RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/84  
 
9 May 2017 
(17-2489) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -fourth Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 3-4 APRIL  2017 
Chairm an: Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The 84th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR /RTA/9/Rev. 1 dated 24 March 2017. 
1.2.  The Chairman  welcomed Members to the 84th Session of the CRTA . Under Other Business he 
would inform Members of the proposed schedule of CRTA meetings for the rest of the year.  
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted:  
 A. Adoption of the Age nda 
 B. Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism  – Status Report on the 
 Committee's work  
  I. Early Announcements (HTTP://RTAIS.WTO.ORG ) 
  II. Status on the Preparation of Factual Presentations, Including Delays in the 
   Receipt of Data  
  III. Non-notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/11 5) 
  IV. Factual Presentations Delayed Due to Lack of Comments (WT/REG/W/11 4) 
 C. Notification Format for Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/16) – Request by the 
 United States  
D. Questions from the European Union (WT/REG/W/109)  on the Communication from 
 LAIA (WT/REG/W/105)  
E.  Implementation Reports under paragraph 15 of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs 
 - (WT/REG/W/11 3) 
F.  Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements  Involving WTO Non -Members  
 I. Free T rade Agreement between  Iceland and the Faroe Islands, Goods and 
 Services  
II. Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan , Goods  
G. Follow up on the Ministerial Declaration from MC10. Report from the Chair's 
Consultations  
 I. EU Presentation – the EU's Experience on Trade Facilitation Provisions in its FTAs  
 II. Japan Presentation – Japan's Experience on Trade Facilitation Provisions in its EPAs  
 III. Australia Presentation – Trade Facilitation in Australia's FTAs  
H.  Election of Officers  
I.  Other Busin ess 
 
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RTA TRANSPARENCY M ECHANISM  – STATUS REPORT ON 
THE COMMITTEE'S WORK  
1.4.  The Chairman  provided Members with an update with regard to the Committee's work and 
the implementation of the Transparency Mechanism (TM). In order to better reflect the 
Committee's work these had been divided into separate elements, i.e. early announcements, 
Status o n the Preparation of Factual Presentations (including delays), non -notified RTAs and 
factual presentations delayed due to lack of comments.  WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 2 - 
 
  B.I  Early Announcements  
1.5.  He said that a total of 40 early announcements were currently on the WTO website (not 
counting those which had been subsequently notified). He thanked Members who had submitted 
information in line with the requirements of the TM and enco uraged others to do so. He reminded 
Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
B.II Status on the Preparation of Factual Presentations, including Delays in the Receipt 
of Data  
1.6.  As regards the preparation of the fa ctual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO members only there were currently 33 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. He recalled that at the 
Committee's 52 nd Session held 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 
29 RTAs involving non -Members were to be prepared. Members had agreed that those RTAs 
notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, should be taken up before the 
others. Data requests for RTAs notified since the adoption of the TM had been sent to the relevant 
parties. Regarding the backlog in the receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting of 
factual presentations for certain RTAs, he had continued consultations with a number of 
delegations and hoped that the missing information would be provided as soon as possible.  
1.7.  A representative of the Secretariat  said t hat with regard to factual presentations of RTAs 
between WTO Members: for China -Korea goods and services, the factual presentation ha d been 
circulated.  For Viet Nam -Korea and EU -Ukraine, both goods and services, and Georgia -Russian 
Federation, goods, the f actual presentations would be circulated shortly.  For EU -ESA, goods, the 
factual presentation ha d been sent to the parties  and c omments were received on 4 November but 
some clarifications and data were still awaited from Zimbabwe.  For Korea -India, services , and 
Japan -Mongolia, goods and services the  factual presentations had  been sent to the parties  for 
comments . For GCC -Singapore, servic es, the factual presentation had  been sent to the parties  for 
comments , but data from the GCC parties was not complete.  For Korea -ASEAN, services, EU -Côte 
d'Ivoire, the Seychelles' accession to SADC, both goods, and Mexico -Panama, Colombia -Korea, 
and Costa Rica -Colombia, all goods and services, the factual presentations were being drafted . For 
EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and EU-Cameroon, both goods only, data ha d been received from the 
EU only.  For Armenia -Kazakhstan, goods, some data had  been received from Kazakhstan.  For the 
Pacific Alliance, goods and services, data was due by 17 April.  For Turkey -Moldova, goods, data 
was due by 3 May.  For the accession of Ecuador to EU -Peru, Colombia, goods and services, data 
was due by 12 May.  For Turkey -Malaysia, goods, data was due by 12 July.  For EU -SADC EPA, EU -
Ghana EPA, both goods and GUAM, goods and services, notification s had been received but still 
needed to be circulated and data requests would be sent out shortly.  
1.8.  With regard to RTAs involving non Members, the situation was as follows:  for 
EU-CARIFORUM, goods and servic es, the factual presentation had  been sent to the Parties.  For 
EU-San Marino, goods, the factual presentation  was being drafted . For the Customs Union between 
the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and the EAEU, some data had been received 
from the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan.  For Armenia's accession  to the EAEU, goods and 
services, data ha d been received from Armenia.  For the Kyrgyz Republic's accession to the EAEU, 
clarifications  were still required . For EFTA -Lebanon, Turkey -Syria, CEFTA Enlargement, Ukraine 
Azerbaijan, Ukraine -Turkmenistan, the Com mon Economic Zone, Russian Federation -
Turkmenistan, all goods, data was not complete  and factual presentations c ould not  be drafted . A 
third category concerned three agreements – ASEAN -Japan, the new CIS Agreement, both goods, 
and EU -Central America, goods  and services – for which not all parties had ratified the agreement. 
The Secretariat intended to wait until the agreement had entered into force for all the parties 
before commencing the preparation of factual presentations. She urged the parties to notif y the 
Secretariat when their respective agreement entered into force for all the parties. She urged 
Members to make every effort to comply with the deadlines as requested so that the Secretariat 
could do its best to adhere to the CRTA's work programme.  
1.9.  The represe ntative of the United States  expressed concern about  the fact that the Status o n 
the Preparation of Factual Presentations of RTAs  was becoming longer rather than shorter , in 
contrast with section F which was getting shorter.  He had noticed that t here was a negative 
correlation between the delays in the prepar ation of Factual Presentations and the actual content WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 3 - 
 
  discuss ed in the CRTA . He proposed elevating the room document to a more appropriate status 
and to have it circulated as a "W" document to r einforce the importance of the info rmation  it 
contained. Alternatively , he restated his interest in incorporating the info rmation contained in 
document RD/RTA/ 42 into document WT/REG/W /114. Moreover, he request ed that the Secretariat 
add the deadlines for the submission of data proposed under the TM in future iteration s of the 
document . Providing  the timelines for data submission would benefit the Committee and would 
help move the process in the pipeline to avoid ending up with no RTAs to review and a meeti ng 
that only reviewed the delay in the Committee's work.  
1.10.   The representative of Japan  said that the parties to the Japan -Mongolia FTA had been 
working  diligently to prepare comments on the Factual Presentation . However they would  need two 
additional weeks t o finalize comments.  
1.11.   The representative of India said that he was not in a position to support the proposal of the 
United States and would like to maintain the status  quo as far as the documents were concerned . 
1.12.   The representative of  the United States  said that the status  quo was not working and 
suggested that the Committee should think about ways in which the status  quo could be prompted 
into something more effective. He reminded Members that the issue had been discussed for over a 
year. He asked why India had reservations in reconsidering the status  quo. There were a number 
of ways to bring th e issue to the attention of Members and he considered the form of a "W" 
document the least offensive but he was open to having consultations about alternative forms.  
1.13.   The representative of South Africa  asked the US representative to clarify whether he was 
referring to document WT/REG/16. She also asked him to clarify the meaning and implications of 
elevating the status of the document to a "W" document.  
1.14.   The Chairman  clarified that the discussion was about document RD/RTA/42 on the Status on 
the Preparation of Factual Presentation s of RTAs. 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  replied  that document  RD/RTA/42 presented by the 
Secretariat did not draw enough attention in  capitals since it did not get tagged on the Agenda as 
a document and it was often published quite late. He recalled the experience of the United States 
regarding document WT/REG/W/114  that listed Factual Presentations that were delayed due to 
lack of comm ents. He recognized that the coordination of comments between regional and bilater al 
partners could be challenging  and admitted that, in the past,  the United States had struggled to 
review Factual Presentations, to answer questions and to get back to the Secretariat in a timely 
manner. The presence of a numbered document in the Agenda of the Committee had been 
effective  in speeding up  the work in capital. He suggested that the creation of an official document 
on the Status on the  Preparation of Factual Pres entation s would remind capital -based officials of 
potential delays  as they prep ared for meetings. An additional document would not create any new 
obligations but it would help the Secretariat in the exercise of its functions.  
1.16.   The Chairman  said he did  not support any specific proposal but agreed that the issue was 
becoming an increasingly large problem in the work of the CRTA and the list s of the Status on the 
Preparation of Factual Presentations  and Factual Presentation s delayed due to lack of comments 
had tended to become larger. He welcomed any consultation and discussion between Members on 
how to improve the situation.  
B.III  Non-notified  RTAs  (WT/REG/W/115)  
1.17.   The Chairman  said that an updated list had been circulated on 27  March in document 
WT/REG/W/115  and contain ed 81 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 27 March 2017 . 
Following the notification of the GUAM agreement by the delegation  of Moldova , the Agreement 
would be removed from the list of non -notified RTAs the next time it was circulated.  
1.18.   He said that Members would be aware that the issue of the status of the document had 
been discussed at the last meeting of the Committee  and several meetings of the CTD . He wished 
to inform Members that he had held consultations with the Members concerned but at  that stage 
he could not report back an agreement to change the format of the document. There continue d to 
be disagreement on whe ther a certain group of RTAs had been notified or needed  to be notified. WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 4 - 
 
  He noted, however, that those Members that would like more transparency on some of the 
agreements had indicated that they were flexible about the form that transparency might take. He 
encourage d Members to continue to talk to one  another to resolve this issue . 
1.19.   The representative of Brazil  noted with concern t hat the WTO Secretariat  had circulated a 
list of non -notified agreements on the basis of the same non -consensus  methodology used in 
previous ver sions for past meeting s of the Committee. He said t hat the methodology failed  to take 
into due consideration th e notification of RTAs that had  been consistently sent by the delegation of 
Uruguay on behalf of the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) under the Enabling Clause 
and pursuant to section s D to G of the TM (document WT/L/671 ). This had been done in  spite of 
the views and concerns  emphatically  expressed by Bra zil and other LAI A members in t he 
Committee. Brazil was particularly displeased to see this happening in what was still supposed to 
be a Member -driven Organization . As a resul t of this regrettab le situation, he reiterated  that Brazil 
did not accept the classification of non-notified for the agreements listed in document 
WT/COMTD/W/217 circulated by the delegation of Uruguay on behalf of LAIA  that identified all 
notification s made by LAIA members together with the symbols of the corresponding documents 
submitted to the WTO. The document made it clear  that the agreements classified as non -notified 
in the Secretariat's list had in fact been notified under Sections D to G of the TM . He recalled that 
in document WT/COMTD/W/217 , as well as in the more recent document WT/COMTD/W/220 , also 
circulated by the delegation of Uruguay on behalf of LAIA, the removal of said agreements from 
the list had been formally requested . Brazil did not agree that the reques ted correction of the list , 
which merely reflected  reality, could be denied on the ground s of other delegations' opposition. 
Never had  it been agreed by Members that correction s of the list of non -notified RTAs would 
require consensus in the CRTA or elsewh ere. At the regular session of the CRTA held in Nov ember  
2011, it had been clearly stated that the list should be updated as necessary  and an  update was 
indeed necessary. Brazil did not recognize the list in document WT/REG/W/115 nor its previous 
versions  and could not engage in any debate on its basis . 
1.20.   The representative of China  informed the Committee that it had made an early 
announcement of  the Cross -Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) in 2010. 
The negotiations of ECFA had not yet been concluded and it was premature to notify the 
agreement to the WTO. China would fulfil its transparency obligations to the CRTA once the 
Agreement was  formally concluded. He requested the Secretariat to remove the ECFA from the list 
of non -notified RTAs.  
1.21.   The representative of  the Russian Federation  informed the Committee that the members of 
the Eurasian  Economic Union (EAEU) and Viet Nam were working on a joint notification of the 
EAEU -Viet Nam RTA and hoped to be able to provide it in the near future.  
1.22.   The representative of Uruguay  supported what had been said by the representative of Brazil 
as it encapsulated what LAIA had requested in communications to the CTD with copies to the 
CRTA.  
1.23.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated the importance of complying with 
notification obligations  and encouraged Members with agreements on the Secretariat's list to notify 
their agreements in order to safeguard the functioning of the TM. The EU believed  that the 
document served as a useful transparency tool for the monitoring function of the WTO and that 
consensus would be needed to withdraw it. 
1.24.   The representative of the United States  echoed the previous statement that th e list of 
non-notified agreements was an important tool for the CRTA that laid at the centre  and purpose of 
the Committee. He assert ed that the document should be maintained and should be a working 
document that formed a basis for constructive discussion . He thank ed Russia for providing an 
update on its FTA with Viet Nam and said that the intent o f the document was precisely to make 
Members think about where they were in terms of their notification s. With respect to the 
comment s by China, the US had been on the record and had introduced into the record  press 
releases from the Ministry of Commerce ( MOFCOM ) demonstrating  that preferences had been 
extended between parties to that  agreement. The TM made two things clear: one, an early 
announcement  was not a notification  and did not require any of the information that would 
constitute a notification ; and  two, notifications were required at entry into force or upon the 
extension  of preferences  between parties. The United States had repeatedly demonstrated that  
goods and se rvices preferences had been extended between China and the Separate Customs WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Territory  of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei)  under that agreement and 
therefore a notification of the RTA was required. With respect to Brazil's comment, he recalled that 
the CRTA had decided upon a notification format  and had recommended that  other committee s 
follow the same notification format . He reiterate d that no document conforming to the agreed 
notification format had been submitted  by LAIA members to the Committee n or to any other. He 
repeated that his delegation  would welcome a conversatio n to bridge the difference but it was 
clear that neither the CRTA nor any other Committee had receiv ed a notification of any of the  LAIA 
agreements  on the list . 
1.25.   The representative of Ecuador  fully supported the statement made by Brazil. She said that 
the agreements signed by LAIA members under the Montevideo Treaty , which had been notified to  
the WTO in July 1982, should not be on the list of non -notified RTA s since they had been notified 
through the reports submitted by LAIA to the CTD in accordance with  Section s D to G of the TM. 
Furthermore, she stressed that the body in charge of reviewing RTAs notified under paragraph 2(c) 
of the Enabling Clause was the CTD , as established in paragraph 18 of the TM. 
1.26.   The representative of Australia  said that the document  was a useful reference tool for 
Members to see which RTAs had yet to be duly notified and examined by the CRTA and, as others 
had said, it helped the Committee to discharge its important trade monitoring function. He 
disputed the notification status of LA IA's RTAs  and looked forward to discussing the issue  in 
greater detail later on. A document of this nature must continue to be circulated and it was 
Australia's understanding that a consensus decision would be required in order to cease its 
circulation. Su ch consensus did not seem to be apparent at the moment. Australia was however 
prepared to engage constructively with all those who had strong v iews. Finally, he welcomed the 
Chairman's effort in this regard and looked forward to reach ing a compromise.  
1.27.   The representative of Paraguay  fully supported the statement made by Brazil and agreed 
with other LAIA members. Document WT/REG/W/ 115 was important for Paraguay but he did not 
think it was correct that the Secretariat published it when there was no consensus. He said that it 
was not clear how n egative consensu s could be enough for the publicat ion of documents. He noted 
that there had been disagreement on the status of notification of LAIA's agreements which, 
according to LAIA members, had been notified under pa ragraph 14 of the  TM. Therefore, he did 
not agree that these agreements should be included in the list while there was an ongoing 
discussion on the matter. Finally, he said that discussions on LAIA agreement s had not been the 
same as for other agreements  so, given this discrepancy , he believed it was not  healthy to 
continue publish ing the document.  
1.28.   The representative of Canada  supported document WT/REG/W/115 and insisted that it 
continue d to be circulated.  
1.29.   The representative of Cuba fully supported the stat ement made by Brazil regarding  the list 
of non -notified agreements  since those RTAs had been notified  as mentioned in a note sent by 
LAIA on behalf of all its members. She also supported the delegation of Ecuador's position  that the 
body in charge of analy sing the  notifications of such agreements was the CTD. She considered that 
it was inappropriate to circulate the list  as long as there was no consensus between Members  for it 
to be publishe d.  
1.30.   The representative of the United States  appreciated the report submitted to the CTD but 
criticized the claim  made  by LAI A members  that the agreements from 48 to 81 on the list of non -
notified RTAs were covered under the notification of the Treaty of Montevideo submitted in 1982 . 
On its website LAIA did not trace the p rovenance of these individual agreements back to the 
Treaty of Montevideo but only to  the bilateral agreement s where the treatment f or specific 
products originated . All modification s that follow ed were listed under the original bilateral 
agreements . For example, the agreement between Argentina and Brazil,  which traced back its 
history from 1990 to date of all the additional protocols that were negotiated under it , did not  link 
back to the Treaty of Montevideo precisely because the Treaty of Montevideo had no specific 
treatment for any specific product.  Hence, the justification for deleting these agreements  because 
they were all covered under the 1982 notification could not  be sustained since even according to 
the LAIA website specific treatment  of specific p roducts originated  with the stand -alone 
agreement s and  not the Treaty of Montevideo. Moreover, there had been  a difference of opinion 
between LAIA members over time  and some LAIA assertions were not consistent even with its own 
practice . In particular, the  accession of Cuba to LAIA did not show up in the list since it had been WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 6 - 
 
  properly notified, whereas more recently acceded members, such as the Bolivarian Republic of  
Venezuela and Panama, had asserted that no notification was needed because their accession  to 
LAIA was covered under the 1982 notification.  He acknowledged that everybody would  like the list 
to disappear but Members disagree d on how that should happen . It would be useful to have a 
constructive and cooperative conversation about what these agree ments were and how to address 
the list . His delegation  understood  that submitting a notification  of an old RTA  might trigger an 
administrative burden  and he reiterated his offer to work together with a ny Member on the list , 
whether a member of LAIA or not,  in order to agree on how a notification could be submitted  for 
old agreements, such as Botswana -Malawi which had entered into force in 1956,  and help reduce 
the administrative burden implied by a notification. The offer would apply in the CRTA or CTD 
regardless  of how the RTA was notified.  Alternatively, if a country believed that an agreement was 
ancient history, the US would be open to having a conversation , with no guarantee  of free passes , 
in order to clean  up the backlog and move forward.  
1.31.   The represe ntative of Brazil  said his delegation was  always available to discuss the issue 
constructively and welcomed all initiatives of Members that went in that direction. He was ready as 
always to engage and discuss possible ways to overcome the problem and to ha ve a list that was 
true to fact. He appreciated the fact that the US representative  was able to retrieve all the 
information on the website and reach a conclusion on the status of the Treaty of Montevideo. He 
did not agree with it but respected his views. He insisted that divergence over the Sections of the 
TM that applied  to RTAs should not offer ground s for considering the agreements as non -notified.  
1.32.   The representative of Australia  disagree d with LAIA's assertion that its members' RTAs had 
been duly notif ied or that they fully complied with the purpose of the RTA TM. Australia was open 
to work ing constructively with LAIA and he echoed the offer made by the US  representative . One 
option would be to begin focused discussions on ways in which Members could wo rk with LAIA 
countries to identify the RTAs which contain ed substantive trade liberalization,  or treatment of 
goods and services,  or involve d customs unions and  to explore how tho se RTAs could be duly 
notified and reviewed. He said that Australia would be open-minded as to the format and how th is 
could be done but at least wanted  to start the conversation.  
1.33.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  supported the statements made 
by Cuba, Brazil and Ecuador.  
1.34.   The representative of the European Union  noted that there were differences in interpretation 
regarding the extent to which the LAIA agreements had been correctly notified particularly as 
regard s services and customs unions. She echoed what the representative s of Australia and the US 
had said regarding focused discussions with LAI A members and other interested M embers. The EU 
was open to continuing a constructive debate and work ing through the list one by one.  
1.35.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that it had submitted  an early announceme nt of 
ECFA to the WTO in May 2011 together with its text and annexes which had already been included 
in the RTA database. Since ECFA was only a framework agreement with follow up agreements  still 
to be negotiated, a formal notification would be submitted w hen such agreements had been  
signed.  
1.36.   The Chairman  said that a difficult dialogue was ongoing  both in the CRTA and the CTD. 
Consultations had been held with legal expertise from the S ecretariat to explain  the intricacies of 
documents and how they could be redrawn. He urged Members to continue with the discussion and 
recognized that there was a genuine will to try to take the issue forward . He hoped that the next 
Chairman would be willing to take part in such a discussion  and that in the next CRTA meeting 
document WT/REG/W/115 would look different and have fewer agreement s on it.  
B.IV Factual Presentations Delayed due to Lack of Comments  
1.37.   The Chairman  said that he had continued consultations with delegations and an updated list 
of such RTAs had been rec ently c irculated as WT/REG/W/114 . He hoped that outstanding 
comments would soon be made available and the factual consideration of these agreements could 
be undertaken.  WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 7 - 
 
  C. NOTIFICATION FORMAT FOR REGIONAL TRADE A GREEMENTS (WT/REG/16 ) – 
REQUEST BY THE UNITE D STATE S 
1.38.   The representative of the United States  requested the Agenda item with a view towards 
reviewing the past work of the Committee and refreshing its understanding of the notification 
format for regional trade agreements. Document WT/REG/16 had been referenc ed in recent 
communications to the CRTA and in statements made in the Committee and others, and therefore 
the US believe d it was timely to review the history and content of the document.  
1.39.   Members would  recall that in November 2006, the Committee had submitt ed a proposal to 
the Council on Trade in Goods, the Council on Trade in Services, and the Committee on Trade and 
Development recommending that these bodies adopt a common format for notifications of RTAs. 
The CRTA had provided a template for th e common for mat as part of the document.  
1.40.   At the time, the Members of the CRTA  had asserted that the format would facilitate the task 
of compliance with Members ' requirement to notify an RTA, and provide other WTO Members with 
the necessary basic elements of a notific ation in  a systematic and coherent way as stated in the 
cover note.  It had been proposed to reproduce  the notification , as appropriate, in a multi -symbol 
official WTO document.  From the content of the document, it  appeared  that Members of the CRTA 
were in agreement with several basic facts.  First, it had been the view of the CRTA that Members 
should use th e format regardless of what body the do cument was being submitted to. Second, the 
format had been designed to facilitate compliance with notification requ irements – and from that 
the US inferred that the data fields in the document were necessary elements constituting a 
notification at that time by the Members of the CRTA.  Third, there had been an expectation by the 
Members of the CRTA that notifications wo uld be circulated in an official WTO document with the 
appropriate symbol.  
1.41.   As for the data fields themselves, CRTA Members had agreed that necessary information for 
a notification included the Member or Members notifying (box 1); the date of notification ( box 2); 
the basis for the notification (box 3);  as well as the date of entry into force (box 6). There were 
clear and demonstrable reasons for including such information in the format.  As mentioned earlier, 
references  had been  made to the document in submi ssions to the Committee and in the CTD along 
with assertions of consistency between the agreed notification format and other documents 
presented to the Committee.  He hoped that a better understanding of the data fields found in the 
notification format docu ment WT/REG/16 would assist Members in evaluating such claims of 
consistency.  
1.42.   The representative of Brazil  said that transparency of RTAs was a key element at the WTO 
and its enhancement was an objective recognized in par agraph  28 of the Nairobi Ministeria l 
Declaration , which was strongly support ed by Brazil . In keeping with such  principle , Brazil was 
fully committed to the work of the CTD with respect to agreements  under  the Enabling Clause and 
to the CRTA with respect to the other s. Brazil was looking for ward to taking an active part in any 
debate for  the enhancement of transparency  provisions applicable t o RTAs. He stressed that 
although Brazil respected any divergent views on the manner in which LAIA members had notified 
their agreements to the WTO, it  was undeniable that they had been working with full transparency 
towards the Organization . All the info rmation  required in the notification format had been sent to 
the WTO as regards LAIA agreements  and there could be  no doubt which countries were part of 
them nor the legal basis of notification. It had been clearly stated in the communication submitted 
by the delegation of Uruguay on behalf of LAIA, for example in document WT/COMTD/93, that the 
agreements  had been concluded under par agraph  4(a) of the Enabl ing Clause and notifications had 
been made purs uant to Sections D to G of the TM. He assured the Committee that Brazil was  by 
no means adamant on the issue of the notification format  and was open to discuss ing how to 
improve the way information had been su bmitted to the WTO, including by LAIA. He was ready to 
explore solutions that would  provide comfort to all Members . He mentioned that the last paragraph 
of the first page of document WT /REG/16 that stated that the nature of the proposal was 
procedural and its implementation would not entail any change in Member s' legal rights and 
obligations  was really instructive . Brazil was convinced that LAIA members were fully complying 
with their legal rights and obligations.  
1.43.   The representative of the European Union  said that the US representative's intervention had 
been a useful reminder of the key features of the notification template. She believed that this 
would help clarify and facilitate compliance with the notification format of RTAs. The EU believed WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 8 - 
 
  that the not ification format in document WT/REG/16 contained the necessary elements 
constituting a notification and the format and various data fields helped facilitate Members' 
preparations of the notifications in a fairly simple and standard format without introduci ng an 
administrative burden. She concluded by saying that the EU was willing to  discuss the issue further 
with interested Members and LAIA countries.  
1.44.   The representative of the United States  appreciated the engagement in the CRTA on the 
longstanding issue.  He pointed out that he was having trouble reconciling the reference to 
paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Declaration and Brazil's willingness to enhance transparency with 
other things that had been said . He asked why, notwithstanding that Brazil had been part o f the 
consensus in the Committee on the notification requirements and the notification template, Brazil 
believed that presenting the information in a different way would be sufficient. It would be useful 
to understand why Brazil was walking away from a Committee recommendation and format. He 
took issue with the assertion that all the information required for the notification of LAIA members' 
RTAs was available. Brazil had made reference to document WT/COMTD/W/220 which made 
assertions about what the reports  were and how individual members could submit them . On the 
other hand,  the cover not e in document WT/COMTD /93 did not use words such as "notification " or 
"submit ". Saying that a report had been received from Uruguay was not the same as saying that 
Uruguay had submitted  on behalf of the notifying Members X, Y, and Z. He wondered why Brazil 
had chosen to use different words and to put things in a cover note in a less than clear way when 
the Committee , of which all LAIA members were part , had agreed that the n otification template 
was the best way to notify . He questioned why the three items in box 3 of the notification template 
were insufficient for Brazil's purposes since other Members, such as Hong Kong, China and China, 
had used paragraph 14 in their notific ation. He repeated that t here was a lot in the cover note that 
was unclear  and did not understand why the Committee had been asked to put aside what had 
been agreed and accept something different. He had never received any real clear answer as to 
why LAIA members, which individually agreed with the Committee 's recommendation,  had decided 
to do things in a different way.   
1.45.   The representative of India said that , from the cover note of the notification template,  his 
understan ding was that RTAs between developin g countries had to be notified under the E nabling 
Clause to the CTD , even though some developing countries had notified their RTAs  under 
Article  XXIV of the GATT. He recalled that, as part of the TM, the CTD was the appropriate forum 
to discuss RTAs betwee n developing countries. However, the US position was that  the CRTA was 
the proper forum for the consideration of RTAs. Although Members had agreed on the format of 
notification, some Members did not seem to agree with it . He request ed the U S to clarify its 
position on whether the CTD was the appropriate forum for discussion of RTAs among developing 
countries.  
1.46.   The representative of Australia  said that his country  abide d by the notification format and 
expected all Members to follow . There should be a high deg ree of visibility in the WTO of any trade 
commitment and preferences  made by individual Members outside of the multilateral trading 
system  and therefore every Member's RTAs should be duly notified and appropriately examined. 
He stressed that it was  importa nt that WTO Members  adopt ed a consistent approach to notification 
and transparency as it was one of the pillars of the Organization . Australia strongly  believe d that 
every WTO notification should be reviewed  in an open , public and consistent manner. Austra lia did 
not agree with LAIA's assertion that its members' RTAs had been duly notified and therefore did 
not believe that LAIA members had fully complied with the objective purpose of the TM. The 
document submitted to the CTD had several fl aws, as the US representative had  pointed out and 
to which Australia had drawn attention in the CTD meeting .  
1.47.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil was committed to tr ansparency and to 
paragraph 28 and had never done anything that would be against  it. Brazil's  position was one of 
principle . He repeated  the last paragraph of the cover note of document WT/REG/16 that th e 
nature of the proposal was procedural and its implementation would not entail any change in 
Members' legal rights and obligations  which was something  that Brazil fully endorsed. Brazil was 
complying with such obligations  since the info rmation  request ed had been presented. Regarding 
the comments made on the supposed inconsistencies in LAIA's submission s to WTO, he drew 
attention to paragraph 1.1 of document WT/COMTD/W/217 that stated that the  above -mentioned 
document could be used by LAIA member countries to meet their notification obligations in respect 
of instruments concluded under the Enabling Clause (paragraph 4(a)), in accordance with 
Sections  D to G of the TM for Regional Trade Agreements . LAIA members believed the documents WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 9 - 
 
  were notification s as clearly stated in document WT/COMTD/W/217 which also listed all the 
documents that LAIA had sent to the WTO. Moreover, a footnote in t he last submission  (document 
WT/COMTD/93 ) had clearly stated "pursuant to the individual obligations for WTO Members to 
notify instruments concluded under the Enabling Clause and in compliance of Sections D to G of 
the Transparency Mechanism ". LAIA had  been consistent in  stressing that those documents were 
notifications . Brazil's position was that those documents were notifications duly submitted to the 
WTO and LAIA had been complying with its commitments to the Organization . While Brazil was 
open to engaging constructively to  discuss ways to improve  how LAIA's notification s were 
submitted to the WTO, he did not accept the assertion that LAIA had not submitted notifications 
and was not complying with the rules . 
1.48.   The representative of the United States  said that the discussion wa s a necessary process to 
address  an issue that had been discussed for a long time. He recognized that it was the first time 
that the US and Brazil had had a chance to express their point s of view . Regarding Brazil 's last 
intervention, if LAIA members had u sed the regular format, it would have been impossible or 
extremely difficult to dispute what they were doing. However, LAIA members had created a cover 
sheet similar to the standard notification template and had created a new instrument called an 
"individu al notification datasheet " that had not been used by any other Member. In particular, the 
words used in the LAIA documents did not match what was actually submitted (for example, the 
documents were called "individual" but then were stapled together and sub mitted as one 
document) and they did not match how LAIA wanted them treated.  Given that LAIA members had 
not used the standard format, the US could not be faulted for questioning the differences and for 
trying to gain  a better understanding  of the rational e for the approach . He recalled that he had 
recommended in the past the use of informal or small group sessions in order to devote time to 
the problem and he was committ ed to us ing as much Committee time as necessary  given the 
importance of the  issue. Since LAIA involved an entire continent including  Central America, it was 
an economically important area for the US, and he would not step away from  the issue . Regarding 
India's intervention, h e clarified that the US had never agree d and would never agree that  RTAs 
between developing countries were only to be discussed in the CTD. He recalled that , according to 
paragraph  18 of the TM, "the CTD shall do so for RTAs falling under paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling 
Clause ". He understood that India's position was  that all developing countries should only use the 
Enabling Clause, but a lot of developing  countries had notified RTAs under Article XXIV of GATT 
and Article V of GATS  which were not  reviewed in the CTD. To be precise, the US had agreed  that, 
as part of a conc ession to get provisional implementation of the TM, the CTD could manage the 
reviews of Enabling Clause agreements but the U nited States had never said that the CRTA had no 
role for RTAs between developing economies.  
1.49.   The representative of Australia  agreed with the US  representative . LAIA members had been 
inconsistent in their assertion which Australia disputed. He said that the issue was one of 
consistency and not of venue. He also stated that it was without prejudice to under what provision 
the agreements would be  notified but it was an issue of standard of review. Australia believed that 
every agreement and trade preference should be subject to the same standard of review, but 
when LAIA countries had not used the notification format used by all other Membe rs then a 
different standard of review had been applied.  
1.50.   The representative of Japan  supported the Australian representative's statement that 
agreements concluded outside the WTO should be monitored. Japan was ready to engage in 
discussion on the issue of the notification format and non -notified RTAs.  
1.51.   The representative of the European Union  believed, as noted by Australia, that proper 
notification in the WTO would trigger a review process and only by having a proper notification 
could such a process happen . As a consequence, the notification format was considered important. 
She was puzzled by the use of the terms "report " and  "notifications" in the latest LAIA 
communication , document  WT/COMTD/ 93. The EU had interpreted those terms to be a notification 
of 16  technical amendments , but asked for clarification. She pointed out that there was a box in 
the notification template that clearly and easily allowed Members to identify the notifying party. As 
the Secretariat had pointed out in the CTD, individual Members  had the responsibility to notify and 
therefore the EU could not accept that LAIA had notified on behalf of its member s. 
1.52.   The Chairman  thanked the US for requesting the inclusion of the item on the Agenda and 
said that a discussion of the issue was necessar y. WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 10 - 
 
  D. QUESTIONS FROM THE E UROPEAN UNION (WT/RE G/W/109) ON THE 
COMMUNICATION FROM L AIA (WT/REG/W/105)  
1.53.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU  had requested Agenda item D to 
formally place the EU questions on the Agenda of the CRTA and to s erve as a reminder of the 
outstanding replies. The EU had circulated questions in writing in September 2016 based on the 
Communication circulated by LAIA members in June 2016 ( document WT/REG/W/105) to the CTD 
and the CRTA. The EU expected the replies to b e circulated also in the CRTA.   
1.54.   The EU attached  great importance to receiving replies to its questions as the discussions so 
far, both in the CRTA and the CTD, had proved insufficient to clarify the issues at stake. Replies 
from LAIA would also send an imp ortant signal of engagement to make progress on the 
long-standing issue. She recalled the background and the main aspects that the EU had raised in 
its questions.  First, the EU had requested detailed information allowing Members to understand the 
differenc es among the legal acts classified under the three different headings of 'Regional 
Agreements', 'Economic C omplementar ity Agreements (ACE)' and 'Other  agreements'. Second, the 
EU had raised specific questions and observations on each of the three types of agreements. In 
particular, the EU had asked for clarification of  four aspects:  i) the coverage of each kind of 
agreement;  ii) whether each type of agreement contained only provisions in trade in goods or also 
trade in services and  if the latter was the cas e, the EU had noted  that the agreements would not 
fall under the Enabling Clause and would need to be notified under GATS Art. V and be discussed  
in the CRTA; iii) whether the provisions contained in each type of agreement were equally 
applicable to all LA IA member countries ; iv) and whether any accession agreement was subject to  
a full examination process.  To facilitate the reading of and navigation through the LAIA 
agreements contained in its communication of June  2016 (document WT/REG/W/105) , the EU had 
asked to receive a correlation table linking its communication to the Secretar iat's list of 
non-notified RTAs.  
1.55.   As previously stated, the EU believed  that the replies from LAIA would help in moving 
forward on the longstanding issue and look ed forward to LA IA members ' replies. 
1.56.   The representative of Brazil , as Chair of the Committee of Representatives of LAIA, 
announced that the collective replies to the questions from the EU ( document WT/REG/W/109) had 
been submitted to the WTO on 30 March  by the delegation of Uruguay on behalf of LAIA  
(document WT/COMTD/W/224) . The replies had been sent for consideration in the CTD as the 
agreements they refer red to had been notified under the Enabling Clause. This was a token of 
LAIA's renewed commitment to transparency and  to the debate with all interested WTO M embers.  
1.57.   The representative of Australia  said that he would have appreciated to have had  the 
responses submitted to the venue in which the questions had been asked. Even though the 
agreements were notified under the E nabling Clause, he expected any provisions relating to 
GATS  Article V or any customs union to be discussed in the CRTA. Thus , he assumed that if the 
replies contained anything to do with services or customs unions, they would be discussed in the 
CRTA.  
1.58.   The representative of the United States  appreciated the update from Brazil and hoped to 
have some information after a long wait. He asked that item D be maintained on the Agenda until 
a response was received. He pointed out that when the TM was created, certai n Members in the 
CRTA had demanded and been granted that the CTD took up some role and was an equal partner 
in the implementation of the  TM. Members had been clearly misled on that front and the 
bifurcation  of the TM had been used by some Members to avoid answering some questions. He 
disapproved of the behaviour of LAIA members that had not replied  to questions formally and 
directly asked in the CRTA.  
1.59.   The representative of the European Union  welcomed LAIA members' engagement on the 
issue and recognized that  this would definitely be a helpful first step for continuing the discussion. 
The EU needed to study the replies carefully and would revert to LAIA members later on. She 
pointed out  that the original LAIA communication of June 2016 (document WT/REG/W/105) had 
been copied to the CRTA. The EU had formulated its questions on this basis in the CRTA and 
wished to continue the discussion in the same forum particularly as regards services, accession 
agreements and customs union s.  WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.60.   The representative of Uruguay  said that it had presented a note and a response to the EU 
questions to the Chairman of the CTD with copy to the Chairman of the CRTA on 30 March. The 
note explained that the responses had been sent to the CTD. Moreover, she reminded Members 
that the matter h ad been  discussed in the CTD. LAIA had always had internal consensus on the 
fact that the CTD was in charge of such matters since they fell under the Enabling Clause . 
1.61.   The representative of Japan  looked forward to discuss ing the issue based on the EU 's 
questions and LAI A members' responses  in the CRTA. He pointed out that any substantive trade -
related agreement concluded outside of the WTO framework should be considered at an 
appropriate forum of the WTO, such as the CRTA, based on a factual presentation and  through 
proper procedures.   
1.62.   The representative of Brazil  said he  would convey all comments to capital .  
1.63.   The Chairman  said that he had expected a substantive discussion on the item and h oped 
that once Members had had a chance to study the answers to the qu estions this would lead to 
constructive engagement.  
E. IMPLEMENTATION REPOR TS UNDER PARAGRAPH 1 5 OF THE TRANSPARENC Y 
MECHANISM FOR RTAS  
1.64.   The Chairman  said that a n updated schedule for the submission of such reports had been 
distribute d by the Secretariat (W T/REG/W/113  and Corr.1). As of 13 February 2017 , 
implementation reports were due for 136 RTAs, and the end of implementation (EOI) for 5 RTAs 
was in 201 7. The EOI for a total of 106 RTAs was from 2018  onwards, while for one RTA the EOI 
year was not availab le. He encouraged all delegations to submit their implementation reports in 
order to comply with the obligation.  
F. CONSIDERATION OF REG IONAL TRADE AGREEMEN TS INVOLVING WTO 
NON-MEMBERS  
ITEM F.I FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ICELAND AND THE FAROE ISLANDS , GOODS AND 
SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM F .II FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND AZERBAIJAN , 
GOODS  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are  being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
G.  FOLLOW UP ON THE MIN ISTERIAL DECLARATION  FROM MC10. REPORT FR OM THE 
CHAIR'S CONSULTATION S 
1.65.   The Chairman  said that there was a large interest among Members in having a systemic 
discussion on the relationship be tween RTAs and the multilateral trading system but there were 
divergent  views on the format.  
1.66.   The Committee had an informal discussion on the following presentations on trade 
facilitation provisions in RTAs.   
ITEM G.I EU PRESENTATION – THE EU'S EXPERIENCE ON TRADE FACILITATION PROVISIONS 
IN ITS FTAS  
 
ITEM G .II JAPAN PRESENTATION – JAPAN'S EXERIENCE ON TRADE FACILITATION PROVISIONS 
IN ITS EPAS  
 
ITEM E.III  AUSTRALIA PRESENTATION – TRADE FACILITATION IN AUSTRALIA'S FTAS  
 WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 12 - 
 
  H. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
1.67.   The Chairman  propose d to postpone the item to a later date when the situation in the 
General Council was  resolved.  No Member disagreed.  
I. OTHER BUSINESS  
1.68.   The Chairman  informed Members  of the tentative dates scheduled for the CRTA's meetings  
of 2017 . These would  be held o n 29-30 June, 19-20 September  and in November. The dates were 
provisional and they had to be confirmed with the new Chairman.  
1.69.   Before formally ending the meeting, the Chairman took the floor for some personal 
considerations  and an assessment of his year as  the CRTA Chair . He said that, before accepting 
the role of Chairman, he had known that the CRTA had the reputation of being a fairly dormant 
Committee . He had hoped that paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration would provide  
some urgency to the  work being done  but Members had  different views on the importance of 
Ministerial Declarations , and that had been a hard lesson to learn in general but in this Committee 
specifically. However, he believe d that the Committee  had made some progress.  
1.70.   The dis cussion of that day was an example of how the systemic dialogue could be 
conducted. He wished that there had been more Members taking the floor that day , especially 
because consultations in the previous year had revealed that many Members felt that the sys temic 
dialogue was an important issue.  He said that the discussion was at least a start and he left it to 
the in-coming Chair man and Members to decide how to pursue the issue in the future . He 
suggested that there could be several ways to do that and he hoped this work would continue.  
1.71.   He also believe d that there had been constructive discussions on the different views on 
non-notified agreements and the LAIA agreements in particular. He remained neutral regarding 
the issue but nobody could deny that the issu e had  been a wet blanket over the CRTA and the CTD 
for many years. He recognized that the  issue was not resolved  yet but the continued dialogue 
between the interested parties  had been encouraging . His consultations with Members and the 
CTD Chair's consulta tions had suggested that there was a genuine will to resolve th e issue and 
make progress.  
1.72.   The impossibility  to move forward on the other part of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration in 
making the TM permanent  was unfortunate , but there was no appetite amon g Members to make it 
a priority . This view was shared also by the Chair of the Rules Negotiations where this was the 
least prioritized of all the issues negotiated in that Group.  
1.73.   Finally, he stressed his conviction that the role of the WTO in monitoring RT As, both in the 
CRTA and in the CTD , was crucial. He was sometimes baffled by the fact that Members were not 
putting more effort into monitoring since RTAs would continue to increase both in scope and 
number . The main reason for the relevance of RTAs was t heir effectiveness: RTAs provide d 
increased market access and , as a result , increased trade. Moreover, RTAs were developing trade 
rules in a way that the WTO was not doing at the moment. It had been shown clearly during the 
CRTA that the Agreement on Trade  Facilitation contained  a lot of work that had been done in RTAs . 
Ignoring  RTAs negotiated at that time meant ignoring what would be in WTO agreements in ten 
years' time.  
1.74.   Estimates show ed that around 50% of world trade was conducted  within the framework of  
RTAs, and that figure  would have encourage d all countries to engage in RTAs. If the WTO 
maintained its approach of pretend ing that RTAs did not exist, that they were second -best 
solutions or that they undermin ed the multilateral trading system , the Organi zation would become  
an increasingly less relevant institution . He said that relevant issues in the world could not be dealt 
with multilaterally while the WTO was discussing how and in which Committee RTAs should be 
notified and discussed.   
1.75.   He hoped that th e next Chairman and all Members would  make some progress on the issues 
that were supposed to be the core activity of the Committee  such as increasing the number of 
notifications  and the number of factual presentations discussed in the CRTA and the CTD  and 
promoting the active engagement of Members in the discussion  of factual presentations . In his WT/REG/M/84  
 
- 13 - 
 
  opinion , the venue was not relevant as long as the discussion took place . A number  of signs in the 
global economy pointed  towards a period where RTAs and plurilat erals would be the order of the 
day, and the WTO was the best place where Members could get information and transparency 
about such a  process . He encouraged Members not to miss such an opportunity.  He finally wished 
that the cooperation and engagement expressed by Members in his consultations would spill over 
into the Committee itself.  
1.76.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.   
__________