TN/MA/26  
 
10 July 2014  
(14-3956)  Page: 1/3  
Negotiating Group on Market Access    
 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE  
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS  
OPEN-ENDED NAMA MEETING – 9 JULY 2014 
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  Before starting my report, I would like to make a preliminary remark.  As mentioned in the 
fax sent out on last Monday, I would like to present you first with a report and then have as an 
open and free discussion as possible.  I would prefer you to start your interventions from my 
report and if possible to abstain from reading prepared statements.  Such an approach could help us to use the time this afternoon for hopefully some fresh thinking or at least to look at things from different angles.   
2  PAST ACTIVITIES 
2.1.  We met last on 31 March 2014, where I told you about my first round of consultation. 
Since then, I have held a second round and now I am in an informal third round of consultations.  
2.2.  In the first round of consultations (February/ March) I tried to see many of you and to get in 
contact with as many delegations as possible.  I often took the initiative for arranging these meetings. In the second round (April/May/part of June) I left the initiative for organizing these 
meetings mainly to delegations.  One of my - very personal - objectives was also to see which 
delegations feel particularly concerned about the NAMA negotiations.  In my third informal round 
of consultations, which is still ongoing, the initiative to organize these meetings is shared between me and delegations. I got partly active and partly  I was contacted by delegations to discuss ideas 
or specific concerns.  
2.3.  Today, my process is, therefore, largely in the hands of delegations which are taking active 
part in the collective thinking and effort which is needed if we want to succeed.  Unfortunately, not 
all delegations are involved in this process to the same extent.  I take advantage of your presence 
to encourage all of you to be active in the work here in Geneva and in particular also on NAMA.  I would like to reiterate that I am very much interested in getting to discuss the NAMA issues with 
all of you - and I repeat what I said in earlier meetings:  my door is open and you are all very 
welcome.   
2.4.  For the TNC of 25 June I prepared a short report presented by the Chair of the TNC which 
was then distributed to the membership. My principle message was that discussions are mainly 
focusing on the possible contributions of members that are described in general terms as the 
"formula applying members".  
2.5.  This fact should not come as a surprise. You will recall that members were not able to 
conclude on NAMA in 2011 because of the significan t gap in Rev.3 between key participants of the 
group of the "formula applying members" - a gap which was then - as stated by the former DG Lamy - unbridgeable at that time.  Let's face reality; the situation still presents itself in quite 
similar terms, today. 
2.6.  In fact my consultations showed that memb ers are striving for different overarching goals in 
NAMA.  For some, the goal in these negotiations is a kind of damage control, others are clearly looking to reduce impediments to trade in non-agricultural goods and again others seem to have, 
in particular, in mind to reduce the present disparities in the level of concessions which exists TN/MA/26 
 
- 2 - 
 
  between them and other members. One particular issue mentioned by several members is an 
increase in the binding level of Members. 
2.7.  I also got some more specific messages list ening to members, and I take this opportunity to 
convey some of those messages in a very simplified form:  
 One message was: I need a balance - which may be higher or lower, but must be 
equivalent - in the concessions on Agriculture (AG) and NAMA. This would not be the case based on the draft modalities on the table. 
 Another message was:  I do not know yet how much my industry will be ready to pay in 
NAMA for an AG deal, whic h is of interest to me. 
 A third message or question was:  Why should I do more, when others want to do less in 
a negotiation where I am defensive in AG and I do not get real benefits in NAMA? 
 Another message was: I have no offensive interests in these negotiations, why should I 
therefore contribute significantly to NAMA? 
 Another viewpoint was that, the logjam of 2011 can only be overcome through a simpler 
approach on NAMA and to certain extent by a mirroring between AG and NAMA market 
access. 
 Finally, I also heard a member saying:  I have already made my contribution to the 
multilateral trading system and the maximum I could do in NAMA is what is in the 2008 
modalities. 
3  ASSESSMENT 3.1.  You will certainly agree with me, that such messages, which I have oversimplified for 
illustrative purposes, point in very different directions and leave us with the need for more 
discussion before we can find common ground. 
3.2.  A positive aspect, as when compared to the situation in 2011 is that discussions on NAMA 
have restarted and that we are collectively looking at how we can get out of the 2011 blind alley in 
which we are stuck. 
3.3.   There are possible avenues to work on: 
1. There has been for instance a new approach aired by a member on a concept of 
"simplification".  I have been informed of such discussions and I welcome such initiatives. If they can get us further depe nds, however, on the membership.  You need 
to talk between yourselves and you have to try to see if such ideas can help the process 
or if you see alternative ways. 
2. In my statement to the TNC I also mentioned that many delegations have reiterated 
that success in the agriculture negotiations would be a key parameter to be considered 
for any final outcome in NAMA.  If this is  the case, AG and NAMA cannot be discussed 
separately. In 2011 we were - in my view - close to a result in AG but quite far on NAMA.  For a part of the membership, the ambition in NAMA was insufficient to match 
the ambition in AG.  To get a successful result in AG or in NAMA, both - and possibly 
also Services - have to be looked at and discussed together.  A sequencing approach that is to say addressing first AG, then NAMA cannot probably lead to success.  I would suggest that members look more closely at AG  and NAMA in a holistic manner.  Ambition 
in AG goes with ambition in NAMA. Ambition in  NAMA has to be paid for in AG.       
3.4.  In my view, we have to further explore these and possibly other avenues. Solutions cannot, 
however, come from the Chair; they ha ve to come from you, the members. 
3.5.  In my consultations, several members have also raised the issue of NTBs. I am not in a 
position to report much more than what I reported to the TNC on 21 March 2014.  Many members seem in favour of addressing NTBs as a complement to the tariff negotiation; other members have 
doubts whether this would be positive for the dynamics of the negotiation process to take up 
NTBs.  As Chair I am in your hands.  As I have stated in my consultations, delegations having an interest in NTBs or on specific parts thereof have to do the groundwork.  When I see that there is traction on NTBs I will take the issue up - if there is no traction, there is no way to succeed and TN/MA/26 
 
- 3 - 
 
  therefore no reason to invest time and energy in it.  Up to now I am not aware of members 
actively discussing NTBs. Should this change, then please let me know.  
4  WAY FORWARD 4.1.  In respect of the way forward on NAMA, I wo uld like to specify even further the question I 
had put forward in my TNC report of 21 March, namely "How and under what circumstances can 
members contribute to a meaningful NAMA result, taking into consideration the past experience, the present realities and the possible instruments at  hand?"  After my consultations, I think that 
members will first have to answer the question on "What could be done in NAMA under the 
assumption of what is done in parallel in the other pillars - in particular in AG" and then we can tackle a second question on "How this could be done and with what means".  
4.2.  In my view, members will have to make up their minds about the importance they attach in 
NAMA to improving transparency, improving predic tability, limiting tariff hikes, reducing high 
tariffs, lowering overall tariffs, improving real market access and reducing NTBs.  However, 
members will also have to decide what they are ready to do by themselves. 
5  DATA ISSUES 
5.1.  Before concluding, I would like to point to two other issues I had mentioned in the last NG 
open-ended of 31 March 2014, namely data and HS2007 transposition.  
5.2.  To be able to better visualize the NAMA realities the Secretariat was asked to provide NAMA 
tariff and trade data.  The Secretariat published in its document TN/MA/S/22 on 2 May 2014 tariff and import data.  To some delegations the info rmation submitted was - even if appreciated - 
falling somewhat short of expectations, because it was omitting data on exports and share of 
NAMA trade.  I have checked with the Secretariat and this information is available. I am, 
therefore, asking the Secretariat to make this additional information available to all members. 
5.3.  Regarding HS2007 transposition the Secretariat has submitted to members the document 
TN/MA/S/23 dated 8 May 2014.  At present a total of 61 files are either certified or in the process 
of certification, this in addition to the six Members having acceded in HS2007.  The situation on the HS2007 transposition has, therefore, somewhat improved since January.  Additional efforts, 
however, remain necessary in particular al so by some of the "main" WTO players.  
6  CONCLUSION 6.1.  To conclude, we still have to make headway in NAMA.  We can only do this with 
open-mindedness, creativity and engagement.  We need to move from divergent starting points 
and seek more common ground - in particular in respect of the so-called "formula applying 
members".  This needs more discussions between members in different settings. 
6.2.  New ideas and approaches could possibly help  and therefore all efforts of members in this 
sense are very much appreciated. 
6.3.  Dear colleagues and delegates, to start with , it would further the process, if members' minds 
would meet on the goal of these negotiations:  Are members seeking damage control, are they  
striving  to level the present playing field in re spect of concessions, do members want substantial 
reductions in trade impediments or could members agree to seek a result for systemic reasons.  
6.4.  Members then should define - as accurate as this is possible today – what, in their view could 
be done in NAMA under the assumption of parallelism between the different negotiating pillars. 
6.5.  We have to be clear about the links between the different negotiating pillars and in particular 
also between the market access issues.  In my view , there is a rule of thumb:  Ambition in AG 
goes with ambition in NAMA.  Ambition in NAMA has to be paid for in AG.  Therefore, if we strive 
for success in the establishment of the work pr ogramme, AG and NAMA have to be looked at 
together. 
__________