RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG91/4/Add.1
7 May 2001
(01-2317)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:  English
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE EFTA STATES AND MOROCCO
Questions and Answers
Addendum
This document reproduces additional questions addressed to the Parties and the responses
submitted.  The questions and replies set out below are organized in accordance with document
WT/REG91/3.
_______________
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THE AGREEMENT
2. Type of Agreement
With regard to the 12-year transitional period , we would appreciate if the Parties could
provide us with any plan or schedule which would improve its competitiveness as well as
strengthen its competitive position if it cannot be  achieved within 10 years period.  We would
also like to know if there is any possibility of extending this 12-year transitional period.
As indicated in the “Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994”
transitional periods should only exceed 10 years in exceptional cases.  As the Parties have already
indicated (see paragraph 5 of WT/REG91/M/2), the 12-year transitional period is due to the difference
in the level of the development of the Parties and to the adjustment period needed for the Moroccaneconomy.  The EFTA-Morocco Agreement parallels the EC-Morocco Association Agreement in this
regard.  There is no possibility to extend the 12-year transitional period (paragraph 5 of
WT/REG91/M/2).
3. Scope
With regard to the explanation given in Se ction II.8.1 of WT/REG91/3/Rev.1, the Parties
explain that they have "concluded bilateral agricul tural arrangements that also form part of the
instruments creating the free trade area.  These arrangements, which take the form of
exchanges of letters between the respective Part ies ...".  The outline of such arrangement was
first notified and explained on 10 January  2001 in document WT/REG91/3/Rev.1/Add.1.
According to the Article 12 of the Agreement, th ese exchanges of letters were done before the
conclusion of the Agreement.  On the othe r hand Article 34 does not state that these
arrangements are an integral part of the Ag reement.  We consider that these exchanges of
letters were to have been notified to the WT O at the same time the Agreement was notified.WT/REG91/4/Add.1
Page 2
The Agreement and the Bilateral Agricultural Ar rangements, as the instruments creating the
Free Trade Area, were all notified at the same time on 20 January 2000 to the Council for Trade in
Goods (see Section I of  WT/REG91/3/Rev.1).
4. Trade Data
In WT/REG91/3/Rev.1, page 13, the Parties indicate that for 1997, about 30.1 per cent
of Swiss agricultural imports from Morocco w ere subject to duty reductions rather than zero
duty treatment.  Page 14 states that 82.2 per cent of Norwegian agricultural exports to Morocco
were subject to the MFN rate, while 91.7 per cent of Swiss agricultural exports to Morocco were
subject to reduced duties, not zero duty treatment.   Is duty elimination scheduled for some of
this trade, or would the percentages be about the same for the year 2000?
There has so far not been any duty elimination, but the Parties are committed, according to
Article 12 of the Agreement, to foster the harmonious development of trade in agricultural products.
Trade data for 2000 is not yet available, the percentages can therefore not be determined.
For each Agreement, what percentage of agricultural or total tariff lines are over-quota
duty rates that will not be eliminated?
As repeatedly stressed in the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) ongoing
systemic debate, the Parties do not consider the provision of information on tariff lines relevant whenassessing whether the “substantially all the trade” criteria is met.
With regard to the data, trade coverage of fishery products in Annex II is 12.3 per cent
and that of processed agricultural products described in Protocol A is only 1.5 per cent.  Thus,
the trade coverage of fishery products covered under this Agreement is 13.8 per cent.  However,if you include those covered by Bilateral Agree ments, the trade coverage will increase to
98.3 per cent.  Although we may consider this figure as a very high standard for trade
liberalisation, since the legal relationship between the Bilateral Agreements and this Agreement
is not clear, we would like to reserve our posi tion on whether this Agreement fulfils the
“substantially all the trade” requirements or not.
The Parties take note of the comment and reiterate  that in their view the Agreement meets the
‘substantially all the trade’ requirement.
II. TRADE PROVISIONS
5. Safeguards
The Minutes of the CRTA Meeting held on 6 July 2000 (WT/REG91/M/1) indicate that
the United States had questioned "whether the safeguard provisions described in Section II.5 of
the Standard Format had been used and if so, when, how and on which products".  Moroccohad replied that "his delegation would provide replies in writing to the questions posed by the
United States".  Could Morocco clarify whether this question was answered, and, if not, what
will be the reply?
No safeguard has ever been applied, as stated in paragraph 14 of WT/RET91/M/1.
8. Sector-specific Provisions
8.1 AgricultureWT/REG91/4/Add.1
Page 3
Is it correct that agriculture trade, which is covered by Bilateral Agreements, is not
subject to the disciplines of the central Agreement itself?
Agriculture trade in basic agricultural products is covered by Bilateral Agreements which are
not subject to the disciplines of the main Ag reement (see WT/REG91/3/Rev.1/Add.1).  Agriculture
trade in processed agricultural products is covered by protocol A to the main Agreement and subject
to the disciplines of the main Agreement.
__________