WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
TN/MA/23 
18 July 2012  
 
(12-3916) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access  
  
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS 
 
Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Luzius Wasescha 
 
18 July 2012 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The last written report I circulated is da ted 21 April 2011 (TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3/Add.1).  
That report has been supplemented over the year by  regular updates provided by the Chairman of the 
TNC regarding the state of play of the NAMA negotia tions.  On the eve of my departure as Chairman 
of the Negotiating Group, which I have had the honour of chairing since October 2008, I wished to provide negotiators and my successor with some observations concerning this area of the DDA 
negotiations.    2. What I have noted in the last few years, (since 2008) is that there is little enthusiasm in 
Members to follow a reform agenda either becau se people believe markets will solve issues or 
because the forces opposed to any change are t oo strong for supporting reform policies of 
governments.  This is especially true for pred ictable market opening through bound tariff reductions. 
In fact, since I have become Chair of the Negotiati ng Group, tariffs have not been discussed in detail 
in the group.  Over the last th ree years, the Negotiating Group has been mainly spending its time 
furthering its understanding of the various non-tari ff barrier (NTB) proposals and conducting a text-
based negotiation on some of them.   3. In this document, I intend to first address ta riffs, then take up NTBs and finally provide some 
conclusions.    II. TARIFFS 
4. As reported by me and also highlighted by the TNC Chair in his report dated 21 April 2011 
(TN/C/14), we are facing a logjam in the tariff ne gotiations.  Several attemp ts have been made by 
Members to break the stalemate but to no avail.   
5. At MC8 Ministers recognized "that Members n eed to more fully explore different negotiating 
approaches while respecting the principles of transpar ency and inclusiveness."  In this context, they 
committed "to advance negotiations, where progress can  be achieved, includ ing focusing on the 
elements of the Doha Declaration that allow Memb ers to reach provisional or definitive agreements 
based on consensus earlier than the full conclusion of the single undertaking."  They also stressed that 
they would " intensify their efforts to look into ways that may allow Members to overcome the most 
critical and fundamental stalemates in the areas where multilateral convergence has proven to be especially challenging."  Finally, they maintained th at in their negotiations, they would "continue their 
work based on the progress already made".    TN/MA/23 
Page 2  
 
  6. In spite of my very best ef forts to prod Members into thinking of new negotiating approaches 
including by putting forward my own ideas such as  scheduling offers without  waiting for any formal 
adoption of modalities, it is clear to me that fo r some Members the draft modalities in their present 
shape are not a suitable basis to move forward on.  At the same time, it is equally clear that it is not possible for other Members at this stage to discard a text which they have spent ten years negotiating 
and which reflect their interests. So, how do we move forward?  
 7. One option might be the use of safety valves.  What do I mean by this?  The concept is not 
new.  A safety valve allows Members to be more r eceptive to bound tariff reductions or - put another 
way - to an increase in the level of ambition because they have the po ssibility of respite in difficult 
times.  It affords a degree of comfort to Members that in case difficulties ari se because of such tariff 
concessions, they have access to the requisite breathing space, especially accompanying the implementation phase.   8. A tool which serves this dual purpose might go some way in breaking the logjam we are 
facing in the NAMA tariff negotiations.  Clearly such a mechanism cannot be invoked in an 
indiscriminate fashion; neither can its conditions of use be too strict. So, devising such a tool as well 
as the conditions of its use will be a challenge.  Me mbers could look at existing safety valves such as 
the Safeguard Agreement or the special safeguard  mechanism which was used in the Uruguay Round 
agricultural negotiations for some guidance.   
9. The other tool that Members might wish to cons ider is the time-frame for tariff cuts.   Rather 
than having a blanket time-frame which is what is currently provided for in the draft modalities text, 
retaining the possibility to extend or shorten the time- frame of cuts on individual items might assist in 
reaching the necessary balance betw een ambition and flexibility.   
 
10. If Members are ready to look beyond the modaliti es, then at this stage a pragmatic approach 
might be to shift to a traditional request/offer nego tiation limited in duration, for example, six months, 
and which may or may not be subject to any objec tives or benchmarks.  My inclination would be to 
go with the latter (i.e. no objectives), because Member s might take another 5 years to decide on such 
objectives.  Such a process might pave the way for some kind of a result, albeit minimum.    III. NON-TARIFF BARRIERS  
11. Since January 2009, the Negotiating Group h as done substantive amount of work on NTBs, 
more precisely NTB proposals which I have labe lled Wagon 1 proposals.   A question and answer 
phase followed by a text-based negotiation has got th e Negotiating Group to three draft working texts 
which I would stress have a fair number of square brackets.  I would like to say a few words on these 
working documents before turning to the other NTB proposals which have been under discussion in 
the Negotiating Group. I also intend to address Wagon 2 NTB proposals.   A. 
WAGON 1 NTB  PROPOSALS  
1. Horizontal Mechanism 
12. While a substantive amount of work took place in the small-group in the lead up to 
April 2011, which is reflected in the working doc ument attached to my 2011 report, not much has 
been done on the Horizontal Mechanis m (HM) since then.  It will be recalled that this proposal has 
broad support, at the same time opposition to it is  quite stiff. If one considers that it is a pure 
additional tool to prevent NTBs one might w onder whether this opposition is proportionate. I 
encourage the opponents to reflect whether they co uld not adopt a more cons tructive attitude in the 
light of the conclusions of MC8.  This remark al so applies to other Members in other areas of the 
NAMA negotiations.  TN/MA/23 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
13. The main issues of concern to th e opponents appear to be the:   
 
(1)   linkage of the HM with the DSU;   a paragraph has been proposed by a delegation on the 
DSU link, or more appropriately the absence of  such a link, which needs to be discussed 
further. What remains is to find adequate wording. 
 (2)   dilution of the role of Committees;  there is a fear that the HM will diminish the role of the 
Committee as a forum for raising and addr essing specific trade concerns. The current 
paragraph 3, which was a compromise, is not sufficient for those Members who believe that 
Members must take an issue first to the rele vant Committee before bringing it before the HM. 
The balance has to be found between the presen t role of the Committee and the informality 
and the rapidity of the HM. 
   (3)  scope of the mechanism; at issue is whethe r measures regulated by the Agreement on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Agreement ("SPS Agreement" ) and whether agricultural goods would be 
covered by this mechanism.   
 14. I believe that with the exception of the th ird issue (which in my view requires political 
guidance to be resolved), the other two issues as well as the subject of special and differential 
treatment, the review versus the sunset clause a nd timeframes among others can be addressed through 
further technical discussions, which could lead to an early outcome.   
 
2. Textile Labelling 
15. The proposal on textile labelling is where I be lieve the most progress was made. In terms of 
specifics, we advanced on the question of scope insofar as there was an understanding reached among 
the Members of the small group that interm ediate products woul d be covered by the 
Understanding.  Subsequently, the discussion revol ved around the differentiated treatment to which 
these products would be subject.  Country of origin  in paragraph 2 is a still a problem for some 
Members.   In spite of language which was pr oposed to address some of the concerns, more 
discussion and work would be required on this subject.   Paragraph 4 of the working text was also an 
area of concern and Members in the small group were trying to find  a way forward.  Language which 
was proposed by one delegation seemed to ha ve gone some way towards accommodating those 
concerns but more debate is requi red.  Other paragraphs which woul d need to be reverted to are 
paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 6.5.  The small group also ag reed that it made more sense for the transparency 
provisions in this working text to be addressed in the small group on Transparency.  In respect of the 
annex, a question still remained as to whether to in clude agricultural products within the scope of the 
Understanding or to exclude them. With some effort s on the technical level, an early outcome might 
be possible.  
 
3. Transparency 
16. The Group made significant progress in the area of  transparency.  In my view, this work is 
important because the trade effects of technical regulations and standards are particularly difficult to 
predict or assess.  While clearly the TBT Agreement already contains detailed disciplines in the area 
of transparency that have been further elaborat ed by the Committee, progress needs to be made and 
we started some of this work in the NAMA context,  and indeed we got quite far.  In particular, I 
would draw attention to the work which was starte d by delegations to find ways to improve the 
availability of information on the regulatory lifecycle of measures.  We considered, among other 
things, the benefits of early notification of re gulatory work (referred to by some as "Regulatory 
Agenda"), the importance of providing access to the full texts of notified draft  documents, including 
translated versions – even if only unofficial; we al so looked at the other end of the cycle, i.e., the TN/MA/23 
Page 4  
 
  benefits of communicating and ma king available the final, adopted  versions of regulations; the 
feasibility of the Secretariat setting up a repository of this information was also discussed.  Some 
Members also stressed the importance of increasing transparency in the setting of (voluntary) standards – as, in some cases, these are precursors to  technical regulations (mandatory).  I could only 
encourage continued technical work in this area, building on the progress already made – both in the 
NAMA context as well as in the context of regular  work. Here again an early outcome might be 
within reach. 
4. Remanufactured Goods (RG) 
17. This was a relatively unexplored area at the st art of the discussions in early 2009.  I believe 
that through workshops and other means the proponen ts of this proposal have tried and succeeded in 
enhancing the understanding of the membership of th is industry.  In this connection, for some 
Members further educational activities should be the substantive content of any outcome on 
remanufactured goods. For the proponents, this is  not sufficient and a "soft" commitment which 
would see the enhancement of market access on such  products would be a necessary outcome.   I 
believe that further acquainting Members with this industry through workshops would be useful.  As 
well, beginning a preliminary discussion on the defin ition of such products might stimulate further 
thinking on what is possible in this area.  Here a parallel member-driven activity is desirable.   
 
5. International standards 
18. Members are positive about the need to furthe r promote the use of relevant international 
standards.  On this there is general agreement.  Indeed, in my view, appropriate standard-setting 
procedures and a sound scientific basis will significant ly contribute to making international standards 
"globally" relevant – and the use of such standard s then becomes a form of technology transfer, as 
recognized by the TBT Agreement itself.   Of c ourse, it remains essential to ensure opportunities for 
meaningful participation by all Members in the st andard-setting process, including – and in particular 
– developing country Members.   Nevertheless, ev en where participation is assured, and even when 
the process is "right" – achieving "global" relevance (of international standards) remains a challenge.  
On the specifics, Members do not always agree on the "relevance" of a particular standard or 
standardizing body.   This creates uncertainty – an d uncertainty is never good for trade.  Hence, in 
moving forward, ways and means of improving the re levance of international standards to the WTO 
membership needs to be stressed.  The idea of strengthening the TBT Committee's principles on the 
development of international standards
1 to better facilitate cooperati on between standardizing bodies 
and the TBT Committee has been generally well receiv ed.  One place to start may be in exploring to 
what extent these principles have been used, what lessons can be drawn from this experience, and 
what further role the WTO can take upon itself to contribute to the promotion and use of standards 
that are relevant to the membership as a whole. As standards are not only tools that impact on 
rule-making but also products with a market valu e, it might be a challenge to devise a long term 
strategy with standard setting bodies. Such a common strategy, however, would facilitate a 
cooperative approach among Members and would help to prevent fragmentation of the global market.  
6. Other proposals in Wagon 1 
19. There remain several other proposals of a vertical (sectoral) nature on the table.  By that I am 
referring to autos and electronics which have not b een discussed for several months now.   To some 
extent the reason for this is that there is some overlap between what is contained in these proposals 
and what the Negotiating Group has been discussi ng in the area of transparency, international 
standards and conformity assessment.   I have ad vised Members that rather than duplicating our 
                                                      
1 Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations 
with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/1/Rev.10).   TN/MA/23 
 Page 5 
 
 
  efforts it might be more efficient to see how far we advance on the latter and then evaluate what 
remains to be addressed under the individual vertical  proposals.  The Chemicals proposal is, I believe, 
of another nature and requires a separate discussion. The same is true of the proposal entitled the   
"Framework for Industry-specific NTB Proposals".  
B. 
WAGON 2 NTB PROPOSALS  
20. I had labelled a number of proposals "Wagon 2" proposals as the intention had been to discuss 
them after addressing the proposals I had labelled "Wagon 1".   There has been yet no discussion of the former as focus has been on the latter.   I would note that the proposal on Forestry Products was 
withdrawn by the sponsor. This was the only progress here. 
 
21. A certain number of delegations have trie d to push their proposals by winning support from 
other Members and attempted to push them in Wagon 1 without success at this stage. 
 22. So in general on NTBs, since the beginning  of 2012, while some Members have shown 
willingness to continue technical work, a view has b een expressed that such work cannot take place in 
isolation from the tariff negotiatio n.  This has put us in a difficult situation given that tariff 
negotiations remain blocked.  As a result, we have been at a standstill for much of 2012.  
 
IV. PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 
23. The traditional mechanics on which the succes s of GATT tariff negotiations is built does not 
work in the Doha Round. After accepting a package of tariff reductions, Members used to implement 
these cuts, which led to some structural adjustme nts. These adjustments allowed Members to commit 
themselves to further cuts in the next negotiati on. This well experienced mechanism only works if 
governments are committed to an economic reform process. While this mood still existed until 2006, 
this avenue appears to be blocked at this stage.  The active participation of developed countries in 
tariff negotiations since 1947 has allowed medium ta riff rates to be brought down to levels where 
NAMA tariffs can no longer be considered as barrier s to trade. Tariff peaks remain however. Their 
elimination remains an objective of the negotiations.   
24. To establish an adequate balance of commi tments for those developing countries which are 
economically in a situation to do so is another objective. This should be achieved without creating 
specific groupings. Members do group themselves in cate gories according to their trade interests. In 
addition to the UN recognized group of LDCs, the group of SVEs and others  have emerged in the 
Doha Round. The draft modalities for the NAMA nego tiations show a great flexibility for all these 
situations.  The hesitation to engage in the bindi ng of autonomous tariff liberalization creates a 
perception that these Members are refraining from engaging. The system acknowledges the difference 
between bound and applied tariffs. This is the syst emic understanding of a policy space. I doubt that 
this concept has to be further expanded.  
25. Another imbalance has arisen from the fact th at newly acceded Members have had to cut their 
tariffs and bind them in a more extensive way th an founding Members of the GATT and/or the WTO. 
To correct this imbalance should be another objectiv e, even if it may conflict with the recognized 
approach of less than full reciprocity.  If Members wish to engage on the present basis, they may wish 
to review:  
 the dimension of the cuts (coefficients); 
 the flexibilities; and  
 the implementation periods. 
 TN/MA/23 
Page 6  
 
  26. One technical aspect which is open since th e conclusion of the Uruguay Round (UR) is the 
treatment of Initial Negotiating Rights. This subject is  not relevant for large exporters, but it might be 
crucial for many smaller and medium-sized exporters , allowing for a negotiating right in situations 
where concessions are withdrawn.  One could imag ine a simplification by taking the outcome of the 
UR as a starting point and building upon it. Such technical work could be addressed immediately. 
 
27. The global market through global value chains  demonstrates every day in a more significant 
way that market access issues may need new approach es, when the origin and the value of a product 
become global. WTO should become a bridge build er between the global markets and national trade 
policies. The Uruguay Round has allowed the estab lishment of parallelism between goods, services 
and intellectual property rights. The next logical  step would be to ex tend this parallelism to 
investment and competition policy. A further step w ould then be to integrate all these areas in a 
broader more coherent multilateral system.  28. It was a great honour for me to chair th e NAMA Negotiating Group. The moment has come 
to thank the Members, the Director-General and the NAMA-Team for their confidence, their support 
and the excellent work of "my" NAMA Team! I wish full success to WTO and especially to my 
successor as NAMA Chair.    
__________