RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/M/21 
6 January 2005 
 
 (05-0044) 
Negotiating Group on Rules  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING 
HELD ON 13 DECEMBER 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat
 
 
 
1. The Negotiating Group on Rules ("the Group") held a formal meeting on 13 December 2004. 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
2. The Group adopted the following agenda: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) 
C.  Other Business 
 
B. REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
3. The Chairman recalled that at its last meeting, the Group had finalized the first round of 
discussions on RTAs' systemic issues  on the basis of the Chairman's Roadmap for Discussions on 
RTAs' "Systemic" Issues – Rev.1 , dated 22 June 2004, which covered a wide array of issues.  It was his 
understanding that the Group intended, at that stag e, to embark upon a more detailed analysis by 
focusing discussions on only a few of these issues, on the basis of proposals on specific points made 
by interested Participants.  Given that no new pr oposal had been received in respect of systemic 
issues, he proposed that the Group have a preliminary exchange of views on a recent submission on 
transparency of RTAs.  
4. The proponent of the submission contained in document TN/RL/W/167 observed that her 
delegation had already presented highlights of this submission at the last informal meeting.  The 
submission addressed some general trends of RTAs ' negotiations, and proposed (a) a fast-track 
examination procedure which would be available to "volunteering countries" and (b) faster 
examination for RTAs concluded by least-devel oped and developing countries notified under the 
Enabling Clause.  She would not provide more details as the submission was self-explanatory. 
5. Participants noted that the submission suppor ted the voluntary and experimental process of 
the Secretariat undertaking formal presentations of  RTAs conducted in the context of the Committee 
on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), and it also  identified possible avenues for special and 
differential (S & D) treatment.  Given the late  arrival of the submission, comments were of a 
preliminary nature.  Clarification was sought on whet her the proposal was to be applied temporarily – 
i.e. to RTA Members which had opted for a factual presentation made by the Secretariat – or if it was intended to be a permanent result of the negotiations .  Depending on the reply to that question, two 
other questions might be relevant, namely whethe r the proposal would apply only to RTAs covering 
trade in goods, and why a "bonus" should only be  provided to countries which had opted for a TN/RL/M/21 
Page 2  
 
 Secretariat
’s factual presentation.  One Participant note d that, although her delegation was willing to 
discuss the proposal further, it would prove difficu lt to provide substantive comments before some 
concrete experience had been gained from the tria l process; she thus suggested to first focus on 
concrete examples within the CRTA process and afterwards  consider how to fine tune it.  In response, 
the proponent noted that the s ubmission only complemented the ex isting, new volunteer process, and 
did not go beyond it. 
6. The Group also held an informal debate, on the basis of an informal note by the Chairman 
entitled Elements for an RTAs' Transparency Process , dated 2 December 2004 (Job(04)/184).  At the 
end of the informal discussions, the Group reverted back to formal mode. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
7. Regarding the dates of meetings for 2005, the Ch airman stressed that the calendar sent by fax 
in early December was of an indicative nature, a nd informed the Group of a change of meeting dates 
in May (17 and 18, instead of 17 and 19 as included in the calendar). He recalled that the only objective of this calendar was to make Participants aware of dates for which the Secretariat had been 
able to book rooms and obtain interpreters;  it might how ever also be useful for Participants to plan 
their active participation in the Group's discussion.   
8. Regarding the Group's work programme for 2005, the Chairman noted that a solid basis for 
continuing detailed work on "RTAs' Transparency" ex isted.  Recalling that work on systemic issues 
was also an important element of RTAs' negotiations , he reiterated his call for Participants to put 
forward their proposals on specific systemic issues at least ten days before the meeting in which these 
were to be considered. 
9. One Participant requested the Secretariat to coordi nate internally and with Participants so that 
discussions on the Secretariat's "mock" presentation of the services aspects of the Canada-Chile Free 
Trade Agreement could benefit from input from services experts. 
10. Referring to the informal debate held during that meeting on "RTAs' Transparency", one 
Participant highlighted the positive experience of havi ng a paper to guide a structured brainstorming, 
noting that the exercise had fleshed out a number of points in which Participants had some or 
substantial convergence.  In that context, he r ecalled that at various instances concerns had been 
raised regarding the need for special requiremen ts for developing countries.  Thanking the proponent 
of TN/RL/W/167 for incorporating S & D treatme nt in its proposal, he called upon developing 
countries to make further submissions on S & D treatme nt that they were seeking in the area of RTAs' 
transparency so that the Group could also have  constructive discussions on those elements.  The 
experience gained in the transparency debate also le d him to make a suggestion in the area of systemic 
issues.  Recalling the useful discussions held on the Roadmap for Discussions on RTAs' "Systemic" 
Issues , he noted that further work was needed if the negotiations were to lead to any result on 
systemic issues.  In his delegation’s view, it might  thus be helpful to ask the Chairman and the 
Secretariat to prepare a short list of key systemic issues to be further explored, on the basis of those 
discussions.  Such a short list could include issues which were subject to large divergence of views 
(e.g., the top five most contentious issues discussed ) and those on which a number of interesting ideas 
had been put forward.  That would help toward s clarifying possible outcomes of the negotiations. 
11. Another Participant thanked the proponent for ha ving brought systemic issues back to the 
table, in particular given that work was not as advanced as with transp arency issues.  Though 
supporting the idea, she favoured a less ambitious approach under which a specific issue (e.g., 
"substantially all trade") would be singled out and a summary of discussions held be provided.  That 
could be in parallel to any submission that Participants would like to make.  TN/RL/M/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
 12. Another Participant rejected the suggestion, st ressing that negotiations on systemic issues 
should be a Member-driven process, and that the Roadmap  itself had already been Chairman-driven.  
She noted that the situation had been different wi th respect to "RTAs' Transparency" issues:  the 
starting point had been Participants' convergence of  views triggered by a formal proposal made by 
one Participant at an early stage of the negotia tions; only then did the Chairman of the Group put 
forward his first informal paper. She was not of  the view that convergence of views had already 
emerged on any systemic issue, nor that Particip ants had presented a critical mass of proposals that 
would allow the Chairman and the Secretariat to elaborate a short list of top five issues. It was now time for interested Participants to consult with other delegations to find possible areas of convergence 
and to present proposals.  Her delegation did not th ink that the suggested a pproach was pragmatic and 
could not support it.  Rather, she would favour Partic ipants tabling proposals, including in the form of 
their own lists of what they perceived as the most  contentious systemic issues they would like the 
Group to address. 
13. The Chairman noted that the Group was determined to actively pursue the consideration of 
systemic issues.  Systemic issues were at the heart of the negotiations' mandate, and it might not be 
sustainable not to have results in this area.  It was his understanding that the Group still needed to 
reflect upon the work done in the past and on how to  take it one step forward.  Because progress on 
systemic issues would require a pragmatic appro ach in light of the orientation provided by 
Participants, he reiterated his call for Participants to come forward with specific proposals on systemic 
issues as soon as possible. Whenever agreed upon by  the Group, the Chairman and the Secretariat 
would be able to provide inputs, in light of the de bate held and past experience, to assist delegations 
in their work. 
 
__________