RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/90  
 
16 October  2018 
(18-6432) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Ninetieth Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 18-19 SEPTEMBER 2018 
Chairm an: Ambassador Julian Braithwaite  (United Kingdom)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The 90th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/1 5 dated 7 August 2018.  
1.2.  The Chairman  welcomed Members as well as  the participants from the Advanced Course on 
RTAs and the WTO  which was taking place in Geneva  during 1 7-21 September  to the 90th Session 
of the CRTA . He informed the Committee that u nder Other Business  he intended to present the 
proposed schedule  for CRTA meetings for the rest of the year  and an information meeting to be 
organized by the Secretariat.  
1.3.  The representative of Brazil  requested the inclusion of an item regarding the template for 
notifying changes to an existing RTA.  
1.4.  The representative of the United States  requested the inclusion of an informational update with 
respect t o a recent communicati on by LAIA members submitted to  the Committee on Trade and 
Development ( CTD) that had relevance for the Committee.   
1.5.  The Committee took note  of the se additional items under Other Business  and adopted  the 
following Agenda:  
 Adoption of the agenda  
 Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism - Status Report on the 
Committee's Work: 
(I) Early A nnouncements ( http://rtais.wto.org ) 
(II) Notifications received pursuant to GATT  Article XXIV:7(a), and GATS 
Article  V:7(a) 
Treaty on a Free Trade Area between Members of the Commonwealth of 
Independent States (CIS)  Goods: Entry into force for Tajikistan 
(WT/RE G343 /N/3) 
(III)  Non-notified RTA s (WT/REG/W/13 3) 
(IV) Status on the preparation of factual presentations ( including delays in the 
receipt of data and comments) ( WT/REG/W/134) 
 Communication from the European Union – European Union follow -up questions 
to LAIA Member countries (WT/REG/W/124)  
 WT/REG/M/90  
 
- 2 - 
 
  
 Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements  
(I) Accession of Seychelles to the Southern African Deve lopment Community 
(SADC) Trade Protocol,  goods (WT/REG368/N/1, WT/REG368/1, 
WT/REG368/2 ) 
 Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements involving WTO Non-Members  
(I) Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States and the 
European Union,  goods  and services  (WT/REG2 55/N/1/Rev.2 , 
WT/REG280/1, WT/REG280/2)  
 Other Business  
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RTA TRANSPARENCY M ECHANISM - STATUS RE PORT ON 
THE COMMITTEE'S WORK  
1.6.  Before moving to updating the Committee on the implementation of the RTA Transparency 
Mechanism, t he Chairman  reported on  the consideration of the Gulf Cooperation Council ( GCC) 
Agreement and RTAs notified under both Article XXIV of the GATT and the Enabling Clause in general. 
He said that he had had a very constructive meeting with the Chair of the CTD, and assured Members 
that he would maintain an ongoing conversation with him . He would also continue consultations with 
all interested parties and report back to the Committee on these consultations.  
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that it was very impor tant that the Committee 
proceed  with its work and review of the GCC Agreement. The U nited States appreciated that the 
Chair had consulted with the Chair of the CTD  but reiterated that the notification and the factual 
presentation of the GCC Agreement had been submitted to the CRTA and Members of the Committee 
had pr ovided written questions on the factual presentation. The refore, it  believed  that the Committee 
had unfini shed business and it was not  entirely sure whether the Committee needed to get involve d 
in what the CTD might or might  not do . For the United States, the issue required a decision by the 
Committee  about  how to proceed. It would be useful if the GCC members themselves , could s hare 
their views and provide  a little transparency on why the Agreement had been  removed from the 
agenda , and i f there  was some crossover issue with the CTD that the United States did not fully 
understand. The U.S. believe d that the process had started in the Committee and therefore the 
Committee should see it  through , and was not entirely sure that the Committee should be beholden 
to the views of another committee.     
1.8.  The representative of the European Union (EU)  thanked the Chair for the update on the  contacts 
he had had with the CTD Chair on this important and long -standing issue . The EU reiterated that it  
regretted that the i tem had been taken off the A genda at the last meeting. It also stated for the 
record that it had been  encouraged to see that th e factual p resentation on the GCC and the 
Secretariat's calculation of the general i ncidence in acco rdance with Article  XXIV.5(a) of the GATT 
had been  circulated to Members in view of a discussion of the GCC at the CRTA meeting.  This was 
an important issue  and the EU was an interested party in any consultation s that the C hair would 
have on this matter.   
1.9.  The Chairman  then provided an update on the Committee's work and the implementation of  
the Transparency Mechanism. T o better reflect the Committee's work , these had been divided into 
separate elements, i.e. early announcements, notifications received since the last Session of the 
CRTA, non -notified RTAs and status of the preparation of factual presentations (including delays in 
the receipt of data and comme nts). 
B.I  Early Announcements  
1.10.   A total of 39  early announcements were currently on the WTO website (not counting those 
which had been subsequently notified). The Chairman thanked Members who had submitted 
information in line with the requirements of the T ransparency Mechani sm and encouraged others to 
do so. He reminded Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early 
announcements.  WT/REG/M/90  
 
- 3 - 
 
  B.II Notifications received pursuant to GATT Article  XXIV:7(a), and GATS  Article  V:7(a)   
1.11.   The Chairman  informed the Committee that one notification  had been received since the last 
meeting – the entry into force for Tajikistan  of the Treaty on a Free Trade Area between Members 
of the Comm onwealth of Independent States (CIS) , goods (circulated in document 
WT/REG343/N/3 ). 
B.III Non-Notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/1 33) 
 
1.12.   The Chairman  recalled that a n updated list of non -notified RTAs had been circulated on 11 
September in document WT/REG/W/1 33 and contained 80  RTAs issued in factual presentations up 
to 5 September  2018. Five RTAs had been added  to the list: Armenia -Belarus, Armenia -Tajikistan, 
EAC-Accession of South Sudan, EU -Armenia, and Kazakhstan -Serbia.  
1.13.   The representative of the United States  acknowledged the importance of the Committee 's role 
in tracking  outstanding notification s as well as the hard work undertaken by the Secretariat to 
compile them.  He suggested that the Committee might want to take a step back to look at thi s 
exercise, and decide whether or not Members were putting enough effort into it . He recalled that in 
2010 and 2011, there had been  similar discussion s about  the lax notification compliance in the WTO 
and what Members could do about it. At that time, there had been  a general admonish ment from 
the WTO's highest body for c ommittees to look for ways to  bring M embers ' attention to the fact that 
notifications were  overdue. The CRTA  had taken  it to heart  and the Secretariat had been compiling  
the list of non -notified RTAs , which was  review ed four time s a year. If the question was that a 
Member didn't know it had an outstanding notification , he believed the Committee had done a very 
good job  in tracking down and highlighting  outstanding notification s, and in giv ing Members  an 
opportunit y to explain  if they believe d the list was  incorrect. The U nited States gave credit to the 
delegation of the Republic of Moldova for the  information they had brought forward to resolve and 
clarify an issue involving one of the Republic of Moldova's agreement s. However , if Members were 
to look at the track record of notification s, very few Members had come forward with notification s. 
The United States  acknowledged that the Chair held consultations on this  and wasn't sure what more 
could  be done by the Secretariat and Chair. He believe d that Members need ed to think a little bit 
more about how to impro ve the compliance record in the  Committee, in particular  in light of the 
ongoing reform efforts and discussions, and papers that were being circulated among small group s 
of Members , which  looked at Member -driven approaches  to improving  compliance . A number of 
Members had indicated  at the General Council that they were happy to  make notifications  and did 
so, but that sometimes they just didn 't know they  were overdue. The experience in the Committee 
had been  that even when it had been documented that a notification was overdue it had not been  
quite sufficient to trigger a notification . The United States informed  those Members that were  
thinking about p roposals  for reform  and, taking  a very soft approach  by having committee s delegate 
to the Secretariat the preparation of  such lists, that they should  expect s ome questions from the 
United States on the CRTA experience and the lack of results, and whether a more Member -driven 
compliance system was needed. This  was something that the United States  had been advocating  
across the board. In the CRTA, he noted  that no penalties were needed as it was eas y to invoke a 
Member 's rights and that it would take a dispute panel about five minutes to decide that if a Member 
had not notified  an agreement it c ould claim an exception.  Thus, Members did have  an enforcement 
tool at their disposal. However, more broadly,  the notification pro blem in the WTO was serious  and 
he recalled that five RTAs had been added to the list while he  could not think of any RTA  having 
been ever removed. It was maybe time for th e Committee to do some additional technical work that 
could  move this process forward and resolve some of these issues.  
1.14.   The representative of Brazil  reiterated that the inclusion of the LAIA Agreements  in the list of 
non-notified RTAs wa s incorrect. The Treaty of Montevideo had been notified to the GATT under the  
Enabling Clause in July 1982 and ever s ince then LAIA m embers countries had notified to the GATT 
and subsequently to the Committee o n Trade and Development  of the WTO  all the regional or sub -
regional trade agreements concluded under the umbrella of the Tr eaty of Montevideo. B iennial 
report s had been submitted until 2011  and replace d by annual  reports  from 2012 onwards i n 
compliance with the pro visional  Transparency Mechanism for RTAs. The list of all a greements under 
the Umbrella of  the Agreement of Montevideo could  be found in document WT/ COMTD/ W/217.      
1.15.   The representative of Argentina  echoed  the statement by Brazil and reiterated , as at previous 
occasions,  his disagreement with the inclusion of LAIA agreements in the list in docum ent 
WT/REG/W/133 . WT/REG/M/90  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.16.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU attached great value to the list 
compiled by the Secretariat which was an important tool for transparency, and for tracking  progress 
on this issue.  The EU had tak en note of the reference to the EU -Armenia FTA on the list a nd was 
going to look into this  and come back to Members . The EU stood ready to participate in any discussion 
in an informal manner on how to advance on the disagreements surrounding the list of non -notified 
RTAs with interested Members . The EU indicated that it would come back to the LAIA Agreements 
under item C o f the agenda.  
1.17.   The representative of Turkey  informed the Commit tee that Turkey  had notified its RTA with 
Singapore through a joint notifica tion after the issuance of document WT/REG/W/133.  
1.18.   The representative of  the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela  endorsed the statements by Brazil 
and Argentina and disagree d with the inclusion in document WT/REG/W/133 of the RTAs that f ell 
under the umbrella of the Treaty of Montevideo . 
1.19.   The Representative of Paraguay  also echoed the  statements by Brazil and Argentina, and 
reiterated  that the CRTA was not the a ppropriate forum to discuss document WT/REG/W/ 124. 
However, a new communication on the views that cert ain Members had with respect to 
WT/COMTD/N/53 , had been  presented by Uruguay and would  be discuss ed at the next meeting of 
the CTD.  
1.20.   The Chairman  indicated that he believed that the consultations he held with individual 
Members in-between the CRTA  meetings were an important part of his role. He noted that  there 
were disagreements in the Committee over specific  issues, some of which  were long standing  but 
noted that one element that united M embers was that they all agreed on the importance of 
transp arency and of notifications  in terms of underpinning the WTO process and the multilateral 
trading system . At a time when Members  were involve d in this debate and very committed to the 
multilateral trading system , one of the ways in which they could show  their commitment was by 
meeting the transparency  and notification requirements  of the WTO, which were straightforward . He 
believed that  it was just an issue of ensuring that the paperwork and  the work in capital s was done, 
and that the  co-operation with the Secretariat  was taken  forward  in a timely  manner. He urge d 
delegates to keep working with the ir capitals  to ensure  that this work was done . He believed this 
was a very good  way of demonstrating Members ' commitment to the multilateral trading system , 
that had been beneficial to  all. He thanked Members that ha d engaged in these consultations 
between meetings which played a critical part of the ongoing work.   
B.IV STATUS ON THE PREPARATION OF FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS (INCLUDING DELAYS 
IN THE RECEIPT OF DATA AND COMMENTS (WT/REG/W/134) 
1.21.   As regards the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, the 
Chairman  indicated that, in the case of RTAs involving WTO Members only, there were currently 29 
RTAs for which a factual presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately.  
He recalled that, at the Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 200 9, Members had agreed to 
begin  considering RTAs involving non -members under the Transparency Mechanism's procedures. 
Thus, factual presentations on a further 27 RTAs involving non -members were to be prepared. 
Members had agreed that those RTAs notified sin ce 14 December 2006, including future 
notifications, should be taken up before the others. Data requests for RTAs notified since the 
adoption of the Transparency Mechanism had been sent to the relevant Parties.  
1.22.   Regarding the backlog due to late receipt of  data necessary for the preparation and drafting 
of factual presentations and comments on factual presentations, he had continued consultations with 
a number of delegations and hoped that delegations would provide missing information as soon as 
possible. A n updated list of all such RTAs had been recently circulated in document  WT/REG/W/134 . 
1.23.   A representative of the Secretariat  referred to Turkey's earlier statement and confirmed that 
the Secretariat had received a notification for the RTA between Turkey and Singapore  after the 
agenda had been closed and after the list of non -notified RTAs had been circulated . This RTA would 
be therefore removed from  the list  of non -notified RTAs . For RTAs involving WTO Members the 
situation was as follow s: for GCC -Singapore, services , no comments had been received. For Chile -
Thailand , both goods and services, comments had been received from Thailand . Comments from 
Chile were awaited.  For Panama's accession to the CACM, goods,  comments had been received for WT/REG/M/90  
 
- 5 - 
 
  the factual presentation.  For Ecuador's accession to EU -Peru-Colombia, goods and services, and 
EFTA-Georgia, goods and services, the FP had been sent to the Parties and comments were awaited. 
For Pacific Alliance, goods and services, EU -SADC, go ods, the FPs were being  drafted, and were to 
be sent to the Parties shortly.  For Armenia -Kazakhstan, goods, and Korea -ASEAN , goods,  the FP 
was to be drafted.  For China -Georgia , goods and services , data was due by 24 August. Data had  
been received from Georgia. Data from China  was awaited but the Secretariat had started drafting 
the factual presentation.  For EU -Cameroon,  EU-PNG, Fiji, and Korea -India, all goods, data wa s not 
complete.  For ASEAN -Japan , goods,  data was  due by 16 January 2019 , and for Turkey -Singapore, 
goods and serv ices, which had just been notified, data was  due by 4 February 201 9. 
1.24.   In the case of RTAs involving non -Members, three FPs – namely on the EAEU and its two 
enlargements - had just been issued . For EAEU -Viet Nam, goods and services, CEFTA  Enlargement, 
goods, and the CIS Agreement, goods, the FPs were being drafted.  For the following agreements 
data was not complete: EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey -Syria, Ukraine -Azerbaijan, Ukraine -Turkmenistan, 
Russian Fe deration -Turkmenistan and the G UAM Agreement.  The Secretariat intended to wait until 
it receive d the data before commencing the preparation of the  FPs. 
1.25.   In one case –EU-Central America – the A greement had been notified but was not in force for 
all the parties. The Secretariat intended to wait until the  agreement had entered into force for all 
parties before commencing the  transparency process . 
1.26.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the  Secretariat for tracking the Committee's 
work closely and urged Members that had outstanding data, some of whi ch had  been outstanding 
for quite some time, to provide it as soon as possible so that the Committee could  continue to review 
RTAs.  
1.27.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for updating the Committee 
on the state of play and for remind ing Members of  their work. Regarding Ecuador's  accession to EU -
Peru-Colombia , the EU  acknowledged that the preparation of their comments was taking a little 
longer than expected but indicated that they were working hard with the other P arties and the  
Secretariat  on this , and intended to send their comments  in a few weeks.  
1.28.   The Chairman  thanked the Secretariat for tracking the Committee's work  and setting clearly 
Members homework . He hoped delegates would urge their capitals to undertake the necessary  work, 
which was detailed and painstaking , but was critical to the functioning of the multilateral trading 
system and its credibility.  He acknowledged Members' commitment to ensuring  the credibility of the 
system , and said they should do all they could  to urge their capitals to do what they need ed to do 
to underpin it.  
C. COMMUNICATION FROM  THE EUROPEAN UNION – EUROPEAN UNION FOL LOW -UP 
QUESTIONS TO LAIA ME MBER COUNTRIES (WT/R EG/W/124)  
1.29.   The representative of the European Union  said she  had asked for th e agenda item simply to 
recall the outstanding replies from LAIA countries to the EU 's follow -up questions , which had been  
submitted almost one year ago, in October 2017. The EU encouraged LAIA members  to submit their 
replies. The EU  looked forward to recei ving detailed replies, as it  had put in a lot of effort in to putting 
together detailed questions . Since the EU's concerns ha d not yet been clarified, it would  continue to 
raise the issue in the agenda . On the question of venue for discussion o f the non -notified LAIA RTAs, 
the EU recognized that this was an issue for LAIA members  and thus was open to discuss ing these 
issues in the CTD, but not only in the CTD , also in the CRTA .  
1.30.   The representative of Cuba informed Members that Cuba  had taken over th e presidency of 
LAIA's Committee of Representative s this month. O n behalf of LAIA countries, she  informed the 
Committee that Cuba was  coordinating and working on replies to the communication by the 
European Union. The reply to this communication  would be soon submitted to the CTD, which was 
the correct  forum for discussing this issue.   
1.31.   The representative of the United States  supported  the intervention by the EU about the 
importance of receiving  responses to these  important questions. The U nited States appreciated and 
was encouraged by the in tervention by Cuba with respect to forthcoming responses.  In response to 
interventions by a number of LAIA members regarding  document WT/REG/W/133, he noted that if WT/REG/M/90  
 
- 6 - 
 
  they were seeking a resolution to  the concerns the y had with respect to whether or not LAIA 
agreements be longed on the list then Members need ed to have a conversation in the CRTA and as 
the EU had indicated, he encouraged them to be open to having conversations in multiple fora.  
1.32.   The U nited States also greatly appreciated the efforts  of LAIA members  to respond to its 
questions . He thanked them , and noted for the Committee  that document WT/COMTD/W/238 , had 
been circulated o n 10 September . He had not had enough time to add it to the agenda  of the CRT A 
but he wanted to express his appreciation for the answers provided . This marked  the beginning  of 
an effort to constructively engage  in and work  through  some of these issues.  It also highlighted the 
need for  the Committee  to have a conversation about the appropriate threshold for  a modification 
of a RTA and what M embers should do about  a modification.  He pointed out that there were  some 
LAIA and non -LAIA members  that had engaged in  significant  modification s of their existing 
agreements , and if Members took the approach that a  modifica tion regardless of its size , didn't have 
any transparency requirements attached to it then they might  begin  to see the implication s for the 
system. I t was therefore important to have a conversation about RTAs over time and what Members 
would  consider  to be a modification and a modification significant enough to trigger the notification 
and review process in the CRTA. He certainly believed  that this was a relevant  issue for the 
Committee as well .    
1.33.   The representative of Japan thanked the EU for initiating  this important discussion . Japan 
considered that the question s by the EU  would help Members to understand the state of play on this 
issue and to facilitate discussions on what constitute d a new RTA i n the meanin g of the Transparency 
Mechanism and what could be a subsequent modification of a notified RTA. Japan looked forward to 
hearing the responses from LAIA members  on the questions by the EU.   
1.34.   The representative of the European Union  thanked LAIA members for providing replies to the 
questions  by the US , which were related to the questions by the EU.  The EU was studying the replies 
in more detail and would revert  with any other questions . She agreed that  the question of what 
constitute d a subsequent change to an RTA and what was a new RTA were  of key relevance to the 
CRTA , and the EU would  come back to the Membership on this .  
D. CONSIDERATION OF REGI ONAL TRADE AGREEMENT S  
ITEM D.I  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate document.)  
E. CONSIDERATION OF R EGIONAL TRADE AGREEM ENTS INVOLVING WTO N ON-
MEMBERS  
ITEM E.I 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate document.)  
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
1.35.   The Chairman  informed  Members that the last meetin g of the CRTA in 2018 was scheduled  
for 19 and 20 November . He also announce d that the Secretariat would  be organizing an information  
session  on the Transparency Mechanism and process later t his year. The time and date would  be 
communicated to Member s.  
1.36.   The representative of Brazil  recalled that the Committee had approved the new template for 
notifying changes to a n existing RTA in its 89 th Session  in June. However, during the meetings of 
the Council o n Trade in goods (CTG) and  the CTD held during  the first week of July Brazil had 
requested additional time for  internal consult ations regarding the template . He informed the 
Committee that these consultations had concluded and that the Brazil ian authorities had approved 
the new template . Brazil wo uld reiterate this information in the coming  meetings of the CTG and 
CTD.   
 WT/REG/M/90  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.37.   The Representative of the United States  expressed his appreciation to the delegation s of 
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay for the replies provided  in document 
WT/COMTD/W/238 to questions the U nited States had asked b oth in the CRTA and the CTD. His 
delegation was reviewing the  responses  and would  come back at a future meeting with some 
additional clarifications. He thanked them for the hard work and coordination that went into providing 
these answers.   
1.38.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________