RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/81  
 
12 July 2016  
(16-3737)  Page: 1/13  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Eighty-first Session   
 
 NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 27 JUNE 2016 
Chairman: Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden) 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The 81st Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/6/Rev.1 dated 16 June 2016. 
1.2.  The Chairman welcomed Members to the 81st Session of the CRTA. Under Other Business it 
was his intention to inform Members about the proposed schedule of meetings for the rest of the 
year. 
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Communication from LAIA countries 
C. 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 the Repu blic of Korea and Australia, Goods 
and Services  
III. Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Honduras, Goods and Services 
D. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements involving WTO non-Members 
I. Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Serbia, Goods 
E.  Follow-up on the Ministerial Declaration from MC10. Report from  Chair's Consultations 
F.  Other business 
 
1.4.  As had been traditional, the Chairman sought confirmation from the Committee on the ad hoc  
observership granted to the Latin American Integr ation Association (the LAIA). If Members agreed, 
the LAIA could be invited to the next meeting of the CRTA. 
1.5.  The representative of the United States said that at the last meeting he had noted that the 
CRTA was on auto-pilot on the issue. He noted th at following efforts over many years to try and 
increase understanding of the interest that the LAIA Secretariat had in remaining as an ad hoc 
observer of the CRTA, the United States had aske d the LAIA to indicate its renewed interest in 
being an ad hoc observer so it could evaluate why the observer status was being sought and the positive role they might play. The United States was not aware of any communication to date and 
so had no choice but to conclude that the CRTA was indeed on auto-pilot in being asked to approve 
something that was not really requested. So unfortunately, the United States could not join consensus in approving a request that it did not believe existed. The U.S. would, however, 
welcome at any point in time a renewed request from the LAIA indicating that it would be 
interested in engaging constructively in the CRTA and working to resolve some of the problems the U.S. had pointed out on the broader network of non-notified agreements. 
1.6.  The representative of Brazil said he regretted the statement by the United States. He 
believed that the CRTA and the LAIA would not benefit from such an approach. On the contrary, if 
there was the opportunity to invite the LAIA Secretariat from time to time to take part in the discussions in the CRTA, it would help to increase  the knowledge in the LAIA about what had been 
taking place in Geneva. With regard to the communication that the LAIA would have to make to WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 2 - 
 
 assure Members that it remained interested in the discussions in the CRTA, the LAIA had recently 
sent a communication that would be discussed la ter. This showed that the LAIA remained 
concerned and interested in the debates that t ook place in Geneva. Brazil would communicate the 
decision to its capital and believed that a more constructive approach could be adopted.  
1.7.  The representative of Uruguay indicated that she would inform the LAIA Secretariat about the 
statement by the United States. 
1.8.  The Chairman said that as decisions were  taken by the Committee by consensus, the LAIA 
would not be invited to the next session of the CR TA as an ad hoc observer. However, if the LAIA 
was interested in seeking to become an ad hoc observer to the CRTA again, it could get in touch with him, and explain why it would like to continue as an observer. To be fair, the United States had indicated at the last meeting of the CRTA that it was going to take such a decision unless the 
LAIA Secretariat attended. So if the LAIA was interested in continuing a dialogue and being 
present at the CRTA, it should get it touch with him and he would start direct consultations with Members to find a solution. But for now, LAIA wo uld not be invited to the next session of the 
CRTA. 
B. COMMUNICATION FROM LAIA COUNTRIES 1.9.  The Chairman drew the attention of Members to a recent communication from Uruguay on 
behalf of the LAIA countries addressed to the Chair of the CTD that had been distributed to 
Members in document WT/REG/W/105. In addition, the Secretariat had prepared a room document (RD/RTA/34) that provided a list of all agreements that had appeared in the periodic 
reports submitted by LAIA. He opened the floor for any comments. 
1.10.  The representative of Bolivia asked which Member had requested that the room document 
be prepared by the Secretariat, and enquired ab out the mandate and the characteristics of such a 
request for the Secretariat to undertake such an analysis. Usually the Secretariat worked upon a 
request by Members and he wished to understand what was behind the issuance of the room 
document. 
1.11.  The representative of the United States said he had a few comments on the document 
circulated and hoped that it would create an oppo rtunity to have a more detailed interaction on the 
issue as it was the kind of conversation required to find a resolution to the non-notification issues facing the CRTA. The United States had made prev ious statements in the CRTA seeking to resolve 
one of the most significant obstacles facing its work which was the large number of non-notified 
LAIA agreements. The U.S. continued to feel strongly that non-notification of RTAs was a 
significant and growing concern. While the issue was not limited to the LAIA agreements, they 
represented a significant majority of the agreements  listed in the Secretariat's compilation of non-
notified agreements. The Secretariat's room docume nt RD/RTA/34 further shone light on this fact 
as Table 2.1 in the document had made clear that there were 97 separate LAIA agreements in force. Some of these had been notified to the WTO as required, but most had not.  
1.12.  Notification of the Treaty of Montevideo was not sufficient especially as the Treaty itself 
seemed to make it clear that the arrangements entered under it were not modifications to the umbrella agreement but were separate agreements. The Treaty of Montevideo specifically provided 
for regional and partial scope agreements. It did not appear to say anything about the specific 
treatment to be given to any product or class of pr oducts by any Treaty of Montevideo signatory.  
1.13.  The reports submitted by the LAIA countries to the CTD were also not sufficient as a 
notification. The LAIA reports had no standing  in the WTO nor could they replace Members' 
individual obligations. The bottom line was that th ere appeared to be a significantly large group of 
LAIA agreements in force that should be notified  by the individual Members that were party to 
them. The U.S. felt strongly that notification  requirements and the obligations found in the 
Transparency Mechanism, including the provision of data to support the Secretariat's work in 
preparing the factual presentation, had to fall sq uarely on individual WTO Members and could not 
be shifted to a non-WTO Member.  
1.14.  To the extent that the WTO Secretariat was able and willing to assist with the drafting of the 
notifications, the U.S. believed that that could be helpful. However, the notifications would need to WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 3 - 
 
 be issued by the individual WTO Members that were parties to the agreement, since WTO 
notifications were a Member's obligation. In the past discussions had been held on administrative ways to move forward once the notification issue had been addressed.  
1.15.  The representative of the European Union thanked LAIA members for their submission to 
the CTD and to the CRTA. In the EU's view the document represented a first step but was only the 
beginning of a process and additional efforts would be needed. In particular, as the coverage of the listed agreements was not clear, the EU considered it necessary to discuss the matter further 
in the CRTA. The EU also thanked the Secretariat for the room document which was useful as it 
explained the different agreements in the list a nnexed to the LAIA submission and looked forward 
to continuing discussions on these. The EU believed that the final aim would be to have a full picture of the RTAs currently in force in Latin Am erica, their coverage, the implementation periods, 
their main characteristics, and any additional information that could be helpful.  
1.16.  At first sight, the room document circulated  by the Secretariat replied to some of the EU's 
questions but it would need to be studied furthe r. On the LAIA submission the EU wanted to 
understand the differences among the legal Acts that were classified under the different headings 
of regional agreements, economic complementar ity agreements, and other agreements. The LAIA 
members had also engaged in numerous negotiations concerning the various liberalization 
mechanisms provided for by the 1980 Treaty of Montevideo. It would be important to understand 
which of them, if any, could be considered as a mere implementation of the 1980 Treaty and which could be considered to be additional agreements which would deserve to be treated separately. In 
this respect, the EU noted that any RTA that cont ained a form of preferential treatment as set out 
in Section B, paragraph 3 of the Transparen cy Mechanism would be subject to the full 
consideration process. In particular, there should be no doubt that accessions occurring at a later stage such as Cuba and Panama fell under Section B of the Mechanism and therefore factual 
presentations should be prepared. This had also been the case of enlargements of the EU, for 
example, most recently, Croatia's accession to the EU which had been the subject of a factual 
presentation (WTO/REG337/1, issued in January 2014) and had been considered at the CRTA of 
April 2014. 
1.17.  The EU also asked LAIA members to clarify whether all the listed Acts covered only trade in 
goods. As one or more of the listed agreements also appeared to cover trade in services, they would not fall under the Enabling Clause and shou ld be notified under GATS Article V and be 
subject to a factual presentation and considered in the CRTA. The EU finally asked LAIA members 
to clarify which of the listed agreements presen ted in the Secretariat document WTO/REG/W/104 
were covered by the communication submitted by  the LAIA. It would also be helpful if the 
concerned Members could explain in detail for which of the agreements the reasons justified 
dropping them from the list of non-notified agreements.  
1.18.  The representative of Australia thanked the LAIA for its submission. Australia had some 
broad concerns. It placed a high value on the no tification of RTA related information to the WTO 
and to the CRTA in particular. It was both an indi vidual and collective responsibility to ensure that 
there was a high degree of visibility of the tr ade commitments by each Member outside of the 
multilateral trading system. Australia believed that every WTO Member deserved to be fully 
informed of any new and significant trade liberalization or trade commitments taken by other 
Members in any context. As such the notification of RTA related information should be taken just as seriously as any other notification/transparency obligation in the WTO system. Despite this, it 
was clear that there were differences of view be tween the Members on the nature and extent of 
the notification obligations on their RTAs. Australia hoped that Members with strong positions on this issue would engage in more targeted and constructive discussions focusing on how to bridge 
any notification gaps and guide Members on where assistance may be required to support 
compliance with the Transparency Mechanism. Australia welcomed the initiative as a complement to other efforts to advance the work of the CRTA.  
1.19.  The Chairman gave the floor to the Secr etariat to respond to the question from the 
representative of Bolivia. 
1.20.  The representative of the Secretariat ex plained that following the circulation of the 
submission by LAIA, the Secretariat had received  a number of questions from Members asking for 
clarification on the table annexed to the submissi on. The Secretariat had thought that it would be 
helpful to prepare a room document which contained exactly the same agreements in the LAIA WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 4 - 
 
 submission but which explained exactly what the different kinds of agreements were and which 
agreements fell under which type. The purpose of  the document had been therefore simply to 
clarify. 
1.21.  The representative of Bolivia said that he  participated in a number of Committees and in 
none of the Committees did the Secretariat respon d in writing to questions from Members. This 
was rather unusual and of concern. Second, the do cument may have been prepared in good faith 
but appeared not to be comprehensive, with certain elements not being taken into account. The 
first was that the LAIA had been notified in 1983 under the Enabling Clause and which should have 
been reflected in the document in one way or another. The content of the document should have been clearly focused and should have made clear that these were complementary agreements which were annexed to the original notification as had been circulated by the LAIA. For the 
document to be reflected in an appropriate manner, a Member would have had to request it 
because the WTO was a Member driven organization and that principle needed to be upheld and maintained. The document would also be needed to  be translated into Spanish for the LAIA to 
react and should have been presented the day before the Committee meeting. He believed that 
the procedure should have been carefully followe d and the document should be withdrawn on the 
basis of the fact that no Member had requested it. He did not believe that the Secretariat could 
take this kind of initiative on its own. 
1.22.  The representative of Brazil asked for clarification on items 2.2 and 2.3 in the room 
document which had brought in new information that was not related only to the explanation of 
the different types of agreements. It stated that  some agreements had not been included in the 
LAIA reports. He understood that the document had been prepared to explain the different types 
of agreements. However, points 2.2 and 2.3 had br ought in additional information that he would 
like clarification for. 
1.23.  The representative of Ecuador supported th e statement by Bolivia. The fact that the room 
document had been circulated by the Secretaria t in this fashion had caused a great deal of 
concern. 
1.24.  The representative of Uruguay indicated that she would circulate all the information, 
including the question raised by the Chairman. Sh e asked the EU to send its questions in writing 
which she would send to the LAIA Secretariat. She also indicated that LAIA members had held 
several meetings in Geneva and in Montevideo and the communication that had been presented 
had been the outcome of those discussions. LAIA  members had been working with the aim of 
moving forward on the issue. 
1.25.  The representative of Cuba supported th e concerns that had been expressed by Bolivia, 
Ecuador, Brazil and Uruguay on behalf of the LA IA countries. Cuba maintained the position that 
had been made clear in the note as had been adopted in the meeting of the LAIA Council of Representatives by consensus. Cuba had the same concerns as previous speakers and agreed with 
all LAIA countries in their aim to continue to hold meetings on the issue of notifications.  
1.26.  The Chairman said he had found it disappointing that the interventions had turned into a 
discussion about formalities about the room document which had been prepared to assist the 
discussion in the CRTA. He also followed a number of Committees and it was not unheard of to 
have the Secretariat prepare written responses. He  hoped that the submission by the LAIA would 
be the beginning of a very much needed discussion  in the CRTA because all Members knew it was 
an issue that had damaged the work of the CRTA for a number of years. He was not taking sides 
but only stating the facts. There was an urgent need for constructive discussions to move the issue 
forward. There had been comments about the room document which would be withdrawn. He hoped that the next time the Committee discussed the LAIA notifications it would be a more 
substantive discussion than whether a room document should have been presented or not. He did 
not think the discussion would move forward at th e meeting but hoped that the internal discussion 
among LAIA members as well as the invitation fr om several Members at the CRTA to continue 
discussions based on the LAIA submission would yiel d results. He would continue to be in contact 
with Members about this issue and hoped that  it would be possible to move forward.  WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 5 - 
 
 C. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.27.  The Chairman provided Members with an update on the Committee's work and the 
implementation of the Transparency Mechanism. A total of 39 early announcements were currently 
on the WTO website (not counting those that had been subsequently notified). He thanked 
Members who had submitted information in line with the requirements of the Transparency 
Mechanism and encouraged others to do so. He also reminded them to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
1.28.  With regard to the preparation of the fact ual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in 
the case of RTAs involving WTO members only there were currently 36 RTAs for which a factual presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. He recalled that at the Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Members had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non Members under the TM's procedures . Thus, factual presentations on a further 37 
RTAs involving non-Members were to be prepared. Members had agreed that those RTAs notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, should be taken up before the others. Data 
requests for RTAs notified since the adoption of the Transparency Mechanism had been sent to the 
relevant Parties.  
1.29.  Regarding the issue of non-notified RTAs, an updated list had recently been circulated as 
WT/REG/W/104 and contained 72 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 20 June 2016.  
1.30.  The representative of Brazil said that  the submission by the LAIA had involved the 
discussion of exactly how the agreements in the li st of non-notified agreements had been listed. 
LAIA members had made some very significant efforts in recent months to hold discussions and 
provide clarifications on a number of the points that had been raised in the CRTA and the CTD. 
Without prejudice to the individual notifications that LAIA members had made or may submit, LAIA 
members as a whole had agreed that the agreements under the Montevideo Treaty had been 
submitted in a manner which was consistent with WTO rules through biennial reports until 2011 
and annual reports since 2012. Brazil was ready to  discuss issues under any of the agreements 
pursuant to the Montevideo Treaty and pursuant to paragraph 16 of the Transparency Mechanism. 
Specifically on the document, he requested that the agreements be withdrawn from the list in 
WT/REG/W/104. 
1.31.  The representative of Bolivia said that th e Council of Representatives of LAIA had met in 
Montevideo. They had submitted the note to the WTO that had clearly stated that LAIA had been 
notified under the Enabling Clause and the subseq uent agreements were there simply to add to 
the scope of the original LAIA agreement. They were not new agreements and should be withdrawn from the list as requested by Brazil. 
1.32.  The representative of the United States said that it seemed to be 2005 all over again. He 
said it was unfortunate that LAIA had chosen to send the letter to a Committee that was not really 
responsible for having the discussion, that the CRTA was only cc-ed, that despite repeated 
requests to engage with Members LAIA had not done so and that LAIA members continued to find 
ways to remain non transparent and to resist their obligations. His delegation was upset with the lack of a discussion. The EU had asked some extr emely good questions in its intervention with 
respect to the letter. The U.S. had stated its concerns with respect to the legal rationale 
underpinning the assertions made in the letter that no one had engaged on. LAIA had only 
engaged on a process conversation to say that the Secretariat should not have created a clarifying document that would help Members understand the network of almost 100 agreements that they 
had very little transparency on. So he did not agre e to the request to remove these items. As far 
as his delegation was concerned these agreements remained non-notified. Interventions had been made in the Committee by the U.S. and the EU with respect to further clarification as to what 
would be a modification and what would not, and what kinds of agreements Members were entitled 
to see a notification for. None of these substantive issues had been acknowledged let alone addressed. He did not want to get into a figh t over what the Secretariat could and could not 
produce but apparently that was the sum total of what the Committee could do. 
1.33.  The representative of Cuba drew Members' attention to the fact that all of the agreements 
signed pursuant to the Montevideo Framework ha d been notified to the WTO a long time in 
advance of the time-frame that had been laid  down and they dated back beyond the 2006 WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 6 - 
 
 Transparency Mechanism. So LAIA members had always upheld their responsibility to inform 
properly. All these agreements had been published on the LAIA website that was publicly available and all LAIA countries stood ready to answer any question or concern of other Members. Cuba supported Bolivia's and Brazil's statements in their entirety. 
1.34.  The representative of Ecuador supported the statements of Brazil, Bolivia and Cuba in 
connection with the Montevideo Treaty.  
1.35.  The Chairman said that this issue could not be resolved in the day's meeting and he would 
come back to it and see how the Committee could move forward. 1.36.  The representative of the European Union said she wanted to come back to the EU's 
statement and reiterated that she saw this as the beginning of a process. The EU had raised some 
specific questions and would be happy to put them in  writing so that they could be translated into 
Spanish and the discussion could be continued.  
1.37.  The Chairman said that this would be his hope and wish as everyone knew that what had 
been suggested now was not really a way forward as it would not be accepted by everyone, so 
there was a great need to continue the discussion. He said he would engage with Members to see 
what could be done. 
1.38.  Turning now to RTAs for which the factual consideration had been delayed due to a lack of 
comments from parties, he said that he had continued consultations with delegations. An updated 
list of such RTAs had been recently circulated as WT/REG/W/106 and he hoped that outstanding comments would soon be made available and the factual consideration of these agreements could be undertaken.  
1.39.  Regarding the backlog in the receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting of 
factual presentations for certain RTAs, he had also continued consultations with a number of delegations and hoped that they would provide the missing information as soon as possible. 
1.40.  Lastly, concerning implementation reports,  an updated schedule for the submission of such 
reports had been distributed by the Secretar iat (WT/REG/W/101 and Corr.1). Implementation 
reports were already due for 129 RTAs, 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 implem entation report had already been circulated. It 
was clear that there remained a considerable number of RTAs for which an implementation report was long overdue and he encouraged all delegations to submit their implementation reports 
accordingly. He gave the floor to a representative of the Secretariat for further details on the 
situation with regard to the preparation of the factual presentations. 
1.41.  The representative of the Secretariat said that with regard to factual presentations of RTAs 
between WTO Members for  US-Panama, Dominican Republic-Central America, Korea-New Zealand, 
Iceland-China, goods and services, comments had been received from the parties and the factual presentations would be issued shortly. For US CAFTA-DR, goods and services, comments had been 
received but the Secretariat was awaiting final clarifications from El Salvador. For Korea-India, 
services,  the data request had been sent out in 2010; data had been received from Korea and  
some had been received from India.  For Korea-ASEAN, services, the data request had been sent 
out in 2010. Data had been received from Korea only. For Georgia-Russian Federation, goods, data 
had been received but the Secretariat was awaiting clarification on some tariff-related issues. For 
EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and EU-Cameroon, both goods only, data had been received from the 
EU only. For EU-ESA, goods, the factual presentati on had been sent to the parties. Comments had 
been due by 20 April. For GCC-Singapore, services, data had been received from Singapore only. 
For ASEAN-India, services, the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties. Comments had been received from all ASEAN countries except Singapore and comments were still awaited from 
India. For Australia-China, goods and services, th e factual presentation had been sent to the 
Parties on 23 June and comments had been requested for 21 July. For EU-Ukraine, goods and services, data had been received from the EU on ly. For the Seychelles' accession to SADC, goods, 
data had been received from the Seychelles and some of the SADC parties. 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 Japan-Mongolia, go ods and services, data was due by 11  August. For Armenia-WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 7 - 
 
 Kazakhstan, goods, data was due by 18 August. For Mexico-Panama, goods and services, data was 
due by 28 October. 
1.42.  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 Island s. For EU-Bosnia and Herzegovina, services, 
comments had been received from the Parties an d the Factual Presentation would be issued 
shortly. For the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and the 
EAEU,  the Secretariat had received some data from Kazakhstan and from the Russian Federation. 
For Armenia's accession to the EAEU, goods and services, data had been received from Armenia. For the Kyrgyz Republic's accession to the EAEU, data had been due by 3 December 2015. For EU-
San Marino, goods, and the Russian Federation-Azerbaijan, goods,  the Secretariat was drafting the 
factual presentation. For EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey-S yria, CEFTA Enlargement, Ukraine-Azerbaijan, 
Ukraine-Turkmenistan, the Common Economic Zone, Russian Federation-Turkmenistan, all goods, 
and EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services, data was not complete.  
1.43.  A third category concerned four agreem ents – 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 entered into force for all the parties. She also 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. 
ITEM C.II FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E REPUBLIC OF Korea AND AUSTRALIA, 
GOODS AND SERVICES 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
ITEM C.III FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN  CANADA AND HOND URAS, GOODS AND 
SERVICES 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
D. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS INVOLVING WTO 
NON-MEMBERS 
ITEM D.I FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND SERBIA, GOODS 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
E. FOLLOW-UP ON THE MINISTERIAL DECLARATION FROM MC10. REPORT FROM 
CHAIR'S CONSULTATIONS 
1.44.  The Chairman said that the item had been placed on the agenda at his request. At the 
previous meeting he had mentioned that he saw as one of his main tasks as Chairman, to follow 
up on the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, specifically paragraph 28 which had instructed the CRTA to initiate a discussion on the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system and 
to transform the provisional Transparency Mechanism into a permanent one.  
1.45.  He had informed the Committee that he would consult with Members which he had done 
and he had good news and bad news. The good news was that there was clearly engagement on 
the issue. All the delegations he had spoken to had wished to see progress in these areas. The bad 
news was that there were not a lot of concrete ideas on how to achieve that. His first impression was that there was a clear prioritization among Members with hardly any believing that it was a 
priority to turn the provisional Transparency Mechanism into a permanent one. There had been 
one or two exceptions, but in general that was not the priority. There were concerns that new WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 8 - 
 
 negotiations about the Transparency Mechanism woul d open up areas that had been agreed before 
and would be difficult to renegotiate. There were also  practical issues to consider such as a lack of 
clarity on where such negotiations should take place since the provisional Mechanism had been negotiated in the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR) but at the same time the Ministerial 
Declaration had instructed the CRTA to work on this issue. 
1.46.  It was also important to note that the Ch air of the NGR had had a similar result when he 
had conducted consultations among Members. Of al l the issues that were being discussed in the 
NGR the Transparency Mechanism review was the least prioritized by Members. He had thought 
that maybe that meant that Members wanted to have the discussion in the CRTA instead. But according to his consultations that appeared not to be the case. It did not mean that Members did not believe it to be an important issue but just that it did not seem to be the main priority at 
present. 
1.47.  The systemic discussion was clearly higher on the agenda for Members and practically all 
Members he had spoken to had mentioned it as a priority, possibly with one or two exceptions. 
However, when he had tried to probe a little deeper, there appeared to be a lack of clear ideas 
regarding what kind of systemic discussion was desired and how the discussion should be structured. Some Members had suggested revisiting what had been done in 2013 when the 
Secretariat had produced papers that had been discussed in a Seminar. But other Members felt 
that this had already been done and that the proc ess had not led anywhere. Instead they felt that 
the systemic issues needed to be discussed in th e CRTA, preferably as a standing item on the 
agenda. 
1.48.  In terms of substance, there had also been different suggestions. Some Members had 
suggested discussions based on specific themes such  as electronic commerce, rules of origin, TBT, 
SPS, and fisheries subsidies. The discussions about the Free Trade Agreement between Canada 
and Honduras at the current session of the CRTA had raised issues relating to the environment, 
CSR, and labour standards, which were also issu es that had been raised by Members during his 
consultations. The idea would be to exchange experiences. One way would be to get a few 
delegations to make presentations based on experiences from their FTAs, possibly complemented 
by factual background information from the Secret ariat, and to have a discussion based on these 
presentations. Others had suggested that the discu ssion could be more connected with WTO rules, 
for instance, whether RTAs had provisions that were close to existing WTO rules and if not, where 
were the differences and why. There were also a few Members that had highlighted the specific 
challenges faced by developing countries, particularly least developed countries (LDCs), by the proliferation of RTAs.  
1.49.  While no Members that he had spoken to had rejected the exchange of experiences, a few 
Members had made it clear that they would not be comfortable with discussions aiming to reach some type of conclusion in terms of benchmarks or best practices. One or two Members had also 
underlined the importance of having access to full information in order for a systemic discussion to 
be fruitful.  
1.50.  The Chairman also mentioned that he had met with the Chairs of the NGR and the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) to discuss the issues that the three groups had in 
common. It was a discussion that would be continued. On a personal note he believed that it 
would be helpful if the CRTA and the CTD could work together in a more structured manner both for the systemic discussion on RTAs but also in their regular work on the consideration of RTAs, as 
it was the same people in the Secretariat who prepared the Factual Presentations.  
1.51.  To conclude, he reiterated that his job as  Chair was to respond to the request by Ministers 
in Nairobi and when he handed over the Chair to his successor he hoped to have a sustainable 
process in place. He was therefore convinced of th e need to make sure that the systemic issues 
discussion was included in agenda of the CRTA, either  for a formal or an informal discussion, and it 
would be unwise to have the discussion outside the CRTA. This did not mean that seminars or other meetings could be a valuable complement but if there was no solid "hook" into the CRTA 
there was a risk that the experience of 2013 would be repeated.  
1.52.  His second conclusion was that there was a clear priority among Members to focus on the 
systemic discussion first. It did not mean that  the Committee should not continue to discuss the WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 9 - 
 
 Transparency Mechanism, in fact it had been tasked  by Ministers to do so. But he foresaw that the 
discussions on the Transparency Mechanism would mo ve at a slightly slower trajectory than the 
systemic discussion.  
1.53.  His third conclusion was that he needed  more guidance from Members. He encouraged 
Members to think about what kind of systemic di scussion they wished to see in the CRTA and how 
it should be organized. Every Member he had spoken  to had felt that it was a priority but very few 
explained what they wanted to discuss. He asked them to think about how the work would relate 
to work being done in other Committees. For instance in the Committee on Trade and 
Environment, there had been a discussion on the environmental provisions in RTAs and there had 
been similar discussions in the SPS and TBT Committees. So it would be important to think about the value of work done by the CRTA remembering also that it was the CRTA that had been 
specifically singled out by Ministers in Nairobi. He also asked Members to think about which issues 
were the most critical for them and where they  saw problems. It was a huge subject and Members 
needed to be able to articulate which issues they  wanted to see clarified. Members could also think 
about other areas of work from which the CRTA and the WTO could benefit, being done in RTAs 
etc.  
1.54.  His view was that it would be beneficial if Members could put pen to paper and express their 
views. Several Members, especially perhaps those which did not have the resources to carry out 
in-depth analyses of RTAs, had suggested that it would be much easier for them to engage in a 
discussion if there were written documents and proposals by Members that could be used as a basis for discussion. He felt that he had a strong mandate to push the issue forward thanks to the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. However, he believed that there was a much better chance of 
initiating a sustainable process if it was based on input from Members rather than the Chair trying to impose it on the Committee which would not work.  
1.55.  With regard to the next steps he noted that the issue would be on the CRTA's agenda at the 
next meeting in September. He would continue to discuss with Members to get a more concrete 
idea and to inject more substance into the conversation. He had met with Members bilaterally so 
far and would probably try to meet Members in groups leading up to the September meeting to 
see if he could find Members that were possibly like-minded. He also underlined that his door was open for anyone who wished to discuss the issues with him. He had spoken to around 25 Members 
who were active in the CRTA but that did not mean that he was restricting himself to speaking to 
them. He asked any Member that felt it had a contribution to make to contact him or the 
Secretariat.  
1.56.  The representative of Australia thanked the Chair for his report and for inscribing a 
dedicated agenda item on the issue for the Commi ttee's consideration. As indicated at the last 
Committee meeting in April, Australia placed a high value on undertaking more focused work on the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system as well as work aimed at 
examining the relationship between WTO rules and the emerging body of RTA rules and practice. 
In fact, well before MC10, Australia had been an active proponent, both in the Committee and in the negotiating context, of initiatives to support such a systemic discussion at the WTO. This was 
because, for a long time, many Members had pursued trade liberalization outcomes outside of the 
multilateral trading system in bilateral, regional and plurilateral configurations. In some cases, 
parties had been able to reach agreement in areas where a negotiated outcome had not been possible in multilateral negotiations. In other cases, parties had also been able to craft disciplines 
around emerging areas of trade and commerce which simply did not exist a decade ago.  
1.57.  Australia believed these outcomes had a real impact on international trade and commerce. 
Their effects reached well beyond the parties and economies subject to any one individual 
agreement. Monitoring these broader developmen ts and discussing them openly in the WTO was 
thus important for the long-term strength and rele vance of the WTO. As time passed, the need to 
discuss these issues comprehensively only increased. He noted that when the CRTA had been established in 1996, this type of work had been envisaged as part of its terms of reference, and 
was reflected in paragraph (d) of its mandate (set out in WT/L/127). It was clear from the 
document that having a systemic discussion on RTA practice was seen as a complement to, and not a distraction from, the Committee's mandate to examine individual agreements. The mandate 
remained in force and, while less emphasis had been placed on it in recent times, it had never 
been formally extinguished or overridden. The Mini sters in Nairobi had now given the CRTA explicit 
instruction to revive it – and Members must now follow-through. WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 10 - 
 
 1.58.  Australia agreed with the decision by the Chair to initiate a process for interested Members 
to begin focused discussions on constructing a framework for a discussion on the systemic implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system to take place - with a view to making this an ongoing part of the CRTA's work. Australia would approach such an exercise, including the 
selection of topics and work with other WTO Committees, with an open mind and with a 
constructive spirit and hoped that others would do the same. Australia also saw work on this important issue as distinct and separate from the Committee's work in addressing other important 
matters, such as the notification and transparency obligations relating to RTAs and stood ready to 
work constructively with other Members and with the Chair to take this important work forward. 
1.59.  The representative of Brazil thanked the Chair for the initiative to conduct consultations 
which was essential to move the discussions forward and Brazil fully supported the Chair in this 
regard. Brazil considered that the implementati on of paragraph 28 was important for the CRTA. 
The scenario depicted by the Chairman only reconfirmed this interest. Both the systemic issues discussion and the transformation of the Transp arency Mechanism into a permanent mechanism 
were complex and deserved Members' full attentio n. The two should also be discussed separately 
as pointed out by Australia, to give Members th e time to reflect on each of them and explore 
possible solutions which probably would be different in each case. Brazil therefore also supported 
the idea that the Chair conduct dedicated consultations soon on the issue of the systemic impact of 
RTAs to give Members the opportunity to refl ect and discuss ways to implement. There was a 
question about form and substance and the dedicated discussions might help Members to reflect on both issues and find a solution. This was a first step reflecting support by a majority of 
Members to implement paragraph 28. In future if there was a similar level of support for making 
the Transparency Mechanism permanent, a possible starting point could be an information session 
in the CRTA to give Members an opportunity to re fresh their memories on the matter. Finally, the 
mandate in the Nairobi Ministerial declaration should not be contingent on any other matter 
related to the regular activities of the Committee. 
1.60.  The representative of the United States thanked the Chairman for his report. The United 
States believed that the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration simply reiterated the unfinished business 
that the Committee had had before it for quite a long time. On the suggestions about how to implement paragraph 28, he pointed out that prio r to the Nairobi Conference there had not been 
any conversations on a shared understanding of what the paragraph meant. Members had agreed 
to it on their own terms. The United States had its own interpretation of that but it was not fair to 
assume that there was a Committee wide understanding of precisely what that covered. The United States had said and would continue to say that if Members wanted to have a realistic 
discussion on the impact of RTAs on the multilateral trading system Members had to account for 
the dozens of agreements for which there was currently no transparency. That position was 
unchanged.  
1.61.  He also believed that it would be useful  to discuss the organizational set up and questions 
that were not being asked, such as the role of the CTD and the CRTA. Was it not time, as part of a revitalization of the Committee, to rethink the division that had been created a long time ago between the two and which had resulted in a back and forth on which fora to have a conversation 
in rather than in the Committee where Members had intended to have discussions on RTAs. He 
believed it was necessary to have a discussion on such a bifurcation between the two Committees. It was also important to consider that the venue in which Members intended to have a discussion 
covered the scope of the entirety of the question  because the next issue to be brought up would 
be that the discussion should be restricted to agreements notified under GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V, which was equally unacceptable to the United States.  
1.62.  The United States would not be able to agree with the suggestion by the Chair that there be 
a standing item on the agenda of the CRTA on th e discussion of systemic issues. It was a struggle 
to get rid of decades old standing agenda items in other Committees because they were not filled. It would be fine if following consultations the Chair wanted to submit an item but there had been 
other interventions suggesting standing items and it was not appropriate at this point in time to 
have a blanket item and hope that someone would fill it. If the issue was truly important, someone would put forward a paper. It was also important for the CRTA to stay in its lane. The CRTA may 
wish to have a conversation but it was not the Committee on Trade and the Environment, or the 
Committee on Rules of Origin or on Technical Barriers to Trade. All the other Committees were able to discuss RTA practices as they affected that specific agreement. However the CRTA was 
designed to examine legal questions with regard to exceptions taken by Members vis-a-vis  their WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 11 - 
 
 WTO obligations on substantially all the trade and reasonable implementation periods. Those were 
the kinds of issues that the CRTA had been charged with looking at not TBT practices in FTAs. There were other Committees to look at such issues and if the CRTA were to be serious about having a discussion on systemic issues it could not sidestep the issue and pretend it was the 
Committee on Trade and Environment or any other Committee. The United States felt strongly 
about its own interpretation of paragraph 28 which no one could challenge because there had been no discussion. The proponent of the issue had aske d the Chair to take charge of the discussions 
which spoke volumes about what the actual intent might have been. 
1.63.  The representative of Japan thanked the Chair for his report which Japan found encouraging 
and supported. Japan looked forward to engaging  in the discussion on how to reinvigorate the 
regular work of the CRTA and believed that a st udy of the elements of RTAs was one way of 
proceeding on discussions on the systemic implications in addition to the consideration of 
individual RTAs. Japan believed that it would be meaningful for the CRTA to discuss specific areas 
covered by a range of RTAs such as e-commerce. 
1.64.  The representative of the Separate Custom s Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
(hereinafter Chinese Taipei) thanked the Chairman for his continued efforts to consult Members on 
their views on how to implement the Nairobi Decl aration. Chinese Taipei shared the views of 
Australia and Japan and recalled that the terms of reference of the CRTA had already given it a 
mandate to discuss the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system. She underlined the value of the transparency exercise for considering RTAs and clarifying a number of 
technical issues. She hoped that Members could move forward, while recognizing that there were 
outstanding issues to be resolved such as the i ssue of non-notification of RTAs. There had been 
discussion of RTA practices in other Committees. The CRTA provided a good forum for discussion on RTA practices and the WTO regime. Chinese Taipei would continue to work constructively with 
Members and the Chairman. 
1.65.  The representative of Canada thanked the Ch airman for the update on his consultations. It 
was clear that there were instructions from the Mi nisters at the Nairobi Ministerial Conference and 
Canada was keen to begin the work. Canada's views were aligned with some of the other Members 
that had spoken, and it welcomed a focused discussion on the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system. However, Canada's long standing systemic concerns in the CRTA related to the backlog of outstanding notification s and factual presentations had not been allayed 
and the issue appeared far from being resolved . Nevertheless, this should not prevent the 
Committee from at least beginning work to implement the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. It was also clear that the Committee based its discussions predominantly on RTAs notified to the WTO, 
while there were RTAs that had not been notified and for which factual presentations had not been 
prepared and so the Committee did not have a complete picture of the global RTA landscape. This limited the ability of the CRTA to have a thor ough and meaningful discussion on the systemic 
implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system. Going forward, Canada's expectations 
would be that existing transparency practices wo uld be addressed as part of, or in conjunction 
with, any discussions on how to implement the Nairobi Declaration. It would not be fair to Members if some Members' inability to follow through on certain obligations under the 
Transparency Mechanism prevented such work from getting under way.  
1.66.  The representative of China thanked the Chai rman and the Secretariat in the efforts put into 
moving the work of the Committee forward. In general China supported work to make the 
Transparency Mechanism permanent and was open to  playing a constructive role in discussions. 
His capital was still looking at options on a way forward and China may propose some additional topics for future discussions.  
1.67.  The representative of India thanked the Chairman for his report. India supported the 
statement made by Brazil. India also disagreed wi th the United States on making the CRTA the 
only body to discuss issues relating to RTAs. RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause were discussed in the CTD. India had submitted a paper on "dually notified" RTAs which said that these 
should be discussed in the CTD and had also rais ed systemic concerns in that paper. India 
therefore disagreed with the US suggestion to ma ke the CRTA the only body to discuss issues 
relating to RTAs, and looked forward to engaging constructively in the consultations being held by 
the Chairman. WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 12 - 
 
 1.68.  The representative of the European Unio n welcomed the update by the Chairman and was 
pleased to note that there was interest by Member s to take the implementation of paragraph 28 of 
the Ministerial Declaration forward. The EU was su pportive of starting a discussion on the systemic 
implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system. As the EU had noted at the last meeting of 
the CRTA, its terms of reference did in fact fore see discussions on systemic issues as had been 
pointed out by Australia earlier. She also noted that in today's global economy there were a wide range of issues that were the subject of rule-mak ing in RTAs such as electronic commerce, digital 
trade, trade facilitation, investment, and regulato ry cooperation. These were highly relevant for 
the multilateral agenda and without prejudice to respective positions relating to possible future 
negotiations, the EU believed it was important fo r the CRTA to analyse some of these trends. 
Against this background, the EU welcomed discussing thematic issues in the CRTA.  
1.69.  From an organizational point of view, th e EU would support discussions held at dedicated 
sessions of the CRTA or possibly in seminars held back to back with the formal CRTA meeting. The 
EU also supported the suggestion by the Chair to  have presentations by Members possibly on a 
specific topic, and backed up by a factual Secretariat presentation. This was something that should 
be explored further. The EU would also welcome participating in a targeted discussion among Members as suggested by the Chair. The EU belie ved that there was a wide universe of topics and 
would not want to prejudge that discussion but a priority area for the EU, given the expected entry 
into force of the Agreement on Trade Fa cilitation (TFA), was trade facilitation. 
1.70.  Moving on to broader issues mentioned by other Members, she said that the EU agreed that 
in parallel to a debate on systemic issues, there were important, long-standing transparency issues 
that needed to be considered. A well-functioning Transparency Mechanism remained central to the 
work of the CRTA and for deepening understanding of RTAs. The EU continued to see value in the 
Transparency Mechanism and would support any initiative to resume the review of the 
Transparency Mechanism.  
1.71.  The representative of Brazil agreed that th e regular work of the CRTA included the questions 
of notifications as had been evident at the meetin g. But it was a discussion that had been going on 
already and it would be quite difficult for Members to move ahead with a discussion of the issues 
included in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration if Members were to make the discussions contingent upon each other. It was important to go ahead with discussions on the two issues in the Nairobi Declaration but that did not mean that Members would not continue to have discussions on the 
regular activities of the CRTA. On the interpretati on of paragraph 28 he agreed that Members had 
different views but to state that there had not been any discussions on the paragraph was going too far. It would not have been possible for Ministers to agree to paragraph 28 without any 
discussions at all. The fact that there might be different interpretations could lead Members to 
have a more focused discussion and the process being envisaged by the Chair could help to sort out any doubts. Finally, he agreed with the Chair's interpretation on making the process a 
permanent one.  
1.72.  The representative of South Africa thanked the Chairman for the report on his consultations. 
South Africa had been consulted and supported a discussion on the systemic implications of RTAs 
for the multilateral trading system. South Africa believed that this should just be a dialogue and an 
exchange of views or an analytical assessment. It was important that the dialogue should be 
representative as not all Members had the capacity make presentations or take part in consultations or present written papers and so there should be an effort to take everyone along in 
the discussion. South Africa also stressed that the discussion should not lead to new 
recommendations and rules that Members would have to adopt based on the sharing of experiences between Members. 
1.73.  The Chairman agreed that the language in  the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration was not new 
and was more or less identical to what had been seen in earlier Ministerial Declarations. However, 
it was not in the Bali or in the Geneva Ministerial Declarations and one had to go back several years to find that paragraph. This would suggest th at Ministers felt it would be interesting to renew 
work on the issue. It was also true that ther e were different interpretations among Members of 
paragraph 28. His job was to try and see if there was enough common ground among Members to move ahead. The environment to do so was not perfect. The CRTA had been plagued by a few 
issues for several years such as notifications and what Members should and should not do; the 
relationship with the CTD on which there were different views; and the relationship with the NGR. These were all problematic but it was his job to try and move forward. He could not go back to the WT/REG/M/81 
 
- 13 - 
 
 Chair of the General Council to say that it was going to be too hard and therefore he was not even 
going to try. It may seem naïve for some, but his feeling was that if the Committee could start a discussion on systemic issues, it may help with some of the other problems facing the CRTA. 
1.74.  On the issue of the standing item on the agenda, he believed that it did not have to be 
included on the agenda of every meeting. But he believed it should be interpreted as an item that 
came back regularly to the Committee. It would definitely be on the agenda for the next meeting of the CRTA because he intended to report to the Committee on consultations to be held before 
the next meeting. His ambition was to outline so mething a little bit more concrete for the last 
meeting in November and hoped that Members could find common ground to try to move forward. 
He asked Members who are not contacted and wished to take part in the consultations to let him know. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS 
1.75.  The Chairman said that dates for the remaining CRTA meetings in 2016 were 27 and 
28 September and 7 and 8 November. 
1.76.  The Committee took note of the comments made. 
__________