WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/MA/9
7 April 2003
(03-1893)
Negotiating Group on Market Access
 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED
Non-Tariff Barriers
Note by the Secretariat1
Introduction
1. Paragraph 3 of the "Programme of meetings for the negotiations on market access for
non-agricultural products" adopted by the Group on 19 July 2002 foresees "a consolidated overview
of proposals to be submitted to participants at the first meeting of the Group in 2003".
2. The overview circulated in TN/MA/6 had not taken into account points made on non-tariff
barriers given the preliminary nature of the discussion on this subject. However, in light of the
discussion at the meeting of the Negotiating Group held from 19-21 February 2003 and the additional
submissions made on this subject it was felt that an overview of points made on NTBs would be
useful.
3. Eighteen written submissions2 have addressed the subject of NTBs.  In twelve cases this was
done as part of a general submission on modalities for the market access negotiations. Of these
twelve, two submissions were made by groups of participants (Mercosur and  (Ghana, Kenya,
Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe )). In addition six submissions have addressed
exclusively the subject of negotiations on NTBs (namely from Canada, Chile, EC, Japan, New
Zealand and the US).
4. As a result, the overview has been divided into four parts.  Part A –General, presents an
overview of the points raised in the submissions that were of a general nature or - although addressing
exclusively the issue of NTBs - did not relate to a specific negotiating modality.  Part B – Scope, lists
the various proposals according to what WTO bodies Members suggested would be appropriate to
address the NTBs as well as specific NTBs that should be addressed through the negotiations.Thirdly, Part C – Specific Modalities/Methodologies, gives the various approaches to conducting the
negotiations.   And finally, Part D – Other Issues provides other relevant information for addressing
NTBs that was submitted in the proposals.
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.
2 Including addenda.TN/MA/9
Page 2
Part A – General
Fifteen submissions provided general information on  how to proceed with the NTB
negotiations without necessarily suggesting a specific  negotiating modality or scope.  These general
observations are quite varied.  Some of the early submissions on NTBs suggest that a listing3 or
inventory be drawn up first before proceeding w ith an assessment and ultimately how to address
them.  Others refer to the negotiating mandate, emphasizing the importance of reducing or eliminating
NTBs without suggesting how to go about addressing them.  A few observations point to the
legitimate policy objectives that many measures are meant to fulfill.  The remaining submissions are
quite varied; see the detailed information in Pa rt A of the table that follows this summary.
Part B – Scope of NTBs
Many proposals included detailed information on what the scope of NTB negotiations should
be in this negotiating group or elsewhere. Many proposals note that the type of NTB would often
determine the appropriate forum and the way to address them.
Five NTB submissions point to NTBs that relate to existing WTO Agreements (e.g. Customs
Valuation, Import Licensing, PSI, SPS, TBT, etc…) and suggest ways to address them.  Of these five,
four specifically state that the matter should be taken up in the relevant WTO Committee.
Furthermore, three submissions note that these NTBs have no specific negotiating mandate and
therefore the Agreements should not be re-opened.  Two submissions suggest to address the NTBs asa matter of implementation while two submissions note that it is only through the dispute settlement
process that these NTBs could be examined as compatible or not with WTO rules.
A second category of NTBs are those relating to other WTO Agreements which are also the
subject of a negotiating mandate (e.g. AD, CVD, etc...).  Two proposals note the relevant work goingon in these other fora to address these barriers.
A third category refers to those NTBs that are already part of the Doha Declaration (e.g.
Trade Facilitation, Transparency in Government Procurement, Services, etc…).  Five submissions
note the importance and relevance of addressing these NTBs in their own respective areas.  Four
submissions suggest some kind of link or communi cation in order that the NGMA be kept informed
or follow the work in these other areas.  The other submission states that this group could support theinitiation of negotiations on trade facilitation.
One submission states that NTBs should be identified and negotiated in the NGMA.A number of submissions point out NTBs that should be addressed in the negotiations but are
not categorized in the above-mentioned groups (i.e NTBs not specifically covered in existing WTO
Agreements nor in the Doha agenda).  The NTBs suggested in the proposals to be examined include:
quotas; tariff classification; export duties and export restrictions; buy national campaigns; difficulties
arising from requirements by local, regional or independent authorities and bodies; the application of
national laws and regulations outside national borders; fiscal incentives; and tax and duty exemptions.Furthermore, one submission states that export duties fall outside the Doha mandate and therefore
should not be the subject of these negotiations.
                                                     
3 An initiative in this sense was taken and a listing of NTB notifications has been compiled in
document TN/MA/W/25.TN/MA/9
Page 3
Part C – Specific Modalities/Methodologies
The various proposals on modalities for NTBs generally fall into four categories: 1) dispute
settlement; 2) request/offer, bilateral, or plurilateral; 3) vertical or sectorial approaches; and 4)
horizontal or multilateral approaches.
Six submissions point to request/offer as a possible modality for negotiating NTBs.  However,
in two of these submissions Members note that there may be difficulties or limitations using this
approach because there were over 140 WTO Members to potentially negotiate with.  One submission
notes a bilateral request/offer process could lead to a plurilateral NTB agreement.
A second approach suggested in three proposals was a vertical or sectoral approach to address
NTBs that are prevalent in certain sectors.  In this respect, the following sectors have been put forth aspossibilities using this method:  forest products, textiles and clothing, motor vehicles, and fisheries.
Thirdly, three submissions referred to horizontal or multilateral approaches to address NTBs
whereby the outcome would be equally applicable to all WTO Members. One of these submissions
suggests the areas of technical regulations, conformity assessment, and quantitative restrictions aspossible areas to focus on.
Finally, there was one submission that suggested leaving certain NTBs for the WTO dispute
settlement process, as a possible methodology.
Part D – Other Issues
 There were other suggestions contained in the submissions that did not relate to the scope or
methodology;  these are listed in Part D, as other issues.  In particular, they relate to notification of
quantitative restrictions, role of intergovernmental bodies, and capturing the results of thenegotiations.  See Part D of the table for specific details.TN/MA/9
Page 4
PART A - GENERAL
Comment
(1) Canada and New Zealand have made a valuable effort to identify possible courses of action that will enable the NGMA for
Non-Agricultural Products to fulfil its mandate.  Chile feels that  both approaches are not mutually exclusive.  The first eleme nt common to both
documents, and one which Chile endorses, is that NTBs – given their complex and varied nature – cannot be addressed through onl y one
approach, but rather through several complementary approaches.
    Non-tariff barriers are an important part of the negotiating  mandate of the NGMA for Non-Agricultural Goods.  There are two  elements
which make addressing this part of the mandate especially complex.  First, the wide range of NTBs and the technical complexity of many of them.
Second, the fact that many measures identified as NTBs are already regulated by a significant number of WTO agreements for whic h there is no
negotiating mandate.  Therefore, the problems which have been id entified in relation to these measures fall within the ambit of  either dispute
settlement or implementation, but not within that of negotiations  which could result in the creation of new disciplines.  (Chil e)
(2) In a sense, the amplification of WTO disciplines aimed at curbing non-tariff barriers and regulating the use of non-tariff measures has
heightened the significance of tariff peaks and high tariffs, which is the reason why the European Communities call for their e limination. At the
same time, WTO Members have still work to do to refine relevant multilateral disciplines and ensure the elimination of remainin g barriers.
            Industry world-wide continues to face pervas ive behind-the-border trade obstacles which can frustrate any additiona l market access
acquired through tariff reductions. Consequently, the European Co mmunities considers it crucial to accompany a ll DDA ef forts to  reduce tariffs,
tariff escalation, and to eliminate tariff peaks and high tariffs, with equally strong action to address remaining unjustified non-tariff barriers.
            Members will need all their determination, as the definition and classification of non-tariff barriers is notorious ly challenging, so much so
that there is no WTO definition. Although they maybe easily described, a contrario,  as all barriers that are not tariffs, listing non-tariff barriers is
almost impossible as such a definition includes a potentially unlimited number of obstacles. In general, apart from the straigh tforward category of
border restrictions (e.g. import or export quotas), some non-tariff barriers can often best be described as procedures linked t o the implementation
of rules, as much as rules in themselves. Despite constant change  barriers can be identified, even if attempts at systematic cl assification can be
rather fruitless.
            It is essential to distinguish between legitimate regulatory measures and the use of measures to establish unjustif ied barriers to trade. In
contrast to legitimate non-tariff measures that are based on legitimate policy objectives such as public safety, health, securi ty, environmental or
consumer protection, non-tariff barriers may be dictated by prot ectionist designs, which are incompatible with GATT and WTO pri nciples and
impose unjustified burdens to traders.  (EC)
(3) Compilation of comprehensive data with regard to NTBs is an essential requirement for furthering discussion in this area.  However, there
should be caution against the inclusion of legitimate instruments that developing countries may use under the various WTO agree ments for
development of their industries. (India)TN/MA/9
Page 5Comment
(4)  Bearing in mind the variety and diversity of NTMs which could be NTBs, it is important, based on the experiences of the UR , not to
complicate issues more than necessary, and to consider a prope r direction for the modality of negotiations ba sed on the DDA man date.
It is appropriate to avoid the duplication of discussions between those taking place in this negotiating group and activities i n other
negotiating groups and existing WTO Committees, by considering the mandates and  the expertise in each committee/group.  It is important to
consider practical improvements for business with regard to measures that actually impede trade.
As NTMs are linked, in many cases, to legitimate public policy objectives, such as health and environmental protection, it is n ot
appropriate to automatically eliminate such measures.
Based on the UR experience whereby so many NTBs were notified,  resulting in dispersed discussions, it is important to scrutini se the
policy objective, the practical function and the trade-distorting ef fect of measures, when determining whether or not to take t hem up during this
negotiation .
Regarding the NTBs to be dealt with in this negotiating group, we  should  scrutinise their scope, with a view to avoiding any d uplication
of activities with other committees and addressing real benefits of the private sectors, and then we should set out the appropr iate methods for
reaching a substantial outcome.
Furthermore, the NTBs to be taken up in this group should be limited to such measures as those implemented by each government, and
the issue of appropriateness of measures granted under the WTO Agreement or other multilateral agreements should not be address ed in this
group. (Japan)
(5) The following key elements should be taken into consideratio n in defining the scope of negotiations on NTBs: 1) Non-duplica tion of work
with other negotiating bodies; 2) Existence of a critical mass ca lling for addressing the particular NTBs; 3) Achievability of negotiating objectives
within the agreed time-frame for DDA negotiations; 4) respect fo r each Member’s authority in pursuing national policy objective s.(Korea)
(6)   It is the view of Mauritius that priority consideration in the negotiations should be given to the elimination of NTBs, e specially those that are
"invisibles" or "hidden" NTBs such as administrative bottlenecks, complex distribution networks, etc.  While the audit of NTBs currently being
carried out based on information provided by Member States is a welcome step, it is nonetheless imperative that an independent and
comprehensive exercise be undertaken by the Secretariat to draw a checklist of hidden and invisible NTBs which could serve as t he basis for the
negotiations.  (Mauritius)
(7) Mercosur attaches priority to the Ministerial mandate to re duce or eliminate NTBs in the context of the current negotiation s. We fully support
the initiative to initiate the consideration of this aspect th rough a process of notifications in order to provide the Negotiat ing Group a basis with
which to begin consideration of the matter with a view to devel op modalities for negotiations in order to achieve the effective  reduction or
elimination of non-tariff barriers.  (Mercosur)TN/MA/9
Page 6
Comment
(8) Non-tariff measures must be clearly defined and categorized in order to determine which ones fall within the competence of this
Negotiating Group and to decide how they should be treated. (Mexico)
(9)  Many NTBs are linked to legitimate public policy objectives, for example health, safety or environmental protection, and m ay be in place
for valid regulatory reasons.  It is therefore not feasible simply to reduce or eliminate an arbitrary proportion of such measu res.  But given the
Ministerial mandate, neither can negotiators avoid addressing them.  Some of these measures impose unnecessary costs on busines s and
consumers or distortions to trade.  This is especially the case where the differences or variation in for example product manda tory standards (i.e.
technical regulations) and procedures for assessing compliance with those technical regulations (i.e. conformity assessment) am ong major global
markets itself imposes significant costs on business.  In line with the mandate, the Negotiating Group on Market Access does ne ed to seek
effective ways to reduce or eliminate the NTBs which cause those costs. (New Zealand)
(10) Developed countries should reduce or eliminate high internal  taxes and charges, especially those applicable to products of  export interest
to developing countries. (Oman)
(11)     As beneficiaries of preferential schemes, non-tariff barriers are increasingly becoming one of the main market access concerns.  For
instance preferences can not be used to the full because of the restrictive nature of the rules of origin. Hence rules of origi n may be harmful in
restricting the capacity of African countries to take advantage of market access opportunities that are available. There is als o a need to look at the
use of other measures that in principle conform to the WTO rules such as anti-dumping and countervailing measures, SPS and TBT among other
measures. While there may be legitimate reasons for these, sometimes they are used for purely protective purposes.  We recogniz e that it may not
be feasible to quantify the degree to which they act as market access impediments. However, it is crucial that they are address ed in the
negotiations as whatever gains are made through tariff concessions may be nullified by the incidences of this form of market ac cess barriers.
(Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe)
(12) To facilitate discussion on NTBs, we support some Members’ suggestion that Members should first identify the potential non -tariff barriers
about which they are concerned.  On the basis of the results of Members’ NTB notifications, Members will be in a better positio n to discuss the
subject and categorize these NTBs according to whether they are ‘issue-specific’ and ‘sector-specific’. NTBs that are issue-spe cific should be
addressed, where possible, in other relevant Committees or Negotiati ng Groups.  The only NTBs that would be addressed in this N egotiating
Group would therefore be:
(1) those issue-specific NTBs that other Committees or Negotiating Groups have no mandate to address; and
(2) sector-specific NTBs. (Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu)TN/MA/9
Page 7Comment
(13) Following compilation of information on NTBs from existing inventories developed by regional fora such as OECD and APEC, c ountries
could then consult and categorise these NTBs into those that are more issue-specific (e.g. rules, TBT, SPS, customs procedures etc.) or more
sector-specific (e.g. ITA, chemicals, pharmaceuticals).  NTBs that are more issue-specific could be taken up in other Committee /Negotiating
Groups while sector-specific NTBs could be di scussed in this Negotiating Group. (Singapore)
(14) A list of concrete barriers should be drawn up.  An assessment of the difficulties reported, and especially of their trade -restrictiveness,
should follow the collection of this information.  The assessment should take into account that some of the difficulties encoun tered may be solved
through bilateral negotiations between the Members concerned.  On the basis of this assessment and of the number of issues whic h can be
resolved bilaterally, the Negotiating Group will have to decide how to proceed. (Switzerland).
(15)  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 v ital if we are to
negotiate meaningful improvements in market access and overall li beralization as part of the current negotiations.  (United Sta tes)TN/MA/9
Page 8
PART B –SCOPE OF NTBS
1.  NTBs to be addressed in the
Negotiating Group(1) NTBs should be identified and negotiated within the Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Products as it is the
most appropriate body to discuss and remedy NTBs problems for the following reasons:  (1)  This Group has been granted
full authority by the TNC to negotiate on the subject of  NAMA; (2)  It will facilitate developing and least-developedcountries, which possess constraints with regards to both human resource and budget, and to help them to better focus onthe NAMA topics in one single forum.  (3) It will help facilitate developing and least-developed countries to betterevaluate the overall picture of the NAMA negotiations.  (Thailand)
2.  NTBs relating to existing WTO
Agreements which are not the subject
of any negotiating mandate, forexample
- TBT
- SPS
- Import Licensing
- Rules of origin- Customs valuation-Pre-shipment inspection(1) Given the existing Agreements covering these areas, it would appear that problems of implementation may exist.
These could perhaps best be examined by the relevant Committees themselves.  (Canada)
(2)  The Chilean export sector has identified a number of NTBs which affect it in various markets.  However, themajority of the NTBs reported correspond to measures regulated by several WTO Agreements for which there is noexisting negotiating mandate.  Again, some of these NTBs may correspond to measures inconsistent with those or otherWTO Agreements.  Consequently, Chile has not deemed it appropriate to provide notification of these specific measures atthis stage.
Chile understands that it is inappropriate to negotiate measures, either in the NGMA for Non-Agricultural
Products or in any other Group, insofar as this involves the creation of new disciplines.  Agreements should not be re-opened if there is no mandate to do so.
However, various Members have identified implementation problems in some of the aforementioned agreements.
Such problems should be examined by the relevant subsidiary bodies, as this avoids any duplication of work and also
allows for more efficient use of the little time for negotiation that is available to the NGMA for Non-Agricultural
Products.  Furthermore, in this way the different problem s are addressed in forums which are technically capable of
solving them. (Chile)
(3)  Some of the non-tariff barriers currently encountered stem from deficiencies in the implementation of GATT andWTO disciplines. In some instances, difficulties may need to be resolved through the procedures for consultation providedfor in each of the above-mentioned agreements, or – in the case of infringements – through the relevant GATT/WTO
procedures for dispute settlement. In a limited number of cases such as those concerning least developed countries,
difficulties might be due to inability of Members to live up to the commitments previously signed: technical assistance and
capacity building activities could then help  to address the issue, which is the reason why the European Communities has
constantly supported initiatives in this field, a recent example being the inclusion of trade related assistance in its ongoingdevelopment aid programming. Non-tariff barriers arising in the cases just described are not a matter for negotiation.
As developing and least developed countries have often drawn the attention to (perceived) non-tariff barriers
resulting from some Members’ implementation of the Agreem ent on Technical Barriers to Trade and the SPS Agreement,
the European Communities supports a thorough analysis of the existing disciplines in order to address such concerns. (EC)TN/MA/9
Page 9(4)     As many notifications relate to activities of existing committees, it would be useful to leave investigations to such
committees, with the possibility of applying horizontal disciplines.  Taking the TBT Committee, for example, the Third
Triennial Review is scheduled for this year, and this opportunity  could be used to the full. In this context, Japan recently
submitted a paper to the WTO, entitled "A Policy Framework for the Acceptance of Results of Conformity AssessmentProcedures", for the purpose of contributing to the discussions at the Triennial Review. Concerning suggestions toconsider practical ways of fostering a greater use of interna tional standards, it would be important to encourage experts to
discuss the definition of international standards if necessary , although there were discussions on clarification of the
definition of the term at Second Triennial Review.  (Japan)
(5)   Many of the non-tariff barriers identified by Members in their NTB notifications to Chairman Girard may fallunder the purview of existing WTO Agreements, and in fact may have been under discussion in Committees for sometime.  Solving these types of problems need not be deferred until the end of the Doha negotiations.  NTBs which relate toexisting 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 isno mandate to 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 the interaction betweenexisting 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. (United States)
3.  Measures covered by WTO
Agreements which are the subject of anegotiating mandate, for example-  anti-dumping
-subsidies and countervailing duties
-safeguards(1) Finally, there are certain new measures capable of  being considered as NTBs and for which a negotiating
mandate was indeed issued at Doha.  To take the Table of Co ntents of the Inventory of Non-Tariff Measures (TN/MA/S/5)
as a reference, one example of such measures would be anti-dumping and countervailing duties.  These NTBs should benegotiated in the relevant negotiating groups.  (Chile)
(2) Further to the attention devoted by the Singapore Ministerial Conference to non-tariff barriers, some of the
non-tariff trade obstacles are already the subject of discussions in other WTO negotiating fora, in which the EC
has submitted proposals and papers. For instance, issues concerning anti-dumping, countervailing measures and
subsidies are currently discussed in the negotiating group on rules. Problems caused by excessive recourse toanti-dumping, countervailing duties or safeguard action have become much greater than in the years preceding
the conclusion of the UR. The Community supports a subs tantial review and pro-trade strengthening of these
rules. (EC)TN/MA/9
Page 10
4.  NTBs which relate to other
areas of the Doha Declaration, for
example
-Trade Facilitation
-Transparency in Government
Procurement
-Competition
-Services
-Special and Differential Treatment(1) Border-related measures including customs procedures, fees and administration:  problems cited in
these areas seem to point to the basket of issues being discussed under the Trade Facilitation umbrella.  It might
be appropriate for the NAMA NG to support the initiation of negotiations on Trade Facilitation in order to
promote more commonality in, and simplification of, practices, standards and criteria. (Canada)
(2)  A second approach relates to the trade facilitation agenda that is under discussion in the Council for
Trade in Goods.  A signficant proportion of the NTBs identified by the export sectors of various Members,
both developed and developing, is found in measures which can be placed under the umbrella of trade
facilitation, for example, consular transactions and charges;  excessive customs processing procedures;
excessive penalties for minor offences;  double or triple inspections of imported cargo.  Consequently,achieving a consensus on trade facilitation-related negotiating modalities at the forthcoming Ministerial
Conference in Cancún would be a signficant step towards fulfilling the Doha mandate for NTBs.  Moreover,
consensus exists between WTO Members on the advantages of more efficient customs administration systems,
not only to expedite the flow of goods but also to pr omote investment and improve public policies.  Chile is not
proposing that any sort of formal link be established between the NGMA for Non-Agricultural Goods and a
future negotiating group on trade facilitation.  We are merely emphasizing that, in the light of the available
evidence, a signficant proportion of the NTBs reported by the Members should – by their very nature – beaddressed within the framework of a future negotiation on trade facilitation.  (Chile)
(3) Discussions on investment, competition and public procurement are bound to tackle barriers that arenot tariff-related as well. Discussions on trade facilitation, with their focus on customs and related trade
procedures, also provide an avenue to reduce burdensome import, export and transit procedures to the benefit
of all Members. Additionally, the work programmes on special and differential treatment and implementationdeal with several non-tariff issues of interest to developi ng countries. It is the EC’s view that the negotiating
group on non-agricultural market access should avoid duplication and ensure co-ordination with the work
conducted in other fora. (EC)
(4) A second approach would reflect the fact that some  areas are already covered under other parts of the
Doha mandate, eg. the work currently being done on trade facilitation in the Council for Trade in Goods(CTG).  The Council’s existing mandate in the period up to Cancun is to review and as appropriate improve
and clarify relevant GATT Articles.  Negotiations on trade facilitation are to be launched at Cancun on the basis
of a decision, by explicit consensus, on the modalities for those negotiations.  The importance of substantive
progress in this work on trade facilitation is apparent from the recent notifications of NTBs, by New Zealand,
and other participants, which illustrate that customs and entry procedures are among the most frequently citedNTBs.  The NGMA therefore needs to follow closely progress in the work on trade facilitation under the CTG.
(New Zealand)TN/MA/9
Page 11(5)  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 Government Procurement
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 wishto 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.  (United States)
5.  Export duties and Export
Restrictions(1) Because of GATT’s traditional focus on import policies, export taxes remain a policy instrument still not
subject to specific disciplines, hence the significance of the effects such policies have. Export taxes, whenever
used to protect industries that process primary commod ities, tend to be the flip-side to tariff escalation thus
causing adverse effects on commodity producers, who tend to receive a price which is below the price
prevailing on world markets. The commitments on export taxes made by newly acceded Members have set a
valuable example that should be followed by all Members.    (EC)
(2) Export tariffs or levies are generally used to generate resources to develop an industry by diversification inthe product profile and development of value added products for exports. Therefore, the suggestion that ‘exportduties’ be negotiated would be outside the Doha mandate.  (India)
(3)  As already suggested by Japan, export duties and export restrictions, that are implemented by the exportside and have trade-distorting effects, should be take n up as NTBs. Furthermore, there exists an imbalance in
the rights and obligations between the export side a nd the import side, thus warranting thorough discussion.
(Japan)
6.  Quotas (1) These, in principle, would appear to be a legitimate area for the NAMA  negotiations (Canada)
7.  Tariff classification (1) This may be an area where the World Customs Organization could be involved in helping to resolve s ome
outstanding problems.  Ongoing WCO work, including pe riodic revisions of the Harmonised System (HS), may
provide opportunities for changes which can facilitate better commonality of interpretation amongst customs
administrations.  In addition, however, some concerns appe ar to involve consistency in treatment within single
customs administrations. (Canada)TN/MA/9
Page 12
8.  Domestic regulatory process (1)   The Negotiating Group could also discuss whether it would be advisable for each Member to put in place
or maintain procedures and criteria, in the context of its domestic regulatory process, to examine regulations
affecting market access. Such an examination could, if necessary, result in modifications where the
circumstances giving rise to the regulations in questi on no longer exist or if the changed circumstances or
objectives can be addressed in a less trade-restrictive manner.         For purposes of transparency, it could be envisaged, finally, that Members in the Market Access
Committee would retain the right to seek further information on Members’ regulatory measures and
procedures, and their compatibility with these commitments.  (EC)
9.  Other NTBs (1) In this respect, the following issues appear, prima facie , worthy of consideration: export taxes, buy national
campaigns, difficulties arising from requirements by local, regional or independent authorities and bodies, andfrom the application of national laws and regulations outside national borders.  (EC)
(2) Progressive phasing out of market imperfection e.g. subsidies, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions in
all pollution emitting sectors is imperative.  Restructuring of the carbon tax to reflect the carbon and pollutant
contents of fuels is also important in order to realize the objectives of global environmental protection and
sustainable development, particularly for the developing countries. (Qatar)TN/MA/9
Page 13PART C – SPECIFIC MODALITIES/METHODOLOGIES
Type Points raised
1.  Dispute Settlement  (1) One way would be to leave measures for dispute settlement.  That may be necessary in some instances,  though it
plainly would not discharge the mandate.  (New Zealand)
2.  Request-Offer;Bilateral; Plurilateral(1) The NTBs which are covered by WTO Agreements for which there is no negotiating mandate could be the subject
of request-and-offer negotiations between the Members concerned, provided that this does not involve negotiating new
disciplines.  The results of these multiple bilateral or multila teral negotiations, which could deal with specific measures,
types of measures, or specific production sectors, would be  included in the Members' new schedules of commitments and
applied on a most-favoured-nation basis at the end of the current Round.  We can clearly see the limitations of a request-
and-offer approach in negotiations with more than 140 participants and with a fixed end date less than two years off.(Chile)
(2) This case-by-case approach dealing with specific non-tariff barriers could, if necessary, be supplemented by more
horizontal provisions based on GATT Articles III and XI. In so doing, Members should take into full consideration the
special needs of least developed countries.
             Nevertheless, we consider that request and offer approaches with individual commitments should not be excluded
a priori. In fact, the usefulness of including such individual commitments in some Members’ schedules has been
demonstrated. (EC)
(3)        In addition to a sectoral approach on the two se ctors, a bilateral approach could be used in combination with
discussion at plenary sessions, and to grant outcomes of these negotiations to all the Members.  (Japan)
(4) Another possible approach to handling NTBs, noted in  New Zealand’s earlier submission, would be bilateral
request/offer  (R/O).  We suspect that R/O may prove necessary as a fallback for some measures.  But New Zealand would
caution against making R/O the main modality for NTBs.  Given the large membership of the WTO, the potentially huge
number of NTBs as noted earlier, and the complexity of each individual issue, an approach solely based on bilateral R/O
negotiations group would be likely to yield relatively limited results.  That would imply a limited discharge of the
mandate.  (New Zealand)
(5)      On the subject of process for negotiating removal of NTBs, we are of the opinion that the request–offer process
should be an appropriate process for the NTBs negotiations. (Thailand)TN/MA/9
Page 14
Type Points raised
(6)  Specific bilateral issues relating to existing WTO disc iplines 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 specific international standards, which would then be applied on an MFN basis.      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 or elsewhere 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, the United States believes a significant contribution to an ambitious NTB result can be achieved
through the negotiation of positive commitments on a multi-country or “plurilateral” or even wider basis.  Suchagreements 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 Declaration.  For example, as indicated
previously, in a particular situation or for a specific se t of products, a group of Members would agree to implement
specific international standards on an MFN basis.  We note that several other Members have made suggestions 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 th e 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 expertsin existing groups, as appropriate.
(United States)
3. Horizontal Approach;
Multilateral(1) We would like to reiterate our marked preference for multilateral approaches with commitments equally
applicable to all Members.             Disciplines on specific non-tariff barriers are unlikely on their own to be effective in removing all obstacles to
trade, especially when some of them are immediately replaced by new barriers. For this reason Members should explore
whether additional horizontal mechanisms could be useful in addressing unnecessary barriers affecting market access so
that measures taken by Members are not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. (EC)
(2)         New Zealand suggests that to achieve substantial progress on the NTB part of the mandate, this Negotiating
Group will also need to consider multilateral  approaches.  In this paper we share some preliminary ideas about possible
approaches based on examples of technical regulations (i.e. mandatory standards), procedures for assessing whether
products comply with those regulations (i.e. ‘conformity asse ssment’), and quantitative restrictions.  The reference to
mandatory standards and conformity assessment reflects the fact that standards and certification ranked at the top of the
seven categories of NTBs identified in New Zealand’s earlier submission to the NGMA.  These types of NTBs areTN/MA/9
Page 15Type Points raised
prominent in the New Zealand notification of the NTBs faced by our exporters.  Within such a multilateral approach, there
are various ways in which NTBs, especially those relating to technical regulations and conformity assessment, might be
tackled.
   One approach would be to strengthen the application of existing horizontal disciplines.  For example, the TBT
Agreement already requires technical regulations to be specified in terms of performance wherever appropriate.4 In
practice technical regulations are often described in prescriptive terms rather than in terms of product performance.  (See
example below from the forest products sector.)  New Zealand suggests the negotiations should explore ways to strengthen
horizontal disciplines by requiring a substantial increase in the proportion of Members’ technical regulations to be
performance based rather than based on product descriptions, and to provide some security that those performance based
regulations will be maintained.  In New Zealand’s experience performance based standards are well received by thebusiness sector because they result in technical efficiencies and consequently improved productivity levels.
               Another example might be to agree to strengthen the use of international standards.   The TBT Agreement already
requires Members to base national technical regulations on relevant international standards where they exist (or are
imminent), except where the standards would be ineffective or inappropriate for fulfilling the legitimate objective of the
technical regulation.
5  In principle the NAMA negotiations might allow consideration of practical ways to foster greater
use of international standards.  This would of course have implications for the work of international standardising bodies,
such as the ISO and IEC, and the capacity of all Members, especially developing and least developed Members, toparticipate effectively in that work.
Harmonisation of national regulations to international standards is often proposed as the best way forward in this
area, though New Zealand and other Members have consistently preferred approaches based on recognition of the
equivalence of technical regulations in individual Member s.  One of the impediments to strengthening the use of
international standards is that in some sectors, industry cons iders the standards take too long to develop, so that existing
international standards are either far behind current business practice or simply non-existent.  For example the
development of ISO standards in the forest products and build ing sector has been slow, even though they may be seen as
ultimate replacements for existing national building standards and codes.  (New Zealand)
(3)  The NGMA may have an opportunity to promote a positive approach to enhance the trade opportunities for all
Members by examining the possibility for new commitments that  effectively deal with non-tariff barriers horizontally or
vertically.  WTO Members have some degree of experience in negotiating horizontal agreements, such as the Customs
Valuation Agreement and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. (United States)
                                                     
4 TBT Article 2.8
5 TBT Article 2.4TN/MA/9
Page 16
Type Points raised
4.   Vertical
Approaches/Sectorial
Approach(1) Japan suggests zero-for-zero and harmonization approaches for 18 specific sectors. Regarding the harmonization
of textiles and clothing, Japan suggests that any NTB that is unique to this area, such as country-of-origin marking, trans-
shipment and so forth, should be addressed in parallel with the reduction of tariffs. Furthermore, as suggested in the zero-
for-zero approach for the motor vehicle sector, all NTBs that are unique in each sector, together with tariffs, should be
treated simultaneously.
There have been some strong requests from the private sector of these two areas to take a sectoral approach. In
addition, these requests are gaining support beyond borders and activities to increase support among international
industrial associations have been vigorous. As seen in the UR, support from the private sector among countries is
indispensable for successful sectoral approaches. From this poi nt of view, the two sectors mentioned above should be dealt
with in priority.   (Japan)
(2)       To supplement work on strengthening the application of existing horizontal disciplines, therefore, a further
approach could be to explore negotiations to address  generic clusters of NTBs, typically those associated with a particular
sector. The forest products sector again provides an example of how this approach might deliver the results, which
Ministers have sought.
       The Negotiating Group might therefore want to consider the feasibility of addressing these types of generic NTBs in
single clusters.  For example:
• In relation to technical regulations, and taking forest products as an example, members might want to consider if a
‘smorgasbord’ approach might be feasible to achieve certain regulatory objectives.  For example, New Zealand
permits imported cars which meet the safety standards of any of the EU, US, Japan, Australia or the UN-ECE to
be placed on the market.  Is a comparable ‘smorgasbord’ approach feasible for some forest product technicalregulations?  Could that provide a relatively efficient way for this negotiation to reduce the costs and distortions,
which currently arise from businesses having to meet different technical regulations in various major global
markets?  It is notable that there is a move within ISO towards declaring specific national, or regional or
international standards as equivalent wherever this is possible rather than setting up one standard as the only
option.  For timber this sort of approach is especially suited to things like grades, testing methods and strengthclasses.
• Other alternatives within the generic clusters approach might also be explored in the course of negotiations in
order to address the costs which business faces due to varied technical regulations.TN/MA/9
Page 17Type Points raised
       Another option could be to consider classes of  NTBs.  An example could be NTBs that impose quantitative
restrictions on imports, which could be discussed as a group, possibly on an industry basis.  (New Zealand)
(3)  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 typein various regional fora.  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 Automotiv e 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 se ctors 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 products and textiles and apparel.  We look forward to other
Members’ input for possible inclusion in this type of discussion. (United States)TN/MA/9
Page 18
PART D – OTHER ISSUES
Other Issues Points raised
1.  Notification (1) In this respect, we would like to recall the provisions on notification already at the disposal of WTO Memb ers.
Decision G/L/596 lays down an obligation for WTO Members to notify some import and export restrictions, such as
prohibitions, quotas, automatic licensing, non-automatic licensing, state trading enterprises, mixing regulations, minimum
price, and voluntary export restrictions. Decision G/L/607 offers the possibility of reverse notification for trade barriers
maintained by other members, whenever they are not subject to any existing WTO system of notification or reverse
notification. Since Members have made almost no use of this  possibility, it might be advisable to undertake a review
aiming at operationalising such procedures within the Committee on Market Access, which could result in negotiations onnew WTO rules, if Members so decide.  (EC)
2.  Role of
Intergovernmental
Bodies(1) Tariff classification may be an area where the World Customs Organization could be involved in helping to
resolve some outstanding problems.  Ongoing WCO work, incl uding periodic revisions of the Harmonised System (HS),
may provide opportunities for changes which can facilitate better commonality of interpretation amongst customs
administrations.  In addition, however, some concerns appear to involve consistency in treatment within single customs
administrations. (Canada)
(2) Canada’s suggestion is worthwhile and that this concept merits further consideration by Members.  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 properly conducted in
the WTO take place elsewhere. Rather, Members ought to consider what role other intergovernmental bodies might have
in addressing problems that are related to market access concerns. (United States)
3. Capturing the results
of the negotiations(1)  Members must agree on a means of capturing the results of negotiations on NTBs.  We note that the UR goods
schedules provide in Part III a section for recording additiona l commitment, and that services commitments are recorded in
an additional column to the services schedule.  We might also consider using headnotes or footnotes to schedules in order
to memorialize commitments.  Ultimately we must ensure th at commitments are recorded in an open and transparent
manner and done on an MFN basis. (United States)
                                                     
6 Decision G/L/59 of the CTG of 10 January 1996 on notification procedures for quantitative restrictions.
7Decision G/L/60 of the CTG of 10 January 1996 on reverse notification of non-tariff measures.TN/MA/9
Page 19Other Issues Points raised
4.   Process for
undertaking future work(1) Members would need a process for identifying NTBs th at 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 be 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 pursuingNTB 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. (United States)
__________