RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/78  
 
7 October 2015  
(15-5227)  Page: 1/7  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Seventy-eighth Session   
 
 NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 25 SEPTEMBER 2015 
Chairman: Ambassador Amr RAMADAN (Egypt) 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The 78th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/3 dated 12 August 2015. 
1.2.  The Chairman welcomed Members and also participants of the Fourth WTO Advanced Course 
on Regional Trade Agreements to the 78th Session of the CRTA. He said that the meeting had 
initially been scheduled for 24 and 25 September but following a request by the delegation of 
Indonesia, it had been changed to 25 September only, since 24 September was an official religious 
holiday in most Muslim countries He was aware of the inconvenience caused by moving the meeting at such short notice and thanked delegations for their flexibility in this matter. As a result 
of the change in date he had been asked by some  delegations to re-order the Agenda. Therefore, 
after Item B.I - Status Report on the Committee's Work, he proposed to take up Item B.V - Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Colombia, followed by Item B.IV - Free Trade 
Agreement between Hong Kong, China and Chil e, and thereafter Item B.II - Framework 
Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperat ion between the ASEAN and China; and Item 
B:III - Free Trade Agreement between Switzerland and China. Under other business he would inform Members of the proposed schedule fo r CRTA meetings for the rest of the year. 
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs  
 Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism II. Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-operation between 
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and china, Services 
III. Free Trade Agreement between Switze rland and China, Goods and Services 
Free Trade Agreement between Hong Kong, China and Chile, Goods and Services  
IV. Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Colombia, Goods 
and Services 
C. Other Business 
 
1.4.  The representative of Indonesia clarified th at the request to change the date of the meeting 
had been made by several other Members as well. 
1.5.  The Chairman recalled that the Latin Americ an Integration Association (the LAIA) had been 
granted observer status to the CRTA on an ad hoc basis and sought confirmation to extend an 
invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee's next Session. 
1.6.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation had continued discussions 
with individual LAIA Members and had appreciated their constructive engagement in discussing the 
possible pathways forward and resolving the outstanding issue of non-notified RTAs among LAIA Members. As the notification requirements for RT As fell upon individual Members and not LAIA, 
which was not a WTO Member itself, he would continue to engage those willing Members in further WT/REG/M/78 
 
- 2 - 
 
 discussions. With respect to the issue of observer status of the LAIA to the CRTA, he had received 
some written statements about the concerns raised. However more direct engagement from LAIA would be welcomed. He was disappointed that the views expressed in the written statements appeared to be in direct contradiction with the ra tionale put forward by LAIA when it had originally 
sought observer status to the Committee and felt that the current positions as expressed made the 
work more difficult. He called upon LAIA to en gage constructively in the work of the Committee 
and fulfil the partnership role that was incumbent upon any observer. The U.S. was ready to join 
consensus on LAIA's observer status for the next  meeting but clarified that openness to LAIA's 
representation in the Committee did not indicate a cceptance of its position regarding the status of 
non-notified LAIA RTAs as it was done in an effort to find a mutually agreeable solution. 
1.7.  The representative of Ecuador said that Ecuador was a member of LAIA – in other words, it 
was a party to the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo. This treaty established an area of economic 
preferences among its members which included regi onal scope and partial scope agreements. As a 
party to the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo, which had established the LAIA, Ecuador was also a party 
to the regional scope agreements, i.e., those to which all LAIA members were parties. The 
Secretariat document mentioned several regional scope agreements. Likewise, Ecuador was a party to a number of partial scope agreements, i.e. agreements to which not all LAIA members 
were parties, but whose objective was to create the necessary conditions for achieving deeper 
integration in the framework of the LAIA. 
1.8.  The Treaty of Montevideo had been noti fied in July 1982 under the Enabling Clause (see 
document L/5342). The Enabling Clause contained pr ovisions relating to preferential treatment 
between, and in favour of, developing countries. The relevant provisions of the Enabling Clause 
constituted lex specialis  within WTO law with respect to regional trade agreements in goods 
between developing countries. Detailed information on Ecuador's participation in intra-regional 
trade in the framework of the LAIA and on the implementation of the liberalization commitments 
set forth in the regional scope and partial scope agreements to which it was a party could be found, inter alia , in documents published by the WTO Secretariat, the most recent of which  was 
the report for January-December 2013 (WT/COMTD/85). 
B.CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ITEM B.I STATUS REPORT ON THE CO MMITTEE'S WORK - NON NOTIFIED RTAS 
(WT/REG/W/95) AND IMPLEMENTATION OF  THE RTA TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM 
(WT/REG/W/96) 
1.9.  The Chairman provided Members with an update with regard to the Committee's work and 
the implementation of the Transparency Mechan ism. A total of 38 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 Transparency Mechanism and encouraged others to  do so. He also reminded Members to inform 
the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
1.10.  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 39 RTAs for which a factual presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. Members would recall 
that at the Committee's 52
nd Session held on 4 March 2009, they had agreed to begin considering 
RTAs involving non Members under the TM's procedures. Thus, factual presentations on a further 22 RTAs involving non-Members were to be prepared. Members had agreed that those RTAs 
notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, would be taken up before the 
others. Data requests for RTAs notified since the adoption of the Transparency Mechanism had been sent to the relevant Parties.  
1.11.  Regarding the issue of non-notified RTAs, an updated list had been recently circulated as 
WT/REG/W/95 and contained 75 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 14 September 2015.  
1.12.  On document WT/REG/W/95, the representative of the United States said that it was a long 
standing concern of the delegation. The U.S. had spoken at length in previous meetings on the 
importance of Members fulfilling their transparency obligations and in particular prompt notification 
of RTAs in accordance with the relevant WTO provisions, whether that be in the GATT, GATS or the WT/REG/M/78 
 
- 3 - 
 
 Enabling Clause. The U.S. appreciated the Secretariat's work in preparing the document as well as 
the updating that it conducted in its work to prepare factual presentations. The Committee had however only made minimal progress in resolving the growing concern of the long list of non-notified agreements. It was important that the Committee considered new ways to consider 
and address the issue of identified but non-notifi ed RTAs. The U.S. was open to suggestions and 
views in this area. He noted that committee discussions on Members' notifications and notification obligations formed the core of many committee meetings across the WTO. The Transparency 
Mechanism also provided for Member to Member exchange on notification issues in the CRTA. He 
was exploring initiating such an exchange at a future meeting and welcomed other suggestions from Members. 
1.13.  On the particular issue of the non-notifi ed agreements among LAIA Members, he sought 
clarification from LAIA members themselves as notification obligations were for individual WTO 
Members and urged them to complete notification for their agreements whether they were undertaken regionally or bilaterally. If LAIA members were seeking some kind of regional format 
that would be accepted by the membership, the U.S would welcome the discussion and would 
engage constructively to find a mutually acceptable solution that would ensure regional consistency and promote some efficiency within the notification process for those members while 
ensuring that individual members remained responsi ble for the notification obligations. Most other 
Committees in the WTO were already dealing with issues of regional notifications in many innovative ways. It was perp lexing that the CRTA had yet to address this issue. 
1.14.  The representative of the European Union invited Members on that list to fulfil their 
obligations and notify their agreements as soon as possible so that the Transparency Mechanism 
could work as it should and allow Members to re view fully these agreements. The EU noted that 
34 out of the 75 RTAs that appeared on the list were the instruments concluded under the 1980 
Treaty of Montevideo. The EU reiterated that Me mbers who were signatories to these agreements 
needed to comply with the notification obligation in compliance with point B of the transparency decisions for RTAs and that the submission of the annual report on the instruments concluded 
under the 1980 Treaty did not exempt the Members concerned to comply with their notification 
obligations. Concerning the U.S. suggestion, the EU was open to explore it and the factual presentations further.  
1.15.  The representative of Bolivia shared the conc erns of the delegation of Ecuador in relation to 
the issue of the LAIA notifications. He said that since the LAIA agreements had been notified under 
the Enabling Clause the CRTA did not have legal co mpetence to review and require the issuing of 
notifications as requested by the U.S. and the EU . Notifications under the Transparency Mechanism 
for RTAs were voluntary. Bolivia was committed to transparency. Through the initiative of Bolivia, 
the General Assembly of the United Nations had ad opted a resolution for the promotion of inclusive 
and responsible public services for sustainable development which acknowledged the indigenous 
principles ama sua, ama kella, ama llulla , (do not be a thief, do not be lazy, do not be a liar,) as a 
positive contribution of indigenous peoples' trad itional values and principles which strengthened 
individual and collective commitments to enha nce efficiency and transparency in public 
management and promote sustainable development. Moreover, Bolivia, together with a group of 
developing countries was in the process of putting forward stricter transparency rules in the World 
Health Organization, particularly in terms of its relations with the private sector, where, surprisingly developed countries were very hesitant about this relationship being available to the 
public. He highlighted the double standards when dealing with the same issue in different fora.  
1.16.  The representative of Cuba supported the statements by Ecuador and Bolivia. She noted 
that since 2013 LAIA members had agreed to noti fy annually to fulfil the requirements of the 
Transparency Mechanism. The WTO had publ ished the most recent documents under 
WT/COMTD/84 and 85, which specified in their introd uction that they were in accordance with the 
requirements of the Enabling Clause and the Transparency Mechanism and in the format 
established for notification under the TM. LAIA me mbers were, in this manner, complying with the 
notification requirements of the TM, which, as  mentioned by the representative of Bolivia, 
established voluntary provisions for notifications. Furthermore, LAIA had not drawn up these reports on its own initiative but under the mandate of its member States who approved the 
documents before they were notified to the WTO.  She emphasized the importance of the content 
of LAIA's notifications adding that it was not necessary to adopt any additional procedure in 
relation to this mechanism which was working. She asked for clarification on difficulties in relation 
to the information and notification requirements that LAIA was not complying with. WT/REG/M/78 
 
- 4 - 
 
 1.17.  The representative of Australia agreed with the U.S. and the EU on the importance of the 
Transparency Mechanism for RTAs and on how th e system helped Members to better understand 
the broader RTA landscape. Australia supported any further efforts, work and ideas that Members 
could present to help improve the notification of RTAs generally and in particular those non-
notified. 
1.18.  The representative of the European Unio n clarified as in previous meetings that the 
submission of the annual report on the instruments concluded under the 1980 Montevideo Treaty, 
the most recent being WTO document WT/COMTD/85 circulated in 2014, did not exempt the 
members concerned to comply with their notifica tion obligation. They had the right to use the 
Enabling Clause if they were allowed to do so. The EU's support to the U.S. was to find a solution to clear the issue of the notification without prej udging the Member's position in one Committee or 
the other. 
1.19.  The representative of the United States appreciated the input that had been provided and 
said it had been the most useful conversation the Committee had held on this issue. Regarding 
Bolivia's questioning the competence of the CRTA , the notification had to come first and the 
determination of competency would follow. The notification clearly provided for Members to 
indicate under which provisions they were filing it. There was then a complicated system of parsing 
out what committee would have competency to review the agreement. The question of 
competence could not be determined until a notification had been filed. The U.S. position was the s a m e  a s  t h e  E U ' s  i n  t h a t  i t  b e l i e v e d  t h a t  t h e  reports LAIA provided to the CTD did not satisfy 
notification requirements. The notification requirements were those of individual WTO Members 
which could not be fulfilled by outside bodies. Th e U.S. was open to discuss if individual Members 
wanted to submit the form in the LAIA annual reports as their notification. The LAIA reports did use the notification template and if it were accepted as a notification, there would be factual 
presentations  for those agreements, whether they were under the Enabling Clause or not, and if 
they were, they would be reviewed in the CTD, but none of them had been. It was clear that they were not in fact notifications and they did not fulfil the obligations and the process that was set out 
in the Transparency Mechanism because they di d not lead to the steps set out in terms of 
transparency. The Committee could get to the core  of the status of those LAIA documents if 
individual members wanted to submit them. The Committee should have a discussion as to whether the format sufficed but it should be clear that the process those agreements would follow 
would be the same as that set out in the TM. He looked forward to more constructive discussions. 
1.20.  The representative of Venezuela said that her delegation also believed in transparency and 
endorsed what Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba had already said. LAIA had done what was appropriate 
with its annual report. 
1.21.  The representative of Bolivia clarified that LAIA was willing to notify. It was done annually. 
If the problem was the format this could be ea sily settled with the Secretariat and the LAIA 
Secretariat. It could be worked out bilaterally wi th the Secretariat. LAIA members had shown their 
willingness to notify. If it was just a problem of format it was easy to resolve. 
1.22.  Turning to RTAs for which the factual consideration was delayed due to lack of comments 
from parties, the Chairman said that he had held consultations with delegations to see what could 
be done to resolve this issue and to reduce the number of RTAs on this list. An updated list of such RTAs had been recently circulated as docume n t  W T / R E G / W / 9 6 .  H e  h o p e d  t h a t  o u t s t a n d i n g  
comments would soon be made available and the factual consideration of these agreements could 
then be undertaken.  
1.23.  The representative of the United States said he had repeatedly raised this issue and 
appreciated the Secretariat's report and the room  document. Previous specific listings and the 
Chair consultations had been helpful in focussing U.S. efforts at home in addressing its own 
backlog and, while more work had to be done, co nsiderable progress had been made in providing 
the necessary responses to the Secretariat so that the Committee's work could proceed. It was important and critical for the Committee to consider ways to address these delays in a more robust 
way and the U.S. was open to the views of others  on how this might best be done. He requested 
the Chair that the room document indicate those factual presentations that had been delayed beyond the one year time-frame set out in the TM, as they should be the first priority for focus. 
This revision could be circulated within a short time-frame, perhaps a week after the meeting so 
delegations could have ample time to review it and be prepared to provide a status update to WT/REG/M/78 
 
- 5 - 
 
 share with the Committee in the meeting in November. If the Committee undertook some minimal 
work to review the status of the delays in factual presentations delays in its meetings there would be a more concerted effort to demonstrate pr ogress and delays would be quickly resolved. 
1.24.  The representative of Brazil wished the Chairman well with the work of the Committee and 
offered Brazil's support in the challenges he might face during his chairmanship. One of the 
challenges the Committee was facing was the delay of notifications which affected transparency, an important pillar of the Organization. The workload of the Secretariat in producing all the factual 
presentations, which were the basis of the discu ssions, was seriously compromised by the delays. 
He appreciated U.S. efforts to bring this issue to the attention of the Committee and proposing an alternative way to tackle it. He was also grateful to the U.S. for having shared its concerns with Brazil in advance and for having been open to discuss the issue in a very transparent manner. One 
of the instruments agreed by the Membership to review all the agreements in the CRTA was the 
Transparency Mechanism. This instrument took in to consideration possible resources and technical 
constraints that developing countries might face in accomplishing the notifications obligations. The 
words that were used were carefully crafted to refl ect this fact. Hence Brazil did not share the U.S. 
view of creating a list of Members that somehow had problems or were facing problems to notify. Notifications would not increase just by listing those Members in another document. Brazil was 
however open to keep discussing ways to further improve notifications in the Committee. 
1.25.  The Chairman encouraged Brazil and the United States to have discussions bilaterally to find 
a way forward. 1.26.  The representative of the European Union supported the U.S. proposal in general, welcomed 
Brazil's comments to have more details and was open to a discussion. 1.27.  The representative of Australia agreed with what Brazil had said apart from the final 
conclusion on whether the U.S. proposal could be worth trying. What Members had been doing had 
not helped in minimizing the number of factual presentations being delayed by a long time, so an 
idea such as that proposed by the U.S. made sense and would be worth trying out. 
1.28.  The representative of Brazil said that his concerns about the approach of listing Members in 
a document remained. The activities of the Commi ttee should have a more collaborative approach 
rather than just naming Members in a list. There were already many lists that the Secretariat read out and also circulated in advance to Members. He was not convinced this approach would somehow help the Committee to sort out the problem. With the increase of the number of FTAs 
there would be more and more agreements involv ing developing countries who faced resource and 
technical constraints not only to negotiate agreements but also to participate fully in the process of notifying and monitoring the impact of agreements at a later stage. These constraints were also 
mentioned throughout the Transparency Mechanism including in the preamble. Members needed to 
be careful about changing some procedures in the Committee which at the end of the day affected disproportionately the workload of some developing countries. 
1.29.  The representative of Bolivia echoed the concerns expressed by Brazil. Bolivia and many 
developing countries did not have problems with transparency but they faced serious constraints in 
making notifications constantly. Bolivia preferred the LAIA mechanism for notifications and could not support the U.S. proposal. More time was needed for debate and reflection on how the 
proposal would affect small economies which faced shortcoming in their infrastructure, and small 
missions. He did not believe the procedure suggested by the U.S. could resolve those problems. 
1.30.  The representative of Venezuela thanked the U.S. for the proposal which she would send to 
her authorities for instructions. 1.31.   The representative of the United States thanked delegations for their useful feed-back and 
recalled he had been referring to document RD/RTA/26/Rev.1. That list existed and it was not 
related to notifications; the agreements listed  had been notified. The list indicated factual 
presentations that had been delayed due to Members not sending comments or data. Nothing had to be done with the documents, they had already been prepared. The U.S. was interested in updates from other Members and it would also pr ovide updates of the items where the U.S. had 
been designated on the list. He suggested that Members could have an interesting exchange of WT/REG/M/78 
 
- 6 - 
 
 updates at the November meeting if they wanted to provide data or comments to the Secretariat 
to facilitate the work of the factual presentations so the Committee could keep on functioning. 
1.32.  Regarding the backlog in the receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting of 
factual presentations for certain RTAs, the Chairman said that he had held consultations with a 
number of delegations in this regard and was pleased to report that delegations had expressed a willingness to provide missing information as soon as possible.  
1.33.  Lastly, concerning implementation reports,  an updated schedule for the submission of such 
reports had been distributed by the Secretaria t (WT/REG/W/90 and Corr.1) in January. As of 
7 January 2015, implementation reports were du e for 123 RTAs, and the end of implementation 
(EOI) for 13 RTAs was in 2015. The EOI for a total of 98 RTAs was from 2016 onwards, while for three RTAs the EOI year was not available. Sinc e January 2015 only one implementation report 
had been received. The Chairman urged delega tions to submit outstanding reports to the 
Secretariat as soon as possible. 
1.34.  The representative of the Secretariat provid ed delegations with the status of the preparation 
of factual presentations for RTAs. With regard to factual presentations of RTAs between WTO 
Members: for CAFTA-DR, goods and services, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties in 2009. Comments had been received from all of the parties except for El Salvador. For 
Mexico-Central  America,  goods and services, the factual presentation had been issued and the 
agreement would be considered at the next CRTA meeting. For US-Panama goods and services, comments were overdue. For Korea-India, servic es, data had been received from Korea and  some 
data only from India. For Korea-ASEAN, services , data had been received from Korea only. For 
Georgia-Russian Federation, goods, data had been received but the Secretariat was awaiting 
clarification on some tariff-related issues by the Russian Federation. For EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and EU-Cameroon, both goods only, data had been received from the EU only. For 
EFTA-Colombia, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties for comment; comments 
were due by 3 November. For EFTA-Central America, most comments on the draft factual presentation had been received but there remained some issues to be resolved. For Canada-Korea, 
Canada-Honduras, the Dominican Republic-Cen tral America, and Iceland-China goods and 
services, data had been received and the fa ctual presentations were being drafted. For 
Japan-Australia, goods and services, comments had been received and the factual presentation would be issued shortly. For Korea-Australia, goods and services, comments had been delayed. For 
EU-ESA, goods, data had been received the Se cretariat was awaiting clarification on some 
tariff-related issues by Madagascar and Zimbabwe. For Chile-Viet Nam, goods, data was due by 5 October 2015 and data had already been received from Chile. For GCC-Singapore, services, data 
was due by 23 November 2015. For ASEAN-India, services, data was due by 12 January 2016. 
1.35.  With regard to RTAs involving non-Members, the situation was as follows: for Iceland-
Faeroe Islands, goods and services,  the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2009. 
Comments had been received but the Secretariat was still awaiting some final clarifications from 
the Faeroe Islands.  
1.36.  For the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and the 
EAEU, the Secretariat had not received any data from the parties. For Armenia's accession to the 
EAEU, goods and services, data had been receiv ed from Armenia. For the Kyrgyz Republic's 
accession to the EAEU, data was due by 3 December 2015. For EFTA-Bosnia and Herzegovina, goods, comments had been received and the factual presentation would be issued shortly. For 
Russian Federation-Serbia, goods, data had b een received and the Secretariat was currently 
drafting the factual presentation. 
1.37.  For EU-San Marino, EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey -Syria, CEFTA Enlargement, Ukraine-Azerbaijan, 
Ukraine-Turkmenistan, the Common Economic Zo ne, Russian Federation-Azerbaijan, Russian 
Federation-Turkmenistan, all goods, and EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services, data was not complete and the Secretariat could not begin to draft the factual presentations. 
1.38.  A third category concerned 5 agreements – ASEAN-Japan, EU-Cote d'Ivoire, the new 
CIS Agreement, all goods and EU-Central America and EU-Ukraine, goods and services – for which 
the Secretariat understood not all parties had rati fied the agreement yet and so the Secretariat 
intended to wait before the agreement had entered into force for all the parties before WT/REG/M/78 
 
- 7 - 
 
 commencing the preparation of factual presentations. She urged the parties to notify the 
Secretariat when their respective agreement entered into force for all the parties so the Secretariat could start work on the factual presentation. She also urged all Members to make every effort to comply with the deadlines as requested so that the Secretariat could do its best to 
adhere to the CRTA's work programme. 
1.39.  Finally, in the room document the re ference to the Agreement between the Russian 
Federation and Azerbaijan had been corrected. As delegations could see the list had continued to 
grow and the Secretariat was unable to meet the overall deadline set by the Transparency 
Mechanism for the consideration of an Agreement wi thin one year following notification. She urged 
Members to work with the Secretariat as the Secretariat worked with Members to try to clarify all outstanding issues so factual presentations could be issued on time. 
1.40.  ITEM B.II FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON  COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION 
BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN  NATIONS (ASEAN) AND CHINA, SERVICES 
1.41.  (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
1.42.  ITEM B.III FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BE TWEEN SWITZERLAND AND CHINA, GOODS AND 
SERVICES 
1.43.  (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
1.44.  ITEM B.IV FREE TRAD E AGREEMENT BETWEEN HONG KO NG, CHINA AND CHILE, GOODS 
AND SERVICES 
1.45.  (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
1.46.  ITEM B.V FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BE TWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND COLOMBIA, 
GOODS AND SERVICES 
1.47.  (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
C. OTHER BUSINESS 
1.48.  The Chairman informed Members that the da tes scheduled for the last meeting of the CRTA 
in 2015 were 16 and 17 November. 
1.49.  The Committee took note of the comments made. 
__________