WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG217/3 
14 April 2009 
 (09-1748) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:  English 
  
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND KOREA 
 
Questions and Replies
 
  
 The following communication, dated 12 March 2009 are being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of the EFTA States and Korea.   This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Question from the Delegation of Australia
 
 Services
 
 
1. We note the FTA does not include a provision  on the denial of benefits to services 
suppliers.  We would be interested in an expl anation of the rationale behind excluding this 
provision and how this impacts upon the application of the services chapter.  
  We are of the view that a provision on the denial of benefits is not necessary to the extent that 
the relevant definitions regarding services suppliers are detailed enough to fully reflect the intention 
of the Parties as to whom shall benefit under th e Agreement.  As regards the impact upon the 
application of the chapter, we are of the view that this increases the legal certainty. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Canada  
 
National Treatment and Market Access Provisions on Trade in Goods  
 General provisions  2. Processed agricultural products are provided for in Annex IV.  How was this product 
coverage defined? 
 Processed agricultural products are, in genera l terms, products made from basic agricultural 
products through industrial processing (e.g. chocol ate, biscuits, frozen pizza, pasta, soup). The 
Product coverage of Annex IV of  the Agreement is based on arrangements between the EFTA States 
and the EU where agricultural products not subj ect to the EU Common Agricultural Policy are 
regarded as processed agricultural products.  
 
Korea's liberalization schedule 
 
3. The summary charts in the Secretariat' s report show that Korea has excluded 
29 Mineral lines and 35 Chemicals and Chemical Pr oducts lines.  Can it be confirmed that these WT/REG217/3 
Page 2  
 
  products were placed in category R, subject to review as per paragraph 4 in Annex VI?  
According to this same paragraph, these industrial exclusions are also subject to an MFN clause 
if Korea grants preferential treatment for thes e products.  Can it be confirmed that this 
provision is a forward-looking MFN clause for the items in question?  
 Only 29 Mineral lines are placed in category R, s ubject to review as per paragraph 4 in Annex 
VI.  35 Chemical and Chemical Products lines are in cluded in the list of Annex III which is excluded 
from the coverage according to Article 2.1 (a).  Korea and the EFTA states confirm that Paragraph 4 
in Annex VI is a forward-looking MFN clause for the products of 29 Mineral lines.  
 
Rules of Origin
 
 
4. What is the intent of paragraph 2 of Article 6 (Insufficient Working or Processing 
Operations) of Annex I (Rules of Origin and Customs Procedures)? 
 Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of Annex I ensures th at the scope of application of paragraph 1 of 
Article 6 extends to the entire manufacturing process.  5. The Secretariat's report outlines that the FTA allows originating status to not be 
affected by processing/work outside one's territor y if materials are exported, then subsequently 
imported, into that Party, subject to conditions laid out in Appendix 4 to Annex I. 
(a) Paragraph 2 of this Appendix refers to processing/work "carried out in an area, 
for instance an industrial zone, outside the territory of a Party."  Can the Parties 
provide examples of what such areas could include, including identifying specific 
examples? 
 Any region could be an example if the re quirements in paragraph 2 of the Appendix are 
fulfilled.  
(b) Can the Parties outline how they arrived at the list of 267 products at the HS6 
level that fall under paragraph 2?  
 The Product coverage was defined based on the results of negotiations between the Parties. 
 
Regulatory Provisions on Trade in Goods
 
 
Bilateral safeguards  
6. The report prepared by the Secretariat i ndicates that "serious injury", "threat of 
serious injury", and "domestic industry" are not defined in the FTA. 
 Are the Parties going to add greater clar ity to these terms post-implementation to 
ensure that emergency measures are only used in the limited sets of circumstances that 
would warrant such a measure? 
 
 It is a common understanding between the Pa rties that these terms should be interpreted 
consistently with the WTO Agreement on Safeguards,  to which Paragraph 2 of Article 2.11 refers 
concerning the procedures to be followed for an investigation.  
 7. The FTA allows for the Joint Committee to arri ve at a mutually acceptable solution if a 
Party intends to take an emergency measure.  Being that any such solution would be an  WT/REG217/3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  alternative to a full emergency measure, can th e Parties identify what types of acceptable 
solutions are envisioned by this provision? 
 This formulation leaves a wide scope of possibilities, the only requirement being that the 
solution be mutually acceptable to Parties. In this  context, the Joint Committee acts as a facilitator. 
Possible acceptable solutions depend on the concrete  circumstances of the case and cannot be defined 
in advance. 
 
8. Article 2.11, paragraph 5 of the FTA requires that three years elapse before a safeguard 
measure can be applied upon a product which had b een previously subject to a measure.  In the 
case of a provisional measure that is found to be unwarranted and thus expires at or before the 
200 day limit (the provisional measure is never ma de a full safeguard measure), does the FTA 
require that any period of time elapse before another provisional measure or safeguard can be taken on that product? 
 There is no such requirement on any reapplica tion of provisional measures. We consider it 
rather unlikely that a Party that has come to th e conclusion that the conditions for an emergency 
measure are not fulfilled and has correspondingly pu t an end to the provisional measure would later 
apply a new provisional measure on the same product.  Indeed, if new relevant circumstances have 
occurred, it would be permitted to take a new provisional measure or safeguard. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Chinese Taipei
 
 
Trade Environment  
 9. According to paragraphs 1 and 3 of the WTO Secretariat’s Factual Presentation 
(WT/REG217/2), this Agreement is EFTA’s second FTA with an Asian country (after 
Singapore) and Korea’s first FTA with a European partner.  Moreover, EFTA has run a 
consistent trade surplus with Korea since 2001.  Our questions are therefore as follows: 
(i) What is the significance of this Agreement for the trade of each of the 
Parties? 
Response from the EFTA States
 
  Korea is EFTA’s 8
th largest source of imports and 9th largest export destination globally. 
Across the Asian countries, Korea is EFTA’s third la rgest source of imports, after China and Japan, 
and EFTA’s 5th largest export destination after Japan, China, Hong Kong, China and Singapore.  
  The Agreement helps to further boost merchandi se and services trades between the Parties. 
Merchandise trade gains are affecting a broad range of sectors, including machinery and mechanical 
appliances, steel and metal products, chemical pr oducts, and fish and mari ne products, as well as 
automobile, ships and textiles, and apparels sector.   Response from Korea
 
  EFTA is Korea’s 17
th largest source of imports and 32nd largest export destination globally.  
 
 According to the EKFTA feasibility study, Korea and the EFTA have complementary 
economic structures.  This will enable both of them to minimize the structural  adjustment costs that 
could arise from the FTA.  Moreover, both partie s would gain benefits from the FTA due to the 
dynamic long-term effects of increased competition and more efficient divisions of labour.  WT/REG217/3 
Page 4  
 
  (ii) Does Korea intend to balance its trade with the EFTA States through this 
Agreement? 
 Korea does not intend to balance it.  Our goal, through this agreement, is to enhance national 
welfare by increasing the potential trade volume and GDP.  Bilateral Safeguards
 
 10. Regarding the bilateral safeguard measures stipulated in Article 2.11 of this Agreement 
and as described in paragraphs 46-53 of the WTO Secretariat’s Factual Presentation, why do 
the Parties want to use the terms “emergency me asures” and “emergency action” instead of the 
term “safeguard measures” as provided for in the Agreement on Safeguards? 
 This is to underline the extraordinary nature  of the circumstances under which such measures 
may be taken.  We note, moreover, that the term  “emergency action” is used in GATT Art.XIX. 
 
11. Article 2.11.1 of this Agreement and par agraph 47 of the WTO Secretariat’s Factual 
Presentation refer to the phrase “…as to constitute a substantial cause
 of serious injury….”  
Here, we would appreciate some further clarification, as follows: 
(i) How is “substantial cause” defined a nd what criteria are applied in practice 
that might justify the use of such a phrase?  
 The requirement that the cause be "substantial" reflects the preferential relationship created by 
the FTA and ensures that there is a sufficient causal link between imports and the injury, i.e. that the 
cause must be of considerable importance or size and that any cause is not sufficient.  The parties 
have not developed any further specific criteria to be  applied in the implementation of the Agreement. 
 
(ii) What is the difference in meaning between this phrase and the phrase used in 
Article 2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, “…as to cause …a serious injury”? 
 There is in both cases a requirement of existe nce of a cause of considerable importance.   
 
(iii) In addition, the emergency measures sh all be applied to the minimum extent 
necessary to remedy or prevent injury .  Could the Parties please elaborate 
further on the meaning of the terms “the minimum extent” and “necessity,” 
and confirm whether or not it is envisaged that specific criteria will be 
applied in practice, which might justify the use of such terms? 
 These criteria represent aspects of the concep t of proportionality that are to be taken into 
consideration.  The parties have not developed any further specific criteria to be applied in practice. 
 Exceptions and Reservations
 
 12. Paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Agreement on Investment between the Republic of 
Korea and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss 
Confederation under the EFTA-Korea FTA, provides that a Party may, at any time, incorporate a new reservation into its Annex by wr itten notification to the other Parties, and 
that the other Parties may request consul tations regarding the new reservation.  
(i) It seems that in the Agreement there are no other provisions that may be used 
by the other Parties to deny the effe ctiveness of the new reservation in case  WT/REG217/3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  the consultations render unsuccessful result s.  It would be appreciated if the 
Parties to this FTA could please shed more light on this matter. 
 As reflected in Article 12, pa ragraph 1(c) of the Agreement, a new reservation may only be 
adopted by a Party if it “ does not affect the overall level of co mmitments of that Party under this 
Agreement ” (italics added).  
 Disputes between an Investor and a Party
 
 
13. Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the Agreement on Investment between the Republic of 
Korea and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation under the EFTA-Korea FTA stipulates that an arbitral award shall be final and 
binding for the parties to the dispute and shall be executed without delay according to the law of 
the Party concerned.   
(i) There appears to be the possibility of un certainty in the effective execution of 
arbitral awards under a law that can be  unilaterally amended.  It would be 
appreciated if the Parties to this FTA could please explain whether the 
adoption of an international convention on the enforcement of arbitral 
awards would make enforcement more certain in this situation. 
 Where applicable, arbitral awards are enfor ced according to an international convention on 
the enforcement of arbitral awards to which all Parties adhere.  Between the Republic of Korea and 
the EFTA States, enforcement of awar ds according to national law is an equally appropriate solution.  
 
Import Duties and Charges, and Quantitative Restrictions
 
 
14. Paragraph 20 of the WTO Secretariat’s Fact ual Presentation mentions that “Fish and 
other marine products are covered by Anne x V to the Agreement.  It provides for the 
elimination of all customs duties on imports and charges having equivalent effect for products 
listed in Table 1 originating in an EFTA count ry or in Korea.  However, Switzerland will 
continue to maintain customs duties on some imports from Korea listed in Table 2.  For 
products listed in Table 3, Korea commits to either i) gradually eliminate customs duties and 
charges having equivalent effect, starting from 2006 and ending in 2009, 2011, 2013 or 2016; ii) 
apply tariff-rate quotas (TRQs); or iii) review th e liberalization schedules no later than seven 
years after the entry into force of the Agreement.”  
(i) We could find no progress report relating to the above, therefore some 
information would be appreciated from the EFTA members and Korea 
concerning progress to date on the implem entation of the conditions in this 
paragraph. 
 Switzerland maintains customs duties on imports  from Korea for products listed in Table 2. 
With regards to i) tariff elimination, ii) TR Q matters, Korea is implementing the commitments 
according to the schedule in the agr eement.  Regarding iii) review of  the liberalization schedule, the 
parties would deal with the matter in due course as provided in the agreement.  Other Regulations
 
 15. Paragraph 61 of the WTO Secretariat’s Fa ctual Presentation mentions that “The 
Parties agree to take joint action on national  policies on fisheries (Article 5 of Annex V), 
including through co-operation on jointly funded projects, inter alia , through policy dialogue to 
understand common issues and exchange informat ion on policies and activities;  sharing WT/REG217/3 
Page 6  
 
  technical expertise and experience in su stainable resource management, fisheries and 
aquaculture;  training fishermen and student s on Norwegian research vessels, in fisheries 
facilities and distribution companies;  and exch anging scientific and technological knowledge, 
data, statistics, information and marine expert s.  A Memorandum of Understanding on this 
matter is expected to be concluded no later th an two years after the entry into force of the 
Agreement.”  Since the FTA between the EFTA  States and Korea entered into force on 1 
September 2006, it’s our understanding that the said Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
should be concluded by 31 August 2008.  However, it is also stated in the Secretariat’s Factual 
Presentation that “according to the Parties, ther e has not been any development in this regard.”  
(i) We should therefore be grateful to the said parties for an explanation of the 
difficulties encountered in concluding the MOU.  In addition, we would 
appreciate knowing if there are any plans for proceeding further in this 
regard. 
 A discussion on the Memorandum of Understandi ng (MoU) on the matter of joint action on 
fisheries has not yet taken place with in the Joint Committee.  However, we would like to note that a 
bilateral MoU on cooperation in the field of fisherie s is in place between Norway and Korea and that 
several projects have been implemented under this MoU.  
 
Questions from the Delegation of the European Communities
 
 Export Duties and Charges, and Quantitative Restrictions
 
 Paragraph 37 of the factual presentation states that "the Agreement provides for the 
elimination of all export prohibitions or restrict ions on trade in goods between the Parties, other 
than customs duties and taxes , whether made effective through export licenses or other 
measures, except as specified in Article V".  
16. Could the Parties explain the reasons wh y this Agreement does not provide for the 
elimination of export duties and taxes?  
  Korea and the EFTA States do not apply any export  restrictions.  As per Article 2.3 of the 
Agreement, upon entry into force of the Agreement,  all customs duties and other duties or charges on 
imports or exports of products originating in an EFT A State or in Korea shall be abolished (except as 
provided for in Annex VI ( customs duties on imports)).  Competition Policy
 
 
 Paragraph 166 of the Factual Presentation indicates that "[a]nti-competitive business 
conduct is recognized as being incompatible wi th the proper functioning of the Agreement and 
the Parties' competition laws are to aim at  removing anti-competitive business conduct 
(Articles 5.1.1. and 5.1.4)".  Paragraph 5.1 (2) defines the concept of "anti-competitive business 
conduct".  17. Could the Parties please explain if our underst anding is correct that this concept does 
not
 cover: 
(a) Anti-competitive concentrations; 
(b) Discriminatory measures take n by State monopolies;  WT/REG217/3 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (c) Anti-competitive behaviour by public enterprises and enterprises entrusted with 
special rights or exclusive rights? 
  Items (b) and (c) are covered by Article 5.1 (2 b) of the Agreement.  The Agreement does not 
cover item (a).  18. If our understanding of Article 5.1 (2) is correct, could the Parties explain why this 
concept does not cover the anti-competitive pr actices described in the previous question? 
 The Parties did not include anti-competitive concentrations in order to accommodate the 
different approaches followed by the Parties in th eir respective competition policies and to focus on 
the anti-competitive practices that are traditionally cons idered as the most relevant in the context of 
trade, i.e. anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position. 
 
State Aid/State Subsidies
 
 
19. Could the Parties confirm if the Agreement does  not cover State Aid/State subsidies?  If 
so, could the Parties please explain the reasons  for not having included provisions for State 
Aid/State Subsidies in the Agreement? 
  Article 2.9 stipulates that the rights and obligations of the Parties relating to subsidies and 
countervailing measures shall be governed by Articles VI and XVI of the GATT 1994 and the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
Questions from the Delegation of Japan  
 
Safeguard Mechanisms  
 20. With respect to Section III.B.2(a) of the Factual Presentation (WT/REG217/2), could the 
Parties inform us if the emergency measures have  been applied?  Could the Parties also inform 
us about the kind of serious injury that has been fo und, if it has already applied?  In addition to 
that, we would like to get some examples of ex ceptional circumstances for the case of extended 
measures, if such cases already happened. 
  Under the Agreement, no global or extended bila teral safeguard measures have been applied 
by the Parties to date.  Government Procurement
 
 21. With respect to Article 6.1, 2. of the Agreement and Section VI.G. of the 
Factual Presentation, we would like to know if th e Parties have reviewed issues as regards to the 
Government Procurement in the Joint Committee.  Could the Parties also inform us about the 
content of the committee, if it has already been reviewed? 
  Issues relating to government procurement were not  reviewed in the context of the first Joint 
Committee meeting held in May 2008. 
Questions from the Delegation of Turkey
 
 Trade Environment
 
 
22. Despite the fact that the total exports and imports of Korea to/from the world are much 
higher than the exports and imports of EFTA St ates, EFTA States abolished customs duties on WT/REG217/3 
Page 8  
 
  the covered products upon entry into force (2006)  of the Agreement, while Korea will gradually 
eliminate duties on the covered products over a transition period ending on 1 January 2016.  
Could Korea kindly explain the reasons for commit ting to a less ambitious liberalization scheme 
in the Agreement? 
  Korea’s liberalization scheme is not a less am bitious one considering that Korea’s average 
applied MFN rates before the entry into force of the Agreement were much higher than the 
corresponding rates of the EFTA States.  In ad dition, Korea achieved a very high level of 
liberalization in terms of tariff eliminati on that covers 99.1% of all tradable goods. 
 
Export Duties and Charges, and Quantitative Restrictions
 
23. Paragraph 37 of the Factual Presentation indi cates that all export prohibitions or 
restrictions other than customs duties and taxes will be eliminated.  Could the Parties kindly 
explain the kind of restrictions they apply on exports and why the Parties did not eliminate 
customs duties and taxes on exports in the Agreement? 
 Korea and the EFTA States do not impose any export restrictions.  According to Article 2.5 of 
the Agreement, customs duties and taxes are relate d to both exports and imports.  Annex V of the 
Agreement only incorporates exceptions for imports a nd declares that any restrictions for exports are 
prohibited according to the Agreement.  
Trade in Services  
24. The Regional Trade Agreements under GATS Ar ticle V have different levels of sectoral 
coverage on liberalization commitments and different levels of sectoral coverage entail different 
modes of supply.  In that sense, it should be cl arified if all four modes of supply of services are 
affected by the Agreement in question. 
 As set out in Article 3.3 of the Agreement, all four modes of supply of services are covered 
by the Agreement.  
25. The Regional Trade Agreements under GATS Article V are required to establish a 
substantial sectoral coverage.  In order to see the ex tent to which this criteria is fulfilled – if at 
all, it would be useful to receive further expl anation on the number of sectors covered by the 
Agreement in question or the volume of trade a ffected by liberalization commitments therein. 
 In terms of the Services Sectoral Classification List (document MTN.GNS/W/120), 11 sectors 
except for health related and social services are covered by the Agreement.  Liberalization 
commitments are based on a positive-list approach.  The sectoral and sub-sectoral coverage as well as 
the respective modes of supply of services can be id entified in the schedules of specific commitments 
incorporated into the Agreement.  
26. To what extent did the Parties go beyond their GATS commitments at the sectoral level? 
 Paragraphs 72 to 123 of the Factual Presentation of the Secretariat specifies, to a great extent, 
the level of specific commitment that the Parti es grant beyond their existing GATS commitments. 
  WT/REG217/3 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Questions from the Delegation of the United States  
 National Treatment and Market Access Provisions on Trade in Goods
 
 27. According to Tables III.1 A-C and Annex I of th e Factual Presentation, Table AI.1-AI.3:  
 Norway
 eliminates duties on 90.3% of all tariff  lines covering 99.5% of imports from 
Korea under the agreement.  However, though 99. 9% of industrial tariffs are duty-free, only 
49.3% of agricultural tariff lines are duty-free under the agreement.    Switzerland
 eliminates tariffs on only 84% of all tariff lines covering 99.9% of imports 
from Korea under the agreement.  However, th ough 99.98% of industrial goods are duty-free, 
only 34.8% of agricultural lines are duty-free under the agreement.    Iceland
 eliminates duties on 94.9% of all tari ff lines and 100% of imports from Korea 
under the agreement.  However, though 100% of industrial goods tariffs are duty-free, only 
76.3% of agricultural tariffs are duty-free under the agreement.  
  According to Paragraph 24 on Page 13 and Annex 1, Table AI.4:    Korea
 provides duty-free access by the end of the implementation period on 89%, 
88.7%, and 88.5% of its tariff lines accounting for 99.1%, 93%, and 98.6% of the value of 
imports from Iceland, Norway and Switzerland respectively.  However, though 99.6% of 
industrial products are duty-free for Norway,  Switzerland and Iceland, Korea provides duty 
free access on its agricultural goods for only 21 .4% of its tariff lines for Norway, 19.6 % of its 
tariff lines for Switzerland and 23.3% of its tariff lines for Iceland.  
 
(a) How do the Parties explain the highly disproportionate liberalization between 
the industrial and agricultural sectors?  
Trade liberalization under the Agreement is the r esult of negotiations between the Parties with 
the aim to strike a balance between th eir specific interests and sensitivities.  
(b) The fact that the term “substantially a ll trade” has not been further clarified 
does not change the fact that Members are under an obligation to cover 
“substantially all trade” if they want the cover of GATT Article XXIV.  The 
United States assumes that the Parties have their own understanding of what 
“substantially all trade” is because they are required to make sure they meet this 
standard of coverage.   
- In this light, we ask that the Parties please explain their understanding of 
the term “substantially all trade.”  
While ‘substantially all the trade’ does not amount to all the trade, significantly more than 
some  of the trade must be covered.  The criterion refers  to overall trade rather than imports or exports 
separately, and does not entail obligations relating to  the coverage of specific sectors or products.  
- Could the Parties please explain how their tariff elimination 
commitments achieve the “substantially  all trade” standard set out in 
GATT Article XXIV? WT/REG217/3 
Page 10  
 
  The liberalization undertaken by the Parties in  the Agreement covers substantially all the 
trade carried out between the Parties.  Accordingly, th e Parties are of the view that the coverage of the 
Agreement is fully consistent with the standards set out in GATT Article XXIV. 
(c) Please provide the average duty rate by HS section and HS chapter for the lines 
that remain dutiable.  
  Please see Tables III.2, III.3, III.4 and III. 5 in the Factual Presentation of the 
WTO Secretariat.   The averages for Switzerland are not include d because Switzerland only has specific duties. 
On the subject of ad valorem  equivalents, there is no agreed methodology for calculating AVEs of 
specific tariffs, other than for attributing tariffs  to certain tariff bands in the context of the 
Doha negotiations of agricultural market access.  The outcome of any such calculation will vary 
substantially depending on, inter alia , the reference period, the applied prices (world market prices, 
domestic import prices, or a weighting of the two) , and the treatment of tariff lines with little or no 
trade.  In the absence of such methodology, cal culating AVEs would neither result in meaningful 
information about actual tariff protection, nor provi de adequate evidence for comparative analysis.  
 
(d) Regarding paragraph 18 of the Factual P resentation, please explain category R.  
Does this category represent all of Korea ’s tariff lines which were excluded from 
duty elimination?  If not, how were th e products subject to further review 
chosen?  Is Iceland, Norway, or Switzerland under any obligation to provided 
Korea reciprocal treatment on any of their excluded lines if they provide 
preferential access to a third party? 
Response from Korea
 
Yes, with regard to industrial goods, categor y R represents all of Korea’s tariff lines which 
were excluded from duty elimination, but subject to  review for possible extension of preferential 
treatment. 
Response from the EFTA States  
Category R refers to a commitment for Korea to provide reciprocal treatment. Category R 
does not refer to the EFTA States.  
Safeguard Mechanisms  
 
28. Paragraph 46:  Is the term “clear evidence” defined?  Is it intended to be a higher 
standard than simply “evidence”? 
The term “clear evidence” is not specifically defined in the Agreement; this formulation 
stresses the necessity of establishing a causal link be tween increased imports and serious injury or 
threat thereof in the context of safeguards. 
Trade in Services  
 29. As noted in Paragraph 125 of the Factual Presentation, Annex IX of the Agreement 
provides that Parties shall encourage their r espective relevant bodies to develop mutually 
acceptable standards and criteria for authorizat ion, licensing, accreditation, operation and 
certification of service suppliers, in particular fo r professional services, and to facilitate mutual 
recognition.  WT/REG217/3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (a) Can Parties describe any progress on the pa rt their respective relevant bodies on 
development of mutually accep table standards and criteria? 
 There have been no developments on mutual ly acceptable standards and criteria to date. 
 
(b) Can Parties describe any other measures that have been taken since entry into 
force of the Agreement to facilitate mutual recognition? 
No measures have been taken sin ce the entry into force of the Agreement to facilitate mutual 
recognition.  
__________