RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/86  
 
29 September 2017  
(17-5237) Page: 1/7 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  
Eighty -sixth Session  
   
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 20 SEPTEMBER 2017  
Chairman: Ambassador Walid Doudech (Tunisia)  
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The 86th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram  WTO/AIR/RTA/11 dated 9 August 2017.   
1.2.  The Chairman  welcomed Members to the 86 th Session of the CRTA . He noted that item C.III 
on the Agenda, consideration of the Agreement between Mexico and Panama, had been removed 
due to the late receipt of responses fro m the Parties and it would be considered at the following 
CRTA meeting. Under Other Business he would inform Members of the proposed schedule of CRTA 
meetings for the rest of the year.  
1.3.  The representative of the United States  asked for clarification of the symbols used in the 
Agenda  as they  did not match with the documents WT/REG/W/119 and WT/REG/W/120.  
1.4.  The Chairman  replied  that the correct document  symbols  were WT/REG/W/119 and 
WT/REG/W/120.  
1.5.  A representative of the Secretariat  confirmed that the documents  under consideration  were 
WT/REG/W/119 and WT/REG/W/120.  
1.6.  The following Agenda was adopted:  
 A. Adoption of the Agenda  
 B. Implementation of the RTA Transparency Mechanism – Status Report on the 
 Committee's work  
  I. Early Announcements (HTTP://RTAIS.WTO.OR G) 
  II. Non-notified RTAs (WT/REG/W/11 9) 
III. Status of the Preparation of Factual Presentations, Including Delays in the  
  Receipt of Data  
  IV. Factual Presentations Delayed Due to Lack of Comments (WT/REG/W/1 20) 
 C.  Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements  
 I. Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and Colombia, goods and 
 services  
  II. Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the Republic of Korea 
  and India, services  
D. Follow up on the  ministerial declarat ion from MC10. Report from the C hair's 
 consultations  
E. Other Business  
 
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RTA TRANSPARENCY M ECHANISM  – STATUS REPORT ON 
THE C OMMITTEE'S WORK  
1.7.  The Chairman  provided Members with an update with regard to the Commi ttee's work and 
the implementation of the Transparency Mechanism (TM). In order to better reflect the 
Committee's work these had been divided into separate elements, i.e. early announcements , WT/REG/M/86  
 
- 2 - 
 
  non-notified RTAs , status of the preparation of factual presenta tions (including delays in the 
receipt of data) and factual presentations delayed due to lack of comments.  
B.I  Early Announcements  
1.8.  He said that a total of 38 early announcements were currently on the WTO website (not 
counting those which had been subseque ntly notified). He 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 early announcements.  
B.II Non-notified RT As  
1.9.  The Chairman  said that an updated list had been circulated on 12 September in document 
WT/REG/W/119 and contained 74 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 12 September  2017. 
Chile-Thailand had been notified and removed from the list. The Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement 
(APTA), services  had been added to the list.  
1.10.    The representative of the European Union  informed the Committee that the Comprehensive 
Economic  and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada would start to be provisionally 
applied as of 21 September. The EU and Canada had jointly submitted the notification to the WTO 
on 19 September.  
1.11.   The representative of Thailand  was pleased to inform the Committee that Chile -Thaila nd had 
been notified to the WTO pursuant to Article  XXIV of the GATT and Article V of GATS . She thanked 
the Chilean delegation for the ir collaboration and hard work on that matter. She also thanked the 
Secretariat for the removal of the agreement from the list of non -notified RTAs. Thailand would 
continue working with the Chilean delegation  and the Secretariat for the drafting of the Factual 
Presentation to be considered by Members in the CRTA.  
1.12.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  asked the Secreta riat to exclude the bilateral 
free trade agreements  signed in the period 1994 to 1996 between Moldova and Azerbaijan, 
Belarus, Kazakhstan , Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan from the list in WT/REG/W/119 since those 
agreements had been included in the CIS free tr ade agreement which had entered into force in 
2013 and had been notified to the WTO. Also, she asked that the free trade agreement between 
Moldova and Georgia be excluded since all bilateral trade i n goods between the countries was 
reflected in the GUAM ag reement that establish ed a free trade area among Georgia, Ukraine, 
Azerbaijan and Moldova. The Agreement  had been notified to the WTO by Moldova on 30 March 
2017 within the meaning of Article  XXIV of the GATT and Article V of GATS .  
1.13.   The representative of Brazil  objected to the content of document WT/REG/W/119. The list 
had been developed using  the same non -consensual methodology employed in previous iterations 
of the same document despite the concerns echoed by Brazil and other LAIA members. A positive 
development in the previous  CRTA meeting had been the deletion of some LAIA agreements from 
the list. However several other subsequent RTAs concluded under the Treaty of Montevideo had 
been kept on the list and incorrectly labelled as non -notified despite the  fact that they had been 
duly notified under Section D of the Transparency Mechanism.  A list of all LAIA agreements 
previously notified under the Enabling Clause and pursuant to sections D to G of the TM was 
available in document WT/REG/W/105 circulated in  June 2016. Brazil remained committed to the 
transparency of RTAs and would keep working constructively in order to overcome divergent views 
on the issue.  
1.14.   The representative of the United States  said that, as he had pointed out in the past, the 
long and gr owing lis t of non -notified RTAs continued to be a concern  because it indicated  that the 
TM was not being implemented to the fullest . This was a source of  concern and the Committee  had 
to reflect upon what it could do to address the issue. He commend ed the delegations of Moldova 
and Brazil for coming forward and raising issues related to their agreements. There was a 
divergence of views on some agreements on the list ; however , Members had not sat down  and put 
forward  a factual basis to permit a  full und erstand ing of  each other's position and reach an 
agreement as to what the status of the agreement s was and whether or not they belong ed on the 
list. The info rmation by Moldova was helpful and hopefully could lead towards a better 
understanding of the agree ments involved , whether they  had been overtaken by subsequent WT/REG/M/86  
 
- 3 - 
 
  agreements and therefore that preferences were no longer being exchanged under these 
agreements.  
1.15.   He reiterate d the offer  that he had made in the past with respect to the LAIA agreements . 
While there was a difference of opinion on what the notification of the Treaty of Montevideo may or 
may not cover, it would be useful to have a technical discussion aimed at understand ing what tariff 
preferences were involved and whether the agreements belong ed on the list. The United States 
was willing to have such a discussion either in an informal setting or outside the Committee in a 
small  group . The discussion would help identify agreements that perhaps did not belong  on the 
list. He was sceptical about reaching agreement on the fundamental concept of the T reaty of 
Montevideo notification covering subsequent agreements  but the Committee  needed to look at the 
tariff coverage  included in the se agreements and decide whether they were indeed in force. The 
United  States was open to do ing that either in the Committee or as part of a small group to come 
to a better understanding of each other's  views  on why the agreements were on the list and if they 
belong ed there or not .  
1.16.   The Chairman  encouraged the United States  to share its proposal  so that the Committee 
could reflect on those ideas and find an agreement which would strengthen the role of the 
Committee.  
1.17.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated the importance of Members fulfilling 
their notification o bligations  and the Secretariat's document (WT/REG/W/119) was a valuable and 
helpful tool for transparency in the Committee. She encouraged Members to notify their 
agreements to ensure the functioning of the TM. With reference to the LAIA RTAs on the 
Secret ariat list, she informed the Committee that the EU would submit a new set of written 
questions in the following  weeks since further clarifications were needed with respect to th e 
responses provided by LAIA to the EU's questions in document WT/REG/W/109. As stated at the 
previous meeting of the CRTA, she regretted that the LAIA replies did not contain a correlation 
table, linking the table of agreements contained in the LAIA communication of June 2016 
(documents WT/COMTD/W/117 and WT/REG/ W/105) to the agreem ents on the list of non -notified 
RTAs. Such a correlation table would have provided a helpful tool to navigate the maze of LAIA 
Agreements. The EU had worked on compiling a correlation table over the past months. On that 
basis, she would submit additional  specific questions to the concerned LAIA Members. It appeared, 
however, that the key concerns raised in previous meetings remained. First, the legal 
argumentation and the articles referred to in the LAIA replies confirmed that the 1980 Treaty of 
Montevideo  contained only political level objectives and market opening and tariff preferences 
were granted in subsequent agreements among LAIA Members. Second, it was not clear which 
agreement was the underlying - or "mother" - RTA containing the tariff preferences  of many LAIA 
agreements, and whether it had  been notified. Third, the LAIA replies confirm ed that some of the 
RTAs contain ed provisions on trade in services. RTA s going beyond goods and covering  trade in 
services were not covered by the Enabling Clause and would thus need to be n otified under Article 
V of GATS . After submitting a new set of questions, the EU would be ready to engage with LAIA 
Members and other interested Members to work through the questions and  to make progress on 
the long-standing issu e.  
1.18.   The representative of Uruguay  thank ed the EU and the United States for their comments 
and looked  forward  to work ing with them with respect to future questions. She supported the 
statement made by Brazil which was in line with the comments submitted to the CTD and CRTA by 
LAIA in document WT/COMTD/W/224 (ALADI/CR001/2017).  Paragraph four of the document  
stated that, in line with article 18 of the TM, the CTD was the Committee in charge of dealing with 
matters related to agreements notified under paragrap h 2(c) of the E nabling Clause. She 
reiterate d that the CRTA was  not the appropriate forum for such a debate.  
1.19.   The representative of Venezuela  support ed the statements made by Brazil and Uruguay. 
The C ommittee was not the appropriate body to consider the LAIA agreements on the list. 
1.20.   The representative of Argentina  thanked the delegation of the United States for the 
questions and said he would undertake to reply to any question s posed by  the EU. For the reasons 
given by the delegation of Uruguay, he supported the statement  made by Brazil and Venezuela. He 
agree d with those delegations that the agreements under the framework  of the Treaty of 
Montevideo should not be included on the non-notified list. WT/REG/M/86  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.21.   The representative of China  said that  it had made an ea rly announcement of the 
Cross -Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) in 2010 . The negotiations of 
the ECFA had not concluded yet and it would be premature to notify that agreement to the WTO. 
China would fulfil  its transparency obligations  to the CRTA once the arrangement ha d been 
formally concluded. He thus request ed that the Secretariat remov e the ECFA from the list of non -
notified RTAs. 
1.22.   The representative of Japan  agree d with the EU 's statement . Document WT/REG/W/119 wa s 
valuable and meaningful to maintain  transparency regarding the notification of RTAs. In terms of 
whether necessary notifications had been made or not, he suggested that  it would be meaningful 
to discuss the criteria to classify RTAs into two categories, namely RTAs  to be notified based on 
Section s B and D of the TM . For example, paragraph 14 of the TM stipulated  that notification of 
changes affect ing the implementation of an RTA  or the operation of an already implemented RTA 
was required. It was not clear, however, what was the meaning of "changes affecting the 
implementation of an RTA " and an "already implemented RTA ". A discussion of such issues would 
be meaningful for all Members.  
1.23.   The representative of Ecuador  support ed what had been said by Brazil, Uruguay , Venez uela 
and Argentina.  According to paragraph 18 of the TM, t he body responsible for RTA s under 
paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause was the CTD.  
1.24.   The representative of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
(Chinese Taipei)  said it had  had already made an  early announcement of ECFA. The text and 
annexes of the agreement had already been included in the WTO RTA  database. Since ECFA was 
only a framework agreement with follow -up agreements to be negotiated in the future, the Parties 
would formally notif y the ECFA and its follow up agreements to the WTO after those agreements  
had been  signed.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  restate d his position that the agreements  on the list  
had not been notified and until then, he would not prejudice what body should discuss them. The 
CRTA was charged with discussing RTAs . He pointed out that individual LAIA agreements  had been 
separately notified indicating that LAIA members were not unanimous in understanding that one 
notification for the T reaty of Montevideo covered  all subsequent agreements  as the record and the 
database clearly showed  that notifications had been submitted for some bilateral and plurilateral 
agreements subsequent to the Treaty of Montevideo. Moreover, some of tho se RTAs had been 
notified under Article  XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS . The Treaty of Montevideo did 
not encompass only Enabling Clause agreeme nts because there were , on the record , other 
agreements notified in other ways that fell under its  umbrella. He objected to the assumption that 
if an agreement fell under the Treaty of Montevideo then it was an Enabling Clause agreement  
even if it had not been notified and therefore could only be discussed in the CTD. If the issue of 
the venue of discussion of RTAs  was an issue , then the agreements had to be notified in the way 
the parties saw fit and then the appropriate venue could pick them up.  
1.26.   He drew M embers ' attention to his previous interventions with respect to what the TM said  
about early announcement s and how they were not a notification and did not satisfy the 
notification requirement . The United States had been on the record asking  questions to both 
Chinese Taipei and China with respect to the preferences that we re known to be extended between 
the Parties under the ECFA agreement. The TM obligations kick ed in upon  extension of preferences 
so it was not relevant  to say whether the entire agreement was complete or not . Preferences were 
being extended  and press releases had been put out on both sides pra ising the significant 
economic value of those preferences . A reading of the TM indicated that i) it did not allow an early 
announcement to suffice for a notification and ii) the obl igation to notify  kicked  in when 
preferences  were extended . The Parties to the ECFA had been on record acknowledging that 
preferences were in fact being extended , and  therefore the ECFA should remain  on the non -
notified list.  
1.27.   The Chairman  stressed that the debate was not a new one and the Committee had already 
had the opportunity  to discuss and share differing views on the issue. He hoped that at future 
meetings the Committee could find a solution that satisfie d all parties.  WT/REG/M/86  
 
- 5 - 
 
  B.III Status of the Preparation of Factual Presentations, including Delays in the Receipt 
of Data  
1.28.   As regar ds the preparation of the factual presentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO Members only there were currently 31 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. The Chairm an 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 3 8 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. Regarding the bac klog in the receipt of data necessary for the preparation and 
drafting of factual presentations for certain RTAs, he hoped that the missing information would be 
provided as soon as possible.  
1.29.   A representative of the Secretariat  said that with regard to fact ual presentations of RTAs 
between WTO Members: for China -Korea,  goods and services, the factual presentation had been 
circulated  but replies to questions were still awaited . For Japan -Mongolia and GCC -Singapore, both 
goods and services, no comments had bee n received. For EU -ESA, goods, the factual presentation 
had been circulated. For Turkey -Moldova, goods, comments had been received from the parties 
and the factual presentation would be issued shortly. For EU -Cote d'Ivoire, goods, the factual 
presentation had been sent to the parties but only in English. The French translation would be sent 
as soon as it was ready and the date for comments  would be  adjusted accordingly. For 
Korea -ASEAN, services, Seychelles' accession to SADC, Turkey -Malaysia, and 
Armenia -Kazakhstan, all goods, and Costa Rica -Colombia and the Pacific Alliance, both goods  and 
services, the factual presentations were being drafted. The factual presentation of Ecuador's 
accession to EU -Peru-Colombia was also being drafted although data from Ecuador were missing. 
For EU -Cameroon, EU -Papua New Guinea and Fiji, and EU-Ghana, al l goods, data were not 
complete.  For Panama's accession to the CACM, goods, data was due by 26 September. For 
Chile-Thailand, goods and services, data was due by 31 January 2018. For Canada -Ukraine, goods, 
data was due by 23 November 2017. The notification  of EU -Canada, goods and services, had been 
received and would be circulated as soon as possible.  
1.30.   With regard to RTAs involving non Members, the situation was as follows: the factual 
presentation of EU -CARIFORUM, goods and services, had been sent for comme nts although data 
from some CARIFORUM parties were missing and comments were still awaited. The WTO had 
recently received tariff data from Jamaica and St Lucia and services trade data for Jamaica, 
St Kitts and Nevis and the Bahamas. For EAEU, goods and ser vices, and the accessions of Armenia 
and the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU the factual presentations were being drafted although some 
data from the Kyrgyz Republic were still missing. For EU -San Marino, goods, the factual 
presentation was being drafted. For EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey -Syria, CEFTA Enlargement, 
Ukraine -Azerbaijan, Ukraine -Turkmenistan, the Common Economic Zone, and Russian 
Federation -Turkmenistan , all goods, and GUAM, goods and services, data was not complete and 
the factual presentations could not b e drafted. For EAEU -Vietnam, goods and services, data was 
due by 29 September.  
1.31.   A third category concerned five agreements – ASEAN -Japan, the new CIS agreement and 
EU-SADC, 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 the parties before commencing the preparation of factual 
presentations. She urged the parties to notify the Secretar iat when their respective agreements 
had been ratified and had entered into force for all the parties. She urged Members to make every 
effort to comply with the deadlines as requested so that the Secretariat could do its best to adhere 
to the CRTA's work p rogramme.  
1.32.   The representative of the European Union  informed the Committee that  the EU had shared 
its comments with the CARIFORUM secretariat before the summer and had received comments 
from CARIFORUM  members.  The Parties were working on finalizing joint co mments to send to the 
Secretariat . As to EU -San Marin o, the EU had prepared comments and was working with 
San Marino to submit the joint comments soon.  WT/REG/M/86  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.33.   The representative of Moldova  informed Members that  Moldova had already presented data 
for the  factual presentation  and s he urged the Parties  to present data as soon as possible.  
B.IV Factual Presentations Delayed due to Lack of Comments  
1.34.   The Chairman  said that an updated list of RTAs for which the factual consideration had been 
delayed due to lack of comme nts from parties had been rec ently circulated as WT/REG/W/120 . He 
hoped that outstanding comments would soon be made available and the factual consideration of 
these agreements could be undertaken.  
1.35.   The representative of the European Union  recalled her prev ious statement regarding 
EU-CARIFORUM and repeated  that comments would be submitted shortly.  
1.36.   The representative of the United States  was sympathetic  to the difficulty of coordinating  
comments particularly within large regional groups. He nevertheless urge d Members to submit 
their comments quickly. It was h arder to understand the delay s due to outstanding data. He 
requested to add to the list RTAs for which the factual presentations were delayed due to lack of 
data in order to focus attention  on the routine task of collecting and supplying data. There were a 
number of outstanding data requests and he proposed that the Committee discuss the issue from 
a technical assistance standpoint also to understand what the challenges with respect to data 
were.  
C. CONSIDERATION OF REGI ONAL TRADE AGREEMENT S  
ITEM E.I   
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
ITEM E.II   
(The minutes of the consideration of this Agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.)  
D. FOLLOW UP ON THE MIN ISTERIAL DECLARAT ION FROM MC10. REPOR T FROM THE 
CHAIR'S  CONSULTATIONS  
1.37.   The Chairman  said that during the previous CRTA he had informed Members of his intention 
to continue informal consultations on paragraph 28 of the Nai robi Ministerial Declaration. He 
proposed to hold such consultations following the meeting, in principle as of the first week of 
October. Interested delegations should contact the Secretariat in order to schedule meetings with 
him. Members were invited to express their interest on how to implement paragraph 28 of the 
Ministerial  Declaration . 
1.38.   The representative of the United States  expressed concern with respect to the rationale 
behind the Agenda item a nd the request for consultations . The implementation of the Ministerial 
Declaration was a Member -driven process and Members had struggled over the last year s with a 
top-down approach and Chairmen trying to enforce something that Members were not necessarily 
prepared to engage in. Members knew w hat the declaration said and they had already had some 
discussion in the CRTA. Members did not necessarily share the same interpretation and they had 
yet to achi eve consensus on how to pursue a consensus -based implementation of the language  in 
the Minister ial Declaration . He failed to see how a top -down, C hair-driven approach only two 
months before the M inisterial Conference could be helpful. Th ose were difficult  issues that the 
CRTA had struggled with since the beginning . He was not sure what questions the Chairman would  
ask in informal consultations but he viewed the Declaration as a Member -driven instrument and it  
was Members' responsibility  to bring forward ideas  on how to implement  it. If delegates had to go 
to the next Ministerial Conference and explain to Ministers that the discussion in the CRTA had 
been inconclusive then so be it, but he doubted that forcing  a resolution of the issue was in the 
best interest of the Committee.  WT/REG/M/86  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.39.   The Chairman  said that he would be happy to hear the comments of the representative of 
the United States in the fram ework of informal consultations . He had no intention of imposing any 
kind of solution ; that was not the purpose of the proposed consultations . The MC10 Declaration 
had invited the CRTA to consider the issue of the repercussion of RTAs on the WTO and the 
multilateral system  and the Committee should consider such  an invitation. Another issue was the 
TM becoming a permanent mechanism. He would like to hear delegation s' opinions on how to find 
a way forward . The outcome of such a consultation  should not be prejudiced . The issue was on the 
Committee's Agenda and it had to be taken up. He was not suggesting that the Committee had to 
come up with any kind of final answer  but it should find a way of having an exchange of views and 
hearing from different delegation s in order to take up the mandate extended by the Nairobi 
Ministerial Conference .  
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
1.40.   The Chairman  informed Members that  the dates scheduled for the last C RTA meeting of 
2017 were 9 -10 November.  
1.41.   The representative of the United States  asked when a draft of the A nnual Report would be 
circulated  and h ow much time Members would have to review  it.  
1.42.   A representative of the Secretariat  informed the Committee of its intention to send  a draft 
of the Annual Report around 15 October with about two weeks for  comments.  
1.43.   The Committee took note  of the comments made.  
__________