. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG80/M/3
20 July 2001
(01-3599)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Ninth Session
EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN POLAND AND LATVIA
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 examination of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Poland and Latvia.
3. The Chairperson noted that this was the third round of examination of this Agreement.  The
proceedings of the previous two rounds, which took place in July 2000 and February 2001, were
documented in WT/REG80/M/1 and WT/REG80/M/2.  Since February, the Parties had provided
replies to questions put by delegations, whic h were circulated in document WT/REG80/4/Add.1.
4. The representative of the United States observed that many of the tariff rates in this
Agreement had been reduced but not eliminated and that caused into question the compatibility of the
Agreement with GATT Article I.  She noted that no tariff-line information was provided, despite
requests made by Members.  She expressed concern that only some general exhortations had been
made regarding further plans to liberalize agriculture, but that no timetable had been given for that.
She hoped that this would not preclude further liberalization to create a genuine comprehensive
free-trade area.  The representative of Australia associated fully his delegation with the comments
made by the representative of the United States.
5. The representative of Poland explained that data concerning the tariff-line coverage had not
been provided because it could have been misleading as agreements could cover a great number of
tariff lines representing products never trade among the parties.  The percentage of turnover covered
by liberalization was more informative.  As far as the remarks concerning liberalization of agriculture,
he had noticed a trend to consider agricultural trade separately from whole trade.  He was not
convinced that this was in agreement with GATT Article XXIV, which made reference to "trade" but
not to "agricultural trade".  The statistical data supplied in document WT/REG80/4 indicated that
agricultural trade between Poland and Latvia was less than two per cent of the whole turnover.  While
the Agreement had no provisions concerning further liberalization of agricultural trade, it did not have
provisions that would forbid further liberalization either.
6. Reacting to that, the representative of the United States cited GATT Article XXIV:7 as
evidence that Parties to an Agreement were requi red to provide information that other Members
considered relevant.  She considered the trade statistics to be relevant but not determinant.  While she
agreed that statistics could be misleading, they might help to determine whether the Agreement
covered "substantially all the trade".  The general philosophy in the WTO was to encourage greater
transparency instead of prior restraints on information.  She greatly regretted that this discussion hadturned into a barrier in this Committee because she felt that this was relevant information, while notWT/REG80/M/3
Page 2
always the most relevant information.  Furthermore, trade did not only cover existing trade but
potential trade as well, so the information was relevant and as such she would appreciate receiving it.
She would hope that this information would be provided during the examination of other agreements.
7. The representative of Australia concurred with the views expressed by the representative of
the United States.  For transparency reasons, the Parties should provide trade statistics and tariff-line
information;  he did not see gains to the Partie s from withholding such information.  Members who
were concerned that Agreements had not liberalized "substantially all the trade" would not change
their mind if such information was withheld.  Furthermore, Parties had been increasingly more
reluctant to provide information and therefore additional questions needed to be asked in order for the
Parties to provide information essential for the examination.  The representative of Japan indicated his
delegation's support for the views expressed by the representatives of the United States and Australia.
8. The representative of the European Communities observed that tariff-line information was a
wider systemic issue and therefore could not be resolv ed in the context of this examination nor in the
examination of any other agreement.  With respect to the reach of the transparency obligation under
GATT Article XXIV:7, his delegation's view was that that its purpose was to furnish the CRTA with
the necessary information to take decisions on the compliance or conformity of this Agreement with
the respective tests of GATT Article XXIV.  While the requests for information by Members werelimitless, the degree to which information had to be provided in order to ensure balance was also an
open question.  The development of the Standard Format was an attempt to deal with that question,
but the Committee had been unable to reach agreement on whether some other information was to be
presented to the Committee.  Other bodies, such as the Trade Policy Review Body, gave an
opportunity for Members to examine on a regular basis all aspects of trade policies of Members.  TheCRTA had a more focused activity and should not become a forum where Members could raise issues
just as a matter of habit.
9. The representative of Norway, speaking on the behalf of the EFTA States, supported the
viewpoints of the representative of the European Communities.  Information that was generally
supplied on trade data should be sufficient to determine whether the Agreement covered "substantiallyall the trade".
10. In his concluding remarks, the Chairperson noted that this was a systemic issue that had to be
examined on a broader context which could not be resolved at that time. Given that it appeared that
the Committee had exhausted the factual inquiries on this Agreement, she proposed that the
Committee ask the Secretariat to begin drafting the Report for this examination.
11. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________