RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/M/21 
4 January 2006 
 (06-0015) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access  
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 4-8 July 2005
 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Jóhannesson (Iceland) 
  
1.1 The Negotiating Group adopted
 the agenda for the meeting as contained in WTO/AIR/2610 
and Add.1.  The meeting took place in informal mode.  At the request of some delegations, their statements have been reproduced below.     
1.2 The representative of the Republic of Moldova
 speaking on behalf of four small low-income 
economies in transition which had recently acceded to  the WTO, namely Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyz 
Republic and Republic of Moldova, stated that  these countries had submitted to the Negotiating 
Group on Market Access a formal proposal (doc ument TN/MA/W/56, dated 29 June 2005). The 
Republic of Moldova wished to present the document  which contained the concerns and proposals of 
these  countries. 
 
1.3 At the outset, she wished to mention that  these low-income economies in transition faced 
huge difficulties in their efforts to implement econom ic and trade policy reforms.  Armenia, Georgia, 
Kyrgyz Republic and Republic of Moldova, were countries which had acceded  to the WTO in recent 
years, from 1998 to 2003. These countries had undertaken extremely high levels of liberalization 
commitments and obligations in their terms of accession. Two of these countries (Georgia and 
Republic of Moldova) were include d in paragraph 9 of the Doha Declaration, which recognized 
extensive market access commitments made by th ose countries which had acceded to WTO just 
before the Doha Ministerial Conference. Based on th e legal framework, created by this paragraph, the 
group of Recently Acceded Members (RAMs) was form ed within the framework of WTO. Ever since 
Doha, Georgia and Republic of Moldova had been actively and constructivel y participating in the 
negotiating process within the framework of the group of RAM’s. 
 1.4 Furthermore, in recognition of their probl ems, paragraph 11 of Annex B of the General 
Council's Decision of the 1st of August 2004 called for "special provisions for tariff reductions" in 
order to take into account the extensive market access commitments undertak en as part of accession 
of the newly acceded Members.  
 1.5 Their tariff bindings on non-agricultural pr oducts were already 100 per cent and were 
expressed only in ad valorem  duties. Furthermore, these tariffs were bound at very low levels (simple 
average was 6,67 per cent), as co mpared to the Uruguay Round final bound tariffs of developing 
country and LDCs Members (simple average: 29.4 per cent in developing countries and 45.2 per cent 
in LDCs).  1.6 Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic and Repub lic of Moldova had also joined a number of 
the "zero-to-zero" and "harmonization" sectoral in itiatives of the Uruguay Round and ITA.  The rapid 
liberalization process resulting from their accession to the WTO had also created additional structural 
and social difficulties for their industries.  
 TN/MA/M/21 
Page 2  
 
 1.7 At the same time, she wished to underscore th at the level of development in their countries 
were comparable to that of low-income devel oping countries and LDCs.  Various economic indicators 
could prove this.    
• First, according to the development statisti cs provided by the World Bank, the annual per 
capita Gross National Income of Armenia (US$  875) and Georgia (US$ 877) were at the 
bottom range of the income level for the lo wer-middle income countries (US$ 766-3,035 in 
2003). Both the Kyrgyz Republic (US$ 382) an d Republic of  Moldova (US$ 542) were 
classified among 61 low-income economies with a per capita Gross National Income of less 
than US$ 765 in 2003. Recent substantial reduc tions of import tariffs after their accession to 
the WTO had led to the serious reduction of production in many industries and rise of 
unemployment in several key industrial sectors. 
 
• Second, the OECD DAC included low-income count ries in transition in the list of developing 
countries and territories, together with a number of African and Asian countries. 
 
• Third, many developed countries such as the United States, Canada, the European Union, 
Japan and Switzerland extended their Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to 
low-income countries in transition as to LDCs  and eligible developing countries.   
 
• Forth, the exports of the low-income economi es in transition were destined to a limited 
number of markets and concentrated on a very  limited number of products.  According to 
trade statistics, the share in world total e xports was between 0.004 – 0.01% (in 2002-2003). 
Since their economies were mostly agriculture-o riented, the share of non-agricultural exports 
was even much lower. 
 1.8 These facts underlined that the economic grow th and stability of their societies as a whole 
were as, if not more, susceptible to changes in  trading conditions as that of WTO Members which 
were considered developing countries and least-developed countries.    
 
1.9 Furthermore, she reiterated that simulation of  the currently discussed  formulas showed that 
the small low-income countries in transition would have  to make substantial additional tariff cuts with 
much lower final bound rates than the vast major ity of developing country Members and would cause 
even more serious adjustment costs to their vulnera ble economies, since, in most cases, their applied 
tariffs were equal to the bound rates. Thus, in the medium-term, their economi es clearly needed some 
reasonable and temporary flexibilities to improve the quality of integration into the multilateral 
trading system and to enhance the diversifi cation of their production and export bases.  
 1.10 That is why, these countries wished to request the Negotiating Group on Market Access to 
agree that they be granted the same flexibilities w ith regard to the non-agri cultural market access as 
had already been agreed for LDCs and other vulne rable developing countries in order to facilitate 
their ongoing economic reform programmes. This approach of their countries corresponded to the 
provisions of the Article XXVIII bis of the GATT 1994, paragraph 3 (a) wh ich stipulated “the 
negotiations shall be concluded on a basis which affords adequate oppor tunity to take into account the 
needs of individual contracting parties and individual  industries…”.  Therefore, they wished to call 
once more their trading partners to show u nderstanding of their demonstrated needs and 
concerns. Success for  Ministers at the Hong Kong Ministerial would also be measured by the fact, 
whether Members were able to reach a fair and ba lanced result which had some meaningful benefits 
for development.    TN/MA/M/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
 1.11 Finally, they wished to underscore that th eir countries expected that their concerns and 
interests would be fully taken into account and would be translated into meaningful provisions in the 
first approximation of the modalities.  In this context,  they were prepared to participate constructively 
in the elaboration of meaningful flexibilities for their countries in the draft modalities. To put it differently what would they like? They wished to  establish fair and mutual beneficial relations 
between all WTO Members on the basis of correct and balanced rules and commitments.   At the 
same time, they hoped that other WTO Members would follow their and other RAMs' example as 
regarded the level of commitments in the WTO, which would contribute to the improvement of access 
of goods to their markets. In other words, they re quested that in the immediate future, the WTO had to 
find the working modalities for the small low-income countries in transition. 
 
1.12 The representative of Barbados
 speaking on behalf of Anti gua and Barbuda, Barbados, 
Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Jamaica,  Mauritius, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guin ea,  Paraguay, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts 
and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadin es and Trinidad and Tobago stated that Members 
would be familiar with the mandate  on small, vulnerable economies c ontained in Paragraph 35 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration. The objective of the work programme on small economies was to frame 
responses to the trade-related issues identified for the fuller integration of small, vulnerable 
economies into the multilateral trading system. Memb ers would also be aware that the 2004 July 
Package reaffirmed the entire memb ership’s commitment to fulfil the paragraph 35 mandate and to 
address the small economies’ trade-related issues. In this  context, it was also relevant to recall that the 
July Package also called for special attention to be  given, in the course of the NAMA negotiations, to 
the specific trade and development related need s and concerns of developing countries. 
 1.13 It had been agreed in the Dedicated Sessi on of the Committee on Trade and Development that 
the small economies would articulate their concerns  in the relevant negotiating groups. This process 
of elaboration of issues of interest to small ec onomies in fora other than the Committee on Trade and 
Development was also in accordan ce with the Framework and Procedures of the Work Programme on 
Small Economies (WT/L/447).   
 
1.14 In fulfilling the request of their trading part ners to take relevant issues to the negotiating 
groups, small economy delegations wished to bri ng to the attention of the NAMA Negotiating Group 
some of the issues and concerns that they had raised  in other bodies in the WTO, which were relevant 
to the NAMA negotiations, and which would influe nce their perspective of the Negotiating Group’s 
work towards formulating detailed modalities for presentation to Ministers in Hong Kong. 
 1.15 Small economies had issues of  substantial interest in th e NAMA negotiations, including 
special flexibilities and economic development br oadly.  These issues had to be addressed 
satisfactorily so that small, vulnerable economies could participate meaningfully in the multilateral 
trading system in accordance with their level of  development, market share, vulnerabilities and 
economic size and structure.  1.16 Small economies remained committed to the liberalisation process. However, liberalisation 
had to be at a pace and with levels of re ductions which their economies could sustain.  
 
1.17 For small developing economies, tariffs were  a primary means of ensuring the viability of 
vulnerable domestic industries, achieving sustai nable levels of development and maintaining 
revenues. Therefore, it was the view of small ec onomy delegations that the tariff reduction approach 
used in these development-oriented negotiations had to be suited to developing countries’ trade 
profiles and their ability to offer and sustain concessions. 
 
 TN/MA/M/21 
Page 4  
 
 1.18 Furthermore, less than full reciprocity and special and differential treatment had to be the 
foundations on which the NAMA negotiating modalities were established. In accordance with the 
paragraph 16 DMD mandate, it was necessary for both  less-than-full-reciprocity and S&D to be both 
integral and cross-cutting elements of the negot iations. The high importance of flexibility for 
countries which had an insignificant share of worl d trade, a small production and export base and little 
or no comparative or competitive advantage in  these negotiations could not be overstated. 
 1.19 Small economies regarded paragraph 8 as the foundation on which additional measures to 
provide flexibilities would be built. In their view, the S&D flexibilities in the final modalities had to 
be augmented from the current paragraph 8. To ma ke S&D conditional was contrary to the spirit of 
both paragraph 16 and the DDA. 
 1.20 Developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable among them, would require an 
appropriate timeframe for the im plementation of agreed tariff reductions. Such implementation 
periods were to be commensurate with their levels  of development, size of economy, fiscal and other 
strategic development needs.  
 1.21 She recalled that paragraph 15 of Annex B recognized that "appropriate studies and capacity 
building measures shall be an integral part of the NAMA modalities". These issues had not been 
adequately discussed in the NG. In order to ensure  the effective participation of small, vulnerable 
economies in the negotiations, it would be necessar y to conduct studies on the impact of further 
liberalisation on their economies and provide appropr iate trade-related technical assistance. Useful 
studies could include the conduct of periodic assessm ents of the impact of tariff reductions on the 
economies of developing countries.   1.22 The results that small economies would wish  to see as an outcome of the NAMA negotiations 
to address their situation included: 
 
1. A minimum level of tariff reduction by sma ll economies, which in no way impacted on 
their current applied rates.  
2. No tariff reduction commitments by sma ll economies on products which had strategic 
value for their economic development. 
3. Longer implementation periods for small economies. 
4. Tangible recognition for those small economies which had a substantial percentage of 
tariff binding coverage. 
5. The elimination of NTBs on products of  export interest to small economies.  
6. Targeted technical assistance, including in the area of supply side constraints, in order to 
facilitate the use by small economi es of market access concessions. 
 
1.23 Small economies which were in the process of  accession should not be required to agree to 
more onerous NAMA obligations than those already accepted by small economy members of WTO. In addition, treatment similar to that now being sought by small economies in the NAMA negotiations 
had to be accorded to acceding small economies. 
 
1.24 The co-sponsors of this document urged the Negotiating Group to specifically address the 
trade-related problems of small, vulnerable ec onomies in an expeditious and timely manner.  
 1.25 This statement (circulated subsequently as document JOB(05)/165)) was without prejudice to 
the rights of the small economies to make future submissions to the Negotiating Group on any of the 
issues contained in this document and/or on any other issues not included here.    TN/MA/M/21 
 Page 5 
 
 
 1.26 The representative of Ecuador  stated that many of the characteristics mentioned by these  
small economies were shared by many other devel oping countries.  In this regard, her delegation 
wished to manifest its concern that while Ec uador understood the difficulties confronted by 
developing countries, this should not mean a weaken ing of the negotiations being carried out pursuant 
to Annex B. As was stated by Ecuador at a prev ious meeting, paragraphs  6, 8 and 9 contained 
important flexibilities. She underlined Ecuador's  support for progress in these negotiations and 
considered that all had to contribute to this round on the basis of standards and principles and not on 
the basis of exceptions.  1.27 The representative of Colombia
 supported the statements made by Ecuador. Colombia had 
just seen this proposal but many of the points made  in the indicative list had been examined in the 
context of the CTD reserved to this end. As Ecuador had said, Colomb ia could understand the 
situation, but could not accept that what was being built in this Round was being done on the basis of 
exceptions.  What was required were contributions  and Colombia believed that Members should be 
working on this basis.  
 
1.28 The representative of Mauritius  stated that Mauritius was a co-sponsor of the paper and 
supported the  statement made by Barbados. Small economies by virtue of their size normally should 
adopt export oriented development strategies and of course hence the importance of international 
trade. He wished to emphasize that without favour able market access conditions, most if not all of 
these countries would not be able to compete with  more competitive suppliers of similar products 
exported by them. It was therefore imperative that adequate modalities be agreed upon to ensure that 
the favourable market access conditions which coul d be in the form of trade preferences be 
maintained on products exported by these countri es in order to preserve their market share.  
 1.29 The representative of Honduras
 stated that her delegation supported the statement made by 
Barbados. Honduras was a small and vulnerable ec onomy and her delegation believed that these 
points should be taken into account in the Chairman's first approximation.  
__________