WT/REG/W/124  
 
30 October  2017 
(17-5868) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM T HE EUROPEAN UNION  
 The following communication has been received from the delegation of the European Union 
on 25 October  2017 for circulation to WTO Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
European Union follow -up questions  to LAIA Member countrie s 
 
The EU thanks LAIA Member countries for the replies (WT/ COMT D/W/224) to its questions 
(WT/REG/W/109).  
 
The EU acknowledges the efforts made by LAIA Members countries in putting together 
these replies as well as in the additional LAIA submission ( WT/COMT D/N/53). However, the EU 
considers that further clarifications are needed. Regrettably, the EU's request for a correlation  
table, linking the table of agreements contained in the LAIA communication of J une 2016 
(documents WT/COMTD/W/2 17 and WT/REG/W/105) t o the agreements  on the Secretariat list of 
non-notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/119) has not been met.  
Key general concerns  
On the basis of the replies, the ongoing discussions at the CRTA as well as the available 
information on the LAIA web -page, it appears that  the following key general concerns  have not yet 
been sufficiently clarified. Therefore, the EU would like to invite LAIA Member countries to give 
additional and substantive explanations.  
On the basis of LAIA replies, the EU understands that: i) the 1980 T reaty of Montevideo 
contains only political level objectives, and ii) market opening and tariff preferences are granted 
on the basis of subsequent agreements among LAIA Members.  
The EU therefore has doubts that the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo can be conside red as the 
"mother agreement" and this interpretation is reinforced by the fact that individual LAIA 
agreements have been separately notified suggesting that LAIA members themselves were not 
unanimous in their understanding that one notification for the Tr eaty of Montevideo covered all 
subsequent agreements as notifications have been submitted for some bilateral and plurilateral 
agreements subsequent to the Treaty of Montevideo.  
Furthermore, some of those RTAs have been notified under Article XXIV of the GA TT and 
Article V of the GATS. Therefore, the Treaty of Montevideo does not encompass only Enabling 
Clause agreements as claimed by the LAIA Member countries. Then, the LAIA replies confirm that 
some of the RTAs contain provisions on trade in services. For the EU it is beyond doubt that RTAs 
going beyond goods and covering trade in services cannot be covered by the Enabling Clause.  
Taking into account the above, the EU has - in the subsequent list of questions - attempted 
to first identify the "mother agree ment(s)", that is the underlying agreement(s) containing the 
tariff preferences of many LAIA Member countries, and, second, to understand whether the 
agreement(s) in question has/have been notified. However, further clarifications are needed before 
being a ble to reach any conclusion.  WT/REG/W/124  
 
- 2 - 
 
  To facilitate the discussion, the EU would like to receive detailed replies to the questions and 
issues listed below that need to be considered as small but essential steps to correlate the 
Secretariat document of non -notified RTAs (WT/REG /W/119) – here in after 'the document of non -
notified RTAs' – with the LAIA list of agreements contained in annex to the document 
'WT/COMTD/ W/217-WT/REG/W/105'.  
1.1  Issue: the "mother RTA(s)"  
a. A recent study published by the LAIA Secretariat1 illustrates the agreements 
implemented under the umbrella of the Treaty of Montevideo as well as their historical 
evolution. The study presents an assessment of the preferential agreements on the basis 
of the tariff dismantlement established in the agreements. This is clear confirmation that 
market opening and tariff preferences are granted in subsequent agreements among 
LAIA Members and not on the basis of the Treaty of Montevideo . The Parties are invited 
to comment on this.  
b. Following LAIA submission (WT/COMTD/ N/53), the EU understands that MERCOSUR –
Mexico now has the status of "notified agreement  under the Enabling Clause" on the 
basis of this notification. However that document only contains (with reference to this 
agreement) the ECA 55.6. The Parties are invi ted to clarify if and when ECA 55 has been 
notified and submit the relevant WTO document number.  
c. As MERCOSUR is a party to the agreement, the EU would like to invite the Parties to 
justify how it could fall under the Enabling Clause. This explanation woul d allow Members 
to have a better understanding of the agreements listed in the document of non -notified 
RTAs under No 61 to No 65.  
1.2  Issue: meaning of "implementation"   
Under this section, the EU aims to clarify whether the RTAs in question are mere changes  
affecting the implementation to an RTA and/or its operation or whether in fact they grant 
preferential tariff preferences.  
a. The EU would like to better understand the content of the agreement listed in the 
document of non -notified RTAs as No 45 (Argentina -Brazil -Uruguay). Could the Parties 
submit detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, 
could the Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this 
agreement? Could also the Parties clarify whether it is still in force?  
b. With reference to the agreement listed as No 46 (Argentina -Paraguay), could the Parties 
clarify whether ECA 13 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In p articular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? Could the 
Parties clarify whether ECA 13 has been notified at the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
c. With reference to the agreement listed as No 47 (Argentina -Uruguay), could the Parties 
clarify what is the underlying agreement? Is it ECA 57 or ECA 1? Could the Parties 
submit detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, 
could the Parties clarify what are the preferen tial arrangements contained in this 
agreement? Could the Parties clarify whether ECA 57 (or ECA 1) has been notified to the 
WTO, indicating the document number?  
d. With reference to the agreement listed as No 48 (Chile -Argentina), could the Parties 
clarify wh ether ECA 16 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? Could the 
Parties clarify whether ECA 16 has been notified to the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
                                                
1 Estudio 221, EVOLUCIÓN DEL COMERCIO NEGOCIADO 1993 -2015, 27.03.2017  WT/REG/W/124  
 
- 3 - 
 
  e. With reference to the agreement listed as No 49 (Chile -Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela), could the Parties clarify whether ECA 23 is the underlying agreement? Could 
the Parties submit detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In 
particular, could the Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in 
this agreement? Could the Parties clarify whether ECA 23 has been notified to the  WTO, 
indicating the document number?  
f. With reference to the agreement listed as No 50 (Chile -Cuba), could the Parties clarify 
whether ECA 42 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description of the content of this [partial]  agreeme nt? In particular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? Could the 
Parties clarify whether ECA 42 has been notified to the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
g. With reference to the agreement listed a s No 52 (Chile -Bolivia), could the Parties clarify 
whether ECA 22 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arra ngements contained in this agreement? Could the 
Parties clarify whether ECA 22 has been notified to the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
h. With reference to the agreement listed as No 53 (Colombia -Cuba), could the Parties 
clarify whether the ECA 49 is th e underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit 
detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the 
Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? 
Could the Parties clarify whether  ECA 49 has been notified to the WTO, indicating the 
document number?  
i. With reference to the agreement listed as No 54 (Colombia -Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela), could the Parties clarify whether ECA 28 is the underlying agreement? Could 
the Parties submi t detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In 
particular, could the Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in 
this agreement? Could the Parties clarify whether ECA 28 has been notified to the WTO, 
indicatin g the document number?  
j. The EU would like to better understand the content of the agreements listed as No 56 
(LAIA Cultural goods), No 57 (LAIA Seeds). Could the Parties submit detailed description 
of the content of these [partial]  agreements? In particular , could the Parties clarify what 
are the preferential arrangements contained in these agreements?  
k. With reference to the following agreements listed as:  
 No 58 (LAIA – preferences in favour of Bolivia (AR. AM N 1))  
 No 59 (LAIA – preferences in favour of Ecua dor (AR.AM N 2))  
 No 60 ( LAIA – preferences in favour of Paraguay (AR.AM N 3))  
 
Could the parties clarify what the link is between the AR and the ECA Agreements? In 
particular:  
 
- AR. AM N 1 with ECA 22 or ECA 23 that are the preferences given to Bolivia 
from single LAIA Members;  
- AR.AM N 2 with ECA 65 or 32 that are the preferences given to Ecuador from 
single LAIA Members;  
- AR. AM N 3 with ECA 13 that are the preferences given to Paraguay from single 
LAIA Members.  
 
l. With reference to the agreement listed as No 66 (Mexico - Argentina), could the Parties 
clarify whether ECA 6 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arran gements contained in this agreement? Could the WT/REG/W/124  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Parties clarify whether ECA 6 have been notified to the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
m. With reference to the agreement listed as No 67 (Mexico - Brazil), could the Parties 
clarify whether ECA 53 is the u nderlying agreement? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? Could the 
Parties clarify whether EC A 53 have been notified at the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
n. With reference to the agreement listed as No 68 (Mexico - Cuba), could the Parties 
clarify whether the ECA 51 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit 
detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the 
Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? 
Could the Parties clarify whether ECA 51 have been notified to the WTO, indicating the 
document number?  
o. With reference to the agreement listed as No 69 (Mexico - Ecuador), could the Parties 
clarify whether the ECA 29 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit 
detailed description of the content of this [partial] agreement? In particular, could the 
Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? 
Could the Parties clarify whether ECA 29 have been notified tot the WTO, indicating the 
document number?  
p. With reference to the agreement listed as No 70 (Mexico - Paraguay),  could the Parties 
clarify whether the ECA 38 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit 
detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the 
Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained i n this agreement? 
Could the Parties clarify whether ECA 38 have been notified tot the WTO, indicating the 
document number?  
q. With reference to the agreement listed as No 71 (Mexico – Plurinational state of Bolivia), 
could the Parties clarify whether ECA 66 i s the underlying agreement? Could the Parties 
submit detailed description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, 
could the Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this 
agreement? Could the Parties clarify whe ther ECA 71 have been notified to the WTO, 
indicating the document number?  
r. With reference to the agreement listed as No 72 (Panama - Cuba), could the Parties 
clarify whether the ECA of reference is ECA No 71? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description o f the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? Could the 
Parties clarify whether ECA 71 have been notified to the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
s. With reference to the agreement listed as No 73 (Peru - Cuba), could the Parties clarify 
whether ECA 50 is the underlying agreement? Could the Parties submit detailed 
description of the content of this [partial]  agreement? In particular, could the Parties 
clarify what are the preferential arrangements contained in this agreement? Could the 
Parties clarify whether ECA 50 have been notified to the WTO, indicating the document 
number?  
t. With reference to the agreement listed as No 74 (Uruguay – Bolivarian Republ ic of 
Venezuela), could the Parties clarify whether ECA 63 is the underlying agreement? Could 
the Parties submit detailed description of the content of this [partial] agreement? In 
particular, could the Parties clarify what are the preferential arrangement s contained in 
this agreement? Could the Parties clarify whether ECA 63 have been notified to the WTO, 
indicating the document number?  WT/REG/W/124  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.3  Issue: agreements containing provisions on trade in services   
a. With reference to the agreement listed as No 51 (Chile – Ecuador), could the Parties 
clarify what is the underlying agreement? Is it ECA 65 or ECA 32? Could the Parties 
clarify whether ECA 32 and/or ECA 65 have been notified to the WTO, indicating the 
document number? Furthermore, considering that this agreement covers also Trade in 
services, could the Parties justify why it has not been notified under Art. V of the GATS?  
b. Focusing on the agreements containing provisions in trade in services, further 
clarifications are needed to understand the differences between t he complementary 
agreements concluded on a bilateral basis by the LAIA Member countries (ECAs) and 
other agreements such as for example the Chile -Colombia FTA.  
For example, the Chile and Colombia FTA (ACE 24) was notified (WT/REG272/N/1) on 
the basis of A rt. XXIV of the GATT and V of the GATS. According to the notification, it 
provides for extensive trade liberalization between the parties, consolidating Economic 
Complementarity Agreement No. 24 in force between the two countries since 1 January 
1994 and t he additional protocols thereto.  
In the light of the above and with reference to the provisions on trade in goods , could 
the LAIA Member countries clarify what are the 'additional' elements contained in this 
Agreement justifying its notification under Art . XXIV of the GATT? This is a clear example 
confirming that the Treaty of Montevideo cannot be considered the "mother agreement" 
of the agreements listed in the document of non -notified RTAs from No 45 to No 74.  
1.4  Issue: accession of new members   
a. With refe rence to the agreement listed as No 55 and referring to the Accession of 
Panama, could LAIA Member countries further explain why it has not been notified, 
taking into account that:  
 first, all subsequent accessions cannot fall under section B of the Transpa rency 
Mechanism for RTAs; and  
 second, other accessions had been notified. What is for example the difference 
between the accession of Panama and the accession of Cuba notified in September 
1999 as WT/COMTD/N/10?  
1.5  Issue: venue for further discussion  
Finally,  considering that the venue of discussion of RTAs represents a concern for LAIA 
Member countries, the EU remains open to discuss these issues also (but not only) at the CTD or 
would propose to schedule a dedicated joint session of the CRTA -CTD to advance o n this issue.  
 
__________