. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG36/M/3
4 January 2001
(01-0017)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Seventh Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AND SLOVENIA
Note of the Meeting of 12 October 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Jae Gil LEE (Korea)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1389.
2. Under Agenda Item D.II of its Twenty-Seventh Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (hereinafter the CRTA or the Committee) took up the examination of the Free Trade
Agreement between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Slovenia.
3. The Chairman said that it was the third round of examination of the Agreement as prior
examinations had taken place in March and July 2000, the proceedings of which could be found in
documents WT/REG36/M/1 and 2.  Document WT/REG36 /4 and its recently distributed Addendum 1
contained written replies by the Parties to questions posed during the first two rounds of examination.
He invited any delegation wishing to make comments or ask questions to identify the relevant section
of the Standard Format in document WT/REG36/2/Rev.1 for easier reference.
4. The representative of Slovenia expressed her delegation's satisfaction with the progress made
thus far in the examination process and wished to thank those delegations which had shown interest in
the Agreement.  During the examination process, Slovenia had submitted a copy of the Agreement
and relevant information in the Standard Format.  Furthermore, her delegation had tried to give
answers to as many questions as possible, raised during the meetings of the Committee.  They had
also received two sets of written questions, answers to which could be found in documents produced
in June and September 2000.  Moreover, in the latest document, delegations could find answers toquestions which had been raised orally, but not in written form, during the meetings in March and
July.  The examination had showed that the Agreement was within the terms of GATT Article XXIV
and reflected the mutual desire of the Parties to strengthen and widen trade and economic cooperation
while not creating any barriers to trade with third parties.  Her delegation was of the view that the
Committee should move forward to the next stage and ask the Secretariat to draft the examination
report.
5. The representative of Canada thanked the Parties for the information provided.  However, her
delegation was disappointed with the lack of information provided on agricultural product tariff lines
covered by the Agreement.  The Parties had referred to Annexes and Protocols which were available
in the Secretariat but her delegation was looking for a more substantive answer.
6. The representative of Japan shared the views expressed by the representative of Canada
regarding the lack of data on agricultural cove rage.  Secondly, in document WT/REG36/4/Add.1, the
reply to a question on safeguards stated that "the party could under the provision of the FTA
provisionally decrease or nullify the concessions agreed under that Agreement."  His delegation
requested further clarification of the answer and asked whether safeguard measures were appliedwithin the free-trade area.  The representative of Slovenia replied that no safeguards had ever beenWT/REG36/M/3
Page 2
applied between the Parties.  The sentence quoted by the representative of Japan meant that if there
was a surge in imports covered by the Agreement in one Party, then that Party could lower
concessions or nullify them but only under the provisions of the FTA.
7. The representative of Australia, sharing the concerns expressed by the representative of
Canada, said that his delegation was equally disappointed by the responses provided by the Parties
with respect to agricultural product lines.  The representative of the United States supported him,
stating that in the absence of  any further inform ation, her delegation could not conclude that the
Agreement had eliminated all duties on substantially all trade.
8. The representative of Hungary said that his delegation was completely satisfied with the
material and the answers provided by the Parties.  It  was his delegation's view that provision of tariff-
line information was not necessary under GATT Ar ticle XXIV.  In addition, safeguard measures
taken in the context of an FTA and their relation to GATT Article XIX was a systemic issue.  The
representatives of Switzerland, on behalf of the EFTA states, the Czech Republic,  the Slovak
Republic, and Estonia supported the views expressed by the representative of Hungary and found the
information provided by the Parties to be sufficient.  The representative of Latvia also supported what
had been said by the delegation of Hungary and others.  It was a significant burden for parties toFTAs to collect the data requested.  It also needed to be borne in mind that some countries were notMembers of the WTO.
9. The representative of the European Communities referred to his delegation's comments during
previous examinations of the Agreement, regarding its excellent quality and its place in the process of
economic integration in a very important part of Europe.  His delegation's position on some of the
issues, which had been alluded to in previous interventions, was well known.  The discussion was anillustration of the continuing linkages between the process of examination and the systemic debate,
which remained to be resolved collectively by the Committee.
10. The Chairman said that the factual examination of the Agreement had been completed and
proposed that the Committee ask the Secretariat to begin drafting the report on the examination.
11. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________