RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/MA/M/10
22July1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3080)
Original: French Committee onMarket Access
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING OF24JUNE 1997
Chairman: Mr.Moha Ouali Tagma (Morocco)
Agenda oftheMeeting Page
1. Request forobserver status intheCommittee from the
Latin American Economic System (SELA) .................... 1
2. Submission ofdocumentation related toHS96 changes ............ 2
3. Adoption offormat forthenotification ofquantitative restrictions ..... 2
4. Integrated database .................................. 3
5. Other business ..................................... 4
- Verification ofloose-leaf schedules
- Dateofnextmeeting
_______________
Introduction
Theabove agenda, which wascontained inWTO/AIR/617 dated 13June1997 wasadopted
without anychange.
1. RequestforobserverstatusintheCommitteefromtheLatinAmericanEconomicSystem(SELA)
1.1 TheChairman informed Members thattheprevious Mayhehadreceived arequest fromthe
Latin American Economic System (SELA) thattheCommittee should consider itsrequest forobserver
status intheCommittee. Herecalled thatSELA thewasanintergovernmental organization composed
of17Latin American andCaribbean countries andhadbeensetupbytheConvention ofPanama in
July1975 withtheprincipal aimofstrengthening social cooperation andtheintra-regional economy,
andtoserve asaforum forconsultations among member countries. Moreover, ithadbeengranted
observer status intheCommittee onTrade andDevelopment andhadparticipated asanobserver in
theSingapore Ministerial Conference. Hethenasked whether theMembers oftheCommittee agreed
togrant theSELA observer status intheCommittee onMarket Access.
1.2 Thedelegate oftheUnited States pointed outthatthematter oftheobserver status requested
bytheSELA wasbeing considered bytheGeneral Council andhewould prefer towaituntiladecision
hadbeentaken inthatforum.G/MA/M/10
Page2
1.3 TheChairman accordingly suggested thatthematter bepostponed untilasubsequent meeting
oftheCommittee.
2. Submission ofdocumentation related toHS96 changes
2.1 TheChairman saidthatthesituation withrespect tothedocumentation wasdescribed in
Revision 9ofdocument G/MA/TAR/2 andcould besummarized asfollows: 35submissions containing
changes toHS96 hadbeenreceived bytheSecretariat, ofwhich onlytwohadbeencertified. Two
countries, Brunei Darussalam andSouth Africa, hadonlysubmitted preliminary documentation, and
sixMembers, Egypt, ElSalvador, Honduras, Mexico, Pakistan andZimbabwe, hadnotyetsubmitted
therequired documentation. Itshould benoted thattwoofthecountries citedhadrequested technical
assistance from theSecretariat inorder toprepare theirdocumentation.
2.2 Inthisconnection, hesummarized thework undertaken bytheChairman oftheCouncil for
Trade inGoods onthismatter. Following aseries ofinformal consultations onthesubject of
"Modifications andamendments totheschedules ofconcessions andtheircertification", which had
initially beenraised bySwitzerland, theChairman oftheCTG hadcirculated adocument outlining
twoapproaches, onefortheshort termandanother forthelongterm. Briefly, thereport proposed
thatintheshort termMembers should pursue thework ontheverification andcertification ofHS96
documentation without delay. Forthispurpose, andwithaviewtoassisting interested Members, the
SecretariatcouldtransposetheavailableHS96documentationontoelectronicmediainastandarddatabase
system. Thiscould thennotonlybeusedtohelpMembers intheirverification work butwould also
constitute animportant electronic baseforfuture trade liberalization measures. Forinformation, he
indicated that21submissions hadbeenmade inelectronic format. Headded thattheSecretariat would
beverygrateful ifMembers thathadnotyetsubmitted theirdocumentation inelectronic formwould
consider doing sotoensure that,asfaraspossible, theSecretariat didnothavetocarry outthistask
itself. Healsostated thatanumber ofpoints hadbeenraised inthecontext ofthelong-term approach
andthattheissues identified would leadtochanges oramendments tothedecisions currently inforce
andusedinthecontext ofcorrections andchanges totheschedules ofconcessions, andthatthiswork
wascontinuing intheframework oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
2.3 ThedelegateofJapanexpressedhisconcernattherequestsforrenewalofwaivers,whichcreated
anobstacle torapid approval ofthedraftschedules ofseveral countries.
3. Adoption offormat forthenotification ofquantitative restrictions
3.1 TheChairman recalled thattheformat thathadbeenapproved bytheCommittee atitsmeeting
on3March 1997 wascontained indocument G/MA/W/13 dated 6May1997. Ithadbeenagreed
atthatmeeting thattheformat proposed would beslightly modified totakeintoaccount thecomments
made bycertain delegations andwould beputbefore themembers oftheCommittee foradoption at
thepresent meeting.
3.2 Thedelegate ofNewZealand saidthathecould accept thedocument butrecalled thatatthe
lastmeeting hisdelegation hadproposed thatthefirstpageshould include wording toincite Members
tonotify whether ornottheymaintained quantitative restrictions. Inhisopinion, thiswould provide
fulltransparency anddelegations would know whether aparticular Member hadanything tonotify.
3.3 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities hoped thattheSecretariat wasalready
considering electronic processing oftheinformation soastoprevent anyrecurrence ofthecurrent
handling problems.G/MA/M/10
Page3
3.4 Thedelegate oftheRepublic ofKorea suggested thatthefirstpageofthedocument should
indicate whether itwasafirstnotification or,ifnotification hadalready beengiven, therelevant WTO
document should bementioned soastohelpMembers tofindthereferences.
3.5 TheChairman drew theattention ofthedelegate ofNew Zealand tothefirstpageofthe
document, where paragraph 1stated thatMembers were notobliged tonotify thefactthattheir
Governments didnotmaintain quantitative restrictions.
3.6 Thedelegate ofNewZealand proposed thatthesentence should beamended toread"Members
areencouraged toprovide suchinformation fortransparency purposes". Theproposal wassupported
bythedelegations ofEcuador, Nigeria andPeru.
3.7 Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities added that, asMembers were simply being
encouraged toprovide negative information, systematic electronic processing would beanadvantage
asitwould veryeasily allow aninventory ofnotifications ofthistypeofmeasure tobedrawn uprapidly.
3.8 Mr.Léger (WTO Secretariat) saidthatasfarasprocessing ofinformation onquantitative
restrictions wasconcerned aslightly different format withthesamecontent could beproposed. Rather
thantransposing thedatatoadatabank, itwould bepossible toobtain theinformation directly either
fromdiskettes ortapes andthiscould become partoftheintegrated database. Heproposed tomodify
theformat andinform delegations accordingly.
3.9 Summarizing thesituation, theChairman proposed thatthenewwording attheendofthefirst
paragraph ofdocument G/MA/W/13 should readasfollows: "Members areencouraged toprovide
suchinformationfortransparencypurposes".Takingintoaccountalsotheproposalmadebythedelegate
oftheRepublic ofKorea andthecomments bytheSecretariat concerning electronic dataprocessing,
heproposed thatthedocument beapproved bytheCommittee. Itwassodecided.
4. Integrated database
4.1 TheChairman noted thattheIDBhadbeenestablished inaccordance withaGATT Council
Decision of10November 1987 (BISD, S34/66). TheDecision provided thelegalbasis foractivities
related totheoperation oftheintegrated database. Herecalled thatforsome timetherehadbeenformal
andinformal discussions intheCommittee onthetransfer ofthecurrent IDBfrom themainframe
computer toPCs, which would mean using newtechnology toimprove theoperation oftheIDB.
Substantial progress hadbeenmade inrecent months inthecourse ofinformal consultations andthis
hadallowed thebasis tobelaidforaconsensus onthisissue andtomake progress withthereform.
Inaddition toadapting theIDBtomodern technology, oneessential element ofthereform wasthat
itwould allow adegree offlexibility inthetransmission ofdatathereby reducing theburden on
Members. Details concerning thenewIDBonPCswerecontained indocument G/MA/IDB/1/Rev.1.
Hethenproposed totheCommittee thatthetransfer ofthecurrent IDBtoaPCIDBshould bebased
onthefollowing elements:
(a) Establishment ofthePCIDB inconformity with theindications given in
document G/MA/IDB/1;
(b) when theCommittee agreed, itwould bepossible toextend thescope ofthePCIDB
inthefuture todataother thanthose mentioned indocument G/MA/IDB/1;
(c) inorder toensure thebroadest possible participation byMembers inthePCIDB,they
would beallowed totransmit datainanyPCformat;G/MA/M/10
Page4
(d) theSecretariat would provide Members whosorequested withtechnical assistance
concerning thetransmission oftherequired data;
(e) forthemoment, access totheIDBwould berestricted toMembers andbodies that
already hadthisright inrespect ofthecurrent IDB; theCommittee might decide
subsequently toextend access.
Headded thatthe1987Decision allowed changes totheoperational methods forthePCIDB,
butduring theinformal consultations itwasconsidered important tolaydown asolid basis forthe
transmission oftheinformation required forthefunctioning ofthePCIDB. Inthisconnection, the
General Council would havetoadopt adecision andadrafthadalready beencirculated. Hethen
proposed thatthedraftDecision besubmitted totheCouncil forTrade inGoods atitsnextmeeting
andthentransmitted totheGeneral Council foradoption.
TheChairman alsorecalled thatthedraftcovered thefollowing points:
1. WTO Members would transmit totheSecretariat onanannual basistheinformation mentioned
indocument G/MA/IDB/1/Rev.1.
2. TheSecretariat would provide Members whosorequested withtechnical assistance concerning
thetransmission ofthedatarequired fortheintegrated database onPCs.
3. Thetransmission ofdatarequired fortheintegrated database onPCswould bewithout prejudice
totherights andobligations ofMembers under theWTO Agreements.
Inviewofthese explanations, heasked whether theCommittee could approve theelements
hehaddescribed concerning thereform oftheIDBandwhether itcould alsoagree totransmit the
draft Decision onthetransmission ofinformation totheCouncil forTrade inGoods withthe
recommendation thatitbetransmitted totheGeneral Council foradoption. Itwassodecided.
4.2 TheChairman expressed hissatisfaction attheresults achieved withtheaimofcompleting
theconversion within theagreed time-limits andbudget andthanked theMembers oftheCommittee
forhaving reached suchanimportant result which, onceitbecame operational, would givetheWTO
asolid database foritsMembers.
5. Other business
- Verification ofloose-leaf schedules
5.1 TheChairman reminded Members oftheCommittee thatadecision onthissubject hadbeen
adopted on29November 1996andthatacertain number ofschedules hadbeensubmitted inloose-leaf
forminconnection withtheintroduction ofchanges toHS96. Theverification ofthese schedules had,
however, raised certain problems. Onseveral occasions, anumber ofMembers hadspoken infavour
ofelectronic verification oftheschedules. Hetherefore invited theSecretariat toprovide information
onthepossibilities thatcould bepursued inrelation topresentation ofschedules inloose-leaf form.
5.2 Arepresentative oftheSecretariat, referring totheDecision ontheEstablishment ofLoose-Leaf
Schedules andmore specifically toparagraph 12andtheverification ofschedules, reported thatthere
hadbeenmany discussions intheCommittee andintheCouncil forTrade inGoods about theincreased
desire, bysome delegations, toproceed withtheelectronic verification ofthese schedules. Building
ontheexperience ofthework donewiththeITAschedules, sheindicated thatitshould bepossible
tocreate anelectronic basefortheverification ofthese schedules toassist intheverification. ThusG/MA/M/10
Page5
anelectronic yardstick could becreated withthesubmission ofloose-leaf schedules inanelectronic
form. Apreliminary verification could bedonewiththose concessions thatalready existed inelectronic
form, forinstance, those deriving fromtheITA,pharmaceuticals orthose HS96 items foreseen tobe
verified inthenearfuture. Toaidthose Members which sodesired tosubmit aloose-leaf schedule,
itwould bebeneficial toreceive itinelectronic formespecially inadatabase format. Some delegations
hadrequested during informal consultations thatastandard format besetforththatcould assist inthis
exercise; tothiseffect, apaper wascirculated which setforth thestructure, i.e.thedifferent fields
anddataelements thatwould match theelements setforth intheDecision onloose-leaf schedules.
Shenoted thatthesubmissions thathadalready beenmade inthecontext ofHS96 werebeing putin
thestandard format bytheSecretariat but,forfuture submissions ofloose-leaf schedules itwould be
helpful forthework oftheSecretariat andfordelegations toconform tothesuggested structure.
5.3 Thedelegate ofSwitzerland referred toparagraph 14ofdocument G/MA/IDB/1/Rev.1, which
hadjustbeenadopted, anddrewattention tothelinkbetween thisparagraph andtheverification referred
toabove. Theparagraph stated: "Once certified loose-leaf schedules areavailable inelectronic format
(i.e.aftertheHS1996 verification exercise andthepresently conducted loose-leaf schedules verification
have been concluded), these electronic schedules could beused toverify thetariff bindings in
IDBsubmissions. Thiswould leadtohaving areliable IDBforfurther negotiations". Hethought
ituseful torefertothisparagraph because thePCIDBsystem would constitute anextremely useful
toolforallMembers, particularly butnotsolely inthecontext ofverification ofallfuture changes
toschedules ofconcessions. Henoted thatthecontent ofthisparagraph showed that,inorder toutilize
thepotential ofPCIDB,itwasnecessary tohaveanelectronic basiscontaining datathatwasasreliable
aspossible andforthese datatobecertified. Consequently, thesooner theexercise under waywas
terminated -verification andcertification ofHS96 changes, ITAproducts, pharmaceuticals, butalso
loose-leaf schedules -thesooner thefullpotential oftheIDBcould beused. Inthisconnection, he
considered thatitwasabsolutely necessary forafinaldecision tobetaken assoonaspossible inorder
todefine howMembers would verify theschedules, buttechnically itappeared improbable, notto
sayimpossible, forsuchverification tobecarried outbyelectronic means. Even iftheSecretariat
developed anumber ofinstruments toassist Members, theverification would havetobepartly byhand,
butcomputer assisted foracertain number ofheadings, though notforalltheschedules. Subsequently,
itwould bepossible tohaveabasethatwould effectively permit speedier progress inverification as
thecertified loose-leaf schedules would beavailable inelectronic form. Healsorecalled thathiscountry
hadalready transmitted itsloose-leaf schedule inelectronic form andhecalled onother Members to
dothesame.
5.4 Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisGovernment would support theapproach
described bytheSecretariat forsubmissions inastandard electronic format fortheloose-leaf schedules
andheagreed withtheSwiss delegate withaslight difference ofemphasis thatwithout anexisting
electronic yardstick itwould notbepossible tofullyelectronically verify loose-leaf schedules inaway
thatwould bepossible inthefuture should changes takeplace. Ontheother hand, thispartially assisted
electronic aspect described bytheSecretariat would beextremely important forhisGovernment. He
believed thatthetaskwould begreatly simplified withastandardized format usedfortheloose-leaf
submissions thatcould becompared backtoprevious electronic versions thatexisted although not
verified.
5.5 TheChairman suggested thattheCommittee takenoteofthestatements made andreturn to
thequestion atitsnextmeeting.
- Dateofnextmeeting
5.6 TheChairman informed theMembers oftheCommittee thatthenextmeeting oftheCommittee
would takeplace on29September 1997.