RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/M/17
22 April 1999
(99-1642)
Committee on Market Access
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 11 MARCH 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Ole Lundby (Norway)
Agenda of the meeting
1. Adoption of the agenda....................................................................................................... ..1
2. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods including
factual information on waiver s expiring on 30 April 1999................................................1
3. Submission of HS96 documentation....................................................................................34. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ...........................................4
(a) Status of Submission of the Required  Documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.4)........................4
(b) Progress Report on the work done by the Secretariat .............................................................4
(c) Technical Assistance........................................................................................................ .......5
(d) Submission and dissemination of th e IDB – report by the Chairman.....................................5
5. Preparation of Consolidated Loose-Leaf Schedules on Goods .........................................7
6. Other business............................................................................................................... ........7
(a) New Zealand – Accelerated Ta riff Liberaliza tion Initia tive...................................................7
(b) Colombia – Rectification to Colombia's Schedule .................................................................8
(c) Submission of nationa l tariffs in 1999....................................................................................8
(d) Date of the next meeting.................................................................................................... .....8
1. Adoption of the agenda
The above agenda, as reproduced in doc ument WTO/AIR/1033 of 1 March 1999, was
adopted with the addition of items 6.(a) to (d).  The Committee agreed to postpone consideration of
the agenda item "Election of Chairperson" to its  next meeting as the Chairman of the Council for
Trade in Goods had not yet finalized consultations on the slate of Chairpersons for the subsidiary
bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.
2. Periodic Report of the Committee to the Co uncil for Trade in Goods including factual
information on waivers expiring on 30 April 1999
The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/SPEC/10, which contained
the draft periodic report of this Committee.  He stated that this report would be finalized in the light of
the discussions that would take place at the meetin g, and would then be submitted to the Council for
Trade in Goods for examination at its meeting of 25 March 1999.  As was customary, the report
contained, in its Annexes 1 and 2, tables summarizing factual information on the waivers and theG/MA/M/17
Page 2
process, which had been submitted by the Members concerned.  In this context, he requested the
Committee to take note of the requests that had been presented by the Members regarding the
extension of their respective waivers and of their reasons for doing so.  He noted that the waivers
could be divided into three different groups: (1) the waivers granted in connection with the
introduction of HS96 changes into the WTO Schedules;  (2) the waivers related to the transposition ofpre-Uruguay Round schedules into the harmonized system (Bangladesh, Nicaragua and Sri Lanka);
and (3) the waiver concerning the re-negotiation of the schedule of Zambia following the introduction
of the Harmonized System.  All the waivers expired on 30 April 1999.  If the requests were approved,
they would be extended until 31 October 1999.  As far as the first group of waivers was concerned, a
draft decision on a further extension for examination by the Committee was circulated in document
G/MA/W/19 dated 5 March 1999.  The changes in the text compared to the precedent version related
to the reference dates and the list of Members concerned by the extension.  In addition, he noted thatthe sentence in the third preambular paragraph, "in particular also in light of general reservations
made by the other Members" had been put within square brackets.  The question raised here was
whether that text was relevant in the light of developments and the understanding reached on that
matter in April 1998, or whether it should be removed.
He added that to date 30 Members had forwarded to the Secretariat detailed requests for
extension of their waivers.  One additional Member had requested to be covered by the waiver
decision.  The list of those Members was repr oduced in documents G/MA/W/19 and G/MA/SPEC/10.
He noted that since the documents were prepare d, Argentina and South Africa had requested to be
included in the list, and Korea had requested to be removed from the list
1 following the lifting of the
last reservation on its document.  Revised versions of these documents2 would be prepared for the
meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The dr aft decision would  then be forwarded by the
Goods Council  to the General Council for adoption.
In response to a request for clarification from the representative of Bulgaria, the Secretariat
recalled that the question of general reservations had been discussed extensively in the past.  There
was an understanding reached at the Council for Trade in Goods' meeting in October 1997 that
general reservations should be specified by 30 April 1998 or would be considered removed, and that
in future, if such reservations were made, they should as far as possible be specified.  To his
knowledge, practically all the general reservations had been removed or were no longer valid pursuant
to that understanding.  In the light of what had been decided, the question could be raised whether the
text within square brackets in the draft decision was still necessary.
The representative of the European Communities stated that when discussions were held on
this subject in 1997, Members had felt that it would be useful to exert some pressure so that
reservations of a general nature which were on the table would be specified as soon as possible.  As a
result, Members had agreed in October 1997 that those reservations which had not been specified by30 April 1998 would expire ipso facto  automatically.  Having said that, he wished to make it clear that
that commitment did not cover new documentation. New HS96 documentation would need to be
examined carefully and this could not always be done within the 90-day deadline.  So while his
delegation was making a considerable effort, in the spirit of what was agreed to, to be as specific as
possible, it was not always possible.  As a result, the option of raising a general reservation had to beleft open to his delegation.
                                                     
1 Canada requested to be removed from the list at the Council for Trade in Goods meeting of
25 March 1999.
2 G/MA/W/19 was re-issued as G/MA/W/19/Rev.1, and G/MA/SPEC/10 was re-issued as G/MA/61.
Following the Council for Trade in Goods meeting of 25 March 1999, G/MA/W/19/Rev.1 was issued as
G/C/W/145.G/MA/M/17
Page 3
The representative of Brazil stated that while his delegation did not have a problem with the
deletion or maintenance of the text within square brackets, there were some reservations which were
not totally specific on the Brazilian schedule.
The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that the time-limit for introducing HS changes
into WTO schedules had been extended repeatedly since 1995.  However, his delegation also noted
that some progress had been achieved and the number of Members requesting waivers, or waiver
extensions, was decreasing, reflecting the fact that more Members had completed the necessary
procedures for the introduction of HS96 changes to their schedules.  His delegation was also pleased
to note that Korea would be removed from the list, following the lifting of the last reservation on its
notification.  He reiterated the importance of completing the HS96 exercise as soon as possible and
encouraged the Members concerned to expedite the process.
The representative of Sri Lanka stated that following a recent round of negotiations with two
Members referred to in Sri Lanka's request for a waiver extension, he was pleased to inform the
Committee that Sri Lanka was about to conclude negotiations with one Member; another Member had
sought further clarifications regarding Sri Lanka's schedule which his delegation intended to providesoon.  He was hopeful that negotiations would be concluded with these Members, before long.  This
would then leave Sri Lanka with one trading partner from whom Sri Lanka had yet to receive a formal
proposal, and with another with whom his delegation was confident that a mutually satisfactory
solution could be reached in light of the progress made already.  Given this scenario, he was
optimistic that with one more waiver extension, Sri Lanka could finalize these negotiations to thesatisfaction of all  concerned trading partners.
The Committee took note of the statements.
3. Submission of HS96 documentation
The Chairman stated that according to the provisions contained in the General Council
Decision of 14 October 1998, extending the time-limit of the waivers granted to Members that had
requested it until 30 April 1999 (reference to document WT/L/281), it was envisaged that the
Members concerned would submit by this date the complete documentation related to the introduction
of HS96 changes in their WTO schedules, and that in special circumstances they could request
technical assistance from the Secretariat.
Document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.18 reflected the pres ent situation concerning the submission of
the required documentation.  As could be noted from the document, eight Members presently under
waivers had not yet submitted the required documentation, these were: Bolivia, Bulgaria, El Salvador,
Honduras, Mexico, Morocco, Panama and South Africa.  Some of these countries had requested
technical assistance from the Secretariat, and their documentation was being prepared and would becirculated shortly.  Reservations on the HS96 documentation submitted by the following Members
had  been lifted:  Czech Republic, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and the Slovak Republic.
To date, apart from the eight Members already mentioned that had not yet submitted the
required HS documentation, the submissions of twenty-five Members, whether they had requested anextension of waivers or not, remained pending due to ongoing consultations and/or negotiations. He
urged delegations concerned to speed up the process so that the number of waivers could be further
reduced.
The Committee took note of the statement.G/MA/M/17
Page 4
4. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB)
(a) Status of Submission of the Requir ed Documentation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.4)
The Chairman drew attention to document G/ MA/IDB/2/Rev.4 which reflected the status of
submissions of the required documentation.  This document presented the situation as of
3 March 1999 with regard to the furnishing of PC IDB submissions.  He noted that fifty-two Members
and three acceding countries had provided IDB submissions.  The Secretariat had informed him that,
since the circulation of the document, submissions had been received from the following Members:
Argentina (imports 1997 (the second submission) and applied tariffs 1996);  Cuba (applied tariffs
1996 (new country));  Slovak Republic (applied tariffs 1999).  The Secretariat had also received the
common applied tariff of the six UDEAC countries (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad,
Congo, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea) through the UDEAC Secretariat.  Import statistics had also
been received for three of those Members (Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Gabon).  Thesefiles did not appear in the Revision 4 of the status report because they had not yet been submitted
officially by the countries concerned.
He had indicated to Members at the time of the informal meeting of the Market Access
Committee on 23 February 1999, that in terms of follow-up, it might be useful to send another letterfrom him to those delegations that had not yet provided their IDB submissions.  This letter, he had
indicated, should be more pedagogical and informative in nature, explaining the situation, requesting
those Members to provide information about difficulties experienced in making the necessary
submission and giving them information about technical assistance possibilities.  The letter had been
prepared  and would be sent as soon as possible.
The representative of Norway stated that Norway had very recently submitted its tariff data
for 1999.
The representative of Brazil informed the Committee that Brazil would be submitting its first
IDB notification very soon.
The representative of the United States stated that his government had just authorized the
Secretariat to obtain the US applied tariff data for 1999 from the Trade Policy Review Division.
The representative of Australia informed the Committee that Australia had recently provided
1999 tariffs and associated references.
The Committee took note of the statements.
(b) Progress Report on the work done by the Secretariat
The Chairman requested the Secretariat to provide a report of its work on the IDB.
Ms. Gagliardi of the Secretariat reported that the national submissions of forty countries had
been converted into a common format.  In this process there were several checking and standardizing
procedures that had to be applied, which meant validating the HS code, country codes, quantity units,
generating default duties, matching and reconciling the nomenclature of imports and tariffs when theircorrelation tables were available. The processing was done using the PC conversion facility and ad
hoc tools developed by the Secretariat.  As a result of this processing, the national submissions had
been transformed into individual access databases and each country had a database in which tariff,
product description, imports and national reference files were contained. The Secretariat had also been
working on the development of the file transfer facility, which was now technically operational.  Assoon as a decision was taken in the Committee on the question of dissemination, the Secretariat wouldG/MA/M/17
Page 5
be able to load the files into the internet.  This  process would take between two to three weeks. As
regarded the production of the IDB CD-ROM, the Secretariat had encountered some technical
difficulties which were linked to the changeover in the programs from the mainframe to the PC
environment.  It would take approximately four weeks to fix the technical problem, and then an
additional two to three weeks to produce the new CD-Rom.
The Committee took note of the statement.
(c) Technical Assistance
The Chairman stated that the information on t echnical assistance was already transmitted to
Members by way of fax dated 25 February 1999 which contained the section of his statement made at
the informal meeting of the Committee on 23 February 1999 on this subject.  However, in order thatthis information be on the formal records and to take account of any new developments, he requested
the Secretariat to provide a summary of its activities in the area of technical assistance.
Ms. Gagliardi of the Secretariat reported that the results of the five-regional IDB seminars had
been encouraging.  After the first mission which covered eighteen APEC economies, the Secretariat
had received eight new submissions.  Seven APEC countries were already in the IDB database, so
only three of those countries participating in the seminar had yet to provide IDB submissions.
Following a mission in Central America which covered nine countries, the Secretariat had received
four new submissions.  Two of the countries participating in that seminar were already on the IDB,
which meant that only three countries that had par ticipated in the seminar still needed to provide
submissions.  Following a mission to the Caribbean  where nine countries had participated, one new
submission and one informal request for technical assistance had been received. There were also two
other non-official submissions which had been obtained through the regional Secretariat.  There was
need to intensify technical assistance efforts in Africa.  Two regional seminars covering thirty-two
countries had been held and following the seminars , four submissions and two requests for technical
assistance or for more information were received.  Three of these countries which were participating
in the seminar had also replied to the Chairman's letter explaining what problems they were
encountering in submitting the information.  The Secretariat had also received from several regional
Secretariats signals that they would like to collaborate and exchange information or to help provide
technical assistance.  Among these were the Secretariats of APEC, the ASEAN, The League of ArabStates, the Permanent Secretariat of the General Treaty on Central America Economic Integration
(SIECA), the Statistical Commission for East African Cooperation and the UEMOA.  The Secretariat
had the feeling that contacts were being developed and that significant progress had been made and
that Members were showing an interest and requesting the IDB section of the Secretariat to organize
more technical assistance missions.  In the last week, three new requests had been received regardingdetails about the procedures for receiving  technical assistance.
The Committee took note of the statements.
(d) Submission and dissemination of the IDB – report by the Chairman
The Chairman recalled that at the Committee meeting of 27 November 1998 he had agreed to
hold open-ended consultations in order to discuss the subject of the IDB, and in particular the question
of submission to, and dissemination of, the IDB.  Two informal meetings had been held for this
purpose, one on 23 February 1999 and the second one the day before, on 10 March.  At the formal
meeting of the Committee on 27 November 1998,  he had indicated that the intention of the
open-ended consultations would be to review the si tuation regarding submissions to the IDB in the
light of his letter sent in November 1998 to those Members who had not provided IDB submissions.It was his idea that, if any progress had been made in this area, maybe paragraph 5 of the text,
approved by the Committee at its meeting of 22 September 1998, entitled "Dissemination of the IDB,G/MA/M/17
Page 6
Dissemination Practices" in document No.1483 /Rev.2 might be reviewed.  Following the
consultations on 23 February 1999, it appeared that Members were encouraged by the trend in
submissions and by the number of requests for technical assistance, both informal and formal.  While
everybody recognized this trend as positive, it was also acknowledged that further progress was
necessary.  There was a need to consider how to encourage submissions as well as formal requests fortechnical assistance.  There were some Members who had indicated that the absence of submissions
was due to a lack of resources.  In a follow-up to  these views, he had proposed sending another letter
to Members not having made submissions to the IDB.  It was also agreed to hold another open-ended
consultation before the formal meeting to discuss more specifically paragraph 5 of the text just
mentioned.
He considered the consultations to be fruitful and he believed that in a general sense, and
conceptually, Members had a good understanding of what was necessary to resolve the problem of
paragraph 5 and how it related to the question of submissions.  He added also that, in spite of that
basic conceptual understanding of what was necessary to do, there were some important loose ends
and some intangibles, that needed to be addressed and therefore he proposed to the Committee to
continue consultations with a view to arriving at a solution to this problem as soon as possible.  Thebasis for his consultations was to be found in suggestions made in the consultations. There was a
concrete textual proposal by India.  There were also some concrete suggestions in terms of what could
be done to encourage submissions made by Argentina concerning the authorization to be given to the
Trade Policy Review Division to automatically rele ase their data to the Statistical Division.  There
was one particular reservation which did not affect the concept as such but which had to do with anopt-out possibility for individual countries. There was a suggestion from the United States on a
cross-notification possibility, interpreted by one Member as a positive offer of technical cooperation.
Australia had offered the use of its data as a template. He thought there was agreement that all of
these proposals were proposed in a constructive spirit and put together they potentially formed at least
part of the basis for a solution to the problem.  He believed that it was extremely important tounderline that, even if Members saw here the potential basis for a solution, it had to be recognized that
the most important contribution to be made to make paragraph 5, of the document referred to,
superfluous, were more submissions pursuant to the General Council Decision.  He appealed to each
and every Member, who could do so, to speed up submissions.  Also, in this initial phase of the IDB,
there was a willingness to be flexible as regarded the completeness of submissions.
He saw the IDB as an extremely important tool that should be operational as soon as possible.
Following this meeting, he intended to contact a number of delegations in order to understand in detail
what they saw as outstanding problems. He hoped, then, to call open-ended consultations and
hopefully, in conjunction with that, a formal meeting of the Market Access Committee.  He wished to
do this in the near future as he did not wish to lose momentum on this matter.
The representative of Mexico informed the Committee that intense work was being
undertaken in his capital in order to have the data ready for submission to the IDB.  He hoped that this
work would be concluded as soon as possible.  He also  wished to state that data submitted only by his
government could be considered as valid and legal information about Mexico in the WTO.
The representative of Romania wished to confirm that work was being done, in an intensive
manner, in his capital in order to make the submissi on to the IDB.  Additionally, in the near future, a
team of experts from the capital would come to Geneva to work with the Secretariat so as to verify
that what had been prepared did correspond to what was required.  If necessary, additional work could
be undertaken. Romania believed that this would be one more contribution towards making the IDBoperational.  It was also the fulfilment of an obligation which Romania had, as a WTO Member.G/MA/M/17
Page 7
The Chairman stated that any Member seeking technical assistance should do so formally.  If
requests for technical assistance showed up in the records, it would be a very useful and encouraging
signal that more Members were taking up the challenge of working on their submissions to the IDB.
The Committee took note of the statements.
5. Preparation of Consolidated Loose-Leaf Schedules on Goods
The Chairman recalled that at the last Committee meeting, the Secretariat had provided a
report on this project from the technical perspective and a summary of the paper that had been
distributed in the room entitled "Consolidated Tariff Schedules:  Technical Cooperation Project",dated 24 November 1998.
Ms. Gagliardi of the Secretariat reported that the loose-leaf tariff pilot project had been
finalized.  As a result of this pilot project, a proposal to construct a Consolidated Tariff Schedules
(CTS) database had been elaborated.  According to this proposal, provided that the necessary
resources were obtained, the Secretariat would prepare draft files of consolidated tariff concessions
for developing countries.  Developed countries would prepare their submissions to the CTS database
using the electronic format provided by the Secretariat.  Upon request the Secretariat could also
provide those countries with the software tools developed in the course of the project.  As was
explained in the preliminary report presented to the Committee of Market Access on
27 November 1998, the project would cover the formatting and consolidation of the tariff schedules of
around hundred developing countries.  The result would be a database containing draft consolidatedtariff schedules.  The database would be established as a working tool only,  without implications as
to the legal status of information stored therein.  However, the database would accurately reflect
Members' concessions. The Secretariat would furnish Members with their draft consolidated schedule
file and Members could then notify their approval to the Secretariat and submit their consolidated
schedules according to the usual procedures.  The complete technical report containing the proposeddatabase design and proposals for solutions to some technical problems, was available on request
from the Secretariat.  The Secretariat was ready to start the project as soon as the funds were
available.  For the time being the Secretariat was presenting the project to potential donors.
Mr. Opelz of the Secretariat stated that the project was estimated to cost about Swiss
Francs 750,000.  This sum could not be covered under the regular budget.  The Secretariat had been in
touch with a number of delegations to see whether extra budgetary funds could somehow be found.
At this stage, discussions were still ongoing.
The Committee took note of the statements.
6. Other business
(a) New Zealand – Accelerated Tariff Liberalization Initiative
The representative of New Zealand stated that, as New Zealand's predecessor as APEC Chair,
Malaysia, had done last year, New Zealand wished to provide a brief update to Members on the
Accelerated Tariff Liberalization Initiative that had been developed within APEC.   Since Malaysia's
report to the Committee on the decisions taken by APEC Ministers in Kuala Lumpur in
November 1998 to seek to broaden participation in the APEC tariff liberalization initiative, New
Zealand had submitted an information paper which gave background information on the proposals
developed by APEC.  It had been circulated  as document WT/GC/W/138, entitled "APEC's
Accelerated Liberalization Initiative".G/MA/M/17
Page 8
New Zealand and other APEC co-ordinators for the various products covered by the initiative,
had recently been involved in Geneva in useful informal discussions with a range of non-APEC WTO
Members in relation to the initiative and intended to pursue further informal consultations in the
coming weeks.  Additional information on the initiati ve, in the form of an addendum to the document
WT/GC/W/138, should be available on the document dissemination facility within the next few days.
(b) Colombia – Rectification to Colombia's Schedule
The representative of Colombia stated that on 19 June 1998 Colombia had circulated in
document G/MA/TAR/RS/55 a proposed rectification to Colombia's schedule.  There had been a
procedural error at the time of the compilation of the treaty text of Colombia's schedule, and the
proposed correction consisted of reincorporating a missing page into the treaty text.  The United
States had submitted a reservation within the stipulated time-limit and bilaterals had been undertaken.Since that date, Colombia had not received any in formation, nor had there been any removal of the
reservation.  She indicated her delegation's willingness to provide more information if the
United States so required it.  If that was not the case, she requested that the United States remove the
reservation as quickly as possible.
The representative of the United States assured the representative of Colombia that he would
give this issue his utmost attention and hoped to come up with a satisfactory resolution as quickly as
possible.
The Committee took note of the statements.
(c) Submission of national tariffs in 1999
The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/TAR/3/Rev.4, dated
3 March 1999 which contained a revised updated list of national tariffs available to the Secretariat.
He encouraged Members to submit the 1999 version of the customs tariffs, if they had not alreadydone so, or at least a more recent version of their tariffs in those cases where the tariff dated from the
early 1990s as these tariffs were consulted frequently by delegations, members of the Secretariat,
private parties and students.
The Committee took note of the statement.
(d) Date of the next meeting
The Chairman informed the Committee that the next meeting of the Committee was
scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 9 June 1999 subject to confirmation.
___________