RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/27
17 January 2001
(01-0232)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 18 DECEMBER 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Christophe Kiener (Switzerland)
1. Review of the Operation of the IDB and IDB related technical assistance
activities (G /MA/IDB/W/7) ...................................................................................................... 1
2. Other Business............................................................................................................... ............3
(a) Release 5 of the IDB CD-ROM ................................................................................................. .3
(b) List of publications/studies on mark et access and tariff- related issues.......................................3
(c) Tariff Seminar.............................................................................................................. ...............4
(d) Date of the next meeting.................................................................................................... .........4
The above agenda as reproduced in document WTO/AIR/1461 was adopted with the addition
of items under 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
1. Review of the Operation of the IDB and IDB related technical assistance activities
(G/MA/IDB/W/7)
1.1 The Chairman recalled that at the 2 October 2000 informal meeting of the Committee, a
discussion had ensued from a Canadian proposal to have a special informal session of the Committee
dedicated to the review of the status of IDB submissions.   While the proposal had received generalsupport, some questions were raised regarding the modalities. As a result, it was agreed that the
Chairman along with the Secretariat should put together a proposal for a possible modality to
undertake a multilateral review of the operation of the IDB and related technical assistance activities
taking into account the various viewpoints expressed at the informal meeting.  A draft proposal (Job
No. 7080) was circulated to delegations on 9 November 2000 and considered at an informal meetingof the Committee on 23 November 2000.  While, general support for the draft proposal was expressed
at that meeting, certain amendments were suggested.  In light of those comments, the draft proposal
was revised and circulated as document G/MA/IDB/W/7 for the Committee's consideration.   He
informed the Committee India had indicated to him that her capital had not yet had the time to review
the document.  He proposed to adopt the document on an ad referendum  basis and give the Indian
delegation until 22 January 2001 to provide comments.
1.2 The representative of Canada supported the proposal as reflected in document
G/MA/IDB/W/7.  His delegation thought that it deal t properly with the various elements that needed
to be covered in such an appraisal, both in terms of the kinds of problems Members were having andthe possible solutions in the way of technical assi stance.  It would also allow Members to indicate
what had assisted them in providing their IDB submissions.  His delegation could support the
proposal for the ad referendum  adoption of the document, although Canada would have preferred aG/MA/M/27
Page 2
decision at this meeting so that the process could start immediately.  Canada was in the first group of
countries to be reviewed.
1.3 The representative of India stated that document G/MA/IDB/W/7 incorporated a number of
changes that her delegation had suggested at the informal meeting.  However,  some had not been
included, and her capital was considering them further.  This reflected the importance India attached
to this exercise:  Her delegation looked at this mu ltilateral appraisal in terms of the maximum possible
benefits to be drawn by all Members.  India had provided more data on the IDB to the Secretariat
towards the end of November 2000.  Queries had been received from the Secretariat on this additional
data.  Her delegation did understand the need to look  at fulfilling the IDB submission requirements in
a complete and efficient manner, which in turn had motivated her capital to look at the multilateral
appraisal in greater detail.  She thanked the Committee for giving India time until 22 January 2001 onan ad referendum  basis.  She also noted that the timetable as set out in the document indicated a three-
month time delay period before the review started.
1.4 The representative of the European Communities stated that his delegation could accept the
proposal as it stood, although he would have preferred a procedure which was less laborious and more
targeted.  His delegation was more interested in an improvement in the status of IDB submissions than
in the procedure.  His delegation could accept the ad referendum  adoption of the document.
However, he enquired as to the implications on paragraph 10 which envisaged a delay of three months
in order to organize the first regional meeting.  He hoped that this three-month delay period would
start immediately, and not as of 22 January 2001.
1.5 The Chairman stated that this was an indica tive deadline.  Even if the Committee had been
able to adopt the document today definitively, i.e. 18 December 2000, it did not mean that the
Committee could have met on 18 March 2001 to undertake the first review.  He requested some
flexibility regarding timing so as to enable the Se cretariat to prepare the meeting.  If the Committee
adopted the document on an ad referendum  basis today, he  understood that the idea should be that the
three-month delay period envisaged in paragraph 10 of the document would begin as of today.
1.6 The representative of India stated that as regards the three-month deadline, she had no
problem if the Secretariat started doing its work and Members theirs. However, it was not possible for
her delegation to start a formal clock ticking with a decision not fully taken.  That had been the intent
of her previous statement. She had no problem with the Chairman's comments that the Committeemaintain flexibility as to when it started the first round of regional meetings. However, at the present
meeting, the Committee should not bind itself to a deadline.
1.7 The Chairman thanked the Indian delegation for its flexibility and noted that other Members
would keep in mind the fact that the Indian delegation might have comments to make and might wish
to have changes introduced to the document.
1.8 The representative of Chile hoped that the three-month deadline would begin as of today, and
that the ad referendum  adoption would not prejudice this process.
1.9 The representative of the European Communities stated that his statement had less to do with
the launching of the programme itself than the spirit in which Members were approaching this
exercise.  He noted that once this programme was launched Members would be committed to a long-
term and complex process which would require the organization of a series of meetings in order to
enable Members to examine country-by-country the situation of notifications to the IDB.  The firstone of these meetings would not take place before March 2001 at the earliest.  Nevertheless, his
delegation wanted to place on record the fact that this programme was only being undertaken to
enable the Committee to identify and resolve problems which existed presently in each country to
make IDB submissions. It did not mean that deadlines for the submission of the IDB notifications hadG/MA/M/27
Page 3
been revised. Members should not feel that they were exempt from making their IDB submissions
until such a time that their country was being reviewed.  In this connection, he wished to appeal to all
delegations, especially to capital-based delegations responsible for making IDB submissions to meet
their IDB notification obligations. The obligation to  submit to the IDB remained and Members had to
continue to respect the deadlines.
1.10 The Committee took note of the statements and agreed to adopt the document on an ad
referendum basis, giving India until 22 January 2001 to submit comments, if any.
2. Other Business
(a) Release 5 of the IDB CD-ROM
2.1 The Chairman informed Members that two copies of Release 5 of the IDB CD-ROM was
distributed to Heads of Delegations on 12 December 2000.  Release 5 contained tariff and import
information for 160 country periods.  It also contained the PC application for analysing the
information.  Release 5 replaces Release 4.  Extra copies would be available on request.
2.2 The Committee took note of the statement.
(b) List of publications/studies on market access and tariff-related issues 
2.3 The Chairman recalled that the Committee at its informal meeting of 24 November 2000 had
requested the Secretariat to compile a list of  publications/studies pertaining to market access and
tariff-related issues.  This list was circulated to all Members by fax dated 6 December 2000.  Asindicated in that fax, the list was not exhaustive and would be updated in light of any new information
reaching the Secretariat.
2.4 The representative of Singapore thanked the Secretariat for compiling the list following her
delegation's specific request.2.5 The representative of the European Commun ities thanked the Secretariat for compiling this
useful list.  He enquired whether it would be possible to give to those delegations, who would be
willing to give an e-mail address for this purpose, an electronic version of the list with the internet
addresses in hypertext format thereby enabling the documents to be downloaded from the internet.
2.6 The Chairman stated that the Secretariat had informed him that technically this would be
possible.2.7 The representative of India stated that her delegation had found this list very useful.  She
wished to add that delegations knew about India's preference and firm avowal for the multilateral
trading system.
2.8 The representative of Indonesia stated that his delegation had also raised this particular issue
and thanked the Secretariat for compiling the list.  He also supported the EC's suggestion and wished
to receive this list in electronic form.
2.9 The representatives of Chile and Pakistan  thanked the Secretariat for the list and supported
the EC suggestion.
2.10 The Committee took note of the statements and requested  the Secretariat to prepare an
electronic version of the list with internet links next to those documents which could be downloaded
from the internet.G/MA/M/27
Page 4
(c) Tariff Seminar
2.11 The Chairman stated that at the informal meeting of 24 November 2000,  the Committee had
requested the Secretariat to organize a seminar on tariff matters to assist delegations in light of the
complex and technical issues under discussion.  In accordance with this, in consultation with theSecretariat he had  prepared a proposal for such a seminar which was circulated to all Members by fax
dated 7 December 2000.  A certain time-period was given for comments.  Three comments were
submitted.   The first concerned the date of the seminar, where it was proposed that this seminar be
organized back-to-back with the next formal Market Access Committee meeting in order to facilitate
participation of capital-based delegations.  The second concerned the participants to the Seminar.  The
participation in the present proposal was limited to Members and observer countries.  It had been
suggested that because the UNCTAD and the WCO would be making contributions to this seminar, itwould be useful if all the observers to this Committee could be invited.  The third comment, related to
the second line of the proposal which stated that "Lectures would be given by WTO staff unless
otherwise indicated".  It had been suggested that th e word "Presentations" instead of "Lectures" might
be more appropriate.
2.12 The representative of Pakistan thanked the Secretariat for this proposal on a tariff seminar
because it was at his delegation's specific request.
2.13 The Committee agreed that the Secretariat organize the seminar on the basis as set out in its
fax with the modifications outlined by the Chairman.(d) Date of the next meeting
2.14 The Committee took note that its next meeting was scheduled for 20 March 2001, subject to
confirmation.
__________