. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG36/M/2
10 August 2000
(00-3271)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Sixth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 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 Item D.IV, the Committee on Re gional Trade Agreements (CRTA) took up the
examination of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia and Slovenia.
3. The Chairperson noted that was the second round of examination of the Agreement, which
had already been considered during the Twenty-fifth session of the CRTA on 30 March 2000, under
her Chairmanship.  The proceedings of that meeting had been distributed under document symbol
WT/REG36/M/1.  The set of written questions submitted to the Parties and their responses hadrecently been circulated as document WT/REG36/4.
4. The representative of the United States asked that statistical information including tariff
treatment by sectors, as requested by a number of delegations at the previous meeting, be provided.
Noting that in document WT/REG36/4 the Parties had indicated that global safeguards would most
probably be applied to the Parties to the Agreement, he asked under what conditions such a situation
would occur.  He also wondered to what extent the reference to balance-of-payments in that same
context was relevant since those restrictions were treated differently than safeguards under the rules ofGATT Article XXIV.  In response to a question on the exceptional treatment of agriculture, the
Parties had indicated that very little liberalization had occurred or had in fact been foreseen, while the
answer to a question in the Section on trade data led one to believe that trade in nearly all products
had been liberalized.  He asked for a clarification on the two seemingly contradictory responses.
5. The representative of Australia said that his delegation was also concerned about the coverage
of agriculture and the apparent contradiction in th e replies given in WT/REG36/4.  He asked for more
detailed information on how the Parties established which agricultural products would be included in
the Agreement, which of them would face duties, and what percentage of intra-trade those product
lines constituted.  He also asked for an indication as to when the Parties might negotiate full
liberalization of trade in agriculture notwithstanding the statement in WT/REG36/4.
6. The representative of Canada supported the requests by the United States and Australia for
the provision of additional information.  In the reply to a question on trade data in document
WT/REG36/4, it was indicated that trade in agricultural products covered 24 per cent of the trade
between the Parties, of which 23 per cent were covered by the FTA.  She asked for a confirmation that
substantially all products were covered.  She then noted that it would be useful in terms ofWT/REG36/M/2
Page 2
transparency and assessment of the Agreement to list either the product lines covered or those not
covered by the Agreement.
7. Replying to the questions on agriculture, the representative of Slovenia said that the tariff
lines covered by the Agreement were documented  in the Annexes to the Agreement, which were
available in the Secretariat.  Additional information on trade coverage, as required inGATT Article XXIV, had been provided both in the Standard Format and in the questions and replies
document.  As stated in the Standard Format, agricultural products amounted to 24 per cent of trade
between the Parties and the Agreement covered 23 per cent of trade in agricultural products.  As
industrial products made up 76 per cent of trade, the Agreement covered 99 per cent of all trade; trade
under MFN duties related to 1 per cent of all trade.  These figures meant that substantially all the trade
was covered.  Her delegation was of the view that all the necessary statistical information had been
provided.  They would provide a reply to the question on safeguards in writing.
8. The Chairperson said that the Committee had adva nced significantly in its examination of the
Agreement.  Some outstanding questions remained, to which the Parties would respond in writing by
13 September 2000.   Once the replies had been circulated, she would consult on whether another
round of examination was necessary, before asking the Secretariat begin drafting the Reports.
9. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________