. /. RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG112/M/3 
11 March 2005 
 (05-1036) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Thirty-Ninth Session  
 
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE EURO-M EDITERRANEAN AGREEMENT  
BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND MOROCCO 
 
Note on the Meeting of 17 February 2005  
 
Chairman: Mr. R. Saborío (Costa Rica) 
 
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2496. 
2. Under Agenda Item C.IV, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements took up the 
examination of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreemen t between the European Communities (EC) and 
Morocco. 
3. The Chairman  said that this was the third round of examination of the Euro-Mediterranean 
Agreement between the European Communities and Morocco.  The proceedings of the first two 
rounds, which had taken place in the Committee's Thirty-First and Thirty-Second Sessions in 
February and June 2002, could be  found in documents WT/REG112/M/ 1-2.  The recent exchange of 
questions and replies could be found in documen t WT/REG112/M/4.  Given that the Committee had 
already had two rounds of discussion under each of th e headings of the Standard Format, document 
WT/REG112/3 and Corrigendum 1, he proposed to open the floor for comments and questions by 
broad Section. 
4. The representative of the United States  said she had questions in two areas.  The first related 
to the treatment of the auto sector in the Agre ement and reflected a larger issue in terms of 
understanding exactly what tariffs we re applied to certain products.  For example, in Morocco's tariff 
schedule the applied tariff rates in the auto sector  were significantly less than the bound rates.  The 
Agreement provided for the EC to receive a margin of preference on some tariffs in the auto sector 
over Morocco's MFN rates.  Her concern centred on the transparency and predictability of this 
arrangement, as the tariffs paid by the EC in this case were not evident;  she asked the EC to provide 
preference margins on a tariff-line basis that it received in the auto  sector under this Agreement.  If 
Morocco changed its applied rate, what would happen to the rate paid by the EC?  Would it change 
also, given that it was on a margin-of-preference basi s?   The second area of the Agreement that was 
of interest was the coverage of agricultural products .  Based on her delegation's calculations, it looked 
as if only about 13 per cent of agricultural products  were subject to full liberalization, i.e. where 
tariffs, quotas and other instruments regulating agricu ltural trade were completely eliminated.  She 
wondered if additional liberaliza tion had taken place since the Agreement was concluded in 2000 and 
agreed to provide her questions in writing. 
5. The representative of the European Communities  replied that the answer to question 9 in 
document WT/REG112/4 made reference to the review  clause contained in the Euro-Mediterranean 
Agreement which had been used.  Additional libera lization had taken place which had been concluded 
in January 2004 with another periodic review sche duled for 2007 with a view to implementing new 
liberalization in 2008.  Most of the EC's Ag reements, particularly the Euro-Mediterranean 
Agreements contained review clauses which pr ovided for progressive liberalization.   WT/REG112/M/3 
Page 2  
 
 6. The Chairman
 noted that the factual examination of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement 
between the European Communities and Morocco  had been completed and invited those 
representatives who wished to ask additional questions to forward them to the Secretariat by 11 March 
and the Parties to submit replies in writing by not later than 22 April.  Once the replies had been 
circulated, any request for additional information could be dealt with without holding another round 
of formal examination.  At that point, the Secretariat could begin drafting the report for the 
examination.  If necessary, an additional r ound could be scheduled, if deemed necessary. 
7. The representative of the United States  asked if the new protocols on agriculture could be 
made available before her delega tion formulated its questions.   
8. The representative of the European Communities  replied that this raised a systemic question 
in the sense that when an Agreement had been the subject of three or four rounds of examination, the 
effect was that the review exercise started to beco me the discussion that would normally take place on 
biennial reports or notifications on substantial amendments to the Agreement which were separate 
requirements on Members.  This was not particular to  this Agreement.  Other agreements dating back 
to 1997 or 1998 were still being examined.  Th e question was whether this discussion should take 
place in the context of the current examination or wh ether it would be better to  raise it in the context 
of a biennial review. 
9. The Chairman  replied that the Committee would hold an additional round of examination if 
deemed necessary. 
10. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
 
__________