RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/REG/M/8
1May1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1907)
Committee onRegional Trade Agreements
Eighth Session
NOTE ONTHE MEETINGS OF19,20,21AND 24FEBRUARY 1997
Chairman: H.E. Mr.JohnWeekes (Canada)
A. Adoption oftheAgenda
1. Themeeting wasconvened inWTO/AIR/518. Thefollowing agenda wasadopted:
B. Examination ofRegional Trade Agreements:
I. Enlargement oftheEuropean Communities (accession ofAustria, Finland
andSweden)
II. FreeTrade Agreement Between theEFTA States andEstonia
III. FreeTrade Agreement Between theEFTA States andLatvia
IV. FreeTrade Agreement Between theEFTA States andLithuania
V. FreeTrade Agreement Between theEuropean Community andtheFaroe
Islands (Government ofDenmark)
VI. FreeTrade Agreement Between theGovernment ofIceland andtheFaroe
Islands (Government ofDenmark)
VII. FreeTradeAgreementBetweentheGovernmentofSwitzerlandandtheFaroe
Islands (Government ofDenmark)
VIII. FreeTrade Agreement Between theGovernment ofNorway andtheFaroe
Islands (Government ofDenmark)
IX. North American FreeTrade Agreement
C. Observer Status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations
I. InternationalIntergovernmentalOrganizationsHavingAdHocObserverStatus
II. Requests forObserver Status byOther International Intergovernmental
Organizations
D. Procedures toFacilitate andImprove theExamination Process
E. Reporting ontheOperation ofAgreements
F. Systemic Implications ofAgreements andInitiatives fortheMultilateral Trading System
andtheRelationship Between Them
G. Other BusinessWT/REG/M/8
Page2
B. Examination ofRegional Trade Agreements
2. Under ItemB:V, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities informed theCommittee
thattheFreeTrade Agreement Between theEuropean Community andtheFaroe Islands (Government
ofDenmark) wasintheprocess ofbeing renegotiated, andassuchitwasadvisable nottoproceed
withtheexamination ofthepreviously notified agreement. TheCommittee agreed totakeupthat
examination atalaterdate.
3. Reports onother examinations arebeing circulated asseparate documents.
C. Observer Status forInternational Intergovernmental Organizations
4. TheChairman tookuptheissueofobserver status forintergovernmental organizations, saying
hewould firstintroduce thequestion ofintergovernmental organizations having adhocobserver status
intheCommittee, andthenwould turntothematter ofrequests forobserver status byother
intergovernmental organizations. Inregard tointergovernmental organizations having adhocobserver
status intheCommittee, herecalled thattheGeneral Council hadagreed atits7February 1997meeting
thatthoseintergovernmental organizations which hadhadadhocobserver status intheGeneral Council,
other thantheIMFandtheWorld Bank, would begranted observer status immediately. TheGeneral
Council hadalsonoted thattheIMFandtheWorld Bank hadbeengiven observer status intheGeneral
Council andother WTO bodies, asprovided forintheagreements between theWTO andthose
twoinstitutions. TheGeneral Council hadinvited theother WTO bodies toproceed inasimilar way
withregardtoobserverstatusforintergovernmentalorganizations.Thus,heproposedthattheCommittee
notetheobserver status granted totheIMFandtheWorld Bank under theagreements referred to,
andagree togrant observer status totheother intergovernmental organizations which hadpreviously
beengranted observer status intheCommittee onanadhocbasis. Those organizations, referred to
indocument WT/REG/W/11, were thefollowing: theEuropean Free-Trade Association, theFood
andAgriculture Organization, andtheOrganization ofAmerican States andtheWorld Bank. Regarding
requests forobserver status byotherinternational intergovernmental organizations, atthesamemeeting
of7February theGeneral Council hadalsoagreed thatitsChairman would conduct consultations for
those intergovernmental organizations whose requests forobserver status hadnotyetbeenconsidered.
Therefore, heproposed thattheCommittee follow thesame procedure andagree tohaveinformal
consultations withrespect tothose remaining intergovernmental organizations listed inthedocument.
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saiddiscussion ofthetopic wascurrently under way
intheGeneral Council, primarily regarding thecriteria thattheWTO should consider when itgranted
observer status toanyintergovernmental organization. Itseemed useful toreview briefly thepoints
thathisdelegation hadmade during thediscussion intheGeneral Council 's7February meeting. His
delegation atthattime suggested thattheWTO consider granting observer status toother
intergovernmental organizations onlywhen (a)theWTO hadinterest inobserving thework ofsuch
organizations, and(b)theorganization guaranteed theWTO reciprocal observership rights. Itviewed
those Guidelines asapplying toallsubsidiary bodies oftheGeneral Council. Inthisparticular
Committee, delegations might consider oneadditional requirement: inthecasewhere therequest for
observership byanintergovernmental organization represented aregional agreement asasecretariat
orsome other related body, theCommittee 'srequirement forobservership should bethattheregional
agreement beproperly notified totheappropriate WTO bodybytheparties tothatagreement. There
wereclearly anumber ofregional agreements thatexisted between oramong WTO Members thathad
notbeennotified totheappropriate WTO body, soitseemed appropriate thatsecretariats beadmitted
asobservers onlywhen agreements hadbeen properly notified. InlightoftheGeneral Council
discussions onthesubject, hisdelegation considered itpremature fortheCommittee toactonanumber
oftheobservership requests before it.Thatsaid, hisdelegation would beprepared today tograntWT/REG/M/8
Page3
observership intheCommittee tothose organizations thathadbeenadhocobservers intheCommittee
andthathadbeengranted observer status intheGeneral Council -i.e.theIMF, theWorld Bank, and
theFAO. Hisdelegation proposed thattheCommittee consider theremaining requests onceissues
hadbeenresolved intheGeneral Council, andoncetheCommittee hadestablished itsownadditional
requirements.
6. Therepresentative ofUruguay saidhisdelegation tooknoteoftheconditions mentioned by
theUnited States 'delegation, which hadalready beenstated intheCouncil. Secretariats ofregional
tradeagreements should haveobserver status iftheagreements hadbeendulynotified. Hisdelegation
wasinterested inhaving theInter-American Development Bank, aswellasUNCTAD, granted observer
status intheCommittee, because itseemed thattheirwork andtheCommittee 'swork were related.
Itwould beinteresting fortheCommittee toberepresented bytheWTO Secretariat, when appropriate,
inthemeetings oftheirorganizations.
7. Therepresentative ofIsrael saidthathisdelegation welcomed theproposal toholdinformal
consultations onthismatter. Asstated lastyearwhen theGeneral Council wasconsidering observer
status forinternational intergovernmental organizations attheSingapore Ministerial Conference, his
delegation wasinfavour ofobserver status forinternational intergovernmental organizations whose
primary areaofconcern andactivity related directly totheworkings oftheWTO -i.e.tointernational
trade. Thisposition accorded entirely withcriteria thatwassetuplastyearforgranting observer status
tooutside organizations. Theposition hadbeenreceived withunderstanding andsupport byother
delegations, asitsrationale wassimple andself-evident. Extending participation toorganizations whose
primary purpose layelsewhere seemed unwise, asitcarried withitthepossibility ofexposing the
Organization anditsCommittees toconsiderations which would hinder theirprofessional focus and
ability tofunction, possibly damaging theWTO 'spolitical neutrality andcredibility. Hisdelegation
looked forward toinformal consultations.
8. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthathisdelegation would support informal consultations, but
that,assuggested bythedelegation oftheUnited States, anoteclarifying whatwasmeant by"properly
notified" would beappreciated. There weresome regional organizations which might wishtomeet
thecriteria. Hisdelegation strongly supported thepoints made bythedelegation ofIsrael.
9. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee proceed asfollows: (i)togrant observer status
intheCommittee totheIMF, World Bank, FAO, EFTA, andOAS; and(ii)itwould haveinformal
consultations toconsider requests forobserver status byinternational intergovernmental organizations,
anditwould thenrefer tothematter formally atanappropriate time. Healsoproposed thatthe
Committee takenoteofthestatements justmade bydelegations.
10. TheCommittee soagreed.
D. Procedures toFacilitate andImprove theExamination Process
11. TheChairman saidthatunder thisagenda item, theCommittee hadtwobasic documents to
discuss: thedraftStandard Format forInformation onEconomic Integration Agreements, distributed
toalldelegations intheformofaninformal document inearlyJanuary, andthedocument WT/REG/W/9
which listed inananalytical manner thesuggestions made byMembers concerning ways tofacilitate
andimprove theexamination ofregional trade agreements (RTAs).
12. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatthese documents wereveryimportant forall
delegations andthattheywere atthecoreoftheCommittee 'smandate. While theCommittee had
made agood startinreviewing thedocuments, itshould giveadditional attention toclarifying whatWT/REG/M/8
Page4
really didneedtobeaccomplished andtofinding realistic andpractical methods toachieve those ends.
Many ofthesuggestions made intherun-up toSingapore reflected theenthusiasm attheendofthe
year, buttheywere neither practical norrealistic. From thatperspective, hisdelegation had
twosuggestions concerning thecontent andtiming ofinitial information relating toanagreement.
TheCommittee hadanambitious schedule ofexaminations, wellasanimpressive andgrowing list
ofagreements toreview inthefuture. Itseemed tobethecommon viewthattheprocess inthepast
hadbeencumbersome andinefficient. Those factors, among others, hadmotivated theCommittee
toproduce theStandard Format fortheprovision ofinitial information onagreements, asanalternative
tothetraditional cumbersome andrepetitive question andanswer process. Unfortunately, inanumber
ofcases, theCommittee found itselfbetween regimes. Expecting toreceive information intheStandard
Format, some delegations hadnotsubmitted written questions, while theparties tosome agreements
hadnotprovided information intheStandard Format. Thus, delegations werebeing asked toreview
someagreementsforwhichtherewasvirtuallynoinformation,beyondtheactualtextsoftheagreements.
Thesituation wasunacceptable toall,aswasthesituation where delegations received initial information
onanagreement onlyshortly before agiven meeting. Bothofthose situations ledtodelay, frustration
andunproductive reviews, fostering theimpression thattheCommittee wasunable tomake progress.
Asasmall concrete steptoward improving theprocedures forreview, hisdelegation suggested that
theCommittee agree thattheinitial information foreachagreement should becirculated atleast
three weeks prior toanagreement 'sreview, andthatcountries should indicate inadvance whether
theyintended toprovide information intheStandard Format. Ifthiswasnotpossible, perhaps the
Committee would havetoconsider alternative ways toobtain thetypeofinformation requested inthe
Standard Format. Hisdelegation didnotwishtoproceed withanyreview untiltherequired initial
information hadbeenprovided.
13. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidhisdelegation hadafewgeneral comments onthe
Secretariat 'snoteonProcedures toFacilitate andImprove theExamination Process, aswellassome
specific comments ontheStandard Format forservices. Thenoteonprocedures prepared bythe
Secretariat wascomprehensive. Itcontained anumber ofideas thatcould possibly improve the
examination process. However, someofitspoints moreappropriately fellunder theCommittee 'sTerms
ofReference -forexample, "reconsideration oftheobjective oftheexamination process." Also, the
provision oftrade datamight better beconsidered under "Biennial Reporting." Some ideas inthelist
werelesscontroversial andlesscomplicated thanothers andperhaps could beputintoeffect quickly,
butothers, suchas"simplifying theprocedure," appeared tobepotentially controversial andtherefore
might require moretimeforexploration. Itwould beprudent fortheCommittee toadopt amoreflexible
approach inhandling thelist.Onitems where consensus wasevident, theCommittee could proceed,
instead ofwaiting tocomplete theconsideration ofallitems listed. Finally, astheUnited States delegate
hadsaid,theCommittee should takeapragmatic approach, improving theexamination process without
really reopening thebalance oftherights andobligations. TheCommittee perhaps could improve the
examination process ifitfocused onthetiming ofnotifications andreporting.
14. TheChairman suggested thattheCommittee firstconsider theservices Standard Format and
thenmove ontothenoteonprocedures. Perhaps other delegations shared theviewofHong Kong
thatthere weresome procedural issues onwhich theCommittee would reach agreement more easily.
Todetermine ifthiswerethecase, theCommittee should gothrough thelisttohearhowdelegations
viewed thevarious points onobjectives, Guidelines, notifications, etc.Turning tothedraftStandard
Format forservices, heasked therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities torecapitulate points
made yesterday byhisdelegation.
15. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatingeneral herdelegation agreed
withthetext,butthatsome issues needed toberefined, especially thecriteria inrelation toArticle V.
Inthisrespect, Section IIofthedocument needed more focus. InSection Ithere wassome repetition
ofinformation requested, asparties toRTAs werealready required tosupply suchinformation underWT/REG/M/8
Page5
thenotification requirements oftheGATS itself. Regarding statistics, Members werestilldeliberating
onthisintheSpecificCommitmentsCommittee;perhapstheStandardFormatforservicesshouldrequest
thatstatistics beprovided totheextent theywere available. Inquestion were issues relating tothe
coverage ofArticles XVIandXVII, i.e.government procurement andsubsidies. Members werealso
discussing thisintheRules Group. Standards andmutual recognition agreements seemed torelate
more toArticles VIandVII,andnottoArticle XVII, sothere might beaneedtoshorten thelistto
focus itmore narrowly onArticle V.
16. TherepresentativeofArgentinasaidthat,asmentionedbytheEuropeanUnion,SectionIentailed
ageneral problem ofstatistics forservices. Services statistics were usually derived from balance-
of-payments sources, which were usually incomplete anddidnotcover allmodes ofsupply. His
delegation therefore would prefer areformulation totheeffect thatstatistical databesupplied only
when possible. Section I.4would posesimilar difficulties, asitwould bepremature intheoriginal
notification ofaservices agreement tohavetomention, from apoint ofviewofquality orquantity,
theeffects ofaservices agreement ontrade withthirdparties. Regarding Section II.1,hisdelegation
wasinfavour ofsomething more general. Listing Article XVII-type restrictions onsome sectors or
modes would bebiased toward negative lists. Thiswould beproblematic forexaminations, assome
regional agreements onservices followed theGATS andusedpositive lists.
17. TheChairman stressed thattheCommittee hadtaken noteoftheStandard Format forgoods,
andtherewasnobinding obligation toprovide information inthatform. Rather, theStandard Format
wasasetofguidelines forgovernments touse,buttheydidnothavetocomplete information onevery
item. Itwasintended asaformat toaimtowards, rather thanabinding requirement tobefollowed
totheletter.
18. Therepresentative ofJapan expressed appreciation forthecomments bytherepresentatives
oftheECandUruguay. Asmentioned bytheECrepresentative, Section II.3dealtwithstandards
andmutual recognition. While theseareasrelated toGATS Articles VIorVII(asopposed toArticle V),
including them wasimportant forenhancing transparency.
19. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidthattheapproach ofmodelling theStandard Format
forservices ontheoneforgoods seemed appropriate, asitdrewonexperience. However, theStandard
Format forservices could berefined toreflect GATS provisions more. Regarding thescope ofthe
information sought, theChairman 'sremark onitsnon-binding nature wasuseful. Also, itwasworth
recalling thatwhen theCommittee debated thegoods Standard Format, ithadcome toacommon
understanding thatnotallofitselements weredirectly relevant toArticle XXIV provisions. Inaddition
tofacilitating theexamination process, theStandard Format forgoods hadalsoenhanced the
understanding oftheGATT itself.
20. Therepresentative ofIndiasaidhisdelegation subscribed tothecomments bytherepresentatives
ofJapan andHong Kong infavour ofthebroad approach contained intheStandard Format. While
noting thespecific points raised bytherepresentative ofArgentina, hisdelegation wasoftheview
thatthebest-endeavour nature oftheexercise alleviated problems regarding thelackofstatistics and
Article XVII. Thebroad approach would helptheCommittee toobtain asmuch information aspossible.
21. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthathiscomments were ofapreliminary nature. First,
theCommittee should notdifferentiate between dataonforeign direct investment intheservices sectors
anddataonthecross-border supply ofservices, since commercial presence wasthemostimportant
form oftrade inservices formany sectors orsub-sectors. Therefore, thefirsttwosentences in
Section I.4ontrade datashould beamended toread: "...data ontrade inservices forthemostrecent
period forwhich statistics areavailable, including estimates andforeign direct investments, according
tomajor sectors orsub-sectors." Second, itwould beanomission nottoinclude governmentWT/REG/M/8
Page6
procurement side-by-side withsubsidies andsafeguards when enumerating thedifferent provisions
affecting trade inservices. Government procurement figured intotheStandard Format forgoods and
itwould beimportant aswelltohavetheinformation ongovernment procurement inservices, readily
available under thesame format, fortransparency purposes. Therefore, section IIcould request a
description ofanymeasures relating togovernment procurement. Third, although GATS Article V
related particularly toArticle XVII, national treatment, therecould easily beasituation where partners
inanintegration agreement agreed notonlytoeliminate discrimination among theparties concerned,
butalsotoincrease market access. Sucharrangements should alsobereflected intheinformation the
Committee received. Thus, inSection II.6,thesentence could bereformulated withthewords: "specific
provisionsapplicabletoanytradeinindividualservicessectors,includingmarketaccessarrangements..."
Finally, there seemed tobeanoverlap inSection I.3andI.4regarding thesubmission oftrade data
andstatistical data.
22. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthedraftwasgood andshould notbeshortened. Some
delegationshadmentionedproblemswithrespecttoprovidingstatisticsunderSectionI.4.Suchproblems
didexistforbothservices andinvestment data,astheywerenotoriously difficult tocollect andtomake
comparable. Delegations allfaced difficulties inhaving domestic administrations comply withthe
Standard Format, butthiswasnoreason fortheCommittee todiscourage delegations from trying to
collect andprovide data. Asnoted, theStandard Format wasanon-binding document. The
representative oftheECandothers hadsaidthatcertain notifications would bemade under other
GATS Articles; butinpractical terms, itmight make sense toencourage delegations tosubmit that
dataatthesame timeandinthesame wayastherestofthedata. Itwaseasytoimagine asituation
where aneconomic integration agreement onservices included provisions oncommon standards or
mutual recognition.
23. Therepresentative ofPerusaidthatiftheCommittee onlytooknoteoftheStandard Format
forservices, hisdelegation could accept itasitstood. Perhaps theCommittee should highlight the
factthattheStandard Format wasnotbinding, butrather aguideline thatwould enable abetter review
oftheinformation ontheintegration agreements.
24. Therepresentative ofKorea saidhisdelegation, too,wasfullyprepared togoalong withthe
Standard Format asitstood. However, some improvements could bemade. First, because theexercise
wastoassist theCommittee inunderstanding complex agreements, itseemed theStandard Format could
bemore reader-friendly andeasier tounderstand. Ageneral description oftheagreement inSection
Iwould bequite helpful. Forexample, agreements liketheEuropean Communities andtheNAFTA
comprised bothgoods andservices. Itwould beeasier forthereader tounderstand thewhole structure
oftheagreements ifthereweresome kindofexplanatory noteintheStandard Format itself. Similarly,
since theplanandschedule weredifficult todecipher, hisdelegation would liketoseeanexplanatory
noteinSection I.2where parties explained whatchanges hadbeenmade, etc.Hisdelegation agreed
withtheviews expressed bytherepresentative ofNorway concerning thestatistical datarequested in
Section I,items 3and4.While therequest fordatainI.3wasaccording tothecriteria appearing
inGATS itself, forthebenefit ofthereader oftheFormat itwould bebetter toconsolidate thestatistical
datainoneplace. Itmight alsobegood toseekmore information inconnection withSection II.2,
onrules oforigin forservices, asthese measures were difficult tounderstand. Itwould behelpful
tohaveanexplanation astowhatkinds ofchanges hadbeenmade between therulesoriginally applied
byeachindividual party andthenewrules oforigin under theRTA. Concerning information on
standardsandmutualrecognitionrequestedinSectionII.3,eventhoughtheCommittee'smandateentailed
examining theconsistency ofRTAs interms ofGATS Article V,other relevant information would
beofgreat benefit.
25. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthedraftseemed tocontain allthenecessary elements to
facilitate theexamination process. Committee experience inrecent months hadshown theStandardWT/REG/M/8
Page7
Format forgoods tobehelpful inprompting delegations tocome prepared toexaminations. Itwas
theviewofhisdelegation thattheStandard Format should erronthesideofmore rather thanless,
sincetransparency wasthestarting pointoftheexamination process. Hisdelegation preferred expanding
theStandard Format rather thantrimming it.Regarding Section II.1.1, where reference wasmade
toinformation onnegotiations under GATS Article V:5,thereseemed tobeaparallel withprocedures
orinformation fornegotiations under GATT Article XXIV:6. However, under Article XXIV:6 there
weredetailed procedures, whereas inGATS itwasunclear astowhatsortofinformation needed to
beprovided. Perhaps some clarification would make thismore explicit. What wasimportant was
obtaining information thatidentified where specific commitments hadbeenmodified orwhere MFN
derogations hadbeenmodified, sothatthiscould beaddressed early inanexamination.
26. Therepresentative ofVenezuela saidthatsome confusion might ariseiftheservices document
followed essentially thesame format astheStandard Format forgoods, since services didnotalways
parallel thegoods system. Perhaps theCommittee should develop anexplanatory note. Thiswould
helpensure conformity withGATS Article V.Section I.3,which asked whatsectors wereexcluded,
entailed acontradiction, astheGATS clearly saidtherewould benoapriori exclusion ofanyservices.
Section I.4wasproblematic, asstatistical information forservices stillsuffered from inexactitude.
AstheKorean delegation hadnoted, itwould beuseful toexpound upon rulesoforigin forservices,
which were verydifferent from those forgoods. Itseemed theCommittee should devote attention
tothewording oftheStandard Format withrespect tostandards andmutual recognition, because there
were notechnical standards intheareaofservices. Under safeguards andsubsidies, maybe the
Committee could refertotheServices Council tolearn whathadbeendoneinthatarea, asthere was
aworking group devoted tosafeguards andsubsidies, andthere werealsonegotiations onsubsidies
disciplines. Itwould beuseful toknow whatexisted toseehowtheCommittee might introduce these
areas intotheStandard Format. Asother delegations hadsaid,theStandard Format hadtoremain
non-binding.
27. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines saidhisdelegation supported theStandard Format asa
non-binding setofguidelines. Heagreed withtherepresentative ofAustralia concerning theproblem
ofsubmitting tradedata,particularly dataonforeign direct investment. Inthatregard, theCommittee
needed toexercise flexibility. Concerning Section II.6,onsector-specific provisions, hisdelegation
hadaproblemwiththephrasingproposedbythedelegationofNorway;hisdelegationpreferredincluding
"time-frames forstaging theagreements forindividual sectors," since itmight bethatdifferent
arrangements forvarious sectors would notcome intoeffect atthesametime, andtherecould besome
staging aspects involved.
28. TheChairman saidthatanumber ofcomments hadreferred tothefactthateventhough the
Standard Format forservices wasdrafted onthebasis oftheStandard Format forgoods, theareaof
services wasdifferent from thatofgoods. Hetooknoteofthefactthatsome delegations hadsaid
theCommittee should recognize thisdistinction andthattheCommittee wasoperating hereinanew
area, conducting reviews oftheservices aspects ofregional trade agreements. Itmight behelpful to
havemore precision insuggesting togovernments aformat forsubmitting information topermit the
examination ofanagreement. Itwould beuseful torefertothelanguage usedwhen theCommittee
tooknoteoftheStandard Format forgoods, astheintroductory comments could facilitate reaching
agreement ontheservices Standard Format. Heproposed thattheCommittee asktheSecretariat to
revise thedocument, inlightofthecomments made. Hewould conduct informal consultations with
respect tosome ofthepoints where thereweredifferences ofview. AstheCommittee nowhadsome
sixtyagreements under examination, discussions onimproving theprocedures wereimportant. The
factthattheCommittee alsohadthemandate toconsider systemic issues meant thattheexamination
ofeachagreement could progress more smoothly since issues thatwere ofasystemic nature could
bechannelled toanother setting. Inthepastunder theWorking Party system, there hadbeenasense
thatdefinitive conclusions needed tobereached onissues; thishadbeenatime-consuming process.WT/REG/M/8
Page8
Here, when theCommittee wasexamining anagreement, itcould remove systemic issues from the
specific examination andtreatthem inthebroader systemic discussion. TheCommittee wasalready
operating inthatway. Biennial reporting onregional agreements would afford theopportunity tocome
backtoissues inthecontext ofparticular agreements. Thatmeant theCommittee didnothavetoresolve
everything intheinitial examination ofanagreement. IftheCommittee maintained thisoverall view
ofwhatitwasdoing, itcould more easily dealwiththedifferent tasks.
29. TheChairmansaidthat,asaresultofinformalconsultationsonreportsoftheRTAexaminations,
theSecretariat hadbeenasked tocirculate sample summary records sothattheCommittee would have
abasis forjudging whether those documents wereauseful wayofproceeding. Today theSecretariat
hadmade available thesummary records ofthefirstmeeting oftheNAFTA examination. Inthepast,
when Working Parties hadconducted examinations, therewerenosummary records; nothing wasgiven
todelegations untiltheexamination reached thereport stage. Atthatpoint, thereport washeavily
negotiated, inrespect ofvirtually allofitsparagraphs, aswellastheconclusions. TheCommittee
should keepthisinmind asitconsidered thefirstsetofsummary records, theideabeing thatthe
summary records would notbenegotiated. Inthisway,theCommittee would notspend timedisputing
thefactual description ofwhat hadbeen said, butrather could concentrate onconclusions. The
Committee should bearthese points inmind during theday’sdiscussion onimproving procedures.
Turning tothedocument onProcedures toFacilitate andImprove theExamination Process,
WT/REG/W/9, hesuggested thattheCommittee firstlookattheheadings ofInformation andthe
Examination Process todiscuss issues directly linked toremoving theexamination backlog. Forthe
second partofthediscussion, hesuggested treating general issues under theheadings ofObjectives,
Guidelines andNotification.
30. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiessaiditwasimportanttorecallthattheprocedure
wasthemeans, nottheend.Therealobjective oftheexamination process wastofinish it.Therefore,
hefound theChairman ’semphasis ontheconclusions tobeauseful andsignificant starting point for
thediscussion. Ideas inthepaper andideas which would ariseneeded tobesetagainst aconsideration
ofwhatthose conclusions would looklike. Hehadsome comments inthisregard, interms ofthe
conclusions ’length andcontent, andinterms oftheirlinkage tothesummary records. Hedifferentiated
between thefactual element, which hesaidmight include thesummary records plustheStandard Format,
andtheconclusions component. Theconclusions component should beshort andfree-standing. It
should bring together ashort summary ofthefactsoftheAgreement, anadequate record ofthekey
components oftheexamination process, andadistillation ofissues where there wasagreement or
disagreement. Theconclusions component ofthereports could make useofthesystemic issues exercise
todealwithwide-ranging matters. Hisdelegation preferred thatthereport distinguish between definitive
conclusions andexhaustive conclusions. IftheCommittee could reach ashared sense ofwhat the
conclusions should entail, itwould helpputtherestoftheexercise incontext. Hesaidthedifference
between aRolls Royce andaHenry Ford Model Twasanalogous totheCommittee ’swork, inthat
whatwasneeded wasnotthecreation ofamasterpiece, butrather mass-production, astheCommittee
needed todealwithnumerous examinations.
31. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidhisdelegation hadtaken noteofthedeclaration made
bytheUnited States concerning thepresentation ofinformation. Herecalled thattheStandard Format
hadnotbeenusedforallagreements, andthatfortheNAFTA, ECEnlargement, andMERCOSUR,
information hadbeenprovided through aquestion andanswer procedure. Forexaminations notyet
begun, itseemed theStandard Format should beused, eventhough useofitwasnotanobligation
inconnection withArticle XXIV. Itwasaveryuseful instrument forensuring transparency, enabling
efficient andcomprehensive reviews. Hence, foralltheagreements towhich Switzerland wasparty,
hisdelegation hadworked withitspartners topresent information according totheStandard Format.
Itseemed useful when discussing theimprovement ofprocedures tobearinmind firstandforemost
theprocedure forthefuture, astheCommittee would solve backlog problems onanadhocbasis, inWT/REG/M/8
Page9
apragmatic andflexible way. Theidearaised bytheUnited States 'delegation tooblige RTA parties
tocomplete theStandard Format within setdeadlines seemed toentail adding anobligation which did
notcurrently existintheTerms ofReference fortheCommittee. Making thisalegalobligation would
betantamount toamending Article XXIV oritsinterpretation, soitwasamatter which could only
behandled atthehighest level.
32. Therepresentative ofUruguay recalled thattheCommittee hadnever intended theStandard
Format beusedretroactively forRTAs whose examinations hadalready begun. Under theheading
Information, hisdelegation hadacomment regarding number 8,which saidtheCommittee could
determine thetrade datatobesubmitted inthecaseofcustoms unions. Toactinconformity with
therules, RTA parties hadtosubmit trade datanecessary forcarrying outananalysis ofanRTA’s
general effect ontrade, licences, tariffs, etc.Electronic submission ofinformation wasapositive
suggestion, asanymechanism making thecirculation ofinformation easier should beused. Concerning
theexamination process, theCommittee wasalready considering examining goods andservices back
toback. Regarding those agreements ofminimal impact, theideaofexpediting these examinations
would leadtoendless discussion. Asitwas,certain agreements were examined speedily anyway.
Having amaximum number ofmeetings would beuseful, butitwould depend onsatisfying allquestions.
Time-frames should notbebinding, because thiswould entail changing therules. Concerning apoint
raised bytheECdelegation astohowtheconclusions should bereached, theCommittee ’sworkbasically
wastoensure thatcustoms unions andfree-trade areas werecompatible withWTO provisions. The
idealconclusion would bethatanRTA didnotviolate anyrules, orifitdid,thatitshould bebrought
intoconformity. Something asclear-cut asthiswasverydifficult toachieve because results werealways
somewhat ambiguous. Still, theCommittee should strive forthis. Conclusions should beshort,
identifying those points where there wasagreement orthose where there wasnone. They should be
drafted withthefocus ofassessing conformity withtherules. IfanRTA wasfulfilling therules, then
itcould continue evolving without WTO apprehension. Thatwasdifficult, anditwould taketimeto
seehowRTAs wereevolving andhowtheyweremeasuring uptotheideals ofthemultilateral trading
system.
33. Therepresentative ofKorea referred tothepointmade bytherepresentative oftheUnited States
onthesubmission oftheStandard Format. Hisdelegation preferred option A,eventhough legal
obligations hadtobeconsidered. IftheCommittee could receive theStandard Format atthetimeof
anRTA’snotification, examinations could bestarted earlier. Butatrade-off wasthatasking parties
tosubmit theStandard Format atthetimeofnotification might discourage them fromsubmitting the
notification itself. Perhaps thelegalramifications could beapproached inapractical way, whereby
theCommittee might haveagentlemen 'sagreement sothattheparties would beexpected orinvited
tosubmit theresponses totheStandard Format atthetimeofnotification. Itseemed theproblem could
besolved.Regardingsimplifiedprocedures,discussionslastyearshowedtheredifficultiesindetermining
thecriteria for“minimal effects ”onother Members andonthemultilateral trading system. Perhaps
thiscould bedealtwithprocedurally, withparties being abletorequest asimplified procedure once
theyhadsubmitted theStandard Format. Ifthere were noobjection from theother parties, the
Committee could complete theformal examination inasingle meeting. Regarding reporting, heagreed
withtheECrepresentative thatitwould bedifficult fortheCommittee todecide whatthedescriptive
partofthereport should looklikewithout knowing whatwould constitute theconclusions part. His
delegation would goalong withwhatever format ofthedescriptive partseemed bestforexpediting
thejoboftheSecretariat.
34. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthathisdelegation preferred option Ainparagraph 6,for
thereasons offered byKorea. Heagreed withtheKorean delegate 'spoint thattheCommittee needed
tohaveapractical arrangement regarding thelegalaspects ofsucharequirement. Thatruleshould
beapplied totheagreements which would beexamined inthefuture. Hisdelegation requested the
parties toagreements already under review toprovide theCommittee withinformation intheformWT/REG/M/8
Page10
oftheStandard Format, totheextent theywereabletodoso.Regarding apoint therepresentative
oftheUnited States hadmentioned, hisdelegation wasnotsureathree-week period wasanappropriate
time-frame. Onmany occasions inthepast, information hadbeen provided onlyshortly before
examinations. Thathadmade theexamination extremely difficult because delegations didnothave
timetoprepare fordiscussions. Speedy andefficient examinations required having suchinformation
wellinadvance. Finally, hehadacomment onreporting. Given thebacklog, itwould bedifficult
tohavenegotiations onthecontents ofthefactual part;butstillitseemed thatthere should besome
flexibility forcorrections tobemade ifimportant points hadbeenomitted. Hewasinterested inthe
comments from theECdelegate ontheconclusions partandwould appreciate aclearer explanation
ofthedistinction between thedefinitive conclusions andtheexhaustive conclusions. Hisdelegation
wasoftheviewthattheconclusions partofthereport should notbelimited toareas where there was
agreement, butshould alsodescribe points ofdisagreement. Atthesametime, hisdelegation supported
theECproposal thatsome differences could bemoved tothesystemic context.
35. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatthesixtyagreements scheduled forexamination were
clearly notofthesame nature. They involved different degrees oftrade, andthere presumably would
bevarying degrees ofinterest inscrutinizing them. Therefore, itwould probably create more hurdles
iftheCommittee triedtodevelop arigidsetofprocedures thatmight notbesuitable forallexaminations.
TheCommittee ’sapproach oflearning bydoing seemed towork well. Inthatregard, heshared some
oftheviews oftheSwiss delegate thatiftheStandard Format were usedbyparties notifying an
agreement, itwould helptheCommittee determine howmuch timeitwanted todevote toagiven
examination. Many issues could beresolved bypractice. Timely receipt ofinformation wascritical
fortheCommittee ’sability toconduct meetings, butatthesame timethere wasariskthatthiswould
become anexcuse topostpone meetings. Theideaofback-to-back examinations forgoods andservices
aspects ofagreements wasimportant, asitwasdifficult toseparate them inanexamination. The
Committee should make aneffort toensure thatthese twoparts ofexaminations moved intandem,
asthiswould helpprovide anintegrated understanding ofRTAs. Interms ofthereports ofexaminations,
itseemed agoodideatohavethefactual partcomprised ofsummary records ofdiscussions, withanother
partfocusing onconclusions. Hisdelegation agreed withthecomments made bytheECrepresentative
thattheconclusions hadtobeself-contained, outlining thesalient points ofanexamination. The
conclusions should focus directly onthespecific testsofArticle XXIV orArticle VoftheGATS.
Given thevoluminous workload theCommittee faced, some ofthesuggested improvements should
betested onatrialbasis.
36. Therepresentative ofPerusaidhisdelegation supported theintervention bytherepresentative
ofCanada. Theobjective oftheexercise wastosetaminimum standard which could thenbeapplied
toamajority ofreviews. Hisdelegation agreed withthedelegations ofKorea andJapan thatoption A
ofparagraph 6provided timebefore reviews andafforded transparency. TheCommittee must bear
inmind thattheStandard Format wasnotbinding. Regarding paragraph 10,itseemed theCommittee
shouldfollowitspracticeoffirstexaminingthegoodsaspectsofagreements,andlaterexaminingservices
aspects, asmany delegations hadstaffspecializing inoneortheother. Hesupported simplified
procedures withrespect tobothexaminations ofRTAs withminimum effects andfuture biennial
examinations.Regardingreporting,hisdelegationagreedwiththeECdelegationthatconclusionsshould
beshort. However, hisdelegation alsosubscribed totheviews expressed bytherepresentative of
Uruguay, astheconclusions muststickascloseaspossible totheexamination objective ofdetermining
whether there wascompatibility withGATT Article XXIV orGATS Article V.Paragraph 14might
bechanged tosaythatthereports adopted bytheCommittee should betransmitted totheCouncil for
Trade inGoods, theCouncil forTrade inServices, or,forRTAs under theEnabling Clause, the
Committee onTrade andDevelopment, andthatthereports would besenttotheGeneral Council for
adoption. Itwasimportant tosaythatthereports neednotreceive approval bythesubordinate bodies,
butthattheycould besentdirectly from theCommittee totheGeneral Council.WT/REG/M/8
Page11
37. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidthatitwould bepreferable todelink submission ofthe
Standard Format fromnotification. Linking thetwomight leadtoconfusion astothelegalobligation
fornotifications, anditmight further delay theactual notifications. Linking them might alsocause
confusion astowhen theexamination process wastriggered. Hesuggested that,ifaformal notification
weresubmitted inadvance, theSecretariat could consult withtheparties toseeiftheywished touse
theStandard Format. Iftheychose touseit,theCommittee could allow them some timetoprepare
it;otherwise, theCommittee could immediately invite questions. Theideaforsimplified procedures
seemed controversial. There werequestions astowhowould determine which agreements hadminimal
effects, whatthecriteria should be,etc.Itseemed adifficult task,given thenature oftheWTO, but
comments bytherepresentatives ofCanada andKorea suggested theremight beaprocedural solution
totheproblem: ifnoquestions werereceived regarding agiven agreement, theCommittee could push
theexamination directly tothereporting stage. Regarding thenumber ofmeetings, itmight be
counterproductive tosetthemaximum number ofmeetings, asthere werefactors suchascooperation
from RTA parties. Forreporting, hisdelegation wasinfavour ofseparating thefactual partfrom
theconclusions. TheCommittee nonetheless needed tobecareful nottopoliticize thefactual part.
Hisdelegation wasinterested inexploring theideas putforth bytheECdelegation. Perhaps the
Committee should invite theSecretariat toprepare ashort background noteontheelements appearing
most frequently inprevious reports.
38. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthat,withrespect toparagraph 6oftheStandard Format, his
delegation preferred option B,which afforded flexibility andrespected thenon-binding legal status
oftheStandard Format. Withreference toparagraph 10,hisdelegation would beinfavour ofhaving
back-to-back meetings, since thiswould helpsmaller delegations participate inmeetings andtakean
integrated view. With regard tothesimplified procedures, theCommittee should becareful notto
deprive Members oftheopportunity topursue issues ofinterest tothem. Ifsimplified procedures were
tobeused, itwasimportant thattheCommittee stipulate when theopportunity toraiseissues closed.
With reference toreporting, theproposal tohaveafactual partfaithfully reflecting thediscussions
intheCommittee seemed appropriate. Hisdelegation wasinterested inhearing more from theEC
representativeontheconceptsofdefinitiveandexhaustiveconclusions.Conclusionsshouldbeconsidered
inlightofthisECelaboration, andalsoinlightoftheCommittee 'sTerms ofReference.
39. Therepresentative ofNorway agreed withthose whohadstressed theneedforpragmatism
andflexibility indealing withthebacklog. Inparticular, heconcurred withwhathisKorean colleague
hadsaidwithrespect toparagraphs 6,11and14.Thesubmission oftheStandard Format should not
belinked toformal notification. Henoted thecomment bytherepresentative ofIndia andsaidthat
under option Atherewould beadanger thattheformal notifications would bedelayed. LikehisSwiss
colleague, hedidnotsupport theAmerican proposal tomake thesubmission oftheStandard Format
abinding requirement. Regarding simplified procedures inpoint 11,heagreed withtherepresentative
ofUruguay thatdefining minimal effects could consume agreat dealoftheCommittee 'stime, and
thatdefacto simplification would probably occur anyway inexaminations ofsome agreements.
Concerning reporting, helooked forward toseeing asubstantiation oftheECproposal ondefinitive
andexhaustive conclusions. Henoted thatthefactual partandconclusions partwould make upasingle
document andshould notbecompletely separate.
40. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthat,while option Aofparagraph 6waspreferable
regarding submission oftheStand Format, therewerecertain complications. Standardized information
should beprovided assoonaspossible afternotification, though there could notbeahardandfast
ruletothateffect. Early notification, evenprior toentry intoforce, wasclearly desirable, andthe
Committee should notputthatinjeopardy byrequiring theStandard Format tobesubmitted atthe
same time. Onsimplified procedures, heagreed withthecomments bytherepresentative ofNorway.
With respect toreporting, hewasinterested inthecomments andsuggestions made bytheEC
representative about highlighting points ofagreement anddisagreement. Where therewasdisagreementWT/REG/M/8
Page12
andcountries wereunable toarrive atconsensus asfaraswhether anagreement wasinconformity,
perhaps some conclusions could bedrawn about theobjectives anddirection oftheagreement under
review. Theproblem withanyreview wasthattheCommittee wasexamining agreements when they
were rather young; onlylatercould there beamore accurate assessment oftheoverall impact ofan
agreement. Inthatrespect, perhaps theconclusions could designate issues fortheCommittee toreturn
toatalaterstage, suchasconcerns overcoverage andtrade withthirdparties.
41. Therepresentative ofColombia saidtheexamination exercise should allow forflexibility, with
theCommittee making improvements asitwentalong. Hisdelegation agreed withtherepresentatives
ofIndiaandNorway thatoption Bofparagraph 6wasappropriate, aslinking submission oftheStandard
Format tonotification might cause adelay. When agreements covered goods andservices, reviews
should becarried outinthesame exercise. Astherepresentative ofUruguay hadnoted, itwould be
difficult toreach agreement onwhatconstituted minimal effects, butpractice would likely entail defacto
simplified examinations. TheCommittee should notsetamaximum number ofmeetings. Forthe
reporting, itseemed appropriate tohaveafactual partandconclusions. Conclusions should focus on
conformitywithGATTArticleXXIVandGATSArticleV,andtheyshouldpresentdifferentviewpoints.
42. Therepresentative ofPakistan saidthathisdelegation subscribed tocomments made bythe
representatives ofKorea, Peru, Japan andNewZealand insupport ofoption Aforparagraph 6,as
there wasarelationship between thecontent ofthenotification anditstiming. Simplified procedures
could beconsidered later, when theremight bealistofrelevant issues inlightofprevious examinations.
Paragraphs 12,16and17entailed flexibility andpredictability. Perhaps different elements ofthose
ideas could becombined, withthefirststepbeing submission oftheStandard Format atasetpoint
intime, andwiththeother steps occurring overarange oftime.
43. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities wished toclarify thathehadnotstated that
areas ofdisagreement should beexcluded from theconclusions; rather, hehadsaidtheyshould be
explicitly noted. Numerous systemic issues could ariseastheCommittee grappled withexhaustive
ordefinitive conclusions foragiven agreement. TheCommittee could trytoarrive atsome definitive
conclusions concerning theagreement butrefrain frombeing exhaustive -inother words, itcould note
thatsystemic issues were notyetresolved.
44. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthat,astherepresentative ofCanada hadnoted, many issues
relating tofacilitating reviews would bedetermined bywhether ornottheCommittee wasabletoensure
thatinformation wasprovided inadvance. Forparagraph 6,hisdelegation preferred option A,since
requesting responses presumably would notentail legal obligations. Atwo-tiered approach to
notifications might allow theStandard Format tobesubmitted atalaterstage. Information hadto
beprovided inatimely manner, astheCommittee wasdealing withaheavy schedule ofexaminations.
Thefactthatcolleagues backincapitals hadtoanalyze theinformation wasaproblem facing all
delegations. Hisdelegation preferred back-to-back examinations ofgoods andservices aspects of
agreements. Hewasinterested intheKorean delegation 'ssuggestion forsimplifying procedures for
RTAs ofminimal effects. TheCommittee could decide thatcertain agreements would bedealtwith
inthatway. TheECdelegation 'scomments regarding paragraph 14wereveryinteresting. Heagreed
withtherepresentative ofNewZealand thatsome systemic issues could notresult inconclusions, but
rather deserved further exploration. Itwasimportant thatsystemic issues hadaplace inthereports,
soastosetabasis fordiscussions theCommittee would haveonsystemic issues.
45. Therepresentative ofTurkey saidtheCommittee should bepragmatic andflexible. Regarding
thesubmission ofinformation, hisdelegation preferred option Bofparagraph 6.TheStandard Format
wasnon-binding andshould notbelinked tothenotification requirement. Astherepresentatives of
Uruguay andColombia hadsaid,itwasnottheCommittee ’stasktodetermine whatdataneeded to
besubmitted. Concerning simplified procedures, there could bealimitonthenumber ofmeetings,WT/REG/M/8
Page13
buttheCommittee should remain flexible. Regarding reporting, hisdelegation supported thecomments
made bytheECrepresentative.
46. Therepresentative ofHungary saidthatherdelegation preferred pragmatism andfavoured
option Bofparagraph 6,asthereshould benonewobligations regarding thesubmission oftheStandard
Format. Simplified procedures seemed agood idea, though defining thecriteria could bedifficult.
RTA parties might helpdetermine whether simplified procedures were appropriate. Herdelegation
wasinterested inboththesample summary records andtheproposal about conclusions.
47. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidtheconcept ofsimplified procedures wasstillvague.
TheCommittee needed todefine whatitwasdiscussing before itdecided procedures. Forthereports,
itwasimportant toplacediscussions intheirproper context. TheCommittee 'sobjective wastoproduce
reports which would gotohigher bodies foradoption. Inthatregard, thefactual partshould contain
thepoints made bydelegations. TheStandard Format should beemphasized inthefuture.
48. TheChairman saidthatthepurpose ofdealing withprocedures wastofacilitate theexamination
process, andthattheCommittee should dispense withthisaspect ofitswork andmake theprocedures
operational. Hethenturned tothetopics ofObjectives, Guidelines andNotification.
49. Therepresentative ofUruguay saidthattheobjectives oftheexaminations wereclearandthat,
astheywere partoftheCommittee 'smandate, there wasnoneedtoreturn tothatissue. What the
Committee nowshould dowastoexamine theconformity ofRTAs withWTO Agreements. For
Guidelines, perhaps theCommittee should describe examination procedures; butifitwerenecessary
tomake theGuidelines more formal, theCommittee should examine themmore closely toensure that
theyenhanced anddidnotobstruct theprocess. TheCommittee therefore should focus onstudying
rather thanapproving theGuidelines. Regarding notifications, itseemed unrealistic totrytoobtain
notifications before theconclusion ofnegotiations. Thefootnote ofthedraftGuidelines indicated that
onethirdofagreements notified hadbeennotified between theirsignature andcoming intoforce, and
thatonaverage itwasfiveweeks afterthecoming intoforce. Thattime-frame seemed reasonable.
However, ifthere wasashared sense thattheCommittee wasnotsufficiently informed, itperhaps
should findawayofensuring speedier notification. Still,theCommittee should notgobeyond making
arecommendation totheparties. Compliance withthenotification obligation didnotseem tobea
problem atpresent, astheCommittee already hadnumerous agreements toexamine. Nevertheless,
theCommitteeshouldencouragenotificationsinceitdidnothavealegalprocessforcounter-notification.
50. Therepresentative ofKorea saiditwasimportant tomake theprocedure operational. Asthe
representative ofCanada hadsaid,theCommittee could "learn bydoing". Hisdelegation 'sviews on
theGuidelines werewellknown andwerecontained indocument WT/REG/W/5 along withthose of
Hong Kong andAustralia. Regarding paragraph 4,concerning timing ofnotification, hesaidthevarious
options werenotmutually exclusive. Option Ashould beconsidered inlightofthefactthattwo-tiered
notification didnotneedtoentail legalobligations, butrather could involve information thatRTAparties
hadgathered fordomestic purposes. Suchasummary ofthemain features ofanRTA would benefit
theCommittee. Onceratifications hadtaken place, theCommittee could receive theformal notification.
Theposition ofhisdelegation wasthatnotifications should bemade prior toentry intoforce, in
accordance withtherelevant articles ofGATT. LastyeartheCommittee haddiscussed theideaof
counter-notification;thoughtherewerecertainlegalcomplications,itseemedagoodidea.Hisdelegation
concurred withthestatement bytherepresentative ofPakistan regarding theconnection between
notification andthesubmission oftheStandard Format. Options AandBofparagraph 6didnotseem
mutually exclusive. TheCommittee could invite parties tosubmit theStandard Format atthetime
ofnotification, andiftheyhaddifficulty complying, theCommittee could request thatinformation
besubmitted assoonaspossible. Onadifferent note,hesuggested thattheCommittee asktheSecretariat
toproduce adocument indicating thestateofplayforthevarious examinations underway.WT/REG/M/8
Page14
51. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidthatobjectives might more appropriately beconsidered
aspartoftheCommittee 'swork onsystemic issues; itseemed theobjectives hadbeendefined forthe
Committee, astherepresentative ofUruguay hadnoted. Ifbiennial reporting wereputintooperation,
many unanswered questions onRTAs would beaddressed. Regarding notification, hisdelegation
welcomed theofferbythedelegation ofCanada yesterday toprovide anoutline ofitsAgreement with
Chile before itsentry intoforce. Suchanoralreport oftheconclusion ofthenegotiations washelpful,
anditrepresented apractical waytoobtain advance notification orinformation onRTAs. Perhaps
thisidearelated toparagraph 4,option B.Hisdelegation wasstillinterested inthenotion ofatwo-tiered
notification system.
52. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidattention should begiven toreporting.
Rather thandevoting more timetotheGuidelines, theCommittee should useitsresources elsewhere.
Itwasclearthatnotifications wereanobligation, anditseemed amatter ofcommon courtesy andgood
public relations toprovide information early. Thisseemed tobeanemerging practice, soperhaps
there wasnolonger aproblem withthetiming ofnotifications.
53. Therepresentative ofCanada saidhisdelegation favoured notification along thelinesofoption
Ainparagraph 4.Early notification alerted Members thatanagreement hadbeensigned, anditdrew
theattention ofauthorities backhome totheneedtoprepare information foranexamination. There
wasnoprecise definition oftheterm“promptly notify, ”butperhaps norms could develop toachieve
theaim. Guidelines ingeneral might serve asareference forpeople incapitals, buttheredidnotseem
tobeanurgent needforthem.
54. Therepresentative ofAustralia saiditwasimportant tomake theGuidelines operational.
Transparencyofprocedureswasimportant,butthegoalwastogetthroughtheexaminations.Two-tiered
notifications andtheearly submission oftheStandard Format would helptoexpedite theprocess.
Perhaps counter-notification could beconsidered later.
55. Therepresentative ofPakistan agreed thatobjectives seemed asubject forthesystemic setting.
Notification andtiming were important. Hisdelegation favoured thetwo-tiered approach andwas
oftheviewthattheStandard Format should besubmitted between anRTA'snotification andentry
intoforce. Theproposal byKorea tocombine options could beexplored further. Regarding non-
compliance, counter-notification seemed problematic legally, butperhaps theideacould beconsidered
inadiscussion onsystemic issues.
56. Therepresentative ofIndia suggested thatthewording oftheparagraph onnotification be
modified tousetheword"prompt" instead of"timely," soastoreflect WTO language. Non-compliance
couldbeconsideredlater,withreferencetoArticleXXIV:12.Anaveragefive-weekdelayonnotification
didnotseem toolong.
57. Therepresentative ofColombia saidthenotification obligation stemmed from GATT
Article XXIV andGATS Article V.Inparagraph 4,option Ddemonstrated thatMembers viewed
notification asimportant fortransparency. Option Aofparagraph 5wasnotappropriate, asitwould
beamodification ofrules.
58. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatthepurpose oftheexamination exercise wastoenhance
understanding ofthevarious RTAs andtodetermine howthemultilateral trading system should respond
tothem. Theexamination process didnotaffect therights andobligations ofArticle XXIV. His
delegation preferred option Dforthetiming ofnotifications, option Bfornon-compliance, andoption B
forthesubmission oftheStandard Format. FortheroleoftheSecretariat, itseemed theCommittee
could combine options AandB.Concerning theduration, option Cseemed appropriate.WT/REG/M/8
Page15
59. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatquestioning theobjectives oftheexamination process
would entail reopening anissuethathadalready beendecided. Regarding notification, hisdelegation
supported thetwo-tiered approach, butitalsowasinfavour ofamechanism forpreliminary notification
evenduring negotiations. Ifparties hadproblems withthis,therecould beinformal counter-notification
whereby theymight beasked toconfirm newspaper reports, etc. Itdidnotneed tobearigid
requirement, butaMember should beallowed toaskquestions about RTAs under negotiation.
60. Therepresentative ofNorway saidfurther debate onobjectives should takeplace insystemic
discussions. Heagreed thattimeshould notbespent developing strict Guidelines, andthatemphasis
should beplaced onhowreporting should bedone. Hisdelegation wasinfavour ofthetwo-tiered
approach tonotification. Hedoubted whether theJapanese ideawasfeasible.
61. Therepresentative ofPerusaidhisdelegation viewed reconsideration ofobjectives asasystemic
matter. Fornotification, hisdelegation preferred option A.Theideaofcounter-notification should
besetaside, asitwasnotprovided forintheAgreements.
62. TherepresentativeofVenezuelasaidtheCommitteehadnotyetreachedaconsensusonobjectives
andshouldthereforecontinuediscussingthetopic.TheexaminationprocessspelledoutintheGuidelines
should beflexible. Fornotification, thepresentation ofinformation before anagreement wassigned
wasnotpractical; many agreements broke down before coming intoeffect. Thetiming ofnotification
should beleftflexible. Non-compliance should notbedealtwiththrough counter-notification, asthis
wasnotpartofthelegalframework. TheCommittee hadatleastsixty agreements toexamine, and
iftwoexaminations wererequired foreach, theprocess would taketwoyears. Then theCommittee
would havetotreatbi-annual reports. Itwasimportant tobepractical andnotloseefficiency bybeing
tooperfectionist.
63. Therepresentative oftheUnited States agreed withtherepresentative ofNorway concerning
reconsideration ofobjectives. Fornotification, hisdelegation stillsupported thetwo-tiered approach.
Fornon-compliance, counter-notification might spurefficient responses.
64. TheChairman saidthereappeared tobeaconvergence ofviews. Reaching agreement depended
ontheCommittee 'sflexibility. Thedelegation ofUruguay hadsuggested thattheGuidelines bein
theformofasimple description, while others hadtalked ofmaking theGuidelines operational. First
theCommittee should agree onsubstance, andthenonmaking theGuidelines operational. Ifthe
Committee agreed onprocedures fortheexamination process, dealing withthereporting requirement
would beeasier.
E. Reporting ontheOperation ofAgreements
65. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatreporting ontheoperation ofagreements was
important forsurveillance, transparency, andtheassessment ofaparticular RTA'simpact onMembers ’
interests. Itwasalegal obligation thathadbeenreinvigorated bytheUruguay Round. Inmaking
theprocess operational, theCommittee should focus onitspurpose andalsoonhowitshould be
structured tobemostuseful. Thebiennial review wasanimportant transparency process -awayof
ensuring thatcustoms unions andfree-trade areaswereimplemented asscheduled andthattheycontinued
tooperate inaccordance withWTO rules. Through it,theCommittee could track specific issues that
arose during anRTA'sinitial review. Thereporting neednotbeburdensome, butrather could just
involve anupdating ofinformation provided initially. Infact,theCommittee hadalready started
preparing forthisreporting initsdevelopment oftheStandard Format. Itseemed theCommittee should
continue down thepathofdefining thespecifics ofthereporting process, andtothatendtheCommitteeWT/REG/M/8
Page16
might request theSecretariat toupdate document WT/REG/W/3 soastoincorporate points made over
pastmonths.
66. Therepresentative ofPakistan saidthatindocument WT/REG/W/3 paragraph 5regarding
coverage, there wasafootnote which saidMembers wererequested totransmit totheSecretariat any
amendments tothelist.Hewondered ifanysuchcommunication hadbeentransmitted, particularly
withrespect toagreements which were nolonger inforce.
67. TherepresentativeoftheSecretariatrespondedthatMembershadnottransmittedanyamendments
tothelists.
68. TheCommittee tooknoteofallthecomments made.
F. Systemic Implications ofAgreements andInitiatives fortheMultilateral Trading System
andtheRelationship Between Them
69. TheChairman noted fortherecord thattheCommittee hadhadaninformal meeting featuring
apresentation byDr.Jaime Serra onapaper entitled, "Reflections onRegionalism," which hehad
co-authored withCarla Hills, Michael Wilson andother trade specialists. Thediscussion hadbeen
controversial andenlightening. Hethenturned theCommittee 'sattention totherevised Checklist of
Systemic Issues, document WT/REG/W/12.
70. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthathisdelegation appreciated theSecretariat 'sefforts in
producingthecomprehensiveChecklistandthattheSecretariatshouldcontinueitsworkontheexpansion
ofthelistasdiscussions evolved. ThisyeartheCommittee wasexpected todischarge, under thisitem
ofitsterms ofreference, itsspecific mandate toconduct analytical work onwhether thecurrent system
ofWTO rights andobligations, asitrelated toRTAs, needed tobefurther clarified. Asrecognized
intheCommittee 'sreport oflastyear, theChecklist could beutilized forthepurpose ofthatwork.
Therefore, itwasimportant fortheCommittee toconsider howtomaximize theutility oftheChecklist.
Inthiscontext, hisdelegation proposed thattheCommittee asktheSecretariat toprepare background
papers onissues included inthechecklist, sothatthebackground papers might serve asinitial basic
documents inconducting theanalytical work ontheWTO rulesonRTAs. Inpreparing thebackground
papers, theSecretariat could utilize thediscussions made atanumber ofprevious GATT Working
Parties ontheexamination ofRTAs. Many oftheissues currently listed intheChecklist were not
new. Forexample, the"substantially allthetrade" requirement wasanissue overwhich theviews
andinterpretations ofdelegations hadconsistently differed inprevious Working Parties which had
examined different RTAs. Therefore, thereview ofthediscussions onthose recurring issues would
provide theCommittee withimportant knowledge ofthediverging views, andtherationale behind
them. TheSecretariat could alsoutilize andupdate various papers ontheissue oftheinterpretation
ofrelevant WTO rulesonRTAs, which hadbeenusedduring theUruguay Round. Many oftheissues
dealtwithatthattimeremained unresolved. IftheCommittee weretoeffectively utilize theinstitutional
memory through those background papers, itsmandated work would beexpedited. Given theworkload
currently borne bytheSecretariat, thebackground papers might, atthisinitial stage, focus onafew
important issues listed inthechecklist. TheKorean delegation wasopentohearing views onwhat
issues should receive priority intheSecretariat 'swork andonwhatsubjects might beinitially selected
fortheSecretariat 'sbackground papers.
71. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidtheChecklist wasanaccurate reflection
oftheissues which hadbeenraised inCommittee discussions. Henoted thattheChecklist would evolve,
especially asmore issues relating toservices emerged. Hesupported theapproach proposed bythe
Korean delegation fortheSecretariat toprepare background papers, andhenoted thatthiswould helpWT/REG/M/8
Page17
establish anintellectually coherent foundation forfurther work. Itseemed issues fellintothree
categories, which themselves could beseenascomprising priorities. Thefirstcategory entailed issues
directly related toGATT Article XXIV -forexample, Checklist items 2a,4,5a,13,14,15and17.
Thisgroup constituted apriority because theyweredirectly relevant totheCommittee 'sother work
ofexamining individual RTAs. Asfarasthose Article XXIV issues wereconcerned, itmade sense
fortheSecretariat topulltogether existing material andpastGATT experience. Asecond natural
grouping wascomposed ofissues which related tothewayArticle XXIV interacted withother WTO
rules -forexample, Checklist items 2b,5band5c,18,20,21and22.Those issues seemed tocomprise
asecond distinct priority. Thethirdgrouping amounted toasetofgeneric questions ofthird-ranking
priority. Checklist items 6,7,8,9and12seemed tofallintosuchacategory.
72. Therepresentative ofIndia thanked theKorean delegate fortheproposal andindicated that
hisdelegation wasprepared tofollow theconsensus onprioritizing issues.
73. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidtheChecklist reflected thatmore thantwenty systemic
issues hadbeenidentified during thereviews conducted inprevious months, ofwhich onlyfivehad
beenraised during thediscussions under thespecific agenda item"Systemic Issues". Theresthad
beenidentified through reviewing anumber ofRTAs. Thisclearly showed thegeneric nature ofsuch
issues anddemonstrated theclose relationship between thevarious aspects oftheCommittee 'swork.
Systemic issues were anintegral partoftheexamination ofeachRTA. Hisdelegation agreed with
therepresentative ofKorea thattheissues already identified intheChecklist should beprioritized,
andthattheSecretariat should prepare background studies ofthem. Hisdelegation alsoagreed that
those studies should include, among other topics, themeaning of"substantially allthetrade," which
hadbeenalong-standing issue thatrequired clarification. Itseemed priority should beaccorded to
Checklist items 5and21,withaviewtostudying howthemeasures inquestion affected tradeofother
WTO Members.
74. TheChecklist contained onlylimited information onthesystemic issues identified. There was
noindication ofthecontext inwhich theissues hadbeenraised, thedifferent views thatmight have
beenexpressed atthetime, and/or thesignificance ofthose views totheformation, examination, or
operation oftherelevant RTAs. What theCommittee needed wastohavetheChecklist annotated.
Annotation could bedonebytheSecretariat, based ontheinterventions made bydelegations onthe
occasion when theissues were raised. However, itwasimportant tobearinmind thatthepurpose
oftheChecklist wastofacilitate further work, andtheChecklist mustnotinitselfbecome thesubject
ofnegotiations. Hisdelegation hadnoted withinterest theECsuggestion regarding groupings. His
delegation alsohadsome ideas about categorization. Some Checklist items could becategorized as
procedural issues -forexample, items 4,7,15,16and19.Others might begrouped together as
interpretive issues -forexample, items 13,14and17,which wereprimarily concerned withthemeaning
ofaspecial termorphrase. Other thancategorization bynature, anissue might alsobecategorized
byreference tothetypeofRTA fromwhich itarose. Anissue might havearisen fromtheformation
ofafree-trade area, aninterim agreement, oracustoms union, oritmayhave arisen from the
enlargement ofanexisting customs union. Adecision ontheprecise approach tostructure further
work should betaken onlyaftertheessential information hadbeenmade available intheannotated
Checklist. Hisdelegation agreed thattheChecklist should beanevolving document. TheChecklist
pointed totheneedfortheCommittee toassign sufficient timefordeliberations onsystemic issues.
75. Therepresentative ofJapan thattheSingapore Ministerial Declaration referred totheneed
toclarify therights andobligations ofMembers withrespect toregional tradeagreements. Herecalled
thehardwork andvigorous negotiations which hadresulted intheUnderstanding ontheInterpretation
ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994, andnoted thattheUnderstanding wasanimportant stepinensuring
theprimacy ofthemultilateral trading system overregional tradeagreements andinitiatives. However,
subsequent developments inregional integration hadconvinced Japan thatexisting rulesanddisciplinesWT/REG/M/8
Page18
might notbesufficient forthechanging circumstances ofregional integration. There were areas in
which rules were notsufficiently clear, andthere were areas inwhich rules didnotseem toexist.
Thatwasprecisely thereason whytheGovernment ofJapan hadproposed thattheCommittee formulate
examination Guidelines. TheCommittee 'sfuture work needed tobebased onwhatithadachieved
inthepast. Inthisregard, theChecklist wasquite valuable. Hisdelegation welcomed theKorean
proposal requesting theSecretariat toproduce abackground paper onsome oftheselected issues in
thepresent Checklist. Thecategorizations proposed bytheECandHong Kong delegations were
interesting, andprioritization ofissues deserved further attention. Theexercise would beimportant
andwould enable theCommittee tofulfil itswork, asdetermined bytheSingapore Ministerial
Declaration.
76. Therepresentative ofUnited States saidtherepresentative ofHong Kong hadarticulated the
essence ofhisowninstructions. TheChecklist wasaveryuseful document andagood startforthe
identification ofsystemic issues; butitwasonlyastart. Anumber ofimportant issues identified during
previous reviews werenotincluded, andsome ofthose appearing intheChecklist didnothavecomplete
references. TheCommittee hadonlyjustbegun reviewing agreements, andinthefuture itwould
encounter more agreements notified under GATS Article VandtheEnabling Clause. Itwasimportant
fortheCommittee tobeprovided withappropriate information forthese reviews. With additional
information onhand, theCommittee would beabletoproceed initsdiscussions inanorganized and
balanced manner.
77. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthattheCommittee enjoyed awide mandate todiscuss
thebroad systemic relationship between regional trade agreements andarrangements ontheonehand
andthemultilateral trading system ontheother. TheCommittee should remember thatitsterms of
referenceenjoinedtheCommittee"toconsidertheimplicationsofsuchagreementsandregionalinitiatives
forthemultilateral trading system andtherelationship between them, andmake appropriate
recommendations." Ministers attheSingapore Ministerial Conference alsoagreed that"theCommittee
should analyze, inanon-prejudicial manner, whether thesystem ofWTO rights andobligations, as
itrelates toregional trade agreements, needs tobefurther clarified withaviewtomaking appropriate
recommendations...." Hisdelegation wasoftheviewthatthese added uptoamandate forathorough
re-examination within theWTO ofthesystemic impact ofregional tradeagreements onthemultilateral
trading system. There wasastrong casefortheimprovement ofWTO disciplines onregional trade
agreements. Hisdelegation accepted thattherewereother views onthis;butithoped thattherewould
beagreement thatonlyabroad, wide-ranging examination oftheoverall relationship between RTAs
andthemultilateral trading system could provide thebasisfordecisions intheWTO onhowtorespond
toregionalism, whether through anydecision ontheclarification ofWTO disciplines orthrough
agreement ontheWTO 'sgoals withregard tofurther tradeliberalization. Inthiscontext, theChecklist
prepared bytheSecretariat onsystemic issues washelpful. Adiscussion ofthose issues would be
necessary,andtheAustraliandelegationsupportedtheproposalfortheSecretariattoprovidebackground
papers onsome ofthespecific issues listed intheChecklist. TheChecklist made itveryclear that
thereweresome fundamental problems thatneeded tobeinvestigated. Hisdelegation wasoftheview
thatthisinvestigation would bedonebestinthecontext ofadebate about thenature ofcustoms unions
andfree-trade areas, thereasons underpinning their formation, their contribution totheglobal
liberalization oftrade andtheireffect onthemultilateral system.
78. Therepresentative ofAustralia continued, saying thatbefore discussing specific suggestions
forsuchawide-ranging debate, itwould beworthwhile toreview some important points inthe
Committee 'sdiscussion sofar. Hisdelegation viewed thelead-up totheSingapore Ministerial
Conference asevidencing considerable differences between WTO Members about thewayRTAs should
fitintothemultilateral system. Inthedifficult discussions theCommittee hadhadlastyear, some
delegations hadexpressed theview thatRTAs could beconsidered first-best solutions forcertain
countries. Some proponents ofRTAs hadalsoargued thatsucharrangements could deliver tradeWT/REG/M/8
Page19
liberalization more quickly thanthemultilateral system. Thedelegation ofAustralia andothers had
argued thatsuchviews rancounter totheevidence concerning thebenefits tobeobtained from
discriminatory andnon-discriminatory trade liberalization. Italsoconsidered oneofthemosturgent
tasks facing trade policy makers tobethatofcausing themultilateral trading system andregionalism
togrow together. Members would remember thattheAustralian delegation hadargued strongly last
yearthatthiscould bedonebyensuring thatthelevelofambition andrateofprogress inmultilateral
orglobal tradeliberalization wasatleastequal tothatofregional efforts. There hadbeenconsiderable
debate onthis. Hisdelegation would alsoremind theCommittee oftheanalysis made in1984 by
theGATT Secretariat in"International Trade 1983-1984." Thisnoted that"there isnowayof
maintaining aninternational trading system, inthefullsense ofreferring toregularity, orderliness and
predictability, without themost-favoured-nation commitment."
79. Withthesepoints inmind, hisdelegation wasoffering upfordiscussion thefollowing concrete
suggestions tounderpin possible future decisions oftheWTO onhowtorespond tothegrowth ofRTAs.
First, theconcept ofopenregionalism could result inbroad benefits forallparticipants inaneconomy.
Itensuredthatcooperativeregionalarrangementswereoutward-looking,andthatthebenefitsoflowering
trade barriers applied equally tothemembers ofanagreement andtothenon-members. Open
regionalism wasequally applicable totradefacilitation worksinceitfullyrecognized theinterdependence
ofeconomies. Second, theCommittee wastherightplace foradiscussion ofthehub-and-spokes effect
onparties toanRTA. Inahub-and-spokes arrangement thelarge country (thehub)generally setthe
terms andconditions formembership forthesmaller ones(thespokes). Additionally, asthe1995WTO
study onregionalism andtheworld trading system noted, theessence ofsucharrangements wasalways
thesame: goods andservices (andperhaps capital andlabour) flowed more freely between thehub
andeachspoke thantheydidbetween thespokes. Third, theCommittee should alsoinquire into
additional costs totraders resulting from theexistence ofalarge number ofRTAs, especially where
acountry waspartytoseveral agreements, allwithdifferent requirements. Rules oforigin andstandards
were major examples ofthiscomplexity. Another layer ofdifficulty wasadded when thevarious
agreements hadelaborate phase-in provisions. Fourth, GATT Article XXIV recognized theconcept
ofcloser integration between economies, anditlisted customs unions andfree-trade areasasmechanisms
through which thatmight occur. Initsintent, itwasbasically confined topromoting integration of
goods economies. Some RTAs ofcourse hadnowgonealongwaydown thepathofdeepintegration.
Itwould beworth exploring theextent towhich theexisting disciplines tookaccount ofthisevolution.
TheGATS alsopermitted theconclusion ofeconomic integration agreements andinaddition labour
market integration agreements. This, coupled withthemutual recognition provisions, would appear
tomake theGATS more aware oftheconcept ofdeepintegration.
80. Continuing withhisdelegation 'slistofsuggested discussion topics, hesaidthatafifthissue
worth exploring wasthereasons fortheexclusion ofsensitive products from many RTAs. The
"substantially allthetrade" criterion permitted thisapproach, anditmight tosome extent encourage
it.Itdidnot,however, entail anadditional costforproducers andtraders within aregional trading
arrangement. Sixth, RTAs should alsobelooked atfrom theperspective oftheirpolitical impact on
theformulation oftradepolicy within themultilateral trading system. Increasingly, tradeblocs tended
toadopt common positions onissues. Seventh, theclaim thatRTAs were building blocks towards
afreerglobal trading system deserved more careful investigation. Itwastruethatsome RTAs were
cooperating withothers, andtheyhadevenextended duty-free treatment toeachother. Butitwould
beinteresting toknow iftheyhadchanged theirregimes concerning rulesoforigin, sensitive products,
mutual recognition, etc.Theinternal arrangements ofRTAs werechanging also. Some parties, indeed,
were continually expanding therange ofsubjects andmechanisms covered bytheir RTAs. The
Committee wasinagoodposition toascertain towhatextent thebuilding-blocks argument hadmerit.
Eighth, theproliferation ofagreements wasseenbymany asanissueinitself, though views differed
onthis. Some 100arrangements hadbeennotified totheGATT andtheWTO overtheyears, but
some ofthose hadhadnomore thanalocal impact. TheCommittee could usefully embark onanWT/REG/M/8
Page20
assessment oftheimpact thisproliferation perhaps hadonthedevelopment oftheMFN system.
Regardless ofwhattheassessment ultimately might be,theproliferation ofRTAs would continue if
MFN liberalization could notbeexpedited. Inconclusion, hisdelegation realized thatsome ofthe
ideasitwasputting forward weresensitive andthatadequate discussion ofthemcould takealongtime.
Butwithout suchdiscussion itwould bedifficult fortheCommittee tomake credible recommendations
totheGeneral Council onhowtheWTO should respond totheestablishment ofRTAs, whether through
clarification ofWTO disciplines oranymovement bytheWTO tomatch thetrade liberalization of
RTAs. Thedelegation ofAustralia recognized thatthere werestrongly divergent views onsome of
these issues. Nevertheless, constructive discussion should bepossible.
81. Therepresentative ofPakistan saidhisdelegation attached great importance tothisaspect of
theCommittee 'swork. Hisdelegation wassupportive oftheKorean proposal andwasingeneral
agreement withtheECcategorization. Theproposals byHong Kong andAustralia alsowereinteresting.
TheChecklist wasevolving, buttheCommittee should notawait itscompletion before beginning the
analytical work; rather, withitsmandate inmind, theCommittee should takeupthework asquickly
aspossible. Perhaps atalaterdatetheCommittee could consider ways toincorporate thehorizontal
studies ofdocument WT/REG/W/8 inaparallel fashion.
82. Therepresentative ofNewZealand agreed thatthepoints raised bytheAustralian delegation
were important andshould beborne inmind. Hisdelegation alsosupported theKorean proposal
regarding thepathtoprioritizing some oftheissues; thecategorization ofissues bytheECand
Hong Kong delegations wereinteresting. Inhisview, oneitemofpriority wasitemnumber 17,which
dealtwith“substantially allthetrade”.Thisitemrelated tothelarger issues raised bytherepresentative
ofAustralia, withrespect tosensitive sectors being brought within thepurview ofregional arrangements,
andwithrespect towhether itwaseasier tomove forward onsome ofthose sensitive issues inaregional
context rather thaninaunilateral ormultilateral context. Alsoofpriority were theissues listed in
item5,which involved specific trade interests andwere thusofimmense practical significance to
Members. Issues raised initems 2and15wereimportant withrespect totheevaluation oftheimpact
ofparticular RTAs onthemultilateral trading system. Items 10and13were ofinterest notjustin
thecontext oftransitional periods, butalsowithrespect tothelinkage between those transitional periods
andthecoverage ofagreements. Finally, items 20and21wereimportant because oftheirdirect bearing
ontheinterests ofcountries intheformation ofregional arrangements.
83. Therepresentative ofUruguay saidhesupported what hadbeensaidbytheUnited States
delegation. Ifthedelegations ofKorea, Hong Kong andAustralia would circulate theirproposals in
writing, theCommittee could consider howtomake useofthem inacomplementary fashion. The
onebytheAustralian delegation related totheCommittee 'slong-term work.
84. TheChairman saidthatthisseries ofimportant suggestions from delegations brought the
Committee toapoint where itneeded toreflect.
G. Other Business
85. Noitems were raised under Other Business.