WT/REG443/M/1  
 
18 December  2023 
(23-8647) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Hundred and Eighth  Session  Original: English  
 
ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE 
SOUTHERN AFRICAN CUSTOMS UNION (SACU) AND MOZAMBIQUE (GOODS ) 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 20 NOVEMBER  2023 
Chair: Ambassador H.E. Ms. Clare KELLY (New Zealand)  
1.1.  The 10 8th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter "CRTA" or the 
"Committee") was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/3 4/Rev. 1 dated 10 November  2023.  
1.2.  Under Agenda Item I.II, the CRTA  considered the  goods aspects of the Economic Partnership 
Agreement (EPA) between the United Kingdom, the SACU and Mozambique . The Chair stated that 
the factual presentation had been prepared by the Secretariat on its own responsibility in full 
consultation with the Parties, in 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 8 January 2021 under Article  XXIV:7(a) of the GATT  1994 as an agreement that 
"establishes a free trade area for trade in goods, within the meaning of Article XXIV of the GATT 
1994." The notification had been circulated in document WT/REG443/N/1. The text of the Agreement 
and its Annexes were available on the Parties' official websites and in the WTO RTA database.  The 
Factual Presentation (document  WT/REG443/1) ha d been issued. No questions had been  received 
from the Members on this Agreement.  
1.4.  The representative of the United Kingdom , speaking also on behalf of SACU Parties and  
Mozambique , noted that the EPA between the SACU and Mozambique , and the UK, ha d been 
successfully implemented since 1 January 2021 by the Parties . He thanked the delegations of the 
SACU and Mozambique for the ir important  contributions in drafting and agreeing the statement . 
The EPA continue d to play a vital role in providing both continuity and certainty for businesses that 
trade between their countries . All Parties were keen to see further growth in the coming years.  The 
agreement reaffirm ed the strong relationship between the UK and the SACU Member States and 
Mozambique , which was built upon their long-standing historical ties and shared values. The EPA 
allowed for other States in the region to  accede it with the agreeme nt of the Parties .  
1.5.  The text of the Agreement largely replicated the EPA negotiated between SACU Member States 
and Mozambique and the European Union in 2016, with some transitional changes. At its heart, the 
agreement aim ed to contribute to the economic gr owth and development of SACU Member States 
and Mozambique , through a strengthened trade and development partnership .  
1.6.  The EPA had given  full duty -free and quota -free access for goods originating from Botswana, 
Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique and Namibia into  the UK market. It had also ensured that UK imports 
from South Africa were eligible for duty -free access on approximately 95% of UK tariff lines. SACU 
Member States had ensured imports from the UK were eligible for duty -free access on around 86% 
of SACU ta riffs lines. On a further 12% of tariff lines UK exports benefited from staging reduced 
tariffs or tariff -rate quotas  
1.7.  The EPA had allowed for SACU Member States and Mozambique to liberalise their tariffs 
progressively and gradually over period of 12 years for SACU Member states and 10 years for WT/REG443/M/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Mozambique.  The asymmetrical tariff schedule had been  designed to support SACU Member States 
and Mozambique to grow their economies in a sustainable way.    
1.8.  Notwithstanding the general bilateral safeguards provision i n the EPA, the Agreement also 
contain ed non-reciprocal safeguard provisions which allow ed SACU  Member States and Mozambique 
to introduce measures in the unlikely event that imports from the UK harmed or caused social or 
economic problems to industries in SACU  or Mozambique . 
1.9.  The Agreement provide d cumulation arrangements. Subject to the conditions i n the 
Agreement, products were considered as originating in SACU Member States and Mozambique or 
the UK when incorporating inputs from the other Party, the EU, other African, Caribbean and Pacific 
EPA States, and the UK 's Overseas Countries and Territories . Additionally,  materials subject to MFN 
duty-free treatment upon importation into the UK, and materials originating in other countries 
benefiting from preferential duty –free quota –free access to the UK market, c ould be considered as 
originating in a SACU Member State or Mozambique.  The EPA also allow ed SACU Member States and 
Mozambique to maintain regional preferences with other African countries and regions without 
having to extend them to the UK.    
1.10.  Development cooperation was a core element of th e partnership and an essential factor for 
the realisation of its objectives. As a reciprocal, development -focused trade agreement, liberalisation 
had been  undertaken in a manner which support ed poverty reduction in SACU and Mozambique 
through economic devel opment. The Parties looked to broaden development cooperation in the 
future through enhancing trade in goods, building capacity and strengthening institutional structures 
and trade data capture and analysis.  
1.11.  The EPA 's institutional arrangements include d a Joint Council which over saw its administration 
and implementation. The Trade and Development Committee was tasked with monitoring and 
evaluating the implementation of the decisions of the Joint Council.  The EPA  further establishe d 
Special Committees to dea l with specific matters including the Special Committee on Customs and 
Trade Facilitation and the Special Committee on Geographical Indications and Trade in Wine and 
Spirits.  
1.12.  The EPA contain ed a Revision Clause wherein the Parties had agree d to review the Agreement 
in its entirety no later than five years after its entry into force. The Parties would  be able to pursue 
negotiations in the future with a view to extending their partnership in several areas, including 
technical barriers to trade and sanitary an d phytosanitary measures, services, investment, 
competition, sustainable development, intellectual property rights and transparency in public 
procurement.  
1.13.  Both Parties look ed forward to continuing to work closely with each other , and remain ed 
deeply commit ted to the continued strengthening of our trade relationships.  
1.14.  The representative of European Union  thanked the UK, the SACU Members States and 
Mozambique for the very interesting presentation. The  EU looked forward to the implementation of 
the Agreement and any further updates.  
1.15.  The representative of Argentina  stated that t he Republic  of  Argentina object ed to and reject ed 
the attempt to include the Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich 
Islands and the so -called "British A ntarctic Territory " (referred to on pages 8 and 17 of the factual 
presentation) within the scope of the EPA between the UK, the SACU and Mozambique, and its 
Protocols.  
1.16.  The Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the 
surrounding maritime areas were integral parts of the national territory of the Argentine Republic 
and, on account of their illegal occupation by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland, were the subject of a dispute over sovereignty b etween the two States that had been  
recognized as such by the international community.  
1.17.  The Republic  of Argentina  recall ed that the General Assembly of the United Nations had 
adopted Resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/ 40, 42/19 and 
43/25, i n which it had recognize d the existence of the dispute over sovereignty, which was referred WT/REG443/M/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  to as the "Question of the Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas) ", and urge d the Governments of the 
Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of G reat Britain and Northern Ireland to resume 
negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve the dispute peacefully and definitively as 
soon as possible. The United  Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, meanwhile, ha d 
repeatedly called for n egotiations, most recently in a resolution adopted on 20 June this year.  
1.18.  The British presence in these archipelagos and the surrounding maritime areas constitute d an 
illegal occupation and had been  rejected by the Republic  of Argentina , as well as  any unil ateral act 
stemming from it. In addition, a necessary and inescapable corollary of the obligation to resolve the 
dispute in a peaceful manner that international law impose d on Argentina and the United Kingdom 
was that all other States and international bod ies must refrain from acts liable to hinder the parties' 
compliance with this obligation. This mean t refraining from acts that distort ed the nature and scope 
of the dispute and from playing a part in the performance of unilateral acts by one of the parties, in 
blatant contradiction with what ha d been mandated by the General Assembly of the United  Nations, 
particularly in its Resolution 31/ 49. 
1.19.  As for the so -called "British Antarctic Territory ", Argentina d id not recognize any British 
territorial claim in Antarctica and recall ed the provisions of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty.  The 
Republic  of  Argentina reaffirm ed its legitimate sovereig n rights over the Falkland Islands ( Islas 
Malvinas), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas and 
object ed to and reject ed the attempt to apply to the aforementioned territories, and to the so -called 
"British Antarcti c Territory ", the EPA between the UK, the SACU and Mozambique, and its Protocols.  
1.20.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Parties for their presentation. His 
delegation noted with particular interests their comments on poverty alleviation and s ustainable 
development. They also believed the empowerment of women and youth in Africa to access and 
benefit from trade would be critical to fostering sustainable, inclusive and long -lasting economic 
growth and development o n the continent. However major challenges such as youth unemployment, 
weak networks  and inadequate access to financial services for women , stood  to jeopardize this core 
goal. He inquired whether the Parties could outline , at the meeting or in follow -up questions and 
answers , how women a nd youth st ood to benefit from the Agreement and whether there were any 
specific measures or scopes of work that focused on these groups . 
1.21.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said he would come back to the question posed by 
the United States on the benefits women and youth would derive  from the Agreement. With respect 
to the statement by Argentina, he said the United Kingdom had no doubt about its sovereignty over 
the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) or South Georgi a and the South Sandwich Islands or its  
surrounding maritime areas. The UK had been  steadfast in its support for the right of self -
determination for Falkland Islanders, and this right had been  enshrined in the UN Charter and in 
Article 1 of the two UN Cove nants on Human Rights. The Falkland Islanders had as much right to 
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development 
as any other people s. Argentina had regularly referred to regional statements of diplomat ic support 
for sovereignty negotiations over the Falkland Islands  (Islas Malvinas) , including United Nations 
resolutions. However, none of these modified or diluted the obligation of nations to respect the 
legally binding principle of self -determination. T he UK's relationship with the Falkland Islands (Islas 
Malvinas)  and all of its overseas territories was a modern one, based on partnership, shared values, 
and the right of the people of each territory to determine their own future. The Argentine Republic 
continued to deny that this fundamental human right applied to the people of the Falkland Islands  
(Islas Malvinas) , and actively sought  opportunities in international fora to assert its sovereignty 
claim. This behaviour was wholly incompatible with the prin ciples established in the UN Charter and 
was not the behaviour they would expect of a democracy.  
1.22.  The representative of Argentina  reiterate d that the principle of the self -determination of 
peoples on which the United Kingdom base d its refusal to resume sovereignty negotiations was not 
applicable to the dispute between the two countries concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands 
(Islas Malvinas), South  Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime 
areas.  
1.23.  In 1960, the General Assembly of the United Nations had adopted the Declaration on the 
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples ( Resolution 1514), which govern ed 
decolonization processes. This Resolution, while laying down the principle o f the self -determination 
of peoples, had warned that any attempt aimed at the disruption of the territorial integrity of a WT/REG443/M/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  country was incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. In 
other words, United Nations Genera l Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) had established the self -
determination of peoples and the territorial integrity of States as guiding principles of the 
decolonization process, and self -determination was not an absolute right, insofar as it was limited 
by respect for the principle of territorial integrity pursuant to Resolution 1514 (XV).  
1.24.  The principle of the self -determination of peoples  was not applicable in this case, and the 
United  Nations ha d never stated that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas)  were 
entitled to the right to self -determination. Not one of the 10 Resolutions of the UN General Assembly 
or 39  Resolutions of the Special Committee on Decolonization regarding the Question of the 
Falkland  Islands ( Islas Malvinas) had mentio ned the principle. On the contrary, the Question of the 
Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas)  had been  considered to be a special and particular case of 
decolonization, in which it  was acknowledged that there  was a dispute over sovereignty between 
Argentina an d the United  Kingdom that had to  be resolved through bilateral negotiations that t ook 
into account the interests and not the wishes of the Islands' inhabitants.  
1.25.  Furthermore, on two occasions in 1985, the General Assembly of the United Nations had 
explicitly rejected British proposals to incorporate the principle of self -determination in the draft 
resolution on the Question of the Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas).  Without a doubt, the reason for 
that refusal  had been  that the right to self -determin ation of peoples  was a right recognized not to 
any human community established in a territory but only to peoples.  The current inhabitants of the 
Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas)  had not been  recognized as a "people " in the United Nations 
Resolutions ; they constitute d a transplanted British population, unlike in classic cases of colonialism 
where a pre -existing people  had been  subjected to colonial domination. When the United  Kingdom 
occupied the Islands in 1833, it had expelled the Argentine population an d authorities that were 
exercising their sovereignty. Subsequently, it had implanted its own settlers and strictly controlled 
migration policies in what  was an isolated territory, all the while refusing to resolve the dispute.   
1.26.  The invocation of a purporte d right to self -determination by the population of the Islands  was 
not applicable to the case at hand and ha d repeatedly been rejected by the United Nations on the 
grounds that a population transplanted by the colonial power, like that of the Falkland Isla nds (Islas 
Malvinas),  was not a people with the right to self -determination, since it  was no different from the 
mainland population. Thus, there  was not a "people " subject to subjugation, domination or 
exploitation by a colonial power.  
1.27.  The representative o f the United Kingdom  noted that he had a detailed briefing of the history 
of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)  going back to 1765, but that he would spare the Committee 
the intricate details of their respective histories. He said that 2023 marked the 1 0th anniversary of 
the Falkland Islanders’ referendum on sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The result of the 
referendum had been that 99.8% of those who voted on a 92% turnout wanted to maintain the 
island’s current status as a self -governing territory of the United Kingdom. The referendum had been 
supervised by independent observers from Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Uruguay, Chile 
and Brazil. The islanders had therefore made clear their overwhelming wish to remain an overseas 
territory of the Un ited Kingdom. That meant that there could be no dialogue on sovereignty unless 
the Falkland Islanders so wished.  
1.28.  The representative of Argentina  stated that the 2013 vote in the Falkland Islands ( Islas 
Malvinas) had been  nothing but a unilateral British ac t that had not been  organized or held under 
the auspices of the United Nations, as in other decolonization cases, and did not in any way alter 
the existence of the sovereignty dispute relating to the Question of the Falkland Islands ( Islas 
Malvinas) or aff ect the legitimate rights of the Argentine people. As it had been reaffirmed by the 
International Court of Justice in its recent advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the 
Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 , the General Asse mbly and the 
United  Nations Special Committee on Decolonization ha d a central role to play in terms of the means 
by which the free and genuine will of the people of a non -self-governing territory  was expressed, 
where appropriate, including the formulation of questions submitted for popular consultation. 
Therefore, besides being entirely moot because the principle of the self -determination of peoples  
was not applicable to the Question of the Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas), the consultation held in 
2013 ha d no validity or legal value, given that the General Assembly had no involvement in it.  
1.29.  The solution to the sovereignty dispute d id not depend on the results of a voting process in 
which British citizens had express ed their desire to remain British. Allowi ng the British citizens of the WT/REG443/M/1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Islands to constitute themselves as arbitrators of a dispute to which their own country  was a party 
distort ed the right to self -determination of peoples, since there  was no "people " entitled to such a 
right under internationa l law in the Question of the Falkland Islands ( Islas Malvinas).  Moreover, the 
exercise of an alleged right to self -determination to legitimize an illegal factual situation and endorse 
the disruption of Argentine territorial integrity, which, according to Resolution 1514 (XV),  was 
incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, c ould not  be 
allowed.  Argentina recall ed that the interests of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands ( Islas 
Malvinas) and their way of life  had been adequately protected by the Argentine National Constitution 
and by the pertinent United Nations General Assembly resolutions.  
1.30.  The Chair noted the consideration of the goods aspects of the EPA between the United 
Kingdom, the SACU and Mozambique  had all owed 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 27 November 2023 and Parties were asked to submit replies in writing 
by no later than 11 December 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 database on RTAs.   
1.31.  The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________