RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
7 December  2016 
(16-6706) Page: 1/26 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -third  Session   
 
 NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 7-8 NOVEMBER 2016 
Chairm an: Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The 83rd Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR /RTA/8/Rev.1 dated 28 October  2016. 
1.2.  The Chairman  welcomed Members to the 83rd Session of the CRTA . Under other business he 
would  inform Members of two issues: technical assistance activities conducted by the Secretariat 
on RTAs in 2016 and those pl anned for 2017; and the proposed schedule for CRTA meetings for 
2017.  
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted:  
 A. Adoption of the Agenda  
 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/111)  
  IV. Factual Presentations Delayed Due to Lack of Comments (WT/REG/W/112)  
C.  Implementation Reports under paragra ph 15 of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs 
 - (WT/REG251/R/I, WT/REG247/R/I, WT/REG171/R/I, WT/REG338/R/I, 
 WT/REG141/R/I , WT/REG236/R/I , WT/REG113/R/I ). 
D.  Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements  
  I. Free T rade Agreement between  Iceland and China , Goods and Services  
II. Free Trade Agreement between Australia and China , Goods and Services  
III. Agreement on Trade  in Services between India and the Association of Southeast 
Asian Nations (ASEAN)  
E. Procedures to Facilitate and Improve the Examination Pr ocess – Statement by the 
United States  
F.  Adoption of the Annual Report (2016) of the CRTA to the General Council 
 (WT/REG/W/110)  
G. Follow up on the Ministerial Declaration from MC10. Report from the Chair's 
Consultations  
H.  Other business  
 
B. IMPLEMENT ATION OF THE RTA TRA NSPARENCY MECHANISM  
1.4.   The Chairman  provide d 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 ha d been divided into  separate elements, i.e. early announcements, 
status of the preparation of factual presentations (including delays), non -notified RTAs and factual 
presentations delayed due to lack of comments.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 2 - 
 
 B.I  Early Announcements  
1.5.  He said that a  total of 38 early anno uncements we re currently on the WTO website (not 
counting those which ha d been subsequently notified). He thank ed Members who ha d submitted 
information in line with the requirements of the Transparency Mechanism and encourage d others 
to do so. He remind ed Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early 
announcements.  
1.6.  The representative of the United States  acknowledged the changes made to the Agenda. His 
delegation had suggested looking into how the Agenda might help delegations unpick the 
compliance issues with which  the Committee was dealing, and this was a helpful first step. His 
delegation continued to explore ways to try and improve the discussion. Early announcements, like 
all obligations in the Transparency Mechanism, were an important addition and a value -added 
element of  the Transparency Mechanism. The text of the TM was quite clear that an early 
announcement did not suffice as a notification and that upon implementation or entry into force of 
an agreement or the extension of preferences the notification requirement would kick in.  
1.7.  The representative of the European Union  said that Canada and the EU had signed the 
Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement on 30 October 2016 and the Parties were working 
on an update that they wo uld submit to the Secretariat as soon as possible.  
B.II Status on the Preparation of Factual Presentations, including Delays in the Receipt 
of Data  
1.8.  The Chairman  said that a s 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. He 
recall ed that 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, factual 
presentations on a further 33 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 Transparency 
Mechanism ha d been sent to the relevant parties. Regarding the backlog in the receipt of data 
necessary for the preparation and draf ting of factual presentations for certain RTAs, he had  
continued consultations with a number of delegations and hope d that missing information would be 
provided as soon as possible.   
1.9.  A representative of the Secretariat  said that with regard to factual pres entations of RTAs 
between WTO Members: for EU -ESA, goods, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties 
and some comments had been received on 4 November , though these were not final comments . 
For Korea -India, services, the data request had been se nt out in 2010. Data had been received 
from Korea and some from India. For Korea -ASEAN, services, the data request had been sent out 
in 2010. Data had been received from Korea only. For Georgia -Russian Federation, goods, data 
had been received and the fact ual presentation had been drafted, but clarification on some tariff -
related issues was awaited. For EU -Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and EU -Cameroon, both goods only, 
data had been received from the EU only. For EU -Côte d'Ivoire, goods, now in force for both 
parties, further data from the parties was to be submitted by 7 December. For GCC -Singapore, 
services, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties, but data from the GCC parties was 
not complete. For EU -Ukraine, goods and services, the factual prese ntation was being drafted. For 
the Seychelles' accession to SADC, goods, data had been received from the Seychelles and some 
of the SADC parties. For China -Korea and Viet Nam -Korea, both goods and services, the factual 
presentations had been sent to the parties, but data was still not complete, in particular, from 
China and Viet Nam. For Japan -Mongolia, goods and services, complete data had been received 
from Japan only. For Armenia -Kazakhstan, goods, some data had been received from Kazakhstan. 
For Mexico -Panama, goods and services, data was due by 28 October and had been received from 
Mexico. For Colombia -Korea, goods and services, data was due by 2 March 2017. For Costa Rica -
Colombia, goods and services, data was due by 23 March 2017. For the Pacific Alli ance agreement 
which had just been notified, a data request had been sent out . 
1.10.   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. WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 3 - 
 
 Comments had been received and the factual presentation would be circulated to Members shortly. 
For the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and the EAEU, 
some data from Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation had been  received. For Armenia's 
accession to the EAEU, goods and services, data had been received from Armenia. For the Kyrgyz 
Republic's accession to the EAEU, data  had been  due by 3 December 2015. For EU -San Marino, 
goods, the factual presentation was being dra fted. For Russian Federation -Azerbaijan, goods, the 
factual presentation had been sent to the parties for comment, but updated data had been 
received  which would have to be incorporated into the factual presentation . For EFTA -Lebanon, 
Turkey -Syria, CEFTA E nlargement, Ukraine -Azerbaijan, Ukraine -Turkmenistan, the Common 
Economic Zone, Russian Federation -Turkmenistan, all goods, and EU -CARIFORUM, goods and 
services, data was not complete. 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 ha d ratified the agreement . The Secretariat  intend ed to wait until the agreement ha d 
entered into force for all the parties before commencing the preparation of f actual presentations. 
She urged the parties to notify the Secretariat when their respective agreement enter ed 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.  
1.11.   The representative of the United States  was interested in hearing in detail from Members 
whose RTAs  had been on the list for some time. He knew that the Chairman had conducted 
consultations and some updates had resulted from that. However, there were some issues that 
deserved attention from the Committee. He asked if India could provide an  update on the data 
request that had been outstanding since 2010 with respect to Korea -India. In future he intended 
to go through the agreements one by one, but in the day's meeting he would group a couple of 
RTAs together. He enquired about  the ASEAN data which was outstanding since 2010. As the 
Committee considered broadly how it might want to improve the TM or the review p rocess it would 
be helpful to know if Members faced  challenges  in terms of presenting data or if there was another 
reason and it was not  a priority, in which case he ask ed that it become a priority. The United 
States was also interested in an update from t he GCC parties with respect to the EFTA-GCC 
agreement. The United States intended  to go deeper than the Chair's consultation process and ask 
Members questions about  why data had been  outstanding for so long . If any of the parties 
mentioned could provide  an update it would be helpful.  
1.12.   The representative of the European Union  said that the parties were working on the final 
comments on the Factual Presentation of EU -ESA. 
1.13.   The representative of Panama  said that Panama had already sent data for the preparation of  
the Mexico -Panama Agreement.  
1.14.   The representative of India said that India had notified the goods part of the India -Korea 
Agreement to the CTD under the Enabling Clause and the services part to the CRTA, while Korea 
had notified both parts to the CRTA. Indi a, together with China and Egypt, had submitted a paper 
on the systemic issues surrounding the issue of dual notification s in the CTD and discussions were 
taking place in the CTD. India would not be able to provide data until the issue was resolved.  
1.15.   The r epresentative of the United States  replied that it was his understanding that the data 
requirements were the same regardless of how an agreement was notified so he did not 
understand India's reluctance to provide data according to how the agreement  had bee n notified. 
He would return to the issue later on . For the United States  the problem of dual notifications was a 
false one that had a simple and efficient solution. He questioned why that discussion would hold up 
the submission of data which in any case wa s the same requirement regardless of how the 
agreement was notified . He said he was not satisfied with India's answer.  
1.16.   The Chairman  said he was open to any discussion that would help the Committee to work 
more efficiently and as he had said on many occasi ons Members were not really living up to the 
requirements of the Transparency Mechanism and the general requirements of the WTO in many 
respects. Anything that Members could do to improve that situation was something that he would 
be willing to look at. Un fortunately Members  usually ended up where they were  now discussing 
issues that had been around  for a long time but where there was no clear way out, or at least no 
agreement  on a way out, but that should not stop the Committee from continuing to try.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 4 - 
 
 B.III Non-notified RTAs  
1.17.   The Chairman  said that an updated list had been  circulated on 1 November in document 
WT/REG/W/111 and contain ed 83 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 31 October 2016.  
Following the notification of the Pacific Alliance Agreement by the delegations of Colombia, Chile, 
Mexico and Peru, which had been  circulated to Members on 3 November, this Agreement would  be 
removed from the list of non -notified RTAs the next time it was circulated.  
1.18.   The representative of Brazil  referred to the com munication on behalf of the Latin American 
Integration Association (LAIA) which had been circulated in document WT/REG/W/105 on 14 June 
2016. In that document LAIA members had stated that the notification obligations in respect of 
instruments concluded und er the Enabling Clause had been notified in accordance with Sections D  
to G of the RTA Transparency Mechanism. The same document o n non-notified RTAs had been 
updated by the Secretariat although LAIA members had expressly requested in paragraph 1.4 of 
that communication that their agreements be removed from the list. He asked the Secretariat to 
explain the mandate of the list of non -notified RTAs so that Members could understand the 
background of how the list had been produced periodically.  
1.19.   The representati ve of the United States  said that his response was the same as the last time 
this issue had come up, namely that th e list was useful and represented the non -notified 
agreements that  the Secretariat had identified . He was not sure why it was being questione d. The 
United States and the EU had asked a number of specific questions of LAIA that had not been 
answered. If LAIA members had a strong view it would be helpful if they would engage and answer 
questions rather than asking about the legal basis for the Se cretariat to do its work because in the 
view of the United States there were obligations clearly enshrined in the WTO agreements that 
required notifications and the discussion  should focus on the substance of why these RTAs had not 
been notified rather tha n questioning how the Secretariat had co me up with the list. He was happy 
to engage further but reiterate d that the United States saw value in th e list. T he fact that 55 out of 
83 non -notified RTAs involved Latin American countries was extremely troubling.  So for LAIA to 
take the position that these RTAs should just disappear from the list and provide Members with a 
gaping hole in transparency was not tenable for the United States.  
1.20.   The representative of the European Union  referred to the communication from the LAIA 
countries to the Chair of the CTD that had been  circulated in document WT/COMTD/W/220. The EU 
had noted that in its recent communication LAIA members had reaffirmed in full their earlier 
communication circulated in June 2016 in document WT/COMTD/W /217 and WT/REG/W/105. She 
reiterated the EU's request  made at the last CRTA for detailed responses to its questions circulated 
in document WT/REG/W/109 so that Members could have  a better understanding of the issue and 
allow them to have a constructive di scussion on this long -standing issue. Second, at this stage, the 
EU would not only object to LAIA members' request to defer any discussion to the CTD only , but 
would also object to the request contained in that document to remove LAIA  agreements from the 
list of RTAs that ha d appeared in factual presentations and had not yet been notified to the WTO. 
Both requests were premature and highly questionable as LAIA members had not yet submitted 
sound clarific ations on some crucial aspects.  
1.21.   In particular the EU f elt obliged to stress again the importance of understanding the 
following aspects. First, whether all legal instruments listed in the communication were legal acts 
that merely implemented the Treaty of Montevideo or, in other words, whether they , or some o f 
them, were legal acts containing additional trade -related provisions that would require separate 
notifications and would need to go through the full consideration process. The EU sought  to 
understand the meaning of point 4 of the communication where LAIA  members had declared 
themselves ready  to supplement the information contained in the various individual data sheets 
with respect to any particular aspect of the agreements concluded under the LAIA umbrella in a 
dedicated session of the CTD in accordance w ith paragraphs 16 and 18 of the Transparency 
Mechanism. She asked for clarification as it was not entirely clear why LAIA members had referred 
to these two paragraphs. Second, it seemed that at least some of the listed agreements contained 
trade in service s and therefore would not be covered by the Enabling Clause. Third, some of the 
listed agreements had been concluded between LAIA members and non -LAIA members, therefore 
it seemed even more difficult to understand how these acts met the notification obliga tion set out 
in the LAIA communication. Fourth, in their communication, LAIA members had emphasized that 
each LAIA member acted in its individual capacity. The EU noted that some bilateral agreements 
had been notified in the past despite the fact that they  had been concluded under the LAIA WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 5 - 
 
 umbrella. This seemed to be another illustration that the position and interpretation of LAIA 
members was inconsistent with their assertion contained in both communications that all the 
agreements signed under the umbrell a of the Treaty of Montevideo should be considered as 
implementing acts and fell under the Enabling Clause. She stressed again that the EU  wanted to 
receive clear responses to its questions.  
1.22.   The representative of Paraguay  said that its position had been re flected in the letter sent by 
LAIA members and was unchanged. He then asked the Secretariat why it had included agreements 
that were old, for example, Mexico -Paraguay that dated back to July 1984 , long  before the 
Transparency Mechanism.  
1.23.   The representative of Australia  welcomed the communication from the LAIA countries and 
noted that it asked some specific questions and made some specific requests particularly in 
relation to the CRTA's documents. It would have been appropriate for the letter to have been 
addressed to the CRTA Chair rather than exclusively to the Chair of the CTD, since it concerned  the 
CRTA's documentation . Australia's position on this was a principled one based on its systemic 
concerns. Australia believed that WTO Members needed full visibil ity of the trade commitments 
and preferences that were granted outside of the multilateral trading system. Ideally for Australia 
that meant that it got to see the agreement, to review it via the factual presentation prepared by 
the Secretariat and that it got to ask questions. Australia's ideal venue for this was the CRTA as 
the one Committee that was dedicated to looking at RTA issues. Australia believed that the issue 
could be resolved with a lot of hard work and was looking forward to some constructive 
engagement from all Members who held strong views on the subject. A good start would be for 
LAIA members to provide responses to the EU questions which had been pending for a number of 
months and Australia wanted to be able to consider the agreements which were outstanding. Until 
Australia had the opportunity to do so the agreements  should remain on the list of non -notified 
RTAs maintained by the Secretariat.  
1.24.   The representative of Ecuador  supported what had been said by Brazil. Ecuador's position 
was to be f ound in two letters sent by LAIA with regard to notification. She also pointed that there 
were places where the RTAs could be discussed and Enabling Clause agreements should be dealt 
with in the CTD.  
1.25.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  supported Brazil, Paraguay and 
Ecuador, recall ing for the Committee the note sent by LAIA (which had been adopted by consensus 
in the LAIA on 14 June 2016 ) which stated that the Montevideo Treaty of 1980 had been notified 
as an RTA under the Enabling Clau se and that therefore all subsequent RTAs that were part of the 
Montevideo Treaty should be dealt with in the CTD, as stated in the LAIA note. This was not a lack 
of transparency, nor lack of a will to present notifications. From 1980 to 2011, LAIA had sen t 
biennial reports and annually since 2011 in accordance with the RTA Transparency Mechanism. 
LAIA met its notification commitments. Given that all the RTAs  on the  Secretariat's list covered  
trade in goods , they  should be dealt with in the CTD.  
1.26.   The represe ntative of Canada  shared the positions expressed by Australia, the EU and the 
United States. Canada agreed with the EU that it would be premature to consider LAIA's request to 
remove its RTAs from the list until there was further clarification. Canada had an interest in seeing 
the responses from LAIA members so that discussion on this issue could continue. He also agreed 
with Australia that despite this being a long -standing issue in the Committee it was something that 
could be resolved and Canada was open to continuing the dialogue.  
1.27.   The representative of Cuba supported the statement made by Brazil and other LAIA 
members. Cuba's  position was contained in the two communications sent by LAIA members.  
1.28.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  supported the position of Brazil, 
Paraguay, Ecuador, the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Cuba, especially with the regard to the 
fact that this was something that should be dealt with in the CTD.  
1.29.   In response to the question about the mandate for creating  the list, a  representative of the 
Secretariat  said that the  mandate  for the list dated back to 2009 when the then Chair of the 
General Council had sent a letter to all Chairs of regular bodies asking for efforts to be made to 
improve notifications. This had led to the creation of an informal list that the Secretariat WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 6 - 
 
 maintained of agreements that had not been notified but that appeared to be in force. She had on 
other occasions explained the way in which the list was prepared. Every time the Secretariat 
prepared a draft factual presentation, it included a table listing notified and non -notified RTAs in 
force and asked for clarification from the parties. Those RTAs, once confirmed as being in force but 
not yet notified, were then added to the list of non -notified RTAs that was circulated before each 
CRTA meeting. Coming back to how the list was eventually circulated, the Chair of the CRTA had 
initially held informal consultations with Members that were party to RTAs in force but not yet 
notified. This was fol lowed by the issuance of a room document and in 2011, the Chair proposed in 
a CRTA meeting to circulate the list as a working document. The first of these working documents 
had appeared in 2011 and  had since been updated before every CRTA meeting.   
1.30.   In resp onse to Paraguay's question about  why old agreements were included in the list, she 
said that the Secretariat made no distinction between agreements that had co me into force before 
or after the TM. The notification requirements were included in the WTO agr eements and it was for 
Members to decide whether such old agreements should be included on the list or not. In response 
to the Plurinational State of Bolivia's and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's  question about  
why such agreements were on the list o f non -notified RTAs circulated in the CRTA when they 
should be discussed in the CTD, she said that as far as the Secretariat was aware the agreements 
had not been notified and it was not in a position to judge whether the agreements would be 
notified under  GATT Article XXIV or the Enabling Clause. There was therefore a footnote at the end 
of the document which indicated that the list was without prejudice to a decision on which 
provision the agreement was notified under.  
1.31.   The Chairman  said that two letters h ad been received from LAIA. The first one had been  
directed to the CTD with a copy to the CRTA. The second letter had been  sent to the CTD only 
which meant that it was the CTD Chair who would formally engage in discussions about it. He 
knew that the CTD Ch air had held consultations and that these consultations had not been 
completed. He was reluctant as Chair to change anything on the list before the practicalities 
surrounding it were cleared up. He wished someone would inform the LAIA Secretariat that ther e 
were two Committees that were relevant as that would make life easier. But the Committee was 
still faced with the basic issue, which was that it appeared that there was not support in the room 
for the list.  
1.32.   The representative of Brazil said that his question to the Secretariat had been  an attempt to 
understand the background of the list and he was happy that his question had prompted so many 
observations from Members . The Chair was correct in identifying that there was no conclusion on 
how the list might be dealt with. He called the Committee's attention to the fact that a group of 
Members in an official communication circulated in June to the Committee had clearly stated that 
the notification of their agreements had been made under a specific discipline o f the Transparency 
Mechanism and therefore Brazil believed that to include  these agreements in the periodically 
updated list was not correct. The fact that  Members, such as the EU had circulated a list of 
questions  on the LAIA notification  did not provide support for the Secretariat or any other Member 
to continue to include the agreements on a list of non -notified RTAs. There was no example in the 
Committee of a situation where one Member had questions on the notifications of another Member 
and the sole fa ct that th e agreement had been questioned justified  the inclusion of that agreement 
in the list of non -notified RTAs.  Therefore he requested the Secretariat to reconsider the inclusion 
of LAIA agreements in the list of non -notified RTAs. The document was u seful for increasing 
transparency in the CRTA, but he stressed that questions related to LAIA members or LAIA 
notifications did not support the inclusion of these agreements in the list of non -notified RTAs.  
1.33.   The representative of the United States  said thi s was unfortunate because what was at issue 
was Members' views on the status  of the agreements . The list itself did not convey anything one 
way or another. One possible option was to explore the title of the document , for instance it could 
be entitled non-notified agreements and those hotly contested. The United States would be happy 
with a list of contested agreements but he doubted that this would help Brazil. The list would 
remain . The title could be changed, but he was not sure that it would help becaus e some 
delegations had pointed out  that they did not agree with the assertion put forward by LAIA, it was  
not convincing , but was merely a blanket assertion that the  agreements  had been notified without 
answering specific questions . For the Unit ed States t his was insufficient.  The United States had 
stated in the CRTA multiple times that a detailed conversation agreement -by-agreement might 
allow the Committee to reach the conclusion that some of these agreements were in fact 
subsequent to the Treaty of 1980,  but others  might not be. Members had been denied the WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 7 - 
 
 opportunity to look at them. The United States had reiterated its position  in the consultations held 
in the CTD and again in the CRTA. A response to the EU's questions would enable the Committee 
to sepa rate out these agreements. Indeed maybe not all of them needed to be included in the list , 
but clearly some of them should be . The idea that the list would disappear and the concerns of 
Members with respect to the status of these agreements would go away w as not true. Members' 
concerns would remain regardless of the list  and h e insist ed on maintaining it. He was not sure 
that a change in the title would be helpful, but the United States wanted to see its views 
adequately reflected. "Non -notified  RTAs" might  be seen as prejudicial but it was neutral.  
1.34.   The representative of Paraguay  disagreed with the view of the Secretariat. There was no 
part of the Transparency Mechanism that stated that it had to be applied in a retroactive manner 
and three of Paraguay's agr eements predated the Transparency Mechanism. For instance an 
agreement with Argentina from 1989 that was complemented by the MERCOSUR agreement that 
had been  notified, and an agreement from 1984 with Mexico. Also the accession of Panama to the 
LAIA had not  been ratified by all LAIA countries  yet and was an ongoing process.  
1.35.   The representative of El Salvador  informed the Secretariat that El Salvador had notified the 
agreement with Cuba in November 2013 to the CTD, so it should be dropped from the list.  
1.36.   The re presentative of the European Union  clarified that the EU's questions were based on 
the communication received from LAIA countries and the Annex contained therein. In its list of 
questions, the EU had asked the LAIA countries to provide a correlation table to show how the 
agreements related to the Secretariat's list which would help the Committee to go through the 
agreements and decide one by one what the exact status was and whether the agreement might 
be removed from the list. The EU was ready to continue discussions and looked forward to 
receiving replies.  
1.37.   In response to the statement by Paraguay, a  representative of the Secretariat  stated that 
the Transparency Mechanism dated back to 2006, but notification requirements were contained in 
all the older prov isions, i.e. GATT Article XXIV, the Enabling Clause, and GATS Article V that all 
required that agreements should be notified. She confirmed that the agreement between 
El Salvador and Cuba would be removed from the list.  
1.38.   The representative of Uruguay  reiter ated what had been said in previous meetings with 
regard to the EU questions. LAIA countries were working on them. The questions had been sent 
before the summer break and 13 countries had to agree on the replies. She asked that the Chairs 
of the CRTA and C TD provide a written response to the LAIA request. The first letter had been sent 
to the Chair of the CTD with a copy to the Chair of the CRTA, while the second one had been sent 
to the Chair of the CTD. Regarding the criteria which determine d the list of non-notified RTAs, a 
response had been provided  in the meeting, but she requested a written response  which she would 
send t o the LAIA Secretariat.  
1.39.   On a personal note , the Chairman  said that Swedes did not do ambiguity, whether 
constructive or not and what he needed to find out before moving on to other issues was whether 
there was a need to withdraw the list because if it was circulated as a "WT" document, it had to 
have Members' support, or if Members were willing to let the document stand as it was now an d 
the Chair could engage in consultations and see if the issue could be resolved before the 
Committee's next meeting, by for instance, looking at the title of the document, or structuring the 
list of agreements in a different way. He wanted to know if ther e was a request to remove the list  
if the LAIA agreements stayed on it.  
1.40.   The representative of Brazil  said that he did not understand the legal basis for the list as it 
gathered a number of agreements that had been notified under a specific section of the 
Transparency Mechanism. He referred to his first intervention where he had asked for a 
clarification of the legal background of the list and why. Brazil believed that the list contained 
important information. However, nothing in the mandate of 2011 gave roo m for listing agreements 
which had been notified under a specific section of the Transparency Mechanism  and might be 
under further consideration by Members. Therefore the list was aiming at the correct agreements 
and he requested, if possible, the exclusio n of the LAIA agreements. If that change was not 
acceptable, he asked Members to come forward and make it clear if they were supportive of the 
change he was suggesting.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 8 - 
 
 1.41.   The Chairman  said that Brazil's reasoning prompted a follow up question which was wheth er 
it would be accept able for other Members if the list was circulated without the LAIA agreements.  
1.42.   The representative of the United States  said that it would not .  
1.43.   The representative of the European Union  said it could not agree to such an approach.  
1.44.   The r epresentative of Australia  agreed with the United States and the European Union that 
the list should be maintained as it was.  
1.45.   The Chairman  said that it was clear that the only conclusion he could draw was that there 
was no  longer  support for distributing the list as an official document as some  Members insisted 
that the LAIA agreements be taken off and others could not support a list without the LAIA 
agreements. So he had no other option than to announce that the list must be withdrawn. He said 
he would co nsult with delegations in the hope that the issue could be resolved before the next 
meeting, but he did not see another way forward.  
1.46.   The representative of the United States  said he was extremely puzzled by the Chair's 
conclusion and asked him to explain ho w a lack of consensus on an issue resulted in moving to one 
side of the issue. The circulation of the list was  standard practice  and the  question about its legal 
basis had been answered. Most Members that had spoken in favour of  keeping the list had 
indica ted an openness to examining on an agreement -by-agreement basis , if the requisite 
information was shared , in order to  come to an agreement with LAIA members about what 
belonged on the list and what did not, and where disagreement s lay. He could not accept an 
outcome where ongoing standard practice that had been handed to the Committee by the General 
Council was done away with. Lack of consensus meant that the Committee did not have an 
answer. Normally that meant that the status quo prevail ed until the Commi ttee managed to  find 
an answer. He was not sure how a lack of consensus meant upending standard practice as that 
would mean that the Chair had taken a decision counter to the room.  
1.47.   The representative of Brazil  said that as the United States had clarified, Brazil's first 
question had been directed to the Secretariat. Brazil fully supported transparency in the 
Committee and believed that the more information the Committee had, the better. However, in 
this case, as he had clearly stated, and this was a point t hat perhaps the United States could 
address, if there was a question related to a notification and the specific agreement had been 
notified under Section D of the Transparency Mechanism, how could the decision be to include  that 
specific agreement in the d ocument. He could not follow this l ogic. T he United States had not 
answered this point. Brazil fully supported the Chair's conclusion but with one caveat. Brazil was 
ready to discuss further how the Committee could address the same information in a differe nt 
way. Brazil intended to discuss the issue of the Transparency Mechanism later in the meeting  and 
stood ready to engage with the Chair and other Members to improve the Mechanism.  
1.48.   The representative of Australia  agreed with the United States on the Chair' s conclusion. The 
document definitely needed to be maintained . It served an important trade monitoring function, 
particularly for his delegation, as Australia did not have much of a sense of the preferences being 
granted in Latin America, so seeing the lis t of agreement s had  enabled Australia to better track 
what was going on, particularly with LAIA members. Australia was open to further discussions. The 
Committee had many options that could be explored ranging from the title of the document, the 
type of do cument, whether it was a WT document or a room document  before taking the decision 
that the document could no longer be circulated . Until these options had been explored, the status 
quo should be maintained and the document should continue to be issued.  
1.49.   The representative of the European Union  supported the positions of Australia and the 
United States. In the absence of consensus on how to move forward, the EU wanted  to maintain 
the status quo but was happy to engage in informal consultations on what the do cument should be 
called, what agreements should figure in it and what its status was.  
1.50.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  endorsed the Chair's decision as it 
was obvious that there was no consensus on maintaining the list as it stood. All the LAIA 
agreements on the list should be withdrawn.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 9 - 
 
 1.51.   The Chairman  said that he was not making a decision in favour of any side. The 
representative of the Secretariat had described the process through which the  document had been 
presented and the Chair at that time had managed to get support from the Committee to circulate 
the list as an official document. I f he now did not have the support of the Committee that made it 
difficult for him to circulate the document. Under which mandate would he do so? He w ould regret 
not circulating the document, it would be a huge step backwards and it would annoy him, but if 
some Members had requested that the list be withdrawn then he did not hav e support for it. That 
was his understanding and he put no value on the diff erent arguments. If he did not have the 
Committee's support he did not see under  what mandate he could release it as an official 
document even it broke with the Committee's standard practice of a couple of years. If anyone 
was able to provide a good argume nt he was willing to listen.  
1.52.   In response to the question from Brazil about how the United States justif ied keeping 
correctly notified agreements on the list, the representative of the United States  said that his 
delegation had looked closely at the Treaty of Montevideo and was not in a position to agree that 
there were any obvious candidates that should not be on the list. The Treaty itself in its opening 
paragraphs set out that separate agreements would be concluded . Thus  the United States 
remained fundame ntally puzzled on a horizontal level with Brazil's  argument. LAIA members bore 
responsibility for putting forth an argument to make their case. The US and the EU had asked 
specific questions and LAIA's response was to try and do away with the list  rather t han engag e in 
good faith on the questions asked. So LAIA bore some responsibility for doing the work necessary 
to address Members' concerns. Again as the EU submission had pointed out, there were 
accessions, services elements, and a number of pending quest ions about whether or not these 
agreements  could be satisfied by an Enabling Clause notification from 1980. The United States 
considered that there was ample evidence to question the list and had asked repeatedly for 
constructive engagement from LAIA membe rs on the details, but the response had been  that it 
was the wrong Committee, or the list was wrong. This was not a helpful way to work towards a 
solution. The United States was asking for the respect that was due WTO Members when they 
asked a question. He expected a response, not just an attempt to eliminate the list that gave rise 
to the questions in the first place.  
1.53.   The representative of Canada  agreed with the representative of the United States, namely 
that the Committee needed a discussion based on sub stance but could not seem to get around 
some of the practicalities. Canada's preference was to maintain the list as it was something that it 
valued and had found to be useful in recent years. It would run counter to the Committee's goals 
to enhance transpa rency if the list were no longer circulated. Perhaps as the representative of 
Australia had mentioned there were other  options that could be explored beyond just simply 
removing the list altogether.  
1.54.   The representative of Japan  agreed with the United States  and Australia that there was no 
consensus to change the list so it should be maintained as it was. Japan looked forward to seeing 
the responses by LAIA members to the EU questions to enable a discussion based on facts.  
1.55.   The representative of India supporte d Brazil and other LAIA members. They had clearly 
stated that they had submitted a notification to the CTD under the Enabling Clause and that the 
forum was the CTD. Therefore these agreements should be removed from the list. 
1.56.   The representative of Turkey  had a question on procedure which also had systemic 
importance. Was the document an official Committee document or was it a document prepared 
under the Chair's own responsibility?  
1.57.   After consulting the Secretariat, t he Chairman  said that it was an official d ocument, not a 
Chair's document. His assessment was the same as before: if there was not support from Members 
to issue the list then he saw no other way forward than withdrawing it. He asked Brazil and other 
Members who had supported Brazil's position if a way forward could be to consult on the structure 
of the document, along the lines of perhaps singling out the LAIA agreements under a specific 
heading, where they might be called not necessarily non -notified RTAs, but rather agreements on 
which there was no agreement, or some thing along those lines. He did not have specific wording 
but it might be a way to avoid  withdrawing a document which Brazil  had said in its  initial 
statement  it found valuable. He thought that all Members would agree that it was an im portant list 
to have, even if they did not agree with all the agreements that were on it. He wanted to explore if WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 10 - 
 
 that was still a possibility to avoid withdrawing a document that had been circulated in the 
Committee for a number of years.  
1.58.   The representat ive of Turkey  said that in his opinion if the list  was an official Committee 
document then there had been a decision of the Committee to prepare it. The Committee had to 
agree to cancel a decision of the Committee if there was a need to do so . He was not a  lawyer , but 
he thought that this was the way it should work . 
1.59.   The representative of the United States  echoed  Turkey's point . He stated unequivocally that 
the United States could not accept the Committee setting a precedent where it had had consensus 
to pro duce a document  and a lack of consensus meant that it would cease to produce it . Just 
imagine what the United States could do with that rule  if standard Committee practice could be 
upset by one Member not joining consensus to change something.  
1.60.   The represen tative of the European Union  concurred that if there was no consensus to 
change Committee practice then they could not go forward. She suggested coming back to the 
issue in an informal meeting that the Chair could convene. A decision  was premature and the 
Committee was moving too fast on the issue.  
1.61.   The representative of Panama  doubted  that the Committee would be able to agree on  
whether to publish the document or not . He s uggested  that the Chair continue his consultations 
and terminate  the discussion as he did not think that any conclusion would be reached in the day's 
meeting.  
1.62.   The representative of Australia  said that there were a lot of contentious issues . The 
interpretation that LAIA members had on the notification requirement was something that 
Australi a did not share and the decision to cease circulation of the document needed to be 
considered further. He suggested that the Chair start a consultation process so that the issues 
could be discussed in a focused way.  
1.63.   The representative of Brazil  said he wan ted to be clear on what he had proposed and what 
the conclusions of the day's debate were. LAIA members had clearly requested in their note in 
June that LAIA agreements should be excluded from the list because they had been notified . LAIA 
members did not w ant to exclude the document, but rather to exclude LAIA members' agreements 
from the document. If Members did not agree, he understood that in the absence of consensus 
provoked by the reaction to LAIA members' request, the Committee could not issue an offi cial 
document which required consensus. The second point was that Brazil fully supported any initiative 
led by the Chair or any other Member to discuss further any initiative that could improve the work 
of the Committee, not only related to the topic, but also to the function ing of the Transparency 
Mechanism. Brazil would happily engage in such discussions.  
1.64.   The representative of China  supported Brazil's position and said that further consultations 
were necessary.  
1.65.   The Chairman  said it was clear that the Comm ittee would not agree on the issue at the 
meeting. The question then was how to move forward. He believed that Turkey was correct in the 
sense that if there was not support for issuing an official document there needed to be a decision 
to not circulate it.  Several delegations had suggested that the Chair should convene informal 
consultations and this would be a way of moving forward and being more structured and focused. 
It would also give the Committee time to look at the legal issues related to it and per haps even 
put forward some ideas on how a list could be circulated in a revised manner.  He suggested that 
the Committee come back to the issue and hoped that this would be acceptable to everyone who 
had spoken in the meeting. He would try to call an inform al session as soon as possible and he 
hoped that Members would engage in such a discussion then . He asked  for Members' patience in 
not having any formal decision  taken that day  and leaving that for the consultations.  
1.66.   The representative of the United States  said he did not necessarily object  to consultations 
but wanted to make it clear that the Committee had to make some progress on the issue with 
which it had been confronted  for a decade or more. The issue was finally out in the open, the EU 
had put some go od questions in writing that had been  sent to LAIA members. The Committee was 
awaiting substantive responses and was on the verge of having a substantive conversation. He WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 11 - 
 
 was not entirely satisfied with back stepping to having consultations on the list. In order to resolve 
the issue the Committee needed to  engage on the substance of the LAIA agreements and the best 
way to do that would be to engage on the EU questions, but if LAIA members had a different 
method he would be open to that. But he was not entir ely sure that he was willing to backtrack to 
discuss ing the list. He was happy to hear how the Chair intended to proceed in consultations but 
he did not want him to be surprised if the United States  objected to consultations on whether or 
not the list shou ld be published. The Committee needed to move past that and get to the 
substance of the agreements, where they belong ed, could the Committee agree  on what to call 
them and how they should be treated from a WTO perspective, regardless of how the list was 
published and what its  name was. That was a secondary issue that was in the rear view mirror. 
The EU questions had brought the Committee forward and he did not want to go backwards.  
1.67.   The representative of the European Union  clarified that informal consultatio ns would need to 
be underpinned by the facts, so Members  would need to have a parallel discussion on the EU's 
questions. Given that the Committee could not reach an agreement, a dedicated discussion would 
help. 
1.68.   The representative of Brazil  agreed that the Committee should move past the question of 
the list. His delegation would gladly engage with the Chair to discuss not only the question of the 
notifications but other alternatives to improve the Transparency Mechanism that Brazil believed 
deserved the Comm ittee's attention.  
1.69.   The Chairman  agreed that having  consultations o n whether or not the Committee should 
have a list was a backwards step, but a number of delegations had indicated that they could not 
accept the list as it currently stood  while others had a  different view. The question was how the 
Committee could  move forward. There had been requests for some agreements to be taken off the 
list. The Committee could continue to discuss the issue  in the meeting, or he could try and solve it 
in a more construct ive way in another setting. A few Members had suggested that this would be a 
helpful way forward. He did not think he could conclude that the Committee w ould go on as if 
nothing had happened as too many Members had said that they could not accept the list as it 
stood. One way of proceeding would be a dedicated session to discuss how to move forward. If 
Members wanted to continue to discuss the issue in the day's meeting they were free to do so, but 
the Committee would not agree. He proposed to have  consulta tions and said that the Committee 
would come back to the issue. He agreed that, regardless of the viewpoint of whether or not LAIA 
agreements should be on the list, it was an unfortunate discussion to be having when the 
Committee was trying to improve tran sparency.  
1.70.   The representative of the United States  underlined  that all of the agreements on the 
non-notified list were of importance to his delegation and the United States was looking at ways of 
how to get a better understanding of the process of notificat ions. He had repeatedly raised 
questions i n the past to China and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu (Chinese Taipei ) with respect to their agreement, listed as number 10 on the list of non -
notified RTAs. He asked if the par ties could provide an update . The Committee had been told 
repeatedly that the parties had submitted an early announcement , but an early announcement 
was not a notification. The United States had drawn attention to  press releases from China 
detailing the pr eferences in force between China and Chinese Taipei under the agreement. The 
United States believed that a notification was triggered by the Transparency Mechanism when 
preferences were extended between Members and both goods and services preferences had b een 
extended and continued to be extended under the agreement. He requested the parties to provide 
an update of when the notification would be made and thus when the Committee would benefit 
from the transparency that flowed from it. The United States was i nterested in knowing when the 
EFTA-GCC Agreement would be notified . In his earlier intervention he had made reference to 
EFTA-GCC, but he had meant Singapore -GCC. He acknowledged the positive step taken by the 
Pacific Alliance members and was pleased to se e that that notification had been submitted. It was 
an important grouping for the United States and he thanked Members for making the notification. 
For Panama, there were some specific questions from the EU (1.3e) in their document with respect 
to Panama's  accession to LAIA and that was the best test case for better understanding the LAIA 
agreements. The United States would like to hear from Panama about  the status of responses to 
the EU questions and when the notification would take place.  
1.71.    The representat ive of Panama  said that the pending questions were being worked on. Some 
were being prepared by a group, so that LAIA members could present a coherent response to WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 12 - 
 
 avoid a situation where one group of concerned countries were not all in agreement. He could not 
give a precise indication as to when the responses would be provided. He said that each case in 
LAIA was individual and therefore he could not say whether a specific case, as for Panama, would 
necessarily apply to other situations, as they were all ind ividual.  
1.72.    In response to the question by the representative of the United States, the representative 
of China  said that China's position was the same as previously stated.  
1.73.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said its position remained the same.  
1.74.   The repr esentative of the United States  thanked Panama for providing an indication that 
work was under way. The United States agree d that each of the LAIA agreements was individual 
and specific and this precisely underlined his delegation's point. It was  disappoin ting to hear that 
China's  and Chinese Taipei 's position remained the same and  that WTO Members were not entitled 
to the transparency that had been  agreed to. He urged them to submit  the notification given the 
public way in which preferences were being tout ed. This was the bread and butter of the 
Committee and it ought to stay focused.  
B.IV Factual Comments Delayed due to Lack of Comments  
1.75.   The Chairman  said that he had  continued consultations with delegations  and a n updated list 
of such RTAs ha d been recently  circulated as WT/REG/W/112. He hoped  that outstanding 
comments would  soon be made available and the factual consideration of these agreements could  
be undertaken.  
C. IMPLEMENTATION REPOR TS UNDER PARAGRAPH 1 5 OF THE TRANSPARENC Y 
MECHANISM FOR RTAS  
1.76.   The Chairman said that implementation reports were another essential element of the 
mandate of the RTA Transparency Mechanism. An updated schedule for the submission of such 
reports had been distributed by the Secretariat (WT/REG/W/90 and Corr.1). As of 7 January 2015, 
implementation reports were due for 129 RTAs, and the end of implementation (EOI) for 11 RTAs 
was in 2016. The EOI for a total of 106 RTAs was from 2017 onwards, while for one RTA the EOI 
year was not available. Seven implementation reports had been received during the year : 
Ukraine -Tajikistan (document WT/REG251/R/I), Ukraine -Kazakhstan (document WT/REG247/R/I), 
Ukraine -Armenia (document WT/REG171/R/I), Ukraine -Montenegro (document WT/REG338/R/I), 
EU Jordan (document WT/REG141/R/I), EU -Montenegro (do cument WT/REG236/R/I) and 
EU-South Africa (document WT/REG113/R/I). He encouraged other delegations to submit their 
implementation reports in order to comply with the obligation. Once a year all implementation 
reports issued during that year were listed on  the Agenda in order to give Members the 
opportunity to comment on them.  
1.77.   The representative of Ukraine  thanked the Secretariat for preparing the implementation 
reports on Ukraine -Armenia, Ukraine -Kazakhstan, Ukraine -Montenegro and Ukraine -Tajikistan, 
giving a comprehensive overview of the main results of implementing these agreements.  
1.78.   Ukraine -Armenia had been in force since 1996 and had been concluded before the WTO 
accession of both countries, and applied to trade in all goods without exceptions. Ukraine's  export 
of goods to Armenia in 2015 had amounted to about US$101 million and export of services to 
approximately US$12 million; Ukraine's import of goods from Armenia had amounted to 
US$7.4  million and import of services to about US$4 million.  
1.79.   Ukraine -Kazakhstan had been in force  since 1998, and had been concluded before the WTO 
accession of both countries, and covered trade in goods. There were some exceptions from the 
Agreement, in particular, live cattle and hides, alcoholic and non -alcoholic beverages a nd tobacco. 
In 2015 Ukraine's export of goods to Kazakhstan had totalled US$712 million and export of 
services to approximately US$6 6 million; Ukraine's import of goods from Kazakhstan had totalled 
US$377 million and import of services to approximately US$14 million.  
1.80.   Ukraine -Tajikistan had entered into force in  2002, and had been concluded before the WTO 
accession of both countries, and applied to trade in goods. There were some exceptions from the WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 13 - 
 
 Agreement according to the protocol, signed in 2015, in par ticular, some alcoholic and 
non-alcoholic beverages, carpets, cigars, sunflower seeds, raw hides and skins of cattle, and 
ferrous and non -ferrous metal scrap. In 2015 Ukraine's export of goods to Tajikistan was about 
US$30 million and export of services wa s approximately US$7 million.  
1.81.   Ukraine -Montenegro had entered into force in 2013  and covered trade in goods and 
services. The Agreement stipulated some exceptions in trade in goods, namely pork, pork liver, 
pork fat, and poultry offal. Last year Ukraine's e xport of goods to Montenegro had amounted to 
US$1.1 million and export of services to US$2.9 million; Ukraine's import of goods from 
Montenegro had amounted to US$4.9 million and import of services to US$4.5 million.  
1.82.   The implementation report s would be in complete without understanding the systemic 
problems Ukraine faced due to restrictions and bans imposed by the Russian Federation on traffic 
in transit from Ukraine. The transit of goods from Ukraine to the Republic of Kazakhstan and 
Kyrgyz Republic via th e territory of the Russian Federation was banned for the items subject to the 
food embargo and prohibited for goods subject to tariff rates higher than zero under the Eurasian 
Economic Union's customs tariff (about 8% of tariff lines). Collectively these m easures imposed a 
practical prohibition on the transit of the majority of goods from Ukraine via the territory of the 
Russian Federation to the countries of Central and Eastern Asia and the Caucasus. Ukraine 
believed that these measures represented a flagr ant violation of WTO rules, in particular, Article V 
of the GATT 1994. As a result of these restrictions, Ukrainian exports to countries of Central and 
Eastern Asia and the Caucasus had decreased by 35% in January to June 2016. Exports to 
Kazakhstan had fa llen 45.5% in the first half of the year. Notwithstanding all the challenges 
relating to goods transit, Ukraine believed that FTAs could form the basis for further trade 
liberalization between participants of agreements contributing to the progress of econ omic 
cooperation and increasing mutual trade exchange. From a systemic point of view , Ukraine was 
strongly interested in ensuring compliance with the commitments under the Transparency 
Mechanism, providing substantial coverage of the agreements and avoidin g the introduction of 
quantitative and other restrictions in trade.  
1.83.   The representative of the European Union  expressed her appreciation for the close and 
excellent cooperation it had shared with the authorities of Jordan, Montenegro and South Africa in 
preparing the end of implementation reports. The EU was working with other Members on the 
preparation of further end of implementation reports and hoped to finalize them in the near future.  
1.84.   The representative of Montenegro  thanked the European Union for its i nterest in the 
Ukraine -Montenegro end of implementation report and for the questions received  to which 
Montenegro had responded.  The Ukraine -Montenegro FTA had entered into force in 2013 and 
covered trade in goods and services. Montenegro had not applied a ny export duties or taxes in 
trade with Ukraine since the Agreement's entry into force. In addition, Montenegro had not 
introduced export or import quantitative restrictions in trade between the parties in accordance 
with Article XI of GATT 1994. She thank ed the EU for the excellent cooperation with her authorities 
with regard to the end of implementation of the EU -Montenegro Stabilization and Association 
Agreement that represented the major instrument towards progressive integration of Montenegro 
into the European market.  
1.85.   The representative of South Africa  expressed its appreciation to the EU for the cooperation 
in drafting and submitting the report and confirm ed that the report had been prepared in 
compliance with Article 15 of the RTA T ransparency Mechani sm, following the draft guidelines of 
January 2013 and that all Parties had agreed on its joint submission. It contained background 
information on the agreement, provisions on trade in goods and other provisions.  
1.86.   The representative of Jordan  thanked the EU  delegation for its cooperation in preparing the 
joint submission.  
1.87.   The Chairman  asked if any Member wished to provide details of when its own reports would 
be submitted, especially if the reports were overdue.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 14 - 
 
 D. CONSIDERATION OF REG IONAL TRADE AGREEMEN TS 
ITEM D.I FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ICELAND AND CHINA , GOODS AND SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM D. II FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND CHINA , GOODS AND SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM D.III  AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN SERVICES BETWEEN INDIA AND THE ASSOCIATION OF 
SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
E. PROCEDURES TO FACILI TATE AND IMPROVE THE  EXAMINATION PROCESS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
1.88.   The Chairman  said the United States  had requested that the item be placed on the Agenda.  
1.89.   The representative of the United States  said it had requested the Agenda item in response 
to recent discussions held in the CRTA which had sparked some initial thinking on its part 
regarding various aspects of the Committee 's work, in particular the factual presentation review 
proce ss. His intervention was primarily intended to be an indication of intent for discussion in 
future meetings so that other Members who wished to contribute to the discussion were provided 
some advance notice. Indeed, the US thinking was preliminary at this point. Nevertheless, the 
United States thought it might be useful to share some broad ideas they were considering so that 
others might reflect and either comment or suggest issues or ideas of their own.  
1.90.   During the informal meeting convened on 18 October, there had been a number of 
interventions which included thoughts or suggestions for future Committee work. The United 
States had drawn inspiration from those comments as well as from paragraph 29 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration  where Ministers had a greed to reinvigorate the regular work of the 
Committee. In reading the draft Annual Report  of the CRTA,  the United States had realized that 
some discussion regarding the examination or review process in the CRTA was called for, and did 
not in fact take pl ace. The United States was taking the opportunity to gauge interest in discussing 
possible improvements.  
1.91.   The United States had taken note of the decreasing level of engagement by Members in the 
factual presentation review process. Few Members submitt ed written questions, and even fewer 
took the opportunity to speak during the Committee 's meeting s. He would find it useful to hear 
from Member s why they believed participation levels were low, and perhaps more importantly,  if 
there might be space – through a di scussion among Members – for some new or fresh ideas for 
actions that could make some improvements in participation.   
1.92.   The United States believed that the transparency provided in the factual summaries was 
intended to assist Members with any future discussi on on systemic implications of RTAs for the 
multilateral trading system. And if Members were not getting the kind of information out of the 
reviews, then they ought to discuss ways to address that.  
1.93.   The United States had some thoughts and questions  to pose  and would come  back at a later 
meeting to see if there was any interest in further discuss ion. His questions were as follows: first, 
was there a structural problem with the schedule and advance notice for when factual 
presentations were reviewed and sufficient time to prepare  questions? Were changes needed to 
the frequency of meetings and therefore greater advance notice for reviewing factual presentation s 
and formatting questions?  Did Members face challenges tracking the issuance of factual 
presentation s and the deadlines for submitting questions? Did Members find that the content of 
the presentations by delegations provid ed information that was timely or spoke to relevant issues?  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 15 - 
 
 Would it be beneficial to discuss suggestions or recommendations Members cou ld make to Parties 
under review so that presentations could be drafted to maximize interest and engagement among 
Members?  Should Members discuss again the role of the second day of the CRTA? As originally 
conceived it was intended much like the TPR process  to ensure that delegations responded to 
questions raised during the review and to avail themselves of the overnight break to consult with 
capitals. This was an element that was important to the United States. However, current practice 
had slid in to respon ding later in writing. Did Members want to revisit the issue of maintaining day 
two for such a purpose and perhaps having a discussion about it? 
1.94.   Regarding the v enue of reviews and housekeeping, t he United States continue d to believe 
that the division of RT A factual presentation  reviews between the CRTA and the CTD had create d 
inefficiencies, administrative burdens and had weaken ed the overall effectiveness of the TM. The 
United States had  made a previous proposal to unify all reviews in the CRTA, and contin ued to 
believe that that would improve the overall effecti veness of the TM and help reinvigorate the 
CRTA. The submission could be found in document TN/RL/W/248 of 24 January 2011. The United 
States  believe d it was time to review the  provisional organizati onal compromise and exchange 
views on how Members saw it working. The United States was  interested in hearing clear and 
concrete arguments on both sides of th e issue as it had been a while since Members had discussed 
it. This was just food for thought. If there was an appetite to revisit the issue at the Committee's 
next meeting, it would be interesting to hear Members'  thoughts or ideas on how there could be 
more engagement in the review process.  
1.95.   The representative of Canada  thanked the United States for a dding the Agenda item. 
Canada agreed with the United States'  observation that engagement in the CRTA could be 
improved upon. In previous years it had been higher than what it currently was. These were good 
questions and Canada was willing to further consid er them and have a discussion to identify some 
concrete ideas on how the Committee could increase engagement with respect to the factual 
presentation review process. Perhaps there were some simple structural changes that could be 
made to incentivize other Members to engage in the area. It was no secret that it was often the 
same seven, eight or nine Members who actually engaged and provided written questions and 
made commentary in the Committee. Canada was open to further discussion on this and would 
take t he United States'  questions back to capital for further consideration.  
1.96.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the United States for its preliminary 
thoughts and appreciated the advance notice given. The European Union would be happy to come 
back to the questions raised at the Committee's next meeting. She wondered if the United States 
intended to circulate anything in writing, for instance what had been orally presented. As 
mentioned in previous meetings, the EU  had noted the decreasing engagement  in the examination 
process of RTAs and would be interested in looking at how Members could in operational terms 
improve that performance. She looked forward to continuing the exchange of ideas.  
1.97.   The representative of India thanked the United States for its  preliminary thoughts on how to 
make improvements in the consideration process. His remarks were preliminary. He wanted to 
comment on two questions raised by the United States: the first concerned the use of day two to 
respond to questions raised during th e consideration of an RTA. In his opinion it was not possible 
for developing countries to provide a response the next day as for most of them  officials may or 
may not attend the meeting and it was not possible to contact capital overnight and get a 
respons e as sometimes different ministries had to be consulted. Thus the use of day two was not 
practical as far as India was concerned. Secondly, regarding the venue, India's position was clear 
and was as stated in the provisional Transparency Mechanism : the CTD  should consider the factual 
presentations of RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause . The negotiations that had taken  place in 
the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR)  had been  captured in the Chair's report (document 
TN/RL/W/252 dated 21 April 2011) where su ggestions and amendments proposed by different 
Members were expressed on how to make the Transparency Mechanism permanent. India had also 
stated that for the RTAs  notified under two legal provisions , the proper forum for the consideration 
was the CTD.  These were his preliminary observations and he looked forward to continuing the 
discussion in the CRTA's next session.  
1.98.   The representative of Australia  thanked the United States for sharing its ideas and 
forecasting its intention of having a more focused discus sion on the issue  which his delegation  
would welcome. The examination of individual RTAs was the core business of the CRTA and for 
Australia, having recently gone through the experience, the real value was the factual presentation WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 16 - 
 
 prepared by the Secretari at. If Members could try to bring more value to that document and the 
work done to bring out more about RTAs that would be of benefit to everyone. Australia would 
welcome a more focused discussion  and ideas on paper if the United States was able to do so. He 
added that Members needed to develop something that was fit for purpose. The TPR process was 
distinct from that of the CRTA as it was based on the review of an individual Member's trade policy 
while the CRTA dealt with RTAs that involved two or more Mem bers. Australia's approach had been 
to develop joint responses to all questions received from Members which could be difficult to turn 
around overnight. He was happy to explore options on how Members could make it work in the 
most efficient manner.  
1.99.   The rep resentative of Paraguay  thanked the United States for its presentation. For his 
delegation it was important to improve procedures. Paraguay found it difficult to follow all the 
examinations, as there were sometimes several , and that created  a resource prob lem. He asked 
the United States if its proposal would be limited exclusively to the examination process in the 
CRTA where the factual presentation was considered or whether  it was a broader idea to reform 
the Transparency Mechanism completely. Paraguay wou ld be interested in the latter.  
1.100.    The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the United States for its preliminary 
thoughts and for bringing the issue for Members' consideration. Chinese Taipei recognized the 
issue of the decreasing engagement in the Comm ittee and was open to discuss ion with other 
Members at the Committee's next meeting.  
1.101.   The representative of South Africa  thanked the United States for the thoughts presented. 
She said it would be helpful to receive the ideas in writing and looked forward to  discussing them 
in future. South Africa had observed that the ideas presented touch ed on parts of paragraphs 28 
and 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration . Members  would need to be clear about  which part of 
the Declaration they were responding to  and it would be useful to have the thoughts in writing so 
that the discussion could be clearly focused.  
1.102.   The representative of Japan  thanked the United States for sharing ideas which Japan 
welcomed. Japan considered the issue to be important for implementing par agraphs 28 and 29 of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. As stated in the previous day's meeting , Japan had an interest 
in discussing the Committee's regular work . He would consult with capital and looked forward to 
actively engaging in the discussion.  
1.103.   The representative of China  thanked the United States for its statement and said it was 
willing to explore ways to further increase participation in the CRTA. He had s ome preliminary 
thoughts regarding the way forward  and echoed the statement by India regard ing the mandate of 
the Transparency Mechanism which required the CTD to be the venue for consideration of RTAs 
under the Enabling Clause.  
1.104.   The representative of Guatemala  was grateful to the United States for presenting its 
preliminary views. Her delegation  was interested in making progress in the work of the Committee 
but wanted to know a bit more about the proposal. Like other Members Guatemala would prefer a 
written statement so that it could react and send it to capital. She asked the United States what 
the final objective was, would it need a formal decision of the Committee to change its procedures 
or what exactly was it trying to achieve.  
1.105.   The representative of Brazil  congratulated the United States for introducing the topic. 
Brazil agreed with the subs tance but had some questions on the format. As Members might be 
aware , Brazil was also explori ng some ideas to improve the Committee's  activity  that h e would 
raise under the next Agenda item. Members would see that in general Brazil was also tackling 
issues of procedures and one of them specifically mentioned by the United States was a point that 
Brazil would mention in its proposal. Brazil agreed with India and Australia on the second day. It 
was an issue for developing  countries. In the TPR, Members had a  day off between the two days 
which they used to produce their answers. But as India had mentioned, the need to coordinate 
was a fact and was not an easy process. His point on format was the same as mentioned by the 
representatives of Paraguay and Japan an d others, he understood that the issue had been raised 
under paragraph 29 , if he was not mistaken. But it was also an issue that dealt with how the 
Transparency Mechanism worked. Paragraph 28 of the Declaration specifically focused on that 
part. He was not  saying that the Committee could not deal with the issue, his point was that the WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 17 - 
 
 majority of the work of the regular Committee was related to the implementation of the 
Transparency Mechanism. Thus he believed that both paragraphs could be used to raise the  
discussion. There were many ideas in the United States'  proposal that could be further explored 
and others that the United States had mentioned previously in terms of how the discussion was 
implemented in the Agenda which was a point that might deserve th e Committee's attention 
together with  other ideas that the Committee could explore further. Brazil welcomed the initiative 
and might have another question depending on the answers from the United States.  
1.106.   The representative of Egypt  thanked the United State s for its intervention which  was food 
for thought. He echoed the statements made by India, China and South Africa. The United States 
had referred to paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Declaration but he thought that the discussion was 
also related to paragraph 28 . He recalled Egypt's position about  the Transparency Mechanism with 
regard to other subsidiary bodies and particularly the Enabling Clause and the discussion in the 
CTD. This was important to Egypt. There were two dimensions to the discussion: the procedu ral 
approach and the technical angle. It would be good to have the United States'  thoughts in writing 
so that delegations could understand and discuss them thoroughly.  
1.107.   The representative of Colombia  thanked the United States for having added  the item to t he 
Agenda. She asked the United States to share their suggestions in writing so that delegations 
could share them with capital and have a more detailed discussion. Colombia would like to use this 
as an opportunity to improve work in the Committee. Like Aus tralia, Colombia believed that 
Members should add value to the work on factual presentations carried out by the Secretariat  and 
she hoped that a discussion on the Transparency Mechanism would  deal not only with what had 
been suggested by the United States,  but also with other ideas that might be put forward by other 
Members.  
1.108.   The representative of the United States  thanked Members for their feedback. For an item 
that was meant to be a heads up, he had not thought through all of the responses but he wanted 
to react to some of them . First, with respect to the request  to put something in writing, the 
minutes of the meeting would reflect the issues he had raised. If he were to put something in 
writing it would simply be , why did Members  think that participation w as so low? That was really 
the point. He did not have reasons , but had included some questions in his intervention. He did not 
want to prejudge or limit the conversation at the next meeting , he just wanted to ask. Maybe 
Members did not consider that there was a problem with participation. But it was something that 
the United States had noticed. At the same time that there was an increase in the desire to discuss 
the importance of RTAs and their systemic implications, there was less discussion and engagement  
in the actual process that was supposed to feed into that. It was stated in t he Annual Report that 
the issue had not been discussed and so the United States was incentivized to have a 
conversation. He was happy to informally circulate his thoughts and que stions but his delegation 
might come back with a proposal for the next meeting , if that was helpful and that would be a 
more definitive United States'  position. But really the question was whether Members were 
satisfied with the level of participation or d id they have ideas or areas that the Committee should 
discuss to see if improvement s could be made.  With regard to whether the discussion fell under 
paragraph 28 or 29 of the Declaration, he acknowledged that there were two prongs and he was 
trying to take  a small bite -sized approach to just look at the participation piece which was why he 
had referenced paragraph 29 which spoke to regular Committee work. The United States was not 
recommending changes to the Transparency Mechanism at this point, which was w hat was called 
for in paragraph 28. He was not  imply ing that the Committee needed to put this back on the 
Secretariat and revise the way factual presentations were created. He was going on the 
assumption that there was nothing wrong with the presentations themselves. He was looking at it 
from the perspective of why Members  were not ask ing questions and engag ing, but he was happy 
to hear if Members wanted to make suggestions about what was in the factual presentations.  
1.109.   He had purposely sidestepped paragraph  28 except for one issue, but he did think that the 
venue question could be discussed and he wondered how many Members in the Committee knew 
that in the following week an RTA would be  reviewed  in the CTD , how many had submitted 
questions on it, and how man y Members would attend the meeting . A resolution of the venue 
question firmly sat in paragraph 28 which was concerned with making the Transparency 
Mechanism permanent and there were changes to the Transparency Mechanism that the United 
States wanted  to see  in order to make it permanent, but he was not going there yet. He just 
wanted to know whether Members had views. The Committee had spent two hours the previous 
day discussing the status of notifications and there was some confusion about who should even WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 18 - 
 
 discuss the record keeping of compliance. So he thought it was fair to throw it in but it could be 
bracketed and discussed separately if Members did not think that it had anything to do with 
participation levels. The United States was not making a clear dis tinction between paragraphs 28 
and 29. His suggestions with regard to participation just sat better in paragraph 29, but it did not 
really matter. He said that w hen he had picked up the CRTA portfolio the expectation for day two 
was something that was clea r and had been standard practice and was the clear intent of the 
drafters of the Transparency Mechanism. No one had  had a problem consulting overnight and it 
had gone on for many years. It was rare but the Committee had sometimes  come back on day two 
and the reviewed Parties had provided a response . So it was not a suggestion of the United States, 
he was only pointing out what had been standard practice that the Committee had lost. The only 
fundamental difference between a review in the CRTA and the CTD was  day two. So if that was the 
problem and the CRTA had already kind of got rid of day two, then Members could have a 
discussion as to why different venues made sense. The CRTA had had 83 sessions, whereas the 
CTD had had six in ten years so there clearly wa s a problem with the efficiency of that set up. 
However, his goal was  merely to raise the issue and let Members share their views on it. If 
Members wanted to discuss  day two he wondered if that would have an impact on whether or not 
Members insisted upon E nabling Clause agreements remaining in the CTD or would that make it 
easier to come to the CRTA. He was at a loss as to why the CRTA was not competent to review an 
Enabling Clause agreement. He thought the Committee was quite competent and he would review 
an RTA in the CTD the following week. So Members could not escape the United States  by 
changing venues. There was a lot of interest and appetite and he looked forward to seeing if 
Members  could produce something before March but at least informally circula te some ideas and 
see if Members could discuss  improvements that they wanted to make. He was not thinking at the 
outset about improvements that would be put on paper and feed into the review process of the 
Transparency Mechanism. It could be a purely infor mative process concerning issues that the 
Committee considered to be useful and that might never be put on paper, but when prepar ing for 
a review, he might ask his people to highlight e -commerce or something that he had heard was of 
interest. The United St ates would be open to looking structurally at what the Transparency 
Mechanism called for and feeding into an alternate process under paragraph 28. He saw them 
together but he would not necessarily want to start a process to determine improvements that 
would be made to the Transparency Mechanism. He wanted to start with a lighter touch so that 
Members could have a conversation about what they could do better in the Committee and see 
where it went.  
1.110.   The representative of Brazil  thanked the United States repres entative for his clarification. 
He was happy to say that Brazil saw eye to eye with the United States in terms of how the 
Committee could explore ideas about  the regular activity of the Committee which, the majority of 
the time, was dedicated to the implem entation of the Transparency Mechanism. To see that for the 
United States it did not matter if the discussion sat under paragraph 28 or 29 was good because 
he saw that in analysing Brazil's proposal under the next Agenda item. Frankly to see the United 
States' approach gave him confidence that the United States would engage with Brazil and others 
to explore this track. Having said that, Brazil had preferred to put its ideas on paper which was not 
the same approach as the United States but he thought the Com mittee would have room to 
explore on the second track on transparency, both in relation to paragraph 28 which dealt with  the 
rules that were used for the implementation of the Transparency Mechanism , but also on 
paragraph 29 which was related to the regula r activity of the Committee.  
1.111.   The Chairman  said that there had been a good response to the United States proposal and 
it showed the engagement by Members. As Chair he was of course completely neutral in how the 
Committee took the issue forward , but there wa s one issue about which he was not neutral and 
that was that he agreed with the general description that Members were not fulfilling their duties 
in the Committee. Me mbers were not doing what the Transparency Mechanism  told them to do, 
nor upholding some o f the fundamental WTO accession obligations. The difficulties the Committee 
had, for instance with regard to the venue, had led to a situation where RTAs were not being 
discussed at all and that was a problem. If Memb ers could have a discussion on how to m ove that 
issue forward he would support w hat was necessary  to have that issue move forward. He expected 
to hear more about the issue later in the meeting or at the Committee's next meeting in April.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 19 - 
 
 F ADOPTION OF THE ANNU AL REPORT (2016) OF THE CRTA TO THE  GENERAL 
COUNCIL  
1.112.   The Chairman  said that a draft of the report had been distributed in document 
WT/REG/W/110 and comments had been received from the United States, the European Union, 
Switzerland and South Africa. The United States had suggested reordering the report to bette r 
reflect the elements of the Transparency Mechanism  and to allocate the summary of the 
Committee's discussions (previously contained under Section 9 Final Remarks) to the pertinent 
section. Revisions to the document, re -ordered as sugge sted by the US, and listing all other 
comments in track changes had been  distributed as room documents RD/RTA/38, 
RD/RTA/38/Rev.1, Rev.2, and most recently as RD/RTA/38/Rev.3 which reflect ed the discussion 
the Committee had  had the previous day  on the list  of non -notified RTAs.   
1.113.   He suggest ed that the Committee  move d into informal mode to discuss the proposed 
changes to the Annual Report and then revert ed to formal mode to approve them.  The Chairman 
said that a new text would be distributed to Members for th eir comments.  Once there was 
consensus on the draft text, the report would be adopted ad referendum.  
G.  FOLLOW UP ON THE MIN ISTERIAL DECLARATION  FROM MC10. REPORT FR OM THE 
CHAIR'S CONSULTATION S 
1.114.   The Chairman  said that a non -paper from Brazil would be intro duced under the Agenda 
item, and that he would divide the item into two halves and first talk about the follow up on his 
consultations on paragraph 28 and then ask Brazil to introduce its paper . He thank ed delegations 
for participating at the informal sess ion held a few weeks ago on the  topic. In his opinion  it had 
been a helpful session in bringing more clarity on th e issue. It also showed that there wa s strong 
support for moving on with the follow up on the Ministerial Declaration. He did not  intend to sp end 
a lot of time on th e issue in the day's meeting since it ha d been discussed at length on several 
occasions.  
1.115.   He informed Members  that th e item w ould be on the Agenda for the CRTA's  next meeting 
in April  at the request of the EU delegation along the line s already  indicated, namely as a 
presentation on the EU 's experience on trade facilitation provisions in their FTA s. He underst ood 
that a few other delegations intend ed to present around the same issue as well ( he had heard 
from Australia  and Japan). It wo uld be on the Agenda of the CRTA as an informal item. Any 
presentations or other documents w ould be circulated as room documents only  and n o formal 
conclusions would be drawn from the discussion.  
1.116.   He knew  that some  delegations fe lt that the Committee  should  set parameters for how a 
systemic discussion should take place , which issues should be discussed, and in which format. 
However, based on the consultations he had  held, he did not  believe that the CRTA would be able 
to agree on such parameters, at least no t at the moment. The Committee might risk spending 
years on a discussion that eventually would  lead nowhere.  
1.117.   Therefore he welcome d the initiative from the EU and others. He believe d that the CRTA 
would be in a better position after its meeting in April to judge whether the discussion had been  
helpful, if this wa s something that it should continue to do, if changes should be made to the set 
up, and also if Members fe lt that there wa s still a need to put parameters in place and create a 
more formal process.  Members would be in a better situation to have such a discussion based on 
more information.  
1.118.   Since the presentation on trade facilitation had been  requested by a Member  he was not  
asking for approval at this stage  since it was  every Member 's prerogative to p ut issues on the 
Agenda. Members who wanted to  comment at the meeting  were welcome to do so.  He also 
remind ed Members that there was  some time before the April meeting and it was his  intention to 
continue his consultations and meet Members  to discuss this further before April.  
1.119.    The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chair for his efforts in taking the 
implementation of paragraph 28 forward. As the EU had mentioned a couple of times, it was keen 
to present on trade facilitation. The EU had also  sensed from the last meeting that Members were 
interested in a thematic approach to take this forward and mov e to the next stage. The EU wanted WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 20 - 
 
 to present its trade facilitation chapters  in its most recent RTAs and to highlight the positive 
interplay that  had taken place with multilateral rules and the Trade Facilitation Agreement. The 
presentation and discussion should be informal. The EU would encourage other Members to come 
forward – the Chair had mentioned some Members who were interested in joining th e EU. The EU 
would coordinate with other Members so that they could agree on some commonalities in the 
structure they would put forward and might also circulate the draft outline of its presentation 
before the meeting. The EU looked forward to an interesti ng debate and discussion with Members 
at the next meeting.  
1.120.   The representative of the United States  thanked the EU for what sounded like a useful and 
interesting way to proceed. He wanted to back up and better understand  as he had heard two 
things. First th ere had been some mention of  parameters and the n a comment that the Committee 
would not have parameters  so he needed a confirmation . He was comfortable if a Member wanted 
to have something raised informally and have an informal discussion with a summary. H e was not 
sure he would agree that this was always the rule and did not want to close the door if the United 
States wanted to put a paper on the Agenda and make a statement on the record, he did not want 
someone to come back to him and say that anything th at fell in the bucket could not be on the 
record. So he was a bit confused as the Chair had imposed some parameters. He was happy if 
they were voluntary parameters undertaken by the proponents but he did not want to say that 
Members would always have to co nform to those. Members were not sure where the discussion 
was going. The Chair had set up something that seemed to be appropriate and that corresponded 
to what the EU was looking for, so he did not have a problem with that. But he was uncertain as to 
whether that somehow set a template that Members would have to follow. He did not think the 
Committee was in a position yet to always agree that everything Members said had to be on an 
informal basis, because his delegation often wanted to say things on the re cord in a formal 
meeting.  Maybe he had misinterpreted what the Chair had said, but he wanted to circle back on 
what parameters had been established.  
1.121.   The Chairman  said that he had not made the point clearly. It was not how he or anyone 
else had envisaged ho w the process was going to be. The process was not with any prejudice. The 
process had been suggested by the EU who wanted to raise the issue and that it should be done in 
informal mode because the EU thought that Members would be comfortable with that. It  was the 
Committee's first attempt but in no way did it exclude raising issues under the systemic discussion 
in different ways in the future. It was important to make that clear.  
1.122.   The representative of Australia  thanked the Chair for the clarification  and agreed with his 
view on that matter. As Members would recall and as the Chair had just reminded Members there 
had been a clear and firm call by several Members on 18 October in an informal CRTA Session to 
start making progress in its work to implement the M C10 outcome on RTAs, particularly the 
instruction by Ministers to the Committee to discuss the systemic implications of RTAs on the 
multilateral trading system and on WTO rules. Australia was one of the co -authors of the joint 
statement delivered at that m eeting and co -sponsored by close to 20 delegations and it welcomed 
the several expressions of support received from the floor. As Australia had pointed out several 
times previously the merits of having such a systemic discussion in the CRTA were well known  and 
had been widely acknowledged by WTO Ministers at MC10, by a small group of Ministers at the 
recent informal gathering in Oslo and by several leaders in the G20 context. It was difficult to 
argue against the fact that RTAs had and would continue to hav e an important impact on the 
multilateral trading system. Not having a discussion on this impact in the WTO in the Committee 
dedicated to issues relating to RTAs, while the discussion continued elsewhere, was becoming 
harder and harder to justify. Australi a's view was that adding the important dimension to its 
regular work would revitalize the Committee and comply with the instruction by Ministers in 
paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Declaration. A regular, without -prejudice, informal discussion on a 
topic of bro ad interest based on experience sharing and the exchange of knowledge would indeed 
be a modest, but valuable step forward in breathing new life into the Committee and would serve 
as a clear example of the pragmatic multilateralism which many Members had lo ng been calling 
for. However, regrettably, the Committee's discussions in the day's meeting had shown that even 
this modest outcome was not immune to linkages and sequencing that had plagued progress in 
other aspects of the WTO's work. Nonetheless, Austral ia would continue in its efforts along with 
like-minded delegations to work closely and constructively with the Chair to follow through on the 
instructions by Ministers for the Committee to discuss the systemic implications of RTAs on the 
multilateral trad ing system and WTO rules. In this regard, Australia supported the EU in its offer to 
present on the impact of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement on its RTAs and he looked forward WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 21 - 
 
 to effectively participating and presenting on Australia's experiences. He hoped that other 
Members would do the same.  
1.123.   The representative of Japan  welcomed the EU's initiative to make a presentation on trade 
facilitation  in order to contribute to a substantive discussion on the systemic implications. Japan 
supported the thematic approach and wanted to contribute to the discussions on trade facilitation 
together with Australia and other Members.  
1.124.   The representative of Brazil  thanked the delegations of the EU, Australia and Japan for 
their initiative in putting forward the idea. He r eiterated Brazil's support for joint declaration that 
Australia had just mentioned. Brazil supported the idea of including the discussion of systemic 
issues as a part of the Committee's regular activity. He thanked the Chair for his clarification on 
the wa y that the Committee would deal with the discussion. It was important at that point in time 
that Members should not limit the scope of the discussion, taking into consideration that traditional 
issues might need to be taken into account, particularly those  related to tariff concessions and 
others.  
1.125.   The representative of South Africa  thanked the Chair for his report on the consultations. 
She wanted to make South Africa's position as clear as possible. Members had all subscribed to the 
broad mandate contained in paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration that instructed 
Members to discuss the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system and their 
relationship with WTO rules. Importantly, the instruction was premised on an acceptanc e that 
Members ensured that RTAs remained complementary to, not a substitute for, the multilateral 
trading system. Members therefore needed to be satisfied that any discussion met such an 
objective. From South Africa's consultations with the Chair, she und erstood that the discussion 
would not result in any agreed conclusions or recommendations. If that was indeed the case, and 
if Members all agreed, then South Africa would be in a position to work with Members to identify 
issues that might be taken up in fu ture meetings. For South Africa, the discussion should not aim 
at arriving at agreed conclusions or recommendations  on which further actions would be needed as 
this would be beyond the mandate given to the CRTA in Nairobi. Of course Members had the right 
to raise any issue for discussion, but equally Members knew that to pursue any discussion there 
needed to be agreement by all Members. In this regard there could be no a priori  assumption that 
issues addressed in RTAs were of common interest to all WTO Memb ers. Nor could there be any 
assumption that rules negotiated in and agreed to in RTAs were automatically legitimate matters 
that should be taken up in the WTO. At that point, a trade facilitation presentation might not be a 
problem but in future if Members  could not agree on a topic for discussion or Members could not 
agree that the mode should be formal or informal, they would need to go back to define 
parameters or the Committee would be stuck again. If this was accepted by all Members a set of 
parameters  should be established that would guide the process and ensure that all Members were 
part of the decision making process to consider issues they might want to raise for discussion in 
future. Finally, South Africa thought it was vitally important to ensure fuller participation of 
Members from all levels of development in all aspects of the discussions. South Africa trusted that 
the Chair would ensure a more inclusive process and full transparency in the discussions. On the 
question of the Transparency Mechan ism, the second part of paragraph 28 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration was much clearer. Members were to work towards the transformati on of the 
current provisional Transparency Mechanism  into a permanent Mechanism  in accordance with the 
General Counci l's decision of 14 December 2006 without  prejudice to questions related to 
notification requirements. This should be the first order of business in the CRTA.  
1.126.   The representative of India thanked the Chair for his update on the informal consultations 
and the  EU delegation for its proposal on making a presentation on trade facilitation at the next 
meeting. As the presentation would be in informal mode and without any record, India agreed to 
the suggestion. India also supported the statement made by South Afric a that in future if there 
was no agreement about whether a proposal should be discussed in formal or informal mode then 
the Committee would need to develop  parameters. The EU had requested that its presentation be 
in informal mode. India looked forward to participating in the discussion.  
1.127.   The Chairman  said that he was aware that the discussion to be held  in April was at best a 
first step of a continuing process. He looked forward to the discussion and hoped it would be 
fruitful. Members might have to come b ack to some of the larger issues that had been raised by 
some Members. He then moved on to the second point of the Agenda item which was the 
non-paper circulated by Brazil in document RD/RTA/41.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 22 - 
 
 1.128.   The representative of Brazil  presented its non -paper on impro vements to the Transparency 
Mechanism. T he Transparency Mechanism for RTAs had been  established by a Decision of the WTO 
General Council on 14 December 2006 (WT/L/671), on a provisional basis, as an effort to 
consolidate Members ' obligations to notify the RTAs in which they were engaged . Decision 
WT/L/671 d id not create new obligations to notify; it only reiterate d the obligations undertaken by 
Members under GATT Article XXIV, GATS Article V, and Article 4 of the Enabling Clause.  
1.129.   The revision of Decision WT /L/671 in light of Members ' experience and the replacement of 
the provisional Mechanism by a permanent one had been  already envisaged in Section "I" of the 
Decision itself and later restated in paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. Ten years  
after the creation of the provisional T ransparency Mechanism , Members were invited to assess 
whether the provisions of the Decision ha d been duly implemented and ha d promoted increased 
transparency of RTAs that had entered into force  since then. Brazil wa nted to revisit the 
implementation of the Transparency Mechanism to see how it could be improved.  Although the  
provisions of the Transparency Mechanism  had been negotiated in the NGR, they directly affected 
the functioning of the CRTA, where the debate on the implementation of paragraph 28 of the 
Nairobi Declaration ha d been taking place. In this context, Brazil put forward the following ideas 
for discussion  which were divided in to five topics.  
1.130.   The first was related to the notification model. A ccording to S ection "B", paragraph 4 of the 
Transparency Mechanism, Members should specify in their notifications under which WTO 
provisions the new agreement was notified and should also provide, in one of  the WTO official 
languages, preferably in electronic format: i . the full text of the agreement; ii. the schedules of 
tariff reduction;  and iii. the annexes and protocols. Members were encouraged to adopt the 
notifica tion model proposed at the CRTA , which ha d been used by the majority of Members in the 
notification of  the RTAs in which they were engaged. The notification model was simple, short and 
straightforward. However, in light of the discussions on the systemic impacts of RTAs, Members 
could consider modifications to the current notification model in order to als o include, in the same 
clear and straightforward way, the nature of the obligations undertaken in notified agreements, in 
particular when such agreements involved commitments in areas not covered by WTO disciplines. 
Parallel considerations related to the c overage of the agreements could also be contemplated in a 
new notification model.  
1.131.   With regard to d eadlines and specifically on e arly announcement s, the Transparency 
Mechanism provide d that Members participating in new negotiations aimed at the conclusion o f an 
RTA sh ould endeavo ur to so inform the WTO. The early announcement was, however, not 
mandatory. Members were encouraged to do so, but the commitment was not binding. In 
reviewing the Transparency Mechanism, Members could ask the Secretariat to report o n cases in 
which this commitment had been  fulfilled by Members and what treatment had been  given to 
information provided by notifying Members.   
1.132.   On deadline s for notification , according to Section "B" of the Transparency Mechanism, the 
notification of a n RTA should take place as soon as possible. As a rule, the deadline for notification 
was immediately after the ratification of the agreement by all parties. The time limit for notification 
should be another topic discussed by Members in assessing the prov isional Transparency 
Mechanism. According to Section "C" of the Transparency Mechanism, the consider ation of notified 
agreements had to be completed no later than one year after the date of notification. However, 
the WTO Secretariat ha d not been able to presen t reports on the agreements notified within the 
desirable period provided for in the Transparency Mechanism. Measures to streamline the 
assessment of newly notified agreements, as well as considerations on the disadvantages of the 
delay in the analysis of such agreements should also be discussed by Members.  
1.133.   On special and differential treatment , Section "F" of the Transparency Mechanism provide d 
for technical assistance to developing countries, especially LDCs, in the implementation of the 
Transparency Mechanism and in the preparation of information to be submitted to the WTO 
Secretariat. In the assessment of the provisional Transparency Mechanism, Members should 
evaluate whether th e provision ha d been put in to practice and identify what were the main 
obstac les to the fulfillment of the obligations of transparency by Members that were entitled to 
special and differential treatment.  
1.134.   In relation to the a ssessment of notified agreements , according to Section "C" of the 
Transparency Mechanism, in order to assist Members in assessing notified RTAs, the Secretariat WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 23 - 
 
 should prepare in full consultation with the parties a Factual Presentation to be presented to all 
Members. The "locus" and the format of these presentations were not determined in Decision 
WT/L/671, but Section "E" of the Decision instruct ed the CRTA to implement the Transparency 
Mechanism for RTAs falling under Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, while the CTD 
should  do so for RTAs falling under the Enabling Clause. In an effort to improve t he Transparency 
Mechanism, Members should discuss how the CRTA and the CTD ha d implemented the Decision, 
and what were the available means to promote greater transparency, in line with the obligations 
assumed by Members, without overloading the regular wor k of both Committees.  
1.135.   Finally, the provisional Transparency Mechanism did not provide for the appointment of an 
enquiry point that could be reached either by the Secretariat or by other Members in order to 
obtain additional information on notified RTAs. To  provide for the designation of an enquiry point 
for notified agreements could be one of the improvements of a permanent Transparency 
Mechanism.  These were some ideas that Brazil had outlined to start off the discussion  and it was 
open to considering any o ther ideas that had been expressed  before. Brazil believed that the 
second part of paragraph 28 was an important one as mentioned before and was open to 
discussing it in a dedicated consultation.  
1.136.   The Chairman  said that he suspected that many delegations ha d probably just seen the 
document and perhaps needed to consult with capital. He asked if delegations had any 
spontaneous reactions.  
1.137.   The representative of Guatemala  thanked Brazil for its proposal . Some of its suggestions 
overlapped with those of the Unite d States and she considered that it would be a good idea to 
have both discussions at the same time and not as two different items on the Agenda. Given that 
the document had only been received that day her comments were preliminary and her delegation 
might come back with other questions. As regards the notification model, Brazil had suggested 
that the nature of the obligations undertaken in the notified agreements be included. She asked 
Brazil to explain further what was being suggested by the nature and obl igations.  
1.138.   The representative of Australia  thanked Brazil for its initiative and the non-paper which set 
out clearly the refinements it would wish to make. Australia had a big appetite for talking about 
transparency and looking for ways to improve the notification and consideration of  agreements so 
the ideas he had heard in the day's meeting from Brazil and the United States deserved to be 
explored further. As Brazil had suggested a dedicated opportunity to look at the ideas in a focused 
way in a different c onfiguration would be helpful for Members to explore the possibilities. Australia 
was supportive of any discussion on improving transparency.  
1.139.   The representative of India thanked Brazil for its proposal on improvement s to the 
Transparency Mechanism. He want ed to make some  preliminary  comments and pose a  question. 
The discussion on the improvement of the Transparency Mechanism had been held previously in 
the NGR. The Chair's text contained in document TN/RL/W/252 dated 21  April 2011 gave an 
account of  the neg otiations on the draft text to make it permanent. Some of the suggestions were 
in Brazil's  paper. His question was whether discussion in the Committee would lead to duplication 
on the same issue in both fora.  
1.140.   The representative of Colombia  thanked Brazil f or introducing the document which she 
would share with capital for further comments. It seemed to be a good basis for the Committee's 
future discussions. She requested clarification on the enquiry point that would have to be 
established. Currently when fac tual presentations were drafted, an enquiry point was requested. In 
the proposal was the suggestion that there be only one contact per country in capital or did it 
concern  the permanent mission in Geneva?  
1.141.   The representative of South Africa  thanked Brazil f or its submission and looked forward to 
discussing it in detail in future. She had not had a chance to get responses from capital  on specific 
aspects of the paper but she thought that it would help in moving forward the work of the 
Committee. One area of c larification, mentioned  by Guatemala, was the notification model. 
Specifically, the nature of the obligations undertaken and in particular when such agreements 
involved commitments in areas not covered by WTO disciplines. She asked Brazil to explain furthe r 
how it envisage d that model working.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 24 - 
 
 1.142.   The representative of the United States  thanked Brazil for putting forward the paper and 
for the presentation made. It was interesting and certainly touched on a number of issues  of 
importance to the United States and  where there was common ground for further discussion. As 
India had stated there had been discussions on aspects of the Transparency Mechanism and 
flexibility on deadlines was something that the Committee had been  able to agree up on. In 
practice Members ha d probably exceeded the generous addition  that they had given themselves in 
the renegotiation  of deadlines . Certainly a discussion  about the deadlines could spark a better 
understanding of what went into the preparation. In the United States ' view the NGR would not 
take up  the issue, nor should it. The CRTA had had the experience of using the Transparency 
Mechanism and at least post Nairobi, it was the United States ' belief that such issues should come 
back to the Committees and be worked on and thus he did  not see that there would be a 
duplication of forum. It was appropriate to discuss the issue in the CRTA. When Members got to 
the point of negotiating something then they could discuss that but he thought that finding 
common ground on some of these areas o ught to be done in the CRTA. It would come as no 
surprise to Brazil or any other Member that a number of  issues were hard to disentangle from the 
larger question of notification s. The paper  outlined that  once Members decided to notify , a number 
of things h appened and obligations flowed to the Member . He wanted to be honest and make it 
clear that the United States would be interested in  an outcome that was inclusive as it was not 
willing to take on administrative burdens that were not shared by others. While the United States  
might struggle with the administrative burden imposed on it by the Transparency Mechanism, it 
was difficult for the United States to conceive of doing more when other  Member s were doing less  
and opting out of the Transparency Mechanism. Certainly the backlog o f the non -notified RTAs , 
clearing up notification s and understanding fully who would be complying with additional 
obligations , were they to be created , would be critically important. So he warned  that he might not 
be able to surgical ly separate some of the issues. The Committee had held discussions on the 
notification model in the ALADI context as well and he thought it was  important to continue to 
discuss  the issue . On the enquiry point, it was worth discussing what precisely would b e 
envisioned and how it might work. It could be an interesting concept but when he had read it he 
had thought that that was what Members were in the Committee. It would be useful to hear more 
about it. Brazil's initiative deserved more discussion and the U nited States would be happy to 
engage going forward.  
1.143.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Brazil for its efforts in putting on paper 
some of its ideas on refining the Transparency Mechanism. As Members knew the EU attached 
great importance to t he Transparency Mechanism and transparency more generally. That meant all 
strands of the transparency discussion that Members had addressed in the Committee that day 
and the previous one. The EU had only preliminary comments at that stage but was happy to 
continue the discussion in the future in a dedicated session. The EU would need more clarification 
for some of the ideas put forward  and would prefer to put these forward in a dedicated session 
rather in the day's meeting. She wanted to flag some questions  on the enquiry point. It was not 
clear to her whether the paper  was talking about the missions in Geneva  as the enquiry points, or 
whether Brazil had something broader in view, such as enquiry points for the general public to 
know more about RTAs which wa s also an idea that had been floated. The EU would welcome 
clarification on that point. Also on early announcements , which was something that the EU took 
seriously, she wondered about the background and why Brazil had put it forward because in the 
EU's vie w the Secretariat already reported on what it had received by putting the information in 
the database which was publicly available. She also wondered about the language in the paper on 
what treatment had been given to information provided by notifying Memb ers, whether Brazil had 
anything particular in mind for that as it was not clear to the EU. The EU would be happy to have a 
closer look at the paper and engage in future.  
1.144.   The representative of China  thanked Brazil for its proposal which China would study 
carefully. In an effort to improve the Transparency Mechanism Members should discuss how the 
CRTA and the CTD had implemented Decision WT/L/671  as there were two WTO bodies in charge. 
Regarding the enquiry point, China shared the same questions as Guatemala  and the European 
Union and he asked for further  clarification in that regard.  
1.145.   The representative of Brazil  thanked Members for their comments. He said that these were 
just initial ideas to see how Members could deal with the issue of the Transparency Mech anism. He 
knew that first there was the issue of the forum but in Brazil's view one thing did not exclude the 
other as the CRTA had the experience of the actual implementation of the Transparency 
Mechanism. He did not know if delegates in the room were par t of the NGR. He did not think that WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 25 - 
 
 starting discussions in the CRTA exclude d the possibility of discussing them elsewhere. Brazil's 
preference would be to evaluate the situation and see what ideas came  out of the discussions . In 
response to the questions raised on  the enquiry point , indeed this was something related to 
procedure and was a way to improve contact with the Secretariat and with Members in order to 
optimize the period used for the preparation of a factual presentation . It was something that cou ld 
help Members to speed up the process and was something that Brazil was open to considering. 
One of the points raised by Colombia was whether it concerned  a contact point in the mission or in 
capital. It was up to the Member to decide. However, the objec tive would be to facilitate the 
contact of Members and the Secretariat with the parties to the agreement. Regarding the issue of 
the different bodies as raised by China, Brazil agreed and was open to evaluating the discussions 
on both fora in the house and  allow for an interaction between Members  to analyse the 
agreements. For the sake of time he would not go into further detail. Brazil was beginning  the 
discussion and was open to consider ing other ideas . An informal dedicated session could be useful 
to add ress some of the issues presented in the previous Agenda item.  
1.146.   The Chairman  said that there were connections among many of the issues discussed that 
day and the previous day.  He would talk to Members in his consultations about how the debate 
could be struc tured  and see if  Members want ed to have a more specific discussion or a broader 
one. On the issue of the appropriate forum , he was not going to solve it, but he regretted that 
Members often ended up in a situation where they could not agree on a forum. The re was almost 
never duplication. In the WTO where there were similar discussions in different fora usually the 
result was that the issue was not discussed anywhere and that was unfortunate. It was a little bit 
easier to draw the line between the CRTA and t he NGR since the NGR was a negotiating group and 
the improvement and implementation of the Transparency Mechanism  was not really a negotiating 
issue. To draw the lines could be complicated and Members had to think about how much time 
they wanted to spend o n that and how much time they wanted to spend on the issues themselves. 
He would come back to Members on the issue and was open to ideas from  Brazil on taking the 
paper forward . The Committee would revert to it . 
H. OTHER BUSINESS  
1.147.   The Chairman  inform ed Memb ers of two issues. The first concern ed technical cooperation 
activities conducted in 2016 in the area of RTAs. Members would  recall that at the Committee's 
32nd Session, it had been agreed to regularly review the RTA -related technical assistance activities  
undertaken by the Secretariat. Thus, the Secretariat would  give an  account of activities carried out 
in 2016 and planned for 2017.  
1.148.   A representative of the Secretariat  said that as Members could  see from the table that had 
been available electronically fo r the meeting, the CRTA Secretariat had conducted 15 technical 
assistance (TA) activities in 2016. Fourteen activities  were scheduled for 2017, seven of  which 
were intermediate level regional activities (formally known as regiona l trade policy courses), th ree 
were Geneva -based applied trade policy courses, two were Geneva -based thematic co urses, one 
was an e -learning online course  and one wa s a regional seminar for Arab and Middle East 
countries.  Most of the activities indicated in the table ha d been financ ed by the WTO regular 
budget, donations by Member countries, or by the Global Trust Fund for activities under the D DA. 
The objectives of the activities var ied from raising awareness on RTA dynamics in global trade, to 
training and advising government offic ials on WTO rules and procedures on RTAs, including the 
Transparency Mechanism  since 2006 . Most TA activities were addressed to participants from broad 
regional groupings. Their underlying objective was to contribute to the development of RTAs that 
were be neficial to their members and that complement ed the objectives of the WTO. Since Doha, 
the RTA Section ha d been entrusted with the additional TA task of clarifying issues related to the 
negotiations on RTA rules to WTO Members requesting such aid.  
1.149.   The repr esentative of Guatemala  thanked the Secretariat for organizing the courses 
provided. Guatemala had been a beneficiary of many of them and according to internal reporting 
these courses  had been qualified as some of the best in the WTO. The United States had  
mentioned how the participation of developing countries could be increased in the work of the 
Committee and in the work done there and this was one of the best ways to do so. There had been 
a rise in the participation of officials in capital after having participating in the courses and she 
encourage d the Secretariat to continue the activities.  WT/REG/M/ 83 
 
- 26 - 
 
 1.150.   The representative of the United States  said this was useful information and wondered if a 
sentence or two on this could be added to the Annual Report  to recognize the activities .  
1.151.   The Chairman  inform ed Members  of the dates scheduled for the CRTA's meetings in 2017. 
These would  be held on 3 -4 April, and in June, September and November, depending on workload. 
Exact dates would  be communicated when available.  The Chair man said he would continue 
consultations on several issues, including  paragraph 28, on the discussion held the day before and 
the discussions held in the day's meeting. He could not talk to everyone but would talk to 
delegations that he knew were engaged a nd active in the Committee. He said his door was always 
open so Members could contact him.  
1.152.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________