. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG65/M/2
WT/REG66/M/2
10 August 2000
(00-3273)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Sixth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
ISRAEL AND POLAND AND ISRAEL AND SLOVENIA
Note on the Meeting of 6 July 2000
Chairperson:  Ms. Silvia Ávila Seifert (Bolivia)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1339.
2. Under Agenda Items D.I-II of its Twenty-Sixth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (CRTA) took up the examination of the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) between Israel
and Poland and Israel and Slovenia.
3. The Chairperson noted that was the second round of examination of those two Agreements.
She proposed to consider the two Agreements together, it being understood that it would have no
effect on the examinations per se , as each Agreement would be judged on its own merit and would
have its own report with its own conclusions.  The first round of examination had taken place on
30 March 2000, during the Twenty-Fifth Session of the CRTA, under her Chairmanship.  Theproceedings of that meeting had been distribut ed under document symbols WT/REG65/M/1 and
WT/REG66/M/1.  Documents WT/R EG65/4 and WT/REG66/4, which contained written replies by
the Parties to questions made during the first round of examination, had also been recently distributed.
The Committee had the Standard Formats (WT/REG65/3, WT/REG66/3 and, in the English version,
also the respective corrigenda) to guide the debate.
4. The representative of Israel, speaking also on behalf of Poland and Slovenia, said that the
Agreements were within the terms of GATT Article  XXIV and reflected the mutual desire of their
respective governments to strengthen and widen trade and economic cooperation between the Parties
to each of the two Agreements, while not creating any new barriers to trade with third parties.  The
Parties had provided written answers to the questions posed by a number of delegations and the
Secretariat had circulated them as documents  WT/REG65/4 and WT/REG66/4 on 20 June 2000.
They were pleased with the progress made thus far in the examination process.  He thanked thosedelegations which had shown interest in the Agreements.  They were of the view that the Committee
could move forward to the next stage and ask the Secretariat to draft the examination reports.
5. Thanking the Parties for the detailed statistics and replies provided, the representative of Canada
said that their reply to the request of tariff line information was disappointing; her delegation believed
that such information would increase transparency a nd could give an indication of the breadth and scope
of the Agreements.  While being useful, the percenta ges of trade conducted at duty-free level, at less
than MFN rates and at MFN rates did not provide th e full picture, particularly for agriculture, where
duty-free access had not been provided.  She wondere d whether there was in certain cases no trade
between the Parties because of very high tariff rates.  She hoped that the Parties would reconsider their
position in that respect.WT/REG65/M/2
WT/REG66/M/2
Page 2
6. Thanking the Parties for the additional info rmation provided, the representative of the
United States stated that his delegation was concerned that the Agreements provided for non-zero,
better than MFN, treatment on certain products both during the transition period and at fullimplementation; this was not provided for in GATT Article XXIV.  He referred to Section II.3 ofdocument WT/REG65-66/4 where the Parties had stated th at, while the specific rules of origin of the
pan-European cumulation system were applied, the cumulation itself would not be provided until the
European Union agreed to implement the necessary  modifications in its Agreement with Israel to
allow for it.  Noting that those two statements seemed contradictory, he asked for a clarification as to
what exactly was required of the European Union in terms of bringing the Agreements under the
cumulation provisions.
7. The representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of the EFTA States, said that in their view the
provision of tariff line level information was not necessary.  They also questioned the merit of the
questions posed by Canada and the United States c oncerning less-than-zero but better than MFN tariff
rates.
8. The representative of the European Communities thanked the Parties for supplying additional
information, which they believed was exhaustive.  They were of the view that the Committee could go
to the next stage in the examination by asking the Secretariat to draft the reports, reflecting also those
issues raised by the United States and Canada, wh ich would not be resolved by having another round of
examination.  The question on rules of origin, to wh ich he could not reply at that meeting, should not
prevent the report drafting stage.
9. The representative of Poland said that in his delegation's view, tariff line information was not
indispensable for the compliance test and that transp arency could be provided by other means.  The
information requested by Members needed to be lim ited to what was necessary, since it imposed certain
burdens on administrations.
10. Associating himself with the comments made by  the representatives of Poland and Norway, the
representative of Israel said that, as had already been expressed during the examination of some other
agreements, tariff line information did not cons titute part of the examination exercise under
GATT Article XXIV.  Regarding rules of origin, he had nothing to add to the self-explanatory reply
provided in writing.
11. The representative of Australia expressed his delegation's concern about the coverage of
agriculture in the Agreements.  He asked whethe r the Parties had plans to ensure that a greater
proportion of trade in agriculture would be subject to a duty rate of zero per cent.  The representative of
Israel responded that the Agreements covered trade in agriculture as reflected in the provisions, Annexes
and trade data provided by the Parties.  Further liberalization was not envisaged at that time and any
future discussion on that would be carried out in the respective Joint Committees, which overviewed the
Agreements.
12. The Chairperson said that the Committee had e xhausted the factual inquiry.  She proposed that
the Committee ask the Secretariat to draft th e examination reports for the Agreements.
13. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________