. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/79 
6 July 2006 
 
 (06-3263) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
  
 
NAMA 11 MINISTERIAL COMMUNIQUÉ 
 
29 JUNE 2006, GENEVA 
 
Communication from the NAMA 11 Group of Developing Country
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 4 July 2006 , has been received from the Delegations of 
Argentina, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil , Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, 
South Africa and Tunisia. 
_______________ 
 
 
1. Ministers of the NAMA 11 group of developing countries1 met in Geneva on 29 June 2006, to 
assess the progress of negotiations and to contribute to  the objective of achieving a fair, balanced and 
development oriented set of NAMA modalities predicated on the following mandated principles:  
• placing development concerns at the heart of the negotiations;  
• ensuring “less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments” for developing 
countries;  
• comparable level of ambition with agricultural market access; and  
• appropriate flexibilities to manage adjustme nt costs and address development needs. 
 2. Ministers  call attention to the comprehensive set of proposals submitted by NAMA 11 on all 
elements of the modalities, including those of con cern to other developing countries. Our endeavour 
will be to address all these concerns for a fair and balanced outcome.  
3. Ministers recall  the unprecedented agreement for all Members to undertake tariff cuts in 
NAMA using a Swiss formula with coefficients.  What ever the coefficients agreed, this formula will 
entail deep line-by-line cuts, particularly on the higher tariffs. This represents a significant 
contribution by developing countries. 
4. Ministers noting  that the objective of an ambitious outcome can be achieved only through 
tariff reductions greater than those in previous Rounds, express concern that developed countries are 
offering a reduction of only 20% to 30%. In sharp contrast, in this development Round, developing 
country Members are being asked to undertake tariff reductions of 60% to 70%. This inverts the mandate of “less than full reciprocity in reduc tion commitments” by developing countries.  
5. Ministers  recall  that some proposals have sought to en sure “less than full reciprocity in 
reduction commitments” through an appropriate spread between the coefficients. A Swiss formula 
with two coefficients, based on reductions from bound rates, may also deliver on this mandate, 
provided that there is a difference of at least 25 points between the coefficients for developed and 
                                                     
 
1 Argentina, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Braz il, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, 
South Africa and Tunisia. TN/MA/W/79 
Page 2  
 
  developing countries.  This is imperative to take into account their respective levels of 
industrialization and competitiveness; social and econom ic situations; and their capacity to bear the 
costs of adjustment. 
6. Ministers  note  the substantial autonomous tariff liber alisation by developing countries since 
the Uruguay Round resulting in dramatic increases in imports; whereas developed countries continue 
to retain tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalati on, particularly on the products of export interest of 
developing countries. This imbalance has to be rectified.  
7. Ministers  stress  that the numbers in brackets in paragraph 8 are the bare minimum and as 
such a higher number of tariff lines and larger tr ade coverage would be required by developing 
countries to address specific situations. We reiterate that a fair mark-up on unbound tariffs is needed 
to address the sensitivity attached to both low and high unbound tariff lines.  
8. Ministers  underscore  that an ambitious result in NAMA is possible, but not at the expense of 
the development dimension of the Round. Developing countries cannot be expected to pay for the Round whilst developed countries make minimal re ductions to their own industrial tariffs and 
continue to retain their subsidies and a llow only limited market access in Agriculture. 
__________