RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/13
12 May 1998
(98-1854)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 26 MARCH 1998
Chairman:  Mr. Moha Ouali Tagma (Morocco)
Agenda of the meeting Page
1. Adoption of the agenda............................................................................................... 1
2. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods
including factual information on wa ivers expiring on 30 April 1998......................... 1
3. Submission of HS96 documentation .......................................................................... 34. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ..................................... 3
4.1 Status of submission of th e required doc umentation .................................... 3
4.2 Progress report on the work done by the Secretariat ..................................... 4
4.3 Technical as sistance....................................................................................... 4
4.4 Practical matters concerning the dissemination of
IDB information............................................................................................. 5
5. Preparation of consolidated l oose-leaf schedules on goods........................................ 7
6. Election of the Chairperson ........................................................................................ 9
7. Other business .......................................................................................................... 10
7.1 Vice-Chairperson of  the Committee .............................................................. 10
7.2 Submission of nationa l tariffs fo r 1998 ......................................................... 10
7.3 Date of next meeting...................................................................................... 10
1. Adoption of the agenda
1.1 The above agenda, as reproduced in document WTO/AIR/802 of 16 March 1998, was
adopted with the addition of items 7.1 to 7.3.
2. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including factual
information on waivers expiring on 30 April 1998
2.1 Referring to document G/MA/SPEC/7, the Chai rman noted that there were two groups of
Members covered by waivers expiring on 30 April 1998 - those whose waivers concerned the
introduction of HS96 changes, and those whose waivers concerned the transposition to the
Harmonized System of their schedules of tariff concessions.  All the waivers in question would expire
on 30 April.  With regard to the first group, a draft decision on extension of waivers had beenG/MA/M/13
Page 2
circulated in document G/MA/W/15 of 24 March 1998.  Despite the fact that several delegations had
endeavoured to lift the objections they had raised, 29 of 39 Members covered by the previous
extension, as well as four new Members, had submitted to the Secretariat a detailed extension request
and were included in the list annexed to document G/MA/W/15;  since the date of circulation of the
document, eight additional requests for extension had been received, bringing the total number of
waiver applications to 40.  The draft decision providing for an extension of waivers up to31 October 1998 would be on the agenda of the ne xt meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods
scheduled for 21 April, which would transmit the text to the General Council for decision.  Details
concerning the extension request were contained in Annex I to the periodic report.
2.2 The representative of the European Communities was hoping that the Communities' request
for extension of the waiver would not be necessary as his delegation was in contact with the countries
that had queries on the EC schedule in order to settle the problem;  his delegation was also working
with other countries concerned with a view to re moving existing EC objections and solving the
remaining issues related to their schedules.
2.3 The representative of Canada informed the Committee that his delegation would be lifting
reservations on six countries out of a total of 14.  Of the remaining reservations,  one country had very
recently responded to the Canadian specific reservation;  four others had provided partial responses
and it was therefore doubtful that the deadline of 30 April would be met; as concerned the remainingthree countries, additional information was needed.   He noted that some Members had not yet
submitted any HS96 documentation and he encouraged them to do so as soon as possible.
2.4 The representative of Thailand stated that his delegation had submitted a request for extension
of the waiver in the event that his country would not be able to conclude consultations under
Article XXVIII  before 30 April 1998.  He also reported that his country had lifted its reservation onthe EC schedule and was in the process of lifting the remaining ones as well.
2.5 The representative of the United States said that her delegation had been working hard to both
respond to specific questions and to identify specific queries in the case of many countries with which
her delegation had outstanding general reservations.   Her delegation was confident that by the April
deadline her delegation would have specified or lifted its general reservations.
2.6 The representative of Korea indicated that his delegation had received only a day ago specific
details related to the only remaining reservation placed on its schedule.  Despite the late date of the
communication, his delegation was hoping to be able to respond shortly to enable the interested
member to lift its reservation on the Korean schedule before the end of April.
2.7 The Chairman suggested that the Committee should take note of the comments made by the
delegations concerned and pointed out that the Committee's periodic report would be updated in the
light of the discussions held that day and transmitted to the Council for Trade in Goods together with
the draft decisions concerning extension of waivers up to 31 October 1998.1
2.8 As far as the other waivers were concerned, the Chairman said that four countries had
requested a further extension of their waivers in order to conclude the negotiations under way,
namely, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Sri Lank and Zambia.  The texts of the requests for extension and the
draft decisions for each of the countries concerned had been circulated and would also be included inthe 21 April agenda of the Council for Trade in Goods, for transmission to the General Council.
Details of those extension requests were c ontained in Annex II to the periodic report.
                                                     
1 Document G/MA/59.G/MA/M/13
Page 3
3. Submission of HS96 documentation
3.1 The Chairman said that document G/MA/TAR /2/Rev.13 reflected the current situation with
regard to submission of the required documentation.  According to that document, 12 of the
40 Members covered by waivers had not yet submitted the required documentation, the countries
concerned being Bolivia, Bulgaria, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Morocco,
Panama, Pakistan, South Africa and Zimbabwe.  It  was noteworthy that three of those countries
(Egypt, El Salvador and Honduras) had requested t echnical assistance from the Secretariat and that
the required documentation was under preparation.  To date, the Secretariat had received
38 submissions, only three of which had been certified (Cuba;  Hong Kong, China;  Japan) while three
new certifications were in progress (Colombia, Roma nia and Poland).  Reservations were currently
being maintained on 30 or so submissions.  That being the case, he drew attention to the statement
made by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, at its meeting on 6 October 1997,
concerning general reservations, which read:  "Delegations that have entered unspecified reservationsto documentation submitted for the introduction of HS96 changes, undertake to specify their
reservations before 30 April 1998, by identifying the tariff line and/or description for which they
consider that the proposed change alters the scope of a concession.  It is furthermore agreed that,
where reservations have not been specified by that date, they will be deemed to be withdrawn" (ref.
document G/C/M/23).
3.2 He asked the Members concerned which had not yet done so to submit the necessary
documentation without delay.
4. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base
4.1 The Chairman noted that there were four point s for discussion regarding the IDB:  the status
of submission of the required documentation (G/MA/IDB/2), a progress report on the work done by
the Secretariat, technical assistance (G/MA/IDB/W/3/Rev.1) and practical matters concerning the
dissemination of IDB information (Job no. 1483).  Wi th respect to the status of submission of the
required documentation, he noted that document G/ MA/IDB/2, which described the situation as of
13 March 1998, had been circulated to all Members.  In this respect, nineteen Members and one
accession country had provided IDB submissions.  The Chairman invited the Secretariat to provide anupdate of the situation.  Mr. Léger (Director, Statistics and Information Systems Division) of the
Secretariat reported that since the circulation of  the document, new or revised submissions had been
received from Australia (tariffs for 1996, 1997 and 1998), Canada (tariffs for 1998), China (tariffs for
1996 and 1997, imports for 1996), Estonia (tariffs for 1998), Japan (tariffs for 1996 and 1997, imports
for 1996), Peru (tariffs for 1998) and Switzerland (tariffs for 1996, 1997 and 1998).  Most of thesubmissions received had been processed by the Secretariat.  Many submissions had been incomplete,
especially with regard to reference information, tariff correlations, bound duties and product
descriptions.  The Secretariat had supplemented the missing reference information from other sources
where possible.  However, the Secretariat could not use other sources for other types of missing
information, which had to be provided by Members.
4.1.1 The representative of the European Communities said that it was very encouraging that there
had been further submissions since the document had been circulated, although the situation was far
from complete.  He noted that information required for the IDB had already been submitted to other
organizations by some Members, and encouraged those Members to formally submit the information
to the WTO.
4.1.2 The representative of the United States also strongly encouraged all Members to supply the
information to the WTO to comply with the mandato ry notification requirement of these data.  She
further pointed out that the data supplied to some other organizations was exactly the same as required
for the IDB.G/MA/M/13
Page 4
4.1.3 The representative of Norway supported the comments made by the delegations of the
European Communities and the United States.  He found the low rate of submissions surprising since
at the last meeting of the Committee, very few countries had mentioned problems in fulfilling the
submission requirements. He further noted that although no Member had thus far been able to submit
complete data, it was the effort that was important.  Members had a responsibility to do their utmost
to respond to the IDB submission requirements in a timely manner.  Those Members foreseeingproblems in this respect should request technical assistance to be able to fulfil those requirements.
4.1.4 The representative of Columbia informed the Committee that her authorities were completing
their 1997 import data, which would be submitted in the coming weeks.4.2 The Chairman encouraged all Members to do th eir utmost to submit the required information
for the IDB since it was an indispensable tool for all member countries of the WTO.  He then
introduced the second point on the agenda regardin g the IDB, by inviting the Secretariat to provide
the Committee with a progress report on its work.
4.2.1 Mr. Léger of the Secretariat described the progress in software development.  The Internet file
transfer facility was operational but required some minor changes in the interface to make it more
user-friendly.  The remaining tasks for this facility entailed the preparation of instructions  for using
the site, distribution of passwords to delegations, and creation of the French and Spanish versions of
the interface.  In addition, a program had been developed to further standardize the informationcontained in the access databases to permit easier manipulation of the data using PC desktop software.
Work had begun on the IDB dissemination database, which would provide facilities using Internet
technology to produce the same types of reports as were available with the IDB CD-ROM.
Enhancements would be introduced to provide more flexibility in the selection of data and in the
creation of reports.  He also reported that the Secretariat was moving the mainframe QuantitativeRestrictions (QR) database to a PC environment.  The data elements currently recorded in the QR
database would be retained, but there would be improvements in the way the information was
structured.  The new database could eventually be incorporated into the IDB.  Moreover, additional
information could be added in the future should Members require this.
4.2.2 The representative of the United States encouraged the Secretariat to continue with the
activities as outlined in its report, which would be useful to facilitate the dissemination of the IDB.
4.3 In reply to a request from the delegation of Norway, the Chairman  indicated that the
Secretariat's progress report would be made available to all delegations wishing to have a copy.  He
then introduced the third point on the agenda regarding the IDB, which concerned technical
assistance.  He noted that document G/MA/IDB/W/3/Rev.1, which described the possibilities of
drawing up a technical assistance programme for the IDB, had been circulated to all Members.  Herecalled that a prior version of the document had been put before the Committee at its last meeting.
Since then, the document had been revised to incorporate suggestions and comments made by
Members.  He asked the Secretariat to provide a summary of the document and of the changes that
had been introduced, before inviting delegations to comment on the document.
4.3.1 Mr. Léger of the Secretariat described the IDB technical assistance programme, which
covered  six components.  The first component related to the provision of PC software to assist
Members in the preparation of IDB submissions.  In this respect, the Inter-American Development
Bank  was currently developing a Windows version of its software for the Free Trade of the Americas
database. This software would be used for the IDB when the Windows version was ready.  The
second component pertained to participation by the IDB staff in WTO seminars on market access
issues and in other workshops organized by the T echnical Cooperation and Training Division.  These
seminars and workshops would provide the opportunity to explain the IDB requirements, the use ofG/MA/M/13
Page 5
the CD-ROM and to establish contact points for IDB matters.  The third component pertained to
conducting regional IDB seminars focused on specific requirements of these areas.  These seminars
would target the use of the PC submission preparati on software, the setting up of databases in national
capitals, the IDB requirements and demonstrations of the Internet file transfer facility and the IDB
CD-ROM.  The fourth component related to the establishment of contacts in missions and capitals.
The fifth component concerned collaboration with other international organizations and regionalsecretariats with respect to explaining the requirements of the IDB, promoting its benefits, assisting
the Secretariat in its data collection programme for the IDB, and also to benefit from the experience of
these other organizations and to avoid duplication of effort.  In this respect, it was noted that IDB
submissions were the responsibility of reporting countries and would be provided directly by the
member country to the WTO, not withstanding where the information was assembled.  The sixth
component concerned Internet assistance, which was noted to be a very useful vehicle for exchanging
information.
4.4 The Chairman introduced the fourth point on the agenda regarding the IDB
, which related to
practical matters concerning the dissemination of IDB information. These were described in an
informal note (Job no. 1483), which had been circulated to all Members. The Chairman  noted that the
Secretariat would be providing the technical means to make the IDB accessible via the Internet.
However, the Committee would eventually need to take a decision on the matters raised in the note, sothat the Secretariat would have clear guidance regarding the issue of IDB dissemination.  Before
requesting delegations' initial comments on the questions  raised in the note, he invited the Secretariat
to summarize the informal paper.
4.4.1 Mr. Léger of the Secretariat explained that the note had been drawn up to clarify certain
questions regarding IDB dissemination.  It described how the IDB information could be distributed
and how the Secretariat intended to organize access to the IDB Internet site.  Once submissions had
been processed by the Secretariat, the IDB could be distributed via the IDB CD-ROM and/or through
file copies at the tariff line level using the password-protected Internet file transfer facility. The
Internet facility would consist of two areas.  A production area would contain the processed IDB files
and would be available to all authorized users.  In addition, a private directory area for each Memberwould be available for file exchanges between individual Members and the Secretariat.  Acceding
countries that had provided the required IDB information would have the same access rights as
Members.  Other acceding countries would have access only to their private directory.  International
organizations requesting IDB information would need to go through the Secretariat and would not
have Internet access.  To prevent the possibility of unauthorized parties accessing the Internet facility,Members would need to notify the Secretariat of required changes in passwords.  Mr. Léger then
outlined the four questions that needed to be clarified. The first question concerned the level of
completeness required in IDB submissions, in the sense that the information furnished had complied
with the specifications as described in documen t G/MA/IDB/1/Rev.1, which had been referenced in
the General Council decision (WT/L/225) establishing  the PC IDB.  He noted that should a strict
definition of compliance be adopted, few if any Members would have fulfilled the IDB requirements.
Related matters included how to deal with inco mplete submissions with respect to the Central
Registry of Notifications and should incomplete but useable information be distributed.  The second
question concerned the need for Members' approval of their processed files before their distribution to
other Members. The third question related to circulation of original submissions that had yet to be
processed by the Secretariat.  Mr. Léger noted that if this was to be carried out, it would create a very
large administrative burden on Secretariat resources.  The fourth question concerned how and inwhich form should IDB information be distributed to  international organizations and was there a need
to compile a list of the organizations that would have access.
4.4.2 The representative of Canada stated that his authorities had preliminary views on the points
raised in the document, fully recognizing that further informal consultations might be required.
Canada believed there should be a minimum acceptable level of information at which point the IDBG/MA/M/13
Page 6
information could be distributed, since requiring complete information before distribution could prove
to be impractical. The processed IDB files should be approved by individual Members before
dissemination, possibly within a turnaround time of po ssibly thirty-five to forty-five days.  His
authorities believed that a time limit for approval was necessary and thought that forty-five days
should be manageable, given that the Internet facility could be used to transfer the processed files to
national capitals.  Canada believed that the original submissions should remain confidential untilprocessed and approved.  Canada had had long standing concerns regarding confidentiality of
proprietary information provided to the WTO.  His au thorities were of the opinion that a list of the
international organizations having access to the IDB should be established and that these
organizations should be provided access only through the IDB CD-ROM.
4.4.3 The representative of the European Communities offered his delegation's preliminary views.
Those international organizations requesting IDB info rmation should be asked to give the WTO  tariff
and trade information, if they collect such data.  This would be useful to fill any gaps in theknowledge available in the Secretariat.  This inform ation could be stored in a "library", without any
processing work by the Secretariat, and be made available to WTO Members.  His delegation
favoured adopting the same approach for original IDB submissions.  He agreed with the Canadian
delegation's point that there should be a minimum level of data provided and suggested that this could
comprise complete information for either the applied duties or the final bound duties, for all tarifflines.  He thought that incomplete submissions wo uld be a diminishing problem, as Members became
more used to submitting the information.
4.4.4 The representative of the United States felt that the informal note raised relevant questions
that needed to be discussed and reflected upon.  She offered her delegation's preliminary views.  She
strongly agreed that a list of international organizations having access to the IDB was required, andfavoured the idea presented by the European Communities with respect to requesting data from these
organizations. She expressed concerns regarding dissemination the IDB information to these
organizations for internal use.  She thought that a better understanding of the current arrangements
with international organizations was needed.  She agreed with the Canada's view that, at this point in
time, granting access to international organizations through the IDB CD-ROM should be sufficient.She agreed with the European Communities that an acceptable submission would not require all tariff
and trade information before distributing the information.  However, a minimally acceptable package
was required and this would require further discussion.  She agreed that Members should approve
their processed files within the turnaround time proposed by Canada.  She fully understood the
Secretariat's concerns about not wanting  to  use  scarce  resources to make the original submissionsavailable to Members and felt that this should be  discussed further.  She suggested that it might be
more appropriate to make these files available only to those Members that had submitted data, without
any processing work by the Secretariat.
4.4.5 The representative of India said that the issues raised by the Secretariat were relevant and
serious, in the sense that they involved confidential ity of information, international organizations, and
requirements for governments' approval of dissemination of incomplete information.  India  supported
the view that these issues be discussed informally and that a decision be taken.
4.4.6 Mr. Léger of the Secretariat informed the Committee that formal cooperation agreements
between the WTO and respectively the IMF and the World Bank had been approved by the General
Council.  In these agreements, there were paragraphs relating to the IDB and exchange of data with
these institutions.  The Secretariat would look into these agreements in view of the comments that had
been made by delegations.  He requested confirmation of his understanding that the Secretariat wouldcontinue with the current dissemination policy until the Committee had agreed to revise it.G/MA/M/13
Page 7
4.4.7 The Chairman indicated that, unless there were objections by Members, the present
procedures would continue until the Committee had established guidelines for dissemination of the
IDB.  The informal note would be updated and circulated to all delegations.  He confirmed that he
would hold informal consultations to discuss these matters.
5. Preparation of consolidated loose-leaf schedules on goods
5.1 The Chairman introduced the fourth item on the agenda - preparation of consolidated loose-
leaf schedules on goods.  He recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee, the representative of
Switzerland, under other business, had observed that the modalities for Members to verify and certify
the consolidated loose-leaf schedules on goods had not yet been finalized.  The Swiss delegation had
felt that the presentation, verification and certification of schedules should be continued in order to
have a complete database in electronic format.  They had also suggested that the discussion
concerning verification and certification modaliti es be renewed promptly within the Committee and
that this work be conducted closely with the cons ultations conducted by the Chairman of the Council
on Trade in Goods on the same point.   The Chairm an indicated that following informal consultations
held on 5 March 1998, some delegations had mentioned the problems and gaps existing in the
verification and certification procedures for the schedules and had felt that an electronic solution was
necessary to enable Members to work on a comparable basis.  From this perspective, it had been
understood that the Secretariat would draw up an informal note on the prevailing situation and what
could be done in this area.  The  note entitled "Preparation of Consolidated Loose-leaf Schedules on
Goods" (Job no. 1484) had been circulated to all Members.  It described practical problems related to
the consolidated schedules on goods and envisaged solutions to improve the situation.  The note also
showed how information contained in the schedule s could be incorporated into the IDB.  The
Chairman stressed that the note had considered only practical questions.  Juridical and legal aspectsconcerning decisions adopted by the Committee and the Council on Trade on Goods had not been
addressed.  Furthermore, the note had not covered the matter of necessary resources for this work.
The Chairman invited the Secretariat to give the Committee a brief summary of the informal note.
5.2 Mr. Léger of the Secretariat recalled that the Committee had been pursuing solutions to
problems regarding the verification and certification of rectifications and modifications to tariff
schedules, in the context of using technological advancements and in the context of the new PC IDB.
Members had noted that with the establishment of the PC IDB, together with electronic versions of
certified consolidated schedules of tariff concessions, a reliable database would be available to
support the work of the Committee and Members.  However, many IDB submissions received thus far
were incomplete, especially with regard to the reporting of bound duties.  The bound duties wereavailable from several sources within the Secretariat, but not in a consolidated format.  Some
information in the Secretariat was available in elec tronic format, but not in a standardized format.
The proposed approach in the informal note would be to extend the work already carried out in the
Secretariat, in converting the electronic HS 1996  documentation to a common PC format, in order to
create a standard database of the consolidated tariff concessions of all Members.  Mr. Léger described
the tasks that would need to be undertaken to create the database.  He also pointed out the benefits
that could be realized:  Members could fulfil thei r notification obligations for the IDB regarding the
provision of bound duties;  the database would provide a valuable reference for Members for the
process of verification and certification of commitments, for the future preparation of consolidated
schedules and rectifications to schedules, and for future HS amendments;  Members would have at
their disposal reliable information, with the possibility to link bound duties and imports; and lastly,
the database could lead to the building of an electronic "yardstick" for future electronic verification ofchanges to tariff schedules, thereby permitting efficiency and transparency in preparing and verifying
changes in concessions.  The informal note proposed the undertaking of a pilot project that might
consist of the schedules of two Members.  Mr. Léger stressed the remarks made by the ChairmanG/MA/M/13
Page 8
regarding the non-legal status of the information that would be contained in the database.  He also
noted that the paper did not cover the budgetary as pects that would need to be addressed should it
eventually be agreed to undertake the full project.
5.3 The representative of Switzerland recalled that during past meetings, his delegation had raised
the matter of consolidated schedules and had indicated that there were a number of points that
required clarification, including the verification and certification modalities. An important factor forhis delegation was to make the distinction between two points - the legal aspects and the practical
aspects.  These aspects had completely different dimensions and, while linked, should be dealt with in
different and separate ways.  There were legal problems that went beyond the verification and
certification of consolidated schedules and these would require further discussion.  The second point,
the practical aspects, was largely covered in the informal note presented by the Secretariat.  These
aspects dealt not with the legal documents, but with  the working tool that would be made available to
Members carrying out various types of negotiations.  In this context, his delegation felt that theinformal note contained very useful information.  It demonstrated a number of difficulties, pointed to
practical matters that had to be resolved and for which Members needed to provide guidelines.  He
supported the idea of drawing up a pilot project. He felt that it would be useful to illustrate the
information in this new package with one or several specific examples.  However, he stressed the
differences that should exist between the two exerci ses.  On the one hand, there were legal rules to be
implemented that would serve as legal basis for Members' tariff concessions.  On the other, there
could be non-legal instruments that would enable members to facilitate their different negotiating
activities.
5.4 The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation had found the
informal note very useful because it clearly demonstrated the interface for solving a number of
problems  faced by Members with respect to HS changes.  The paper showed that if a complete IDB
tariff submission was supplemented with bound duties, it would be possible to create a consolidated
loose-leaf schedule from that electronic information, which might eventually be made legal.  Until
that had been done, the electronic information could be a very useful point of reference.  He pointed
out that such a database would save a lot of time and effort in the future work of  HS revisions or onresearching information contained in schedules. He recommended that the Committee follow the
approach described in the note, which he believ ed showed the way forward and would eventually
provide savings in resources.
5.5 The representative of Canada said that the paper raised useful, important and interesting
issues.  He agreed with the Swiss delegate on the need to distinguish between the legal track and the
practical track.  He shared the views of the European Community that the practical track could result
in having a very useful and important tool for the future activities of WTO.  He supported the idea of
establishing a pilot project.
5.6 The representative of Mexico said that the establishment of a database to deal with bound
tariffs was very important.  He noted that the question of presentation of loose-leaf schedules was a
separate exercise from the exercise that the note was proposing.  He agreed with comments made by
other delegations with respect to distinguishing the legal aspects from the practical aspects.  It was ofinterest to prepare a database of Members' bound duties and consultations should continue to find an
acceptable solution for all.
5.7 The representative of the United States agreed with many of the comments made by other
delegations,  in particular the need to distinguish between legal and practical issues.  A practical way
forward was needed to determine how computerized systems could be used to develop a database ofbound rates.  Her delegation thought that a pilot project would be very helpful, in order to understand
what would be involved and what Members could contribute to the exercise in terms of data.  She
encouraged the Secretariat to move forward with the pilot project.G/MA/M/13
Page 9
5.8 The representative of New Zealand agreed with the comments in support of the paper.  It
described an approach to eventually have an electronic version of the legal documents.  He agreed that
the legal aspects and this exercise were separate paths.  However, at some point there would ideally be
an intersection, in that consolidated bound rates would be available electronically that ought to
correspond to the legally certified schedules of all Members.  If the process set out in the paper also
helped Members with the verification of changes in schedules, then his delegation felt that this wouldbe a very valuable process.
5.9 The representative of Norway said that his delegation had found the paper very useful.  They
supported the main thrust of the paper - to improve provision of bound duties for the IDB and the
consolidation of Members tariff schedules.  This would be a practical and pragmatic solution to
facilitate both IDB submissions a nd loose-leaf schedules submissions.  It would also be useful as
working tool and for future negotiations.  His delegation supported the idea of starting with a pilot
project.
5.10 The representative of Argentina found the paper useful in helping to understand the three
issues, which were sometimes dealt with separately but could be seen as an integral package.  His
delegation agreed that loose-leaf schedules were needed for certification and that an electronic format
was required.  It was very important to have bound and applied duties and all other data in a single
database, which could be used for any type of ne gotiation in the future - be it under Article XXVIII or
broader negotiations.  His delegation supported the idea of starting with a pilot project.
5.11 The representative of Australia said that her delegation had found the paper useful and agreed
on the need to distinguish between practical and legal tracts, which were different.  The working tool
was needed for any future negotiations.  Her delegation felt that the pilot project was a very good idea
to start with.
5.12 The representative of Columbia gave her delegation's full support for the proposal.  It was  a
practical way to find solutions to problems that had existed for some time.  Her delegation  supported
the points made by other delegations in that there were two distinct tracks, the legal aspects on one
side, and the practical side on the other.  Her delegation believed that this practical tool  could help
with the discussion of the legal aspects later on.
5.13 The representative of Hong Kong, China registered his delegation's support for the paper and
the pilot project.5.14 The Chairman explained that the note had been intended to help the Committee to continue its
discussion on this issue.  He noted that, as several delegations had stated, there were different aspects
that must be made distinct but at the same time everything was linked.  The purpose of the note was todeal simply with practical aspects so that Members would have a working tool.  The Committee took
note of all the comments made.
6. Election of the Committee Chairperson
6.1 The Chairman said that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had continued his
consultations with a view to nominating a chai rman of the Committee on Market Access for the
current year, that Mr. Ole Lundby of Norway had been selected for that post, and that the latter's
nomination had been approved by the Council for Trade in Goods at its meeting on 25 March.  SinceMr. Lundby had to obtain the approval of his authorities, the Chairman suggested that that agenda
item should be deferred to the beginning of the Committee's next meeting.G/MA/M/13
Page 10
7. Other business
7.1 Vice-Chairperson of the Committee
The Chairman suggested that consultations should be held before the next meeting with
regard to the nomination of a vice-chairperson and that a decision could be taken on the basis of a
report at that meeting.
7.2 Submission of national tariffs for 1998
The Chairman informed Members that the Secretariat had updated document
G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.3 in order to reflect the current si tuation regarding national tariffs notified to the
Secretariat.  He asked Members to check the data relating to their delegations and requested those
who had not yet done so to submit to the Secretariat a copy of their most recent national tariff, since
the documents concerned were an essential working tool.
7.3 Date of the next meeting
The Chairman informed Members that, subject to confirmation, the Committee's next meeting
would be held on 18 June 1998.
__________