WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1 8 August 2017 (17-4283) Page: 1/165 Trade Policy Review Body 16 and 18 ...

165 Pages·2017·1.64 MB·English

WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

8 August 2017
(17-4283) Page: 1/165
Trade Policy Review Body Original: English/French/Spanish
16 and 18 May 2017 anglais/français/espagnol
inglés/francés/español

TRADE POLICY REVIEW
SWITZERLAND AND LIECHTENSTEIN
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
Addendum
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Colombia)
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO
Members, and replies provided by Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales
16 et 18 mai 2017
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES
SUISSE ET LIECHTENSTEIN
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION
Addendum
Président: S.E. M. Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Colombie)
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses fournies par la Suisse et le
Liechtenstein.

Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales
16 y 18 de mayo de 2017
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES
SUIZA Y LIECHTENSTEIN
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN
Addendum
Presidente: Excmo. Sr. Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Colombia)
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por Suiza
y Liechtenstein.
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 2 -

CONTENTS
CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 2
1 CHINESE TAIPEI .......................................................................................................... 3
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY CHINESE TAIPEI ................................................................ 7
2 UNITED STATES ........................................................................................................... 9
3 CHINA ........................................................................................................................ 18
4 CANADA ..................................................................................................................... 29
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY CANADA ........................................................................... 30
5 EUROPEAN UNION...................................................................................................... 36
6 UKRAINE .................................................................................................................... 49
7 MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF ............................................................................................ 58
8 AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................................ 61
9 MEXICO ...................................................................................................................... 71
10 NORWAY .................................................................................................................. 85
11 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA ................................................................................... 86
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA .................................... 86
12 NEW ZEALAND .......................................................................................................... 88
13 BRAZIL ..................................................................................................................... 95
14 HONG KONG, CHINA ................................................................................................. 98
15 COLOMBIA.............................................................................................................. 103
16 ARGENTINA ............................................................................................................ 105
17 ECUADOR ............................................................................................................... 111
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY ECUADOR ....................................................................... 114
18 COSTA RICA ........................................................................................................... 116
19 MALAYSIA .............................................................................................................. 118
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY MALAYSIA ...................................................................... 119
20 GUATEMALA ........................................................................................................... 121
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY GUATEMALA ................................................................... 123
21 EL SALVADOR ......................................................................................................... 127
22 CHILE ..................................................................................................................... 128
23 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC........................................................................................... 132
24 SINGAPORE ............................................................................................................ 134
25 THAILAND .............................................................................................................. 138
26 JAPAN .................................................................................................................... 140
27 TURKEY .................................................................................................................. 142
28 KOREA, REP. OF...................................................................................................... 152
29 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES .................................................. 153
30 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BY CHINA ........................................................................ 158
31 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION .............................................. 161
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 3 -

1 CHINESE TAIPEI
PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/355)

3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.3 Measures Affecting Production And Trade
3.3.8 Trade-related intellectual property rights
3.3.8.7 Trademarks

Page 89 (Para 5)
3.194. The "Swissness legislation" also permits the registration of a previously recognized
geographical indication as a geographical trademark. This new IP title is introduced as an
additional instrument in order to further facilitate the protection and enforcement of GIs' rights
abroad under trademark law regimes. A geographical mark may be used by any person provided
that the requirements of the GI regulations are fulfilled, and the holder of a geographical mark
may prohibit others from using the mark in the course of trade for identical or comparable goods
where such use contravenes the regulations. However, the proprietor of a geographical mark
cannot oppose the registration of a later trademark that contains the geographical indication and is
applied on goods fulfilling the GI regulations. The geographical mark may not be transferred or
licensed.

Question(s)
1. In general, the range of the protection of a registered trademark is limited to the territory of the
country or the union where the trademark is registered. Accordingly, why is it that the
"geographical trademark" under the "Swissness legislation" is conducive to protection and
enforcement of GIs' rights abroad?

Answer by Switzerland
The principle of territoriality applies to geographical marks equally as to regular trademarks. The
possibility of protecting a GI through a geographical mark (clearly identifying the right holder, i.e.
a trade association which can use the IP title to take legal action) - and thus through the
trademark system - shall help facilitate protection and enforcement of a geographical indication in
jurisdictions in which GIs do not easily enjoy the same range of protection and recognition as
trademarks do.
2. According to Subparagraph c, Article 27a of Federal Act on the Protection of Trade Marks and
Indications of Source, it is possible for a foreign indication of source that is based on an
"equivalent foreign regulation" to register as a geographical mark. What are the factors concerning
the determination of whether the foreign regulation is "equivalent" or not?

Answer by Switzerland
In order to be recognized as equivalent to an ordinance taken by the Federal Council according to
Art. 50 TM Law, a foreign regulation must define in greater detail the requirements under which an
indication of source may be used for specific goods and services, taking into account the opinions
of local authorities, professional and trade associations as well as consumers organizations.
4.2 Mining and Energy
4.2.1.2.1 electricity
Page 110 (Para.4.57.)
As an interim measure, on 21 June 2013 the Parliament adopted a partial revision of the energy
law which entered into force on 1 January 2014 and increased the minimum amount of the "grid
surcharge" from 1.3 centimes per KWh to 1.5 centimes per KWh, while exempting large electric
consuming enterprises from it (i.e. the fee paid by the final consumer that covers the difference
between the production cost and the market price, and guarantees producers of electricity from
renewable sources - solar, wind, geothermal and bio-mass -) a price that corresponds to their
production costs. A partial revision of the Law on the Use of Hydro-Force (RS 721.90) in 2012 also
clarified that there is no obligation to tender for the award of concessions for electrical networks
and hydropower plants, but that transparent and non–discriminatory procedures must be followed.

Question
According to the interim measure, large electric consuming enterprises would be exempted from
the "grid surcharge," what is the benchmark of large electric consuming enterprises?
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 4 -

Answer by Switzerland
Les consommateurs finaux dont les coûts d'électricité représentent au moins 5% de la valeur
ajoutée brute (intensité électrique >= 5%) peuvent déposer auprès de l'OFEN une demande de
remboursement du supplément réseau. Les consommateurs finaux qui présentent une intensité
électrique égale ou supérieure à 5% obtiennent un remboursement partiel du supplément réseau,
ceux dont l'intensité électrique est égale ou supérieure à 10% obtiennent un remboursement
intégral. Si l'intensité électrique se situe entre 5 et 10%, le remboursement est défini de manière
linéaire. En cas d'intensité électrique de 5%, l'entreprise se voit rembourser 30% du supplément
réseau acquitté. Dans tous les cas, le remboursement ne peut être effectué qu'à partir d'un
montant minimum de 20 000 francs. De plus, l'entreprise doit s'être engagée par une convention
d'objectifs avec l'Office Fédéral de l'Énergie à accroître son efficacité énergétique et le rapport
élaboré dans le cadre de la convention d'objectifs visé à l'art. 3n OE ne doit satisfaire aux
exigences de la Confédération.

Also, how would the Hydropower industries comply with the transparent and non-discriminatory
procedures if these industries do not need to tender for the award of concessions for electrical
networks and hydropower plants?

Answer by Switzerland
The Law on the Use of Hydropower (RS 721.80) was changed due to the parliamentary initiative
10.480 "No unnecessary bureaucracy in the domain of the power grids". By the same initiative the
Federal Electricity Supply Act (RS 734.7) was changed. In effect the discussion was around the
question whether tenders should be mandatory or not. The Parliament came to the conclusion that
this would go too far and be linked to unnecessary bureaucracy. As a consequence and also in
analogy to legislation in neighbouring countries, it was prescribed that the procedure for the
attribution of a hydropower concession must be non-discriminatory and transparent.
In the domain of Hydropower the Confederation only has the competence for laws imposing
guidelines, as the Cantons have a great degree in sovereignty concerning the use of their
watercourses; they have no obligation to issue concessions and could also use the hydropower
themselves. In some Cantons the attribution of concessions is even in the hands of the
communities, which can also use the water right themselves. Therefore the disposition concerning
the procedures does not exclude auctions, and Cantons could even prescribe auctions in their own
Laws on the Use of Hydropower (most Cantons have such own laws). At the moment tenders are
rarely chosen for the attribution of hydropower concessions, nevertheless in Grisons it was already
used for the issuing of a new concession (case of Tinizong hydropower plant, which was
inaugurated last year).
A non-discriminatory and transparent procedure is assured in Switzerland. The application for a
new concession is published and the procedure provides the possibility for objection and complaint.
For new concessions it is the risk of the designing enterprise to make plans and submit them. If
there is a second or third enterprise, that is demanding a concession, according to the law on the
use of hydropower (Art. 41) it is the project of the enterprise that serves public welfare the best
(energy production, flexibility etc.), that gets the concession and if two projects bring the same
welfare, it is the criteria of economic efficiency that counts. For new concessions it is mainly the
future concessionaire, who is identifying a new emplacement for a hydropower plant and less
frequently the Canton who is offering a concession. This may also be a reason why auctions are
rarely used.
For the renewal of a new concession, there may be several applicants and the public welfare
criteria also applies here. The date of the end of all concessions over 300 kW is known as a figure
that is given yearly with the statistics of Swiss hydropower plants, see
http://www.bfe.admin.ch/geoinformation/05061/05249/index.html?lang=en&dossier_id=01049.
Therefore interested companies can prepare an own application.

4.2.1.2.1 Electricity
Page 110 (Para. 4.59.)
In addition, the feed-in tariffs will be replaced by feed-in premiums to entice producers to sell their
electricity when demand is high, giving them an incentive to sell electricity when it is in short
supply and thus fetches a higher price. This system is of limited duration, as it will only be granted
for up to five years after the coming into force of the new law.
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 5 -

Question
What is the current competitive condition between domestic and foreign enterprises of photovoltaic
market? Would the feed-in premiums mostly subsidize local producers? Are there any market
access restrictions for foreign photovoltaic investment?

Answer by Switzerland
Dans le cadre de la législation sur l'énergie, il n'existe pas de restrictions pour les investissements
dans des installations de production photovoltaïques en Suisse. Pour être éligibles à recevoir un
soutien, les installations doivent néanmoins se situer en Suisse, c'est-à-dire que des installations
situées à l'étranger n'ont pas droit à la rétribution à prix coûtant du courant injecté suisse.

4.2.1.2.5 Renewables
Page 114 (Para.4.82.)
Switzerland is well endowed with renewable energy resources. The government estimates that
hydropower production could feasibly increase by about 8% (3.2 TWh); while a lower estimate of
2 TWh has been suggested by groups concerned about public acceptance. Various studies rate
photovoltaic (PV) technical potential at 6 to 17 TWh. Wind resource potential is relatively low
(4 TWh) and public acceptance is a concern. Biomass estimates according to the Energy Strategy
2050 are 4.7 TWh (1.9 TWh from biogas (agricultural residues and sewage sludge), 1.1 TWh from
wood, and 1.7 TWh from municipal waste). Geothermal potential for electricity generation is
estimated to be about 4 TWh.

Question
Notwithstanding the Energy Strategy 2050 contains various renewable energies developmental
strategies, such as photovoltaic, biomass, and wind power, would the electricity generated from
these energies be capable of replacing nuclear power by 2050 since the nuclear plants represent
33% of the total electrical production?

Answer by Switzerland
D'après la stratégie énergétique 2050, la sortie de l'énergie nucléaire se fera par étapes, de façon
à donner à la Suisse le temps nécessaire pour transformer son système énergétique. Après la
catastrophe de Fukushima en 2011, le Conseil fédéral et le Parlement ont pris la décision de
principe de sortir progressivement de l'énergie nucléaire. La stratégie énergétique 2050 prévoit
l'interdiction de construire de nouvelles centrales. Les centrales existantes ne seront ainsi pas
remplacées après leur mise hors service, car aucune nouvelle autorisation générale ne sera
accordée. La Suisse est en mesure de couvrir ses futurs besoins en électricité sans centrales
nucléaires. Les perspectives énergétiques 2050 de la Suisse précisent le potentiel des énergies
renouvelables et contiennent diverses variantes d'offre d'électricité jusqu'en 2050. Elles illustrent
et détaillent les possibilités de la Suisse de couvrir ses besoins en électricité. Afin de garantir la
sécurité de son approvisionnement, le Conseil fédéral et le Parlement misent sur l'efficacité
énergétique et le renforcement des énergies renouvelables (force hydraulique et nouvelles
énergies renouvelables telles que l'énergie solaire et l'énergie éolienne, la géothermie, la
biomasse). La production indigène d'électricité issue d'énergies renouvelables doit être
progressivement augmentée. La production d'électricité fossile thermique (centrales à gaz et à
cycle combiné (CCC) et les installations de couplage chaleur-force (CCF)) permettront de combler
le déficit restant de l'offre (variante C & E des Perspectives énergétiques 2050). Selon le
développement de l'offre d'électricité sur le marché européen, particulièrement en ce qui concerne
les énergies renouvelables, les importations d'électricité constituent une option complémentaire.

Le graphique suivant met bien en évidence la croissance à long terme des énergies renouvelables
jusqu'en 2050.
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 6 -

Chart 1.1 Offre d'électricité, variante C&E, scénario "mesures politiques du Conseil
fédéral" (PCF)
(Année hydrologique en TWh)

Source: Message relatif au premier paquet de mesures de la Stratégie énergétique 2050, Graphique 8,
p6861. Viewed at: https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/federal-gazette/2013/6771.pdf. Pour plus de
détails: http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00527/06431/index.html?lang=fr.

4.2.1.3 Liechtenstein
4.2.1.3.1 Electricity
Page114 (Para.4.85.)
As of 2005, independent power producers (IPPs) may sell electricity to any customer. The first
IPPs started to enter the market in 2011. There are a number of small-scale hydro-electric power
producers besides LKW and the contribution of independent solar power producers has been
increasing. According to the Government's Energy Strategy 2020, adopted in 2012, the objective
is to increase the share of renewable energies from 8.2% in 2008 to 20% by 2020, through
subsidies for improved insulation, sun-collectors, and tighter energy standards in construction.
Liechtenstein has implemented a new 5-year feed-in tariff scheme, which ends in February 2020.

Question
What kind of enterprises, either local or foreign industries, are the subsidized targets in
Liechtenstein's FIT programme? What are the distributions between local and foreign enterprises in
both hydro and solar power industries? Also, are there regulations regarding the local content
requirements in solar power energy development? In addition, would there be any market access
restrictions for foreign investors in solar power?

Answer by Liechtenstein
The Liechtenstein support scheme does not foresee any restrictions regarding enterprises or
products as long as the normative requirements are fulfilled. There are no statistical data available
regarding the distribution foreign/local enterprises in the hydro- or solar sector. Most providers are
however local enterprises that usually buy the products internationally.

There are requirements regarding health and safety at work and salaries which are based on the
applicable legislation. The solar installations need to be installed in Liechtenstein. No market
access restrictions regarding foreign investors are foreseen.
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 7 -

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY CHINESE TAIPEI
PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/355)

2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME
2.4 Investment Regime
2.4.1 Switzerland

Page 41 (Para 1)
2.60. Overall, the World Bank's 2016 Doing Business Report ranks Switzerland 26th worldwide, a
rank unchanged as compared to 2015 Regarding the subcomponents of this index, Switzerland
ranks 5th for getting electricity, 16th for registering property, 19th for paying taxes, 40th for trading
across borders, 44th for resolving insolvency, 46th for enforcing contracts, 56th for dealing with
construction permits, 69th for starting a business and 105th for protecting minority investors.

Question
Does Switzerland have any specific plan for improving the environment of doing business,
particularly in the areas of trading across borders, resolving insolvency, dealing with construction
permits, starting a business and protecting minority investors?

Answer by Switzerland
The Swiss government is constantly making efforts to improve the framework conditions for
businesses. Every four years the report "Administrative Entlastung" (reduction of administrative
burden) is adopted, containing a package of measures to reduce administrative cost for
businesses.

For instance, the legislation on companies is currently being reformed to provide more flexibility in
company foundation and to relax the capital requirements. Further, the government is expanding
online services (e-government) and is working on creating a "one-stop-shop" which allows the
businesses to operate all contacts with authorities through one single online desk.
Regarding trade, the promotion of openness to trade and ensuring market access by bilateral as
well as pluri- and multilateral agreements is key to the Swiss economic policy. Furthermore,
Switzerland is currently assessing the economic potential of easing import restrictions
autonomously.

PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/355)

3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
Competition policy and price controls
Page 74 (Para 7)
3.135. The Synthesis Report also observed that, due to certain deficiencies in the Swiss measures
to effectively enhance competition, mergers that may have a strong negative effect on competition
might be approved.

Question
We note that the Swiss retail market features 2 major retailers, Migros and Coop, which together
take up about 75% of market share. Could Switzerland please advise if there is any measure to
increase competition of retail market and to assist with the development of SMEs and their
participation in the supply chain?

Answer by Switzerland
In 2007, Comco approved the acquisition of Denner by the market leader Migros only subject to
conditions. The same holds for the acquisition of 12 Carrefour-outlets by Coop, the number two in
the Swiss grocery market, in 2008. While most of the conditions imposed by the merger control in
the meantime no longer apply, Migros and Coop committed themselves for an unlimited time not
to enter into exclusive distribution agreements with their suppliers. The aim of this condition was –
in the downstream grocery market - to facilitate the access to procurement markets for (new)
competitors and in this sense to eliminate artificial barriers to entry. In the upstream markets, the
condition aimed to increase the substitutability between distribution channels and therefore
between grocery retailers as well as to facilitate the development of new distribution channels for
suppliers, amongst others SME. For this latter reason, Coop was moreover obliged for an unlimited
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 8 -

time to make its process for the introduction of new products and for the delisting of products
publicly accessible.
In response to different mandates, Switzerland is currently assessing the potential of revising the
Swiss merger control. However, no specific measures are planned in order to increase the
competition of the retail market.
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 9 -

2 UNITED STATES
PART I: QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/355)

SUMMARY
Page 10, Paragraph 17: The Secretariat says that Switzerland is considering further autonomous
trade liberalizing measures to further open up the economy to imports. Beyond the suspension of
MFN tariff rates for textiles, what sectors or goods is Switzerland considering for similar action and
what is the expected timeline for future implementation of these actions? Will this include
agricultural products in particular?

Answer by Switzerland
Given high prices in Switzerland and the possible links to trade barriers, the Federal Council
decided in 2016 to commission a series of reports on the economic potential of the unilateral
easing of import restrictions. The reports are currently in the production phase and it is expected
that they will be published in the latter part of 2017.

Page 10, Paragraph 18: Regarding SPS and TBT measures, the Secretariat Report notes that
Switzerland is harmonizing its standards with that of the EU. The Secretariat Report further notes
that no specific trade concerns (STCs) have been raised in the SPS or TBT Committees regarding
measures maintained by Switzerland or Liechtenstein. Several STCs have been raised to the WTO
in the SPS or TBT Committees regarding EU measures. If Switzerland and Liechtenstein had
adopted the EU measures that were raised to the WTO, would Switzerland and Liechtenstein
consider that those STCs had been raised regarding Switzerland and Liechtenstein measures?

Answer by Switzerland
In the area of SPS and TBT, the EU and Switzerland benefit of a uniquely intense contractual
relationship and the technical requirements are widely harmonized with those of the EU in order to
reduce unnecessary barriers to trade. As a consequence, Switzerland continues to follow closely
the developments in the WTO and the STCs being raised regarding EU measures in areas where
the technical requirements are widely harmonized.

Page 10, Paragraph 18: The Secretariat report notes that: "The new [Swiss] food safety regime
entering into force on 1 May 2017 will … bring about a paradigm shift in the Swiss approach to
food safety." Will this new set of food safety measures be notified to the WTO SPS Committee?

Answer by Switzerland
Switzerland notifies its draft regulations in accordance with the WTO Agreements, when they may
have a significant effect on trade and when they are not in accordance with relevant international
standards. In line with the decisions and recommendations of the WTO Committees Switzerland
acknowledges the importance of the notification requirements to achieve a greater degree of
clarity, predictability and information about trade policies, rules and regulations, of submitting
those notifications at an early stage to ensure time and adequate opportunity for comments, and
of establishing mechanisms to facilitate internal coordination for the effective implementation of
the notifications obligations. Even though Switzerland is widely harmonized with the EU in this
area, the new food safety regime which only partly deals with SPS measures was notified to the
WTO TBT Committee in 2015. In addition, as recommended by the WTO Committees, Switzerland
will notify the final measures of the new food safety regime to the SPS and TBT Committee.

Page 10, Paragraph 20: We would appreciate updates regarding the new "Swissness" legislation
that came into force on January 1, 2017. This legislation appears to create new requirements
regarding the identification of country of origin for food and industrial products and also appears to
impact requirements regarding labeling of foods. Does Switzerland intend to notify this legislation
to the WTO?

Answer by Switzerland
The purpose of the Swissness rules is the protection of consumers against deceptive and false
indications of source on goods and services. The use of Swiss indications of source (such as the
Swiss cross or the word "Swiss") on products and services is optional. No authorization procedure
applies. In that respect, the Swissness rules are different from labelling regimes governed by e.g.
food law or customs law and have no impact on the latter.
WT/TPR/M/355/Add.1

- 10 -

The Swissness legislation was notified to the WTO on 24 February 2017 as part of a broader
notification up-date by Switzerland, including changes of relevant laws since its last notification.
https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S008.aspx?NotifyingCountryList="Switzerland
"&CrnSubjectList=&IssuingDateFrom=01%2f01%2f2017&IssuingDateTo=31%2f12%2f2017&FullT
ext=&IsFullTextFull=False&FullTextHash=371857150&SymbolList=&MeasureList=&AffectedCountr
yList=&ReceptionDateListFrom=&ReceptionDateListTo=&HSClassificationList=&ServicesClassificati
onList=&EnvironmentClassificationList=&ICSClassificationList=&ICSClassificationDescList:Environm
entClassificationDescList:ServicesClassificationDescList:HSClassificationDescList=&Language=ENG
LISH&SourcePage=FE_S_S003&SearchPage=FE_S_S003&ShortNameMatchList=&languageUIChan
ged=true#<https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S008.aspx?NotifyingCountryList=
%22Switzerland%22&CrnSubjectList=&IssuingDateFrom=01%2f01%2f2017&IssuingDateTo=31%
2f12%2f2017&FullText=&IsFullTextFull=False&FullTextHash=371857150&SymbolList=&MeasureLi
st=&AffectedCountryList=&ReceptionDateListFrom=&ReceptionDateListTo=&HSClassificationList=&
ServicesClassificationList=&EnvironmentClassificationList=&ICSClassificationList=&ICSClassificatio
nDescList:EnvironmentClassificationDescList:ServicesClassificationDescList:HSClassificationDescLis
t=&Language=ENGLISH&SourcePage=FE_S_S003&SearchPage=FE_S_S003&ShortNameMatchList
=&languageUIChanged=true>

3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports
3.1.1 Customs Procedures and Requirements
Page 43, Paragraph 3.7: Can Switzerland and Liechtenstein elaborate on plans to expand the
Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) agreement beyond the EU?

Answer by Switzerland
Switzerland aims to conclude mutual recognition agreements regarding the Authorized Economic
Operator (AEO) with its most important trading partners. Besides the EU, a mutual recognition of
AEO schemes has been agreed upon with Norway in 2016 and will enter into force later this year.
It is currently applied on a provisional basis. An agreement regarding mutual AEO recognition with
China has been signed earlier this year and will enter into force once both sides complete their
ratification procedures. Given the large volume of trade between Switzerland and the United
States., Switzerland sees a benefit in a mutual recognition of the Swiss AEO scheme and the U.S.
C-TPAT.

Link to the press release for the customs agreement with Norway: https://www.ezv.admin.ch/
ezv/en/home/news/news/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-61736.html.

3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports
3.2.5 Export Finance, Insurance, Guarantees
Pages 60-61, Paragraph 3.68-3.72: According to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export
Competition (WT/MIN(15)/45), dated 21 December 2015, developed countries are required to
report information to the Committee on Agriculture (COA) on the use of export credits for the
export of agricultural products as described in the Annex. Switzerland submitted very little
information to the WTO/Committee on Agriculture Export Competition survey last year (COA
Survey - G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.2, dated 11 May 2016).

Switzerland responded to question #3 of the COA Survey that the total value of export of
agricultural products was "Negligible owing to very low demand." The United States interprets the
term "negligible" to mean that Switzerland is providing export financing support for agricultural
products that is subject to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, including the reporting outlined in the
Annex. Would Switzerland please provide the total value of exports of agricultural products
covered by the Swiss Export Risk Insurance (SERV) by programme – including programs such as
the supplier credit insurance, pre-shipment, contract bond, counter guarantee, confiscation risk,
multi-buyer and buyer credit services (as listed in Table 3.13 of the Secretariat report)?

Answer by Switzerland
The total value of agricultural exports covered by SERV in 2016 (exposure) was SwF 12.57 Mio
which is 0.40% of total new exposures (agricultural and non-agricultural exports) during 2016,
hence the term "negligible" in Switzerland's reporting. For details by "programme"
(insurance/guarantee product) please see the following table.