RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/M/10 
19 December 2003 
 (03-6673) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access  
   
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre Willia m Rappard on 13-15 August 2003
 
 
Chairman: Ambassador P-L. Girard (Switzerland) 
 
 
Subjects discussed                      Page  
 
I. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE MODALITIES FOR NEGOTIATIONS ON 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS .....................................2  
A. CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF POSSIBLE MODALITIES FOR  NEGOTIATIONS 
ON NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (TN/MA/W/35  + CORR.1) ...............................................2  
B. NON-TARIFF BARRIERS (NTBS) ..................................................................................................6  
C. CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED  BY PARTICIPANTS AT OR SINCE THE 
GROUP 'S LAST MEETING ..............................................................................................................6  
D. OTHER MATTERS .........................................................................................................................6  
II. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................. .6 
 
______________ 
   The Chairman
 stated that the agenda for the mee ting had been circulated in document 
WTO/AIR/2151 on 4 August 2003 and a corrigendum of 12 August 2003.  The annotated agenda for 
the meeting was circulated in JOB(03)/154.  In  addition, participants were sent a fax on 
11 August 2003 containing JOB(03)/155 which con cerned possible options to TN/MA/W/35. He 
pointed out that since the issuance of the Airgra m, two additional papers had been circulated; 
submissions from Turkey (TN/MA/W/41), and S outh Africa (TN/MA/W/42).  A joint paper from 
Canada, the European Communities and the United St ates had been circulated informally by those 
Members to all participants. In addition, Malays ia had circulated a paper in the room, entitled 
"Malaysia's Proposal on Chairman's Tariff Reduction Formula". If those Members so desired, they would be given the opportunity to introduce those pa pers. As the submissions were received late, they 
were available in original language only.   Ther e were no items for discussion under Other Business. 
 
 The Negotiating Group adopted
 the agenda as circulated in WTO/AIR/2151 and its 
corrigendum.  TN/MA/M/10 
Page 2  
 
I. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE MODALITIES FOR NEGOTIATIONS ON 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
A. 
CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF POSSIBLE MODALITIES FOR  NEGOTIATIONS ON NON-
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (TN/MA/W/35  + CORR.11) 
1.1 The Chairman  recalled his stated intention at the clo se of the last meeting to focus on this 
aspect of the agenda in the hope of making furthe r progress on modalities, especially in the lead-up to 
the Cancun Ministerial meeting.  He also recalled hi s stated intention to submit to the NGMA for this 
meeting a list of possible options to consider.  Th is paper "TN/MA/W/35:  Possible Options" had been 
circulated in JOB(03)/155 on 11 August 2003.  Together with the papers from South Africa, Turkey and Canada/European Union/United States and most recently, Malaysia, there had been a number of 
options put to the Group for its consideration.  He intended to invite those participants who had made 
the submissions to introduce their papers, on either a formal or informal basis, and following that, he 
would speak on JOB(03)/155.    1.2 The representative of India
 sought clarification on whether it was being proposed that 
participants who had submitted pape rs that day would be asked to present them before the Chairman 
discussed JOB(03)/155.    1.3 The Chairman
 stated that that was his intention.  
 
1.4 The representative of India  stated that they would prefer th e Chairman to keep to the agenda 
as listed in JOB(03)/154, which meant discussing the Ch airman's options paper as the first item.  They 
had no problem in discussing the new papers later in th e meeting but in view of the fact that some of 
the papers had only been circulated that morning they had not had the time to consider them.  In addition, they had come to the meeting prep ared to discuss the Chairman's paper.   
 
1.5 The Chairman
 stated that he had made an adjustme nt to the agenda without informing the 
Group and he apologised for that.  He had made th e suggestion that the new papers from Malaysia, 
Canada/European Union/United States, as well as the papers from Turkey and South Africa would be introduced first so that the Group would be informed of all the suggestions and elements presented by 
participants before considering th e options paper.  He believed this would make for a much more 
efficient discussion.   
 
1.6 The representative of the Philippines
 stated that his delegation shared India's position but he 
would not refer to the issue since the Chairman had ruled.  He sought clarification on whether the Chairman intended to circulate other options pape rs during the run-up to the end of the negotiating 
process.  He also sought clarification from the Chai rman on his reasons for selecting the particular 
elements discussed in the options paper and whether there were other elements that he might consider 
in the future.   1.7 The Chairman
 stated that the options paper had been circulated officially as JOB(03)/155, 
thereby indicating that it was a working paper.  He  would explain the drafting of the paper and the 
reasons for selecting the options outlined therein when  he introduced it.  He reiterated his suggestion  
to have introduced all the new ideas that had been  put on the table, including, primarily, the options 
paper, and then to structure the discussion according to  the various elements i.e., by dealing with the 
formula, followed by sectorial elimination, special and differential treatment, newly acceded Members and supplementary approaches.  He consider ed that this would be a much more coherent 
way of progressing, rather than having an initial discussion on all the elements followed by a 
discussion on the new submissions which would entail referring once again to all the elements.   
However, it was up to the Group to decide.   
                                                     
 
1 French and Spanish only.  TN/MA/M/10 
 Page 3 
 
 
1.8 The representative of India  stated that his delegation had no difficulty in discussing the new 
submissions in the NGMA but the proper place for discussing them was under Agenda item A3, as 
had been listed in the agenda.  It was his delega tion's view that once the Chairman had tabled his 
"Draft Elements" paper (TN(MA/W /35 and Rev. 1) all further di scussions should revolve around that 
paper.  The Chairman had come up with an options  paper which in part revised his earlier elements 
paper and they were looking forward to a substa ntive discussion on that, without combining it with 
other papers.  He had seen only three of the four  newly submitted papers and it was his impression 
that while some of them addressed issues contained in  the "Draft Elements" paper and tried to suggest 
options or alternatives, others went in the diametri cally opposite direction.  Combining the discussion 
on the options paper with the four new submissions would not do full justice to the Chairman's paper 
and they would prefer to discuss it separately. 
 1.9 The Chairman
 stated that the Group could take a very  formal approach to the agenda but it 
would result in having the discussion on the various elements of the modalities twice or even three times because following the discussion on the options paper exactly the same discussion would be 
held on the basis of the new proposals submitted a nd at the end of the discussion everything could 
need to be revisited.   1.10 The representative of Brazil
 stated that the Group needed to  get clear the process to be 
followed. His delegation understood that the Group had had an initial phase in which delegations 
submitted their views on possible modalities and the Chairman had undertaken to consolidate those 
submissions and present his views of a workable modalities paper on the basis of all contributions 
received.  There had been a sense from the last NGMA meeting and from the HOD meeting the previous day that the overwhelming majority of dele gations were prepared to work on the basis of the 
Chairman's text as a basis for preparing the modalities.  His delegation was concerned that if the Chairman's text was put on a par with new submission s its status as the basis for future negotiations 
would be diluted in some way.  They would like it to be very clear that they considered the 
Chairman's text to be the basis for negotiations and would not like it to be mixed up with new ideas 
and new concepts.  1.11 The delegate of New Zealand
 stated that his delegation had not moved from their position of 
treating the TN/MA/W/35 framework as the basis for future development for modalities.  He  did not 
see the sequence proposed by the Chairman as in an y way threatening that understanding.  As for 
India's specific proposal, there were a number of ideas from a cross-section of delegations which had 
been put forward which covered some of the very sa me issues as the options paper.  Therefore, his 
delegation would be most uncomfort able at having a debate at opposite  ends of the meeting covering 
much of the same ground.  They would strongly prefer the procedure proposed by the Chairman. 
 
1.12 The representative of Cuba  stated that his delegation shared much of what had been said by 
India and that they would prefer to proceed according to India's proposal.  1.13 The representative of Egypt
 stated that the Group should keep  to the agenda as circulated, in 
accordance with the rules of procedures.  His de legation had no problem with some points being 
repeated during the discussion as th is was the case with every submission where the Group had to go 
through the elements contained therein.  More importantly, they had come prepared to discuss a 
specific paper and they were not yet in a position to engage in a serious discussion on other papers 
that had been circulated recently, including that morning.    
1.14 The representative of Kenya
 stated that his delegation supported the interventions of Egypt, 
Cuba and India.  If the Group adhered to its work  programme it would be able to cover everything 
within the three days of the meeting.  1.15 The Chairman
 stated that the Group would go by the book, which meant dealing first with the 
options paper.  The submissions by Turkey and So uth Africa would be dealt with under Item 3 of the TN/MA/M/10 
Page 4  
 
Agenda, i.e. at the end of the meeting because th ey were the papers which had been formally 
circulated.  The United States and Malaysia would ha ve to introduce the various elements of their 
papers under the relevant headings during the meeti ng, or if they so wished, they could introduce 
them at the very end of the meeting.  For example,  Malaysia's submission dealt in particular with the 
formula therefore Malaysia would introduce and sp eak on their paper when the Group dealt with the 
formula aspects of the Options Pape r.  Similarly, the United States, European Community and Canada 
would intervene under the various issues in the modalities covered in their paper.   1.16 Turning to the paper "TN/MA/W/35:  Some Optio ns", the Chairman stated that it contained 
four sections which proposed ame ndments to the respective parts of the "Draft Elements", as 
contained in document TN/MA/W/35.  It was his inten tion, with all the proposals, to bring forth some 
of the issues that had come up in previous meeti ngs of the NGMA and on whic h there appeared to be 
concrete ways of making progress.  He gave so me of the background together with further 
explanations of the elements contained in the document, starting with the formula.  
1.17 Dealing with item 1. The Formula
, he stated that the basic formula remained unchanged.  
However, there had been much discussion and sugges tions made on certain elements of the formula, 
and in particular the "t a" or tariff average.  What was suggested  in the options paper came from ideas 
and suggestions floated from the floor.  One point on which there had been a number of suggestions 
and ideas put forward was the "t a". Thus the first two proposals were with respect to modifying the 
calculation of "t a", while the last proposal of the secti on concerned a special provision for certain 
participants with low binding coverage. 
 1.18 The first proposal suggested the possibilit y of capping, or applying a ceiling level to "t
a".  
This proposal would lower the "t a" to this level, which would need to be determined by the 
participants, if the calculation of "t a" in the normal way resulted in a "t a" above the level of the cap. 
The second element involved a different way of calculating "t a".  Instead of using the base rates "t o", 
as set out in the "Draft Elements" to calculate "t a", the new proposal would involve using a 50/50 
weighting of bound and applied  rates to calculate "t a".  The main difference was the incorporation of 
applied rates in the calculation, but with only a lim ited weighting, in order to better approximate the 
level of market access as it currently existed.  This would again result in a unique "t a", for each 
participant. It was noted, however, that the b asis for reductions, the base rates as defined as "t o" in the 
formula, would not be amended.  The amendments  were limited and were an improvement based on 
suggestions and proposals made by participants.  1.19 Finally, the third option proposed that speci al consideration would be given to a certain 
number of participants who currently had a low bi nding coverage.  After running many simulations 
the Secretariat noted that for some participants the application of the formula, regardless of the 
parameters and "t
a" used, might not give satisfactory results . Those participants formed a rather 
coherent and easily defined group of 11 countries and were identified by using a strict WTO 
parameter, the level of binding, in this case be low an average level of 35 per cent.  The group 
comprised eight African countries, one Asian country  and two Latin American countries.  In order to 
overcome the particular problem an alternative wa s proposed which was that those 11 participants 
would be exempted from making reductions in the formula but they would be expected to bind their 
tariffs at the overall average level of binding of a ll developing countries, which was 27.5 per cent, and 
this figure was indicated in square brackets in the paper.   1.20 Turning to item 2. Additional Provision s for Developing and Least-Developed Participants
, 
the Chairman stated that the cha nges proposed were solely  with respect to paragraph 8(a), and thus 
the rest of this section in the "Draft Elements", especially as it related to LD Cs, remained unchanged.  
The revised proposal was an attempt to bring an additional element of flexibility to developing 
countries by giving them the option of a) keeping tariff lines unbound, or b) not applying formula cuts 
to up to five  per cent of tariff lines provided that they  did not exceed five per cent of the total value of 
the Member's imports.  A further limit was imposed in order to ensure that Members would not use all  TN/MA/M/10 
 Page 5 
 
 
of the five per cent of tariff lines to exclude an entire HS chapter from tariff reductions, therefore a 
maximum of one per cent of tariff lines could be exempted from any HS chapter.  The exemptions 
could be used in several ways.  For example, a participant with 100 per cent of its tariff lines bound 
could decide to exempt five per cent of its tari ff lines from reductions.  In another situation, a 
participant could make reductions on all tariffs but would keep five per cent of its tariff lines 
unbound.  A third example would be a participant exempting two per cent of its tariff lines from 
reduction and exempting three per cent from binding.  Each participant had a choice, depending on 
their starting-point.  1.21 With regard to  item 3. Newly Acceded Members
, the Chairman stated that since the 
introduction of TN/MA/W/35 discussions had indicated that an overwhelming nu mber of participants 
disagreed with having a different coefficient B fo r newly acceded Members and proposed that their 
particular situation could be treated either by a longer implementation period or a grace period.  
Accordingly, he had introduced a longer implementation period or a possible grace period as supplementary alternatives and presented them as othe r options to be considered by the Group.   
 
1.22 Turning to item 4. Non-Tariff Barriers
, the text reflected many of the concerns raised by 
developing countries at the last NGMA meeting—addi ng special and differential elements to the NTB 
section of the modalities in order to give special  provisions to developing and least-developed 
participants.  This point had been noted but as the issue of the modalities of NTBs had not yet reached a mature stage, it was not possible to provide concre te language or proposals at this time.  The types 
of NTBs to be addressed and the modalities to do so still needed to be determined. However, it was 
useful and justified to indicate at  this stage th at the recognition of such special and differential 
treatment could be included as part of paragraph 13 of the "Draft Elements",  thereby highlighting a 
point on which the Group would have  to continue its work once there was clarity on the modalities for 
NTBs. 
  
1.23 The representative of Bangladesh
 sought clarification on whethe r paragraph 3 of the options 
paper was applicable to the LDCs. 
 
1.24 The Chairman  stated that this paragraph was not app licable to the LDCs because the "Draft 
Elements" paper indicated that the LDCs would be exempted from tariff reduction commitments but 
were strongly encouraged to increase the level of their binding.  JOB(03)/155 did not replace 
TN/MA/W/35, rather it provided some additional op tions to what was contained in the "Draft 
Elements" paper.   
 
1.25 The representative of Nigeria  sought clarification on paragraphs  1 and 2 which referred to the 
"ta".  These paragraphs outlined two different options and his delegation wanted to clarify if the two 
options were exclusive of each other. 
 
1.26 The Chairman  stated that the options were not exclus ive of each other.  Participants could 
consider both changing the calculation of the "t a" and capping it, it was their decision.  
 
1.27 The representative of the Philippines  also sought clarification on paragraphs 1 and 2.  He 
stated that each of the two paragraphs had diffe rent conditionalities associated with them so in 
choosing one it would be necessary to comply with the relevant conditions, especially in paragraph 2 
which referred to both bound and applied tariffs. 
 
1.28 The Chairman  stated it was possible to apply the op tion in paragraph 2, disassociating the 
calculation of "t a" from the calculation of the base rates, wh ile also applying the cap or option 2 could 
be applied without using the cap.  He informed th e Group that a technical discussion would take place 
during the lunch hour in order to clarify these and any other questions participants might have.   
 
 TN/MA/M/10 
Page 6  
 
1.29 The Negotiating Group
 took note of the statements made. 
  1.30 The Negotiating Group continued its discussi on on "Possible Modalities for negotiations on 
Non-agricultural Products (TN/MA/W/35 + Corr.1)" in an informal mode.  
B. 
NON-TARIFF BARRIERS (NTBS) 
1.31 The Negotiating Group went into informal m ode to discuss Non-tariff barrier notifications –
Addendum (TN/MA/W/25/Add.2) and Non-tariff barrier  notifications: Secretariat compilation of the 
various barriers notified by the pa rticipants  (JOB (03)/128)  
 
C. CONSIDERATION OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PARTICIPANTS AT OR SINCE THE GROUP 'S 
LAST MEETING     
1.32 The Negotiating Group remained in inform al mode to discuss documents submitted by 
participants at or since the Group's last meeting.  
D. 
OTHER MATTERS  
1.33 There was no discussion under this item 
 
II. OTHER BUSINESS 
2.1 There was no discussion under this item 
__________