WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG208/4 
2 April 2008 
 
 (08-1462) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MOROCCO 
 
Questions and Replies
 
  
 The following communication, dated 1 April 2008, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of the United States and Morocco.   This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted.  
_______________ 
 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Australia 
 
 
Tariffs  
 
1. Could the Parties explain the reason for th e 24 year phase-out period for duties?  
 For a small number of products identified by the Parties, a period of adjustment longer than 
10 years was deemed necessary and appropriate.  2. Could Morocco explain why its tariff lines with  the highest tariffs (i.e. above 40%) will 
not be eliminated until 8 years after entry into force (i.e. 2014)?  
 Tariff elimination in 8 years following the date  of entry into force of the U.S.-Morocco FTA 
for certain fisheries products (fish and shellfish file ts, preparations and conserves) that are taxed at 
40 or 50% can be explained by the sensitive nature of these products for the Moroccan industry.  3. Could Morocco explain why 125 tariff lines will not be eliminated?  
 Only 100 tariff lines will not be eliminated.  Twenty-five industrial lines were incorrectly 
noted as not subject to full tariff elimination.  See answer to question 4.  
4. Could Morocco explain why it will not elimin ate out of quota duties on some tariff-rate 
quotas?  
 Standard quality bovine meat, durum wheat, pastry wheat, and their derivatives are the only 
agricultural products for which the out-of-quota MFN tariff will be maintained and which will 
consequently not ultimately be tariff-free under the Agreement.  These products are considered 
extremely sensitive, but they account for an extremel y small percentage of tariff lines – 0.4% (without 
sugar) and (0.6%) (with sugar) of the total tariff lines (17,651) . 
  However, it should be observed that under the Agreement, these products benefit from 
enhanced preferential access through tariff ra te quotas as well as a preference clause.  WT/REG208/4 
Page 2  
 
  Safeguards
 
 
5. With respect to the measures described in paragraph 58 of the Factual Presentation, 
could Morocco clarify if all its quantity-based agr icultural safeguards will eventually be made 
duty free?  
 The duties on all items subject to the ag ricultural safeguard mechanism under Morocco’s 
schedule go to zero.  The agricultural safeguard m echanism applies during the tariff phase-out period.  
In the case of the agricultural safeguard that a pplies to the TRQ covering chicken leg quarters and 
wings, the Agreement provides the following:  “No la ter than year 24, the Parties will review the 
operation of this paragraph and th e need for a quantity-based safegua rd after year 24.  Unless both 
Parties agree not to extend the safeguard, starting in year 25, Morocco may apply an additional duty 
of less than or equal to 25 per cent of the MF N rate of duty for the good as determined under 
Article 3.5.1.’  The Agreement specifies the quantity trigger for this agricultural safeguard as follows:  
for year 25 and thereafter, ‘five per cent more than  total U.S. exports of leg quarters to Morocco 
during previous year’.” 
 
6. Have any of the safeguards set out in Chap ter 3 of the Agreement been applied by either 
party? 
 No.  
 Competition policy
 
 
7. Would the Parties consider negotiating a chap ter on competition policy in the future?  
 We have no plans to negotiate a chapter on competition policy. 
 Services 
 
 
8. Could the parties explain the reason for the large number of non-conforming measures 
across a large number of sectors in Annexes I-III?  
 The number of non-conforming measures is not larg e in relation to the breadth of coverage of 
services sectors.  The scope of the US-Morocco FTA is very broad (“negative listing” -- everything 
liberalized unless a specific non-conforming measure is taken).  This commitment to comprehensive 
liberalization is, in many sectors, not yet achieved in practice, especially in a developing economy.  
The United States has listed approximately the sam e number of NCMs as it has in other FTAs. 
Morocco has listed more than the Un ited States, in line with its level of development.  Notably, most 
of these NCMs include a ratchet mechanism that locks in subsequent liberalization efforts.  
 9. As described in paragraph 84 of the Factual Presentation, Morocco reserved the right to 
adopt or maintain any measure with respect to  the cross-border supply of a service by a US 
supplier in nine specified services activities.  These measures were to be terminated or, if mutually agreed, included in Annexes I or II at the end of the first two years after entry into 
force.  Could the Parties provide an update on the status of these reservations?  
 Morocco and the United States have agreed on a set of new NCMs for inclusion in Annexes I 
and II.  We are now going through the process of formal amendment to the FTA.   
   WT/REG208/4 
 Page 3 
 
 
  10. We note that both the US and Morocco h ave included many professional services under 
the Agreement, which are not part of their GA TS commitments.  Does either Party intend to 
include these professional services in its GATS commitments?  
 The position of the United States in ongoing nego tiations should be addressed in the forum of 
those negotiations. 
 
 On the multilateral level, Morocco’s comm itments already include professional services 
(accounting services, engineering services, etc.) and telecommunications services.   In terms of the Doha round of negotiations , Morocco has already submitted a substantial 
initial offer that includes new professional services (engineering-related services, services involving 
data transmission with circuit switching, etc.) whic h, in every case, is contingent on the presentation 
by the other WTO members of substantial and satisfact ory offers in those areas of interest to Morocco 
that would give due considerati on to the aspect of development. 
 11. Does Morocco intend to extend its new comm itments on telecommunications under this 
Agreement to the GATS?   
 In terms of the Doha round of negotiations , Morocco has already submitted a substantial 
initial offer that includes new professional services (engineering-related services, services involving 
data transmission with circuit switching, etc.) whic h, in every case, is contingent on the presentation 
by the other WTO members of substantial and satisfact ory offers in those areas of interest to Morocco 
that would give due consideration to  the aspect of development [sic]. 
 Institutional framework
 
 
12. Could the parties provide an update on the frequency and timing of meetings of the 
various bodies detailed under paragraph 145 of the Factual Presentation?   
 The Agreement provides that unless the Parti es agree otherwise, the Joint Committee shall 
convene in regular session every year and in special session at the request of a Party, within 30 days of the request.  The Agreement further provides th at the each of the Subcommittees on Agricultural 
Trade, Sanitary and Phytosanitary  Matters, and Financial Services  shall meet annually, unless the 
Parties agree otherwise.  The Agreement also pr ovides that the Committee on Cross-Border Trade in 
Services shall meet annually and as otherwise agreed by the Parties.   
 Dispute settlement
 
 
13. Has either Party used dispute settlement provisions detailed in paragraphs 147-151 of 
the Factual Presentation to date?  
 No. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Chinese Taipei  
 
Safeguards  
 
14. Article 8.1 (c) of the US – Morocco FTA co ntains the provision, “... in the case of a 
customs duty applied to a good on a seasonal basis,  increase the rate of duty to a level not to 
exceed the lesser of ...”.  WT/REG208/4 
Page 4  
 
   Could the Parties to the Agreement please cl arify the definition of “seasonal basis” 
under the Agreement, and explain the difference /s in practice between Articles 8.1 (c) 
and 8.1 (b).   
 
 A tariff applied on a seasonal basis is one  that may vary depending on the season. 
 
 In practice, the principle used to determin e the maximum level of a safeguard measure to 
apply under Article 8.1 is the same, regardless of whether subparagraph (b) or (c) is involved -- that 
is, the party applying the safeguard measure may incr ease the tariff to a level not exceeding the lesser 
of two MFN rates.  Under Article 8.1(b), the pa rty applying the safeguard measure may increase the 
tariff to the lesser of the MFN applied rate at th e time the measure is implemented or the MFN rate 
applied on the date immediately preceding the entry into force of the Agreement.  Under Article 8.1(c), which addresses customs duties that are applied on a seasonal basis, the party applying 
the safeguard measure may increase the tariff to the l esser of the MFN applied rate in effect for the 
immediately preceding season or the MFN rate applied on the date immediately preceding the entry 
into force of the Agreement.   
 
15. According to Article 8.2 (5) of this Agreement, “Neither Party may apply a safeguard 
measure more than once against the same good.”  
 In the event of a recurrence of the injury , can the other Party re-apply safeguard 
measures against the same good?   
 
 Under the Agreement, a Party may not re-a pply a safeguard measure under Article 8.1 once 
that measure has terminated.  However, after term ination of a safeguard measure under Article 8.1, a 
Party is free to apply a safeguard measure under a di fferent provision of the Agreement.  In addition, 
Article 8.6 makes clear that "[t]his Agreement does not confer any additional rights or obligations on 
the Parties with regard to actions taken under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the Safeguards 
Agreement.  Overview of tariff reduction commitments
 
 
16. We note from paragraph 19 that according to the US – Morocco FTA the duties on 
bilateral imports were not fully liberalized when the FTA entered into force on 1 January 2006, 
and for Morocco and the United States the remain ing duties are scheduled to be eliminated in 
2030 and 2023 respectively.  The modes for elimination of the remainder of the duties are different for each category, either through prog ressive reduction or immediate zeroing after a 
period in which duties are kept constant.  
 It would be appreciated if the Parties could please describe the rationale for setting up 
this category-specific reduction progress arrangement?   
 
 The specific manner in which remaining ta riffs are phased out is not uniform, as 
circumstances surrounding agricultural products and the time needed to adjust to tariff liberalization 
are not the same.  The details of the staging cate gories were developed thro ugh negotiation informed 
by the particulars of these circumstances.   
 
17. According to Table III.1 and paragraph 22, Morocco’s tariff elimination schedule 
extends from 2006 to 2030, which is a period in excess of 20 years.   
 Could the Parties please explain the reason fo r such a long implementation period and 
how this would be in compliance with Article 5 (C) of GATT 1994?   
  WT/REG208/4 
 Page 5 
 
 
   We understand this question to  be in regards to the implementation period discussed in 
Article 24, paragraph 5( c) of GATT 1947.  As noted  above, for a small number of products identified 
by the Parties, a period of adjustment longer than 10 years was deemed necessary and appropriate.  It 
is important to note that 10 and 18 years after entr y into force of the Agreement, 93.4% and 99.3% of 
the tariff lines, respectively, will be duty-free.   
 
Questions from the Delegation of the European Communities  
 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures  
 18. In Annex 3-B the parties signed an agreement on import licensing for high-quality beef.  
The EC would like to obtain further informat ion on the actual SPS standards imposed on 
imports of beef by each of the parties.  
 The provisions in Annex 3-B are not related to  sanitary standards.  Rather, they permit 
Morocco to establish an import licensing program for imports of high-quality beef from the United 
States to provide that the beef is sold to or impor ted by hotels or restaurants designated on lists agreed 
to by the Parties.  In Annex 3-B, Morocco undertakes to operate its import licensing system for high-quality beef in accordance with Article VIII of GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.   Morocco and the United States ha ve an agreement (in the form of an exchange of letters) 
relating to the content of sanitary certificates ac companying U.S. exports of beef to Morocco, which 
provides:    “Beef and beef product (‘beef’) ... imports must be accompanied by an export certificate to be 
allowed entry into Morocco.  Morocco’s veterinary  services, in cooperation with the United States 
Department of Agriculture’s Food Sa fety and Inspection Service, will wo rk together in good faith to 
define the content of the certificates that will accompany U.S. beef and poultry imports.  Concerning the issue of residues of antibiotics, coccidiostatic  substances, hormones, pesticides, radioactive 
elements, or medications, the Parties agree that th e following language is acceptable for inclusion in 
the certificates, unless the language is changed upon further consultation and agreement between the 
Parties: 
 
Beef
 
  ‘The meat comes from animals that received antemortem and postmortem inspection at the time of slaughter and was determined to be wholesome and free of disease.  It contains no 
unauthorized preservatives or other additives or food colorings.  It contains no harmful residues of 
antibiotics, coccidiostatic substances, hormones, p esticides, radioactive elements, or medications 
according to the national residue program.  It has been  prepared in an establis hment that is inspected 
by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Fo od Safety and Inspection Service and is suitable 
for human consumption.’”  19. In addition, the EC would kindly ask the parties to clarify how these provisions are 
compatible with the parties' obligations as  contained in the WTO SPS Agreement, and, in 
particular, with reference to Article 2.3 concern ing discrimination of members where identical 
or similar conditions prevail.  
 As noted above, the provisions in Annex 3-B ar e not related to sanitary standards, but to 
import licensing requirements.  Further, the term s of Annex 3-B require that the import licensing 
system provided for in that Annex be applie d in accordance with relevant WTO obligations. 
 WT/REG208/4 
Page 6  
 
   In Article 3.9 of the Agreement, Morocco a nd the United States affirm their existing rights 
and obligations with respect to each other under th e WTO SPS Agreement.  Nothing in the Agreement 
requires either Morocco or the United States to ta ke action inconsistent with the SPS Agreement. 
 Intellectual property rights
 
 
20. Paragraph 141 indicates that “These letters also confirm that the Parties shall 
immediately consult in order to adapt the Chapter, as appropriate, to an amendment of the TRIPS Agreement implementing the Decision of the WTO General Council of 30 August 2003." 
 Have the parties already started consultati ons?  How will the Chapter be amended?   
 
 The exchange of letters referenced in para graph 141 make clear that consultations will be 
undertaken immediately 'if an amendment of th e WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights enters into force.'  As  no such amendment has entered into force, there 
have been no consultations between the Parties. 
 
Rules of Origin
 
 
21. Have consultations concerning rules of orig in already taken place (including for the 
specific case of textile)? If so, have they led to  changes in the provisions of the agreement?   
 No. 
 
Agriculture  
 
22. Concerning agricultural subsidies, have consultations concerning non parties' 
subsidized agricultural exportations (third par agraph of Articles 3.3 in the agreement) already 
taken place?  If so, what was their result?   
 No such consultations have taken place to date.   
 Non-conforming measures
 
 
23. The agreement includes a general reservation fo r any non conforming measures at state 
or regional level that may be inconsistent with the relevant obligations of chapter 10 and 11.  
This would seem, in some sectors, to be less f avourable than US GATS commitments that bind 
sub-federal levels.  
 Could the US explain how the general reservation is compatible with the obligations 
contained in GATS Article V?  
 
 Our existing measures are consistent with our GATS obligations.  Therefore, the state-level measures NCM locks in place current compliance in sectors in which there are specific commitments 
under the GATS, and goes farther by locking in curre nt measures even in sectors in which the United 
States does not have national treatment commitm ents under the GATS.  The ratchet mechanism 
ensures that any improvements that go beyo nd GATS commitments become bound under the FTA. 
 
 Apart from the agreement, does a single document compiling these non conforming measures exist?    No single compilation of these measures exists.  
  WT/REG208/4 
 Page 7 
 
 
  24. With regard to non-conforming measures, A nnex I, paragraph 2, stipulates that the 
description of the US non-conforming measures is general and non-binding, which seems to 
create legal uncertainty with regards to the exact scope and nature of these non-conforming measures.  
 Could the US explain how these provisions are compatible with the obligations 
contained in GATS Article V?  
 
 Legal certainty is created by the listing of the actual measures to which the description refers.  
 
25. Concerning Morocco's Services/Investment No n-Conforming Measures, and in light of 
the 2 year-transition period after entry into force, have the consultations on the 9 sectors 
(i.e. real estate services relating to owned or leas ed property, fixed-rate or contracted real estate 
services) taken place?  If so, what wa s the outcome of these consultations?  
 Consultations actually were held in late  2007 between Morocco and the United States 
concerning the 9 sectors affected by the two-year transitional period.  The two sides reached a 
compromise.  An exchange of letters will be impl emented between the two parties based on the results 
of these consultations.  Institutional Framework
 
 
26. Do the Joint Committee and the sub committees meet regularly, in conformity with the 
provisions of the agreement? 
 The Agreement provides that unless the Parti es agree otherwise, the Joint Committee shall 
convene in regular session every year and in special session at the request of a Party, within 30 days of the request.  The Agreement further provides th at the each of the Subcommittees on Agricultural 
Trade, Sanitary and Phytosanitary  Matters, and Financial Services  shall meet annually, unless the 
Parties agree otherwise.  The Agreement also pr ovides that the Committee on Cross-Border Trade in 
Services shall meet annually and as otherwise agreed by the Parties.  In this framework, the Joint 
Committee met for the first time in March 2008.  The Subcommittees on agriculture and SPS are 
scheduled to meet in April.  However, as issues  have arisen, meetings through videoconferences have 
been held to advance progress on them.  27. Since the entry into force, has the dispute settlement system been used?  
 No  
 
28. Overall, have any provisions of the agreement been modified? If so, what are the main 
modifications?  
 Both parties have agreed to the following modifications: 
  Annex I and II (Services/Investment Non- Conforming Measures) - Morocco will list 
additional non-conforming measures according to the provisions of Annex II, Schedule of Morocco, 
of the Agreement.  
 Annex IV (Goods Schedule) - Morocco has agreed to phase out fishery products that were 
inadvertently omitted during the negotiations.     WT/REG208/4 
Page 8  
 
   Annex 9-A (Government Procurement) – Accord ing to the provisions of the agreement, 
Annex 9 E of chapter 9, Morocco and the United St ates have adjusted threshold values.  Moreover 
there will be minor modifications to Annexes 9-A a nd 9-C.  A decision will be signed during the Joint 
Committee meeting to make these modifications.  Questions from the Delegation of Japan
 
 
National Treatment and Market Access for Goods  
 
29. With respect to Paragraph 20 and Table III.1. of the Factual Presentation 
(WT/REG208/3), the number of tariff lines where tariffs are not eliminated by 2030 is 125 lines 
in Paragraph 20, whereas it is 100 lines in Table III.1.A.  Could you elaborate on this difference?   
 We thank Japan for picking up on the discrepancy between the text in paragraph 20 and the 
number listed in Table III.1.A.  Paragraph 20 should be  changed to reflect that tariffs on 100 lines will 
not be eliminated.   
 
30. Does this Agreement have a system to adju st FTA duties when MFN tariffs are reduced 
to those lower than FTA tariffs?  
 In Article 1.2 of the Agreement, Morocco a nd the United States affirm their existing rights 
and obligations under the WTO Agreement and provide that the Agreement shall not be construed to 
derogate from obligations between the Parties that entitle goods or services, or suppliers of goods or 
services, to treatment more favorable th an that accorded by  the Agreement.  
 Government Procurement 
 
 31. We understand that the scope of US provided in Chapter 9 of this Agreement and 
related Annexes is different from that provide d in the Government Procurement Agreement.  
For example, as for Annex 9-A-2 where regional government entities to be covered in this 
Agreement are listed, 14 of the states including the State of California and the State of Arizona are excluded.  Could the Parties explain how they  have decided the scope of Chapter 9 such as 
the thresholds and entities covered?  We would also like to know what were the references if 
any, for such a decision.  For example, did th e Parties refer to the amount of procurement 
within each Party?  
 The thresholds and entities covered in the U.S.-Morocco FTA were based on negotiations 
between the Parties, with the overall aim of provi ding generally comparable coverage.  The U.S. 
states covered under Annex 9-A-2 are the states that  authorized the United St ates to cover the state’s 
procurement under the FTA.  
 
__________