WTO Trade Facilitation Meetings December 1-3, 2008

UNCLAS GENEVA 000066 PASS TO USTR FOR ROHDE USDOC FOR BARNETT EB/OT USDA/FAS/ITP, MTND E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ETRD WTRO USTR SUBJECT: WTO Trade Facilitation Meetings December 1-3, 2008 ¶1. Summary/overview. This cable reports on the meeting of the WTO Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation (NGTF) held in Geneva on December 1-3, 2008. The meetings consisted of informal, open-ended Chair-led working sessions devoted to revised Member proposals related to GATT Article V (freedom on transit),VIII (fees and formalities),and X (publication),as well as special and differential treatment (S&D) and technical assistance and capacity building (TA/CB). The discussion of textual proposals focused chiefly on new revisions of the separation of release and clearance, authorized traders proposals and border agency cooperation, as well as providing Members an opportunity to comment on all other proposals. Meetings on S&D and TA/CB helped to advance the discussion and identify crucial outstanding issues. The TF discussions continue to be characterized by broad participation of members working off of member-sponsored textual proposals. The next NGTF meeting is tentatively scheduled for late February. End summary. ¶2. During the week of December 1, the NGTF met informally in plenary session led by the chair, Amb. Eduardo Sperisen of Guatemala, to continue discussions on textual proposals and implementation. Bruce Hirsh (USTR),Rachel Shub (USTR Geneva),Elena Bryan (USTR), Virginia Brown (USTR),Christine Brown (Commerce),Renee Chovanec (CBP),Sharon Goodson (CBP) and Brinton Bohling (USAID) attended on behalf of the USG. Other Textual Proposals ¶3. Negotiators continued the Member-driven process of reviewing all textual proposals. The week's discussion focused initially on the new revisions of the proposals on separation of release and clearance, authorized traders and border agency cooperation, as these were the only new revisions tabled since the last meeting. Of the several interventions on release and clearance, only India was negative, noting that they could not always provide for release before full customs administrative clearance was complete. While most Members thanked the EC for taking into consideration some previously-raised concerns about its proposal on authorized traders, concerns remain, particularly on the scope and application of the criteria, and how implementation would be measured. ¶4. The U.S.-Uganda proposal on the elimination of consularization fees was discussed again. Egypt again objected to the proposal and said it would not agree to any agreement containing the commitment. Egypt was supported by Paraguay and Argentina. The United States took the floor to note the overwhelming support from many Members in the discussion of the proposal in July. ¶5. The EC proposal on the use of customs brokers generated a confused discussion. The original EC proposal had called for the elimination of the mandatory use of customs brokers. The revised proposal requires the use of transparent broker licensing procedures and unlimited licenses, but not the complete elimination of the mandatory use of customs brokers. India, supported by Morocco, stated that broker regimes should be left to each country to regulate. Guatemala and Mexico stated that the issue involves trade in services and is a GATS issue. The EC recognized that the issue was becoming side tracked, apologized for not submitting a clearer revised proposal and vowed to work with concerned Members in drafting the revision. Special and Differential Treatment ¶6. The discussions on S&D and TA/CB continued to make incremental progress. The negotiating group continued to focus on developing an approach that would permit each developing country to identify which obligations it could implement as of entry into force, those for which it would need a transition period, and those for which it would need a transition coupled with technical assistance. Building on previous discussions, developed and developing countries continued discussions around a two-stage scheduling approach, inspired by a U.S. non-paper circulated in May. However, the discussions demonstrated that there is still a divide among Members on the extent of how binding the transition periods would be for those commitments needing time or time and assistance. There was also considerable discussion on the role of a future Trade Facilitation Committee. Questions were raised on whether a TF Committee would have a role in assisting in implementation beyond being the recipient of notifications by developing countries of their implementation plans. There was support for the U.S.-supported idea of an "early warning mechanism" for developing countries to use in the event that the required TACB is not being received. Egypt said that the Committee should only be for transparency and the early warning mechanism. Rwanda, supported by Jamaica, Tanzania, Uganda and Paraguay, supported the creation of a Committee but stated that there was a need for further discussion and refinement on its role and decision making process. The week's discussions were aided by non-papers submitted by the Africa Group and LDC Group. Many delegations continue to actively contribute to the discussions. Cross-Cutting Issues ¶7. Canada hosted a session on "cross cutting" issues, following up on an initial meeting held in May. It focused on the functions of a future TF Committee, the relationship of the future TF agreement to GATT articles and other WTO Agreements, and dispute settlement. Bilateral Activities ¶8. The U.S. delegation also held bilateral meetings with Canada and with members of the LDC group (Tanzania, Bangladesh, Nepal, Lesotho, and Uganda). The meeting with the LDCs provided the United States and the LDC representatives a chance to share thoughts on the S&D discussions. The LDC representatives expressed concern about being required to provide implementation timeframes for those commitments that need both a transition period and assistance, asserting that timeframes were only conceivable after discussions with donors had taken place. The meeting with Canada reviewed various textual proposals, including separation of release and clearance, and customs cooperation, with Canada seeking U.S. support for their proposals. In addition, the United States and Canada discussed the advance rulings proposal, which we have both co-sponsored with Australia and Turkey. Canada was supportive of the U.S. suggestion to host a seminar on the scope to help clarify what is meant by each of the bracketed scope items. The United States hosted a similar workshop about two years ago, but there are many new TF negotiators now. ¶9. As a side event, Norway hosted a meeting for donors to share experiences on TF-related technical assistance, including the needs assessment exercises, and to discuss next steps. While the information-sharing was helpful, there was disagreement on what the next steps should be, over whether who, if anyone, should be leading that effort. Next steps ¶10. At the end of the week, the Chair distributed an aide-memoire intended to capture the drafting suggestions proposed during the week's negotiations. The Chair stressed that there were many proposals requiring revision, and urged Members to revise existing textual proposals to make further progress in the NGTF. In the S&D area, the Chair, with Members' approval, is seeking a new informal "friend of the Chair" to help move forward the work. The next meeting of the NGTF is tentatively scheduled for late February.