WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
28 April 2006 
 (06-2057) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access  
  
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS 
 
Progress Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Don Stephenson, to 
 
the Trade Negotiations Committee  
 
Revision1 
 
I. STATUS OF WORK 
1.1 Since the last report to th e TNC, the NAMA Group has held one meeting from 18 to 21 April 
which was convened through an organi zational fax dated 11 April 2006.   At that meeting, I circulated 
a report on the consultations I had undertaken the pre ceding weeks (to be issued as a JOB document).  
In addition, the Group undertook a multilateral revi ew of the AVE submissions of the following 
Members:  Switzerland, US, India, New Zealand, Japan, Norway, Chinese Taipei, EC, Canada, Korea, 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Australia and Pakistan.  Questions were raised on the 
submissions from the US, India, New Zealand, Japan  and Australia.  It was agreed that the Group 
would revert to these files and take up new submissions at a future meeting.  
 
1.2 Several new documents were presented in  plenary namely: a paper by the US entitled 
"Progress Report: Sectoral Discussions on Tariff Elimination in the Chemicals Sector (TN/MA/W/18/Add.13).   Five papers by Japan entitled: (1) "Progress Report: Proposal for enhanced 
Transparency on Export Restrictions" (JOB(06)/21/Rev.1); (2) "Tariff Elimination in the Electronics/Electrical Sector, Illustrative Product List " (JOB(06)/84); (3) "Sectoral Initiative for Tariff 
Elimination in Automotive and Related Parts Sector " (JOB(06)/87); (4) "Modification History of the 
Text for Enhanced Transparency on Export Restri ctions" (JOB(06)/29/Rev.2); and (5) "Text-Based 
Proposal for Negotiation on  Enhanced Transparen cy on Export Restrictions" (TN/MA/W/15/Add.4). 
A paper by Japan, Singapore, Thailand and the United States entitled "Tariff Elimination in the 
Electronics/Electrical Sector" (JOB(06)/85).  Four papers by the EC entitled (1) "Negotiating Proposal 
on Export Taxes" ( TN/MA/W/11/Add.6) ; (2) "Negotiating Proposal on Non-Tariff Barriers in the 
Automotive Sector" (TN/MA/W/11/Add.4) ; (3) "Negotiating Proposal on Non-Tariff Barriers in the 
Electronics Sector" (TN/MA/W/11/Add.5 and Corr. 1) ; and (4) "Negotiating Proposal on Non-Tariff 
Barriers in the Textiles/Clothing and Footwear Sector" (TN/MA/W/11/Add.7) .  Turkey also referred to 
its proposal entitled "Harmonization in the Textiles a nd Clothing Sectors" (JOB(06)/60).  Finally, I 
drew attention of the Negotiating Group to a docum ent which had been circulated by the Secretariat 
entitled "[Draft] Doha Schedules on Goods: Guid elines for preparation and procedures for 
submission" (JOB(06)/99), and I indicated that this paper would be taken up at a future meeting of the 
Negotiating Group. A room document which was presented by South Africa at the last NAMA 
meeting on behalf of the NAMA-11 Group of De veloping Countries, was made available at this 
meeting as TN/MA/W/68. 
 
1.3 In view of the end-April deadline for full modalities, the meeting also had as objective to 
accelerate the movement to a text-based negotiation.  This was done in the context of several open-
ended Room W sessions where proposed texts on various  issues were considered.  We made progress 
                                                     
 
1 Additions have been shown in bold and italicized text.   TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  on some elements such as: (1) reaching an unders tanding on the architecture for the treatment of 
unbound tariff lines; (2) an understanding on some tec hnical issues in paragraph 8; (3) establishing the 
threshold for paragraph 6 Members; (4) having more or less agreed language in respect of paragraph 9 
of the NAMA framework concerni ng the contribution of LDCs to  the NAMA negotiations; and (5) 
having more specific proposals from proponents, in the form of texts.  However, on the core 
modalities, which will define the level of ambition,  there was no progress.   Members refused to 
engage in a substantive manner on these issues and, in fact, we seemed to be at risk of going 
backwards.    1.4 In this connection, I felt that it would useful to draw up the attached annex, which I hope will 
help focus our work towards full modalities.  The a nnex is divided into three columns.  The first 
column  contains Annex B of the General Council deci sion of 1 August 2004 (commonly referred to as 
the "NAMA Framework"), as amended or supplemente d by the relevant para graphs of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration.  The additions from the Ministerial Declaration have been indicated in bold.  The second column
 shows possible language for full modalities.   In some cases, this is language on 
which there is agreement.  In other cases, the modalities language  is a simple transposition of the 
Framework or there is sufficient consensus on the issue that I have taken the liberty of proposing 
modalities language .  The third column  is the Chair’s remarks, which contains proposed text on 
which there is no consensus, as well as my very brie f notes on what the issues are that remain to be 
decided.  No particular status is given to the texts proposed by Members by inclusion in this column 
until they are agreed by Members: their inclusion is simply to report what is on the table.   T h e  
middle column reflects how far we have advanced on  the path to full modalities; as you can see, it is 
rather blank.  My intention is to use this doc ument as a "rolling document" with the objective of 
filling in the middle column as quickly as possible in  the weeks ahead.  It should be understood that 
the proposed modalities language (the second colu mn) is built on informal consensus in the 
Negotiating Group or a simple transposition fro m the Framework and Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration.  However, until there is explicit agreement in the Negotiating Group, this language 
remains a proposal by the Chair.   
II. OUTSTANDING ISSUES 
2.1 As already indicated, on the co re issues, which will define the level of ambition of the NAMA 
negotiations, no movement can be reported.  At the same time, on issues such as treatment of 
paragraph 6 Members, small a nd vulnerable economies, non-reciprocal preferences, and newly 
acceded Members progress remains slow.    
III. FUTURE WORK 
 3.1 There is a consensus that the Negotiating Gr oup must now move to a process of intensive and 
continuous negotiations.   It should be a process that continues to m ove us to a text-based discussion. 
In addition, it must be Geneva-based an d respect the “bottom-up” approach.   
 3.2 As regards the sequencing of our  negotiations, I believe that the issue of ambition in NAMA 
will only be resolved when the same question is  determined in the agricultural negotiations.  
However, we cannot afford to wait for the agri culture negotiation to progress before we begin 
to find solutions for any of the issues in NAMA.  Nor can we leave all issues to be dealt with 
at the end of the negotiation.  We all know that is  a recipe for failure.  We need to clear the 
way for the issue of ambition to be resolved - together with agriculture and perhaps ultimately 
by Ministers - and we need to do this by so lving as many other issues as possible.  In my 
view, therefore, we have to continue to work  to address the questions related to exceptions 
(i.e. those modalities, except Paragraph 8, that  modulate or provide an alternative to the 
application of the formula in respect of specific Members)  and outstanding technical issues, 
as a first priority, and leave the questions related to ambition (including paragraph 8)  to be  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  resolved as a second step , it of course being understood that work on NTBs and Sectorals 
will have to continue in parallel.  The details of this process are outlined below.  I would 
note, however, that this schedule is notio nal: it assumes progress on the issues that 
warrants convening plurilateral and multilateral m eetings.  It would also note that this 
schedule refers only to the meetings I will be convening, as Chair.  If the Members are not 
convening their own meetings on the issues – if they are not consulting bilaterally and 
plurilaterally on the issues that separate th em - this process will almost certainly fail. 
 
  
 
Week 
 Proposed work 
24 – 28 April Bilateral meetings, particular ly with proponents, to advance proposals 
sufficiently to warrant further discussion in the Negotiating Group. 
1 - 5 May 
 Plurilateral consultations (typically Room E format) focused on exceptions 
and outstanding technical issues.   
8 - 19 May 
 NAMA Weeks, focused on finalizing the modalities defining who would 
be covered by what exception, where necessary, and the level of their 
contribution to the NAMA outcome. 
22 May – 26 May Bilateral and plur ilateral consultations on the different issues, as required. 
29 May – 2 June Plurilateral consultations (typically Room E format) focused on the 
formula, the mark-up for unbound tari ffs and paragraph 8 flexibilities.  
5 June - 16 June 
 NAMA Weeks, focussed on finalizing the modalities defining the level of 
ambition. 
   
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
Annex “A” 
  
July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
1. This Framework contains the initial elements for future work on modalities by the Negotia ting Group on Market Access.  
Additional negotiations are requir ed to reach agreement on the 
specifics of some of these elements.  These relate to the formula, the issues concerning the treatment of unbound tariffs in indent 
two of paragraph 5, the flexibilities for developing-country 
participants, the issue of participation in the sectorial tariff component and the preferences.  In  order to finalize the modalities, 
the Negotiating Group is instructed to address these issues 
expeditiously in a manner consistent with the mandate of paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the overall 
balance therein. 
2. We reaffirm that negotiatio ns on market access for non-
agricultural products shall aim to reduce or as appropriate 
eliminate tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff es calation, as well as non-tariff 
barriers, in particular on products of export interest to developing 
countries.  We also reaffirm  the importance of special and 
differential treatment and less th an full reciprocity in reduction 
commitments as integral parts of the modalities. 
3. We acknowledge the substantial work undertaken by the 
Negotiating Group on Market A ccess and the progress towards 
achieving an agreement on negotiating modalities.  We take note of 
the constructive dialogue on th e Chair's Draft Elements of 
Modalities (TN/MA/W/35/Rev.1) and confirm our intention to use 
this document as a reference for the future work of the Negotiating 
Group.  We instruct the Negotiati ng Group to continue its work, as 
mandated by paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
with its corresponding references to the relevant provisions of 
Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994 and to the provisions cited in 
paragraph 50 of the Doha Minister ial Declaration, on the basis set 
out below.   
We recall that in paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration we agreed "to negotiations which shall aim, by 
modalities to be agreed, to reduce or as appropriate eliminate 
tariffs, including the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff escalation, as well as non-tariff 
barriers, in particular on products of export interest to 
developing countries.  Product coverage shall be comprehensive and without a priori  exclusions.  The 
negotiations shall take fully into account the special needs 
and interests of developing and least-developed country participants, including through less than full reciprocity in 
reduction commitments, in accordance with the relevant 
provisions of Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994 and the 
provisions cited in paragraph 50 below. To this end, the 
modalities to be agreed will include appropriate studies and capacity-building measures to assist least-developed 
countries to participate effectively in the negotiations."  
  
Further to the Doha mandate, and building on the results 
reached in Annex B of the General Council Decision of 1 
August 2004 (NAMA Framework) and paragraphs 13 to 24 
of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, we agree to the 
following modalities for the NAMA negotiations as set out below.  
 
  
    
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 5July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
 4. 
We recognize that a formula ap proach is key to reducing 
tariffs, and reducing or eliminating tariff peaks, high tariffs, and 
tariff escalation.  We agree that the Negotiating Group should 
continue its work on a non-linear formula applied on a line-by-line 
basis which shall take fully in to account the special needs and 
interests of developing and leas t-developed country participants, 
including through less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments. 
 
14. We adopt a Swiss Formula with coefficients at levels 
which shall inter alia :  
 
 
− Reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs, including 
the reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high 
tariffs and tariff escalation, in particular on products 
of export interest to developing countries;  and 
 Formula
 
 
We agree that the following Swiss Formula shall apply on a 
line-by-line basis:  
  
 No progress has been made since the Hong Kong 
Ministerial on the formula.   
 The two options on the table are:  
 
(a) a Simple Swiss Formula with two 
coefficients , one for developing and the other for 
developed Members:  
 
 t 1 =   (a or b) × t 0            
  (a or b) + t 0  
             
 
 where , 
 
t1= Final bound tariff 
t0=  Base rate  
a =  Coefficient for developed  Members 
b =  Coefficient for developing 
 Members subject to the formula.  
 
− Take fully into account the special needs and interests 
of developing countries, including through less than 
full reciprocity in reduction commitments. 
 
15. We reaffirm the importance of special an d differential 
treatment and less than fu ll reciprocity in reduction 
commitments, including pa ragraph 8 of the NAMA 
Framework, as integral parts of the modalities.  We instruct the Negotiating Group to finalize it s details as soon as possible. 
  
 
  
 
  
  
or 
 (b) the ABI proposal
  
 
 
00
1ttBttBt
aa
+×××=   
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 6 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
   
where ,  
t1 is the final rate, to be bound in ad 
valorem  terms 
t0  is the bound base rate 
ta is the average of the current  bound 
rates 
 B is a coefficient, its value(s) to 
 determined by the participants 
 
 
 
 
5. We further agree on the following elements regarding the 
formula: 
 
 - Product coverage shall be comprehensive     without a priori exclusions.  
 
 18. We take note of the level of common 
 understanding  reached on the issue of product 
 coverage and direct the  Negotiating Group to 
 resolve  differences on the limited  issues that remain  as quickly as possible. 
 Elements regarding the formula
 
 
We further agree on the following elements regarding the 
formula: 
 
            (a) Product coverage shall be comprehensive   
  without a priori exclusions as reflected in 
  document [..] 
  
 
   
 
 Work on product coverage has moved forward, 
however a small number of differences remain. I 
have presented a proposal (JOB(06)/126) to Members concerning product coverage in the 
NAMA negotiations and hope that it will provide 
a basis on which Members can move forward. 
 
 - tariff reductions or elimination shall commence 
from the bound rates after full implementation of current concessions;  howev er, for unbound tariff 
lines, we adopt a non-linear mark-up 
approach to establish base rates for 
commencing tariff reductions.   
  (b) Tariff reductions or elimination shall 
  commence from the bound rates after full   implementation of current concessions; 
  however, for  unbound tariff lines, we 
  adopt a constant non-linear  mark-
  up of […] percentage points to the MFN 
  applied rate in the base year to establish   base rates for commencing tariff  
  reductions.  
   For unbound tariff lines there is an 
understanding on the architecture, i.e. to use a constant non-linear mark up approach, but 
without any numbers.  
 
-    the base year for MFN applied tariff rates shall 
be 2001 (applicable rates on 14 November); 
  (c)   The base year for MFN applied tariff rates 
  shall be 2001 (applicable rates on    14 November);   
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 7July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
  
 
- credit shall be given for autonomous 
liberalization by developing Members  provided 
that the tariff lines were bound on an MFN basis 
in the WTO since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round; 
 
- all non- ad valorem  duties shall be converted to 
ad valorem  equivalents on the basis of  the 
methodology outlined in document 
JOB(05)166/Rev.1 and bound in ad valorem  
terms; 
  
  
  
 
 (d)      
 
 
  
 
 (e) all non- ad valorem  duties shall be 
converted to ad valorem  equivalents on the 
basis of  the methodology outlined in 
document JOB(05)166/Rev.1 and bound in 
ad valorem  terms;  
  
  
 
No proposal has been put forward.   
 
  
 
 
 
- negotiations shall commence on the basis of the 
HS96 or HS2002 nomenclature, with the results 
of the negotiations to be finalized in HS2002 
nomenclature; 
 
 
  
- the reference period for import data shall be 
1999- 2001.  (f) negotiations shall commence on the basis 
of the HS96 or HS2002 nomenclature, with 
the results of the negotiations to be 
finalized in HS2002 nomenclature; 
 
 
   
 (g) the reference period for import data shall 
be 1999-2001 
 I have circulated a document entitled "[Draft] 
Doha Schedules on Goods: Guidelines for 
Preparation and Procedures for Submission" 
(JOB(06)/99) which remains to be discussed.  On the basis of those discussions, Members will 
need to decide whether it is feasible for all of 
them to finalize results in HS2002.   
 
 
  
6. We furthermore agree that, as  an exception, participants 
with a binding coverage of non-agricultural tariff lines of less than 
[35] percent would be exempt from making tariff reductions 
through the formula.  Instead, we expect them to bind [100] 
percent of non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level that does 
not exceed the overall average of bound tariffs for all developing 
countries after full implementation of current concessions.  Flexibilities for developing Members with low binding 
coverage2  
 
We furthermore agree that, as an exception, participants with  
a binding coverage of non-agricultural tariff lines of less than 
35 percent would be exempt from making tariff reductions 
through the formula.  Instead, we  expect them to bind [100] 
percent of non-agricultural tariff lines at an average level that 
does not exceed the overall average of bound tariffs for all 
developing countries after full implementation of current concessions.   
  
Progress has been made insofar as the square 
brackets have been removed around the 35% 
binding coverage, thereby establishing the group 
of Members covered by this paragraph. On the question of treatment two proposals have been 
put forward by the proponents: 
                                                      
2 Developing Members concerned are: Camero on; Congo, Côte d'Ivoire; Cuba; Ghana; Keny a; Macao, China; Mauritius; Nigeria; Sri La nka; Suriname; and Zimbabwe.   
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 8 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
  
  
1) To have a binding coverage of 95%, with an overall average of bo und tariffs not exceeding 
50%; or 
 2) To have a binding coverage  of 70% with an 
overall average of boun d tariffs not exceeding  
28.5%.  
  Note: the overall average of bound tariffs for all 
developing countries afte r full implementation of 
current concessions is estimated at  28.5%.  This 
figure was calculated by the Secretariat in the 
following way. Using the Annex Tables of the 2005 World Trade Report, average bound rates 
of non-agricultural pr oducts of all developing 
country Members excluding LDCs were extracted. The figure of 28.5 per cent is a simple 
average of the country averages shown in the 
Report. Each Member was given the same weight irrespective of the binding coverage. Only ad 
valorem tariff duties were included as no AVEs 
had at that time been provided to the Secretariat.  The ten Members that acceded to the EU were 
not included but all other economies in transition 
were included.  The earlier figure of 27.5 per cent included the ten Members that recently 
acceded to the EU. 
 
  It would appear that while some Members are 
willing to negotiate the level of the binding 
coverage, others are willing to negotiate the 
overall average. A small number of Members 
expressed support for  the proposal of a binding 
coverage of 70% with an  overall average of 
bound tariffs not exceeding 28.5%.   
21. We note the concerns raised by small, vulnerable 
economies, and instruct the Ne gotiating Group to establish 
ways to provide flexibilities for these Members without 
creating a sub-category of WTO Members.  No textual proposal has been tabled by the 
proponents, although one has been promised 
which will cover both the issue of treatment and 
criteria.    
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 9July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
   
With respect to the treatment , there has been a 
suggestion by the proponents of small, 
vulnerable economies to use a paragraph 6- type 
solution to address thei r concerns. There are 
several Members who have expressed 
reservations about such an idea and have 
indicated a preference for an expanded paragraph 8 solution.  Others seem willing to 
consider a paragraph 6 type solution, but would 
need to see the proposal before taking a 
definitive position. 
 
  With respect to criteria , (i.e. who will be 
covered?), the question continues to be an open-
ended one, with preferences varying from using 
trade criteria such as: NAMA exports, NAMA exports and imports, NAMA and Agriculture 
exports to alternative or additional criteria 
which demonstrate the vulnerability aspect of such economies through importance of trade to 
GDP, revenue dependency and the degr
ee of 
export diversification.   
 
 7. We recognize that a sectoria l tariff component, aiming at 
elimination or harmonization is another key element to achieving 
the objectives of paragraph 16 of  the Doha Ministerial Declaration 
with regard to the reduction or elimination of tariffs, in particular on products of export interest to developing countries.  We 
recognize that participation by all participants will be important to 
that effect.  We therefore instru ct the Negotiating Group to pursue 
its discussions on such a component, with a view to defining 
product coverage, participation, and adequate provisions of 
flexibility for developing-country participants.  
 
16. In furtherance of paragraph 7 of the NAMA 
Framework, we recognize that Members are pursuing sectoral 
initiatives.  To this end, we instruct the Negot iating Group to   
The following textual proposal on sectorals has been submitted by ten Members and circulated 
as JOB(06)/125.  The changes in relation to the 
text circulated by Singapore at the Room W session on 20 April 2006 are in bold.    
 "1. We reaffirm that the sectoral tariff 
 reduction  component on a critical mass 
 basis  is another key element to achieving 
 the objectives of Paragraph 16 of the  Doha Ministerial Declaration.  The 
 sectoral initiatives shall aim to reduce or 
 as appropriate elimin ate tariffs, including 
 the reduction or elimination of tariff 
 peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation,  
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 10 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
review proposals with a view to identifying those which could 
garner sufficient participation to  be realized.  Participation 
should be on a non-mandatory basis. 
  over and above that which  would be 
 achieved by the formula modality.  
 2. We recognise the good progress 
 made in a variety of sectors which are  being pursued on a non-mandatory 
 participation basis.  Discussions have 
 focused on defining the critical mass,  scope of product coverage, 
 implementation schedule and special 
 and differential treatment for 
 developing-country participants. 
  3. At the Hong Kong Ministerial 
 Conference, Ministers instructed 
 members to identify sectors which  could garner sufficient participation.  
 Members have started submitting 
 specific textual proposals on the  following sectors:  Autos and related 
 parts, Bicycles and related parts, 
 Chemicals, Electronics/Electrical  products, Fish and fish products, Forest 
 products, Pharmaceuticals and medical 
 devices, Gems and Jewelry, Raw  materials, Sports equipment, Hand 
 Tools and Textiles, Clothing and 
 Footwear.  
   
 4. We instruct participating members of 
 the sectoral initiatives to intensify their 
 work and finalise the details of each 
 sector with respect to the critical mass  level, product coverage, implementation 
 schedule, end rates and appropriate 
 provisions for special and differential  treatment for developing-country 
 participants. 
   
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 11July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 5. The outcome of the sectoral 
 negotiations should be incorporated on 
 a conditional basis  in the draft 
 comprehensive schedules of 
 participating members no later than 31  July 2006.  Work could continue 
 thereafter, if necessary, to encourage 
 broader participation by members in the  sectoral initiatives referred to under 
 paragraph 3 above or in any additional 
 sectoral initiatives aiming at greater-
 than-formula reduction or elimination of 
 tariffs in particular on products of 
 export interests to developing 
 countries." 
 
   
There was broad support for the Singapore  text. However, some Members expressed concern that 
the language did not take into account the 
concerns of non-participating Members about the impact that such initiatives may have on 
products of export interest or potential export 
interest to them.   
  Turkey has submitted a proposal on 
harmonization of duties in the textile and clothing sector as well as language which 
amended the Singapore text. While some 
Members feel that such a sectoral initiative complies with the mandate because it will result 
in the ”liberalization or harmonization” of a 
sector and should therefore be included in the language on sectorals, sever al others feel that as 
this initiative does not foresee formula cuts, it 
does not comply with the mandate; particularly 
as the mandate speaks of line-by-line formula 
cuts with  no a priori exclusions.  
    
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 12 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
  
8. We agree that developing-country participants shall have 
longer implementation periods for tariff reductions.  In addition, they shall be given the following flexibility: 
 
   
 (a) applying less than formula cuts to up to [10] 
percent of the tariff lines provided that the cuts 
are no less than half the formula cuts and that 
these tariff lines do not exceed [10] percent of the total value of a Member's imports; or 
 
 (b) keeping, as an exceptio n, tariff lines unbound, or 
not applying formula cuts for up to [5] percent of 
tariff lines provided they do not exceed [5] 
percent of the total value of a Member's imports. 
 
We furthermore agree that this flexibility could not be used to 
exclude entire HS Chapters.  
 
  
 Flexibilities for developing  Members subject to the 
formula  
 
8. We agree that developing-country participants shall 
have longer implementation peri ods for tariff reductions.  In 
addition, they shall be given the following flexibility: 
 
  
 (a) applying less than formula cuts to up to 
[10] percent of the national tariff lines 
provided that the cuts are no less than half 
the formula cuts and that these tariff lines do not exceed [10] percent of the total 
value of a Member's non-agricultural 
imports; or 
 
 (b) keeping, as an exception, tariff lines 
unbound, or not applying formula cuts for up to [5] percent of national tariff lines 
provided they do not exceed [5] percent of 
the total value of a Member's non-
agricultural  imports. 
 
We furthermore agree that this flexibility could not be used to exclude entire HS Chapters. 
 
  
  
There has been no recent discussion on the 
implementation period. Some Members had 
indicated  in the past that this would depend on 
the level of the formula cut.   
  
On the flexibilities, understanding has been 
reached on  some technical  issues as follows:   
 
-"provided that the cuts are no less than half the formula cuts" means 50% of the formula cut or 
more at the discretion of Members. 
  
-Reference to imports was to non-agricultural  
imports.  
- Reference to tariff lines is to "national tariff 
lines".  
- Reference to flexibilities not being used "to 
exclude entire HS chapters" can be interpreted only in a strictly legal manner. 
 
The issue of transparency i.e. giving advance notice of products to be covered by Paragraph 8 
remains unresolved.   
 
Mexico also submitted the following textual 
proposal:   "Developing country Members that do 
 not use the flexibilities provided for in 
 paragraph 8 of Annex B of the July  Framework, will be allowed 5 
 additional points in the coefficient in 
 the application of the tariff reduction  formula. "  
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 13July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
Some Members have supported this proposal but indicted reservations about the number 5.  
Others have expressed opposition, arguing that it 
would establish a precedent for an a-la-carte application of the formula.  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  On the numbers in paragraph 8, no progress has 
been made.  Some Members feel that the current numbers are a bare minimum, others feel that 
they are too high.  Some feel that paragraph 8 is 
a stand-alone provision which should not be 
influenced by the formula discussion, while 
others feel that the numbers in paragraph 8 are very closely tied to the l evel of the coefficient in 
the formula.   
 
 
  
 
9. We agree that least-developed country participants shall not be required to apply the formula nor participate in the sectorial 
approach, however, as part of their contribution to this round of 
negotiations, they are expected to substantially increase their level of binding commitments. 
 Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) 
 
 
Flexibilities for LDCs  
 Language on paragraph 9 of the NAMA 
Framework was proposed by the LDCs as follows:   
 
"We recall the decision of July 2004   
General Council to exempt LDCs from 
participating in the formula for tariff 
reduction and the sectoral approach. However, as part of their contribution to 
this Round of negotiations, LDCs are 
expected to substantially increase their level of tariff binding commitments.  We 
therefore reaffirm that individual LDCs 
will determine the extent and level of 
tariff binding commitments in 
accordance with their individual development objectives."  
  
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 14 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
  
 
  
 
   
    
 
  
 
   
There is broad support for this language, but a proposal was made to amend it to include an 
encouragement to LDCs  to consider making 
tariff reductions if they feel that it is in their interest to do so.  This amendment remains to be 
addressed. 
 
 
 
10. Furthermore, in recognition of the need to enhance the 
integration of least-developed countries into the multilateral 
trading system and support the diversification of their production and export base, we call upon developed-country participants and 
other participants who so decide, to grant on an autonomous basis 
duty-free and quota-free market  access for non-agricultural 
products originating from least-developed countries by the year 
[…]. 
  Market Access for LDCs
  
 
The following language was proposed by the 
LDCs:  
  "When Members submit their 
comprehensive draft schedules of 
concessions, they shall indicate how they intend to implement the 
commitments they assumed under the 
Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-Developed Countries  contained in 
paragraph 36 of Annex F of the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Declaration.  In particular, they shall indicate: 
 
 - how they intend to provide 
 duty  free and quota free 
 market access on a lasting 
 basis for non-agricultural  products originating 
 from LDCs by 2008;  
 
 - the  means they will adopt to 
  provide duty-free and quota-
  free market access in a manner   that ensures stability, security 
  and predictability; and   
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 15July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
  
 
  - which products they intend to 
exclude initially from duty-free 
and quota-free market access, 
the steps they intend to take to 
progressively achieve compliance with the obligation 
to provide duty free and quota-
free market access to all products from all LDCs; and 
the time frame within which 
they intend to complete those steps; and 
 
   - the steps they intend to take to 
ensure that preferential rules of 
origin applicable to imports 
from LDCs will be transparent, 
simple and contribute to facilitating market access in 
respect of non-agricultural 
products. 
 
 Developing Country Members 
shall be permitted to phase in their commitments and shall 
enjoy appropriate flexibility in 
coverage." 
 
There was no agreement on this language. The 
questions raised were whether this language 
should recall and reaffirm the decision in Annex 
F of the Hong Kong Mini sterial Declaration and 
whether this issue should be dealt with in the 
NAMA modalities or horizontally.  
 
 
 
11. We recognize that newly acceded Members shall have recourse to special provisions for tariff reductions in order to take 
into account their extensiv e market access commitments Newly Acceded Members
 
 
  
  
 
The following language was proposed by Croatia on behalf of the NAMs it represents.  
  
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 16 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
undertaken as part of their acce ssion and that staged tariff 
reductions are still being implemented in many cases.  We instruct the Negotiating Group to further elaborate on such provisions. 
  "Based on the Paragraph 11 of Annex B 
of the July Framework the Negotiating Group on Market Access reiterates that 
Recently Acceded Members shall have 
recourse to special provisions for tariff reductions in order to take into account 
their extensive market access 
commitments undertaken  as part of their 
accession.  Therefore, the  Negotiating 
Group shall reach decision on such 
provisions which would effectively 
address the concerns by RAMs  no later 
than 30 days from reaching the agreement on numbers in the area of 
formula, unbound duties and paragraph 
8 flexibilities." 
 
There was consensus on this language.  
However, it is clear that the logic of this proposal is going to disappear, as we are not 
going to reach full modalities by end-April.   
 In any event, the questions which will need to be 
addressed post-April are: 1) Who is a NAM?;  
 2) What treatment should they be accorded?; and 3) Should the treatment be the same for all 
the NAMs? 
  
   
 
 
12. We agree that pending agreement on core modalities for 
tariffs, the possibilities of supplementary modalities such as zero-for-zero sector elimination, sectorial harmonization, and request & 
offer, should be kept open. Supplementary Modalities
 
 
   
 
There has been no recent  discussion.  
Presumably these supplementary modalities will be used once the formula had been agreed to.  
 
13. In addition, we ask developed-country participants and 
other participants who so decide to consider the elimination of low duties. Elimination of low duties
 There has been no recent  discussion. 
Presumably this question will be taken up after agreement on the formula and at the discretion 
of Members.   
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 17July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
   
 
 14. We recognize that NTBs are an integral and equally 
important part of these negotiations and instruct participants to 
intensify their work on NTBs.  In particular, we encourage all participants to make notifications on NTBs by 31 October 2004 
and to proceed with identification, examination, categorization, 
and ultimately negotiations on NTBs.  We take note that the modalities for addressing NTBs in these negotiations could include 
request/offer, horizontal, or verti cal approaches; and should fully 
take into account the principle of special and differential treatment 
for developing and least-developed country participants. 
  
22. We note that the Negotiating Group has made 
progress in the identification, categorization and examination of notified NTBs.  We also take note that Members are 
developing bilateral, vertical a nd horizontal approaches to the 
NTB negotiations, and that some of the NTBs are being addressed in other fora including other Negotiating Groups.  
We recognize the need for speci fic negotiating proposals and 
encourage participants to make such submissions as quickly as 
possible. 
 Non-tariff barriers (NTBs)
  
 
The following language is a mix of the texts 
proposed by the US and the EC.  
 
 "We reaffirm that NTBs are an integral 
and equally important element to 
achieving the objectives of paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
The NTB initiatives shall aim to reduce 
or eliminate non-tariff barriers and will 
enhance market access opportunities 
achieved through the tariff formula modality and sectoral initiatives.  
 
 Progress has been made in the 
identification, examination and 
categorization of non-tariff barriers, 
including on horizont al issues such as 
export taxes, export restrictions and 
remanufactured goods, as well as on 
vertical initiatives on automobiles, electronic products, textiles, clothing 
and footwear and wood products.  
Discussions have focused on defining the nature of the barrier, the scope of 
products affected and potential 
solutions.   Some Members have also already submitted their specific 
negotiating proposals. We note that 
some of the NTBs are being addressed 
in other fora, including other 
Negotiating Groups.  
 
 Negotiations are now required to obtain 
the results expected by Members in this area. We take note of the deadlines for 
negotiating proposals and bilateral 
requests suggested by the Chairman of  
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 18 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
the Negotiating Group as guidance for 
the work.  In particular, Members shall  endeavour to table their horizontal and 
vertical proposals by 30 April 2006 so 
as to allow text-based negotiations to begin in early May.  Members' bilateral 
requests, shall also, in principle, be 
submitted by 30 April, with revised requests and offers due by 31 May and 
30 June respectively.  
 
 Members are instruct ed to finalize their 
work in 2006 before the conclusion of the tariff reduction process, including 
the multilateralization of the outcomes  
through inter alia  incorporating them 
where appropriate into Part III of 
schedules.  We recall that these non-
tariff barrier negotiations can include request/offer, horizontal and vertical 
approaches and they should also take 
fully into account the principle of special and differential treatment for 
developing and least-developed country 
participants."  
 
There was broad support for this text. However, 
some Members take the view that  measures such as export taxes and export restrictions are not 
part of the mandate and should not be discussed 
in the Negotiating Group.  
 
Depending on when modalities are established and the state of play of the NTB negotiations at 
that time, this language would need to be 
adapted.   
   TN/MA/18/Rev.1
 Page 19July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
 
 
15. We recognize that approp riate studies and capacity 
building measures shall be an integral part of the modalities to be 
agreed.  We also recognize the work that has already been undertaken in these areas and ask participants to continue to 
identify such issues to improve participation in the negotiations. 
 Appropriate Studies and Capacity Building Measures
 
 
  
  
 
This language was provided by the LDCs.   
 
 "In recognition of the special situation 
of LDCs, we commit ourselves as part 
of these negotiations to developing and 
enhancing effective delivery mechanisms to build trade capacity  to 
assist LDCs in  addressing challenges 
that may arise from increased 
competition as a result of  MFN tariff 
reduction and inherent supply-side capacity constraints.  These 
mechanisms shall be designed to enable 
LDCs to take advantage of increased market access opportunities and shall 
assist them to meet technical  
standards/requirements, comply with rules of origin, and to address product 
and market diversification as well as to 
cope with other non-tariff measures." 
 
A suggestion was made to include a reference to Aid For Trade, the Integrated Framework and 
the Global Trust Fund as the instruments which 
will  enhance  the trade capacity of LDCs.   This suggested amendment remains to be addressed. 
 
 
  
16. We recognize the challenges  that may be faced by non-
reciprocal preference beneficiary Members and those Members that are at present highly dependent  on tariff revenue as a result of 
these negotiations on non-agricultural products.  We instruct the 
Negotiating Group to take into cons ideration, in the course of its 
work, the particular needs that may arise for the Members 
concerned. 
 Non-reciprocal preferences  and tariff revenue 
dependency  
  
  
The situation is difficult insofar as positions 
continue to be extremely polarized on the issue of non-reciprocal preferences.  While more work 
has been done in respect of assessing the scope 
of the problem, and there is a recognition that both the number of Members and number of 
products affected are limited,  in the view of some  
  
  TN/MA/18/Rev.1 
Page 20 July Framework, modified or supplemented by the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration (in bold), as appropriate NAMA modalities Chairman's remarks 
20. As a supplement to paragraph 16 of the NAMA 
Framework, we recognize the cha llenges that may be faced by 
non-reciprocal preference beneficiary Members as a 
consequence of the MFN liberaliz ation that will result from 
these negotiations.  We instruct the Negotiating Group to intensify work on the assessment of the scope of the problem 
with a view to findi ng possible solutions.  Members’ further assessment of the scope of the 
problem has to be undertaken on a line-by-line, and country-by-country basis.  
 
  Others feel that the scope of the problem has 
been assessed and there now needs to be trade solutions to address the identified problems. 
Such a trade solution could take the shape of a 
correction coefficient or longer implementation 
periods for affected products. However, another 
view has been expressed that only a solution such as Aid for Trade would be required and 
acceptable, and a solution which would not be 
detrimental to other developing Members.  
On tariff revenue dependency no textual 
proposal has been provided by the proponents on this issue.  
 
 17. We furthermore encourage the Negotiating Group to work 
closely with the Committee on Tr ade and Environment in Special 
Session with a view to addressi ng the issue of non-agricultural 
environmental goods covered in paragraph 31 (iii) of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration. 
 Non-agricultural environmental goods
 
  
 
There has been no recent discussion and the 
CTESS is continuing to work on this subject.  
 
 
24. We recognize that it is important to advance the 
development objectives of this Round through enhanced 
market access for developing countries in both Agriculture 
and NAMA.  To that end, we instruct our negotiators to ensure that there is a comparably high level of ambition in market access for Agricultu re and NAMA.  This ambition 
is to be achieved in a balanced and proportionate manner consistent with the principle of special and differential 
treatment.
  A proposal (TN/MA/W/67) has been made in 
respect of operationalizing this paragraph.  
While there was some support for this proposal, and most Members thought it a useful 
contribution to the negotiations, many of the 
Members who have taken the floor during discussions on this issue were of the view that 
individual Members will judge for themselves 
whether the requirements of this paragraph have been met.  
__________