RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/85  
 
19 July 2017 
(17-3962) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -fifth Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 29  JUNE 2017  
Chairm en: Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden) and  
Ambassador Walid Doudech (Tunisia)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The 85th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was c onvened in Airgram WTO/AIR /RTA/10 /Rev.1  dated 16 June 2017. 
1.2.  The Chairman  welcomed Members to the 85th Session of the CRTA.  Under Other Business, 
the new Chairman would inform Members of his intentions with regard to consultations under 
paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and the proposed schedule for CRTA meetings 
for the rest of the year.  
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted:  
 A. Adoption of the Agenda  
 B. Election of Officers  
 C. Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism  – Status Report  on the 
 Committee's work  
  I. Early Announcements (HTTP://RTAIS.WTO.ORG)  
  II. Status of  the Preparation of Factual Presentations, Including Delays in the  
   Receipt of Data  
  III. Non-notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/116)  
  IV. Factual Presentations Delayed Due  to Lack of Comments (WT/REG/W/117)  
 D. LAIA R eplies to the  EU Questions  (WT/COMTD/W/224)  
 E. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements   
 I. Free T rade Agreement between  the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam, Goods and 
 Services  
II. Deep and Comprehensive F ree Trade Area Concluded as a Part of the 
Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, Goods and 
Services  
III. Free Trade Agreement between Georgia and the Russian Federation, Goods  
F.  Other Business  
 
B. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
1.4.  The Chairman  said that f ollowing the General Council meeting held on 7 April 2017,  he had 
the pleasure to propose that the Committee elect, by acclamation, Ambassador  Walid  Doudech  of 
Tunisia, as the new Chairman of the CRTA.  The Committee so agreed . The outgoing Chair man 
thanked Members  and the Secretariat  for their cooperation during his tenure. He wished the new 
Chairman good luck and handed over the meeting.  
1.5.  The new Chairman  thanked Members for electing him as the Chair of the CRTA . He thanked 
the outgoing Chair  for his excellent work throughout the previous year  and said  that Ambassador 
Blockert would be available to ensure the proper hand -over and support in the first S ession of the WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 2 - 
 
  CRTA . He asked for Members' cooperation and hoped to have an opportunity to meet du ring 
informal sessions to discuss the way forward on the issues that would arise in the CRTA.  
C. IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RTA TRANSPARENCY M ECHANISM  – STATUS REPORT ON 
THE COMMITTEE'S WORK  
1.6.  The Chairman  provided Members with an update with regard to the Commi ttee's work and 
the implementation of the Transparency Mechanism  (TM). In order to better reflect the 
Committee's work these had been divided into separate elements, i.e. early announcements, 
status of  the preparation of factual presentations (including de lays in the receipt of data), 
non-notified RTAs and factual presentations delayed due to lack of comments . 
C.I  Early Announcements  
1.7.  He said that a total of 39 early announcements were currently on the WTO website (not 
counting those which had been subseque ntly notified). He thanked Members who had submitted 
information in line with the requirements of the TM and encouraged others to do so. He reminded 
Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
C.II Status of  the P reparation of Factual Presentations, including Delays in the Receipt 
of Data  
1.8.  As regards the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO M embers only there were currently 29 RTAs for which a factua l 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. He recalled that at the 
Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Members had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non Members under the TM's procedures. Thus, factual pr esentations on a further 
32 RTAs involving non -Members were to be prepared. Members had agreed that those RTAs 
notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, should be taken up before the 
others. Data requests for RTAs notified since the adoption of the TM had been sent to the relevant 
parties. Regarding the backlog in the receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting of 
factual presentations for certain RTAs, he hoped that the missing information would be provided as 
soon as possible.  
1.9.  A representative of the Secretariat  said that with regard to factual presentations of RTAs 
between WTO Members:  for China -Korea goods and services, the factual presentation had been 
circulated. For Korea -India, services, and Colombia -Korea, goods  and services the factual 
presentations would be circulated shortly. For Japan -Mongolia, Mexico -Panama  and 
GCC-Singapore, all goods and services,  no comments had been received. For EU -ESA EPA, goods, 
there were a few outstanding questions but the factual p resentation would be finalized shortly . For 
Korea -ASEAN, services , Seychelles'  accession to SADC , Turkey -Moldova, Turkey -Malaysia, 
EU-Côte d'Ivoire, and Armenia -Kazakhstan , all goods,  and Costa Rica -Colombia and  the Pacific 
Alliance, both goods and service s, the factual presentations were being drafted. The factual 
presentation of Ecuador's accession to EU -Peru-Colombia was also being drafted although data 
from Ecuador were missing. For EU -Cameroon, EU -Papua New Guinea and  Fiji, EU -Ghana, and  
Panama's acces sion to the CACM, all goods, data were not complete . 
1.10.   With regard to RTAs involving non Members, the situation was as follows:  the factual 
presentation of EU -CARIFORUM, goods and services,  had been sent for comment s although data 
from some CARIFORUM  parties  were missing  and comments were still awaited.  For EAEU, goods 
and services,  and the accessions of Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU  the factual 
presentations were being drafted  although some data from the Kyrgyz Republic were still missing. 
For EU-San Marino, goods, the factual presentation was being drafted. For EFTA -Lebanon, 
Turkey -Syria, CEFTA Enlargement, Ukraine -Azerbaijan, Ukraine -Turkmenistan,  the Common 
Economic Zone, and Russian Federation -Turkmenistan, all goods, data was not complete a nd the 
factual presentations could not be drafted.  
1.11.   A third category concerned four agreements – ASEAN -Japan, the new CIS a greement  and 
EU-SADC , all goods,  and EU-Central America, goods and services – for which the agreement was 
not in force for all the parties. The Secretariat intended to wait until the agreement had entered 
into force for all the parties before commencing the preparation of factual presentations.  She WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 3 - 
 
  urged the parties to notify the Secretariat when their respective agreement s had been  ratified and 
had entered into force for all the parties. She urged Members to make every effort to comply with 
the deadlines as requested so that the Secretariat could do its best to adhere to the CRTA's work 
programme.  
1.12.   The represe ntative of the United States  noted that part of the information in the Status of  
the Preparation of Factual Presentation s was duplicative with the information in Agenda item C .IV. 
He renewed his request to consolidate the two A genda items in a single item and fold all the 
information into document WT/REG/ W/117. He encouraged the Chair to engage in a process to 
ensure the proper functioning of the TM  since many of the items on the list were long overdue and 
he suggested devoting additional C ommittee time  to the resolution of  any issue among Members 
with respect to the work to which all Members had committed. The United States and its partners 
had been on the list in the past and had faced challenges in getting comments , particularly when 
coordination  among a large group of parties was ne eded. He was sympathetic to the challenge s 
that other Members faced but he thought that avoiding a discussion was  not helping to address 
them. He asked whether the challenges were in assembling the data and providing them to the 
Secretariat  or in coordinat ing comments  and suggested that an exchange of experiences could be 
helpful. The CRTA need ed to take a serious look at the delays presented under Agenda  item C.II  
and put effort in to address ing the issue . 
1.13.   The represe ntative of India was not in a position t o support the proposal of the United 
States and requested that the status  quo as far as the documents were concerned  was maintained . 
1.14.   The represe ntative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's  commitment to Agenda items  
C.II and C.IV since i t was importan t to keep track of the preparation of factual presentations . She 
gave a n update regarding EU -CARIFORUM: the EU was in close cooperation with the CARIFORUM 
Secretariat and the Parties were working on the finalization of jointly agreed comments. In 
addition,  the EU was working on the EU -San Marino factual presentation.  
1.15.   The represe ntative of Japan  explained that both Parties to the Japan -Mongolia RTA were 
working to prepare and coordinate comments on the draft factual presentation  and would submit  
comments shortly. Regarding the question  posed by the representative of the United States , Japan 
faced challenges in coordinat ing and finaliz ing comments between parties . 
C.III Non-notified RTAs   
1.16.   The Chairman  said that an updated list had been circulated on 26  June in  document 
WT/REG/W/116  and contain ed 74 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 23 June 2017 . The 
following RTAs had been notified and removed from the list: CACM –Accession of Panama, 
EAEU -Viet Nam, Guam, Argentina –Brazil, Brazil –Uruguay, MERCOSU R–Chile, MERCOSUR –Mexico, 
and India –Thailand. EU -Kosovo had been added to the list.  
1.17.   The representative of Brazil  noted with concern that a number of instruments concluded 
under the Treaty of Montevideo remained incorrectly listed as non -notified RTAs in document 
WT/REG/W/116 despite the rightful removal of some LAIA agreements from the list . The new list 
was still based on the same non -consensual  methodology employed in previous documents tabled 
for regular S essions of the CRTA despite the reiteration o f concerns by Brazil and other M embers. 
Document s WT/COMTD/ W/217 and WT/REG/W/105 , circulated in June 2016 in the Committee on 
Trade and Development (CTD) and CRTA respectively, list ed all the agreements under the 
umbrella of the Treaty of Montevideo notified under t he Enabling Clause and pursuant to sections 
D to G of the TM until that date. Given its commitment to promoting transparency in RTAs , Brazil 
had constructively sought ways to overcome the issue. Agreements between LAIA members had 
allowed for certain form al changes to be introduced in the format of the notification regularly 
submitted to the CTD and , as a result , the notification WT/COMTD/N/53  had been tabled in that 
body. Brazil expected  that that development would contri bute to more fruitful debate s in the CRTA 
with regard  to relevant issues mandated in par agraph  28 of the Nairobi declaration.  
1.18.   The representative of Thailand  inform ed the CRTA that the Thailan d-India Early Harvest 
Scheme had  been notified to the CTD pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Enablin g Clause. She 
thank ed the Indian delegation for its collaboration and hard work on the matter. She appreciate d 
the Secretariat 's prompt update of the list of non -notified RTAs and  the removal of  the agreement WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 4 - 
 
  from the list. The P arties would submit the rel evant data to the Secretariat for the purposes of 
preparing the factual presentation to be considered by Members in the CTD.  
1.19.   The representative of Uruguay  expressed satisfaction about  the agreement s withdrawn from 
the list. At the same time , she was conce rned about those  still included in the list despite the fact 
that Uruguay had voiced its opinion on the issue in the past. She recall ed that paragraph 2 of  the 
note submitted by LAIA to the Chair of CTD and copied  to the Chair of the CRTA  (document 
WT/COMT D/W/224) had requested an explanation with regard to the criteria used for non-notified 
RTAs.  
1.20.   The representative of the United States  acknowledge d and appreciate d Members that had 
submitted their notifications . He t hanked Brazil and Uruguay for their effo rts in trying to advance 
the issue and making some progress. The list was a helpful tool to focus on what additional 
notifications were needed  and was without prejudice to Members ' views of  a negotiation or from a 
dispute settlement stand point. The list wa s helpful for Members to focus on what notifications were 
outstanding. However, he was still unclear about the MERCOSUR agreements that had been  
deleted from the list as they had different entry into force date s from those  listed in  document 
WT/COMTD/N/53  which were instruments that had been concluded the previous year. Perhaps 
additional Committee time was needed to go through items 45 to 74 of the list in order to have a 
clear understanding  of what agreement s were concerned . The additional protocols liste d in 
document WT/COMTD/N/53  did not correspond to the agreements in document WT/REG/ W/116. 
The complexity of the LAIA system was a later Agenda  item but perhaps  a more fulsome list was 
needed . For example, the Uruguay -Brazil agreement had some  80 additiona l protocols and the list 
would need to be much longer if it included each individual protocol under each agreement. He 
requested clarification  on which LAIA agreement s were being referred to and which were not 
notified.  
1.21.   The representative of Paraguay  supported the statements made by  Brazil and Uruguay. 
Paraguay was  pleased to note that four agreements had been withdrawn from the list and state d 
once again that it would continue to work to ensure that the other agreements were gradually 
removed.  
1.22.   The represe ntative of Argentina  reiterated its concern with regard the inclusion of 
agreements concluded under the Treaty of Montevideo in document WT/REG/W/116.  
1.23.   The representative of Australia  said that  document WT/REG/W/116 wa s a useful reference 
tool for Members t o see which RTAs had been duly notified , examined and reviewed by the CRTA. 
The document helped  the Committee to discharge its important trade monitoring function and it 
should be maintained . Like other s had said, he would like to allocate more time in the  CRTA to 
actually discuss the modalities and methodologies underlying the document in order to resolve 
differences in a constructive way.  
1.24.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU attached great  importance to the 
transparency of document  WT/REG/W/116 . She had noted that four LAIA agreements had been 
removed as a result of the 16 notification s submitted in document  WT/COMTD /N/53. The EU was 
still examining the  notification s though preliminary reading suggest ed that they concerned  
technical ch anges and were not notifications of the underlying agreements . The EU was interested 
in an exchange with the Secretariat on the methodology behind the list  to understand  what kind of 
agreements  figure d on it.  
1.25.   The representative of Canada  agreed with other s that document WT/REG/W/116 was useful 
and fundamental . Given  its relevance , he insisted on it being  maintained in the CRTA. Regarding 
the methodology for the construction of the list, Canada was ready to participate in further 
detailed discussion in the CRTA .  
C.IV Factual Presentations Delayed due to Lack of Comments   
1.26.   The Chairman  said that an updated list of RTAs for wh ich the factual consideration had been  
delayed due to lack of comments from parties  had been rec ently circulated as WT/REG/W/117 . He 
hoped that outstanding comments would soon be made available and the factual consideration of 
these agreements could be undertaken.  WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.27.   The representative of the United States  expressed disappointment that India was not in a 
position to consider its proposal to m erge items C.II and C.IV. He sought  feedback regarding the 
reasons and concerns behind India's position and how the proposal could be modified . As an 
alternative, in order to keep a smoother flow, he proposed discuss ing the items in sequence in the 
Agenda  since they repeat ed identical information.  
1.28.   The representative of Mexico  indicated that the comments on the factual presentation of 
Panama -Mexico were ready and would be sent at the latest by the end of that day. 
D. LAIA REPLIES TO THE EU QUESTIONS  
1.29.   The re presentative of the European Union  said the EU  had requested the Agenda item. She 
thank ed Uruguay for the replies (document WT/COMTD/W/224 ) to the EU 's questions (document 
WT/REG /W/109) that it had raised in the CRTA  in August 2016  and acknowledge d the eff orts made 
by LAIA members in putting together the replies as the EU attach ed great importance to RTA 
transparency. She thank ed Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay for their recent 
submission containing 16 notifications. As regards the format of notification , she noted that the 
submission was a positive step as it followed  the RTA notificati on template format and addressed  
some of the concerns raised by Members in the past w ith other LAIA submissions. That  could be 
seen as progress in the discussions on what constituted  a notification. The EU was still studying 
the content of the notifications. At a preliminary stage, she was concerned that the notifications 
were about technical modifications to an already implemented RTA. Thus, the root pr oblem 
remain ed and the existing underlying RTA had still not been notified in due form.   
1.30.   Turning to the replies, she noted that, despite the EU 's request, a correlation table linking 
the agreements in the annex in document WT/COMTD/ W/217 to the WTO Secreta riat's list of 
non-notified RTAs  was still missing . Such a correlation table would have provide d a tool of 
transparency to help navigate the maze of LAIA agreements.  In terms of legal argumentation and 
from the Articles cited in the LAIA replies, the EU 's interpretation was that the 1980 Treaty of 
Montevideo was a political declaration of intent and objectives and did not contain concrete RTA 
GATT disciplines and tariff treatment . The replies in point 1.3 of document WT/COMTD/W/224 
seemed  to confirm the EU's understanding that market opening and tariff preferences had been 
granted subsequently in the framework of regional agreements.  The EU still had  concerns about 
the assertion that all the regional agreements, economic complementarity agreements and partia l 
agreements constitute d "mechanisms" for the implementation and "instruments for the 
development of the objectives and functions of the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo" and had to be 
interpreted as falling under its "legal umbrella". Therefore, she asked LAIA members to clarify 
further the meaning of "implementation". At that stage, the EU failed to see how subsequent tariff 
granting agreements could be characteriz ed as "mechanisms" only and could be understood as 
"changes" or "modifications" in the sense of Sec tion D of the TM. Furthermore, some LAIA 
members did  not abide by such interpretation and had themselves notified some of the subsequent 
agreements concluded after the Treaty of Montevideo under Section B of the TM.  
1.31.   As stated on previous occasions in the CTD and CRTA, the EU disagreed  with the 
interpretation that a newly acceded country to LAIA (e.g. Panama) was covered by the original 
Treaty of Montevideo and exempted from any notification. It also appeared  that there was  an 
inconsistency within LAIA as C uba had notified its accession to LAIA. The LAIA replies also 
confirm ed in paragraph 1.4.b that a number of "economic complementarity agreements" contain ed 
trade in services. As stated before, any agreement covering services clearly fell outside the remit 
of the Enabling Clause and should be considered in the CRTA.  The EU reserve d the right to submit 
additional questions or comments, possibly in writing, at a later stage as a detailed assessment of 
the replies was still ongoing. She reiterated the EU's appreciation for  LAIA m embers ' engagement 
on the important and long -standing issue and look ed forward to continued cooperation to enhance 
transparency and Members' understanding of LAIA RTAs.  
1.32.   The representative of Uruguay  thanked  the EU for its comments. The L AIA note (document  
WT/COMTD/W/ 224), which had been submitted by Uruguay on behalf of LAIA to the Chair of the 
CTD and copied to the CRTA , had been duly read during the previous meeting of the CRTA. 
Paragraph  4 stated that pursuant to par agraph  18 of the TM , the CTD was responsible for the 
notific ation of agreements under paragraph 2( c) of the Enabling Clause. Bearing that in mind , the 
replies to the EU questions had been submitted to the CTD . Consequently Uruguay did not 
understand why item D had been inclu ded on the Agenda . She reaffirm ed that there was WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 6 - 
 
  consensus among LAIA members that the issue should be addressed in the CTD and LAIA's replies 
had been delivered to the Chair of the CTD . 
1.33.   The representative of Brazil  said that the collective replies to the questions received from 
the European Union had been submitted to the CTD by the delegation of Uruguay because the CTD 
was the appropriate forum to address any substantive discussion related to instruments notified 
under the E nabling Clause, as was the case  for the agreements  subject to  the inquiry. He 
supported  the comment made by Uruguay and add ed that any follow up discussions on the 
document should be raised in the CTD , not in the CRTA.  
1.34.   The representative of Switzerland  thank ed Uruguay  for having submitt ed document 
WT/COMTD/ W/224  and the EU for having requested the Agenda  item. He was glad to see that the 
questionnaire circulated by the EU had met with a respons e providing useful info rmation . It was 
clear that efforts had  been made to rectify a convoluted  situation after lengthy and difficult 
discussions. Being a member of a free trade association itself and sometimes negotiating 
preferential  trade agreements with other regional groupings, Switzerland fully appreciate d the 
difficulty of coordinating the collection  of info rmation  needed to comply with the requirements of 
the TM. The complexity  inherent in working with other Members was a reminder  of the importance 
of making timely and complete notifications. Any slack in the effort by Members would cause the  
complexity of the issu e to become even larger. Having perused the replies by LAIA to the pertin ent 
question s posed by the EU, he was still not assured that the multitude of LAIA agreements  fell 
under the purview of Sections D to G of the TM . He was of the  opinion that LAIA members had 
neglected to notify many agreements which should have been notified in a timely manner. 
Members had to continue working on the issue  to solve the problem.  
1.35.   The representative of the United States  thank ed LAIA members for respo nding to the EU 
questions in doc ument WT/COMTD/W/224 and for their work  on document WT/COMTD/ N/53 that 
was circulated in the CTD . The United States had already made a statement in the CTD on the 
issue but it was important to discuss the issue  also in the C RTA. Many of his points had already 
been made by the EU and others. In response to what had just been said by Uruguay and Brazil, 
he pointed out that Members  had questions and concerns about the notification status of LAIA's 
agreements and the CRTA was the  venue for asking those  questions . He asked for the indulgence 
of LAIA members to engage in both the CRTA and the CTD. He repeated that it was the US view 
that the agreements had not been notified. The United States had made statements in the past 
about th e coverage of such agreements and whether they were covered under the Enabling Clause 
or no t. Nevertheless he thought that there were some important process and notification issues 
that need ed to be discussed  and he asked those Members to engage in the CRT A. LAIA members  
had indicated that they had a problem with the list of non -notified RTAs that the CRTA issued but 
that they did not want to talk about it. But LAIA members  needed to choose whether they engaged 
constructively and cooperatively to eliminate these items from the list or whether they accepted 
the lis t and did not engage in the C ommittee at all  as the issues were mutually exclusive . At the 
same time, he noted that there had been some positive movement that had not been seen in a 
number of years with the notifications in document WT/COMTD/N/53  and he acknowledged that  
the document address ed a number of concerns that had been raised about the notification format 
and the kind of info rmation included. The i ntention of the LAIA members had  become clearer and 
he greatly appreciated that clarity. However, he said that some work had still to be done and some 
additional clarification s were needed. T he notification  would be discussed  in the CTD where it had 
been tabled. But the fundamental question was whether the notifications were purely modification s 
to something else or actual agreement s. He drew Members ' attenti on to the fact that the CRTA had  
worked on formats and decided upon them  for a purpose . In the previous meeting , the notification 
format  had bee n reviewed . He referred to the excellent job done by China and Hong Kong, China 
in updating Members through a series of notifications of changes ( for example documents 
WT/REG162/N/1 /Add.4 and WT/REG162/N/1 /Add.5) affecting the implementation of the 
underly ing RTA (document WT/REG162/N /1). The parties to that agreement should be applauded 
for using the approved format. If  LAIA members wanted  to make the case that these were  
modifications and that the additional protocols modified something , notification temp lates already 
existed for that purpose. He was confused by document WT/COMTD/ N/53 in which there was a 
cover letter stating that the notifications fell under paragraph 14 of the TM but a notification that 
said they were  RTAs.   
1.36.   With regard to the content , the representative of the EU had already laid out concerns that 
the United States had raised on a number of occasions that t he Treaty of Montevideo was  a WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 7 - 
 
  political document that did not contain any specific tariff treatment for any specific product s. Thus 
when talking about what was an agreement and what was a modification i t was important to look 
at the content . Drawing upon the LAIA responses to the EU questions , it appeared that the primary 
regional agreement characteri zed as implementing the Treaty of Mo ntevideo was the R egiona l 
Tariff Preference Agreement no.4 (referred to as AR.PAR4 or AR.AM4 on the LAIA website ). 
However, Article 1 of Chapter 1 of that agreement that set  out preferences among the LAIA 
members  stated  that the member countries of the ass ociation were granted on their reciprocal 
imports a tariff preference consisting of a percentage reduction of the taxes applicable to imports 
from third countries. So the thir d countries would be other WTO M embers. On the LAIA website 
Agreement no.4  was called an "acuerdo " and everything  else wa s an additional  protocol to the 
"acuerdo" . His understanding was that the agreement that ought  to have been notified and 
reviewed  was the basic agreement that set  out tariff preferences that deviate d from MFN 
princip les. If the deviation from MFN tariff rates originated in  AR.AM4 then that agreement ought 
to be notified , but it had not been notified. The United States had repeatedly said that the formal 
meetings were not the place to dig in the weeds but had been rebu ffed in its attempts to find a 
better forum. Until Members stopped talking past each other and got to the root of the problem 
the issue would not be resolved.  
1.37.   Moving on, h e reiterate d the concerns raised in the CTD with respect to the accession  of 
Panama.  The United States was puzzled by LAIA's response and did not understand how LAIA 
could assert that a simple clause in a political document allowing for accession by future parties 
exempted  existing and future parties from any notification obligations. Most RTAs had accession 
clauses and no Member would agree that an accession to an existing FTA would not be subject to 
transparency. This was an important systemic issue. He drew Members' attention to t he 
notification of Cuba's accession to LAIA (document WT/ COMTD/N/10) . Again there  was a clear 
precedent that acceding LAIA members did notify . He asked Panama to fulfil its obligations  and 
notify all relevant agreements. The technical elements had been laid out clearly and the United 
States was open to informal discussion or other configurations. A technical in -depth conversation 
was needed to work through the  list of non -notified RTAs and to understand each other's views 
regarding notification . 
1.38.   The representative of Canada  thank ed LAIA for the submission of docu ment 
WT/COMTD/W/224 which responded  to questions that had been submitted to the CRTA by the 
European Union . As the representative of Switzerland  had said earlier, there ha d been progress on 
a long standing issue. Canada had been waiting with interest to se e the LAIA responses and it was 
reviewing them carefully . He would  come back in the future with substantive questions and 
comments , if any . He said he was confused  by LAIA's decision to submit the document only to the 
CTD given that not only had the questi ons been submitted in the CRTA but they had also been 
based on LAIA's document WT /REG/W/105 which had been jointly submitted to both the CRTA and 
the CTD. He regret ted that there was some duplication between the work of the two C ommittees 
but he would have welcome d a discussion in the CRTA just as much as in the CTD . Canada stood 
ready to engage further to find a solution to the issue.  
1.39.   The representative of Australia  thank ed Uruguay and LAIA members for the work involved 
in the submission of document WT/COM TD/W/224 which had been tabled in the CTD. He noted 
that t here had been some encouraging developments and Australia was still assessing the 
information  submitted . He thank ed the EU for the pertinent questions submitted to the CRTA 
nearly a year before whic h had prompted a useful  discussion on some key issues. Australia's 
principal position was that there should be a high degree of visibility in the WTO of a ny trade 
commitments and prefer ences conceded by individual M embers outside  of the multilateral  tradin g 
system. Every Member's  RTAs should be duly notified  and appropriately examined by the 
Membership . The examination of RTAs was fundamental  and it was  important that Members 
adopt ed a consistent approach to notifications and transparency because it was one of the pillars 
of the WTO. Australia believe d that every  RTA should  be review ed in an open , public and 
consistent manner  at the WTO . He did not agree with LAIA's asser tion that its members' RTAs had 
been duly notified or that they ful ly complied  with the objective purpose of the TM on RTAs. He 
also disagree d with the LAIA assertion  that the questions asked by the EU and the response s could 
not be discussed in the CRTA particularly because they had been originally submitted to the CRTA. 
He agreed with Canad a that there was some duplication but th e issue needed to have visibility. 
LAIA members had concluded sophisticated agreements betw een themselves. Since the 1980 
Treaty of Montevideo, these agreements had had important implications on regional and global 
trade and thus they should be considered in further detail in the relevant bodies . The CRTA had an WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 8 - 
 
  exclusive mandate to examine issues related to services commitments and the operation of 
customs union s whereas the CTD did not . Issues related to services an d customs unions could only 
be discussed in th e CRTA. He agree d with the EU  that the agreements  in question could not be 
characterized as mere amendments  to the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo. Keeping in mind that the 
Treaty of Montevideo did not provide for an y specific treatment for any specific product s or 
services  and it contained no schedules, he believe d that LAIA's practice of submitting annual 
reports setting out rectifications  and modification of its agreement s to the CTD as a formal 
notification was in sufficient. Tho se agreements had not been considered or review ed and Members 
needed to examine the underlying RTAs. The CRTA must continue working on the issue. Members 
needed to ensure that their transparency commitment s to each other were met. He hoped to find 
a constructive way forward in order to allow the CRTA to discharge its other important functions.  
1.40.   The representative of Japan  appreciate d LAIA members' replies to the EU's questions  and 
said that they represent ed a starting point to discuss the issue in the CRTA. As mentioned by the 
EU, LAIA members  had signed agreements containing not only provisions on trade in goods but 
also in services. RTAs containing provisions on trade in services were out of the scope of the 
Enabling Clause and consequently the CRTA forum was the appropriate forum to address 
notification s of such agreements . Japan's  position was that any substantive agreement concluded 
outside of the WTO framework should be review ed in the  appropriate forum of the WTO based on  a 
factual presen tation and using the proper proce dures. He asked which agreements listed in 
document WT/REG/W/105  correspond ed to RTAs that establish ed trade or investment agreements 
that included tariff schedules . If LAIA members had signed such substantive agreements un der the 
framework of the Treaty of Montevideo , they had not been considered at the relevant WTO bodies. 
Japan wanted to  have a substantive discussion based on the factual presentations  of those RTAs.  
1.41.   The representative of Panama  asked the representative of  the United States to re read 
LAIA's communication to update his understanding on LAIA's position. The United States had given  
the impression that Panama was avoiding its obligation to notify. Panama was of the opinion that 
the obligation to notify rested w ith Members and reminded the United States that , as had been 
recently  mentioned in the CTD , Panama was carrying out consultations on the notification of its 
accession to LAIA. The consultations were complex and need ed more time. He asked for Members' 
patience to avoid the risk of notifying without the necessary coordination with other parties . 
Panama took its duty to notify seriously and wanted  to do so carefully  since it was a small country . 
1.42.   The representative of United States  thank ed Panama for its respon se. He acknowledge d that 
Panama had indicated that a notification was in the works. However, the answer provided in 
paragraph 1.3.e of document WT/COMTD/W/224  was fairly clear that LAIA members , including 
Panama,  believe d that an accession f ell under par agraph 14 of the TM meaning that it was a 
modification to an agreement  and that the Secretariat would not be required to prepare a  factual 
presentation for that accession . He disagree d with LAIA m embers' opinion that an accession of that 
nature  was an implem entation modification or a technical change to an RTA. In the past, other 
accessions had been review ed in the CRTA . LAIA's position was quite clear and  the United States 
underlined that it did not agree with that assessment.  
1.43.   The Chairman  said that although  the discussion was not new, some new elements had been 
introduced. S ome delegations had acknowledged  the answers provided by LAIA  and had asked 
additional ones. One Member had stated clearly that the issue should not be  addressed in the 
CRTA as it referre d to the E nabling Clause. Other Members  believe d otherwise and considered that 
the CRTA was the right forum to address LAIA issues. Others  had stated that the review of LAIA's 
agreements had to be done in the CRTA since the agreement s included some service s related 
aspects . He believed  that the C ommittee could not make much progress other than noting the 
opinion s expressed and moving on.  
E. CONSIDERATION OF REG IONAL TRADE AGREEMEN TS  
ITEM E .I FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND VIET NAM,  
GOODS AND SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  WT/REG/M/85  
 
- 9 - 
 
  ITEM E .II DEEP AND COMPREHENSIVE FREE TRADE AREA CONCLUDED AS A PART OF THE 
ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND UKRAINE,  GOODS AND 
SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM E .III FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GEORGIA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, 
GOODS  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement ar e being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
1.44.   The Chairman  informed Members  of his intention to continue informal consultations on 
paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration and would  report back at the next CRTA 
meeting. T he tentative dates scheduled for the CRTA's meetings  of 2017 were 20 September  and 
9-10 November .  
1.45.   The representative of Japan  welcome d the initiative of following up on paragraph 28 of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. Japan was interested in and support ed the discussion on systemic 
implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system. He looked forward to substantive 
discussions on both the systemic implication s and improveme nts to the TM.  
1.46.   The representative of Australia  thanked the Chairman for the oppor tunity to continue to 
working constructively to support and follow through on the instructions by ministers for CRTA to 
discuss the systemic implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system and WTO rules. He 
looked forward to engaging in consultatio ns and to hearing the results of other Members' 
consultations at the next CRTA in September.  
1.47.   The representative of the Russian Federation  associate d himself with the comments made 
by Japan and Australia and express ed interest in a systemic dia logue on the issue. He suggested 
that it be based on  the work done by the previous Chairman since the CRTA had already some 
experience on the matter.  
1.48.   The representative of the European Union  echoed other delegations  and look ed forward to 
hearing the outcome of the Cha irman's consultations on the matter . The EU was ready to engage 
constructively assuming that there was interest by M embers and consensus for such a debate.  
1.49.   The representative of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
joined  the comments made by Japan, Australia, Russia and the EU . She expressed her interest in 
supporting the initiative to have a systematic debate on the issue.  
1.50.   The representative of  the Republic of  Moldova  joined the statement of the other delegation s. 
The Republ ic of Moldova was committed to the WTO principles of multilateral trade and the TM 
established to increase the understanding of RTAs and their impact on trade. She looked forward 
to further debate.  
1.51.   The Chairman  thanked Members  for their  participation in th e meeting  and he was grateful 
for the interest they had shown in the Committee 's activities. He commended the delegations that 
had presented RTAs  and thanked the Secretariat and interpreters for their support. He was looking 
forward to meeting  Members in informal consultation s or in formal CRTA meetings.  
1.52.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________