WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/MA/W/18/Add.1
25 March 2003
(03-1701)
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:  English
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Proposal on modalities for addressing Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs)
Communication from the United States
Addendum
The following communication, dated 21 March 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
The United States is pleased to submit the following proposal on negotiating modalities for
non-tariff barriers.  This  proposal builds on the “indicative list” we tabled in January 2003 and which was
circulated as part of document TN/MA/W/25.
Introduction:  NTB1 Negotiations Must Be An Inte gral Part of NAMA Negotiations
It is critical that WTO Members develop appropriate, transparent methods to negotiate the
reduction or elimination of non-tariff barriers as we proceed with the overall negotiations on
non-agricultural market access.  Members can all agree that work on this front is vital if we are to
negotiate meaningful improvements in market access and overall liberalization as part of the current
negotiations.
We should not underestimate the challenge that lies before us. The United States agrees with
those members who have emphasized the need for devising a   manageable process that delivers results.
Members have already identified a variety of so-called non-tariff barriers in submissions to this
negotiating group.  A review of submissions suggests th at we will need a variety of negotiating methods
to effectively address many of these barriers.
Members also need to think about how the results of negotiations on non-tariff barriers should be
recorded.  We must develop appropriate ways to capture the results of negotiations and to record
commitments.
                                                     
1 The views expressed in this paper are without prejudice to the issue of an agreed definition of NTBs.
Many of the submissions presented thus far identify problems which are not traditional “NTBs” in the WTO sense.We note that many submissions from Members and from industry concerning market access barriers may represent
commercial obstacles but do not necessarily constitute non-tariff barriers capable of resolution within the Doha
negotiating context or may constitute legitimate measures outside the scope of the Negotiating Group on MarketAccess.TN/MA/W/18/Add.1
Page 2
This paper lays out the initial views of the United States on these and related topics.  We are of
course open to suggestions from other Members, and in  fact have found material put forward by Canada,
New Zealand, and Trinidad and Tobago, among others , to be helpful in developing our own thoughts.
Ultimately, Members will need to balance the need to be creative in terms of devising appropriate
modalities to address non-tariff barriers with the n eed to be pragmatic and efficient in negotiating the
reduction or elimination of those barriers.
NTBs and the Doha Mandate
The Doha Mandate makes clear that negotiations to reduce or, as appropriate, eliminate tariffs
shall also aim to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers.  The view of the United States is that Members
must implement this clear and unequivocal direction from Ministers without getting caught up in anexercise that involves only listing and categorizing non-tariff barriers.  The focus must be on developing
practical and effective approaches that actually result in the reduction or elimination of many of these
barriers and enhanced trading opportunities for all Members.  This may entail, as we discuss later in this
submission, working closely with other negotiating gr oups while respecting the parameters set out in the
Doha Declaration.
A variety of negotiating modalities will be needed to effectively reduce and eliminate NTBs
As envisioned in our February 2003 indicative list of non-tariff barriers , WTO Members will
need to rely on a variety of negotiating modalities in order to adequately address NTBs.  The United
States’  thinking in this regard follows ideas similar to those laid out by New Zealand in its February 17,
2003 submission to the Negotiating Group (TN/MA/W/4/Add.1).
1.  NTBs which relate to existing rules (e.g. Import Licensing Agreement, Rules of Origin,
Customs Valuation, TBT Agreement, SPS Agreement)
Many of the non-tariff barriers identified by Members in their NTB notifications to Chairman
Girard may fall under the purview of existing WTO Agreements, and in fact may have been under
discussion in Committees for some time.  Solving these types of problems need not be deferred until the
end of the Doha negotiations.  NTBs which relate to existing rules may or may not be consistent with
WTO obligations.  As others have  indicated, only the dispute settlement system can determine if the
NTBs that are arguably covered by existing agreements are WTO legal.  In addition, there is no mandateto reopen existing agreements.
Consequently, Members may wish to raise  these barriers in  the appropriate existing WTO
Committee, where it may
 be possible to address practical problems involving the administration of
agreements through dialogue, best practices, and sharing positive experiences, thereby enhancing theinteraction between existing agreements and real market access.  Committees have made use of a variety
of tools to resolve issues and can decide on the appropriate way to address the NTBs raised by Members.
To facilitate transparency in the negotiations, Members choosing to highlight NTB issues in existing
WTO Committees may wish to inform the NGMA  that they have done so.
Specific bilateral issues relating to existing WTO disciplines might be raised by Members in the
NGMA to pursue through a request/offer procedure.  The United States also suggests that Members
consider the possibility of a new approach, in which a core group of countries would make positive
commitments in a particular area – essentially, a plurilateral NTB agreement.  For example, in a particular
situation or for a specific set of products, a group of Members would agree to implement specificinternational standards, which would then be applied on an MFN basis .TN/MA/W/18/Add.1
Page 3
2. NTBS which relate to other areas of the Doha Declaration (e.g. Trade Facilitation,
Transparency in Government Procurement, and Services)
A significant number of NTBs might most appropriately fall under the purview of other areas
already covered by the Doha mandate of the Doha Declaration, including Transparency in GovernmentProcurement and especially Trade Facilitation. The United States also notes that Members’ notifications
to Chairman Girard included non-tariff barriers that related to the distribution of goods, which relates in
large measure to services.
The modalities adopted by the Negotiating Group on Market Access should recognize that
Members may wish to address such NTBs in the context of negotiations in these other areas.
Appropriate  mechanisms to ensure that the NGMA is fully informed of the developments in other
committees or negotiating groups concerning such NTBs should be considered.  In addition, this area may
offer another opportunity for new positive commitments as described in the preceding section.
3.  NTBs which relate to the work of the Negot iating Group on Market Access, and that might
be dealt with either horizontally (across all industries) or vertically (with regard to a singleindustry)
The NGMA may have an opportunity to promote a positive approach to enhance the trade
opportunities for all Members by examining the possi bility for new commitments that effectively deal
with non-tariff barriers horizontally or vertically.  WTO Members have some degree of experience innegotiating horizontal agreements, such as the Customs Valuation Agreement and the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures.
WTO Members have less experience in the WTO with vertical NTB negotiations, although we
note the Information Technology Agreement NTB work.  In addition, some Members have participated in
similar work of this type in various regional fo ra.  For example, the APEC Chemical Dialogue, an
industry/government partnership that works to facilitate trade and enhance the competitiveness of the
chemical industry in the Asia-Pacific region, includes a focus on NTBs as part of its work.  Also, both the
APEC Automotive Dialogue and the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations have
worked toward the reduction of NTBs in the automotive sector.
We note that New Zealand has made suggestions regarding forest products and fish as possible
sectors for consideration in this regard.  Our own thinking in response to comments from industry and
WTO Members indicates that possible candidates for vertical focus in terms of NTB
reduction/elimination also may include automotive prod ucts and textiles and apparel.  We look forward to
other Members’ input for possible inclusion in this type of discussion.
4.  NTBs which might best be addressed bilaterally or plurilaterally through a request/offer
procedure, either in the Negotiating Group on Market Access or elsewhere
Addressing some product-specific NTBs bilaterally or with a core group of countries
“plurilaterally”  through a request/offer procedure, either in the Negotiating Group on Market Access orelsewhere in the WTO could act as a residual method of negotiating to take up issues that do not fit neatly
into the various multilateral methods outlined above.
In addition, as indicated in previous sections, the United States believes a significant contribution
to an ambitious NTB result can be achieved through the negotiation of positive commitments on aTN/MA/W/18/Add.1
Page 4
multi-country or “plurilateral” or even wider basis.  Such agreements might be particularly useful in
advancing vertical NTB negotiations, and could address issues relating to work in the NGMA, in existing
WTO Committees, or in other areas of the Doha Declar ation.  For example, as indicated previously, in a
particular situation or for a specific set of products, a group of Members would agree to implement
specific international standards on an MFN basis.  We note that several other Members have madesuggestions along similar lines.  We encourage Members to suggest potential positive agreements that
would contribute to an ambitious market access result.  Our initial thinking is that, even if the suggested
agreements relate to issues not strictly under the purview of the NGMA, it may still be possible and
desirable to negotiate them in the NGMA, with assistance from experts in existing groups, as appropriate.
Other issues
The United States also wishes to draw attention to several other issues that are relevant to the
development of modalities for the NTB negotiations:
The Role of Intergovernmental Bodies
Canada has suggested that the World Customs Organization might be helpful in resolving non-
tariff barriers rooted in tariff classification issues.  We think that Canada’s suggestion is worthwhile and
that this concept merits further consideration by Members.  We suggest that Members might also consider
at the appropriate time later in the negotiations whether other intergovernmental bodies might be venues
where progress could be made in addressing NTBs.  We are not suggesting that negotiations properlyconducted in the WTO take place elsewhere.  Rather, we think that Members ought to consider what role
other intergovernmental bodies might have in addressing problems that are related to market access
concerns.  We look forward to the views of other members on this issue.
Capturing the Results of the Negotiations
The United States believes that, as a part of the negotiating modalities, Members must agree on a
means of capturing the results of negotiations on non-tariff barriers.  There are a variety of ways to do
this, and we welcome other Members’ thoughts.  We note that the Uruguay Round goods schedules
provide in Part III a section for recording additional commitments, and that services commitments are
recorded in an additional column to the services schedules.  We might also consider using headnotes or
footnotes to schedules in order to memorialize commitments.  Ultimately, we must ensure thatcommitments are recorded in an open and transparent manner and done on an MFN basis.
The Process for Undertaking Future Work
Members must keep in mind the link between liberalization in tariff and non-tariff barriers as we
proceed with work in this negotiating group.  Negotiating modalities for the non-agricultural market
access talks cannot be considered complete until we have reached a consensus on how to handle both
aspects of the negotiations.
While the most efficient way forward may not be clear until we have agreed on modalities, we
believe that we can identify some important steps that should be taken early in the negotiating process.
These steps are an outgrowth of our modalities proposal.  Members would need a process for identifying
NTBs that they believe should be considered for a vertical approach, and initiate work early in the process
to begin trying to build consensus for their specific proposals.  The same holds true for NTBs which
Members propose should be handled on a horizontal basis.  Informal or formal mechanisms could beTN/MA/W/18/Add.1
Page 5
considered with regard to monitoring progress on NTBs that might be raised by Members in the context
of other negotiating groups or existing committees.  Additionally, we will need to establish appropriate
mechanisms for pursuing NTB reduction and elimination on a bilateral or  plurilateral basis.  In each case,
appropriate measures to ensure transparency will need to be included.
Once modalities are agreed, Members should set firm dates for accomplishing these tasks, so
there is progress concurrent with tariffs.  Among those deadlines should be a date certain for Members to
indicate more precisely those NTBs they wish to address in these negotiations.
__________