. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/C/W/323
19 October 2001
(01-5157)
Council for Trade in Goods Original:  English
QUESTIONS FROM THAILAND REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR
A WTO WAIVER CONCERNING THE NEW ACP-EC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
The following communication, dated 18 October 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Delegation of Thailand.
_______________
Pursuant to the Decision of 17 October 2001 adopted by the Council for Trade in Goods on
the organizational aspects of the working party for the examination of the request for a WTO waiver –
New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the World Trade
Organization has the honor to submit herewith Thailand’s written questions, to the Council for Trade
in Goods.  However, due to the very short time pr ovided, Thailand would like to reserve its right to
submit additional written questions after 18 October 2001.
Thailand's questions regarding the request for a WTO waiver:
New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement
1. Why preferential trade regime in the New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement is needed when
the European Community can address it within the context of the existing WTO consistent GSP and
EBA regimes provided?  Both regimes can be more generous and improved in coverage if they are notyet sufficient.
2. Taking into account the fact that the New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement will have in
effects discrimination between the non-LDC AC P members and other non-ACP developing WTO
members for 8 more years, how does the European Community intend address the negative tradeimpacts on those countries?
3. For the sake of transparency, we wish to have information on the bilateral consultations that
the European Community have had with other members with a view to compensate or reduce the
negative trade impacts of the New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement on other WTO members as wellas the outcome of such consultations.
4. In March, ASEAN member countries had an opportunity to discuss with the European
Community on the negative trade impacts of the New ACP-EC Partnership Agreement on our exports
to the European Community markets particularly canned tuna and also submitted an Aid-Memoirespecifying our concerns and requests.  So far we have not received any response back from the
European Community.  Will the European Community provide a response to our concerns and
request, and when?
5. Does the European Community adhere to Article XXV-Guiding Principles to be followed by
the Contracting Parties in considering applications for waivers from Part I or other important
obligations of the Agreement adopted on 1 November 1956 requiring that the legitimate interests ofG/C/W/323
Page 2
other contracting parties are adequately safeguarded and the decision granting a waiver to include
procedures for future consultation?
6. The study on preferential trade and developing countries “Bad Aid, Bad Trade” prepared by
Andrew Stoeckel and Brent Borrell, Centre for In ternational Economics indicated that aid delivered
through preferential trade is wasteful and in the case of EC banana preferences, it can cost up to $13
to transfer $1 of aid to the developing country.  Would it be more productive for the EC transfer the
amount $13 directly to the developing country to address its supply constraints or capacity building
instead?  After 25 years of the Lomé regime, how does it help the ACP member countries develop
competitiveness in the world markets and be less dependent on preferential trade and prepared
themselves for further liberalization in world trade.
__________