WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/REG/M/67 
8 January 2013 
 (13-0047) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Sixty-seventh Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 20-21 NOVEMBER 2012 
 
Chairman:  Mr. F. Riegert (France) 
  
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The 67th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WT O/AIR/4013/Rev.1 dated 9 November 2012. 
2. The Chairman welcomed Members to the 67th Session of the CRTA and said he would raise 
two issues under "Other Business".  The first refe rred to technical cooperation activities conducted in 
2012 and those scheduled for 2013 in the area of regional trade agreements (RTAs); while the second 
referred to the proposed schedule for CRTA meeti ngs for 2013.  He asked Members whether they 
wished to include any additional points under "Other business". 
3. The representative of Ecuador queried two items  which were on the draft agenda, although 
not to address them under "Other business".  The dr aft agenda included one item entitled "Follow-up 
to the Eighth Ministerial Conference" and anothe r entitled "Recent working papers published on the 
WTO website".  The former issue had already been addressed at least at the last session and, as far as 
he recalled, had not been welcomed by all Member s.  He wished to know why this item had been 
placed on the agenda.  He also wished to know  the rationale for the second item "Recent working 
papers published on the WTO website".  Given that , under the rules of procedure, Members had the 
right to suggest items be placed on the draft age nda, he asked whether these items had been included 
at the request of a Member or at the Chair's initiative. 
4. The representative of Argentina supported Ecuador  on the follow-up to th e Eighth Ministerial 
Conference.  The relevance of this issue had alread y been discussed and he drew attention to the 2011 
CRTA Report (WT/REG/21), which mentioned the lack of consensus amongst Members on the 
proposals for the Eighth Ministerial Conference.  
5. The representative of the European Union stated the EU had requested an item for the agenda 
as the Chair had indicated in the last meeting of the Committee on the 18th of September. 
6. The representative of India echoed Ecuador's comme nt and added that it would be useful to 
specify in the agenda itself who the proponents were.  It would add to transparency in the Committee 
and would also be helpful for Memb ers in better understanding the agenda. 
7. The representative of China, like the others had some concerns and questions about the 
formulation of the agenda, specifically on item D, "Recent working papers published on the WTO 
website".  From a procedural point of view, he asked the Secretariat to explain the rationale of 
including this item and whether it was on its own initia tive or requested by Members.  If the latter, he 
asked if the relevant rules of procedure, in partic ular, rule 4 requiring a written request by the Member 
had been fulfilled.  WT/REG/M/67 
Page 2  
 
  8. The Chairman replied that it was a request by Australia which had been submitted in writing. 
9. The representative of Australia confirmed his delegation had requested the agenda item and 
was ready to discuss the issues raised when th e Committee came to that point of the Agenda. 
10. The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs  II. Euro-Mediterranean Association Ag reement between the European Union 
and Egypt, goods 
III.  Trade, Development and Coopera tion Agreement between the European 
Union and South Africa, goods  
IV. Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Jordan, goods  V. Free Trade Agreement between Peru and Chile, goods and services VI. Free Trade Agreement between Ne w Zealand and Malaysia, goods and 
services 
VII. Implementation Reports  under Paragraph 15 of the Transparency Mechanism 
for RTAs (TM) 
C. Follow up to the Eighth Ministerial Conference D. Recent Working Papers Pu blished on the WTO Website. 
E. Adoption of the Annual Report (2012)  of the CRTA to the General Council 
(WT/REG/W/71) 
F. Other business 
 11. The Chairman recalled that the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) had been 
granted observer status to the CRTA on an ad hoc basis and sought confirmation to extend an invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee' s next meeting.  It was so agreed. 
B. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
 
B.I. STATUS REPORT ON THE COMMITTEE 'S WORK - NON -NOTIFIED RTAS  
 12. Under this Agenda Item, the Chairman provided Members with an update on the 
implementation of the TM.  He informed them th at 35 early announcements had been posted on the 
WTO website (excluding those that had been subse quently notified).  He thanked those Members who 
had submitted information in line with the requireme nts of the TM and encouraged others to do the 
same.  He also reminded Members to inform the S ecretariat of any changes in the status of early 
announcements. 
13. With regard to the preparation of factual abst racts covering agreements in trade in goods for 
which an examination had already been completed,  he said that comments had been received from 
EFTA-FYROM and EFTA-Morocco and that the factua l abstracts had been posted on the RTA data 
base.  
14. With regard to the preparation of the factua l presentations under the remit of the CRTA, he 
said that in the case of RTAs involving only WTO Members, there were 56 RT As for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods an d services separately.  He recalled that at the 
Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Memb ers had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the TM.  Thus, factua l presentations on a further 43 RTAs involving 
non-Members were to be prepared, with priority fo r those RTAs notified since the adoption of the TM  WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 3 
 
 
  on 14 December 2006.  Data requests for RTAs notifie d since the adoption of the TM had been sent to 
the relevant parties.  
15. The Chairman then turned to the issue of non-notif ied RTAs.  He recalled that in an effort to 
promote the transparency of such RTAs, Members ha d agreed during the meeting held in June 2011 to 
circulate an updated list of non-notified RTAs, which ha d been verified by their parties as being in 
force.  The document had been recently circul ated as WT/REG/W/70 and contained 52 RTAs 
mentioned in factual presentations up to November 2012.   
16. The representative of Uruguay emphasized, w ith regard to document WT/REG/W/72 which 
listed all the non-notified agreem ents, that the Economic Complementarity Agreement No. 60 
between Uruguay and Mexico (No. 39) was cont ained in the biennial report for the period 
1 January 2004 to 31 December 2005 submitted by the Secretariat of the Latin American Integration 
Association (LAIA) to the WTO (document WT/C OMTD/59 dated 25 January 2007).  It was also 
contained in all of the documents submitted to the Secretariat, notably the Development Division, on 
4 October 2012.  He wished to place on the record the fact that this agreement had already been 
notified. 
17. The representative of Cuba expressed concer n about the list in the document mentioned by 
the Chair.  The LAIA representative to the WTO had provided all the appr opriate information in 
respect of such agreements signed within the LAIA framework.  This list included a series of 
agreements that had already been notified in the LAIA biennial reports.  He wanted this to be 
recorded in the minutes since Cuba  considered that the updates should not continue to include these 
agreements as non-notified agreements. 
18. The representatives of Argentina and Ecua dor endorsed the points made by Cuba. 
19. The Chairman took note of the points made a nd asked the Secretariat for clarification. 
20. The Secretariat understood from the interventi ons of the delegations of Uruguay, Cuba, 
Argentina and Ecuador, on the subject of the Ag reements under the LAIA that according to them 
these agreements had been notified to the WTO th rough the biennial reports submitted by the LAIA 
Secretariat.  Under the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs, all agreements notified following the 
Transparency Decision of 14 December 2006 fell under Sections C to G of the Transparency 
Mechanism and were subject to consideration in  the appropriate Committee of the WTO.  In 
accordance with the statements made, the Secretaria t would be in touch with the parties to the 
agreements concerned to request data in order to prepare factual presentations so that these 
Agreements - deemed as having b een notified under the Enabling Clause - could be considered in a 
dedicated session of the Committee on Trade and Devel opment.  All agreements notified prior to this 
date to the WTO were subject to procedures under Se ctions D to G of the Transparency Mechanism, 
and would require a factual abstract prepared by the Secretariat.  The S ecretariat was currently 
checking the number of agreements this procedure would entail, based on biennial reports submitted 
to the WTO, and including those submitted by the delegation of Urugua y to the Development 
Division on 4 October 2012. 
21. One other issue remained and would need to be clarified:  Some of th e Agreements concluded 
in the LAIA framework involved trade in services, which were not covered by the Enabling Clause.  
These agreements would remain non-notified until they  were notified to the WTO in accordance with 
the relevant provisions.   
22. In order to implement the procedures under the TM, and to clarify some of these issues, the 
Secretariat would be in touch with LAIA members concerned. WT/REG/M/67 
Page 4  
 
  23. The representative of Ecuador asked that the Secr etariat's statement be distributed in writing. 
24. The Chairman said that delegations would receive  the statement of the Secretariat in writing 
in the records of the meeting.  He then gave the floor to the Secretariat for further details on the 
situation with regard to the prep aration of factual presentations. 
25. A representative of the Secretariat provided fu rther details on the preparation of factual 
presentations.  She said that in the case of Agreemen ts between WTO Members, the situation was as 
follows:  in the case of four RTAs – US-Bahrain ; CAFTA-DR; US-Oman; and China-Singapore, (all 
goods and services) the factual presentations had been  sent to the parties in 2009, but no comments 
had been received.  The factual presentations of El Salvador, Honduras and Chinese Taipei, 
US-Korea, US-Colombia, and Japan-India, Japan-Peru, all goods and services, had been sent to the 
Parties for comments and would be considered at th e CRTA meeting in April next year.  The factual 
presentation of China-Costa Rica, goods and services had been sent to the Pa rties for comments, and 
would be considered at the CRTA meeting in J une next year.  For Guatemala-Chinese Taipei, 
Peru-Mexico, and Chile-Honduras, all goods and services, and India-Malaysia, services,  data had 
been received from the parties and the factual pre sentations were being draf ted.  For EFTA-Peru, 
goods, and EFTA-Ukraine, goods and services, date had been received from all Parties except 
Iceland. For the Dominican Republic-Central Amer ica, goods and services, data had been received 
from Costa Rica, Guatemala and Nicaragua and some data from the Dominican Republic and 
Honduras, but not submission had been received fro m El Salvador.  For Panama-Honduras, goods and 
services data had been received from Pa nama and some data from Honduras.  For  Chile-Guatemala, 
goods and services,  data had been received from Guatemala only.  For Peru-Panama, goods and 
services , data had been received from the Parties  and the Secretariat would shortly begin drafting this 
factual presentation.  For Korea-India, ser vices, data had been received from Korea and  some data 
from India.  For Korea-ASEAN, services, data had been received from Korea only.  For EFTA-Hong Kong China, goods and services, data was due by 14 December 2012.  For EFTA-Montenegro, goods, data was due by 7 January  2013.  For US-Panama, goods and services, 
data was due by 9 January 2013.  For Colomb ia-El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, goods and 
services, data was due by 18 January 2013.  For Ukraine-Russian Federation, Kyrgyz Republic-
Russian Federation, Georgia-Russian Federation, and Armenia-Russian Federation, all goods, data 
was due by 22 February 2013. For Russian Federa tion-Moldova, goods, data w as due by 25 February 
2013.  For the East African Community, ser vices, data was due by 1 March 2013. 
26. As for RTAs  involving non-Members, the situation was as follows: For ASEAN-China, 
services, the Factual Presentation had been sent to th e parties in February 2010, but no comments had 
been received.  For Iceland-Faeroe Islands, goods  and services, comments have been received but 
there was still some outstanding data from the F aeroe Islands.  For EU-Bosnia Herzegovina, 
EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey-Syria, CEFTA Enlargemen t, Ukraine-Azerbaijan,  Ukraine-Belarus, 
Ukraine-Tajikistan, Ukraine-Kazakhstan, Ukra ine-Turkmenistan, Ukraine-Uzbekistan, the 
Common Economic Zone, and EU-ESA, all goods, an d EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services, data 
was not complete.  For Australia-ASEAN-New Zeala nd, goods and services, data had been received 
from Australia and New Zealand only.  For Russi an Federation-Azerbaijan, Russian Federation-
Belarus, Russian Federation-Kazakhstan, and Russi an Federation-Tajikistan,  all goods, data was due 
by 28 March 2013. 
27. A third category concerned 5 agreements – ASEAN-Japan, EU-Cameroon, EU-Cote d'Ivoire, 
EFTA-Colombia, and EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, all goods.  The Secretariat's understanding was 
that not all the parties had ratified the respectiv e agreements yet.  The Secretariat would await 
confirmation of entry into force for all the parties before commencing the preparation of factual presentations.  She urged the parties to notif y the Secretariat when th eir respective agreement 
entered into force for all the parties and urged all Members to comply with the deadlines in order to 
adhere to the CRTA's work programme.   WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 5 
 
 
  28. The Chairman said that it was clear from the Se cretariat's statement that the Committee and 
the TM were at risk of significant slippage in its work programme of consideration of RTAs.  In large 
part this was due to Members failing to provide da te and comments but he understood there were also 
constraints on Secretariat's resources.  He exhorted members to make greater efforts in this regard.  
Since it was generally acknowledged that the TM had so far been a success, it was in the interest of all 
Members to ensure that deadlin es were respected and the work programme under the TM proceeded  
as planned.  He was confident he could rely in the co-operation of all Members in this regard. 
B.II. EURO -MEDITERRANEAN ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
EGYPT , GOODS  
B.II. (The minutes of the consideration of the Ag reement listed under agenda items B.II. is being 
distributed as a separate document). 
 
B.III. TRADE , DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION AGREEM ENT BETWEEN THE EU ROPEAN UNION AND 
SOUTH AFRICA , GOODS  
 
B.III. (The minutes of the consideration of the Ag reement listed under agenda items B.III. is being 
distributed as a separate document).  
B.IV.  FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TURKEY AND JORDAN , GOODS  
 B.IV. (The minutes of the consideration of the Ag reement listed under agenda  items B.IV. is being 
distributed as a separate document). 
 
B.V. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PERU AND CHILE , GOODS AND SERVICES  
B.V. (The minutes of the consideration of the Ag reement listed under agenda  items B.V. is being 
distributed as a separate document). 
 
B.VI. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND AND MALAYSIA , GOODS AND SERVICES  
 B.VI. (The minutes of the consideration of the Ag reement listed under agenda items B.VI. are being 
distributed as a separate document). 
 
B.VII. IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS UNDER PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM FOR 
RTAS  
 29. Under Item B.VII, the Chairman said that at the end of the RTA's implementation period, the 
parties were required by paragraph 15 of the TM  to submit to the WTO a short written report on the 
realization of liberalization commitments in the RTA as originally notified.  Thus far, no such reports 
had been received from Members.  The Secretariat had issued recently a document (JOB/REG/3) following informal discussions held on the basis of the original document (JOB/REG/1).  He said that 
at an informal meeting in the previous week, Memb ers had reiterated the need to balance transparency 
and burdensome requirements in the submission of implementation reports.  Suggestions made by 
Members would be incorporated in a document to be  issued by the Secretar iat.  In addition, the 
European Union had volunteered to submit a mock implementation report for one of its RTAs which 
could be used for further discussion on this issue.  
30. The representative of the European Union thanked the Secretariat for the work done so far on 
the paper and for the very useful discussion on the 13th of November at the dedicated informal 
meeting.  He reiterated the EU's preference for a standa rd reporting template to be used by all parties.  
However, as could be further discussed, such temp lates could also be accompanied by guidelines to WT/REG/M/67 
Page 6  
 
  cover all possible scenarios.  He confirmed the EU's  readiness to volunteer for a trial report and would 
inform the Secretariat accordingly.  The initial id ea was to choose an agreement covering both goods 
and services, but needed a reasonable timeframe for delivering the report as this reporting exercise required the involvement of several actors.  He requested an up-dated document along the lines of 
document JOB/REG/3 reflecting the different positions of Members before the submission of the trial 
report.  This would be helpful for the preparation of such a report.  
31. The representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat for its continued work and also 
the European Union for volunteering to submit the mock report.  He looked forward to continue 
discussions on operationalizing this compone nt of the transpar ency mechanism. 
32. The representative of Argentina, stated that, as a complement to the informal session, his 
capital had submitted a number of points for considera tion in the new Secretariat report.  Paragraph 15 
of the Transparency Mechanism provided for the subm ission of a short report on the realization of the 
liberalization commitments, and the succinct nature of  the information should therefore be taken into 
consideration.  With regard to paragraph 6.4 in the Job document,  on information on trade protection 
measures in RTAs that the parties consider rele vant, it should be determin ed whether an attempt 
would be made to incorporate RTA provisions on trade protection measures or whether the intention 
was for the report to include the type and number of measures taken by parties during the implementation period.  Point 3.2 stated that the report would include data on inward and outward 
FDI at the end of implementation of the agreement.  It would be useful to know the ultimate objective 
of including such information. 
C. FOLLOW UP TO THE EIGHTH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE  
33. The Chairman recalled that during the CRTA meeting in June 2012 he had encouraged 
Members with an interest in systemic issues to make submissions for discussion in the CRTA.  He 
understood that the delegation of the EU wished  to make an intervention in this regard. 
 
34. The representative of the European Union welc omed the opportunity for collective reflection 
on the relationship between RTAs and the multilateral trading system as requested in the Chairman's 
Concluding Statement at the 8th WTO Ministerial Conference.  The EU was ready to begin a process of reflection on the systemic implications of RTAs  for the multilateral trading system and believed 
there was considerable scope for progressing.  As a starting point, he did not believe that it necessary 
to choose between multilateral liberalization and RTAs.   
35. For the EU, strengthening the multilateral tradi ng system remained the first and foremost 
priority.  It was the most effective means of e xpanding and managing trade for the benefit of all. 
Although the multilateral route was preferable for its  effectiveness and non-discriminatory nature, he 
reiterated that the multilateral and the regional sy stems could be complementary in pursuing an 
ambitious trade policy.   In this context the EU thanked the Secretariat for the recent Staff working 
papers focusing on the implications of the RTAs in  four specific areas (services, market access, IPR, 
and anti-dumping).  These papers represented a first st ep towards the definition of a better theoretical 
baseline of the implication of RTAs for the multinati onal system.  It would be useful to identify first 
the most relevant issues that could be discussed during dedicated future sessions.  These sessions could be structured on the basis of presentations pr epared by the Secretaria t on each identified topic 
followed by points for discussion.  In this manner, it would be possible to define the field of analysis 
to be undertaken for each relevant area.  As al ready mentioned at the previous meeting, it was 
important to analyze topics as rules of origin and th e administrative capacity needed to participate in 
bilateral and multilateral negotiations.  The EU also considered it relevant to  assess the presence of 
competition rules in RTAs.  In this respect, the EU  would welcome some theoretical work that could 
lead to better quantifying the presence of competiti on policy in RTAs.  In general, it was necessary to 
undertake some work on areas of RTAs which we re not part of the WTO rulebook and where  WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Members seemed to find it necessary to negotiate bilaterally.  In a ddition to competition policy, this 
was also the case, for example, for St ate owned enterprises and investment. 
36. The representative of Australia thanked the EU  for its ongoing thinking about how to take 
forward some of the important guidance given by a number of Ministers in MC8.  Australia had 
drawn Members attention to the Chair's summary from MC8 at an earlier meeting of the CRTA in 
2012 and remained highly interested in discussing th ese important systemic issues in the Committee.  
The EU had identified some interesting issues, on which his delegation would reflect further.   
37. The representative of Pakistan echoed fully the views presented by the EU and supported by 
Australia. 
38. The representative of Canada thanked the EU  for introducing this item.  As some had 
recalled, at the Eighth Ministerial Conference in Gene va, Canada's Trade Minister was one of many to 
underscore the importance of enha ncing the WTO's role with respect to the increasing number of 
RTAs.  Although Members might have different views with respect to the WTO's role vis-à-vis  the 
RTAs, considering the systemic implications of  RTAs for the multilateral trading system was 
specified in the mandate of the CRTA.  Canada stood ready to engage all Members in enhanced 
discussions on the systemic implications of RTA's in the CRTA including those mentioned by the EU.  
His delegation would be following this  agenda item in this regard.   
39. The representative of the Unite d States stated that his dele gation stood ready to engage 
positively in a discussion in the Committee on the in teraction between RTAs and the multilateral 
trading system (MTS).  The United States had expressed consistently and at previous occasions in the Committee its interest in looking at the impact that protecti ng agricultural markets through RTAs had 
on the pace of multilateral liberalization in agriculture in before and after snapshots of the effects of 
various aspects of RTAs, indicating that there were a number of potential topics of interest in this regard - development being one of them.  In ge neral, such snapshots could help focus on positive 
lessons to be learned from the real world effect  of RTAs.  The bottom lin e was that a deepening 
understanding of what was happening practically on  RTAs was important.  However, in a Member 
driven Organization Member driven output from di scussions was expected and much depended on the 
extent to which Members themselves chose to submit papers. 
40. The representative of Chile supported the timely request for this issue to be placed on the 
Committee's agenda.  The Eighth Ministerial Conference had highlighted the importance of 
addressing the interrelationship between RTAs and th e WTO, and his delegation backed, and invited 
Members to join, this initiative. 
41. The representative of Mexico restated his w illingness to work on and take part in the 
discussions on the various RTA-related issues.  He  had reiterated on several occasions the importance 
of making good use of the basic information in the factual presentations under review by the Committee. 
42. The representative of Argentina referred to th e 2011 CRTA Report in document WT/REG/21, 
which mentioned the lack of consensus amongst Me mbers on the proposals for the Eighth Ministerial 
Conference.  He pointed out that the request by th e European Union for this item to be included in 
broad and general terms, made it difficult for his and many other de legations to support the proposal.  
Other issues had already been put forward - even by his own delegation in 2011 - and were also considered essential and should be addressed in  the Committee before issues which go beyond 
established WTO rules. 
43. The representative of  India supported the statement by Argentina.   WT/REG/M/67 
Page 8  
 
  44. The representative of Hong Kong, China said th at all Members agreed that there was a 
proliferation of RTAs among Members and non-Member s.  He believed there was an urgent need to 
study the systemic implications of RTAs for the MTS.  It would be good to enhance understanding of 
this issue.  Not to tackle it would only postpone  the problems which would not be desirable for the 
long-term interest of the Organi zation.  Hong Kong, China welcomed  the EU raising this issue and 
shared the views of many other Members who had supported the agenda item. 
45. The representative of Ecuador fully endorsed the st atement by Argentina.  As a matter of fact, 
a concrete proposal put forward on this issue at the last Ministerial Conference had failed to garner the 
consensus of Members, as recorded in the documen ts reflecting the outcome of that Conference.  
At the last session of the Committee, a proposal, in th e form of an oral statement and similar to that 
put forward today, had also failed to garner the consensus of Members. 
46. The representative of Brazil joined India a nd Ecuador in supporting the statement by 
Argentina. 
47. The representative of Cuba supported the points made by Argentina, Ecuador, India, Brazil 
and other countries with regard to this document, which he considered non-binding.  He felt obliged 
to speak out about something that had really caught his attention, namely the ambivalence that he had 
witnessed.  Since he had the privilege of particip ating in other WTO negotiating bodies, he had noted 
that many of the Members which had expressed their concern in this body over the proliferation of 
RTAs simultaneously supported in other bodies th e proliferation of other types of agreement, 
plurilateral agreements on services, for example.  Th is undermined the credibility of the Organization 
and of the multilateral trading system. 
48. The representative of Bolivia endorsed the statem ents by Argentina and other Members which 
had taken the same line. 
49. The representative of South Africa expressed he r support for comments made by Argentina, 
India, Ecuador and others.  She noted that duri ng 2011 to 2012, there had been different views 
expressed by Members with regard to following a separate new work programme in the CRTA on 
systemic issues and, reflecting concerns by Memb ers in the CRTA meeting that preceded the run up 
to MC8 last year.  For going forward it was importa nt that all Members participated in the future 
direction of the work of the Committee and that th is direction was ultimately sanctioned by all its 
Members.  This would allow previously expressed mi sgivings and concerns by Members to be taken 
into account.  South Africa believed that it was impor tant and critical for Members to be on the same 
page and have clarity on where any ultimate wo rk programme would lead.  The Committee would 
need to have detailed discussions about any envi saged outcome for MC9 and beyond as well as clear 
parameters guiding such an outcome.  She was of th e view that the systemic implication of RTAs for 
the MTS was already being addressed by the implemen tation of the TM.  As for studying trends in 
RTAs, there was no reason why this important work could not be done via the Secretariat reporting on 
the RTAs notified as it had done in the past.  Be yond that, any further working modalities would have 
to closely mirror agreed terms of reference a nd be agreed by consensus amongst all Members.  
South Africa was open to considering new written propo sals being tabled with regard to the future 
work of the Committee, which should be in line with normal WTO ru les and procedures in 
accordance with the mandate and be subject to  inclusive and transparent discussion among the 
Membership.  She agreed with the U. S. in that this being a Member driven Organization, this was the 
most transparent and balanced way to proceed a nd to guarantee representing the broader interests of 
the Membership.  She also agreed with Argentina that the oral submission by the EU was hard to 
follow and urged the EU to submit its proposal in writing for further deliberation in the Committee. 
50. The representative of China thanked the Chair fo r his introduction on the follow up work to 
the Eighth Ministerial Conference.  China was op en to discussion of the relationship between the  WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 9 
 
 
  MTS and RTAs as well as other RTA related issues but, as some Members had said, it was clear that 
Members had not reached consen sus during the MC8 and the discussion should continue in this 
regard.  As South Africa had mentioned, the Organization was Member driven and any work 
programme should be reaffirmed by all Member s in the Committee and if  Members agreed to 
continue such analysis it should cover all el ements and not follow a selective approach. 
51. The representative of Venezuela supported the st atements by Argentina and other speakers on 
the lack of consensus on this proposal. 
52. The representative of Norway said Norway attached considerable interest to the debate in the 
Committee on systemic issues and would continue to participate in such discussions not least because 
RTAs had increasingly become a significant part of ev eryone's trade reality.  She wanted to have the 
fullest possible picture of the interaction between RTAs and the MTS.  RTAs departed from the MFN 
principle and therefore needed to be surveyed cl osely in the WTO.  She agreed that the TM had 
facilitated insight into individual Members' RT As but did not replace information submitted by 
individual Members in a wider context.  She therefore looked forward to continuing the discussion and would take part in it. 
53. The representative of Costa Rica stated that  RTAs were a complement to the multilateral 
trading system and that the WTO should examine th eir systemic consequences.  She also reiterated 
Costa Rica's interest in continuing analysis of this issue in the Committe e and its commitment to 
making a positive contribution to this discussion. 
54. The representative of the European Union thanke d Members for their comments.  In closing 
he reiterated the wise words of the delegate from Ho ng Kong, China, that postponing the problem was 
not desirable in the long-term interests of the WT O.  He fully agreed and believed Members should 
take responsibility to start discussing with an open mind all possible aspects of the systemic implications of RTAs in the Committee.  
55. The Chairman said that since many delegations  had addressed this issue he would read the 
passage related to the Ministerial Conference dea ling with RTAs: "A large number of Ministers 
pointed to the growing number of RTAs and str essed the need to ensure  that they remain 
complementary to, not a substitute for, the multilateral trading system.  In that regard, many Ministers 
stressed the need for the WTO to  address the systemic implicati ons of RTAs for the multilateral 
trading system and to study trends in RTAs and re port to the Ninth Ministerial Conference".  He said 
that while it was true that there was no consen sus, nothing prevented Members from discussing it and 
Members could continue doing that.  Indeed as th e representative of South Africa had said, for the 
sake of transparency, it would be important to ha ve written submissions.  So if there were written 
submissions they would be included in the next agenda of the Committee.   
D. RECENT WORKING PAPERS PUBL ISHED ON THE WTO WEBSITE  
56. The Chairman explained that this had been adde d to the Agenda at the request of Australia.  
There were four recent working papers on RTAs  published on the WTO website.  These dealt with 
intellectual property provisions, an ti-dumping regimes, market access provisions and services rules in 
RTAs. 
57. The representative of Australia said that his de legation had requested this agenda item to draw 
Members' attention to the four staff working pa pers which had been pub lished in October 2012.  
However, he emphasized that Australia was not seek ing to change the status of the papers by 
discussing them in the Committee.  As was clearly stated in each paper, these were staff working 
papers and did not represent the pos ition or opinions of the WTO or its Members.  It was clear that 
Members were free to agree or disagree with the papers and discuss related issues that emerged from WT/REG/M/67 
Page 10  
 
  them.  By doing so, they would be fulfilling the mandate of the CRTA, to consider the systemic 
implications of RTAs for the MTS.  Each working paper set out the author's analysis and findings of 
the implications for the MTS of Members' practices in a specific aspect of RTAs.  Australia saw the 
papers as useful, they raised a series of questions that were highly relevant to the work of the Committee and welcomed the work that had gone into  preparing them.  It was obvious that each paper 
was a significant work and it would not be possible to have a substantive discussion of the issues 
raised at the meeting.  However, he wanted to make some preliminary comments and highlight some 
questions that emerged from the pape rs.  He reiterated that any questi ons or issues identified at that 
moment were only indicative and it would be useful to discuss a wide range of issues raised which 
would help Members to consider the system ic implications of RTAs for the MTS.  
58. The paper on services rules in RTAs provided help ful analysis which was particularly useful 
given that the academic literature to date had concen trated on services commitments rather than rules.  
It raised a range of interesting questions.  For example, it raised questions on the nature of MFN 
provisions in RTAs as well as questions relating to the treatment of domestic regulation in RTAs and 
how these interacted with the GATS.  What provisions  for example, were ther e in RTAs to allow for 
the incorporation of future GATS Article VI.5 outco mes.  It would also be interesting to discuss 
further how elements from positive list GATS-type  architecture and so-called negative lists 
approaches had been used in RTAs.   
59. The paper on goods market access highlighted a range of important issues which warranted 
the Committee's attention.  As the proliferation of RTAs continued a further analysis of the ease by 
which RTAs could link into plurilateral and multila teral arrangement was needed, and the paper's 
analysis of these aspects of RTAs was welcome.  MFN and accession type provisions could address 
this issue, however it was even more important that the architecture establishing RTAs laid the 
groundwork for plurilateral and multil ateral expansion.  There were many issues raised in this area 
including the long-term implications  of discrimination between parties to an individual RTA.  Clearly, 
further discussion was needed in  the Committee on these issues. 
60. The paper on intellectual property (IP) offered an  interesting survey of IP provisions and 
noted a number of issues and debate s that had arisen in this area.  The authors had set out their 
findings on the IP coverage of RTAs.  Their view that IP provisions of RTAs had converged around a 
small number of systems was of interest.  Again, this raised important issues for further discussion.  
61. Similarly, the paper on anti-dumping provided some interesting observations and conclusions, 
on which further reflection could be valuable.  
62. One general observation was that each paper appeared to draw on the information made 
available through the RTA Transparen cy Mechanism.  He welcomed this strongly, as it confirmed the 
value of the Transparency Mechanism in improvi ng transparency and allowing for more detailed 
analysis of the RTAs that Members were negotiating. 
63. Australia intended to return to a discussion of the issues raised in the papers at future 
meetings of the Committee, when Members would ha ve had time to reflect on the authors’ findings 
and how they related to Members’ practices, and their own understanding of the implications for the 
multilateral trading system of regional trade agreem ents. Australia would also be staying alert for 
similar works of interest for the Committee, and woul d be ready to discuss other work in future in the 
same way. 
64. The representative of India said that the inclusion of this agenda item raised a lot of systemic 
issues.  India was not questioning the merits or deme rits of the discussion papers.  They might be of 
good quality and the authors might have put a lot of effort into writing them.  The concern was the role of the Committee and how any discussion on academ ic papers would affect that role.  The WTO  WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 11 
 
 
  was a Member driven organization and each Co mmittee of the WTO had been assigned a specific 
role.  The mandate of the CRTA had been specified in the communication of 7 February 1996.  The WTO was a negotiating organization.  Members brought  in issues which were then debated by other 
Members with agreement on some issues and agreement to disagree on others.  If Members started bringing academic papers into Committee meetings  this would take away valuable time from the 
Committee, and not enough time would be left to  deliberate on issues which were its mandate.  
During the meeting Members had been informed about the number of factual presentations which 
were still pending.  Throughout the world the WTO had been a popular topic in academic research 
and one could find thousands of discussion papers relating to the WTO on the Internet.  Discussions 
on academic papers would leave no time to discuss and negotiate as mandated.  Members should be 
very careful about this agenda item as it set a very wrong precedent, not only in the Committee but in 
the WTO as a whole.  Discussion on academic work ing papers in the Committee could open up a 
Pandora's box encouraging Members to bring a plet hora of academic papers in all areas of the 
negotiations and soon the WTO could become an  academic institution instead of a negotiating 
organization.  Some Members might be of the view that the academic papers were relevant to their 
work, and enriched the debate and helped with new ideas.  India did not disput e that, but took issue on 
the forum for discussion of the academic papers.  If some Members were interested in discussing 
research papers, seminars and workshops were the right place for such discussions and not the CRTA.  If Members wanted to use the academic papers fo r discussion in the Committee, they were free to 
make concrete proposals based on such research papers and the CRTA would be happy to discuss 
those proposals.  But so long as these remained mere  academic papers, they were best suited for a 
dialogue in the academic world and not for negotiations in a Committee like the CRTA.  India was not 
clear about this agenda item, and wanted to know  what Australia's proposal was.  A discussion on 
discussion papers as the agenda suggested could not be a proposal and India believed that the 
Committee was not the right foru m for discussing working papers. 
65. The representative of Mexico felt that it was importa nt to reiterate that the papers reflected the 
views of their authors and not in any way those of the WTO Secretariat or WTO Members.  He 
welcomed the four papers on anti-dumping, servi ces, intellectual property and market access and 
these were being analysed by his capital.  His first t houghts were that they contained interesting inputs 
which could help to strengthen substantive discussions  in the Committee, given that the basic material 
used in their preparation stemmed from the Transparen cy Mechanism.  Mexico was ready to take part 
in more detailed discussions on each of the papers and,  in this respect, it was important that the papers 
be presented by their authors, who would be able to  answer any questions that could arise, as was the 
case with the annual report on trade in goods. 
66. The representative of Singapore said that all Me mbers agreed that transparency was of 
fundamental importance to the MTS and to the CR TA and that was why Members spent the bulk of 
their time in CRTA meetings on the consideration of  factual presentations.  The amount of time spent 
on enhancing transparency on the RTAs of Memb ers was an acknowledgment that RTAs did have 
important systemic implications for the MTS.  Singapore was of the view that RTAs were 
complementary to the MTS and thus believed that further work could be done on exploring their 
implications to help Members gain insight on th e on-going work to strengthen the MTS.  Singapore 
believed that the papers not only served to confirm the value of the TM but also as helpful steps to 
explore how the MTS could be further strengthene d.  Her delegation would definitively welcome 
more such papers on other aspects of RTAs and th e potential implications for the MTS.  Singapore 
remained committed and ready to engage constructively in substantive discussions. 
67. Singapore speaking on behalf of Malaysia adde d its voice to the discussion under the previous 
agenda item on the follow-up to MC8.  Malaysia c ould also support an examination by the WTO of 
the systemic implications of RTAs for the MTS.   The guidelines were that those RTAs should 
complement and not substitute the WTO.  FTAs c ould provide building blocks for global trade 
liberalization and served as importa nt arrangements for capacity build ing in trade and investment WT/REG/M/67 
Page 12  
 
  facilitation, which were important  for developing countries such as Malaysia.  Many Ministers at 
MC8 had pointed to the growing number of RT As and recognized that this phenomenon required 
more attention in the WTO.  Malaysia agreed with  the Chairman's closing remarks under the previous 
agenda item that while the issue of RTAs was in Part II of the MC8 outcomes, this should not stop 
Members from having a discussion on that important i ssue in the Committee.  Malaysia considered 
that the four staff papers were in teresting and had raised questions wh ich were directly related to the 
work of the CRTA.  She looked forward to having further discussions in the future on the best way 
forward. 
68. The representative of China thanked the Secretaria t for such intellectually inspiring papers.  
China had always believed that the active participat ion of the Secretariat staff in intellectual activities 
would enhance their capacity to better serve the interests of Members.  Having said that, however, like 
others including India, China had doubts on whether it was appropriate to bring those four papers and 
call them working papers as a formal item of the CRTA.  China had carefully studied the terms of reference of the Committee as set out in documen t WT/L/127 dated 7 February 1996 and was not 
clear about whether it was appropriate to put these f our papers as a formal agenda item.  China had 
noted that these were only four among, if not millions , tens of thousands of papers that touched upon 
similar issues in the intellectual world.  The four papers had touched upon only a very selective and 
limited number of subjects.  Many other subject s, including those that developing Members were 
concerned about, such as rules of origin and st andards, had not been included and he wondered 
whether they could serve as a basis for a fruitful discussion of the systemic implications of RTAs as required by the terms of reference of the Committee.   India had pointed out and the Secretariat had 
explained that there was a very serious backlog of RTAs under review, a nd he wondered if it was 
appropriate that instead of doing more important work as required by the Committee, Members should 
focus on a very limited number of papers which th e authors had claimed were written under their own 
responsibility.  In addition, he r ecalled that Members had been discu ssing ever since 2010 how to take 
up the horizontal analysis of RTAs and that the reason for starting that process was that many 
Ministers, the Director General and many in acad emia had pointed to the systemic concern about 
RTAs vis-à-vis  the MTS.  China had actively participated  in that process and supported such analyses 
but Members' common understanding of that process was that the exercise should be comprehensive 
covering all issues contained in the table of cont ents of factual presentations.  In any case, China 
believed that the selective approach of a few pape rs touching upon a few issues was not within the 
mandate of the Committee.  China had had informal  discussions with Australia before the meeting, 
and understood that their intentions were good, i.e. , to bring to the attention of the Committee the 
systemic implications of RTAs vis-à-vis  the MTS.  China welcomed this and wished to participate in 
discussions but like others had said, the agenda item as  currently formulated had made it very difficult 
for China to participate in a fruitful discussion.  If Members wanted seminars based on intellectual 
papers, China welcomed that and would actively participate in them.  If consensus was reached 
among Members for a comprehensive analysis of RTAs, China would welcome and actively 
participate in it. 
69. The representative of the European Union said th at due to the recent publication of the four 
staff working papers it was a little premature to pr opose a detailed discussion.  The papers represented 
a first step towards the definition of a better theoretical baseline of the implication of RTAs for the 
multilateral system, since they already gave some indications.  For example, the paper on services 
concluded that RTAs had not been us ed to experiment with or tried to prejudge disciplines that were 
under discussion in the WTO (such as domestic regulati ons, safeguards and subsidies).  Similarly, the 
paper on anti-dumping concluded that most regi onal antidumping regimes did not fundamentally 
change the Parties’ rights to take anti-dumping meas ures, as compared with the multilateral regime.  
Another interesting conclusion was in the IPR in RTAs  study, which stated that as RTAs containing 
IP provisions were characterized by a distinct hub- and-spoke architecture, the interconnections among 
these systems created networks that transmitted IP provisions across RTAs and eventually from one 
domestic IP regime to another.  The EU neverthel ess believed that there was still work to be done.  It  WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 13 
 
 
  was necessary to assess carefully the papers and discuss them in a structured way at future meetings.  
The WTO was an organization that not only negotia ted but also exchanged information and best 
practices also to understand future developmen ts.  These discussions could be based on papers 
prepared by Members or by others and could be requested on the agenda by any Member.  The EU 
was ready to engage in discussions on these and any other issues deemed to be necessary by other 
Members.  Finally he wanted to flag, and stood to be corrected by the Secretariat or others that in his 
understanding the backlog in the preparation of f actual presentations had not so much to do with a 
bottleneck in the Secretariat but rather with de lays in the submission of data by the Members 
concerned. 
70. The representative of Chile, in reference to the pa pers prepared by Secretariat, welcomed the 
initiative and the statistical work undertaken, which,  in his opinion, would provide a basis for a 
discussion on the systemic consequences of RTAs for the multilateral trading system and their 
relationship with the WTO.  He was open to reviewing these and other studies which described, 
explained and were able to pr edict commercial phenomena and provi ded elements affording a better 
grasp of the issue.  This was not a purely academic discussion and the papers were being reviewed in 
Chile.  He supported Mexico's suggestion that th e authors themselves present their studies to the 
Committee.  If this pending issue were not to be not tackled in the Committee, it would be addressed 
in other bodies outside the WTO. 
71. The representative of New Zealand explained that  he had not intervened on item C simply 
because the kinds of comments he would have made about both items C and D were very similar.  He 
endorsed the comments made under item C by the EU, Australia and many others.  New Zealand 
endorsed the comments made by Australia on introducing Item D.  The papers were useful and they 
raised questions which were directly relevant to the work of the Committee.  One could take issue 
with some of the points made and some of the conc lusions drawn in some of the papers but that was 
not a problem because the papers served the useful purpose of stimulating discussion.  In particular, 
New Zealand endorsed Australia's view that the way which the pa pers had drawn on information 
made available through the TM confirmed its basic value in improving transparency and allowing for 
more detailed analysis of WTO Members' RTAs. 
72. The representative of Costa Rica noted that these issues would not be reviewed in the 
Committee that day, but hoped that this would occur at  the future date as she considered them relevant 
to the work falling under its remit. 
73. The representative of Colombia considered the papers to be particularly useful and had 
forwarded them to her capital for review. For Colombia, which was in the process of 
internationalizing its economy, the papers were most helpful in u nderstanding how the various issues 
covered by RTA provisions were being negotiated, wh at the trends were, how this was related to the 
multilateral system, and the implications thereof.   She therefore extended her thanks for the 
preparation of these papers, and in particular to Au stralia for presenting them to the Committee, and 
invited Members to discuss them and to encourage the Secretariat to continue preparing and updating 
such papers on the other issues set forth in document WT/REG/W/38 of 20 June 2000.  This 
document set out guidelines for Committee work on syst emic issues and instructed the Secretariat to 
prepare a background paper "providing the Committ ee with basic material for a detailed horizontal 
exploration of the treatment of various policy provisions or measures in RTAs".  The Committee was also expected to establish priorities for themes to be treated by the Secretariat in its background paper.  
The Annex contained an illustrative list of possible themes, including those of the current four papers 
on anti-dumping, services, intellectual property and market access as well as others such as government procurement, investment, development.   Colombia believed that the Committee could 
accommodate all of the papers, together with their analysis.  Another paper was prepared in 2002 on 
rules of origin (document WT/REG/W/45) and discu ssed by the Committee and possibly in other fora.  
Papers submitted under the responsibility of their authors was not a new concept.  They were WT/REG/M/67 
Page 14  
 
  extremely useful documents for all countries and it was hard to believe that a country or its 
negotiators or trade policy officials could fail to  be interested in having such a paper and in 
understanding how the various provisions of the RTAs were being negotiated. 
74. Colombia continued to review the papers.  The paper on services highlighted several issues 
which could be considered as GATS-plus within  FTAs and, in most instances, Colombia had 
incorporated them into its bilateral agreements.  In mode 4, FTAs included far-reaching disciplines 
that covered not only service providers, but also business persons in gene ral, in accordance with 
specific categories.  These provisions were in no wa y related to the countries' immigration policies, 
which fell outside of the scope of trade agreemen ts.  FTAs set forth requirements to be met by 
business persons to secure temporary entry into the c ountry to engage in a business activity predefined 
in the agreement.  One great advantage of the bila teral agreements was that countries were obliged to 
comply with existing legislation, whereas there w as no mechanism to ensure that there was no gap 
between WTO commitments and the applicable le gislation.  Furthermore, FTAs provided for 
mechanisms to determine the appli cable legislation.  Under the "ratchet" clause of FTAs, countries 
were - with certain exceptions - obliged to auto matically bind any future liberalization in their 
legislation.  This did not form part of the ob ligations under the multilatera l framework and domestic 
regulation was pending negotiation.  Although the GATS provided certain parameters for their 
negotiation, many Members did not recognize them as such.  The terms of the FTA therefore constituted progress since at the very least such pa rameters were agreed.  Colombia wished to 
continue reviewing these papers in forthcoming Co mmittee sessions and invited the Secretariat and all 
Members to maintain active and enriching discussions. 
75. The representative of Korea like others, considered  the four papers very useful.  So far the 
RTA Transparency Mechanism had allowed detailed analyses of individual RTAs.  However since the 
work had so far focused on the review of indi vidual RTAs, Members had not had much chance to 
discuss RTAs from a more horizontal perspective.  A holistic assessment of RTAs would be highly relevant to the work of the Committee and deserved si milar attention.  In this regard, Korea strongly 
supported the EU's view that the CRTA was the forum to discuss and exchange opinions on this 
matter which was within the mandate of the Committ ee.  Members might have different views on the 
authors' findings but the working papers could be a good start for discussion.  At this stage Korea was 
not ready to comment on substance since it needed more time to reflect and hoped to discuss the papers at the next Committee meeting.  Korea also ex pected that similar work could be undertaken in 
other areas which could help to resolve the concerns of China. 
76. The Representative of South Africa agreed with ot hers on the procedural issue with regard to 
the academic papers, and would refer to her statemen t on item C.  She noted that the agenda item had 
not appeared on the initial Airgram dated 9th of October so its genesis was somewhat unexpected.  She 
thanked Australia for its explanatory comments and ag reed with the statement that the value of the 
TM was in allowing for more detailed analyses of  RTAs.  However South Africa still had questions 
with regard to both the nature of discussions to be held under the item and the exact purpose of the 
papers in light of the Committee's work.  She noted the disclaimer that the papers were not meant to 
represent the views of WTO Members yet it seemed some Members appeared to have in mind not merely a discussion of the papers in the Committee but a specific work programme.  Once again, as 
some Members, including South Africa, had expressed with regard to agenda item C, in the absence 
of written proposal by Members, the ultimate outco me of where any work programme would lead was 
unclear and this lack of clarity obviously raised con cern.  To the extent that some of the papers would 
serve to shed light on the broader implications of certain types of RTA provisions for the MTS or setting base lines for how RTAs should be developed,  she noted again that issue had been discussed 
under agenda item C, under which South Africa and other Members, had made comments.  She therefore agreed that a dedicated and concrete  proposal would be a better base for Members to 
deliberate on that and any other issue before the Comm ittee.  As a point of procedure, prior circulation 
of such submission to the Committee to enable all Members to understand the context, objective, and  WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 15 
 
 
  envisaged outcome, would be the best way to proceed .  This would serve for Members not to detract 
their attention from pending issues before them and to  ensure that all Members could have input in 
raising issues relating to RTAs of relevance to th em, without focusing on a limited set of provisions or 
issues. 
77. The representative of Ecuador reiterated that two new agenda items - C and D - had been 
included in document WTO/AIR/4013/Rev.1, circulat ed on 9 November 2012.  At the outset of the 
meeting it was reported that the inclusion of these two items was requested by Members.  Under the rules of procedure, Members had the right to su ggest that items be placed on the agenda and the 
Committee as a whole was responsible for their approval or rejection.  In future, it would be advisable 
for normal practice to be pursued in the Committe e.  In other Committees with similar rules of 
procedure, normal practice involved the advance circ ulation of an annotated agenda indicating the 
issues that had been put forward, by whom and the reasons why.  All information on the issues that 
would be addressed in the Committee was therefore ava ilable.  This was normal practice, for example, 
in the Committees on Anti-dumping and safeguards. 
78. With regard to the substantive issue, the Au stralian delegate had stated that the working 
papers had been prepared by Members of the Secr etariat and that they did not represent the latter's 
views.  This was indeed a cause for concern, given that they are considered non-institutional 
documents.  The Secretariat therefore had no respon sibility for the papers.  Australia should table a 
written proposal reflecting the elements that it consider ed important so that they could be specifically 
discussed in the Committee.  Given that this was a member-led Organization, it fell to Members to 
submit concrete proposals.  Ecuador was open to c onsidering any proposal that Australia or another 
Member were to put forward on this issue, in  writing and with a specific responsibility.  The 
representative of Australia had said that he had hoped to discuss a wide range of issues - a declaration 
that was also a matter for concern.  One particular  proposal had been submitted prior to, and discussed 
during, the last Ministerial Conference.  In the wake of the Conference, the issue was raised once 
again at subsequent Committee sessions and Ecuador ha d stated that work on th is issue could not seek 
to establish benchmarks.  Members which had negotia ted regional agreements to  date had enjoyed the 
greatest freedom in structuring them, and all other Members should be able to  retain this very same 
freedom.  As far as agenda items were concerned,  Members were willing to consider any proposal, 
provided that these items referred to issues falling under the covered agreemen ts.  The importance of 
increased information flows and best practices and of enhancing transparency had been stressed.  
What was required was an improved Transparency  Mechanism.  The importance of encouraging 
discussion amongst Members was established.  The appropriate contexts for this discussion would 
thus have to be sought because although the Chair had read the relevant paragraph from the last 
Ministerial Conference, this was a paragraph from a part of the Chair's report which failed to achieve 
consensus.  To sum up, Ecuador reiterated its invita tion to Australia to submit a concrete proposal in 
order to begin consideration of  these highly significant issues. 
79. The representative of Argentina sh ared the concerns of India, China, South Africa and, to a 
certain extent, Korea and Ecuador, in that it would be important for Australia to submit a concrete 
proposal.  In 2010 Argentina had co-sponsored an in itiative on the horizontal treatment of a number of 
issues in this Committee.  He also supported the vi ew of South Africa and Ecuador in respect of the 
treatment of agenda item C and in pa rticular the point made by Ecuador  that the paragraph read out by 
the Chair corresponded to a specific part of the c onclusions drawn by the Chair of the Ministerial 
Conference and which the Chair himself had indica ted was not exhaustive.  Argentina would be 
happy to address systemic issues, but considered th at there was no obligation to do so arising from the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference.  He therefore inv ited Australia and the EU and other delegations 
interested in making proposals on how to treat this issue to take what had al ready been agreed into 
consideration and to act in the spirit of negotiation.  WT/REG/M/67 
Page 16  
 
  80. The representative of Chinese Taipei indicated that his preliminary response was that the 
papers were interesting and useful for Members to analyse the systemic implications of RTAs for the 
MTS.  He looked forward to engaging in furthe r substantive discussions.  Chinese Taipei also 
supported the EU's statement under agenda item C. 
81. The representative of Norway said that her first impression of the four working papers 
published on the WTO website was that they provided a deeper insight into certain specific elements 
of RTAs and in a more horizontal way made ava ilable assessments of how various Members included 
these elements in their RTAs.  The papers had drawn on information obtained by the TM and placed that information in a broader context.  Her capital had not yet had an opportunity to study those four papers in detail and would certainly do so in order to  be able to evaluate the information provided and 
the views expressed.  Norway would revert to the matter with further comments and questions as 
appropriate during any further discussion. 
82. The representative of Bolivia echoed the points made by Ecuador, South Africa, Argentina, 
India and China that the papers were not official.  Although they were interes ting and could serve as a 
basis for discussion, he doubted whether this fo rum was the appropriate one.  The Committee had its 
mandate and it was unclear what a discussion of th e papers was intended to  achieve.  Like other 
delegations, he felt that a written proposal with cl early defined objectives should be submitted.  As 
South Africa had pointed out, the failure to define  these objectives was a source of concern.  Bolivia 
agreed with Ecuador that the discussion should not atte mpt to establish benchmarks that would restrict 
Members' freedom in negotiating future RTAs. 
83. The representative of the United States said he di d not have specific comments on the papers 
at that moment.  However the United States stood ready to engage positively on a discussion in the 
Committee on the interaction between RTAs and the MTS.  He certainly appreciated the working 
papers by the Secretariat staff, and Australia and others had raised some in teresting questions.  The 
view of the United States, as had been made clear in discussions prior to and since the MC8, that summaries of the factual presentations based on each of  the issues in their tables of contents were not 
sufficient.  The Secretariat papers were worth furt her review as part of a growing body of RTA work 
and not, in the view of the United States, a repl acement for Member driven work and discussions. 
84. The representative of Peru affirmed the importance of RTAs to Peru.  She noted the great 
proliferation of RTAs and the fact that almost all Members had signed at least one such agreement.  
The Committee had a mandate to examine the impact  of these agreements on the multilateral trading 
system.  She agreed with Mexico that the papers ha d an intrinsic value and that their discussion in the 
Committee could therefore contribute to the strengthening of the multilateral trading system.  Peru 
backed the proposal that authors should present thei r own papers and also the possibility of other 
Members presenting papers on the same issues.  Colombia's comment that, since 2000, Members had 
considered that these issues ought to form part of  regular Committee work was significant.  Although 
the Committee reviewed agreements on an individual basis, these papers allowed Members to see how 
a specific issue was treated in the various agreemen ts, thereby affording a broader vision and a more 
holistic approach.  Delegations w ould also have the possibility of putting forward their own views on 
each paper.  As mentioned, it would be advisable for the Committee to define the terms of reference 
prior to any discussion of these papers;  this woul d require a written proposal which could then be 
analysed. 
85. The representative of Hong Kong, China considered  the four papers interesting for furthering 
the work of the CRTA and commended the efforts of the staff members concerned.  The papers were 
a valuable contribution to the discussions between Members.  However this did not mean that his delegation agreed with everything in them and w as still studying them.  Hong Kong, China, as a co-
sponsor of the 2010 paper had proposed that the Co mmittee studied the systemic implications of 
RTAs for the multilateral trading system.  They had agreed that any such study should not set up any  WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 17 
 
 
  benchmarks nor pinpoint any individual Member  but should just enhance understanding of the 
implications of the RTAs.  They also agreed th at the study should look at all horizontal issues 
comprehensively as set out in the table of contents of factual presentations.  Unfortunately, the proposal had not been agreed and Members had now before them documents on cross-cutting issues 
prepared by the Secretariat's staff on their own initiative. Hong Kong, China was not suggesting what 
issues should or should not be studied but hoped that the Secretariat staff would continue their useful 
work and contribute to other issues and topics whic h were of interest to Members including for 
example, for Hong Kong, China, rules of origin, trade facilitation and other common rules, and also 
competition policy.  Everybody agreed that these were  important and he hoped that the Secretariat 
staff would prepare such further studies in the futu re to facilitate discussions.  Hong Kong, China had 
heard different views from Members, especially on  procedures.  He reiterated that there was a 
proliferation of RTAs which was important for the Committee to study.  He was open-minded as to how these cross-cutting studies could be considered, e ither in the Committee, in a seminar or through 
other channels.  As mentioned by other Members, he  believed it was very clear that it was well within 
the mandate of the CRTA to consider the systemic im plications of RTAs for the MTS.  He welcomed 
the papers and considered it ur gent to conduct studies on such issues.  His delegation hoped that 
Members would approach this issue with an open mind.  Hong Kong, China was open to any channels 
that could facilitate the consideration of these im portant cross-cutting issues.  He hoped that the 
consideration of the papers would allow Members to go at least one step forward in understanding the 
systemic implications of RTAs and fulfilling the clear mandate of the CRTA.  
86. The representative of Cuba stated that, like I ndia, China, South Africa, Ecuador, Argentina, 
Bolivia and other Members, he was concerned about the systemic probl ems that could arise from this 
initiative, the aim of which was to nourish intell ectual discussions in the Committee on the basis of 
academic, non-institutional works.  This was not appropriate and did not correspond to the 
Committee's mandate.  He was also concerned about  procedural problems.  With regard to the 
adoption of the agenda, in particular item C had been presented as an agreement allegedly stemming 
from the Eighth Ministerial Conference, when in actual fact it was contained in Part II of the 
concluding statement of that Conference, which had failed to achieve consensus.  To avoid problems 
in the future, he emphasised that adoption of the agenda was the responsibility of Members.  Given 
that several Members had voiced their disagreement with the proposal, it should not have been placed 
on the agenda and was therefore still pending approval  before the agenda of the forthcoming session 
was adopted. 
87. The representative of Canada viewed the increasing number of RTAs as holding very 
important implications for the MTS.  Just as hi gh quality comprehensive and transparent RTAs could 
support the MTS by promoting openness and innova tion, lower quality RTAs could also create 
barriers between parties to the agreement and outsid e trading partners.  To remain relevant the WTO 
needed to provide a forum for Members to raise a ll issues that affected the global trading system 
including the relationship between the increasing num ber of RTAs and the MTS.  Canada welcomed 
the papers and believed they were an important co ntribution to the discussion of systemic issues in 
RTAs.  Although Canada might not have chosen those specific topics and might not agree with all the analysis and conclusions, the pape rs which were under the responsibility of the authors, provided a 
good basis for more substantive discussion of systemic  issues in the CRTA.  Canada invited Members 
to share their views and experiences with respect to the issues raised in those papers, and stood ready 
to contribute to substantive discussion on systemic issues in RTAs, including but not limited to the 
issues raised in the papers before them.  Althoug h his delegation had some substantive comments on 
each of the papers he would revert to them at a following meeting when all Members had had sufficient opportunity to review them.  Regard ing comments on the appropriateness of discussing the 
papers in the Committee, his understanding was that  Members were free to bring forward any agenda 
item that fell within the mandate of the Committee and of course, as helpfully pointed out by Hong 
Kong, China, to examine systemic issues in RTAs was specified in the mandate of the CRTA.  As 
Australia mentioned, the systemic issues raised in  the papers were drawn from factual presentations.  WT/REG/M/67 
Page 18  
 
  He considered the examination of systemic issues to be an important complement and a logical next 
step to the examination of issues raised in the cont ext of the Committee's review of individual RTAs.  
He welcomed comments by China regarding undert aking a comprehensive work-plan which included 
issues such as rules of origin and standards.  Cana da also considered those to be important issues and 
remained open to discussing all systemic issues in RTAs and would welcome any further proposals or 
papers in this regard.   
88. The representative of Brazil said that the documen ts were still being examined in the capital 
so he did not have specific comments on their subs tance.  Brazil was not against engaging in any 
debate or any analysis as long as the purpose of th e exercise was clear.  He  agreed with Ecuador, 
Bolivia and some others that such discussions shoul d not lead to future benchmarks.  It was also 
important to follow procedures, as this was a Me mber driven Organization and hence the Committee 
should have been discussing proposals from Members in line with its mandate.  
89. The representative of Venezuela endorsed the statements by the Indian, Chinese, 
South African, Argentine, Ecuadorian, Bolivian, Cuba n and other delegations on the lack of relevance 
of the forum to this discussion.  The papers were academic and reflected an individual vision which 
should not be considered a basis for discussion in th e Committee.  She invited Australia and interested 
Members to submit an official proposal for review .  As far as the aforementioned transparency was 
concerned, Venezuela reiterated Ecuador's sugg estion on the inclusion of issues on the agenda. 
90. The representative of the Philippines said that the working papers were being analysed in her 
capital.  The Philippines supported the discussion, pr ovided that it focused on systemic issues that 
were descriptive and factual in na ture and did not contain value j udgments or legal analysis.  The 
discussion should not be geared to create new legal rules or obligations nor de facto  benchmarks on 
RTAs and should consider the development aspects of RTAs without duplicating the work done by 
other Committees.  
91. The representative of China noted that as could be seen from various interventions, there were 
very divergent views on how to proceed in the future  with the inclusion of agenda items on systemic 
issues on RTAs even when such items were proposed  by a Member in writing.  Members had been 
discussing this for some years and he suggested th at rather than deciding that the Committee would 
proceed upon written proposals by Members it might be a good idea to have informal discussions 
among Members and if consensus was reached on how to proceed the Committee would act 
accordingly. 
92. The representative of Australia reiterated Austra lia's intention to return to a discussion of 
some of the issues raised in the papers and potentially  other papers in the future.  He had heard a very 
strong signal from many Members that they would be  interested in doing the same.  While he would 
be reflecting carefully on the points he had heard fro m Members, in the interests of transparency he 
should flag with all Members that he intended to retu rn to a discussion on the issue in the future in the 
Committee.  It was not his understanding of the rules of procedure or of the practice of the Committee 
that agenda items had to be preceded by wr itten proposals or documents of any form.  His 
understanding was that the agenda ite m needed only to be requested in  writing and so if Australia did 
wish to return to this issue it would do so shortly. 
93. On procedure the Chairman said he would take up what was suggested by the delegate of 
Ecuador and several other delegations .  In future Members would have  an annotated agenda with an 
indication of the Member that requested inclusion of the item along with any explanation of the item 
if provided by the Member. 
94. The European Union indicated that its understa nding of this point was similar to that of 
Australia.   WT/REG/M/67 
 Page 19 
 
 
  95. The representative of Canada also said that he had the same understanding as Australia and 
the EU. 
96. The representative of Chile expressed his support for what Australia had said and added that 
that was how the agenda for the Committee should be drawn up. 
97. The representative of Cuba expressed su pport for what was stated by China. 
98. The representative of South Africa said that age nda items of that nature should be preceded 
by a written proposal, especially since they seemed to  keep returning to the agenda and the same 
issues and questions for clarification were raised.  
E. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT (2012)  OF THE CRTA TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL 
(WT/REG/W/71) 
99. The Chairman said that a draft of this report was distributed in document WT/REG/W/71.  In 
the fax of 9 October 2012, he had asked delegatio ns to submit any preliminary comments on this 
Report to the Secretariat in advance of the meeti ng.  He had not received specific comments from 
delegations in this regard.  However, given that the EFTA Secretariat has recently submitted 
comments on the two outstanding factual abst racts for EFTA-Morocco and EFTA-FYROM, he 
proposed that paragraph 6 of the Annual Report read as follows:  "Under paragraph 22(b) of the 
Transparency Mechanism (TM), in 2012, three fact ual abstracts of RTAs for which the CRTA has 
concluded its factual examinations under Ar ticle XXIV of GATT 1994 were posted on the RTA 
Database".   
100. In the absence of comments from Members, the Chairman adopted the Annual Report (2012) 
of the CRTA contained in document WT/REG/22 dated 23 November 2012. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
101. The Chairman recalled there were two issues.   The first concerned technical cooperation 
activities conducted in 2012 in the area of regi onal trade agreements.  At the Committee's 
32nd Session, it had been agreed to regularly review RTA-related technical assistance activities by the 
Secretariat.   
102. The Secretariat said that as could be seen from the table that was available electronically with 
the document set for the meeting (document RD/RTA /1), the Secretariat had conducted 10 technical 
assistance (TA) activities in 2012.  Twelve activities were scheduled for 2013, seven of which were 
intermediate level regional activities (formally kno wn as regional trade policy courses), one was a 
regional workshop for English-speaking Africa, th ree were Geneva-based global courses and one was 
an e-learning online course.  Most of these activitie s had been financed by the WTO regular budget, 
donations by Member countries, or by th e Global Trust Fund for activities under the 
Doha Development Agenda.   
103. The objectives of the activities varied from raising awareness on RTA dynamics in global 
trade, to training and advising government offici als on WTO rules and procedures on RTAs, including 
the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs.  Virtually all TA activities were addressed to participants 
from broad regional groupings.  Their underlying obj ective was to contribute to the development of 
RTAs that were beneficial to their members and th at complemented the objectives of the WTO.  Since 
Doha, the RTA Section had been entrusted with the additional TA task of clarifying issues related to 
the negotiations on RTA rules to WTO Members requesting such assistance. WT/REG/M/67 
Page 20  
 
  104. The representative of Colombia thanked the S ecretariat and wanted to emphasise the high 
calibre of the courses.  She had had the privilege  of attending the course on RTAs along with the 
delegate of the Dominican Republic and could attest to their excellent quality.  She encouraged other 
colleagues to take these courses at the end of wh ich they could also receive a certificate. 
105. The Chairman concurred with Colombia on the us efulness of the course.  He indicated that 
the proposed dates for the CRTA's meetings in 2013 were 9-10 April, 26-27 June and 
17-18 September 2013.   
106. The Committee took note of the comments made. 
__________