. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG64/M/2
19 July 2001
(01-3579)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Ninth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ESTONIA
AND THE FAROE ISLANDS (GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK)
Note on the Meeting of 3 July 2001
Chairperson:  Ms. Margaret LIANG
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1568.
2. Under Agenda Item C.XII, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) took up
the second round of examination of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Estonia and the Faroe
Islands (Government of Denmark).
3. The Chairperson noted that, since the first round which took place on March 2000, the Parties
had provided replies to questions put by delegations, which were circulated in
document WT/REG64/4.
4. The representative of the United States said that the data provided would not permit a full
assessment of the scope and coverage of the Agreement.  She requested that the Parties provide
additional information on the coverage of the Agreement at its full implementation, as well as the
percentage of each Party’s trade covered by the Ag reement.  With respect to standards, she asked
whether the Parties participated in any arrangements on the recognition of conformity assessment
procedures or any mutual recognition agreements and if not, whether they had plans to do so.  If such
an agreement existed, she wondered whether it was part of this Agreement or a separate one.
5. The representative of Australia indicated that, in light of information provided by the Parties
on import and export restrictions and sector-specific provisions, he had doubts that the "substantially
all the trade" requirement had been met.  His delegation was concerned in particular with the
exemptions that applied to the export of certain agricultural products to the Faroe Islands, as
illustrated in Protocol 1, as well as the concessions of agricultural policies in Article 6 of the
Agreement.  He then indicated that he had a number of questions.  First, what were the MFN tariffs
that the Faroe Islands applied to these agricultural products.  Second, what were the products uponwhich restrictions or exemptions applied.  Third, what proportion of the Faroe Islands agricultural
imports from Estonia consisted of these products.  Fourth, whether consideration had been given to
the inclusion of further agricultural products within the FTA as per Article 28 of the Agreement, and
if so, whether was there a timetable for advancing these discussions.  Fifth, which products were
currently subject to state monopolies.  He stated that these concerns had been posed to the Partiespreviously but he was not fully satisfied with the answers provided.  He also asked if there had been
progress made in developing rules on the granting of State-aid, and if details were available on those
rules.  Lastly, he asked the Parties if any safeguards measures had yet been taken.
6. Addressing first the question of "substantially all the trade", the  representative of Denmark
stated that Protocol 1 included very few agricult ural products upon which the Faroe Islands could still
maintain tariffs.  All other products from Chapters 1 to 97 of the Harmonized System were under theWT/REG64/M/2
Page 2
auspices of this Agreement.  She confirmed that the MFN tariffs requested would be submitted in
writing.  There were no plans to develop further rules for State-aid, and until that time no safeguard
measures had been taken.  She would answer other questions in written form.
7. Referring to the comments just made, the representative of the United States sought
confirmation that only a few products would be outside the Agreement and all others would be within
the Agreement.  She wondered whether that meant they were subject to zero duties.  The
representative of Denmark promised a detailed written response to the question.
8. The Chairperson noted that the second round of examination allowed the Committee to clarify
a number of issues but that some outstanding questions remained.  Some additional questions had
been posed in that session, to many of which the Parties would respond in writing.  She then invited
those delegations that wished to ask additional questions to forward them to the Secretariat by 10 July
and Parties to submit replies as soon as possible but not later than 4 September.  The next round ofexamination could then be scheduled for the September meeting.  She noted that those dates were
selected taking into account the summer break;  if they were not respected, the examination of this
Agreement would have to be postponed to the year 2002.
9. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________