WT/REG427/M/1  
 
6 April 2023 
(23-2520) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Hundred and Sixth Session  Original: English  
 
ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA 
STATES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM,  GOODS  
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 27  MARCH 2023  
Chair: Ambassador H.E. Ms. Clare KELLY (New Zealand)  
1.1.  The 106th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter "CRTA" or the 
"Committee") was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/31/Rev.1 dated 17 March 2023.  
1.2.  Under Agenda Item I.I of the Session, the CRTA considered the  Economic Partnership 
Agreement be tween the Eastern and Southern Africa States and the United Kingdom, goods 
(hereinafter "the Agreement"). The Chair stated  that the factual presentation had been prepared by 
the Secretariat on its own responsibility in full consultation with the Parties, i n accordance with 
paragraph 7(b) of the Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements (document 
WT/L/671).  
1.3.  The Agreement had entered into force on 1 January 2021. It had been  notified to the WTO by 
the Parties on 31 December 2020 under Article  XXIV: 7(a) of the GATT  1994, as establishing a free 
trade area for trade in goods within the meaning of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 
(document  WT/REG427/N/1). The text of the Agreement, together with its Annexes, was available 
on the Parties official websites a nd in the WTO RTA database. The Factual Presentation, 
document  WT/REG427/1, and questions and replies, document WT/REG427/2, ha d been distributed.  
1.4.  The representative of the United Kingdom  congratulated the Chair on her appointment and 
delivered a joint statement, on behalf of the UK, Mauritius, Seychelles, and Zimbabwe, on the 
Agreement.  The Agreement had been successfully implemented since 1 January 2021 by Mauritius, 
Seychelles, Zimbabwe  (ESA) , and the UK. Madagas car and Comoros had also signed the Agreement, 
and it would be applied to them when they brought it into effect in their domestic legislation.  
1.5.  The Agreement had played and continued to play a vital role in providing both continuity and 
certainty for ESA an d British businesses that traded between the Parties . Overall trade was worth 
GBP 1.1 billion in 2022, with strong mutual trade since the inception of the Agreement. All the Parties 
were keen to see further growth in the coming years.  It had reaffirmed the  strong relationship 
between the UK and the ESA region, which had been built upon the Parties' long -standing historical 
ties and shared values. As well as the existing Parties to the Agreement, any other State in the 
region could accede to the Agreement wi th the agreement of the Parties .  
1.6.  The text of the Agreement replicated the Economic Partnership Agreement that had been 
negotiated between six ESA countries and the European Union (the EU -ESA EPA) in 2007, albeit with 
minor changes to accommodate the UK's new bilateral context .  
1.7.  At its heart, the Agreement aim ed to contribute to the economic growth and development of 
ESA Partner States, through a strengthened trade and development partnership. A key aspect of the 
Agreement's development -oriented nature had been the provision of full duty -free and quota -free 
market access for goods originating in ESA States in the UK market. Large businesses to small 
producers in ESA States had continued to benefit from duty -free, quota -free access to the UK 
market, many of w hom had relied on such access to effectively compete  in the UK . On the other 
hand, the Agreement had provided for ESA States to liberalize their tariffs progressively and WT/REG427/M/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  gradually over a number of decades for goods originating from the UK, which concluded  in 2022.  
The asymmetrical tariff schedule had been designed to support ESA States to grow their economies 
in a sustainable way, recognizing that the UK and ESA States were at different stages of their 
development.  
1.8.  Crucially, the Agreement also contained i ntegrated safeguards which allowed ESA States to 
introduce tariffs or quotas in the unlikely case that imports from the UK  harmed domestic industry 
or caused social or economic problems .  
1.9.  The Agreement had also provided generous cumulation arrangements. For ESA States, the 
provisions allowed products to be considered as originating, and thereby benefit from duty -free 
access in the UK market, when incorporating materials originating in the U K. This also applied when 
ESA States incorporated materials originating in the EU, the other ESA States, other African, 
Caribbean and Pacific States, and the UK's Overseas Countries and Territories. Additionally, at the 
request of ESA States, these provisi ons may be extended to include neighbouring developing 
countries, specifically, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and the Maldives.  Similarly, products 
were considered as originating in the UK when incorporating materials originating in an ESA State , 
the EU, other African, Caribbean and Pacific States, and the UK's Overseas Countries and Territories . 
In all cases, for these provisions to be applied, the countries involved in the acquisition of originating 
status and the country of destination had to have concluded an agreement on administrative 
cooperation. The Parties would share with each other details of their agreements on administrative 
cooperation and would publish the date on which the cumulation provided could be applied .  
1.10.  The Agreement had also allowed the ESA States to maintain regional preferences with other 
African countries and regions without having  to extend them to the UK. Furthermore, Parties could 
be assured that future trade agreements entered into by the Parties would give due consideration 
to the Agreement. The obligations were once again asymmetrical to preserve the Agreement's 
objective to support the ESA States ' sustainable development and integration into the global 
economy. The UK was required to extend to the ESA States any more favourable treatment resulting 
from a future FTA with a third party, whilst the ESA States had the same obligation with respect to 
the UK, but only to the extent that the third party was a "major trading economy" .  
1.11.  Development cooper ation had been a core element of the Agreement and an essential factor 
for the realization of its twin  objectives, trade and development. Cooperation was aimed at 
enhancing the competitiveness of ESA economies, building up supply capacity and enabling sign atory 
EPA States to implement the Agreement  smoothly. Several areas were also specified for 
development cooperation, including cooperation to support establishing a strong, competitive, and 
diversified economic base in the ESA states, developing capacity f or trade, and attracting 
investment, and strengthening policies and regulations.  
1.12.  The Agreement's institutional arrangements  include d an EPA Committee, composed of ESA 
and UK representatives, which was responsible for the administration of all matters and f ulfilment 
of all tasks under the Agreement.  It also provided for a Joint Development Committee, to effectively 
monitor the implementation of the development cooperation under the Agreement.  
1.13.  The Agreement contained a ' rendez -vous clause', wherein the Partie s had agreed to pursue 
negotiations in the future with a view to extending their partnership in several areas, including 
technical barriers to trade and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, services, investment, 
competition, sustainable development, intell ectual property rights and transparency in public 
procurement.  
1.14.  Both Parties looked forward to continuing deepening their relationship through the 
Agreement.  
1.15.  The representative of Mauritius  congratulated the Chair on her election and thanked the 
Secretariat  and WTO Members for their interest in the Agreement and the questions they had 
submitted . He also highlighted that the UK had been one of the key trading partners of Mauritius. 
The commercial partnership between Mauritius and the UK had been consolidated with the entry into 
force of the Agreement on 1 January 2021, which had allowed, in fact, to preserve predictability and 
continuity in trade relation s between the UK and Mauritius, and other ESA States. The latest data  in 
2021 indicated that Mauritius ' export s to the UK amount ed to  approximately MUR 6 billion, which WT/REG427/M/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  was about 12% of its total exports , and the main exported products were prepared or preserved 
tuna, textiles, and sugar. Mauritius import ed products worth  around MUR 3.3 billion from the UK. 
Mauritius hoped that, with the Agreement, trade and economic relations would be further deepened, 
and looked forward to collaborating with the UK.  
1.16.  The Chair opened the floor for any questions from the Members.  
1.17.  The representative  of the European Union  congratulated the Chair on her appointment . She  
thanked the Parties for their presentation of the Agreement  and wished them success in the 
implementation of the Agreement .  
1.18.  The representative of the United States  congratulated the Ch air on her appointment and 
thanked the Parties for their participation in the valuable transparency exercise. He noted that tables 
3.1 and 3.2 of the factual presentation showed similar tariff liberalization commitments by Mauritius 
and Seychelles, but Zim babwe's commitment was remarkably different as shown by  table 3.3 , with 
13.7% of its tariffs remaining dutiable. He asked whether the reason for the difference in apparent 
market access commitments was related to the development rationale as presented  in the Parties' 
joint statement or if there were any other reasons for the difference.  
1.19.  The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked the U .S. for the question and  appreciated  
the fact that it had taken the time to look at the matter. She confirmed that the difference in market 
access commitments by Zimbabwe was completely linked to the development elements of the 
Agreement. She prefer red not  to comment further on it since Zimbabwe was not  present at the 
meeting. As mentioned in the Parties' joint statement, they had been  happy to take different 
characterizing requirements for each Party based on its stage of development, including different 
time frames and commitments. She would provide  more sp ecific information as a follow -up, if 
needed . 
1.20.  The representative of Canada  thanked the former Chair of the Committee, Ambassador Taeho 
LEE, for his work and extended a warm welcome to and looked forward to work with the newly 
elected Chair  in the future . He also expressed gratitude to the Parties for ensuring transparency on 
the RTA being considered. He asked if the Parties , while negotiating the Agreement, had discussed 
the definition of  the broad outlines of a major trading economy with regards to MFN treatment to be 
granted after the Agreement had been  concluded.  
1.21.  The representative of the United States  followed up on a written question and requested 
information  regarding  the rendez -vous clause mentioned by the UK, which potentially required 
negotiations for future commitments in TBT, SPS, services, competitiveness, sustainable 
development, transparency, and public procurement. He asked the Parties to clarify the process and 
whether they had any plans to address some of these additional elements of the potential agreement 
in the future.  
1.22.  The representative of the United Kingdom thanked Canada and the US for the questions raised 
and appreciated the debate and discussion. Regarding the MFN cla use and the definition of a major 
economy, she explained from the UK's trade agreement perspective that the UK had many EPAs 
across Africa and the Caribbean. She believed that, in part, it was designed to ensure that the current 
economies of these countrie s were captured. Economies with which  the UK had EPA -style 
agreements definitely would not be captured under that kind of forward -looking MFN provision. 
However, if there was a change in the future and an agreement was reached  with a major economy 
that fol lowed a standard FTA structure covering all types of trade, then the UK would want to be 
included under the MFN provision. She also noted that the  EPA Committee's regular discussions 
would allow them to review individual agreements on a case -by-case basis to identify specific types 
of agreements to be covered by the MFN provision. She further clarified that it was not intended to 
capture each State's economic partnership type agreement and was also not intended to capture 
any specific regional trade agreeme nt, such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (A fCFTA).  
On the rendez -vous clause , she noted that the EU and now UK EPAs  had predominantly focused on 
trade in goods and did not include services. The UK currently had a busy FTA schedule to get through . 
Its focus had been on notifying and being transparent about existing agreements . The UK also had 
a busy schedule of forward looking  agreements, particularly with countries such as India. The UK 
was prioritizing  work on  expanding its existing FTAs. However,  the process was still in its early stages WT/REG427/M/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  and the Parties involved needed to work out with the help of the Committee under the Agreement 
what to prioritize.  
1.23.  The representative of the United States  shared his experience in  negoti ating the U.S.'s FTA 
with Kenya and its broader trade engagement with the East African Community  and the need to be 
mindful  of the provisions in the EU -EPA and UK -EPA.  
1.24.  The Chair noted the consideration of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the 
Eastern and Southern Africa n States and the United Kingdom, goods had allowed the Committee to 
clarify a number of questions and conclude oral discussion of the RTA in accordance with paragraph 
11 of the Transparency Mechanism. Any delegations wishing to ask follow -up questions were invited 
to forward submissions in writing to the Secretariat by 3 April 2023 and the Parties were asked to 
submit replies in writing by no later than 17 April  2023. In accordance with paragraph 13 of the 
Transparency Mechanism all written submissions, as well as the minutes of the meeting would be 
circulated promptly, in all WTO official languages, and made available on the WTO website.  
1.25.  The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________