RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/68  
 
3 May 2013  
(13-2361) Page: 1/13  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Sixty-eighth Session    
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 9-10 APRIL 2013 
CHAIRMEN: MR. F. RIEGERT (FRANCE)  
AMBASSADOR FRANCISCO LIMA MENA (EL SALVADOR) 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The 68th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/4084/Rev.1 dated 28 March 2013. 
1.2.  The Chairman welcomed Members to the 68th Session of the CRTA and said he would inform 
Members of the proposed schedule for CRTA meeting for the rest of the year under "Other 
Business".  
1.3.  The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs   Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism 
II. Free Trade Agreement between China and Costa Rica, goods and services 
III. Implementation Reports under Paragraph 15 of the Transparency 
Mechanism for RTAs 
C. Working Paper Published on the WTO Website: "Services Rules in Regional Trade 
Agreements" - Requested by Australia 
D. Election of Officers E. Other Business 
 
1.4.  The Chairman recalled that the Latin Amer ican Integration Association (LAIA) had been 
granted observer status to the CRTA on an ad hoc basis and sought confirmation to extend an 
invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee's next meeting. It was so agreed. 
1.5.  CONSIDERATION OF RE GIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.6.  ITEM B.I STATUS REPORT ON TH E COMMITTEE'S WORK - NON NOTIFIED RTAS 
(WT/REG/W/73) and IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTA TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM 
(WT/REG/W/74/REV.1). 
1.7.  Before providing Members the usual status  report on the Committee's work the Chairman 
drew attention to the Agenda which was rather sparse: only one RTA was included for 
consideration. In fact, of the five factual pres entations that had been sent to the parties in 
October 2012 and were scheduled for consideratio n during the meeting, none featured on the 
Agenda. The sole agreement Members would consider - the FTA between China and Costa Rica - 
had been originally scheduled for the next CRTA meeting, but given the Parties' prompt submission 
of comments its consideration had been advanced. The status of the five RTAs not on the Agenda was as follows: for the RTAs between Japan-Peru , Japan-India and El Salvador-Honduras-Chinese 
Taipei, comments from the Parties on the factual presentations had been received, but there were 
still some issues that needed to be resolved ; for US-Korea and US-Colombia, comments had not WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 2 - 
 
  been received from all parties. These were not the only RTAs for which comments were overdue. 
For some, the delay was considerable as the factual presentations had been sent out in 2009 or 2010. It was clearly in no one's interest to schedule a CRTA meeting and consider only one RTA. The success of the Transparency Mechanism (TM) was dependent upon Members' commitment to 
provide data and comments in a timely fashion so that the Committee could steadily work through 
the large number of RTAs notified to this institution. Thus, in order to highlight those RTAs for which comments were outstanding the Secretariat had issued a status report in document 
WT/REG/W/74/Rev.1. He pointed out that since the document had been circulated Singapore had 
provided comments on its RTA with China (though no comments had yet been received from China) and Peru and Japan had provided comments on their RTA. He urged all Members to consult that document and for the Members concerned to liaise with capitals in order to address the 
situation.  
1.8.  Moving on to other aspects related to the implementation of the TM. 35 early announcements 
were currently on the WTO website (not counting those which had been subsequently notified). He 
thanked those Members who had submitted informatio n in line with the requirements of the TM 
and encouraged others to do so. He also reminded Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
1.9.  As regards the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO members only, there were currently 54 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 
44 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 TM had been sent to the relevant 
Parties.  
1.10.  The Chairman turned to the issue of non-no tified RTAs. He recalled that an updated list had 
recently been circulated as WT/REG/W/73 and contained 61 RTAs issued in factual presentations 
up to 22 March 2013.  
1.11.  Referring to the US-Colombia FTA as was indicated in document WT/REG/W/74/Rev.1, the 
representative of Colombia clarified that Colombia had presented its comments on 28 November 
2012 within the Secretariat´s deadline. 
1.12.  The representative of China said that he  was communicating with the capital in order to 
provide information as quickly as possible on China's agreement with Singapore. 
1.13.  The Chairman passed the floor to the Secretariat for further details on the situation with 
regard to the preparation of the factual presentations.  
1.14.  A representative of the Secretariat said th at with regard to factual presentations of RTAs 
between WTO Members the situation was as follows: in the case of four RTAs – US-Bahrain, goods 
and services; CAFTA-DR, goods and services; US -Oman, goods and services; China-Singapore, 
goods and services; the factual presentations had been sent to the parties in 2009. For China-Singapore, comments had recently been subm itted by Singapore only, but none from China. 
For US-Oman, comments had been received from Oman only. No other comments on these RTAs 
had been received. For ASEAN-China, services, the factual presentation had been sent to the Parties in 2010, but no comments had been received. For Japan-Peru, goods and services, 
clarification of outstanding issues had been received from the Parties and the Secretariat expected 
to issue this factual presentation shortly. For El Salvador-Honduras-Chinese Taipei, and 
Japan-India, both, goods and services, comments on the factual presentations had been received 
from the Parties, but some outstanding comments from El Salvador remained. For US-Colombia, 
goods and services, comments had been received from Colombia only. For India-Malaysia, services, some comments had been received from India only. For EFTA-Peru, goods, comments had been received, but some issues still had to be  clarified. For US-Korea, goods and services, no 
comments had been received. For Peru-Mexico, an d Peru-Panama, both goods and services, data 
had been received and the Secretariat was curr ently drafting the factual presentations. For 
EFTA-Ukraine, goods and services, data from all parties had been received and the factual WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 3 - 
 
  presentation was currently being drafted. For EFTA-Hong Kong, China, goods and services, the 
factual presentation was currently being drafted. For US-Panama, goods and services, some data on services from Panama had been received. For Panama-Honduras, goods and services, data from Panama and some data from Honduras had been received. For EFTA-Montenegro, goods, the 
factual presentation had been sent to the Parties on 22 March with comments due by 19 April. For 
the Dominican Republic-Central America, goods and services, data had been received from all parties except Honduras. For Colombia-El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, goods and services, 
most data had been received. For EAC, services, no data had been provided. For Australia-New 
Zealand-ASEAN, goods and services, data had been  received from Australia and New Zealand and 
most data from ASEAN countries. For Korea-India, services, data had been received from Korea and some data from India. For Korea-ASEAN, serv ices, data had been received from Korea only. 
For Georgia-Russian Federation, goods, some data had been received from Georgia. For 
Ukraine-Russian Federation, Kyrgyz Republic-Russian Federation, Armenia-Russian Federation, Russian Federation-Moldova, Russian Federation-Taj ikistan, and Ukraine-Tajikistan, all goods, no 
data had been received. For Chile-Malaysia, good s and services, data was due by 8 July 2013. For 
Panama-Nicaragua, goods and services, data was due by 17 July 2013.  
1.15.  With regard to RTAs involving non Members, the situation was as follows: for 
Iceland-Faroe Islands, goods and services, comments had been received but the Secretariat was 
still awaiting some outstanding data from the Faroe Islands.  
1.16.  For EU-Bosnia Herzegovina, EU-San Marino, EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey-Syria, CEFTA 
Enlargement, Ukraine-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-Belarus, Ukraine Kazakhstan, Ukraine-Turkmenistan, 
Ukraine-Uzbekistan, the Common Economic Zone , Russian Federation-Azerbaijan, Russian 
Federation-Belarus, Russian Federation-Kazakhs tan and EU-ESA, all goods, and EU-CARIFORUM, 
goods and services, data was not complete. For Russian Federation-Serbia, goods, data was due 
by 4 June 2013. For Russian Federation-Belarus-Kaz akhstan, goods, data was due by 7 June 2013. 
For Russian Federation-Turkmenistan and Russian Federation-Uzbekistan, both goods, data was 
due by 11 June 2013. 
1.17.  A third category concerned 7 agreements  – ASEAN-Japan, EU-Cameroon, EU-Cote d'Ivoire, 
EFTA-Colombia, and EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, all goods and EU-Central America, and EU-Colombia, both goods and services – for which the Secretariat understood not all parties had ratified the agreement yet and so the Secretariat intended to wait until the agreement had entered 
into force for all the parties before commencing the preparation of factual presentations. She 
urged 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 in order to adhere to the CRTA's work programme. 
1.18.  The Chairman noted that the Committee wa s falling behind in its work and it would take 
cooperation from all to make up for the delay. He was confident he could count on Members 
cooperation in this regard.  
1.19.  The representative of El Salvador said th at his delegation was working with the capital in 
order to provide the outstanding comments on the agreement between Chinese Taipei, Honduras 
and El Salvador so it could be considered in the next meeting of the Committee. 
 
ITEM B.II FREE TRADE AGREEMEN T BETWEEN CHINA AND COSTA RICA, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
B.II (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement is being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM B.III IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS UNDE R PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE TRANSPARENCY 
MECHANISM FOR RTAS (JOB/REG/4)  1.20.  Under item B.III the Chairman said that the Secretariat had issued a follow-up document 
(JOB/REG/4) which reflected Members' comments made during informal discussions last year. In 
particular, with regard to the content of the implementation report, the document provided two approaches - a more flexible, guidelines-type approach and a more prescriptive, standard format 
approach. During the last informal meeting, the European Union had volunteered to submit a mock WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 4 - 
 
  implementation report for one of its RTAs so he asked if the European Union wished to provide an 
update.  
1.21.  The representative of the European Union thanked the WTO Secretariat for document 
JOB/REG/4 which reflected discussions and the preliminary agreement reached so far. She said 
that the EU was currently working on the mock implementation report and was consulting with its 
counterparts. She expected to circulate it in the forthcoming months, likely before the summer break. She found it to be an interesting exercise and underlined that it would indeed be a "light" 
exercise while recalling the EU's preference for using the standard report template. 
1.22.  The representative of India said he appreciated the work done by the Secretariat in revising 
the earlier note in the light of concerns expre ssed by some Members on the need for achieving a 
balance between transparency and burdensome requ irements. He also recalled the exact language 
used in paragraph 15 of the TM which required parties to submit to the WTO a short written report 
on the realization of the liberalization commitments in the RTAs as originally notified. Despite the revised background note including the three annexes he was still of the opinion that the 
information sought through the annexes went much beyond the requirements of paragraph 15 of 
the TM. Further, he said it was not clear whether all RTAs were being addressed in this exercise. He noted that the CRTA was meant to consider RTAs notified under Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and 
Article V of the GATS, which needed to be clearly spelt out at the very beginning. To conclude he 
said he did not see much difference between JOB documents 3 and 4, and that Members to the RTAs should be at liberty to draft their implementa tion report in the light of their experiences. Any 
attempt to prescribe guidelines would go against the spirit of the TM. 
1.23.  The representative of South Africa agreed it was crucial a balance was achieved between 
transparency and overly burdensome requirements  on Members who are parties to RTAs. As her 
delegation had previously proposed, she believed adherence to Article 15 could best be achieved 
by Members at their discretion framing the timing and content of what went into implementation 
reports in line with Article 15's direction towards simplicity and conciseness. She did not really see a difference in substance between the information required in Annexes 2 and 3 save for the 
different headings. In terms of the content required to be reported both Annexes 2 and 3 still 
seemed to be unduly detailed. South Africa's original concerns were that even draft guidelines for implementation reports could have the effect of requirements which would not only be overly burdensome on some Members but on the system as a whole in that it would entail in effect a 
second factual presentation exercise. Members had heard how many factual presentations 
remained unconcluded due to information and resource constraints on Members, thus the WTO was already under strain and the backlog seemed to be increasing. Therefore she questioned 
whether it was realistic to agree further elaborate procedures which would put further strain on the 
system. As to the timing of the submission of repo rts, South Africa continued to adhere to the view 
that this should be worked out in advance in consultation with the Members concerned. There 
could be no submission of an implementation report unless and until such timing was agreed by all 
Members to the FTA. This would enable the Secretariat to consult with the parties without the need for agreeing fixed calendars. On paragraph 3 of the draft guidelines, she agreed with the comments of India that it was in the discretion of Members to submit a short written report on the 
realization of trade commitments when they fell due. On paragraph 4 and in line with what she 
had said with reference to the special cases referred to here, these should be agreed on a case-by-case basis between the parties as it would be difficult to cast procedures for such FTAs in 
stone and there should be flexibility in the implem entation of this requirement. With regard to 
paragraph 5 of the draft guidelines she reiterated that the need for technical assistance would be 
reduced if the reporting format was kept simple  and minimal. She supported that paragraph 5 
boded wording to the effect that the Secretariat should provide technical support to developing 
Members and especially LDCs in the form of flexib ility of timeframes for submission of reports as 
well as the content of what those reports could necessarily entail, given Members' unique capacity constraints in implementation burdens.  
1.24.  Reiterating her comments with regard to Annexes 2 and 3 as still being overly prescriptive 
and detailed, she supported a short snapshot over view of both the goods and services aspects 
more broadly. Going into too much detail with regard to specific provisions which could end up 
duplicating notifications to other bodies should be avoided. She noted that tariff information was 
already submitted to the IDB annually and it was not clear what additional value this aspect of the Annex could serve. Finally she reiterated her co mments in previous meetings with regard to 
avoiding undue formalization and prescriptiveness with regard to the tabling of these reports and WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 5 - 
 
  agreed with the comments by India that Members sh ould adhere to the spirit and the letter of the 
wording of Article 15 with regard to submission of  short and very simplified reports. South Africa 
reserved its right to come back to this issue in future meetings because its capital based officials were still looking at the draft guidelines in detail. 
1.25.  The representative of Cuba endorsed th e comments made by India and South Africa. She 
also believed the format used should be as simple and as least burdensome as possible and 
reports should not be submitted on the basis of a previously set agenda or schedule but rather at 
the will of the parties. 
ITEM C. WORKING PAPER PUBLISHED ON THE WT O WEBSITE: "SERVICES RULES IN REGIONAL 
TRADE AGREEMENTS" - REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA.  
1.26.  The Chairman said that this Agenda item  had been added at the request of Australia and 
concerned a recent working paper published on the WTO Website entitled Services Rules in 
Regional Trade Agreements.  
1.27.  The representative of Australia said he had already alerted Members to the publication of 
this staff working paper, along with three other papers and welcomed the publication of a further 
paper on rules of origin and RTAs. In his view this  staff working paper made a positive contribution 
to understanding the systemic implications of RTAs. There was no doubt that the mandate of this 
Committee was, in part, to examine the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system. The CRTA needed to move beyond debates about process issues to a technical discussion of the systemic implications of RTAs. This paper, along with the others published on goods, market 
access, rules of origin, anti-dumping, and intellectual property, was a very welcome starting point 
for such technical discussions. He hoped that all Members would listen to and contribute their own comments on this paper and engage in a positive manner. 
1.28.  Against that context, he made detailed comments on Australia's views of the systemic 
implications of RTAs services rules, the key findings of the paper, and Australia's experience with its own practice as a country that had seven bila teral RTAs in force, and a further nine under 
negotiation. He pointed out a number of specific examples where Australia had taken a GATS-plus 
approach to different issues, in a way that reinforced the multilateral trading system. Australia appreciated the work that had gone into this comprehensive paper which provided a very useful analysis of services rules in RTAs especially since the academic literature to date had concentrated 
on services commitments rather than rules. The analysis underscored the potential for RTAs to act 
as stepping stones to further multilateral liberalization. In particular, the paper's conclusion that there was no "spaghetti bowl" of services rules and that services rules were "not sufficiently 
divergent to technically prevent their hypothetical multilateralization" were important findings. And 
interestingly, while the paper concluded that RTA liberalization was not generally extended on an MFN basis, it also concluded that services regimes were generally not applied on a preferential 
basis demonstrating that RTAs progressed services  liberalization in a way that reinforced the 
multilateral system. The paper also included useful information on the relatively high proportion of 
RTAs with a services component, recognizing th at services trade agreements were not just 
important for developed countries but were increasingly used by both developed and developing 
countries, including on a cross regional basis, contributing strongly to global services trade 
liberalization. 
1.29.  On scheduling conventions,  Australia's experience was that the scheduling approach had not 
significantly impacted the application of services rules. Australia had used both GATS-style positive 
list and negative list approaches in its trade agreements and did not believe that the level of 
ambition was determined by the choice of approach for listing commitments. Rules traditionally 
included in negative list agreements such as a standstill (binding current practice) could also be 
applied in a GATS positive list agreement. Th e question was one of ambition not structure. 
1.30.  Regarding the key findings he said the Working Paper acknowledged certain limitations in its 
methodology. It recognized it had not taken into account the application to services of 
cross-cutting provisions in other Chapters. This was a limitation in the paper - for example, many 
of Australia's FTAs contained significant cross-cutting commitments on transparency and review systems, such as Chapter 20 of the Australia-US FTA on Transparency. This could lead to some 
confusion about the scope of commitments. For example, comments in paragraph 71 about 
permanent residency coverage in Australia's FTAs with the US and Chile did not appear to take WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 6 - 
 
  into account cross-cutting provisions covering Australian permanent residents. The study also 
recognized that it had not taken into account sectoral services rules or rules on Mode 4 (outside of comments on architecture). This exemption had a significant impact on conclusions on what the paper called the "diversity and creativity" of RT As, given that these were key areas where RTAs 
had taken different approaches from the GATS, particularly for Australia that had pursued 
innovative and GATS-plus rules in chapters on financial services and telecommunications. A full assessment of provisions located outside of 'core' services chapters could have a significant impact 
on the conclusions of the paper, particularly in relation to references to so-called 'GATS-minus' 
provisions. For example on domestic regulation, where innovative domestic regulation provisions were often found in financial services and tele communications chapters and annexes which were 
not considered in the study, or on nullification and impairment which in Australia's RTAs were 
generally contained in cross-cutting provisions th at applied to both goods and services chapters. 
1.31.  He also provided some examples of GATS-plus elements in Australia's trade agreements 
including transparency, domestic regulation, recognition, air services, and e-commerce. 
Transparency provisions were found both in the services chapter in relation to advance notice and 
opportunity to comment, as well as through general provisions. Furthermore, Australia had a particular interest in strong disciplines on domestic regulation and recognition and believed these 
were two areas where its agreements were clearly GATS plus. While more could done, Australia 
was pleased that domestic regulation disciplines in its agreements that had gone some way in protecting its service suppliers from unjustifiab le behind-the-border barriers. Measures taken 
included on issues ranging from application fees and licensing requirements through to scheduling 
of exams and possible temporary licensing regi mes. For example, key GATS-plus regulatory 
obligations in AANZFTA included requirements for parties to: ensure that the use of business names under which service suppliers normally traded in their respective home country markets 
was not unduly restricted; publish measures of general application affecting trade in services on 
the Internet, to the extent possible (as noted in  paragraph 126 of the WTO Secretariat document) 
and; observe minimum standards of procedural transparency, such as reasonable notice of 
administrative processes (e.g. licensing and rule-making in specific cases) and opportunities to 
present facts and arguments before final administrative action.  
1.32.  On professional services and recognition,  he said recognition required some finessing 
because most of Australia's professional bodies were non-government organizations that might not 
always be covered by the scope of a trade agreement. Nevertheless, Australia sought mechanisms 
in its agreements through which mutual recognition agreements could be pursued, for example, joint committees and in-built agendas to encourage parties to establish dialogues with relevant 
professional bodies, with a view to developing mutual recognition agreements. The Working Paper 
on page 30 questioned whether there had been any tangible outcomes from an inbuilt agenda on professional services. Admittedly, it had been difficult but the answer for Australia was yes. For 
example, the Working Group on Professional Serv ices in the Australia-United States FTA had 
developed a mutual recognition agreement (MRA ) between the Texas Board of Engineers and 
Engineers Australia and memorandum of underst anding signed between the Delaware Supreme 
Court and the Law Council of Australia which had led to rights for Australian lawyers to practice 
foreign law in Delaware. Similarly, Australia's FTA with Singapore had resulted in a MRA being 
signed between the Architects Accreditation Counc il of Australia (AACA) and Singapore's Board of 
Architects.   
1.33.  On Air services, explicit reference had been made to services such as ground handling, 
airport operations and specialty air services in many of Australia's RTAs. Chapters on E-Commerce 
had been included in all Australia's recent FTAs, including a number of agreements not mentioned 
in the draft report (for example, with Chile, Malaysia and AANZFTA). This was consistent with its 
desire to negotiate 21st century trade agreements. Australia had sought to balance the growth opportunities provided by an expanding e-commerce sector with the need for enhanced consumer and business confidence. While he appreciated the re port's analysis of the development of sectoral 
disciplines on e-commerce, he did not share the assessment which linked the imposition of a 
non-discrimination requirement on "digital products" to the inclusion of the WTO moratorium on customs duties on e-commerce in FTAs. 
1.34.  The paper on page 7 raised questions about the intended legal relationship between RTA 
commitments and GATS commitments, particularly in cases where some GATS commitments were incorporated and others were not. Given that the aim of RTAs was to build on GATS commitments, 
it might not be considered necessary to repeat all GATS elements. An important consideration in WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 7 - 
 
  this area was the use of relationship clauses (f or example Article 1.1 in the Australia-US FTA), 
these were typically cross-cutting provisions locate d outside of the services chapter, and could be 
used to reaffirm WTO commitments or to confirm that better treatment in other agreements would prevail.  
1.35.  He hoped that Australia's statement had outlined some of its views on the systemic 
implications of services rules aspects of RTAs, building on the useful staff discussion paper. The paper underlined the potential for services FTAs to complement the multilateral trading system 
through advancing services trade liberalization, particularly in GATS-plus areas. He hoped that it 
would generate discussion on how Members could take approaches in negotiating services provisions of their RTAs in ways that reinforced the multilateral trading system.  
1.36.  The representative of Canada said that the increasing number of RTAs held important 
implications for the MTS particularly given the juxtaposition between the Doha Round and the 
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, whose combined membership accounted for more than half of global GDP. To remain relevant the WTO 
would need to address issues such as the rise of RTAs which fundamentally affected and could 
even change the nature of the global trading syst em. In this context, Canada welcomed the papers 
from the Secretariat as an important contribution to enhancing WTO discussions on the systemic 
issues raised by the increasing number of RTAs . Regarding the working paper on services, like 
many Members, Canada had pursued services negotiations through RTAs which offered important opportunities to achieve increased liberalization of trade in services particularly in light of the current impasse in the Doha negotiations. Canada would continue to advocate for the strength and 
benefit of a NAFTA style approach to liberalization of trade in services and noted the working paper 
recognized that this approach was not incompatible with the multilateral framework. In Canada's view ambitious architecture found in the NAFTA style approach including a negative list approach 
to commitments supported multilateralization by  binding a broader range of commitments. This 
was because in practice services liberalization was most often unilateral. Architecture in RTAs that bound unilateral liberalization in RTAs either through a negative list approach to commitments or a 
ratchet mechanism to catch a future autonomous liberalization could make it easier for countries 
to bind these commitments multilaterally particular ly if the RTA included broad application of the 
MFN principle. In this respect he noted the author's  conclusion that disciplines on trade in services 
under either the NAFTA or GATS style architecture could eventually be reintegrated into a 
multilateral framework at some future date. Thus Canada would continue to engage in RTA 
negotiations and would support any sensible initiative to facilitate progress towards multilateralization of RTAs at the WTO, both  in terms of disciplines and market access 
commitments. 
1.37.  The representative of Norway said that RT As had increasingly become a significant part of 
trade reality. Norway attached considerable interest to the debate in the CRTA on systemic issues 
and continued to work on such discussions. Sh e sought the fullest possible picture of the 
interaction between RTAs and the multilateral trad ing system. The paper on services rules in RTAs 
provided a useful contribution in order to deepen  Members' insights. The Secretariat had made an 
impressive effort to compile a number of agreem ents, many of the analyses were relevant and 
pointed to interesting issues in RTAs and a comparison between these agreements. In her view 
some of the issues merited further comments. The analysis in the paper concerning positive versus negative listing and the impact on liberalization wa s a bit too simplistic; though negative listing in 
principle facilitated a higher level of liberalization, this was often combined with broad 
reservations. The level of liberalization was in the end determined by political will and not the scheduling technique. She would have liked to see a more thorough discussion on this issue in the 
paper. She found it useful that the issue of MFN was included in the paper and gave Members a 
good basis for further discussions. The differences between the reservations in NAFTA type agreements and GATS type agreements provided a complex picture and she believed it would be 
interesting to go deeper into MFN provisions in RTAs. 
1.38.  The European Union said RTAs were indeed second best options to multilateral negotiations. 
Multilateral negotiations on trade in services were the most efficient way for trade liberalization; 
they ensured inclusion of all WTO Members regardless of their development level, and would bring 
the best results for businesses that thought and acted globally, and would contribute to further 
develop the GATS legal framework. However, given that the multilateral negotiations were at an impasse as had been recognized by Ministers in MC  8, the EU would agree to the conclusion of the 
paper that RTAs were the second best alternative for trade liberalization. But RTAs notably in the WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 8 - 
 
  area of services were compatible with the MTS and could even pave the way for future multilateral 
agreements. 
1.39.  The EU welcomed the paper on services ru les as a useful basis for further discussion and 
analysis. It provided some valuable statistical information on architecture, scope of agreements, 
and articulation to GATS commitments and in ho w far RTAs contained GATS plus elements (on 
subsidies, emergency safeguard measures or recognition provisions). Even if the EU did not fully share some of the conclusions drawn by the auth ors, the paper provided food for thought and 
could trigger a good discussion in the CRTA.  
1.40.  On the methodology used, he noted that th e study only analysed provisions relevant for 
services that could be found in the services and possibly investment chapters – the study omitted clauses that were relevant for services, but were in a different chapter of the agreement, as was 
often the case in EU agreements for dispute settlement mechanisms (DSMs), transparency 
provisions (advance notification procedures etc.) or institutional provisions.  
1.41.  The EU did not share the conclusion in paragraph 144, that liberalization in RTAs was 
second best because of a missing effective DSM. One could argue that liberalization of services 
trade through RTAs rather than through multilateral negotiations was second best for many other reasons, but it was questionable whether it was due to the absence of a DSM. 
1.42.  On architecture, the EU questioned the statement in paragraph 15 and 23 that "in practice 
negative list agreements had almost always had a deeper liberalization impact due to their sweeping nature", as the scheduling technique as  such did not determine the level of trade 
liberalization; it was possible to craft an extrem ely liberal services agreement by using the GATS 
style of positive listing, e.g. by listing all servic es sectors, all modes of supply and simply stating 
"none" for reservations. On the other hand, it was possible to use negative listing, but to choose a less liberal approach e.g. by having very broad Annex II type reservations and a long list of 
Annex I type reservations. The only difference between scheduling techniques concerned the 
treatment of 'new services' which were not automati cally committed in a GATS type of positive list 
scheduling. However, many countries that used ne gative listings took broad reservations for new 
services, so the result was often the same. Thus, scheduling was a technique and did not 
determine the level of ambition. The level of ambiti on was rather determined by the content of the 
rules and of commitments taken. 
1.43.  On the relationship between the investment and services chapters (paragraphs 27-29 and 
81), the paper remained very descriptive, without trying to explain why the trigger/benchmark of 
GATS Article XVI "like services and services suppliers" was replaced in NAFTA style agreements by "in like circumstances" (unlike e.g. in paragraph 45 where the authors tried to explain why the 
NAFTA type agreements often excluded computer reservation services and selling and marketing 
of air transport services). It would be interesting for future studies to analyse how far the definition of investment/investor narrowed or broadened the national treatment obligation under 
RTAs for mode 3 compared to the GATS.  
1.44.  On specific sectoral rules (paragraph 35), it  would have been very help ful to understand if in 
case there was a chapter on financial services, it was a stand-alone chapter with its own definitions of market access and national treatment or if it was an "integrated" chapter, that fit into the 
overall services chapter. The paper remained too descriptive here and therefore no conclusions 
could be drawn from the information given. 
1.45.  On financial services (paragraphs 51-52), the EU questioned the statement that the absence 
of financial services in 31 out of 80 agreements should not be overrated. Indeed, if the absence 
was explained by a stand-alone chapter on financia l services, the statistics should reflect that 
accordingly. Unfortunately the paper did not quantify in how many of these 31 cases there was a 
stand-alone chapter on financial services. It also questioned the argument that an absence of such 
an economically important sectors could be a ttenuated by the existing  GATS commitments of 
those Parties as it was unlikely that the WTO Memb ers that excluded financial services from their 
agreements had taken sufficient GATS commitments in that sector.  
1.46.  The observations on mode 4 provisions were very interesting, but it was unclear if indeed in 
2 5 %  o f  R T A s  t h e r e  w e r e  n o  m o d e  4  p r o v i s i o n s / c o m m i t m e n t s  a t  a l l .  I t  w o u l d  b e  u s e f u l  i f  t h e  WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 9 - 
 
  authors could clarify if in those 25% of agreements there was really nothing on mode 4 (e.g. no 
rules and no commitments) or if commitments (and definitions) could be found only in the schedule. Should mode 4 indeed be excluded entirely by 25% of RTAs, this could raise questions about whether in such cases the requirements of  Article V of the GATS were still fulfilled.  
1.47.  On national treatment (paragraph 86), it would have been helpful if the paper had made an 
attempt to describe whether there were any de jure or de facto differences between the GATS and NAFTA types of NT provisions ("like circumstances").  
1.48.  The observation that provisions on perf ormance requirements, local presence and senior 
management were contained not only in "investm ent" chapters of post NAFTA agreements, but 
also in one fifth of GATS type agreements was noteworthy as it showed that these type of restrictions were already handled in a horizontal  manner in many current agreements. This was a 
development that the EU had followed with strong interest and welcomed very much as it did not 
only change the dynamics of the negotiations (mov ing away from a lengthy request-offer process), 
but tackled some of the worst trade obstacles upfront in a very efficient manner. 
1.49.  On standstill and ratchet (paragraphs 87-94), the fact that such provisions could be found in 
GATS type agreements again showed that ambiti on should not equal a negative list type of 
scheduling. 
1.50.  Concerning the MFN obligations (paragraphs 96-106), the EU agreed it was difficult to 
interpret certain MFN clauses and therefore to give precise figures on MFN provisions and their regimes. 
1.51.  On domestic regulation, the EU type RTAs  (in fact the pre-accession agreements) did not 
really need strong domestic regulation provisions since this was contained in the EU acquis that 
the acceding countries needed to implement. As regards recognition, it would be very interesting to further examine the results of the different enabling clause agreements or roadmaps for 
negotiations of MRAs in RTAs to see if they had delivered results. As the study had rightly pointed 
out, even in very integrated areas such as NAFTA,  and also the EU, the field of mutual recognition 
was very sensitive as it touched upon safety and public health concerns, notably for regulated 
professions.  
1.52.  The representative of Colombia had found the papers very useful and had forwarded them 
to the capital for comments and use. For a country like hers, which was in the process of 
internationalizing its economy, the papers were most helpful in understanding how the various 
issues covered by RTA provisions were being negotiated, what the trends were, how this was 
related to the multilateral system, and the implications thereof. She thanked the Secretariat for the papers, invited Members to discuss them and encouraged the Secretariat to continue preparing 
and updating such papers on other issues set forth in document WT/REG/W/38 of 20 June 2000. 
1.53.  With regard to Colombia's liberalization of its trade in services, it had concluded bilateral 
trade agreements with countries such as the United States, Canada, the European Free Trade 
Association (in force with Switzerland and Liechtenstein), Central America, Chile and Korea. 
Agreements with Panama, Israel and the Pacific Al liance (Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru) were 
currently being negotiated. Chapters on trade in services were included in all these agreements, which had been negotiated using the WTO positive-list approach in some cases and the so-called 
negative-list approach used by agreements such as NAFTA in others. For Colombia, a high level of 
ambition could be achieved using either approach and one was not more effective than the other. 
1.54.  Provisions on trade in services had been included in the agreements to facilitate market 
access for Colombian service providers. Furthermore, new disciplines or improvements with 
respect to the GATS had been added. For exampl e, specific Mode 4 provisions had guaranteed 
greater transparency in the procedures for the en try and stay of service providers, as well as 
mechanisms for resolving problems that could arise from the implementation of these obligations. 
In the light of advances in the area of info rmation technologies and communications and the 
existence of comparative advantages in cross-border  trade in services that could be exploited by 
developing countries, Colombia had been placing gr eater emphasis on this mode of supply and was 
interested in taking advantage of the trade that could be generated from it in bilateral trade 
agreements. Furthermore, Colombia's trade agreements included provisions on electronic WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 10 - 
 
  commerce that addressed the duty-free treatment of electronic transactions, as well as 
cooperation and good practices. Colombia wanted to enable its SMEs to make use of and benefit from electronic commerce, in accordance with the objectives of the WTO work programme on electronic commerce.  
1.55.  She added that like Australia, Colombia had a particular interest in having strong disciplines 
on domestic regulation, both multilaterally and bilaterally, in accordance with the parameters set out in Article VI.4 of the GATS. Colombia had thus achieved outcomes in its bilateral agreements 
that fulfilled the multilateral agreement's stated objectives. Finally, she stressed that consolidating 
the legislation governing trade in services had provided greater transparency to service providers, by clearly defining what legislation applied to each  service sector and mode of supply, as well as 
the commitment to refrain from issuing legislation that could violate this level of liberalization in 
the future. 
1.56.  The representative of Japan said his delegation was not ready to make substantial 
comments yet since the capital was still examining the substance of the papers. Japan was 
interested in these discussions because they deepen ed understanding of the cross-cutting issues of 
RTAs. It was worthwhile for the CRTA to discuss the possible implications of RTAs on the MTS. It was a good idea to examine the working papers and Japan would constructively engage in this 
exercise. 
1.57.  The representative of Pakistan welcomed th e initiative by Australia whose intervention had 
been very interesting, highly informative and th ought provoking. He requested the interventions 
especially, by Australia and the EU, be made available in writing. 
1.58.  The representative of India said that the paper titled "Services rules in RTAs, how diverse 
and how creative as compared to GATS multilateral rules", had provided an important insight into 
the systemic implications of RTAs on the MTS. The paper which represented research in progress 
made several observations but he would only list a few of them as preliminary comments. Firstly, 
in paragraph 110, the paper noted that domestic regulation, Article VI of the GATS emergency 
safeguards and subsidies had not yet been concluded at the multilateral level. Did the authors feel 
that RTA disciplines on these issues were not we ll developed? India asked why when there were no 
disciplines in respect of key GATS disciplines one should talk of multilateralization of GATS rules. Did Australia intend to have certain disciplines on these issues? Secondly, the paper commented that there were not many pro-development provisio ns in RTAs, and that developing countries did 
not appear to make use of the flexibility in Article V.3(b) which allowed them to reserve benefits 
for juridical persons owned or controlled by natura l persons of the parties only (paragraph 67). He 
asked if the proponents of this agenda item felt a stronger need for more operational disciplines on 
GATS Article V. Thirdly, the paper observed in paragraph 131 that recognition of qualifications was 
very difficult even for effectively integrated econ omies such as the EU or NAFTA and that therefore 
the recognition of qualifications would be more di fficult between a group of countries at different 
levels of development who did not share borders or language or had relative low bilateral services 
trade. He asked if the proponents felt the need for knowledge sharing on recognition of qualifications between developed and developing countries and if they were contemplating the 
provision of technical assistance to developing countries in this regard. The paper also had far 
reaching conclusions with respect to the status quo or stand still obligation, observing that "one 
could conclude that this concept of stand still obligation appeared to be beginning to proliferate beyond the NAFTA type agreements". It further observed that "some of the staunchest opponents 
to stand still provisions in WTO GATS context had accepted the concept in their own GATS type of 
RTAs" and he asked for the views of the proponents in this regard.  
1.59.  He added that while the paper gave an impression of being neutral in fact on a closer 
scrutiny there were some elements intended to highlight the need for certain disciplines and 
benchmarks on certain GATS disciplines in these RTAs. India was concerned when a Member proposed discussions on a working paper that expressed the need for benchmarks on RTAs and proposed GATS plus requirements. The real issue which India had raised during the last CRTA 
meeting was whether this Committee had been reduced to a talk show. India wanted to 
understand whether by putting this item on the agenda of this meeting the requesting Member 
intended to state that it accepted the observat ions made by the author. Did the Member accept 
the conclusions made by the authors of the study?  Did the Member own the paper? Only when the 
requesting Member clarified its position, would In dia feel that there was any need for a serious 
discussion on the paper. He called upon Australia to reveal its real intentions behind the WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 11 - 
 
  discussions on this paper. He also asked Australia to explain why it would not be appropriate if the 
paper were first discussed in different fora like  seminars, workshops, etc., where Members could 
seek answers from the authors of the paper, fo llowed by a proposal in this Committee or some 
other Committees. This could have conveyed the position of the requesting Member. He concluded 
by saying that India had no intention of discussing studies and working papers in the CRTA and to 
let this be a "standalone" item. He would however appreciate serious proposals which could be based on these working papers. 
1.60.  The representative of Mexico considered the documents prepared by the Secretariat to be 
very useful as they enabled Members to analyse th e various trends and particular areas related to 
RTAs. They were an important contribution to  the discussions in the Committee precisely in 
analysing the systemic implications of these agreements. He pointed out that this study illustrated 
the importance of using the raw material available to the Committee. The study on services used 
as a basis nothing more and nothing less than the data from the 80 agreements notified to the CRTA. He recognized the difficulties inherent in the area of services in terms of comparability of 
areas and services. It was very complex to measure openness in various legislations. Mexico had 
ten agreements with provisions on services and had used both approaches in agreements on services and services provisions, the GATS appr oach in its agreement with EFTA and the NAFTA 
type approaches in eight other agreements. He agreed with Colombia that what counted most was 
the impact on market access; it was not so important how the negotiation was conducted but how much markets were opened. His capital was still analysing the paper and if necessary he would revert to it with more specific comments. Finally, he encouraged the Secretariat to continue to 
analyse the various relevant aspects of RTAs thus enabling Members to analyse implications for 
the MTS. 
1.61.  The representative of Hong Kong, China sa id he believed all future RTAs should be the 
building blocks for multilateral rules so the CRTA needed to have more discussions to ensure that 
this was going to happen. He welcomed all sorts of discussions, formal or informal, and based on whatever materials which were inspiring to pursue  that task. On the working paper produced by 
the Secretariat, he liked the strong focus on the rules aspects in services. This filled a missing 
piece in the existing literature in services provisions in FTAs and for this reason he found the paper very useful. Regarding the issue of the relationship  between architecture and ambition contained in 
FTAs, he shared the observations made by many others that positive listing or negative listing 
architecture themselves did not dictate the level of ambition, it was the ambition itself that 
dictated what sort of architecture should best ca pture them. Therefore, positive or negative list 
FTAs both could lead to the same ambitious ou tcome. One observation made in the Secretariat 
working paper was very interesting, that in some areas, especially in specific rules areas including 
domestic regulation and other services rules, the provisions in FTAs could potentially be interpreted as GATS minus. This was a very inte resting observation but he did not agree with it. 
The intention of the negotiators in FTAs was always to ensure that the provisions in FTAs were 
GATS plus rather than GATS minus. The observation highlighted a legal issue and served as a very useful reminder for negotiators in FTAs that all the rules, including horizontal and sectoral rules in FTAs when considered in their totality should provide the legal certainty that they were indeed 
GATS plus rather than GATS minus. Taking a horizo ntal approach as suggested earlier by Australia 
could be a useful way to ensure that this was going to happen. Finally, he hoped that similar 
discussions based on useful material would take place in future meetings. 
1.62.  The representative of Chinese Taipei than ked Australia, Canada, Norway, the EU, Colombia 
and Hong Kong, China for sharing their analyses and observations which were not only inspiring 
and constructive but also relevant to the work of the Committee. He also appreciated the efforts of 
the Secretariat in preparing such informative reports. The paper, along with others, was 
interesting and useful for Members to analyse the systemic implications of RTAs for the MTS. His delegation welcomed such papers on other aspects and would engage in future substantive discussions. 
1.63.  The representative of Korea appreciated Australia's initiative to facilitate this CRTA 
discussion which clarified that transparency of RTAs assured the MTS and provided invaluable 
insight to Members. He shared the views expr essed by other Members such as the EU and 
Colombia that notwithstanding different scheduling approaches the level of liberalization in the 
services area was only dependent on the will of  the contracting parties concerned. For example, 
the Korea-US FTA took the negative approach to scheduling while the Korea-EU FTA had a 
positive-listing methodology. However both RTAs were considered high quality and comprehensive WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 12 - 
 
  FTAs in all areas, in particular in the areas of services and investment. He added he would provide 
substantive comments if necessary in future CRTA meetings. 
1.64.  The representative of Singapore thanked Australia, the EU and Hong Kong, China for 
sharing their very insightful analysis on the work ing paper. These working papers provided a very 
good basis for discussion on the important issue of the implications of the proliferation of RTAs on 
the MTS. Singapore pursued all its RTAs as building blocks to enhance multilateral trading rules. Singapore also agreed with Norway that ambition was not dictated by architecture and as long as 
one had a clear view of the market one wished to  open the goal could be reached by either a 
positive list or a negative list. Her capital was st ill studying the paper and stood ready to engage in 
future constructive discussions of such working papers. 
1.65.  The representative of South Africa said that the paper was prepared by the WTO as a 
professional research paper and a work in progress. It was not meant to represent the position or 
opinions of the WTO or its Members nor the official position of any staff members. While its preliminary findings were indeed interesting and insightful, she noted no written proposal had been 
submitted on this and it was difficult to ascertain Australia's acceptance of the conclusions and the 
implications for Members' future work in the Committee. South Africa was not opposed to work in this body to assess the systemic implications and trends arising from RTAs with regard to the MTS. 
She recalled at the last CRTA on 20 November 2012, when several other papers had been tabled 
on various aspects of RTA provisions, her delegation and other Members had noted that a proper procedure would be for individual Members to table proposals demonstrating the purpose of such analysis and ensuring transparency and full Me mber engagement on these issues. It would be 
helpful if future proposals were tabled to enable them to be forwarded to capital in good time to 
allow enriching discussions in the CRTA. This would also ensure the inclusiveness of the discussion by all Members in the CRTA. In the absence of any specific proposal it was not clear whether a 
particular work programme was being proposed maki ng it difficult to debate the content of the 
paper in isolation of what the outcome of these discussions would be.  
1.66.  She noted that her delegation was unable to fully respond to specific assertions in the paper 
in the absence of receiving expert's feedback from capital. She nevertheless had some preliminary 
observations and reserved her right to supplement these. The study mentioned multilateralization of certain provisions and made the point that negotiations on certain services disciplines were not yet concluded on the multilateral level. While these studies were useful it must be remembered 
that the WTO remained the only legitimate multilateral body that had formulated and would 
continue to formulate global trade rules in a fair and balanced manner within the relevant negotiating groups. This was why South Africa and others supported the conclusion and finalization 
of the DDA Round of trade negotiations on a fully broad based and multilateral basis. References 
and benchmarks outside the WTO should not margin alize or negate WTO trade rules. Once again 
her delegation did not oppose cross cutting studies nor was opposed to work in the CRTA to assess 
the systemic implications and trends arising from RTAs with regard to the MTS, particularly to 
investigate how high ambition RTAs could erode the MTS. However, as in past meetings she continued to suggest that all discussions in this  body be bottom-up, inclusive, transparent and 
Member driven. South Africa would support the filin g of specific proposals by Members to form the 
basis of discussions to drive the work of the CRTA forward in line with its mandate. 
1.67.  The representative of China said that the capital was still analysing the paper. Since there 
was a lot of literature with divergent views in this area, he considered like India and South Africa 
that better and deeper discussions could be conducted through seminars or workshops. 
1.68.  The representative of Australia thanke d Members for their statements and thoughtful 
comments and reactions to his statement on the paper. This clearly underlined the value of having 
technical discussions on the issues raised by this sort of paper in the Committee and he hoped to 
build on the useful input he had received from Members today in future discussions.  
ITEM D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
 
1.69.  Under Item D, Election of Officers, following the General Council meeting held on 
25 February 2013, the Chairman proposed that the Committee elect, by acclamation, Mr. Francisco 
Lima Mena of El Salvador, as Chairman  of the CRTA. The Committee so agreed. WT/REG/M/68 
 
- 13 - 
 
  1.70.  The newly elected Chairman thanked the outgoing Chair for the work and dedication he had 
shown to the Committee over the past months and also thanked Members for the vote of 
confidence they had given him to chair this Committee in the upcoming months. He believed that all Members had recognized the importance of the function and regular work of the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements. In this context, as was stated by the outgoing Chair and reinforced by 
the Secretariat in its very detailed report, the application of the TM for RTAs required work to absorb the delay in the notification and review of  these agreements. Efforts must be made to close 
the gap. He stated how important it was that Members prepared comments for FT drafts submitted 
by the Secretariat to enable consultations with capitals to be prepared for the next CRTA meeting to be held before the summer break. He concluded that the collaboration and work of Members in this Committee could make a significant contribution to correcting certain problems such as delays 
in notifications and in the reviews of RTAs notified  to the WTO. He invited all to work together for 
the benefit of Members of the WTO. 
1.71.  The outgoing Chairman, Mr. François Riegert thanked Members for having supported him 
and for having put up with him. He thanked the Secretariat which had been extraordinarily helpful 
and had had the answers to all questions and all th e solutions to all problems, as his predecessor 
had told him and he told his successor. The Secretariat team was excellent, extraordinary and they 
could be fully relied on. He also thanked the interpreters who had to overcome some of the 
difficulties and subtleties in the statements made. He was also assisted over the past two years by two ideas; the first was the definition of success by Winston Churchill as going from one failure to another without loss of enthusiasm and the second from Antonio Machado, "traveller, there is no 
path, the path is made by walking". He dedi cated these to his successor, wishing him every 
possible success. 
ITEM E. OTHER BUSINESS 
 
1.72.  Under other business the Chairman said that following the Secretariat report on RTAs for 
which comments were awaited on draft factual presentations, he would begin contacts with the 
delegations concerned so progress could be made and to decide the best way to proceed to lessen 
any delay in these RTA reviews. He planned to report to and ask Members for their comments in the next formal meeting of the Committee. 
1.73.  He indicated that the dates for the next Committee meeting were 3 and 4 July and 17 and 
18 September this year. Another short meeting would be held in October for the adoption of the 
Committee's annual report which would be presented to the General Council as was customary.  
1.74.  The Committee took note of the comments made. 
__________