RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/87  
 
5 December 2017 
(17-6685) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -seventh Session   
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 9-10 NOVEMBER  2017  
Chairman: Ambassador Walid Doudech (Tunisia)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The 8 7th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/1 2/Rev.1 dated 30 October 2017.   
1.2.  The Chairman  welcomed Members to the 8 7th Session of the CRTA . He suggested that the 
Committee take up the adoption of the Annual Report under Item  E after the discussion under 
Item F on Follow up on the Ministerial Declaration from MC10. Under Other Business, he intended 
to inform the Committee  of three issues: the notification of changes document format; technical 
assistance activities conducted by  the Secretariat on RTAs in 2017 and those planned for 2018; 
and the proposed schedule of CRTA meetings for the next year.  
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted:  
 A. Adoption of the Agenda  
 B. Implementation of the RTA T ransparency Mechanism  - Status Report on the 
 Committee's W ork: 
  (I) Early Announcements ( http://rtais.wto.org ) 
 (II Notifications received pursuant to GATT Article  XXIV: 7(a), and 
 GATS  Article  V:7(a)   
  Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the 
 European Union (WT/REG389/N/1)  
  (III) Non-Notified RTA s (WT/REG/W/122)  
 - European Union Follow -Up Questions to LAIA Member Countries 
(WT/REG/W/124) 
  (IV) Status on the Preparation of Factual Presentations ( WT/REG/W/123)  
 C. Implementation Reports under Paragraph 15 of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs 
  - (WT/REG74/R/I, WT/REG129/R/I, WT/REG/W/118, WT/REG226/R/I)  
 D. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements  
 (I) Free Trade Agreement between China and the Republic of Korea, goods and 
 services (WT/REG370/N/1, S/C/N/854, WT/REG370/1, WT/REG370/2)  
 (II) Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Panama, goods and services 
 (WT/REG374/N/1, S/C/N/864, WT/REG374/1, WT/REG374/2)  
(III) Interim Economic Partnership Agreement betwe en the European Union and the 
 ESA S tates ( Madagascar, Mauritius,  Seychelles and Zimbabwe), goods 
 (WT/REG307/N/1, WT/REG307/N/1/ADD.1, WT/REG307/1, WT/REG307/2 ) 
 E. Adoption of the Annual Report (2017) of the CRTA  to the General Council 
 (WT/REG/W/121 ) 
 F. Follow up on the Ministerial Declaration from MC10. Report from the Chair's 
 Consultations  
 G. Other Business  
 WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 2 - 
 
  B. IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RTA TRANSPARENCY M ECHANISM  – STATUS REPORT ON 
THE C OMMITTEE'S WORK  
1.4.  The Chairman  provided  an update on the Committee' s work and the implementation of the 
Transparency Mechanism  (TM). In order to better reflect the Committee's work these ha d 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 comments).  
B.I  Early Announcements  
1.5.  A total of 38 early announcements were currently on the WTO website (not counting those 
which ha d been subsequen tly notified). He thanked  Members who ha d submitted information in 
line with the requirements of the TM and encourage d others to do so. He reminded  Members to 
inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
1.6.  The representative of Switzerland  informed Members that on 13 June 2017, the four EFTA 
States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland had opened negotiations on an RTA with 
the four MERCOSUR States, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in Buenos  Aires, Argentina. 
The Parties aimed to conclude a comprehensive agreement covering trade in goods and services, 
investment, intellectual property rights, customs and origin matters, SPS, TBT, questions 
pertaining to sustainable development, competition po licy and government procurement. The 
Agreement would further boost  trade and economic relations between the Member States of 
MERCOSUR and EFTA and contribute to the global liberalization of trade. He thanked the 
MERCOSUR States for a good start to the nego tiations and looked forward to continuing the 
process.  
1.7.  The representative of Argentina  said that the MERCOSUR countries appreciated  the 
intervention of the representative of Switzerland on the early announcement of the 
EFTA-MERCOSUR  RTA and looked forward to its negotiation.   
B.II Notifications received pursuant to GATT Article  XXIV:7(a), and GATS  Article  V:7(a)   
1.8.  The Chairman  said that i n order to follow the practice in the CTG and CTS it ha d been 
suggested that all RTAs notified since the la st CRTA meeting  were listed on the Agenda . One RTA 
had been notified – Canada -EU – with the notification circulated in document WT/REG389/N/1 and 
S/C/N/896.  
B.III Non-Notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/122)  
 
1.9.  An updated list of non -notified RTAs had been  circulated in document  WT/REG/W/122 and 
contain ed 69 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 27 October 2017. The following RTAs ha d 
been removed from the list: Republic of Moldova –Azerbaijan, Republic of Moldova –Belarus, 
Republic of Moldova –Georgia, Republic of Moldova-Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova –Turkmenistan 
and Republic of Moldova –Uzbekistan. Turkey -Iran ha d been added to the list.  
1.10.   The representative of Brazil  disagreed with the content of the list of so -called non -notified 
RTAs in document WT/REG/W/122. The l ist continued to be elaborated on the basis of a 
non-consensual methodology employed in previous iterations of the same document 
notwithstanding the concerns voiced by Brazil and other LAIA partners. A list of all LAIA 
agreements previously notified under the Enabling Clause and pursuant to Sections D to G of the 
TM was available in document WT/REG/W/105 circulated in June 2016. Brazil remained committed 
to the transparency of RTAs and would keep working constructively in order to overcome the 
divergent vie ws on the issue.  
1.11.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Republic of Moldova for  raising its 
concerns at the last meeting and taking a constructive approach in providing the necessary 
information. He was pleased to see that the changes had been  made to the list and that the 
agreements had been removed. This was an instructive way forward for all Members that had 
concerns with the list.  WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 3 - 
 
  - European Union Follow -Up Questions to LAIA Member Countries (WT /REG/W/124)  
1.12.   The representative of the European  Union  said that it had submitted a set of detailed 
follow -up questions to LAIA in document WT/REG/W/124 in advance of the meeting as it 
considered that a number of aspects needed to be further clarified. As mentioned at the last 
meeting, unfortunately the  replies received from LAIA did not contain a correlation table, linking 
the table of agreements contained in the LAIA communication of June 2016 to the WTO 
Secretariat's list of non -notified RTAs. Such a correlation table would have provided a welcome too l 
of transparency to help navigate the maze of LAIA agreements.  
1.13.   The EU had worked in the past months trying to piece together a correlation table on its 
own and, on that basis, had submitted detailed follow -up questions. She did not wish to enter into 
the details of its follow -up questions in the meeting, but emphasized  that the main concerns raised 
in previous meetings remain ed and were addressed in the questions. First, in terms of legal 
argumentation, it appeared from the replies that the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo contained only 
political level objectives. Second, for most of the agreements appearing on that list, it was not 
clear what the existing underlying RTA - or what was sometimes called the "mother" RTA - was. 
Third, further clarifications were nee ded on the meaning of "implementation". In this respect, the 
follow -up questions were very detailed and aimed at clarifying whether the RTA in question could 
qualify as a "mere change" affecting the implementation of an RTA or whether in fact it granted 
preferential tariff concessions. Fourth, the RTAs containing provisions on trade in services would 
not be covered by the Enabling Clause.  The EU's list and structure of questions was guided by two 
considerations: first, to identify the underlying RTA contai ning the preferences, and, second, 
whether the RTA in question ha d been notified. In going through the RTAs one by one, the EU  had 
based itself on the Secretariat 's list of non -notified RTAs. The EU look ed forward to receiving 
replies to each question contained in the document. Considering that the venue of discussion for 
RTAs was of importance to LAIA Member countries, the EU remain ed open to discuss ing the issue 
also at the CTD and propose d schedul ing a dedicated joint technical session of the CRTA  and CTD 
to advance the issue.  
1.14.   The representative of Chile thanked the EU for its follow -up questions which  had already 
been transferred to Montevideo and capitals. The LAIA countries were working on the document  
but as had been stated on other occasions there was consensus among LAIA countries that the 
CRTA was not the Committee in which such matters should be discussed. The CTD was the 
appropriate forum. He thanked the EU for stating  that it would be willing to have the matter 
discussed in the CTD.  
1.15.   The representative of Brazil  echoed the statement of the representative of Chile and 
thanked the EU for its continued interest in the LAIA integration process. The questions had been 
conveyed to capitals and would be d iscussed with LAIA partners.  
1.16.   The representative of Japan  appreciated the EU's questions that helped deepen mutual 
understanding and find a compromise by facilitating the Committee's discussion on the notification 
of the LAIA agreements. As the EU had said,  Japan was interested in knowing which RTAs listed in 
document WT/REG/W/119 corresponded to those in document WT/REG/W/105. In addition, Japan 
was interested in LAIA Members' interpretation of "changes affecting the implementation of an 
RTA, or the operati on of an already implemented FTA" in paragraph 14 of the RTA  TM. Japan 
looked forward to receiving the answers to the additional EU questions from LAIA members.  
1.17.   The representative of the United States  acknowledged the importance of working through 
the issu e and thanked the EU for taking the time to put the questions together as they would help 
improve the Committee's understanding. He thanked the LAIA countries for acknowledging the 
receipt of the questions and for undertaking work to answer the m. He looked  forward to 
participating in the discussion in whatever venue in order to resolve the issue.  
1.18.   The Chairman  said that the EU had presented a new set of questions on the LAIA 
agreements and that LAIA countries had demonstrated a spirit of openness that had be en 
welcomed by delegations.  WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 4 - 
 
  B.IV Status on the Preparation of Factual Presentations ( WT/REG/W/123)  
1.19.    As regards the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO members only there were currently 34 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation ha d to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. 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, f actual presentations on a further 36 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 s ince the adoption of the TM had been sent to the relevant Parties.  
1.20.   Regarding the backlog due to late receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting 
of factual presentations and comments on factual presentations, the Chairman said he had  
contin ued consultations with a number of delegations and hope d that delegations would  provide 
missing information as soon as possible. An updated list of all such RTAs ha d been recently 
circulated as document WT/REG/W/123. Since the document had been  issued join t responses from 
the parties to China -Korea had been received and  that Agreement would  be considered in the 
day's meeting.  
1.21.   A representative of the Secretariat  said that for RTAs involving WTO Members the situation 
was as follows. For GCC -Singapore, service s, no comments had been received. For Korea -ASEAN, 
services, comments had been received from ASEAN only. For EU -Cote d'Ivoire, goods, 
Japan -Mongolia, goods and services, and Turkey -Malaysia, goods, comments had been received 
and the factual presentations w ould be issued shortly. For Seychelles accession to SADC , goods,  
Costa Rica -Colombia, goods and services , Pacific Alliance , goods and services , Ecuador's accession 
to EU -Peru-Colombia , goods and services and Armenia -Kazakhstan, goods, the factual 
presentations were being drafted . For EU -Cameroon, EU -PNG, Fiji, and EU -Ghana, all goods,  data 
was not complete . For Panama's accession to the CACM , goods,  data was not complete.  For 
Chile-Thailand , goods and services , data w as due by 31 January 2018.  For Canada -Ukraine, goods,  
data was due by 23 November 2017.  For EU-Canada , goods and services , data was due by 
30 November 2017.  
1.22.   In the case of RTAs involving non -Members, for EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services,  
comments were awai ted. The following factual presentation s were being drafted: EAEU , goods and 
services , and the accessions of Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU although some data 
from the Kyrgyz Republic was awaited , and CEFTA Enlargement.  For EU -San Marino, good s, 
comments ha d been received and the factual presentation would  be issued shortly.  For the 
following agreements data was not complete: EFTA -Lebanon, Turkey -Syria, Ukraine -Azerbaijan, 
Ukraine -Turkmenistan, Common Economic Zone, Russian Federation -Turkmenis tan, the GAUM 
Agreement and EAEU -Viet Nam.   
1.23.   A third category concerned five agreements – ASEAN -Japan, the new CIS agreement and 
EU-SADC, all goods, and EU -Central America and EFTA -Georgia, both 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 parties before commencing the preparation of factual 
presentations.  
1.24.   The representative of Ukraine  informed the Committee that Ukraine would provide the data 
for the Guam agreement as soon as possible.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said he appreciated the update and wondered if any 
of the GCC members or Singapore had an update they could offe r with respect to the outstanding 
comments on the factual presentation.  
1.26.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for the useful update on 
factual presentations and informed the Committee that the Parties to EU -CARIFORUM expected to 
submit comments on the factual presentation by the end of the month.  
1.27.   The representative of the United States  said he wanted to make a general comment under 
Agenda Item B with respect to concerns about the implementation of the RTA TM and he 
requested the Chair's assistance in an effort to improve its functioning . As the Committee was WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 5 - 
 
  aware, the RTA TM had been negotiated in the CRTA and was designed to be implemented in that 
body in the process from early announcement to notification to factu al presentation  to review . It 
required Members to follow deadlines and the Secretariat to manage the workflow in the overall 
process. At the conclusion of the negotiations Members had been  unable to reach consensus on 
implementing the Mechanism in one body  and as a compromise the CTD had become responsible 
for implementing the RTA TM as it related to Enabling Clause agreements. It had become clear 
that there was a wide divergence in practice between the CRTA and the CTD and it remained a 
priority for the Un ited States that the RTA TM was implemented in a consistent manner across the 
institution. The United States continued to believe that the CRTA should assume responsibility for 
all RTAs and that the consolidation would be an essential element of any endeav our to make the 
TM permanent. Nevertheless, Members had to deal with the situation they had in front of them. 
For the United States that meant seeking to harmonize the practices of the CRTA and the CTD so 
that the RTA TM was implemented in a consistent man ner. He requested that the Chair undertake 
consultations with the Chair of the CTD including relevant Secretariat staff and respective DDGs to 
compare working procedures and internal policies and practices between the two Committees so 
that the respective Chairs could better understand the divergences and be positioned to respond to 
future efforts to bring some consistency in practice with respect to implementation of the RTA TM. 
The United States would make a similar request to the Chair of the CTD because  his delegation's 
engagement with the CTD staff had not resulted in any clarity and had demonstrated a less than 
comprehensive understanding of the RTA TM or the significance of the transparency obligations it 
implemented.  He asked that the Chair consult w ith the aim of clarifying the roles, responsibilities, 
policies and practices of the respective Secretariat staff. The United States intended to pursue the 
issue the following year and hoped that some internal conversations and fact gathering would 
prepare  the Chair to assist his delegation  in its efforts to improve the implementation of the RTA 
TM. 
1.28.   The Chairman  welcomed the United States' request that the Chair take certain steps 
together with the Chair of the CTD with regard to the implementation of the R TA TM but he 
thought there was a need for the Committee to agree on the specific mandate to be given to him. 
He had already entered into consultations with delegations on the whole question of the 
implementation of the RTA TM as that came under paragraph 2 8 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration. That paragraph instructed Members to amend the Mechanism and make it permanent. 
The statement made by the United States representative came under the consideration of the RTA 
TM and would therefore come up in the c ourse of his consultations. Indeed it had come up and he 
would report on it later. Delegations had decided to assess the current situation with respect to the 
implementation of the provisional RTA TM. This was a matter that could be taken up with the Chair  
of the CTD and ways could be sought to harmonize practices and find a better way of 
implementing the Mechanism to ensure that it was effective and played the role it was supposed to 
play. Personally, he had no difficulty in responding positively to the pr oposal made by the United 
States. He would be most interested in hearing other delegations ' views on the proposal as that 
would enrich the Committee's discussions and ensure that the Committee was in a position to 
tackle the issue on a broad front not only  in the CRTA but with the Chair of the CTD.  
1.29.   The representative of India said he would respond under the appropriate Agenda Item.  
1.30.   The representative of the United States  said he was sorry if h is intervention  had not been 
clear. With respect to mandate what he had recommended was merely an assessment and better 
understanding of the CRTA's practices so the mandate was within the Committee. He thought it 
would be interesting to have a conversation with the CTD on their practices. So he was not asking 
the Chair to do anything on the CTD practice but he thought that there needed to be a Member -
driven process of comparing practices. He wanted to make sure that the following year those 
underlying fact -checking and fact -gathering conversations took place. He was not suggesting any 
mandate outside of the Chair's role in the CRTA. The implementation of the RTA TM was a shared 
responsibility between two Committees written into the Mechanism, so it was not a question of 
mandate as the mandate was in the Mechanism itself. The question was whether both Committees 
were implementing the Mechanism in the same way. It was appropriate under the Agenda Item as 
the Committee had just gone through the steps that the CRTA took to track and monitor RTAs as 
set out in the Mechanism  and thus it  was appropriate to discuss its functioning. He did not 
understand the references the Chair had made to Ministerial Declarations and he did not want his 
comments attributed to th em. WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.31.   The Chairman  said he had the same understanding of the mandate as the representative of 
the United States and he did not think there was any need to amend it. He did think however that 
there was a need for a general discussion on the issue. The United States representative had 
referred to the CTD Chair and the Chair said  he had no difficulty in having some consultations with 
him within a general framework but stressed the need for the Committee to have an in -depth 
discussion on the matter. He had referred to the Ministerial Declaration because he felt that it 
dealt with t hat issue. The Nairobi Declaration talked about making the provisional TM a permanent 
mechanism. He said he had held consultations on the matter a few days previously and it was 
apparent that Members needed to look at the TM and how it currently operated b efore doing 
anything else. All such considerations were relevant and he thought they touched on the questions 
raised by the United States representative and the suggestions made. He said the Committee 
needed to think about th e issue in detail and broaden i ts thinking on it which was why he was 
eager to hear from delegations on the subject. The more delegations expressed themselves on the 
issue the more the Committee could  enhance the TM.  
1.32.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the representative of the United States 
and the Chair for the suggestion. She had some preliminary comments as the issue had just been 
tabled that day. The EU attached great importance to the effective functioning of the TM and thus 
was interested  in any ways of enhancing its operation. The EU could support a general discussion 
on how the TM was currently implemented and the practices in the two Committees with a view to 
enhancing its functioning.  
1.33.   The representative of India said that his delegatio n had strong reservations about 
discussions in the CRTA on RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause or RTAs notified under both 
GATT Article XXIV and the Enabling Clause. In his delegation's opinion, the correct forum for 
discussion of RTAs notified under t he Enabling Clause or under a dual notification was the CTD. 
Paragraph 18 of the TM stated that the CRTA and the CTD were instructed to implement the TM. 
The CRTA should do so for RTAs falling under GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V, while the CTD 
shoul d do so for RTAs falling under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause. Thus the right forum for 
these agreements was the CTD.  
1.34.   The Chairman  said the Committee would  revert  to the issue when it came to discussing 
paragraph 28 of the Ministerial Declaration.  
C. Implementation Reports under Paragraph 15 of the Transparency Mechanism for 
RTAs - (WT/REG74/R/I, WT/REG129/R/I, WT/REG/W/118, WT/REG226/R/I)  
1.35.   The Chairman  said that o nce a year all implementation reports issued during that year were 
listed on the Agenda  in order to give Members the opportunity to comment on the m. An updated 
schedule for the submission of such reports had been  distributed by the Secretariat ( in document 
WT/REG/W/113) at the beginning of the year. As of 13 February 2017, implementation rep orts 
were due for 136 RTAs, and the end of implementation (EOI) for 5 RTAs was in 2017. The EOI for 
a total of 111 RTAs was from 2017 onwards, while for one RTA the EOI year was not available. 
Since the last meeting of the CRTA in November 2016, three impl ementation reports ha d been 
received: Ukraine -Kyrgyz Republic (document WT/REG74/R/I); EU -former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia  (document WT/REG129/R/I) and the disclaimer contained in document 
WT/REG/W/118; and EU -Albania (document WT/REG226/R/I). He encourage d other delegations to 
submit their implementation reports in order to comply with th e obligation.  
1.36.   The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia  thanked the EU for its 
cooperation in the preparation of the implementation report and the Secretariat for its assistance. 
There was a lot of information in the report and he wanted to highlight some of the other 
achievements that had taken place in the p eriod of implementation. A lot of reforms related to the 
implementation of the Agreement had been put in place, helping the former  Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia to develop its competitiveness and improve the business environment. The former 
Yugoslav Repub lic of Macedonia had implemented a number of modern customs and other 
procedures, had joined common transport conventions, had developed new computerized transit 
systems and integrated tariff environment and had implemented simplified customs procedures, 
authorized economic operators etc. A number of administrative and other fees directly related to 
trade facilitation  had been eliminated . The most important achievement was that the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had developed an understanding of the importance of ownership 
of the permanent reforms. Second, it was important to understand that the reforms must be WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 7 - 
 
  undertaken as a whole  and third  was the importance of the development of capacities for self -
assessment and self -development.  
1.37.   The representati ve of the European Union  thanked the authorities of Albania and the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for the excellent cooperation in putting together the 
implementation reports . The EU continued to work on other outstanding ones.  
1.38.   The representative o f the United States  thanked Members that had submitted 
implementation reports. He said the United States had struggled to get them done and was 
working on a  number of them . It was important that such reports were submitted consistent with 
the RTA TM. He kn ew that the Committee had worked hard some years previously on discussing 
formats and had had a good exchange on what ought to be included . He pointed out, consistent 
with his point earlier, that this was not something that the CTD did and there were no 
implementation reports in the CTD even though the CTD was charged with the implementation of 
the RTA TM. This underlined  his point that Members were inconsistently implementing the 
Mechanism and the institution ought to focus on resolving it. 
D. CONSIDERATIO N OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
ITEM D.I  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM D .II  
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM D.III 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
E. ADOPTION OF THE ANNU AL REPORT (2017) OF THE CRTA TO THE GENE RAL 
COUNCIL (WT/REG/W/121)  
1.39.   The Chairman  suggested that the Committee moved into informal mode to discuss the 
proposed changes to the Annual Report and then reverted to formal mode to approve them. The 
Chairman said that the changes suggested by Members would be incorporated and the report 
would be adopted ad referendum.  
F. FOLLOW UP ON THE MIN ISTERIAL DECLARAT ION FROM MC10. REPOR T FROM THE 
CHAIR'S CONSULTATIONS   
1.40.   The Chairman  said that as he had indicated at the last meeting, he had met with a number 
of delegations to see how they wished to procee d on paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration. As Members were aware the Nairobi Ministerial declaration instructed the CRTA to 
discuss the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system and their relationship 
with WTO rules. It also called for work to transform the provisional TM into a permanent 
mechanism in accordance with the General Council Decision of 14 December 2006, without 
prejudice to questions related to notification requirements. His question to Members had been  
twofold: how to approach both issues and what would be the most appropriate format to use  for 
such discussions . His consultations had shown that there was more interest in pursuing the issue 
of systemic implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system , although Members had also 
support ed starting the review of the TM, with at least one Member specifically suggest ing that the 
review of the Mechanism was important and should commence. Others had said that the review of 
the Mechanism would also require te chnical meetings to resolve certain procedural issues.  One 
delegation believed that it was necessary to proceed to an assessment of the current practices in 
that area.  WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.41.   With regard to systemic issues, the Members he had spoken with  had support ed continued 
discussions on the issue, and a number of them had mentioned specific subjects that could be 
discussed in the Committee. It had also been suggested that discussions on systemic implications 
should continue in the CRTA even after the next Ministerial Conference as this was part of the 
CRTA's terms of reference. On the format of such discussions, it had been  suggested that an 
informal setting might be most appropriate, following perhaps the structure used for the 
presentations by Australia, the EU and Japan on trade facilitation provisions in RTAs at the 84th 
Session of the CRTA in April 2017. Some Members had suggested that workshops or semina rs 
might also be useful and could include participation by experts from other international 
organizations or Members.   
1.42.   His feeling was that the Committee should take the opportunity given by the Ministerial 
Conference in Nairobi in order to focus on such i ssues. These were not new issues, they had been 
under review in the Committee for s ome time, but there was now a mandate to fulfil which had 
been given by the Nairobi Ministerial Conference and the Committee had the responsibility to 
respond to it. Members  were all aware of the difficulties and the divergent opinions that existed on 
the topic, but they had to take the opportunity to continue their discussions, and seek to find the 
most opportune moment whe n the discussions were mature enough to achieve an o utcome. He 
imagined that given that Ministers had committed the Committee to reviewing the issue they 
would be expecting a result and it was incumbent on Members to achieve one. It was doubtful that 
with so little time Members would be able to do this but , as was oft en the case in the organization, 
discussions should be held till the last minute to find a response which would satisfy everyone. It 
was in everyone's interest for the Committee to function effectively and to fulfil its mandate in the 
most optim um possible way.  
1.43.   The representative of India said that in paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration 
Ministers had agreed to work towards the transformation of the current provisional RTA TM into a 
permanent one without prejudice to the question o f notification requirements. The negotiations 
that had taken place in the Negotiating Group on Rules had been  captured in the Chair's document 
TN/RL/W/252 where the positions and amendments proposed by Members on how to make the TM 
permanent had been  laid out. There were divergent views among Members and India had strong 
reservations about  any discussions in the CRTA on RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause and 
those notified under both GATT Article XXIV and the Enabling Clause. The correct forum for 
discussing such RTAs was the CTD. The Enabling Clause clearly stated that Contracting Parties 
might accord differential and more favourable treatment to developing countries without according 
such treatment to other parties. This applied to paragraph 2(c) of t he Enabling Clause which 
applied to regional and global arrangements entered into amongst less developed Contracting 
Parties for the mutual reduction or elimination of tariffs and in accordance with criteria and 
conditions which may be prescribed by the Co ntracting Parties for the mutual reduction or 
elimination of non -tariff measures on products imported from other countries. Thus it was clear 
that such agreements came under the CTD whose mandate clearly stated that it should consider 
questions that might arise with regard to the application or use of special provisions in the 
multilateral trade agreements and related ministerial decisions in favour of developing country 
Members and report to the General Council for appropriate action. India was of the firm  view that 
the correct forum for any RTA that was notified under the Enabling Clause or under both GATT 
Article XXIV and the Enabling Clause was the CTD . The CTD had a standing Agenda Item on 
notifications under the Enabling Clause under which delayed fact ual presentations of RTAs notified 
under the Enabling Clause were considered by the CTD.  
1.44.   The representative of Uruguay  agreed with the Chair's report and with paragraph 28 of the 
Nairobi Declaration. With regard to the first part of the paragraph, the syst emic implications for 
the multilateral trading system and their relationship with WTO rules, she was of the opinion that 
the issue should be discussed in more detail. It was a good idea to organize seminars or 
workshops with the participation of experts fr om other international organizations. With regard to 
the second part of the paragraph which was about transforming the current provisional TM into a 
permanent one Uruguay felt that this was an important aspect and there was an interesting 
prospect of holdi ng technical meetings, perhaps informally, in order to tackle the issue. This would 
shed a lot of light on the different interpretations which currently existed on issues surrounding 
transparency and notifications.  
1.45.   The representative of the United States  shared  his recollection of how and where 
paragraph  28 of the Nairobi Declaration had come from. In the two years between Bali and Nairobi WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the NGR had been  quite active and there were a number of times when the NGR had asked 
questions about outstanding issues with respect to its unfinished agenda and this was where such 
items sat. No one had ever intervened during those  two years as there had been  no interest. The 
United States had made it clear th at its position had not  changed and  did not see the need to start 
an unnecessary fight. As a body, Members had packed up and gone to Nairobi without any 
expectation of an RTA outcome. The United States had not asked for one. One particular Member 
in Nairobi had looked back at 20 11 or earlier where some of such issues had been discussed and at 
the last minute had brought something forward. The United States had made it clear in Nairobi 
that if that Member wanted to bring forward new and innovative approaches that would help 
Member s get past the deadlock  that had been there since a round  2006, the United States would 
be open to hearing from that Member on what such new approaches would be. On that basis the 
United States had joined consensus. It had been  3 a.m. and there had been a l ong list of items  on 
which there  had been no discussion. Ambassador McCook had not h eld discussions on it, rather it 
had been stuck in the Declaration and agreed. He did not think that any articulation of what 
Members had meant was possible as the issue  had not been discussed. The United States had had 
a conversation with that one Member at a high level about what their intent had been . Back in 
Geneva that Member had not engaged on the issue and had not brought forward anything with 
respect to paragraph 28.  Thus t he United States was content to move past it. The deep 
divergences were still there and he did not see why the Committee should confront them.  
1.46.   He assured the Committee that any discussion of systemic implications of RTAs would 
include all RTAs and the United States would not agree to limit itself to a discussion based on any 
kind of differentiation between a GATT Article XXIV and Enabling Clause agreement. So Enabling 
Clause agreements would be included as would a conversation about what was eligibl e to be 
considered as an Enabling Clause agreement and what was not. He was not sure that that would 
be helpful but that was what he would bring to such a discussion. There were a number of other 
legal issues where Members had failed to reach consensus and  that was precisely why the TM was 
provisional because Members had not been able to agree and had decided to move on. The United 
States had made a proposal, the only proposal, with respect to making the TM permanent, that 
included consolidating all RTAs un der the CRTA. That position had not and would not change. He 
did not see the utility in opening up a conversation when he knew that positions had not changed. 
If Members wanted to proceed, he too would proceed, but he made it clear that he did not see a 
pathway forward. It was not effective to admonish Members to fulfil the mandate of paragraph 28 
when the CRTA had not give n birth to paragraph 28. It was up to the proponent to articulate what 
it wanted. The United States had had an understanding of what tha t Member had meant which 
apparently was incorrect. He would not hold that Member to anything and the United States was 
fine going back to Buenos Aires with a blank slate on paragraph 28. That was not a problem.  
1.47.   In terms of l ooking at questions o f what cou ld and could not be included in an Enabling 
Clause agreement , he did not see the purpose in bringing in outside bodies as this spoke to legal 
issues and interpretations of agreements and that ought to stay in -house. There was no need to 
bring in someone el se to tell Members what an Enabling Clause agreement ought to include. Thus 
the United States was hesitant about what would result in pursuing that approach. There had been 
a conversation about looking at RTAs and what they had achieved and in his view thi s was not 
what systemic implications meant but the United States had been open to proposals to have that 
conversation. There were still no proposals and only one proposal had been put forward and again 
the United States had disagreed that it concerned systemic implications, but had not disagree d 
with the fact that Members could participate and offer up initiative s in the Committee. The United 
States was prepared to talk about anything, but would prefer that it was Member -driven based on 
proposals. On some of the difficult issues the position of the United States had not changed. He 
was not looking to have a fight but would b ring his delegation's  interests to the table if the 
Committee proceeded. The United States had taken a q uiet approach, paragraph 28 was there, it 
was not the only paragraph in the Nairobi Declaration that did not have a shiny outcome and in his 
opinion Members could move past it. The United States would welcome conversations in the 
Committee  on a range of is sues, but ones that the Committee had agreed , were organic and had 
not been imposed from on high.  
1.48.   The representative of Japan  thanked the Chair for his comprehensive report on his 
consultations. Japan was interested in discussions on the systemic implicati ons of RTAs on the 
multilateral trading system and on the TM including finding ways on improving the implementation 
of the Mechanism. Regarding the TM Japan considered it important to see where Members stood 
with regard to the implementation of the Mechani sm before working toward its transformation to a WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 10 - 
 
  permanent one. In this regard although this was a preliminary comment, Japan could support the 
United States' proposal to have technical discussions on how to improve the TM, including 
notification practices . 
1.49.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil had been committed to the discussion on the 
implementation of paragraph 28 and had contributed to the debate. He recalled the joint 
declaration on systemic implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading sys tem that Members had 
subscribed to and Brazil's non -paper on improving the TM. Brazil saw new challenges in the 
current landscape of negotiations of disciplining RTAs as there were questions of extreme 
importance to the multilateral trading system that Mem bers could address. On the issue of the 
format, Brazil was flexible on how to move the discussion on paragraph 28 forward.  
1.50.    The representative of South Africa  said that the discussions on the systemic implications of 
RTAs for the multilateral trading syste m and their relationship with WTO rules should take place in 
informal mode. She called upon the Chair to ensure a process that would be inclusive with full 
participation of Members at all levels of development and that thematic issues to be discussed 
were of common interest to all Members. The process should be without prejudice to Members of 
various RTAs and in no way should Members be expected to adopt any recommendations that 
emanated from the discussions. South Africa was not open to any work programme or proposal 
that appeared to lead Members into territory that suggested in any way new rules or disciplines at 
the multilateral level that emanated from the discussions. On the TM, South  Africa reserved its 
right to make a comment at a later date as it nee ded more time to consult.  
1.51.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the Chair for the comprehensive 
report of his consultations on paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Declaration. It was clear from the 
debate that there was a general interest to continu e the exercise especially with regard to the 
transparency of RTAs and their implications for the multilateral trading system. From Russia's 
point of view the mandate of the Committee could be strengthened by including reference to 
paragraph 28 of the Nairo bi Declaration in whatever outcome resulted from Buenos Aires in order 
to legitimize the Committee's discussions. Russia was not yet ready to propose specific language. 
It could be done at a later stage when there was a clearer idea of the Buenos Aires doc ument. 
However such a mention would be useful for the work of the Committee.  
1.52.   The representative of Japan  drew Members' attention to the General Council's decision to 
establish the CRTA that stipulated that one of the functions of the CRTA was to consider t he 
systemic implications of such RTAs and regional initiatives for the multilateral trading system and 
the relationship between them and if necessary to make recommendations.  
1.53.   The representative of the European Union  said that as Members were aware the EU h ad 
been active on the issue of the systemic debate. The EU had been among the Members that had 
followed up on paragraph 28 together with other Members with a joint statement. The EU had 
proposed a way on following up on the mandate in an informal setting a nd was among those that 
had presented under the thematic approach. The EU was happy to continue that kind of exchange 
if that was what Members wanted in the CRTA. As Japan had rightly pointed out the systemic 
debate was already in the Committee's terms of reference so it should not be overstated. It was 
up to Members to take it up when they wished. Turning to the TM, she said it was important to 
recall that there were substantial divergences of view. The EU had made an attempt in the NGR 
before Nairobi where it ha d proposed making the TM permanent. There had been very little 
appetite at the time and hearing what Members had said in the meeting it was clear that th e 
issues that had been  open at the time and reflected in the 2011 document summarizing the s tate 
of play on the TM discussion  were still alive. Thus Members should not be too hopeful on that 
front. The EU was happy to continue informal exchanges on the systemic debate under the terms 
of the reference of the CRTA.  
1.54.   The representative of Australia  thanked the Chair for his report on the consultations with 
Members. As Members were aware Australia had been part of the small group that had organized 
the first substantive discussion in the CRTA on the issue of the systemic implications of RTAs for 
the mu ltilateral trading system and their relationship with WTO rules. Australia was pleased to be 
part of that discussion and considered that the presentations had led to a useful discussion and 
helpful sharing of experiences by Members. Australia's preference was for a systematic discussion 
along these lines to be institutionalized as an ongoing part of the CRTA's regular work and agreed 
with the suggestions that these discussions be in informal mode. In terms of the upcoming WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Ministerial Conference Australia wo uld recommend reporting to Ministers that implementation of 
their decision in paragraph 28 had commenced and recommend that they direct the CRTA to 
continue discussing such issues.  
1.55.   The Chairman  said that the debate had shown the following. With respect to paragraph 28 
there were a certain number of issues that would warrant some clarification. Secondly, delegations 
that had taken the floor had shown interest in continuing a discussion on paragraph 28 that indeed 
was part of the mandate of the CRTA and as th e delegate of Japan had reminded the Committee it 
was part of the Committee's mandate with respect to the TM. The Committee had to bear in mind 
that these issues were part of the founding mandate of the Committee and were related to the TM. 
Delegations had  shown interest in the discussions starting off in informal mode and he was willing 
to do that without prejudice to delegations' positions. What the Committee now needed to 
establish was where it started. It seemed to him in the light of questions raised b y delegations that 
it would be useful to first of all think about what the term "systemic dialogue" meant. One 
delegation had raised that and he thought it was a good question. The Committee could also look 
at the Enabling Clause and to what extent it coul d be dealt with in that context. As to how the 
discussions were pursued he had heard the delegation of Australia suggesting that MC11 in Buenos 
Aires should give the Committee the mandate to continue these discussions. He did not know that 
that was necessa ry as the Committee had not been asked to report on the matter. The matter was 
still in early discussion so there was not a need to ask for a mandate at MC11. The Committee had 
that mandate from MC10 and was in a position to continue with its discussions u ntil it had settled 
the matter. To sum up, discussions on the matter would continue and this could start the following 
year under a new Chair. There would be an informal meeting the following year in which the 
methodological approach could be explored. Suc h discussions would start with those issues that 
might be tricky and then the Committee could see what other issues warranted further 
consideration. There was one thing to add with respect to the informal meeting, it might well be an 
informal meeting that involved experts from capital or from  other  international organizations. This 
was a technical issue that would need to be settled. If Members were happy with his summary the 
Committee could consider the matter in those terms, see how the issue could be exa mined more 
closely and continue its discussions.  
1.56.   The representative of the United States  said that this was the fourth or fifth time he had had 
almost the same conversation. The United States was happy to talk about whatever Members 
wanted to talk about. T he United States would like to see and would insist upon an organic 
approach where Members understood what it was that Members wanted to talk about so that he 
could come prepared to engage. He saw across the institution empty edifices that had been 
created  on the assumption  that something would fill them and Members then engaged in make -
work as the edifices needed to be filled but nobody was interested. So the United States was not in 
a position to support a generic institutional creation or declaring that an informal discussion had to 
happen and wait for someone to fill it. It would be useful to know before early next year what 
Members wanted  to discuss. The Committee had discussed having a discussion but Members had 
not discussed what they wanted to discus s and no one had prevented anyone from discussing that. 
The United States would be hesitant to endorse an institutionalization of something that for many 
years had not resulted in any Member interest.  
1.57.   The Chairman  said that he had no intention on insisting  on the issue. If delegations were 
happy to wind up the discussion on the matter then the Committee would do so. If delegations felt 
that the Committee could not make any headway then they should say so and delegations could 
then agree to draw the debate t o its conclusion and inform Ministers that paragraph 28 could not 
be implemented and that there was no agreement and the Committee could then wind up its 
discussions. The Committee could then also invite Ministers to amend the Committee's mandate 
and the m andate of the TM. That said he imagined that there was more room for manoeuvre  with 
respect to the TM becoming a permanent mechanism. The Committee could  say to Ministers that it 
could not make any headway but delegations had to agree that that was the cas e. He saw that the 
United States delegation did not wish to have the discussion taken further. Other delegations had 
to agree or disagree because the question of the discussions was on the Committee's Agenda as 
was making the TM permanent. Th is was part of  the Committee's mandate, not something that 
had come to the Committee from outside. Members had to see  what they could do in order to 
move forward in the light o f Ministers' requests of them. If delegations felt that the Committee 
could not advance then t hat should be acknowledged to Ministers. But the Committee could not 
just do nothing as it had its responsibilities as a Committee and Members were accountable to 
Ministers since they had set a certain number of tasks to the Committee. So his question to WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Members was whether the Committee should leave the discussion on systemic issues . The 
European Union had said earlier that it was interested in the discussion so he was not sure what 
the reaction of the EU and others might be. He did not think that the Comm ittee could stop holding 
discussions on the matter while of course respecting every Member's position. The Committee 
would continue its discussion and if delegations wished to wind up its discussion on systemic 
issues then the Committee should acknowledge it and ask Ministers to change the Committee's 
mandate. As the delegation of Japan had pointed out systemic issues were part of the mandate of 
the CRTA. He suggested that the Committee continue its discussion on such matters in an informal 
way and th e item would appear on the Agenda of the CRTA's next meeting under a different Chair.  
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
1.58.   The Chairman said he  wished to inform the Committee  of three issues. The first concern ed 
the template used for the notification of changes to an RTA. Th ere ha d been some confusion 
concerning the use of th e template. The template for the notification of a new RTA had been  
adopted in 2006 before the RTA TM had com e into being. Paragraph 14 of the TM refer red to the 
required notification of changes affecting  the implementation of an RTA. While a notification 
template for changes to an RTA ha d been in use for some time it ha d not been formally adopted by 
the CRTA. He thought  it would be helpful to have a discussion on th e issue to see if the template 
for the n otification of changes should be formally adopted. He said he would  ask the Secretariat to 
circulate the two formats before the next meeting.  
1.59.   The second issue concern ed technical cooperation activities on RTAs conducted in 2017. He 
recall ed that at the Committee's 32nd Session, it had been  agreed to regularly review the 
RTA-related technical assistance activities undertaken by the Secretariat. The Secretariat would  
give an  account of activities carried out in 2017 and planned for 2018. Detai ls were available in 
room document RD/RTA/45.  
1.60.   A representative of the Secretariat  said that the RTA Section  had conducted 15 technical 
assistance activities in 2017. In addition, the Secretariat ha d participated in a number of activities 
on RTAs funded by outside sources, such as  conferences and other meetings.  Thirteen activities 
were scheduled for 2018, seven of which were intermediate level regional activities (formally 
known as regional trade policy courses), three were Geneva -based applied trade policy courses, 
two were Geneva -based thematic courses and one was an e -learning online course. Most of the 
activities indicated in the table ha d been financed by the WTO regular budget, donations by 
Member s, or by the Global Trust Fund for activities under the DDA. The objectives of the activities 
listed var ied from raising awareness on RTA dynamics in global trade, to training and advising 
government officials on WTO rules and procedures on RTAs, including the TM and the mann er in 
which it functioned . Most TA activities were addressed to participants from broad regional 
groupings. Their underlying objective was to contribute to the development of RTAs that were 
beneficial to their members and that complement ed the objectives o f the WTO. Since Doha, the 
RTA Section ha d been entrusted with the ad ditional task of clarifying issues related to the 
negotiations on RTA rules to WTO Members requesting such aid.  
1.61.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for the upd ate on technical 
assistance and said it was valuable and useful. It was a helpful way to promote use of the 
Committee. He asked if the new template for the notification would be put on the Agenda as a 
recommendation at the next meeting. Also it was useful for the work of the Committee to be 
shared with the other bodies that were responsible for it. The original template had been 
recommended a couple of months later in another document to the relevant Committees and 
perhaps both documents  could be prepared a t the same time and the Committee could adopt the 
template and a recommendation to other Committees that they adopt the new template. The CTD, 
CTS and CTG had all adopted the existing template and it seemed that the Committee should 
make the same recommend ation to them to make the improvements. So instead of waiting 
another month both documents could be circulated for consideration at the same time.  
1.62.   The representative of Brazil  said Brazil was interested in discussing the new template since 
it was engaged i n overcoming difficulties and different views on the issue of notifications. He asked 
whether the Chair would have consultations or an informal discussion prior to issuing the template . 
This would help advance the issue and avoid the usual stumbling blocks  that the Committee 
encountered.  WT/REG/M/87  
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.63.   The Chairman  said that such consultations could be held and he said he would brief the next 
Chair about the issue. As he had said earlier the issue would be on the Agenda of the next meeting 
and at that meeting Members woul d decide how to move forward in consultation with the 
Secretariat and all interested delegations.  
1.64.   The Chairman  inform ed Members  of the dates scheduled for the CRTA's meetings in 2018. 
These would  be held on 5 -6 April, 19 -20 June, and in September and Novem ber, depending on 
workload and the availability of the incoming Chair. Exact dates would be communicated to 
Members  when available.  
1.65.   With reference to the proposed dates, t he representative of the United States  said that the 
Committee had scheduled  two half day Sessions for a reason but Committee practice had eroded 
the second day. He wondered if the Committee should have a discussion about booking a full day. 
He remembered that the United States had been one of the main hold outs in requiring the s econd 
day to keep parallelism with the TPR process and the need for follow up questions but it seemed 
that questions were not being answered even when the Committee had time so he was not sure 
that the second day was really useful. For the sake of efficien cy the United States would be 
interested in scheduling meetings for a full day and not using it rather than the awkward two half 
days. He was not making a recommendation but thought that Members could consider the issue at 
the next meeting.  
1.66.   The representat ive of the European Union  said it was happy to consider the proposal for 
efficiency reasons. It did not have a position but suggested putting it on the Agenda for the next 
meeting.  
1.67.   The Chairman  said that the issue would be on the Agenda of the next meeting . 
1.68.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________