RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/REG/M/10
9June1997
ORGANIZATION(97-2382)
Committee onRegional Trade Agreements
Tenth Session
NOTE ONTHE MEETINGS OF28APRIL AND 1-2MAY 1997
Chairmen: H.E. Mr.JohnWeekes (Canada) andMr.Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong)
A. Adoption oftheAgenda
1. Themeeting wasconvened inWTO/AIR/574. TheChairman noted thattheSwiss delegation
wishedtoraiseamatterconcerningEnablingClausenotificationsunder“OtherBusiness.”Thefollowing
agenda wasadopted:
A. Adoption oftheAgenda
B. Examination ofRegional Trade Agreements:
I. Enlargement oftheEuropean Communities (Accession ofAustria, Finland and
Sweden)
II. Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) Agreement
C. Procedures toFacilitate andImprove theExamination Process
D. Reporting ontheOperation ofAgreements
E. Systemic Implications ofAgreements andInitiatives fortheMultilateral Trading System
andtheRelationship Between Them
F. Other Business
B. Examination ofRegional Trade Agreements
Reports onthese examinations arebeing circulated asseparate documents.
C. Procedures toFacilitate andImprove theExamination Process
2. TheChairman recalled thatattheprevious session theCommittee hadasked theSecretariat
torevisetwodraftdocuments:theStandardFormatforInformationonEconomicIntegrationAgreements
onTrade inServices, andtheGuidelines onProcedures toFacilitate andImprove theExamination
Process. Revisions ofthetwohadbeendistributed. Hedrew theCommittee 'sattention firsttothe
Standard Format forservices. Because theCommittee hadalready spent some timeamending these
guidelines, andbecause theywould beevolving, hesuggested thattheCommittee hearanyadditional
comments andthentakenoteofthismost recent version.
3. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidwithrespect tosection II,"Provisions Affecting Trade
inServices", number 3"Standards Recognition", toafford precision hisdelegation would propose
modifyingthesecondquestiontoread:"HowarethepartiestotheagreementgoingabouttherecognitionWT/REG/M/10
Page2
oftheirstandards orcriteria fortheauthorization, licensing orcertification ofservice suppliers (from
theparties orfrom thirdcountries)?"
4. TheChairmansuggestedthattheCommitteetakenoteoftheversionwiththisdraftingsuggestion
added. Hethenproposed thattheCommittee request theSecretariat toissueitasaformal document,
ontheunderstanding thatitwasaChairman 'sNote andthatitwould beusedonavoluntary basis.
5. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheStandard Format forservices withthatfinalamendment.1
6. Moving ontothesecond draftdocument, "Guidelines toImprove andFacilitate theExamination
Process," theChairman saidatthelastsession, theCommittee hadrequested theSecretariat torevise
thedraftdocument toinclude thecomments thathadbeenmade. Thatpaper hadbeendistributed,
andtheJapanese delegation hadsubmitted comments inaletter dated 22April, copies ofwhich were
being distributed.
7. Therepresentative ofJapan saidhehadreceived additional instructions yesterday tospeak
regardingtheideafortwo-tierednotification,whichhadbeendiscussedinpastmeetings.Inparagraph2,
withthesentence reading "With theaimofenhancing transparency andassisting theCommittee in
itswork, WTO Members engaged intheprocess ofestablishing anRTA areinvited toshare," his
delegation would prefer tochange "areinvited toshare" to"should share". Also, inthefinalphrase
hisdelegation wished tochange "notification" to"signing oftheagreement". Turning totheletter
from hisdelegation, hesaiditconcerned thetime-frame forproviding information. "The resulting
information should becirculated inprinciple within fourmonths afterthedecision oftheterms of
reference (TOR), andthefirstround oftheexamination should takeplaceinprinciple within sixmonths
afterthedecision oftheTOR." Hisdelegation wished toseethatsentence inserted inparagraph 8,
immediately before thelastsentence.
8. TheChairman saidtheCommittee should bearinmind thatthesewereChairman 'sGuidelines
foruseonavoluntary basis.
9. Therepresentative ofUruguay saidthetextreflected thevarious comments made inprevious
meetings. Since voluntary papers tended tobecome compulsory papers, theproposals bytheJapanese
delegation forparagraph 1would notbeacceptable. Hewould needtimetoconsult withhiscapital
onthepoints proposed.
10. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidhisdelegation could immediately support theJapanese
proposals. Infact,hisdelegation would havebeenwilling tosupport asignificantly more ambitious
approach intheGuidelines onsuchaspects asthesetting oftime-frames. However, because the
Committee would beabletorevise theGuidelines inthelightofexperience, improvements could be
made laterinthefuture. Hetherefore suggested thattheGuidelines beadopted inprinciple, subject
toconfirmation bydelegations.
11. TherepresentativeofColombiasaidthedraftreflectedabalanceofviewsexpressedinCommittee
meetings. Because theproposals bytheJapanese delegation would alterthisbalance, hisdelegation
could notsupport them. Hewould consult withhiscapital, however.
12. Therepresentative ofPakistan saiditwaswidely known thathisdelegation wasamong those
which would havepreferred amore ambitious setofGuidelines inthisrespect. Inlightofviews
expressed byother delegations andconsidering theneedtomove forward, hisdelegation would like
1Subsequently circulated asdocument WT/REG/W/14.WT/REG/M/10
Page3
totakenoteoftheGuidelines today. Regarding theproposal onparagraph 8,hisdelegation hadbeen
strongly infavour ofhaving some ideaofatime-frame andnowsupported theJapanese proposal in
thisregard. Regarding thefirstproposal, itseemed thatsince theGuidelines werevoluntary andof
anevolving nature, theCommittee should accept them intheirpresent form. Perhaps theJapanese
suggestion regarding paragraph 8could beaccepted onareferendum basis, thusallowing theCommittee
tomove ahead today.
13. Therepresentative ofKorea supported what therepresentative ofPakistan hadsaid. His
delegation hadbeenready totakenoteoftheGuidelines today. What theJapanese representative had
suggested regarding time-frames seemed sensible, soiftheCommittee agreed onthisaddition, his
delegation would goalong withtheconsensus. However, given theobjections expressed withregard
totheproposed amendment forparagraph 1,perhaps theCommittee could compromise, asthe
representative ofPakistan hadsuggested, andadopt theGuidelines today.
14. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidherdelegation, too,wasprepared toadopt theGuidelines
today andwasalsowilling toaccept theJapanese proposal. Itwasimportant thattheCommittee adopt
theGuidelines today. TheGuidelines were evolving andcanberevisited. Astherepresentative of
Hong Kong hadsuggested, perhaps theCommittee could adopt theGuidelines astheystood and
incorporate theJapanese proposals atalaterdateifthere were consensus.
15. Therepresentative ofIndia saidhisdelegation supported thestatements bytherepresentatives
ofKorea andPakistan andwasprepared toadopt theGuidelines. TheCommittee hadalready devoted
much timetoshaping theGuidelines, and,astheywould beevolving, itseemed itwastimetoadopt
them.
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidtherevised Guidelines represented agood step
forward, astheywould assist work intheCommittee andincapitals. Inprinciple, theconcept oftime-
frames seemed appropriate. However, astheperson intheUnited States responsible forcompleting
thereplies toquestions inNAFTA, shecould saythatinthefirstgo-around therewere220questions,
mostofwhich weredetailed, andinthesecond go-around there were170orso.Herdelegation had
triedtobeascomprehensive aspossible, which required much workandcoordination. Thisexperience
convinced herthat,eventhough time-frames would begood, therewould needtobesome flexibility.
TheStandard Format would presumably streamline theinitial process. Herdelegation would bewilling
togoalong withtheJapanese proposal, subject tosome wording changes, aslongasthere wasan
understanding thattherebeflexibility when needed. Regarding thefirstideaputforthbytheJapanese
representative, herdelegation hadsupported some method toallow aninformal exchange inthis
Committee about thestatus ofagreements thathadbeensigned butnotyetnotified. Tocreate what
would essentially beanobligation tonotify anagreement thatwasperhaps notsigned andcertainly
wasnotratified andthathadnotentered intoforce would present serious problems. While there had
beennoobligation todoso,theNAFTA Parties hadsupplied theWTO withmuch information on
theirAgreement along thewaybecause theyconsidered itimportant. Butitwould beveryproblematic
tocreate theimpression thatthere wassome review process taking place intheWTO atthesame time
national legislatures orparliaments wereconsidering agreements. Sheconsidered "areinvited" tobe
anappropriate phrase because itmade itclear thatthiswaswelcome butnotobligatory. "Prior to
signing"wasquiteobjectionable;"priortomakingtheformalnotification"didseemabetterformulation,
and,practically speaking, many delegations would dothatasearly aspossible. While these were
Chairman 'sGuidelines, theCommittee should becareful, asdocuments often tookonalifeoftheir
own. With respect toparagraph 2,there wastheopportunity inaninformal session todiscuss where
negotiations weregoing on.Forexample, yesterday theMERCOSUR Parties provided agoodsummary
ofthestatus ofvarious negotiations inwhich theywere involved. Thishadtobedoneinformally,
andtheCommittee mustnotcreate anobligation tobegin notifications ortheperception ofthembeforeWT/REG/M/10
Page4
agreements were legally valid. Onthisbasis, shewasnotinaposition tosupport theproposal by
theJapanese delegation.
17. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthedraftGuidelines hadseemed
acceptable, butthere wasareopening ofpreviously discussed issues intheJapanese proposal and
subsequent debate. TheSecretariat hadtaken thedocument asfarasseemed possible, given delegation 's
positions. TheCommittee should takethedraftasitwasand,oncecapitals hadconfirmed thatitwas
adequate, accept itastheChairman 'sGuidelines.
18. TheChairman saidtherehadbeenanumber ofcomments indicating delegations might beready
totakenoteofthedocument, given thefactthattheGuidelines could berevised inthefuture.
19. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatifthedraftGuidelines wereaccepted bytheCommittee
andfollowed byMembers, there would begreat improvement overthecurrent situation.
20. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland referred tothefactthattherehadbeencomments suggesting
theGuidelines beadopted subject toreferendum. Hisdelegation would consider itself committed to
following theGuidelines iftheCommittee tooknoteofthem, asdelegations shared thedocuments.
Itwasimportant nottobecome bureaucratic, asthekeywords were"improve andfacilitate". While
sharing theobjectives oftheproposals, prolonging thedebate wentagainst theCommittee 'sinterests.
Hisdelegation favoured taking noteofthedocument today.
21. Therepresentative ofPoland saidhisdelegation wasprepared totakenoteoftheChairman 's
Guidelines. With respect tothestatement bytheJapanese delegation, hisdelegation could notagree
tochange thepresent text,astheproposal could cause problems inthecontext ofthepre-signing period
orinperiods priortoratifications. Members might beabletonotify onceagreements hadbeenratified.
22. Therepresentative ofJapan saiditseemed theproposal withrespect toparagraph 1should
bewithdrawn, ontheunderstanding thattheGuidelines weretoevolve. Regarding theproposal for
paragraph 8,itseemed concerns expressed bythedelegation oftheUnited States andothers were
addressed bythewords "inprinciple". Hisdelegation hadbeenlooking forawaytoavoid asituation
where noinformation would besubmitted longaftertheestablishment oftheterms ofreference. Perhaps
thissentence could goinafootnote. Basically, hisdelegation wanted toseeatime-frame, andthe
words "inprinciple" afforded theflexibility desired.
23. TheChairman suggested thattheCommittee takenoteoftheGuidelines onaprovisional basis,
asadditional ideas didnotseem acceptable toalldelegations atthistime. TheGuidelines would be
revisited, andhehoped delegations would giveserious consideration totheconcerns expressed bythe
delegation ofJapan.
24. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheGuidelines toImprove andFacilitate theExamination Process.2
D. Reporting ontheOperation ofAgreements
25. TheChairmancalledtheCommittee'sattentiontodocumentWT/REG/W/3,achecklistprepared
bytheSecretariat, andWT/REG/W/13, acontribution byAustralia.
2Subsequently circulated asdocument WT/REG/W/15.WT/REG/M/10
Page5
26. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidherdelegation wasconcerned about biennial reporting and
thefactthattherequirement hadbeenlargely ignored despite thelegalobligation. TheCommittee
hadtouched ontheissue briefly, butithadnotyetfullydiscussed it.Inthepaper submitted, her
delegation offered ideastopromote thediscussion. Itsuggested thattheobjective ofbiennial reporting
should betoallow aregular analysis oftheimpact ofregional trade agreements (RTAs) onthe
multilateral trading system (MTS) andalsotoincrease transparency. Themainaimofthepaper was
tosuggest aprocess under which thisbiennial reporting canbeachieved. Ofcourse there were be
questions andissues thatwould beraised, suchastheneedtoavoid duplication andthenumber of
biennial reports thatcould beconsidered. TheCommittee needed toagree onhowtooperationalize
biennial reporting, andherdelegation hoped itspaper would helpinthisregard.
27. Therepresentative ofPakistan saidthepaper wasastepforward. Hisdelegation wasgenerally
inagreement withtheprocedure andtheobjectives suggested init.However, thesuggestions on
coverage raised somelegalissues. Forexample, Paragraph 11oftheUnderstanding ontheInterpretation
ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994talked about RTAs covering trade ingoods; thisdidnotcover RTAs
under theEnabling Clause ortheGATS. Inparticular, paragraph 4(a)oftheEnabling Clause said
iftherewereamodification introduced tothose preferential arrangements, theparties taking suchaction
were to"notify theContracting Parties andfurnish them withalltheinformation theymaydeem
appropriate relating tosuchaction." Hisdelegation wasnotsurethattheCommittee wastheappropriate
forum tosubject thepreferential arrangements under theEnabling Clause tothesame treatment as
netted outtoothers. Perhaps there wasasimilar legalproblem regarding theeconomic integration
agreements, astherelevant articles intheGATS didnotprovide forbiennial reporting. Ontheseissues
some further thinking anddiscussion wasneeded.
28. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities thanked thedelegation ofAustralia forthe
paper, which would contribute tothediscussion. Hisdelegation hadbeensaying forthepastyear
thattheCommittee needed tolookattheobjective ofbiennial reporting, anditwelcomed thefactthat
thepaper accepted thatpoint andoffered anapproach tosetting outthatobjective. Hisdelegation also
welcomed thefactthattheAustralian paper sought todealdirectly withconcerns about theoverlap
between obligations under tradepolicy review (TPR) andbiennial reporting. Concerning theobjective
ofbiennial reporting, hisdelegation hadnoted inthepastthattheUnderstanding ontheInterpretation
ofArticleXXIVofGATT1994andpreviousdecisionsoftheGATTpartiesdidnotprovideanyobjective
forthisobligation. Butitwasimportant tobeclearwhattheobjective wasbefore theCommittee tried
tomake theobligation more operational. Paragraph 3oftheAustralian paper setoutanapproach
tothequestion oftheobjective, talking about theobjective being "tofacilitate aregular, systematic
discussion intheCRTA which would increase transparency andcomprehensively examine theimpact
ofsuchregional agreements onthemultilateral system." While hisdelegation didnotshare that
objective, itwasavalid proposition tohaveputbefore theCommittee andwould make thebiennial
reporting process afundamental contribution toawider debate, some ofwhich might flowintothe
systemic examination andeventhequestion ofrights andobligations, butwhich alsomight gomuch
more widely intosome oftheother issues ofeconomic impact ofregional agreements -anareathe
Australian delegation hadpromoted discussion ofinthepastandonetheECdelegation hadmade clear
ithadserious doubts regarding. Butthepaper represented aserious attempt tosetoutanobjective.
Although hisdelegation didnotentirely share it,itconsidered thefundamental roleofthevarious
notification andexamination requirements, including thisone,should beaimed atconsidering questions
ofconformity withtherules. Thatwastheheart andthecoreoftheCommittee 'swork, andtheheart
andthecoreoftheinteraction between regional preferential agreements andtherights andobligations
ofthemultilateral system. Itwasimportant nottolosesight ofthis. Itwould beaninappropriate
useofthebiennial reporting obligation totrytodevelop awider debate before theCommittee had
satisfactorily tackled whathisdelegation considered tobethecoreissue. So,thatledhisdelegation
totheconclusion thattheobjective proposed intheAustralian paper wasnotonehisdelegation could
share atthisstage, atleastuntiltheCommittee hadgonefurther intotheprocess ofexamining individualWT/REG/M/10
Page6
agreementsandconcludingthatprocess,anduntiltheCommitteehadmademoreprogressonitssystemic
agenda, aswell. Inasense, those twoparts oftheCommittee 'sagenda were twoendsofthesame
problem, where intheprocess oftheexamination theCommittee looked atagreements, andwhere
inthesystemic exercise itlooked attherights andobligations andhowtheyfittogether. Theobjective
ofthebiennial reporting obligation should befocused toward thatend,rather thanatthisstage trying
tounderpin awider debate. Such awider debate would beveryinteresting, buthisdelegation was
oftheviewthatitwould notatthisstage contribute tothecoreoftheCommittee 'swork, norwould
itcontribute toward thecoreoftheproblem theCommittee wastrying tosolve. Butitwasrightto
focus onthequestion oftheunderlying objective. Hisdelegation welcomed theAustralian attempt
todealwiththequestion ofduplication andthequestion oftherelationship between thebiennial reporting
requirement andtheTPRarrangement. Thisattempt didnotseem topassitsowntest,however. The
approach inparagraph 5seemed tocover issues which theTPRquestionnaire alsocovered. Itwould
beuseful topickupthatpoint. Finally, aquestion ontheEnabling Clause hadbeenraised bythe
representative ofPakistan. Hisdelegation hadwelcomed thewide-ranging approach tothisobligation
intheAustralian paper. Whatever theEnabling Clause didinterms ofrights andobligations, itdid
notrelieve parties oftheirnotification obligations. Itwasimportant toseparate inthedebate questions
ofsubstance from questions ofnotification obligations andtransparency.
29. Therepresentative oftheUnited States alsothanked theAustralian delegation foritspaper,
which contained anumber ofimportant points. Herdelegation agreed withsome points andwashesitant
about others. Thebiennial reporting requirement wasimportant, andsheregretted thatithadnotbeen
functional inthepast,asitcould havecontributed totheCommittee 'sdiscussions onwhathadhappened
inregional agreements. Itwasconnected totheexaminations thattheCommittee wasdoing now, in
thatitwasamassing alarge quantity ofdocumentation, which explained whathadbeendiscussed in
theCommittee aswellaswhattheagreements were, howtheywereformed, andwhatspecific features
theyhad. Shehadnever envisioned thebiennial reporting process asbeing anonerous one. Itwas
important thattheAustralian delegation hadraised theEnabling Clause andalsowaivers. Shepersonally
believed thatallpreferential arrangements should besubject tosome kindoftransparency requirement,
interms ofbiennial reporting; butthatdidnothavetoentail agreatdealofdocumentation. Withrespect
towaivers, shewasnotsure, practically speaking, thattheybelonged inthiscontext, asthere was
anannual surveillance requirement onwaivers particularly, anditdidnotseem theCommittee needed
toduplicate that. Concerning thetrade policy review mechanism (TPRM), there werefourcountries
subjected totheonerous process every twoyears. Totheextent theCommittee could coordinate the
kindofinformation thatwasrequired intheTPRM -whether thatbeacross-notification oranextraction
forthebiennial reporting -itwould begood, andjustasimportant forthose Members thatwere on
thefour-year schedule orsix-year schedule. Perhaps awaytodothiswould befortheCommittee
totakeintoaccount TPRM schedules when drawing upthebiennial reporting schedule. Specifically
ontheobjective putforward bytheAustralian delegation, thisappeared tobeareopening ofthe
examination process, regarding which there seemed tohavebeenashared sense thatMembers did
notwishtodoso.Thebiennial reporting process wasawaytokeeptrackofwhether theinitial promises
orconditions reviewed wereactually being fulfilled -e.g.,weretariffs being implemented asprovided
intheplans, didnegotiations thathadbeenforeseen takeplace, etc.Thatwasthesortofthing the
Committee wastalking about, notareopening ofthereview. Shehoped thatthebiennial reporting
requirement didnotturnintoacomplex exercise. TheCommittee hadcontrol overthisandneeded
todiscuss itandfindpractical ways todealwithpoints. Another matter todealwithwasthelegal
question ofwhich body didthereviews. Assheunderstood it,thisCommittee hadtheresponsibility
forsuggesting howthereviews ought tobedone, sothattheCouncils didnothavetodevote time
tothismatter.
30. TherepresentativeofKoreasaidhisdelegationwelcomedthetimelysubmissionbytheAustralian
delegation andsawitasspurring discussion onthistopic. Thepaper wascomprehensive andtouched
onimportant matters. Hisdelegation could support itsmain thrust. However, hiscomments couldWT/REG/M/10
Page7
onlybeofapreliminary nature. Many delegations hadtouched upon theobjective oftheexercise
assuggestedbytheAustraliandelegation;thissuggestionmeritsconsideration.Theideathatthebiennial
reporting exercise might bedoneinamoresystematic way-pulling allthereports ofthevarious regional
trade agreements (RTAs) together -seemed sensible because oftheburden which theSecretariat and
Committee would otherwise bear. However, asnoted byothers, thatshould notbetheonlyobjective
ofthisbiennial reporting exercise. Another aspect deserving emphasis would betoconsider the
consistency ofRTAs intheoperational stage; itseemed thisshould bestressed more thanthose elements
inparagraphs 3and8.When theCommittee would consider thereports at"itsspecial annual meeting",
itseemed thatMembers should beabletoraisequestions onspecific RTAs regarding theoperational
aspects. Perhaps alsotheCommittee should givethought tohowitshould dealwiththeresults of
thebiennial reports, which isrelated tothequestion ofwhich WTO bodywould behandling biennial
reporting. IftheMembers sawtheCommittee astheappropriate body, thematter ofreporting toa
superior body needed toconsidered.
31. Therepresentative ofJapan saidhiscomments wereonlypreliminary. Inlightofthefactthat
thelegalrequirement ofbiennial reporting hadbeenignored formany years, hisdelegation viewed
thepaper asavaluable contribution. Forthesakeoftransparency, hisdelegation would alsoliketo
havebiennial reports foragreements under waivers andtheEnabling Clause. Ontheissueoftheservices
agreements being subject tothebiennial reporting requirement, hesaidthattransparency would be
enhanced iftheCommittee could havethisinformation. Concerning overlap, paragraph 7spoke of
theneedtoensure thatbiennial reporting didnotinvolve duplication. Thescope ofTPRandtheannual
report werequite different. Rather thanwaiting forsixyears, itwould bepreferable tohavereports
onceevery twoyears. Overall, hisdelegation supported thepaper.
32. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidhisdelegation welcomed theAustralian paper, which
contained many ideas thatcould besupported inprinciple. Hisdelegation agreed withthethrust of
thepaper inparagraphs 3and8,which saidthattheobjective ofbiennial reporting wastoanalyze
theinteraction between preferential arrangements andtheMTS. IntheGuidelines toImprove and
Facilitate theExamination Process (justtaken noteof),future reports onexaminations ofRTAs were
envisaged inthesections on"Conclusions oftheExamination oftheRTA..." and"Decision on
Appropriate Action bytheRelevant Body." Thisrelated toparagraph 3oftheAustralian proposal.
Conformity withrules wasimportant, asdelegations hadpointed out,andthetwosections from the
future RTAreports maywellthrow outquestions ofconformity. These questions should beaddressed
inbiennial review, andthisought tobeapriority. Tothisextent, hisdelegation supported whatthe
Committee hadsaidonobjectives; however, itdidnotthink thisobjective wentagainst whatAustralia
hadproposed inparagraphs 3and8.Paragraph 4dealtwithtwoissues: theestablishment ofacalendar
forthetiming ofthesubmission ofbiennial reports, andwhich agreements werecovered bythereporting
requirement. Thequestion ofthecalendar wasrelatively straightforward. Regarding thesecond matter,
paragraph 5ofWT/REG/W/3, anticipated different considerations ofArticle XXIV agreements and
those submitted under waivers andtheEnabling Clause. Hisdelegation wasoftheviewthat,pending
completion ofsuchconsideration bytheCommittee, acalendar should beestablished forthesubmission
ofArticle XXIV agreements. Regarding point 5oftheAustralian proposal, hisdelegation would note
that,while thepaper emphasized theneed toclarify bilateral trade trends ofthelasttwoyears,
information onintra-RTA tradetrends (which werenotnecessarily bilateral) should alsobeprovided.
Onpoint6,hisdelegation supported thegeneral ideaofastandard outline forallreports. Hisdelegation
alsoagreed withpoint 7onavoiding duplications; however, theissues addressed through theTPRM
andthisCommittee eachhadadifferent focus. TPRMs normally would notreview reports onRTAs
assingle entities. Thesecond sentence ofpoint 8saidtheobjective ofbiennial reporting should be
fortheCommittee toanalyze theinteraction between preferential RTAs andtheMTS. Asbiennial
reporting should allow suchananalysis, itwould beappropriate forbiennial reports tobedealtwith
inasystematic manner. Article XXIV reports should becollated forconsideration atdesignated
meetings. Inthisregard herecalled theSingapore Ministerial Declaration, inwhich theministers statedWT/REG/M/10
Page8
inthefourth sentence onofparagraph 7that"theexpansion andextent ofregional trade agreements
make itimportant toanalyze whether thesystem ofWTO rights andobligations asitrelates toregional
trade agreements needs tobefurther clarified." Twosentences latertheministers endorsed thework
oftheCommittee. Inhisdelegation 'sview, itwasproper thatsuchananalysis ofthesystem ofWTO
rights andobligations asitrelated toRTAs should beoneoftheobjectives ofbiennial reporting.
33. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidhisdelegation favoured having guidelines forbiennial reporting
toassist delegations infulfilling theirobligations. Having hardly discussed thematter, theCommittee
wasnowfaced withaveryambitious proposal thatperhaps wenttoofar.TheCommittee needed to
consider theburden thismight create forthesystem, theparties andtheSecretariat. TheCommittee
wasstilltrying toclearthebacklog, sotoomuch detail inreporting might beproblematic. Paragraph 11
oftheUnderstanding talked about significant changes being reported astheyoccurred. Hisdelegation
hadviewed thisasanopportunity forparties toRTAs which hadalready beenexamined toexplain
developments, opportunities, trade trends, etc.Butparagraph 5oftheproposal asked forparties to
report on"anychanges", which seemed toobroad. Astherepresentative oftheEChadstressed, it
wasimportant tobearinmind thepurpose. Paragraph 8called forallbiennial reports tobeconsidered
together atonemeeting, which seemed impossible given theamount ofdetail being called forinthe
proposal. There needed tobeabalance between complying withtherulesandnotburdening thesystem
withtoomany requirements. TheCommittee should design flexible, broad guidelines.
34. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidbiennial reports wasimportant forthework ofthe
Committee. They would serve asalinkbetween thepicture taken attheendoftheexamination of
anagreement andthesystemic debate. Hisdelegation welcomed theAustralian paper, which provided
aconcrete basis fordiscussion. Inparticular, hisdelegation welcomed thepoint inparagraph 8,as
itplaced thebiennial reports inthecontext oftheoverall examination ofRTAs andtheproblems of
regionalism vis-à-vis themultilateral system. Inthatrespect, itwould beuseful fortheCommittee
totakeupthatinformation onaregular basis soastocompare general regional trends withgeneral
multilateral trends. Inthisvein, bilateral reports would offeragreat contribution totheCommittee 's
debate. Concerning thepoints mentioned inparagraph 5onthepresentation ofthereports, ashas
beennoted bytherepresentative ofBrazil, thepurpose ofthebiennial report wastoallow theCommittee
tokeepabreast ofchanges intheagreements. Inthislight, thepurpose should betoensure thatthe
whole system istransparent. AstheCommittee examined agreements andconsidered biennial reports,
itwould haveapicture ofanagreement atanygiven point intime. Forthistobeeffective, thatpicture
needed tobeclear. Therefore, parties hadtobeready tosupply therelevant information. Ifthe
examination lasted toolong, thepicture would loseitsfocus andinformation would become outdated.
Thebiennial reporting would allow arefining ofthepicture andshould innowaybearecommencing
theexamination process, which would notbepracticable. Hisdelegation thuscould notsupport the
comments bythedelegations ofHong Kong andKorea, astheyhadcalled forare-examination of
agreements. Hisdelegation didnotsupport theaspects ofparagraph 8which dealt withsystematic
examination. First, there wasacurrent obligation toreport; butthere wasnoobligation toproceed
toanexamination. Obviously Members could raisequestions following thepresentation ofareport,
butthere wasnoobligation toconduct examinations inthatregard, andcertainly notsystematic
examinations. Second, regarding theword "systematic", ifitwereagoodideatogetapicture ofthe
general trends, itwasnotnecessary todothiswithrespect toallagreements, asagreements varied
inrelative significance. Finally, while thebiennial report would beauseful toolinthecontext ofthe
systemic discussion, itwasimportant thattheCommittee employ amethod thatwould notoverburden
theSecretariatandMembers.Hisdelegationwouldthusfavourstringentdisciplineregardingtechniques,
butatthesame timewould stress thattheprocess benon-burdensome.
35. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidhisdelegation supported theanalysis oftheHong Kong
delegation. First, regarding theobjectives assetoutinparagraphs 3and8,hisdelegation hadno
difficulty withthoseobjectives asexpressed, anditagreed thattheyfellwithin theCommittee 'smandate.WT/REG/M/10
Page9
Interms ofthecoverage ofthereporting process, thiswassomething thatcould belooked atfurther,
buthisdelegation welcomed thewidecoverage setoutinthepaper. Another focus oftheday'sdebate
hadbeenthematter ofavoiding duplication withtheTPRM process. Some delegations hadstressed
thatthebiennial reporting process should notrepeat theoriginal review process. Inthisregard, his
delegation sawnodifficulty withtheprocedures setoutintheAustralian paper. There would inevitably
beadifference inthefocus ofthedebate when itcame tobiennial reporting, asthefocus would likely
beonareasthathadbeenofconcern during theinitial review oronkeydevelopments thathadoccurred
since theinitial review. Interms ofprocedure, hisdelegation supported theideainparagraph 8that
theCommittee should consider reports together inasingle meeting. Agreements oflesser significance
could begiven rapid consideration atthatonemeeting. Hisdelegation alsosupported thepoint in
paragraph 9regarding theissue ofeconomic integration agreements intheservices area.
36. Therepresentative ofIndia saidhisdelegation strongly supported theAustralian paper.
Paragraph 2wasespecially appropriate, asitdealtwiththeimplications offulfilling legalobligations
ofUnderstandings reached in1994. Regarding theother points inthepaper, hisdelegation supported
thecomments bytheHong Kong delegation. Inaddition, withrespect toparagraph 4,hisdelegation
would request thattheinitial discussion ontheEnabling Clause takeplace intheCommittee onTrade
andDevelopment (CTD). Concerning paragraph 9,hisdelegation would strongly endorse the
recommendation totheCouncil forTrade inServices toextend thebiennial reporting requirement to
economic integration agreements inservices.
37. Therepresentative ofHungary saidthatbiennial reporting wasimportant fortransparency and
wasalegal requirement. Herdelegation welcomed theAustralian paper andhadsome preliminary
comments. Themain objectives setoutinparagraphs 3and8seemed tooambitious. AstheEC
delegation hadnoted, thecoreissuewasconformity withWTO requirements, andassessing thisshould
bethemain objective behind thereporting process. Herdelegation could goalong withtheideaof
astandard outline forthereports, asfound inparagraph 6,buttheCommittee would needtodiscuss
thisfurther. Also, herdelegation could agree thatthere wasaneedtoensure thatbiennial reporting
didnotentail duplication, though theCommittee should discuss thismore.
38. Therepresentative ofRomania saidthat,while hisdelegation welcomed thepaper, itsupported
comments byother delegations pointing outdifficulties andconcerns withtheambitious proposal.
Atthetimeoftheinitial examination, theCommittee checked anagreement 'sconsistency withthe
generalrules;thenthereweretobesubsequentpicturesthroughbiennialreporting.Capitalsandmissions
hadagreat dealofwork withrespect toinitial examinations. Thereporting requirement hadbeen
partoftheGATT since 1971, andanewaspect wasadded in1994 withtherequirement ofnotifying
anysignificant change inanRTA. In1971, GATT hadnotbeen wellsupplied withtools for
transparency. Most ofthepoints inparagraph 5concerned factual information fortransparency. There
wasinformation provided ontrade, customs duties, non-tariff barriers, etc.Also, through theTPRM
there wereother forms ofnotification which concerned trade policy instruments. Inviewofthefact
thattherequirementhadbeenaroundformorethan25years,perhapsMembersshouldconsiderchanging
therequirement. Hisdelegation supported thesuggestion toconsider these matters inview ofthe
systemic discussion.
39. Therepresentative ofCanada thanked theAustralian delegation fortheproposal butnoted that
hisdelegation haddeepconcerns regarding theproposal 'snature. Theproposal concerned onthe
submission ofareport thatwould focus onchange, inparticular bringing statistics uptodatesoas
toofferamore detailed picture ofdevelopments inRTAs overtime. Hisdelegation agreed withthe
position asserted bySwitzerland andtheother points made concerning thenature ofthereports.
40. Therepresentative ofNorway saidhisdelegation welcomed thepaper, noting thatthere was
nodispute thatobligations should bemet. There were several positive elements inthepaper.WT/REG/M/10
Page10
Specifically, theCommittee needed adebate onthepoints raised inthefirstpartofparagraph 8;in
thisregard, hesupported thecomments bytheSwiss delegate totheeffect thatthebiennial reviews
should notbeoverburdensome butshould bemeaningful interms ofobligations. Onthatbasis, the
Committee should lookmore closely atthescope andprocedure ofwhatwassuggested.
41. Therepresentative ofThailand thanked theAustralian delegation forputting forththeproposal,
onwhich shehadsome preliminary comments. Regarding objectives, sheagreed withotherdelegations
thatparagraphs 3and8were tooambitious. Concerning coverage, there needed tobeadetailed
discussion onavoiding duplication andonwhatform would beappropriate forvarious agreements.
Regarding procedure, acalendar forthesubmission ofthebiennial report andthetreatment ofmultiple
reports inonemeeting could facilitate theprocess.
42. TheChairman saidthatthere didnotseem tobeaconsensus yet.Heasked delegations to
reflect ontheAustralian paper andthevarious comments onit.
E. Systemic Implications ofAgreements andInitiatives fortheMultilateral Trading System
andtheRelationship Between Them
43. TheChairman saidthatbackground documentation forthisitemoftheagenda comprised the
following: theChecklist ofIssues (WT/REG/W/12), which wascurrently being annotated bythe
Secretariat; thecompilation ofprovisions dealing withtechnical barriers totrade andsanitary and
phytosanitary measures contained inRTAs (WT/REG/W/8); andthestatements made intheEighth
Session bythedelegations ofAustralia, Korea andHong Kong, which hadbeendistributed asinformal
papers. Thenextstage oftheCommittee 'sdiscussion ofthisagenda itemwould bebased onthe
annotated Checklist ofIssues andwould occur atthemeeting inJune.
44. Therepresentative oftheSecretariat saidtheChecklist wasbeing annotated along thelines
ofwhatwascontained intheHong Kong proposal. Thisinvolved indicating thecontext inwhich issues
ontheChecklist hadbeenraised, thedifferent views thathadbeenexpressed atthetimetheissues
wereraised, andthesignificance oftheviews fortheformation, examination oroperation oftherelevant
RTAs. Inthatregard, theSecretariat wasreviewing theUruguay Round negotiating group discussions,
discussions intheCommittee, andpastWorking Party discussions. Theannotation would befactual
andwould notdraw conclusions.
45. TheChairman asked delegations toreflect onhowtheCommittee might structure future
discussion oftheissues.
46. Referring tothehorizontal studies found indocument WT/REG/W/8, therepresentative of
Hong Kong saidthattotakefulladvantage oftheinformation, acomparison ofprovisions ofRTAs
andofthemultilateral instruments would behelpful. Thepurpose ofsuchacomparison could beto
permit anassessment ofthecomplementarity orconsistency oftheRTAprovisions withthemultilateral
agreements. Observations could alsobemade astotheimplications ofsuchconsistency ordifferences,
interms oftheintra-RTA trade andtrade withthird parties. Hisdelegation didnotenvision any
quantitative study interms ofimplications ontrade value orvolume, butitdidseem more could be
doneonaqualitative basis. ASecretariat notecomparing orcontrasting RTA provisions withWTO
Agreements would behelpful inthisregard.WT/REG/M/10
Page11
F. Other Business
47. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidhisdelegation wished todrawtheCommittee 'sattention
totheneedtohaveRTA parties notify theiragreements. Anagreement thathadnotbeennotified
could notbereviewed bytheCommittee. Thishadconsequences notonlyforthespecific study of
thatagreement, butalsofortheCommittee 'ssystemic discussions. Itwasimportant thattheCommittee
haveapicture ofregionalism versus multilateralism thatwasascomplete aspossible. Inthatregard,
hisdelegation hadnoted thatanumber ofFTAs hadbeenconcluded butnotnotified. Inmany cases
theCommittee hadheard ofthese agreements because theparties hadshown adegree oftransparency.
Hewishedtoindicatesomeoftheagreementswhich,tohisdelegation'sknowledge,hadnotbeennotified
totheWTO. Henoted thatthese agreements hadbeenconcluded recently inabroader context of
regional initiatives thathadbeenundertaken intheAmericas. Tomention afewexamples, hereferred
toChile'sAgreements withBolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico andMERCOSUR. Agreements that
hadbeennotified included theAgreement between Chile andCanada; theAgreement between Chile
andVenezuela; theG-3Agreement between Mexico, Colombia andVenezuela; theAgreement between
Mexico andCosta Rica; aswellasanumber ofagreements reached bytheCARICOM countries.
Hesaidhispurpose wasnottoengage infinger-pointing, butsimply tonotethatthere wereaseries
ofelements making uparegional integration process, andthese elements should benotified tothe
Committee. Hethuswasappealing toallthecountries thatwere parties toRTAs tonotify the
agreements, pursuant tothenotification obligations intherelevant WTO provisions. Heproposed
thattheChairman conduct consultations soastogiveamore global treatment totheproblem of
notifications.
48. Therepresentative ofChile saidthat,tohisknowledge, theagreements inwhich Chile was
saidtobeparticipating hadindeed beennotified totheCTD, through theLatin American Integration
Association, under theEnabling Clause. Notifications formostofthose agreements could befound
inthelastreport submitted bytheLatin American Integration Association (LAIA).
49. TherepresentativeofColombiasaidthat,alongthelineofthestatementjustmadebythedelegate
ofChile,theagreementsthattheSwissdelegationmentionedwithrespecttoColombia,ChileandMexico
hadbeennotified totheCTD under theEnabling Clause. ThatCommittee hadtaken noteofthose
notifications. Hisdelegation wasoftheviewthatithadcomplied withnotification requirements.
50. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidsheappreciatedthecommentsmadebythedelegation
ofSwitzerland. Herdelegation, too,hadnoticed thatthere wereanumber ofagreements thattoits
knowledge hadnotbeennotified totheWTO. Some agreements might havebeennotified totheCTD
theCouncil forTrade inGoods, ortheCouncil forTrade inServices. AstheCommittee discussed
systemic implications ofregional agreements, itwasimportant thatallagreements inthesystem be
covered. Perhaps theCommittee needed toconstruct abridge totheCTD, sothatitcould havesome
ofthese notifications onitsagenda. Thisconcern extended tosome oftheother agreements, such
asASEAN, which hadnotbeenreviewed despite thefactthattheparties hadprovided agood deal
ofinformation ontheagreement. India andNepal hadanagreement, which apparently hadrather
interesting rules oforigin, andtheEChadreportedly concluded acustoms union withAndorra.
51. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatnotification hadalways beenanimportant issueforhis
delegation. Hethanked theSwiss delegation forhaving raised thepoint. While some information
might havebeensenttoother WTO bodies, itwould begoodiftheCommittee hadacomplete picture
ofallthenotifications. Perhaps thisCommittee could sendarequest totheCTD forafulllistof
information. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland hadcongratulated Canada forhaving notified its
Agreement withChile, buthewished toclarify thatthathadnotbeenanofficial notification because
theAgreement wasnotyetratified bythecountries 'respective Parliaments. Thenotification would
bemade totheCouncil forTrade inGoods inthenextfewweeks, oncetheAgreement wasratified.WT/REG/M/10
Page12
Theparties hadwanted toinform theCommittee oftheexistence ofthisAgreement, soastoproceed
inanorderly fashion. Early provision ofinformation wassomething hisdelegation hadurged onseveral
occasions. Hisdelegation hoped thiswould become thenorm forallWTO Members.
52. Therepresentative ofAustralia thanked thedelegation ofSwitzerland forthepointithadmade.
Hesupported thesuggestion bytherepresentatives oftheUnited States andCanada thattheCommittee
trytoobtain fromtheCTDalltheinformation thatwasrelevant tothenotification ofthose agreements,
sothattheCommittee might haveacomplete picture.
53. TheChairman reminded theCommittee thatitsTerms ofReference under theexamination
heading weredetermined bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods, theCouncil forTrade inServices, and
theCTD. Delegations hadanopportunity toconsider thisissue atthenextCTD meeting.
54. Therepresentative ofEcuador saidtheEnabling Clause wastheproper ground foragreements
ofdeveloping countries. According toit,Ecuador hadnotified itsAgreement totheCTD. This
discussion could bedealtwiththere, aswell.
55. Therepresentative ofJapan saidhisdelegation alsosupported thepoints made bythe
representatives ofSwitzerland, Canada, theUnited States andAustralia. Hisdelegation would like
Members toshare relevant information atanearly stage ofanRTA process, evenprior toformal
notification.
56. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidhisdelegation shared theunderlying
point made bytheSwiss delegation andalsotheChairman 'spoint thatitwasfortheCTD, theCouncil
forTrade inGoods andtheCouncil forTrade inServices todetermine which agreements weresent
tothisCommittee. Members needed tolookatthose notifications andconsider seriously whether they
should besenttothisCommittee. Regarding theEC-Andorra Customs Union, hesaidtheparties had
indeed neglected tonotify theAgreement. Hisdelegation wasintheprocess ofrenegotiating that
particular Agreement, andhehoped theresult would beevengreater conformity withtherequirements
ofArticle XXIV. Hisdelegation therefore wished toconsult withother interested delegations, asto
whether thenotification should come noworshould bedelayed oneortwomonths, when theAgreement
would beuptodate.
57. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland thanked delegations forhaving given clarifications astothe
wayinwhich anumber oftheagreements hadbeennotified inanother forum. Hisdelegation endorsed
theproposal thatother delegations havemade. Perhaps theSecretariat ortheChairman could actas
asource ofinformation exchange between theCTD andtheCommittee, sothattheCommittee would
haveascomplete apicture aspossible ofthesituation. Henoted hisdelegation 'shopethatnotifications
beascomplete aspossible, including thecontents andthetextsofthevarious agreements. Forthe
parties tosome oftheseagreements, thisshould notbeacomplex matter, asthetextsofmany agreements
were already available ontheWebSiteoftheOrganization ofAmerican States.
58. TheChairman asked theSecretariat toinform theChairman oftheCTD about thisdiscussion.
ThatChairman orsome delegations might consider itappropriate toplacethismatter onthenextagenda
oftheCTD.
59. Therepresentative ofTurkey saidthatfortransparency purposes hisdelegation wished toinform
theCommittee ofthestatus oftheTurkey-Israel FreeTrade Agreement. TheAgreement hadbeen
signed lastyearandrecently hadbeen approved bytheTurkish Grand National Assembly. The
ratification procedure hadthusbeencompleted, andtheAgreement would enter intoforce inthenear
future. Hisdelegation andthedelegation ofIsrael would submit aformal jointnotification tothe
Committee.WT/REG/M/10
Page13
60. TheChairman recalled dates thathadbeenproposed earlier intheweek forcontinuing the
examination oftheECEnlargement. Questions weretobesubmitted by7May, replies weredue3June,
andcirculation ofdocumentation inEnglish bytheSecretariat 7June, withtranslations available as
soonaspossible thereafter. Heproposed thattheJuneagenda include thefollowing: theexaminations
oftheECAssociation Agreements; theexamination oftheECEnlargement, withthecalculation of
general incidence completed bythatdate; thefirstround oftheexamination oftheCanada-Israel Free
Trade Agreement; theprogramme ofmeetings forthesecond partoftheyear, withaChairman 's
proposal soontobedistributed; andcontinuation ofdiscussion ofsystemic issues, onthebasisofthe
annotated Checklist.
61. TheChairman confirmed thattheECAssociation Agreements should beontheagenda.
62. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland asked whether information ontheCanada-Israel FreeTrade
Agreement hadbeenorwould bedistributed, andwhether itwasorwould beintheformoftheStandard
Format.
63. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthathisdelegation waspreparing information intheStandard
Format andwould make thisavailable assoonaspossible.
64. Therepresentative ofKorea suggested thattheJuneagenda alsoinclude anitemforcontinuing
thediscussion onbiennial reporting.
65. TheChairman saidtheitemcould beincluded, withtheunderstanding thatitwould bedropped
from theagenda iftimeproved short. Regarding themethodology forthecalculation ofthegeneral
incidence ofduties before andaftertheformation ofacustoms union, hesaidthattheSecretariat had
conducted consultations onbehalf oftheChairman; aninformal notebytheSecretariat wasnowbeing
distributed andcould bediscussed attheJunemeeting.
66. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatintheprocedural Guidelines therewasapoint
thattheSecretariat would provide anupdate onthestatus ofvarious examinations. Sheenvisioned
thattoentail anaccount ofwhatagreements wereunder review, whatagreements hadrecently been
notified, etc.Would theSecretariat beinaposition toprovide afirstrendition ofthissoon?
67. TheChairman responded thatyes,theSecretariat wasinaposition todoso.
68. TherepresentativeofSwitzerlandrequestedthattheSecretariatincludeinformationonagreements
notified under theEnabling Clause.
69. TheChairman replied thattheSecretariat would needtobeauthorized bytheCommittee to
usethatdocumentation, asitwasreluctant onitsownresponsibility todelve intotheaffairs ofother
bodies. Heasked ifthere would beanyobjections totheCommittee authorizing ittodoso.
70. Therepresentative ofChile saidhewould needtoconsult withhiscapital.
71. TheCommittee tooknoteofallthecomments made.