WT/REG378/M/1  
 
23 May 2018 
(18-3032) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -eighth Session    
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT  BETWEEN TURKEY AND THE REPUB LIC OF MOLDOVA  
(GOODS ) 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 9-10 APRIL 2018  
Chairm an: Ambassador Julian BRAITHWAITE (United Kingdom)  
1.1.  The 88th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram  WTO/AIR/RTA/13 /Rev.1  dated 2 9 March 2018. 
1.2.  Under Agenda Item H.V of the Session, the CRTA considered the  Free Trade Agreement 
between Turkey and the Republic of  Moldova , goods , (hereinafter "the Agreement").  
1.3.  The Chairman  said that the Agreement  had entered into force on 1 November 2016.  It had 
been notifie d to the WTO by the Parties on 13  December 2016 under Article  XXIV:7(a) of the 
GATT  1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article  XXIV of GATT 1994 as an 
Agreement establishing a free trade area (document  WT/REG3 78/N/1). The text of the Agreement 
was available, together with its Annexes, on the Parties' official websites.  The Factual Presentation 
on the goods aspect s (document  WT/REG 378/1 dated 12 October 2017) and questions and replies 
on the Agreement (document WT/REG378 /2 dated 12 January 2018) ha d been distributed.  
1.4.  The representative of the Republic of Moldova  thanked Turkey for its collaboration throughout 
the review process of the Agreement , as well as Members who ha d expressed their interest in the 
Agreement  by submitting written questions. She also thanked the Secretariat for the preparation 
of the factual presentation.  
1.5.  Until 31 December 2015, trade relations between Moldova and Turkey had be en based on the 
GSP plus unilateral preferential trade regime, offered to Moldova by Turkey, which provid ed duty 
free access for Moldovan industrial products to the Turkish market. The Agreement , signed on the 
margins of the bilateral meeting in Chișinău o n 11 September 2014, had entered into force on 1 
November 2016  and had brought trade relations between the Parties  to a higher level .  
1.6.  The Agreement aimed  at reducing and eliminating tariffs applied by the Parties, liberalizing 
access to goods markets, and  increasing  trade flows between them up to US$1 billion. It marked  
the improvement of bilateral relations between Moldova and Turkey . 62 bilateral agreements had 
already been signed between the Parties including the  agreement on the promotion and m utual 
protection of investments, the  agreement on commercial and economic c ooperation  and the 
agreement on the avoidance of double taxation concerning income taxes and the prevention of tax 
evasion.  The Agreement also offered  perspectives for development, business  and investments 
promotion. There were 1,306 active companies with Turkish investments operating in Moldova, 
with a total value of investments reaching more than US$25 million. Thus Turkey was the 3rd most 
important partner  by number of enterprises and the  11th by volume of investments.  
1.7.  The Agreement was in full conformity with WTO rules and principles. In the spirit of 
transparency, the goods aspects of the Agreement were notified to the WTO under Art icle XXIV: 
7(a) of GATT 1994 on 13 December 2016. The Agreement eliminated  all duties and other 
restrictive regulations of commerce on substantially all the trade between the Parties. 
Furthermore, the Agreement did not introduce any more restrictive trade regulations in relation to 
third parties.  WT/REG378/M/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.8.  With referen ce to tariff liberalization by Moldova on imports from Turkey, since the start of 
the implementation of the Agreement  in November 2016, Turkish exporters had enjoyed an overall 
average applied MFN tariff of 6%. The average applied tariff on agricultural go ods was 12.5%, 
compared to an average applied tariff of 4.3% on non -agricultural products. Duty -free tariff lines 
accounted for 35.3% of all tariff lines. Upon entry into force of the Agreement, the share of duty -
free tariff lines for Turkish agricultural products rose from 6.1% to 12.7%, while the share of duty -
free tariff lines in Turkish non -agricultural products rose from 43.9% to 97.6%. By the end of the 
transition period, in 2020, Turkey would face zero duties on 78.4% of tariff lines when exporting to 
Moldova. By the end of the transition period, the average applied tariff on agricultural products 
would be 11.9%.  
1.9.  Regarding tariff liberalization by Turkey for ex ports from Moldova , since the entry into force 
of the Agreement, which also corresponded  to Turkey 's full implementation of its tariff elimination 
commitments, Moldovan exporters had faced zero duties on 82.9% of the tariff lines (96.5% of 
non-agricultural products and 16.6% for agricultural products). Turkey's overall average applied 
MFN tariff rate in 2016 was 12.9%. The average applied tariff on agricultural goods was 47%, 
compared to an average applied tariff of 6% on non -agricultural products. Duty -free tariff lines 
accounted for 22.9% of all tariff lines. Upon entry into force of the Agreeme nt, the share of duty -
free tariff lines in agricultural products rose from 13.8% to 16.6%, while the share of duty -free 
tariff lines in non -agricultural products rose from 24.8% to 96.5%. Upon entry into force, the 
average applied  tariff on agricultural go ods was  46.8% and 1.8% on non -agricultural goods.  
1.10.   Moldova and Turkey had already held two joint committee meetings on the implementation 
of the Agreement. The achievements of the joint committee included the establishment of two  
sub-committees on c ustoms issues and on agriculture and SPS m easures, a d iscussion related to 
the extension of existing or new quotas in the Agreement and the negotiation of the expansion of 
the Agreement to services. The Parties were undertaking  a joint feasibility study on a possible 
extension of the Agreement to services.  
1.11.   Another area of particular importance for Moldova and Turkey was the application of 
diagonal cumulation of orig in within the Pan -Euro-Med zone. The Parties would apply  the Pan-
Euro-Med rules of origin under the Agreement . In that context, Moldova had  ratified a decision that 
would offer the possibility to apply diagonal cumulation of origin within the Pan -Euro-Med 
Convention with Turkey. According to the existing procedure s, Moldova had also notified the 
completion of its internal procedures to Turkey, as well as the EU Commission and request ed its 
inclusion in the Pan-Euro-Med matrix.  That would allow Mo ldova to fully benefit from cum ulation of 
origin with Turkey, the EU as wel l as o ther countries from the region and, consequently, it w ould 
boost trade with Turkey by offering new opportunities within an enlarged trade area .  
1.12.   Although it was too early to speak about the immediate effects of the Agreement on the 
Moldovan economy  as the impacts were expected to manifest in the medium and long -term 
perspective, data show ed that the Agreement had contributed to the intensification of economic 
and trade relations between Moldova and Turkey. According to official statistics, after one  year of 
the application of the Agreement, the volume of trade in 2017 had reached US$ 361.29  millio n, 
representing an increase in bilateral trade of 22.47%.  
1.13.   She hoped that the discussion would help Members to enhance their understanding of the 
terms of the Agreement.  
1.14.   The representative of Turkey  thank ed the Secretariat for its efforts and cooperation during 
the preparation of the factual presentation of  the Agreement. He reaffirm ed Turkey's support for a 
rules-based multilateral trading system under the WTO and strengthened WTO rules, disciplines 
and mechanisms , in particular on RTA s. Free trade areas  contribute d to international trade by 
abolishing obstacl es between the parties to those agreements.  
1.15.   The factual presentation provide d detailed information about the structure and the 
provision s of the Agreement and the preferential regime therein. The Agreement had been  signed 
on 11 September  2014 and had entered into force on 1 November  2016. The Parties had 
conclude d the A greement on trade in g oods with the aim of developing its scope to other fields. 
The Agreement was composed of six chapters and three Annexes  covering t ariff elimination. The WT/REG378/M/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Parties aim ed at gradually liberalis ing trade in goods between them over a transitional perio d in 
accordance with the Agreement and in conformity with Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  
1.16.   Turkey had eliminated all customs duties on all industrial goods  originating in Moldova upon 
the entry into force of the Agreement. Moldova would eliminate all customs duties for industrial 
products originating in Turkey within five  years. For agricultural goods , the Parties had agreed on a 
bilateral exchange of concessions for selected products through a combination of tariff 
dismantlement, tariff reduction or tariff qu otas. 
1.17.   With the entry into force of the Agreement, Turkey had eliminated customs duties on 82 .9% 
of its total tariff lines. 2,825 lines out of a total of 16,511 lines remain ed subject to duties  
corresponding  to 17 .1% of tariff lines of agricultural  goods , processed agricultural products and 
fisheries.  With regard to rules of origin, the Agreement foresaw bilateral cumulation as well as 
cumulation possibilities within  the Pan-Euro-Med cumulation system.   
1.18.   The Parties had held two joint committee meetings to de velop the Agreement.  In the first 
joint committee meeting in December 2016, the Parties adopted a decision to apply the Regional 
Convention on Pan -Euro-Med preferential rules of origin.  In the second joint committee meeting in 
November 2017, the Parties had decided to study the feasibility of liberalising trade in services 
within the Agreement. As soon as the study was complete, Turkey and Moldova would start 
negotiations on trade in services and further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products.  
1.19.   In its first implementation year, the Agreement  had shown signs of mutual trade benefits. 
The trade volumes had increased and both Parties had increased and diversified their exports.  
1.20.   He thanked the Secretariat for its valuable work in the preparation of th e factual 
presentation and Moldova for its close cooperation and support . He thank ed Japan and Thailand for 
their questions enabling further elaboration of the Agreement.  He thanked M embers for their 
participation and interest.  
1.21.   The representative of Japan  thanked the delegations of Turke y and Moldova for the 
preparation of the factual presentation and the comprehensive presentations. Japan was interested 
in the rules of origin of the Agreement and it would follow up on the implementation of the 
Agreement.  Japan did not have any further questions.  
1.22.   The representative of  the United States  thanked the Parties and the Secretariat for the work 
in preparing the factual presentation and the presentation s that had allowed Members to get a 
better understanding of the bilateral relationship underpinning the Agreement. He expressed 
regret to see a number of tariff lines, clustered in the agriculture sector, excluded  from du ty 
elimination . He drew attention to the fact that a significa nt number of lines for o ne Party remained 
dutiable with rates in excess of 50%. He would have liked to have seen the coverage of the 
Agreement improved. He noted the absence of robust trade facilitation and customs proc edures,  
feature s that Turkey had included in other agreements . The Agreement would have been 
significantly stren gthened if some of those improvements had been brought forward and he 
suggested that the joint committee could consider that . He not ed that there were discrepancies 
with respect to the information on non -notified RTAs in the factual presentations of the Agreement 
and of the agreement between Turkey and Malaysia. He sought clarification and encouraged 
Turkey and Singapore to notify their agreement as soon as possible  if needed .  
1.23.   The representative of  the European Union  thanked the Parties for the informative 
presentations  and the Secretariat  for preparing the factual presentation. The presentation s had 
provided a useful context and illustrated future perspectives that the P arties had in mind. It was 
useful to hear diagonal cumulation  mentioned for the benefit of the CRTA. The EU had not 
provide d any advance question s. She noted that the Parties had mention ed in the factual 
presentation that they would negotiate possible implementing ar rangement s with regard to 
conformity assessment cooperation. She asked if, during the two joint committee meetings that 
had already t aken place, the Parties had adopted any implementing arrange ment or if they 
expected to do so  in the future . 
1.24.   The representa tive of  the Secretariat  clarified  that the difference between the tables on non -
notified agreements in the two factual presentations mentioned by the United States was due to WT/REG378/M/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the different dates on which they were issued. Additional information had been  available when the 
factual presentation on the agreement between Turkey and Malaysia was issued.  
1.25.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  thanked Members  for the ir comments and 
questions. Moldova would continue working with Turkey on additional elements of the Agreement 
and the expansion of trade liberalization and  would inform Members  in due course about the 
evolution of the negotiations and the establishment  of new trade liberalization. The Parties wer e 
working on trade facilitation and customs procedures in the joint committee and, since Moldova 
attache d great importance to trade facilitation,  they had tried to introduce that element in the 
discussions. On the other issues, she hoped to work with Turke y and inform the Committee 
accordingly.  
1.26.   The representative of  Turkey  thank ed Members  for the ir question s. As to conformity 
assessment , there was no agreement  yet. The priority at that moment was trade facilitation. The 
second priority was SPS. During the t rade facilitation discussions, Turkey would be dealing mostly 
with customs issues. Conformity assessment  was not yet in their agenda but perhaps the parties  
would come to that  later. 
1.27.   The Chairman  said that consideration of the Goods Aspects of the Free Trade Agreement 
between Turkey and the Republic of  Moldova  had allowed the Committee to clarify a number of 
questions and it could now conclude oral discussion of the RTA in accordance with paragraph 11 of 
the Transparency Mechanism. If any delega tions wished to ask follow -up questions they were 
invited to forward submissions in writing to the Secretariat by 16 April 2018  and Parties were 
asked to submit replies in writing by no later than 30 April 2018 . In accordance with paragraph  13 
of the Trans parency Mechanism all written submissions, as well as minutes of the meeting would 
be circulated promptly, in all WTO  official languages, and would be made available on the WTO 
website.  
1.28.   The Committee took note  of the comments made  
__________