WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG164/5 
20 June 2006 
 
 (06-3011) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CHILE 
 
Questions and Replies
 
 
  
 The following communication, dated 8 June 2006, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the European Communities.   This document reproduces the questions addressed  to the Parties and the responses submitted.  
The questions and replies set out below are or ganized in accordance with document WT/REG164/4. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT 
 
3. Scope  
1. To facilitate the Committee’s understanding of  the trade liberalizing effect of the 
Agreement, could the Parties please provide information on the number and percentage of tariff lines included in each of the staging categories fo r all goods as well as the value and percentage 
of imports for each of the staging categories?   In addition, could the trade data be based on a 
more recent period than 1999-2001, e.g. 2003  – the year before implementation of the 
Agreement, and could the trade data cover the EU-25 (since that is the current scope of 
coverage)?   The following table could be u sed as a model (with a parallel chart for Chile): 
 See Table I. 
 2. Could similar information be provided on the number and percentage of tariff lines and 
trade flows for goods covered excl usively by tariff-rate quotas?  For tariff rate quota items, 
could information be provided as to the in-quota  rates (e.g., are the rates the current applied 
MFN rates, or zero, or some preferential rate), the expansion, if any, of the TRQ over time?  
Again, could the trade data be based on a more recent period than 1999-2001, e.g., 2003 – the year before implementation of the Agreement, an d could the trade data cover the EU-25 (since 
that is the current scope of coverage)?   The fo llowing table could be used as a model (with a 
parallel chart for Chile): 
 See Table II.WT/REG164/5 
Page 2  
   
3. Could similar information be provided on the number and percentage of tariff lines and 
trade flows for goods not fully liberalized under th e Agreement?  For example, we note that 
Annex I creates categories for products entering  the Community from Chile designated “R”, 
“EP”, “SP”, or “PN”.  The “Other” category woul d cover products not covered in any of the 
previously mentioned categories (if any). Could the Parties provide information on the number 
and percentage of tariff lines included in each of  these categories as well as the amount and 
percentage of imports for each of these categories? 
 The above mentioned categories are being dea lt as laid down on page 69 / Official Journal 
L352(2002). In year 2001 category PN with 5 HS6 lines (4.6% of Agricultural lines) was at no measurable trade level; the only SP (TRQ(2)(B)) line was at 100thousand € import value while the 16 
EP HS6 lines valued an import of 335.491 €.  
 
4. What is the percentage of tariff lines on which duties are eliminated to zero in the whole 
of the Agreement and for agriculture in particular ? 
 - What percentage of tariff lines is covered in each different category in the 
elimination schedule ? 
 
 See Table I. 
 
 II. TRADE PROVISIONS 
 
1 Import Restrictions 
 1.1. Duties and charges 
  1.1.2. Agricultural products 
 
5. In reviewing the tariff treatment of imports into the Community from Chile, the United 
States found the Community tariff schedule to be rather complex.  The plethora of categories 
makes it extremely hard to decipher the tari ff treatment and to determine the level of 
liberalization, thereby undermining the transparen cy of the Agreement.  Specifically, regarding 
section (d) of the Introductory Note in Annex I:  
 - In the explanation of “EP”, how is the “entry price” defined and calculated?   
 
 It is neither defined nor calculated. An e xplanation of the system can be found in the 
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the Common Organisa tion of the Market in Fruit and Vegetables. 
  - For those products designated as in category “R”, does the Community have any 
plans to liberalize fully these products? 
 
 Not for the time being.  
 - Are any reductions in specific duties planned?  
 
 Not for the time being.  
 - Could the Community please describe ho w the various categories relate to one 
another.  For example,  
  WT/REG164/5 
 Page 3 
 
 
  - tariff line 0406.20.10 is in “Year 4” but is also subject to a TRQ.  Does 
that mean that the TRQ will be liberalized over a 4 year period? 
 No, the TRQ provisions cover also other lines,  tariff line 0406.20.10 will be liberalised over 4 
years.  
- tariff line 0406.40.50 has a TRQ but is also designated “PN”, indicating 
that it is not liberalized because it is a protected denomination.  What is the relationship between the PN designation and the TRQ? 
 TRQ cover only non-protected names. 
 
- tariff lines  2204.21.10 -2204.10.76 are in “Year 4”, but are also 
designated “PN”.   Does that mean the denomination will sunset in 4 years? 
 No. 
 
- tariff line 0806.10.10 has a range of base tariff rates, is in “Year 4”, has a 
TRQ  and is designated “EP”.  How do all these categories work together? 
 All tariff rates within the tariff line 0806.10.10 will be dismantled according to the No of the 
“Year” mentioned respectively as regards ad valorem  duty. As regards “EP” an explanation of the 
system can be found in the Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the Common Organisation of the Market 
in Fruit and Vegetables. 
 
6. Some products in the Community’s tariff schedules fall into multiple liberalization 
categories, making their tariff treatment very di fficult to comprehend. For example, could the 
Community please describe the tariff treatm ent for HTS numbers 1905.90.40, 1905.90.45, 
1905.90.55, 1905.90.60, and 1905.90.90? We find the tariff treatment of these lines very difficult 
to decipher.   
 All these products belong from the category “SP” where the liberalisation concerns the 
ad valorem  duty (the industrial component), while the specific duty (the agricultural component) is 
maintained. This liberalisation is applicable as of th e entry into force of the Agreement as the category 
“Year 0” sepcifies. Moreover,  products 1905 90 40 and 19 05 90 45 benefit from a duty free tariff 
quota “TQ” as specified  in the note (3c) at th e beginning of the Community tariff elimination 
schedule contained in ANNEX I of the Agreement.  
7. Are any of the base rates provided in the Community’s tariff schedule not the 
Community’s MFN applied rate?   
 Yes, some of them are profiting from GSP arrangement (lower rates).  
 
8. Regarding tariff quotas maintained by the Community on select products, what duty 
rate applies to imports exceeding the zero-duty volume amount?   
 The MFN rates. 
 9. The Community currently has WTO TRQs for many of the products where TRQ access 
is provided to Chile as part of the Agreement, e. g., bovine meats, swine meats, sheep and goat 
meats, poultry meat, cheeses.   WT/REG164/5 
Page 4  
   - What is the relationship between the preferential access provided under the 
Agreement using TRQs and the EU’s WTO TRQ commitments, e.g., is the preferential access in addition to the WTO TRQ commitments? 
 
 Yes, they are additional to the EU WTO commitments (i.e. RTQ on sheep meat).  10. What products does the 19.1% of non-covered agricultural trade include? 
 The percentage reflects different parties’ sensitiveness. Products included in ANNEX I (the 
Community) and ANNEX II (Chile) without a specific category are those for which any specific kind 
of liberalization applies. In addition, specific duties and specific duties linked to the entry price system are maintained (Annex I point d). 
 
11. What percentage of agricultural trade is covered at entry into force of the interim 
agreement? 
See Table I. 
 12. We note that customs duties are eliminated on certain agricultural products within 
tariff quotas.  Can the Parties provide informat ion on such TRQs – the products covered by 
these – and the elimination schedule for them? 
 For the Community tariff quotas please refer to  Section I of ANNEX I of the Agreement. 
 
13. What have been the TRQ fill rates since implementation? 
 Average utilization varies depending by the quotas. 
 
14. How do these preferential TRQs impact on third parties? 
 These are bilateral preferential TRQ’s in the context of trade liberalization. No impact is 
expected to trade with third countries, as these TR Q’s reflect traditional trade between Chile and EU. 
 
15. Is there a process for re-allo cation of unused quotas? 
 No 
 
3. Rules of Origin 
16. Article 4 of Annex III defines “wholly obtained products”. 
 - Does footnote 3 to Article 4.1(f) mean that all fish (or other marine products) 
caught by EC fishing vessels in Chile’s Exclusive Economic Zone are not “wholly 
obtained in the EC”, and hence do not enjoy preferential treatment under the Agreement, and that the same applies to fish (and other marine products) caught 
by Chilean fishing vessels in the EC’s Exclusive Economic Zone? 
 
 Article 4(f) of Annex III will not apply until there has been a transfer of sovereign rights between the Parties to the Agreement, as indicated in the footnote (e.g. a bilateral fishery agreement). 
For the time being, fish and other products take n from the sea potentially captured by EU vessels in 
the Chilean EEZ will not obtain preferential origin (and the other way around).   - Could the Parties explain the rational e for this treatment of Party-fishing 
vessels?  WT/REG164/5 
 Page 5 
 
 
   
 The treatment of fish and other products taken from the sea caught by the fishing vessels of one Party to the Agreement within the EEZ of the other Party was agreed during negotiations.  The 
rationale is to be found in the rights and obl igations of the Parties under the United Nations 
Convention on the Law of the Sea, as described in  the Joint Declaration concerning Article 4 of 
Annex III.    
 
17. Article 5.2 includes a three year sunset clause for products covered by Appendix II(a).  
 - What happens to the products listed in Appendix II(a) after 3 three years -- are 
they no longer considered sufficiently worked or processed? 
 
 No, those products will have to comply with  the specific rules on sufficient working or 
processing set out in Appendix II, as after 3 years paragraph 2 is not applicable anymore.  
18. Have any disputes been submitted to the Special Committee on Customs Co-operation 
and Rules of Origin?  If so, what was the outcome? 
 No, no issues that could be classified as a “dis pute” has been transmitted for consideration to 
the Special Committee on Customs Co-operation and Rules of origin.  
19. What does “bilateral cumulation is foreseen” mean  – has a rule been negotiated for this 
or not? 
 A specific rule is laid down in art. 3 of Title II of ANNEX III of the Agreement. 
 
20. How does this sit with the Pan-European System of Cumulation? 
 There is no connection with the Pan-European System of cumulation 
 4. Standards 
 
21. Will the TBT and SPS measures adopted pursuant to this Agreement be adopted on an 
MFN basis? 
 There is no Mutual Recognition Agreement betwee n the parties in the area of standards and 
technical regulations; however nothing precludes the parties from finding specific solutions on 
specific areas at bilateral level. Whether or not these measures will be on an MFN basis will depend 
on the actual measure, which at this stage is unknow n. On SPS agreements reached by the parties are 
based on the bilateral side agreement joint to th e Interim agreement. Any SPS compromise is thus 
based on the fulfilment of specific bilateral obliga tion unless differently specified and by consequence 
has a bilateral character.  
 
22. Article 87 calls for increased cooperation, compatibility and conformity in standards, 
technical regulations and conformity assessmen t.  In addition, it suggests the use of 
international standards as basi s for technical regulations, “ex cept when such international 
standards would be an ineffective or inappropri ate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate 
objectives pursued.”   
 - Could the Parties provide a definition for or examples of “ineffective or 
inappropriate” international standards?   
 WT/REG164/5 
Page 6  
   Article 87 copies the wording of the TBT Agreement itself.  The ineffectiveness or 
inappropriateness of an international sta ndard is examined on a case by case basis. 
 
23. Article 88 calls for the establishment of a Special Committee on Technical Regulations, 
Standards and Conformity Assessment.   
 - Could the Parties describe the Special Committee’s current work plan for 
increasing conformity?   
 
 The Special Committee on Technical Regulations and Standards meets once a year to discuss 
specific trade concerns in the bilateral trade a nd to obtain a better understanding of each others 
regulatory models in areas of interest. 
 
24. There are several instances in Annex IV on SPS in which specific time frames are 
mentioned in reference to certain undertakings.  For example, Article 15 of Annex IV provides that "Each Party shall notify in writing to the other Party within two working days of any serious or significant public, animal or plant heal th risk, including any food control emergencies 
or situations where there is a clearly identified risk of serious health effects associated with the 
consumption of animal or plant products...”  Wi ll this and the other time frames for certain 
actions to take place mentioned in Annex IV be extended to other WTO Members?  
 This and the other time frames were negotia ted and established between the parties of the 
EU/Chile SPS Agreement and consequently a pply only to the contracting parties.  
 5. Safeguards 
 
25. Section 5 of the Standard Format (WT/REG164/4) provides that, under Art. 92, a Party 
may take safeguard action against the imports of the other Party in the event those imports cause “serious injury”, “serious disturbances” or “serious difficulties”.  Our reading of Art. 92, 
however, suggests that the Parties meant to reaffirm their rights under Article XIX of the 
GATT and under the WTO Safeguards Agreement,  and to provide special notification and 
consultation procedures in the event of a safeguar d investigation.  It does not appear to establish 
a special safeguard mechanism for imports between the two Parties.  Article 73, however, does 
establish a special safeguard mechanism specific ally for agricultural and processed agricultural 
products (specific questions on that article are set forth below).  Could the Parties please clarify 
the purpose of Article 92, and, if necessary, mo dify section 5 of the Standard Format?   
 Parties confirm definition presented before. Article 92 does not provide for a bilateral 
safeguard mechanism. The purpose of Article 92 is to reaffirm Parties' ri ghts and obligations under 
Article XIX of the GATT and the WTO Safeguards Agreement and to create additional requirement 
concerning notification, consultation and trade comp ensation in the event of a safeguard action where 
the other Party has a substantial export interest.  
 
26. How do the provisions in the bilateral agr icultural safeguard differ from the WTO 
Safeguards Agreement provisions? 
 Article 73 of the Agreement contains sp ecial provisions on safeguard measures for 
agricultural and processed agricultural products. This provision only applies between the Parties to the 
Agreement. It therefore cannot be compared to  the WTO Agreement on Safeguards which provides 
for action erga omnes  and is not limited in its scope of application to agricultural and processed 
agricultural products. Article 73, however only applies within the boundaries of the preferential treatment provided for in the agreement.  
  WT/REG164/5 
 Page 7 
 
 
   
27. Have any safeguard measures been invoked?  If so, on what products? 
 Both Chile and the EU have taken safeguard action in the framework of Article XIX of the 
GATT and the WTO Safeguards Agreement. The EU  has imposed safeguards measures on certain 
steel products, farmed salmon and ma ndarins (satsumas). Currently, safeguard measures in force in 
the EU concern only imports of satsumas.  28. What are the significant differences between the safeguard provisions in the Agreement 
and the WTO Safeguards Agreement? 
 Article 92 to reaffirm Parties’ rights and ob ligations under Article XIX of the GATT and the 
WTO Safeguards Agreement but it also creates additi onal procedural requirements in the event of a 
safeguard action where the other Party has a subs tantial export interest. Article 73, however, 
establishes a special safeguard mechanism specifica lly for imports of agricultural and processed 
agricultural products originated in the other Party to the Agreement. 
 
8. Sector-Specific Provisions 
 8.1. Agricultural products  
 29. Article 73 provides that either Party may take “appropriate measures” in the event of 
“serious injury or disturbance” to agricultural markets.   
 - How is “serious disturbance” defined, and how does it differ from the “serious 
injury” standard defined in paragraph 6(a) of Article 73, and in the WTO Safeguards Agreement? 
  “Disturbance” is not defined in the agreement.  
 
 - Are the measures described in Article 73.2 the only safeguard measures that a 
Party may take on imports under the Agreement? 
  Yes. 
 
 - How many times and under what circum stances has action been taken under the 
emergency clause, and what type of action has been taken? 
 
 No. 
 
 - Is there an expiration date for this safeguard clause? 
 
 No.  
 
 
III. GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  1. Exceptions and Reservations 
30. Article 93 permits a Party to “take appropriate action” in the event of a critical shortage 
of certain products or essential quantities.  
 - Have any such actions been taken by either Party?   WT/REG164/5 
Page 8  
   
 No such action has been taken up to now.  
 
 - Could the Parties describe a situation described in Article 93.1(b)? 
 
 Article 93.1(b) may be invoked in a situation where, for instance, Government intervention in 
a specific market leads to  a decrease in the domestic price of a raw material, which encourage exports 
thereby causing substantial shortage of that ra w material for the processing domestic industry.  
 
6. Duration 
31. Article 199 states that the agreement is valid in definitely but allows for either party to 
terminate the agreement. 
 - What happens to the Agreement’s tariff reductions, if the Agreement is 
cancelled? Would the reductions remain in  force, at the level the last year the 
Agreement was in effect, or would they  return to the current MFN level, or 
revert back to some other level? 
 
 - Similarly for tariff rate quotas, in the event of an Agreement’s cancellation, 
would the agreed reductions remain in force, at the level the last year the agreement was in effect, or return to a prior level? 
 
 The trade provisions contained in the Interim Agreement are integral part of the Association 
Agreement between Chile and the EU. The possib ility of a termination of the Agreement is 
considered extremely remote.   
IV. OTHER   
Provisions on Services
 
 
32. The Association Agreement contains an entire Chapter on Trade in Services.  When do 
the EC and Chile expect to notify th e services portion of this FTA?   
 The services chapter entered into force on March 2005, due to the conclusion of the 
ratification process by the EU side.  Such Chapte r will be notified in due time following customary 
tradition in CRTA Committee. 
 Intellectual property rights
 
 
33. The Agreement incorporates the WTO TRI PS Agreement and the WIPO copyright 
treaties.  Does the Agreement include any other “TRIPS-plus” language?   
 In addition to the incorporation of the TRIP s Agreement and the WIPO copyright treaties in 
the EU-Chile Agreement, the parties have agreed:   To continue to ensure an adequa te and effective implementation of: 
 
 - the Paris Convention 
 - the Berne Convention  - the Rome Convention  - UPOV 1978 or UPOV 1991   WT/REG164/5 
 Page 9 
 
 
   To accede by 1 January 2007 to: 
  - the Nice Agreement  - the Patent Co-operation Treaty  - the Strasbourg Agreement 
 
 To accede by 1 January 2009 to:   - the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against the 
Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms  
 - the Locarno Agreement 
 - the Budapest Treaty  - the Trademark Law Treaty   Finally, the parties pledged to accede at the earliest possible opportunity to: 
 
 - the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement  - the Madrid Agreement  - the Vienna Agreement  
34. Article 55 references as an objective “the adequate and effective protection of 
intellectual property rights, in accordance with th e highest international standards”.  However, 
the Agreement does not appear to incorporate “the highest international standards” (i.e. 
“TRIPS-plus”). Could the parties explain how they  plan to reach this objective without the 
requisite provisions in the agreement? 
 The option not to identify in details which are the “highest international standards” allows for 
a degree of flexibility in adopting the level of IPR protection and enforcement available in both 
Parties to be progressively adjusted to higher standa rds if they wish, in accordance with Article 1.1 of 
the TRIPS Agreement.   In addition, it has also provided reassurance to  right-holders about the continued, long-term 
commitment of the Parties towards the improvement of their national IP system. 
 
35. Regarding the protections for geographical i ndications of names for wine established in 
Article 5 of Annex V, do they expand protections  offered by the WTO TRIPs Agreement? If so, 
how?  Will these provisions adversely aff ect imports from third countries?   
 Article 5 of Annex V is not a TRIPS plus provision. Imported wines or spirit drinks 
originating in another third country cannot be commerc ialised in the territories of the Parties if they 
conflict with the protected GI’s. However, Article  5.1, 5.4.b and 5.5 allow for homonymous terms, 
including third country GIs, to coexist.  
36. The Parties have provided for protection of geographical indications in Article 5 of 
Annex V, and exchanged lists of protected GIs.   Based on the recent WTO Panel Report in 
European Communities - Protection of Trad emarks and Geographical Indications for 
Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs (WT/DS174/R, 15 March 2005), it is clear that WTO Members must provide for a system for foreign nationals to directly apply for GI protection in WTO Member countries if such application is available for their own nationals.   
 - Do the Parties extend the protections fo r GIs provided in this Agreement to non-
parties’ GIs? 
 WT/REG164/5 
Page 10  
   Article  24.1 TRIPS provides for the possibility to enter into bilateral agreements increasing 
the protection of individual GI’s under Article 23 TRIPS.   
 - Do the Parties provide a mechanism for the registration and protection for 
foreign GIs to the extent you provide that for your own GIs? 
  We fail to see the question’s link to the Agre ement. Chile’s and the EU’s registration and 
protection mechanisms for foreign GIs are matters  of their domestic legislation.    
 - What opportunities are provided to third-party nationals to object to the 
protection of a GI on the lists in Annexes 16.4.3-16.4.5? 
 
 No such annexes exist in the Agreement. Howeve r, if you are referring to GIs in Article 6, in 
the case of trademarks in Chile, in Art 11(1) of th e Agreement  states that the Parties are not aware 
“on the basis of the Chilean trademark register as established on 10 June 2002, of any trademarks 
other than those referred to in Article 7(2) and Artic le 10(4) which are identical with, or similar to, or 
contain the geographical indications or traditiona l expressions or complementary quality mentions 
referred to in Articles 6 and 10, respectively.”  
37. The WTO Panel Report in the US-EC GI  dispute settlement case (WT/DS174/R)  
indicates that the trademark owner has the excl usive right to prevent confusing uses of the 
mark, even as GIs.  Do the Parties provide the ri ght to cancel the GI’s protection if a prior valid 
trademark owner objects? 
 As regards prior trademarks, the Parties were not aware of any other prior trademarks than 
those referred to in Article 7(2) and 10(4). In this respect, please refer to  Article 11(1) of the Agreement where it is stated that the Parties, in th e  case of trademarks vis a vis GIs, were not aware 
that in Chile “on the basis of the Chilean trademar k register as established on 10 June 2002, of any 
trademarks other than those referred to in Article 7(2) and Article 10(4) which are identical with, or 
similar to, or contain the geographical indications or traditional expressions or complementary quality 
mentions referred to in Articles 6 and 10, respect ively.” Apart from the trademarks referred to in 
Articles 7(2) and 10(4) of the Agreement, owners of  other trademarks both in Chile and in the EU will 
continue to make use of their trademarks. In this context it is also pointed out that the panel report 
referred to in the question accepted co-existence of conflicting trademarks and GI’s under the 
conditions of Article 17 TRIPS.  
 
38. Appendix II of Annex V contains a list of GIs of wine originating in Chile.   
 - Would wines from recognized viticulture areas in the United States that have the 
same, or similar, name be excluded from the EC and/or Chile under this 
agreement?  
 
 Article 23.3 of the TRIPS Agreement exp licitly accepts the co-existence of homonymous 
terms for GIs. Terms which are similar to GIs cont ained in the Appendix could be used in accordance 
with Article 5.1, 5.4(b) and 5.5 of Annex V of the Chile-UE Agreement.   
 The protection of protected wine name of origin  of the US will be dealt within the Agreement 
on Trade in Wines between the EC and US, whic h is currently in the process of approval. 
 
 - For instance, “Vallo del Claro” is a protected GI included in Appendix II of 
Annex V, and “Santa Clara Valley” is a recognized Viticultural Area in the 
United States.  Would wines labeled with this viticultural area under U.S. wine 
appellation rules be excluded from the EC and/or Chile under this Agreement?  
  WT/REG164/5 
 Page 11 
 
 
   The Agreement on Trade in Wines between  the EC and Chile provides protection for 
geographical indication of both Parties. In its Arti cle 5(4)(b) it states that “where a geographical 
indication protected under this Agreement is homo nymous with the name of a geographical area 
outside the Parties, the latter name may be used  to describe and present a wine of the geographical 
area to which the name refers, provided it is trad itionally and consistently used, its use for that 
purpose is regulated by the country of origin and consumers are not misled into believing that the 
wine originates in the Party concerned.”   
39. Regarding the protections for designations of spirit drinks and aromatized drinks 
established in Article 5 of Annex VI, do they  expand protections offered by the WTO TRIPs 
Agreement?  If so, how? Will these provisions adv ersely affect imports from third countries?   
 Article 5 of Annex VI is not a TRIPS plus  provision. Imported wines or spirit drinks 
originating in another third country can not be comm ercialised in the territories of the parties to the 
Agreement if they conflict with the protected GI’s . However, Article 5.1, 5.4.b and 5.5 allow for 
homonymous terms, including third country GIs, to coexist. 
 
40. Article 77(3) states neither party shall establish or maintain any internal quantitative 
regulations relating to the mixture, processing or use of products in specified amounts or 
proportions of any product which is subject of the regulation must be supplied from domestic 
sources.   
 - How does this requirement relate to EU provisions on geographic indications, 
such as parmesan cheese?  
 
 “Parmigiano-Reggiano” is protected as a ge ographical indication in the EU. A product that 
does not fulfil the relevant specifications may not be  marketed under that name or its translation on 
the Community market. The GI does not exclude the marketing of the relevant cheese under a 
different name. The Community considers that “Parmi giano-Reggiano” is also protected as regards its 
translations and also with respect to products us ing part of the compound-GI such as “Parmesan”. 
 Trade facilitation
 
 
41. Article 79 of the Agreement contemplates the application of customs rules and 
procedures agreed upon at a bilateral or multilateral level.   
 - Have any such rules and/or procedures been agreed upon and applied under this 
provision? 
 
 - Will any improved customs procedures de veloped under this Agreement, such as 
the steps to reduce, simplify and st andardize data required in customs 
documents discussed in Article 79.2(b), be applied on an MFN basis? 
 
 Parties have engaged in an active cooperati on in this area.  Simplification of Customs 
procedures will firstly address issues related to pref erential bilateral trade. There is no doubt that 
better practices agreed at preferential level will have a positive spill over effect to MFN trade. 
 
Cooperation  
 
42. Article 25 calls for greater cooperatio n and closer economic and technological 
cooperation in the area of fishing on the high seas.  Article 49.3(d) provides that priority shall be 
given to “developing regional cooperation on fisheries matters.” WT/REG164/5 
Page 12  
   - Could the Parties describe what type of cooperation they have in mind regarding 
fishing rights? 
  - Will the Parties consult with oth er WTO Members with regional fishing 
interests? 
  EC and Chile have  develope d a continuous and intense coopera tion at scientific and political 
level since the year 2001 in the area of fishing in the high sea, involvin g also other WTO Members 
which are relevant fisheries players in the area, w ith the aims of establishing close collaboration and 
common approach on fisheries management. The last meeting has been held in June 2005 in Lanzarote, Spain after the 70th Plenary Session of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.  
 
 This cooperation will continue within the context of the new South Pacific Regional Fisheries 
Management Organisation.    WT/REG164/5 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Table I 
Liberalization Through Tariff Reduction Commitments: European Community  
Table 1. EU TARIFF LIBERALISATION BY SECTOR
N° of HS6 lines
Sectormillion €%of total by 
sector% of overall 
total% of total
2000/2002 2000/2002 2000/2002 by secto rof total
ALL PRODUCTS
Total 4,993.0 100.0% 5,226 100.0%
Full liberalisation 1,082.8 21.7% 5,000 95.7%Partial liberalisation 219.4 4.4% 89 1.7%
No liberalisation 9.2 0.2% 137 2.6%
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Total 1,056.4 100.0% 21.2% 573 100.0% 11.0%
Full liberalisation 851.8 80.6% 17.1% 402 70.1% 7.7%
Year 0 173.9 16.5% 3.5% 244 42.6% 4.7%Year 4 577.9 54.7% 11.6% 75 13.1% 1.4%Year 7 98.8 9.4% 2.0% 56 9.8% 1.1%Year 10 1.2 0.1% 0.0% 26 4.6% 0.5%
Partial liberalisation 195.6 18.5% 3.9% 53 9.2% 1.0%
Entry price system maintained 177.2 16.8% 3.5% 0 0.0% 0.0%
Ad valorem part liberalised year 0 152.5 14.4% 3.1% 2 0.3% 0.0%
Ad valorem part liberalised year 4 0.4 0.0% 0.0% 4 0.6% 0.1%
Ad valorem part liberalised year 7 23.5 2.2% 0.5% 3 0.6% 0.1%
Ad valorem part liberalised year 10 0.8 0.1% 0.0% 2 0.3% 0.0%
Elimination of ad valorem part compound duty 0.2 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.2% 0.0%
Preferential tariff quotas n.e.c. (a) 18.2 1.7% 0.4% 52 9.1% 1.0%
No liberalisation 8.7 0.8% 0.2% 118 20.7% 2.3%
PROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Total 16.2 100.0% 0.3% 125 100.0% 2.4%
Full liberalisation 14.2 87.6% 0.3% 73 58.2% 1.4%
Year 0 14.1 87.2% 0.3% 53 42.4% 1.0%Year 4 0.1 0.4% 0.0% 11 8.7% 0.2%Year 7 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 9 7.0% 0.2%
Partial liberalisation 1.5 9.4% 0.0% 34 27.3% 0.7%
50% reduction on currently applied rates 1.3 8.2% 0.0% 3 2.7% 0.1%Elimination of ad valorem part compound duty 0.2 1.1% 0.0% 31 24.6% 0.6%
Preferential tariff quotas n.e.c. 
(a) 0
No liberalisation 0.5 3.0% 0.0% 18 14.5% 0.3%
FISH
Total 239 100.0% 4.8% 110 100.0% 2.1%
Full liberalisation 216.8 90.8% 4.3% 108 97.8% 2.1%
Year 0 81.9 34.3% 1.6% 28 25.6% 0.5%
Year 4 94.6 39.6% 1.9% 43 38.9% 0.8%
Year 7 5.7 2.4% 0.1% 2 2.0% 0.0%
Year 10 34.6 14.5% 0.7% 35 31.4% 0.7%
Partial liberalisation 22.2 9.3% 0.4% 2 1.8% 0.0%
Preferential tariff quotas 22.2 9.3% 0.4% 2 1.8% 0.0%
No liberalisation 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.3% 0.0%
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
Total 3,698 100.0% 74.1% 4,418 100.0% 84.5%
Full liberalisation 0.0% 0.0% 4,418 100.0% 84.5%
Year 0 3691.6 99.8% 73.9% 3,872 87.6% 74.1%
Year 3 7.4 0.2% 0.1% 546 12.4% 10.5%
(a) Notes: 
Protected Names and products subject to the entry-price mechanism counted as "No liberalisation".
Schedule EC final extr. E. Schwarzenbrunner / TradeF1 / 26.October 2005Average EU Imports from Chile
N°
 WT/REG164/5 
Page 14  
   
Table II 
 
Liberalization Through Preferential Tariff-Rate Quotas: European Community
 
 
 
Official 
Journal L352 
(2002)  
p. 70-71 Number 
of lines  
SH 6 
digit % of 
Total 
Lines 
(agri) Value of 
EU 
imports 
from 
Chile 
(2001)  
[x 1.000 €] % of Total 
Imports 
from Chile 
(agri) Initial  
In-quota 
TR Reduction 
of Initial 
In-quota 
TR Expansion 
of Initial 
In-quota 
TRQ 
quantities 
TQ(1)(a) 4 0.7% 30 0.0% free : yes 
TQ(1)(b) 10 1.5% 56 0.0% free : yes 
TQ(1)(c) 9 1.5% 9,108 0.9% free : yes 
TQ(1)(d) 14 3.3% 30,824 3.0% free : yes 
TQ(2)(a) 5 2.2% 38 0.0% free : yes 
TQ(2)(b) 1 0.1% 100 0.0% free : yes 
TQ(2)(c) 6 2.1% 3 0.0% free : yes 
TQ(2)(d) 1 0.1% 0 0.0% free : yes 
TQ(2)(e) 1 0.1% 146 0.0% free : yes 
TQ 
(2)(f) + (2)(g) 1 0.1% 133,119 13.1% free : yes 
TOTAL 
TRQ 52 11.6% 173,424 17.1%    
 
 
 
__________