RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/91  
 
17 January 2019 
(19-0276) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Ninety -First Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 19 NOVEMBER 2018 
Chairm an: Ambassador Julian Braithwaite  (United Kingdom)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The 91st Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/1 6 dated 8 October 2018.  
1.2.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that under Other Business  he intended to inform the 
Committee o f technical assistance activities conducted by the Secretariat on RTAs in 2018 and those 
planned for 2019 ; and of the proposed schedule for CRTA meetings for 2019 . He also proposed that 
items F and G be considered before item C, given that the delegation of Armenia would be tied up 
the following day on the meeting that would consider its Trade Policy Review.    
1.3.  The Committee took note  of these points, including items under Other Business , and adopted  
the following Agenda:  
A. Adoption  of the Agenda  
B. Implem entation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism - Status Report on the 
Committee's Work: 
I. Early Announcements  
II. Notifications received pursuant to GATT Article XXIV:7(a), and GATS 
Article V:7(a)  
III. Non-notified RTAS  
IV. Status on the Preparation of Factual Presentations (including delays in the 
receipt of data and comments)  
C. Communication from the European Union – European Union follow -up questions 
to LAIA Member countries  
D. Communication from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay  
(WT/COMTD/W/238) in reply to questions from the United States – Request from 
the United States  
E. Implementation Reports under paragraph 15 of the Transparency Mechanism for 
RTAs  
F. Consideration of  Regional Trade Agreements : 
I. The Economic Partnership  Agreement  between the European Union  and 
Ghana, goods   
G. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements involving WTO non-Members  
I. Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, goods and services  
II. Treaty on Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the Eurasian Economic 
Union, goods and services  
III. Treaty on Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the Eurasian Economic Union,  
goods and services  
H. Adoption of the Annual Report (201 8) of the CRTA to th e General Council  
I. Other Business  
 WT/REG/M/91  
 
- 2 - 
 
  B. IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RTA TRANSPARENCY M ECHANISM - STATUS RE PORT ON 
THE COMMITTEE'S WORK  
1.4.  The Chairman  updated the Committee on the consideration of the Gulf Cooperation Council 
(GCC) Customs Union . He had continued to hold consultations with interested Members and with th e 
GCC, but at that  stage he did not have a solution to propose. He assure d Members that he intend ed 
to continue his consultations with all interested parties and report back to the Committee.  
1.5.  The rep resentative of the United States  indicated his delegation's appreciat ion for  the Chair 's 
efforts to provide clarity to Members on the status of the extremely overdue review of the GCC 
Customs Union agreement. He reiterate d the U.S.' strong desire to complete the review of the 
agreement in an expeditious manner, and call ed upon the GCC Members to provide the Committee 
with a clear timeline as to  when to expect responses to its written questions, and when the 
Committee would ha ve an opp ortunity to review the agreement. He asked for the GCC Factual 
Presentation to be placed on the agenda at the CRTA's first meeting in 2019. If that was not 
acceptable to the GCC members, the U.S. would like to hear directly from them as to why Members 
should continue to delay the review of the Agreement. He noted that the Agreement had entered 
into force in 2001 and was to be fully implemented close to a decade ago. He did not understand 
how Members c ould fully implement a Customs Union, but not be capable of participating in a 
transparency review that last ed less than an hour . 
1.6.  The representative of  the European Union  expressed appreciation for the Chair's efforts on this 
matter . The GCC differ ed from the other dual ly notified agreements. The EU  had a long -standing 
position on the GCC agreement and  looked forward to its examination at a subsequent meeting.  
B.I  Early Announcements  
1.7.  The Chairman  noted that a total of 38  early announcements were currently on the WTO 
website , not counting those which had been subsequently notified. He thanked Members that had 
submitted information in line with the requirements of the RTA Transparency Mechanism  (TM) and 
encouraged others to do so. He reminded Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the 
status of  early announcements.  
B.II Notifications received pursuant to GATT Article  XXIV:7(a), and GATS  Article  V:7(a)   
1.8.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that one notification  had been received since the last 
meeting and before distribution of the airgram for th at Session , that of the Free Trade Agreement 
between Turkey and Singapore, goods and services (circulated in document WT/REG392/N/1 and 
S/C/N/916) . 
B.III  Non-Notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/136)  
1.9.  The Chairman  recalled that a n updated list of non -notified RTAs had b een circulated on 
12 Novem ber in document WT/REG/W/13 6 and contained 79 RTAs issued in factual presentations 
up to 12 November 2018.  As noted at the beginning of the document, that list did not take into 
account a communication received on 1 November from the delegation of Uruguay addressed to the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) which had not yet been circulated. One RTA, between 
Turkey and Singapore, had been removed from the list.  
1.10.   The representative of the Uruguay  noted that, a s indicated in docu ment WT/REG/W/13 6, 
Uruguay,  on behalf of the member countries of the Latin American Integration association (LAIA) , 
had submitted on 1 November 2018 a communication on the instruments concluded under the  
Enabling Clause for the period 1980-2016. He thanked the Secretariat and the CTD for having 
included this note in the document. Nevertheless, he reiterated what ha d been said in previous  CRTA 
meetings , namely  that the consideration of RTAs signed under the Enabling Clause w as of relevance 
to the regular meetings of the CTD, for which a next session was to take place within two days.   
1.11.   The representative of Argentina  reiterated  his delegation's  disagreement with the inclusion in 
the list of non-notified RTAs, RTAs concluded in the framework of the Treaty of Montevideo 1980 , 
since these had already been notified to the WTO in accordance with the  TM, as  indicated in 
documents WT/COMTD/W/217 and WT/COMTD/W/220. In line with what h ad been stated by WT/REG/M/91  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Uruguay, he reiterated that these RTAs were to be consi dered in the CTD since these were 
instruments concluded under the auspices of the Enabling Clause and were thus under its 
competence , as provided for in Section E paragraph 18 of the TM.   
1.12.   The representative of the United States  looked forward to reviewing the LAIA notifications or 
documents referred to earlier. He  drew M embers ' attention to the lack of progress in improving the ir 
notification record with respect to their obligations under the GATT XXIV and GATS V.  Looking  at 
where the Committee had stood a year ago, he noted that WT/REG/W/122 had listed 69 non -notified 
RTAs, while at present there were  79. The Committee should  have been reducing this number, not 
adding to it. Clearly, the Committee had collectively failed in addressing this systemic problem. While 
the U.S.  appreciate d the Chair 's efforts to consult, there was little that c ould be done at that level 
without a lso a concerted effort among Members to take their obligations more seriously and for all 
to take action to ensure that others we re doing the same. The U.S.  remain ed convinced that unless 
there were real consequences, the Committee  was not going to be able to improve  compliance even 
with these most basic obligations.  He expect ed in the next year to be moving some of these 
agreements  onto the formal agenda, where he would be seeking updates from the Parties to specific 
agreements, asking why they had not yet been notified and if there was any information regarding 
their current implementation status. The U.S.  might  also consider making written submissions of 
these questions for WTO -wide distribution, to ensure that there was a clear understanding across 
the Membership of this problem.    
1.13.   The representative of Paraguay  thanked Uruguay for his presentation. Her delegat ion shared 
Argentina's disagreement of including LAIA RTAs in the list appearing  in WT/REG/W/136.  Paraguay  
echoed the  concern of  addressing  these RTAs in this Committee and not in the CTD . 
1.14.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  echoed the disagreement 
expressed by previous speakers  of including LAIA RTAs in the list and reiterated that these RTAs 
should be dealt with in the CTD.   
1.15.   The representative of  Brazil  supported the statements made by the representatives of 
Uruguay, Argen tina, Paraguay and Venezuela.  
1.16.   Echoing  the comment made by the representative of the United States, the representative of  
Japan  stated that  one of the important functions of the TM was to consider or review any substantive 
RTA concluded outside the WTO fra mework based on Factual Presentations by the Secretariat. In 
this regard the RTA notification was an importan t first step to start the TM in order for Members to 
understand what had happened outside this house. Members should implement these obligations 
appropriately.  
1.17.   The representative of  Cuba reiterated  Argentina's disagreement , as supported by previous 
speakers.  
1.18.   Reflecting interventions by  previous speakers from Latin America, t he representative of  the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia  disagreed with the inclusion of LAIA agreements in the list presented 
to this Committee since these RTAs were to be discussed in the CTD.  
1.19.   The representative of  the Republic of Moldova  noted that due to the Secretariat 's involvement 
in the process of prep aring and submitting n otifications and f actual presentations th e TM remained 
the sustainable pillar of th e Committee. T here was however s till space for improvement  in the 
notification process and practice in the Committee especially in the last year. She e ncouraged all 
Members to continue their efforts in providing full and comprehensive notifications and the required 
information in order to reach the  higher level of transparency  that all Members hoped to have in the 
Committee.  
1.20.   The representative of the European Union  expressed appreciation for the LAIA notification 
that apparently was forthcoming. She looke d forward to reviewing it in detail and reverting  to it. The 
EU believed that these notifications raised  issues of systemic importance of relevance to  both the 
CRTA and the CTD ; the TM was the responsibility of both Committee s. The EU st ood ready to engage 
in concerted efforts by Members in whatever format to make progress on non -notified RTAs . WT/REG/M/91  
 
- 4 - 
 
  B.IV STATUS ON THE PREPARATION OF FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS (INCLUDING DELAYS 
IN THE RECEIPT OF DATA AND COMMENTS ) (WT/REG/W/137) 
1.21.   As regards the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, the 
Chairman  indicated that  in the case of RTAs involving WTO Members only there were currently 
29 RTAs for which a factual presentation had  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 proce dures. Thus, factual 
presentations on a further 25 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 R TAs notified since the adoption of  the TM had been 
sent to the relevant Parties.  
1.22.   Regarding the backlog due to late receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting 
of factual presentations and comments on factual presentations, he had  continued consultations with 
a number of delegations and hope d that delegations  would provide the missing information as soon 
as possible. An updated list of all such RTAs ha d been recently circulated in document  
WT/REG/W/137.  
1.23.   A representative of the Secretariat  informed that the situation as regards RTAs involving WTO 
Members was as follows: For GCC -Singapore , services,  no comments ha d been received.  For 
Chile-Thailand , goods and services,  comments had been received and were being incorporated into 
the factual presentation. For Panama's accession to the CACM , goods , comments had been received 
for the factual presentation , but confirmation  was still pending from Guatemala on the general 
incidence paper.  For Ecuador's accession to EU -Peru-Colombia , goods and servi ces, comments had 
been received and were being incorporated.  For EFTA -Georgia, goods and services , the Secretariat 
had just received final comments which w ould be incorporated into the factual presentation.  For 
Pacific Alliance , goods and services, and the  EU-SADC , goods , the factual presentations were being 
drafted . For Armenia -Kazakhstan , and Korea -ASEAN , goods the Secretariat was drafting the factual 
presentations.  For China -Georgia , goods and services , comments had been received from China 
only. For the  GCC, goods , the Secretariat was awaiting responses to Members' questions.  For 
EU-Cameroon, EU -Papua New Guinea and Fiji, and Korea -India, all goods , data was not yet 
complete . For ASEAN -Japan goods , data was due by 16 January 2019 . For Turkey -Singapore , goods 
and services , data was due by the 4 February 2019 . For Peru-Honduras , goods and services , data 
was due by 7 March 2019 . 
1.24.   In the case of RTAs involving non -members,  for CEFTA Enlargement , goods, the factual 
presentation ha d been sent to the Parties and  comments were awaited. For the CIS Agreement , 
goods, and EAEU -Viet Nam , goods and services , the factual presentations were being drafted . For 
the following agreements data was not complete: EFTA -Lebanon, Turkey -Syria, Ukraine -Azerbaijan, 
Ukraine -Turkmenistan, Common Economic Zone, Russian Federation -Turkmenistan and the GAUM 
Agreement .  
1.25.   Finally, there was a list of agreements that were not yet in force for all of the parties , namely 
the EU-Central America and EFTA-Philippines  agreements , for which entry into force was still pending 
for Iceland . As per the procedures, t he Secretariat would start the transparency process once  it had 
confirmation from all parties that the agreement was in force for all of them.  More details were 
available in  the document WT/REG/W/137.  
1.26.   The representative of  China  thanked the Secretariat for prepar ing this document that was 
very useful for improving transparency. He confirmed having received in the previous month the 
draft factual presentation prepared by the S ecretariat for China -Georgia FTA . China  had worked very 
closely with Georgia to finalize the comments. He had just received joint comments  from capital, 
agreed by both China and Georgia; these would be submitted to the Secretariat later that day.  
C. COMMU NICATION FROM THE EU ROPEAN UNION – EUROP EAN UNION FOLLOW -UP 
QUESTIONS TO LAIA ME MBER COUNTRIES (WT/R EG/W/124)  
1.27.   The representative of the European Union  indicated that the aim of requesting  this item to be 
placed i n the agenda was to recall the outstanding replies from LAIA countries to the EU follow -up 
questions submitted last year in October and circulated as document WT/REG/W/124. The EU would WT/REG/M/91  
 
- 5 - 
 
  like to receive updated information and looked forward to receiving the outstanding rep lies. Since  
its concerns of a systemic nature ha d not yet been clarified, it  was important  to continue raising the 
issue both in the CRTA and CTD. More generally, the EU believe d that further conversations b etween  
Members  were needed to clarify the relevan t sections of the TM – paragraphs 14 to 17 - regarding 
what kind of transparency and examination process  was needed for RTAs undergoing "modifications" 
and "changes" to an already implemented RTA. She noted that there were a number of substantial 
RTAs in the pipeline which potentially f ell under this category.  On the question of venue for discussion 
of the LAIA agreements, as noted in the past,  the EU  was open to discuss these issues also - but 
not exclusively - at the CTD and also open to what format  was chosen to do that .  
1.28.   The representative of  Cuba, in its  position as President of the LAIA Committee of 
Representatives for the second part of 2018  and on behalf of LAIA member st ates, informed the 
Committee that LAIA countries were coordinating and working on the replies to the EU questions. 
They would be included in a new communication that would be submitted to the CTD.  
1.29.   The representative of the United States  appreciate d the EU raising these questions again,  as 
the U.S. was also interested in receiving and reviewing the responses provided by LAIA m embers. 
The questions the EU had posed in its submission went to the heart of the issue  the Committee had 
been discussing for quite some time , namely  getting a very clear and detai led picture of the LAIA 
RTA network, and improving  understanding of these regi onal and bilateral agreements. He  
encourage d the LAIA members to respond to these questions expeditiously.  He appreciated the 
update provided by the LAIA Chair, but he wanted  to see responses provided in the Committee  in 
which the  questions had been submitted.  There was the question of an important precedent in that 
and there needed to be  some consistency in how these conversations were carried out.  
D. COMMUNICATION FROM AR GENTINA , BRAZIL, CHILE, MEX ICO, PARAGUAY AND 
URUGUAY (WT/COMTD/W/ 238) IN REPLY TO QUESTION S FROM THE UNITED ST ATES 
(WT/REG/W/126, WT/CO MTD/W/232) – REQUEST  FROM THE UNITED STA TES 
1.30.   The representative of the United States  thanked the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 
Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay for their responses to the U.S.' written questions and for their 
continued engagement  in the ongoing effort to clarify the understanding of the network of LAIA 
agreements and their relationship to WTO rules and obligations.  These delegations had indicated 
that they would prefer to discuss the contents of the document WT/COMTD/N/53 in the CTD, and 
the U.S.  would be providing some responses to the answers received in the next meeting o f the CTD  
as well . As he had mentioned previously, it was important for the CRTA to be kept informed of these 
ongoing discussions, as they relate d to Members ' interpretations and implementation of the TM 
which unfortunately continue d to be spread a cross tw o separate Committees. He believe d it was 
important that there was a uniform understanding of the TM and its consistent implementation 
across the WTO.  In particular, the responses provided in WT/COMTD/W/238 had raised some 
significant issues that were relevant for the CRTA to consider and he wanted to raise those at the 
meeting  for Members ' consideration. He hoped that there would be coordination and cooperation 
among colleagues responsible for the CTD so to ensure that decisions or developments in that 
Committee d id not adversely affect the CRTA's work.   
1.31.   He drew Members ' attention to the response provided to question 1.1 of WT/COMTD/W/238. 
The initial question had sought to clarify what instrument or instruments were intended to be notified 
by document WT/COMTD/N/53. He believe d the response had significant systemic relevance for the 
Committee. First, the five submitting Members had clarified that their intent was t o notify a 
modification to an existing RTA.  Second, the y had asserted that the initial notification of the 1980 
Treaty of Montevideo cover ed the last 38 years worth  of separate legal instruments negotiated and 
concluded among the LAIA Members, even those t hat had not been  not party to the original Treaty 
in 1980.  The response to question 1.1 had clearly articulat ed three separate categories of 
agreements between the Parties. It had reference d the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo and clearly set 
out that the Treaty  itself only include d provisions that describe d how future bilateral and regional 
agreements m ight be carried out.  The response  had also reference d what LAIA call ed "Partial Scope " 
agreements, which had been  subsequently negotiated between bilateral and re gional partners.  It 
was in these so -called 'Partial Scope ' agreements where the terms and conditions of preferential 
tariff treatment we re set out and put into effect. Third, the response  had reference d 2016 
modifications to those Partial Scope agreements.  The response had conclude d with the assertion 
that the only agreement subject to notification as an RTA was the Treaty of Montevideo, and that 
both the so -called Partial Scope agreements and subsequent changes to those agreements should WT/REG/M/91  
 
- 6 - 
 
  all, in the view o f the Members submitting the response, be considered modifications of the Treaty 
of Montevideo.  The U.S.  had noted on many previous occasions that the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo 
did not itself establish any specific tariff preferences for any specific good.  Accordingly, the existence 
of this political framework d id not absolve LAIA Members from notifying as RTAs the agreements 
formed pursuant to the Treaty of Montevideo which d id establish the specific preferential tariff 
treatment that LAIA members provide d to each other.  He illustrate d this point using the first example 
found in document WT/COMTD/ N/53, the agreement between Brazil and Uruguay referred to as 
AAP.CE.2.77.  The Treaty of Montevideo d id not provide for any specific tariff treatment for any goods  
traded between Brazil and Uruguay, and there were no annexes or schedules associated with the 
Treaty that provide d for tariff reduction or elimination between these two parties.  However, the 
agreement signed between Brazil and Uruguay, AAP.CE.2, had set out the initial establishment of 
preferential tariff treatment in detailed annexes providing for tariff reductions between the two 
parties. This agreement then in turn had been  modified a further 77 times.  The parties to this 
agreement were asserting, in do cument WT/COMTD/W/238, that they had fulfilled their 
transparency obligations to other WTO Members by notifying a purely political statement on the front 
end, and a minor modification to existing tariff treatment 35 years later on the back end.  The U.S.  
would again assert that the so -called "Partial Scope " agreements trigger ed the notification and 
transparency called for under GATT XXIV, the Enabling Clause and the RTA TM, and it could not  
accept the premise that these agreements should be considered subseq uent modifications to an 
existing agreement.  Regardless of the political framework under which these so -called "Partial 
Scope " agreements had been  conceived of and negotiated, it was the actual substance of those 
agreements, and the preferential access tha t they establish ed between the p arties, that result ed in 
the WTO notification and transparency obligations. He asked if Chile was in a position to clarify for 
Members how it intend ed to notify the CPTTP Agreement, as an RTA that provide d preferential 
access, or as a subsequent modification of the Trans -Pacific Strategic and Economic Partnership or 
"P4" Agreement. You could see how this paralleled between the positions taken. The U.S. believed  
that the TM had not been intended for optional  use. If this was the direction that the Organization 
was going  in, then it would amount to losses in transparency for all – further eroding the utility of 
this body.   
1.32.   Referring to the statement just made, t he representative of the European Union  recalled that 
this issue was closely  linked to the EU questions on LAIA notifications . This  highlighted the issue of 
the Treaty of Montevideo being a political agreement and not providing tariff preference s, and  
therefore could not be seen as the "mother agreement" . The EU  looked forward to receiving replies 
to its questions, which had pointed to very similar issues. The EU also had a different point of view 
on this and the Committee needed to continue these discussions.  
1.33.   The representative of Canada  supported the comments made regarding the need for further 
discussion in the CRTA on the type  of modification of an RTA  that would trigger a notification  
requirement under paragraph 3 of the TM versus the subsequent modification of an RTA which would 
be in line with the TM's paragraph 14 and its subsequent paragraphs.  
E. I MPLEMENTATION REPORTS UNDER PARAGRA PH 15 OF THE TRANSPARENCY 
MECHANISM FOR RTAS   
1.34.   The Chairman  stated that o nce a year a list of all implementation reports issued during that 
year was included on the Age nda in order to give Members the opportunity to comment on these 
reports. An updated schedule for the submission of such reports had been  distributed by the 
Secretariat in document WT/REG/W/131 at the beginning of the year. As of 13 March 2018, 
implementat ion reports had been  due for 134 RTAs, and the end of implementation for seven  RTAs 
was in 2018. The end of implementation  for a total of 108 RTAs was from 2019 onwards, while for 
two RTAs the end of implementation  year was not available. He regret ted to inform Members that 
no implementation reports ha d been received in 2018 . It was his hope that Members w ould 
endeavour to comply with this obligation so that all Members benefit ted from transparency as 
envisaged in the Mechanism.  
F. CONSIDERATION OF REGI ONAL TRADE AGREEMENT S  
ITEM F.I  
(The minutes of the consideration of th is Agreement are being distributed as a separate document.)  
 WT/REG/M/91  
 
- 7 - 
 
  G. CONSIDERATION OF R EGIONAL TRADE AGREEM ENTS INVOLVING WTO N ON-
MEMBERS  
ITEM G.I 
(The minutes of the c onsideration of th is Agreement are being distributed as a separate document.)  
 
ITEM G.II 
(The minutes of the consideration of th is Agreement are being distributed as a separate document.)  
 
ITEM G.III 
(The minutes of the consideration of th is Agreement are being distributed as a separate document.)  
 
H. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT (201 8) OF THE CRTA TO THE  GENERAL COUNCIL 
(WT/REG/W/ 135 AND RD/RTA/51 )  
1.35.   The Chairman  stated that a  draft of this report had been  distributed in document 
WT/REG/W/135. Comments from the United States on the report had been  distributed in room 
document RD/RTA/51  and RD/RTA/51 /Rev.1 . He suggested that the Committee move into informal 
mode to discuss the proposed changes to the Annual Report.  
1.36.   Back in formal mode, the Chairman  noted that suggestions made during the informal mode 
would be integrated into a revised draft annual report . Members had up to Thursday , 22 November 
to propose any additional changes. Once the deadline was passed, the Committee would either 
reconvene or adopt the report under a silent procedure. The Committee agreed  with that way of 
proceeding .  
1.37.   Following the incorporation of proposed changes by Members, as reflected in RD/RTA/5 2 and 
RD/RTA/5 2/Rev.1, the Committee r econvened on 29 November in formal mode  and adopted  the 
Annual Report.1  
I. OTHER BUSINESS   
1.38.   The Chairman  wished to inform the Committee of technical assistance activities conducted by 
the Secretariat on RTAs. He recalled that at the Committee's 32nd Session, it had been agreed to 
regularly review the RTA related technical assistance activities undertaken by the Secretariat. The 
Secretariat would give an account of activities carried out in 201 8 and planned for 201 9; details 
were available in room doc ument RD/RTA/50.  
1.39.   A representative of the Secretariat  said that the RTA Section had conducted 1 2 technical 
assistance activities in 201 8. In addition, the Secretariat had participated in a number of activities 
on RTAs funded by outside sources, such as conf erences on RTAs . Thirteen activities were scheduled 
for 201 9, seven of which were intermediate level regional activities (formally known as regional 
trade policy courses), three were Geneva -based applied trade policy courses, two were 
Geneva -based thematic  courses and one was an e -learning online course. Most of the activities 
indicated in the table had been financed by the WTO regular budget, donations by Members, or by 
the Global Trust Fund for activities under the DDA. The objectives of the activities li sted varied from 
raising awareness on RTA dynamics in global trade, to training and advising government officials on 
WTO rules and proc edures on RTAs, including the TM. Most techn ical assistance  activities were 
addressed to participants from broad regional  groupings. Their underlying objective was to 
contribute to the development of RTAs that were beneficial to their members and that complemented 
the objectives of the WTO. Since Doha, the RTA Section had been entrusted with the additional task 
of clarifying  issues related to the negotiations on RTA rules to WTO Members requesting such aid.  
1.40.   The Chairman  inform ed Members  of the dates scheduled for the CRTA's meetings in 201 9. 
These would  be held on 1-2 April, 17 -18 June, 16 -17 September and November , depending  on 
workload and the availability of the incoming Chair. Exact dates would be communicated to Members  
when available.  
__________  
                                                
1 The CRTA Annual Report (2018) is circulated as WT/REG/29.