WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/22 
22 March 2010 
 (10-1517) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access  
  
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON MARKET ACCESS 
 
Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Luzius Wasescha, to 
 
the Trade Negotiations Committee for the purpose of the TNC stocktaking exercise   
 
22 March 2010  
  
I. STATUS OF WORK 
1.1 Since the draft modalities text (TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3) dated 6 December 2008 and my 
progress report in JOB(08)/133 of 17 December 2008,  the Negotiating Group has met 13 times, either 
in the context of open-ended transparency sessi ons, NAMA weeks or at senior official level
1.  Since 
early 2009, the situation, in my view, has evol ved in three areas, namely (a) non-tariff barriers 
(NTBs); (b) sectorals insofar as substantial techni cal work has been done by the sponsors of such 
initiatives; and (c) scheduling.    
(a) NTBs 
1.2 On NTBs, some very useful work was unde rtaken in the past year. Before, the initial 
expectation was to address this component of the NAMA negotiation in detail once the modalities 
were adopted. However, at the start of 2009, in the absence of modalities and pending their adoption, 
NTBs were identified as an area where useful work could be done in the interim.  As a result, the 
Negotiating Group held several dedicated sessions on NTBs.  These sessions provided an opportunity 
for an exchange of  questions and answers on th e various NTB proposals.  Towards the end of the 
year, these question and answer sessions were replaced by a more text-based negotiation in smaller groups.  The focus has been on the seven proposals wh ich have been identified in the draft modalities 
text as meriting special attention as well as an a dditional TBT-related sectoral/vertical proposal 
submitted in 2009.  The latter was considered by the Group because it concerned a sector which was 
already the subject of a proposal. I refer to th ese texts as "wagon 1" proposals.  Two additional 
proposals addressing the cross-cutting issues in th e TBT-related sectoral proposals were also 
submitted in 2009. These have now been merged in to one "Framework" proposal that addresses a 
number of horizontal issues relevant to Member s' understanding of the TBT Agreement.  Regarding 
all other NTB proposals which clearly remain on the table and which I have classified as "wagon 2" 
proposals, my intention is to hold consultations on how to handle them after this stocktaking 
exercise.
2  
 
                                                           
1 In this connection, I would like to recall that I had addressed several questions to senior officials for 
their meeting beginning the week of 19 October 2009 which have been reproduced in Annex I of this document.  
2 Document TN/MA/S/21/Rev.3 cont ains a comprehensive listing of the most recent version of the 
NTB proposals as well as all other documents circulated by Members in respect of the NTB negotiation since 
early 2009.  TN/MA/22 
Page 2  
 
  1.3 I would like to make the following brief comments on the state of play of the various 
"wagon 1" proposals under consider ation in the Negotiating Group. 
 
(i) Horizontal Proposals 
1.4 Horizontal Mechanism :  this proposal enjoys broad support, however, concerns continue to be 
expressed about inter alia the proposed scope of the Mechanism, its relationship to the work of 
existing Committees and its relationship to the DSU.   
1.5 Remanufactured Goods : the text on remanufactured goods has been the subject of intensive 
discussion.  It envisages a work programme in the CTG, nevertheless, concerns pursue on inter alia 
the definition of a remanufactured good and whether a Ministerial Decision is warranted to launch 
such a work programme.  
(ii) TBT-related sectoral
3 proposals  
1.6 Electronics and Automobiles :  Four proposals – two each from two Members – address the 
electronics and automotive sectors.  The approaches  followed by the two Members are different, for 
instance with respect to the use of relevant inte rnational standards and approaches to conformity 
assessment.  Currently, the ongoing negotiating process is attempting to see what elements are shared 
between the two proposals in each sector.    1.7 Labelling of Textiles, Clothing, Footwear, and Travel Goods :  the text on the table has been 
the subject of intensive discussion.  Concerns continue to be expressed on certain aspects of the proposal.  In particular there has been discussi on on what types of measure would be rebuttably 
presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to in ternational trade such as the requirement to 
include country of origin in the label.   1.8 Chemicals : A proposal was submitted early this year  and the first discussion of this proposal 
was held during the most recent NAMA week.   Another proposal concerning this sector was 
circulated at the end of the same NAMA week.  Thes e proposals will be dealt with in the same way as 
the other sectoral proposals.  (b) Sectorals  
1.9 The sectoral negotiation continues to be led by the sponsors of such initiatives.  During the 
first half of 2009, the sponsors did detailed technical  work with a view to engaging with their trading 
partners on a factual basis with numbers, secto r-by-sector simulations, and country-by-country 
analysis.  The second-half was dedicated to outreach activities by them.  Regular reports on the activities pursued have been provided by the s ponsors of these initiatives to the Negotiating Group
4.  
 
(c) Scheduling 
1.10 As mentioned in the introductory paragraph,  the other area of work on which the Negotiating 
Group had focussed in 2009 was "scheduling" (i.e the exercise of preparing schedules).  In this 
connection, a Workshop on Electronic Negotiating Files (i.e. electronic schedules) was organized in July 2009 by the Secretariat.  A room document pr oviding technical details on how to schedule was 
also prepared by the Secretariat in order to assi st Members.  This workshop was found to be useful 
                                                           
3  These sectoral proposals are also referred to as vertical or industry-specific proposals. 
4 Annex II of this document reproduces reports submitted, at my request, by the co-sponsors of the 
sectoral tariff proposals of the work don e by them since early 2009.       TN/MA/22 
 Page 3 
 
 
  because it familiarized Members with the contents of a schedule and with the complex exercise of 
preparing such instruments.   Upon de mand this activity will be pursued.  
 
II. OUTSTANDING ISSUES 
2.1 In my view, there are two main issues. The fi rst pertaining to the level of ambition and the  
second to case-specific flexibilities.     
 
(a) Level of ambition 
2.2 The main gap continues to be the one in exis tence since July 2008, i.e. the view of some 
Members that the draft NAMA package (as reflected  in TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3) is unbalanced because 
of what they perceive as an inadequate level of  market access envisaged in some key markets and 
because of lack of clarity on the use of flexibilities.  As a result, there has been an attempt by those 
Members to pursue bilateral and/or sectoral negotiati ons with certain emerging trading partners with a 
view  to increasing the level of ambition.  However, on the side of  the latter,  i.e. Members to whom 
such requests have been made, there is a belief that  the contributions expected from them in the draft 
NAMA package are already demanding and any scope for additional market access will be limited, 
unless an additional price is paid by the "demande urs" either in NAMA or in the other negotiating 
areas.  
 
(b) Case-specific flexibilities (South Africa, Argentina and the Bolivarian Republic of  
Venezuela)   
2.3 Discussions on the request from South Africa fo r additional flexibilities are at a different  
stage from the discussions on the other two.   
 
(i) On South Africa,  intensive work took place prior to December 2008 and the status of that 
work is reflected in my report (JOB(08)/133) .  No further consultation has taken place on 
South Africa's request, but it is my perception that discussions on this matter would be more 
fruitful if conducted at a time when modalities are close to finalization. 
 (ii) On Argentina and Venezuela, I held consultations with those delegations bilaterally and in a 
 small group in early 2009.  Based on those c onsultations, I took the view that undertaking 
 further  discussions on those two requests at that time would be premature.  This continues to 
 be my view and I believe it is shared by the membership. 
 2.4 I had not cited "erosion of non-reciprocal pref erences" as a main issue but would note that a 
few Members who are reflected in Annex 4 (disproportionately affected Members) have expressed concerns about either what they consider the li mited number or value of the tariff lines allotted to 
them.  Many other Members have cautioned against re- opening this issue. In this connection, I would 
like to recall the observation I had made when submitting the draft modalities text in December 2008 which was that "I had identified preference erosi on as one of the more difficult issues in the initial 
stage of my consultations, and would like to further note that a solution for some Members claiming inclusion in Annex 4 could not be found, and neither could satis faction be provided to certain 
Members currently included in Annex 4.  Therefor e, the solution on this issue found after the July 
Ministerial appears to me the only viable one and is  the one reflected in the text.  Anyhow, everything 
is conditional in the deepest sense."   I believe th at this observation remains still true today.   
 III. FUTURE WORK 
 
3.1 Much of the future work in the Ne gotiating Group will focus on non-tariff barriers
 with a 
view to reaching a package of resu lts in the form of legal texts by the time of final modalities.  TN/MA/22 
Page 4  
 
  Concerning both the bilateral and sectoral discussions
 being undertaken to enhance the market access 
outcome, this process is in the hands of certain Members. In other words, the Negotiating Group as 
such is not involved presently. In this connection, I would observe that enlightening the rest of the 
membership regularly about what is going on would be  a useful step in allaying concerns which have 
been expressed about the lack of transparency in th is process, and here I am referring in particular to 
the bilaterals.   The stocktaking exercise might be an adequate platform for the Members involved to 
provide such enlightenment.  On the case-specific flexibilities , my observation is that the appropriate 
time to address these issues would be when we ar e at the final stages of the negotiation on the 
modalities.    IV.  ASSESSMENT  
 
4.1 The challenge before us is that of timing.  There is a risk that as time passes the draft 
modalities as contained in TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3 may become more fragile.  One should recall that 
they were negotiated in July 2008, almost two year s ago.  This is why the question of whether the 
bilateral process will lead to the kind of outcome s required to de-block the process and in what 
time-frame becomes primordial.  Clearly the bilateral process cannot go on ad infinitum and the onus 
is on those Members involved in such a process to info rm others accurately of the situation and of the 
prognostics of such a process achieving the desired results.     4.2 The Negotiating Group has the material to pursu e its activity on NTBs thanks to contributions 
by proponents, the question and answ er papers and the very direct c oncerns of private sectors having 
been consulted in developed and developing Members alike. 
 4.3 From a NAMA point of view,  an additional process which would address specific issues such 
as those referred to in Section II of my report might provide additional momentum. 
 
 
_______________ 
  TN/MA/22 
 Page 5 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
 
CHAIR'S QUESTIONS FOR SENIOR OFFICIALS - NAMA  
 
 
NTBs  
 
(1) A large number of documents on NTBs ha ve been submitted by Members since last 
December, questions and answers ha ve been exchanged, what do you see as the next steps in this 
process? 
 
(2) Are the authors of proposals concerning the sa me area ready to work together to come up 
with a common proposal?  If yes, in what time frame?  (3) When are the promoters of  certain proposals or proposed ideas going to submit specific legal 
texts?  Does early November (i.e. next  NAMA week) look like a feasible date? 
 
Preference Erosion
 
 
(1) In respect of the solution reflected in A nnexes 2, 3 and 4 of the draft modalities text 
(TN/MA/W/103/Rev.3),  what is your assessment of the additional possibility to better accommodate 
the disproportionately affected Members? 
 
Sectorals  
 
(1) How would the sponsors of sectorals describe their ongoing process?  Does any sectoral look 
promising? 
  (2) Are we really talking about sectorals in their present form, or is the issue specific tariff lines 
(or a very small sub-set of tariff lines)?  If this is the case, once again is the issue getting more market 
access on those lines or is it ensuring that th ey are not covered by flexibilities?   
 Case-specific flexibilities
 
 
(1) Do you share the Chair's assessment that as long as the other questions are not addressed, it 
will not be possible to devise soluti ons for Argentina and Venezuela? 
 
(2) Do you agree that for South Africa we have a basis to pursue work? 
 
Scheduling  
 
(1) Should a demonstration of scheduling be prep ared for Senior Officials for their November 
meeting? TN/MA/22 
Page 6  
 
  ANNEX II 
 
COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PROPONENTS
 
 
 
Automotives and related parts  (Japan) 
 
 We have been trying to draw key Members’ attention to this sectoral initiative. We will 
continue to seek possibility for su ccessful auto tariff elimination.  
 
Bicycle and related parts  (Singapore; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei, and Thailand) 
Hand tools  (Chinese Taipei) 
Sports equipment  (Norway; Singapore, Switzerland; Chinese Taipei and the United States) 
 
 From the first half of 2009, bilateral consulta tions have been held with the key traders and 
interested Members of the sectoral initiatives on "spor ts equipment", "bicycles and related parts" and 
"hand tools". These consultations are Member-dri ven and based on statistical analyses of the 
respective Members’ trade and tariff profiles. In  addition, the World Federation of Sports Goods 
Industries (WFSGI) has reaffirmed its support in  both 2009 and 2010 for the initiative on "sports 
equipment".   
 The co-sponsors of these three sectoral initiatives are convinced that their success will be of 
particular benefit to developing country Members. They are pleased with the constructive discussions 
so far and will continue to engage in further outreach work, including special efforts to make 
appropriate arrangements for developi ng country Members in order to facilitate their participation.  
 Chemicals
 (Canada; the European Union; Japan; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; 
Chinese Taipei; United States) 
 
 Since January 2009, the co-sponsors of chem icals have held three major rounds of 
consultations with WTO Members focused on: 1) the globalized nature of the industry; 2) international tariffs and trade flows; 3) global investment, production and trade in this sector, and 
the increasing role of developing countries; and 4)  how tariffs on chemicals inputs add costs to other 
NAMA and agricultural products. These discussions ai med to facilitate Members’ consultations on 
participating in the chemicals tariff sectoral.  
Electronics/electrical products
 (Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; Singapore; Thailand and the 
United States)  
 Since January 2009, the co-sponsors of the E/E s ector have done a series of consultations with 
a number of potential participants both here in Ge neva and in capitals. The discussions have focused 
mainly on Members’ trade and tariff profiles in orde r to better understand to what extent flexibilities, 
such as special and differential treatment on ta riff elimination or implementation period, are 
necessary.  We will make further outreaching activ ities to key members, seeking a more acceptable 
package for major traders and pr oducers in the E/E sector.  
 
Fish and fish products
 (Canada; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; New Zealand; Norway; Oman; 
Singapore; Thailand and Uruguay) 
 
 New Zealand and co-sponsors have continued to  promote the fish and fish products sectoral, 
notably through a series of outreach meetings held since September 2009 which have focussed on 
analysis of various Members' tariff profiles and trade flows.  This year, co-sponsors would like to continue and broaden this kind of discussion with a view to eventual further negotiations on a fish  TN/MA/22 
 Page 7 
 
 
  sectoral initiative.  Co-sponsors continue to highlight the potential for this sectoral to contribute to a 
meaningful development outcome for the Round. 
 
Forest products  (Canada; Hong Kong, China; New Zeala nd; Singapore; Switzerland; Thailand, 
Ukraine and the United States) 
  Since January 2009, numerous Member-driven c onsultations at the bila teral and plurilateral 
level have been held by the majo r forest products traders to explore individual and sectoral level tariff 
and trade profiles in that sector.  These fact-b ased discussions have allowed these Members to 
examine in detail the potential areas of sensitivity as well as the potential economic gains, even where 
free trade agreements exist, that a successful forest sectoral will bring to WTO Members in 
anticipation of plurilateral negotiations  on the Forest Products initiative. 
 
Gems and jewellery
 (Australia; Canada; the European Union; Hong Kong, China; Japan; 
Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; Thailand;  Chinese Taipei and the United States) 
 
 Since the second half of 2009, the co-sponsors of the Gems and Jewelry sector have done a 
series of outreach consultations with a number of  major and potential Gems and Jewellery producers 
and traders. The consultations have been held separately with individual Members and also on the 
regional basis. The discussions have focused mainly  on Members’ trade and tariff profiles. We have 
received some positive interests and also some particul ar concerns related to trade in this sector. At 
present, there are 11 co-sponsors for the draft gems and jewellery sectoral modalities, which 
constitute approximately 70% of the global trade in  this sector. The co-sponsors will continue their 
efforts to engage as many potential members as possi ble with an aim to further improve all elements 
in our draft Gems and Jewellery modalities.  
 
Open access to enhanced healthcare  (Singapore; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei  and the 
United States)   
 
 Since June 2009, the co-sponsors of the "open access to enhanced healthcare" initiative 
(below referred to as "enhanced healthcare") have conducted bilatera l consultations with many large 
healthcare traders. The fact-based discussions have allowed to explore the technical details of the 
trade and tariff profile of those Members’ healthcare products industry (which includes 
pharmaceuticals and medical devices). Based on t hose discussions, the co-sponsors have tried 
to better understand the characteristics of individual trade flows and market access conditions in this 
area as well as sensitivities pertaining to the sector. They  have also tried to identify, with a certain 
degree of detail, the economic interests that would benefit from the success of the "enhanced 
healthcare" initiative. The co-sponsors will continue their efforts and further discuss on the "enhanced 
healthcare" initiative at bilateral and plurilateral levels since, they believe, it is of interest to the whole 
Membership.  
Raw materials
 (Australia and United Arab Emirates) 
  Co-sponsors of the raw materials sectoral have continued their outreach activities, 
undertaking consultations with individual member s on the proposal.  The co-sponsors will continue 
their efforts to engage potential participants  
Industrial machinery
 (Canada; the European Union; Japan; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; 
Chinese Taipei and the United States)  
 Since April 2009, Member-driven consultations at the bilateral and plurilateral level have 
been held between the major indu strial machinery traders to explore individual and sectoral level 
tariff and trade profiles in that sector as well as to discuss the relationship of these products to a TN/MA/22 
Page 8  
 
  Member's economic development and the recent un ilateral tariff reduction announcements of some 
Members.  These fact-based discussions have a llowed these Members to examine in detail the 
potential areas of sensitivity as well as the potential be nefits a successful industrial machinery sectoral 
will bring to WTO Members in anticipation of negotiations on industrial machinery initiative. 
 
Textiles, clothing and footwear
 (European Union) 
 
 Since the second half of 2009, the EU has held  an outreach session on a textiles, clothing and 
footwear sectoral, as well as bilateral and plurilate ral consultations. The aim has been to acquaint 
Members with the trade and tariff situation for th ese products, which should facilitate their assessment 
of possible participation in negotiations.  
 
Toys  (Hong Kong, China; Chinese Taipei) 
 
 We have been trying to invite Members to join  the sectoral initiative with a view to achieving 
further tariff reduction in the sector.  Subject to Me mbers' responses, we would continue to explore 
possibilities to develop the initiative further.  
__________