RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/MA/IDB/W/12
12 September 2001
(01-4296)
Committee on Market Access
A MULTILATERAL APPRAISAL OF THE OPERATION OF THE
INTEGRATED DATA BASE AND RELATED TECHNICAL
 ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES
Report by the Secretariat
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this report is to provide Members with a summary of the meetings of the
Committee on Market Access on the Multilateral Appraisal of the Operation of the Integrated
Data Base (IDB) and related Technical Assistance Activities which took place between March and
July 2001.  The objectives and modalities of the Multilateral Appraisal are set out in
document G/MA/IDB/4 of 22 February 2001.
B. THE MULTILATERAL APPRAISAL PROCESS
2. In accordance with the modalities described in the above-mentioned document, four informal
meetings were held.  For each meeting delegations were invited to contribute their experiences in
complying with the IDB notification requirements either in person or through the Chairperson of the
Committee on Market Access.  Following the contributions by Members a general discussion on
points raised during the presentations was held.  The meetings were organized on a regional basis.Prior to each meeting, Members were sent specific information on their IDB participation and related
technical assistance activities drawn from IDB administrative records and Secretariat research.  The
Secretariat also circulated region-specific documents  summarizing the situation in each of the regions
under review (G/MA/IDB/W/8-11 refers).  All Members were encouraged to contribute to the
discussions.  Those Members who were not able to participate in the meeting of their region were
given the opportunity to do so at subsequent meetings.  In addition, follow-up letters under the
Chairperson's signature were sent to delegations after each meeting.
3. The following meetings took place:  19 March 2001 for Members in North and Latin America
(document G/MA/IDB/W/8);  15 May 2001 for Members in Western and Eastern Europe, the
Baltic States and the Commonwealth of I ndependent States (document G/MA/IDB/W/9);
11 June 2001 for Members in Africa (document G/MA/IDB/W/10);  and 4 July 2001 for Members in
Asia and the Middle East (document G/MA/IDB/W/11).
4. Members who made presentations are indicated in the Annex.  Overall 58 Members shared
their experiences.  The summary table below groups Members who presented their experiences on a
regional basis.  It shows that Members of the Americas and the European regions had the highest
participation with more than 60 per cent participation, followed by Asia with 50 per cent and Africa
with just over 20 per cent participation.  It should be noted that the timing of the meetings,
particularly the last one, produced unavoidable conflict with other important meetings.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 2
5. More than half of the non-participating Members consisted of non-resident missions to the
WTO or small delegations in Geneva.1  Only one non-resident delegation contributed to the
discussion.
Table 1:  Regional summary of participation in the Multilateral Appraisal
Region Membership of which
(as of Participated Not present of which
01/01/2001) Non-resident missions
  North and Latin America 34 22 12 8
  Western and Eastern Europe, the
  Baltic States and the CIS19 12 7 0
  Africa 41 9 32 11
  Asia and the Middle East 30 15 15 4
  All 124 58 66 23
     in per cent 100 47 53 19
Source:  Annex
6. The Multilateral Appraisal attracted the interest of quite a number of delegations.  The
Secretariat was contacted repeatedly by delegations with questions on how to prepare themselves for
the Multilateral Appraisal meetings.  As a result of the invitations and in particular the follow-upletters, several delegations that were not able to pa rticipate contacted the Secretariat with requests for
information on the IDB or advice on how to respond to the letters by the Chairperson.
2  Several of
these Members had not yet made a submission to the IDB.
7. Members’ experiences are summarized below in accordance with the objectives of the
Multilateral Appraisal as set out in Document G/MA/IDB/4.  They are, to obtain a better
understanding of Members' problems, to learn from Members' success stories, and to gain insights
into the effectiveness of existing technical assist ance activities.  The following observations are not
necessarily exhaustive, given the level of participation in the debate, and the fact that some
participating delegations had not received responses from their capitals.
C. PROBLEMS IN COMPLYING WITH IDB NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
8. The manifold problems faced by Members in complying with the IDB notification
requirements became apparent in the various interventions made.  They are reflected in the "Checklistof Issues", which the Secretariat drew up and circulated as a room document at the request of
delegations.  Drawing on the Checklist, the Secretariat has grouped the various problems and
constraints cited by delegations into four categories.  They are (1) resource constraints, (2)
coordination issues, (3) nomenclature problems and (4) data problems.  For each of these categories,
the problems are explained and the specific concerns raised by delegations are highlighted.
                                                     
1 A Member with only one or two representatives in the WTO directory of delegations with residence in Geneva
was considered as having a small delegation.
2 These were:  Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Fiji, Kyrgyz Republic, Kenya, Mali,
Malta, and Mauritania.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 3
(a) Resource constraints
9. Resource constraints are broken down into the following four subcomponents:  general
resource constraints;  lack of specific skills and technical difficulties; translation problems and
timeliness.
(i) General resource constraints
10. General resource constraints refer to the lack of adequate personal and/or financial resources
either in capitals or in the WTO missions.  Many Members cited general resource constraints as a real
problem in complying with IDB notification requirem ents.  For example, statistical units in national
administrations that have the task of answering th e various requests from international organizations
can be overburdened.  This is especially true for smaller Members where one or a few officers handle
the bulk of these requests.  Another concern cited was the limited capacity of small missions and
non-resident missions to handle all WTO related work as well as non-WTO related responsibilities.
(ii) Lack of skills and technical difficulties
11. The lack of skilled staff and technical expertise can be a critical constraint given the technical
complexity of IDB notification requirements.  Some Members cited the amount of data and the
rigorous reporting requirements as posing problems for staff lacking sufficient computer skills and
efficient software tools to assist in data preparation.  Several Members requested technical assistanceto improve the skills of the national staff and thus overcome technical problems linked to
IDB reporting.
(iii) Translations
12. Document G/MA/IDB/W/6, "Guidelines for suppl ying PC IDB submissions", specifies that
product descriptions have to be supplied in one of the official WTO languages, i.e. English, French orSpanish.  Several Members for whom none of these languages is their national official language or at
least common working language reported difficulties in this regard.
(iv) Timeliness
13. Timely submissions of IDB information was mentioned as being important by many
Members.  A number of delegations cited the inability to institutionalise the IDB, including theestablishment of regular reporting procedures as the main contributor to problems of timeliness.  IDB
administrative records confirm this point.  They show that very few Members have managed to
submit IDB files consistently within the deadlines.  Another issue mentioned was delays in
IDB submissions due to the fact that the fiscal year did not coincide with the calendar year.
3
(b) Coordination issues
14. Coordination problems were one of the most frequently cited problems during the debate.  A
number of delegations explained how the IDB information was passed from the compilers via variouschannels to the Secretariat.  In most cases, two or more agencies are involved.  The responsibility of
each of the involved agencies had to be clearly established.  Compilers are not necessarily aware of
                                                     
3 This is taken into account in the d ecision establishing the deadlines for the IDB, G/MA/IDB/1/Rev.1/Add.1,
which indicates that for Members who do not base their tariffs on a calendar year, the deadlines can be adjusted to
take into account the dates when the national tariff comes into force.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 4
the reasons for, and the importance of, the information.  Staff changes can disrupt the flow of
information.  Some Members also cited problems with monitoring the direct transfer of submissions
from the capitals to the Secretariat.
(c) Nomenclature
15. Nomenclature problems were among the most frequently-cited specific issues identified by
Members.  The points cited by delegations included pr oblems in the tariff structure, transposition to the
HS (if that nomenclature is not used by the customs authority), the matching of imports and tariffs and
the issue of national correlation tables.  Nomenclatu re problems are also frequently encountered by the
Secretariat in the processing of IDB submissions.
(d) Data problems
16. The reporting of detailed imports by country of origin at the tariff line level requires well
developed data collection procedures.  Apart from the issue of matching imports and tariffs at thetariff line level mentioned in (c) above, several other problems were identified.  One delegation
reported its difficulties in recording import data by country of origin.  Another delegation faced
restrictions in its notification of detailed tariff line imports due to the confidentiality of the data.
D. 
SUCCESSFULL IMPLEMENTATION OF IDB NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
17. One objective of the Multilateral Appraisal was to identify how Members had succeeded in
complying with IDB information requirements.  A number of "success stories" were put forward.  In
several cases, delegations indicated that initially, substantive efforts were required to integrate
IDB reporting into the regular work programme of national administrations.  This section groups the
critical success factors put forward by delegations into two categories:  Actions undertaken at the
national level, and the scope for regional action.
(a) Activities at the national level
(i) Make IDB submissions a regular activity
18. All Members who reported on their success in submitting regularly to the IDB emphasised
how they had integrated IDB reporting into their regular work programme.  Once achieved, regular
IDB submissions were no longer perceived as a burden.  Since in many cases, several agencies wereinvolved in the preparation of the IDB submissions,  the establishment of a focal point in one ministry
was considered an important success factor.  The fo cal point needs to keep the compilers informed of
the submission requirements and ensure the transmission of the data to its WTO delegation or the
Secretariat.
(ii) Direct contact with the Secretar iat and support from the IDB team
19. Several delegations cited the support of the IDB team from the Secretariat as an important
factor in achieving full IDB participation.  The es tablishment of direct contact between the compilers
in the national capitals and the Secretariat was also cited by a number of delegations as playing a
critical rôle.  Secretariat support can take the form of clarifying questions related to the IDB reporting
requirements and can also refer to the use of IDB data.  In direct communication with national
officials, specific questions on how to adapt the detailed guidelines to the local conditions can be
answered and problems in the processing of submitted data files can be resolved.  In practice, theSecretariat has established regular contact with a number of compilers.  In all cases delegations are
kept informed.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 5
(iii) Automate processing
20. The data requirements of IDB submissions involve the processing and formatting of very
substantial data sets.  Automation of database processing can lead to significant savings in time and
resource requirements and reduce errors.  This requires of course that the data are well structured
electronically and accessible by the officials that have to prepare the submissions.  Customscomputerisation if done on a comprehensive basis should allow the retrieval of most if not all of the
relevant data without too much manual interv ention.  Several delegations mentioned how the
extensive use of computer software had resulted in easier preparation of IDB submissions.
(iv) Combine IDB submissions with other reporting requirements
21. Delegations from the Americas region stated that reporting of trade and tariff data to the
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) 'Hemispheric Trade and Tariff Data Base for
Market Access' and to the WTO could be combined.  The reporting requirements were to a very largeextent similar and it would be advantageous if the same work unit could be entrusted with preparing
all the related data sets.  The SIECA 'Data Entry Software' mentioned by several Latin American
delegations tries to assist in achieving this goal.
4
(v) Use of IDB data
22. Some delegations emphasised that it was essential to sensitise national compilers to the
important rôle that IDB data can play in trade policy analyses, not only at the governmental level but
also for the business community.  To be able to appreciate and promote its use, delegations and users
need to fully understand the potential value that the IDB data can have for them.  The Secretariat was
requested to take this into consideration in its technical assistance work.
(b) Regional level
23. Many Latin American delegations mentioned the important rôle of regional organizations.
For example, the FTAA negotiation process has involved various sub-regional organizations and the
Inter-American Development Bank.  One outcome of this successful regional cooperation is the
FTAA Hemispheric Trade and Tariff Data Base for Market Access that is publicly available on the
Internet.  Several Latin American delegations mentioned in this context the use of the SIECA'Data Entry Software' for the preparation of their data submissions to the FTAA Hemispheric Data
Base and to the IDB.
24. In East Asia and the Pacific, the APEC has developed a similar momentum.  Other regional
organizations undertake similar but less visible work in the area of trade and tariffs.
25. The exchange of experiences and information in the reporting of IDB data on a regional basis
was cited by several delegations as a very important first step to achieving regular IDB submissions.
One delegation pointed out how its compilers had improved their skills through such regionalexchanges.
                                                     
4 The SIECA Data Entry System was developed jointly by the Central American Economic Integration
Secretariat (SIECA), the Inter-American Development Bank and the WTO with the purpose to have aninstrument to enable the easy and efficient compilatio n and harmonization of trade, tariff and non-tariff
measures data for integration in the FTAA Hemispheric Data Base and for submissions to the WTO IDB.  The
software is presently available in English, Portuguese and Spanish.  A French version in currently beingprepared.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 6
E. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
26. Over the last three years the Statistics Division has organized a wide range of national and
regional technical assistance activities (for a detailed list see documents G/MA/IDB/W/8-11).
Between June 1998 and June 2001 nine national IDB missions and five regional IDB seminars were
undertaken.  In addition, IDB presentations were made in eleven regional workshops and seminarsthat were not fully dedicated to the IDB.  In the year 2000 a large number of Geneva based seminars
and workshops were undertaken to brief delegations and in some cases also experts from capitals on
the IDB.  Technical assistance activities have in most cases resulted in obtaining initial
IDB submissions or in improving existing IDB re porting.  Over the coming 12 months, a minimum of
five further national missions and one regional work shop for the non-resident missions in Brussels are
planned.
27. In the interventions by delegations, technical assistance was frequently cited as being a very
important factor for getting started with the IDB.  It also figured very high on the wish list of many
Members who are behind schedule in their IDB submissions.  Several delegations mentioned
explicitly how they got started with the IDB reporting as a result of an IDB seminar or workshop.
F. S
PECIFIC SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING IDB PARTICIPATION
28. Delegations made specific suggestions on how to improve the participation in the IDB.  Some
of them have already been referred to above.  For easy reference they are grouped below into three
categories (1) related to technical assistance activities, (2) concerning the work of the Secretariat,
and (3) concerning the Member.  There is a certain amount of overlap between the three categories
especially since technical assistance activities also concern the Secretariat.
Related to technical assistance activities
• Enhance technical assistance activities, for example, more workshop oriented, target specific
groups, etc.
• Address more extensively the problems of nomenclature and correlation tables.
• Use technical assistance missions to solve specific technical problems encountered by
Members.
• Include more training on features and functions of the IDB CD-ROM and the IDB internet
file transfer facility.
• Emphasize the use of the IDB in technical assistance missions.
• Explain linkages between the IDB and the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) data base.
• Members should share experiences in regional seminars.
• Coordinate technical assistance activities with other regional and international organizations.
• Use teleconferencing to reach IDB compilers and users in capitals.
Concerning the work of the Secretariat
• In collaboration with the Committee on Market Access, develop special initiatives and be
pro-active with non-resident missions and small missions.
• For irregular reporters and non-participating Members, the Secretariat could obtain IDB data
from other sources and then send them to Members for approval.
• Assist Members with the preparation of national correlation tables when required.
• Make the IDB web site more user friendly.
• Improve the IDB CD-ROM reporting capabilities, e.g. cross-Member summary tables at
HS 4-6 digit level.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 7
• Extend the dissemination of the IDB to research institutions.
• Put additional information on the IDB web site, e.g. reference material, a list of common
IDB submission problems, etc.
Concerning the Members
• Dedicated IDB staff in capitals.
• Lead agency and/or focal points in capitals.
• Make IDB processing a regular activity.
• Authorize the use of TPR data.
• Successful Members should share experiences with other Members in the region.
• Maintain and improve direct contacts with the Secretariat.
• Combine IDB notifications with other similar reporting requirements.
• Promote the IDB to the business community.
• Use international classification standards.
• Automate processing in national capitals.
• Make use of the SIECA data entry software.
• Make more use of the IDB web site for sharing problems, analytical tools, etc.
G. STATUS OF SUBMISSIONS
29. Current submission records show that during the Multilateral Appraisal exercise there has
been a significant increase in IDB submissions .  Table 2 shows that the number of 2001 tariff
submissions received by the March 2001 deadline was double the average of the previous three years.
The total number of tariff submissions received in the first six months of 2001 was more than50 per cent higher than what was received in the same period of 1999 or 2000.  For imports the effect
was not as striking but nevertheless quite signifi cant.  By end August 2001, the number of import
submissions had already reached the number of submissions received in earlier years up to the
September deadline.  The total number of submissions received in the first six months of 2001 is
significantly higher than in any other earlier six months period.
H. I
MPROVING IDB PARTICIPATION – THE SECRETARIAT 'S CONTRIBUTION
30. During the debate it was suggested that the Secretariat could share with delegations its views
on how it could assist delegations in improving IDB participation.  Whereas the Secretariat can
support many of the suggestions put forward by delegations concerning the work of the Secretariat
and technical assistance activities, it too faces resource constraints in its ability to respond to them.Nevertheless, a number of specific suggestions made by delegations are, in the Secretariat's view,
worth underlining.  These are given below, along with some additional suggestions based on the
Secretariat's experience in operating the IDB.
31. With respect to the quality of IDB submissions, the Secretariat endorses the view of
delegations that direct contact between the compilers and the IDB technical experts in the Secretariatcan play a key rôle in ensuring data quality and coverage. Direct dealing with the capitals could also
contribute to improving processing delays. The suggestion to establish focal points in the capitals is in
the Secretariat's view worthy of substantive follow up.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 8
Table 2:  Number of IDB submissions by date received
Applied tariffs for yea r
Submission date 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
up to1998 - 1. 17 13 9
1998 - 2. 356
1998 - 3. 287
1998 - 4. 354
1999 - 1. 425 9
1999 - 2. 215 1 0
1999 - 3. 3244
1999 - 4. 3344
2000 - 1. 2222 7
2000 - 2. 134 1 0
2000 - 3. 131 1 1 9
2000 – 4 12144
2001 - 1. 13 2 1 1 16
2001 - 2. 2216 1 8
2001 – 3. up to 1.9.2001 12 4
All submissions 42 49 56 52 49 38
Imports for year
Submission date 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
up to1998 – 1. 23 3
1998 - 2. 4 11
1998 - 3. 6 13
1998 - 4. 41 11
1999 - 1. 69 2
1999 - 2. 71 0 11
1999 - 3. 22 14
1999 - 4. 128
2000 - 1. 334 2
2000 - 2. 2 13
2000 - 3. 3 15
2000 - 4. 24 5
2001 - 1. 214 8 11
2001 - 2. 224 5 16
2001 – 3. up to 1.9.2001 10
All submissions 60 69 57 48 37
Source:  IDB administrative records
32. The Secretariat also subscribes to the view expressed by a number of delegations that the
coverage of the IDB could be improved by alleviating the response burden on small and least
developed Members until such time as their IDB re porting has been institutionalized.  To the extent
resources permit the Secretariat could independently collect tariff and import data and submit it to the
delegation for approval.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 9
33. On technical assistance, the Secretariat's experience has uncovered a number of planning and
coordination problems linked to the ad hoc nature of the IDB technical assistance programme.  Firstly,
many delegations with obvious submission problems are not coming forward with requests, despite
the frequency with which the IDB technical assistance programme is cited.  Secondly, the piecemeal
nature of the requests make it very difficult for the Secretariat (in this case the Statistics Division andthe Technical Cooperation Division) to plan, organize and fund these activities so as to make the most
effective use of the limited personnel and financial resources available.  And thirdly, funding and
communication problems can also delay the delivery of technical assistance activities and aggravate
Secretariat planning.
34. The delivery of IDB technical assistance could be improved by reducing, to the extent
possible, this ad hoc approach.  For example, an annual technical assistance programme could be
elaborated by the Secretariat in collaboration with Members that would seek to strike a balancebetween Members' needs and the realities of the Secretariat's resource constraints.
35. Another challenge facing the Secretariat and Members is how to achieve regular reporting
patterns once an initial submission has been made.  Secretariat experience has shown that good
results, in terms of IDB submissions, are generally obtained from activities that focus on Members'
specific problems.  Such activities can take the form of national missions or regional seminars whichmanage to target similar groups.  In that respect, the various suggestions made by delegations on
enhancing technical assistance activities could be taken on board.  However, IDB administration
records show that a good technical assistance seminar will not necessarily result in follow up
submissions, i.e. regular reporting.  From the Secretariat's perspective one suggestion could be to step
up direct post seminar contact with participants, along with follow up seminars, should fundingpermit.
36. The Secretariat also supports delegation's suggestions with respect to co-ordination and
co-operation between the Secretariat and other intern ational and or regional agencies who also deliver
trade-related  technical assistance.  Such activities could help sensitise compilers to the importance of
the tariff and import information in the IDB for trade policy purposes and assist in mainstreaming
IDB reporting into national administrations' reporting obligations.  Secretariat activities in this area to
date have been limited due to resource (principally financial) constraints.  Should the situation
change, the Secretariat could be more pro-active in this area.G/MA/IDB/W/12
Page 10
Annex
Composition of regional groupings and participation in discussions
North America and
Latin AmericaWestern and Eastern
Europe including Baltic
States and CISAfrica Asia including
Middle East
Antigua and Barbuda Albania Angola Australia
* Argentina * Bulgaria Benin Bahrain
Barbados * Croatia Botswana Bangladesh
* Belize * Czech Re public Burkina Faso * Brunei Darussalam
* Bolivia * Estonia Burundi Cyprus
* Brazil * European Communities Cameroon Fiji
* Canada Georgia Central African Republic * Hong Kong, China
*C h i l e *H u n g a r y Chad * India
* Colombia Iceland * Congo Indonesia
* Costa Rica Kyrgyz Republic Côte d'Ivoire * Israel
* Cuba * Latvia Democratic Rep. of the Congo * Japan
Dominica Malta Djibouti * Jordan
* Dominican Republic * Norway * Egypt * Korea, Republic of
* Ecuador * Poland Gabon Kuwait
* El Salvador Romania Gambia *Macau, China
Grenada * Slovak Republic Ghana * Malaysia
* Guatemala Slovenia * Guinea Maldives
Guyana * Switzerland Guinea-Bissau Mongolia
Haiti * Turkey Kenya Myanmar
* Honduras Lesotho * New Zealand
Jamaica * Madagascar * Oman
*M e x i c o Malawi Pakistan
* Nicaragua Mali Papua  New Guinea
* Panama Mauritania * Philippines
* Paraguay * Mauritius Qatar
* Peru * Morocco Singapore
St. Kitts and Nevis Mozambique Solomon Islands
St. Lucia Namibia *S r i  L a n k a
St. Vincent and the
GrenadinesNiger * Thailand
Suriname Nigeria * United Arab Emirates
Trinidad and Tobago Rwanda
* United States of America * Senegal
*U r u g u a y Sierra Leone
* Venezuela South Africa
Swaziland
Tanzania, United Republic of
Togo
* Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
* Zimbabwe
Note:  * Member participated in the Multilateral Appraisal;  Members with non-resident Missions are in italics.
__________