RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE S/NGMTS/5
24April 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-0987)
Negotiating Group onMaritime Transport Services
NOTE ONTHE MEETING OF6-7APRIL 1995
1. TheNegotiating Group onMaritime Transport Services helditsfifthmeeting on6-7April
1995. TheChairman saidthatsince thelastmeeting oftheGroup, Colombia hadjoined theGroup
asfullparticipant, bringing thetotalnumber ofparticipants toforty. There wereinaddition sixteen
governments andthree organizations withobserver status intheGroup.
2. Theagenda ofthemeeting wascontained inAirgram WTO/AIR/46 of22March 1995. The
Chairman saidthatheintended tofocus ontheexamination ofthetenadditional setsofquestionnaire
replies received since thelastmeeting andtodevote some timetoadiscussion oftheDraft Schedule
onMaritime Transport Services andrelated comments received fromCanada, theECandtheUnited
States.
3. Thefirstitemoftheagenda wastheconsideration ofrequests forobserver status. TheGroup
decided togrant observer status toBulgaria, acountry which wascurrently negotiating itsaccession
totheWTO.
4. Thesecond itemoftheagenda wastheconsideration ofresponses tothequestionnaire on
maritime transport services. TheChairman saidthattwenty-five setsofquestionnaire replies hadbeen
received andcirculated totheGroup -i.e.,littlemore thanthehalf-way mark interms ofthetotal
number ofparticipants intheGroup. Inaddition, noreplies atallhadbeenreceived from observer
governments. Given theneedfortheGroup tomove toward thenegotiating phase ofitswork, hestrongly
encouraged delegations -bothparticipants andobserver countries alike-thathadyetnotdonesoto
submit theirreplies intheinterest ofbothtransparency andexpediency. Participants weretheninvited
togiveabriefintroduction oftheirsubmissions andrespond toquestions from other delegations.
5. ThefirstsetofquestionnairerepliestobeexaminedwasthatofNorway(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.6).
OnQuestions 6through 11ofPartIofthequestionnaire, therepresentative ofNorway explained that
thelackofstatistical dataontheorganization ofcargo reflected thefactthattheNorwegian market
wasopenandthere wasnorealneedforregulation. Hesaidthattheestimated share oflinershipping
toNorway which wascarried byconferences wasfortypercentwhile theshare oflinercargo toand
from Norway which wascontainerized wasaround eighty percent. Onthereply toQuestion 6,he
confirmed thatNorway didnothavedefinitions of"international maritime transport" orcabotage;
transport toandfrom offshore installations, including those where petroleum wasexplored, was
understood ascabotage transportation. OnthereplytoQuestion 22,heconfirmed thattherewereindeed
some linksbetween theECandNorwegian regulatory regimes through theEuropean Economic Area
(EEA) Agreement. HesaidthattheEEA Agreement contained ECCouncil Regulation No.954/79,
which wasthebasis fortheapplication oftheUNConvention onaCode ofConduct forLiner
Conferences byboththeECandNorway. Onthereply toQuestions 29and30,hesaidthattheLiner
Conference Act,among otherthings, implemented theLiner Code butdidnotregulate linerconferences
assuch.
6. ThenextsetofquestionnairerepliestobeexaminedwasthatofChile(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.13).
Onthereply toQuestion 1ofPartIofthequestionnaire, therepresentative ofChile confirmed that
there wereonlyforeign-flag refrigerated carriers under Chilean ownership, control oroperation andS/NGMTS/5
Page2
thatthiswasduetotheconditions attached tothefinancing obtained fortheconstruction ofsuchvessels.
Ontheapparent contradiction between thereplies toQuestions 1and4ofPartIofthequestionnaire,
hesaidthatthetwenty-two percentshare ofrefrigerated cargo inthetotalcargo carried byseaby
national-flag vessels indicated inthereply toQuestion 4corresponded notonlytocargo carried by
specialized cargo vessels butalsocargo carried inrefrigerated chambers builtintoothertypesofvessels.
7. Onthereply toQuestions 1,2and3ofPartII,therepresentative ofChile saidthatthemain
principle ofChilean maritime policy wasthefreedom ofmaritime transport andthatreciprocity was
onlyappliedinreactiontorestrictionsbeingimposedonChileanvessels.Reciprocitymeasuresregarding
cargo reservation, forexample, hadbeenapplied inrelation tothebilateral traffic withBolivia and
Paraguay. Hecould notthink ofanexample ofareciprocity measure regarding traffic exclusion which
hadbeenapplied. Hestressed thatalthough intheseventies reciprocity wascentral inpromoting the
participation ofChilean vessels inthetransportation ofChile'strade, theprinciple wasnolonger used
asaninstrument ofcargo administration. Regarding shipping agents, hesaidthatallvessels berthing
inChilean ports hadtohaveanagent; agents wereallowed todealwiththemanagement ofthevessel
aswellascommercial aspects suchasbillsoflading. Shipagents hadtobenational but"general agents",
assetoutinthecommercial code, could beforeign forthepurposes ofdoing business inChile.
8. Onthereply toQuestion 4,therepresentative ofChile saidthatforeign multimodal transport
operators could notowntrucks andother equipment inChile butjustrentorleasethem. Inaddition,
multimodaltransportoperatorshadtobeaChileanjuridicalpersonforoperationinChile.Inthatcontext,
hereferred tolandtransport agreements inthesouthern coneregion which reserved cabotage traffic
topartner countries. Regarding railtransport, hesaidthatprivate investment -bothnational andforeign -
accounted forfifty-five percentofallinvestment inthesector. OnthereplytoQuestion 5,heconfirmed
thatauxiliary services suchascargo transfer, carriage, loading andunloading could becontracted freely
innational ports. Hesaidthatconcessions werealready granted toprivate firms fortheconstruction
ofports andthattheissueofprivate investment inports wascurrently being examined inParliament.
Onthereplies toQuestions 20,21and22,hesaidthatChile hadnotratified theLiner Code andthat
theagreement withBrazil wastheonlyoneChile hadaccording towhich cargo wasshared: only
petroleum anditsby-products wereexcluded fromthescope ofthisagreement. OnthereplytoQuestion
8.(c), heconfirmed thattransportation intrades across, toandfromChile onforeign-flag vessels were
without restrictions.
9. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was that ofIndonesia
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.14). Onthereply toQuestion 1ofPartI,therepresentative ofIndonesia said
thatthere werenonational passenger vessels which engaged ininternational transport. Onthereply
toQuestion 13,hesaidthatforeign shipping companies could carry cargo without quantity limitations
buthadtohaveanIndonesian shipping company asagent. Foreign shipping companies wereallowed
toprovideshipagencyservices,containerstationanddepotservices,maritimefreightforwardingservices
andstorage andwarehousing services onlythrough ajoint venture withanIndonesian company.
However, inthose cases, foreign companies could haveaparticipation ashighasninety-five percent
oftheequity oftheventure. Onthereply toQuestion 2ofPartII,hesaidthatthere were137ports
openforinternational tradeinIndonesia andthatforeign shipping companies could callonthese ports
without anyquantity orfrequency limitations. These companies hadtoappoint anIndonesian shipping
company forthehandling operations atports. Stillonthesamereply, heconfirmed thattheexpression
"international seaborne trade cargoes" referred toimport/export cargoes -i.e.,cargoes transported
toandfrom Indonesia.
10. Onthereply toQuestion 5,therepresentative ofIndonesia added thatthere werenoprivate
portsinIndonesia andthatportmanagement wasundertaken byacorporation owned bythegovernment.
Auxiliary services could, however, besupplied byprivate persons butonlynational ones. Onthereply
toQuestion 4,hesaidthatonlynational companies could engage innational multimodal transportS/NGMTS/5
Page3
operations. Onthereply toQuestion 8,hereminded theGroup thatIndonesia hadnotmade any
commitments initsschedule intheareaofauxiliary services. Onthereply toQuestion 9,hesaidthat
thegovernment encouraged butdidnotoblige foreign shipping companies toreduce incrementally
theirshare-holdings injointventures withIndonesian companies. Stillonthesame reply, hesaidthat
therewould beapossibility forforeign suppliers toenterintojointventure arrangements withIndonesian
suppliersforthesupplyofinternationalmultimodaltransportoperationservices.Hesaidthatthedomicile
ofjointventure companies should haveaclearlinktotheactivities undertaken bythem attheports.
11. Reacting toageneral question onmarket access, therepresentative ofIndonesia saidthatthere
werenospecific procedures setoutbytheMinistry ofTransportation concerning export cargoes. On
thereply toQuestion 15,heconfirmed thatallservices listed under Question 13were available on
anon-discriminatory basis. Similarly, onthereply toQuestion 16,heconfirmed thatthere wereno
measures which restricted access tosea-ports onthesame terms asnational suppliers. Onthereply
toQuestion 22,heexplained thatthegovernment didnotenforce theLiner Code andthatconferences
onlyhadtobenotified. Onthereply toQuestion 27,heclarified thatgovernment cargoes were
understood tobecargoes owned bythegovernment, whether ofacommercial ornon-commercial nature.
12. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was that ofHong Kong
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add. 15).Onthereply toQuestion 8.(a) ofPartIIofthequestionnaire, the
representativeofHongKongsaidthatlimitationsintheformofmonopoliesorexclusiveservicesuppliers
applied totheprovision ofbuoys, pilotage andthelicensing ofvessels forcarriage ofpassengers. The
provision ofbuoys wasprovided bythegovernment while pilotage hadanexclusive supplier forsafety
reasons. Thecarriage ofpassengers bydomestic vessels within Hong Kong waters wasconsidered
cabotage andreserved forHong Kong suppliers while other forms ofcabotage operation were open
toall.Decisions todevelop terminals (e.g., container terminals) weretaken bythePortDevelopment
Board -abody consisting ofrepresentatives from boththepublic andtheprivate sectors -andwere
based onthecargo through-put inHong Kong. Once adecision hadbeenmade tobuildcargo terminals,
areasonable andnon-discriminatory public offerwasmade, opentoallthose interested inbuilding,
owning oroperating suchterminals.
13. Thenextsetofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined wasthatofMexico (S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.
16).Onthereply toQuestion 10ofPartIIofthequestionnaire, therepresentative ofMexico saidthat
theabbreviation APIintheSpanish version ofthereplies should alsoread"Administración Portuaria
Integral". Shesaidthatthemaximum limitof49percentforeign participation applied toservices
suchasAPIsandpilotage butthatforsome other services ahigher participation waspossible subject
toapproval bytheCommission onForeign Investment. Shewould come backwithclarifications to
other questions raised atthemeeting inthenearfuture.
14. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was thatofCôte d'Ivoire
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.17). Therepresentative oftheCôted'Ivoire saidthathercountry 'smaritime
policy wasbased ontheapplication oftheLiner Code andbilateral agreements concluded withmost
European countries andhadasoneofitsmainobjectives theachievement ofharmonized market access
atthesub-regional level. Onthereply toQuestion 29,shesaidthatasstated there wasnolegislation
currently inforce regarding competition butonlyanintention onthepartoftheMaritime Authority
tobegin toconsider thematter.
15. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was that ofMalaysia
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.19). Onthereply toQuestion 9ofPartIofthequestionnaire, therepresentative
ofMalaysia saidthatMalaysia hadbilateral agreements withtwelve countries aimed atthesharing
ofinformation, through jointcommittees, onmaritime andmaritime safety-related matters; these
agreements didnotinclude anm.f.n. clause, nordidtheyrelate tocargo-sharing. Onthereply to
Question 13,sheconfirmed theinformation contained inthetable andadded thatinthecaseofS/NGMTS/5
Page4
maintenance andrepair ofvessels therewerenoforeign suppliers assuchbutsomeshipyards inMalaysia
hadforeign participation. Onthereply toQuestion 14,sheconfirmed thatonlyfivecontainer haulage
operators could bepresent intheMalaysian market atonetimeandtheyallhadtobenational; the
reference toinland movement bytrucks related tobonded trucks.
16. Onthereply toQuestion 2ofPartII,shesaidthatshore-based procedures within theport
environment applied primarily todangerous cargo calling atMalaysian ports. Onthereply toQuestion
6,shesaidthat"maritime instruments" referred tointernational IMO instruments andconventions,
especially those regarding thecarriage ofdangerous cargo. Onthereply toQuestion 7,shesaidthat
thenationalMalaysianline,theMalaysianInternationalShippingCorporation(MISC),waswholly-owned
byMalaysian nationals butthere were nospecific preferences withregard tocargo. Onthereply to
Question 9,sheclarified thatthebreak-down inshipping agency jointventures wasseventy percent
foreign andthirty percentnational, afullreversal fromthebreak-down permitted untiltwoyears ago.
OnthereplytoQuestion 10ofPartII,sheconfirmed thattherewerecabotage restrictions onforeign-flag
ships butexemptions werepossible. Onthereply toQuestions 27and28which weremissing inthe
replies, shesaidthatnon-commercial cargo -i.e.,those meant forgovernment projects andgovernment
agencies -werereserved fornational companies which werenominated bygovernment andwhich had
torequest exemptions when unable tosupply thenecessary transportation.
17. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was that ofRomania
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.20). Onthereply toQuestion 3ofPartIofthequestionnaire, therepresentative
ofRomania saidthatberthing facilities wereavailable toallships; intimes ofovercrowding, priority
wasgiven tolinerships. Hesaidthattherewerenoregulatory arrangements applying tolinershipping
assuch. Onthereply toQuestion 20,hesaidthatsome bilateral agreements, including those being
currently negotiated, applied torivertransportation. Hesaidthatrecent bilateral shipping agreements
included aprovision onmost-favoured-nation treatment while agreements negotiated some timeback
didnot.
18. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was that ofTurkey
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.23). Therepresentative ofTurkey saidthatthere wasnostrict cargo allocation
scheme applied byhisgovernment. Onthereply toQuestion 29ofPartIIofthequestionnaire, he
informed theGroup thatanewcompetition lawhadbeenenacted inTurkey whose application could
beextended tothemaritime transportation sector inthefuture. Regarding taxation measures, hepointed
tothefactthatthelistofexemptions tabled byTurkey contained some relevant information inthat
context.
19. ThenextsetofquestionnairerepliestobeexaminedwasthatofGhana(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.21).
Onthereply toQuestion 2ofPartIofthequestionnaire, therepresentative ofGhana saidthatthe
share oftotaltradecarried byseawasninety-five percent(andnot75percentasindicated inthereply).
Onthereply toQuestion 3,hesaidthatthequantity ofexport tradecarried byseawas2,020,349 tons.
Onthereply toQuestion 4,herectified thatthetotalbulkshare was3,869,675 tonsandthattheBlack
StarLine(thenational-flag carrier) linershare was119,748 tons.Onthereply toQuestion 10,hesaid
thatthecorrect share oflinercargo which wascontainerized was29.5percent.OnthereplytoQuestion
13,hesaidthatthere were norestrictions applied toforeign suppliers oftheservices listed under
Question 13andthatthere wasanincreasing tendency toward private participation inanumber of
portandauxiliary services.
20. Onthereply toQuestion 20ofPartII,hesaidthatthere wasnoscheme inGhana bywhich
cargoes wereshared. Aprocess ofliberalization hadbeenoccurring within theWestandCentral African
region asexemplified bycountries suchasCôted'Ivoire andSenegal. There wascurrently nolegislation
enforcing cargo-sharing butrather thesharing ofinformation oncargo flow. Thebasic principle of
competition applied inGhana. Onthereply toQuestion 24,heconfirmed thatspecial berthing rightsS/NGMTS/5
Page5
andwarehousing facilities weregiven tocountries suchasBurkina Fasowithaviewtodecrease the
costoftheirtransport andinaccordance withtheMinisterial Conference ofWest andCentral African
States onMaritime Transport (MINCOMAR). Onthereply toQuestion 35,hesaidthattheGhana
Shippers 'Council -anassociation ofshippers -hadundergone important changes inthatmember entities
which werepreviously public, state-owned organizations hadbeenincreasingly privatized; inaddition,
theChamber ofCommerce wastheentity thatcurrently chaired theCouncil. Regarding disputes, he
saidthatshipowners hadrarely gone tocourts onissues suchasfreight rates, excess portcharges,
etc.
21. Thenext setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined wasthatofthePhilippines
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.24). Therepresentative ofthePhilippines saidthattherewerecurrently nostate-
owned national shipping linesorcompanies engaged inauxiliary services inhercountry. Reacting
toaquestion fromthefloor, shesaidthatExecutive Order 769hadbeenissued toincorporate Liner
Code provisions intoPhilippine law;thelawhadnot,however, beenimplemented assuch, asnobilateral
agreements hadbeennegotiated which werebased ontheprovisions oftheLiner Code. ThePresidential
Decree 1466 which concerned thereservation ofcargo contracted orpaidforbythegovernment was
stillinforce, although inrecent years exemptions from thedecree hadapplied more thanthedecree
itself. Onthereplies toQuestions 4ofPartIand8.(a)ofPartIIofthequestionnaire, shesaidthat
there wasaceiling offorty percentintheparticipation offoreign investors inpublic utilities such
astransport orcommunications; insome cases, entities wishing toengage inshipping hadtocomply
withaminimum paid-up capitalization; inorder tobeaccredited, firms hadtodemonstrate theircapacity
toengage inthebusiness forwhich theywere applying. Onthereply toQuestion 13ofPartI,she
saidthatshipexecutiveofficers(i.e.,presidents)andshipoperatingofficers(i.e.,themanagingdirectors)
ofauxiliary services suppliers partly owned byforeign interests hadtobePhilippine nationals.
22. OnthereplytoQuestion 8ofPartII,withrespect tocargo reservation measures, sheconfirmed
thatPhilippine-flag vessels hadtobeutilized forthetransportation ofcargoes whose export/import
and/or transportation waspaidforbythegovernment; exemptions weregranted withrespect tocargo
reservation measures tospecific cases indicated inthelaw.ThePhilippines hadapplied these cargo
reservation measures inaveryliberal fashion. Onthereplies toQuestions 20,21and22,shesaid
thatExecutive Order 769onlycontained anencouragement forgreater participation inbilateral trades
andnotastrictapplication ofcargo-sharing between national linesandlinesfromcountries attheother
endofanyparticular trade. Onthereply toQuestion 21,shesaidthattherewascurrently nodetectable
intention tonegotiate further cargo-sharing agreements.
23. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was that ofSingapore
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.25). Therepresentative ofSingapore said,referring tothefigures indicated in
thereply toQuestion 3ofPartIofthequestionnaire, thatthecorrect figure forseaborne exports was
114.8 million freight tonnes. Clarifications onotherreplies would besubmitted inwriting totheGroup.
24. The next setofquestionnaire replies tobeexamined was that ofArgentina
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.22). Onthereply given toQuestions 6through 11ofPartIofthequestionnaire,
therepresentative ofArgentina saidthatnodataexisted sincelinershipping carrying Argentinean foreign
trade faced noobligation toprovide suchinformation. Onthereply given tobothQuestions 13and
14,hesaidthatinprinciple norestrictions applied toservices referred tointhose questions. Onthe
reply toQuestion 8.(c)ofPartIIofthequestionnaire, hesaidthattheTransport Secretariat andthe
Maritime Transport Under-Secretariat were theentities responsible forbilateral agreements. Onthe
reply toQuestion 8.(d), hesaidthatnoinformation onpercentage shares offoreign andnational crew
members employed byvessels operated byArgentinean shipowners wasavailable. Onthereply to
Question 12,hesaidthatArgentinean shipping enterprises didnotbenefit from loans atlowinterest
rates, preferential taxtreatment orthereimbursement oftaxes -contrary towhatwasstated inthe
corresponding replyintheEnglish version ofdocument S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.22. Reacting toaquestionS/NGMTS/5
Page6
from thefloor, hesaidthatDecree 1493 which granted national status toforeign vessels wasvalid
forthree years.
25. During themeeting, theChairman alsoallowed some timeforanyclarifications onthepart
ofdelegations whose replies hadbeenexamined atthelastmeeting oftheGroup.
26. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthataseries ofdraftlaws, andnotasingle lawassuchas
hehadpreviously informed theGroup, werecurrently pending intheEgyptian national assembly which
would ineffect amend anumber ofexisting lawsdealing withthemaritime transport sector. Hewould
provide copies ofthenewlawstotheGroup oncetheywere enacted.
27. Therepresentative oftheUnited States clarified thatunlike whathehadstated attheGroup 's
lastmeeting, some Commodity Credit Corporation salessuchasthose relating tocertain foodaidand
foreign assistance programs wereassociated withgovernment procurement. Onthereply toQuestion
7ofPartIofthequestionnaire, hesaidthatdataonconferences hadnotbeencompiled before and
thatdoing sowould involve considerable timeandresources. Onthereply toQuestion 14,hedidnot
believe thattheinternational movement ofmerchandise through multimodal point-to-point transportation
wasnegatively affected bycabotage restrictions. Onthereply toQuestion 20ofPartII,heconfirmed
thattheUnited States onlyhadonecargo-sharing agreement: thebilateral maritime agreement with
thePeople 'sRepublic ofChina which provided forparity inbilateral linercargo carriage, bothexport
andimport commercial cargoes, withtheobjective thatvessels ofeachnation carry atleastone-third
share ofsuchcargoes. Onthereply toQuestion 25,heconfirmed thataction could betaken under
Section 19oftheMerchant Marine Actof1920toaddress unfavourable conditions eveninU.S.trades
notserved byU.S.ships. Clarifications toother questions raised inFebruary were contained inthe
supplementary information provided inS/NGMTS/W/2/Add.11/Supp.1.
28. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatdatawasstillbeing collected on
second-registers butthattheinformation provided intheECreplies inanycasecovered allvessels
which flewEUMember Stateflags; tosome extent thetaskwasmade difficult bydefinitional differences
across Member States withregard towhatconstituted asecond-register. Heconfirmed thatnoneof
theECtradecovered bylinerconferences wassubject togovernment measures which applied anyform
ofcargo-sharing (e.g., 40-40-20). Onthereply toQuestion 13ofPartIofthequestionnaire, heclarified
thatnorestrictions applied tolisted auxiliary services ineither Spain orPortugal; heconfirmed the
restrictions stated inthereply withrespect toGreece butclarified thatinthecaseofmaritime agency
services therestriction applied toshipagency services involving themanagement ofavessel butnot
todoing-business activities assetoutinthedraft"model" schedule. Onthereply toQuestion 14,he
saidthatthere were restrictions applied toinland waterways which were linked tothenationality of
barges butwhich didnotconstitute foreign investment restrictions assuch; inaddition, there were
noother forms ofrestrictions ontheaccess toanduseofinland waterways services forthepurposes
oftheinland forwarding ofcargoes. Onthereply toQuestion 20,hesaidthatsome agreements had
adeadline buttheywereusually automatically renewable -i.e.,generally, defacto nottime-bound.
29. Therepresentative ofRepublic ofKorea referred tothesecond sentence ofthesecond full
paragraph onpage5ofthenoteontheprevious meeting oftheGroup on9-10February (S/NGMTS/4)
andsaidthatonthereply toQuestion 8.(a)hehadnotbeenasdefinitive asimplied inthetextofthe
noteorthetextofthecorrigendum circulated byhisdelegation informally atthemeeting: atthetime
heindicated thathewould havetocheck whether nolimitations applied to"other forms ofcommercial
presence" -asperparagraph 2ofthedefinitions attached tothedraft"model" schedule. Infact,later
checking revealed thattheschedule oftheRepublic ofKorea didnotcorrespond entirely tothedraft
model schedule inthisregard andthecorrigendum circulated informally atthemeeting wascorrected
accordingly bytheKorean delegation intheformal corrigendum circulated some timeafterwards
(S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.7/Corr.1): thewords "model schedule" under question 8.(a) intheinformalS/NGMTS/5
Page7
corrigendum werereplaced bythewords "Korean schedule" inthecorresponding section oftheformal
corrigendum. Hewished toensure thatthisreplacement would notbeconstrued asacommentary on
thevalue oftheoffer made bytheRepublic ofKorea.
30. Therepresentative ofPoland said,inclarify thereplytoQuestion 1ofPartIofthequestionnaire,
thatthereweretwenty-eight Polish vessels under foreign flagswhich accounted for595,000 deadweight
tons; thisfigure hadbeencollected forthepurposes ofthecurrent meeting andmight notbefully
comparable withotherfigures given inthereply. Onthereply toQuestion 7,hesaidthatnodataexisted
forliner conferences since there wasnomonitoring of,oranyinterference with, suchvoluntary
commercial arrangements unless there wasaviolation oftheanti-monopoly orcompetition laws. On
thereply toQuestion 9,hesaidthattheshare oftrade under bilateral shipping agreements (none of
which contained cargo-sharing provisions) ingeneral wasseventeen percent.Onthereply toQuestion
12,heconfirmed thattheshare ofthetotalporttraffic which wascontainerized wastwopercentand
gavethefollowing break-down forthemain Polish ports: Gdansk, 23,300,000; Gdynia, 7,800,000;
andSzczecin/Swinoujscie, 17,500,000 tons.OnthereplytoQuestion 14,hesaidthattherewereforeign
suppliers present inPoland which wereengaged inmaritime agency services, freight forwarding and
control ofcargo.
31. Onthereply toQuestion 5ofPartIIofthequestionnaire, hesaidthatParliament wascurrently
considering draftlegislation onportinfrastructure. OnthereplytoQuestion 9,hesaidthatjointventures
inseaportmanagementrequiredapermissionfromthePolishauthorities;therewasnooverallregulatory
approach applied specifically toportmanagement, although thereweresome specific recommendations
onportmanagement issued bytheChamber ofCommerce. Onthereply toQuestions 6and7,he
confirmed thatthere were nonational definitions of"international maritime transport" or"national
shipping enterprise". Onthereply toQuestion 20and21,hesaidthatPoland hadthirteen bilateral
agreements, noneofwhich hadcargo-sharing provisions. Hementioned inthatcontext theagreements
withIndia, theNetherlands, France, Italy, Greece, Egypt andCyprus. Bilateral agreements which dealt
withtaxation matters were very important forthemaritime transport sector; whenever bilateral
agreements dealing withbroader economic matters didnotinclude taxation measures, Poland strove
toincludesuchmeasuresintheshippingagreementsitconcludedwiththesamecountries.Polandapplied
retaliatory measures reciprocally oncountries which taxed freight incomes ofPolish-flag vessels, but
itdidnotgenerally apply suchtaxes otherwise. Onthereply toQuestion 26,hesaidthatpilotage and
towingserviceswerereservedforPolishnationals.HeremindedtheGroupthattherewerenorestrictions
withregard toaccess toPolish ports orportfacilities, thatPoland didnotadminister anycargo
reservation scheme andthatshippers inPoland hadafreechoice ofcarriers between foreign andnational
vessels.
32. Attheendofthediscussion onthesecond itemoftheagenda, theChairman saidthathewould
asktheSecretariat tostartpreparing acompilation ofquestionnaire replies, assuggested bythe
representative oftheEuropean Communities. Hesuggested thatthecompilation befocused onPart
IIofthequestionnaire asthereplies given therecovered theissues which theGroup needed toaddress
inthelaterstages ofitswork.
33. Thethirditemoftheagenda wastheconsideration oftheDraft Schedule onMaritime Transport
Services.
34. Therepresentative oftheUnited States explained thatseveral suggestions included inthe
comments onthedraftschedule circulated byhisdelegation wereofatechnical nature, dealing with
fairly specific ideas. Regarding theissue ofmultimodal transport anddoor-to-door delivery, hesaid
thatthecurrent notetotheschedule needed tobetransformed inorder toreflect specific liberalization
commitments inthearea.S/NGMTS/5
Page8
35. Several delegations stressed thatthedraft schedule constituted auseful means tomake
commitments inthesector andserved asavaluable point ofreference toward greater transparency
andlegalcertainty. Some could accept negotiations onfurther changes tothedraftschedule, evenif
thatentailed amendments ofasubstantive nature regarding thetransportation ofcargoes beyond the
portenvironment; inorder forsuchanexercise tobefruitful, however, thereshould beaconfirmation
onthepartofparticipants thatsubstantive amendments ofthatsortwerepolitically feasible inthefirst
place. Others argued thatthere wasnoneedforanymultilaterally-agreed changes tothecurrent draft
oftheschedule asthere wasnothing, improvements orotherwise, which countries could notadjust
when making commitments intheirownschedules; inaddition, substantive amendments ofthesort
involving multimodal transport would gobeyond themandate oftheGroup which waslimited to
negotiations onthemaritime transport sector assuch, andnotother modes oftransport. Thepoint was
alsomade thatwork ontechnical shortfalls inthedraftschedule should notinanywayserve asan
excuse toavoid making commitments ortodelay themove toward thenegotiating phase oftheGroup 's
work; theGroup should focus onconcrete, substantive andsignificant issues. Onedelegation stressed
thatdealing effectively withtheissues reflected inthe"Note totheSchedule" could domuch tochange
thehighly sceptical attitude ofthisdelegation 'smaritime industry.
36. TheChairman saidthathecould detect thebeginning ofadistinct shiftfrom thefactual to
thenegotiating phase oftheGroup 'swork. Hesaidthatwiththequestionnaires theGroup hadbeen
building abetter factual basis forthenegotiation ofcommitments. Discussions hadalsorevealed that
thedraftschedule hadplayed, andwould continue toplay,averyimportant roleasareliable framework
formaking commitments. Onthebasisofaprocess which could beplurilateral, multilateral, orbilateral
incharacter, theGroup needed tomove ahead andaddress theprecise nature ofcommitments and
possible adjustments tothedraftschedule. Inthatcontext, hesuggested thattheGroup should beengaged
inintensive commitment negotiations nolaterthanSeptember andsaidthattheprocess would begreatly
helped ifdelegations could starttabling improved offers based onallelements ofthedraftschedule
evenbefore thesummer recess. Inaddition, intheinterim period, between thepresent meeting and
September, thefactual phase oftheGroup 'swork could beusefully brought toitsfinalstages, ifnot
toacomplete conclusion.
37. TherewasconsiderablesupportforthesuggestionbytheChairmanthatcommitmentnegotiations
should beontheirwaybySeptember. Afewdelegations announced thattheywereprepared totable
aconditional offer evenbefore thesummer recess. Afewothers reminded theGroup thattheyhad
kepttheiroffers onthetableandurged others torestore thebestoffers made during theUruguay Round
asastarting point. Onedelegation saidthattheGroup wasmoving toward agenuine negotiating mode
butthatthere wasnoneedtohurry; thetiming astowhen toengage insubstantive negotiations was
crucial inthemaritime transport sector; itwasnotenough tohavecountries pointing fingers ateach
other, whatmattered wasthereallevelofregulatory restrictions inplace. Another delegation saidthat
either theGroup moved together orthere should benomovement atall-i.e.,there should be
transparency andequity inthesteps taken byallparticipating governments. TheChairman saidthat
hewould consult alittlefurther ontheprecise nature andtime-frame forthework facing theGroup
inthecoming months.
38. Thenextitemontheagendawasotherbusiness.TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunities
referred tothesecond sentence ofthefirstfullparagraph onpage3ofdocument S/NGMTS/4 and
clarified that,unlike what wasstated inthatsentence, public aidsgranted toshipping companies
established inEUMember States didrelate toflagging.
39. Regarding datesoffuture meetings, theGroup agreed onhaving thenextmeeting oftheGroup
on10-11 July1995. TheChairman indicated thatthismeeting would aimtodealwithremaining
responses tothequestionnaire andthat,considering thediscussion thathadtaken place under thethird
itemoftheagenda, hewould consult withdelegations inthecoming weeks astowhat elements of
thenextstage oftheGroup 'swork could alsobedealtwitharound thattime.