RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG36/M/1
26 June 2000
(00-2574)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Fifth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AND SLOVENIA
Note on the Meeting of 30 March 2000
Chairperson: Ms. Silvia Ávila Seifert (Bolivia)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1268 and Corrigendum 1.
2. Under Agenda Item F.IX, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) took up the
examination of the Free Trade Agreement between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
Slovenia.  The following topics were discussed:
A. G ENERAL REMARKS
B. S ECTION I - B ACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT
C. S ECTION II - T RADE PROVISIONS
D. S ECTION IV - O THER
A. GENERAL REMARKS
3. The Chairperson noted that the notification of the Agreement could be found in document
WT/REG36/N/1, with the text of the Agreement appearing in document WT/REG36/1 and
Corrigendum 1 for the English version.  The terms of reference for the examination were contained indocument WT/REG36/3.  She said that she would conduct the examination by beginning with general
comments and thereafter use the Standard Format document (WT/REG36/2) to guide the debate.
4. The representative of Slovenia said that this Agreement was similar to others from the region
and followed the basic structure and principles of the Central European Free Trade Area (CEFTA).
She stressed the importance of the Agreement for the Parties and urged Members to consider in theirexamination the special political and economic relationship between the countries, which had been
part of the former Yugoslavia.  The establishment of the free-trade area was one of the instruments in
the goal of increasing economic cooperation and integration between the two countries.  The
Agreement, on which substantial information had been provided in the Standard Format, had been
provisionally applied from September 1996 and had entered into force on 1 December 1999.  Thefree-trade area between the Parties was effectively in force since 1 January 2000.  No customs duties
or other charges applied on 99 per cent of trade between the Parties, which meant that the Agreement
met the requirements of "substantially all the trade", as described in Article XXIV of the GATT.
5. The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation fully supported the
argument made by the representative from Slovenia concerning the important role such agreements
could play in the stability of the region.  His delegation also agreed that the Agreement complied with
the provisions of GATT 1994.WT/REG36/M/1
Page 2
6. The representative of the United States welcomed the fact that the notification of the
Agreement had appropriately been submitted in 1997, pursuant to its provisional application.
7. The representative of Hungary was of the view that the Agreement would contribute to
stability in the region.  As the Agreement was in line with the requirements of Article XXIV of the
GATT, its examination could be accomplished easily.
8. The representative of Australia noted that the title of document WT/REG36/1 was the "Free
Trade Agreement between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia" while its text
referred to the "Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia".  The representative of Slovenia responded that
the former was the official title of the Agreement.
B. SECTION I - B ACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT
9. The representative of the United States, referring to paragraph 3(b) of the Standard Format,
sought more information on the coverage of trade in agricultural products.  He wondered whether the
amounts of tariff quotas provided for in the Agreement increased from year to year and whether the
tonnage was additional to the amounts agreed to in the Uruguay Round.  He was also interested in the
implementation schedule, including for any products for which it lasted more than 10 years.  The
representative of Australia supported this request.
10. The representative of Slovenia asked the representative of the United States to specify his
question regarding the trade coverage of the Agreement in more detail, given that data had already
been provided in Section I.3 and Annex I of the Standard Format.  The documentation showed that
zero duty rates applied to approximately 80 per cent of imports of industrial goods and approximately
90 per cent of agricultural goods.  The tariff quotas were preferential quotas that were additional to
those agreed to in the Uruguay Round.  Although th ey were determined on an annual basis, the
amounts did not change from year to year.  She reque sted that the representative of the United States
elaborate on his question on implementation.
11. The representative of the United States said that, with respect to products falling under HS
Chapters 25-97 and under Chapters 1-24, separate percentages were provided in the Standard Format
for imports reaching Slovenia duty-free.  For agricultural products, the Slovenian representative hadclarified that the tariff quotas stayed the same over time.  He wondered whether there was a schedule
for phased implementation to zero duties on industrial products and if so, whether it went beyond ten
years.  The representative of Slovenia  replied that duties on industrial products had been eliminated.
12. The representative of Hungary expressed the view that the statistics provided by the Parties
were sufficient.
C. SECTION II - T RADE PROVISIONS
13. The representative of the United States asked whether the European System of Cumulation of
Origin had been applied since the date of signatur e of the Agreement, as had been mentioned in the
Standard Format.  The representative of Slovenia replied that the Agreement only mentioned the
possibility of discussing harmonized rules and that no such rules had been agreed to thus far.  Sheagreed to confirm this.
14. The representative of the United States asked whether any safeguard measures had been
applied between the Parties.  The representative of Slovenia replied that none had been applied.
15. The representative of Australia noted that the Standard Format mentioned that tariff quota
quantities for agricultural products, as set out in the Annexes, referred to the first year of applicationWT/REG36/M/1
Page 3
of the Agreement, i.e. until 31 December 1996 and that the quantities for the following years would
be set by the Joint Commission, upon the proposal of the responsible ministries of both Parties.  He
wondered whether any action had been taken in this respect. The representative of Slovenia replied
that the same tariff quota amounts were applied each year.
D. SECTION IV - O THER
16. The representative of the United States as ked whether the Parties' membership in this
Agreement limited in any way their ability to make c oncessions in multilateral negotiations.  He also
asked whether the Parties had any plans for an Agreement in services.  The representative of Slovenia
replied in the negative to both questions.
17. The representative of Australia asked whether the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
had any monopolies and if so, in which sectors.  The representative of Slovenia said that she could
only speak on behalf of Slovenia.  The representative of Australia asked if a response could be
furnished from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia if he submitted the question in writing.
The representative of Hungary said that such questions could be asked in the working party on the
accession of the Party concerned, which would take place in June.  The representative of Slovenia
supported this proposal.  The representative of Australia said that the question was appropriate both
for the accession working party and the CRTA.
18. The Chairperson said that the Committee had concluded its first round of examination and
suggested that delegations with outstanding questions submit them to the Secretariat by 20 April.  The
Committee could then resume the examination of the Agreement at a later date.
19. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________