippines and Venezuela) had requested an extension of the approval
period, which was still pending.
4.4 As concerned the Members who, similarly to the tariff concessions, had committed to
processing their agricultural commitments themse lves for inclusion in the CTS database, the
Secretariat reported that files of the European Communities, Hungary and Switzerland had been
finalized. The Secretariat had completed the processing of the agricultural commitments of Japan.
Comments from Japan on their files had been received and were being incorporated in the finaldatabase. The submissions of Norway and Australia were in draft form. The United States had
forwarded a draft submission including export subsidies and domestic support. Their tariff quotaG/MA/M/29
Page 9
information would be submitted within a few weeks. Canada, Iceland, Poland and New Zealand had
not yet submitted their database files to the Secretariat.
4.5 On resources, the funds supplied by the United Kingdom for processing the tariff and
agricultural commitments of developing Members and least developed Members had been fully used.The Secretariat had managed to find some temporary funds to extend for a short period the contract of
the last remaining CTS statistician to make some t echnical adjustments to the files so that they could
support the HS 96-2002 transposition exercise, if so required.  In the context of the 2002 budget
exercise, one post to enable the Statistics Division to effectively support the Consolidated Tariff
Schedules database had been requested.  Discussions with the United Kingdom on the possible
funding of activities to enhance the user friendliness of the database and provide a full range of
analytical facilities for users had been initiated.
4.6 The representative of Venezuela stated that with respect to the extension requested by
Venezuela for the agricultural commitments, her de legation had already received the comments from
her capital. However, the authorities concerned had encountered a technical problem when opening
the files.  Once this problem was resolved, the files would then be transmitted to the Secretariat.
4.7 The representative of Poland stated that with respect to both parts of the CTS of Poland, the
work was in the final stage of preparation. His delegation hoped to deliver it very soon to the
Secretariat. He thanked the Secretariat for the help and the assistance his delegation had received
during the past months and hoped that it would continue.
4.8 The representative of New Zealand expressed his delegation's gratitude to the Secretariat for
its useful input and in helping with this exercise and task.  He referred to the informal meeting of the
Committee on 21 May at which one of his colleagues had informed the Committee on the status of
New Zealand and he reiterated that New Zealand had committed itself to complete its contributions tothe CTS exercise, both tariff concessions and agricultural commitments, not later than the end of July.
Early in May, his delegation had responded to a letter sent by the Director-General of the WTO in the
early part of the year.  He stated that they were committed to the production of that material by the
deadline at the latest.  The letter sent to the Director-General also stated that if some work could be
completed before the end of July, it would immediately be submitted to the Secretariat to be checked.
But, in any case the entire package would be completed and submitted by end of July 2001.
4.9 The representative of the European Communities recalled the importance this purpose had for
the European Communities and thanked the Secretariat for the reports made, as well as for all the
work done.  As his delegation had already stated he reminded all delegations of the importance of
finalizing their contributions, which were either incomplete or awaiting government approval.  His
delegation took note of the relatively encouraging information, which had just been given byVenezuela, Poland and New Zealand and thanked them.  For the record, he wished to report that the
fact that the results of the CTS could not be distributed was somewhat disappointing for his
delegation.  He hoped that this could be done some time in the autumn.
4.10 The Committee took note of the statements made.
5. Other Business
(a) Situation of schedules of WTO Members (G/MA/W/23/Rev.1)
5.1 The Chairman recalled to Members that at the Market Access Committee meeting of
June 1999, it was agreed that Annex II of documen t G/MA/63, setting out the situation of schedules of
WTO Members, would be updated periodically.  In this respect, document G/MA/W/23 had been
issued in June 2000 and had also been recently updated.  The current document on the status ofG/MA/M/29
Page 10
Members' schedules incorporated information up to and including 31 May 2001.  He hoped that
Members would take note of document G/MA/W/23/Rev.1 and would find the information useful for
their work in this area.
5.2 The delegate of Turkey pointed out that the number of Turkey's schedule was erroneously
mentioned as XXVII (27) whereas to his knowledge, the correct number was XXXVII (37).5.3 The Committee took note of the statements made.
(b) Date of the next meeting
5.4 The Chairman stated that the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled for
26 September 2001, subject to confirmation.
5.5 Before adjourning the meeting the Chairman informed the Committee that in view of his
upcoming departure from Geneva, this would be his last meeting as Chairman.  However, he was
confident that the Committee would be in the good hands of Mrs Lourdes Berrig who would serve as
Chairperson of this Committee.   He also thanked all the Members of the committee and theSecretariat for their kind cooperation.
5.6 The representative of Canada, also on behalf of other delegates, thanked the Chairman for his
efforts and hard work he carried out particularly on HS2002.
__________