RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG/M/26
27 July 2000
(00-3094)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
NOTE ON THE MEETINGS OF 6-7 JULY 2000
Chairman: Mr. E. T. Custodio (Philippines)
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The twenty-sixth Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) was
convened in Airgram WT O/AIR/1339, dated 26 June 2000.
2. The following Agenda was adopted:
A. Adoption of the Agenda
B. Procedures to Facilitate and Improve the Examination ProcessC. Systemic Implications of Regional Trad e Agreements for the Multilateral Trading
System and Relationship between Them
D. Examination of Regional Trade Agreements
I. Free Trade Agreement between Israel and Poland
II. Free Trade Agreement between Israel and SloveniaIII. Free Trade Agreement between Croatia and Slovenia
IV. Free Trade Agreement between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
and Slovenia
V. Euro-Mediterranean Agreement be tween the European Communities and
Tunisia
VI. Free Trade Agreement between EFTA and Morocco
VII. Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and BulgariaVIII. Free Trade Agreement between Bulgaria and the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
IX. Agreements between the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia and the
Republic of Lithuania
X. Free Trade Agreement between Poland and Latvia
E. Reporting on the Operation of Agreements
F. Other Business
3. The representative of Australia noted the relatively short notice given for the meeting's
agenda, which was circulated on 26 June 2000.  His understanding was that the previously agreed
WTO practice was to give a minimum of three weeks notice for the examination of regional trade
agreements (RTAs) to enable consideration in cap itals, and he requested the Committee to return to
that practice in future meetings.  The representative of the United States supported the request made
by Australia.  He noted that beside the fact that the agenda was issued rather late, it included anextreme amount of documentation which made the preparation for the meeting even more difficult.  Ittook two full days for his capital to review all th e documentation and he strongly urged the Secretariat
to put the documents out in a more timely basis.  The representative of Canada supported the previous
speakers and noted that although some of the agreements were under consideration for the second orthird time, other items were being considered for the first time, particularly the biennial reports.WT/REG/M/26
Page 2
That had involved tremendous preparatory work.  The representative of Japan supported the request
that the agenda be circulated at an earlier time.
4. The Chairman sought confirmation on the ad hoc observership granted to the Latin American
Integration Association (LAIA), and the Committee agreed that the LAIA would retain its status
during the next session.
5. The Chairman informed the Committee that Ambassador Silvia Ávila Seifert (Bolivia),
Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, would be soon leaving Geneva.  He thanked her for her
dedicated work and looked forward to workin g with a new Vice-Chairperson of the Committee.
6. The Committee took note of the comments made.
B. PROCEDURES TO FACILITATE AND IMPROVE THE EXAMINATION PROCESS
7. The Chairman recalled that informal consultations on this point had been initiated early that
year and had continued since then.  The intention was to facilitate the examination process and assist
the Committee in fulfilling its mandate.  An informal meeting had been held on 30 June, during which
progress had been registered on the text of Chairman's Guidelines containing some illustrative
suggested paragraphs for structuring examination reports.  A revised version of the text, incorporating
informal comments made by delegations at that meeting, had just been distributed by fax.
8. The Chairman also noted that during that same meeting, delegations had also considered
revised draft reports on the examination of four  agreements, namely ANZCERTA-Services, CEFTA,
EC-Hungary  and EFTA-Hungary.  The intention in considering those revised draft reports was to see
in concrete terms how the Chairman's Guidelines might be taken into consideration on the format of
the examination reports.  During those consultations, delegations had also expressed a number ofuseful general comments on the draft reports, and it had been requested that specific comments be
made in writing to the Secretariat by 24 July 2000 at the latest, so that informal consultations could be
pursued on the draft reports soon after the Summer break.  If that informal process came into a
successful conclusion, the Committee could, in pursuance of item 1(a) of its terms of reference,
present  reports on the examination of RTAs to e ither the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) or the
Council for Trade in Services, for adoption.  He hoped that after the Summer break the Committee
could have agreed on a few reports and that this could break the deadlock the Committee was facing
since 1998.
9. Delegations expressed appreciation for the Chairman's efforts to advance the examination
process of the various agreements under consideration.
10. The representative of the United States stated that his delegation supported improvements to
the process being undertaken.  In particular, his delegation favoured the establishment of a reasonable
schedule for the examination of each RTA, including a process where parties to an agreement
submitted the full text of the agreement, as well as basic information in the form of the Standard
Format and sufficient trade data as to enable delegations to evaluate its scope and coverage.  That
process should also provide an opportunity for delegations to submit written questions and receive
written answers and allow for worth discussions on the agreement.  Records of those discussions,which should be an integral part of the review, should be kept.  A practical structure should exist for
developing and concluding reports under review.  Pa rt C, which was the factual part of the review,
was the appropriate place where the positives and negatives of the agreement under examination
should be reflected, based on delegations comments made during the review process.  While the
Committee was discussing generic conclusions for the reports, that approach would place agreementsof varying quality on the same level and that was not acceptable.  The Committee needed to find aWT/REG/M/26
Page 3
way to achieve credible reports while bringing out the differences in legal and factual interpretation.
His delegation was not willing to agree on reports that did not accurately reflect the quality of the
agreements under review.  His delegation also believed that reports needed to incorporate the results
of informal negotiations among delegations for them to be concluded.  Experience had shown that
those agreements far along in the process were those on which their parties had worked with otherdelegations on appropriate language.
11. The representative of New Zealand noted that it was important that all the agreements under
examination be dealt with on their respective individual merits, which meant that for each agreement,
Section C of the examination report had to provide an accurate reflection of the discussion and the
exchange of views on the agreement and the conclusions had to have some direct link back to
Section C.  In continuing the work on the reports,  it was important that the Committee did not simply
adopt identical language for each report, but that it made sure that any language adopted was actuallyconsistent with the tone of the discussion reflected in Part C of the draft report.
12. The representative of Australia noted that while his delegation supported the initiative to
change the format for examination reports to addres s the backlog of examinations, it was important at
the same time to ensure that those changes did not undermine the viability of the examination process.
In that light, his delegation fully supported the comments made by the delegations of the United Statesand New Zealand.
13. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that it was his understanding that delegations
would still have opportunity to request that modifications be made on the Chairman's Guidelines.  She
reiterated her delegation's position according to which individual agreements had to be examined on
their own merits and examination reports had to duly reflect that, and noted that it was unnecessary toagree on any standard language to be applied in an indiscriminatory manner on individual agreements.
14. The representative of the European Communities said his delegation was not satisfied with
the enormous backlog in the examination of agreements.  His delegation was not so much concerned
with the individual aspects of the draft chairman's Guidelines, as he thought the paper gave the
necessary flexibility which some delegations had called for.  If the Guidelines were used as a basis, tobe adapted according to the individual needs, that wo uld help to streamline the process.  For that new
approach to be worth, it had to be applied on its entirety, on a trial basis, in future examinations of
individual agreements.
15. The representative of Brazil, speaking on be half of MERCOSUR, stated that the revised
Chairman's Guidelines went in the right direction.  The paper was being examined in the capitals and
comments, if any, would be sent within the set deadline.
16. The Chairman thanked delegations for their support and indicated that work would proceed
with the four agreements distributed in accordance with the process earlier described.  He hoped that
the Committee could finalize some reports and transmit them to the relevant bodies.
17. The Committee took note of the comments made.
C. SYSTEMIC IMPLICATIONS OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MULTILATERAL
TRADING SYSTEM AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM
18. The Chairman called the Committee's attention to the updated version of the informal
document entitled "Regional Trade Agreements Notified to the GATT/WTO – Basic Information",
listing agreements notified and in force in June 2000, which was available in the room.  He noted that
124 such agreements were currently listed and the number was to increase, as indicated by pressWT/REG/M/26
Page 4
reports on the many agreements concluded by WTO Members in the past year.  That fact put the
CRTA into a very important position, and he thought that it was a matter for reflection.
19. The Chairman also introduced document WT/R EG/W/38, which provided an approach for
further tackling systemic issues in the Committee.  He stressed that the document was circulated
under his sole responsibility, even if his consultations had showed a great degree of support for theapproach it set.  The suggestions received from different delegations had allowed him to request the
Secretariat to start preparing a first horizontal background paper on the internal trade liberalization in
RTAs, which, as indicated in the Annex to that document, included coverage and exceptions, rules of
origin regime and denial-of-benefits rules, as well as liberalization process and transitional provisions.
As indicated in his fax to delegations dated 14 June, the study should be available during the Summer.
20. Delegations thanked the Chairman for his Guid elines and the Secretariat for the informal
paper on Basic Information.
21. The representative of the United States asked th at the "Basic Information" document, as other
informal documents prepared on systemic issues, be circulated in the REG/W/ series.  As regards
document WT/REG/W/38, his delegation thought it was well designed and he would like to request
the addition of structural adjustment as another item for survey under Section 3 on "Other provisions",
since that issue had came up in more than one examination.  It might also be useful to have a separatepaper on agricultural issues, which had always attracted a lot of attention in the Committee and where,
in particular, Members had had difficulties grappling with the large number of protocols and annexes.
He also recalled his delegation's concern that a large number of RTAs had not yet been notified to the
WTO, and suggested that the Secretariat could prepare a study identifying those RTAs, so that
Members could have a better handle of where the Committee stand with respect to its work.
22. The representative of Australia noted that the Chairman's Guidelines were well set out and
structured, and welcomed the Chairman's initiative in having the Secretariat preparing a first
horizontal background paper on internal trade liberalization in RTAs.
23. The representative of the European Communities noted that, as the Guidelines were circulated
under the Chairman's responsibility, it might not be appropriate for delegations to suggest
amendments.  Reacting on the suggestion for having a separate paper on agricultural issues, he
thought that was not necessary as the item on "coverage and exceptions" would address those issues
and there was not a systemic difference between agriculture and any other sector.  The question of the
non-notified agreements raised by the United States delegate was also of interest to his delegation.
24. The representative of Hong Kong, China st ated that she was looking forward to the
circulation and discussion of the paper on internal trade liberalization.
25. The representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of the EFTA countries, supported the
statement made by the representative of the European Communities that it was unnecessary to have a
separate paper on agriculture.
26. Reacting to the suggestion that a study be made on non-notified agreements, the
representative of India stated that the Committee had to stick to its mandate which provided for the
examination of RTAs referred to it by other relevant bodies.
27. The representative of Canada supported the suggestion of having a separate paper on
agriculture, given that it was an area to which the Committee had given significant attention.  Often
the notifications and Standard Formats contained sections on agriculture and it was clear that in the
negotiations of free trade agreements, the parties themselves treated agricultural and industrial
products in a very different manner.  In some cases, including some agreements that the CommitteeWT/REG/M/26
Page 5
would be examining at that Session, a separate specific agreement existed for agricultural products
only.  Those studies were to be seen as contributing to transparency.  Their objective would not be to
give a seal of approval to one agreement versus another but rather present facts;  this could help
Members that did not have the staff and facilities to look at those questions in a detailed manner.
28. The representative of New Zealand supported the suggestion by the United States that
agriculture be dealt with in a separate manner, and that for the reasons advanced by Canada.  While
his delegation had no problem with it being dealt with under the item on "coverage and exceptions",
there had to be a clear understanding that it would be a particular focus of that item because it was
common that RTAs had quite different regimes for ag ricultural and industrial products.  It would be
useful to have an overall picture of how RTAs were shaping up in that regard.  As for the illustrative
list, he suggested that some flexibility be maintain ed with respect to Section 3 on "Other provisions"
so as to add a further miscellaneous section dealing with any other issue covered in the agreements.  It
seemed to his delegations that a number of RTAs had provisions on cooperation and strengthening of
ties in new areas, and it would be useful to have such a section so that the Secretariat could point to
other areas covered by those agreements.
29. The representative of Brazil, speaking on be half of MERCOSUR, supported the proposal that
agriculture be dealt in isolation rather than under the item on "coverage and exceptions".
30. Referring to the proposal to circulate the basic information paper as an official document, the
Representative of the Secretariat indicated that the Secretariat would proceed accordingly.1  A s
regards the network of RTAs that existed, the Secretariat was updating the previously distributed"Mapping paper", which covered the whole gamut of trade agreements entered into by WTO
Members, and intended to have it available for the consideration of the Members after the Summerbreak.  Once it was distributed, delegations could see where to go from there and decide on whether
the paper should or not be distributed as an official WTO document.  Regarding the question of
whether or not a separate paper should be prepared on agriculture, the Secretariat had taken note of
Members' divergent views.  He indicated that th e first study would deal with "coverage", which
included industrial products, agricultural products and services.  Once that was circulated, delegationscould reflect on how to continue from there on.
31. The representative of India requested a reaction to his earlier statement that the Committee
should stick to its mandate of examining RTAs referred to it.  The Representative of the Secretariat
indicated that the documents would be initially circulated informally, and he recalled that the previous
mapping paper covered the full range of RTAs in existence entered into by WTO Members.  He
hoped that such an approach would be acceptable to the delegation of India as a step forward in
transparency of RTAs and without prejudice to the status of notifications.
32. The Chairman thanked delegations for their cooperation and the comments made.
33. The Committee took note of the comments made.
D. EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
(The minutes of the examination of Agreements listed under agenda items D.I-X are being
distributed as separate documents.)
                                                     
1 The document is being circulated as WT/REG/W/39.WT/REG/M/26
Page 6
E. REPORTING ON THE OPERATION OF AGREEMENTS
34. The Chairman read out paragraph 11 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of
Article XXIV of the GATT 1994, which stated that "[c]ustoms unions and constituents of free-trade
areas shall report periodically to the CTG, as envisaged by the CONTRACTING PARTIES to
GATT 1947 in their instruction to the GATT 1947 Council concerning reports on regional agreements(BISD 18S/38), on the operation of the relevant agreement.  Any significant changes and/or
developments in the agreements should be reported as they occur."  He noted that the CRTA had
adopted, on 20 February 1998, recommendations to the Council for Trade in Goods, contained in
document WT/REG/4, which in turn had been approved by the CTG at its meeting of
30 November 1998 (document G/L/286).  Following that, the schedule for the submission of biennial
reports on  RTAs for the year 1999 had been circulated in document WT/REG/W/33.
35. The Chairman added that the Committee had on its agenda the consideration of 20 such
reports, received up to the end of 1999.  He noted that for the first time the Committee was grappled
with the problem of how to deal with those reports in a practical manner, while attaining the
objectives contained in paragraph 11.  While the Committee had no clear procedure on how to address
that, the CTG decision mentioned the objectives of enhancing transparency and contributing to the
work under systemic issues.  He did not want to prejudge how the Committee would address thatissue and therefore invited comments of either a specific or a generic nature.
36. The representative of the United States expressed appreciation for the effort made in
preparing those reports, in particular those of the EFTA, the CARICOM and the Central American
Economic Integration Agreement.  Overall however his delegation was disappointed but not surprised
to see no additional movement in any of the agreements to expand coverage of agriculture.  In theexamination of the agreements in the CRTA, the parties to RTAs generally indicated that provisions
for expanding the coverage of the agreement were available, normally through Joint Committees, but
it could be seen from those reports that unfortunately those provisions were not being used.
37. The representative of the European Communities indicated that the reports had been
submitted basically for transparency purposes on what had been going on and on how the agreements
operated.  He did not agree that there had been no movement, in some cases further liberalization had
been discussed and the EC would be reporting on that at a later stage.  His delegation stood ready to
reply to any questions that Members wished to pose.
38. Indicating his agreement with the statement made by the delegate of the
European Communities, the representative of the Czech Republic indicated that positive movements
had taken place with respect to his country's agreements, even in agriculture, and that the reports hadbeen presented for transparency reasons.  His delegation would be happy to reply to any questions,preferably through a written exercise.
39. The representative of Japan expressed appreciation to the parties to the agreements for having
submitted the reports.  The submission of biennial reports to the CTG and the CRTA was stipulated in
paragraph 11 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and
document WT/REG/W/33.  His delegation considered that those reports were important and usefulsince they would increase the transparency of each RTA, and he looked forward for the submission of
additional reports in future.  He expressed concern that not all reports were submitted in two years
interval and hoped that the situation would change.  As regards the biennial report on the EC-Tunisia
Cooperation Agreement, his delegation wanted to react to the Parties' statement in the report
according to which, because the examination of the succeeding agreement was being carried out a
biennial report on the Cooperation Agreement would serve no purpose.  It was his delegation's view
that such a situation was a result of the prolonged examination process and he urged that theWT/REG/M/26
Page 7
examination be expedited so to resolve that question as soon as possible.  He would come back to the
question of procedure and any other specific point at another time.
40. The representative of Hong Kong, China welcomed the reports submitted.  She hoped that in
considering those biennial reports, her delegation co uld came forward in the future with a number of
general observations that might have to inform the Committee's discussion on systemic issues.
41. Supporting the statements made by the delegates of the European Communities and the
Czech Republic, the representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of the EFTA countries, noted that
the exercise was primarily for transparency.  Substantial treatment of the issue could still take placebut given the volume of information, he would agree to have general remarks at the meeting but
thought that specific points should be de alt with through a written procedure.   
42. Supporting the statements made by the delegations of the European Communities and
Czech Republic, the representative of Malta said the reports were presented for transparency
purposes.
43. The representative of Australia stated that some scope should be provided for the reports to be
discussed in regular Committee meetings.  Given the long time-frame required for most agreements to
be implemented, ideally reporting should be a constructive process where positive precedents could
be highlighted, suggestions made and problems discussed.  Discussing biennial reports had thepotential to be the vehicle for an useful exchange of views, given that RTAs often went further than
the multilateral system or became the template on which multilateral agreements were based.  Given
the increased interest in RTAs, it would be helpful if  potential parties could be alerted to some of the
issues that were likely to arise as agreements were implemented, particularly in newer areas such as
services.  His delegation believed that such a process would contribute to transparency, which was animportant element of the Committee's work.  Reminding his previous comment on the need to
distribute the agenda for the meeting at an early stage, he noted that unfortunately time constraints had
not permitted his delegation to do a thorough examination of all of the reports before the Committee.
Generally the reports provided helpful overview of  trade developments between the parties, and he
commended particularly the level of details contained in the report from CARICOM.  As for thereports on a whole, he noted that while the tables on exports and imports were helpful and added some
flavour to the reports, more detailed information was required in order to allow Members to consider
whether the agreement were still, or had became, WTO compliant.  The question was not how much
had imports and exports increased or decreased but rather how much trade liberalization had the
parties undertaken in order to meet the WTO requirements.  He appreciated that meaningful trade
liberalization would most likely lead to increased im ports and exports, but Members should be able to
consider directly the reduction in trade barriers  the parties had undertaken.  To that end, it would beuseful if the tables typically produced as part of the examination process were also included in the
biennial reports.  Reports could include tables showing, for each sector, the percentage of trade
between the parties for each party which faced zero duties or MFN rates.
44. The representative of Canada said she appreciated the details provided in the biennial reports,
which represented a good step towards transparency.  Expressing her agreement with the point made
by the delegate from Japan on old agreements being overtaken by new ones, she encouraged the
Committee to finalize the reports on outstanding RTAs as soon as possible.
45. The representative of Jamaica stated that the exercise was aimed at transparency.  While her
delegation would appreciate observations and specific comments from Members on the CARICOM
report, she would caution the suggestion about further examination of the reports, given that smallerdelegations had representatives coming from capitals when the reports were on the agenda.  If the
reports were going to be examined, she wanted to know well in advance so to be prepared, in
particular if specific questions were going to be raised.WT/REG/M/26
Page 8
46. The representative of Cyprus supported the statements made by the European Communities
and the Czech Republic, in particular regarding the transparency nature of the exercise.
47. Indicating his agreement with the statement made by the representative of Hong Kong, China,
the representative of India noted that the biennial reports had to be carefully examined as those would
highlight systemic issues which were important for the examination process.  He recalled the
Chairman's introductory remarks, where it was note d that the consideration of the reports would help
to ensure transparency and also contribute to the systemic debate.
48. The representative of Barbados expressed her delegation's support for the statement made by
the delegate from Jamaica concerning the nature of the exercise and the constraints of smaller
delegations.
49. Following the Chairman's request, the Representative of the Secretariat addressed the
questions of mandate and time-table of the biennial report exercise.  The General Council Decision of
February 1996 which established the Committee provided, as one of the terms of reference, that the
Committee was "to consider how the required repo rting on the operation of such agreements should
be carried out and make appropriate recommendations to the relevant body".2  Following discussions
on that item, the Committee came forward with the Procedures on Reporting on Regional Trade
Agreements , which had been approved by the CTG on 30 November 1998.3  On general guidelines,
that document simply stated that the biennial reports would "also be made available to the Committee
on Regional Trade Agreements, since they are deemed to be particularly relevant to its specialized
tasks.  This will serve to enhance transparency on how regional trade agreements are proceeding and
as an input to the Committee's work under item 1(d) of its terms of reference."  As for the mandate of
the exercise, he noted that the debate showed that those two points had been taken up by delegations.Regarding the time-table, he noted that 24 agreements  were due to report in 1999; twenty of those
were circulated earlier in 2000 and 4 were still to come.  Further, there were 48 agreements notified
under GATT Article XXIV on which the CRTA had already concluded the factual examination, but
for which no extra factual information had been received since the discussions on how to report on the
examination had been initiated.  By the time the corresponding examination reports would bepresented to the CTG and hopefully adopted, agreements might have been in force for over 5 years
and in some cases the transition periods could even have expired.  Delegations would have to decide
on how to deal with that situation.  He then noted two points;  first, that document G/L/286 stated that
the reports would serve to enhance transparency on how RTAs were proceeding and therefore
delinked them from the examination process;  and second that the Committee might need to consider
the proposition made in WT/REG/W/33, where the general principle that biennial reports be
submitted at two-year intervals following the notification of the agreement assumed that reports ofexamination would be adopted in good time.  As that assumption had not materialized, one possibility
of dealing with the 48 agreements referred to earlier could be that the first biennial reports for those
RTAs be submitted in 2001.  He invited delegations to consider that possibility, as well as any other
one, during the summer break and come back to that at an informal meeting.
50. The Chairman agreed that biennial reports were delinked from the examination process.  He
was of the view that the question that biennial reports were of use for transparency and the systemic
debate had some analytical underpinnings;  in particular they might require a framework different
from the one used in the examination process.  He  encouraged delegations to submit comments on the
process and on the substance of the reports, to be discussed in an informal manner, in a meeting
initially scheduled to take place on 14 September 2000.  Concerning the next meeting of theCommittee on 12-13 October 2000, he noted that the agenda would include the draft annual report of
the Committee; systemic issues, including the horizontal studies produces by the Secretariat;  and
                                                     
2 Document WT/L/127.
3 Document G/L/286.WT/REG/M/26
Page 9
possibly a way to address the biennial reports.  It  was his aim to release some pending examination
reports by the end of the year, and, given the difficulties therein, he would have to take some
decisions, based on existing rules, on what to do with the difficulties on consensus-building.
51. The representative of Canada suggested that, given the link that existed between biennial
reports and systemic issues, the Secretariat could take into account the changes indicated in the
biennial reports when preparing the horizontal studies, so as to provide an updated picture to
delegations.  Thanking the delegate for the suggestion made, the Representative of the Secretariat
indicated that the intention was not to produce a historical paper and stated that the studies wouldinclude as much updated information as possible.
52. Turning to specific questions on the reports, the representative of the United States asked
what was the current status of the EC-Egypt Association Agreement.  His delegation was not clear
regarding the stage of implementation of the EC-Cyprus and EC-Malta Agreements, namely whetherthey where fully implemented free-trade areas or partially implemented agreements that were beyond
the 10 year phase-in period.  As regards the EC-Switz erland Agreement, he was aware that seven new
agreements had been signed in 1999 and he asked for information on the status of their ratification.
Finally, he noted that the report on EC-Iceland discussed briefly the European Economic Area (EEA),
which replaced EC free-trade area agreements with several countries including Iceland.  He askedwhether the EEA had ever been notified and if not why was that.  The representative of the
European Communities indicated that he would reply to those questions in writing.
53. After having heard the comments by representatives of Norway, speaking on behalf of the
EFTA countries, the European Communities, India and the United States, the Chairman indicated that
any specific questions and comments were to be submitted in writing to the Secretariat by end of July
and that written replies were to be submitted by end of September.
54. The representative of the Czech Republic wondered whether there was the need to keep the
item on biennial reports open until the next meeting.  The Chairman indicated that, as he had
mentioned earlier, he did not want to prejudge the discussion on biennial reports but noted that the
Committee had very strong terms of reference on that.  While 20 reports had been submitted, fourwere still missing and the calendar for 2001 was yet to be discussed.  The representative of the
Czech Republic noted that biennial reports had been notified in the spring of 1999 and that they were
being discussed in the summer 2000.  He noted that in less than one year another set of biennialreports would be received, and unless the Committee was able to get over those initial reports, an
unmanageable number of reports would be placed in the agenda of future meetings of the Committee.
He had strong instructions of not to prolong that transparency exercise.
55. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that, without prejudice to what had been
suggested by others, a practical way of dealing with  that matter would be that only those agreements
for which questions had been received by the given deadline be kept in the agenda for the forthcoming
Session.  The representative of India stated that the question of the utility of having that item in the
agenda of the forthcoming meeting could be discussed and agreed upon at the informal meeting.  Therepresentative of Jamaica agreed with the suggestion made by the representative of Hong Kong,
China.
56. The Committee took note of the comments made.
F. OTHER BUSINESS
57. No items were raised under Other Business.
__________