. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG116/M/2
18 March 2002
(02-1403)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Thirty-First Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TURKEY AND LATVIA
Note on the Meeting of 19 February 2002
Chairman:  Mr. A.J. Dumont (Argentina)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1714.
2. Under Agenda Item B.III of its Thirty-First Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (CRTA) took up the examination of the Free Trade Agreement (Agreement) between
Turkey and Latvia.
3. The Chairman noted that this was the second round of examination of the Agreement between
Turkey and Latvia.  The proceedings of the first round, which had taken place in September 2001, had
been distributed in document WT/REG116/M/1.  Since then, the Parties had provided additional trade
data, which had been distributed in document  WT/REG116/3/Add.2.  In addition, he drew the
Committee's attention to the recent exchange of questions and replies which had been distributed asdocument WT/REG116/4.
4. The representative of Latvia expressed the opinion that some of the questions recently
submitted by the delegation of the United States and distributed in document WT/REG116/4 did not
relate to the examination of the Agreement under Article XXIV of the GATT, but that answers had
been provided for the sake of transparency.  A br ief exchange was held between the representatives of
the United States, Latvia  and Korea  to clarify a misunderstanding about the meaning of the
abbreviation "PECA", which appeared in the se ction of document WT/REG116/4 which dealt with
rules of origin.  The representative of Latvia stated her understanding that PECA stood for the
Protocol of European Conformity Assessment: the confusion arose because the question was raised in
the rules of origin section.  She added that the replies had been prepared based on the assumption that
PECA meant Protocol of European Conformity Assessment.
5. The representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of the delegation of Australia, said
that additional information on Turkey's imports from Latvia had been requested and she was pleased
to note from the data provided that all Latvia's exports of agricultural products to Turkey were now
duty-free.  However, she had also noted that about 95 per cent of Turkey's exports continued to face
MFN rates.  Given that agriculture consistently constituted about 25 per cent of Turkey's exports to
Latvia, the Australian delegation continued to be concerned about the compliance of the Agreementwith Article XXIV of the GATT and would appreciate any further clarification that could be
provided.  The representative of Latvia replied that her delegation would provide statistics for the full
year of 2001 in order to give a more recent picture of the coverage of the Agreement.
6. The representative of Hungary repeated what he had said a year previously.  Firstly, it was up
to each country to choose the agreements to wh ich they wished to belong.  Secondly, the Pan
European System of Cumulation of Origin was not confined only to agreements concluded betweenWT/REG116/M/2
Page 2
the European Communities (EC) and other countries: it remained a plurilateral  agreement by nature.
Lastly, he described three conditions under which the Pan European Cumulation of Origin System
could apply to a certain product: first, the country should be listed in the annex of the relevant
protocol;  second, there should be a free trade agreement between the applying countries;  third, the
products should be covered by that agreement.
7. The representative of Turkey said that the Parties would not adopt the Protocol of European
Conformity Assessment between themselves. Turkey was not a party to the PECA, though Latvia
was, as far as he was aware.
8. The representative of Latvia said that as far as the Protocol of European Conformity
Assessment (PECA) was concerned, her country had si gned an agreement with the EC, but it had not
yet entered into force.  It would be notified to the WTO as soon as it became effective.  She confirmed
that the Parties would not adopt the PECA system between themselves, explaining that certaincountries in Eastern Europe had adopted the system  in their relations with the EC but not between
themselves.
9. The Chairman said that the second round of examination of the Agreement between Turkey
and Latvia had allowed a number of questions to be clarified.  He added that any additional questions
should be submitted in writing to the Secretariat by 15 March and that the Parties should submit theirreplies no later than 30 April.
10. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________