TN/MA/27  
 
30 July 2015  
(15-3968)  Page: 1/4  
Negotiating Group on Market Access    
 
 NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, AMBASSADOR REMIGI WINZAP, 
TO THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE 
31 July 2015 
1  WHAT HAPPENED IN NAMA SINCE JANAURY 2015? 
1.1.  Since the beginning of the year, I have had the chance to talk directly to Members in more 
than 40 bilateral meetings and to have exchanges with Members in three open-ended NAMA 
meetings (2 March, 1 June, and 23 July).  We started a discussion among the so-called formula 
applying Members in a room D meeting on 17 March.  I also met four times with specific groups of Members.  Furthermore, I attended Green Room  meetings on NAMA convened by the DG and 
several meetings in other configurations to which Members invited me. 
1.2.  This relatively strong engagement by Me mbers was unfortunately not matched by concrete 
outputs.  In terms of proposals, papers and te chnical work, I recall that Argentina submitted a 
proposal on request/offer circulated in JOB/MA/116.  The Secretariat made a technical 
presentation on averaging on 17 March, and Cana da presented outcomes of  averaging simulations 
undertaken on extracts of its tariff schedule on 1 June.  On NTBs, Members have not submitted 
any new or revised proposals since 2011.  The ACP Group circulated a paper (JOB/TNC/46) 
containing elements pertaining to the NAMA negotiations, and the SVEs did the same in their contribution (JOB/TNC/49).  Furthermore, the ACP Group submitted “Proposals for Bridging Gaps on Remaining Doha Development Agenda (DDA) Issues and Development Outcomes for the 
WTO Tenth Ministerial Conference” as document JOB/TNC/50 on 30 July.  This paper contains 
background information on the NAMA negotiation and proposals for a way forward on tariff reduction and on NTBs. 
1.3.  Even if these inputs did not allow for sufficient convergence towards a NAMA part in a 
detailed Post-Bali Work Programme by the end of July, I take the following from the discussions that have taken place: 
- In respect of non-agricultural tariffs, no Me mber seems to oppose that work should mainly 
focus on the so-called "formula-applying Member s", in a first stage.  No Member seems to 
oppose either that LDCs, SVEs and Members with low binding coverage should not be asked t o  d o  m o r e  t h a n  w h a t  i s  s t a t e d  i n  R e v . 3 .   I  a l s o  s e n s e  t h a t  o n c e  w e  k n o w  t h e  l e v e l  o f  
ambition in respect of "formula-applying Memb ers", there will be openness to revisit the 
treatment of these groups, and to adapt the level of ambition for them accordingly. 
- No Member questions the application of the principles of Less Than Full Reciprocity in 
Reduction Commitments and Special and Differential Treatment.  
- No Member refutes that there is a strong link between any potential outcome in NAMA and 
other areas of the DDA, in particular agriculture.  The level of ambition in NAMA will depend 
on the level of ambition in Agriculture. 
- No so-called "formula-applying Member" refuses categorically to enter into a discussion on 
alternative approaches to the Swiss Formula as described in Rev.3, even if some Members have no mandate to move away from Rev.3 at this juncture. 
  TN/MA/27 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  PERSONAL ASSESSMENT 
2.1.  The NAMA negotiation is part of the WTO negotiating function .  This function is 
suffering today from a poor track record of success and from alternative trade negotiations taking place outside the WTO.  Market access negotiations in the WTO are "competing" with RTAs, which 
impact on the level of ambition in WTO. There are Members who argue that they get "paid" for 
concessions granted outside the WTO but possibly not for concessions requested in the WTO context.   
2.2.  The NAMA negotiation is part of the broader DDA undertaking . NAMA will not be 
delivered on its own but only as part of a broade r package.  This also means that the DDA as a 
whole will most probably not be delivered without a NAMA outcome.  In particular ambition in Agriculture impacts on ambition in NAMA, and ambition in NAMA has to be reflected in Agriculture. 
2.3.  The aims and ambition of individual Memb ers are often different in Agriculture, 
NAMA and Services.   The three areas are not symmetrical and therefore symmetrical solutions in 
the different negotiating pillars might not work.  However, it is a fact that the results will be 
compared by each Member.   
2.4.  Like all negotiations, NAMA shou ld be a proponent-led process.   A difficulty facing the 
Membership today is that ideas are aired but with one exception no specific proposal has been 
tabled so far. Members told me that as long as there are no new proposals on the table, they will 
continue to repeat known positions. Such attitude is understandable.  It is, however, also understandable that Members are hesitant to come up with concrete proposals as long as such proposals risk to be rejected upon arrival.  Furt hermore, whoever comes forward with a proposal is 
seen as being a "demandeur", and "demandeurs" are considered to be the ones who will have to 
pay.  It appears that no Member wants to be in that situation in NAMA at least for the time being.  My assessment is that in the first seven months of 2015 there has not been sufficient trust for a 
productive discussion on concrete alternative concepts to the Swiss Formula. 
2.5.  Let's not forget the non-tariff barrier (NTB) part .  Since Bali, work has concentrated 
only on tariffs. Some Members are of the view th at a tariff outcome is a prerequisite to any NTB 
o u t c o m e .  O t h e r s  a r e ,  h o w e v e r ,  i n  f a v o u r  o f  d i s c u s s i n g  N T B s  a s  a  c o m p l e m e n t  t o  t h e  t a r i f f  
negotiation, and are keen to get into discussions on NTBs.  They consider this should take place sooner rather than later after the summer break, in view of the potentially time-consuming work 
needed for progress in the NTB area.  On the ot her hand, other Members fear that intensifying 
work on NTBs might not leave sufficient time for the tariff negotiations.  
2.6.  There has been some but not sufficient progress.  Comparing the present situation with 
some of the difficulties I had identified on NA MA at the end of 2014 (JOB/MA/114), I observe the 
following: 
2.7.  First, discussions have taken place less in s ilos since the beginning of this year. In my view, a 
more horizontal discussion, at least on NAMA and Agriculture, exists today.  
2.8.  Second, many Members - for different reasons – used to see the application of a Swiss 
Formula as a potential handicap to a successful NAMA outcome, but hesitated to enter into a 
discussion on alternatives. Today, Members seem ra ther open to envisage alternative approaches 
to the Swiss Formula, and in particular different variations of averaging. 
2.9.  Third, divergent views persist on the signific ance of market access negotiations in the context 
of a Development Round, on the level of contribu tions expected from trading partners, on the 
value of the reduction of "water" and of new tariff bindings.  
2.10.  In particular in view of this third point, I have to conclude that since the beginning of 2015, 
M e m b e r s  h a v e  o n l y  m a d e  v e r y  l i m i t e d  p r o g r e s s  o n  N A M A .  A s  C h a i r ,  I  c a n n o t  i d e n t i f y  m u c h  convergence as of today. TN/MA/27 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.11.  As main difficulties for Members , I see: 
-  On tariffs, how to grapple with the reality of very different tariff profiles of 
Members and of different tariff structures in NAMA and Agriculture.  The different 
tariff structures are reflecting sensitivities of Members, outcomes from earlier GATT and 
WTO negotiations, autonomous liberalization efforts and for some WTO accession 
negotiations. Many Members have bound all th eir NAMA tariffs. Developed Members have 
bound close to all of their tariffs; for a few of these Members nearly all their bindings are at 
the applied level.  A few RAMs have also nearly all their tariff lines bound at the applied 
l e v e l .   D e v e l o p i n g  R A M s ,  w h e n  c o m p a r e d  t o  o r i g i n a l  d e v e l o p i n g  M e m b e r s ,  h a v e  a  m u c h  lower tariff average.  Most other Members have moderate to large binding overhang, including unbound tariff lines.  Developed Members in general have very low NAMA applied 
tariffs with some exceptions. Some developed Members with very low NAMA applied tariffs 
retain high tariffs on agricultural goods.  
   
-  On NTBs, where to restart the work?  If work on NTBs will be restarted, some Members 
would like to start where we stopped in 2011 or would like to concentrate work on a limited number of proposals that were on the table in 2011 and on which work was more advanced 
(the Horizontal Mechanism, Textile labelling and Transparency were mentioned in the open-
ended meeting of 23 July 2015).  However, it appears that new ideas and proposals could also be brought forward by Members. 
 
2.12.  In the very limited time left until MC10, Members should, in my view, focus their efforts on 
outcomes that are realistic in the current environment. This requires Members to revisit the ambitions they had at earlier stages of the negotiations, while still upholding a necessary level of 
credibility.  A one-size-fits-all approach does not necessarily lead to acceptable outcomes for all 
Members.  
3  THE WAY AHEAD 
3.1.  Going forward, I see the following challenges to be addressed by Members. 
3.2.  First, in the search for outcomes, the questi on of the level of ambition seems to be 
at the core.   In my view, Members should further engage in a more numbers-based discussion on 
a non-prejudicial basis.  It is hard to define ambition in abstract terms, and difficult to make an 
honest assessment of what one can do when one does not know what one can get. Possibly the 
best way forward is to work backwards from acceptable results.  
3.3.  Second, without negotiating mandates allowi ng for convergence, it seems difficult 
to move ahead.  At this juncture, some Members are not in a position to work on the basis of 
Rev.3 while others do not have a mandate to move away from Rev.3. 
3.4.  Third, Members should be encouraged , and not deterred, to bring forward 
proposals.  
3.5.  Fourth, to handle the substance of the DDA, all issues, including in NAMA, may need 
to be divided into smaller bits,  which can be discussed in a focused way without losing sight of 
the broader picture of the DDA. No final solution  w i l l  b e  f o u n d  i n  t h e  a b s e n c e  o f  a n  o v e r a l l  
balanced outcome of the DDA. In my view, such pi eces to be discussed in the NAMA context could 
include the following: 
On tariffs: 
a) The tariff reduction formula.   Members may wish to discuss under what conditions they 
could envisage moving to alternative approaches to the Rev.3 Swiss Formula.  My sense today is that no formula-applying Member refuses categorically the idea of moving away 
from a line-by-line approach.  However, most formula-applying Members do not want to do 
away with all of Rev.3 and to start from a clean slate. Some would like to refer to Rev.3 to establish the magnitude of cuts.  For some other formula-applying Members, Rev.3 should not be used as a reference to determine tariff reductions. TN/MA/27 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Parallelism between Agriculture and NAMA on potential Market Access outcomes.  
Members may wish to, for example, discuss whether the starting points for NAMA and Agriculture tariff reduction formulas should be similar (e.g. Rev.3 in NAMA and Rev.4 in Agriculture or the Uruguay Round approach for both areas) or different.  
b) Additional measures linked to tariff reductions.
  Members may wish to discuss if they 
want to consider additional features like mi nimum cuts or an anti-concentration clause. 
c) Additional features for NAMA concessions.  Members may wish to discuss how to deal 
with binding coverage; with treatment of unbound tariff-lines and with non-ad valorem 
duties. 
d) NAMA concessions granted in plurilaterals.   Members may wish to discuss if this is an 
issue to be looked at for example in respect of the Agreement on ITA expansion. 
e) Request and Offer.  Members may wish to discuss whether they still see Request and Offer 
as a supplementary modality as in Rev.3. 
f) Elimination of low duties.  Members may wish to discuss if Members should consider the 
elimination of low duties. 
On NTBs: a) To restart technical work on NTBs.   Members will have to reconcile the position of those 
who believe that NTB work has to start as soon as possible and those who believe that 
Members should first concentrate work on the NAMA tariff side. 
b) To define the basis of NTB work.   In case Members could agree to restart work on NTBs, 
they would have to decide on what basis this work should restart.   
 
3.6.  As Chair, I am keen to get inputs and pr oposals from Members on how best to tackle the 
NAMA substance. 
3.7.  The key to success on the DDA, including NAMA, lies with the Members. If I can be of any 
help in the way in which the agenda of the NAMA negotiations will be framed in the short time between the summer break and MC10, I will be happy to do so.  
3.8.  As I got a strong call at the last open-ended meeting of 23 July for a technical NTB meeting 
soon after the summer-break, I will invite NAMA technical experts to such a meeting on Monday 
21 September at 10 am.  It would help the process if Members interested in progress on NTBs would submit their ideas and new or updated proposals for discussion at that meeting in a timely 
manner. 
3.9.  In respect of further discussions on tariffs, I will consult with the Chair of the TNC and my 
fellow Chairs.  I intend to fix a date for a meeting which will take place soon after the summer 
break.  
3.10.  Our collective aim should in my view be  to deliver a comprehensive Nairobi package by 
MC10.  Time is extremely short.  If this aim is shared, we need to move quickly in all areas of 
negotiation, NAMA included, immediately after the summer break.  
__________