WT/REG299/3  
 
3 May 2016  
(16-2477)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND COLOMBIA 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
The following communication, dated 29 April 2016, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of the EFTA States and Colombia.  
 This document reproduces the follow-up questions addressed to the Parties following 
the 80th Session of the CRTA and the responses submitted. 
_______________ 
 
Questions from the delegation of the European Union 
 
1.1.  With reference to the provisions on trade in services, could the Parties clarify 
whether they have reviewed their schedules of specific commitments and their lists of 
MFN exemptions in line with Article 4.18 of the Agreement? 
 The periodic review of the Schedules of Specific Commitments and the List of MFN 
Exemptions is foreseen under Article 4.18 of the Ag reement. This provision is aimed at achieving a 
higher level of liberalization. The meetings of  the Joint Committee under the Agreement provide 
the framework for such reviews. The matter wa s discussed at the first meeting of the Joint 
Committee held in November 2014. After thorough analysis, the Parties did not find a commercial 
interest to undertake such a review.  
 1.2.  With reference to the provisions on investment, could the Parties clarify wither 
they have reviewed the status of reservations/non-conforming measures with a view to 
reducing or removing them in line with Article 5.4 of the Agreement? 
 Reservations/non-conforming measures were discussed at the first meeting of the Joint 
Committee held in November 2014. To date, no reservations/non-conforming measures have been 
reduced or removed.  Questions from the delegation of the United States 
 1.3.  The Factual Presentation notes (para. 4. 9) that the Parties' MFN obligations under 
the Agreement do not apply to more favour able treatment granted under future RTAs 
with third countries, but that Parties must  be afforded "adequate opportunity" to 
negotiate similar benefits. 
 Could the Parties describe how this proc ess has worked in practice? Specifically, 
through what mechanism have the Partie s provided one another "opportunity" to 
negotiate such benefits; how do the Part ies assess whether such opportunity is 
"adequate;" and what has been the outcome of these negotiations?  
 
  
 WT/REG299/3 
 
- 2 - 
 
   According to Article 4.3 of the Agreement, if more favourable treatment is granted under an 
agreement with a third party notified under GATS Article V or V bis, adequate opportunity shall be 
accorded to Parties wishing to negotiate the bene fits granted to the third party. The Agreement 
does not provide a definition of what constitute s an "adequate opportunity". The specific outcome 
would be a result of negotiations between the part ies concerned. To date, after thorough analysis, 
the Parties did not find a commercial interest to start such a review.  
1.4.  The Factual Presentation notes (para. 4. 15) that each Parties' services schedule 
specify, among other things, the "time-fram e for implementation" and "date of entry 
into force" of their respective liberalization commitments. 
 Could the Parties explain how the timefr ame for implementation and entry into 
force of their respective services liberaliz ation commitments differ from the timeframe 
for implementation and entry into force of the Agreement as a whole?  
 The timeframe for implementation and date of entry into force of the Parties' respective 
liberalization commitments do not differ from the timeframe for implementation and entry into 
force of the Agreement as a whole. 
 
1.5.  The Factual Presentation appe ars to suggest (para. 4.53) that 
Parties' commitments with respect to National  Treatment for investment in non-services 
sectors are undertaken on a negative-list ba sis, but with respect to investment in 
services sectors, are undertake n on a positive-list basis. 
 Could the Parties comment on why they adopted two different approaches on the 
issue of National Treatment for comme rcial presence in this Agreement? 
 
 The Agreement's chapter on trade in services is based on the approach and format of the 
GATS. Commitments with respect to commercial presence in services sectors are thus undertaken 
on a positive-list basis. Given the limited number of reservations on commercial presence in the 
non-services sectors, the Parties chose to undertake commitments with respect to national treatment for investment on a negative-list basis.   
 
1.6.  Here again we would like to emphasize th e need for the EFTA parties to notify their 
agreement with the GCC, which has been in force since July 2014. 
 The Parties are currently discussing the appropriate format of the WTO notification.  
 
1.7.  We also note the list of non-notified LA IA agreements of which Colombia is a party 
and we would request that Colombia notify  those agreements as soon as possible.  
 Colombia is currently making all the appropriate WTO notifications. 
 
__________