NAMA to aims to complete modalities by June 16, 2006
04 May '06
6 min read
A plethora of other questions remain for Members to answer. For example, they need to iron out the "small number of differences" that persist about the range of products that will be covered by the tariff reduction formula. They also need to agree on the treatment of countries with binding caps for fewer than 35 percent of their tariff lines - specifically, they must agree on how many tariff lines these dozen-odd developing countries exempt from the formula will have to bind, and at what average level.
Negotiators will also need to agree on any particular treatment to accord to small and vulnerable economies (SVEs) and recently-acceded Members, as well as how to identify countries eligible for such treatment.
The chair's report noted that "some Members take the view that measures such as export taxes and export restrictions are not part of the mandate" on non-tariff barriers (NTBs), and thus should not be discussed in the NAMA Negotiating Group. The EU and Japan respectively have called for their broad prohibition. However, Stephenson's consultations said that apart from this, there was "broad support" for the identification of across-the-board rules for NTBs, as well as a bilateral request-offer process to address specific ones. Some civil society groups have expressed concern that countries are using the negotiations to seek the attenuation of environmental and health standards, arguing that they constitute NTBs.
Stephenson described the debate on preference erosion as "extremely polarized." Some countries want to accord longer implementation periods or higher coefficients to products that have long been affected by trade preferences; others argue that this would be detrimental to non-beneficiary developing countries, and that aid for trade should thus be the only way to help countries cope with the erosion of long-term trade preferences.
marketing@alchempro.com
