RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/88  
 
16 May 2018  
(18-2913) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -eighth Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 9-10 APRIL 2018 
Chairme n: Ambassador Walid Doudech (Tunisia)  
Ambassador Julian Braithwaite  (United Kingdom)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The 8 8th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/1 3/Rev.1  dated 29 March 2018.  
1.2.  The Chairman  welcomed Members to the 8 8th Session of the CRTA . He informed the 
Members that under Agenda item J the Secretariat would make an informal presentation of recent 
changes to the RTA database, its online calendar of meetings and the six -monthly update of RTA 
developments. Under the same  item, the new Chairman would inform the Members of the 
proposed schedule of CRTA meetings for the rest of the  year and he would raise the issue of 
whether the CRTA should continue to have the meeting over two half -days or consolidate it to a 
single day.  
1.3.  The followi ng Agenda was adopted:  
A. Adoption of the Agenda  
B. Election of Officers  
C. Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism - Status Report on the 
Committee's Work: 
(I) Early Announcements ( http://rtais.wto.org ) 
(II) Notifications received pursuant to GATT Article  XXIV:7(a), and GATS 
Article V:7(A)  
   Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement between Hong Kong, China and 
   Macao, China, goods and services  (WT/REG390/N/1, S/C/N/898)  
Economic Partnership Agreement betw een the European  Union and the 
Southern African Development Community  (SADC) (WT/REG381/N/1/Add.1)  
(III) Non-Notified RTA s (WT/REG/W/128)  
(IV) Status on the Preparation of Factual Presentations  (Including Delays in the 
  Receipt of Data and Comments) (WT/REG/W /129)  
D. Questions from the United States to the delegations of  Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 
Mexico, Paraguay and  Uruguay regarding document WT/COMTD/N/53 
(WT/REG/W/12 6, WT/COMTD/W/232 ) 
E. Communication from the European Union – European Union Follow -up Quest ions to 
LAIA Member Countries (WT/REG/W/124)  
F. Implementation Reports under Paragraph 15 of the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs 
- (WT/REG/W/13 1) 
G. Procedures to facilitate and improve the examination process  
(I) Proposed Modifications to the Template for Notifying Changes to an Existing RTA 
 – Informal Note by the Secretariat  (WT/REG/W/125)  
(II) Communication from the United States (WT/REG/W/127 ) 
H. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements  WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 2 - 
 
  (I) Economic Partnership Agreement between Côte d'Ivoire and the European 
Union, goods (WT/REG258/N/1, WT/REG258/N/1/Add.1, WT/REG258/1, 
WT/REG258/2)  
(II) Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and Mongolia, goods and 
services, (WT/REG373/N/1,  S/C/N/863, WT/REG373/1, WT/REG373/2 ) 
(III) Agreement on Trade in Se rvices between  the Republic of Korea and the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), (S/C/N/559 , S/C/N/559/Add.1, 
S/C/N/560, S/C/N/560/Add.1, WT/REG287/1, WT/REG287/2 ) 
(IV) Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Malaysia ,  
Goods (WT/REG37 9/N/1, WT/REG37 9/1, WT/REG37 9/2) 
(V) Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and the Republic of Moldova, Goods 
(WT/REG 378/N/1, WT/REG37 8/1, WT/REG37 8/2) 
I. Follow up on MC10 
J. Other business  
 
B. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
1.4.  The Chairman said that following the General Council meeting held on 7 March 2018, he had 
the pleasure to propose that the Committee elect, by acclamation, Ambassador Julian Braithwaite 
of the United Kingdom , as the new Chairman of the CRTA. The Committee so agreed. He wished 
the new Chairman every success and handed over the meeting.   
1.5.  The new Chairman  thanked the outgoing Chairman and the Secretariat for the work put forth 
to bring the CRTA forward and to make it a relevant part of the business of the WTO. He was 
personally interested in the CRTA because the U nited Kingdom  was going through a process with 
the European Union . Looking at how RTAs fit in the framework of the WTO and the multilat eral 
system was a relevant and important issue for the United Kingdom . His Chairmanship of the 
Committee would contribute to the United Kingdom's understanding  of its responsibility , as a full -
standing Member of the WTO, to ensure that the agreement reach ed with the EU and other 
countries w as entirely consistent with the rules of the WTO. He looked forward to work with 
Members in the Committee.   
C. IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RTA TRANSPARENCY M ECHANISM  – STATUS REPORT ON 
THE C OMMITTEE'S WORK  
1.6.  The Chairman  provide d an update on the Committee's work and the implementation of the 
Transparency Mechanism  (TM). In order to better reflect the Committee's work these ha d been 
divided into separate elements, i.e. early announcements, notifications received sinc e the last 
Session of the CRTA, non -notified RTAs and status of the preparation of factual presentations 
(including delays in the receipt of data and comments).  
C.I  Early Announcements  
1.7.  A total of 38 early announcements were currently on the WTO website (not counting those 
which had been subsequently notified). The Chairman thanked Members who had submitted 
information in line with the requirements of the TM and encouraged others to do so. He reminded 
Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of ea rly announcements.  
C.II Notifications received pursuant to GATT Article  XXIV:7(a), and GATS  Article  V:7(a)   
1.8.  Three notifications had been received since the last meeting – the Closer Economic 
Partnership Agreement between Hong Kong, China and Macao, China ( circulated in document 
WT/REG390/N/1 and S/C/N/898) and Mozambique's provisional application of the Economic 
Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Southern African Development 
Community (SADC) (in document WT/REG381/N/1/Add.1). The third , received on 5 April , was the 
Free Trade Agreement between China and Georgia (circulated in document WT/REG391/N/1 and 
S/C/N/900).  
1.9.  The representative of the United States  said that the Agenda item was an improvement that 
he had requ ested  in the past. The inclusion of the notifications pursu ant to  Article XXIV of GATT 
and Article V of GATS received since the previous meeting was a valuable contribution. However WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 3 - 
 
  he had understood that the list would  include notification s received prior to the closing of the 
Agenda  and asked that  the notification that has not  appear ed in the  Agenda , i.e. China – Georgia, 
be removed . He also proposed that the practice would be to include only the notifications received 
prior to the closing of the Agenda while all notifications received in the interim period could be 
reflected in the Agenda of the following meeting.  
1.10.   The representative of the European Union  inform ed Members that the Parties to the EU-
SADC Agreement were working on preparing statistics that would be submitted to th e Secretariat 
by the deadline of 30 April.  She also supported the comment made by the United States on having 
only those notifications on the Agenda that had been received prior to the Agenda having closed . 
1.11.   The representative of South Africa  said South Afr ica had received a communication from the 
Secretariat with the request for data pertaining to the EU -SADC . The parties to the agreement 
were working on consolidating and submitting the data to the Secretariat by the due date of 30 
April.  
1.12.   The Chairman  said that henceforth  only RTAs notified prior to the closing of the Agenda  
would be included under Agenda item C.II .  
C.III Non-Notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/12 8) 
 
1.13.   An updated list of non -notified RTAs had been circulated in document WT/REG/W/128 and 
contained 72 RTAs  issued i n factual presentations up to 2 6 March 2018. No RTAs had been 
removed from the list. The following three RTAs had been added: Turkey – Faroe Islands, Turkey – 
Singapore, and the accessions of Algeria and Palestine to the PAFTA.  
1.14.   The representative of the United States  appreciate d the list which was a useful tool for the 
Committee . Its goal was to have full notification of the agreements. He stood ready to have a 
conversation with any Member about either agreements on the list that  they fel t could be removed  
or any challenges or problems that Members encounter ed in notifying . At the end of the previous 
year, there were positive and constructive comments that had resulted in the removal of some 
items from the list and he thought that  that was helpful. He extended another c all to Members to 
come forward with clarification s regarding old agreements that were no longer in force or 
questions about the substance of the agreements on the list and whether they belong ed on it. At 
the same time, i t would have been interesting to know if there were challenges in the process of 
notification  and how it would be possible to shorten the list over time.  
1.15.   The representative of the European Union  believe d that the list was a useful tool. She 
reiterat ed the importance attach ed to the fulfilment of  Members' notification obligations. She 
encourage d the M embers that figure d on the list to notify the ir RTAs in order to ensure a well-
functioning  TM. The European Union would revert under  a following Agenda i tem with specific 
comments on the list.  
1.16.   The representative of Australia  viewed the list of non -notified RTAs as a useful tool for the 
work of the Committee . The list was valuab le for transparency and she encourage d all Members on 
the list to notify RTAs without delay in order to ensure the proper functioning of the TM.  
1.17.   The representative of Argentina  expressed  disappointment on the inclu sion of the 
agreements under the Treaty of Montevideo  in the list . Those agreements were already notified in 
conformity with the TM  as had been reiterated in document s WT/COMTD/W/ 217 and 
COMTD/W/220 circulated by LAIA members . The review of those RTAs  did not pertain to the CRTA 
since those were instruments notified under the Enabling Claus e and as such they were under the 
competence of the CTD as stated under paragraph 18 of the TM.  
1.18.   The representative of Brazil  support ed the comment made by Argentina and disagreed  with 
the list of so -called non -notified RTAs since the new list was based on the same non -consensu al 
methodology employed in its previous version s despite the concerns expressed by Brazil and other 
Members  in other S essions of the CRTA.  
1.19.   The representative of Paraguay  support ed the statements made by Argentina and Brazil on 
the notification presented by Uruguay on behalf of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and Paraguay WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 4 - 
 
  referring to the notification of RTA s under the framework of the LAIA. She agreed with Argentina  
that the CTD was the appropriate forum for discussion s on those RTAs and not the CRTA . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  noted that the title of the list had been changed at 
the request of some  Member s. The agreement s on the list  had appeared in factual presentation s 
and therefore he was confused by the assert ion that the list was created through a non -consensu al 
methodology . When an RTA was u nder review , the Members worked with the Secretariat, made 
comments and had the opportunity  to either provide an explanation or to submit a notification. 
Thus the agreemen ts had appeared in documents drafted with the consensus of the Members 
involved. He could not understand the assertion that the methodology behind the construction of 
the list was flawed. He agreed that if an agreement was notified under the Enabling Claus e then 
the CTD would be the appropriate place for discussion but non-notified RTA s could not claim venue 
preference until they were notified.  
C.IV STATUS ON THE PREPARATION OF FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS (INCLUDING DELAYS 
IN THE RECEIPT OF DATA AND COMMENTS (WT/REG/W/129) 
1.21.   The Chairman  noted that a s regards the preparation of factual presentations under the 
remit of the CRTA, in the case of RTAs involving WTO M embers only there were currently 23 RTAs 
for which a factual presentation ha d to be prepared, counting go ods and services separately. 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 
33 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 ha d 
been sent to the rel evant parties.  
1.22.   Regarding the backlog due to the late receipt of data necessary for the preparation and 
drafting of factual presentations and comments on factual presentations, the Secretariat had 
continued consultations with a number of delegations and he hoped that delegations would  provide 
missing information as soon as possible. An updated list of all such RTAs ha d been recently 
circulated as document WT/REG/W/12 9.  
1.23.   A representative of the Secretariat  said that for RTAs involving WTO Members the situation 
was as follows. For GCC -Singapore, services, the accession of the Seychelles to SADC and EU -
Ghana, both goods, no comments had been received. For Costa Rica -Colombia and EU -Canada , 
both goods and serv ices, comments had been received and the factual presentations would be 
issued shortly.  For Chile -Thailand, the Pacific Alliance  and Ecuador's accession to EU -Peru-
Colombia , all goods and services, and Panama's accession to the CACM and Armenia -Kazakhstan,  
both goods, the factual presentations were being drafted. For EU -Cameroon, Korea -ASEAN, 
EU-PNG, Fiji, and Korea -India, all goods, data was not complete. For  EU-SADC , goods , data was 
due by 30 April 2018. For Hong Kong, China -Macao, China, goods and servic es, data was due by 
22 May 2018. For China -Georgia , goods  and services , data was due by 24 August 2018.  
1.24.   In the case of RTAs involving non -Members, for EU -CARIFORUM, goods and services, 
comments had been received and the factual presentation would be issue d shortly . The following 
factual presentations were being drafted: EAEU , goods and services , and the accessions of 
Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU,  EAEU -Vietnam , goods and services , and CEFTA 
Enlargement. For the following agreements data was n ot complete: EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey -Syria, 
Ukraine -Azerbaijan, Ukraine -Turkmenistan, Common Economic Zone, Russian Federation -
Turkmenistan and the GAUM Agreement.   
1.25.   A third category concerned five agreements – ASEAN -Japan, the new CIS agreement and 
EU-SADC  EPA, all goods, and EU -Central America and EFTA -Georgia, both goods and services – for 
which the agreement was not in force for all the parties. The Secretariat intended to wait until the 
agreement had entered into force for all parties before commencing the  preparation of factual 
presentations.  As Members could see, t he list of agreements was not diminishing and it would be 
useful if Members provide d the data as requested so that the Secretariat could draft the factual 
presentations  as required by the TM.  WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.26.   A representative of the European Union  said that, regarding EU -PNG, Fiji and EU -Cameroon,  
the European Union  had submitted the data. As for EU-Ghana , the European Union was preparing , 
in cooperation with Ghana's authorities , comments and replies to the dra ft factual presentation  
received from the Secretariat. With reference to the factual presentation  on the Protocol of 
Accession of Ecuador to the EU -Colombia and Peru agreement , the European Union looked forward 
to cooperate with Ecuador on the preparation of jointly agree comments to the draft FP once 
receive d from the Secretariat.  
D. QUESTIONS FROM THE U NITED STATES TO THE DELEGATIONS OF  ARGENTINA, 
BRAZIL, CHILE, MEXIC O, PARAGUAY AND  URUGUAY REGARDING DO CUMENT 
WT/COMTD/N/53 (WT/REG/W/12 6, WT/COMTD/W/232 ) 
1.27.   The United States ha d submitted a number of questions to the delegations of Argentina, 
Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay on their notification which had been circulated in 
document WT/COMTD/N/53. The Chairman gave the floor to the United States for further 
explanation of the document.  
1.28.   The representative of the United States  appreciate d the opportunity to introduce its 
submission in the CRTA. The submission had been made to both the CRTA and the CTD and bore 
document symbols for both Committees. W hile the questions in the submission pertain ed to a 
notification document submitted to the CTD, he had felt it  necessary and appropriate to submit the 
document to the CRTA as well, as the issues raised in the document had been under discussion in 
the Commi ttee for some time  and they relate d closely to the specific questions the European Union 
had raised in its submission WT/REG/W/124.  
1.29.   He believe d that the questions posed with respect to WT/COMTD/N/53 relate d directly to 
the ongoing discussions on notificati on formats; addressing the list of non -notified RTAs;  and 
efforts to seek greater clarity on the substantive content of the instruments on the list of non -
notified RTAs. That included  gaining a better understanding o f Members views on what constituted 
an RTA in the meaning of Article XXIV of GATT or the Enabling Clause, and what could have been 
considered a subsequent notification affecting the implementati on of an RTA as referred to in 
paragraph D of the RTA Transparency Mechanism.  
1.30.   He hoped that the discussion under a following Agenda item regarding the proposed 
modifications to the template for notifying changes to an existing RTA would clarify for Members 
how best to approach the notificatio n process in a way that provided  maximum clarity to other 
Membe rs about what kind of instrument was being notified.  
1.31.   In addition to the questions relating to whether document WT/COMTD/N/53  was intended 
by the submittin g Parties to notify an RTA  or a change affecting the implementation of an existing 
RTA, it was relevant for Members of the Committee to evaluate WT/COMTD/N/53  in the context of 
the Committee 's recommendation in WT/REG/16 to adopt a common format for notifications of 
RTAs. The format had the express purpose of facilitating compliance with existing no tification 
requirements, and making available to other WTO Members the necessary basic elements in a 
systematic and coherent way. He noted that the CTD had adopted the recommendation on 6 March 
2007 through document WT/COMTD/63.  
1.32.   He raised the issue because  WT/COMTD/N/53 combined  16 separate instruments - covering 
five separate RTA s, which did not all have the same signatories - into one notification.  Some of 
the instruments referenced in the document relate d to RTAs that had never been notified to the 
WTO. With respect to  those cases  the document could not be considered a subsequent notification  
under the Transparency Mechanism, and had to be understood as notifications of RTA s, triggering 
the process for review set out in the Transparency Mechanism. It app eared  that the document was 
intended to serve distinctly different purposes for each of the d ifferent instruments it included . He 
therefore  had difficult y accepting it in its current form. It remained  unclear to the United States 
how the approach taken by the Parties in WT/COMTD/N/53 facilitated  the implementation and 
functioning of the Transparency Mechanism. He hoped to receive responses to the questions posed 
in document WT/REG/ W/126, and believe d that through a continued dialogue Members would be 
able to better understand the intention of the Parties and resolve outstanding differences of views.   WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.33.   The representative of Uruguay  said that the notification in the document WT/COMTD/N/53 
had been presented under the Enabling Clause and was on the Age nda of the following meeting of 
the CTD o n 24 April 2018. She thank ed the United States for the questions and reiterate d 
Uruguay's  position that it was in the CTD that the issue should be dealt with. The document did 
not belong on the Agenda of the CRTA  since those agreements had been notified under the 
Enabling Clause and therefore were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CTD as established in 
paragraph 18 of the TM. The answers to the questions would be presented in the CTD. 
1.34.   The representative of Chile said that the questions were under examination and the answers 
would  be given in due time in the CTD.  
1.35.   The representative of Canada  said that, as previously noted , Canada placed  great 
importance on ensuring that Members respect ed their obligations under the TM. She thank ed the 
United States for the questions regarding document WT/COMTD/N/53 and hope d that they would 
lead to an exchange of information that would allow the Committee to better understand the basis 
on which the notifi cations had been made and how best to comply with the TM.  
1.36.   The representative of Argentina  thanked the United States for the interest in the issue as 
well as the written questions and the details it had given on the issue. He reiterate d the willingness 
of Argentina to work towards transparency in the Committee and in the WTO in general. However 
he signalled  that the document should not have been part of the Agenda of the CRTA since it 
referred to RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause and for which therefore the CTD had exclusive 
competence in conformity with paragraph 18 of the TM. The same questions  had been presented 
by the United States to the CTD and had been  included in the Agenda for the CTD meeting of 24 
April 2018 in document WTO/AIR/COMTD/13. That generated  an unnecessary  duplication  of work 
for the Committees. The answers to the United States'  questions were currently being drafted and 
would be presented in the CTD.  
1.37.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed the United States for the questions which 
were helpful and complement ed the questions submitted by the E uropean Union to LAIA members 
in October  2017. The EU questions had provided a useful framework for clarifying a number of 
concerns raised  by some Memb ers concerning document WT/COMTD/N/53. The European Union 
was interested in seeing the following three issues clarified: i) why had five agreements been 
grouped into one notification ? ii) Did the notification cover both amendments to previous 
notifications  and newly notified RTAs ? iii) W hat did LAIA members mean by "without prejudice to 
the notifications submitted individually by LAIA members" ? The EU looked  forward to seeing the 
replies from the LAIA members to the questions raised by the United States and to continuing  
dialogue on the issue.  
1.38.   The representative of Brazil  support ed the comments made by Uruguay, Chile and 
Argentina . He thanked  the United States for the questions. Brazil was working on them and would 
answer at the appropriate CTD  Session . 
1.39.   The representative  of Japan  thanked the United  States for its questions to improve 
Members' understanding on the TM. He hoped that through discussion on improvement s to the TM , 
WTO Members could find common  grounds on what types of RTAs constitute d those t o be notified  
under section B or under section D of the TM. Any substantive agreement concl uded outside the 
WTO framework should be revi ewed based on a Factual Presentation in the appropriate forum at 
the WTO and using proper procedures.  
1.40.   The representative  of the United States  thanked all the Me mbers for their comments . That 
was precisely  the conversation  he sought to have. He agree d that the duplication of work in the 
CRTA and the CTD was burdensome but the United States had chosen to pursue the issue in both 
paths  because of the inconsistent way it had been discussed  across the two Committees . He 
reiterate d his view that a large number of RTAs were on a non -notified list in the C ommittee and 
therefore were an appropriate subject for discussion  in the Se ssion. The actual intent of the 
notification document WT/COMTD/N/53 had been unclear. If LAIA members had intended the 
document as a notification unde r the E nabling Clause, then  the pathway forward was clear and he 
would have expect ed requests for data by the Secretariat followed by the long overdue 
transparency review for those agreements. It was however unclear if that was in fact the intention  
of the document . Until clarity on the intention of document WT/COMTD/N/53 was established, it WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 7 - 
 
  was appropriate to  continue the discussion in both fora. A situation where a n ambiguous document 
was put forward and Members could not  ask questions about it  just because it had an "N" symbol 
was unsustainable . He had raised his concerns in the CRTA and the CTD about the in consistent 
implementation of the TM across the two Committees . He had embarked upon an effort to im pose 
some discipline in the CTD with respect to the steps that could be taken to actually faithfully 
implement the TM  and he would continue to do so . The United States was not going to give up its 
rights as a Member to seek an appropriate notification and implementation of the TM just because 
a confusing document had been  bouncing back and forth between Committees. He appreciate d the 
reactions to the qu estions and he looked forward to the responses. He had engaged in the CTD 
and he would continue to do so but it was important for the CRTA to be aware of those 
developments because it had relevance for other work of the Committee , such as the notification 
template, the list of non-notified RTAs and the following discussion. He appreciate d the responses 
from LAIA members and he looked forward to continue cooperation.  
E. COMMUNICATION FROM T HE EUROPEAN UNION – EUROPEAN UNION FOLLO W-UP 
QUESTIONS TO LAIA ME MBER  COUNTRIES (WT/REG/W/ 124)  
1.41.   The European Union had asked that its follow up questions to LAIA member countries , 
issued in document WT/REG/W/124 , be kept on the Agenda. The Chairman  passed the floor to the 
European Union.  
1.42.   The representative of the European Un ion recalled the outstanding replies to its follow -up 
questions submitted in October 2017 and presented at the meeting of the CRTA  in November  
2017. The EU requested the item be placed on the CRTA A genda because the questions concern ed 
the CRTA document of non -notified RTAs circulated by the Secretariat ahead of each CRTA meeting 
and they were based on and linked to the LAIA communication circulated by LAIA to the CRTA and 
CTD in document WT/REG/W/105 (and WT/COMTD/W/217)  in 2016 .  
1.43.   As the main concerns had not yet been addressed, the EU  felt obliged to continue raising 
them in the CRTA. She recap ped the main conc erns as follows . First, it was not clear what the 
underlying RTAs  of most of the LAIA agreements on the list  were. Second, furt her clarifications 
were needed on the meaning of changes affecting the "implementation" of an existing RTA. The 
follow -up questions were phrased in detail with the objective of determin ing if the listed RTA s 
qualified as a "change affecti ng the implementat ion of an RTA " or if they in fact granted  
preferential tariff concessions. Third, any RTAs containing provisions on trade in services were not 
covered by the Enabling Clause and need ed to be notified separately under Article V of GATS.  
1.44.   The EU looked  forwar d to receiving the outstanding replies to both the US and EU questions 
from the LAIA m embers . The replies would be an important and constructive step forward in 
enhancing transpa rency on the LAIA Agreements. Finally, she understood that the venue of 
discussion was of importance to LAIA m embers. The EU was open to discuss the issues also - but 
not exclusively - at the CTD. The EU could  also envisage scheduling an ad -hoc dedicated joint 
meeting to move forward  on this long -standing iss ue. 
1.45.   The representative of Colombia  thanked the European Union  for its statement  on behalf of 
the LAIA countries . She took note of the supplementary concerns . The follow -up questions were 
under review by LAIA members  who would deal with the issue in the ir next internal meeting and 
would provide a response shortly thereafter.  
1.46.   The representative of the United States  support ed the questions of the EU and thought that 
the detailed manner in which they had walked through the issues was helpful and instructive in 
moving forward in a number of discussions in the Committee. He looked forward to the responses 
from LAIA members. The questions were not academic or abstract  and, as his previous questions 
had pointed out , they had real implications  for how the notification obligations were met and on 
the flow of the TM obligations coming from those notifications. The questions were critical and 
useful for the Committee . He appreciate d the European Union's document and look ed forward to 
the answers f rom the LAIA members.  
1.47.   The representative of Japan  thanked the EU for including  Members in that important 
discussion. The questions of the European Union  had helped Members to deepen their mutual 
understanding  of the LAIA agreement. Japan attached  importanc e to the consideration , at the WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 8 - 
 
  relevant WTO bodies , of RTAs which establish ed trade and investment related disciplines , including 
tariff schedules. In that sense, he was interested in the interpretation of LAIA mem bers regarding 
the sentence " changes affec ting the implementation of an RTA, or the operation of an already 
implemented RTA " in section D of the TM.  
F. IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS UNDER PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE TRANSPARENCY 
MECHANISM FOR RTAS - (WT/REG/W/13 1) 
1.48.   An updated schedule for the submission of the implementation reports had been  distributed 
by the Secretariat ( in document WT/REG/W/13 1). A revision to the document would be issued in 
response to comments that had been received from  some delegations. As of 13 March 2018 , 
implementation rep orts were  due for 132  RTAs, and the e nd of implementation (EOI) for nine  RTAs 
was in 2018. The EOI for a total of 108  RTAs was from 2019  onwards, while for two RTA the EOI 
year was not available. He encourage d other delegations to submit their implementation report s in 
order to comply with th e obligation.  
G. PROCEDURES TO FACILITATE AND IMPROVE THE EXAMINAT ION PROCESS  
G.I  Proposed modifications to the template for notifying changs to an exist ing rta – 
informal note by the S ecretariat  (WT/REG/W/125)  
1.49.   Following the di scussion at the previous CRTA meeting the Secretariat ha d issued an 
informal note in document WT/REG/W/125 containing proposed modifications to the template for 
notifying changes to an existing RTA. The goal had been  to improve the current template and 
reduce the potential for confusion. The proposed modifications had been  reproduced on page three 
of the document. In particular, Members would (i) identify the existing RTA being modified, (ii) 
provide the document refer ence of the original notification, and (iii) indi cate whether the change 
concerned  trade in goods, services or both. The new template would apply to RTAs whether 
notified under Article XXIV of GATT , the Enabling Clause or Article V of GATS . Thus the same 
modifications would also be proposed in the CTD.  
1.50.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed the Secretariat for the proposed 
template to be used in cases of notifications of changes to existing RTAs. The proposed template 
was useful and necessary  and it would indeed help Members and the Secretariat to better manage 
the notification process of an RTA and therefore avoid possible confusion. She requested a 
clarification on the meaning of the first sentence in paragraph 14 of the TM (i.e. "the required 
notification of changes affecting the implementation of an RTA" ). In the EU's view that would cover 
cases when a party to an RTA would start the implementation of the agreement at a later stage as, 
for example, the EU -SADC notification. However it would not cover cases such as the accession of 
a new Member to an existing RTA. In the latter case she considered  that the standard template for 
notification had to be used. She was interested in hearing other Members ' and the Secretariat 's 
views on that aspect.  
1.51.   The representative of Japan  welcome d the modification of the template for subsequent 
notifications. He proposed to change the heading "brief description of the decision" to "brief 
description of the changes " as the format would be used to notify changes. He restate d the 
importance  of Members  finding common ground on what kind of agreements could be considered 
as changes affecting the implementation of an RTA or the operation of an already implemented 
RTA. 
1.52.   The representative of Canada  thanked  the Secretariat f or preparing the proposed template 
for the notification of changes to RTAs under the TM. She supported  the initiative as a welcomed 
step in improving transparency. Templates were more likely to be completed correctly when they 
were clear and easy to unders tand. She had a few suggestions for providing gr eater clarity to 
Members for the information  to be provided under parts 4, 9 and 10  of the template . She 
recommended adding an "other " category in section 4 to capture changes that did not necessarily 
involve  either goods or services. Details could be provided in section 10 for example for RTAs 
covering progressive elements such as trade and gender. She suggested including  an option for 
Members  to signal the provisional application of an agreement  prior to ful l entry into force  in 
section 9 . Finally, the use of the heading " Brief description of the decision" in section 10 was not 
clear. If the intention was to allow Members to describe the key elements of the change , she WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 9 - 
 
  proposed to change the heading to "Brief description of changes made to RTA" in order to be more 
consistent with the requirements in section 7 of the template for notifying RTAs. She would  
transmit the suggestions to the Secretariat.  
1.53.   The representative of the  United States  thanked  the Secretariat for proposing a new 
template which had been  a useful and helpful contribution to carrying out the Committee 's work. 
The proposed template would also help to better understand  the content of the submission . It 
should be  clearly understood that each fo rmat would be used for individual changes. He proposed 
to bring over some of the language from the original cover note. The acknowledgement of the fact  
that one document symbol was given to each separate notification template  would alleviate some 
of the pr oblems in the inconsistent approach elsewhere. That had been  clearly understood but it 
was not what had happened in practice.  
1.54.   The representative of the Brazil  said that at the previous  meeting of the C ommittee he had 
indicated that he was open to discuss the issue and thank ed the Secretariat for the informal note 
that had been circulated. The Treaty of Montevideo had been notified to the GATT in July 1982 as 
document L/5342. Since the L series no longer existed , he asked how it would be possible to notify 
changes to or to amend an L document . 
1.55.   The representative of the Secretariat  thank ed the Members for their  questions and proposed 
changes that would clarify the template further. Regarding the European Union's  question about 
accessions, previous accessions , including those of the EU and the accessions to the EAEU , had 
been treated as separate notification s. After the notific ation by the Members, the TM process had 
taken  over and the Secretariat had prepared the FP and the general incidence calculation for each 
accession . With regard to Canada's points , any suggestion was useful and she encouraged 
Members to submit their proposals to the Secretariat. With regard to Brazil's question, the issue 
had been  discussed informally. Her understanding was that for all the documents in the L series, 
one possibility was to simply replicate the document as either a REG or a COMTD document stating 
that the notification was being recirculated under  a particular new symbol. Whether the agreement 
such as the Treaty of Montevideo would qualify and if it would go through that process was 
something that Me mbers to the Agreement needed to decide.  
1.56.   The Chairman  proposed that if Members  had any suggestion s, they could send them to the 
Secretariat in written form and then , after the incorporation of the proposals,  the Secretariat could  
perhaps  recirculate the document for adoption by Members . 
G.II   COMMUNICATION FROM TH E UNITED STATES (WT/REG/W/127)  
1.57.   The United States ha d requested the i nclusion on the Agenda of its communication issued in 
document WT/REG/W/127 on 5 February 2018 concerning ways in which Members' participation in 
reviewing factual presentations under the Transparency Mechanism might be improved. The 
Chairman  gave the floo r to the United States to introduce the document.  
1.58.   The representative of the United States  recalled that in November 2016, the United States 
had requested an A genda item to raise the issue of possible ways to improve and enhance 
Members’ participation in th e reviews of factual presentations. During that meeting, a number of 
delegations had intervened to express interest in engaging in further discussion on the issue. For 
details , he referred Members to Section E, paragraphs 1.88 to 1.93 of the minutes of the 83rd 
Session of the CRTA  (document WT/REG/M/83 ). 
1.59.   The United States had made its earlier intervention in response to comments by Members in 
an informal meeting in October 2016 regarding thoughts and suggestions for future work in the 
Committee. The questio ns posed in document WT/REG/W/127 indicate d some areas where he was 
interested in hearing more from other Members and were not intended to be exhaustive or 
exclusive. The intention of the paper  was to determine if there was sufficient interest in exploring  
any of those questions in greater depth  or if Members had other thoughts or questions which could 
contribute to the discussion.  
1.60.   He believe d that participation in the CRTA review process could  be improved and he saw 
benefit and value in a robust exchange under the TM. The Factual Presentations were an essential 
tool in informing the Membership of the coverage and liberalizing aspects of the RTAs. At the same WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 10 - 
 
  time, he was also interested in how patterns and practices were emerging in the RTA space that 
could inform future work at the WTO in areas outside of traditional market access aspects of the 
agreements, such as disciplines or practices reducing non -tariff barriers in areas such as TBT, SPS, 
customs, labo ur and environmental protection and changes being  driven by the internet and 
digitally enabled trade. Those elements appear ed in the factual presentations, but he rarely saw 
the issues raised in the review discussions.  
1.61.   In addition to the substantive aspects of what was included in the factual presentati ons, he 
was also interested in seeing if there might  be scope for clarifying or improving the manne r in 
which the Committee carried  out its work. Tracking factual presentations and deadlines for 
submitting questions could be a challenge. He appreciate d the recent initiative by the Secretariat 
to create a calendar on the CRTA website that could serve as a valuable reference point for which 
factual presentations were out for comment, when comments were due, and when the agreements 
appear ed on the CRTA A genda for review.   
1.62.   He also acknowledge d that the CRTA website  and the online RTA database were significant 
resources for Members, but that the interface could  be updated to be more user -friendly.  He 
noted that other organizations were attempting  to replica te the information on the WTO’s RTA 
database, and he believe d that with some updates or increased awareness of the resources 
available on the site, some of the  duplication of effort s could be addressed .  
1.63.   He was interested in hearing from other M embers if they were interest ed in further 
discussion in the Committee , and based on the feedback , he would  welcome engagement in the 
Committee on how to collectively consider efforts to facilitate and improve the  consideration  
process.  
1.64.   If there was sufficient intere st among Members in further discussion, he could  explore 
options for taking the discussion forward. Possible options include d setting aside time during the 
formal meetings for continued exchange; convening informally in an open -ended configuration; or 
perhaps convening in a small group of interested Members and if the discussions there produced 
some useful conclusions, the group could  present those to the full Membership at a later meeting.  
Again, the initiative would  depend on the extent of Member s' interest  and he was interested in 
hearing how others reacted to the questions . 
1.65.   The representative of Canada  thank ed the United States for prompting this reflection  on the 
RTA examination process . It could be useful  to periodically engage in such an exerci se to ensure 
Members were best delivering on the Committee mandate. RTAs offer ed a wealth of information as 
to the nature and evolution of trading relationships. The information contained in RTAs could be 
used to support and strengthen the multilateral tra ding system in the Committee and other 
venues . It was important to ensure that the CRTA had the appropriate  processes in place to enable 
Members to contribute to and draw from the consideration  of RTAs. Canada saw value in engaging 
more formally in a dialo gue with Members and the Secretariat on the effectiveness of the RTA 
consideration  process.  
1.66.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed the United States for the written 
submission . She support ed the initiative and agree d that the CRTA could  look at ways to improve 
the consideration  process of RTAs and the engagement on broader issues concerning regionalism 
in the C ommittee. Taking into account the relevance of the proliferation  of RTAs in the global 
trading system  as well as their potential contribut ion to  future multilateral  work, it was important 
to have a broader and deeper understanding of the specificities of RTAs. Greater engagement in 
the revie w process would  benefit the Membership  as a whole. There was room for improving the 
current level s of participation and interaction by Members. Often the discussion  of an RTA tend ed 
to be focused on the presentation of the parties' statements followed by a limited number of 
intervention s and comments. She was open to discussion with Members on finding ways to 
improve their engagement. Among  some key factors to encourage increase d engagement , was the 
structure of the FP s. The FP s represented  a good basis for discussion a t the CRTA but there was 
room for improvement. With the purpose of facilitating compa rison between agreements, the 
Secretariat used the same template for describing different agreements. She recognize d the 
reasons for the approach chosen but she wonder ed whether it could have the effect of somewhat 
reducing transparency. A rigid structu re in the FPs could giv e the impression that agreements 
looked too  alike and it could hinder bringing out their specificities . She wondered  whether it would 
be possible to introduce an additional step when preparing the FP where , for example, the WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Secretariat could spend some time with the parties on the identifi cation of the main WTO plus 
elements of RTAs . She would be  interest ed in having greater detail  on provisions such as , e-
commerce, regulatory issues and transparency, and trade and sustainabl e develop ment. If 
Members wish ed to maintain the current structure of FPs , she nevertheless  believe d that the 
discussions at the CRTA meeting coul d be improved. For example , she saw room for better 
coordination between the parties of the agreements under consideration  in the ir respective 
opening presentations. To the extent possible , the parties could aim to avoid duplication and 
Memb ers could think about aspects that they would have liked to see addressed in the 
introductory statement , such as what kind of  trade statistics were interesting and relevant, success 
stories of traders, the contribution of the RTA to regional or global value chains, implementation 
issues encountered  by the parties , etc. Finally , the RTA website was a useful tool and contained a 
lot of information but the information was sometimes hidden. She would have welcome d it if the 
website had been easier to navigate and more user friendly. The TFA database and website could  
serve as a useful source of inspiration for making further impro vements. She looked forward to 
hearing views and suggestions from others and to engage further in the discussion.  
1.67.   The representative of Japan  thanked the United States for its contribution to improve the 
functions of the TM and supported the initiative . The consideration of RTAs was one of the 
important functions of the CRTA. As noted by the EU , many WTO M embers had introduced 
disciplines in their RTAs regarding new areas that were not add ressed in the WTO framework. 
Japan considered  that studying an d discu ssing what happened  outside the WTO in the relevan t 
WTO bodies was helpful to identif y what issues and disciplines Members would like to be tackle d or 
address ed in the WTO in the future. He looked  forward to hearing other Member s' views regarding 
improveme nts to the consideration process of their RTAs.  
1.68.   The representative of Australia  thank ed the United States for its questions and for its 
continued  support to improving the TM in the CRTA . She hoped the questions would help generate 
a constructive discussion on the topic. Australia remained supportive of the TM. She believe d that 
the FPs prepared by the Secretariat were useful in assisting Members ' understanding and 
comprehension of RTAs. The current level of participation in the review of RTAs in the Committee 
could  be improved. Greater engagement i n the revie w process , including from a more diverse 
range of Members,  would  benefit  the wider  Membership  in understanding specific RTAs but also 
potential global trends and emerging issues in RTAs. Emergi ng issues in RTAs  include d the areas 
mentioned by the United States and those that went beyond traditional market access such as TBT 
and SPS and areas where Members have  broken  new ground in RTAs such as in e -commerce. She 
was interested in knowing how the work done under RTAs could inform future work at  the WTO. 
She would welcome suggestions to improve the current level of participation and interaction 
among Members in the review of RTAs. She would also welcome a presentation from the 
Secretariat staff involved in drafting the reports to gain a greater understanding of the process and 
to provide an opportunity for constructive suggestions. The addition of a calendar and timeline in 
the RTA webpage was appreciated. Those additions would have support ed the parties to the RTAs 
and other interested Member to comply and participate in the review process. She appreciated the 
value of the RTA database which was used regularly in  Capital. She was interested in continuing  
the discussion in the Committee on t hose issue s and look ed forward to hearing the vie ws of other 
Members. A s to the format for potential future discussion s, she was open to any suggestion 
outlined earlier.  
1.69.   The representative of the United States  thank ed all the interested Members. He would 
reflect on what to do next and on other suggestion s. It was useful if other Members continue d to 
reflect on that too and the Committee could decide the next steps in terms of bringing forward 
more concrete idea s during the following meeting . He remained open to suggestions and ways to 
put some of the ideas into a more concrete form . 
H. CONSIDERATION OF REGI ONAL TRADE AGREEMENT S  
ITEM H.I  
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 12 - 
 
  ITEM H.II  
 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM H.III 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM H .IV 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM H .V 
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
I. FOLLOW UP ON MC10 
1.70.   The Chairman  said that a s Members were aware the Nairobi Ministerial d eclaration had 
instructed the CRTA to discuss the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading 
system and their relationship with the WTO rules. It also called for work to transform the 
provisional TM into a permanent mechanism in accordance with the General Council Decision of 14 
December 2006, without prejudice to questions related to notification requirements. He said he  
intended to consult with delegations to see if there were ideas about how to bring forward  the 
issue. He invite d interest ed delegations to contact him or the Secretariat and he would report on 
the consultations at the next CRTA meeting.  
1.71.   The representative of the United States  wished to clarify his understanding of paragraph  28 
of the Nairobi Declaration  and the sentence in the terms of reference of the Committee . The 
discussion on  systemic implications manifested  itself in the review of  RTAs and their impact on the 
system. The discussion was not a separate conversation  but it was in fact the core function of the 
Committee . During the review of individual RTAs questions on  excluded sectors, the  impact of TBT 
and SPS , customs  and other issues were raised . The consideration of RTAs in the CRTA was the 
primary venue in which Members discuss ed and evaluate d the systemic implica tions of RTAs. He 
was puzzled by the fact that that was raised as a separate issu e from the FP review process. He 
wanted to make clear his understanding of the issue and expressed perplexity with respect to the 
Agenda item being regularly included even in the absence of Members articulate d questions.  
1.72.   The representative of the European Union  was open to any discussion which helped  to 
improve th e functioning of the Committee towards an increased and  diverse engagement by 
Members in the CRTA . She attached grea t importance to the TM and was happy to pursue that 
discussion under any heading. The systemic debate formed  part of the terms of reference of the 
Committee . The EU had been active on paragraph 28 and 29 of the Nairobi declaration  in the past . 
At the time there seem ed to be less appetite to pursue the issue but the she was open to continue 
the discussion and  happy to participate in any consultations that the Chairman engage d. She also 
believe d that the issue was linked to the discussion under ot her Agenda i tems.  
1.73.   The representative of Japan  support ed the Chairman in continuing his consultations with 
interested M embers on how to move forward the discussion in the CRTA after MC10. As already 
noted in previous meetings, many Members had introduced disciplines in  RTAs regarding new 
areas that were not addressed in the WTO framework. Studying and discussing specific areas 
covered by several RTAs was helpful to identify the issues or disciplines that Members would 
address under the WTO framework in the future. In that sense, e -commerce , investment related 
chapters , including elements for facilitating investment , and provisions related to transparency 
were potential elements to be discussed as having systemic implications. He was open to the 
question regarding under which Agenda item Members had such discuss ions. Regarding the TM, 
the challenges and difficulties that Members were facing should be addressed and identified before WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 13 - 
 
  the discussion on the transformation of the current TM. He was ready to participate i n the 
consultations with the Chairman on the follow up to MC10.  
1.74.   The representative of South Africa  support ed discussions on the systemic implications of 
RTAs for the multilateral trading system and their relationship with the WTO rules in an informal 
mode and an inclusive  process, with full participation of Membe rs at all levels of development. The 
thematic issues to be discussed had to be of common interest to all Me mbers. The process had to 
be without prejudice  to the m embers of the various R TAs, and in n o way would Members  be 
expected to adopt any recommendations emanat ing from the discussions. South Africa  was not 
open to any work program me or proposal that appeared  to lead the Committee into territory that 
suggest ed in any way new rules or disciplines at the multilateral level as a consequence of the 
discussions.  
1.75.   The representative of Australia  support ed discuss ions on  the systemic implications of RTAs  
for the multilateral trading system and their relationship with the WTO rules. She welcome d 
sugge stions on how to continue the conversation. She appreciated Japan's suggestion that e -
commerce  and transparency issues were a possible  place to start. Like the EU , she had observe d 
that there were some linkages between the issue and other issues discussed under different 
Agenda items prompted by the United States' questions. Greater engagement in the review of 
individual RTAs would  enable Member s to further reflect on and discuss the systemic implications 
of RT As in particula r those WTO -plus elements that were often manifested  in RTAs . She was open 
on how to continue the conversation  and appreciate d the Chair man's offer of consultations. 
Australia  support ed the effort to make the TM permanent in the near future and she welcome d 
suggestions on how to work  towards that goal from other M embers.  
1.76.   The representative of India stated that the CRTA should be careful not to get into 
discussion s that could lead to new rules on converting the TM into a permanent mechanism . He 
had strong reservations on any discussion s in the CRTA on RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause 
or those notified under both the Enabling Clause and Article XXIV of GATT . On that topic,  he had 
already provided detailed justification in previous CRTA meetings. There was already a standing 
Agenda item in the CTD and that was the forum for discussing RTAs under the Enabling Clause or 
under dual notification.  
1.77.   The representative of Brazil  said Brazil remained  committed to the discussion on the 
implementation of paragraph 2 8 of the Nairobi Declaration. He was flexible on how to move the 
discussion on.  
1.78.   The Chairman  said that he would hold consultation on the point. It was an issue that had 
been discussed in the Committee in various ways and in many occasions in the past. He did not 
believe that not having items on the Agenda that could lead to productive di scussi ons in the 
Committee was useful. He would be looking  for suggestions or ways of br inging the issue to the 
Committe e if that was what Members want ed. Individual Members could propose specific ideas 
that would  command the support of the Committee as a whole. He was open to any suggestions. 
There had been discussions in the past on the issue and they had led to useful informal 
discussions,  thus there may have been a precedent in the past that could be used.  He was 
nevertheless open to ideas and suggestions by Members on how to take the issue forward . He 
would report back in the next meeting.  
J. OTHER BUSINESS  
1.79.   The Chairman  inform ed the Members  of the tentat ive dates scheduled for the CRTA's 
meetings in 2018. Tho se would  be held on 19-20 June and 18 -19 September.  
1.80.   The Chairman noted that t he second day of the meeting had originally been scheduled to 
keep parallelism with the TPR process and to allow delegations time to respond to follow up 
questions . He was interested in hearing delegations' views on scheduling future CRTA meetings for 
a single day rather than over two half days.  He also asked h ow to revitalize the second day and 
suggestions on how to  use the Committee's time most efficiently. The issue of the second day had 
been the subject of discussion s in the past. He was keen to use the Committee's time as efficiently 
as possible. There were reasons why the Committee had a two -day meeting schedule . Such 
reasons may  be less pres ent currently  than originally. He was i nterest ed in hearing views on WT/REG/M/88  
 
- 14 - 
 
  whether the Committee could more efficiently use the collective time in the way the meetings  were 
scheduled . The proposal for the moment was to schedule two-day meeting s for the rest of the year 
but he asked if there was any delegation in the Committee who though it was worth thinking back 
through  and how to revitalize  the second day in a way that had been originally intended.  
1.81.   The representative of the Europ ean Union  saw merit in having a full day meeting of the 
CRTA either as a full day or as two half -days. In the context of reviving the CRTA debate she did 
not want to artificially shorten time available if Members could fill it meaningfully. If the sole 
purpose of keeping the second day was because of the parallelism with the TPR process and 
coming back with replies, then she had reservations because the process had  moved on . Also, she 
recall ed that the EU's position duri ng the 6th appraisal of the TPR had been precisely that it did not 
see the merit of the second day  and coming back with questions . She was keen on seeing the 
CRTA having a robust meaningful conversation and did not want to shorten the time available.  
1.82.   The Chairman  said he believed  that there was no desire to change the current 
arrangements. If  anyone wanted  to raise the issue for the next meeting , he was happy to reflect 
on any proposals. He encourage d Members reviewing  their RTAs to demonstrate how they cou ld 
use the two-day process as efficiently as possible  and to think how to use their presentations to 
revitalize the second day . It seemed that there was not great support for changing the current 
arrangement but he was open to any suggestion s and would report back  on any made  at the next 
meeting .  
1.83.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________