TN/MA/31  
 
27 November  2017 
(17-6479) Page: 1/2 
Negotiating Group on Market Access    
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON  MARKET ACCESS  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN, AMBASSADOR DIDIER CHAMBOVEY , 
TO THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS C OMMITTEE  
Meeting of 28 November  2017 
1.  This report summarizes the work done by  the Negotiating Group on Market Access since the 
Tenth Sessi on of the Ministerial Conference (MC10) which took place in Nairobi  in December 2015.    
2.  During the intervening period  since December 2015, the Negotiati ng Group has met formally 
twice: on 20 October  2016 (TN/MA/M /25) and 21  July 2017 (TN/MA/M /26), and informally three 
times (11  April 2016, 25  November  2016 and 1  November  2017).   Several bilateral consultations 
were held by my predecessor, Ambassador Winzap , during  the first half of 2016 and by m e upon 
my election as Chairman on 20 October 2016.  Ambass ador Winzap had also convened a meeting 
of Heads of D elegation on 11 July 2016 to provide a few farewell remarks (JOB/MA/124).  Several 
reports on consultations which were carried out were provided  to the Negotiating Group, Heads of 
Delegation and/or to th e Trade Negotiations Committee . These reports can be found in the 
following documents (in chronological order): TN/MA/29  dated 11  April 2016, TN/MA/30  dated 
10 May 2016, JOB/TN/MA/1  dated 29  November  2016, JOB/TN/MA/2  dated 5  December  2016, 
JOB/TN/MA/3  dated 13  June 2017, JOB/TN/MA/4 dated 27  July 2017 and JOB/TN/MA/6  dated 
30 October  2017.  
3.  In his farewell remarks in July 2016, Ambassador Winzap had noted that "even if a broad 
section of the Membership keeps showing an interest in outcomes on NAMA, the se Members do not 
seem to know how to take forward their respective issues in the context of the general 
environment in the WTO's negotiating function at present."   He had also observed that "… some 
Members (developed and developing ones) do not seem to s ee space for engaging in multilateral 
tariff liberalization anymore, at least for the time being.  Some seem to think that there is no 
point, if you can have it more simply and often more ambitiously in RTAs.  Others view NAMA 
negotiations in general as po litically too difficult a sell in a world which is more and more sceptical 
of globalization.  For yet other Members, progress on NAMA seems dependent on progress in 
agriculture and/or in services …." (JOB/MA/ 124). 
4.  Following my election as NAMA Chair man in October 2016, I had undertaken a substantive 
number of consultations .  In November 2016, I had reported that my broad conclusion of the 
status of NAMA negotiations did not differ much from that reached by Ambassador  Winza p 
(JOB/TN/MA/1) .  In my report i n December 2016, I had grouped the views expressed during the 
consultations into four sets of positions.  The first group included those Members who were not 
open to engaging in a tariff cutting negotiation because of domestic economic challenges. A second  
group included Members who were in a position to engage in multilateral tariff negotiations 
provided certain conditions were met such as acquiring effective market access or comparable 
outcomes in other negotiating areas in return. A third group represent ed Members who were 
willing to engage in a tariff negotiation but who were sceptical of a broad multilateral result and 
who therefore th ought  that plurilateral or sectoral initiatives were the way forward. A fourth group 
consider ed that tariff cuts were not feasible today and that the focus should be on increasing the 
level of tariff bindings and reducing policy space. On these issues, opposing views were also 
expressed including the fact that plurilateral negotiations were not the right approach in a 
multilateral organization, and that policy space continued to be valuable and could not be reduced  
(JOB/TN/MA/ 2).  TN/MA/31  
 
- 2 - 
 
  5.  At the same time, there was some  interest in addressing non-tariff barriers  (NTBs) .   In my 
report of November 2016, I had mention ed that " On non-tariff measures I detected more 
movement. There appears to be a willingness by several Members to do something incremental. 
That is not to say that there is unanimity on this. There are some delegations who remain 
opposed. Among them, a view was expre ssed that undertaking discussions at this stage on NTBs 
was premature.  Another view was that there should not be a standalone NTB discussion as tariffs 
had to be part and parcel of any discussion on NAMA. "(JOB/TN/MA/1).    
6.  In this connection, I would d raw attention to a proposal entitled "Ministerial Decision on 
Facilitating SME Trade: Transparency of Regulatory Measures for Trade in Goods"  (TN/MA/W/144)  
which was circulated on 11 July 2017 by the E uropean Union ; Hong Kong , China; and  the 
Separate Cust oms Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei").  A revised 
version of the proposal was circulated on 27 October 2017  in document TN/MA/W/144/Rev.3 with 
additional co-sponsors , namely Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, an d Singapore .  
The initial group of sponsors had also circulated in JOB/TN/MA /5 responses to a number of 
questions raised on their proposal.   
7.  The proposal contains a number of elements including:  
(i) Making available regulatory measures via the interne t; 
(ii) Notifying the final text of regulatory measures;  
(iii) Consultation of stakeholders during the development of a regulatory measure;  
(iv) Creating a public internet portal of regulatory measures;  and 
(v) Adopting a Work Programme in order to develop  additional provisions relating to 
transparency.  
8.  The proposal aims at covering regulatory measures falling within the scope of the 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  (SPS Agreement ) and the 
Agreement on Technical Barrie rs to Trade  (TBT Agreement ). 
9.  A first discussion of the proposal was held  in a formal meeting of  the Negotiating Group on 
21 July 2017.  I reported on th at discussion and my remarks were circulated in JOB/TN/MA/ 4.  
An informal meeting was held on 1 Nove mber 2017 to consider the responses prepared by the 
sponsors  and in the discussion , reference was also made to the revised proposal .    
10.  Appreciation was expressed for the effort made by the sponsors to clarify issues .  There was 
recognition by a numbe r of Members that a proposal which enhanced the transparency and access 
to information on regulatory measures would facilitate the integration of small and medium -sized 
enterprises (SMEs) into the multilateral trading system.  In the view  of these Members , difficulties 
in access ing such information did effectively constitute a non -tariff barrier.  At the same time 
concerns were expressed by several Members  regarding the proposal . Their concerns include d its 
scope, whether the proposal fell within the NAMA mandate, the lack of clarity regarding the 
definition of SMEs, the issue of curtailing regulatory policy space , the burdensome nature of the 
proposal , and its real effectiveness in helping SME exporters  in developing Members .  Views were 
also expressed that  a better place to discuss this proposal was in the TBT and SPS Committees . 
11.  So clearly positions are polarized on this proposal  as it stands now. Members may 
nevertheless wish to reflect on whether a substantive discussion on this proposal or parts th ereof 
could be useful  and, if so, how best and where  to conduct such a discussion .  
__________