. /. RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG148/M/2 
15 September 2005 
 (05-4059) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Fortieth Session  
 
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND SINGAPORE 
 
Note on the Meeting of 26 July 2005  
 
Chairman:  Mr. R. Saborío (Costa Rica) 
  
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2624. 
2. Under Agenda Item C.V of its Fortieth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committee)  took up the examination of the goods and services 
aspects of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the EFTA States and Singapore. 
3. The Chairman
 said that this was the second round of examination of the FTA between the 
EFTA States and Singapore.  The proceedings of  the first round, which had taken place in the 
37th Session of the Committee in October 2004, could be found in document WT/REG148/M/1.  Since 
then the Parties had provided responses to writte n questions circulated as document WT/REG148/5. 
A. G OODS ASPECTS  
4. The representative of the United States  requested, in the sake of tr ansparency, that the Parties 
provide detailed information on the trade liberaliza tion under the Agreement.  She agreed to provide 
specific questions in writing.  Referring to Article 7 of the Agreement, which provided for review by 
the Parties of the rules of origin two years after entry into force of the Agreement, she wondered if 
such a review had taken place given that two years ha d elapsed since the entry into force, and if so, 
what actions had been taken or were planned.  Re garding Section II.4, Standards, she asked if the 
Agreement provided preferential access for goods from the other Parties to the Agreement or if it 
raised the standard for all trading partners.  On Section II.5, Safeguards, she asked if any safeguard 
actions had been taken and if so, if the Parties w ould provide a list of the products involved and the 
safeguard measures imposed.  Regarding Section II.8, Sector Specific Provisions, the Parties had 
indicated in response to an earlier in document WT/REG148/5 that an overview of the bilateral trade in agriculture would be established and distributed at a later stage.  She wondered if that overview had 
been established and if so, when it would be or had been distributed.  Referring to Article 5 of each of 
the agricultural Agreements in whic h the Parties had declared their readiness to discuss expanding the 
range of market access concessions on agricultural pr oducts in the future, she wondered if such 
expansions had occurred or if there was a schedule fo r such discussions.  Finally, referring to Article 2 
of Annex III which allowed for the imposition of  fixed duties on processed agricultural goods, she 
asked the Parties to explain how these duties were ca lculated, how many tariff lines were subject to 
these specific duties, and if any review of the products covered under Anne x III had taken place as 
provided for in Article 6 of Annex III. 
5. The representative of Australia
 supported most of the questions posed by the representative of 
the United States on the EFTA-Jordan, EFTA-Croatia  and EFTA-Singapore agre ements.  As regards WT/REG148/M/2 
Page 2  
 
 this Agreement she had a couple of questions.  Re garding safeguards, she asked if any measures had 
been invoked and if there were any differences be tween the safeguards Chapte r of the Agreement and 
the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.  On agriculture, she ask ed if there had been any review of the 
bilateral Agricultural Agreements or negotiatio ns to conclude one EFTA-wide Agricultural 
Agreement.  Second, she understood that 96 per cent of agricultural trade was covered and asked the 
Parties to provide the percentage of trad e covered for the individual EFTA Members. 
6. In response to the question from the represen tative of Australia on the coverage of 
agricultural products of the Agreements, the representative of Switzerland
 said the Parties would try 
to provide the figures for each Agre ement.  On safeguards, he said that no safeguard measures had 
been taken.  He asked the representative of the United States to provide the question on processed 
agricultural products in writing as it was quite de tailed.  Regarding the evolutionary clause on 
agriculture, he said there had been talks at the l ast Joint Committee meeting a year previously on how 
to expand the coverage of agri cultural products.  Discussions ha d taken place but no decisions had 
been made thus far.  He said he was not aware of what the overview of agriculture was, but he 
imagined it related to a tariff-line view of agri cultural coverage, which the Parties would try to 
provide.  On TBT, he said that the Parties had not  gone beyond WTO rules.  On rules of origin, he 
said that there had been a review which had not been  finalized and no action had been taken so far.  
The discussion would continue at the next Joint Committee, which normally met every two years.  Finally, he asked the representative of the Unite d States to provide her questions on tariff line 
coverage in writing.  The representative of Singapore
 added that the Parties had discussed product 
coverage and rules of origin at their last revi ew which had been held recently and which was an 
ongoing process.  On safeguards, he agreed to provi de a detailed response on the differences between 
safeguard measures in the EFTA-Singapore Agreem ent and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards in 
writing.   
7. The Chairman  said that the second round of the examination of the goods aspects of the 
EFTA-Singapore Agreement had allowed the Committe e to clarify certain points though others 
remained.  He requested delegations wishing to ask questions to forward them to the Secretariat by 
23 September, and the Parties to submit replies in  writing by not later than 31 October.  The next 
round could take place at a subsequent meeting.   
8. The Committee took note  of the comments made.   
B. S ERVICES ASPECTS  
9. The representative of the United States  said she would submit her questions in writing. 
10. Noting that some air services activities, but not th e right to fly, were included in the GATS, 
the representative of Chile  asked whether all air services were excl uded in the Agreement, or just the 
right to fly.  The representative of Singapore  replied that the coverage of air services in the Agreement 
was the same as in the GATS.  
11.   The Chairman  said that the second round of examination of the services aspects of the 
Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA States an d Singapore had allowed the Committee to clarify 
certain points though others remained.  He requested  delegations wishing to ask questions to forward 
them to the Secretariat by 23 September, and the Part ies to submit replies in writing by not later than 
31 October.  The next ro und could take place at a subsequent meeting.   
12. The Committee took note  of the comments made.   
__________