TN/MA/25  
 
21 March 2014  
(14-1775)  Page: 1/4  
Negotiating Group on Market Access    
 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE  
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS1 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  In the last weeks, since the TNC session of 6 February 2014, I had discussions with over 
twenty delegations, and met the coordinators an d focal points of the ACP Group, African Group 
and the LDC Group.  I also met with ASEAN Memb ers and a number of ALBA Members in separate 
sessions.   
1.2.  This report reflects initial findings from my consultations. I would note at the outset that we 
are still in a warm-up phase. Members are busy wi th the implementation of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement and are just starting to revisit NAMA issues. Nonetheless, I was very pleased to note the engagement of Members. 
1.3.  At the TNC of 6 February, the Director-Gener al (DG) highlighted six parameters to frame the 
discussions on the work ahead and in particular for addressing the tripod of Agriculture (AG), 
NAMA and Services. 
1.4.  Indeed, the parameter on the  interconnectivity  of the big issues in the DDA was mentioned 
regularly by Members in my consultations. The potential outcome in NAMA is seen by many as being very much correlated to the one in AG. Therefore, I heard many Members mention the need to adopt a parallel approach to tackle AG, NAMA and Services. 
1.5.  Members seem also in full agreement with the DG on the parameters of doability , 
creativity , inclusiveness and transparency. 
1.6.  The parameter regarding the  centrality of development  is recognized by all delegations. 
However, there is not yet convergence on what this parameter implies in concrete terms.  
1.7.  The last parameter the DG had mentioned in February was related to a sense of urgency . 
As I said before, I have sensed engagement - but I have not yet sensed urgency. This is possibly 
due to the fact that we are not in a negotiation phase, yet. 
1.8.  In my meetings I addressed the three questions the DG had suggested at the last TNC: 
 What went wrong in the NAMA negotiations?  
 What should we do now?   
 What level of ambition should - or could - we strive for?  
1.9.  The following paragraphs provide a summa ry of the responses received during those 
consultations. 
                                               
1 This report was prepared for the General Council meeting of 14 March 2014 and has already been 
circulated as JOB/GC/62. One correction has been introd uced to this document as compared to the earlier 
version which is that paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 which were incorrectly split are now combined. This has also had 
a consequence on the paragraph numbering. TN/MA/25 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  SUMMARY OF THE CONSULTATIONS  
2.1  What went wrong in the NAMA negotiations? 2.1.  Divergent views still prevail among Members on the NAMA negotiations. In this connection, I 
have heard different views and or difficulties expressed about the following elements: 
a. Negotiating approaches  
  Some Members highlighted the difficulties inherent in the approaches of the 
negotiations up to now.  The fact that agricultural and non-agricultural products 
were negotiated separately led to negotiations in two silos  which prevented trade-
offs between the two sectors.  
 
  The application of the "Swiss formula" eliminated much of the potential negotiating 
space and left too little scope for negotiation on products of special interest. 
 
b. The NAMA outcome and the contribution of different Members 
  Different views were expressed on the significance of market access negotiations in 
the context of a Development Round and on the balance between potential AG and NAMA results.  
 
  Differences were also apparent on the level of contributions expected from trading 
partners. 
 
c. Value of concessions 
  There are different views among Members co ncerning the value of a tariff binding, 
the reduction of "water" or the margin between the bound and the applied tariff 
level, and the notion of "commercially meaningful access".  
 
d. Potential balance in the latest draft modalities 
  Many Members expressed the view that agreement had almost been reached in 
respect of the coefficients and flexibilities in the latest draft modalities. However, this view was challenged by other Members.  
 
2.2  What should we do now? 
2.2.  There are delegations who are proposing to focus in particular on updating technical 
knowledge and the negotiating base (for example, update the information on binding levels and on 
trade flows, and complete the HS2007 transposition exercise). 
2.3.  Many Members suggested continuing where we left off and to take the latest modalities draft 
as a basis for restarting the NAMA negotiations. Arguments presented were as follows: The draft 
modalities represented many years of work; they were known in capitals and by industry; they 
allowed Members to come close to a result; for many Members they were still today close to an  acceptable result; for many Members it was not realistic to start negotiations from a blank slate.  Alternatively, some Members suggested not continuing work on - or at least not to stick too 
closely to - the latest draft modalities as we had not been able to deliver through this mean. Most 
Members who did not want to take up where we left off in 2011 seemed in particular unsatisfied with the balance between the coefficients and flexibilities in the latest draft modalities. 
2.4.  Some Members would prefer to skip explicit modalities and to pursue the NAMA negotiations 
through a request and offer approach. Others expre ssed the view that they would have difficulties 
to move to a request and offer approach, only.  
2.5.  Some Members suggested adopting a more sectoral approach taking possibly also into 
consideration potential results of MFN-based plurilaterals like the ITA expansion negotiation or the environmental goods initiative. For other Members, sectoral approaches would be difficult.  TN/MA/25 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.6.  There was also a proposal to focus on libe ralizing products in a supply chain framework.  
2 .7 .  On N T Bs , many M e mb e rs  we re  in fa vor of ad d res s ing  N T Bs  as  a c omp le me nt to the  tariff  
negotiation and several told me to start with horizontal NTBs (for example,  Horizontal Mechanism and Transparency). Other Members were of the vi ew that we could possibly take advantage of 
work done in bi-and plurilateral agreements in respect of "sectoral NTBs". Other Members had 
doubts as to whether it would be possible to deliver on NTBs in the multilateral framework.  
2.8.  As a possible way forward, there was a su ggestion that Members should start discussing the 
elements contained in the latest draft modalities ,  for example the formula,  the coefficients,  
flexibilities so as to see where the problems and interests of Members lie today and how possibly the latest draft modalities would need to be adapted. Another idea presented to me was to engage Members in a discussion on the question of "H ow and under what circumstances could Members 
contribute to a meaningful NAMA result?" 
2.3  What level of ambition shou ld - or could - we strive for? 
2.9.  I have not received explicit answers by Members so far.  However, many Members see a 
difficulty in finding a balance inside the NAMA pillar. Therefore, Members seem to accept - or even 
see a need for - a parallelism in the negotiation on AG, NAMA and Services. 
2.10.  Many Members expressed the view that the le vel of ambition in NAMA will be determined by 
the calibration of what Members are expecting from  each other, on the potential outcome in AG 
and what Members will be able to deliver on NAMA. 
2.11.  Depending on the potential NAMA outcome, some developing Members in particular more 
vulnerable ones have highlighted the need to address preference erosion and technical 
cooperation. 
3  PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS 3.1.  In respect of the future work program , I take that Members seem to be willing to engage 
seriously in NAMA negotiations - in parallel with AG and Services negotiations.  If there are tariff 
negotiations, many, but not all, Members are interested in addressing also NTBs. On this issue, a closer look at what is doable is yet needed. 
3.2.  There is at this stage no convergence of views on how and on what basis exactly to pursue 
the NAMA negotiations. However, the delegations wh o would like to take up work on the basis of 
the 2011 draft NAMA modalities seem to agree that these are not cast in stone and that we could have a fresh look at them. The delegations who do not want to continue where we got blocked 
in 2011 seem to acknowledge that much work went into these draft modalities and that therefore, 
the latest modalities could be considered as a - but not the exclusive - basis for negotiation. Having listened to Members this seems to me the clos est we can get on this question at this stage.  
In light of this situation, I would suggest, theref ore, to Members to put aside a discussion on the 
status of the draft modalities as contained in TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3/Add.1 for the time being.  I would rather suggest to Members that they take a step back and start a discussion - in different 
configurations - on the following question: "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?". 
3.3.  In the immediate short term and indepe ndently of the future work program,  
Members could consider putting an emphasis on completing the HS 2007 transposition exercise so 
that certified schedules in HS 2007 are ready for all Members. 
3.4.  It would also help the process, if Members would make an effort to update their notifications 
to the Integrated Database (IDB) on MFN-duties and on their import statistics.  
3.5.  Furthermore, I would suggest that Members communicate any specific information requests 
directly to the Secretariat and the Secretariat sh ould examine to what extent and in what time 
frame they can respond to such requests. TN/MA/25 
 
- 4 - 
 
   
3.6.  Finally, I would stress that this report o ffers my assessment of the discussions I held with 
Members.  I would invite delegations to reflect on  these observations and to share their thoughts 
at an open-ended meeting which I intend to convene before the end of March.  
__________