R 270708Z JAN 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 7914
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION COLLECTIVE

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.