TN/MA/24  
 
19 April 2013  
(13-2072)  Page: 1/2  
Negotiating Group on Market Access    
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS 
ORAL REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, AMBASSADOR REMIGI WINZAP, ON HIS CONSULTATIONS 
PRESENTED AT THE INFORMAL MEETING OF TH E NEGOTIATING GROUP ON 18 APRIL 2013 
1.1.  At the formal meeting held on 29 November, I had indicated my intention to hold 
consultations with Members in order to obtain a sense of how Members viewed the state-of-play of 
the NAMA negotiations and the way forward.  I had also indicated that I would report to the 
membership the results of my consultations which is the purpose of this informal meeting.    
1.2.  The consultations were based largely on questions I had raised at the formal meeting which I 
repeated in a fax sent to Members.  The questions were as follows:  
 Does the situation in NAMA look different today than one year ago? 
 
 What could be done in NAMA and under what  circumstances would success be possible in 
the short-term and in a broader time perspective? 
 
1.3.  From December to the end of March, I met with 23 delegations and 4 group coordinators.  Most of these meetings were conducted with th e Ambassador and the technical officer responsible 
for NAMA.   
1.4.  While many Members who came to my co nsultations showed an interest in the NAMA 
negotiations, their interest was often somewhat abstract. No Member asked to work on the NAMA core-modalities at this stage.   In fact, the main message I got from my consultations was:  "Don't 
rock the boat to Bali".   The view of several was that one had to be careful that a NAMA process, in 
case undertaken, should not have negative repercussions on the Bali process, as a Bali outcome was a priority to all those I spoke to.  
1.5.  In this connection, a message that I received loud and clear was that market access (i.e. 
tariffs) should not be taken up at all at this st age.  The view of several Members was that the 
situation which had led to the logjam in 2011 prevai led still today. There had been no fundamental 
shift in the position of the major players. Ther efore the report of the TNC Chairman which was 
issued in 2011 reflecting that deadlock remained valid today.  Another reason put forward by Members for not taking up tariffs was that for them the level of ambition in NAMA was intrinsically t i e d  t o  t h a t  o f  a g r i c u l t u r e .   S o  u n l e s s  t h e  discussions started on the market access pillar in 
agriculture, it would be difficult for any discussion on NAMA tariffs to take place.  Having said this, 
I would nevertheless note that there were a few Me mbers who were ready to start work on tariffs 
but who recognized that without the engagement of  the "big players", such a discussion would not 
be useful.   
1.6.  Concerning non-tariff barriers (NTBs), the views were more nuanced.  For some Members, a 
discussion on non-tariff barriers in isolation would not be useful because while it was important to 
address NTBs, there needed to be first an una mbiguous engagement on tariffs. Some others 
believed that useful technical work could continue on NTBs but only if there was a general willingness by the membership to do so.  
1.7.  In terms of NTB proposals which could be addressed: the following proposals were 
mentioned: Horizontal Mechanism (HM), Textile Labelling, Transparency and Chemicals.  However, 
I think there was a recognition that the HM, Textile Labelling and Transparency were the most mature among the proposals and the following was said about them.    TN/MA/24 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
 While it was acknowledged that HM had a large amount of support, some strong concerns 
remained.  In addition there were aspects of the proposal that still required discussion.  Some delegations also referred to the exchanges taking place in the SPS Committee on 
Article 12.2 on ad hoc consultations. 
 
 On Transparency, from remarks made by some Members, I gathered that good progress had 
been made in the small-group process.  However, certain also indicated that there had 
been a degree of "backtracking".  Yet others stated that broadening the level of participation in the discussion had led to additional issues emerging which still needed to be addressed. Yet others expressed the view th at there was opposition to this text and it 
was not mature enough to be discussed at this stage.   
 
 On textile labelling there was the sense that progress had been made, although there were 
still a number of issues which remained outstanding.    
 1.8.  So based on my consultations, it would a ppear that at this point in time, there is no 
delegation which I would characterize as an active  "demandeur" in NAMA.  At the same time, there 
were some Members who stood ready to carry out technical work on certain issues. Some also 
noted that it was important to carry out some NAMA activity as it would send a strong signal that Bali was not the end of the road.  Yet others indica ted that time should be made available to focus 
on issues which were currently being negotiated such as Trade Facilitation;  reference was also 
made to the ITA in this context.   
1.9.  Regarding re-engagement in NAMA following Bali, Members indicated that such engagement 
depended on several things including an outcome in Bali, an increased dynamism of the overall 
negotiation. It was also recognized that if there was traction in other market access areas, there would be an automatic spill over in NAMA.  There was a view that once market access issues were 
addressed in NAMA, NTBs would also fall into place.  
1.10.  During the consultations, a delegation noted that "In a recession you need to prepare for 
recovery".   So this is the challenge for Members.  How best to prepare for such a recovery in NAMA and how best to weave NAMA into the over all discussion of a post-Bali work programme.   
1.11.  So, to sum up, what do I take from my consultations up to now?  
 To deliver anything on NAMA in the short-term seems difficult. 
 
 There is a certain but cautious interest by some Members to continue work on NTBs - in 
particular on Transparency or on the Horizontal Mechanism. However, such interest in NTB-work is not shared by all Members at this stage. 
 
 If we succeed in Bali, then NAMA should again come to the forefront. Therefore, we have to 
incorporate this longer term vision proactively.  
 In time, we should define and prepare the way - or prepare issues - which then would lead 
us to get work done on NAMA to be harvested after Bali. 
  
1.12.   What is the way forward? 
 I will be attentive to the Bali process and I w ill come back to the membership when I feel 
that there is the right momentum to work on integrating NAMA in a post-Bali agenda. 
  
 
__________