RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/70  
 
4 October 2013  
(13-5353) Page: 1/12  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Seventieth Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 17-18 SEPTEMBER 2013 
CHAIRMAN: AMBASSADOR FRANCISCO LIMA MENA (EL SALVADOR) 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The 70th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/4163/REV.1 dated 4 September 2013. 
1.2.  The Chairman welcomed Members to the 70th Session of the CRTA and said he would inform 
Members of the proposed schedule for CRTA meetings for the rest of the year under 
"Other Business". He welcomed participants in the Second Thematic Seminar on RTAs. 
1.3.  The representative of Colombia said th at under "Other Business" she would request the 
inclusion of a recent Staff working paper on  the Agenda of the next CRTA meeting. 
1.4.  The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs  
 Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism 
II. Free Trade Agreement between Hong  Kong, China and the EFTA States, 
goods and services  
III. Free Trade Agreement between Montenegro and the EFTA States, goods  
IV. Free Trade Agreement between Ukraine and the EFTA States, goods and 
services  
V. Free Trade Agreement between Peru and the EFTA States, goods 
VI. Free Trade Agreement between Peru and Panama, good and services 
VII. Free Trade Agreement between Japan and Peru, goods and services VIII. Free Trade Agreement between Ja pan and India, goods and services 
IX. Free Trade Agreement between India and Malaysia, services 
C. Working Paper Published on the WTO Website: "Market Access Provisions on Trade 
in Goods in Regional Trade Agreements" - Requested by Australia. 
D. Other Business 
 
1.5.  The Chairman recalled that the Latin Amer ican Integration Association (LAIA) had been 
granted observer status to the CRTA on an ad hoc basis and sought confirmation to extend an 
invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee's next session. It was so agreed. 
2  CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
ITEM B.I. STATUS REPORT ON THE COMMITTEE' S WORK - NON NOTIFIED RTAS (WT/REG/W/77) 
and IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTA TRAN SPARENCY MECHANISM (WT/REG/W/78). 
 2.1.  The Chairman provided Members with an update on the Committee's work and the 
implementation of the Transparency Mechanis m (TM). He stated that a total of 38 early 
announcements were on the WTO website (not counting those that had been subsequently 
notified). He encouraged the Members to submit information in line with the TM and also reminded them to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2.  As regards the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the Committee, in 
the case of RTAs involving WTO Members on ly, there were 50 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. He recalled that at the Committee's 52nd Session on 4 March 2009, Members had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the TM's procedures. Thus, factual presentations 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 non-notified RTAs, he stated that an updated list had been circulated as WT/REG/W/77 and contained 54 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 4 September 2013.  
2.3.  The Chairman then turned to RTAs for which the factual consideration was delayed due to 
lack of comments from the Parties. He informed Members that he had continued consultations with 
delegations to see what could be done to resolve this issue and to reduce the number of RTAs on the list. An updated list had been circulated as WT/REG/W/78. He expressed the hope that 
outstanding comments would soon be made available and that the factual consideration of these 
agreements could then be undertaken. Lastly, he informed Members of the status of the mock implementation report. As Members would recall, the EU had volunteered to prepare a mock 
implementation report for its RTA with Chile. Th e Parties had indicated that they expected to 
submit the mock shortly so that it could be circulated to Members before the October meeting. 
2.4.  A Representative of the Secretariat said th e status of factual presentations of RTAs between 
WTO Members was as follows: with regard to factual presentations of RTAs between WTO 
Members: in the case of four RTAs  – US-Bahrain, goods and services; CAFTA-DR, goods and 
services; US-Oman, goods and services; China- Singapore, goods and services; the factual 
presentations had been sent to the parties in 2009. For China-Singapore, comments had been 
submitted by Singapore only, but none from China. For US-Oman, comments had been received 
from Oman only. No other comments on these RTAs had been received. For ASEAN-China, services, the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2010, but no comments had been 
received. For US-Colombia, goods and services,  comments had been received from Colombia only . 
For US-Korea, goods and services, no comments ha d been received. For Peru-Mexico, goods and 
services, some outstanding data issues needed to be resolved. For US-Panama; Colombia-El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras; Australia-New Zealand-ASEAN; Canada-Jordan; 
Canada-Panama; EU Enlargement (Croatia); Malaysia-Australia; Panama-Nicaragua; and 
Panama-Honduras all goods and services, and Chil e-Malaysia; goods data had been received and 
the factual presentations were currently being drafted. For the Dominican Republic-Central 
America, goods and services, data had been receiv ed from all parties except Honduras. For EAC, 
services, the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties with comments due by 14 October. 
For Korea-India, services, data had been receiv e d  f r o m  K o r e a  a n d  s o m e  d a t a  f r o m  I n d i a .  F o r  
Korea-ASEAN, services, data had been received fr om Korea only. For Georgia-Russian Federation, 
goods, some data had been received from Georgia. For Panama-Guatemala, goods and services, Korea-Turkey, goods, and Ukraine-Montenegro, goods and services data was due by 17 September. Data had been received from Guatemala (for Panama-Guatemala). For 
Turkey-Mauritius, goods, data was due by 19 Octo ber. For Peru-Costa Rica, goods and services, 
data was due by 25 October. For Mexico-Uruguay, goods, data was due by 21 November.  
2.5.  With regard to RTAs involving non-Members, the situation was as follows: for Iceland-Faeroe 
Islands, goods and services, the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2009. 
Comments had been received but some outstanding data from the Faeroe Islands was awaited. For EU-Bosnia Herzegovina, goods, co mments had been received from Bosnia Herzegovina only. For 
EU-San Marino, EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey-Syria , CEFTA Enlargement, Ukraine-Azerbaijan, 
Ukraine-Turkmenistan, Ukraine-Uzbekistan, the Common Economic Zone, Russian Federation-Azerbaijan, Russian Federation-Ser bia, Russian Federation-Belarus-Kazakhstan, 
Russian Federation-Turkmenistan, Russian Federa tion-Uzbekistan, and EU-ESA, all goods, and 
EU-CARIFORUM, goods and servic es, data was not complete.  
2.6.  A third category concerned eigh t agreements – ASEAN-Japan, EU-Cameroon, 
EU-Cote d'Ivoire, EFTA-Colombia, and EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, the new CIS Agreement, all 
goods and EU-Central America, and EU-Colombi a, both goods and services – for which the 
Secretariat understood not all the Parties had ratified the agreement yet and so intended to wait before the agreement had entered into force for all the Parties before commencing the preparation 
of factual presentations. She urged the Parties to notify the Secretariat when their respective WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 3 - 
 
  agreements had entered into force for all the Part ies. As was apparent the list continued to grow 
and she urged all 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. 
2.7.  The representative of Ecuador asked if the information just given by the Secretariat could be 
received in writing, perhaps in the form of a non-paper. The Chairman thanked the representative 
of Ecuador for his suggestion and said the informat ion would be circulated as soon as possible. 
2.8.  The representative of the United States said that the Parties had consolidated their 
comments on the US-Oman RTA and would submit them soon. Comments on US-Bahrain were 
being reviewed and would be submitted as soon as possible. The United States continued to work with its CAFTA-DR partners in an effort to finalize comments on that Agreement. For US-Korea and US-Colombia, comments had been received from the partners and he hoped to be able to submit 
final comments soon. The United States looked fo rward to a review of these agreements in 2014. 
ITEM B.II FREE TRADE AGREEM ENT BETWEEN HONG KONG, CH INA AND THE EFTA STATES, 
GOODS AND SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM B.III FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MO NTENEGRO AND THE EF TA STATES, GOODS  
 (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate document.) 
 
ITEM B.IV FREE TRADE AGREEM ENT BETWEEN UKRAINE AND TH E EFTA STATES, GOODS AND 
SERVICES  
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate document.) 
 
ITEM B.V FREE TRADE AGREEMENT PE RU AND THE EFTA STATES, GOODS 
 (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 ITEM B.VI FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PERU AND PANAMA, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate document.) 
 
ITEM B.VII FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAPAN AND PERU, GOODS AND SERVICES  
 (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 ITEM B.VIII FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAPAN AND INDIA, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate document.) 
 
ITEM B.IX FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETW EEN INDIA AND MALAYSIA, SERVICES 
 (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 3  WORKING PAPER PUBLISHED ON THE WT O WEBSITE: "MARKET ACCESS PROVISIONS 
ON TRADE IN GOODS IN REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS" - REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA 
3.1.  The Chairman said that the delegation of Australia had requested that the Working Paper on 
"Market Access Provisions on Trade in Goods in Regional Trade Agreements" be included on the WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Agenda. He drew delegations' attention to the disclaimer in the Working Paper, saying that it was 
important that they bore it in mind. He thanked the Secretariat for having put together the document which he believed would be useful in  guiding the contributions and interventions. 
3.2.  The representative of Australia congratulate d the Secretariat on its informative paper "Market 
Access Provisions on Trade in Goods in Regional Trade Agreements". The paper was a valuable 
resource which informed WTO members of some significant trends in RTAs and their impact on the multilateral trading system. It set out important findings and raised serious questions that should 
be considered carefully by Members in the CRTA. Overall, the paper made clear that there were a 
range of goods liberalization outcomes achieved through RTAs. While some agreements were ambitious, others reflected a relative lack of ambition. Members should carefully consider the 
impact of RTAs that liberalised only a relatively small proportion of goods trade between parties. 
Based on the RTAs examined in the paper there appeared to be no clear pattern in the relative 
lack of ambition for goods market access. For instance, some parties achieved more than 90% 
liberalization across tariff lines on some agreements, but the same parties achieved liberalization 
of less than 20% of tariff lines when negotiating with other partners. His delegation had noted with 
interest that ambition in RTAs appeared not to be determined by negotiating parties' developed or developing country status. For instance, there was no apparent trend in the level of liberalization 
between agreements notified under GATT Articl e XXIV and those notified under the Enabling 
Clause, and between combinations of developed and developing countries. Put simply there was not a developed-developing country divide in the level of goods trade liberalization through RTAs. Section E of the paper highlighted the extent to which agricultural products were excluded from 
tariff elimination in many RTAs. Some agreements liberalized less than 20% of agricultural tariff 
lines and in one case no agricultural tariff lines were liberalized at all. The paper also pointed out how excluding only a small number of agricultural products in an RTA might reflect the exclusion of 
a large proportion of agricultural trade. His delegation also welcomed the analysis of issues related 
to the multilateralization of market access commitments, including MFN-type and accession provisions. These provisions were of clear relevance for assessing the impact of RTAs on the 
multilateral system, and their use merited further discussion. 
3.3.  Turning to specific sections of the paper, he observed some points that warranted further 
attention. Section D of the paper usefully analysed the changes of trade flows contributed by a number of RTAs concluded for the period 2000-09. Of the more than 200 RTA partners of the ten 
sample countries, only 73 had increased export share over the period. This raised questions about 
why so many RTAs had not appeared to have produced commercially meaningful outcomes. His delegation noted with interest the assessment in Section H of the relative margins of preference as 
at 2010-11. For Australia, upon full implementation of its RTAs, the relative margin of preference 
would reach 100% as all its tariffs were eliminated. It would have been useful for relative margins of preference at the end point of implementation of a country's RTAs to have been included, to 
provide a further assessment of the true outcomes of RTAs. This underlined the importance of 
providing Implementation Reports at the conclusion  of the implementation period of RTAs, as one 
of the undertakings Members had made under the Transparency Mechanism.  
3.4.  His delegation welcomed the Secretariat's analysis of the potential for multilateralization of 
market access commitments in Section J. There were three elements here: MFN-type clauses, 
accession provisions and architecture establishing RTAs that laid the groundwork for plurilateral and multilateral expansion. The discussion in the paper on MFN-type clauses was of interest. WTO 
Members should consider the relevance of such clauses for RTAs and wider trade liberalization. The 
impact might be complex and difficult to assess. Australia would be interested in further views from Members as to whether such clauses led to greater net liberalization and reduced distortions. 
As the paper noted, there might be a relationsh ip between MFN-type clauses, which served to 
increase the overall level of liberalization throug h RTAs, and liberalization of MFN tariffs. Australia 
strongly believed that liberalization through RTAs could be complemented effectively by unilateral liberalization of MFN tariffs, as a means of furt her increasing competitiveness and reducing trade 
distortions. The ultimate objective of all Members should, of course, be the reduction of tariffs 
through multilateral negotiations. 
3.5.  The paper also observed that of the 192 RTAs surveyed, 61% had no mechanism for the 
accession of third parties. A more detailed di scussion among Members on the use of accession 
provisions in RTAs would be of strong interest. Again his delegation welcomed the publication of the paper which provided background for a number of issues of immediate relevance to the WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 5 - 
 
  mandate of the Committee and warranted further discussion among Members. Australia looked 
forward to hearing reactions to the paper from other Members. 
3.6.  The representative of the European Union ex pressed gratitude to Australia for continuing to 
enhance the discussion of the Staff Papers issu ed by the WTO at the end of 2012. The EU 
welcomed the paper on market access as a useful basis for further discussion and analysis. It 
provided some valuable statistical information on the outcome of the negotiation of RTAs in recent years, such as tariff dismantling, transition period s, exclusions, MFN clauses etc. and provided food 
for thought that could trigger good discussion in the CRTA. His delegation's specific comments on 
the different aspects of the paper were as follows. With reference to the scope of the study, the EU 
agreed that the scope and depth of trade and tari ff liberalisation was measured, in selected RTAs, 
by calculating the percentages of trade and tariffs liberalized both at the entry into force and at 
the end of the implementation period. In particul ar, the EU considered it important to undertake 
an analysis of trade liberalisation at the end of  the implementation period for understanding the 
results achieved in terms of tariff dismantling und er a certain RTA. With reference to section E.2 
on agricultural trade liberalization, the EU found that the analysis confirmed a phenomenon largely 
known, that was the exclusion of a large number of agricultural products from tariff elimination. Furthermore, it was not surprising that even by excluding only a few agricultural products in a 
RTA, the proportion of trade excluded could be relevant. With reference to the paragraph on the 
relative margins of preference, the low trade co verage of some agreements was noteworthy. It 
was true that it might depend, as noted in paper, on the fact that the implementation period might 
not yet be completed, but an average of a few percentage points was worrying even under the 
Enabling Clause. It could be worth investigating the reasons for such limited ambition in terms of 
trade liberalisation in certain RTAs. 
3.7.  With regard to the transition period and as ymmetry in the implementation of concessions, it 
was noteworthy that more than 50% of commitments were implemented over more than ten 
years. It would be worth investigating the main reasons for this approach. With reference to the paragraph on multilateralization and MFN issues, the EU was not surprised by the result of the 
study that, while the presence of MFN-type clauses was a common feature in trade in services, 
such clauses are less common in RTAs containing provisions on trade in goods. This was surely due to the fact that there was less scope for diffe rentiating the regulatory treatment granted to 
different parties in the area of trade in services. With reference to the commitment to further 
liberalization, the paper observed that of the 192 RTAs surveyed, almost 60% contained a 
provision providing for the parties to negotiate fu rther market access or to expand the agreement 
to areas not already covered by the agreement. In this respect, the EU agreed with the paper's 
conclusions that further study could be undertaken to determine to what extent such provisions 
had been used and the results achieved. Surely, co mpliance with the notification obligations under 
the Transparency Mechanism would provide valuable information regarding subsequent 
liberalization undertaken by the parties of an agreement. 
3.8.  The representative of New Zealand thanked Australia for tabling the Agenda item, WTO staff 
for the work undertaken and the delegations of Australia and the EU for their helpful and insightful 
interventions. In his delegation's view the pa per represented a substantial contribution to 
Members' understanding of the impact of RTAs on trade in goods. For New Zealand, the most 
striking aspect of the paper was the conclusion that in many RTAs agricultural products were subject to lower and slower liberalization than other products and with frequent product 
exclusions. The products most often excluded from tariff liberalization were primarily basic 
foodstuffs such as cereals, dairy products and me at. As the representative of the EU had observed, 
the paper also demonstrated that a comparatively large proportion of trade could be excluded by 
the omission of agricultural tariff lines. The pape r also confirmed the basic point that the quality of 
an RTA could not be determined simply by looking at tariff elimination rates or even at the number of excluded lines. Instead, one must look at the actual value and volume of trade covered or 
excluded by the RTA. The paper confirmed something that was already well understood: the 
liberalization of trade in agricultural products even  in a preferential setting was sensitive. It further 
demonstrated that Members could not and must not rely on RTAs alone to deliver ambitious outcomes on market access, particularly for agricultural products. While the study concluded in a 
gloomy tone that the multilateral liberalization of  these products would be difficult, New Zealand 
preferred to take the view that it should serve instead to galvanize Members' efforts to radically reduce restrictions on agricultural trade, whether they were in the form of tariffs, 
production-distorting internal support, or export subsidies. Existing RTA rules and in particular 
transparency provisions were helpful in illuminating these issues but the ultimate conclusion to be WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 6 - 
 
  drawn was that this research confirmed the need  to address agriculture trade related issues 
through a comprehensive multilateral agreement as part of a Doha Round outcome. He concluded by thanking the Secretariat for its important work on these issues and other delegations for their productive and helpful engagement. 
3.9.  The representative of Canada thanked the Secretariat for producing a useful and interesting 
paper and Australia for tabling the Agenda item. His delegation considered it important for the 
WTO to take a more active role in discussing the systemic implications of the increasing number of 
RTAs on the multilateral trading system. The paper on Market Access Provisions in RTAs was a 
commendable effort to support these discussions. However, the limited scope of the study meant 
that it was uncertain whether its conclusions could be generalized. A key limitation was that many RTAs, as many as a hundred or so according to the paper, had not been notified. Canada would be 
interested in a further study covering all RTAs to determine whether the paper's conclusions were 
generally applicable and whether any trends could be identified. In this regard, to assist Members in better understanding these issues, his delegation  would join Australia and the EU and encourage 
all Members to promptly notify all RTAs, particularly those already in force. Regarding the 
implications of the increasing number of RTAs on the multilateral trading system, participation in RTAs could assist Members' efforts to diversify export markets and integrate into global supply 
chains. However, the proliferation of RTAs could also affect Members' assessment of the costs and 
benefits of multilateral trade negotiations. For example, the impact of WTO negotiations on global trade would decrease over time as an increasing share of global trade was subject to preferential 
terms, thereby reducing the benefits of multil ateral trade outcomes. On the other hand, as 
Members negotiated and implemented RTAs they would progressively eliminate tariffs and 
liberalize trade policies beyond existing WTO commitments. Thus, as the paper noted, their willingness to liberalize should increase, including through multilateral negotiations. What the 
paper did not note was that a Member's preferential access was eroded when its trading partners 
negotiated new RTAs. Tariff preference erosion could also support multilateral trade negotiations if Members found they had fewer preferences to lose over time from multilateral outcomes. Thus, it 
could be argued that the impact of high quality, comprehensive and transparent RTAs on 
multilateral trade negotiations might on balance be positive. At the same time, the potential for low quality RTAs to positively contribute to multilateral trade negotiations was limited. In this regard, Canada joined previous speakers expressi ng concern regarding the generally lower level of 
tariff elimination achieved in RTAs on agricultural goods. Canada agreed with the paper's 
conclusion that the multilateral liberalization of agricultural goods might be more difficult than it would be for non-agricultural goods and urged Members to strive towards liberalizing their 
agricultural markets through RTAs consistent with their obligations under the GATT. 
3.10.  The representative of Korea thanked Australia for launching the discussion and the 
Secretariat for preparing the paper. Korea had a few points to make: first, Korea asked for 
clarification on how the author had drawn the conclusion in the abstract on the relationship 
between the level of liberalization in RTAs and the parties' status as developing or developed countries. Secondly, with reference to Section E.2 on agricultural trade liberalization, it was Korea's view that it was more desirable to take a comprehensive and balanced view than to focus 
on a specific sector. Korea believed that whether an RTA as a whole facilitated bilateral trade and 
served as a building block for further liberalization in a global setting was more important than focusing on a specific sector. More specifically, should certain sectors be subject to a relatively low 
level of liberalization then other sectors would be  offered to balance the whole package. Thirdly, 
not only tariff elimination but also substantive tariff reductions in the form of tariff rate quotas served as market opening. However Charts 7 and 8 failed to take those means into account, 
factoring in only tariff elimination. Finally, she noted that Korea had liberalized more than 95% of 
agricultural tariff lines in RTAs with the EU and the United States. It would be better if the paper was updated with more recent RTAs.  
3.11.  The representative of Norway thanked Austra lia for requesting that this item be placed on 
the Agenda for the meeting and other delegation s for providing useful information in their 
statements. As could be seen from four other Agen da items for the meeting, Norway together with 
the EFTA countries was a significant user of bilateral free trade agreements. With the recent G20 
summit statement on Advancing Transparency in RTAs in mind, it was appropriate to have this 
more general transparency and systemic relate d item on the Agenda. Norway maintained a 
considerable interest in debates in the WTO and the CRTA on systemic issues. Although its 
experience had been that RTAs over time cr eated building blocks for further multilateral 
development and provided a supplement to the multil ateral trading system, Norway's clear priority WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 7 - 
 
  was the multilateral trading system created by  the WTO. Therefore Norway welcomed CRTA 
discussions on this issue as RTAs increasingly had become a major part of its trade reality. Norway sought a broad and detailed picture regarding th e interaction between RTAs and the multilateral 
trading system, not least because RTAs departed from the MFN principle and therefore needed to 
be surveyed closely in the WTO. As the G20 had stated in St. Petersburg, transparency was a 
cornerstone of the multilateral trading system. The agreed Transparency Mechanism facilitated 
insight into individual Members' RTAs, but did no t place the information submitted by individual 
Members in a wider context. The staff Working Paper provided one source of across-the-board 
knowledge. Her delegation welcomed this and thanked the author of the paper for it. 
3.12.  The Working Paper on "Market access provisions on trade in goods in RTAs" provided, as 
earlier papers, a deeper insight into certain specific elements contained in FTAs, and in a more 
horizontal way made available assessments as to how various Members included these elements in 
their RTAs. As such, the papers added to the information obtained by the Transparency Mechanism. She made the following observations on the paper. Firstly, it focused on market 
access provisions in a narrow sense by addressing duties only. As GATT Article XXIV:8 addressed 
both "duties" and "other restrictive regulations of commerce", this limitation should be noted. Another interesting Staff Working Paper entitled "Antidumping Regional Regimes and the 
Multilateral Trading System", looked at the narrow,  but highly significant side of anti-dumping of 
the concept of "other restrictive regulations of commerce". Secondly, as expected, the paper noted that in many RTAs agricultural products were subject to lower and slower liberalization. Thirdly, and a disappointing fact noted by the paper, was that only two thirds of the 192 RTAs studied 
would satisfy the condition in the Understanding to GATT Article XXIV that liberalization should 
take place within ten years. 
3.13.  The representative of Hong Kong, China expressed his delegation's gratitude and 
appreciation to the Secretariat for the time and effort put into the working papers. He also thanked 
Australia for its initiative and those Members who had already spoken for their useful comments on the paper. His delegation's position remained the same as before, that is in the face of the growth 
and increasing permanence of RTAs in world trade, it saw value in WTO Members assessing the 
systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system and the relationship between them within the mandate of the CRTA. He reit erated his delegation's willingness to work 
constructively with all Members on consensus on a practical way forward on this important issue. 
3.14.  The representative of the United States jo ined others in thanking the Secretariat for the 
work and recognizing the authors for their valuable contribution to this important and relevant 
issue. His delegation shared many of the view s and observations expressed earlier by others 
including Australia, the EU, New Zealand and Ca nada. The bottom line from his delegation's 
perspective was that a deepened understanding of what was happening in the real world on RTAs was critically important. As the United States had stated repeatedly in the Committee and as 
comments from other speakers had confirmed, selective coverage of any sector, agricultural or 
industrial, had adverse effects on the trade of other Members. Continued systematic protection of specific sectors through RTAs made multilateral liberalization in those areas all the more difficult. He thanked Australia for bringing the paper up for discussion and said it was an interesting and 
rich area for further work. 
3.15.  The representative of Chinese Taipei than ked previous speakers for sharing their analyses 
and observations which were inspiring and constructive, but also relevant to the work of the 
Committee. His delegation appreciated the work of the Secretariat in preparing such informative 
reports for the Committee's reference. The paper was useful for Members to analyse the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system. Chinese Taipei welcomed papers on other 
aspects and would remain engaged in further discussions. 
3.16.  The representative of South Africa thanked Australia for its introductory comments 
regarding this Agenda item and Secretariat staff for compiling this comprehensive paper under 
their own responsibility. It represented a lot of anal ytical work and a rich depth of conclusions. Her 
delegation noted, as New Zealand has pointed ou t, that one useful conclusion was that tariff 
liberalization on agricultural products under RTAs would not seem to substitute for multilateral negotiations. Hence the importance of finalizing th e DDA, particularly with regard to agriculture. 
The paper also suggested some negotiating asymmetries in RTAs impacting negatively on 
developing countries which frequently ended up  liberalizing more than developed countries.  WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.17.  South Africa did not dispute that there migh t be a need to discuss the systemic implications 
of RTAs as they impacted on the multilateral  trading system. To the extent that Members 
supported a systemic discussion wherein the impact of all RTA provisions on the integrity of the multilateral trading system could be interrogated,  this might indeed be a useful exercise. South 
Africa was not opposed to such an exercise pr ovided it was Member-driven, objective and the 
terms of reference were clear to all. South Africa had some concerns over the procedural issue regarding the tabling of this Agenda item. Her dele gation had noted that this Agenda item had not 
appeared on the initial airgram for the meeting ci rculated on 6 August 2013. She raised this issue 
because a similar procedure had been adopted in the April meeting of this year and at the 67
th Session of the CRTA in November the previous year, including late changes to the airgram. 
The result was that several Members had posed similar queries and concerns relating to, amongst 
others, the source of the genesis of the request of the Agenda item, the appropriateness of one 
Member putting forward particular academic pape rs for discussion in this forum, the expected 
objective of such discussions, the selective approa ch with regard to topics for discussion and the 
link with the Committee's further work programme. For this reason, several Members including 
South Africa had suggested at the end of the m eeting that in future Members should table a 
specific proposal, perhaps based on such research to provide context and clarity as to the 
envisaged nature of the exercise, as well as to define the objectives thereof to facilitate a more 
enriched discussion supported by input from all Me mbers' capitals. The Chairman at the end of the 
November meeting had indicated that in future Members' concerns should be taken into account with respect to the tabling of similar Agenda items.  
3.18.  The manner and modality of the tabling of this Agenda item had somewhat hampered 
in-depth engagement on the issue. It was difficu lt to have a discussion of the paper and obtain 
instructions from capital in isolation of its specific context linked to the Committee's work and to 
debate the content of the paper in isolation of what the outcome of such discussions would be. For 
example, Australia and other delegations had raised interesting points that merited further attention and it would have been useful to have had sight of these points in writing so that they 
could be debated among all Members, since what one Member might draw from the study and 
focus on in any ensuing discussion would be different to another's area of interest with respect to the implications of RTA provisions.  
3.19.  Her delegation therefore once again asserted that it would be more helpful if a structured 
and concrete proposal on such papers were tabled as a better basis for Members to deliberate on 
this issue. As a point of procedure, prior and timely circulation of such submissions to the 
Committee to enable all Members to understand the context and envisaged outcome of such 
discussion with clear terms of reference would be the best way to proceed. This would serve such 
that all Members would have equal input into raising systemic issues related to RTAs of relevance to them without just focusing on a limited set of provisions or issues. Her delegation would have 
liked to have had the opportunity to engage with capital based on the engaging paper but had not 
been able to do so on the Agenda item as currently formulated. Finally, South Africa continued to support that RTAs should be complementary to, and not a substitute for, the multilateral trading system and any further work in the Committee should respect the integrity of the rules and 
existing WTO procedures and agreements. Her de legation remained open to considering new 
written proposals being tabled with regard to the future work of the Committee including systemic issues, in line with normal WTO rules and procedures to enable Member-driven inclusive and 
transparent discussion. 
3.20.  Without wishing to enter into a lengthy discussion but since it obviously concerned the way 
he led the Committee, the Chairman clarified that while it was true that an announcement had 
been circulated in connection with the content of the Agenda of the 70th Session of the Committee, 
that announcement had been made for the purpose of drawing Members' attention to Item 2B on 
the Agenda, Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements. Despite that, obviously the airgram corresponding to the meeting had been circulated within the appropriate agreed timeframe 
according to the rules of the house. He wished to  assure South Africa that that had indeed been 
the intention and the means of proceeding. Having said that, obviously within the time stipulated, he understood the need to include the various items on the Agenda. He wanted to clarify this so 
that it was understood by all delegations and so that no one was surprised by the circumstances. 
3.21.  The representative of Australia thanked all Members who had made comments in the 
meeting and said he would take South Africa's comments on board. It was his understanding that 
his delegation had acted within the rules of proc edure in initiating the discussion and had supplied WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 9 - 
 
  written advice to the Secretariat that they had shared with other Members who requested 
information on this Agenda item. Members had the ability to request Agenda items of relevance within the Committee's mandate and his delegation had exercised that right and the discussion in 
the April meeting of the CRTA had confirmed that there was a high level interest from Members in 
these issues which was why his delegation had put this paper on the Agenda. His delegation was 
open and would welcome papers and statements from interested Members on this issue in future Agendas. 
3.22.  The representative of India thanked Austra lia for its introductory remarks on this Agenda 
item and the Secretariat for putting up the document. He supported South Africa on the issue of 
procedure. His delegation did not doubt that the pa per was an important one. It compiled a lot of 
information and if the purpose of Australia of putting this item on the Agenda was only for the 
purpose of information, his delegation had no problem. The problem arose where the intention was 
to start a discussion on academic papers. India saw some procedural and systemic problems with that as the CRTA could not be a forum for the discussion of academic papers. There were 
thousands of academic papers on the internet and if everyone started to table academic papers for 
discussion in the CRTA, the Committee would spen d a lot of time discussing academic papers 
instead of discussing substantive issues which was not the intention of the Committee. Discussion 
was needed, but the CRTA was not the right forum. This could be done in side events, or in 
seminars to discuss these papers and to invite authors to discuss them. The CRTA could not be a forum to discuss academic papers. Members were not there to perform peer reviews on academic papers. They were there to discuss substantive proposals coming from Members so that they could 
report back to capital that this was the proposal from this country. His delegation was willing to 
engage in all areas where Members wanted to put up proposals but it had to be a Member-driven process. The CRTA should not be changed into an  academic exercise and if Members found some 
merits in those papers they should come up with proposals which his delegation was willing to 
discuss. 
3.23.  The representative of Brazil said that for the sake of brevity he wanted to echo the concerns 
regarding the approach that had been taken for th e inclusion of this topic on the Agenda and the 
procedural aspects raised by the delegations of South Africa and India. This was a matter of concern and did not correspond to good practice as far as the introduction of new issues for discussion in the various WTO bodies was concerned.  
3.24.  The representative of New Zealand said th at he had listened carefully to the interventions 
made by the delegations of South Africa, India and Brazil. His delegation's view was that the 
procedure that had been followed on this occasion was compliant with the rules and practice of the 
CRTA. As far as the issue of timing was concerned, he drew attention to the fact that as a small 
delegation subject to considerable resource constraints, New Zealand had found that there had been sufficient time in a small team both in Geneva and capital to do the paper justice. 
Nonetheless, timely provision of notice was obvi ously important. With respect to the point made 
about not wishing to become a forum to discuss academic papers, he said that there was a distinction between academic papers and the work ing papers generated by skilled and proficient 
Secretariat staff. His delegation's view was that such papers raised questions that were squarely 
relevant to the work of the CRTA and that they stimulated discussion that was rich and productive. 
3.25.  The representative of the European Union fu lly agreed with South Africa that the WTO was a 
Member-driven organization. His delegation was of the view that Australia had acted within its 
rights as a Member to initiate discussions observing existing procedures and rules. The debate in 
the Committee had demonstrated that this was a useful discussion and most delegations had made substantive comments which would contribute to further discussions and better 
understanding on such issues. His delegation intended to continue to initiate such discussions for 
the benefit of all. 
3.26.  The representative of Argentina echoed th e concerns of South Africa, India and Brazil. His 
delegation did not see the value added of discussin g such a paper in the Committee, particularly a 
paper written under the responsibility of the Secretariat. 
3.27.  The representative of Canada said that his delegation saw a lot of value in the discussion on 
the paper and was of the view that the WTO need ed to take a stronger role in examining the 
increasing number of RTAs as this was an issue which impacted the multilateral trading system 
and all Members. Canada supported the discussion and the papers by the Secretariat. WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.28.  The representative of China said that he had not received any comments from capital on 
this topic but wanted to share some observations. Substance was important but procedure was 
also key. He had a different understanding of th e issues surrounding procedures and wondered if 
the Secretariat could clarify this to guide Members' future discussion. 
3.29.  The representative of South Africa thanked the Chairman for his clarification regarding the 
airgram, etc. The point her delegation had made in that regard was that the initial airgram which 
had been sent to capital did not contain Item C, and that had caused some difficulty with the new 
airgram as the time period to elicit input from capital on the working paper was short, due to the 
length of the working paper. Her delegation was not judging or condemning Secretariat practice. Her point was with regard to the tabling of this Agenda item in the context of the work of the Committee and whether it was being done in a way to ensure optimal discussion around these 
systemic issues. It was difficult for her delegation to have a discussion on this issue in the abstract 
without clear indications of the terms of reference and the observation points Members drew from these studies. She had noted down ten or more observations made by various delegations. There 
was no commonality and there were different interpretations of analytical observations made in 
the paper. It was hard for her delegation to engage  on these issues and to instruct capital on them 
in the abstract or in isolation of where the Committee was going, what the outcome was, whether 
a work programme was being started, and if so, on the basis of what terms of reference. The issue 
was not whether or not this was mandated by WTO rules and procedures  ̶ her delegation was not 
accusing anyone of violating those  ̶ but whether the manner in which this issue was being tabled 
optimized any potential future discussion. 
3.30.  The representative of El Salvador did not wish to get involved in a discussion on procedure 
as his delegation had no specific position on that issue for the moment (and on that, he was 
grateful for the clarification given by the representative of South Africa). He wanted to make a few 
preliminary comments on the Agenda item. First of all, he expressed his delegation's gratitude to 
the Secretariat for preparing the document that involved intensive work. El Salvador had taken note of the Secretariat's conclusions. Nevertheless it was important to acknowledge that these conclusions were those of the author and did not reflect the conclusions of Members. His 
delegation had some comments about some aspects of the conclusions as well as specific areas of 
the paper.  
3.31.  El Salvador had noted the low level of liberalization of agricultural tariff lines and fully 
understood the linkage drawn in terms of commitments established for liberalization under 
Article XXIV of the GATT. However, as some dele gations had already pointed out, El Salvador 
thought it necessary for the issue of market access not to be individualized as it was in the study, 
a point he would explain later. . Looking at the sect ion on agriculture, it was important to point out 
that perhaps the low level of tariff liberalization was caused by international distortions in markets for many of these products and the study made it clear which products these were. The issue of market access and the way in which trade liberalization was optimized depended not only on the 
decline in tariff levels but on many other factors, including issues which had not been reflected in 
the study. Also, it was important to look at the bilateral experience with liberalization with close trading partners and to see what was happening in multilateral trade negotiations for access to 
trade in agriculture. This was quite simply a reflection of bilateral liberalization and in connection 
with multilateral negotiations, El Salvador thought that the position of some Members had been quite consistent in trade in agriculture bilaterally and this was reflected in trade agreements and 
that the same sensitivities had been seen throughout WTO negotiations on agriculture.  
3.32.  Leaving aside the part on agriculture, the paper also drew attention to long implementation 
periods. El Salvador thought that in terms of liberalization and the continued integration that countries were striving for in international trade this was a vehicle that they used and could create 
some exclusions for some products. So it should not be seen as a threat but rather as an engine or 
driving force. It was also important to look at long implementation periods as a way of trying to gain broader coverage in liberalization. Regarding the multilateralization of market access that was 
seen in these agreements, there were two aspect s that needed to be borne in mind: normally, 
Members tended to understand that liberalization that  took place on a bilateral level needed to be 
extended on a multilateral level and this was where his delegation would not necessarily share the 
conclusions of the author. In reality, as many Members had said, bilateral access not only 
depended on market access but also went hand in  hand with a package of commitments and often 
depended on commitments in areas in which the parties had managed to reach an agreement, for example, competition, government procurement, di sciplines on labour or the environment, IPR, WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 11 - 
 
  trade facilitation and other areas in which WTO Members had not necessarily reached consensus. 
Often for trading partners this was an important matter in which the right level of liberalization should be achieved. From the point of view of a developing country, this level of commitment also went hand in hand with other commitments or im pacts that were involved in terms of market 
access. For example, technical assistance and cooperation and an important level of certainty in 
terms of inflows of investment coming into developing countries which was El Salvador's case and also countless numbers of cost reductions such as transport fleets also were included in a trade 
agreement. So, he wanted to reiterate that although it was important to carry out the analysis in 
terms of tariff levels, it was necessary to look beyond this at the rationale behind liberalization and the reasons for multilateralization that we nt beyond making tariff reductions.  
3.33.  Section C of the paper looked at the percentage of use of RTAs. In Central America for 
example there was a high level of use of RTAs, at least the ones that were mentioned in the paper. 
Furthermore, El Salvador had been very careful in choosing its trade partners because this helped order the way it integrated into the trading environment and helped it assess its levels of 
competition and ensure El Salvador was as effective as possible with its trading partners who were 
prepared to liberalize their regimes. So, in the cases mentioned in Central America, and in the case of El Salvador, there was a high level of li beralization and his delegation was interested to 
note countries that had made most use of RTAs , such as Mexico. El Salvador considered it 
important to look at the potential for developing this Section as there were reasons why countries could make better use not only of RTAs but also of multilateral trade. The reasons why Chile, Mexico and Singapore had been successful coul d be multiple, perhaps because they had better 
institutional capacity in order to implement complicated rules of origin, or were more effective 
when it came to compliance with NTBs. It was important to try to put into context what was in the paper. The study focused on the number of tariff lines subject to reduction or elimination, and 
while it recognized that non-tariff barriers could have a high impact on market access it did not 
necessarily give it a value. As the paper clearly stated, this was a weakness, but it did not attribute a significant value to it. Clearly such measures also influenced the benefits of 
liberalization offered by RTAs.  
3.34.  In part E, the paper referred only to tariff lines which would be completely eliminated at the 
end of the transition period, but in his opinion, it was necessary to take into consideration tariffs subject to reduction. This was important, for while the study mentioned this aspect it did not 
quantify them. For example, if El Salvador were to reduce a tariff from 20% to 15% this might not 
seem significant, but at the national level it could be significant depending on the sector. Although the paper referred to this to a certain extent, El Salvador believed that it was necessary to assess 
this numerically. Another aspect of the paper he wanted to refer to was that the liberalization of 
tariff lines at MFN level on entry into force that were bound either at preferential level or some declining value were not accounted for. His delegation was of the view this was of the utmost 
importance and needed to be given an effective value because an MFN rate could be at an applied 
or bound level, depending on the multilateral commitment. If a country took a step forward and bound at MFN level, this had a value when it came to liberalization and this was not necessarily highlighted in the study. Although the paper mentioned tariff quota reductions as a valid vehicle 
for liberalization, El Salvador believed that this was rather restricted and further analysis of this 
needed to be done. It was important to include this in the discussion or when the document was revised. Along these lines, it was important to bear in mind that some TRQs had a composite tariff, 
not just ad valorem values. So, although these could be used as an effective vehicle for 
liberalization, other methods should be considered as to how such TRQs were put together. Finally, he returned to the issue of non-tariff barriers, be cause the study focused on tariffs and therefore it 
was rather complicated to arrive at specific conclusions, particularly the value that non-tariff 
barriers could achieve. So although the paper showed  some significant values regarding tariff lines 
and values, it had to be considered in light of other topics, such as non-tariff barriers. These were his initial comments and he hoped that his delegati on might have an opportunity in the future to 
go into more detail on some of the aspects mentioned by other delegations. 
3.35.  On the issue of the airgram, a representa tive of the Secretariat clarified that the CRTA 
followed General Council procedures which was to issue the airgram ten days before the meeting. 
However, an early airgram was also distributed. The CRTA had started doing this at an early stage 
of implementing the Transparency Mechanism beca use some Members had raised concerns that it 
was not clear exactly when the RTAs whose factual presentations had been issued would be 
considered. The Secretariat had therefore started issuing an early airgram following TPR 
procedures six weeks before the meeting, just to clarify which agreements were on the Agenda for WT/REG/M/70 
 
- 12 - 
 
  the following CRTA. However, General Council procedures were followed and therefore if Members 
wished to put anything on the Agenda they needed to do so before the ten day period prior to the 
meeting. These procedures had been followed si nce 2008 or so. To avoid confusion, it was of 
course possible to stop issuing the early airgram if Members preferred this approach. 
3.36.  The Chairman said that in his opinion the process which had been ongoing since 2008 where 
the Secretariat sent out an early airgram because of the factual presentations was sound practice 
and enabled delegations to prepare. Obviously the important thing in terms of procedure was to 
ensure that the final airgram complied with the agreed timeframe according to normal procedure. 
He was of the opinion, though obviously Members would decide, that this facilitated delegations' preparation for the meeting. He reiterated that the timelines had been respected according to normal practice. He suggested that the Committee continue with this practice, though Members 
would make the final decision. Since no delegation intervened, he said that it appeared that an 
early airgram helped the procedure and therefore this practice would be continued in the Committee while respecting the timeframes provided  for the distribution of the final airgram. 
3.37.  The Chairman said that the number of interv entions on the paper showed the interest in the 
topic. The Committee took note of Members' observations.  
3.38.  The Chairman drew delegations' attention to  a series of additional working papers published 
on the WTO website. There were six or seven of them that were similar in style to the document 
the Committee had discussed that day. 
4  OTHER BUSINESS 4.1.  The representative of Colombia said she had received comments from capital on the WTO 
Staff working paper entitled "International st andards and the WTO TBT Agreement: Improving 
governance for regulatory alignment". Her delegation would like to include this document as an item for discussion on the Agenda of the next CRTA. 
4.2.  The Chairman noted the intervention and re minded Colombia to be aware of the time frame 
to be observed so that the Secretariat could include this item on the Agenda. Finally, he indicated 
that the proposed dates for the last CRTA meet ing of the year had been changed and would now 
be held on 21-22 October.  
4.3.  The Committee took note of the comments made.  
__________