RESTRICTED  
  
WT/REG/M/77  
 
3 July 2015  
(15-3423)  Page: 1/6  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Seventy-seventh Session   
 
 NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 22 JUNE 2015 
Chairman: Ambassador Francisco Pirez Gordillo (Uruguay)  
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The 77th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/2/Rev.1 dated 8 June 2015. 
1.2.  The Chairman welcomed Members to the 77th Session of the CRTA and said that the parties 
to the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the South East 
Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China, services had not been able to provide responses to questions 
within the deadline. In line with Committee practice, the agreement had been dropped from the 
Agenda and would be considered at the CRTA meeting in September. He also said he would inform Members of the proposed schedule for CRTA meetings 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. Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area concluded as a part of the 
Association Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of 
Moldova, goods and services 
III. Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area concluded as a part of the 
Association Agreement between the European Union and Georgia, goods 
and services 
C. Election of Officers 
D. Other Business 
 
1.4.  The representative of the United States ex pressed his disappointment that an item had been 
removed from the agenda and urged the parties to double their efforts to conclude as swiftly as 
possible the remaining work so the Committee coul d continue its work and review the agreement 
at the next CRTA meeting. All Members worked hard  to meet the deadlines of a particular meeting 
and once the date was moved momentum could be lost.  
1.5.  The representative of the European Union joined the United States in expressing his 
disappointment at the removal of an item from the agenda. It was not a good precedent and urged 
the parties concerned to redouble their efforts to provide their replies to enable the Committee to 
consider that RTA. 
1.6.  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. 
1.7.  The representative of the United States , as in previous meetings, expressed concern 
regarding the lack of RTA notifications submitted by WTO Members that were also LAIA members. 
He reiterated the United States' view that the Transparency Mechanism established clear WT/REG/M/77 
 
- 2 - 
 
 obligations upon individual WTO Members. It was the responsibility of each WTO Member to fulfil 
those obligations. As an observer to the CRTA it was expected that the LAIA would engage 
constructively and cooperatively to facilitate the optimum functioning of the Transparency 
Mechanism. Since the last CRTA meeting, the U.S. had held some consultations with a number of 
LAIA members and had appreciated their constructi ve approach and willingness to work together 
towards a mutual acceptable resolution of the problems identified. While this resolution had not been achieved, the U.S. was committed to continue working with any and all LAIA members 
towards this goal. During the consultations, LAIA  members as in the past, had pointed to LAIA's 
biannual reporting to the Committee on Trade and Development. The U.S. had carefully reviewed 
the data provided in the reporting documents and continued to believe that, while helpful, given the otherwise lack of transparency with respect to these agreements, the reports fell far short of 
the level of transparency that other Members of the CRTA regularly and consistently submitted to, 
for the benefit of all WTO Members. He called on LAIA as an observer institution to continue to work constructively with interested delegations and its members to address the concerns raised 
and to assist the Committee in realizing the goal  and purpose of the Transparency Mechanism. 
1.8.  The Committee agreed to extend an invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee's next 
session. 
2  CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
ITEM B.I. STATUS REPORT ON THE COMMITTEE' S WORK - NON NOTIFIED RTAS (WT/REG/W/93) 
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RTA TRAN SPARENCY MECHANISM (WT/REG/W/94). 
 
2.1.  The Chairman provided Members with an update on the Committee's work and the 
implementation of the Transparency Mechanism. A total of 38 early announcements were currently 
on the WTO website (not counting those which had been subsequently notified). He thanked 
Members who had submitted information in line with the requirements of the Transparency 
Mechanism and encouraged others to do so. He also reminded Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the status of early announcements.  
2.2.  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 43 RTAs for which a factual presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately. Members would recall that at the Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, they had agreed to begin considering 
RTAs involving non Members under the TM's procedures. Thus, factual presentations on a further 
34 RTAs involving non-Members were to be prepared. Members had agreed that those RTAs notified since 14 December 2006, including future notifications, would be taken up before the 
others. Data requests for RTAs notified since the adoption of the Transparency Mechanism had 
been sent to the relevant parties.  
2.3.  Regarding the issue of non-notified RTAs, an updated list had been recently circulated as 
WT/REG/W/93 and contained 67 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to 15 June 2015. 
2.4.  The representative of the United States referring to document WT/REG/W/94 that regularly 
listed a selected number of factual presentations as delayed, was aware that the Secretariat had, 
and continued to, put together a room document containing a much longer list and generally read 
from that list at the meeting. He requested that that list became part of document WT/REG/W/94. 
He could not see the distinctions made between the two lists. The U.S., in particular was in both lists twice and if its factual presentations were delayed it be among those in the much longer list. 
This was a systemic issue that the U.S. continued to raise with respect to the obligations of parties 
in fulfilling the requirements of the Transparency Mechanism. It included not only the notification 
but also providing the necessary data to the Secretariat which was required to produce the factual 
presentations. In the first list (WT/REG/W/94), the U.S. was called on to provide comments on a 
factual presentation for which it had concerns about the substance. But there was an extremely 
long list of Members who had not even provided the basic data required for many years. For transparency purposes those should be listed as well so that either bilaterally or perhaps in the 
Committee, this long backlog could be addressed. He also noted that the Committee had a two day 
meeting with only two items to review. This systemic problem was affecting its functioning. If the pipeline was blocked the Committee would soon run out of items to review, not because RTAs were 
not being actively pursued but because the work of the Secretariat and the functioning of the 
Transparency Mechanism had been blocked by Memb ers not providing the required information. To WT/REG/M/77 
 
- 3 - 
 
 conclude, he requested that the information produced in the room document be circulated more 
formally as part of the same agenda item as for document WT/REG/W/94 that appeared at each meeting. 
2.5.  With respect to the non-notified agreements , the U.S. was concerned not only about the long 
list of agreements listed as non-notified but by the cascading effect of what the lack of 
transparency in one particular agreement led to, since the only way for the Secretariat to compile the list was by doing factual presentations and di scovering that other agreements existed. There 
were agreements, in particular with respect to the U.S. concerns with LAIA, that had not been 
notified because those LAIA members' agreements had not been reviewed and the interlinking trade relationships had not been discovered. In the biannual reports from the LAIA the U.S. had 
found references to a vast number of agreements in trade in goods that did not appear in the 
Secretariat's non-notified list because factual presentations had not been done for RTAs involving 
those Members and thus the list had not been up dated. He asked the Committee to reflect on how 
to address this issue because it was singling out those Members that were fulfilling their 
obligations, albeit perhaps slower than others, and taking punitive action against those trying 
hard, but it was very easy to get a full pass on tr ansparency by just avoiding being on any of the 
lists. This called into question whether the Committee was fulfilling the Transparency Mechanism 
to the utmost degree and was a huge concern which could be addressed by including the 
information in the room document as part of a more formal agenda item. As a first step, it would at least raise awareness of what was stopping work in the CRTA. 
2.6.  The representative of the European Union invited Members on the list to fulfil their 
obligations and notify their agreements as soon as possible so the Transparency Mechanism could 
work as it should and allow Members to review thes e agreements fully. It noted that 30 out of the 
67 RTAs that appeared on the list were in struments concluded under the 1980 Treaty of 
Montevideo. Members who were signatories to those agreements needed to comply with the 
notification obligations under point B of the Transparency Decision for RTAs. The submission of a biannual report on the instruments concluded und er the 1980 Treaty did not exempt them from 
complying with the notification obligations. 
2.7.  The representative of Australia supported th e United States' suggestion of including the full 
information in the room document under the same agenda item as WT/REG/W/94. 
2.8.  The Chairman said that if the Committee so decided the Secretariat would circulate a 
separate list with the agreements mentioned. 2.9.  The representative of Brazil requested clarif ication on the proposal by the United States. He 
understood it would mean to put the list on a separate agenda item on every meeting. 
2.10.  The Secretariat indicated that it circulated document WT/REG/W/94 that included RTA's 
factual presentations for which comments were delayed. The U.S. proposal was that the 
Secretariat also circulate in a similar manner the list of RTAs for which data was still outstanding 
and for which the Secretariat was unable to prepare a factual presentation. This list was read out 
by the Secretariat at every meeting and was also made available as a room document.  
2.11.  The European Union supported the United States' suggestion. 
2.12.  The representative of Brazil requested time for reflection before changing regular 
procedures and reserved his right to came back to this question. 2.13.  The Chairman said that the proposal would remain on hold until there was agreement by all 
Members. Turning to RTAs for which the factual consideration was delayed due to lack of 
comments from parties, he had asked the Secretariat to continue consultations with delegations to 
see what could be done to resolve this issue and reduce the number of RTAs on this list. An updated list of such RTAs had been recently circulated as document WT/REG/W/94. He hoped that 
outstanding comments would soon be made available and the factual consideration of these 
agreements could then be undertaken.  
2.14.  Regarding the backlog in the receipt of data necessary for the preparation and drafting of 
factual presentations for certain RTAs, again the Secretariat had continued consultations with a WT/REG/M/77 
 
- 4 - 
 
 number of delegations in this regard and the Chairman was pleased to report that delegations had 
expressed a willingness to provide missing information as soon as possible. In particular, the Russian Federation had provided data for some of its bilateral RTAs. 
2.15.  Lastly, concerning end of implementation reports, an updated schedule for the submission 
of such reports had been distributed by the Secr etariat (WT/REG/W/90 and Corr. 1) in January. As 
of 7 January 2015, end of implementation repo rts had been due for 123 RTAs, and the end of 
implementation (EOI) for 13 RTAs was in 2015. The EOI for 98 RTAs was from 2016 onwards, 
while for three RTAs the EOI year was not available. Since January no implementation reports had 
been received. The Chairman urged delegations to submit their outstanding reports to the Secretariat as soon as possible. 
2.16.  The representative of the Secretariat provid ed delegations with the status of the preparation 
of factual presentations for RTAs. With regard to factual presentations of RTAs between WTO 
Members: for CAFTA-DR, goods and services, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties in 2009. Comments had been received from the United States, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, 
Honduras and the Dominican Republic. Comments from El Salvador remained outstanding. For 
Mexico-Central America, goods and services, the parties had submitted new data which was being 
processed and the Secretariat hoped to circulate this factual presentation fairly quickly. For 
US-Panama goods and services, comments were overdue. For the Dominican Republic-Central 
America, goods and services, the Secretariat had received data but was awaiting clarification on some issues from the parties to proceed. For Kore a-India, services, data had been received from 
Korea and some data from India. For Korea-ASEAN, services, data had been received from Korea 
only. For Georgia-Russian Federation, goods, data had been received and the factual presentation 
was currently being drafted. For Iceland-China, data had been received from China only. For 
EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and EU-Cameroon, both goods only, data had been received from the 
EU only. For EFTA-Colombia, Canada-Korea, and Canada-Honduras, goods and services, data had 
been received and the factual presentations were being drafted. For EFTA-Central America, goods 
and services, no data had been received from Panama. For Korea-Australia, goods and services, 
data had been received but the Secretariat was awaiting some clarifications. For Japan-Australia, 
goods and services, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties and comments were due by 13 July. For EU-ESA, goods, data from the Seychelles had just been received. For Chile-Viet Nam, goods, data was due by 5 October 2015.  
2.17.  With regard to RTAs involving non Members, the situation was as follows: for 
Iceland-Faeroe Islands, goods and services, the fa ctual presentation had been sent to the parties 
in 2009. Comments had been received but the Secretariat was still awaiting some outstanding 
data from the Faeroe Islands. For the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and 
Kazakhstan, and the EAEU the factual presentations were currently being drafted. For EFTA-Bosnia and Herzegovina, goods, data had been received and the factual presentation was being drafted. 
For Armenia's accession to the EAEU, goods and services, data was due by 26 June. For EU-San 
Marino, EFTA-Lebanon, Turkey-Syria, CEFTA Enlargement, Ukraine-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-
Turkmenistan, the Common Economic Zone, Russian Federation-Serbia, Russian Federation-Turkmenistan, all goods, and EU-CARIFORUM, good s and services, data was not complete. As had 
been mentioned in the previous meeting the Secretariat was still awaiting confirmation that the 
agreement between the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan was to be put on hold pending 
clarification on its status and that of the CIS Agreement.  
2.18.  A third category included 5 agreements – ASEAN-Japan, EU Cote d'Ivoire, the new CIS 
Agreement, all goods and EU-Central America and EU-Ukraine, goods and services – for which the 
Secretariat understood not all parties had ratified the agreement yet and so the Secretariat 
intended to wait before the agreement had entered into force for all the parties before 
commencing the preparation of factual presentations. She urged the parties to let the Secretariat know and to circulate a notification 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 that had 
been set under the Transparency Mechanism so that the Secretariat could comply with its own 
deadlines. 
2.19.  The representative of the United States said with respect to the Panama-US agreement that 
it had concerns with the text that described particular provisions that were identical to those in the 
US-Colombia agreement. Both factual presen tations presented those provisions and the 
descriptions of those provisions in a way that the U.S. was comfortable with but they were WT/REG/M/77 
 
- 5 - 
 
 different. The US felt that because the under lying obligations were exactly the same the 
descriptions should match so there would not be confusion. The US was therefore taking extra time with the US-Panama comments to ensure consistency between how the US-Colombia and the US-Panama agreements were discussed in those instances where the underlying provisions were 
the same. 
2.20.   Going back to document WT/REG/W/94, the U.S. did not see a real distinction between the 
criteria used for this document, which seemed to be limited to delays related to comments, versus 
that for the room document RD/RTA/26/Rev.1* which related to delays for all reasons, plus some 
that were not delayed and where deadlines were approaching. If there was transparency for those delayed for lack of comments the same logic should apply for transparency for those delayed for any reason and that was what underlay the U. S. request. Room document RD/RTA/26/Rev.1* 
included all the agreements that were in WT/R EG/W/94, and obviously they were connected. The 
more fulsome description provided in the room document would be more appropriate in document WT/REG/W/94. 
2.21.  The Russian Federation said that the agreement between the Russian Federation and 
Azerbaijan was currently in force and that the Russian Federation had recently provided the data 
to enable the Secretariat to start preparing the factual presentation. To enable the Secretariat to 
prepare the factual presentation on the Eurasian Economic Union agreement, the Russian 
Federation would provide the translation of the Trea ty on the Accession of Armenia to the Eurasian 
Economic Union. The Russian Federation had also recently provided data for its bilateral agreements with Serbia and Turkmenistan. 
2.22.  The representative of El Salvador referred to the four agreements that El Salvador was 
involved in where there was a delay in providing the Secretariat with comments. On the 
agreement between the Dominican Republic wi th Central America and the United States 
(CAFTA-DR), El Salvador still owed the Secretariat some information which would be provided very 
quickly. With regard to the agreement between Central America and the United States, El Salvador was currently working with the capital to get back to the Secretariat as soon as possible since they 
were dealing with very topical issues related to the treaty. On the deepening of relations between 
Mexico and Central America, the goal of the agr eement was the unification of all treaties between 
the countries of Central America and Mexico to create one single agreement to deal specifically with rules of origin and to deepen issues and accelerate the tariff reduction programme where 
possible. The goal had been to deepen and go beyond what El Salvador had negotiated with 
Mexico. So the starting point in the provision of data to the Secretariat was the tariff reduction programme that had already been implemented wi th Mexico. As regards the agreement with the 
European Union, El Salvador was working closely with the parties. The Vice Ministers had 
discussed this matter in Brussels two weeks earlier and El Salvador was open to continuing discussions to complete the process and to notify the agreement. 
2.23.  The representative of Panama said that her delegation was working on information 
regarding the EFTA-Central America Agreement whic h would be provided to the Secretariat before 
the due date. 
2.24.  ITEM B.II DEEP AND CO MPREHENSIVE FREE TRADE AREA CONCLUDED AS A PART OF THE 
ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN  UNION AND THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, 
GOODS AND SERVICES  
(The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 ITEM B.III DEEP AND COMPREHENSIVE FREE TR ADE AREA CONCLUDED AS A PART OF THE 
ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND GEORGIA, GOODS AND 
SERVICES  (The minutes of the consideration of this agreement are being distributed as a separate 
document.) 
 WT/REG/M/77 
 
- 6 - 
 
 3  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
3.1.  Under Item C, Election of Officers, the Chairman said that following consultations by the 
Chairman of the General Council and as had be en communicated by fax on 27 May 2015, it had 
been agreed that Ambassador Amr Ramadan be ap pointed the Chair of the CRTA for the remainder 
of the term. He proposed that the Committee elected, by acclamation, Ambassador Amr Ramadan 
of Egypt, as the Chairman of the CRTA. 
3.2.  The Committee approved the election of the Ambassador of Egypt as Chair of the CRTA.  
4  ITEM D. OTHER BUSINESS 4.1.   The Chair informed Members that the dates scheduled for the remainder of the CRTA's 
meetings in 2015 were 24-25 September and 16-17 November.  4.2.  The Chairman thanked the Members for th e confidence and trust they had shown in his 
leadership of the Committee's work which was very important for the transparency of the work of 
Members in the WTO. He also thanked the Secretariat for its support and the interpreters who had allowed a more fluid communication between Members.  
4.3.  The representative of the United States th anked the Chairman for all his hard work during 
the year and also in his extended duty capacity. He had appreciated his willingness to remain as 
Chair and wished him well in his future endeavours. 
4.4.  The representative of El Salvador thanked the Chairman for his efforts in chairing this very 
important Committee in the work of the Organization and wished him all the best for his future 
obligations. He also wished every success to th e future Chairman, the Ambassador of Egypt who 
could always count on the support of El Salvador's delegation. He thanked the Secretariat for its 
excellent work. He acknowledged that unfortunately  deadlines were not always respected and the 
Secretariat had to double its efforts to provide information to Members. 
4.5.  The representative of the European Union joined others in thanking the Chairman not only for 
his efficient chairmanship but also for his very kind and patient attitude vis-à-vis  Member States. 
He also wished all Committee Members well since he would also be leaving and it was his last meeting. 
4.6.  The Committee took note of the comments made. 
__________