RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/16
9 March 1999
(99-0940)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 27 NOVEMBER AND 2 DECEMBER 1998
Chairman:  Mr. Ole Lundby (Norway)
Agenda of the meeting
1. Adoption of the agenda....................................................................................................... ..1
2. Submission of HS 1996 documentation...............................................................................13. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base.....................................................24. Consolidated Loose-leaf Schedules on Goods (Pilot Project)..........................................225. Trade in Pharmaceutical Products....................................................................................26
6. Status of Notifications of Quantitative Restrictions.........................................................27
7. Report (1998) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods..............................278. Other Business............................................................................................................... ......35
(a) Communication from Malaysia on  the APEC Ministerial Meeting .........................35
(b)  Date of the next meeting …………………………………………………………....  36
1. Adoption of the agenda
1.1 The above agenda, as reproduced in doc ument WTO/AIR/981 of 17 November 1998, was
adopted with the addition of items 8(a) and 8(b).
2. Submission of HS 1996 documentation
2.1 The Chairman recalled that, according to the provisions contained in the General Decision of
14 October 1998 (document WT/L/281) extending the time-limit of the waivers granted to Members
that had requested it until 30 April 1999, it was envisaged that the Members concerned would submitby that date the complete documentation related to the introduction of HS 1996 changes in their WTO
schedules, and that in special circumstances Members could request technical assistance from the
Secretariat for the preparation of the required documentation. He referred to document
G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.16, which reflected the present situat ion in this respect.  He noted that eight
Members presently under waivers had not yet submitted the required documentation (Bolivia, ElSalvador, Honduras, Mexico, Morocco, Panama, South Africa and Zimbabwe).  Three of those
countries had requested technical assistance from the Secretariat, and their documentation was being
processed and would be circulated shortly.  Moreover, the documentation submitted by the following
Members had been approved and had been forwar ded to the Legal Division for their certification:
Colombia, Hungary, Macau, Poland, Romania, Singapore and Turkey.  To date, apart from the eightG/MA/M/16
Page 2
Members that had not yet submitted the required documentation, the submissions of 28 Members
whether they had requested an extension or not, remained pending due to ongoing consultationsand/or negotiations.   The Chairman urged delegations concerned to speed up the process so that the
number of waivers could be further reduced.
2.2 The representative of Japan stated that his delegation had already expressed concerns relating
to this situation of rectification and modification of schedules relating to the HS 1996 changes, in the
October 1998 meeting of the Goods Council.  He did not intend to reiterate those concerns, but noted
that if this process were not accelerated certain problems would be faced in the next comprehensive
negotiations.  He urged Members to accelerate the process.
2.3 The representative of India stated that her delegation also urged Members to submit the
HS 1996 documentation. Referring to Japan's statement about Members facing problems "in the next
comprehensive negotiations", she noted that she was not aware of the "next comprehensivenegotiations" and suggested therefore that the Committee take note of Japan's statement that there was
a need to accelerate the HS 1996 process .
2.4 The representative of Australia stated that his delegation supported Japan's statement, and
requested that his statement be noted as delivered.2.5 The representative of Venezuela stressed the importance for his delegation to fulfil its
commitment of submitting the required information.  He reiterated how useful and important it was
for developing countries to continue receiving technical assistance from the Secretariat.
2.6 The Chairman noted that all Members appreciated the importance of technical assistance to
developing countries.
2.7 The representative of Panama stated that the relevant documentation was still in the process
of being finalized.2.8 The Chairman was pleased to note that the process was still underway.
2.9 The representative of Egypt, in referring to the comments by Japan, India and Australia,
stated that it would be advisable to refrain from addressing issues related to negotiations when
Members were dealing with normal business.  This applied to all Committees.  Negotiations were not
going to be decided in these Committees. He hoped that such issues would be dealt with in the forum
mandated to address these issues and not in any other.
2.10 The Chairman stated that he had understood Japan to refer to any negotiations that might be
decided upon.  However, he underlined that it was still to be decided whether there would be
negotiations or not, and this decision would not be for this Committee to take.
2.11 The representative of Norway indicated that the reference to the last waiver decision
(WT/L/281) was not in footnote 1 of document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.161.
2.12 The Committee took note  of the statements.
3. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base
3.1 The Chairman referred the Committee to document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.3, which presented
the situation with regard to the furnishing of IDB submissions as of 20 November 1998.  As of that
                                                     
1 The document was subsequently revised and a reference to the waiver decision WT/L/281 was
included in footnote 1 to this revised document.  The document was circulated as G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.17 dated11 December 1998.G/MA/M/16
Page 3
date, forty Members and three acceding countries had provided submissions.  No further
submissions had been notified to the Secretariat since the document had been circulated.  He invitedthose delegations that have not yet provided their IDB submissions to do so as soon as possible andreminded delegations that the deadline for furnishing 1997 imports was 30 September 1998.  At thelast meeting of the Committee, it had been agreed that he would send a letter to those delegationsthat had not yet provided their IDB submissions, to seek clarification on the problems they werefacing with regard to such submissions and on their possible requirements for technical assistance.He informed the Committee that the letter had gone out only recently and that the reply date(originally 30 October 1998) had been extended to 29 January 1999.  The Committee would beinformed of the responses to the letter at its next meeting.
3.2 The delegate of Japan said that Members had an obligation to submit the data to the
Secretariat every year.  His delegation believed that the IDB CD-ROM needed to be issued every
year and wished to receive it this year.
3.3 The Chairman said that the Secretariat had informed him that it was working on providing
the CD-ROM as soon as possible.
3.4 The representative of the United States said that the system would only work with wide
participation.  His authorities had noted with conc ern that although there had been an increase in the
number of countries that had provided information, there was not the wide participation that theyhad hoped for.  His delegation encouraged Members to provide submissions or to approach theSecretariat for technical assistance in order to allow them to make submissions.
3.5 With reference to G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.3, the delegate of India requested some clarifications
with respect to the presentation of the document. In the document, there were many instances in
which a "no" was written in some of the columns and in some cases there were just blank spaces.She asked if the "no" and the blank space meant the same thing. The Chairman had stated that therewere forty Members that had provided submissions. She asked if this was based on a single "yes" inany of the columns. She further suggested that, if other Members agreed, acceding countries couldbe listed separately from Members in the document.
3.6 She said that the issue of concern for India, namely that of limiting access to the IDB to
certain Members of the Organization, had been discussed earlier in the Committee.  India hadparticipated in the informal meeting of the Committee, held on 16 September 1998, to discuss aninformal note prepared by the Secretariat at the request of Members, on dissemination of the IDB(Job no. 1483/Rev.1).  She recalled that the informal session had been occasioned by the fact thatopinions had differed on the IDB dissemination policy to be adopted in the Organization.  Shereminded Members that the proposal in Paragraph 5 provided that Members' access to tariff linelevel files of the IDB would be contingent upon Members having provided their IDB submissions oftariffs and imports or having requested technical assistance for their preparation.  By reference tothe proposal in Paragraph 5, India had also conveyed inability to accept any changes in otherparagraphs, noting that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.  She recalled that India'sreservations had been repeated during the conclusions drawn at the close of the informal meeting.Therefore, there had been no room for ambigu ity about India's position in this regard.
3.7 India's view was that denial of access to the database would be tantamount to imposing a
penalty for delay in complying with notification obligations, and that this action might have wideramifications for the functioning of the Organization.  India had indicated that it might be tooprecipitate an action, especially as at that time only thirty-six Members had fulfilled theirnotification obligations for the IDB.  India had indicated that a more prudent course might be togive the concerned Members a reasonable period of time to fulfill their notification obligations, andG/MA/M/16
Page 4
that the situation could be reviewed again.  It had been India's understanding that the informal
meeting had concluded on the basis that another attempt would be made to persuade Members tocomply with their IDB notification requirement.  India had understood that a draft letter to theconcerned Members urging them to comply would be circulated for consideration, and that thecompliance status would be reviewed after a reasonable period of time.
3.8 From Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Periodic Report of the Committee on Market Access
(G/MA/60), India had observed that a revised informal note (Job no.1483/Rev.2) had formed thebasis of discussions in the Committee on Market Access at its formal meeting of 22 September.This meeting had been held close on the heels of the informal meeting. Proposals for disseminationof the IDB as described in the informal paper had been adopted at that meeting. India had alsounderstood that the revised informal note, as well as the draft letter to concerned Members, had notbeen circulated or discussed in advance, at least India had not received it, but had been introducedin the formal meeting itself.
3.9 India's concerns stemmed from two aspects of this matter.  Firstly, the procedures that had
been adopted and were practiced in the WTO envisaged the building up of consensus on proposalsthrough discussion, in a series of informal meetings as might be necessary, so that concerns onceexpressed could be dealt with in a manner satisfactory to all Members.  In the instance of theproposal on the dissemination of the IDB, despite a clear indication of unacceptability of theproposal by India, no attempt had been made to engender further discussion on, or even to sensitiseIndia of, the impending consideration in formal session.  India recalled that in parallel, a number ofinformal sessions had been underway in the Organization on the draft work programme on globalelectronic commerce and, until everything had been agreed upon, the matter had not been put up foradoption in formal session.  Since the agenda for the formal meeting of the Committee on MarketAccess had been circulated well in advance of the informal meeting itself, and on the clearunderstanding that the draft letter would be circulated for consideration, it had not beenunreasonable on India's part to expect that the proposals, contained in Paragraphs 5 and 6, wouldnot be considered for summary adoption at the formal session.
3.10 With respect to the procedural aspect, India explained that a formal meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), which had been scheduled to be held on 22 September 1998 at 10:00 a.m.,had first been postponed to 11:30 a.m. and then to 3:00 p.m.  This had been possibly due todifferences between two major delegations on a particular item.  The meeting of the DSB was toconsider an important item by specific reference to India.  Therefore, Members would no doubtappreciate that, even if it would ordinarily have been possible for India to be represented at theformal meeting of the Committee on Market Access, on that occasion it had not been possible to doso.  India had time and again brought to the attention of the WTO, the human resource constraintsof developing countries such as theirs in attending meetings of various WTO bodies scheduledsimultaneously.  The procedural aspects that had underpinned deliberations in general, and that hadhelped forge consensus in many instances, could, in India's view, have been observed in theinstance of the proposal on the access to the IDB as well.
3.11 With respect to the substantive aspect, India wished to convey formally, its disagreement
with the proposal in Paragraph 5, and the addition to Paragraph 6, of Part IV of the informal note.India reiterated the reasons for their disagreement, which were primarily systemic in nature.  Indiarecalled that the 10 November 1987 Decision of the GATT Council, which had launched theoriginal IDB, had stipulated that all Contracting Parties would have full access to the database.There had been no review of this decision thus far by the General Council.  The proposal, indenying access to this very database to a large number of Members, sought to reverse a trend thatthe Committee had established in allowing wider access to this database, to certain internationalorganizations as well as certain countries that had applied for accession to the WTO.  According toG/MA/M/16
Page 5
India, the proposal sought to alter the basic character of the WTO as a Member-driven organization.
It also sought to create a hierarchy of Members in the Organization.  Those aspects required carefulreflection before instituting a penalty-driven system that fragmented the membership.  They wouldindeed have implications for other notification obligations enshrined in various WTO agreements.It had been said that this would not be a penalty but an incentive.  In India's view, incentives soughtto give and not to take away.  Members needed to be allowed time to overcome the difficulties theywere facing in providing the necessary information on electronic media, information that hadalready been provided by way of printed copy. India noted that some of those Members, whoseelectronic records were deemed to be available, had benefitted from careful inputting of the data onthe computer by the Secretariat.  The fact that many Members had not been able to seize thismeasure of advantage should in no way be held against them, now that the Secretariat was not ableto similarly help them.
3.12 Persuasion and discussions had been the cornerstone in encouraging compliance of
notification obligations, and a system of penalizing defaulters, once initiated, would have adverse
consequences for the fundamental nature of the Organization.  Therefore, India urged all Members
to rethink on the proposal.
3.13 India informed the Committee that it had also sought some details on the matter of the
implementation embodied in the proposal, so that the details could be conveyed to their nationalcapital.  India recalled that it had raised some questions, which subsequently had seemed to besubmerged in the procedural aspects of the decision taken.  India believed that these questionswould continue to be relevant for the proposal.  For instance, India had raised the question that theproposal provided an exception from the penalty for such Members that had requested technicalassistance.  However, it had been agreed in the Committee's report itself that there were reasons,other than technical capability alone, that were limiting the ability of Members to notify, such ashuman and financial resource constraints.  The proposal had not dealt with these constraints.Secondly, the penalty proposal had envisaged that Members would have to individually requestindividual Members for access to their database.  India had also questioned how the system wouldhandle a situation where some Members accepted the request but one did not.  Thirdly, the requestwould have to be made each year.  This could create some further uncertainty about acceptance ofrequests for access.  Fourthly, the notification requirement itself was an annual requirement.  Indiahad queried how the system would handle a situation of current non-defaulters becoming defaultersthe next year.   Would the system of access to the database to them have to change through changesin passwords?  In India's view, the proposal also required fleshing out.  But the hasty manner inwhich a decision had been taken had not allowed the opportunity for addressing this.  Perhaps ifIndia could understand the manner in which these issues would be addressed in the proposal, itwould help India to reach a decision on it.
3.14 India noted that it had provided to the Trade Policy Review Body the required information
on electronic media many months ago, and that India's technical default could be easily corrected.India's concern on this issue, as had been stated earlier, was essentially systemic.
3.15 Because of the procedural as well as the substantive concerns that had been highlighted by
the delegate of India, her delegation had indicated to the Goods Council that India was not in aposition to go along with Paragraph 7 of the Periodic Report of the Market Access Committee(G/MA/60).   India stated that it would be grat eful if the Committee, with the guidance of the
Chairman, would take immediate steps to remedy the situation.
3.16 Before giving the floor to Members to react to India's statement, the Chairman stated his
own understanding of the situation prior to the formal meeting.  He had understood that very
significant progress had been made in those consultations on 16 September, which had led him toG/MA/M/16
Page 6
sum up that there was agreement on all parts of the document except Part IV, where there was a
remaining disagreement about Paragraph 5.  Since at that point, India had been the only delegationupholding a disagreement with that paragraph, he had asked whether India would consider lookingat the paragraph again.  He had then said that he intended to submit the report for discussion at theCommittee.  He stressed this because it had not been possible to know beforehand whether theCommittee would be able to adopt the report, but he had felt that it would be useful to have adiscussion also in the meeting.   Since India had made its statement in the General Council, theGoods Council and now in the Committee, he had checked whether more care should have beenexercised in making clear that the document would be up for discussion.  He had noted that inaddition to mentioning this in the informal consultations, the annotated agenda had also made itclear and the revised note (Job no.1483/Rev.2) had also stated that. India might have been right insaying that it had not received the document in time to consider it.  He understood that it had beencirculated on the Friday before the formal meeting and that some missions had received it only onMonday.  He regretted that India had not received it until the meeting as such.  He believed that thiswas a matter for the Committee to discuss and he asked for delegations' comments.
3.17 The delegate of Malaysia informed the Committee that his authorities were working on their
IDB submission for 1997 and that it would be s ubmitted through electronic me ans directly to the
Secretariat.  Malaysia shared the concerns expressed by India on the systemic implications of theintroduction of such a penalty system in the Organization. As much as his delegation was concernedabout and shared the need for the timely submission of data to the IDB, it viewed with seriousconcern the introduction of this new proposal, which would change the very character of theOrganization. Malaysia urged all delegations to understand the serious problems of human resourceconstraints faced by small delegations. His delegation was sometimes able to participate in informalmeetings and deliver its statements there.  However, it was sometimes not possible to attend theformal meetings because of other parallel meetings. His delegation would expect that at a formalmeeting pursuant to an informal session, the Chairman would note that he had had consultations.  Ifthere had been no conclusive decisions or consensus, the Chairman would state that he had hadconsultations, that there was an emerging consensus and that he would continue consultations.Unfortunately, the Malaysian delegate did not believe that it had happened that way, although hestood to be corrected. Malaysia urged that the human resource concerns of small delegations betaken into consideration.  He further noted that this could happen even to developed countrieshaving small delegations.
3.18 The representative of Venezuela said that his authorities attached great importance to the
IDB and to the conclusion of the negotiations for HS 1996. Venezuela thought that it was basic that
all bindings should be consigned in an electronic document, as had been stated by other delegationson various occasions. His government agreed that an effort had to be made and that, periodically,information should be supplied on trade and tariffs. In spite of this position, as the Committeeknew, at the last meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, the delegation of Venezuela had beenopposed to the approval of the report presented on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee.  Thiswas because Venezuela did not agree to the approval of a mechanism that stopped Members fromtaking advantage of the IDB, simply because they had not provided the information on time.  To notprovide information to all Members would be considered as a disciplinary measure that, inVenezuela's view, had not been properly studied.  Therefore, it had been against this measurewhen, in the Council for Trade in Goods, Venezuela had indicated that it was not ready to acceptthe report from the Chairman of the Committee.  This was because Venezuela felt that theCommittee took the initiative to decide on coerci ve measures that were  not covered in the
framework of the WTO Agreement. As had been stated on that occasion, Venezuela thought thatthis would create a somewhat dangerous precedent if this procedure started to be a discretionarycriterion in any of the Committees where Venezuela took part.  Furthermore, Venezuela recalledthat the Chairman knew that some delegations had expressed their opposition to thisG/MA/M/16
Page 7
recommendation before it had been approved. Venezuela would have hoped that, for the formal
meeting, some sort of provision would have been made to guarantee that there had indeed been achange of position on the part of delegations, especially when some delegations could not attend thediscussions of the Committee.  The Chairman knew how difficult it was for some delegations to berepresented at all the meetings held daily at the WTO.  Venezuela would support anyrecommendations or measures of support to help countries that found it difficult to supply thisinformation on time. His delegation did not want to get into a complex debate on the consequencesof the positions that had been expressed, nor did it want to contribute to the consensus beinghampered.  Venezuela was ever ready to cooperate with both Chairmen - those of the Committee onMarket Access and the Council for Trade in Goods.  His delegation thought that the Committeeshould reflect on how to reach common positions to help to overcome differences of opinion.  Thiswould also avoid precedents that went against the traditional mechanism of approval and precedentswhereby committees would reach agreements of a coercive character even though their final aimwas praiseworthy.
 3.19 The representative of Cuba said that his delegation had been surprised by the decision taken
in the Committee.  The decision to create an IDB that would function on a disciplinary and coercive
basis and that would sanction those countries that had not been able to contribute their data wasindeed regrettable.  He thought that the Committee should overcome this difficulty. The pointsmade by India, Malaysia and Venezuela had shown that this measure had been premature and hadnot taken into account all elements involved.  The procedure that had been followed had not beenwise in a political sense because there had been delegations that had put forward their well-thoughtout points.  In spite of that, this approach had been ignored and the decision had been takennevertheless. For these reasons, his delegation associated itself with the statements by India andother delegations.  It was necessary to reconsider this measure.  His country was under specialcircumstances that were known to all Members. This prevented Cuba from providing the necessaryimport statistics. Because of this, Cuba would be stopped from benefitting from the IDB, whichwould be counterproductive. Cuba wished to be constructive however, and would very shortlyprovide information on customs tariffs. The general approach that everything had to be provided didnot take into account the special circumstances of countries such as Cuba, which were preventedfrom providing information while they did wish to contribute to the IDB. Cuba believed that theIDB was necessary.  The fact that less than forty Members had submitted data showed that theCommittee could not take a final decision regarding the IDB and that the measures that had beenadopted should be reconsidered. Furthermore, the decision that had been taken had not givenconsideration for developing countries. Cuba believed that it was not possible to ask for the samesort of information from all countries. The least-developed countries did not have the necessarymechanisms to comply with this obligation.  The decision needed to be reconsidered as soon aspossible.
3.20 With reference to document G/MA/ISDB/2//Rev.3, the representative of Egypt stated that
the applied tariff rates that had been submitted by his delegation to the Trade Policy Review Body
(TPR) could be used for part of its IDB submission. He supported the statements of India,Malaysia, Venezuela and Cuba with respect to having recourse to the procedure for Members thathad not submitted data for the IDB. His delegation viewed the procedure as inappropriate andbelieved that incentives should address the difficulties facing developing countries, and evendeveloped countries that had not submitted the data. The proper approach would be to find out whatwere the difficulties associated with presenting the information, rather than indicating whether ornot countries would be benefiting from the database.
3.21 The Chairman took note of the fact that Egypt had authorized the Market Access Division
to use the data submitted in the context of the TPR as its submission for the IDB.  He observed that
all countries that had been through recent TPR's would have had to provide essentially theG/MA/M/16
Page 8
information needed for the IDB in the TPR context.  It would therefore be worthwhile considering
authorizing the Secretariat to use that information for the IDB to a greater extent.
3.22 The delegate of Brazil stated that there was no doubt that submissions to the IDB were
important, that there had been a decision, and that there was an obligation. Brazil had attended the
meeting of the Committee when th e guidelines had been adopted. Brazil's position on this issue was
that whether there was an incentive, a penalty or whatever in place, it did not make a difference forhis delegation since Brazil would make the notification when it was ready to do so.  In the informalmeeting, Brazil had stated that there were some elements of the decision that were vague.  In lightof his delegation's position, it did not make a difference for its preparation to submit the data.  Hetook special note of what some delegations had stated regarding the difficulties of developing
countries in attending all meetings.  Brazil attached importance to that and understood thedifficulties, which needed to be taken into consideration. He supported the comment made byVenezuela with respect to discussing the issue on the basis of consensus, to find a solution thatwould be acceptable to all Members.
3.23 The representative of the European Communities recalled the importance that his delegation
attached to the proper operation of the IDB to ensure transparency and efficiency in the
Organization.  This sort of data was necessary for many purposes. With respect to the documentthat had been circulated on the status of notifications thus far, he noted that some welcome progresshad been made.  He encouraged all Members to continue to provide IDB submissions. He offered asuggestion to improve the presentation of the document.  With respect to the statement of India, hisdelegation's recollection of what had happened and what had been said, particularly in the informalmeeting of 16 September 1998, did not correspond to the description given by India on a number ofpoints. With respect to whether the document had been circulated in advance of the meeting, hisdelegation had received the document, dated 18 September 1998, on Monday morning,21 September 1998. The annotated agenda, which had been made available before the formalmeeting of 22 September 1998, and the document itself had contained an explicit remainder that thematter would be examined in the formal meeting of the Committee.  On the cover page of thedocument, delegations had been invited to have their positions ready for the formal meeting.  Withrespect to the conclusions drawn up by the Chairman at the end of the informal consultations on16 September 1998, his delegation remembered quite clearly that an appeal had been made to theIndian delegation to reconsider its position. At the end of the meeting of 16 September 1998, no onehad had any doubts that India had a problem with Paragraph 5.  This had been recorded formally inthe conclusions of the meeting. Nevertheless, as was current practice, India had been invited toreconsider its position. If India had been present at the formal meeting or if India had been in touchwith the Secretariat or the Chairman, the delegate of the European Communities believed thatIndia's position would have had to be taken into account according to the rules of the Organization.He thought that the matter had been an unfortunate set of circumstances. He believed that it wouldbe unfair to put the responsibility in any way on the Chairman of the Committee. With respect tothe systemic issues, he believed that there were two issues.  The first point was whether it wasessential that questions be settled in their entirety prior to any formal meeting, before putting thequestion on the agenda of a formal meeting.  He thought that Malaysia had suggested this.  Such aprinciple would raise larger problems for small delegations, since it would mean more meetings andnot fewer meetings. The second issue he wished to raise was linked to the first. What was the pointof holding informal meetings, when there were delegations that had not taken part in the informalsession of 16 September, but had come to the current formal meeting with very settled firmpositions?  While he respected the positions of those delegations, he believed that delegations thathad problems on particular issues should raise these problems in informal meetings, rather thanwaiting for formal meetings to put forth their objections. He hoped that a solution could be foundthat would be satisfactory for all.G/MA/M/16
Page 9
3.24 With respect to procedures, the representative of the United States agreed with the
comments made by the European Communities with regard to the appropriateness and the manner in
which the issue had been handled. The Chairman had clearly indicated in the informal meeting of16 September that a consensus was forming around the proposals that were contained inParagraph 5. The onus had been placed on India to check with its capital and to come back to theChairman if there continued to be a problem.  The United States delegate understood that somedelegations could not attend all WTO meetings.  However, it was not possible to proceed in asystem where no further progress was possible on an issue following an objection raised in aninformal meeting. Frequently delegations acquiesced rather than come forward to affirm that theirpositions had changed. However, when a delegation could not attend a formal meeting, it would beappropriate to inform the Chairman ahead of time that there was a problem with respect to aparticular topic, that the delegation was not in a position to agree and that the issue should not beput forward.   The United States delegate believed that any WTO committee would accept this as alegitimate manner of registering a problem and would defer the issue to a future meeting. While awritten or verbal communication could have stopped the process, that had not happened.  The issue
went forward in the formal meeting of the Market Access Committee. Most, if not all delegations
that were present at the current meeting of the Committee, had also been present at the meeting of22 September.  The decision had been taken in an entirely appropriate manner and in his view,there was no procedural question as regards the taking of the decision.
3.25 On the question of a substance, the United States regarded the issues that had been raised by
India differently.  There was a fundamental question of fairness.  Some countries had submittedinformation to the IDB, thereby revealing certain aspects of their trade policies.  Other countrieshad not supplied the information. There was not a high threshold to gain access to the information.There had been a progression in the Market Access Committee to encourage countries to comeforward. Furthermore, the information could be supplied in any format.  He did not believe that anyMember present did not have on computer, the trade and tariff information that would be necessaryto meet the IDB requirement. There had also been an offer to provide technical assistance to anycountry requiring such assistance.  In some ways, this system was the least onerous one that couldbe devised.  With respect to the question of fairness, the IDB information would be provided to allMembers via the IDB CD-ROM, whether or not a given Member had submitted the information.However, the Internet File Transfer Facility that had been proposed for the IDB was a fairlysophisticated instrument that required some technical expertise to deal with the software and to beable to access this information.  Any government that was in a position to make use of the InternetFile Transfer Facility and had the expertise to manipulate that information, certainly would not haveproblems that would prevent them from providing the information for technical reasons.  Therefore,this would not disadvantage countries that had failed to submit the information.  The United Statesdelegate noted that as the delegate of India stated, information sometimes existed elsewhere in theWTO that had not been provided to the Statistics Division.  He also noted that some delegations hadnow indicated that information supplied to the TPR Division could be provided to the StatisticsDivision to fulfil the IDB commitment.  In his view, this was a step forward.  However, India'sposition that it simply had a technical deficiency, that the information existed elsewhere, and that itwould be a very small matter to fulfil this technical deficiency, had been stated before.  Yet this hadnot happened.  Therefore, his delegation could only conclude that this was intentional and that thedelegation of India wanted to have access to the Internet File Transfer Facility and its associatedsoftware, in order to have access to the powerful tools and information thereby provided, withoutreciprocating.  That was not acceptable to his delegation and it would not favour overturning thedecision that the Market Access Committee had already taken in this respect.
3.26 The representative of Mexico refered to the statement made by India as concerned
reciprocity within the database.  His delegation had participated in informal consultations on this
matter and had clearly stated its position.  Later, a formal meeting of the Committee had been held,G/MA/M/16
Page 10
where it had been noted that there was a consensus on the document to be approved at that time.
His delegation had passively joined in the consensus that was emerging.  However, after this formalmeeting, his delegation had noted that there were countries that had not joined in the consensus.  Onthis issue, Mexico believed that decisions in the Organization should be taken such as to respect theconsensus.  The consensus of all Members of the Committee should be taken into account.  Hisdelegation agreed with the comments of the European Communities that the Committee shouldsearch for a solution to this situation that would satisfy everyone.  Mexico believed that all theconcerns stated by delegations in the Committee should be taken into account.  With respect to thepoint raised by India on procedure, more specifically on the approval of the decision on which Indiahad expressed certain reservations, his delegation understood the problems that might confront smalldelegations.  His delegation would not appreciate having to confront a situation such as the one inwhich India had found itself.  He agreed with Venezuela that the Committee should reach aconsensus on this issue.
3.27 The delegate of Canada believed that all Members appreciated the problems that were faced
by small delegations.  All Members also realized that the work of the Organization had to progress
and every effort had to be taken to balance both of those aspects.   His delegation's recollection ofthe events that had taken place was closer to that of the European Communities.  Canada had cometo the meeting on 22 September ready to discuss the policy and the proposals.  There had been aconsensus to agree to the policies that were being proposed.  In that regard, Canada associated itselfwith the comments made by the European Communities and the United States on how theprocedures had been followed.   His delegation had indicated in the Council for Trade in Goods thatit believed that the procedures had been properly followed and that every effort had been made toensure all views were taken into account. In terms of the policy itself, the basic point was that therewas agreement that the IDB was a very valuable, important and powerful tool and all Members hadan obligation to provide the data. The real value of this tool came down to the basic principle of theOrganization - transparency.  However transparency was lacking since many Members had notprovided the data.  Technical assistance had come up in this matter when there was recognition thatvarious Members would have difficulty in providing the information. The deadline that had beenoriginally set had long passed.  While there had been some minor progress in terms of Memberssubmitting data, there was still a long way to go. In  his view, what was more interesting was the
number of Members that had actually sought technical assistance. He recalled that the last time thisissue had been raised, only nine Members had sought technical assistance. In terms of addressingthe kind of problems Members face, the Chairman had written to ask for clarification in this respectand to remind Members that technical assistance was available.  Canada would be interested in thereplies to that letter.  Canada had a problem with interpreting the access intervention of thedissemination policy as a penalty. Canada had submitted all its data and had met the deadlines.  Thisplaced Canada at a disadvantage, since the majority of Members had not submitted any data.Members that had provided the data or had sought technical assistance for its preparation were at adisadvantage to those that had made no known efforts to supply the data or to take steps to do so.Furthermore, since all Members would continue to have access to the data via the IDB CD-ROM,the issue was of having access to retrievable data on the Internet.  Canada did not see this as apenalty or a coercive action, or undermining the basic approach of the Organization. The basicapproach of the Organization was transparency in fulfilling commitments and providing technicalassistance for Members having difficulties in that regard.  All those elements were consistent withthe dissemination policy that had been set out in the decision of 22 September.  Therefore, Canadawanted to work with all concerned to address all the problems in dealing with the IDB. Canadacontinued to support the decision that had been taken, which had been designed to advance theprogress of the provision of the IDB data, for two very fundamental reasons.  Firstly, transparencywas required and secondly, the IDB was a powerful tool from which all Members could benefit.However, the maximum benefits would only be obtained when all Members had provided the data.G/MA/M/16
Page 11
3.28 The delegate of New Zealand agreed with the comments that had been made by Canada on
the issue. Clearly the system had fallen down since, had it worked perfectly, Members would not be
debating the matter. He believed that all Members had recognized that, in future, it would benecessary to exercise care in taking decisions, so that the situation would not recur. It was clearlythe responsibility of all Members, the Chairman and the Secretariat to consult on areas wherecountries had problems.  On the other hand, it was the responsibility  of those countries that had put
reservations on particular issues to clearly communicate the status of those reservations to theChairman, prior to a meeting where the issue came up. He agreed with the point made by severaldelegations that the system could not work with hanging reservations.  Progress was not possiblewhen countries that had problems did not clearly state their continuing position.  With respect to theclaim about the wide ramifications that this might have for the system, he had not heard anydelegate state what these ramifications were. One delegate had stated the ramification for countriesthat had provided the information, but that might not be able to access the information of otherMembers that hadn't provided it. That was one clear ramification of the decision not standing.  Heagreed with the point made by the delegate of the United States regarding Internet access.  He
assumed that any delegation that was in a position to download information from the Internet and to
use it with respect to a trade policy issue that it might have with another country, would at least bein the position to indicate that it wished to file its own information and, if technical assistance wasneeded, to seek that.  He believed that Members should think again about the question of theramifications to the system. He could not see what these were.  A system had been set up whereby,if countries provided information, they received benefits far beyond the value of what they had putin. That was what Members should look at.  His delegation was not interested in looking at thedecision in terms of penalties or coercion.
3.29 The delegate of Egypt welcomed the comments of Canada and New Zealand. Members
needed to address a constructive approach to see what were the difficulties and how to deal with
them. As concerned the question that was raised by New Zealand regarding the ramifications, hebelieved that this was a very important issue.  The European Communities had mentioned that therewere some systematic issues. For the Egyptian delegation, the most fundamental systemic issue wasthe fact that sometimes decisions were taken in formal meetings and a delegation that had notattended due to capacity limits had difficulties with the decision. This was a serious issue thatshould be dealt with in a constructive manner. He agreed with New Zealand that the Committeeneeded to be careful when it took decisions, especially when it was known that some delegationsmight have problems with these decisions. He took the points that had been made by the UnitedStates regarding flexibility in the format in that any format could be provided and that technicalassistance was available.  All these points were valid. His delegation had provided data for the IDB.For Egypt, it was an issue of principle. The principle was that neither penalty nor persuasion shouldbe imposed on Members, especially in light of the fact that the database contained the contributionsof Members.  It was not an issue of whether a delegation was willing to provide the information.He believed that all Members supported transparency and were trying to provide the informationwithin their capacity and resources.  Members' technical capability of handling data from theInternet was not the issue. One implication of not addressing the problem would be that delegationsmight become more rigid in accepting the convening of meetings and in addressing issues ofconcern. This danger should be avoided.  Members should be more flexible and understand thesituations and problems of other delegations.  They should not necessarily indicate that if adelegation had not been able to communicate its problem to the Chair, then it was the delegation'smistake. A more flexible approach was required.  The Egyptian delegate pointed out that it wouldbe difficult to address this issue in the minutes of the meeting, in the report for the Council onTrade in Goods and in the report for the General Council.  This issue would be repeated in thosebodies if the Committee did not reach a solution. It was for the credibility of the system to try to
address this issue and not to inflate it in such a manner that it would become unmanageable at alater stage.G/MA/M/16
Page 12
3.30 The representative of Australia thought that this issue should not be turned into a matter of
principle, but should be looked at as essentially a practical matter. He drew the Committee's
attention to the fact that every speaker at the meeting, and at previous meetings on the IDB, hadagreed that the IDB was an important tool and that the provision of data to the IDB was important.All delegations that had spoken had intended to provide as much data as they possible could to theIDB as quickly as possible. Most delegations had indicated that technical reasons were behind theirslowness in providing the data.  This suggested that data would be forthcoming.  He suggested thatif the provision of data the IDB was so important, if delegations did intend to provide itexpeditiously, if it could be assumed that technical difficulties would be overcome shortly, then thewhole question of the penalty characterization, with which he disagreed, was totally irrelevant. Hethought Members should focus on the issue with which all had agreed - providing data to the IDB asquickly as possible.  He stressed that for Australia, this was an extremely important issue. Hisdelegation believed that it would become more important in the light of future negotiations.
3.31 The representative of Turkey understood the problems faced by small delegations in
attending meetings. Her delegation believed that this issue was beyond the mandate of the
Committee and should be addressed in the upper bodies of the Organization. This issue was moreserious than the decision.  With respect to the substance of the discussion, Turkey joined theconsensus than the decision had been taken.  Turkey attached great importance to theimplementation of the IDB. From that point of view, Turkey wished to take part in any furtherdiscussions or information consultation that would take place on that subject.
3.32 The representative of Venezuela regretted that the discussion, which should have been
basically constructive, had taken the part of distortion.  His delegation did not wish to blame any
country versus another.  His delegation believed that, in this Organization, regardless of the factthat there were decision-making bodies, there were fora allowing for discussion. Consensus wasfundamental and, if on a rare occasion, a country did not have the opportunity to deal with aparticular issue in a Committee, nothing would be lost by being flexible. It would be better to revertto discussion of the issue.  Within the Committee, it would be sounder and much healthier if allMembers agreed on what they believed was needed from database, instead of leaving the impressionthat some countries had imposed the decision over the others.  He believed that, in the Committee,the developing countries and the developed countries had the same intention with regard to the IDB.Members were interested in submitting information and knew that this was a fundamentalinstrument for the future of the Organization. But Members also had to understand that there weremajor difficulties for some countries, such as his.  The Secretariat knew about the obstacles somecountries faced in providing the information. His delegation was very happy to appear on the list ashaving provided part of the information.  However, some of the information provided by Venezuelahad to be disregarded because it had not been submitted correctly.  There were other countries thathad less capacity than his to submit the information.  A mechanism was needed that was sufficientlybroad and imaginative to permit Members to supply information not only from the official sourcesthat had been mentioned.  It had been said that there were countries that wished to conceal theirstatistics. He thought that more imagination was required and that Members needed to understandwhat his delegation had said earlier.  Venezuela did not wish to see the Committee going back onwhat it had already approved and did not wish to go before the Goods Council with a decision thatthe Committee was going back on.  There were countries that aimed to comply with the rules of theOrganization and to be transparent, so that at the real moment of negotiations, they could have theinformation that they needed.  Furthermore when countries would be negotiating, the IDB wouldnot be enough. Other mechanisms would be needed.  Surely developed countries would not limit thebasis for their negotiations only to what had been submitted to the IDB at a given moment. Hebelieved that there was room available to find a solution, which would be proper and which wouldnot involve extreme polari sed positions. His delegation agreed w ith the final reference made by the
European Communities.  That was what Venezuela sought and wished to support. Members shouldG/MA/M/16
Page 13
make an effort to solve the position.  The problem was not going back on the decision to the
advantage of some and the disadvantage of others. The consensus should be a real one and not leaveroom for doubts.  His delegation wanted a solution that would be better for all.  His delegationthought that the interventions of many delegations showed that Members should seek the win-winsituation. He urged Members not to emphasize the penalizing side of the issue.  In this or any othercommittee, it would be a very bad precedent to take the penalty approach. In the Organization, itwas only possible to take retaliatory measures after a dispute settlement process, or if arrears werenot paid up after four years then technical cooperation would not be provided.  Those were the onlyreasons for sanctions.  However, if at some point, a country, large or small, did not have access toinformation that belonged to all Members of the Organization, just because it was not capable ofcomplying, the Committee would be doing something that those delegations that believed intransparency and common effort in the Organization really did not want to happen in theOrganization.
3.33 The representative of the Philippines respected the views that had been expressed by other
delegations and offered a possible solution for improving the number of submissions. Egypt had
stated earlier that the data they had submitted to the Trade Policy Review could be used for theirsubmission to the IDB.  She believed this to be  a very positive development.  She thought that
perhaps some Members were not aware that data that had been submitted to the Secretariat inanother context were the same data that was required for the IDB.  All Members could give theirauthorization to use data submitted to other WTO divisions for the IDB.  This approach mightincrease the number of submissions.
3.34 The representative of El Salvador agreed with the statements of Egypt and Venezuela, that
Members should be more flexible in this connection and that they should seek a solution to the
problem that had come up in the Co mmittee.  There were countries lik e hers that had difficulties. It
was not a case of wanting to conceal information or for lack of information that El Salvador had notmade a submission.  Her country's problem was a lack of capability in terms of human resources.Her delegation had one person covering meetings of the WTO and of other organizations.Sometimes her delegation was not aware of meetings taking place and issues being discussed. Shewished that delegations would show more flexibility so that a solution could be found to thisproblem.
3.35 The representative of Morocco thought that the Committee on Market Access would help
the Council on Trade in Goods to settle the problem.  The problem did not arise only in the
Committee because the Committee had taken the decision.  Now the problem was in the court of theCouncil for Trade in Goods and the General Council.  This was because the Committee's decisionwould modify a decision taken by the General Council.  Therefore, in his view, the GeneralCouncil had to approve it.  He questioned whether Members had an interest in re-opening thediscussion in those other bodies. He believed that the Committee had to find a solution to the issue.His delegation had attended the meeting in which the decision had been taken, had accepted thedecision, and had had no problem with respect to substance or procedure with this decision.Morocco had no objection to re-opening the debate either in the Committee or in a higher body. Heinformed the Committee that Morocco would provide its submissions to the IDB by the nextMonday.
3.36 The delegate of Hong Kong, China shared the views expressed by Australia.  His delegation
suggested that as a matter of urgency and importance, the Committee should consider the best way
to help as soon as possible those Members that required technical assistance in providing therequired data. It was regrettable that the responses to the Chairman's letter would not be availableuntil the end of January of the next year. His delegation suggested that the Chairman hold informalG/MA/M/16
Page 14
consultations when sufficient responses had been received, so that expeditious actions could be
taken to help those Members.
3.37 The representative of Japan wished to comment on some aspects of the discussion because
the IDB information was very essential, not only for his delegation, but also for all Members of the
Organization.  Members' provision of the information was the basis for the work.  In this regard,his delegation wished to emphasize reciprocity in providing all the information. This was alsorelated to transparency.  With respect to the difficulty of providing the information, his delegationbelieved that technical assistance from the Secretariat was an essential part to fulfil Members'commitments and wished to ask Members that faced difficulties to use this to implement Members'obligations and the decision that had been taken two years ago.
3.38 The Chairman said that it was his understanding that the Committee could not take any
decisions on work processes.  This was up to other bodies of the Organization.  In relation to the
reference by Brazil on incentive and penalty, he recalled that in his childhood, denial of the dessert
was an incentive to consume the main meal.
3.39 The delegate of Ecuador said that it appeared evident that the decision adopted had been
premature, as the arguments of previous speakers had shown.  It was important to underline that the
possibility of having full access should not be based on incentives or sanctions because many
delegations had institutional and technical difficulties in complying with this rule.  He stressed thatthis was not in line with the latent spirit of the mandate of the General Council regarding the IDB.The disagreement on the core of this issue could not be avoided. If it were not solved, it would havenegative repercussions in future on any issues dealt with by the Committee. Ecuador thought thatthe best way of moving forward would be on the basis of trust and confidence.  However, thediscussion gave the impression that the contrary was occurring. Ecuador was one of the fortycountries that had made notifications to the IDB and had made the compromise to comply with theobligations under the mandate of the General Council. In spite of the fact that, like mostdelegations, Ecuador had approved the decision, Ecuador agreed with what some other delegationshad said, particularly with the comments of Morocco. Ecuador was not opposed to a re-opening ofthe debate so that a decision could be taken in line with the interests of all Members.
3.40 The representative of Korea stated that although his delegation had gone along with the
decision at the last meeting of the Committee, it was necessary to be practical.  His delegation was
ready to resolve the differences expressed by delegations.  He thought that suggestions made byHong Kong, China and Turkey would be a good start.
3.41 The representative of Mauritius said that his delegation valued very much the PC IDB
submissions.  In this regard, he sought a technical clarification from the Secretariat regarding the
entry for Mauritius in document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.3.  With regard to the issue and the concernraised by the Indian delegation, his delegation supported the views expressed by several delegationsto re-open the issue and to reach a satisfactory solution.
3.42 The delegate of Cuba said that many delegations had used the element of technical
assistance as something that solved all problems. He thought that this was not true.  Many
developing countries had institutional problems, which were very serious from the perspectives ofcomputer technology and preparation of data.  These could not just be solved by a simple mission oftechnical assistance.  Furthermore, countries such as his were under special circumstances thatstopped them from providing certain data.  Therefore, this aspect had also to be taken into account.He recalled that one delegate had suggested that there was a lack of will to supply data and to betransparent. He believed that this was not the case.  There were delegations that could not providedata because of special circumstances. He believed that there was enough support in the meeting toG/MA/M/16
Page 15
allow for a re-opening of the issue.  He agreed with the comments of Australia in that it was
necessary to find a constructive solution, not a punitive solution, to this issue. Therefore, Cubabelieved that a pragmatic approach was required and that Members should be capable of going backon a decision on an intelligent basis.
3.43 The delegate of Guatemala stated all Members' positions should be taken into account.  The
Committee could not go forward assuming that there was a consensus when there was no consensus.
There was a problem and flexibility was required.  The IDB was needed for all Members and allwere all conscious of that fact.  Members needed to find a solution whereby consensus could bereached. Guatemala had been working on the preparation of the bound duties, which would beprovided very shortly.
3.44 The representative of India responded first to some points made by the Chairman.  She
recalled that the Chairman had drawn a parallel of the "incentive" implicit in the proposal with a
childhood example relating to denial of the pudding before the main meal had been consumed.  She
stated that this was not a true parallel.  The reality of the IDB submissions was that there was no
main meal itself for some Members and therefore the denial of a pudding could never be anincentive.  She believed that it was not surprising that a number of Members had spoken of thedifficulties faced by them in even gathering the data, let alone of addressing the questions ofelectronic format for furnishing it to the WTO.  She noted that the Chairman had stated that theDecision of 22 September stood, and that the Committee should concentrate on implementation.However, as far as India was concerned, and as already reiterated in depth in the Statement madeby her earlier, there was no Decision, and that therefore the question of implementation did notarise.  She recalled further that the Chairman had stated that during his informal discussions withsome Members it was clear that there was too much discussion in an informal context on theproposal, and that therefore the matter had been placed on the agenda formally.  She noted, withregret, that an informal process had been underway that was outside  the informal process of theCommittee, and that this process had been responsible for the purported decision.  The fact thatIndia, which had very clearly and unambiguously stated its reservations was not even consulted bythe Chairman as part of this secondary informal process vindicated the fact that the "decision" of22 September was not proper and therefore that there was no decision.  She thereafter responded  tosome aspects that had been mentioned by previous speakers. She appreciated the flexibility shownby delegations in recognizing that a system of penalties was indeed not in the interest of theOrganization. She recalled that the delegate of the European Communities had mentioned that itmight have been unfair to place the responsibility on the Chairman. She thought that he had perhapsbeen referring to the procedural aspect that she had highlighted. She reiterated that India had madeno such attempt.  On the contrary, India had merely stated that when India had clearly expressed areservation, a chance should have been given to India to be heard further on the matter.  India hadbeen careful to allocate no blame, but had proceeded to straight away address the substantivematter. The United States delegate had mentioned that since India had not been present at themeeting when the decision had been taken, the decision must hold.  Furthermore, there had beensome allusion that India had been careless in this regard. She held that this also was not valid. Shethought that the United States delegate would have been only too aware that India could not havebeen present at the meeting.  This was precisely because of the circumstances under which the DSBmeeting scheduled for the morning had been postponed to the afternoon to coincide with themeeting of the Council on Trade in Goods.  This was well known to the delegate of the UnitedStates.  Therefore, her delegation could not support any allusion regarding some proceduralniceties. The delegate of the European Communities had also made some reference to thedocuments being submitted in advance. She recalled that in her statement she had mentioned thatIndia had not received those documents.  The Chairman had mentioned that some delegations wereable to receive the documents on the Friday and some on the Monday.  In any event India had nothad the chance to see those documents in advance. She responded also to the point that had beenG/MA/M/16
Page 16
made on the nature of informal meetings - that the suggestion of India implied that all matters would
be addressed in informal meetings, that there should be many more informal meetings and thatevery aspect should be dealt with in informal meetings. She stated that there had been no suchsuggestion. India did recognize the nature and importance of having informal meetings to attempt toforge consensus when a matter had been raised in formal meetings. To the best of her knowledge,in the April meeting, the Committee had noted in the formal session that there was no consensus onthe proposal and therefore had reverted to an informal mode. The flexibility of this system wassomething that was important in the Committee and that India continued to believe in. Sheresponded to the brief suggestion from the United States delegate that there may have been someallusion that India may have had some mala fide  intentions, because India had stated that day that
technically, India was a defaulter. Firstly, she recalled one of the questions on the document(G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.3) that she had raised earlier.  Did a single yes in any column imply that theMember was not a defaulter and did a single no in any of the column imply that a Member was adefaulter? If that were so, she feared that all Members' intentions would then have equal doubt ornon-doubt as the case might be.  She noted that indeed all the trading majors, including the United
States, like India had some negative entries in the submissions columns.  The second aspect in this
matter, which India felt was very important, was that India saw this as a systemic issue. India hadnot wished to have any illusions and, having taken up the matter in a very strong manner, India hadnot wished to see any change in its stands midway, until the matter had been resolved. The issuewas that simple.  She also recognized, and her having mentioned that India was a technical defaultershould have highlighted the fact, that India clearly recognized what it was doing. To allude thatIndia had some mala fide  intentions was just not borne out. She responded to the comment of the
delegate of Canada, that the IDB was a powerful tool. She did recognize that. However, this wasalso true about the Organization.  Beside, the crucial issue was that this Committee did not have themandate to change the fundamental nature of the Organization, whereby one particular tool could beused to deny access to some Members of the Committee.  That was something with which India hada serious systemic concern. She further noted that the Canadian delegate had said that it was apowerful tool for use of all Members. What India was trying to ensure was that it continued toremain a tool for all Members and not just for some.  She stressed that, in all the acrimony and theprocedural aspects, which were really not important, delegations were loosing sight of the substanceof the proposal.  Delegations were loosing sight of the fact that they needed to address the matter ofnon-submission of documents, which speakers before her had said was important, and that therewere ways in which that could be addressed. Delegations were loosing sight of the fact that, inaddressing a solution to this problem, they should ensure that the fundamental nature of theOrganisation and the manner in which Members were regarded would not be changed.  Suggestionshad been made that the decision might be re-opened in the Committee or that the decision could beconsidered in the Council for Trade in Goods or in the General Council.  She stated that herdelegation would be willing to go with any of the options that the Committee came out with.
3.45 The Chairman said that the Committee had had a useful and very necessary exchange of
views on the matter.  It was very evident that there were serious concerns primarily on the process
and, on the part of some delegations, on the decision itself, in that the Committee had beenrequested to reopen the issue. He thought it was encouraging that all speakers had underlined theimportance of the IDB.  One delegation had stated that it was especially important for the smallercountries which, through the IDB, would be empowered in a manner that only some of the largerMembers of the Organization had been so far.  He stressed the importance of submissions.  Manydelegations had said that the sooner submissions were made and the sooner the IDB becameoperational in a really reciprocal manner, the sooner Members could distance themselves from thepresent discussion.  He thought that what the New Zealand representative had said - that the systemhad in some sense fallen down, might be correct.  By that he meant that through misunderstandingson the part of some, or an inability to be present, or some other mechanism, a decision had beentaken with which some Members had afterwards felt uncomfortable.  All the same, he did not seeG/MA/M/16
Page 17
how, in light of the comments that had been made, there was any scope for revisiting the original
decision.  He did not see that as a legal matter.  The Committee could perfectly well decide toreopen the issue but a consensus would be required to do so.  He did not see such a concensus at thecurrent meeting so the first substantive point was that the decision stood.  It could be raised in ahigher body - in the Council for Trade in Goods. As far as the process was concerned, somedelegations had referred to systemic issues of principle.  Others, such as Australia, had preferred tosee this as a practical matter.  He, as Chairman, had never  intended to cut corners or take anydecision that would have in any way serious systemic implications.  From his perspective, that didnot seem to be the case.  He wished to explain why the matter was put on the agenda, beyond whathe had said already about having forewarned delegations in the informal consultations and throughthe annotated agenda and the informal note.  Beyond that, after having talked to a number ofdelegations, he had understood that there was a concern that too much discussion took place ininformal contexts.  This posed a problem because many smaller delegations were not in a positionto participate to the extent they wished.  From that perspective, he had decided, and he understoodthis to be with the support of Members, to put the matter on the agenda, so that the Committee
would have an opportunity to discuss the matter of the IDB in the formal session.  It was clear that
it could not be said beforehand whether Members would be in a position to take a decision or not.However, since there had been no opposition to any point in the IDB dissemination paper in theformal meeting, he had had no choice other than to follow through and allow the Committee toapprove the document under consideration.  He wished to underline what the United Statesdelegation had said.  Had he received information to the effect that one delegation could not goalong with the substance of one or more points in the decision, he would not have put it up forapproval. That was quite clear and that would not have required presence in the meeting other thana brief visit to the room to tell him so. This was also why in the informal consultations he hadpublicly stated his telephone number so that any delegation that had the slightest concern could getin touch with him and tell him so.  But he had received no approach from any delegation andtherefore the Committee had had the discussion and the decision.  A further matter was the letter.He had recognized that India had had concerns on Paragraph 5 that it had expressed at the beginningand also the end of the informal meeting.  At the beginning of that meeting there had also been aconcern on Paragraph 6 of Part IV.  India had wanted to put more pressure and traditionalmechanisms of reminding and convincing Members to submit and then to later review the situationbefore anything further was done.  This was precisely why he had suggested, as a chairman'sinitiative, to send a letter to all those capitals that had not provided submissions as of that date.That letter had gone out the previous week.  For technical reasons there had been a delay. Withrespect to what Cuba had said, the letter had a formulation which made it clear that it was not onlytechnical assistance that Members could bring up as an issue or as a reason for not having notified.The letter had said "any problems you may be facing in furnishing the information to the WTOSecretariat as well as any requirements for technical assistance for its preparation".  He thought thatthe letter also covered the possibility that there might be institutional reasons for not submitting.Personally, he agreed with those that had said that understanding and flex ibility should be shown in
the work of the Committee.  He did not see, but stood to be corrected, that there was a basis for theCommittee to decide anything that implied that it was changing its working routines.  He believedthat, as the situation stood, it was the responsibility of Members to make the Chairman aware informal meetings whether there were problems and that this could be done through presencethroughout the meeting or through a note. He also pointed out that concensus, as a concept, did notbelong in informal consultations.  In such consultations, an emerging consensus was often referredto, but it could never be said that a concensus had been reached before a formal meeting took place.At the meeting of 22 September, there had been a concensus, which allowed the Committee to takea decision.  He regretted that some Members saw this decision as an unfortunate one, but hethought that the Committee sh ould now concentrate on implementa tion aspects of its decision rather
than the decision itself.G/MA/M/16
Page 18
3.46 In response to the Chairman's assessment, the representative of India recalled that the
Chairman had stated that he had seen an emerging concensus on the proposal that was contained in
Part IV, Paragraph 5 and that he had informally consulted with some Members, which had indicated
to him that perhaps there was too much discussion in informal meetings.  She regretted that her
delegation had not been a party to that informal process, which was outside the main informal process
that was continuing.  Perhaps the matter could have been settled had India been associated with that
informal process.  The Chairman had pointed out that a Committee did not perhaps have the ability todecide on procedures, that is, on changing working routines. She agreed with him on that.  However,
the mandate of the Committee was also very clear and India also recognized that there were certain
decisions that the Committee was mandated to take.  However it was not mandated to change the
fundamental nature of the Organization.  She invited reference to Article 4.1 of the Agreement on
Establishing the WTO.  There it was clearly set out that the Ministerial Conference shall have the
authority to take decisions on all matters under any of the multi-lateral trading agreements if so
requested by a Member, in accordance with the specific requirements for decision-making in thisAgreement and in the relevant multi-lateral trade ag reements.  She also invited reference to Article 9
of the same Agreement, Paragraph 2, where it was stated that the Ministerial Conference and the
General Council had the exclusive authority to adopt interpretations of this Agreement and of the
multi-lateral trade agreements.  Her delegation believed that the decision that was taken was not
proper and, therefore, it was not a decision.  The Chairman had mentioned at the conclusion of hisassessment that the decision stood and that the Committee should now concentrate on implementing
the decision.  It was her delegation's view that there was no decision and that it was firstly important
to see how to take the proposal forward.
3.47 The Chairman  said that he  understood India to say that there was no decision because, in
India's view, it was not a proper decision.  Reference had been made to the Marrakesh Agreement,
Articles 4.1 and 9.2.  Article 4.1 referred to the exclusive authority of the General Council to take
certain decisions and Article 9.2 to the exclusive role of the General Council in interpreting
Agreements.  He understood that to mean that there was a decision.  It was up to any Member to bring
that decision to the Goods Council or to the General Council to try to revisit it and look at it again.
However, he did not think that Articles 4.1 and 9.2 of the Marrakesh Agreement meant that there was
no decision. It meant that it could be brought to the General Council, or even the Ministerial
Conference, for review.  In his view, a consensus would then be required to overturn a decision
already taken by the Committee. This was the Chairman's understanding and he invited the views of
Members.   His sense of the meeting thus far, but he stood to be corrected, was that some delegationshad said that they thought the decision should be revisited.  He had not heard anyone accepting or
saying that there was no decision.  It was necessary to be very clear about the Committee's thinking on
this point.  He said that he personally had some ideas of what could possibly be done but he first
wished to open the floor for comments on India's statement.
3.48 The delegate of Morocco wished to comment on the matter of procedure, which the Chairman
had just raised.  He understood that the Chairman had said that a consensus in the General Council
was needed to reverse a decision taken by a committee.  He asked if that was correct or was it the
contrary because according to procedure, the General Council adopted decisions by concensus and it
was the committees and the councils that submitted the results of their work to the General Council
for approval.  It was not the other way around.
3.49 The Chairman replied that he had based his remarks on advice he had received in what led up
to the current meeting.  First of all, his understanding was that there was a legitimate decision that had
been taken by the Committee.  It could be proposed to re-visit that decision in the Committee, as such.
It was clear from the discussion at the current meeting that a number of Members would not support
over-turning that decision.  He considered that to be a factual reading of the situation of theCommittee.  If a Member were unhappy with the decision, an option would be for the Member to
bring it to the Goods Council.  In order to chan ge the decision already taken, a consensus to do so
would, in his view, be required in  the Goods Council.  If the decision were to be brought up in theG/MA/M/16
Page 19
General Council, it was the Chairman's understanding  that that Council would also need a consensus
to overturn the decision by the Committee.
3.50 The delegate of Malaysia stated that the Committee obviously had a problem here.  The point
was that many Members had spoken that day, expressing their serious concern.  Some had spoken
very explicitly and others not too explicitly.  However there was at least one delegation that had a
problem with the decision.  He thought that this should be dealt with in the Committee.  The point hewished to make was that even if there had been a so-called concensus decision made at a formal
meeting of the Committee, at the current meeting there was disagreement.  His delegation was more
than willing to re-open and re-visit and discuss the decision once again.
3.51 The representative of Egypt said that his delegation wanted to approach this issue from a very
practical point of view.  As the Chairman had mentioned earlier, these were serious concerns.  They
could be dealt with according to several options.  One option would be to deal with the matter in theCommittee.  If the Chairman were to decide that th is was not possible, or that he did not want to do
so, then the matter had to go to a higher body.  In the Organization, when there were problems of this
nature, Members would request the chairman of a committee to conduct informal consultations to see
how they could be resolved.  If they could not be  resolved within the committee in question, then the
matter would need to be raised in a higher body.  Therefore it was up to this Committee to decidewhether there was a possibility to resolve the issue, regardless of how it was named.  The objective
would not necessarily be to overturn the decision, bu t perhaps to slightly amend it or to see how the
issue would be dealt with.  The Egyptian delegate also stated that it was not very clear as to what
might constitute adequate participation in the IDB.  This was also open to interpretation.  If this was
left to the Secretariat to interpret, other types of problems could arise.  For instance, the Secretariatcould say that from its perspective, a country had fulfilled what the Secretariat would consider the
minimum that was required.  However, another delegation might not agree.  There were all kinds of
difficulties that could arise in the implementation of  the provision and the decision.  Instead of that, he
thought it would be better to resolve the issue in a constructive manner, rather than creating problems
without there being a reason to do so.  He believed that it was up to the Chairman and the Committeeto resolve the difficulties and to try to do that in the most constructive way.
3.52 The delegate of the European Communities wished to make his delegation's position on this
point sufficiently clear.  His delegation had taken note of the different opinions that had been
expressed and welcomed the fact that many delegations had shown a real will to go into the substanceof these issues and to find a satisfactory solution.  His delegation thought along the same lines, but
apart from that, it really had a problem with the point of departure.  The fact that India had
contradicted the Chairman's earlier assessment gave rise to the problem of whether or not the decision
had been validly adopted.  Once that had been determined, it would not be improper to say that the
decision was wrong and that it could be re-discussed.  But first it had to be determined whether the
decision was validly taken or not. His delegation's position was quite firm and he had received no
instructions to change it that day.  It was not possible to go back on the fact that the decision wasvalidly adopted for reasons he had explained earlier. This was for factual reasons and because of the
sequence of events.  A point had been explicitly placed on the agenda of a formal meeting for
adoption. He recalled that there had been the agenda of a formal meeting, and a document that had
been circulated, which asked every delegation to have its position ready. He pointed out that at formal
meetings, when there was no objection to the adoption of a decision, the decision was adopted.  Hethought that if one embarked on a discussion accepting the idea that the decision had not been
adopted, one would be on very dangerous ground re garding the functioning of the Organization.  He
found it curious on the technical side, that some delegations, which according to his notes and his
recollections had participated in neither the formal meeting nor the informal meeting, seemed to have
a very precise idea of whether the decision had been adopted or not.  However, he did not wish tosound too negative.  He thought that Egypt had made some openings in its earlier remarks.  Egypt had
spoken about a decision that had been adopted and had raised a systemic issue whereby a decision had
been taken and it was later noted that some delegations might legitimately have serious problems with
the contents of the decision.  That was a matter worth raising.  However, his delegation could notG/MA/M/16
Page 20
support an approach that would entail erasing what had happened and acting as if the meeting of
22 September had not taken place.
3.53 The Chairman thought that the most immediat e point of departure was what Egypt had said
about consultations.  He wished to make a proposal in this regard.  It began with the fact that all
delegations had a common desire to implement the IDB and to make it into a common working tool
for the Members of the WTO.  It also started from the premise that when the so-called reciprocitymechanism had been discussed in the first place, this was because there had not been sufficient
progress in Members' submissions to the IDB.  He proposed that the Committee take the decision it
had adopted as its point of departure together with the fact that some Members were unhappy with the
decision and thought it had systemic implications.   Having said that, he pointed out that a letter had
been sent off, on his initiative as Chairman, to all capitals from which there had been no submissions
to the IDB.  The deadline for response was 29 January 1999.  He thought it would be useful to wait
for the responses to that letter to come in, to th en analyse them and, in parallel, to consult on how
other mechanisms of the more traditional sort could be used to encourage Members to submit.  The
true problem was that there were too few submissions.  He was willing to consult on ways to
encourage further submissions.  That was what India had taken up in the first place.  India had wanted
to use moral persuasion. He was hopeful that this could produce some results because the delegations
of Uruguay and Egypt had mentioned that their subm issions to the TPR could be used as submissions
to the IDB.  This meant that there must be a number of other Members that were in the same position.
He thought that that might immediately increase th e number of submissions considerably.  He recalled
that Philippines had also touched upon this earlier.
3.54 He said that, even though a decision had been taken, if, before the next meeting of the
Committee through efforts in consulting and lookin g at every means at the Committee's disposal to
increase the number of submissions, there was a very significant increase in submissions, then maybe
the Committee would be in the position to say that the reciprocity mechanism was no longer needed
because the goal of wide participation in the IDB had been achieved.  At that point and in light of
such a new situation, Members might then possibly be inclined to re-visit the decision.  He thoughtthat this would be a useful route to go because if it were not taken, much time would be spent
discussing principles and systemic issues.  He t hought that Members should concentrate on a practical
approach, as Australia had said earlier, that would get them where they wished to go.
3.55 As Chairman, he was not inclined to spend many more hours discussing something that did
not seem very promising.  He believed that this would get further away from the objective of
establishing the IDB and making it operational.  The goal was to get more submissions.  Therefore,
his offer was to consult with Members on how the sufficient number of submissions could be
obtained, thereby preparing the ground for altering the Committee's decision.  The Committee might
be in a position to change the decision of 22 September at its March 1999 meeting if there were a
convincing number of submissions.  He asked delegations to respond to his proposal.
3.56 The delegate of Venezuela was grateful for the Chairman's effort to try to find a solution.  He
first wished to say that he was concerned about keeping the discussions constructive. While the
delegate of the European Communities had been speaking, there had seemed to be a question as to
which delegations were participating in discussions and which were not. He thought that this was
against the spirit of what Members were really s eeking. Venezuela recalled that in an informal
meeting, countries, among them Venezuela, had been against a measure that was later adopted.  He
thought that, legitimately, the delegations, which had been against the measure at that time, had
reiterated the fact again at the current meeting. With all due respect, he thought that the solution
proposed by the Chairman was not the right one. His delegation thought that, before the matter was
put before the Goods Council once more, Members should reflect and discuss the issue.  There shouldbe consultations to see if a compromise could be reached. Of course, the compromise would be with a
view to guarantee active participation in the IDB in the light of the efforts being made.  Members
needed to find a way, not to counteract or contradict or reverse a decision that had been adopted
through a legitimate procedure, as was usually done in the WTO.  Reconsideration of a particularG/MA/M/16
Page 21
issue might be needed at a given point and all Members had an obligation to think more deeply about
the matter, regardless of the formalities that might have been involved.  He believed that there was
still room available for this.  His delegation would be very sorry if, for reasons of time or the need to
conclude a meeting, Members were to fail to look for an imaginative solution. The issue needed to be
reflected upon before it was brought once more before the Goods Council.  It was in the Committee
that the solution should be found.  While he found the Chairman's proposal very laudable, he did not
think that it would resolve the fundamental problem that had been brought up by some Members.Venezuela disagreed with the principle of a mandate that could be considered as absolutely
compulsory and subject to sanctions, because such a principle was not in the spirit of the obligations
of the Committee.
3.57 The representative of the United States supported the Chairman's proposal and was quite
convinced that the issue would not be resolved on that day.  He was aware that many delegations were
uncomfortable with the substance of the previous decision.  The objective was not to restrict access tothe IDB through the restrictions on the Internet File  Transfer Facility.  The United States' objective
was to have as many countries as possible in the IDB.  Therefore, his delegation was not tied in
principle to the decision that had been taken at the previous meeting of the Market Access Committee.
He thought that the Chairman would have to c ontinue consultations on how to reconcile Members'
positions.  It also seemed entirely reasonable and within the scope of the Chairman's responsibilitiesto continue to find ways to bring more countries into the IDB.  If it helped those Members, which had
expressed opposition in principle to the previous decision, to raise the possibility that such a decision
might no longer be necessary and could be formally revoked, his delegation was not opposed to that
direction.  It would willingly participate in both tracks of those consultations – the question of the
decision and the question of increasing participation in the IDB.
3.58 The delegate of New Zealand said that some small countries might support the Chairman's
proposal as well.  Some elements of the proposal had satisfied his delegation.  What had been
proposed would set aside the formal side of what delegations had been arguing about.  Delegations
could thus concentrate on the essentials and search for perhaps an imaginative solution and new waysof getting countries to be able to make the necessary submissions.  Then all could be happy with the
state of the IDB.  It would provide the chance to re-visit the more contentious part of that day's
discussion at a later point to see whether positions had changed.  His delegation was certainly
prepared to reassess its views on the decision that had been taken a few months ago.  Therefore, he
urged Members to take this opportunity to focus on th e practical implications of the matter and to see
that a solution could be found to all the problems.  He endorsed the Chairman's proposal.
3.59 The delegate of Egypt said that his delegation had no difficulty in having informal
consultations.  In fact Egypt had suggested that.  However, he thought that conducting informal
consultations and addressing the decision should not be subject to enhanced participation in the IDB.
All delegations had mentioned the importance they attached to the IDB and their intentions.  He
thought it would have been enough to say that there were some difficulties and informal consultationswould be conducted on the Modalities and the Opera tion of the Integrated Data Base.  It would only
be seen in the informal consultations, how to resolve all the problems.  He did not think that this
should be subject to higher participation or adequate participation because this could differ from one
Member to another.  However, he hoped that Members could deal with the issue in the most
constructive manner.
3.60 In response to the statement of Egypt, the Chairman said that there might have been a
misunderstanding.  He had not meant to give any indication that a higher number of submissions
would be pre-requisite for consulting. On the contrary, he thought that the Committee should consult
on ways of arriving at a higher number of submissions.
3.61 The delegate of Switzerland said that the Chairman's proposal was a very constructive one.
Her delegation believed that the IDB was an important tool and that it was essential to have as large a
number of participants as possible.G/MA/M/16
Page 22
3.62 The representative of India said that her delegation's assessment of the Chairman's proposal
was along the lines of what Egypt had just stated.  When a process of informal consultations was
being initiated, it should be on the entirety of the matter and not on a single aspect of it, or subject to
any conditionalities on it.  If her understanding of the proposal was correct, she was willing to go
along with it.
3.63 The Chairman said that there was no conditionality on conducting the informal consultations.
He would discuss with Members an opportune time to start discussions and would not limit what was
to be taken up.  A prime concern in those discussions would be how, through moral persuasion or
other mechanisms, Members could be encouraged to submit, so that the problem of the decision could
be eliminated.  He asked if the Committee could agree that he initiate open-ended consultations at a
time that was convenient to Members.  It was so agreed.  He then asked the Secretariat to respond to
the technical questions that had been posed earlier by some delegations.
3.64 Mrs Gagliardi of the Secretariat said that, with respect to documen t G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.3, the
blank spaces meant, "not provided".  Under the bound and applied duty columns, a blank space was
equivalent to "no".  However, when only imports had been provided, those columns had been left
blank in anticipation that the tariffs would be provided.  For the correlations, the column had been leftblank when no correlations were required.  An example was for the case in which the tariff
nomenclature had not changed from one year to the next, and when the imports nomenclature
matched the tariff nomenclature.  With respect to the question raised on the count of forty Members,
that count had been based on having either imports or tariffs for at least one year.  She said that,
should it be decided to use information provided to other divisions for the IDB, delegations shouldprovide a letter indicating that the information shou ld be considered as their IDB submissions.  This
would make the Secretariat's administrative work for the IDB easier to manage.     She also indicated
that in the future versions of document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.3, new submissions would be highlighted
and that the acceding countries would be listed separately from Members.
3.65 The delegate of the European Communities raised a point on the transfer of data from the
Trade Policy Review Division to the IDB.  The Secretariat had suggested that a letter should be
written in this case.  He recalled that, at the beginning of that week, Uruguay had been stated during
the TPR meeting that their data supplied in that context could be used for the IDB.  There was even a
written record of this in Uruguay's written reply to the question of whether the Secretariat could usethe data for a draft IDB submission.  This had again been taken up in the concluding remarks of the
Chairman.  This might happen again in future TPRs.  He suggested that this would be sufficient and
that the country concerned would not need to send a letter on top of that.
3.66 The delegate of Egypt requested that, in future revisions of the document, the Secretariat
include an explanation of the entries in the document such as the meaning of blanks.  This would be
helpful for capitals as well.
3.67 The delegate of India, following the Secretar iat's clarifications on the presentation of the
document, suggested that, for the correlations colu mn, "not applicable" or "N/A" could be written
when that was the case.
3.68 The Committee took note  of all the statements that been made.
4. Consolidated Loose-leaf Schedules on Goods (Pilot Project)
4.1 The Chairman introduced the fourth item on the Agenda, which concerned the pilot project
for establishing a database for the consolidated loose-leaf schedules on goods.  He said that at the
22 September meeting, the Secretariat had provided the Committee with a progress report on that
matter.  Subsequently, the Secretariat had organized informal consultations on 21 October to provide
delegations with more information on the pilot project.  He understood that the presentation hadG/MA/M/16
Page 23
provided further clarification on the technical dimensions associated with setting-up the database.  He
then briefly recalled the history of the work on the loose-leaf project.  This issue had been underdiscussion in the GATT and WTO since 1980.  More recently, in 1995 and 1996 the issue of
consolidated tariff schedules had been discussed in the Committee.  This had led to the adoption of a
decision by the Council for Trade in Goods on 29 November 1996 (G/L/138).  He explained that the
Decision would have provided for an ideal situati on establishing fully verified and legally binding
consolidated loose-leaf schedules.  However, since then, informal consultations had indicated that itwould be difficult to achieve this goal in the near future.  It had been therefore informally agreed that
as a first step, a pragmatic approach should be taken.  Instead of creating immediately legally binding
instruments, a database for consolidated loose-leaf schedules would be set up, on the basis of
available information.  This database would not be of a legally binding nature but would serve as a
working tool for delegations.  It could assist in the monitoring of the implementation of existing
commitments, in the verification of HS changes and in  the general work related to tariff concessions,
since it would be on an electronic basis.
4.2 The Chairman advised delegations that there had been some recent developments in moving
forward on this issue.  The ideas were outlined in an informal paper by the Secretariat "Consolidated
Tariff Schedules Data Base – Technical Cooperation Project", which had been circulated in the room.
He invited the Secretariat to bring delegations up-to-date on those developments.
4.3 Mrs Gagliardi of the Secretariat presented a preliminary report on the loose-leaf pilot project.
The final report on the loose-leaf pilot project would be ready on 21 December.  She then summarized
the most important results achieved thus far.  With respect to the data base design and tools, after a
careful examination of different tariff schedules of concessions and taking into account the IDBstructure, the Secretariat had formulated a model.  This model gave a good compromise between
flexibility and performance while keeping a faithful representation of the submitted tariff schedules of
concessions for each country.  The database format included all the elements as described in the
Decision on the Establishment of Loose-leaf Sche dules on Goods (document G/L/138).  The contents
of the database were defined in Annex 1 of the informal note that had been circulated in the room.Additional data elements had been included but only for the internal use of the Secretariat.  This was
to facilitate the establishment of electronic tools for data formatting and consolidation of the
schedules.
4.4 As part of the pilot project, the Secretariat had developed electronic tools to assist in the
standardization and consolidation processes.  These included tools for the automatic generation of a
structural product nomenclature, semi-automatic data cleansing and standardization, semi-automatic
comparison of product descriptions , indexing of words contained in the product descriptions and a
word-based search facility, semi-automatic product transposition using concordance tables at the tariff
line level, computer-assisted product transposition from HS 1992 to HS 1996 at the HS six-digit level,
automatic linking of product descriptions to those contained in higher levels of the nomenclature thus
permitting the full product descriptions to be presented,  semi-automatic treatment of "ex-outs" in theschedules as well as data entry and updating facilities, which were still at an experimental stage.
4.5 The electronic tools and computer assisted pro cessing that had been developed thus far for the
pilot project had increased efficiency and reduced the risk of introducing errors during the
consolidation effort.  However, further development of these tools and process would be essential forthe successful establishment of the tariff schedules database.  There was considerable scope for their
elaboration.  For example, these tools could be packaged as an application.  Tools could be prepared
to assist in the consolidation effort, such as li nking the tariff line information recorded in the
schedules database to the original electronic source of the information.  Tools could also be prepared
to standardize specific duties that were recorded in text format.  It would also be possible to developan intelligent data import facility that could operate on any type of spreadsheet file and possibly also
on word-processing files.  There was also scope for the further automation of transposition of
nomenclatures.G/MA/M/16
Page 24
4.6 She said that the Secretariat had also processed a complete HS 1996 tariff schedule of
concessions to which had been added the ITA rectifications.  This work had included the formattingof Excel files into the standard data base format and the cleansing and checking of the information.
The ITA concessions had then been incorporated by creating "ex-outs" of previous tariff items.  The
Secretariat had also categorized the tariff schedules of concessions according to the documentation
and information available to the Secretariat.  The different cases had been analyzed that might occur
when preparing the tariff schedules for developing Members.  There were five such cases.  The firstcase was where Members had provided a complete HS 1996 schedule.  The work to be carried out in
this case was to standardize the complete HS 1996 schedule and to introduce any rectifications.  The
second case was where Members had provided the list of items affected by HS 1996 changes and had
a complete Uruguay Round schedule.  For this case, th e work to be carried out included standardizing
the list of concessions affected by the HS 1996 changes, and then introducing the Uruguay Round
concessions that had not been affected by the HS 1996 changes and then, introducing any
rectifications.   The third case was where Members had provided the list of items that were affected byHS 1996 changes but did not have a complete Uruguay Round schedule. For this case, the work to be
carried out included standardizing the list of concessions affected by the HS 1996 changes,
introducing the Uruguay Round concessions that had not been affected by the HS 1996 changes,
introducing pre-Uruguay concessions that had not been reported in the Uruguay Round schedules and
then, introducing any rectifications.   The fourth case concerned those Members that had not providedtheir HS 1996 documentation but had a complete Uruguay Round Schedule.  In this case, the Uruguay
Round schedule would be standardized and where applicable, transposed to the HS 1996
nomenclature.  Then any rectifications would be introduced.  The fifth case was where Members had
not provided their HS 1996 documentation and did not have a complete Uruguay Round schedule.
The work to be carried out in this case was to standardize Uruguay Round schedule, if applicabletranspose to it HS 1996, add the pre-Uruguay Round concessions that had not been reported in the
Uruguay Round schedule and, at the end, introduce any rectifications.
4.7 The Secretariat had also estimated the difficulty of the work to be carried out.  The schedules
had been categorized according to the work that would need to be carried out to standardize andconsolidate each schedule for inclusion in the data base for the five cases previously described.  This
had been supplemented with an estimation of the level of difficulty and of the volume of information.
In preparing the estimates, it had been difficult to have a precise idea of the amount of time that would
be required to prepare and consolidate pre-Uruguay concessions.  Of ninety-five developed Members,
twenty-one schedules had been classified as difficult, thirty-eight as middle and thirty-six as easy.However the degree of difficulty was different according to the five cases described previously. For
example, it was more complicated to incorporate the pre-Uruguay Round concessions into a schedule
than to incorporate bindings recorded in the HS nomenclature.
4.8 The Chairman asked Mr 
Opelz, Director, Market Access Division, to provide the Committee
with further clarifications.
4.9 Mr Opelz provided the Committee with an outline of the paper that had been distributed in the
room - "Consolidated Tariff Schedules – Techncial Cooperation Project", dated 24 November 1998.
The ideas contained therein had been based on discussions that had taken place in the Committee in
March 1998 with respect to an informal paper by the Secretariat entitled "Preparation of Consolidated
Schedules of Concessions" (Job no. 1484).  In that paper, it had been noted that the tariff concessionsof all Members were available in the Secretariat and for the most part, in electronic format.  However,
the electronic information was not available in a standardized database format and for many
Members, was not consolidated.  He recalled that on the basis of that discussion, it had been decided
to conduct the pilot project that had been just described in Mrs Gagliardi's oral report.  The paper that
had been circulated in the room described a technical co-operation project to be carried out by theSecretariat.  The Secretariat would prepare draft files of consolidated tariff concessions for developing
countries, on the basis of documentation and information available to the Secretariat.  This would be
done for the schedules of all developing Members unless the Member indicated that it did not wish for
the Secretariat to carry out the work.  In principle, the Secretariat would not seek any additionalG/MA/M/16
Page 25
information from Members.  The project would be carried out within a time frame of one year.  He
noted that the question of funding would arise.  The Secretariat would try to obtain the funding fromcertain Members, and perhaps through particular funds.
4.10 While this technical cooperation work was being carried out for developing countries,
developed countries would prepare themselves their submissions for the tariff schedules database,
using the electronic format that would be provided  to them by the Secretariat.  Upon request, the
Secretariat could also provide developed Members with the software tools developed during the
course of the project.  He stressed that the technical co-operation aspect of the project refered only to
the schedules of the developing countries.  The result of the whole project would be a database
containing the consolidated draft tariff schedules of all WTO Members, composed of the information
that was described in Annex 1 of the paper that had been circulated in the room. It was important to
note that the results of this work would be a step in the direction of achieving what had been decided
in the decision of the Committee of 1996 (G/L/138 ) - arriving at legally binding instruments.
However, this would be only a practical and pragmatic approach.  Whatever the results of the project
would be, the data base would serve as a working tool only, without implications as to the legal status
of the information contained therein.  However, the database would accurately reflect Members
concessions.  The Secretariat would furnish developing Members with their consolidated draft
schedules files.  Then those Members would have the possibility to approve their files and then submittheir approved consolidated schedules to the Secretariat.
4.11 He pointed out that the work to be carrie d out would vary according to the information
available in the Secretariat and the five cases that had been described earlier.  Situations could arise
when a decision would be required to determine the correct information and the concession thatshould be recorded.  For those cases, the Secretar iat would provide the Member with a list of the
items and the corresponding information for the concessions.  The Member could then decide on and
inform the Secretariat as to how the information should be recorded.  If requested, the Secretariat
could also provide Members with proposals to solve such problems.  These proposals would follow
the methods recommended in the Decision of July  1983 (L/5470/Rev.1), where it was said that one
method would be applying the lowest rate of any previous heading to the whole of the new heading
and another method would be applying the arithmetic average of the previous rates of duty.  There
were two other methods recommended in the Decisi on of 1983.  However, these could only work on
the assumption that trade information would be made  available to the Secretariat.  The other two
methods mentioned were to apply the rate previous ly applied to the heading or headings with the
majority of trade or to apply the trade-weighted average rate of duty for the new heading.
4.12 In summary, the proposal could be seen as a step to accelerate and assist Members in
implementing the Decision of the Committee of 1996, in particular incorporating the HS 1996
changes in their schedules.  It would also establish a single reliable source for Members concessions.
He stressed again that it would be a pragmatic and interim solution, which would have no legal
implications.
4.13 The Chairman recalled that the project could be accomplished in the time frame of one year if
the necessary funding could be found.  He emphasize d that the work on the schedules of developing
countries would be done by the Secretariat and the work on the schedules of developed countries
would be carried out by those countries themselves.  The work should proceed in parallel. Therefore,the information contained in the loose-leaf schedule database would become available to all Members
at the same time.
4.14 The representative of Canada said that his authorities were prepared to do exactly what was
asked in terms of providing their electronic loose-leaf schedule.  His capital would be in direct contact
with the Secretariat to make the process as efficien t as possible.  Canada expressed its support for the
proposal at this stage and its willingness to do its part to make the project a success.G/MA/M/16
Page 26
4.15 The delegate of Brazil thanked the Secretariat for its presentation on what seemed to be a very
interesting and important initiative, which he would convey to his capital.  He asked whether the
consolidation needed be done because there were no developing countries that had consolidated
schedules or because of the need to create a uniform format.
4.16 The Secretariat replied that a standard format was required and that there were fourteen
Members that already had consolidated HS 1996 schedules.4.17 The delegate of the European Communities said that his delegation appreciated the
Secretariat's effort to devise a pragmatic solution.  It took care of the needs of the various categories
of countries, which was an essential feature.  In his delegation's view, it could provide a successful
venue for obtaining the results sought by all Members.  He confirmed that his delegation would do
their part of the job and would immediately engage  in the production of its consolidated loose-leaf
schedule.  They appreciated having the list of the data elements, which had been specified in theSecretariat's paper, and any information and technica l formatting indications that could be provided in
the future.
4.18 The representative of the United States expressed his appreciation to the Secretariat for
presenting the results of the pilot project and for the proposal on moving forward with respect to
consolidated loose-leaf schedules.  Having gone through the HS 1996 effort in the ad-hoc basis that
had been used previously, the idea of now moving straight to a solution and not having to go through
the difficulties of dealing on a one-by-one basis with the HS 1996 conversions was, in his view, very
attractive. He confirmed that his authorities would prepare their consolidated schedule and would
avail themselves of the software tools that had been offered.
4.19 The representative of Mexico thanked the Secretariat for the proposal for the creation of the
database of full tariff schedules.  He pointed out that if a developing country thought that it could
develop its own loose-leaf schedule, the Secretariat should be informed.  This would avoid the
Secretariat having to use unnecessary resources fo r those countries that could draw-up their own
schedules.  With this in mind, Mexico welcomed the proposal to create the database for the
consolidated tariff schedules.
4.20 The delegate of Turkey thought the initiative was very useful.  Her delegation would be ready
to provide the Secretariat with any additional information required.   She thought that her authorities
would be very pleased to see this initiative, which she would fully convey to the capital.
4.21 The delegate of Malaysia, on behalf of ASEAN  WTO Members, said that they fully
supported the Secretariat's initiative and would provide the greatest cooperation necessary.4.22 The Committee took note  of all the statements made by the Secretariat and Members.
5. Trade in Pharmaceutical Products
5.1 The Chairman referred to document G/MA/W/18, dated 13 November 1998 containing a
communication from the Commission of the Europe an Communities on behalf of the WTO Members
concerned.
5.2 The representative of the European Communities stated that the communication announced
the successful completion of the second review of the Pharmaceutical Agreement. This was a case of
additional liberalization, which had been undertaken by a group of highly motivated countries for the
benefit of everybody.  The documents were available with the Secretariat for Members to consult.  He
noted that the Members concerned would notify to the Secretariat the appropriate changes to be madeto their schedules according to the existing procedures.
5.3 The Committee took note of the statements.G/MA/M/16
Page 27
6. Status of Notifications of Quantitative Restrictions
6.1 The Chairman stated that this agenda item concerned notifications of quantitative restrictions
(QRs).  He recalled that Members were required to make notifications of QRs they maintain every
two years.  With respect to the 1998 notificati on, he referred to docu ment G/MA/NTM/QR/Add.5,
which provided an update of the situation.  The Secretariat had informed him that Haiti should be
added to the list under Paragraph 3 of that document.  Furthermore, he was pleased to report that the
QR database had been moved from the mainframe computer tapes to a PC Microsoft Access database.In total, the PC database contained the notifications of twenty-four Members.  Sixteen of these were
technically in a state that they could be made available upon request to Members.  A further seventeen
Members had notified the Secretariat that they did not maintain QRs.
6.2 The Committee took note  of the statement.
7. Report (1998) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods
7.1 The Chairman referred the Committee to document G/MA//Spec.9 - the annual report 1998 of
the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods.  He said that the report, which would be finalized in
light of the discussion that took place that day, would be submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods
for examination at its meeting of 30 November 1998.  The report gave a factual summary of the
activities of the Committee during the past year.  In this context, he reminded the Committee that twoperiodic reports containing factual information on waivers were contained in document G/MA/59 and
G/MA/60.  He suggested that the Committee examine the draft Annual Report, paragraph by
paragraph, unless there were delegations that wished to make general statements before that process
was started.  He asked for comments on Paragraph 1 of the report.
7.2 The delegate of India said that, in the light of earlier discussions that day on agenda item C
(Modalities and Operations of the Integrated Data Base), it should be clarified that, in respect of
G/MA/60 and the minutes of the meeting, the Committee would be holding informal consultations as
regards to the decision taken.  In response to a question posed by the Chairman as to whether it would
be just as useful to do that in Paragraph 9, the Indian delegate said that it should be done in Paragraph
1. In the context of what was said in Paragraph 9, how to deal with that appropriately could be
reverted to.  This was because when the Committee was noting a particular document on which it was
informally consulting, she thought that position needed to be reflected clearly there.
7.3 The delegate of the United States said that he had no problem in reflecting the substance of
the fact that these consultations would be going forward.  However he would not agree to have it in
two places in the document, so a choice would need to be made.  If Paragraph 1 were acceptable to
Members that would be fine, but then the i ssue would not be reflected in Paragraph 9.
7.4 The delegate of India said that she would have no problem if the entire Paragraph 9 were
deleted.  Therefore, the United States' problem would also stand solved.
7.5 The Chairman suggested that the Committee take note of the statements of the United States
and India and that the problem be reverted to when Members examined Paragraph 9.  He asked for
comments respectively on Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 9.
7.6 With respect to Paragraphs 4 and 5, the delegate of India pointed out some minor
typographical changes that were required.  As regarded Paragraph 7, she suggested mentioning that
the Chairman had sent out a letter to Members to facilitate compliance or to request Members to
provide information on the problems that they faced in this respect.
7.7 The representative of the United States  suggested adding a sentence to Paragraph 10 that
would reflect the presentation that had been made that day with respect to the consolidated loose-leaf
schedule exercise.G/MA/M/16
Page 28
7.8 The delegate of India suggested the deletion of Paragraph 9.
7.9 The delegate of the United States said that his delegation viewed Paragraph 9 as an accurate
reflection of what had actually happened in the Committee and would not agree to its deletion.7.10 The delegate of the European Communities said that, in the light of what he had said
previously, his delegation had a very firm stand on the fact that Paragraph 9 was a faithful
re-transcription of what had happened in all the various meetings.  Since it was also necessary to
reflect in the report what had been said at the current meeting, the report would need to be
supplemented to reflect the proposals made earlier by the Chairman.   However, this must not take the
place of what was already contained in Paragraph 9.
7.11 In response to a question by the Chairman on why she thought Paragraph 9 should be deleted,
the delegate of India recalled that it had been agreed earlier that the consultations would be
open-ended on the entire matter.  In her view, that was where the situation rested.  If that position was
to be reflected in the report by reference to what was written in Paragraph 1, she believed that she had
already made a major concession.  Therefore, she could not support any inclusion of Paragraph 9.
7.12 The representative of New Zealand had understood that, when the Chairman had said that
open-end discussions on the issues would be held, that had been without prejudice to what had
actually happened.  He thought that was accurately reflected in Paragraph 9, in very shortened
fashion.  He fully supported adding to the report what had been agreed upon with respect to the
consultations, which the Chairman would be conducting.  He felt that was a reasonable way to amend
Paragraph 9.  He questioned the need to have the same reference in Paragraph 1, as India hadsuggested.
7.13 The delegate of Australia said that this was supposed to be a factual report.  Presumably, it
would be open to any delegation to have recorded in such a report, as a matter of fact, its views on the
decision that the Committee had adopted. Notwithstanding the fact that the Committee did adopt theproposals, presumably India could flag that it did have reservations about them.  As had been said by
New Zealand, he was not sure why it was necessary to also reflect in Paragraph 1, the fact that
informal consultations would be held.
7.14 The delegate of Japan agreed with the comments made by the United States in that the report
was a factual representation of what had happened during the year.  He agreed with New Zealand that
the Chairman's recommendations of that day should be added to Paragraph 9.  With that addition, to
reflect the Committee's activities to a higher body, his delegation wished to maintain the text
contained in Paragraph 9.
7.15 The delegate of Egypt believed that the Committee should not try to resolve the issue through
the report to the Council for Trade in Goods.  He suggested that perhaps the solution would be to
indicate in the report that there had been a discussion of the issue, that the details of the discussion
were reflected in the minutes of the meeting and that informal consultations would be ongoing.  This
would replace the second half of Paragraph 9, which indicated that the Committee had adopted the
proposals.  However, that fact would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.  His delegation could
accept that approach if others were willing.
7.16 The delegate of Australia proposed that the Committee strive for factual accuracy.  An
accurate reflection of the circumstances would be to keep the wording "the Committee adopted the
proposals, etc.".  That could then be followed  by words to the effect that "One delegation
subsequently stated that it disagreed that the Committee had adopted the proposals.  Many delegationssuggested that the decision be re-visited.  As a consequence of this, the Chair suggested and it was
agreed that and so on".  That was what had actually happened, and, as a principle, it might be better to
stick to the facts.G/MA/M/16
Page 29
7.17 The delegate of the United States thought that the only way out of the situation was to be
factually accurate.  He did not believe that blurring the issue by removing elements from the current
Paragraph 9 was the way to go.  He thought that it was quite acceptable to reflect in the report the
issues that had come up that day and the fact that there would be consultations in that respect.
7.18 The delegate of the European Communities said that the historic veracity of the contents of
the report should not be sacrificed to take into account what took place after the event occurred.  The
report had to follow the chronological sequence th at corresponded to the reality.  He thought that the
solution proposed by Australia gave a correct reflection of the Committee's work.  Any sacrifice of the
historic veracity just for the benefit of a possible political compromise on the issue would
automatically lead to a contradiction between the report that would be addressed to the Goods Council
and the verbatim report of the 22 September meeting.  He urged delegates not to create this
contradiction, but to relate the facts in the chronological order.
7.19 The Chairman asked the delegates of India and Egypt, in the context of Paragraph 9, whether
it would be acceptable to record that one delegation, or India, did not recognize the decision taken as
valid, that a number of delegations were of the opinion that the decision should be re-visited and that
the Chairman had suggested to open new consultations to resolve outstanding problems.
7.20 The delegate of India stated that she would like to see the language first and then reserve her
rights on it.  The delegate of Egypt said that he had no difficulty with this approach.
7.21 The Chairman proposed that the Secretariat draft the text and that consultations be conducted
to review the text on the morning of 30 No vember prior to the Goods Council Meeting.
7.22 The delegate of the United States suggested that the meeting should continue that day to
finish the issue.7.23 The Chairman agreed with the United States' proposal to continue the meeting.  Due to a prior
commitment on his part, it was agreed that Mr Opelz, Director of the Market Access Division, would
assume the role of Chairman for the rest of the meeting.  However, before departing, the Chairman
informed the Committee that that meeting would be the last one serviced by Miss Yvette Davel,
Secretary of the Committee.  Miss Davel would be retiring early at the end of the year after
twenty-five years of service in the GATT and WTO. The delegations of Mexico, Thailan d, United
States, Japan , European Communities , India , Canada , Panama , Egypt  and Turkey , and the Director of
the Market Access Division expressed their gratitude and recognition for her services to the
Organization and her dedication in carrying out her work.  Miss Davel thanked delegations for their
kind words.
7.24 The representative of Egypt offered a suggestion as to the wording of the text that were along
the same lines that had been put forth by Australia and supported by others.  "One delegation
questioned the manner in which this decision was adopted.  Many Members expressed serious
concerns on elements of these proposals and it was agreed that the Chair would conduct informal
consultations to address these concerns."
7.25 The delegate of Australia pointed out that for the sake of accuracy, the term "proposals" in
Egypt's second sentence should be replaced by "elements of that decision".7.26 The representative of India said that, in the light of what had been said by Australia, she felt
that her initial proposal to delete the entire Paragraph 9 was correct.  However, she could consider text
to the effect that:  "At the meeting of 26 March, 18 June 1998 and 22 September 1998, the Committeeconsidered matters concerning the dissemination of the information contained in the IDB on the basis
of informal papers prepared by the Secretariat dated 16 March (Job No. 1483), 28 March (Job
No. 1483/Rev.1) and 18 September 1998 (Job No. 1483/Re v.2).  However, one delegation questionedG/MA/M/16
Page 30
the manner in which these proposals were adopted.  Many Members expressed concerns on elements
of these proposals and it was agreed that the Chairman would...".
7.27 The delegate of the United States believed that it would not be appropriate to eliminate in the
report what was clearly the key element of the Paragraph.  The document needed to have some degree
of transparency.  Trying to renegotiate that day what the Committee had decided previously was a
very bad way to proceed.   He could accept the factual sequence that had been proposed by Egypt, anaddition to the Paragraph that made it clear that there was a sequence of events that had taken place.
By this he meant that the decision had been taken, that there was now a question that has been raised
and that consultations would be held as a result.
7.28 The delegate of New Zealand could accept the proposal by Egypt as amended by Australia.
He suggested that if the word "decision" was perhaps a problem in relation to the Egyptian proposal,
the text could read "However, one delegation questioned the manner in which the proposals wereadopted.  Many Members expressed serious concerns on elements of the proposals that were adopted
and it was agreed etc. etc.".  His delegation could agree to that.  He thought that an element was
missing in the sequence of events in India's proposal.  An important chronological element was lost
there.
7.29 The Chairman (Mr Opelz) asked if India could accept language that would follow the
proposal of New Zealand, meaning that the first pa rt of Paragraph 9 would remain, but with the
addition of Egypt's proposal with some modifications to that language. The delegate of India said that
she could not accept that.  The Chairman noted that it would be probably very difficult to come to an
agreement that day.
7.30 The delegate of Australia said that it seemed that all but one delegation could accept at least
two of the proposals that had been made on the wording of Paragraph 9.  Therefore, he suggested that
Members could consider a course of action, which was not unknown in the Organization.  There could
be a report by the Chairman, on his own authority,  to the Council for Trade in Goods.  Delegations
would be free to make their views known about that report when it was tabled in the Goods Council.
He thought that this had happened on previous occasions.
7.31 The delegate of Egypt said that his delegation could not agree with the suggestion made by
Australia.  The Committee would have either a report that had been agreed upon by concensus or no
report.
7.32 The Chairman proposed to inform the Chairman  of the Goods Council that the Market Access
Committee had not yet reached agreement on its annual report, which needed further consideration.
He would suggest to the Council's Chairman that when the question of the annual reports of
subsidiary bodies was taken up in the Goods Council on Monday, 30 November, the report of the
Committee would be kept in abeyance.   He w ould check whether the Goods Council meeting could
be suspended until the Committee could reach agreement on its annual report, and then be resumed at
the appropriate moment to approve the Committee's report.  He suggested that he suspend the current
meeting and that the Committee meet again the following week to work out a solution for the report.
He asked for delegation's views on this proposal.
7.33 The representative of Egypt suggested that the Secretariat circulate to delegations the
proposal as amended by New Zealand for the next meeting.
7.34 The delegate of Canada supported Egypt's suggestion.   He agreed that the meeting be
suspended.7.35 The delegate of Japan requested that, should the Chairman be unable to attend the resumed
meeting, Mr Opelz act as chair.G/MA/M/16
Page 31
7.36 The Chairman said that if delegations agreed, the meeting would be suspended.  He would
propose what he had previously outlined to the Chai rman of the Goods Council.  A fax would be sent
to delegations on the morning of 30 November with the date of the resumed meeting.  It was so
agreed .
7.37 At the resumed meeting on 2 December 1998, the Chairman  (Mr Opelz, Director of the
Market Access Division), informed the Committee that the Secretariat had revised the draft annual
report of the Committee to incorporate changes that had been requested by delegations at the meeting
of 27 November.  He proposed that the Committee review the revised document
(G/MA/Spec/9/Rev.1) paragraph by paragraph where changes had occurred from the previous
version.  He asked for delegations' comments on Paragraphs 1 and 102.
7.38 The representative of Malaysia congratulated the Chairman on having conducted informal
discussions the previous day.  Unfortunately, he had not been able to attend due to another meeting.
He had been informed that there had been a general agreement on all the paragraphs in the revised
document.  Notwithstanding that, his delegation would also go along with the concensus on the
understanding of two points.  The first was that, with reference to Paragraph 10, particularly the last
sentence "Many Members expressed serious concerns on elements of the proposal", the serious
ramifications as expressed by his delegation and several others would be adequately reflected in theminutes of the meeting of the Committee.  That was to say that the ramifications were of a systemic
nature and could change the very character and nature of the Organization.  The second point was that
when the Chairman conducted his open-ended informal consultations to address the matter, he would
also look into both the substance and the procedural aspects, including those systemic concerns that
had been expressed as a result of the adoption of that decision.  If that were the case, his delegationwould go along with the consensus.
7.39 The Chairman said that all the statements that had been made in this regard would be
reflected in the minutes.
7.40 The delegate of Venezuela said that his delegation had difficulty in supporting any proposal
because it had not been aware of the informal consultations that had been conducted.  Therefore, it
had not been possible to contact his capital regarding the new alternative proposal.  However, his
delegation felt that it was important to try to find a solution within the Committee before bringing up
the matter in any higher bodies.  He felt that some concerns expressed by several delegations, asindicated by Malaysia, were not reflected in the text.  He thought that a reference to the opposition of
any measure, which could be punitive in nature against a Member and which was not included in the
mandate of the Committee or any other Committee, should be clearly indicated in the paragraph.  He
also thought that the reference to one delegation did not reflect reality.  While it was true that one
delegation in particular had emphasized that point, other delegations had said in the Council for Trade
in Goods that it was impossible for them to approve the final Council document.  This was reflected in
the minutes of that meeting. It was not sufficient to say that one delegation indicated its difference ofopinion without it being clearly stated that the Committee would in some way be reconsidering or
revoking the decision that had been taken. He stressed that his delegation had just then had the
opportunity to look at the paragraph.  It had not been aware that an understanding had been reached
on that text.  His delegation viewed this as a positiv e step forward.  However, there was still room for
drafting text that reflected the collective view that had been perceived at the last meeting, where therehad been undoubtedly many delegations that had expressed concern.
7.41 The representative of the United States appealed to the delegation of Venezuela to consider
the current draft document in a favourable light, and perhaps on reflection, to conclude that it did
accommodate some or perhaps even all of the concerns that the Venezuelan delegate had expressed.There were basically two elements that had been added to the original draft.  The first was the phrase
                                                     
2 N.b. Paragraph 10 had been numbered Paragrap h 9 in the document G/MA/Spec/9 that had been
examined by the Committee on 27 November.G/MA/M/16
Page 32
that started  "in the absence of one delegation".  This did not refer to anything that happened
subsequent to the Market Access Committee meeting where the dissemination proposal had beenadopted.  This referred to the fact that one delegation had maintained a consistent position of
opposition to the proposal in the past.  This opposition went back to the April meeting of the Market
Access Committee.  The text was an attempt to reflect that fact.  He believed that the draft was factual
and did not prejudice any delegations' positions.  The addition of the last two sentences was an
attempt to indicate that, subsequent to that Market Access Committee meeting, there had beencontroversy around the subject.  He thought that that language went a long way to reflecting those
delegations' views, which had been stated both in the Goods Council and in the meeting that had been
held earlier to consider the original draft.  That opposition was reflected in the revised draft document.
Should delegations' actual views about the proposal s ubsequent to its adoption be reflected in the
draft, his delegation would certainly insist that its views be incorporated.  His delegation viewed the
adoption of the proposal as entirely proper both in procedure and substance.  The substance of the
proposal was within the mandate of the Market Access Committee and was quite correct in thereciprocity that had been introduced.  However he did not wish to embark on such an approach.  He
could agree to a fairly balanced formulation that reflected the views of those delegations that had
opposed what the Market Access Committee had adopted at its September meeting.  However, should
the text be further unbalanced by the addition of language showing the opposition of some
delegations, his delegation would insist on adding its strong views that the proposal was bothprocedurally and substantively correct.
7.42 The delegate of New Zealand thought that the text reflected, in a very shortened form, the
course of events and the way things had happened.   He realized that the suggestions made by
Venezuela might reflect its views on the subject.  However, should those suggestions be inserted inthe second sentence, he thought that the text would be seriously unbalanced.  This was because it was
his delegation's recollection that there had not been a ground swell of opposition to the proposals at
the informal meetings.  Opposition had been expressed in that one delegation had made a reservation.
The decision had been passed at the Market Access Committee meeting without opposition being
expressed.  He thought that to make changes in the paragraph to reflect greater opposition would be aserious historical inaccuracy and would seriously unbalance the text.  He thought that the delegations
that had worked to find this balance had done an extremely good job.  He urged all Members to
support the text so Members could get on with the serious business of the Committee.
7.43 The representative of Japan agreed with the comments just expressed by New Zealand.
Paragraph 10 was a short summary and reflected the facts of what had happened in the Committee.
He understood that all opinions and comments would be reflected in the minutes of the meeting.
From his delegation's view, the report was concise and balanced.   The text of Paragraph 10 in
conjunction with that of Paragraph 1 was very acceptable to his delegation.
7.44 The representative of India thought that delegations were getting into the matter of substance
again, which she found of concern when considering the draft report.  When her delegation had
agreed on the language at the informal meeting of the previous day, it had understood that the entirety
of the matter, which included the substance and the procedural aspects, would be further discussed.
The substance covered the ramifications for the system that Malaysia had mentioned and the
importance of not introducing punitive action as had been mentioned by Venezuela.  The procedural
aspects included what Venezuela had mentioned before.  It was on this explicit understanding that herdelegation would be able to go along with the text that had been suggested.
7.45 The representative of Chile said that his delegation did not like the line added to Paragraph 10
where it stated "in the absence of one delegation at the meeting where the decision was adopted".  In
Chile's view, this would undermine the nature of the adoption of the decision.  That text might beinterpreted as recognizing that perhaps the decision had been adopted inappropriately.  He felt it
would be better to add, after the part which st arted "at the meeting of 27 November 1998", "one
delegation that had expressed its opposition of the proposal at previous meetings", and then continue
with the drafting.  If there were consensus on the paragraph, his delegation would go along with it.G/MA/M/16
Page 33
7.46 The representative of Cuba thanked the Secretariat and those delegations that had met to work
together on a constructive and friendly basis to find a solution.  His delegation did not wish to reopen
the discussion that took place at the previous meeting.  However, it wished to continue along the lines
of the statement of Venezuela.  At the previous meeting, his delegation had gathered the impression
that it was felt that some delegations had intentionally not provided IDB submissions or not requested
technical assistance.  Cuba thought that, far from working in this direction and with an aim to be
constructive, the Committee needed to take into acc ount the difficulties that some delegations faced.
For example, his delegation had some limiting factors that could not be solved simply with technical
assistance or by having the possibility of providing the information to the database.  As had been
mentioned by Venezuela, a constructive solution needed to be reached.  The report needed to reflect
reality.  For Paragraph 10, he proposed adding, where it was stated that "many Members expressed
serious concerns on elements on the proposals that were adopted", "and those Members oppose the
adoption of punitive measures against Members and would like to find a feasible solution for all
parties".   He wished to have this addition because there were Members opposed to the adoption ofpunitive measures in the Committee, which was not a feasible or viable solution for all Members.
7.47 The representative of Canada said that there were two approaches that could be followed.
The text could be rewritten and Members could make all sorts of additions to it.  In that case, his
delegation would certainly have ideas of what it would want to add in terms of details.  However, heappealed to all Members, including those that had made proposals to alter the current text, that every
point that had just been made had been reflected in the minutes.  This report summarised the
discussion.  There were aspects of the revision that Canada did not like but it also understood that this
reflected the concensus of a small group of countries.  There had been a good-faith effort to find an
appropriate balance in terms of the annual report.  Therefore, he appealed to all Members not to startredrafting because that would simply inspire each and every delegation to start adding all their points.
All those points had already been made in the minutes and, as the text currently stated, the Committee
was about to engage in informal consultations on the full range of issues surrounding the IDB and the
decision.
7.48 The delegate of the United States thought that it would be inadvisable, to revisit the substance
and have a greatly expanded Paragraph 10, where the views of those that opposed the proposal and
those that supported the proposal would be reflected at great length.  That would not be very attractive
in an annual report. As had been mentioned by India, the forthcoming informal consultations about
what to do with the proposal would be made more difficult if, in the annual report, delegations tookvery firm views on exactly what had happened, what was wrong and what was right.   He thought that
this would, at the very least, make those consultations more difficult and possibly prejudice the
outcome.
7.49 The representative of Argentina said that his delegation had been present at the meeting
where the decision was adopted.  At subsequent meetings, his delegation had indicated that it
understood the situation regarding that one country that had opposed the adoption and had not beenpresent at the time the decision had been made.  However, the decision had been adopted, his
delegation had supported it and had agreed with the Secretariat's proposal.  His delegation had studied
the document and on that basis had requested information from its authorities for the IDB.  His
country was now in a position to provide all the information on the basis of the decision that had been
taken.  Unfortunately, his delegation was a small one and as others, he had not been able to participatein earlier consultations.  He was surprised to see how much progress had been made in this area and
that perhaps the decision adopted would now be reopened.  In so far as Argentina was concerned,
above and beyond the text of the annual report, the decision had been adopted and Argentina was
working on that basis.  It would be very difficult for his delegation to reopen the decision.  His
delegation understood the positions and concerns of Members and wished to allow room fordiscussions to be conducted on those pending issues.  His delegation wished to offer its full
cooperation in considering those difficulties.  However he thought that a reopening of a decision
could imply delays in receiving information from countries that were ready to provide the
information.  This would make it difficult to move  ahead in providing information for the IDB. WithG/MA/M/16
Page 34
respect to the drafting problems, his delegation could go along with the current proposed drafting or
Chile's suggestion.  He stressed that his delegation had attended a meeting where a decision had beenadopted.  Nevertheless, his delegation would be able to continue to discuss the concerns that other
delegations had, despite having adopted this decision.
7.50 The delegate of Venezuela said that the drafting proposal that had been submitted by the
Members, which had met informally on the previous day, was a step forward. Nevertheless, he
thought that the wording with respect to holding informal consultations limited the basic proposal of
the Venezuelan delegation, which was to find out the legal consequences of the decision.  As his
delegation had said before, Venezuela would not like this situation to go out of the Committee without
it having been resolved.  Venezuela understood that the decision had been adopted.  Venezuela
believed that it was very important to respect that.  However, at the last meeting, it was realized that
there were concerns and there was not absolute concensus.  The paragraph needed to indicate in some
way, not only that a decision was going to be revised, but that it would be revised to determine if itshould be revoked or not. This was because it was not the wish of delegations to create a precedent in
which a decision taken by a committee created obligations that were not among the legitimate
obligations and rights of Members.  His delegation wished to put on record whether or not the
Committee was empowered to adopt a measure that was considered punitive by a group of countries
that hadn't given data to the database and, if that were so, whether what had been decided here waslegitimate and part of the measures in place in the Organization.  His delegation did not think that the
Committee should set a precedent that might be to the prejudice of everyone in future.  If the
paragraph, as it was, made clear this difficulty and the need to address the matter, it should clarify
what is meant by "to address the matter".  Therefore, his delegation insisted that some words be
added, which would reflect that concern.  He thought that something along the lines of "reviewing thelegal consequences" should be added.  That language would be sufficient for his delegation to be able
to accept the text.  He also thought that it would express the true feeling of the last discussion.  He
understood the concern expressed by Canada, which did not want to bring up everything again.
However, Members had met that day precisely to find a solution and not just to accommodate
themselves with what the paragraph already said.
7.51 The representative of the European Communities wished to make a vigorous appeal against
reopening any discussion or making any additions to the very balanced text that was now before the
Committee.  He had listened carefully to the statement by Venezuela.  However, he did not see
anything in Venezuelan's concerns that hadn't already been covered by the text.  The text clearlyspoke of serious concerns.  Serious concerns could cover everything that had been said by Venezuela,
in particular as regards whether or not the decision was legitimate, or whether the Committee on
Market Access had been within its powers to adopt su ch a decision.  He thought that all of that could
fall under the heading of serious concerns.  He did not think that this should be specified in the report,
because everything that had been said by the delegations that shared this type of concern would, in
any case, be included in the minutes of the Market Access Committee meeting. The only point was
whether the concerns of India and Venezuela should be included in the annual report. He supportedcompletely the statement of the United States dele gate with respect to including in the report the
details of concerns held by various delegations.  As far as his delegation was concerned, there were
fifteen Members of the Organization that had views that differed from those of Venezuela.  These
views concerned in particular, whether or not the Committee on Market Access had a mandate to
adopt this type of decision, whether or not it was a punitive decision, and whether the veryfoundations of the Organization were being undermined by the decision.  He thought that if the details
were included in the report, the matter might never be settled.
7.52 The Chairman recalled that the delegation of Malaysia had said that the concerns that many
delegations had expressed on various aspects of the matter should be accurately reflected in the
minutes. In the light of that statement and others that had been made, he asked the delegation of
Venezuela whether it would it be acceptable to adopt the text as it stood with the addition of a
reference to the minutes of the Committee's meetings.G/MA/M/16
Page 35
7.53 The delegate of Venezuela said that his delegation could not adopt the text without first
consulting its capital.  He needed to hold consultations to determine whether the proposals made left
enough room to cover the substantive considerations that he had mentioned. If he achieved approval
on that, then his delegation would have no difficulty  in going along with the Chairman's suggestion.
Alternatively, even though other delegations might find it superfluous, his delegation might suggest
something that would include elements that his delegation believed were essential and that would be
at the heart of the informal consultations, which the Chairman would need to carry out in theimmediate future on this matter.
7.54 The Chairman suggested that the Venezuelan delegate contact him the next day to indicate
whether Venezuela would be able to adopt that text.  If that were the case, it would be assumed that
the text could be adopted by the Committee, and would go to the Goods Council when its meeting
was resumed.  However, if Venezuela were to indicate that it could not accept the text as it stood, then
the Chairman would need to carry out further co nsultations with all Members that wished to be
present in such consultations.
7.55 The representative of Venezuela committed himself to have his capital's views on the
Chairman's suggestion as soon as possible.  He thought the margin of time proposed by the Chairman
would be sufficient.  If there were any proposal to be added, he would inform the Chairman so that he
could carry out the necessary consultations.
7.56 The Chairman proposed that for Paragraphs 1 and 10, the Committee would await a reaction
from Venezuela.  If that reaction were affirmative, he would assume that the current text was
acceptable to the Committee and the report would be put forward to the Council.  If the reaction ofVenezuela were not affirmative, he would call for open-ended consultations on the text as soon as
possible.  He went through the other paragraphs where changes had been introduced since the last
meeting of the Committee.  He asked delegations if they had any comments on Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 9
and 12.
7.57 With respect to Paragraph 12, the representative of Mexico said that he had no problems with
the text.  However, at the Committee's meeting of 27 November, there had been a detailed explanation
from the Secretariat on what was dealt with in Paragraph 12. He asked that the Secretariat's
explanation and delegation's interventions in this respect be reflected in the minutes.
7.58 The delegate of Venezuela, referring to Paragraph 9,  asked whether the letter, which had
been sent by the Chairman of the Committee to those delegations that had not yet provided their IDB
submissions, had told them of the consequences of not sending the information in time.  Had any
reference been made to the decision taken by the Committee?
7.59 The delegate of Cuba said that the letter contained no reference to any punitive measures.
7.60 The Chairman thanked the delegation of Cuba for this clarification.  He asked if Cuba's
clarification was sufficient for Venezuela.  He then asked the Committee whether it accepted to
proceed in the way he had proposed with regard to the two open paragraphs and whether it could
adopt the rest of the report as it had been drafted in the revised version.  It was so agreed.  He said that
he would be in touch with delegations if necessary on the two paragraphs that were still open.
8. Other Business
(a) Communication from Malaysia on the APEC Ministerial Meeting
8.1 The representative of Malaysia reported that the APEC ministers had had their annual
meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 14 and 15 November 1998.  In the interest of transparency, his
delegation wished to briefly bring to the attention of WTO Members one of the significant outcomes
of the APEC ministerial meeting.   In that meeting, ministers of participating economies had agreedG/MA/M/16
Page 36
that the APEC early voluntary sectoral liberalization initiative would be brought to the WTO.  Hence,
it was his delegation's intention to provide more information in due course.
8.2 With respect to the matter raised by Malaysia, the delegate of India said that her delegation
would respond to it when the matter was discussed substantively.8.3 The delegate of the United States said that, as one of the countries that had been involved in
that effort, his government believed that this was an opportunity for the WTO involving products in a
number of sectors that would benefit all WTO Members.  The United States looked forward to the
opportunity of providing a substantial amount of information.  This would allow WTO Members to
evaluate these proposals with a view to  determine how this would benefit them.
(b)  Date of the next meeting
8.4 The Chairman informed the Committee that the next formal meeting was scheduled to take
place on Thursday, 11 March 1999, subject to confirmation.
__________