WT/REG386/M/1  
 
30 April 2019 
(19-2964) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Ninety -second  Session    
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT  BETWEEN GEORGIA AND  THE EFTA STATES  
(GOODS  AND SERVICES ) 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 1 APRIL  2019 
Chairm an: Ambassador Carlos Mario FORADORI (Argentina)  
1.1.  The 92nd Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/17/Rev.1 dated 22 March 2019.  
1.2.  Under Agenda Item F.IV of the Session, the CRTA considered the  Free Trade Agreement 
between Geo rgia and the EFTA States  (Goods  and Services ), (hereinafter  "the Agreement").  
1.3.  The Chairman  noted that the  Agreement had entered into force on 1 September 2017 for 
Georgia, Iceland and Norway and 1 May 2018 for Liechtenstein and Switzerland. It had been  notified 
to the WTO by Georgia, Iceland and Norway on 29 August 2017; and on 25  April 2018 by 
Liechtenstein and Switzerland under Article  XXIV:7(a) of the GATT  1994 and the Understanding on 
the Interpretation of Article  XXIV of GATT 1994 as an Agreement e stablishing a free trade area 
(documents  WT/REG386/N/1 -2) and  under GATS  Article  V:7(a) as an Agreement providing for the 
liberalization of trade in services within the meaning of Article V of the GATS (documents S/C/N/ 891 
and Add.1 ). The text of the Agree ment was available, together with its Annexes, on the Parties' 
official websites.  The Factual Presentation on the goods and services aspects 
(document  WT/REG386/1 dated 15 January 2019) and questions and replies on this Agreement 
(document WT/REG386/2 date d 15 March  2019) ha d been distributed.  
1.4.  The representative of Georgia  thanked the Secretariat for the preparation of the Factual 
Presentation , the EFTA States for their productive collaboration in the process and those Members 
who had displayed particular i nterest and raised questions on the Agreement.  
1.5.  The Agreement had been signed in June 2016 and had been partially applied by Georgia, 
Iceland and Norway since September 2017 until full application in May 2018. The Agreement was in 
full compliance with the principles of the WTO and other trade agreements Georgia had signed 
previously and aimed to forge closer economic relations between the Parties .  
1.6.  The application of the Agreement had enabled Georgia to enjoy free access for its goods and 
services in the hi ghest quality market incorporating four States and over 13 million consumers. As 
a broad -based and comprehensive Agreement, it covered trade in goods, trade in services, 
establishment, the protection of intellectual property rights, government procurement,  competition, 
and trade and sustainable development.  
1.7.  In trade in goods, the Parties had abolished all customs duties on industrial products, while 
some sensitive agricult ural product s were subject to certain exceptions or partial preferences. 
However, it was essential to note that Georgia had been granted preferences on important 
agricultural commodities with great export potential such as wine, alcoholic and non -alcoholic 
beverages, mineral waters, fruits and vegetables, honey, confectionary and others.  
1.8.  Switzerland and Liechtenstein had retained import duties on about 9% of Georgia's agricultural 
commodities with the rest subject to zero import duties. Georgia had retained import duties on up 
to 20% of agricultural products  from those Parties . Norway had retained import duties on about 35% 
of Georgia's agricultural commodities while the rest were subject to zero duties. Georgia had retained WT/REG386/M/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  import duties on about 25% of agricultural products from Norway. Iceland had retained import duties 
on about 25% of G eorgia's agricultural commodities while other commodities were subject to zero 
import duties. Georgia had retained import duties on about 50% of agricultural products from 
Iceland.  
1.9.  According to Georgian statistics exports from Georgia to the EFTA states in  2018 were 
estimated at USD 78 million. The main export commodities were gold, nuts, ferro alloys, 
medicaments, fruit juices and others. At the same time imports from the EFTA states to Georgia in 
2018 amounted to USD 77 million where the main import commod ities were frozen fish, cream, 
butter, sugar, tobacco products, medicaments and others.  
1.10.   In trade in services, the Agreement foresaw further liberalization and facilitation of trade in 
services between the Parties , building on the Parties' GATS commitments . Georgian service 
suppliers, as well as service suppliers of the EFTA States, would benefit from improved market access 
and national treatment conditions in different services sectors.  
1.11.   SPS related provisions were set out in Chapter 4 of the Agreement which  incorporated rules 
pertaining to inspections, certifications systems, system audits, and import checks and ensured 
relevant consultation mechanisms. The Agreement incorporated the WTO TBT Agreement and 
provided for a consultation mechanism between the Parties.  
1.12.   The provisions on protection of intellectual property rights cover ed trademarks, copyrights, 
patents and geographical indications and include d provisions for the enforcement of intellectual 
property rights and cooperation among the Parties. They were based on the WTO TRIPS Agreement 
and provide d for a high level of protection, taking into account the principles of MFN and national 
treatment.  The A greement provide d for the mutual opening of government procurement markets of 
the Parties.  
1.13.   Under the Agreement, investors would enjoy additional stimulus by the fact that through its 
rules of origin the Agreement envisage d the possibility of diagonal cumu lation with the members of 
the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean  Convention of which Georgia was a member since May 2017 and which 
include d Turkey and the EU. It was a flexible mechanism through which for example products  
manufactured in Georgia based on raw material s originat ing in Turkey could  be subsequently 
exported to the EFTA states under the preferential regime  or vice versa . He highlighted that the 
relevant amendment ha d already been made to the Georgia -Turkey FTA and the  relevant procedures 
necessary for rati fication we re in progress.  
1.14.   Georgia's major priority was to make the best use of opportunities presented by the 
Agreement and to bring its anticipated benefits to its citizens in its territory within its internationally 
recognized borders. Effective impleme ntation would boost the economy, increase Georgia's 
attractiveness as a viable investment destination, create a better environment for local as well as 
international businesses and facilitate further economic modernization.   
1.15.   The representative of Switzerl and on behalf of the EFTA States  thank ed the Secretariat for its 
excellent work in preparing the Factual Presentation and for its valuable support during all stages of 
the preparatory pr ocess. The finished document provide d a comprehensive and informative overview 
of the EFTA-Georgia Free Trade Agreement.  He also thank ed EFTA's  partners from Georgia  for the 
effective  collaboration  during all stages of the process.  
1.16.   He paid tribute to the initiative taken by Georgia back in 2012 to intensify trade relations with 
EFTA. This had led to the signing of a Joint Declaration on Cooperation in 2012 and subsequently to 
the launch of free trade negotiations in early 2015. An FTA had then been concluded between the 
Parties  in 2016, following a swift negotiating process with three rounds of negotiations.  
1.17.   The Agreement had been  negotiated and signed in the context of an expanding and deepening 
trading relationship between the Parties.  Although the volume of overall bilateral merchandise trade 
was relatively modest at USD 130 million in 2018, it was however expanding at a rapid clip. EFTA 's 
imports from Georgia ha d expanded from less than USD 1  million in 2008 to USD 62 million in 2018, 
while exports ha d increased from USD 24 to 58 million in the same period.  WT/REG386/M/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.18.   Trade between the EFTA States and Georgia held much potential and the EFTA States  viewed 
the Agreement  as an important instrument for a continued strengthening of  economic ties betwee n 
the P arties. He was  convinced that the EFTA -Georgia FTA would  create new opportunities for the 
Parties'  economic operators and provide a strong stimulus for the further growth of trade and 
investment.  
1.19.   Shared high ambitions ha d resulted in a comprehensive modern Free Trade Agreement. The 
Agreement cover ed trade in goods, trade in services, establishment, competition, protection of 
intellectual property rights , government procurement, and trade and sustainable development.  The 
EFTA States  believe d that the Agreement provide d for substantive concessions by all sides, while 
taking into  account the sensitivities of the respective Parties.   
1.20.   On behalf of the EFTA States , he thanked WTO Members  who had sent written questions 
ahead of th e meeting  and for the interest  shown in reviewing th e Agreement. Answers had been  
provided and he looked forward to responding to any further questions  or comments . 
1.21.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Parties for their detailed presentatio ns 
and for providing valuable overall context to the Agreement. She highlighted the fact that the EU 
attached great importance to sustainable development that included economic development, social 
development and environmental protection and she commended the Parties for including a chapter 
on sustainable development.  
1.22.   The representative of the United States  expressed  disappointment at the significant exclusions 
to tariff elimination in the Agreement particularly in the agricultural sector. This was a featur e that 
he had pointed out before in a number of EFTA agreements.  
1.23.   On customs -related procedures the United States wondered  why the Parties had chosen to 
include customs -related measures in an Annex and not in the Agreement itself  and whether Annex 
III was excluded from dispute settlement. Annex III  was an interesting and beneficial aspect to the 
Agreement and he welcomed the many TFA -similar and TFA -plus provisions included , both in terms 
of the depth of the disciplines and what appeared to be a broader  scope than the TFA. He was 
encouraged to  see advance rulings provisions being mainstreamed into RTA practice and noted that 
the Agreement went beyond the TFA to include valuation and fees in rulings, as well as an 
acknowledgement of the benefits of making  the rulings publicly available. He also noted the 
provisions for the release of goods prior to arrival and the inclusion of electronic payments as an 
important too l, another  TFA-plus provision. This was the first time he had seen provisions on 
perishable goods included in an FTA and this was something that the United States would be 
interesting in seeing  moved into FTA practice.  
1.24.   On services, he noted that the Agreement generally replicated the Parties' GATS commitments 
with some marginal improvements over GATS . The positive move to include elements of domestic 
regulation  had not been highlighted in the factual presentation and this was an increasingly 
important aspect in disciplining services trade. He noted the absence of a separate chapter dealing 
with th e growing area of e -commerce and digital trade. He acknowledged the inclusion of labour and 
environmental provisions in the Agreement but  noted that the obligations appeared to be largely 
non-binding in that area.  
1.25.   In response to the United States' represen tative's comment on agriculture, t he representative 
of Switzerland  said that like many other WTO Members the EFTA States had strong sensitivities in 
agriculture for a number of good domestic policy reasons. However, the Agreement would liberalize 
99% of tr ade between Georgia and the EFTA States despite the sensitivities on agriculture. Thus,  
the EFTA States felt that this remained overall an ambitious Agreement and a significant step forward 
for trade between the Parties. Furthermore, the Parties had commit ted in Article 3.5 of the 
Agreement to continue effor ts to further liberalize trade in agricultural products. As to the query 
about the Annex on customs and trade facilitation, he said that according to paragraph 8 of Article 
11 of the Agreement the Joint Committee could decide to amend the annexes and appendices to the 
Agreement subject to any domestic procedures of the Parties while changes to the text to the 
Agreement as such would require a more burdensome procedure. As the Parties might want to 
update the provisions on trade facilitation in the future to keep them up to date these provisions 
had been placed in an Annex. As to trade facilitation and dispute settlement, he stated that 
Article  13.1 of the Agreement provided that the annexes to the Agreemen t including their appendices WT/REG386/M/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  constituted an integral part of the Agreement. Annex III on trade facilitation was therefore also 
subject to the provisions of Chapter 12 on dispute settlement.  
1.26.   The representative of the Republic of M oldova  commended the Partie s for having concluded 
the Agreement after only three rounds of negotiations. The Republic of Moldova appreciated the fact 
that the FTA between Georgia and the EFTA States covered a wide range of sectors including trade 
in goods. With a few exceptions the entry into force of the Agreement would result in the elimination 
of customs duties on industrial products. EFTA Member States would benefit from tariff concessions 
on processed and unprocessed agriculture products, cheese, chocolate and other dairy produc ts. 
She asked the Georgian delegation if Georgian wine would enter EFTA markets duty -free. The 
Republic of Moldova attached great importance to both markets  and had signed a joint declaration 
with EFTA States. The Republic of Moldova was confident that the  Agreement would strengthen the 
competitiveness of their economies and markets.  
1.27.   The representative of Georgia  replied that Georgian wine was exempt from duties in all EFTA 
markets.  
1.28.   The Chairman  said that the consideration of the goods and services Aspects of the Free Trade 
Agreement between Georgia and the EFTA States ha d allowed the Committee  to clarify a number of 
questions and it could  now conclude oral discussion of th e RTA in accordance with paragraph 11 of 
the Transparency Mechanism. If any delegations wish ed to ask follow up questions they were invited 
to forward submissions in writing to the Secretariat by 8 April 2019 and Parties are asked to submit 
replies in writi ng by no later than 22 April 2019. In accordance with paragraph 13 of the 
Transparency Mechanism all written submissions, as well as minutes of this meeting would  be 
circulated promptly, in all WTO official languages, and would  be made available on the WTO  website.  
1.29.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________