RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/14
17 July 1998
(98-2839)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 18 JUNE 1998
Chairman: Mr. Ole Lundby
Agenda             Page
1. Adoption of the Agenda ............................................................................................. 1
2. Election of Chairperson ............................................................................................. 13. Submission of HS96 documentation ......................................................................... 14. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ................................... 2
4.1 Status of submission of th e required doc umentation .................................. 2
4.2 Dissemination of the IDB ........................................................................... 2
5. Other Business ........................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Date of the ne xt meeting ............................................................................ 6
1. Adoption of the Agenda
1.1 The above agenda, as reproduced in docum ent WTO/AIR/856 of 8 June 1998, was adopted.
2. Election of Chairperson
2.1 The Committee took note of the nomination of  Mr. Ole Lundby of Norway as Chairman of
the Committee for the current year and elected him by acclamation.  The Chairman informed the
Committee that he was pursuing consultations on the appointment of a Vice-Chairperson and he
would revert to this issue at the next meeting.
3. Submission of the HS96 documentation
3.1 The Chairman indicated that according to the provisions contained in the General Council
Decision of 24 April 1998 extending the time-limit of the waivers granted to Members that had
requested it, until 31 October 1998 (document WT/L/268), it was envisaged that the Members
concerned would submit by that date the complete documentation related to the introduction of HS96changes in their WTO schedules and that, in special circumstances they could request technical
assistance from the Secretariat.  He noted that document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.14 reflected the present
situation concerning the submission of the requir ed documentation and that, out of the 40 Members
that were under waivers, eleven of them had not yet submitted the required documentation;  the
Members concerned were:  Bolivia, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Morocco,Panama, Pakistan, South Africa and Zimbabwe.  Several of those countries had requested technicalG/MA/M/14
Page 2
assistance from the Secretariat concerning the preparation of the documentation.  He informed the
Committee that there had been a total of 38 submissions; three of them had been certified (Cuba;
Hong Kong, China; and Japan) and seven additional certifications were under process (Colombia,
Hungary, Macau, Poland, Romania, Singapore and Turkey).
3.2 The Chairman, referring to the declaration by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods
at the Council meeting of 6 October 1997 concerning general reservations (document G/C/M/23), said
that most of those reservations had been specified by 30 April 1998 and the remaining ones were
considered as having been withdrawn in line with the statement of the Chairman of the Council forTrade in Goods.
3.3 The representative of the European Communities informed the Committee that the position of
his delegation regarding the status of its reservations on the documentation submitted by Members
had been circulated in document G/MA/W/16 dated 4 June 1998.
3.4 The Chairman urged the Members concerned to do their utmost to eliminate, as soon as
possible, the waivers granted in connection with the introduction of the HS96 changes.4. Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Data Base
4.1 The Chairman noted that there were two points for discussion regarding the IDB:  the status
of submission of the required documentation (G /MA/IDB/2/Rev.1) and dissemination of the IDB
information (Job no. 1483/Rev.1).  With respect to the status of submission of the required
documentation, a document (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.1), whic h described the situation as of 8 June 1998,
had been circulated to all Members. Twenty-nine Members and two acceding countries had provided
IDB submissions.  After the document had been circulated, submissions had been received from
Hungary (1997 imports), Thailand (1996 and 1997 imports) Australia (1996 and 1997 imports andrevised tariffs) and the Czech Republic (1996 revised imports).  The Chairman urged all Members toprovide IDB submissions.
4.2 The representative of Switzerland informed the Committee that his delegation would be
submitting the import statistics for 1997.4.3 The representative of Columbia indicated that her delegation would be submitting the 1997
import statistics very shortly.  She hoped that in formation would be forthcoming from Members that
had not as yet provided IDB submissions.
4.4 The representative of Japan noted that his delegation had provided tariffs and imports
for 1996.4.5 The representative of the European Communities pointed out that the majority of WTO
Members had yet to fulfil their obligations in respect to the Council Decision establishing the PC IDB.
This was despite the fact that much of the required information was publicly available.  He noted thatsome WTO Members had provided other international organizations with information that could fulfilpart of their IDB submissions.  This had been mentioned on page five of thedocument G/MA/IDB/W/3/Rev.3.  The lack of submi ssions to the IDB was a matter of concern to his
authorities, who were considering raising this ma tter in the Council.  They believed that, in the light
of the Ministerial Declaration of 20 May 1998, the IDB needed to become operational as rapidly aspossible.  They invited those WTO Members that had not yet submitted the required data to makespecial efforts to do so.  He offered an alternative or supplementary approach to remedy this situation.G/MA/M/14
Page 3
Members that had the required information for those countries that had not supplied IDB submissions
to the Secretariat could notify it in their place.  This information could be obtained from publicinternational sources such as the Internet.  His authorities were considering what they could notify tothe WTO.  They would make this information available to the Secretariat and to the WTO Membersconcerned for comments.  They suggested that WTO Members that were in the position to notify
other Members' data should consider  doing so.  His delegation's aim wa s to facilitate th e task of those
that had yet to submit the required data to the IDB, as well as to ensure that all WTO Members hadready access through the WTO, to publicly available data on trade and tariffs.
4.6 The representative of Canada shared the same concern expressed by the European Community
regarding the lack of IDB submissions.  While ther e had been some progress in terms of the number
of Members supplying or updating the information, there was a large majority of Members that hadyet to supply anything.  He urged the Chairman to follow this up with the Members concerned.  Hisdelegation would need to reflect on raising this matter in the General Council as well as the suggestionof the European Communities to provide cross-notifications of other Members' data.  However,because of the critical importance of the ID B, his delegation could understand the European
Communities' concerns.
4.7 The representative of the United States supported the interventions made by the European
Communities and Canada with respect to their grave concern on the lack of IDB submissions by many
WTO Members.  The IDB was a notification obligation for all WTO Members.  The United States'first preference would be for countries to fulfil this obligation themselves.  However, the informationwould be needed relatively soon and time was required for its processing.  Should there be acontinued lack of respect for the IDB notification obligation, the alternatives that had been suggestedmight need to be considered.
4.8 The representative of Australia shared the concerns raised by other delegations on the lack of
submissions to the IDB.  The IDB was a very important tool that needed to be kept up-to-date.  She
urged countries to fulfil this obligation requirement as soon as possible.  Her delegation would need to
reflect on the suggestions raised by the European  Communities.  She encouraged the Chairman to
follow up with those delegations that had not provided IDB submissions.
4.9 In response to the statement made by the representative of the European Communities, the
delegate of Thailand urged caution with respect to the suggestion that Members make notifications on
behalf of other Members.  While  he shared the European Commun ities' c oncern about the lack of
progress and thought that Members should be more timely with their submissions, he believed thatMembers were able to recognize what was good for themselves, the system and the organization.Unless a decision was taken allowing for reverse notifications, caution should be exercised in goingthat far.  However, this by no means implied that Thailand advocated conducting the IDB at aleisurely pace.  His delegation advocated a comprehensive database.
4.10 The representative of Switzerland, in reference to the absence of submissions to the IDB,
informed the Committee that Switzerland had recently decided to make an extra-budgetary
contribution of SwF 1.5 million to the WTO for technical assistance.  His authorities had indicated anumber of priority activities for which the Swiss contribution could be used by the Secretariat, uponrequest by Members wishing to have technical assistance activities undertaken.  Technical assistancefor the submission of the required documentation to the IDB had been included among those priorityactivities.  Switzerland invited all Members to submit the required information to the IDB, as this was
a mandatory provision of the decision.  Furthermore, he wished to emphasize that there was aG/MA/M/14
Page 4
framework for technical assistance within that c ontext, specifically the extra-budgetary contributions
made by Switzerland.
4.11 The Chairman indicated that he would follow up with Members on the lack of submissions
and on what could be done to move forward.  The submission of data for the IDB was an important
obligation.  The database also had potentially very significant benefits for Members. He thenintroduced the second item on the agenda for the IDB - dissemination of the IDB.  In this  regard, he
noted that the Secretariat had revised the informal note, which the Committee had examined at its lastmeeting, to take into account comments and suggestions made by delegations at that time.  Therevised note en titled "Dissemination of the ID B" (Job no. 1483/Rev.1) had been distributed to all
Members.
4.12 The representative of Canada said that while it was important to build the IDB,  its real value
would be in its use by Members.  With respect to  minimum data requirements, Canada would be open
to a proposal that would require either the applied rate or the final bound rate along with the productdescription.  As concerned methods of dissemination among the Membership, his delegation thoughtthat a password-protected Internet site would provide the most efficient manner of handling thesubmissions and country-specific enquiries, while maintaining data security and confidentially.  Asregards Members' approval of processed submissions, his delegation did not favour automaticapproval by non-notification.  His delegation believed that Members should approve the submissionswithin a specified time-frame and that this should be mandatory.  Canada thought that original IDBsubmissions should not be disseminated.  With respect to the distribution of the IDB to internationalorganizations, his delegation could support the reciprocal arrangements that had been set up with theWorld Bank and the IMF, leading to Internet access to the IDB site for the World Bank and to futurediscussions with the IMF.  However, his delegation would not support Internet access for otherorganizations, which should be given access only to the IDB CD-ROM.  Canada believed that linkingother Internet tariff and trade data sites to the WTO File Transfer Facility home page would be a moreefficient use of resources than having the Secretariat maintain an electronic library of these sources.
4.13 The representative of the European Communities observed that much of this information was
publicly available and that no one could object to making public information available.  He offered a
suggestion with respect to the problem of other organizations using data from the IDB to makeanalyses with which the WTO might not agree.  He proposed that a standard disclaimer be added tothese analyses indi cating that they were th e responsib ility of the authors and not the WTO.  He
believed that other organizations having access to the IDB information should be required to grantreciprocal direct access to their electronic information that might of interest to the Secretariat.  Hethought that it would be useful to establish an electronic library of publicly available information.This information could be passed on to the Secretariat by delegations.  Noting that this should notentail any extra work for the Secretariat,  he suggested that this be discussed.
4.14 The representative of Norway supported the proposals to structure the IDB dissemination
system and to establish the access rights as outlined in the Secretariat's note.   Norway thought that
there should be a minimum level of information provided in the IDB submissions before theinformation could be disseminated and could agree with the minimum requirement as set out inAnnex 1 of the Secretariat's note.  With respect to  Members' approval of their processed submissions,
his delegation preferred the extension of the proposed time-frame to sixty days, but was flexible onthis issue.  His delegation strongly opposed distribution of original submissions.   Moreover, hisdelegation believed that the administrative costs of allowing access to original submissions would be
substantial.G/MA/M/14
Page 5
4.15 The representative of the United States supported using the Internet for receiving and sending
data.  He also favoured the establishment of a minimum information set that would be made available
to Members, before all elements of an IDB submission had been submitted and completed.  TheUnited States could agree with a time-frame of thirty to forty-five days for approval of processedsubmissions, but could support an alternative that had gathered consensus.  His delegation thought thatInternet linkages to sites of international organizations could act as an aid for governments to obtainsubsidiary information.  Regarding the dissemination of IDB files, his delegation had been reflectingon ideas that would be acceptable to all Members.  One point of concern was timing.  While theinformation had been submitted, it would not be made available until after it had been processed.While his delegation understood that distributing original submissions would place an administrativeburden on the system, there was also the question of equity of access to information.  His delegationcould support the establishment of a reasonable time-frame for processing the files, after which thefiles would be made available, regardless of their state.  It would be up to the users of such files todeal with their processing.  In this regard, there should be no administrative burden on the Secretariat.With respect to the distribution of the IDB to other international organizations, specifically the WorldBank and the IMF, his delegation believed that there was an issue that needed to be addressed.Following the Uruguay Round, the World Bank had published a detailed analysis of the final tariffcommitments without any notice to or review by WTO Members.  His delegation wanted to discusshow such a situation would be handled in the future and whether some sort of transparency or reviewprocedure might be necessary, before such uses of IDB information would go forward.
4.16 The representative of Japan asked when the 1998 version of the IDB CD-ROM would be
made available. His delegation had concerns as to the usefulness of the IDB CD-ROM should it be
issued infrequently.  He pointed  out that all WTO Members were responsible for submitting the IDB
data.  However, only some thirty countries had done so.  With respect to providing the IDB CD-ROMto countries that had not furnished IDB submissions, his delegation had concerns that this might leadto a loss of momentum in the regular provision of submissions.  As concerned Internet access to theIDB and CD-ROM dissemination, his delegation believed that this should be based on reciprocity.His delegation wished to encourage Members to provide IDB submissions even if the information wasincomplete.  With regard to the use of Internet for dissemination, he pointed out that the cost andtechnical matters should be reviewed at an early stage. With respect to Members' reconfirmation of
processed submissions, his delegation believed that this was not necessary since the Secretariat hadundertaken their transformation based on precise rules.
4.17 The representative of India informed the Committee that his authorities had not been able to
submit all the details of the IDB requirements, due to technical difficulties en countered in conversion
of the data.  This was being carried out and the information would be subm itted as soon as possible.
With respect to the distribution of the IDB information, India had no objections as far as the IDBCD-ROM was concerned.  As to other forms of distribution, he reserved his position on this matter.He suggested that the Chairman carry out informal consultations in this regard.
4.18 The representative of Colombia said that her delegation supported the use of Internet for
dissemination of the IDB and the security measures as outlined in the Secretariat's note.   Her
delegation also supported dissemination with mini mum information requirements.  Columbia had
provided information that was useful, although not necessarily complete.  Colombia's submission didcomply with the minimum requirement s.  She asked for clarification regarding the countries that had
provided correlation tables.
4.19 The representative of the Philippines said that this exercise was very important for her capital
and that it was important to resolve the dissemination policy at some point.  Her delegation supportedG/MA/M/14
Page 6
dissemination according to th e minimum data requirement s as outlined in  the Secretariat's note.  She
supported the suggestion of having a reference in the Central Registry of Notifications to indicatewhether a submission had complied fully with the notification obligation or with the minimumrequirements.  With respect to Members' approval  of processed submissions, her delegation felt there
should be an agreed-upon time-frame.  However, if this time-frame was not met, there would be animplicit understanding that, without an objection, the information could be disseminated.  With respect
to distribution of original submi ssions, her delegation agreed that th ere should be no further additional
administrative burden on the Secretariat.  Furthermore, she wished to discuss informally Members'difficulties in fulfilling the expectations of the IDB programme.
4.20 With respect to the question posed by the representative of Japan, a member of the Secretariat
indicated that the creation of the 1998 version of the IDB CD-ROM was tied to the general
dissemination policy.  The Secretariat required clarification on certain issues, such as the minimumdata requirements for dissemination and Members' approval of processed submissions, before a newCD-ROM could be produced.  In response to the question of the delegate of Colombia, the Secretariat
replied that Australia; the Eur opean Communities; Hong Kong, Chin a;  and the United States had
provided correlation tables with their IDB submissions.
4.21 The Chairman indicated that he would undertake informal consultations on the various issues
regarding the IDB and would consult delegations as to the scope of the consultations.  The Committee
took note of the comments made.
5. Other Business
5.1 The Chairman informed the Members that, subject to confirmation, the Committee's next
meeting would be held on Tuesday, 22 September 1998.
__________