RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/80  
 
10 May 2016  
(16-2570)  Page: 1/15  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Eightieth Session   
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 5-6 APRIL 2016 
Chairmen: Ambassador Amr RAMADAN (Egypt) and  
Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden) 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The 80th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/5/Rev.1 dated 24 March 2016. 
1.2.  The Chairman welcomed Members to the 80th Session of the CRTA. Under other business it 
was his intention to inform about the proposed schedule of meetings for the rest of the year. 
1.3.  The representative of Brazil wanted to add under other business an intervention with regard 
to paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. 
1.4.  The Chairman proposed a reordering of th e Agenda as in the Airgram and would, with the 
agreement of the new Chairman, hand over the Ch airmanship of the Committee at the beginning 
of the meeting. If Members agreed, the Committee would take up item F on the Election of Officers before the others. 
1.5.  The representative of the Former Yugoslav Re public of Macedonia said he wished to raise an 
issue that had been discussed on many occasions wi th the Secretariat and recently with the Chief 
of Cabinet of the Director General concerning continued practice in the WTO of using an improvised abbreviation when referring to his country. He referred to the Document "Regional 
Trade Agreements subject to Implementation Reports", (WT/REG/W/101) and in particular the 
documents under Agenda Item 2B - Implementati on of the RTA Transparency Mechanism (TM). 
These documents contained an acronym for his State, in several instances, that was inconsistent, 
politically incorrect and violated its fundamental rights. 
1.6.  The practice which used an improvised abbreviation when referring to his State was not 
acceptable. Furthermore, it was not in compliance with the Decision for Accession of the Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the WTO and th e provisional designation contained therein, as 
well as Resolution 817 of the Security Council of  the United Nations (from which the provisional 
designation came). He underlined that in circumstances where the WTO Secretariat considered that there existed reasons which did not allow the use of the official, constitutional name of the 
State, the use of the full provisional designation as referred to in the Decision for accession could 
be used. As regards the occurrences where WTO Me mbers were referred to with abbreviations, he 
advised the Secretariat to use the ISO internationally recognized country code – MK or MKD. For 
these reasons he requested that the documents referred to above be revised/corrected accordingly 
and redistributed during the meeting; this also a pplied to the internet and the relevant extranet 
site of the WTO. If changes and revisions were not made as requested, he would have to demand 
that the reports mentioned be withdrawn from th e Agenda of the meeting and be considered at 
the next Sessions of the Committee. He asked the Chairman and the respective members for support regarding his request. WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 2 - 
 
1.7.  The Chairman noted the statement made and said that it was an issue that would probably 
require further consultations with the new Chair and the Secretariat. He did not think the 
Committee was in a position to delete the item at this stage. 
1.8.  The representative of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia clarified that his request 
only related to documents under item 2B in which the acronym was mentioned in two or three 
instances. 
1.9.  The Chairman said he had noted the two points made. On the first point concerning the 
name, consultations would be required. On the seco nd, as already noted, he did not think the item 
could be changed at this stage but this was an issue that could be discussed under that Agenda item. 
1.10.  The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Observers C. Submission from the United States 
D. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs   Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism 
II. Free Trade Agreement between Canada  and the Republic of Korea, Goods 
and Services  
III. Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and Australia, Goods and 
Services 
IV. Free Trade Agreement between the EF TA States and the Central American 
States (Costa Rica and Panama), Goods and Services 
V. Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA States and Colombia, Goods and 
Services 
E. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements involving WTO non-Members 
I. Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA States and Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Goods 
F.  Election of Officers G. Other business 
  
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
1.11.  The Chairman said that following the deci sion by the General Council on 24 February, he 
had the pleasure to propose to the Committee to adopt, by acclamation, Ambassador Daniel 
Blockert of Sweden as the new Chairman of the CRTA. He thanked the Committee for its support 
for his Chairmanship. 
1.12.  On behalf of the CRTA, the new Chairman thanked Ambassador Ramadan who had stepped 
in to chair the Committee in 2015 when it needed le adership and had been an excellent Chair. It 
was his intention to continue working in the same way as he had done. Ambassador Ramadan had already been a great help and he was sure he would contact him again on several occasions. Although he had not been a regular participant in  the CRTA, he had been involved when the DDA 
had started. Although he had followed the CRTA be fore he had not done so in recent years and so 
hoped for the patience of Members to allow him to familiarize himself with the issues as fast as he could and apologized in advance in case he stepped on any toes.  
1.13.  He noted that one could not attend any se minar or meeting on trade without the issue of 
FTAs and RTAs being mentioned, so it was a hot topic in the trade world today. It had been so for several years and was likely to continue as there were several big agreements that were being 
negotiated at present. A lot of research had also been done, including by organizations such as the 
World Bank, UNCTAD, the IMF, regional deve lopment banks and the WTO Secretariat and 
academia. The issue had also been discussed at the highest political levels including the G20, which, even though it did not represent all Memb ers, had produced a number of interesting papers 
on the issue. All this showed the level of interest  in RTAs. It seemed to him that everyone agreed 
on one issue and that was the need to discuss RTAs  in the WTO. It was therefore confusing to see 
that the Committee had not managed to do so in a constructive manner for quite a long time.  WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 3 - 
 
1.14.  Paragraph 28 of the Ministerial Declaration in Nairobi, however, might change the situation 
in the future. He noted that his country, Sweden, was known to be a hard core free trader and although some said that this was naïve, he realized that there were a number of difficult issues to be resolved; that Members did not agree on how to deal with RTAs; that there were connections to 
other WTO committees such as the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) and the 
Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR); and that there were difficulties with regard to notifications and the TM for RTAs. These were tough issues. However, he said he would not be doing his job as the 
Chair if he did not attempt to implement the instructions from Ministers as clearly laid out in 
paragraph 28 of the Ministerial Declaration.  
1.15.  He intended to consult with as many Members as he could and had already started to do so. 
The questions he intended to ask in his bilateral consultations were: how Members could move 
forward with a systemic dialogue in the WTO on the relationship between RTAs and the multilateral 
trading system, initiating a sustainable process that could live on after he had stopped being Chairman; whether there was a way to transform the provisional TM on RTAs into a permanent 
mechanism and if this was a priority for Members; and how to improve notifications and 
information and transparency in the regular work  of the CRTA. Members were of course free to 
raise any other issues they believed important but these were the questions he intended to ask. 
He was aware of the difficulties and wanted to hear ideas. He was not good at taking no for an 
answer, and so it was his intention to push Members to come up with ideas on a way forward and if Members did not have ideas he wanted them to be clear and frank about that as well. He did not intend to issue a list of consultations with all Members but if any Member had an interest, he 
invited them to contact him or the Secretariat an d he would be happy to meet with everyone who 
wished to do so, so the process could be made as constructive as possible.  
B. OBSERVERS 
1.16.  The Chairman recalled that the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) had been 
granted observer status in the CRTA on an ad hoc basis and sought confirmation to extend an 
invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee's next session.  
1.17.  The representative of the United States  welcomed the appointment of the Chairman and 
said that the U.S. shared his aspirations for th e work of the Committee. Regarding the observer 
status of the LAIA, the U.S. had previously made statements in the Committee seeking to resolve one of the most significant obstacles facing the work of the CRTA, which was the large number of 
non-notified LAIA agreements. The U.S. had recall ed that in the original request for observer 
status for the LAIA, Uruguay had noted that sinc e LAIA agreements would be reviewed in the 
CRTA, it was necessary and appropriate for the LAIA to be granted observer status. Members had 
agreed and ever since, the LAIA had been welcom ed as an observer to the CRTA. Time had shown 
that very few LAIA agreements had been notified or reviewed by the CRTA, or the CTD, and that the LAIA had consistently taken the position that  agreements among its members did not need to 
be notified to the WTO. In his several years of covering the CRTA he was not aware that the LAIA 
had ever attended a meeting, nor had they responded to repeated requests from the U.S. to join in a conversation aimed at resolving the issue of  non-notified agreements. The U.S. believed that 
the CRTA seemed to be on auto pilot on this item. It felt that it had no choice but to ask the LAIA 
to make clear to the Committee that they desired to remain as an observer, so that the Committee 
could evaluate the request on its merits and know th at it came from a sincere interest in the work 
of the Committee.  
1.18.  He said that non-notification of RTAs was a significant and growing concern for the U.S., 
and while the issue had not been limited to the LAIA agreements, they represented a significant 
majority of the agreements listed in the Secretar iat's compilation of non-notified agreements. The 
Committee had, in the past, had very brief discu ssions on these agreements but the discussions 
had never progressed to the point of reaching a common understanding on very important questions. The U.S. wanted to again try to initiate a discussion with the hope of finding a way to resolve important questions of transparency. There had been statements in the past by individual 
LAIA members that the biennial reports submitte d to the CTD represented their contributions to 
transparency and that WTO notifications were not required. The U.S. and other delegations had reiterated the view that the relevant agreements should be notified properly to the WTO 
Membership and that the LAIA report had no stan ding in the WTO nor could it replace Members' 
individual obligations. The U.S. had also repeated  a willingness to work with LAIA members to find 
a way forward on this issue. It had not abandone d hope on working constructively with the LAIA WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 4 - 
 
on the notification issue and could join consensus in inviting the LAIA to  observe the next CRTA 
meeting. However, the U.S. did need to hear clearly from the LAIA that it maintained an interest in the Committee's work.  
1.19.  The Chairman took note of the statement which he said would be conveyed to the LAIA. 
1.20.  It was agreed to grant ad hoc observer  status to the LAIA for the next meeting.  
1.21.  Under item BI, the Chairman informed the Committee that he had received a request for 
observer status from the Inter-Governmental Body on Shipping (ISCOS), based in Mombasa, 
Kenya. A copy of the request was available in document WT/RTA/31. He reminded Members that 
ISCOS had been established in 1967 by the Go vernments of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and 
Zambia. According to the information provided in the letter from ISCOS, the organization dealt, inter alia , with the emerging challenges of internatio nal trade and associated developments in the 
region. The organization was currently working with regional governments, the private sector, 
development partners and other stakeholders to coordinate regional initiatives aimed at reducing the cost of doing business. 
1.22.  ISCOS had also made a request for observ ership to the CTD which had been granted by 
Members on 16 March 2016. In line with past practice, requests for observership in the CRTA were considered on a case-by-case basis. If Members agreed he proposed that the Committee grant 
observership to ISCOS and invite it to the next Session of the CRTA. 
1.23.  The representative of the United States said the U.S. agreed with and applauded the 
application for observer status by ISCOS and hoped it would be successful in assisting African 
countries in expediting the ratification of the Trade Facilitation Agreement as had been noted in 
the letter to the Director General. ISCOS clearly saw a linkage between regional trade agreements 
and support for the WTO rules and the U.S. whol eheartedly supported that linkage and believed 
ISCOS could be a positive influence in the WTO. 
1.24.  It was so agreed. 
C. SUBMISSION FROM THE UNITED STATES 
1.25.  The Chairman said that a submission had been received from the United States and 
circulated in document WT/REG/W/103. He asked the U.S. to introduce its proposal before he 
asked for Members' views. 
1.26.  The representative of the United States sugge sted that for matters of efficiency it might be 
best to introduce the proposal under agenda item DI under which the Secretariat provided a 
report, as the U.S. statement related to that report. 
D. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS ITEM D.I STATUS REPORT ON THE CO MMITTEE'S WORK - NON NOTIFIED RTAS 
(WT/REG/W/100/REV.1) AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTA TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM 
(WT/REG/W/101/CORR.1 AND WT/REG/W/102) 
1.27.  The Chairman provided an update wi th regard to the Committee's work and the 
implementation of the TM.  A total of 38 early announcements were currently on the WTO website  
(not counting those which had been subsequently notified). He thanked Members who had submitted information in line with the requirements of the TM and encouraged others to do so. He also reminded Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early 
announcements.  
1.28.  With regard to the preparation of factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO members only there were currently 37 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. Members would recall 
that at the Committee's 52
nd Session on 4 March 2009, they had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the TM's procedures. Thus, factual presentations on a further 
35 RTAs involving non-Members were to be prepared. Members had agreed that those RTAs WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 5 - 
 
notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, should be taken up before the 
others. Data requests for RTAs notified since the adoption of the TM had been sent to the relevant Parties. Regarding the issue of non-notified RTAs, an updated list had been recently circulated as 
WT/REG/W/100/Rev.1 and contained 73 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 11 March 2016.  
1.29.  With regard to RTAs for which the factual consideration had been delayed due to lack of 
comments from parties, he understood that the previous Chairman and the Secretariat had continued consultations with delegations. An updated list of such RTAs had been recently 
circulated as WT/REG/W/102. He hoped that outstanding comments would soon be made available 
and the factual consideration of these agreements could be undertaken.  
1.30.  Regarding the backlog in the receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting of 
factual presentations for certain RTAs, the Secretariat had continued consultations with a number 
of delegations on the Chair's behalf. He hoped th at delegations would provide missing information 
as soon as possible. 
1.31.  Lastly, concerning implementation reports,  an updated schedule for the submission of such 
reports had been distributed by the Secretaria t (WT/REG/W/101 and Corr.1). As of 11 March 
2016, implementation reports were due for 129 RT As, and the end of implementation (EOI) for 
11 RTAs was in 2016. The EOI for 106 RTAs was from 2017 onwards, and for one RTA the EOI 
year was not available. There were six RTAs for which an implementation report had already been 
circulated. He said that it was clear that there was a considerable number of RTAs for which an implementation report had been long overdue an d encouraged all delegations to submit their 
implementation reports accordingly. He passed the floor to a representative of the Secretariat for 
further details on the situation with regard to the preparation of the factual presentations. 
1.32.  A representative of the Secretariat provided  delegations with the status of the preparation 
of factual presentations for RTAs. With regard to factual presentations of RTAs between WTO 
Members: for  US-CAFTA-DR, Canada-Honduras, and the Dominican Republic-Central America, 
goods and services,  comments had been received from the parties and the factual presentations 
would be issued shortly. For US-Panama goods and services, comments had also been received 
and the factual presentation would be issu ed shortly. For Korea-India, services,  the data request 
had been sent out in 2010. Data had been received from Korea and  s o m e  f r o m  I n d i a .  F o r  
Korea-ASEAN, services, the data request had been sent out in 2010. Data had been received from Korea only. For Georgia-Russian Federation, goods,  data had been received but the Secretariat 
was awaiting clarification on some tariff-related issues by the Russian Federation. For EU-Papua 
New Guinea, Fiji, and EU-Cameroon, both goods only , data had been received from the EU only. 
For Korea-Australia, goods and services, the consideration of the agreement had been delayed at 
the request of the parties and would be considered at the Committee's next meeting. For, 
Iceland-China, goods and services,  the factual presentation had been sent to the parties in October 
2015. Comments had been received from China only . For EU-ESA, goods, the factual presentation 
had been sent to the parties. Comments were due by 20 April. For Chile-Viet Nam, goods, the 
factual presentation had been sent to the parties and comments were due by 18 April. For GCC-Singapore, services, data had been received from Singapore only. For ASEAN-India, services, data had been received from most ASEAN parties but no data had been received from India. For 
Korea-New Zealand, goods and services, data ha d been received from New Zealand only. For 
Australia-China, goods and services, data was due by 6 April. For EU-Ukraine, goods and services, 
now in force for both parties, data was due by 3 May. For the Seychelles' accession to SADC, 
goods, data was due by 1 June. For China-Korea, goods and services, data was due by 20 July. For 
Vietnam-Korea, goods and services, data was due by 28 July. For Armenia-Kazakhstan, goods, data was due by 18 August. 
1.33.  With regard to RTAs involving non-Members: for Iceland-Faeroe Islands, goods and 
services,  the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2009 and the Secretariat was still 
awaiting final comments from the Faroe Islands. For the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and the EAEU, no data had been received from the parties. 
For Armenia's accession to the EAEU, goods and services, data had been received from Armenia. 
For the Kyrgyz Republic's accession to the EAEU , data had been due by 3 December 2015. For 
EU-Bosnia and Herzegovina, services, data had been received from the EU only. For EU-San 
Marino, goods, the Secretariat was drafting the factual presentation. For Russian Federation-
Serbia, goods, comments had been received and the factual presentation would be issued shortly. 
For EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey-Syria, CEFTA Enlargemen t, Ukraine-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-Turkmenistan, WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 6 - 
 
the Common Economic Zone, Russian Federation-Azerbaijan, Russian Federation-Turkmenistan, all 
goods, and EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services, da ta was not complete and the Secretariat could 
not begin to draft the factual presentations. She also informed Members that a notification had 
been received from the Russian Federation (issued in document WT/REG/GEN/N/8 dated 1 April 
2016), informing Members that six of its RTAs had been terminated. Details of these RTAs could be 
found in the document mentioned. 
1.34.  A third category of RTAs concerned 4 agreements – ASEAN-Japan, EU-Cote d'Ivoire, the 
new CIS Agreement, all goods, and EU-Central America, goods and services – for which the 
Secretariat understood not all parties had ratified the agreement yet and so it intended to wait before the agreement had entered into force for all the parties before commencing the preparation 
of factual presentations. She asked the parties to  notify the Secretariat when their respective 
agreement had entered into force for all the part ies so that the transparency process could be 
started. She urged all Members to make every effort to comply with the deadlines as requested so that the Secretariat could do its best to adhere to the CRTA's work programme. 
1.35.  The Chairman passed the floor to the United States to introduce its submission contained in 
document WT/REG/W/103.  
1.36.  The representative of the United States stated that the U.S. had felt compelled to table its 
submission to make members of the Committee aware of the long list of RTAs of which the 
transparency mandated under the TM for RTAs was lacking. As noted also, there had been no response to the reports read out regularly by the Chair and the Secretariat and the U.S. felt that a 
different approach might be needed. The first part of the submission, Section A, was familiar as it 
was a list tabled by the Secretariat before ever y CRTA meeting of all agreements appearing in 
factual presentations that had not been notified as required under WTO rules. The U.S. also believed that there were additional RTAs that belo nged on the list and intended to add those RTAs 
to future lists regardless of whether they had appeared in factual presentations or not. As the 
Committee was aware, because the 75 agreements had not been notified, the transparency process foreseen under the TM for RTAs, could not begin. For the other 25 or so agreements listed 
in Section B, the parties had been delinquent in submitting either the required data or comments 
back to the WTO Secretariat, indefinitely delaying the WTO transparency review of the agreements. If WTO Members wanted to have a realistic discussion on the impact of RTAs on the multilateral trading system, they needed to account for at least the 100 or more agreements listed 
in the tables. Discussions on the systemic impact of RTAs should not only focus on RTAs for which 
Members already had transparency but must include those that currently did not have such transparency.  
1.37.  While the U.S. supported making the RTA TM permanent, it believed that a more productive 
use of Members' time would be for those who had non-notified agreements, to notify them as soon as possible and for Members to provide the information necessary for the RTA TM to function as it 
was intended to. To the extent that Members were having difficulty complying with the timelines in 
the RTA TM, as originally agreed, the U.S. was open to discussing improvements. It would also be a useful improvement to the Committee's work if t h e  C R T A  f o l l o w e d  s t a n d a r d  p r ac t i c e  i n  o t h e r  
Committees and used the agenda for Members to raise questions regarding Members' notifications 
or non-notified agreements. This was standard in almost every other Committee which had notified 
requirements for example for TBT, SPS or Trad e Remedies. In Committees dealing with these 
issues for example, a Member could request an agenda item seeking a notification when it believed 
that one should have been submitted and the re quested Member had the opportunity to respond. 
The U.S. was considering this approach for future meetings of the CRTA. The U.S. would also be open to using some of the time set aside at CR TA meetings for informal discussions, perhaps on 
the margins of the June CRTA meeting, regarding notification issues. If Members could share 
problems or difficulties they faced with respect to notifications or provision of data, even informally, that could enhance understanding of the proper functioning of the TM. For the U.S. this 
was a precursor to any conversation on amending or making permanent the TM for RTAs. The U.S. 
had noted in the past that the CRTA met four times a year for two days at a time and had rarely 
used the time it had set aside. So there would be  ample time to have this discussion in the CRTA. 
He noted that paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration also instructed the Committee to 
invigorate its regular work.  
1.38.  On the LAIA agreements, which constitu ted around half of the list of non-notified 
agreements, the U.S. had noted in the past that th e LAIA biennial reports closely followed the WTO WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 7 - 
 
RTA notification template. So if the root of the non-notification issue was difficulty in preparing and 
submitting the notification, the U.S. would welcome a discussion on how the work done already by the LAIA for its Members could form the basis of a notification to the WTO. The U.S., however, 
strongly believed that notification requirements and the obligations found in the TM including 
provision of data to support the Secretariat's work  in preparing factual presentations fell squarely 
on individual WTO Members and could not be shifted to a non-WTO member. He could provide some examples on why the distinction was import ant. If LAIA members were concerned about the 
administrative burden of facing a large number of factual presentations all at once, if the required 
notification were to be made, the U.S. had been supportive in the past by suggesting a Committee discussion after notifications had been made, on ho w such notifications might be treated. The U.S. 
would be open to solutions such as factual abstracts if that helped such concerns. He reminded 
Members that the TM had dealt with this problem, which had obviously been faced by a large 
number of Members, when it had entered into force. Since the LAIA had never notified these agreements they were not able to take advantage of that flexibility at the time. If notification were 
to be made, the U.S. would be open to revisiting whether some kind of flexibility could be 
introduced to streamline the work of the Committee. Nevertheless, Latin America was an important regional market and there was signific ant interest in better understanding the progress 
towards regional integration that had been achieved. It was therefore important to be clear that 
there was a real interest in greater transparency among these parties. LAIA members had not responded to either of these suggestions to date and the U.S. would welcome their reactions at the 
meeting.  
1.39.  Before moving into a discussion on whether the LAIA reports could be used as notifications 
the U.S. offered further clarifications on how it saw the notifications as the individual responsibility of Members. Consistent with the TM, Members in the CRTA should be able to pose questions to, 
and receive responses from, other WTO Member s that were party to an RTA, regarding 
notifications or agreements that should be notifi ed. The U.S. had a long and consistent record of 
posing notification questions to other Members. In the case of many agreements involving Latin 
America the response received had just referred to LAIA practice or to a LAIA position indicating 
that members believed they could sidestep notification obligations by claiming that the decision and responsibility for notification fell upon a regional organization that was not a WTO Member. That had done nothing to support transparency. In dividual Members were also required to submit 
data to the Secretariat and were provided an op portunity to review and comment on draft factual 
presentations before they were circulated. If the Members that attended Committee meetings deferred these responsibilities to a non-WTO me mber, he asked how the work of the Committee 
would be carried out. In addition where there mi ght be questions about the content of the LAIA 
reports themselves, which had informational value, he asked whether the LAIA members would be able to respond to the questions directly since th ey had not participated in the drafting of the 
reports. He welcomed any reactions or thoughts on the suggestions he had made or reactions on 
how to improve transparency in the Committee.  
1.40.  The representative of Australia thanked the U.S. for putting together and tabling the useful 
document. The consolidation had helped to give Members a clear picture of the overall landscape 
of RTA notifications by bringing together information already available in a number of regularly 
circulated WTO documents. Australia placed a high value on the notification of RTA related information to the WTO and to the CRTA in partic ular. It was both the individual and collective 
responsibility of Members to ensure that ther e was a high degree of visibility of the trade 
commitments made outside of the multilateral trading system. Australia believed that the 
notification of RTA related information should be taken just as seriously as any of the other 
notification or transparency obligations in the WTO system. The document submitted by the U.S. 
had helpfully set out the current gaps and discrep ancies in RTA notifications that Members were 
aware of. The document was a useful prompt for Members to focus their attention on where transparency could be improved. It was hoped that this in turn would lead Members to engage in a 
more targeted and constructive discussion on how to bridge any notification gaps and guide each 
other on where assistance may be required to support compliance with the TM. Australia welcomed the initiative by the U.S. as a complement to other efforts to advance the work of the CRTA.  
1.41.  The representative of Japan welcomed the Chair and looked forwarding to working together 
with him in the CRTA. Japan welcomed the submissi on by the U.S. on RTAs. The submission would 
help Members to understand the situation regarding RTA notifications and make a discussion in the 
CRTA more fruitful. As mentioned in paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, RTAs were 
one of the important tools to complement the multilateral trading system. Therefore Japan WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 8 - 
 
strongly believed that all RTAs should be notified  to the WTO in accordance with the TM for RTAs. 
Japan urged Members to provide all the information and data necessary for the factual presentation. Japan hoped that through the consideration of RTAs under the TM Members would better understand the synergies between RTAs and the multilateral trading system. Japan looked 
forward to actively engaging in the discussion in the CRTA to implement paragraph 28 of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
1.42.  The representative of the European Union welcomed the Chair to the CRTA. The EU thanked 
the U.S. for its initiative. The EU was open to any initiative that aimed at transparency. As stated 
in previous CRTA meetings the EU believed, however, that any suggestions should be supported by consensus among Members. As in the past, the EU  invited Members on the list of non-notified 
RTAs to notify their agreements as soon as possible so that the TM could work as it should and the 
agreements could be fully reviewed by Members. She noted that 34 of the 75 RTAs on the list 
were instruments that had been concluded under the Treaty of Montevideo and reiterated that 
Members who were signatories to these agreements needed to comply with the notification 
obligations in compliance with the Transparency Decision on RTAs.  
1.43.  The EU thanked the parties for the submissi on of their biennial reports on the instruments 
concluded under the Treaty. However, as the EU had noted at the recent meeting of the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD), the reports did not exempt Members from 
complying with their notification obligations and called on the concerned Members to further clarify 
the status of these biennial reports. As the EU had already stated at the CTD meeting, it asked whether the Members submitting the reports understood them to be a notification. If this was the 
case and if LAIA members were to request that these reports be considered notifications and if 
Members agreed, then the reports could form the basis for the Secretariat to prepare factual presentations. The EU would be prepared to consider  the reports as notifications in the interest of 
resolving this longstanding issue but with the und erstanding that individual Members would also 
follow up on their obligations by submitting the relevant data for the preparation of the factual presentations. Should the concerned Members not agree with this position, however, the EU would 
underline that the Members should comply with their individual notification obligations and 
promptly submit their outstanding notifications. 
1.44.  The representative of Canada welcomed th e Chair and looked forward to working with him 
and other Members on the important work of th e Committee including implementing paragraphs 
28 and 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. He thanked the U.S. for its submission which was 
a useful and practical consolidation of the breadth of information available concerning non-notified RTAs and delayed factual presentations. It made sense to have all the information in one 
document. As Canada had stated before and, reflecting the call by the Secretariat for Members to 
work diligently to reduce the backlog and improv e the transparency of RTAs, he noted that a 
number of good ideas had emerged from the discussion and he welcomed a more detailed and 
perhaps informal discussion on the issue. Canada believed that notifications were important and 
needed to be improved but it was equally importan t to provide timely data and information so that 
the Secretariat could prepare the factual presentati on and agreements could be considered shortly 
after they had entered into force which was the requirement under the TM. Canada supported 
Members calling for a detailed discussion in any format to address the backlog of agreements and 
reinvigorate the work of the Committee. 
1.45.  The representative of India joined others in  congratulating the Chair on his election and said 
India looked forward to working with him. India also thanked Ambassador Ramadan for his 
excellent work in the past year and wished him well in his future endeavours. India thanked the U.S. for its submission. For RTAs notified under Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS 
India was ready to engage constructively in CRTA discussions on how to address delays in factual 
presentations and the issue of non-notified RTAs. However, India expressed its strong reservations on any discussion in the CRTA on RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause or RTAs notified under both Article XXIV of the GATT and the Enabling Clause. The correct forum for discussion of RTAs 
notified under the Enabling Clause or those no tified under both Article XXIV and the Enabling 
Clause ("dual notifications"), in India's opinion, was the CTD. There was already in the CTD a standing agenda item on notifications under the Enabling Clause under which delayed factual 
presentations of RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause were considered by the CTD. The recent 
meeting of the CTD on 16 March 2016 had also considered this issue. Similarly, he noted that the CTD was the correct forum for the consideration of RTAs notified under Article XXIV and the 
Enabling Clause. In this regard, he mentioned that India, along with Egypt and China, had made a WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 9 - 
 
submission in the CTD contained in document WT/COMTD/W/175, wherein systemic concerns had 
been raised over the legal and procedural impl ications of the "dual notification" of the GCC 
Customs Union under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV. India was opposed to the inclusion of RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause for discussion in the CRTA as suggested in the 
U.S. submission. 
1.46.  The representative of the Separate Custom s Territory of Taipei, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
(Chinese Taipei) congratulated the Chair on his elec tion and looked forward to working with him in 
the future. Chinese Taipei followed the TM for RTAs closely. It had submitted notifications of RTAs 
as soon as the agreement was completed, provided data in a timely manner to the Secretariat and worked closely with its trading partner. Howeve r, she noted that the submission by the U.S. 
mentioned the agreement between China and Chinese Taipei (ECFA). She clarified that the parties 
had submitted to the WTO Secretariat in May 2011 an early announcement with the text and 
annexes of the agreement which could be found in the RTA Database. Chinese Taipei's position was that since the ECFA was only a Framework Agreement with a follow up agreement being 
negotiated, the ECFA and its follow up agreemen t would be notified to the WTO once they had 
been signed. She reiterated that Chinese Taipei  would be happy to work with the U.S., and 
Members, and welcomed such initiatives. 
1.47.  The representative of Brazil congratulated the Chair on his election and looked forward to 
working with him closely. Brazil regretted that the U.S. had decided to circulate a document that 
did not add any new information to the regular work  of the Committee. Leaving aside a path which 
sometimes was complex and demanded mutual understanding, this was a kind of document that 
only reshuffled information that was already available in other documents. As illustration he 
pointed out that part B of the US submission me ntioned the factual presentation of the agreement 
between Iceland and the Faeroe Islands which a ppeared to be misplaced when compared to 
document WT/REG/W/102. Nonetheless Brazil welcom ed the interest and openness of the U.S. in 
advancing the work of the CRTA to improve tr ansparency. This was exactly what Members had 
decided in December 2015 in Nairobi. 
1.48.  With regard to the points on LAIA notifications, he said th at the issue should not be judged 
by the length of the statement but by the fact that Members had different interpretations on the 
issue. As correctly identified by the Chair in hi s introductory remarks, that issue deserved the 
attention of Members especially in the contex t of paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration. Brazil looked forward to a discussion on the matter. 
1.49.  The representative of Bolivia congratulated the Chair on his election. Bolivia did not share 
some of the views that had been expressed at the meeting that insinuated that LAIA members 
were not abiding by transparency requirements. Bolivia believed that this was not the correct 
forum to discuss notifications, which should take place in the CTD, because the Montevideo Treaty 
had been notified in a timely manner and under the procedures agreed by WTO Members. In 2006 
new procedures had come into force and LAIA members were looking at how to work with the new 
notification mechanism and did not want to undermine their own institutional mechanism at the same time. LAIA was a sub-regional body that dated back to the last century and was just as valid and legitimate as those in the WTO. It was clear th at the TM needed to be thought about further to 
deal with such situations before it became a permanent mechanism. He asked Members to provide 
further thought to find solutions to this issue. No tifications should not be detrimental to developing 
countries and could instead be useful, particularly in a time of crisis such as at present.  
1.50.  The representative of Egypt congratulated the Chair on his election and wished him all the 
best in his endeavours. Egypt welcomed the submi ssion by the U.S. and noted that it was in the 
interest of Members to enhance transparency in the WTO. Egypt was ready to engage but only for 
RTAs that fell under Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS. As reflected in document 
WT/REG/W/101 which mentioned only agreements notified under Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS, Egypt had some reservations on the inclusion of RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause and those notified under both Ar ticle XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS, 
in the CRTA. The systemic issues already raised were being discussed in the CTD for which Egypt 
had a submission together with India and China (document WT/COMTD/W/175). Egypt also associated itself with the statement by India. 
1.51.  The representative of Ecuador congratulated the Chair on his election. Ecuador did not share 
the position of other Members. Ecuador was a part  of the LAIA and the Treaty of Montevideo. The WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 10 - 
 
Treaty which dated back to 1980 had been notifi ed in 1982 under the Enabling Clause. Ecuador 
participated in the liberalization efforts of LAIA members and these efforts had been described in the reports that had been submitted by  the LAIA Secretariat to the WTO. 
1.52.  The representative of Uruguay stated that all the comments and suggestions that had been 
made would be passed on to the LAIA and any response would be passed on to Members as well. 1.53.  The representative of Mexico congratulated the Chair on his election. Mexico understood the 
concerns that had been raised by Members and was aware that transparency was important not 
only in the CRTA but throughout the WTO. Mexico , as a member of the LAIA was working within 
the LAIA to address the concerns on both sides. Mexico was very aware of the concerns that had 
been expressed in the CRTA as well as those of members of the LAIA and was ready and willing to 
work towards a common agreement. 
1.54.  The representative of the European Un ion raised questions regarding implementation 
reports to which it also attached great importance as this was a reflection of the transparency 
exercise. The EU thanked the parties for submitti ng their end of implementation reports. The 
reports had provided a useful overview of the fi nal results of RTA implementation and had also 
shed useful light on the role of RTAs in the mu ltilateral trading system. The EU was working on a 
long list of end of implementation reports ment ioned in the document issued by the Secretariat 
with the concerned Members. It was aiming to submit a set of these by the next CRTA meeting.  
1.55.  The EU had two questions on the end of im plementation report of the Ukraine-Montenegro 
Agreement. The EU had noted in paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 of the report, that Ukraine had applied 
export duties on some products and although it  had not exported such products to Montenegro 
during the period covered, the EU wished to know whether the export duties were still in place. 
Secondly on paragraph 2.11, which stated that the parties may apply quantitative restrictions in accordance with Article XI of the GATT, the EU wi shed to know if any such restrictions had been 
applied. The EU would also submit the questions in writing.  
1.56.  The representative of Ukraine confirmed that Ukraine continued to use export duties in 
accordance with the agreement with Monteneg ro and with the phase out period agreed.  
1.57.  The representative of Montenegro congratu lated the Chair on his election and wished him 
well in his work. She requested the questions in  writing so she could provide the responses in 
writing as well as soon as possible.  
1.58.  The representative of the United States sa id the interventions on the U.S. submission had 
been very helpful and that this had been one of  the most useful conversations the Committee had 
had in a very long time. From that perspective, the U.S. felt its submission had been quite successful in initiating the conversation because although as Brazil had pointed out it was the 
same information as in other documents, when  the Chair had presented the same information 
there had been no discussion. So he felt that the submission had made a start in trying to understand some of the issues confronting the CRTA. He was thankful for all the comments of 
support but noted that there had been some in terventions on what might or might not be 
appropriate for the Committee. He said that if the agreements had not been notified, there was no intention to prejudice the vehicle under which th ey would be notified. A few interventions had 
presumed that some of the non-notified agreements would be covered under the Enabling Clause 
and therefore should not discussed in the CRTA but that would not be acceptable to the U.S. until 
the agreements concerned had been notified. An agreement was an agreement that could be notified under GATT Article XXIV, the Enabling Clause  or Article V of the GATS, at which point the 
U.S. was willing to go along with the awkward an d inefficient division of consideration of RTAs 
between the CTD and the CRTA. However, the U.S. wa s on record with a very clear position paper 
suggesting that the CRTA should in fact deal with  all regional trade agreements and not some of 
them. These were the issues that Members needed to address before the TM could be made 
permanent. There were issues related to venue, notification requirements and how they applied and Members needed to discuss these issues. He appreciated that there was a difference of opinion among Members as Brazil had noted. However that difference had not been properly 
articulated and that could be a necessary part of the discussion in the CRTA to understand why 30 
years of subsequent trade agreements would not fall under the TM or under the GATT, Enabling Clause or GATS obligations. He also noted that in the most recent LAIA report submitted to the WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 11 - 
 
CTD (document WT/COMTD/88) on page 9 provided information relating to the 74th Protocol to 
Economic Complementarity—agreement no. 2 between Brazil and Uruguay and indicated that the parties believe the agreement fell under the Enabli ng Clause. However the report stated that the 
agreement "promotes the integration of the respective production chains in the sector and 
reciprocal access for the goods and services of enterprises in the sector from both countries. 
Goods and services from the sector produced in Brazil and Uruguay are deemed to have local content and domestic input status respectively. Each party is required to apply the same treatment 
to goods and services of the other party as it does to domestic goods and services." The U.S. 
believed that WTO Members had a right to ask questions about such a notification if one were to be made. However, if LAIA made such a report, it was not clear whether individual members of LAIA would be willing to be put on the spot to respond to questions. 
1.59.  On the comment by Chinese Taipei, he reca lled that the U.S. had asked specific questions 
with regard to the ECFA and had pointed out that  press releases clearly showed that exports of 
US$2.2 billion from China and US$220 million from Chinese Taipei were already subject to 
preferences under the agreement, whether it was an early harvest or not. This fell squarely within 
the TM and would require a notification. In trade in services, more than 340 enterprises from Chinese Taipei and 137 investment projects in Chinese Taipei had been made subsequent to the 
early harvest agreement. So this was a substant ial agreement with preferences being exchanged 
and an early announcement was merely a press release. The U.S. felt that such conversations should take place in the CRTA at a deeper level than had been the case in the past.  
1.60.  The representative of Brazil said he unde rstood that the intervention by the U.S. was not 
only related to notifications but also the need to increase transparency in the Committee which 
was why Brazil was planning as was reflected in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration to work towards alternatives to improve transparency in the CRTA . He thanked the U.S. for its clarification and 
openness to discuss these issues as from the previo us statement he thought that the U.S. position 
was that notifications were a prerequisite for a discussion. Brazil understood that Members had different views on notification obligations not only  in terms of a group as in the LAIA reports but 
also as identified by the U.S. in the case of agreements involving Brazil. So he believed there was 
room to explore avenues to increase transparency be it through negotiations or work towards the transformation of the TM, improving or clarifying so me of its existing disciplines but also discussing 
some of the systemic issues that were important not only for Brazil or the U.S. but for all 
Members.  
1.61.  The Chairman noted that some Members ha d supported the presentation by the U.S.; there 
were also questions and dissent from some other Members. It was not an issue that would be 
cleared up in the course of the meeting but he noted that a number of Members had indicated they 
were willing to work closely on these issues and he intended to give them the opportunity to do so. He asked Members to provide ideas on a way forw ard on transparency which was something that 
would require new thinking and it was good that the U.S. had made a proposal. It was his 
intention to look for new impetus in his bilateral discussions with Members. 
1.62.  Before moving on to the consideration of RTAs, he noted that in the Airgram for the meeting 
circulated by the Secretariat on 23 February a total of six RTAs had been proposed for 
consideration. One of these RTAs – Australia and the Republic of Korea – had been dropped from 
the Agenda at the Parties' request as they had not been able to respond to Members' questions in time. This had raised two important issues. The first was the need for all Members to respect the 
prescribed deadlines for the submission of questions in order to maximize the time available for 
RTA parties to respond. The second was the obliga tion on the Parties themselves to respond to 
questions within the prescribed deadlines. For inst ance, the last set of questions for the meeting 
had arrived that day, which was too late. He urged all Members to respect the deadlines so that 
the Committee could do its work efficien tly and the backlog did not increase. WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 12 - 
 
ITEM D.II FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANA DA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, GOODS 
AND SERVICES 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
ITEM D.III ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMEN T BETWEEN JAPAN AND AUSTRALIA, GOODS 
AND SERVICES 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
ITEM D.IV FREE TRADE AGREEM ENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE CENTRAL AMERICAN 
STATES, GOODS AND SERVICES 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
ITEM D.V FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E EFTA STATES AND COLOMBIA, GOODS AND 
SERVICES 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
E. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS INVOLVING WTO NON-MEMBERS 
ITEM E.I FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN  THE EFTA STATES AND BOSNIA AND 
HERZEGOVINA, GOODS  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
G. OTHER BUSINESS 
1.63.  The representative of Brazil noted that at the tenth Ministerial Conference in Nairobi 
Members had agreed to dedicate a paragraph to the subject of RTAs. Paragraph 28 of the 
Declaration directed future work of Members towards two main areas: the systemic implications of 
RTAs for the multilateral trading system and its relationship with the WTO rules; and the transformation of the provisional status of the TM for RTAs of 2006. Neither of these two issues 
was new to the roster of topics discussed in the organization and presented considerable 
challenges. The relationship between RTAs and the multilateral trading system went back to the establishment of the GATT in 1947 itself. By pr oviding the possibility to depart from the 
multilateral principle of the most favoured nation clause (MFN), Article XXIV had embedded, at the 
core of the system, the concept of RTAs. However, because it was an exceptional alternative to the 
MFN provision, Members had decided that liberalization through RTAs should be duly evaluated and monitored. Thus, disciplines had been establishe d in Article XXIV of the GATT itself that would 
allow Members to assess the exception to MFN tr eatment. The growing number of RTAs and the 
difficulties in implementing transparency had brought Members to negotiate and adopt 
provisionally, the TM for RTAs in 2006. The TM ha d been created to promote transparency of rules 
in RTAs through a process that would begin with a notification to the WTO, followed by the 
preparation by the Secretariat of a factual presenta tion and a meeting dedicated to the analysis of 
the agreement with the possibility to present qu estions to the parties of the agreement. The 
implementation of the TM had posed considerable challenges. The fact was naturally foreseen by 
all Members when the TM had been approved on a provisional basis and the need for reviewing it, 
had been recognized in the same decision. The current work of the CRTA and the CTD reflected the strengths and weaknesses of the TM. On the one hand one could see interesting and informative 
debates analysing many aspects of RTAs, as witnessed in the discussions involving EFTA members, 
Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea, Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia at the meeting but also from the discussions that took place a few weeks before  in the CTD, the forum for discussion of RTAs 
under the Enabling Clause, involving MERCOSUR an d India. On the other hand issues had been 
raised time and again on the agenda of the Committee without any foreseeable solution. Concerns WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 13 - 
 
raised in the Committees were only part of the wider picture of the current TM. One point was 
however clear, that guidance had been provided by Ministers "with a view to enhancing transparency in, and understanding of, RTAs and their effects, we agree to work towards the 
transformation of the current provisional TM into a permanent mechanism." It was clear that 
Members would be willing to discuss ways to improve transparency in the WTO. He said it was 
time to work and see how the Decision could be implemented. Besides the transparency discussion 
Members also had to look into a distinct area related to systemic impacts of RTAs on the 
multilateral trading system. Many attempts had been made in the past. The current proliferation of 
RTAs--625 notifications received of which 419 are in force (relating to 265 RTAs in force)—deserved Members' attention. The WTO had to carefully analyse the trends and how they influenced the shape of the multilateral trading system. The need for coherence of RTAs with the 
multilateral trading system was undisputable in order to allow Members to build and grow rather 
than stumble and fall. This was just the first opportunity to address the issue after Nairobi. 
Members had a long and challenging road ahead of them. Brazil remained open to discussing the 
matter with all Members. He asked Members to present ideas and Brazil would be ready to explore 
alternatives to improve the understanding of RTAs in the WTO.  
1.64.  The Chairman noted that he would not be doin g his job as Chair of the CRTA if he did not at 
least make an attempt to carry out instructions by Ministers. He was aware of the difficulties and 
the need to discuss many issues but there appeared  to be agreement on at least three issues: the 
need for a systemic discussion; the need to think about what was to be done with the TM, where 
the ambition from the beginning was to make it into a permanent mechanism; and the need to 
improve transparency and the work of the CRTA. It  did not really matter if an agreement had been 
notified under the CTD or the CRTA but he believed everyone agreed that work in the Committee and work on the transparency of RTAs left room for improvement. It was a testament to the hard 
work of the WTO Secretariat that there was a process that had been functioning as well as it had 
been. But a lot more could be done. He agreed with Brazil that it was up to Members to come up with ideas to move forward. He said he would speak to Members to see in what way such a 
discussion could be started. This could be done as an agenda item in the Committee or a Special 
Session or a seminar as well under different stru ctures. He would meet bilaterally with Members 
and hoped to hear some constructive ideas.  
1.65.  The representative of Uruguay supported the statement from Brazil and Uruguay supported 
setting up the debate on how to implement paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. 
1.66.  The representative of the United States than ked Brazil for its articulation of how it believed 
Members could proceed on the implementation of paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration. There were many things in the statem ent that the U.S. would agree with but he also 
noted that paragraph 28 had nothing new in it as these were standard issues that the Committee had been talking about and talking around for quite a long time. Paragraph 28 also needed to be 
read in conjunction with paragraph 29. He thought it interesting that when Members were given 
the opportunity to ask questions in the context of reviews of RTAs to get at systemic implications of for example incomplete sectoral coverage or questions about how Members were structuring RTAs in a way that disadvantaged other trading partners, they did not ask those questions. A 
number of those who wanted a conversation on systemic implications of RTAs had, to his 
knowledge, never asked questions in the Committee. For this reason the U.S. remained sceptical about where the discussion might go but insisted that it was a Member driven process. Despite 
wanting to have this conversation Members had failed at a number of occasions because no one 
wished to put anything forward. The U.S. would no t be amenable to a top down approach such as 
crafting a meeting and hoping that people would come. If papers were to be submitted, agenda 
items could be added but the U.S. did not support adding agenda items with the hope that 
Members would come forward and fill those it ems because it had not worked in the past. 
Furthermore the U.S. did not understand why the normal work of the Committee and reviews of 
agreements were not also an opportunity to raise systemic questions. It was not clear why a 
separate conversation was needed. He also adde d that while the notified agreements had been 
mentioned, there were at least 100 agreements that had not been notified and should be added to the list of RTAs especially the large number of  Latin American agreements that remained non-
notified but were important and had systemic implications. The U.S. felt that this was a very 
necessary part of the conversation going forward and would not give up on that desire. Enhanced 
transparency was also included in paragraph 28 of the Declaration and the U.S. would maintain its 
position that that needed to be part of any future conversation. The U.S. welcomed Brazil's 
initiative and would like to see something from them or any other Member on how to address, WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 14 - 
 
raise or discuss systemic issues and would welcom e going back to the issues that had prevented 
Members from completing the review of the TM. These were however difficult issues. If any one 
Member of the Committee had participated in the Negotiating Group on Rules, the Secretariat had made a presentation on the review process of the TM and there had been no response to the 
question of whether the positions of Members ha d changed since the review ended. Furthermore, 
nobody had had any new ideas in the run up to th e Nairobi Ministerial meeting either. So Members 
needed to be careful about the process they emba rked upon because these issues, and also what 
the U.S. saw as the inefficient division between the CRTA and the CTD, needed to be addressed as 
part of future work. The U.S. was not interested in  raising these issues again, but wanted to make 
it clear that if Members wished to have the discussion the U.S. position remained unchanged. 
1.67.  The representative of Paraguay said Paraguay supported the statement by Brazil. 
Paragraph 28 provided a roadmap for Members and the Chair had perfectly outlined the situation. 
There was no Member that was not aware of the sy stemic issues raised by RTAs and there were 
serious concerns that needed to be addre ssed. Paraguay supported this discussion.  
1.68.  The representative of Australia congratulated the Chair on his appointment. Australia 
welcomed the decision taken by Ministers and capt ured in paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Declaration 
to have more focused work in the Committee and discussions on systemic implications of RTAs for 
the multilateral trading system and their relationship with WTO rules. When the CRTA was 
established in 1996 this kind of work had been envisaged as part of the Committee's terms of reference and was reflected in paragraph 1 (d) of the CRTA's mandate. In the past, as many would be aware, Australia had pushed to initiate such  discussions in the CRTA because it believed that 
the emerging body of RTAs and RTA practice raised some relevant issues for the multilateral 
trading system and the interplay between these two universes merited further discussion and consideration among Members. However, as was evident from the current discussion, the 
seemingly benign issue had raised a number of di fficulties and sharp differences in views, but 
Australia was supportive of efforts to implement this aspect of the MC10 outcome on RTAs and 
was ready to work with the Chair and with Members on the next steps. 
1.69.  The representative of Chile congratulate d the Chair on his appointment and wished him 
success. Chile supported the proposal by Brazil as Members needed to see how to implement what 
had been agreed in Nairobi. 
1.70.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion congratulated the Chair on his appointment 
and was confident that under his guidance the CRTA would be able to move forward. The Russian 
Federation supported the statement by Brazil. Th e Russian Federation had continuously expressed 
its interest in having a discussion on the systemic implications of RTAs. He reminded Members that 
Russia had raised this issue at the last meeting of  the CRTA in 2015 and looked forward to working 
with Brazil and other Members on this issue. 
1.71.  The representative of Hong Kong, China was pleased with the opportunity for Members to 
restart discussions on the important issue of systemic implications. He thanked Brazil for 
introducing the item and for its efforts in Nairobi in contributing to the inclusion of RTAs in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. Paragraph 28 of the Declaration clearly instructed the CRTA to discuss the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system and the relationship 
with the WTO rules. In this regard he noted th at some Members, including Hong Kong, China had 
urged Members at previous meetings of the CRTA to start discussions on these issues. The Nairobi 
Declaration provided support for and enforced the mandate of the CRTA in pursuing the discussion. 
Hong Kong, China acknowledged that transparency was an important aspect of WTO work on RTAs 
and had been happy to see the smooth implementation of the TM since its provisional application in 2006. The experience gained by Members from th e provisional application of the TM could help 
to improve it. Hong Kong, China supported the permanent adoption of the TM and hoped that 
Members would be willing to approach the review of the TM with an open mind and a sense of facility and accommodation to find common ground and an agreed way forward. He congratulated the Chair on his election and assured him of Hong Kong China's support and cooperation. 
1.72.  The representative of the European Union also welcomed Brazil's proposal on 
operationalizing both aspects of paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. The EU was 
ready to actively cooperate with Brazil, other Memb ers and the Chair. The EU also recalled that the 
terms of reference of the CRTA already gave it a mandate to discuss the systemic implications of 
RTAs for the multilateral trading system. During the first years of the CRTA meeting in fact the WT/REG/M/80 
 
- 15 - 
 
item had been systematically included in the ag enda of the meetings of the Committee. The EU 
remained open to further discussions without delay on ways in which to operationalize paragraph 28.  
1.73.  The representative of Japan welcomed the proposal related to paragraph 28 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration and would actively engage in discussions to implement it.  1.74.  The Chairman said that although paragraph 28 was not new, it was a decision taken a few 
months ago by Ministers and he did not think this was an issue that had been addressed in the 
previous Ministerial conference in Bali. He knew it would be a challenge but looked forward to 
consulting and talking with Members to see if the issue could be taken forward. Finally, he informed Members of the dates scheduled for the CRTA's meetings in 2016. These would be held on 27-28 June, and 27-28 September. There would also be a meeting in November but exact 
dates would be communicated later. 
1.75.  The Committee took note of the comments made. 
__________