RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG67/M/2
WT/REG68/M/2
WT/REG70/M/2
20 April 2000
(00-1628)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Fifth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
TURKEY AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC;
TURKEY AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC;  AND
TURKEY AND ESTONIA
Note of the Meeting of 30 March 2000
Chairman:   Mr Jae Gil LEE
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1268 and Corr.1.
2. Under Agenda Items F.I-III of its Twenty-Fifth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) took up the examination of the Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs) between Turkey and the Czech Republic; Turkey and the Slovak Republic; and
Turkey and Estonia.
General Statements
3. The Chairman said that he was looking forward to working with the Committee and hoped
that it would make significant progress regarding both the examination of agreements and the
systemic discussion.  The first item on the agenda was the examination of the FTAs between Turkey
and the Czech Republic, Turkey and the Slovak Republic, and Turkey and Estonia, which he
proposed examining together in one group.  He noted that this would have no effect on the
examination process per se , as each Agreement would be judged on its own merit and would have its
own report with its own conclusions.  The first r ound of examination of the three Agreements had
taken place in July 1999, during the Twenty-third Session of the CRTA under the Chairmanship ofAmbassador Krirk-Krai Jirapaet.  The proceedings of that meeting had been distributed as document
WT/REG67-68-70/M/1.  At that meeting, Turkey had submitted trade statistics, which had been
distributed in, document WT/REG67-68-70/2/Add.1.  He drew the Committee's attention to a recent
document, WT/REG67-68-70/4, which contained the Parties' written replies to questions made during
the first round of examination.
4. The representative of Bulgaria asked why the FTA between Turkey and Bulgaria was not
being examined with the other three since it involved the same party, Turkey, and asked that efforts be
taken to examine the four Agreements together.  The Chairman pointed out that the first three
Agreements were in their second round of examination, whereas the FTA between Turkey andBulgaria was being taken up for the first time. The representative of Turkey concurred with the
Chairman's proposal that the first three Agreements be examined together, separate from the
examination of the FTA between Turkey and Bulgaria. Although the FTA between Turkey and
Bulgaria was similar in several aspects to the other three Agreements, these had already been
examined so the nature of the discussion would be somewhat different.  The representative of the
United States agreed with the representative of Turkey.  The first round of discussion on these three
Agreements had been quite productive and there was a good chance that the Committee could
complete its factual examination of them, whereas given that the examination of the Agreement
between Turkey and Bulgaria was at its initial stage, he had many more questions on it than on theWT/REG67/M/2, WT/REG68/M/2
WT/REG70/M/2
Page 2
first three.  Therefore there was logic to keeping the examinations separate at this point.  The
representative of Bulgaria said that he was not proposing to slow down the examination of the other
three Agreements, but rather to accelerate the examination of the fourth.  He added that his delegationhad not, thus far, received any written questions and he urged delegations to submit questions as soonas possible, so that the Committee could accelerate its work and finish the examination of all four
Agreements together.  The Chairman said that it was agreed that the examinations should be
conducted in two groups.
5. The representative of the Czech Republic wanted to supplement the answer given on rules of
origin in Section II, Trade Provisions, of do cument WT/REG67-68-70/4.  He said that the
Czech Republic had begun to implement the pan-European system of cumulation of origin for the
Agreement under review, as of 1 January 1999.
6. The representative of Turkey said his delegation welcomed the opportunity to continue the
examination of these three Agreements.  He recalled that during the first round of examination of
these Agreements Members had raised a wide range of questions regarding the Agreements' scope,
trade data, trade provisions, rules of origin, safeguards, subsidies and state aid, sector specific
provisions, and state monopolies.  The Parties had provided answers during the meeting to allquestions except two.  Members had submitted no additional written questions.  His delegation had
worked with the other Parties to provide replies to  the two outstanding questions listed in document
WT/REG67-68-70/4, dated 15 March 2000.  In response to the question as to why the Parties applied
cumulative rules of origin to countries that were no t Parties to the Agreement, he explained that to be
a party to an FTA alone did not make that party eligible for the pan-European system of cumulation oforigin.  Cumulative rules of origin were applied to those countries which had also become party to the
pan-European cumulation system.  The representative of Canada had asked why the provisions on
state aid (referred to in Article 21.1) did not apply to products covered by Chapter II of the
Agreements.  The response given was that the prov isions on state aid did not apply to agricultural
products because the WTO Agreement on Agricult ure permitted state-aid programmes such as
domestic support and export subsidies, especially for developing countries.
Section I - Background Information on the Agreement
7. The representative of Australia said his question applied to all three Agreements.  While his
delegation welcomed the import statistics that had been provided, he noted and recalled his
delegation's previous request (which had been supported by others) for further statistics on the number
of tariff lines for which duties had actually been eliminated. The delegation of Turkey had said it
would consider this request and he wondered when this information would be provided.
8. The representative of Turkey replied that his delegation had not made a commitment to
provide such information, but had said that it would consider it.  In consultations with the Parties, the
following statement had been prepared: "in the view of the Parties, trade data which were submitted
by the Parties provide the necessary and sufficient ground to judge if the Agreements are in
compliance with Article XXIV.  The Parties do not consider tariff-line information necessary for that
purpose".
9. The representative of the United States said that while his delegation appreciated the trade
statistics provided by the Parties for the years 1995 – 1997, he had questions about certain aspects of
the data.  First, he wondered if more recent data were available, for example for the years 1998
and 1999.  Second, it was not clear that the data allowed delegations to assess the scope of coverageof the Agreements and he asked for further information, for example, on trade and HS headings after
full implementation, as the data showed current coverage but not projected coverage after full
implementation.  Without additional information his delegation would support the comments made by
the representative of Australia about the difficulty of making an evaluation based on the data currentlyWT/REG67/M/2, WT/REG68/M/2,
WT/REG70/M/2
Page 3
available. In response, the representative of Turkey recalled that his delegation had already provided
information regarding the coverage of the Agreements.  He agreed to provide data for 1998 and the
first eleven months of 1999.
10. The representatives of the European Communities, Hungary  and Switzerland  commended the
Parties for the information provided and agreed with the statement that the data provided was
adequate.  The representative of Hungary reiterated his delegation's position that tariff line
information did not constitute part of the conformity test of Article XXIV.  The representative ofSwitzerland (also on behalf of other EFTA States) added that the provision of tariff line information
was not required and that, as all Members were aware, this was part of the systemic debate.
11. The representative of the United States thanked the representative of Turkey for his offer to
provide more recent trade statistics.  He wondered if the other three Parties could also provide updated
trade data, since the most recent figures he had were for 1997.  The representative of the
Czech Republic gave his support to the representative of Turkey with respect to the provision of tariff
line information.  He added that his delegation would endeavour to submit trade data for 1998, but hewas unsure what data could be provided for 1999.  The representative of the Slovak Republic said that
his delegation would provide updated trade data for 1998 and for 1999, if possible.
12. The representative of Japan supported other delegations in their requests for the provision of
tariff line data, as his delegation was of the opinion that such information was necessary in order to
judge the Agreements' conformity with Article XXIV.  The representative of Canada joined previous
speakers in their requests for further trade data, particularly on a tariff line basis.  She was also
interested in what products continued to be subject to full MFN rates of duty.  Secondly, she had
noted that document WT/REG67-68-70/4 provided data with respect to only one side of the
Agreements and she expressed interest in having corresponding figures with respect of trade from the
Czech and Slovak republics into Turkey.  The trade between Turkey and Estonia had been provided in
document WT/REG70/2.  In particular, she asked for the level of concessions granted by Turkey,broken down by the various categories, as well as the products which were still subject to full MFN
rates of duty.
13. The representative of Turkey said that the information requested by the representative of
Canada could be found in the document published on 1 July 1999, which had been provided during
the last meeting.  This information showed that no industrial products were subject to MFN treatment;
other data relating to the treatment of agricultural products was to be found there also.  A similar table
providing more recent statistical data would be provided shortly.  The representative of Canada said
that document WT/REG68/2 listed import statistics with respect to Turkey, with trade figures giving
the imports by HS Chapter together with the amount covered by the Agreement.  She had taken note
of the statement that industrial goods were subject to duty-free treatment, but her delegation was
interested in a breakdown of trade by concessions, i.e. trade which entered duty-free, at less than
MFN rates, and on an MFN basis.  She was also interested in the list of products which were stillsubject to MFN rates of duty.  In response, the representative of Turkey said that document
WT/REG67-68-70/2/Add.1, dated 1 July 1999 cont ained a table showing the percentage of
agricultural products subject to zero duties, less than MFN rates, and MFN rates.  The representative
of Canada thanked him for drawing the document to  her attention.  She would analyse it and forward
any subsequent questions to the Parties in writing.
14. The Chairman said that Turkey would provide updated trade data for 1998 and for the first
eleven months of 1999, and that the Czech an d Slovak Republics would provide data for 1998
and 1999, if possible.
Section II – Trade ProvisionsWT/REG67/M/2, WT/REG68/M/2
WT/REG70/M/2
Page 4
15. With respect to rules of origin, the representative of the United States had noted the
comments made at the outset by the representative of Turkey with respect to question 3 in document
WT/REG67/4.  However, this response did not di rectly address the question.  He understood the
response to mean that merely being a party to an  FTA did not confer eligibility for the pan-European
cumulation system.  Cumulative rules of origin were applied to countries which were signatories to
the pan-European system of cumulation of origin.  However, it was his understanding that the
cumulation system also applied to countries which were not parties to the Agreements themselves.
His delegation was not interested in how the cumulation system applied with respect to the Parties,
but, rather, how it applied to the non-parties to the Agreements and what the explanation for granting
cumulation to other countries was.  With respect to public procurement, he asked whether the Parties
intended to accede to the Agreement on Government Procurement.  He also asked the Parties toindicate whether their membership in these Agreements limited their ability to make concessions in
multilateral negotiations.  Lastly, he wondered if there were any plans to conclude companion
agreements in services.
16. In response to a request for clarification by the representative of Turkey, the representative of
the United States said that he understood how cumula tion of origin could appl y with respect to two
countries which participated in an FTA, but he wondered what the rationale was for applying
cumulation of origin to other countries.  For example, in the Agreement between Turkey and Estonia,
what basis was there for providing cumulation of origin to an entirely third country?
17. The representative of Turkey replied that the following countries were signatories to the
pan-European cumulation system:  Turkey, Bulgaria, the European Communities, Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Iceland,
Norway and Switzerland.  Two conditions had to be met:  first, a bilateral free trade agreement had to
be signed between two countries; and second, these two countries had to be party to the pan-European
cumulation of origin system.  Without these two conditions the pan-European system could not be
applied.  In response to the question on government procurement, he said that the Agreementsprovided for the Parties to progressively develop their respective public procurement regulations.  The
aim was to grant suppliers of the other Party access to contract award procedures on their respective
government procurement markets, by the end of the transitional period at the latest, according to the
provisions of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and the Parties' undertakings therein.
As far as services were concerned, while the Parties might seek to include this topic in negotiations,
there were no plans to do so at present.
18. The representative of the Czech Republic said the approach of individual parties to the WTO
Agreement on Government Procurement was not a part of bilateral negotiations and the Parties'
positions in the WTO were not coordinated bilaterally.  With regard to rules of origin, his delegation
would prefer to treat this issue in a general debate devoted to the subject.
19. The representative of Australia noted that under sector-specific provisions for agriculture the
Parties had declared their readiness to foster, on a mutually-advantage and reciprocal basis, the
harmonious development of trade in agricultural products and to discuss this issue periodically in the
Joint Committee.  He asked whether the Joint Committee had met, what agricultural products had
been the subject of discussion, and whether any measures had been put in place with respect to this
particular provision.  The representative of Turkey replied that although each Agreement had a
provision for the expansion of trade in agricultural products, no timetables had been specified and the
Joint Committee had not yet met to discuss this subject.
20. The Chairman said that the discussion had allowed the Committee to clarify a number of
questions, but some pending issues remained.  He invited delegations to submit any additional
questions to the Secretariat by 20 April and he asked the Parties to submit their replies by the end ofWT/REG67/M/2, WT/REG68/M/2,
WT/REG70/M/2
Page 5
May, in order to allow the Secretariat to produce a new document.  He would then consult with
Members to see if another round of examination was needed for these Agreements.
21. The representative of the United States said that he did not think an additional round of
examination would be necessary.  The few outstanding questions would be provided in writing and
the Parties had already indicated that they would submit updated trade data.  Therefore he did not
consider it necessary to put this item on the agenda of the next Session of the Committee.  The
representative of the European Communities agreed that another round of examination was not
necessary.  Some outstanding issues remained which would not be resolved through anotherexamination round.  The Committee had made a lot of progress on other issues.  The representative of
Hungary agreed with the previous speakers.  His delegation considered the factual part of the
examination to be complete, subject to the provision of statistics and replies to outstanding questions.
The representative of Turkey concurred.  The representative of Australia  said that while his delegation
shared the view of others that the factual part of the examination was complete, he wanted to make itclear that questions which he had posed during the meeting to which no responses had been given had
not been withdrawn.  In reply, the representative of the Czech Republic said that the Parties did not
consider oral questions withdrawn.  His delegation had asked for written questions to facilitate the
treatment of questions and to enhance understanding in the capitals.
22. The Chairman said that the factual part of the examination was concluded for these three
Agreements and the Secretariat could begin drafting the examination reports, subject to the receipt of
outstanding information.
23. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________