negotiating group on market access
Report by the chairman of the
negoTiating group on market access
7
December 2015
1. After the WTO Ministerial Conference of
December 2013 in Bali, work on NAMA restarted with Chair’s consultations between
February and July 2014 and three open-ended meetings of the Negotiating Group
on 31 March, 9 July and 22 September 2014. Discussions came, however,
to a halt in the second half of 2014 due to an impasse relating to the Bali
Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes, which
was eventually resolved at the end of November. In 2015, the Chair pursued
consultations and open-ended meetings of the Negotiating Group on 2 March,
1 June, 23 July and 23 September. Further meetings took place in smaller formats
convened by the Director-General, the Chair and individual Members. In
September 2015 it became clear that a broad result in agriculture, including on
domestic support and market access, would be extremely difficult to reach by
MC10 in Nairobi. Under these circumstances, many Members’ interest and
engagement on NAMA diminished strongly.
2. In short, while following the Bali
Ministerial Conference there was strong engagement by Members on NAMA in
the first half of 2014 and the first half of 2015, this was not the case in the
second half of these years.
3. The NAMA discussions over the last two years
centred on the draft modalities Rev.3 text. Members either considered that
these modalities provided an appropriate basis for continuing the negotiations,
or, on the contrary, were of the view that they would not be conducive to
success, as shown by past experiences. Many
Members recalled that Rev.3 provided for specific solutions for individual and
groups of Members, which should be preserved under any outcome. The NAMA
discussions mostly focussed on the tariff side. Any progress on NTBs was
perceived as elusive as long as Members did not advance with respect to tariffs.
4. As a
central element, the NAMA draft modalities Rev.3 foresee a so-called Swiss Formula to reduce tariffs of developed and
more advanced developing Members ("formula-applying
Members"). The discussion was affected by the
fact that some formula-applying Members did not have a mandate to move away
from the Swiss Formula, while for others using a Swiss Formula was not doable. Notwithstanding this situation,
alternative approaches to the Rev.3 Swiss Formula were explored on a
non-prejudicial basis. An
element that emerged in the course of the discussions and appeared acceptable
to the membership was that LDCs and SVEs should, independently of the outcome, not
be asked to do more than what was envisaged in Rev.3.
5. On 9 March 2015, Argentina submitted a
proposal on a request/offer approach, circulated in JOB/MA/116. The Secretariat
made a technical presentation on averaging of tariff cuts on 17 March 2015,
and on 1 June 2015 Canada presented potential outcomes of averaging simulations
undertaken for extracts of its tariff schedule. The ACP Group circulated papers
(JOB/TNC/46 and JOB/TNC/50) containing elements pertaining to the NAMA tariff
negotiations, and the SVEs did the same in their contribution (JOB/TNC/49).
6. In spite of these efforts, real
progress on NAMA has remained elusive since the 9th Ministerial
Conference in Bali. This seems notably due to a strong linkage between this
negotiation and that in agriculture, in the broader context of the DDA
undertaking. In particular, ambition in agriculture proved to impact ambition in
NAMA, and ambition in NAMA would have had to be reflected in agriculture. For
most Members, NAMA cannot be delivered on its own but only as part of a broader
package with agricultural issues as a central part.
__________