WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG229/2 
7 July 2008 
 
 (08-3257) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
 
TRANS-PACIFIC STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT  
 
Questions and Replies
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 4 July 2008,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore.   This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Questions from Australia
 
 
1. Has Chile applied special agricultural safegu ards measures against any of the Parties?  
If so, could the Parties please provide details? 
 No, Chile has not applied special agricultural saf eguard measures.  Chile’s special agricultural 
safeguard measure (described in Article 3.13 of th e TPSEP) will only apply during the period of tariff 
reduction, which begins in 2012.  It cannot be applie d for the first six years after entry into force of 
the TPSEP or after the product in question has become tariff-free. 
 
2. We note that Brunei has two years from entry into force to negotiate its services 
schedule.  Could the Parties please provide an update on these negotiations? 
 See Answer to Question 18.  
 3. We note that the Parties have committed to  commence negotiations with a view to 
including chapters on financial services and invest ment within two years of entry into force.  
Could the Parties please provide an update on these negotiations? 
 The TPSEP entered into force in 2006, with the agreement that further negotiations for 
chapters on Investment and Financial Services woul d take place within two years.  These negotiations 
are currently underway, with the United States participa ting together with the existing P4 Parties.  An 
exploratory meeting was held in Chile in March 2008 and a formal round was held in New Zealand in 
June 2008.  No date has been set for the conclusion of the negotiations.  
4. We note from the factual presentation that Brunei was given two years from entry into 
force of the agreement to negotiate and finalise its list of entities to be covered by the 
government procurement chapter.  Could Br unei please advise how these negotiations are 
progressing?  
 See Answer to Question 18. WT/REG229/2 
Page 2  
 
  5. Coverage in Annex 11.A is limited to central government entities.  Could the parties 
explain whether consideration is being given to  extending coverage to include sub-central 
government entities. 
 There is no current plan to increase coverage of entities or goods and services. 
 
6. Could the parties please detail any specific c ooperative activities that have taken place 
or are planned under Chapter 16? 
 As set out in Article 16.3.4, cooperation among Parties under Chapter 16 will supplement the 
cooperation and cooperative activities among the Parties set out in other Chapters of the Agreement. 
There are a number of activities carried out under the Environment Cooperation Agreement and the 
Memorandum of Understandi ng on Labour Cooperation, as well as under Chapter 5 
(Customs procedures).    Chile and New Zealand have develope d two main projects in cooperation: 
 
(a) Program Working Holidays: The Program ga ve 1000 visas each year to Chileans who 
want to study and work in New Zealand.  During 2007 the quota was completed and for this year it is expected to be filled again. 
(b) Cooperation Agriculture Program:  Thr ough CODESSER (Corporación de Desarrollo 
Social del Sector Rural) depending from  the Private Organization SNA (National 
Society of Agriculture), 30 Chilean students are prepared on dairy issues in 
New Zealand and Chile.    
 Cooperation between Chile and Singapore in the area of education includes MOUs between 
universities and a cultural exchange programme between primary schools.  Their Ministries of Education are also exploring further possible areas of cooperation.  Questions from the Delegation of Chinese Taipei
 
 
7. According to paragraph 1 of the WTO Secretariat’s Factual Presentation and the 
Preamble and Article 1.1.3 of the TPSEP Ag reement, we know that this Agreement is a 
plurilateral agreement among four APEC’s economies seeking to support the wider 
liberalization process in APEC. 
 (i) We would like to ask whether this Agree ment is really beneficial to accelerating 
the achievement of APEC’s economic integration goal. 
 
 The TPSEP is intended to contribute to the achie vement of APEC’s economic integration goal 
as expressed in the Osaka Action Agenda, for exam ple through commitments on tariff elimination on 
originating goods traded between the Parties.   APEC is pursuing its Regiona l Economic Integration goal thr ough a multi-faceted agenda of 
activities agreed by APEC's Economic Leaders at their Sydney Summit in 2007.  These activities 
include detailed study of current RTAs/FTAs in th e region, including the TPSEP.  It is recognised 
implicitly in these studies that the TPSEP is one of a number of possible building blocks towards 
greater economic integration in the region. 
 
 
 
  WT/REG229/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
   (ii) In addition, is this Agreement drafted on the basis of “best practice” of APEC? 
 
 The “Best Practice for RTA/FTAs in APEC” was considered at the APEC Ministerial meeting in November 2004.  Negotiations on the TPSEP were launched before this, in October 2002, and the 
TPSEP has been negotiated independently of APEC processes.  Nevertheless, the TPSEP has all of 
the characteristics of the APEC best practice for regional trade and is widely regarded as a high-
quality RTA.   8. Paragraph 122 of the Factual Presentation a nd Article 20.6.1 of this Agreement state 
that “the Agreement is open to accession, on terms to be agreed among the Parties, by any 
APEC economy or other State.”  
  Could the Parties please clarify in mo re details the implementation of this 
Article since its entry into force? 
  See Answers to Questions 16 and 17. 
 
9. Paragraph 32 of the Factual Presentation and Article 3.12 of this Agreement state that 
“Article 3.12 allows Chile to maintain its Price Band System (PBS) for various edible vegetable 
oils, sugar, wheat, and wheat flour.” 
 (i) Why does Chile want to continue usin g its PBS even though the WTO Appellate 
Body has ruled it to be inconsistent with  the Agreement of Agriculture, such as 
in WT/DS207/AB/R?  
  The last Appellate Body ruling on this ma tter (WT/DS207/AB/RW, dated May 7, 2007) was 
issued more than two years after the TPSEP negotiati ons were concluded.  The reference to PBS in 
the TPSEP is therefore not linked to this ruling.    (ii) In addition, is it possible this system will influence trade liberalization arising 
from this Agreement? 
  Nevertheless, the provision does not affect  trade liberalisation under TPSEP: although the 
TPSEP allows Chile to maintain its PBS, the produc ts covered by the PBS are not excluded of the 
coverage of the Agreement. In fact, they are subject to tariff elimination. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of the European Communities
 
 10. Paragraph 37 and Table III.1B describe Ch ile's tariff elimination commitments under 
the Agreement.  However, we fail to see a refe rence to Chile's liberalization commitments with 
respect to Brunei.  
 Could Chile describe its tariff eliminatio n commitments and corresponding average 
trade values with Brunei?   
 Chile’s tariff elimination commitments regard ing Brunei are equal to those granted to the 
other Parties in Chile's schedule.  Table III.1.B re flects such commitments in terms of total imports 
from each Party during 2003-2005 and, as noted in f ootnote 15, "with respect to Chile's imports from 
Brunei, UNSD Comtrade figures show imports only in 2003 totalling US$ 11,568".    WT/REG229/2 
Page 4  
 
  11. Could Parties elaborate further on the labo ur aspects' objectives and how they are 
enshrined in the TSEP? 
 The binding MOU is one of a suite of instru ments that support and implement the objectives 
of the TPSEP.  Specifically, it elaborates and opera tionalises the Parties’ understanding outlined in the 
Preamble of the TPSEP to “enhance their cooperation on labour and environmental matters of mutual 
interest”. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Hong Kong, China
 
 12. We note from WT/REG229/1 that tariff elim ination programme under the TPSEP is to 
be completed within ten (for Brunei - 2015), eleven (for New Zealand - 2016) and twelve (for 
Chile - 2017) years at the latest.   We also note  that Article 3.4.3 of the TPSEP stipulates that 
“on the request of any Party, the Parties shall co nsult to consider accelerating the elimination of 
customs duties set out in their Schedules” and that “any such acceleration shall be extended to all Parties”.  We would like to know if the tari ff elimination commitment as originally scheduled 
under the TPSEP has been accelerated or modified.  If so, what are the changes (including the 
tariff lines involved, the corresponding tariff rat es and the tariff elimination schedule) made. 
 The tariff elimination commitments as origin ally scheduled under the TPSEP have not been 
accelerated or modified.  Please note that New Zealand’s tariffs are to be eliminated by 2015, not 2016.   13. Article 4.12 of the TPSEP contains an Outward Processing provision such that goods 
undergoing intermediate processing in a third country and fulfilling specific criteria will still be eligible for tariff preference under the Agreement.  Annex 4.B of the TPSEP sets out a list of products that are eligible for outward processing  and according to Article 4.12.4 of the TPSEP, 
such list may be modified.  We would like to know if the list of products as set out in Annex 4.B 
of the TPSEP has been modified.  If so, what are the changes made.   
 There have been no modifications made to th e list of products for which outward processing 
rules were agreed.   
14. Article 20.5 of the TPSEP sets out specific flexibilities in respect of Brunei’s 
participation in the TPSEP.  Among other things, the TPSEP is provisionally applied in respect 
of Brunei pending the conclusion of negotiation s with the other Parties of its schedules under 
Chapter 11 (Government Procurement) and Chapter 12 (Trade in Services) of the TPSEP.  We are interested to know the progress of such negotia tions and the target date for completing the 
relevant negotiations.  If such negotiations have  been concluded, we are interested to know the 
commitments undertaken by  Brunei in respect of government procurement and trade in 
services. 
 See Answer to Question 18.  
 
15. Articles 20.1 and 20.2 of the TPSEP provide that negotiations on investment and 
financial services will commence no later than two years after the entry into force of the 
Agreement.  We note from WT/REG229/1 (footno te 39) that according to the Parties’ 
authorities, these negotiations are currently unde rway.  We are interested to know the progress 
of such negotiations and the target date for completing the relevant negotiations.  If such 
negotiations have been concluded, we would like to know the commitments undertaken by the TPSEP parties.  WT/REG229/2 
 Page 5 
 
 
   The TPSEP entered into force in 2006, with the agreement that further negotiations for 
chapters on Investment and Financial Services woul d take place within two years.  These negotiations 
are currently underway, with the United States participa ting together with the existing P4 Parties.  An 
exploratory meeting was held in Chile in March 2008 and a formal round was held in New Zealand in 
June 2008.  No date has been set for the conclusion of the negotiations.  16. We note that the TPSEP is open to accession  by other countries.  We are interested to 
know the accession situation to the TPSEP by oth er economies.  In particular, apart from the 
US who has indicated to join the negotiations on investment and financial services under the TPSEP, we would like to know if any other countri es have indicated interest in acceding to the 
TPSEP.  
 The United States is participating in the TPSEP negotiations on investment and financial 
services and is undertaking an exploratory process  to determine whether it will engage in full 
negotiations with the existing TPSEP Parties on a comprehensive FTA.  To date, other 
WTO Members have shown interest in the TPSEP but have not formally requested to accede to the 
TPSEP. 
 
17. We note that the TPSEP Agreement is open  to accession on terms to be agreed among 
the parties, we are interested to know the detailed accession procedures in this respect. 
 As set out in Article 20.6, the TPSEP is ope n to accession on terms to be agreed among the 
Parties. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Japan
 
18. With respect to Paragraph 74 and 121 of  the Factual Presentation (WT/REG229/1), 
could the Parties provide us with updated info rmation regarding the negotiations on Brunei’s 
commitment in both the areas of Serv ices and Government Procurement?  
 Negotiations on Brunei’s commitments on Se rvices and Government Procurement are 
underway, with a meeting taking place in May 2008.  The negotiations are scheduled to be completed 
by 12 October 2008, unless the TPSEP Commission agrees otherwise pursuant to Article 20.5. 
 
19. As for Paragraph 122 of the Factual Presen tation, are there any countries/regions which 
have shown interest in its accession to the Agreement? If so, we would like to know which 
countries/regions have shown interest. 
 See Answers to Questions 16 and 17. 
 
20. With regard to Section V.4. of the Factua l Presentation (Dispute Settlement), we would 
like to be informed about the number of case s where the Dispute Settlement procedures were 
used. We would also like to know about the content of each case. 
 There have been no Dispute Settlement cases under the TPSEP. 
 21. With regard to Chapter 11 of the Agreement (Government Procurement), we would like 
to know if the Parties are cons idering expanding the scope of the Chapter in terms of both 
government agencies and areas of services.  Is th ere any plan to consider expanding the scope? 
 There is no current plan to expand the scope of the TPSEP Government Procurement Chapter. 
 
 WT/REG229/2 
Page 6  
 
  Questions from the Delegation of the United States
 
 22. What is the average duty by HS section for th e lines that remain dutiable?   (Tables III.2 
and III.3) 
 New Zealand: 
 
New Zealand Average Tariff Rates under P4 Agreement, by HS Section 
Average duty on dutiable lines (%) HS Section HS Description 2006 2008 2010 2015 
I Live animals; anim al products - - - - 
II Vegetable products - - - - 
III Animal or vegetable fats and oils - - - - 
IV Prepared Foodstuffs, Beverages 5.00 4.00 - - 
V Mineral Products - - - - 
VI Products of Chemical or Allied Industries 4.00 - - - 
VII Plastics and Articles thereof, rubber 6.12 4.54 6.22* - 
VIII Raw Hides and Skins,  Leather 7.32 5.71 5.00 - 
IX Wood and Articles of wood - - - - 
X Pulp of Wood - - - - 
XI** Textiles and Textile Articles 11.76 8.45 6.23 - 
XII Footwear, Headgear, Umbrellas 14.40 11.18 7.64 - 
XIII Articles of Stone, Plas ter, Cement 6.80 5.23 - - 
XIV Natural and Cultured Pearls 4.00 - - - 
XV Base Metals & Article s thereof 4.91 4.66 - - 
XVI Machinery & Mechanical Appl. 6.04 4.50 - - 
XVII Vehicles, Aircraft, Vessels 8.28 5.22 - - 
XVIII Optical, Photographi c Equipment - - - - 
XIX Arms and Ammunition - - - - 
XX Miscellaneous Manufactured  Articles 4.69 4.15 4.00 - 
XXI Works of Art - - - - 
 
- No dutiable lines. 
* The decrease in aver age tariff on dutiable HS VII lines between  2008 and 2010 is becau se the number of 
dutiable lines decreased by 90%.   ** Excluding lines 63090001 and 63090011, which have a specific tariff.
 
 
 Chile:  There are no lines that remain dutiable in Chile's schedule.  See Table III.1.b and explanation in paragraphs 37, 42 and 43. 
 
23. We understand that the P-4 is not replacing the bilateral trade agreements previously 
agreed to between the P-4 member countries. 
 (i) Please explain the details of and reaso ning behind the legal relationship between 
the provisions in the P-4 Agreement a nd those in pre-existing bilateral 
agreements between parties to the P-4 Agreement. 
 
 Singapore and New Zealand have an understanding (set out in a side letter to the TPSEP) that 
where either the P4 or the bilateral agreement pr ovides different treatment for an exporter, service 
supplier or investor of New Zeala nd or Singapore, that exporter, servi ce supplier or investor is entitled 
to claim the more favourable of the treatment accord ed to that exporter, service supplier or investor 
under either Agreement. 
 
   WT/REG229/2 
 Page 7 
 
 
   (ii) How often do importers elect treatm ent under a bilateral FTA rather than the 
P-4? 
 
 New Zealand Customs does not require importers to identify a particular trade agreement 
when claiming tariff preference for goods into New Z ealand.  Importers are required only to state that 
their goods “qualify” as originating from, for exampl e, Singapore, without specifying under which of 
the alternative origin pathways (the New Zeala nd – Singapore Closer Economic Partnership or the 
TPSEP) their claim for preference is based.    Singapore does not have the relevant data on wh ether our exporters have been claiming tariff 
preference for goods into New Zealand under th e ANZSCEP or the P4.  As for imports into 
Singapore, most of our tariff lines are tariff-free. 
 
24. The headnote of New Zealand’s tariff schedul e in the P-4 (Annex 1) does not reference 
Singapore.  Does this limit Singapore’s exporter’ s ability to utilize the commitments provided in 
the P-4?   How does this affect the other commitments of the P-4 between Singapore and New 
Zealand. 
 Article 3.4 of the TPSEP provides that except as otherwise provided in the TPSEP, no Party 
may increase any existing customs duty, or adopt an y customs duty on a good or iginating from one of 
the Parties.  
 The absence of reference to Singapore in New Zealand’s tariff schedule means that no tariffs 
can be imposed by New Zealand on an originating good from Singapore.  
25. The Secretariat’s factual presentation (par agraph 115) notes that, in Article 12.11.5, 
Parties agree to facilitate the establishment of dialogue among their regulators and relevant 
industry bodies, with a view toward achieving early outcomes on the recognition of professional 
qualifications and/or registration.  Article 12.11. 6 sets out “priority areas” for work, including 
engineering, architecture, geology and geophysics. 
  Could the Parties please describe the steps they have taken to facilitate 
regulatory/industry dialogue in the priority areas identified in Article 12.11.6?  
Can any progress be reported with respect to recognition outcomes in these or 
other areas? 
 
 There have been no steps taken under Article 12.11.6.   
 There have been visits between the TPSEP Par ties of qualification authorities and Ministry of 
Education officials, which facilitates the sharing of information on qualifica tions systems and quality 
assurance and helps develop a common understanding of  each Party’s qualification systems, which in 
turn leads to greater qualifications recognition. 
 
__________