. /.  
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG132/4 
6 December 2004 
 
 (04-5359) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
FREE TRADE AREA BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND CROATIA 
 
Questions and Replies
 
  The following communication, dated 30 November 2004, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegations of the EFTA States  (Iceland, Li echtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) and Croatia. 
  This document reproduces the questions addressed  to the Parties and the responses submitted. 
The questions and replies set out below are or ganized in accordance with document WT/REG132/3. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
3. Scope 
 
1. Would the parties please explain why there is no agricultural protocol between 
Liechtenstein and Croatia? 
 Switzerland and Liechtenstein form a custom s union under their Customs Union Treaty of 29 
March 1923. It is stated in the bilateral agricultu ral arrangement between Sw itzerland and Croatia that 
the arrangement likewise applies to Liechtenstein as long as this Treat y remains in force. Therefore, 
the bilateral arrangement between Switzerland a nd Croatia likewise applies to trade between 
Liechtenstein and Croatia.   
II. TRADE PROVISIONS 
8. Sector-Specific Provisions 
8.1 Agriculture 
 
2. In the agricultural protocol between No rway and Croatia, Annex 1 presents the 
concessions granted by Norway to Croatia.  We note that entire chapters of the agricultural 
tariff schedule are missing, including Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13,  14, 16, 18 and 19.  In several 
other chapters, there are huge chunks of tariff lin es missing, including in Chapters 7, 10, 21, 
and 22.  We note further that for many of the lines contained in Annex 1 where concessions were granted, tariffs are only slightly reduced.  Annex 2, which presents the concessions granted 
by Croatia to Norway, contains only 15 tariff lin es, 3 of which are water.  Only 1 has a zero 
tariff.  Many lines in this protocol are marked only as “treatment no less favorable than that 
accorded to the European Co mmunity.”  Please explain. 
 WT/REG132/4 
Page 2  
 
 The concessions granted in the agricultural pr otocol between Norway and Croatia are based 
on a request and offer principle. The trade betw een the two countries has been within a limited 
number of tariff lines. Imports to Norway from Cr oatia have mainly been processed agriculture 
products, vegetables, wine and tobacco, for where No rway has granted Croatia reduced or zero duty 
for most of the products concerned. Some of th ese products are also bound to zero in the WTO. The 
products included in the concession lists reflect th e real trade interests when the agreement was 
finalised.  The agricultural protocol also contains a review clause that states that the Parties to the 
Protocol declare their readiness to foster, on a reci procal basis, the harmonious development of trade 
in agricultural products. The Parties will periodica lly review the development of their trade in 
agricultural products. 
 
 Regarding the explanation of the rational of the reference to “treat ment no less favourable 
than that accorded to the Eu ropean Community” please see answer to question number 4.  
 
3. In the agricultural protocol between Iceland and Croatia, the concession schedule 
granted by Iceland to Croatia contains 7 products – a miniscule portion of the tariff schedule in 
agriculture.  The schedule granted by Croatia to Iceland contains roughly 30 products, many of 
which are tropical products, such as coffee, tea,  mate and spices.  These concessions are coupled 
with a “wholly obtained” requirement on rules of  origin in this protocol.  Do the “wholly 
obtained” criteria apply to tropical products in Iceland? 
 The schedule granted by Croatia to Iceland c ontains products such as coffee, tea maté and 
spices. Although the list rule for such products allows  the use of raw materials from any other heading 
in the production, it is true that the main ingredient  (coffee, tea etc.) would always fall under the same 
tariff heading as the final product, and would therefor e have to be wholly obtained.  These materials 
do not grow in Iceland.  4. We ask that the parties provide a written ex planation of exactly what “treatment no less 
favorable than that accorded to the EC” means for each of the tariff lines so cited in these 
bilateral protocols. 
 In the bilateral protocols between Croatia a nd both Iceland and Norway, Croatia grants, for 
certain products falling within tari ff headings 2201-2203 of the HS, treatment no less favorable than 
that accorded to the European Community. This means that prod ucts, which are considered as 
originating in the respective EFTA country, shoul d receive the same tariff concessions as such 
products, originating in the EU, receive upon import to Croatia. 
 
5. The Swiss bilateral protocol with Croatia was not available in English on the EFTA 
website, so we would like to request a translation be provided by the parties in order to fully 
analyze the text in capital. 
 The bilateral protocol between Switzerland and Croatia was available in English at the WTO 
Secretariat; in the meantime it has also b een made available on the EFTA website.  
  
__________ 
 
 