RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG116/4
13 March 2002
(02-1304)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:  English
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TURKEY AND LATVIA
Questions and Replies
This document reproduces questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted.
The questions and replies set out below are organized in accordance with documentWT/REG116/3/Rev.1.
_______________
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT
3. Scope
What products are excluded from coverage?
None of the products are excluded from the scope of the Agreement.
It is not clear that the data provided actually allow full assessment of the scope of the
Agreement.  Could the Parties provide information that indicates the amount of trade affected,
by volume and HS code, at zero-, preferential-, and MFN-duty levels on full implementation?
The annexes of standard format and the document WT/REG116/3/Rev.1 include trade data at
zero-, preferential-, and MFN duty level, by tr ade volume. According to the Agreement, transition
period ends by 1
st January 2002. Parties will provide data regarding 2001 in the form that is included
in the Standard Format (WT/REG/116/3/Rev.1).
4. Trade Data
The Parties have provided data in the A nnex to WT/REG116/3 through 1999 with the
exception of the “Imports from Turkey into Latvia” chart which provides information through
2000.  Is more recent data available for the other charts in the Annex?
The document WT/REG116/3/Add.2 published on 18 January 2002 and
WT/REG116/3/Rev.1 published on 31 January 2002 contains data including the 2000 and Parties are
going to provide trade statistics that belong to the year 2001 within a very short period. 
II. TRADE PROVISIONS
1. Import Restrictions
The Parties indicate they have granted to each other  “preferential market access for a
number of agricultural, processed agricultur al and certain fishery products under tariffWT/REG116/4
Page 2
quotas” (WT/REG116/3/Rev.1).  Could the Parties provide information about which products
are covered under the tariff-rate quota arrangemen ts and the quantity of each tariff-rate quota,
within-quota rate, and out-of-quota rate?  Do TRQ amounts increase from year to year?  Is this
tonnage in addition to the amounts agreed in the Uruguay Round?
In the footnote of the document WT/REG116/1, by which text of the Agreement was
circulated, it was indicated that "The Annexes and Protocols have been submitted to the Secretariat
for consultation of by interested Members". For your information, Protocol B arranges the exchange
of agricultural concessions between the Parties and it includes quantities of quotas and quota rates.
Out-quota rates are the MFN rates of respective countries that are equal or less than their WTO bound
rates.
As a rule for all FTAs signed by Latvia, the tonnage of preferential tariff-rates quotas (TRQs),
is counted in addition to MFN TRQs. Also, other characteristics of TRQs (i.e., in quota rates) are
established by the respective FTAs. In the case of Latvia, the MFN TRQs are granted to different
products than those covered by Latvia-Turkey preferential TRQs. On the other hand, Turkey does not
apply MFN TRQs.
Could the Parties comment on any non-tariff import measures (including charges and
quantitative restrictions, QRs) that are applied to third countries and not to intra-FTA trade?
We would appreciate a list of such measures.  This request is made in the interest of
transparency.
Parties do not apply any non-tariff import measures (charges and QRs) that are applied to
third countries and not intra-FTA trade.
3. Rules of Origin
The Parties state that “the rules of orig in enables extended cumulation of products
between Turkey, Latvia, EU countries, EFTA countries, and Central and Eastern European
Countries when the necessary procedures have been completed.”  What are these “necessary
procedures”?
The “necessary procedures” in this case mean the entry into force of FTA between the Parties,
which are participating in the system. Such FTAs shall also include identical origin rules. The
Pan-European Cumulation System cannot be applied between the countries in the absence of the
respective FTA between them, even if they are participants to the System in general.
Why have the Parties decided to adopt the PECA system prospectively?
The conformity assessment agreement between Latvia and the EC has been signed, but has
not yet entered into force. It will be notified to th e WTO as soon as it becomes effective. On the other
hand Turkey is not a party to PECA system.
If the Parties move to a PECA system bilaterally, how will the rules of origin in this
agreement interface with the preferential agr eements Turkey and Latvia have with the
European Communities?  This bilateral agreement a ppears to the United States to be, in reality,
part of a “giant” free trade agreement with regards to rules of origin.
The Parties will not adopt the PE CA system between themselves.WT/REG116/4
Page 3
4. Standards
We note that the Agreement lacks provisions  regarding standards. Why have standards
provisions been omitted?
The Parties have decided not to establish any preferential rules concerning standards between
them. This is the reason for not having standards related provisions in the Agreement.
With respect to standards, do the Partie s participate in any arrangements on the
recognition of conformity assessment procedures , such as any mutual recognition arrangement
or have plans to do so? Would such arrangement be an amendment or part of this Agreement?
The Parties do not participate in any mutual recognition agreements between them, and so far
have not established any plans to do so. Any such an arrangement will not alter the provisions of
existing FTA.
Can the Parties please describe whether these preferential rules of origin are used under
their respective agreements with the European  Community on the recognition of conformity
assessment procedures, and how the use of such ru les will affect each of the Parties' treatment
of conformity assessment procedures with res pect to goods and materials produced in each
other's territories?
Being a party to Customs Union with the EU, Turkey is in process of aligning its technical
regulation with the EU including conformity assessment.
The conformity assessment agreement between Latvia and the EC has been signed, but has
not yet entered into force. It will be notified to the WTO as soon as it becomes effective. The
preferential rules of origin are used in the draft of this agreement as a basis for determination of
products eligible to the provisions of this agreement.
The prospective agreements with the EU will not have an impact on the trade between Turkey
and Latvia.
5. Safeguards
Does this Agreement provide for any special conditions or preferential treatment
between the Parties in the application of  glob al safeguard measures? If so, please describe.
The Agreement does not provide for any special conditions or preferential treatment between
the Parties in the case of application of global safeguard measures.
Please explain how safeguard actions are applied in context of this Agreement.  Have
safeguard measures been implemented during the life of the Agreement?  If so, by whom, on
which products, and under what circumstances?  To whom did the action apply?
Article 18 and 21 arrange the provisions for safeguard actions between the parties. So far no
safeguard actions have been resorted to.
Does the Agreement require that a margin of preference vis-à-vis third countries be
maintained when the safeguard provisions are invoked?  Will the Parties to the Agreement
observe the provisions of Article XIX in the application of safeguard measures that involve
third country trade?WT/REG116/4
Page 4
The Agreement does not require that a margin of preference vis-à-vis third countries be
maintained when the safeguard provisions are invoked. Parties to the Agreement will observe the
provisions of Article XIX in the application of safeguard measures that involve third country trade.
Provision to do so exists in the Article 18 of the Agreement.
If the Agreement has flexibility for either Party to impose safeguard measures, are there
any legal constraints on doing so and what happens if one party wishes to reimpose the MFN
rate?
The Parties have legal obligations under Articles 18 and 21 of the bilateral FTA in the case
when they apply safeguard measures between them. The obligations involve prompt notification of
the proposed measure to another Party and consultations between the Parties to the Agreement. Incase of reimposing the MFN rate, rules of the same articles will be applied.
7. Subsidies and State-aid
Have the subsidies and state-aid provisions ever been used during the course of the
course of this agreement?  If so, when?
The subsidies and state-aid provisions have never been used during the course of this
agreement.
8. Sector-Specific Provisions
We note that the agricultural sector has no t been covered by this Agreement.  Why?
Article 10 and 11 lay down the scope of coverage for agricultural products. Protocol B
arranges the exchange of concessions between th e parties. Tables in Annex A and B show the
agricultural products subjected to the concessions. Agricultural sector has been covered by the
Agreement.
Do any of the Parties provide bilateral preferential treatment to agricultural products
under MFN TRQs?  Please specify by type of preference on a product-specific basis.
No, Latvia does not provide bilateral preferential treatment to any products under MFN
TRQs. The amounts of bilateral TRQs have been counted in addition to existing MFN TRQs, and in
no case the bilateral TRQ amounts have been deducted from the volume of MFN TRQs. On the other
hand, Turkey does not apply MFN TRQs.
Are there plans for companion agreements on services?
The Parties have not agreed upon any timetable for concluding preferential agreements on
services.
9. Other
We note that the Parties “consider” the liberalization of their public procurement
activities.  What then is the current status of  Latvia’s and Turkey’s efforts to open up their
procurement processes?
Within the Agreement, the Parties have not agreed upon concluding preferential agreements
concerning government procurement.WT/REG116/4
Page 5
Do the Parties intend to accede to the Government Procurement Code?
This FTA does not include any provision relating to accession of Parties to the GPA.
Which public monopolies are subject to the provisions of the agreement?  Are all state
monopolies notified as required by Article XV II of the GATT 1994?  If not, could the Parties
please list all such entities covered by this relevant article and explain why they are not covered
by Article XVII of GATT?
The Agreement does not contain any definition of state monopolies and in this case Parties
apply their national legislation. On the other hand, within the context of the WTO, the parties are
aware of their obligations under Article XVII  and are in line with them. For transparency reasons,USA can find notification of Latvia at G/STR/ N/7/LVA and of Turkey at G/STR/N/5/TUR .
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
4. Relation with other trade agreements
Does this Agreement in any way prevent or discourage Parties to the Agreement from
making multilateral concessions, including MFN tariff reductions?
No.
__________