RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/MA/M/3
22November 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3660)
Committee onMarket Access
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING OF31OCTOBER 1995
Chairman: Mr.Jean Saint-Jacques (Canada)
Agenda oftheMeeting Page
1. Rules ofProcedure 2
2. Tariff Matters: 2
2.1 Introduction ofHS96 changes on1January 1996 2
2.2 Establishment ofconsolidated loose-leaf schedules 5
3. Non-tariff Matters: 6
3.1 Notification procedures ofquantitative restrictions 6
3.2 Reverse notification ofnon-tariff measures 7
4. Integrated DateBase 7
5. Other Business 10
5.1 Verification oftheSchedule onGoods oftheSolomon Islands 10
5.2 Procedure fordecisions having financial implications which may 11
betaken byWTO Bodies
5.3 Dateofthenextmeeting oftheCommittee 11
Introduction
Before proceeding totheadoption oftheagenda, theChairman stated thatasconcerned
observers, inaddition tothecountries which wereacceding totheWTO and,asagreed atthelastmeeting
oftheCommittee, thesameinternational organizations hadbeeninvited tothismeeting. Hewelcomed
therepresentatives present oftheFAO, IMF, UNCTAD, WCO andtheWorld Bank. Hesuggested
that, until thecriteria andconditions forobserver status were agreed, these same international
organizations would beinvited toattend thenextmeeting oftheCommittee inthecapacity ofobservers.
TheCommittee soagreed.
Theabove agenda, which wascontained inWTO/AIR/190 dated 20October 1995, wasadopted.G/MA/M/3
Page2
1. Rules ofprocedure
1.1 TheChairman recalled that,asagreed atthemeeting oftheCommittee onMarket Access
of25April 1995, theSecretariat hadprepared andcirculated document G/MA/W/2 dated 11October
1995 containing theDraft Rules ofProcedure forthemeetings oftheCommittee based ontheRules
ofProcedure adopted bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods andapproved bytheGeneral Council on31
July1995 (document WT/L/79). Hesuggested thattheDraft Rules ofProcedure forthemeetings
oftheCommittee onMarket Access beadopted bytheCommittee.
1.2 Therepresentative oftheUnited States drew theattention oftheCommittee 'smembers to
thefootnote which would beadded toRules 2,3and4andstressed that,asindicated, itwould be
highly desirable thatthenotice convening ameeting could beavailable three weeks inadvance.
1.3 TheRules ofProcedure wereadopted bytheCommittee andwillbeforwarded totheCouncil
forTrade inGoods forformal approval atitsmeeting of1December 1995.
2. Tariff Matters
2.1 Introduction ofHS96 changes on1January 1996.
2.1.1 TheChairman noted withconcern that,asconcerned thesubmission ofthedocumentation
related tochanges totheHarmonized System (HS) thatwould come intoforce on1January 1996,
onlythree Members (Hong Kong, Japan andtheEuropean Communities) hadtodatesubmitted the
required documentation totheSecretariat forcirculation andthat,atpresent, onlythechanges tothe
Schedule ofHong Kong hadbeenapproved. Hedrew theattention oftheCommittee Members to
arevised listofMembers, circulated bytheSecretariat indocument G/MA/TAR/W/3/Rev.1, which
indicated thework thatneeded tobedoneinconnection withtheintroduction ofHS96 changes into
theirschedules.
2.1.2 TheChairman explained thatfromtheinformal consultations carried outrecently, itappeared
thatalarge number ofWTO Members intended toimplement theHS96 changes intheirHStariff
nomenclatures on1January 1996inaccordance withtheRecommendation bytheCouncil oftheWorld
Customs Organization toamend theHS.Most oftheseMembers would, however, nothavepreviously
carriedoutthenecessaryproceduresrelatedtotheimplicationsofthosechangesfortheirWTOschedules.
Moreover, because ofthetimeconstraints, those Members would notbeinaposition, where necessary,
tocomplete theprocedures tointroduce those changes intheirschedules before implementing them.
Under thesecircumstances, alltheMembers finding themselves inthesituation described above would
havetorequest awaiver fromtheirobligations under Article IIoftheGATT 1994, inaccordance with
Article IXoftheWTO Agreement. Theinformal consultations hadalsoindicated thatMembers were
infavour ofacollective waiver. TheDecision granting suchawaiver would indicate clearly thenature
ofthewaiver andlisttheindividual Members having requested suchawaiver.
2.1.3 TheChairmaninvitedtherepresentativeoftheWorldCustomsOrganizationtogiveinformation
onthesituation regarding theintroduction oftheHS96 changes inthenational tariffs andtheir
implementation on1January 1996.
2.1.4 Therepresentative oftheWorld Customs Organization (Mr. Kusahara) recalled thathis
Organization, formerly known astheCustoms Cooperation Council, wasresponsible forthe
administration andmaintenance oftheHSwhich wasnowusedbyover140countries intheworld
(ofwhich 83werecontracting parties totheHSConvention) fortheirtariffandstatistical nomenclatures.
TheHSConvention required contracting parties tobring theirtariffandstatistical nomenclatures intoG/MA/M/3
Page3
conformity withanysubsequent amendments onthedateatwhich theamendments weretocome into
force. Thenextamendments totheHSwould enter intoforce on1January 1996. Henoted that
practically allWTO Members hadannexed totheMarrakesh Protocol schedules intheHSnomenclature
ofeither the1998or1992versions. Hetherefore urged WTO Members tocomplete assoonaspossible
theWTO procedures tobring theirschedules intoconformity withtheHS96 changes. Headded that
ifanyWTO Member haddifficulty inintroducing theHS96 changes intoitsnational tariff, his
Organization would beready toprovide thenecessary technical assistance totheauthorities concerned.
2.1.5 Therepresentative ofEgypt indicated thathehadnoinformation fromhisauthorities concerning
theimplementation ofHS96 changes andcould thusnotundertake anycommitment forhiscountry.
2.1.6 Therepresentative ofHungary explained thatforhercountry thepreparation oftherequired
documentation would becomplicated because itnotonlyhadtointroduce HS96 changes butalsoto
alignitstarifftotheEuropean External Tariff asof1January 1996. Herdelegation therefore welcomed
theideaofacollective waiver. Shesuggested atwelve-month duration ofthewaiver withthepossibility
ofsubmitting therequired documentation threemonths aftertheadoption ofthewaiver bytheGeneral
Council.
2.1.7 Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thathisGovernment 'spreference would beto
limittheduration ofacollective waiver tosixmonths andMembers requesting tobecovered would
havetosubmit therequired documentation before thewaiver wasgranted. Moreover, thewaiver would
havetofocus clearly onthose items thatwould besubject toHS96 changes.
2.1.8 Therepresentative ofUruguay saidthat,while hisdelegation would notobject toacollective
waiver, hecould nottakeanyposition astowhether thedocumentation would havetobepresented
before thewaiver wasgranted.
2.1.9 Therepresentative ofIndia supported theideaofacollective waiver andwasopenasfaras
itsduration wasconcerned. Itwastheintention ofhisgovernment tointroduce theHS96 changes
on1January 1996 andtosubmit documentation bymid-November.
2.1.10 Therepresentative ofVenezuela indicated thathisgovernment intended toimplement theHS96
changes on1January 1996. Tothisend,technical work hadbeeninitiated inconnection withthe
transposition ofhiscountry 'scommitments under theWTO. Inviewofthetechnical difficulty ofthis
work, itwould notbepossible tofinalize itbefore January 1996. Forthisreason, hisGovernment
would support theideaofacollective waiver ofaduration oftwelve months.
2.1.11 Therepresentative ofArgentina feltitdesirable tohaveacollective waiver of12months '
duration.Heexpresseddoubtregardingthesubmissionoftherequireddocumentationbeforetheadoption
ofthewaiver. Itwasimportant todevelop aconstructive approach andtochoose procedures andtime-
limits thatcould beacceptable toMembers concerned.
2.1.12 Therepresentative ofBolivia pointed outthathercountry wasstillinthestage oftransposing
itspre-Uruguay Round concessions intotheHS. Thus, although herdelegation wasinfavour ofa
collective waiver, itwasclearthatdeveloping countries likeherswould notbeinaposition topresent
thedocumentation related totheintroduction oftheHS96 changes before adoption ofthewaiver.
2.1.13 Therepresentative ofSouth Africa indicated thathisauthorities hadstarted theprocess of
transposition, butduetotechnical difficulties, therewould beproblems inmeeting theproposed deadline
forthesubmission oftherequired documentation.G/MA/M/3
Page4
2.1.14 Therepresentative ofNorway supported theconcept ofacollective waiver andtheideathat
onlycountriesthatcouldcommitthemselvestosubmittingtherequireddocumentationbeforetheadoption
ofthewaiver should beentitled tobecovered. Asconcerned theduration ofthewaiver, hefeltthat
further consultations were necessary.
2.1.15 Therepresentative oftheCôte d'Ivoire explained that,withthetechnical assistance ofthe
Secretariat, hercountry wasintheprocess oftransposing itsschedule intotheHS. Asregards the
HSmodifications tobeintroduced on1January 1996, shewasnotinaposition togiveanyindication
concerning theexact dateoftheirimplementation. Shefavoured acollective waiver.
2.1.16 Therepresentative ofCosta Ricasupported theideaofacollective waiver andagreed with
thedelegate ofArgentina thattherequirements should berealistic. There should besome flexibility
regarding thetimetoprepare thedocumentation andatwelve months duration should beenvisaged.
2.1.17 Onbehalf oftheASEAN countries present, therepresentative ofthePhilippines indicated
thatASEAN countries supported theideaofacollective waiver ofaone-year duration. Referring
totheUSproposal, sheenquired whether itwashisviewthatthewhole documentation needed tobe
presented before themeeting oftheGeneral Council, i.e.by13December 1995. Ifthatwerethecase,
thatrequirement would beverydifficult tofulfil.
2.1.18 Therepresentative oftheUnited States confirmed thathisdelegation hadenvisaged thatthe
documentation would havetobeavailable atthetimeofadoption ofthewaiver. Headded thatthis
shouldnotbeagreatburdensincethecountriesintendingtoimplementHS96changeson1January1996
would essentially havedone thework intheirnational tariffs. TheUSdelegation wasonlyasking
thatthisinformation beshared withWTO Members before implementing thechanges.
2.1.19 Therepresentative ofKorea confirmed thathiscountry would introduce theHS96 changes
on1January 1996andthattherequired documentation would besubmitted forcirculation verysoon.
2.1.20 Therepresentative ofSenegal saidthathiscountry waspresently working onthetransposition
ofitsschedule intoHS92. Inviewoftheheavy workload involved intheintroduction oftheHS96
changes, hewasinfavour ofacollective waiver foraperiod oftwelve months. Hiscountry would
request technical assistance from theSecretariat toundertake thiswork.
2.1.21 Therepresentative ofElSalvador informed theCommittee thatwork ontheintroduction of
theHS96 changes innational tariffs wasunderway atCentral American levelbuthadyettobeapproved
bytheCouncil ofMinisters. Therefore, nospecific datefortheexact entry intoforce oftheHS96
changes could begiven. Itwasthusclear thatitwould notbepossible fortheCentral American
countries topresent thedocumentation atthetimewhen thewaiver would berequested. Thewaiver
should cover aperiod oftwelve months.
2.1.22 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities ,referring tothevarious comments made,
saidthatwhile hisdelegation wasinfavour ofacollective waiver, theMembers wanted tobenefit
fromsuchawaivershouldcommitthemselvestoprovidetherequireddocumentationasearlyaspossible.
Hebelieved itwould berealistic toexpect Members wishing tobecovered bythecollective waiver
tosubmit thedocumentation relating totheirWTO schedules within aperiod ofthree months.
2.1.23 Therepresentative ofthePhilippines ,onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, reiterated thatit
would notberealistic toexpect thedocumentation from allthecountries requesting awaiver by
13December 1995. Thesuggestion made bythedelegate oftheEuropean Communities, i.e.tohave
three months toprovide thedocumentation, would seem acceptable.G/MA/M/3
Page5
2.1.24 Insummarizing thediscussion, theChairman outlined thetwooptions thatwere before the
Committee regarding thesubmission ofthedocumentation: (1)theUSproposal topresent therequired
documentation atthetimeofadoption ofthewaiver and,(2)thesuggestion byHungary toprovide
thedocumentation within threemonths following theadoption ofthewaiver. Concerning theduration
ofthewaiver, therehadbeensupport foreither sixortwelve months. Hetherefore suggested holding
further informal consultations ontheseissues withaviewtofinding anagreement onthemethodology
tobeadopted. Herequested delegations toenquire withtheirrespective capitals about thepossible
options.
2.2 Establishment ofconsolidated loose-leaf schedules
2.2.1 TheChairman reported totheCommittee thathehadcarried outaseries ofinformal
consultations withrespect tothepreparation ofconsolidated schedules inloose-leaf format. The
consultations hadraised several technical issues which hehadtriedtoaddress inarevised version of
hisnote, dated 26October 1995. Before submitting these issues totheCommittee fordecision he
asked Members fortheircomments onhisrevised noteindocument G/MA/TAR/W/4/Rev.1.
2.2.2 Therepresentative ofEgypt indicated that,asageneral remark, hecould notcommit hiscountry
tosubmit aconsolidated loose-leaf schedule without thetechnical assistance oftheSecretariat andthat
hecould notassume anynewobligation inthisrespect.
2.2.3 Therepresentative ofCanada ,referring tothequestion ofrates andstaging ,suggested that,
inorder toavoid indicating thebaseratesandtheUruguay Round finalratesinanannex totheschedules,
itwould bepreferable toreplace inthetextthewords "such information" with"supplementary
information onstaging... could beprovided inanannex totheschedules".
2.2.4 Therepresentatives oftheUnited States, Argentina andCanada expressed theirpreference
forasequential presentation ofagricultural products intheloose-leaf schedules andfeltthatthe
separation between agriculture andindustry wasauseful innovation inthecontext oftheUruguay Round
negotiations butthatforfuture users, itwould beeasier tohavetoasequential presentation. There
should,however,beflexibilityandthepresentationofschedulescouldbelefttothecountriesthemselves.
2.2.5 Therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities andofUruguay wereinfavour ofkeeping
theseparation ofsectors thatwereestablished asnegotiating modalities intheUruguay Round which,
intheirviews, reflected more clearly thesituation. Forthedelegate ofUruguay, itwasimportant
thatallthecommitments onagricultural commitments, staging periods andspecial safeguards would
beclearly reflected intheloose-leaf schedules.
2.2.6 OnthequestionofthetreatmentofhistoricalInitialNegotiatingRights(INRs)therepresentative
oftheUnited States saidthathisauthorities hadcarefully considered potential advantages and
disadvantages ofthevarious strategies andhadcome totheconclusion thattheywould notbewilling
toagree toanymethod thatwould result inthelossofhistorical INRs. Ontheother hand, theywere
notready togothrough theburden ofsearching records ofpastnegotiations toidentify theINRs to
bekeptandthentolaunch atransposition exercise fromprevious nomenclatures intotheHSinorder
topreserve historical INRs. Hisdelegation could therefore notagree totheproposal tofollow areverse
notification procedure. Inhisview, analternative would bethathistorical INRs should remain ineffect
incaseArticle XXVIII actions were initiated.
2.2.7 Therepresentative ofCanada stated thathisGovernment 'sviews weresimilar tothose ofthe
United States andsuggested, inorder topreserve historical INRs incaseofadispute orArticle XXVIII
negotiations, wording which would read: "historical INRs notspecifically identified inaMember 's
loose-leaf schedule would remain valid should thatMember modify itsbindings tothelevel oftheG/MA/M/3
Page6
historical INR". Healsosuggested thatinstead ofreferring to"existing INRs" itwould bebetter to
referto"current INRs", which means INRs atthecurrent bound rates. TheCanadian authorities would
inprinciple agree toindicate intheirloose-leaf schedule allcurrent INRs.
2.2.8 Therepresentative ofNewZealand expressed concern withrespect toINRs onagricultural
products thathadbeensubject totariffication during theUruguay Round. Where there wasanINR
onaproduct which wasnowsubject toahigher outside tariff quota rate(OTQR), orevenahigher
in-tariff quota rate(ITQR), thereshould beanindication ofthathistorical INRonthetariffied product
andthatrightshould encompass theITQR, theOTQR andtheTQquantity. Inthiscontext, hesuggested
thefollowing language: "asaminimum, existing andhistorical INRs onproducts subject totariffication
would beconverted intoINRs onthein-quota rateandtheapplicable quota level aswellastheout
quota rate".
2.2.9 Referring tothestatements bytheAmerican andCanadian delegates, therepresentative ofthe
European Communities indicated thathewould prefer tomaintain theexisting language withthe
addition oftheproposal made byNewZealand. Hebelieved thathistorical INRs ontheproducts which
hadbeensubject totariffication should beconsidered ashistorical andshould notbemodified tolead
tocommitments notcovered atthattime. Inview ofwhat hadbeen saidonhistorical INRs, he
questioned thelegalvalue ofparagraph oneintheChairman 'snotereading "these schedules would
bereplacing allprevious schedules".
2.2.10 Therepresentative ofArgentina added thatalthough hiscountry hadnotgranted norreceived
anyINRs, hewasconcerned withrespect totheobjective ofthewhole exercise which wastoreplace
allexisting records. Hisdelegation would favour asolution thatwould allow toconclude theprocess
without leaving anyspace forfurther discussion onthisoutstanding issue.
2.2.11 With respect totheconcern expressed bythedelegates ofArgentina andoftheEuropean
Communities, therepresentative ofCanada suggested adding, inparagraph 1oftheChairman 'snote,
thefollowing words: "with theexception ofhistorical INRs, forwhich therewould benotime-limit".
2.2.11 TheChairman noted thecomments made andsuggested thatasecond revision ofdocument
G/MA/TAR/W/4 should beprepared forexamination bytheCommittee atitsnextmeeting.
3. Non-tariff Matters
3.1 Notification procedures ofquantitative restrictions
3.1.1 TheChairmanrecalledthataDraftDecisionconcerningNotificationProceduresofQuantitative
Restrictions hadbeencirculated toalldelegations andthatthetextoftheDraft Decision hadbeen
examined bytheMembers oftheCommittee during aninformal meeting on23October 1995. Following
comments made atthatmeeting, arevised version wasprepared andcirculated indocument
G/MA/NTM/W/1 dated 26October 1995.
3.1.2 Referring totherevised version ofthedraft decision, therepresentative ofNew Zealand
suggested that,inorder nottoexclude thepossibility ofreverse notification possibility, thefollowing
provision beadded tothetext:"Itwould beopen toMembers tomake reverse notifications where
theydeem necessary".
3.1.3 TheChairman proposed totakenoteofthisamendment andtoinclude itinarevision of
document G/MA/NTM/W/1 which would besubmitted totheCouncil forTrade inGoods foritsformal
approval.G/MA/M/3
Page7
3.1.4 TheDraft Decision wasapproved bytheCommittee withtheproposed change.
3.2 Reverse notification ofnon-tariff measures
3.2.1 TheChairman referred totheDraft Decision onReverse Notification ofNon-tariff Measures
which hadbeencirculated andexamined inaninformal meeting oftheCommittee on23October 1995.
Aslightly revised textwascontained indocument G/MA/NTM/W/2 dated 26October 1995 andwas
nowbefore theCommittee foritsapproval. Anewrevised version adding theword "other" before
"reverse notification possibilities" inthesecond paragraph would besubmitted totheCouncil forTrade
inGoods forformal approval atitsmeeting of1December 1995.
3.2.2 TheDraft Decision wasapproved bytheCommittee.
4. Integrated Data Base
4.1 TheChairman recalled thatanotebytheSecretariat onIssues Regarding theFuture ofthe
Integrated DataBasehadbeencirculated indocument G/MA/IDB/W/1, dated 22August 1995. He
asked therepresentative oftheSecretariat, Mr.Léger, toexplain thepurpose andcontents ofthe
Secretariat 'snote.
4.2 Mr.Léger emphasized thattheSecretariat wasfacing major problems withregard totheIDB.
First, veryfewparticipants hadsubmitted updated datasince theendoftheUruguay Round. Second,
theSecretariat encountered many problems inprocessing thesubmissions received fromparticipants.
Theformat/layout ofthefileswasnotinlinewiththeoneagreed forIDBSubmissions. Theconversion
ofsubmissions toPCfilesinASCII characters wasoften difficult andsometimes impossible because
ofthesoftware usedtoprepare thefilesincapitals. Thecontent ofsubmissions wasincomplete and
important dataelements wereoftenmissing: MFN bound duties, pre-Uruguay andpost-Uruguay duties,
preferential duties, etc.Finally, thefilesprovided contained errors pertaining mainly tothecoding
ofthetarifflinenumbers (some 5to10percenterror rate)andidentification ofthecodes (e.g.nature,
bindings, etc.)associated withtheduties (around 25percenterror rate).
4.2.1 Herecalled thattheIDBhadbeenusedextensively during theUruguay Round bytheSecretariat
inreviewing theinterim andfinalresults oftheMarket Access negotiations andbyparticipants during
theirnegotiations. TheIDBwasalsousedinArticle XXIV andArticle XXVIII negotiations andin
thecontext ofaccession negotiations. In1994, theSecretariat hadresponded tosome 1,200 requests
forinformation byMembers andthusfar,some 600requests hadbeenanswered in1995. InJune
1995, theSecretariat hadreleased atestversion ofaCD-ROM containing information on34countries
applying theHStogether withanapplication developed jointly withtheWorld Bank topermit the
compilation ofreports.
4.2.2 Toimprove theviability oftheIDB, heproposed anumber ofactions inseveral areas. To
increase thenumber ofparticipants andtoimprove thequality ofIDBsubmissions, theformat of
submissions could besimplified andaPCapplication developed tocheck thedataentry taking place
incapitals. TheSecretariat proposed theestablishment ofcontacts withtechnical experts responsible
incapitals forthepreparation ofIDBsubmissions while keeping Permanent Missions inGeneva aware
ofdevelopments. Toreduce thecostsofprocessing theIDB,theSecretariat would initiate afeasibility
study onthecosts/benefits ofdownsizing theIDBfromamainframe toaPCenvironment. Finally,
itwasperhaps preferable atthisstage toconcentrate efforts intheareas oftariffs andimports before
adding totheIDBnon-tariff measures (e.g. QRs) andother newelements resulting from the
Uruguay Round.G/MA/M/3
Page8
4.2.3 Regarding thefuture access totheIDBdata, herecalled thatIDBinformation ontariffs and
trade wasalready inthepublic domain. Giving access tointernational organizations would avoid the
creation ofunverified databases similar totheIDBandwould alleviate theadministrative burden placed
ontheSecretariat whereby individual written authorization ofparticipants wasnowrequested. Giving
access totheprivate sector, forexample viatheCD-ROM, could beanimportant source ofrevenue.
4.2.4 Inconcluding, herecalled thatiftheWTO weretobetheinternational organization incharge
ofmaintaining anup-to-date databaseontariffs andimports atthetariff linelevel, itwasvitalthat
Members provided theSecretariat withtimely andquality import andtariffdataintheformat required.
4.3 TheChairman ,thanking Mr.Léger forhisdetailed presentation, pointed outthatMembers
hadinvested quite alotoftimeandresources intheIDBwhich hadbeenauseful instrument during
thenegotiations. Mr.Léger 'spresentation highlighted some sixpoints thattheCommittee needed
tobeconcerned about. Thefirstconcerned datadeficiencies. Delegations hadtosupply timely
information intheformat required totheIDB. Thesecond point wasthesuggestion ofsimplifying
theformats ofsubmissions totheIDBanddeveloping PCapplications toprepare thedataincapitals.
Thethirdpoint concerned theundertaking bytheSecretariat ofafeasibility study ondownsizing the
IDBfrom amainframe toaPCenvironment. Thefourth point concerned theinformation recorded
intheIDB. Itmight bepreferable justlooking atthebasic information ontariffs andtradeandgetting
theIDBupandrunning before broadening thescope oftheIDBtoinclude QRsandother types of
restrictions. Thefifthpointrelated toaccess totheIDBdata. Thepresent IDBinformation wasavailable
inthepublic domain andother organizations were developing databases similar totheIDB. The
question waswhether theWTO should betheorganization thathasup-to-date andverified information
ontariffs andtrade andwhether access totheIDBdatacould begiven tointernational organizations
andeventheprivate sector. Thelastpoint concerned themanagerial aspect oftheIDB. Itmight be
useful forDelegations toauthorize theSecretariat tocontact fortechnical information thepersons in
capitals dealing withthese technical matters. TheChairman opened thefloorforcomments onthese
sixpoints.
4.4 Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisgovernment attached agreat dealof
importance totheIDBandwanted ittoreach itsfullpotential. The1994tradedataoftheUnited States
would besubmitted fortheIDBwithin thenextcouple ofweeks. Concerning themanagement ofthe
IDBinamainframe orinaPCenvironment, itwashisgovernment 'scontention thatconversion to
aPCenvironment wascrucial fortheIDB'sfuture functioning andthatitshould bedoneasquickly
aspossible. With regard tothesimplified formats forIDBsubmissions, theyshould beavailable in
aPCformat andshould notbelimited tothe"minimum listofdataelements". Additional information
wasverynecessary, forexample, thepreferential duties applicable onatariff linebasis. Ontheissue
ofinformation release, although hisgovernment wasfavourable totheideaofcommercializing the
IDB, thisshould notdistract theSecretariat fromthefirstpriority which wastogetthesystem upand
runningonPCsforparticipatinggovernments.Hecommentedthatthecontrolofexchanginginformation
might havetoberevisited inorder toprovide encouragement forgovernments tosubmit information.
4.5 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisDelegation wasverycommitted
totheefficiency oftheIDB. Asregards thesimplified formats andthetransfer ofapplications toa
PCenvironment, hethought thatitshould betheresponsibility oftheSecretariat todecide onthese
specific issues. TheCommittee could onlytakeastand ontheresults ofsuchanaction. Concerning
thecoverage oftheinformation, heagreed thatinthefirststage Members should beasked toprovide
essentially tariff andtrade databycustoms tariff lines. Thedoorshould beleftopentouseallthe
possibilities which maybeharnessed inthefuture. Asregards themanagement ofthisinformation
hefeltthatitwasabsolutely essential fortheWTO tobetheorganization responsible forthemaintenance
oftheIDBinformation. Concerning direct contacts withthecapitals fortechnical servicing, hethought
itwasthebestwaytomaximise thework oftheSecretariat. Concerning theuseoftheinformation,G/MA/M/3
Page9
thecommercialization oftheIDBwasaninteresting proposal eventhough thisshould notbethemain
objective oftheIDB. Members whodidnottakepartintheIDBshould beconscious oftheimportance
forother Members tohaveaccess tothisinformation. TheCommittee should emphasize thebroadest
possible participation intheIDBsothatitmaybecome acomplete andefficient tool.
4.6 Therepresentative oftheWorld Bank recalled theimportance which theBankplaced onhaving
timely, accurate andanalytically relevant dataontrade restrictions covering, asaminimum, recent
trade andtariff dataanddataonpreferential tariffs atatariff linelevelincluding dataonceilings to
which certain preferences might besubject.
4.7 Therepresentative ofMalaysia (onbehalf oftheASEAN countries) saidhewould welcome
anymove tosimplify theformat forsubmission ofinputs. Heendorsed thattheWTO should bethe
main focal organization todealwithstatistics ontrade, tariffs andother trade restrictions. ASEAN
countries would havenodifficulties ifafocalpoint inthecapitals wasestablished todealwithtechnical
matters ontheIDB. Finally, heagreed withtherepresentative oftheUnited States whoproposed that
some kindofencouragement begiven forsubmission ofinputs totheIDBbyallMembers.
4.8 Therepresentative ofArgentina supported theideaofcoming upwithasimplified format
which would besuitable forthePCenvironment. Thissimplified format should beatoppriority for
theSecretariat. Heagreed withothers speakers thatinviewofthecritical status oftheIDBtheinclusion
ofnewdataelements wascertainly notapriority. Concerning theaccess totheIDB, hisDelegation
hadanopenposition asregards thesharing ofinformation bytheMember countries oftheWTO and
access byother users including thepossibility ofgenerating revenues withtheIDB.
4.9 Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidthathisDelegation would continue tosupport theIDB
bysubmitting up-to-date data. Greater participation intheIDBshould beencouraged tomake thedata
themselves more attractive. Inthisconnection, asimplified format should beencouraged tomake it
easier fornewMembers tosubmit thedata. Concerning access totheIDB, hehadnoproblem with
sharing thedatabasewithother international organizations. Onthequestion ofcommercialization,
itwasaveryinteresting ideabutthiscould beconsidered laterwhen thedatawereattractive enough.
4.10 Therepresentative ofPoland saidhewasinfavour ofabroad participation intheIDBand
hisDelegation wasproviding statistical information assoonasitwasavailable inthecapital. Hewas
verymuch infavour ofdeveloping PCapplications topermit incapitals theformatting, checking and
integration ofdatatobeincluded inIDBsubmissions. Hethought thatdirect linksbetween theWTO
Secretariat andpersons responsible incapitals forproviding national statistical information would be
quite useful andwould probably putgreater pressure onauthorities toprovide suchinformation.
4.11 TherepresentativeofKoreasaidthattheessentialelementfortheIDBexercisewasparticipation.
TheIDBshould include information forasmany WTO Members aspossible. Healsoagreed with
therepresentative oftheUnited States thattheIDBoperations should betransferred fromthemainframe
computer toaPCenvironment asamatter ofpriority. Heagreed thattheinformation recorded in
theIDBshould notbeexpanded atthisstage andthatdirect contact bytheSecretariat withthecapitals
would beuseful. Finally, thecommercialization oftheIDBwould alsobeacceptable.
4.12 Therepresentative ofSwitzerland thought thatthemain element which should bediscussed
wasthematter ofefficiency ofthedatabaseandanumber ofproposals made bytheSecretariat were
going intherightdirection. Hewasreferring todirect technical contacts between theSecretariat and
experts inthecapitals, thedownsizing oftheIDBtoaPCenvironment andsimplifying theformats,
andalsotheconcentration onalimited number ofcomponents toberecorded intheIDB. Asregards
commercialization andopening access totheIDB, hethought thatthetoppriority fortheIDBshould
betoprovide useful information fortheMembers. After thispresentation andasafollow-up tothisG/MA/M/3
Page10
discussion, itmight beuseful tohavemoreconcrete proposals fromtheSecretariat toestablish alinkage
withthefunding ofthese activities.
4.13 Mr.Léger clarified twopoints concerning thedownsizing oftheIDBtoaPCenvironment.
Thefirstpriority oftheSecretariat wastodevelop forMembers asimplified format forsubmissions
andsome software thatwould enable Members tosupply therequired information byentering iton
aPC.Thesecond priority wastotransfer toPCtheIDBsystem which ranpresently onthemainframe.
Thesystem consisted today ofroughly 1,000 computer programs thatwould takealongtimetorewrite
intoaPCenvironment. Thesecond point related tothecostinvolved. TheSecretariat hadalready
requested inthe1996 budget thefunds necessary forundertaking afeasibility study. Asregards the
funds fortheactual downsizing exercise, theSecretariat would report totheCommittee when thecosts,
benefits, etc.hadbeenidentified.
4.14 TheChairman stated thattheCommittee seemed toagree onthecrucial points fortheIDB
intheshort-term. Delegations expressed verystrong support formaking theIDBwork inaPC
environment, tohavetheSecretariat examine theideaofasimplified format andundertake afeasibility
study ofmoving theIDBtoaPC-based environment. There wasapreference forkeeping theIDB
simple atthispoint intimesothatatleastitcould produce theinformation needed ontradeandtariffs
statistics, while atthesame timeallowing forthepossibility ofexpansion inthelong-term toinclude
other kinds ofdata.Asregards themanagerial aspect oftheIDB,Delegations agreed thattheSecretariat
establish contacts incapitals ontechnical matters concerning IDBsubmissions. Asregards theaccess
totheIDBinformation, theSecretariat could release thedatatoWTO Members andtointernational
organizations. Concerning thecommercialization oftheIDB, thematter would bediscussed again
when theIDBwasupandrunning andincluded up-to-date information forasmany WTO Members
aspossible.
5. Other Business
5.1 Verification oftheschedule ongoods oftheSolomon Islands
5.1.1 TheChairman referred totherevised draftfinalschedule ongoods oftheSolomon Islands
whichhadbeenavailableforcollectionsince14August1995andaskeddelegationswhetherthisschedule
could nowbeconsidered verified.
5.1.2 Therepresentative ofNewZealand reserved therights ofhiscountry onthisschedule since
thisitemhadnotbeenincluded intheannotated agenda.
5.1.3 TheChairman declared theschedule ongoods oftheSolomon Islands verified subject tothe
confirmation byNewZealand1.
1New Zealand lifted itsobjection bytelephone on1November 1995.G/MA/M/3
Page11
5.2 Procedure fordecisions having financial implications which maybetaken byWTO bodies
5.2.1 TheChairman drew theattention oftheCommittee toarecommendation oftheCommittee
onBudget, Finance andAdministration, approved bytheGeneral Council andcontained indocument
WT/L/76.
5.2.2 TheCommittee tooknoteofthisrecommendation.
5.3 Dateofthenextmeeting oftheCommittee
5.3.1 TheChairman pointed outtotheCommittee thatinviewofthevarious issues thatneeded
tobeconsidered bytheCommittee before thelastsessions oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods andthe
General Council thisyear, scheduled for1and13December 1995respectively, itwould bedesirable
tomeetagain on22November 1995 at3p.m.
5.3.2 TheCommittee agreed .