JOB/AG/139  
 
13 July 2018  
(18-4424) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
MARKET  ACCESS  ALTERNATIVES  
SUBMISSION FROM PARA GUAY AND URUGUAY  
The following submission , dated 13 July 2018 , is being circulated at the request of the 
aforementioned Members . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  MARKET ACCESS  
1.1.  Market access has a big contribution to make to the reform process as envisaged in the 
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Since the Uruguay Round, Members have envisaged to 
strengthen the existing rules and deepen specific commitments in order to reduce and prevent 
restrictions and distortio ns in world agricultural markets. Substantial improvement in market 
access is recognized as one of the three main goals o f the reform process.  
1.2.  Specific commitments in market access, among Members, are characterized by the lack of 
homogeneity. Bound tariff  levels va ry from duty -free to high three -digit ad valorem  (AV) tariff s. 
Moreover, tariff structures are also very diverse and include some highly complex non -ad valorem  
tariffs, that might result in more than three -digit ad valorem  equivalent (AVE).  
Table 1 - Average Bound and Maximum Bound Tariffs  
Average bound tariffs  Maximum bound tariffs  
Tariff level  # of Members  Tariff level  # of Members  
199-100 25 1000 - 200 59 
99-50 30 199-100 28 
49-10 73 99-50 32 
9-0 7 49-0 16 
# of Members  135 # of Members  135 
Source:  WTP 2017 . 
Table 2  - Frequency of Non -AV Tariffs in Bound Tariffs of WTO Members (no of national 
tariff lines)  
Name  Specific  Compound  Mixed  Other  
All Members  4812 718 3384 92 
Source:  WTP 2017 . JOB/AG/139  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table 3 - Examples of Tariff Peaks in Members' schedules  
Eg. Tariff peaks  Maximum tariff (AV or AVE)  
Bound  MFN applied  
Egypt   > 1000   > 1000  
Malaysia   > 1000    972 
Switzerland   > 1000   > 1000  
Brunei Darussalam   > 1000     50 
Singapore   > 1000     85 
Korea, Republic of    887   887 
Thailand       855   337 
Chinese Taipei    837   500 
Norway      822   822 
Japan     613   613 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of     601   306 
Source: WTP 2017 . 
 
1.3.  On the other hand, current applied tariffs are well below the bound levels (see Figure 1). 
Market access has improved by unilateral liberalization as well as through free trade agreements. 
Free trade agreements have facilitated liberalization in several Members that in turn could enhance 
the multilateral trading system, though it departs from the MFN principle, and has the potential of 
leaving other Members outside.  
1.4.  In addition to the tariffs, there are other types of restrictions such as tariff rate 
quotas  (TRQs) or trade remedies (SSG), which add to the complexity of the MA pillar.  Members 
have been trying to address these issues through several negotiating initiatives since the end of 
the implementation period of the Uruguay Round commitments.  
2  NEGOTIATION  INITIATIVES  
2.1  Cuts in bound tariffs – to reduce tariff overhang:  
2.1.  When the overhang is large, Members have a possibility to change the applied tariffs at their 
discretion. This undermines the goal of having a stable tariff regime, thus affecting predictabil ity in 
international trade.  Thus, reducing tariff overhang would lock -in the unilateral or regional trade 
liberalization efforts.  
2.2.  Benefits:  
 Bring bound tariffs closer to applied tariffs and thereby reduce tariff overhang;  
 Enhance predictability.  
2.3.  Challenges:  
 How to  create new – and meaningful – market a ccess?  
 Need to calculate Ad Valorem  Equivalents.  
2.4.  Tariff reduction formulas discussed in the past have aimed mostly at reducing water.  
2.1.1   Previous formulas discussed to cut bound tariffs  
2.1.1.1   Tiered formula  
2.5.  Benefits: homogenizing effect on tariff levels through higher cuts in in higher bound tariffs.  
2.6.  Challenges: potential impact on sensitive products.  
2.1.1.2   Average cut  
2.7.  Benefits: simple  formula, leaves room to protect sensitive products.  JOB/AG/139  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.8.  Challenges: could preserve high levels of protection in certain products.  
2.1.1.3   Cut in the average  
 Flexible as the Average cut (see above) but slightly higher level of ambition . 
2.1.1.4   Mix approaches e.g.  
 Tiered formula combined with overall Average cut ; 
 Average cut combined with minim um cuts for all tariff lines . 
2.2  Meaningful Market Access – Cuts that will result in reduction of applied tariffs  
2.9.  Locking in existing market a ccess opportunities may not attract attention of producers and 
other stakeholders.  On the other hand, creating new on es could expand business opportunities, 
create more jobs, and facilitate access to food, thus enhancing food security. Competitiveness will 
be enhanced, together with more efficient use of natural resources. To this end negotiation must 
take into account t he current applied tariffs  
2.10.   Questions:  
 Should the level of ambition be raised to deliver meaningful market access?  
 Would it help to start negotiations with a higher level of ambition ?  
2.11.   Do-ability: f ree trade agreements have contributed to trade liberalization. MFN applied 
tariffs usually do not necessarily reflect the current level of liberalization. Lower prices and 
improved food availability should be considered as benefits of the market access ref orm. 
2.3  Negotiating Transparency elements & Tariff simplification  
2.12.   In the context of potential incremental steps, and to enhance confidence in the negotiation 
process: could it be proposed to re start discussions on transparency elements that  would in turn 
facilitate data analysis?  
2.13.   Some Members have referred to tariff simplification as a possible area of work, which would 
also have the benefit of eliminating complex tariff structures.  The exercise will also facilitate the 
application of formulas for tariff cuts.  
2.4  Addressing existing restrictions  
2.14.   As mentioned in paragraph 1.4, numerous types of restrictions remain in place. Could 
Members, in several incremental steps, address each of these issues individually and in sequential 
manner?  
2.15.   Challenges: The selection of a  single restriction could require an effort from few Members 
only.  
2.16.   Benefit: The contribution to the overall objective of reducing restrictions and distortions 
would nevertheless be considerable, and for the entire membership.  
2.17.   A work programme might be nee ded to ensure that all market access elements will be 
addressed in due time. Prioritization might be necessary.  
2.18.   Illustrative list of Restrictions in market a ccess : 
 Non-Ad Valorem  tariffs; 
 Tariff peaks ; 
 Tariff escalation ; 
 Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) ; 
 Special Agricultural Safeguards (SSG) ; 
 Other non -tariff measures, eg. Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures.  JOB/AG/139  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.19.   Challenges in Market Access Negotiations : 
 Linkages with broader negotiation (e.g. NAMA, Services) . 
 Preference erosion : 
 Multilateral negotiations should reinf orce the MFN principle . 
 Safeguards, particularly SSM, to facilitate liberalization or to diminish impact from subsidised 
products?  
 Special and differential treatment : 
 Could it be determined commensurately to the level of ambition and to the overall 
reform in Agriculture?  
 Could Member consider "Increased Market Access opportunities " as a positive 
contribution to economic development, job creation and increased access to affordable 
food?  
 Could there be increased liberalization in products of interest to Developing Countries 
producers?  
  JOB/AG/139  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Figure 1 : Average Tariff Overhang – Average Bound and Average Applied tariffs.  
 
Source:  WTP 2017, data available for 135 Members.  
JOB/AG/139  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Figure 1: Average Tariff Overhang – Average Boun d and Average Applied Tariffs 
(continued)  
 
Source:  WTP 2017; data available for 135 Members . 
JOB/AG/139  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Figure 1: Average Tariff Overhang – Average Bound and Average Applied tariffs 
(Continued).  
 
Source:  WTP 2017; data available for 135 Members.  
 
 
__________  
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0Madagascar
Senegal
Cambodia
Oman
Panama
Samoa
Chile
Ecuador
United Arab Emirates
Qatar
Yemen
Jordan
Liberia
Singapore
Haiti
Suriname
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Cabo Verde
Viet Nam
Tonga
Mongolia
Japan
Seychelles
Chinese Taipei
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
China
Canada
Côte d'Ivoire
Armenia
Moldova, Republic of
The FYR of Macedonia
Georgia
Kyrgyz Republic
European Union
Russian Federation
Tajikistan
Ukraine
Montenegro
Kazakhstan
Albania
New Zealand
United States of America
Australia
Hong Kong, China
Macao, China30.0  
29.8  
27.9  
27.8  
27.7  
27.0  
26.1  
25.9  
25.6  
25.5  
24.9  
23.8  
23.8  
23.0  
21.3  
19.8  
19.6  
19.3  
19.1  
19.1  
18.8  
17.4  
17.1  
16.4  
16.2  
15.7  
15.4  
14.9  
14.7  
13.8  
13.3  
13.0  
12.7  
11.9  
11.0  
10.9  
10.9  
10.8  
9.7 
9.6 
6.1 
4.8 
3.4 
0.0 
0.0 14.4  
15.8  
14.9  
11.0  
12.2  
15.2  
6.0 
18.3  
5.5 
5.7 
10.4  
16.8  
0.1 
16.8  
11.2  
12.2  
16.3  
9.2 
6.1 
13.1  
5.6 
15.7  
6.1 
15.5  
15.6  
15.8  
8.2 
11.6  
12.8  
6.4 
9.2 
11.1  
11.0  
10.5  
9.2 
9.0 
9.5 
7.6 
1.4 
5.2 
1.2 
0.0 
0.0 AV
Bound
AV
Applied