RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG69/M/5
18 September 2001
(01-4391)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Thirtieth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE EURO-MEDITERRANEAN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND TUNISIA
Note on the Meeting of 3 July 2001
Chairman:  Mr. A.J. Dumont (Argentina)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1568.
2. Under Agenda Item C.XV of its Twenty-Ninth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (CRTA) took up the examination of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the
European Communities (EC) and Tunisia.
3. The Chairman noted that this was the fifth round of examination of the Free Trade Agreement
between the European Communities and Tunisia.  The previous examinations had taken place in the
Committee’s Sessions of July and September 1999, July 2000 and February 2001.  The correspondingminutes of those meetings had been circulated in documents WT/REG69/M/1-4.  The latest responses
to written questions submitted to the Parties had been circulated in document WT/REG69/4/Add.2.
Given the advanced stage of the examination, the Chairman said he would not open the floor to
delegations by different sections of the Standard  Format (document WT/REG69/2), but he invited any
delegation wishing to make comments or ask questions on specific matters to identify the relevant
section of the Standard Format for easier reference.
4. The representative of the European Communities said that, as this was the fifth round of
discussion on this Agreement, all relevant information should already be on the table.  The responses
of the Parties to the most recent set of questions had been distributed in document
WT/REG69/4/Add.2.  Although there might be a dditional questions to which Members had not
received a satisfactory response, these could likely be attributed to wider systemic issues.  Therefore,
he hoped that the examination would be concluded in the day's meeting, but said he was available torespond to any questions Members might have.  The representative of Tunisia supported the statement
of the representative of the European Communities, adding that both his delegation and the EC hadanswered questions in full and would provide more information, if necessary.
5. The representative of the United States said that she did not have questions of a systemic
nature, but had a comment to make as well as requests for specific information.  She drew attention to
the fact that 66 per cent of agricultural and fisheries products imported from the EC to Tunisia seemed
to receive MFN treatment and 29.5 per cent of agricultural and fishery products exported to the EC
had not been granted duty-free treatment.   The latest document circulated had mentioned a new
Protocol, and she wondered if this new Protocol would result in more bilateral trade subject to zero
duties.  She asked if the proportion of trade that was subject to duty-free treatment which she hadmentioned was correct.  She also voiced concern about the cumulation of origin, in force in the
Mediterranean countries.  The Agreements between the EC and Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria did
not constitute a giant free-trade area, as there did not seem to be a single rule for cumulation.  But sheWT/REG69/M/5
Page 2
was concerned that there had been efforts to cumulate in various ways and she asked for an
explanation of the current practice of cumulation and how it operated within this Agreement.  She also
wanted to know whether the Tunisia-Egypt Agr eement had been notified and examined by the
Committee and how exactly it would affect this Agreement, with respect to rules of origin.  The
representative of Australia said he looked forward to the response to the first question posed by the
representative of the United States concerning agricultural liberalization, as his delegation had posed a
number of questions in this area.
6. With respect to the question regarding MFN treatment on 66 per cent of imports from the EC,
the representative of Tunisia confirmed that this included fisheries, which were not covered by
concessions.  Statistics were available up to the year 2000, but those for the year 2001 would not beavailable before the beginning of 2002.
7. In response to the question by the representative of the United States with respect to rules of
origin, the representative of the European Communities replied that this had been addressed in
question 3 of document WT/REG69/4/Add.1.  Th e EC's objective was to promote economic
integration around the Mediterranean basin through a series of agreements, as well as parallel
initiatives by the parties to liberalize and prom ote economic integration between themselves through
their own agreements.  The EC was also pursuing a long-term objective of Euro-Mediterraneancumulation of rules of origin, similar to the Pan European System of Cumulation, but this was not yet
a reality.  There were no identical rules of origin between the Agreement between the EC and Tunisia
and other partners in the Mediterranean.  Similarly, the process of development of free-trade areas
among the Mediterranean partners was at an early stage of evolution.  In light of this analysis, his
response to the question posed by the representative of the United States was that there was nooperational cumulation system at the moment.  But recent efforts, including a meeting of trade
ministers in Brussels in May 2001, had been made to develop such a system.  As regards agriculture,
he suggested that perhaps the Parties should see if they could update their statistics to take into
account additional liberalization measures that had been introduced in January.  But the problem was
that the examination conducted was of the Agreement as foreseen when it had entered into forcein 1998 and the subsequent interrelationship with the “rendezvous clause” for further negotiations in
agriculture had taken place in 2000 and had come into force in 2001.  The “rendezvous clause”
showed that the intentions of further liberalization and trade coverage in agriculture had been realized
because the European Communities had negotiated a certain amount of liberalization upon entry into
force of the Agreement in 1998 and the Parties had undertaken further negotiations in 2000, with
some result.  Following the negotiations in 2000, the Parties had set themselves another rendezvous
for further negotiations in agriculture, again with the purpose of greater liberalization of theirrespective trade.  However, his view was that the liberalization already achieved on 1 March 1998 and
the transitional provisions in place at that time and which were being carried through should have
been the focus of examination of the Committee.  Howe ver, he agreed, in the spirit of transparency, to
furnish updated data insofar as it was possible.
8. The representative of the United States said she would consider the information provided and
would submit any outstanding questions in writing.  She agreed that there was a systemic issue here
about the temporary clauses.  In addition, she asked for information on rendezvous clauses, where
they existed, to demonstrate that they had been taken seriously and that a substantial amount of trade
liberalization had occurred pursuant to their provisions.  However, she conceded that if there was no
desire to provide the updated information, the final assessment would need to be based on earlier data.But when liberalization was phased in, it seemed that the current data was the most accurate indicator
of an evaluation.  The representative of Australia concurred with the representative of the United
States’ on last statement and asked if there had been a timeline attached to the follow-up of therendezvous for further liberalization, agreed upon at the last meeting.  The representative of the
European Communities responded that the timing foreseen was for a further round of negotiations toWT/REG69/M/5
Page 3
begin on 1 January 2005 and for the liberalization measures that were then agreed to be applied from
1 January 2006.
9. The Chairman said that the fifth round of examination of the FTA between the European
Communities and Tunisia had been completed and that while the discussions had allowed the
Committee to clarify a number of issues, some outstan ding questions remained.  He proposed that the
Parties  respond to these questions in writing no later than 4 September, and that the Committee could
then consider the factual examination complete.  Once the replies had been circulated to Members,
any request for additional information could be dealt with without holding another round of
examination and the Secretariat could begin drafting the examination.
10. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________