RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/30
13 December 2001
(01-6321)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF 26 SEPTEMBER 2001
Chairperson: Mrs. Lourdes Berrig (Philippines)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including
Factual Information on Waivers Expiring on 31 October 2001 (G/MA/SPEC/18) ............ 1
2. Submission of HS96 Documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.26 + Corr.1)................................ 2
3. HS2002 Changes Procedures (WT/L/407) ............................................................................... 2
4. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB)............................................... 3
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.12).........................3
(b) Progress report on the work  done by the Secretariat ..............................................................3
(c) A Multilateral Appraisal of the operation of the Integrated Data Base and related technical
assistance activities (G/MA/IDB/W/12) .................................................................................5
5. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database.................................................................................. 9
6. Draft Report (2001) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods ........................ 11
7. Other Business Committee ..................................................................................................... .1 1
(a) Date of the next meeting.................................................................................................... ...11
Introduction
The Chairperson  stated that the proposed agenda for the meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1622 on 14 September 2001.  An annotated agenda indicating the documents needed forthe meeting was circulated as Job No. (01)/134.  The agenda was adopted with the addition of
item 7(a).
1. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Co uncil for Trade in Goods including Factual
Information on Waivers Expiring on 31 October 2001 (G/MA/SPEC/18)
1.1 The Chairperson drew the committee's attention to document G/MA/SPEC/18 which
contained the draft periodic report of the Committee.   This report, which would be finalized in the
light of discussion today, would be submitted to th e Council for Trade in Goods for examination at its
meeting of 5 October 2001.  The report containe d in its Annex, a table summarizing factual
information on the waivers under process submitted by the Members concerned; it concerned only thewaivers related to the transposition of pre-Uruguay Round schedules into the Harmonized System
which would expire on 31 October 2001;  if the requests were approved, the waivers would be
extended until 30 April 2002.  These extensions concerned Nicaragua and Sri Lanka.
1.2 The requests and the draft decisions related to these extensions had been circulated in
documents G/L/477, G/L/481, G/C/W/298 + Corr.1, G/ C/W/299 and would be considered by the
Council for Trade in Goods at its meeting of 5 Oct ober and then forwarded to the General Council for
adoption.G/MA/M/30
Page 2
1.3 The representative of Sri Lanka informed the Committee that although, his country had
concluded the negotiations with three of the five Members with which negotiations had been initiated,
his delegation had recently also reached an agreement with the European Communities; this
agreement was being finalized and would be subsequently forwarded to the Secretariat.  He thanked
the European Communities for their constructive and flexible approach  towards the negotiationswhich enabled his authorities  to conclude the long standing negotiations.  He hoped that the
remaining negotiations with the United States would be also be concluded soon.
1.4 The representative of the United States indicated that his delegation had also seen the
proposals made by the Government of Sri Lanka and, subject to the submission of the appropriate
documentation reflecting those positions to the Secretariat, his delegation could also drop its
reservation on Sri Lanka's proposed changes.  As far as his delegation was concerned, it was up to theSri Lanka delegation to decide whether it needed to  go to the Council for Trade in Goods for a further
extension of its waiver.
1.5 The Committee took note of the statements and the Chairperson suggested to forward the
requests to the Council for Trade in Goods taking in to account that the delegation of Sri Lanka might
take the necessary action between now and the Council for Trade in Goods.
2. Submission of HS96 Documentation (G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.26 + Corr.1)
2.1 The Chairperson stated that according to document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.26 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 consultations
and/or negotiations.
2.2 She reported that informal consultations had continued on the subject of the HS96
transposition exercise.  Since the last formal meeting on 27 June 2001,  informal consultations hadbeen held on 24 September 2001 during which the same process of reviewing each Member
continued, with the informal list "Revision 9" as the basis for the discussions.  She 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.   A new revision of the informal list detailing the situation
of HS96 submissions would be issued together with the fax convening the next meeting.
2.3 The delegate of Australia noted that since the informal meeting his delegation had finalized it
examination of the additional documentation presented by Morocco and could withdraw its
reservation;  his delegation had also considered Paraguay's reply  to Australia's queries related to the
implementation of HS96 and letters confirming wit hdrawal of Australia's reservations had been sent
to those delegations.  Consultations were being pursued with Egypt and with the United States with a
view to concluding them soon.
2.4 The Committee took note of the statements made and the Chairperson  suggested that the
Committee continue to examine the situation of individual members in informal sessions. It was  so
agreed.
3. HS2002 Changes Procedures (WT/L/407)
3.1 The Chairperson recalled that after a long and somewhat intense process, the Committee had
finally been able to agree on new procedures for the introduction of HS2002 changes to WTO
schedules.  This proposal had been forwarded to the Council for Trade in Goods, and eventually to the
General Council for ultimate adoption after the last Committee meeting.  She informed the Committeethat on 18 July 2001, the General Council approved these procedures and the Decision had been
circulated in document WT/L/407.  Thus, she believed the Committee had put in place the appropriateG/MA/M/30
Page 3
procedures that should allow the Members to move forward on this subject.  However, to date there
had been no submissions of HS2002 documentation to the Secretariat.  She suggested to keep this
matter under review so that the Committee could take stock of the situation, as Members moved
closer to the foreseen implementation date of 1 January 2000.
The Committee took note of the statement.
4. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB)
(a) Status of submission of the requir ed documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.12)
4.1 The Chairperson stated that document G/MA /IDB/2/Rev.12 had been circulated to all
Members giving the situation as of 13 September 2001 with regard to the PC IDB submissions.  There
were 85 Members and six   acceding countries that had provided IDB submissions at that time. Since
the last revision of the Status of Submissions, three additional Members and two acceding countries
had submitted documentation for the first time to the IDB.  Compared to the situation in October 2000
eleven new Members and four more countries in accession were now represented in the IDB. Since
the document had been finalized, new submissions had been received from the United States on
imports for the year 2000, from the Czech Republic on bound and applied tariffs for 2001, from Chileon imports for the year 2000 and bound tariffs for 2001. The Secretariat had also received from
Hong Kong, China imports for the year 2000.  Due to a technical error, this had not been reflected in
the report but it would be corrected in the next revision of the document. Moreover, Zimbabwe had
also submitted its import from 1997 to 2000 and applied tariffs from 1997 to 2001. She reminded
delegations that the deadline for furnishing 2001 tariff information was 30 September 2001.
The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
(b) Progress report on the work done by the Secretariat
4.2 The Secretariat gave a progress report on the work done on the IDB. She informed the
Committee that Mr. J. Richtering had assumed  the duties as Chief of the IDB Section in the Statistics
Division and that all correspondence on IDB should be directed to him. 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 Internet
site on a monthly basis and as of 31 August 2001, ther e were 284 country periods on the site, of which
254 were in the approved area. Sixty-nine Members and five acceding countries or territories were
represented.
4.3 With respect to the use of IDB information since June 2001, the Statistics Division had been
collaborating with the Development Division on a report on preferential schemes for the Committee
on Trade and Development.  Due to gaps in the information in the IDB, the UNCTAD "Trains"
database was also used.  The report would be s ubmitted to the October meeting of the Committee on
Trade and Development.  The calculations were made at the tariff line level, but the data were
presented at the aggregate level only.  It should be noted that combining preference information from
other data bases with the IDB data involved considerable reformatting work for the Secretariat.  The
work would be greatly facilitated if preferential data could be submitted as part of IDB notifications.
4.4 Data on bound and applied duties for fish products had been prepared for a document to be
presented by WTO staff from the Agriculture and Commodities Division at the OECD Fisheries
Committee in October.  The data covered a range of developed and developing countries.  For bound
rates the trade negotiations data base had been used.  Data would be presented at the 4 digit HS level.G/MA/M/30
Page 4
4.5 An update on the LDC market access study that had been prepared earlier this year for the
LDC conference in Brussels had been made for the Technical Cooperation Division.  The update
concerned the inclusion of additional new preference schemes for LDCs.
4.6 Data on the imports into selected markets from "small economies" at the HS 4 digit level had
been prepared for the Commonwealth Secretariat as  input into an internal study for one of its
members.
4.7 Estimates of customs duty collected by OECD Member countries and developing Member
countries based on MFN and GSP rates had been prepared for the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
4.8 With respect to external certified users of the IDB, the World Bank contacted the Secretariat
to clear the inclusion of selected IDB and TPR data in a Trade, Tariff and Production database that
would be made available through the Bank's external website.  The data would be expressed in terms
of the International Standard Industrial Classification at either 3 or 4 digit level.  Since the data would
not be expressed either in the HS, or at a detailed level, clearance was given.  However, the Bank, at
the Secretariat's request, would include a disclaimer disassociating the WTO from both themethodology used to convert the HS based tariff line level IDB data to the ISIC nomenclature and to
calculate average tariffs.
4.9 With respect to Trade Policy Review information 24 Members' TPR files had been approved
for use in the IDB.  Of these, four files could not be used because they were not complete.  Newsubmissions had been requested. Authorization to use the TPR files of 15 Members was still
outstanding.  These Members were requested in writing by the Chairperson to authorize the use of
their files for the IDB, either as part of the Multilateral Appraisal process, or through an earlier letter.
4.10 Starting about a year ago letters from the TPR Division requesting information included an
automatic request for authorization to use the data for the IDB.  This procedure had netted TPR files
from four Members.  One Member had refused authorization.
4.11 Regarding technical assistance since the last meeting of the Committee on Market Access a
regional seminar for Central and Eastern European countries was held in Prague between the 25 and
27 of June.  Eighteen Members and countries in accession participated.  Secretariat staff stayed one
further day for consultations with the Czech auth orities. The IDB was also presented in a joint
Singapore-WTO market access seminar in Singapore at the end of June.
4.12 National missions had been scheduled for Pakistan and India in October but due to recent
events, the Pakistani mission had been postponed.
4.13 An opportunity to collaborate with another international agency had come up.  The Technical
Assistance Management Committee had approved funding for one staff member to participate in a
United Nations Statistics Division regional seminar for trade statisticians which would be held in
Vanuatu in November.  The seminar would include participants from a number of Members who did
not yet participate in the IDB as well as some countries in accession.
4.14 Funding had also been approved for the request by Chad for its Brussels based mission and
which was intended to be extended to all Brussels based WTO representatives;  and for Burundi,
Djibouti, the Dominican Republic, Malta, Mongolia, Oman and Sri Lanka.  The missions were in the
planning stage and no exact dates had been fixed.
4.15 The Secretariat had also had further contacts with the Inter-American Development Bank
regarding the FTAA Hemispheric Database.  The latest version of the SIECA data entry software had
been tested by IDB statisticians and comments sent to the Inter-American Development Bank.  TheG/MA/M/30
Page 5
Manual for the SIECA data entry software was currently being translated by the Secretariat into
French.  The latest version of their Hemispheric PC database was also being evaluated.
4.16 With respect to software developments, the Secretariat had recently found a bug in the
CD-ROM application, which affected summary reports for LDC duties.  The bug had been fixed and anew version of the application would shortly be posted to the IDB Internet File Transfer Facility in the
IDB software directory.  Users should download this new version of the application, which would
operate on Release 6 of the CD-ROM distributed last  June.  Instructions would be provided on how to
apply the fix.  Release 7 of the IDB CD-ROM would be distributed to Heads of Delegation in
December.
4.17 She also informed the Committee that the Secretariat planned to make the prototype of the
IDB Internet Analysis Facility available by the end of the year.  Coding and testing were still being
conducted.  The hardware and software infrastructure to make the application available to Membersvia the Internet had been set up.  Remaining work included the establishment of the data transfer
mechanism and the setting up of the user-ids and pa sswords.  They would be the same as those used
for the Internet File Transfer Facility.
4.18 The Chairperson thanked the Secretariat for its detailed report  and stressed the importance of
the use of IDB information.
The Committee took note of the statement.
(c) A Multilateral Appraisal of the operation of the Integrated Data Base and related technical
assistance activities (G/MA/IDB/W/12)
4.19 The Chairperson noted that as agreed at its 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".  Those meetings took place
between March and July 2001.  They were followed by  an informal follow-up meeting that took place
on Monday 24 September.  As called for in document G/MA/IDB/4, the Secretariat had prepared for
that meeting a report which was issued as Document G/MA/IDB/W/12.
4.20 She reported that during the discussions which took place at the last meeting many
delegations agreed that the Multilateral Appraisal process had been very useful.  They also agreed thatthe momentum initiated by this exercise needed to be maintained.  The discussion had centered on the
suggestions in sections F. and H. of document  G/MA/IDB/W/12 and possible follow up actions that
could be undertaken.
4.21 Several delegations stated that direct contacts of national compilers with the Secretariat were
an important element in achieving and maintaining regular reporting patterns.  These direct contacts
would, however, in no way affect the key role of the WTO representative offices as official contact
points for the Secretariat.  To encourage such direct contacts and identify focal points in missions
and/or capitals she put forward the idea of establishing a list of IDB contacts.  If the Committee
agreed, the Chairperson could write a letter to all delegations requesting them to identify their focalpoints for the IDB in their mission and if they also agreed,  also in their capitals.  Other specific
points raised in the debate concerned the following issues: the need to target non-participating
Members and to offer them special assistance was mentioned.  One delegation had suggested that the
Secretariat could obtain data from other sources like regional organizations and send them for
approval to Members.  Some delegations supported an annual planning of technical assistanceactivities as suggested by the Secretariat in Document G/MA/IDB/W/12.  One delegation pointed out
that some suggestions might involve wider dissemin ation than was foreseen in the IDB dissemination
policy.G/MA/M/30
Page 6
4.22 The delegate of Canada thanked the Secretariat for its detailed report on its IDB activities, the
Chairperson and her predecessor for their hard work and the Members that contributed in elaborating
the report on multilateral appraisal of IDB; the wealth of information provided by them  was very
positive and concrete and his delegation would support the proposal made by the chairperson
regarding the establishment of a list of contacts and considered it useful to plan technical assistance inorder to maintain the momentum for obtaining IDB submissions.  The reason for his delegation to
support those multilateral appraisals of IDB in general was because it constituted a very useful tool
and should continue to be a useful tool for future  activities. In that regard he encouraged those 15
members that had  submitted the required information in the context of TPR to give a positive reply
for its use in the IDB context and would ask the Me mber which did not agree to use its information
for IDB to reconsider its position. He also recalled that the real value of IDB was having timely up to
date submissions from everyone and encouraged Members to take advantage of the ideas presented inthe multilateral  appraisal.
4.23 The delegate of the United States said that his authorities were using the IDB quite often and
appreciated its value; they had worked closely with the IADB on submissions to the FTAA.  He
expressed his appreciation to the Chair and the Secretariat for undertaking this initiative whichcontained interesting ideas and identified problems to be addressed. He thanked those Members who
participated in the seminars, particularly those th at sent officials from capitals; he recognized that
there were many problems that were faced by Members including technical issues, translation,
resource constraints but that there were some other situations where Members had just either not
provided the data or had not transferred it from other data banks; in his view these issues needed to beaddressed in a slightly different way.  He stressed the fact that members had to maintain ownership
and responsibility for providing their IDB informati on to the Secretariat which was an obligation.  He
also supported the suggestion to establish a list of contact points which seemed to be a very logical
first step.  As mentioned by the Chairperson, it would constitute in a list of  contact points not only in
Geneva but also in capitals.  He stated that the IADB had that kind of relationship with officials incapitals and it worked quite well in developing a good relationship and answering questions directly.
On the issue of technical assistance, his delegation felt a bit concerned regarding the ad-hoc nature of
some of the requests and although he was not fully aware of the procedures that were in place in the
Secretariat, he felt that when individual Members requested technical assistance beyond regional
seminars the Secretariat would consider developing some sort of guidelines and procedures that would
guarantee a product at the end so that steps would eventually lead to an IDB submission.
Consideration should also be given to other creative ways of solving some of the problems mentionedfor example on the issue of translation which had been raised several times in the past.   It might be
useful for Members to identify themselves or to just submit the data they had on tariffs and then see
how the CTS or other types of existing data banks could be used to deal with the translation or the
nomenclature problems.  Regarding the data from other data banks like the FTAA and APEC, clearly
the FTAA had been very successful;  from the report on IDB submissions it  could be noted that thewestern hemisphere Members were quite positive in their submissions.  With respect to other regional
groups, some other types of preparation software had been used, but he emphasized that it was the
responsibility of Members to chose to transfer that  data and not for the Secretariat to seek out that
information directly.  With respect to public dissemination his delegation wanted to focus attention to
increasing IDB participation but he noted that the FTAA and the APEC secretariats had a publicwebsite which offered tariff and trade information, that represented an important business facilitation
and which should be considered in the WTO.
4.24 The delegate of the European Communities said that her delegation could accept the
Chairperson's proposal for improving access to the database and would favour the suggestion to
establish contact points;  she encouraged the Chairperson to write to the delegations concerned.  She
could also agree with the proposal of establishing an annual technical assistance programme.   She
encouraged all Members to supply the required IDB information; Members should continue feedingG/MA/M/30
Page 7
this data base in a normal fashion.  Her delegation supported the proposals included in the document
and welcomed all the suggestions the Chairperson made in her introduction.
4.25 The delegate of Australia backed the comments made by the earlier speakers in relation to the
suggestions for focusing systematically on the IDB as part of the technical assistance programme.  He
underlined the importance of the IDB particularly for developing countries as a negotiating tool and
requested that any comments and suggestions his delegation made during the informal meeting of
24 September be reflected in the formal record of this meeting.  At that meeting he had noted the
report on the appraisal and  thought it provided a very useful insight into the main points necessary for
improving the rate and quality of contributions to the IDB;  the  series of seminars conducted during
2001 had not only drawn the importance of the IDB to the attention of Members, particularly
developing and least developed Members, but it had identified the key problems for some Members'to meet the ongoing requirements necessary for the IDB to operate effectively.  His delegation
supported the suggestions for focussing systematically on the IDB as part of the secretariat's technical
assistance programme and also supported the suggestions for making the IDB web site more user
friendly, enhancing the IDB CD-ROM reporting capabilities and extending the dissemination of the
IDB to research institutions, such as UNCTAD  trade  data base.  He noted the efforts of APEC andSIECA to develop similar data bases and encourag ed members to provide this information to the
Secretariat and to bear in mind the value of ensuring that tariff or trade data bases complement the
IDB as far as possible to facilitate the development of a comprehensive data base. His delegation
considered the IDB to be important for all Members, but particularly developing and least developed
countries and that it constituted a valuable tool for multilateral trade negotiations. These commentswere made in the hope that it would help resolve some of the questions in the minds of delegations in
relation to the IDB, its use and how the existing problems could be overcome.  The whole idea behind
the nomination of a focal point in capital or a practitioner responsible for the preparation and
submission of the data in capital was to overcome some of the technical problems and the difficulties
being experienced.  Establishing a focal point was to facilitate the submissions to the IDB since therewere a number of countries who presumably would not need to necessarily notify a focal point since
they regularly provided the data they were supposed to provide and didn't have any difficulties with it.
However, he noted that even though his country was one of those that provided regular submissions to
the IDB, he had nominated a focal point and the Secretariat had been in contact with the capital
officials and he had found this to be a most useful way to proceed since it streamlined the process
even further.  Regarding the suggestion of prom oting the IDB to the business community, and the
possibility of having to revisit the dissemination policy his delegation's view was that thedissemination policy was all about the dissemination to Members to ensure that the dissemination to
Members was done equally, equitably, and fairly.  Since in the development of the negotiating
positions, consultations with business would be required and his authorities would want to promote
the IDB to business and  would be using this tool effectively as a negotiating tool for negotiations in
the multilateral rounds.
4.26 The representative of Chile supported the suggestion to establish focal points but not only for
people working in Geneva but in the capitals as well so that questions could be referred directly to
them.  At the meeting of 24 September the delegate of Chile had requested whether during the Geneva
Week for the non resident least developed countries the IDB had been included in the agenda and howit had been covered. He also enquired whether the question of contact points would be a decision
taken by the Committee or would be established on a de facto basis.   He added that it would be useful
if the Chairperson could send a letter to all Members to this effect.
4.27 The Chairperson stated that the issue of IDB had not been included in the agenda of the
Geneva Week but the IDB and CTS had been included in the Seminar for LDCs that had taken place
in Geneva some time before Geneva Week.  She suggested that this point be kept in mind for the
future. Regarding the establishment of focal points , the Chairperson did no think it was necessary to
have a formal decision by the Committee on this matter.G/MA/M/30
Page 8
4.28 The delegate of Japan stated that his delegation also supported the establishment of a list of
focal points here in Geneva as well as in the capitals.  His delegation was also in favour of an annual
planning of technical assistance which would help to fulfil the existing constraints and would help in a
better utilisation of limited resources.  Regarding the issue of public dissemination policy of the IDB,
his delegation fully supported the current dissemination policy.
4.29 The representative of Switzerland supported the Chairperson's proposal to send a letter to
Members with a view to identifying persons responsible for the data base and also supported the
Secretariat's idea to have an annual technical assistance programme.  As regarded the dissemination
policy, she felt that for the time being there was no need for any change.
4.30 The delegate of Singapore noted from the report an increase of IDB submissions.  She
welcomed the Chairperson's suggestion to have a list of contacts or focal points including in the
capitals since they were the people who actually did the work; and it would help the Secretariat to
annually plan technical assistance especially for the follow-up after the seminar in order to make sure
that the submissions would be made.
4.31 The delegate of India noted that the efforts by the Secretariat had facilitated deeper
participation  in the IDB.  On the Chairperson's suggestion  for focal points she felt it was a good idea
but it had to be recognized that it should not constitute a binding obligation for Members and should
be done within the IDB policy framework alread y agreed upon. Regarding technical assistance she
noted a number of very useful suggestions in the report prepared by the Secretariat and added thatfollow-up action on ongoing activities drawn up betw een the Secretariat and the requesting Members
could continue without the Committee being actually involved.   In case the Committee was to
prepare a formal schedule of technical assistance, her delegation would wish to be part of any such
formulation if it would help improve effectiveness of technical assistance activities but any
organization of a formal schedule should not prejudice ongoing activities.  Referring to the suggestionin paragraph 32 that the Secretariat could independently collect tariff and import data from small and
least developed countries she felt that this would have some implications and that this suggestion
would deserve further consideration.
4.32 The representative of Hong Kong, China supported the Chairperson's suggestion to establish
focal points for direct communication between the Secretariat and Members; this would facilitate
submissions to the IDB; he shared the view expressed by Singapore that the focus should be on capitalbased focal points.
4.33 The delegate of Mexico agreed with the suggestion to draw up a list of focal point as
proposed by the Chairperson.
4.34 In summarizing the discussion the Chairperson noted that there was general agreement in the
usefulness of the IDB appraisal for all Members and that the utility of that exercise relied on the
timeliness of the submissions.  There was also general agreement that the Secretariat could start
initiating a list of direct contacts in the capitals not forgetting the critical role of the missions in
Geneva.  From the perspective of the Chair, she pointed out that if the Secretariat was to contact thenational focal point, it was only for technical verification.  In her view, the key role of the missions
should not be overlooked.  Moreover, it was for each Member to identify either the Mission or
someone in the capital, ideally it would be better to have both , but the final decision was left to the
Members, there was no obligation.  On technical assistance everyone agreed that  attention needed to
be focused on those countries which had not been able to submit information until now.  A personalfollow up would be ensured from the chair since it was necessary to bring those countries into the
exercise.  On the suggestion to get information from other sources, it was an initiative to be taken by
the Secretariat and it was clear that if and when in formation was obtained from other sources, it would
be referred to the mission or to the capital concerned and approval would be sought since it wasG/MA/M/30
Page 9
important for the WTO to have the ownership of the information provided in the IDB.   The utility of
this exercise would be to obtain additional and more timely submissions.  The subject of technical
assistance would be under continuous discussions; what had already been programmed up to now
would take place as planned and if the Committee needed to be more active in this area, it was a
question that could be reverted to.  In conclusion, she believed the multilateral appraisal proved to bevery useful since it helped obtain information for the IDB.
The Committee  took note of the statements made.
5. Consolidated Tariff Schedules Database
5.1 Before giving the floor to the Secretariat the Chairperson informed the Committee that she
had received information from New Zealand Permanent Mission that it had submitted the final
version of the CTS files including  agricultural commitments.
5.2 The Secretariat gave a progress report on the CTS database consisting of an update on the
situation as known to the Secretariat on the tariff concessions and the agricultural commitments.  It
also covered other points regarding the CTS database situation, namely uses of the information, andresources.
5.3 As concerned tariff concessions the Secretariat had completed the consolidation of the tariff
concessions of 114 Members (including Switzerland).  One hundred and eleven files had been
finalized and three Members (India, Singapore a nd Uruguay) had indicated that they would have
comments to submit to the Secretariat with respect to their database files.
5.4 Concerning the Members who had committed to processing their tariff Schedules themselves
for inclusion in the CTS database, the situation in the Secretariat was as follows:  the database files of
Canada, the EU, Hungary, Japan, Norway, and the United States had been finalized.  However, theSecretariat was expecting some minor modifications to be submitted by Japan in the near future;  New
Zealand had just provided its final tariff commitments file; the submissions of Australia and Iceland
were still in draft form; and Poland had made a preliminary submission to the Secretariat.  The
Secretariat had been in contact with the Polish delegation regarding this submission.
5.5 Regarding agricultural commitments the current situation with respect to the files of the
developing Members was as follows:  31 files had been finalised;  the finalisation of the last file
(Venezuela) had been held up for technical reasons.  The Secretariat was expecting to clear up this
situation with the Venezuelan Mission very shortly.
5.6 With respect to the Members who, similarly to the tariff concessions, had committed to
processing their agricultural commitments themselves  for inclusion in the CTS database the situation
in the Secretariat was as follows:  the databa se files of Canada, the EU, Hungary, Japan and
Switzerland had been finalized;  a partial submission had been received from the United States;  New
Zealand had just submitted its final agricultural commitments database file;  the submissions of
Norway and Australia were still in draft form;  Iceland and Poland had not yet submitted their
database files to the Secretariat.  Moreover, the preparation of database files for two new Members –Moldova and Lithuania was pending.
5.7 As far as the uses of CTS information were concerned the Statistics Division had had recourse
to CTS files in response to a number of internal requests.  For example, to estimate  the amount of
world trade that was already MFN bound duty free for the Economic Research and Analysis Division,and input into presentations for the Director of the Market Access Division.  This had provided IDB
staff with the opportunity to test the consistency of the data base and to detect and correct anomalies.
The information produced had not been disseminated at a detailed level.G/MA/M/30
Page 10
5.8 The Statistics Division had also received various requests from Members and other
organisations regarding access to data in the CTS database to which the Secretariat negatively
responded.
5.9 On resources, she recalled that the CTS database project had been underpinned by extra
budgetary funds.  As mentioned at the last meeting, these funds had been exhausted.  No resources
had been forthcoming to enable the Statistics Division to effectively support the CTS data base.
However, the Secretariat firmly believed that the CTS database, representing as it does all Members'
goods commitments in one standardized format, was one of the most important repositories of WTO
information, and, if properly maintained, would be of immense assistance to delegations in managing
their concessions on goods.  The Secretariat was therefore strongly committed to the goal of
maintaining and developing the CTS data base.  To this end, the Director of the Statistics Division haddetached Mrs Elizabeth Baccouche from IDB to CTS related activities on a full time basis.  She
would work under Mrs Julia de Verteuil, who woul d oversee the mainstreaming of the CTS database
into the Division's core activities.  This would include, inter alia  developing procedures for: electronic
verification of the HS96-2002 transposition exercise, updating of Members' concessions, the link to
the IDB and basic dissemination modalities.  Progressively, IDB staff would be required to includeCTS related activities in their regular work programmes.  The additional CTS related work, coupled
with increasing IDB processing and technical assistance activities was straining the Statistics
Division's resources to the limit.  She therefore called upon the support of the Committee Members in
her efforts to obtain additional permanent resources.
5.10 The activities just mentioned would not be enough to ensure the full exploitation of the
CTS data base.  As mentioned at the last meeting, discussions with the UK on the funding of a
technical assistance project to develop a full range of analytical facilities for users, in particular least
developed and developing Members had been initiated.  Since then, the UK had expressed interest in
funding part of this project.  The Director of the Statistics Division had also put the project before the
Technical Assistance Management Committee and she reported that the Committee had approved, in
principle, joint funding with the UK.  Detailed pr oject specifications were currently being prepared.
5.11 The delegate of Australia agreed with the importance attached to the maintenance of the CTS
and reported that his authorities were examining the Secretariat's comments on Australia's CTS
submission and would be forwarding comments and the required modifications in the very near
future;  his delegation had already provided a correlation between the CTS nomenclature and the IDBnational nomenclature for the agriculture part of the Australian schedule, Section IA-Tariffs, and was
working on finalizing the correlation table for non-agricultural items.  He also informed the
Committee that his delegation would soon submit for certification a consolidated loose-leaf schedule
with the intention that it would replace existing instruments containing Australia's tariff concessions.
5.12 The representative of the United States reported  that with respect to the agricultural portion
of the US submission, his delegation had submitted three of the five required TRQ tables and that the
remaining two tables would be submitted shortly.  Through the Chairperson, he asked those countries
that still had reservations or that had not yet submitted the required information where they stood with
respect to their tariff concessions since unless everyone would make the necessary submission in bothagricultural and industrial sectors, it would not be possible to move forward and to put this data base
into operation.
5.13 The delegate of Uruguay informed the Committee that his delegation had sent to the
Secretariat a series of provisional comments and that it was now in a position to state that those
comments were definitive; a note indicating that Uruguay could accept its schedule would be sent to
the Secretariat soon.G/MA/M/30
Page 11
5.14 The delegate of Singapore indicated that the comments that were expected from Singapore
were now ready and would be forwarded to the Secretariat within the next few days.
5.15 The delegate of Iceland regretted not to be in a position to tell the Committee when her
delegation would be submitting the information on agricultural commitments but indicated the tariff
concessions were being finalized in her capital.
5.16 The Chairperson recalled the importance of the CTS exercise for all Members and unless
everyone cooperated this project could not reach its goal.  She urged those countries that still had to
submit information to the Secretariat to do so as soon as possible since, as it had been agreed, nothing
would be disseminated until all the information was obtained by the Secretariat. 
The Committee took note of the report by the Secretariat and the statements made.
6. Draft Report (2001) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods
6.1 The Chairperson drew the attention of the Committee to document G/MA/SPEC/19, which
contained the draft annual report of the Committee.  Th is report would be finalized in the light of the
discussion that would take place during the meeting,  and would be submitted to the Council for Trade
in Goods at its meeting of 5 October 2001.  The report gave a factual summary of the activities of the
Committee since its last report to that body. As had been the practice in the past the report was
examined section by section.
6.2 The delegate of Switzerland pointed out that in line 3 of paragraph 8 the beginning of the
sentence should read "At its meeting of 27 June 2001" and not 2000 as erroneously indicated.
6.3 The Committee adopted the report subject to its updating and taking into account the
comments made during the meeting.
7. Other Business Committee
(a) Date of the next meeting
7.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee th at the next meeting of the Committee was
tentatively scheduled to take place on 10 December 2001, subject to confirmation.  However, as she
had mentioned in the informal meeting earlier in the week, she had some doubts as to whether the
Committee would need another formal, or perhaps informal meeting before the end of the year.  Forthe time being,  she suggested  taking note of the proposed date, and if Members had any views on the
matter, there could be consultations and  a decision could be made as the end of the year approached.
7.2 The representative of the United States wished to leave open the option to have a meeting in
December since it might be necessary for the Committee to take decisions for instance in respect of
HS2002.
The Committee took note of the statements and the meeting was adjourned.
__________