RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG69/M/4
9 March 2001
(01-1168)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Eighth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE EURO-MEDITERRANEAN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND TUNISIA
Note on the Meeting of 22 February 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Jae Gil LEE (Korea)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/ AIR/1484.  Under Agenda Item D.IX. of its
Twenty-Eighth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or
the Committee) took up the fourth round of examination of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement
between the European Communities (EC) and Tunisia.
2. The Chairman said that the corresponding minutes had been distributed as documents
WT/REG69/M/1-3.  At the end of the last meetin g in July 2000, the Chairman had asked that any
additional questions and replies be ready in order to proceed with the examination early in 2001.
However, given that the latest document containing questions and replies,
document WT/REG69/4/Add.1, had been available for only three days, he wondered whether the
Committee was in a position to have a fruitful discussion in the day's meeting or whether it should be
postponed to a later Session.
3. The representative of the United States said that her delegation had not had time to review the
document and was not in a position to ask questions on it.  She did not want to stand in the way of
other delegations which were prepared to ask questions, but requested that the review of this
Agreement be continued at the next meeting.  She agreed to submit any follow-up questions in writing
for consideration at the next meeting.
4. The representative of the European Communities said that he had hoped to complete the
examination of the Agreement in the day's meeting.  His delegation was ready to respond to any
questions that delegations might have.  He expressed his frustration that the examination had dragged
on.  He added that some additional questions had been received after the deadline for the submission
of questions had expired, thus delaying the Parties' response.  While he appreciated that this was
unavoidable at times, it was nonetheless frustrating for all concerned.
5. The representative of Tunisia shared the views just made by the representative of the EC and
while he respected the position of the representative of the United States, he expressed the hope that
the Committee would be in a position to conclude the examination of this Agreement.  The last three
rounds of examination had allowed for a considerable exchange of views on all aspects of the
Agreement.  Both Parties had responded in writing to the additional questions which had been
received after the deadline.
6. The representative of Australia had two follow-up questions in response to the additional
information provided by the Parties, which related to Section 8 on Sector-specific Provisions onWT/REG69/M/4
Page 2
pages 4-5 of document WT/REG69/4/Add.1.  In their response to the question on tariff quotas, the
Parties had stated that "tariff quotas represent predetermined quantities of goods which can be
imported into the Community with the benefit of a preferential duty (concession to the MFN).  When
the imports under the quota reach the predetermined level, the quota is exhausted and the MFN duty -
or the preferential duty outside the tariff quota if it exists - automatically becomes applicable forimports of the goods concerned for the rest of the calendar".  He asked how the Parties could
reconcile the use of tariff quotas with the requirement under Article XXIV:8(b) that duties and other
restrictive regulations of commerce should be eliminated on substantially all the trade between the
Parties.  His second question referred to agricultural liberalization.  He wondered if the Parties could
provide details of the prospective measures for additional liberalization in the agriculture sector and
the percentage of agricultural trade between the Parties which would still be subject to duties after
these measures had been introduced.
7. The representative of Japan asked for further clarification of the reasons for the 12-year
transitional period, which the Parties had stated was due to the sharp differences between them in
respect of their level of development (page 2 of document WT/REG69/4/Add.1).
8. In response to the question on the use of tariff quotas in the area of agriculture, the
representative of the European Communities said that this issue had probably been addressed already
in an earlier meeting.  His delegation's view was that the liberalization achieved in this Agreement
already covered a sufficient share of the trade to meet the test of Article XXIV and covered
substantially all the trade.  For those products, tariff lines or sectors where the Parties had agreed to
grant liberalization commitments subject to certain conditions, such as the application of a tariff
quota, his delegation's view was that this di d not affect the issue of compatibility with
Article XXIV:8, but, rather, contributed positively to the overall quality of the Agreement.  In so
doing, the Parties were able to include more trade and more products within the scope of liberalization
that they might otherwise have been able to do at the time the Agreement was negotiated.  In essence,
his delegation saw no contradiction with using tariff quotas under Article XXIV:8.  Second, in
response to the additional measures taken in th e area of agriculture, document WT/REG69/4/Add.1
explained that the basis for this could be found in Article 18 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement
which foresaw further negotiations to bring about additional liberalization in the area of agriculture
after a certain point in time.  Negotiations between the EC and Tunisia had already taken place in this
area and agreement had been reached to implement additional measures to liberalize further the
reciprocal trade in agricultural products.  This was a positive demonstration that the so-called
"rendez-vous clause" (as it was known in Brussels), which was one of the techniques used in
negotiations to deal with more problematic areas, had provided for additional liberalization and addedto the quality and scope of the Agreement.  His understanding was that negotiations and the internal
processes within the EC had been concluded, and that the internal processes to approve the results on
the side of Tunisia were close to, but not yet, complete.  Finally, he said he was not sure what he
could add to the information already provided on the issue of transitional periods.  It was self-evident
that the level of development of the EC and Tunisia was not on a par and that the negotiators of thisAgreement had taken this into account by front-loading liberalization in an asymmetrical manner on
the EC side and allowing time for Tunisia to open its market.  He added that, as had been noted in the
answers circulated in docu ment WT/REG69/4/Add.1, the re maining protection applied in
years 11 and 12 of the implementation of this Agreement would be low.
9. The representative of Tunisia said he was disappointed that a further round of examination
would be necessary, but expressed his delegation's willingness to respond to further written questions.
10. The Chairman said that the discussion had allowed some progress in the examination of the
Agreement, but that it was premature to conclude that the Committee had exhausted the factual part of
its examination.  He suggested that written questions from delegations be submitted to the SecretariatWT/REG69/M/4
Page 3
by 23 March, with replies by the Parties to be available by 30 April.  Thereafter a further round of
examination of this Agreement could be scheduled for the July meeting.
11. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________