This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GENEVA 001903 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PASS USTR FOR BROADBENT, DWOSKIN, ROHDE 
STATE EB/OT FOR CRAFT 
DOC ITA/JACOBS AND SJONES 
DHS/CPB/VBROWN, SPERO, SCHMITZ 
DHS FOR PATTON 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: ETRD USTR WTRO
SUBJECT:  WTO TRADE FACILITATION NEGOTIATIONS - JUNE AND JULY 
2005 
 
¶1.  Summary.  This cable reports on the June and July meetings of 
the WTO Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation (WTO NGTF), held 
in Geneva on 12-13 June and 25-26 July, 2005.  Matt Rohde (USTR), 
Rachel Shub (USTR Geneva), Gordana Earp (Treasury), Ann Barnett- 
Dahl (Commerce), Christina Kopitopoulos (CBP, DHS), Allison Levy 
(CBP, DHS), Virginia Brown (CBP, DHS), and Patterson Brown 
(USAID) attended on behalf of the USG.  The high level of 
positive and constructive engagement by Members from all levels 
of development remained a hallmark of the NGTF. Delegations 
mainly focused on technical aspects of the many proposals, and in 
some cases recounted their own experiences with particular 
customs reforms.  The June and July meetings included informal 
sessions devoted to discussing how to fulfill the NGTFs mandate 
to ensure implementation of the eventual obligations through the 
identification of individual Members' needs and appropriate 
technical assistance.  The July meeting also considered a paper 
cosponsored by India and the United States, which the Chair 
hailed as a historic joint effort unprecedented in the GATT and 
WTO.  The paper proposes possible multilateral approaches to 
customs cooperation and information sharing, laying down a 
framework for future work and identifying the issues that would 
need to be addressed.  One measure of the progress of the NGTF 
was the increasing use by Members of a parlance that included 
reference to a future WTO "Agreement" that would include new 
"commitments."  End Summary. 
June Meeting 
 
¶2.  There were eight new papers presented at the June meeting. 
Taiwan submitted a paper concerning its experience in providing 
special procedures for express shipments, which complemented an 
earlier U.S. proposal.  Argentina proposed WTO website links to 
national websites, and raised whether, with technical assistance 
for translation, developing country Members' websites might at 
least be able to have information in one of the WTO official 
languages (English, Spanish or French).  China and Korea put 
forward proposals on risk management, with Japan providing its 
experience in risk management in a separate paper.  Turkey and 
the EU presented papers with numerous ideas concerning 
transparency and customs reform, several of which had been 
submitted by others in past meetings.  Norway relayed its 
experience on border cooperation. 
 
¶3.  Significantly, sixteen Latin American countries (Argentina, 
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Dominican 
Republic, Costa Rica, and Panama) joined in submitting a 
practical approach to ensuring that individual needs of Members 
were identified and that the issues of technical assistance, 
cost, transition, and special and differential treatment, were 
met, all clearly linked to the individual TF obligations as they 
were developed in the negotiating group.  The paper, which made 
reference to new "disciplines," was largely well-received, with 
countries as diverse as China, India and the United States in 
basic agreement with the approach.  The paper provided material 
for a subsequent "informal" session at which developing countries 
searched expressed hope for finding a practical way forward to 
ensure that they were able to identify the difficulty or extent 
to which they would be able to comply with certain disciplines, 
and ensure technical assistance. 
 
¶4.  On the margins, the United States held a mini-workshop 
explaining how express shipments are handled by US Customs.  The 
workshop was very well attended by developing country 
representatives, many of whom had not realized that such 
procedures (including overtime of customs agents and any special 
facilities) are normally funded by the very industry that 
receives the benefit, through user fees or specific 
contributions, and that each company only receives expedited 
treatment of imports it handles if it complies with extra 
procedural requirements such as providing extra information on a 
specified timely basis. 
 
July meeting 
 
¶5.  At the July meeting, five new proposals were tabled, the most 
significant of which was the proposal cosponsored by the U.S. and 
India co-sponsored a proposal on the creation of a customs 
information sharing mechanism.  This was the first time the two 
countries have co-sponsored a proposal either in the GATT or WTO. 
The proposal received support, including from China and smaller 
countries (Mauritius, Paraguay and Jamaica), while South Africa 
announced its desire to be an additional cosponsor.  A few 
developed Members, including Canada and the EC, raised concerns 
about protecting business proprietary information, an issue 
flagged in the paper as something that would have to be 
addressed. 
 
¶6.  In addition, Japan and Singapore submitted papers on their 
experiences using pre-arrival examination and a single window 
system, respectively, while Korea submitted a new proposal on the 
utilization of a post-clearance audit system. 
 
¶7.  The July meeting saw another informal discussion on the 
issues of developing country concern (needs identification and 
technical assistance.)  The discussion this time was enriched by 
a paper from the Africa Group that appeared to build on the Latin 
American paper from the June meeting.  The Africa Group 
submission was notable for its practical tone, concrete 
suggestions, and the absence of rhetorical demands. 
 
Next steps 
 
¶8.  The next meeting of the NGTF is scheduled for 19-20 
September, 2005.  In the fall, the Chair intends to revisit the 
proposals in the context of a thematic matrix/compilation that 
has been assembled by the Secretariat.  This process will provide 
the opportunity to flesh out some proposals, see where some of 
the over 50 proposals overlap or are redundant, and hear more 
specific reactions by delegations.  Working on a thematic basis 
through the matrix could provide a crucial next step toward 
ensuring the negotiations are on a path toward a Doha negotiating 
outcome that includes an Agreement on Trade Facilitation.  Shark