TN/MA/29  
 
11 April 2016  
(16-2021)  Page: 1/2  
Negotiating Group on Market Access    
 
 NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE  
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS 
Informal meeting - 11 April 2016 
1.  In the last two and a half months I had around 30 bilateral meetings with individual Members 
as well as with group coordinators. I recognize that this does not reflect a complete account of 
current views of the membership, but it is a starting point post-Nairobi, which I intend to further 
expand on and deepen in the coming weeks.    2.  So far, the discussions I have had with Members were rather in a brainstorming mode. 
Members appear to still be looking for a foothold in the post-Nairobi discussions. 
 3.  The feedback I have received may be broadly divided into three categories. The first, supported 
by the largest group of Members, would like to continue working on NAMA issues (tariffs and 
NTBs) in parallel with other remaining Doha issues. A second, very significantly smaller group of Members does not necessarily see the comparative advantage of WTO as a forum for market 
access negotiations anymore, and therefore is lukewarm at best to the prospect of pursuing work 
on NAMA market access for the time being. A thir d group of a few Members is either indifferent 
towards further work on NAMA issues at this stage, or they are defensive as for them the existing "policy space" of Members should be maintained, notably in support of industrialization in the 
context of a difficult macro-economic environment.  
 4.  Regarding the first group, that is to say, Members interested  in pursuing work on NAMA, they 
have referred to paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which acknowledges "a strong 
commitment of all Members to advance negotiations on the remaining Doha issues", including on NAMA. Some see merit in doing further work in the NAMA pillar on its own. Some fear a potential 
"agriculture-only" outcome, which would not be acceptable to them. Many see value in NAMA work 
to balance potential progress in other areas. I have heard this both from Members with offensive and defensive interests in NAMA. Several Members cautioned against "sequencing" of different areas. In their view, the remaining Doha issues should, rather, move in parallel and be looked at 
in a horizontal manner. 
 5.  The Members interested in working on NAMA tend to see potential for advances even if no one 
has been very precise on the level of ambition so far. Some Members recalled their interest in 
tariff reductions through formulas or through a mo re targeted sectoral approach, for instance on 
products or value chains of particular interest to developing Members. On both approaches, there 
are also other views. Several Members fear that a discussion on tariff-cutting formulas may throw 
us back into a not very fertile pre-Nairobi discussion. Some consider a sectoral approach, where one would pick one or a few sectors for liberalization, as not doable. Several Members expressed the view that market access improvements with cuts made into applied tariff rates would be 
unlikely to gather consensus in today’s environment, except possibly in a plurilateral set-up. Some 
Members also voiced doubts as to whether there would be much appetite to strive for more plurilaterals applied on an mfn basis.  
 
6.  From what I have heard, the general ambiti on level seems clearly reduced compared to the 
discussions we had a year ago. Indeed, several Members do not consider ambitious market access 
outcomes as a realistic prospect anymore and rather suggest trying to improve predictability on TN/MA/29 
 
- 2 - 
 
  NAMA, notably by increasing bindings or reducing water between bound and applied tariff rates. 
Under such a scenario, balance may require trade-offs between different negotiating areas.    7.  Even if most of those interested in NAMA s eem to prioritize the tariff side, many Members also 
flagged an interest in NTBs. What kind of NTB discussion Members could engage in has, however, 
remained unclear to me for the time being. Some Members would see merit in continuing 
discussions on NTB proposals on which most work has been done in the past (e.g. Horizontal 
Mechanism, Transparency, Textile labelling). Some  Members see potential in new areas (e.g. on 
foodstuff). I also heard that if a sectoral approach were to be pursued for NAMA tariff reductions, one could also seek to address the NTB part of such sector. I further heard that work on NTBs undertaken in some RTA negotiations, such as on regulatory coherence could be looked into and 
might inspire discussions in the WTO, either in the NGMA or in the Committee on Market Access. 
Another idea that came up was to look at work done on technical standards in other international organizations and to possibly bring such work to the WTO negotiating table.  
 
8.  Independently of potential ambition levels in NAMA, many developing countries and group coordinators referred to the importance to be given to Less than Full Reciprocity (LTFR) and 
Special and Differential Treatment (S&D) in whatever outcome that may ultimately be envisaged. 
Some Members suggested that S&D should primarily be looked at on an issue-by-issue basis.  9.  Regarding the work ahead, some Members expressed an interest in obtaining more statistical 
information and more indications by Members on potential approaches to NAMA, perhaps similarly 
to the initiative taken by Canada last summer.  
10.  Summing up, my discussions have shown that the Membership still seems to be in search of 
how to pick up on the negotiating pillar after Nairobi.   
11.  Most Members do not appear to want an open-ended reflection period or to see the WTO go 
drifting.  12.  My discussions have however also shown that while most Members are interested in searching 
for outcomes on NAMA, some doubt whether the WT O is the best-suited forum to deliver on NAMA 
market access today. Furthermore, some Members cl early state that they are not in a position to 
contribute in NAMA. If this perception is corre ct, then I do not see overlaps between the main 
positions of Members on NAMA as of today.  
 13.  In my discussions, I sensed nonetheless a generally constructive attitude and willingness to 
start moving on different negotiating issues, both for substantive and systemic reasons. I did not 
perceive a going back into trenches but rather an openness by most Members to look at issues 
with fresh eyes.  
14.  In my view, the main challenge for Members on NAMA will be how to build convergence in a 
situation where, on the one hand, not all Members have the same appetite to pursue NAMA negotiations in WTO and, on the other hand, we have to assume that without NAMA there may not 
be any negotiated outcome in other areas. 
 15.  As usual, there is no magic wand to resolve this challenge. There are only creative ideas, open 
talks and hard work by you Members which will move  us ahead. As Chair, I stand ready to help the 
process – your process.    16.  That ends my report.  
 
__________