RESTRICTED  
  
WT/COMTD/RTA/M/9  
 
22 January 2019  
(19-0358) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Trade and Development  
Ninth Dedicated Session on Regional Trade Agreements    
 
 NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 21 NOVEMBER 2018  
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Diego Aulestia (Ecuador)  
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ....................  1 
B. CONSIDERATION OF REG IONAL TRADE AGREEMEN TS ................................ .............  1 
(i) Status of the work of the Dedicated Session  ................................ ................................ .. 1 
- Status of the preparation of factual presentat ions – Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/RTA/W/2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  1 
(ii) Arab Me diterranean Free Trade Agreement (Agadir Agreement) Between Egypt, Jordan, 
Morocco, and Tunisia (Goods) (WT /COMTD/N/48, WT/COMTD/RTA/11/1, WT/COMTD/RTA/11/2)  .. 2 
(iii) Partial Scope Agreement between Panama and the Dominican Republic (Goods) 
(WT/COMTD/N/49, WT/COMTD/RTA/10/1, WT/COMTD/RTA/10/2)  ................................ ............  4 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1. The draft agenda as contained in document WTO/AIR/COMTD/RTA/ 4/Rev.1  of 
9 November  2018 was adopted . 
B. CONSIDERATION OF REG IONAL TRADE AGREEMEN TS 
(i) Status of the work of the Dedicated Session  
- Status of the preparation of factual presentations – Report by the Chairman 
(WT/COMTD/RTA/W/2)  
2. The Chairman  said that , at the present meeting, the Committee would consider two regional 
trade agreements ( RTAs) notified under the Enabling Clause. These were the Arab Mediterranean 
Free Trade Agreement (Agadir Agreement ) between Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, and the 
Partial Scope Agreement between the Dominican Republic and Panama. However, for a number of 
other RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause, it was still not possible for the Secretariat to finalize 
the factual  presentations, and the Committee could therefore not consider these agreements  as yet . 
The status of the preparation of the factual presentations for these RTAs was contained in his report, 
which was circulated in document WT/COMTD/RTA/W/2. The report  contained  16 separate entries 
relating to the status of preparation of factual presentations. In some cases, the Secretariat was still 
awaiting the submission of the full set of data, while in other  cases , all comments on the draft factual 
presentations had n ot been received. He urged all the parties to these agreements to provide the 
data and infor mation as soon as possible. H e expressed his intention to continue to hold 
consultations with the parties to these RTAs, in the hope that this would help expedite t he provision 
of the required data and information. Finally, he said that there remained one RTA notified under 
the Enabling Clause that had not been ratified by all the parties. This was the Pacific Island Countries 
Trade Agreement  (PICTA ). Following the procedures  of the Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreements (CRTA) , a factual presentation on PICTA would only be drafted after the agreement had WT/COMTD/RTA/M/9  
 
- 2 - 
 
  been ratified by all the parties. The parties to PICTA were urged to inform the Secretariat as soon 
as all ratifi cations were complete d.   
3. The representative of the United States  said that steps needed to be taken by several parties 
to RTAs in order to allow the Secretariat to complete the factual presentations. The United States 
did not consider the Transparency Mec hanism for Regional Trade Agreements (RTA TM) to be an 
optional process. All Members  with RTAs had to participate. She encouraged Members that needed 
assistance in this regard to consult with the Secretariat . She also hoped that those Members listed 
in the Chairman 's report would supply the outstanding data as soon as possible , so that all Members 
could benefit from the required transparency .    
4. The Committee took note  of the Chairman 's report , and of the interventions . 
(ii) Arab Mediterranean Free Trade Agreement (Agadir Agreement) Between Egypt, Jordan, 
Morocco, and Tunisia (Goods) (WT/COMTD/N/48, WT/COMTD/RTA/11/1, WT/COMTD/RTA/11/2)  
5. The Chairman  indicated that  he wished to structure the discussion on  the agreement s for 
consideration at the present meet ing by first inviting the parties, and then other Members that so 
wished, to make general comments . Members could then turn to the factual presentation , and the 
questions and replies document.  He went on to say that the Agadir Agreement between Egypt, 
Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia was notified under paragraph 4(a) of the Enabling Clause on 
22 February 2016 in document WT/COMTD/N/48.  The factual presentation on this  agreement – 
contained in document WT/COMTD/RTA/11/1 dated 23 July 2018 – had been prepared by t he 
Secretariat on its own responsibility in full consultation with the parties, and in accordance with 
paragraph 7(b) of the RTA TM.  Written questions from Brazil, Mexico, Thailand and the United States, 
as well as the replies from the parties, had been ci rculated in document WT/COMTD/RTA/11/2.  
6. The representative of Egypt , on behalf of the parties to the Agadir Agreement , welcomed the 
interest in the agreement shown  by Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and the United States through their 
written questions. The par ties had worked collectively to provide replies to all the questions received. 
He went on to say that the Agadir Agreement was signed in Rabat on 25 February 2004, and entered 
into force after the completion of the ratification requirements in July 2006 . The implementation of 
the agreement beg an on 27 March 2007, subsequent to the publishing of customs circulars by the 
parties. The agreement aimed to create a free trade area between the member countries. In this 
regard, the provisions provided for the full exemption from customs duties of industrial, agricultural 
and agricultural manufactured goods originating in the member countries . The agreement also 
adopted the pan -Euro-Mediterranean protocol on rules of origin, which allowed the cumulation of 
origin among the four member countries , and between these countries  and the E uropean Union, 
according to the conditions stated in the protocol for using the Euro -Mediterranean certificate of 
origin. One of the main objectives of the agreement was to increase the trade volume between the 
parties – as well as with  the European Union, which was a major trading partner . Another objective 
was to promote economic development and integration by implementi ng the 
pan-Euro-Mediterranean rules of origin and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) from the 
European Union and the rest of the  world. Furthermore, the agreement sought to coordinate overall 
and sectoral economic policies in the areas of foreign t rade, agriculture, industry, tax regime, 
finance, services and customs, so as  to ensure the conditions for fair competition between the 
member countries.  
7. Turning to the relationship between the Agadir Agreement and other agreements, he said that 
the Agadir  Agreement was in harmony with  the Arab League Charter in supporting mutual Arab 
cooperation and in implementing the Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA). The Agadir Agreement 
was one of the RTAs in the pan-Euro-Mediterranean system, which  was consistent w ith the scope of 
the Barcelona process to create the Euro -Mediterranean Free Trade Area. The agreement fulfilled 
the principles and requirements of WTO , and was no tified to the WTO on 22  February 2016 under 
paragraph 4(a) of the Enabling Clause.  He noted that the Agadir Agreement was important and 
beneficial for the economic integration of its members. It had contributed to a rise in trade among 
the member  countries,  and to attracting FDI.  The main challenge for  the parties in the long run was 
to make the best use of the advan tage provided by the diagonal cumulation under the 
pan-Euro-Mediterranean system of cumulation of origin . This would give the member countries the 
motivation to enhance their capacities and investment climate to attract FDI , while expa nding the 
possibilities for business and trade relations with the E uropean Union and other international WT/COMTD/RTA/M/9  
 
- 3 - 
 
  partners.  In closing, he requested that Members that had further questions on the  Agadir Agreement 
submit these questions in writing, so that they coul d be forwarded to capitals for consideration.  
8. The representative of Tunisia  expressed support for the intervention  by Egypt, and welcomed 
the questions posed by Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and the United States. He said that the Agadir 
Agreement  brought toge ther four Arab countries that had signed partnership agreements with the 
European Union.  Since 2007, all products – whether agricultural or industrial – had been traded free 
of duty, based on cumulation of origin with the European Union. The features of th e agreement 
included the adoption of the Euro-Mediterranean rules of origin, the  free movement of goods  with 
the Euro -Mediterranean certificate  in all countries within the Euro -Mediterranean area, and the 
implementation of the agreement by the Technical Un it based in Amman. Finally, he requested 
Members that had any other questions on the agreement to submit the  questions in writing , so that 
they could be transmitted to capitals.  
9. The representative of Jordan  support ed the intervention  by Egypt, and expressed appreciation 
to Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and the United States for their interest in th e Agadir Agreement . His 
delegation stood ready to reply to any further questions from Members . 
10. The representative of Morocco  also supported the intervention  by Egypt, and thanked the 
delegations of Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and the United States for their questions . He expressed the 
readiness of his delega tion to discuss matters related to the Agadir Agreement, and to  answer any 
further questions tha t Members might have.   
11. The representative of the United States  thanked the parties  for their replies to her delegation's 
questions. She noted  that some of these questions related to agreements that had entered into force  
many years ago, and had not yet bee n notified to the WTO. These included the agreement  between 
Jordan and Israel, which entered into force  in 1996, and the agreement  between Morocco and the 
United Arab Emirates,  which entered into force  in 2003. She asked the parties when they intended 
to notify such agreements, and thereby fulfil their requirements under the RTA TM.  She indicated 
that her delegation would submit its questions in writing.   
12. The representative of Mexico  thanked the part ies for the r esponses to his delegation's 
questions, which related to economic competition. H is delegation would inform the parties if it had 
any follow -up questions.    
13. The representative of the European Union  welcomed the notification of the Agadir Agreement, 
which ha d triggered the transparency process foreseen  in the RTA TM. Despite the considerable time 
between the entry into force of the agreement and the notification , she commended the parties for 
the information provided during the process . She note d that the European Union  had free trade 
agreement s with each of the four parties , which were important trading partners for the European 
Union. In addition,  the parties , as well as the European Union, were signatories to the system of 
pan-Euro-Mediterranean  cumulation of origin. She indicated that her delegation  was still considering 
the factual presentation, and might submit some questions  in writing  after the meeting . 
14. The representative of Brazil  expressed appreciation to the  parties for their replies to  the 
questions  from his delegation. He indicated that the replies h ad been transmitted to his capital  for 
any possible follow -up.           
15. The Chairman  said that o ral discussion of the Agadir Agreement  could be concluded  in 
accordance with paragraph 11 of the RTA TM.  Follow-up questions  by Members  would need to be 
submitted in writing to the Secretariat within one week, by 28 November 2018. The parties would 
then be given two weeks to submit written replies , by no later than 12 December 2018. In 
accordance with paragrap h 13 of the RTA TM , all written submissions as well as the minutes of the 
present  meeting would be circulated promptly in all WTO official languages, and would be made 
available on the WTO website.  
16. The Committee took note  of all interventions . WT/COMTD/RTA/M/9  
 
- 4 - 
 
   (iii) Partial Scope Agreement between Panama and the Dominican Republic (Goods) 
(WT/COMTD/N/49, WT/COMTD/RTA/10/1, WT/COMTD/RTA/10/2)  
17. The Chairman  said that the Partial Scope Agreement between Panama and the 
Dominican  Republic was notified under paragraph 4(a) o f the Enabling Clause on 18 March 2016 in 
document WT/COMTD/N/49. The factual presentation , contained in document WT/COMTD/RTA/10/1 
dated 17 July 2018, had been prepared by the Secretariat on its own responsibility in full consultation 
with the parties, an d in accordance with paragraph 7(b) of the RTA TM. Written questions from the 
European Union and the United States, as well as the replies from the parties, had been circulated 
in document WT/COMTD/RTA/10/2.  
18. The representative of the Dominican Republic  thanked the European Union and the 
United  States for the questions they had posed. She said that the agreement between the 
Dominican  Republic and Panama was signed on 17  July 1985, and was ratified by the National 
Congress of the Dominican Republic in 1987. It was the first such agreement signed by the 
Dominican Republic, and the third trade instrument to enter into force as part of the country's path 
towards bilateral trade openness. The agreement comprised four positive lists establishing the 
products which  were eligible to benefit from tariff preferences. The first was the l ist of products 
included in the so-called "Doble Vía" category . For these products, duty -free treatment was granted 
to the goods originating in one of the parties and exported to the oth er. The second list, in the 
"Una Vía" category , covered the products originating in the Dominican Republic for which Panama 
granted d uty-free treatment. The third list, also referred to as being in the "Una Vía" category , 
contained the products for which duty -free treatment was granted by the Dominican Republic to 
goods originating in Panama. As for the fourth list, it contained the products for which duty -free 
treatment was granted to goods originating in a Free Zone of one party and exported to the other 
party. For all of the products in the lists, duty -free treatment was granted provided that the rules of 
origin established in the text of the Agreement were complied with. A good was firstly considered as 
originating whe n it was wholly obtained and produced entirely from materials that qualified as 
originating in the territory of one or both of the parties. A second way for a good to qualify as 
originating was when it was produced in the territory of any party from non -originating materials 
that had undergone a substantial transformation, as per An nex I of the chapter on  rules of origin. A 
third option for compliance with the originating criteria was that the good was produced in the 
territory of either party, and although  one or more of the non -originating materials used to produce 
the good did not comply with the required change in tariff classification, it met other criteria relating 
to the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System.  
19. She went on to say that the Dominican Republic's exports to Panama had increased 
significantly in 2017, reaching a value of US $51.7 million, and constituting an increase of 9.3% 
relative to the previous year. However, among all  the Dominican Republic's agr eements, this 
agreement continued to account for the lowest share of total exports – around 1% – due to the 
small number of products covered. The ten main exported products made up around 77% of exports. 
The most important of these were prepared medicament s, with exports amounting to 
US$22.8 million and representing 44% of the ten main products taken as a whole. Turning to 
imports, she said that the Dominican Republic's imports from Panama had fallen  from US $70 million 
in 2015 , to US $59 million in 2016 , and to US$53 million  in 2017 . The main products imported from 
Panama in 2017 were prepared medicaments , the total value of which amounted to US $11.6 million 
–  29% less than imports from Panama of the same product in 2016. The ten most widely purchased 
produc ts from Panama amounted to 41% of the value of imports. Although the Dominican Republic 
had been running a trade deficit with Panama even before the entry into force of the agreement, 
the deficit had been reduced since 2014, and stood at about US $1.5 milli on in 2017.  Regarding legal 
and institutional matters, she said that the two countries were in the process of negotiating an 
expansion of the product lists . The last formal meeting in this regard  had taken  place on 4 and 
5 June 2009, and was overseen by the Ministry  of Industry, Trade and Micro, Small and 
Medium -Sized Enterprises. At that meeting, convergence was reached  regarding the products o f 
interest for both countries, and there was consensus on the lists forming an integral part of the 
existing agreement. She indicated that f urther efforts ha d been made recently under the leadership 
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , and expressed hope that the exercise would help the parties to 
identify strengths and areas for improvem ent, with a view to boosting t heir trade flows.  
20. The representative of Panama  highlighted the importance of foreign investment and trade to 
his country. He said that t he agreement with the Dominican Republic built on the parties' rights and 
obligations under the WTO, and sought to maxim ize trade between the two countries in such a way WT/COMTD/RTA/M/9  
 
- 5 - 
 
  as to ensure equitable benefits. The parties s hared the goal of strengthening the ir bilateral trad e, 
while at the same time tightening the important economic and trade links that already exist ed 
between the m. The regulatory text of the agreement  was approved by Panama under Law No. 19 of 
27 December 1985. The agreement , which  entered into force on 9 June 1987 , include d an annex 
containing the lists of negotiated products that were approved on 28 October 2003 . The main 
products exported by Panama to the Dominican Republic in 2017 included salmon ; additives for 
cement ; inorganic products ; frozen fish ; tableware, kitchenware and other articles of plastic; rum; 
articles for construction and cast -iron parts; tilapia; prefabricated structures; and tuna loins . The 
main products imported into Panama from the Dominican Republic in 2017 were medicaments ; 
articles for the conveyance of goods; iron wire; packaging for eggs; hydraulic cements; avocados; 
and floating structures.  
21. The products receiving duty-free treatment  in the "Doble Vía" list included fish; processed fish 
products; crawfish tails; shrimp; prawns;  squid; octopus; mussels; clams; fertilized eggs; minced 
garlic; processed chicken products; potato chips; marmalades; papaya juice and pear juice; rum; 
ethyl alcohol; cattle and poultry feed; medicaments ; face creams; haircare products; deodorants; 
plasti c tiles; wooden doors and frames; sanitary towels; baby clothes; iron and steel nails; 
aluminium profiles; and wooden furniture.  In the most recent five -year period, Panama's exports to 
the Dominican  Republic had fluctuated between US $1.8 million and US $4.3 million, amounting to 
bilateral trade of  between  US$19.4 million and US $29.7 million . Exports to the Dominican Republic 
that ha d benefited from preferences under the agreement include d disposable plastic plates , as well 
as tableware, kitchenware and othe r articles of plastic.  In 2017, re -exports of goods from the Colón 
Free Zone to the Dominican Republic fell by 0.4% in comparison to 2013, while imports from the 
Dominican Republic increased by 397%.  FDI flows from the Dominican  Republic to Panama 
amounted  to US $45.8 million in 2016 , which was  0.3% of Panama's total FDI of US$15.6 billion  that 
year. The Dominican Republic's FDI position in Panama in 2016 was US$316.7 million.  In closing, 
he expressed appreciation to the European Union and the United States for the questions they had 
submitted on the agreement . 
22. The representative of the United States  thanked the parties for their replies to her delegation's 
questions. She noted  that several agreements , including  the Dominican  Republic -CARICOM 
agreement that entered into force in 2002, had yet to be notified  after many years of implemention . 
She asked  when the  concerned parties intended to notify th ese agreements, as required by the RTA 
TM, and indicated that her delegation's question s would be submitted in writing.  
23. The representative of the European Union  expressed appreciation to t he parties for their 
replies to the questions from the delegation . 
24. The Chairman  said that oral disc ussion of the Partial Scope Agreement between Panama and 
the Dominican Republic could be concluded in accordance with par agraph 11 of the RTA TM. 
Follow -up questions by Members would need to be submitted in writing to the Secretariat within one 
week, by Wednesday, 28 November 2018. The parties would then be given two weeks to submit 
written replies, by no later than Wednesday, 12 December 2018. In accordan ce with paragraph 13 
of the RTA TM , all written submissions as well as the minutes of the meeting would be circulated 
promptly in all WTO official languages, and would be made available on the WTO website.  
25. The Committee took note  of all interventions.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
26. No matter was raised under "Other Business".  
27. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________