Western Sahara not part of EFTA-Morocco free trade agreement

The Moroccan-EFTA free trade agreement does not cover Western Sahara, according to Norwegian and Swiss authorities. This will have multi-million euro consequences for a firm that systematically mislabeled Western Sahara imports as Moroccan, and illustrates how the European Commission is on collision course with rest of the international community.
Published: 12.05 - 2010 17:26Printer version    
“Since Morocco does not exercise internationally recognised sovereignty over Western Sahara, Western Sahara is not seen as a part of Morocco’s territory in relation to this agreement. The Free Trade Agreement is thus not applicable to goods from Western Sahara”, stated Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jonas Gahr Støre in Norwegian Parliament yesterday regarding the Free Trade Agreement between EFTA and Morocco.

The clarification from the Minster follows an import scandal that has been unrolled in Norwegian media over the last weeks, involving the president of the Norwegian business association, millions of euros in tax evasions, ministers and refugees. As a result of the affair, it has become clear that the practice of EFTA is in stark contrast to the policy fronted by the European Commission on trade with goods from occupied Western Sahara.

Million euro excise evasion
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1997 signed an association agreement with Morocco. Exports from Morocco to the four EFTA states was thus made far easier, but created a loophole, giving importers a chance to export products from occupied Western Sahara free of duty if mislabeling the imports as ‘Moroccan’.

And this is exactly what happened in Norway. A leading importing firm secretly purchased fish oil from Western Sahara for use for aquaculture industry for a decade.

The Norwegian fish oil importer, GC Rieber, by mislabeling 12-20.000 tonnes of Western Saharan fish oil annually as ‘Moroccan’, failed to pay customs to Norwegian authorities for perhaps as much as 50 million euros.

The reason for the tax difference, is that Norway does not recognise the Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara. Both Norway and Switzerland, the 2 biggest EFTA states, have stated that the EFTA free trade agreement with Morocco does not apply to products originating from Western Sahara.

President resigned
The affair in Norway did not get less controversial considering that the importer was owned by the President of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise, and that its customer in Norway has been chaired by the current Minister of Finance.

During the last few weeks, the president of the Confederation has resigned over the affair, his company is under investigation by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance, while the Minister of Finance himself, Mr. Sigbjørn Johnsen, recently was replaced by a another member of government for matters in which his impartiality might be questioned relating to this specific case. In an answer to the Conservative Party of Norway, the Minister of Finance last week stated in parliament that he did not know about the imports during the years he chaired the company.  The commerce has taken place in disregard of the policy of the Norwegian government. The Norwegian government asks Norwegian firms to not get involved in business in the territory, and got involved to stop the imports from Western Sahara to Norway. The imports to Norway of fish oil from the occupied territory, amounting to up to 17 million euros/year terminated in April.

By clearly excluding Western Sahara territory from the application of the Free Trade Agreement, Norway applies the same interpretation as the other major EFTA country, Switzerland.

”Since Switzerland does not recognise the Moroccan annexation, the free trade agreement between EFTA and Morocco is not applicable for Western Sahara”, stated Martin Zbinden, Head of Free Trade Agreement at the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs in 2007, when the Swiss Western Sahara committee, ARSO, investigated Swiss tomato imports.

The EFTA, "the EU light”, consists of four European countries; Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The association works parallel to the EU, but still closely connected to its bigger brother. EFTA was originally established in 1960 on a UK initiative.

By excluding Western Sahara, EFTA is thus is much more clearly following the UN than the EU.

“EU should look to US and EFTA”
No states in the world recognise the Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara. The EU, however, is divided over the issue of trade with the territory. Although the UN and European Parliament lawyers states that economic activity in Western Sahara is in violation of international law, the European Commission supports economic affairs in the territory through a deliberate misinterpretation of a UN advice from 2002.

This policy is mainly due to pressure from a small number of EU states with large economic investments in the occupied territory, and with close ties to Morocco.

“The EU pays the Moroccan government for fishing in waters that do not belong to Morocco. It is a unique situation in EU fisheries, implying a systematic misuse of EU taxpayer’s money. The Spanish fishing fleet is in practice subsidised by the richer EU states for violating international law in the territory”, stated Sara Eyckmans, coordinator of Western Sahara Resource Watch.

“The EU should look to EFTA and the USA, which both exclude Western Sahara from its free trade cooperation”, stated Eyckmans.

The EU supports its fisheries in occupied Western Sahara by referring to a UN statement from 2002. The Commission has repeatedly misquoted the UN statement, causing the author of the 2002 opinion himself, the former UN undersecretary general for legal affairs, to say he is “embarrassed to be European”. Read about the former UN legal counsel’s anger at the European Commission here.

Some EU states oppose the Commission’s opinion, believing that EU cooperation with Morocco should not extend to Western Sahara, a territory which the UN still works to decolonise.



17.06 - 2019 / 27.08 - 2010Support Western Sahara Resource Watch
21.05 - 2019 / 16.04 - 2019Atlas Copco claims Morocco's phosphate plunder is legal
17.05 - 2019 / 06.05 - 2019EU elections: how have candidates voted on occupied Western Sahara?
10.05 - 2019 / 10.05 - 2019'We deserve an answer' from HeidelbergCement
02.05 - 2019 / 30.04 - 2019Has another cargo of fishmeal from Western Sahara arrived in Germany?
01.05 - 2019 / 30.04 - 2019Continental dodges question on Western Sahara
01.05 - 2019 / 17.04 - 2019Greek-Dutch construction group sets up shop in El Aaiun
30.04 - 2019 / 30.04 - 2019Polisario tries EU Council over new EU-Morocco agricultural deal
08.04 - 2019 / 04.04 - 2019New report on Western Sahara phosphate industry out now
21.03 - 2019 / 15.03 - 2019Continental controversial contract in Western Sahara expires next year
28.02 - 2019 / 25.02 - 2019These are the MEPs who voted for the Western Sahara fish deal
25.02 - 2019 / 24.02 - 2019Bremen sheds light on massive controversial fishmeal import
12.02 - 2019 / 12.02 - 2019European Parliament disregards Court and adopts Morocco fish deal
11.02 - 2019 / 11.02 - 2019Human Rights Watch calls for Court referral of EU-Morocco fish deal
07.02 - 2019 / 07.02 - 2019110 MEPs want EU-Morocco fish deal referred to Court
06.02 - 2019 / 06.02 - 2019Will European Parliament back deal with world's most unfree territory?
06.02 - 2019 / 06.02 - 201998 Saharawi groups call on European Parliament to reject fish deal
04.02 - 2019 / 04.02 - 2019The runaway Green Reefers ship arrived Abidjan
31.01 - 2019 / 22.01 - 2019Spanish farmers concerned about EU deal for occupied Western Sahara
30.01 - 2019 / 24.01 - 2019EU Council refuses transparency on legal opinion on fish deal


Morocco occupies the major part of its neighbouring country, Western Sahara. Entering into business deals with Moroccan companies or authorities in the occupied territories gives an impression of political legitimacy to the occupation. It also gives job opportunities to Moroccan settlers and income to the Moroccan government. Western Sahara Resource Watch demands foreign companies leave Western Sahara until a solution to the conflict is found.
EU Court cases on Western Sahara for dummies


It's not easy keeping up with all the different legal proceedings relating to Western Sahara. For the sake of clarity, here's an overview of the five different cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Stand up for the Gdeim Izik 25!


Leading activists from Western Sahara are condemned to sentences ranging from 20 years to life imprisonment in connection to a mass protest in 2010 denouncing the Saharawi people’s social and economic marginalization in their occupied land; the Gdeim Izik protest camp.
Support Western Sahara Resource Watch


Help us to protect the natural resources of Western Sahara for the Saharawi people. Support our work by making a donation.
Report: Moroccan green energy used for plunder


At COP22, beware of what you read about Morocco’s renewable energy efforts. An increasing part of the projects take place in the occupied territory of Western Sahara and is used for mineral plunder, new WSRW report documents.

WSRW.org News Archive 2019
WSRW.org News Archive 2018
WSRW.org News Archive 2017
WSRW.org News Archive 2016
WSRW.org News Archive 2015
WSRW.org News Archive 2014
WSRW.org News Archive 2013
WSRW.org News Archive 2012
WSRW.org News Archive 2011
WSRW.org News Archive 2010
WSRW.org News Archive 2009
WSRW.org News Archive 2008
WSRW.org News Archive 2007
WSRW.org News Archive 2004-2006

Register for our English newsletter:

These web pages have been built with the financial support of the trade union Industry Energy