WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/REG/M/63 
17 January 2012 
 (12-0258) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Sixty-third Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 9 AND 15 NOVEMBER 2011 
 
Chairman:  Mr. F. Riegert (France) 
  A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The 63rd Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/3810/Rev.1 dated 28 October 2011. 
2. The Chairman welcomed Members to the 63rd Session of the CRTA and said he would raise 
two issues under the item "Other Business".  The fi rst one referred to technical cooperation activities 
conducted in 2011 and those scheduled for 2012 in the area of regional trade agreements (RTAs);  
while the second one referred to the proposed sch edule for CRTA meetings for 2012.  He asked 
Members whether they wished to include a ny additional points unde r "Other business". 
3. The representative of Egypt  recalled that the rules of proce dure for meetings of the General 
Council was to apply mutatis mutandis for meetings  of the CRTA, except as otherwise provided by 
the Committee’s rules.  In this context, Rule 11 indicated that representatives of intergovernmental 
organizations (IGOs) could attend the Committee's proceedings as observers upon invitation and in 
accordance with the guidelines prescribed in Annex 3 to these rules.  In abiding with the letter and 
spirit of these rules, his delegation requested clarifi cation on: first, whether the list of IGOs that had 
informed the Secretariat of their wish to a ttend the present meeting as observers could be 
communicated;  second, whether the Secretariat had received any requests from other IGOs referred to in document WT/REG/W/11/Add.3 to attend the cu rrent meeting on an ad hoc basis or upon the 
specific invitation of the CRTA as prescribed by Para graph 5 of Annex III of the Rules of Procedure;  
and third, why there was no item on the agenda to address the outstanding requests by IGOs to be 
granted observer status in the CRTA.  Regardi ng the Agenda, he asked why a new heading B - 
"Systemic issues” had been introduced and grouped two distinct and separate topics, namely the 
World Trade Report 2011 and the proposed work pr ogramme on RTAs.  He recalled that each of 
these topics had been treated separately during the 62nd session of the CRTA without being grouped under the proposed heading.  He also asked whethe r the Secretariat had received a formal request by 
Members to introduce this heading pursuant to rule 4 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure.  Finally, 
he asked why the proposal submitted by the delegati on of Argentina was not considered to be of a 
systemic nature and thus included under heading B of the agenda, since there were two proposals for 
Ministerial Decisions both relating to RTAs addressing systemic issues. 
4. The Chairman with regard to the first ques tion said that there were two IGOs, namely 
UNCTAD and EFTA, that had notified the Secretariat of their wish to attend the current meeting as 
observers.  As for the second question, he said that the Secretariat had not received any request by any 
other IGO to acquire observer status for the current meeting.   
5. With respect to the third question, a representativ e of the Secretariat  said that Paragraph 4 of 
Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Ministeria l Conferences applicable to the General Council and WT/REG/M/63 
Page 2 
 
 
  other bodies stated: "Requests for observer status shall be considered on a case-by-case basis by each 
WTO body to which such a request is addressed, ta king into account such factors as the nature of 
work of the organization concerned, the nature of its Membership, the number of WTO Members in 
the organization, reciprocity with respect to acces s to proceedings, documents and other aspects of 
observership, and whether the organization has been  associated in the past with the work of the 
contracting parties to GATT 1947".  In other wo rds, there was no general request made and 
authorization given to acquire observer status.  It was specific to each body and depended on the 
nature of the work of the IGO a nd whether they wanted to be observers.  For instance the Universal 
Postal Union might not be interested in attending the WTO Subsidies Committee.   
6. Regarding the fourth question, the Chairman re plied that the Unites States and Australia had 
requested to intervene under item B - "Systemic issues" .  As for the last question, he replied that the 
proposal by Argentina was not included under item B simply because Argentina had not requested so.  
However, he did not see any problem in including Argentina's proposal under item B, if the delegation of Argentina agreed. 
7. The representative of Argentina said that his de legation had no objection for its proposal to be 
included under item B. 
8. The Chairman adopted the following Agenda: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Systemic issues  
I. Statement from the United States on the World Trade Report 2011 
II.  Work Programme on Regional Trade Agreements: Proposal for 
8th Ministerial Conference - Communi cation from Australia; Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Costa Rica;  European Union; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Mexico, New Zealand; Norway; the Republic of Korea; and the separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
III.  Proposal for 8th Ministerial Conference from Argentina  
 C. Adoption of the Annual Report (2011) of the CRTA to the General Council  
I. Communication from China, Egypt and India 
D. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs  
II.  Economic Integration Agreement between China and Chile, services.  
 E. Other Business  9. The Chairman recalled that the Latin American 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. 
B. SYSTEMIC ISSUES  
B.I. S TATEMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES ON THE WORLD TRADE REPORT 2011 
10. The representative of the United States recalled th at at the last CRTA meeting in September, 
Members had had a brief opportunity to comment on the World Trade Report 2011 that had been 
presented by the Secretariat.  He said that si nce the report focused on RTAs, it was a suitable 
springboard to share questions and perspectives on RTAs and their relationship with the multilateral 
trading system.  He expressed his delegation's appreciation for the amount of effort and scholarship that had gone into the report and said that the WTO Membership, as well as the public at large, was 
enriched by its plethora of observations and huge  bibliography.  He could only assume that the 
increased information made available through the Tr ansparency Mechanism (TM) had contributed to  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the ability of scholars to analyse and examine how RT As worked in the real world.  His delegation 
had a number of questions that had come to mind wh ile reading the report that he wanted to share 
with Members.  First, he wondered whether the e xpected integrated production networks truly were 
separate from the expected tariff liberalization, as the report seemed to argue.  While there was no 
doubt that regulatory and other issues had played a large part in U.S. FTAs, from his country's experience, market access remained at the front and centre in promoting more integrated production 
networks.  As such, his delegation found it difficu lt to understand the assumption that the market 
access component of an FTA would not be part and parcel of encouraging such integrated product 
networks.  Indeed, his delegation ha d observed that bilateral market access benefits had played a huge 
role in motivating the negotiation of trade agreements.  He also noted in the foreword to the report by 
the Director General (DG) that, as the report had documented,  "average tariffs have fallen markedly in 
recent years, making tariff preferences a more minor motivation for entering into PTA's.  As tariff preferences have diminished in importance, non-tariff measures have become relatively more 
significant as determinants of market access and conditions of competition".  The DG had also said 
that "to the extent that PTAs were motivated by a desire for deeper integration rather than market 
segmentation, there could be a role for the WT O to promote greater coherence among non-competing 
but divergent regulatory regimes that in practice cause geographical fragmentation and trade costs".   
His delegation was not as convinced as the DG that the Report made a compelling argument that tariff 
preferences were a minor motivation, and while no n-tariff measures had taken on greater prominence 
in RTAs, he felt it would be a mistake to disregard the economic effects of tariff preferences.  He 
believed the Doha market access negotiators would be quite surprised to hear what the report argued - 
that tariffs did not really matter anymore.  On  the contrary, the IMF had found that developing 
country protection was at least twice as high than in high-income countries.  In terms of trade flows, according to data from the IMF, in 2010, 37% of  emerging and developing economies' exports had 
gone to other emerging and developing economies. 
11. It also needed to be clear that the low trad e weighted average cited in the summary by the 
Secretariat (i.e. existing MFN tariffs amounted to only 4% on average in 2009) was driven in large 
measure by high-income countries including the United States, the European Union and Japan.  Certainly, the United States, was not party to many FTAs, compared to other countries.  He said that 
Mr. Emanuel Ornelas from the London School of Economics had made this same point, among 
others, at the launch of the Report over the summe r.  Without a doubt, there were still many facts 
supporting incentives for Members - developed and de veloping - to seek out and lock in permanent 
tariff elimination, including for sensitive products.  He  believed that the averaging of tariff data across 
different kinds of RTAs in this study had overlooked the effect of specific protectionist policies in any 
given market, and the effect multilaterally of perp etuating those policies domestically.  The crucial 
follow-on effect of such protectionism on production networks had also been overlooked.  Perhaps the 
effects did not seem significant by economists' sta ndards, but he wondered if it did not somehow 
distort the balance of the overall benefits of the FTA, particularly for those industries that were 
expected to benefit from increased real market access.  Similarly, he would argue that the report overlooked the on-the-ground effects of exempti ng sensitive products from RTAs.  His delegation 
could hardly imagine that RTAs with such ga ping holes in market access were in themselves 
responsible for more integrated production networks  than would otherwise exist, even if they did 
contain broadly worded "WTO+" assurances.  He was therefore interested in knowing more about 
these sensitive products and how their exemption or non-exemption in RTAs correlated to multilateral 
practice and liberalization trends.   
12. Athough he was sceptical of the utility of dr awing broad conclusions from the general 
increase in non-tariff or regulatory provisions, some  important questions had been raised, and he 
wondered if Members might be able to learn some  lessons on a case-by-case basis.  He was not 
convinced that all FTAs, however comprehensive,  had the same effect on the ground.  He asked 
whether there was or not a distinction between br oadly worded assurances; an d provisions that were 
concrete, precise, and in many cases, requiring immedi ate unilateral trade regime reforms.  He would WT/REG/M/63 
Page 4 
 
 
  not necessarily consider the latter as "deep integratio n" and asked which those practices were.  In the 
case of his country, his delegation had witnessed that  extensive, specific commitments - in services 
and customs practices, for example - had had ripple effects multilaterally, since many, if not all, of 
these specific reforms were implemented on a MFN basi s.  But that would not necessarily be the same 
across all FTAs with so-called regulatory components.   In sum, though, his delegation was interested 
in moving beyond a discussion of motivations to join RT As to "before and after"  snapshots of effects 
of various aspects of FTAs.  He thought there were a number of potential topics of interest, but looking a little more closely could help Members focus on the positive lessons they might learn from 
the real world effect of FTAs.  He looked forwar d to discussing such issues with others in the New 
Year, on the heels of the World Trade Report 2011. 
B.II. W
ORK PROGRAMME ON REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS : PROPOSAL FOR THE 8TH 
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE FROM AUSTRALIA ;  CANADA ;  CHILE;  COLOMBIA ;  COSTA RICA;  
EUROPEAN UNION ;  HONG KONG, CHINA ;  JAPAN ;  MEXICO ;  NEW ZEALAND ;  NORWAY ;  T H E  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA ;  AND THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN , PENGHU , KINMEN AND 
MATSU  
13. The representative of Australia welcomed the oppor tunity to discuss the proponents' efforts to 
improve the proposal since the last CRTA meeting.  To recapitulate, he said that the proposal was for 
a work programme in the CRTA to examine the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral 
trading system.  The proposal contained three key el ements.  First, the CRTA would work within its 
existing mandate to consider the systemic implicati ons of RTAs for the multilateral trading system.  
Second, Members would direct this work progra mme through the CRTA, drawing on detailed factual 
reports prepared by the Secretariat that would co nsider each aspect of RTAs and their systemic 
implications.  Third, the work would take plac e over roughly two years, with the results being 
reported to the next Ministerial Conference scheduled for 2013. 
14. The work programme was simple, but of clear importance.  He said that when the Committee 
had been established in 1996, this type of work wa s envisaged as part of its terms of reference and 
was reflected in Paragraph 1(d) of the CRTA mandate .  His delegation considered that these systemic 
issues were more relevant than ever.  It was eviden t that there was a large amount of interest in the 
issues to be addressed in the proposal.  This was refl ected most clearly in the group of co-sponsors for 
the proposal:  there were twelve from a wide range of regions, including both developing and 
developed Members.  Since the last CRTA, Colo mbia, Costa Rica, and the European Union had 
joined the group of proponents, and a number of other Members continued to be strongly supportive.   
15. He outlined the process his delegation and the other proponents had taken since the last 
CRTA to refine the proposal, and present it to delega tions in the current meeting.  The proponents had 
tried to reach out to delegations that had rai sed questions at the CRTA, as well as regional group 
coordinators, and although it had not been possible to meet with every Member, he hoped that they 
had been able to work through some questions ra ised at the CRTA in more detail.  During his 
consultations he had heard a strong, positive message on how important it was that Members 
considered the systemic implications of RTAs in more detail.  He had heard that Members saw value 
in a work programme to better understand the inte raction between RTAs a nd the multilateral trading 
system.  This had confirmed to the proponents the importance of the work, and the value of Ministers 
considering a work programme in this area for th e CRTA.  During the consultations, he had discussed 
all aspects of the proposed work programme with a wide range of delegatio ns.  Like the group of 
proponents, these delegations represented both de veloped and developing Members, and he had 
consulted with delegations from all regions.  The group of co-sponsors had worked hard to revise the 
proposed work programme, based on these discussions.  For example, some delegations had asked 
about the scope of the work programme.  They had asked important questions about whether the work 
programme could lead to new benchmarks, standa rds or disciplines being developed on RTAs, and 
whether the work programme would pass judgement on individual RTAs.  He assured delegations that  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 5 
 
 
  this was not the intention of the proposal.  He supported the mandate of the Negotiating Group on 
Rules (NGR), which was the appropriate fo rum for developing new disciplines on RTAs. 
16. He also highlighted that the work programme  would examine the interaction between RTAs 
collectively and the multilateral trading system, a nd not put individual RTAs under the spotlight.  
Another strong message from the consultations was that development issues needed to be addressed 
as part of the work programme.  This input was very  welcome, and the proposal had been amended to 
include this important aspect.  Ministers would di rect the CRTA to include development aspects of 
RTAs in studying the interaction between RTAs and the multilateral trading system.  He also shared 
the views raised by some delegations about the re lationship between the work programme and the TM 
for RTAs.  Clearly, the TM had made a valuable contribution to the work of the WTO and the proposal had been amended to make this link to th e TM clearer.  In the pr oposed work programme, 
the information generated through the TM would have  an important role in providing data for the 
Secretariat's factual reports.  Another key point for the proponents was that this work programme 
would be a Member driven process.  The Secretariat's role would be very important, but limited to 
supporting the Membership by preparing factual reports.  The Secretariat had indicated that it would 
be able to perform a supporting role for this work  programme with existing resources.  In preparing 
this revised language, they had worked hard to addr ess the questions raised by delegations, both at the 
CRTA and in separate consultations over recent w eeks.  During the process, the goal had been to 
improve the proposal, while ensuring that it continued to be clear, neutral, balanced, and within the 
mandate of the CRTA.  Finally, he welcomed the input he had received from a very wide range of 
delegations: developing and developed alike, and from all regions .  He had been encouraged by the 
way in which the consultations ha d underlined the high degree of interest in these issues, and the 
importance WTO Members attached to the systemic implications of RTAs.  He welcomed the views 
from delegations, and looked forward to ongoing work with them on this important issue. 
17. The representative of Chile fully endorsed the pr esentation made by Australia on behalf of the 
group of proponents, which included his country.  He recalled that in the last CRTA meeting, his 
delegation had already put forward the benefits of the proposal and reiterated that in Paragraph 4 of 
the Doha Ministerial Declaration dated 14 Nove mber 2001 Ministers had recognized "that regional 
trade agreements can play an important role in pr omoting the liberalization and expansion of trade and 
in fostering development".  His country which was party to 21 RTAs with 58 countries and had 
several agreements under negotiation had a strong inter est in this topic.  These agreements had had a 
positive effect in promoting trade liberalization and tr ade expansion, and were an important factor for 
growth and development.  His delegation welcomed  the initiation of a debate on RTAs, which in his 
view was timely and useful.  He thus considered that it was appropriate that at the 8th Ministerial 
Conference (MC8), Ministers would include the anal ysis of the relationship between RTAs and the 
multilateral trading system as well as their im pact on each other in accordance with the CRTA 
mandate. 
18. The representative of Colombia thanked Aust ralia for the changes made to the proposal, 
which reflected the interventions of various Memb ers during the last meeting.  His country had 
requested to be a co-sponsor of the proposal becau se it found it useful, necessary and a deliverable of 
great value for MC8.  In his opinion, the proposal on the work programme which aimed at gaining a 
better understanding of the interac tion between RTAs and the multilateral trading system was an 
excellent opportunity to strengthen the multilateral trad e system, as well as its coherence.  He said the 
mandate existed and was in the recommendations of  MC7 (2009), the Doha Ministerial Declaration as 
well as in the terms of reference of the CRTA.  Ther e was also a need for such  work.  According to a 
report by the Secretariat, in 2010 there were about  300 RTAs in force and each WTO Member was on 
average party to 13 RTAs.  A cross-cutting and system ic analysis would therefore be very useful.  He 
said that thanks to the TM, Members had learned about RTAs individually, but it was important to have an overall view of such RTAs and their im plications for the multilateral trading system 
especially as they were leading to a higher level of integration far beyond tariff liberalization and WT/REG/M/63 
Page 6 
 
 
  were covering domestic policies such as regulati ons on services and investments, competition policy, 
protection of intellectual property rights, government pr ocurement, etc.  It was therefore important to 
identify patterns and trends, as well as to examine the impact and implications of RTAs for the 
multilateral trading system to increase their coheren ce.  A proposal such as the one presented was an 
excellent opportunity to increase transparency, exchange information and provide a better 
understanding of the current trends in trade, and the impact on multilateralism.  He considered this 
was an analysis to be carried out within the WT O and undertaken by the CRTA.  For these reasons, 
his delegation fully supported the proposal led by Australia. 
19. The representative of Mexico welcomed and th anked the new co-sponsors of the proposal, 
namely Colombia, Costa Rica and the European Un ion, and invited other Members to sponsor the 
proposal.  His delegation supported and endorsed the declaration made by the representative of Australia, and thanked Australia for its efforts in  coordinating the proposal which was the result of 
discussions during multiple meetings (i.e. at least 15 meetings).  Following Members' comments from 
the last meeting, he clarified certain aspects of the proposal.  The proposal was directed toward 
establishing a work programme to analyse the inte raction between RTAs and the multilateral trading 
system.  It was a Member-driven process.  Although, the participation of the Secretariat in preparing 
the reports was important, the work programme wa s and would be the complete responsibility of 
Members.  The proposal did not aim at establishing new disciplines or legal obligations for Members 
or at replacing the work in the NGR.  It also did not seek to establish any legal procedures or 
benchmarks, nor to put on the spot any pa rticular delegation or trade agreement. 
20. The representative of the European Union tha nked Australia for presenting the proposal and 
providing, in his view, convincing answers to the Memb ership on the questions that had been raised in 
previous meetings.  He thanked the Australian team for their efforts and engagement.  As stated 
during the last CRTA, the EU was ready to work w ith Australia and other delegations to move the 
proposal forward.  In this spirit, the EU had d ecided to formally co-sponsor the proposal and had 
formally joined a group of developing and develo ped countries across different regions which shared 
a strong interest in the systemic implications of  RTAs.  The proposal on the table responded to the 
need that many Members had identified for a work  programme in the CRTA to address the systemic 
issues of RTAs.  He said that Members should not forget that during the Ministerial Conference in 
2009, Ministers had underlined their keen interest in  closely monitoring the proliferation of RTAs and 
its impact on the multilateral trading system.  Memb ers needed to be responsive to these calls and 
ready to provide some grounds for future work on RTAs at MC8.  He considered it important to 
jointly reflect on new comprehensive work on cr oss-cutting issues that could be carried out as from 
2012 and to set an agenda for RTAs in the WTO for the upcoming years.  Finally, he recalled that the 
CRTA had a very clear mandate and that the propo sed work programme fully corresponded to the 
task the Committee should accomplish under such a mandate.  This had been clearly and rightly 
indicated in the proposal, and also emphasized by Australia.       
21. The representative of New Zealand endorsed th e previous statements by co-sponsors and 
thanked them for providing an outlin e of the process that they were seeking to advance.  He said his 
country firmly believed that the proposed work  programme was important, fell within the CRTA 
mandate and saw systemic issues as more relevant  than ever.  He joined other proponents in 
emphasizing that the proposed work programme had no intention to lead to new benchmarks, 
standards or disciplines being developed on RT As, nor to pass judgement on RTAs.  He looked 
forward to hearing the views of other delegations and to working with them to take the proposal 
forward.     
22. The representative of Japan thanked Australia for coordinating and developing the proposal, 
as well as other co-sponsors and Members for their useful comments and suggestions.  Given the 
importance of the issues raised by the increasing number of RTAs, Japan hoped that all Members would see this as a priority.  Japan also believed that  WTO Members shared an in terest to ensure that  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Members could analyse the cross-cutting issues on RTAs  in a neutral and transparent manner.  As one 
of the co-sponsors, her country fully endorsed the view that a work programme such as the one 
proposed would be a valuable contribution to rev italize the Committee's regular work in a way that 
would support and strengthen the WTO.  
23. The representative of Canada thanked the Australian  delegation for playing a lead role in this 
process, as well as the other co-sponsors.  Like othe r co-sponsors, Canada believed that the work plan 
and the consideration of the implications of RTAs  for the multilateral trading system fell within the 
mandate of the CRTA.  The represen tative of the United States had noted earlier his interest in better 
understanding the effects of sensitive and excluded items from RTAs.  Likewise, Canada would be 
interested in better understanding how  current trends and practices, a nd in particular how the quality 
of the increasing number of RTAs impacted the multilateral trading system.  It was therefore 
important that the ability of the work plan to draw  conclusions would not be limited by splitting the 
examination by RTAs notified in the CRTA and the CTD.   
24. The representative of Hong Kong, China thanke d Australia for coordinating the proposal.  
The proposal had been sponsored by 13 Members both developing and devel oped.  His delegation 
believed the proposed work programme was a timely  response to the increasing need for Members to 
develop a better understanding of RTAs  and represented a viable opti on for a meaningful deliverable 
for the coming Ministerial Conference.  The work programme would help Members to reflect on the 
systemic implications of RTAs and thus pave th e way for their further engagement in development 
discussions and a better understandi ng, among others, of the complicated issue of coherence between 
RTAs and the multilateral trading system in th e long run.  The proponents understood that some 
Members had some concerns (e.g. on development issu es) and had thus taken th em into account in the 
proposal.   His delegation fully endorsed the proposal. 
25. The representative of Chinese Taipei associat ed her delegation with the statement by 
Australia.  As mentioned in the last CRTA meeti ng, her delegation was convi nced of the importance 
and need for a work programme to  consider the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral 
trading system.  She considered that it was very ti mely and proper to be seeking instructions from 
Ministers for this work.  The revised text took into account the comments and concerns expressed by 
Members at the previous CRTA meeting and in subsequent consultations between Members and 
co-sponsors.  Her delegation believed the proposal w as neutral, balanced and within the mandate of 
the CRTA, and, as a co-sponsor, fully supported it.  To  her delegation, the value of the proposal was 
that it would improve Members' knowledge on the interaction between RTAs and the multilateral 
trading system.  She urged other Members to demonstrate their openness and declare their support for the proposal.   
26. The representative of Norway thanked Austra lia for presenting the proposal, which as a 
co-sponsor Norway fully concorded with.  RTAs ha d increasingly become a significant part of today's 
trade reality.  Bilateral trade agreements prom oted economic growth a nd development and were 
important to all parties, including least developed countries.  Although the multilateral trading system 
was the foundation of international disciplines on trade, Norway was an active user of RTAs.  
However, she said it was essential that regional a nd inter-regional trade arrangements did not weaken 
the multilateral trading system created by the WT O.  She acknowledged that the comprehensive and 
credible set of multilateral rules and disciplines unde r the WTO were crucial in minimizing frictions 
and ensuring the strength of the multilateral trading sy stem.  Norway recognized the need to carefully 
follow the development of deeper trade relationships b ilaterally and regionally to be able to reflect on 
the impact of RTAs on the multilateral trading system.  Norway's point of departure was to contribute to full transparency on all of its bilateral agreemen ts and would also like to have the most complete 
possible picture of all other agreements.  Factua l reports, initially prepared by the Secretariat on 
practices and developments would certainly help and assist all Members in this respect.  The CRTA should not duplicate the tasks assigned to the NGR which had been given the mandate to clarify and WT/REG/M/63 
Page 8 
 
 
  improve the WTO rules on RTAs.  Her delegation be lieved the Secretariat and the CRTA could help 
Members to reflect on the implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system, and the interaction 
between them.     
27. The representative of Costa Rica thanked Austra lia and associated his delegation with its 
statement and those by previous speakers.  His co untry fully supported the proposal and had joined 
the group of co-sponsors as it saw MC8 as an opportunity  for the WTO to focus on topics that were of 
great importance for the international trade agenda such as RTAs.  His delegation considered that a 
work programme that would look at the cross-cutting a nd systemic issues of RTAs with respect to the 
multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO w as an excellent initiative.  The proposal was in 
line with the CRTA mandate and would allo w it to revitalize its work programme. 
28. The representative of the Republic of Korea thanked the representative of Australia for 
presenting the proposal.  She recalled that at the last CRTA meeting, the proposal had had very 
positive comments from Members although there w as still some room for improvement.  After 
consulting with other Members, they had come to th e current meeting with an improved version of the 
proposal.  It was timely and proper as RTAs in the multilateral trading system were becoming 
increasingly important.  The CRTA had a clear mandate to consider the systemic implications of RTAs in the multilateral trading system.  With the proposal they were therefore doing what they were 
assigned to do with a detailed timeline.  As a co-s ponsor, Korea strongly supported the proposal and 
fully endorsed it. 
29. The representative of India thanked the delega tion of Australia for the time and energy 
devoted to the proposal.  He had listened carefully  to the co-sponsors' pr esentations and had great 
respect for their views and sentiments.  However he had a few concerns he wanted to share with the 
Membership.  With regard to the systemic aspect s of the proposal, he said that Australia and other 
co-sponsors had mentioned that the CRTA would wo rk under its existing mandate.  He thus asked 
why a Ministerial Declaration was required to do something that the CRTA was already empowered 
to do.  This question could a pply to other areas and committees a nd was something that Members 
needed to consider seriously.  Secondly, India c ould not agree with the view that the CRTA was the 
sole body for considering the systemic implica tions of RTAs.  The CRTA was responsible for a 
certain category of RTAs while the CTD was resp onsible for PTAs and RTAs notified under the 
Enabling Clause.  As Paragraph 1(d) of the term s of reference of the CRTA had been quoted, he 
mentioned that Paragraph 1 of the CTD's terms of  reference stated "to serve as a focal point for 
consideration and coordination of work on development in the WTO".  This had to be substantiated 
with Paragraph 4 which said "to consider any ques tions which may arise with regard to either the 
application or the use of special provisions in th e multilateral trading system and related Ministerial 
Decisions in favour of developing country Member s and report to the General Council for appropriate 
action".  The role of the CTD was also clear in th e legal note on RTAs prepared by the Secretariat in 
May 2003 as it stated that: "since the Enabling Clause contains provisions relating to preferential treatment among and in favour of developing countri es, it could be argued that the General Council 
envisaged some role for the CTD with respect to RTAs among developing countries".  He thought 
that there was a fundamental difference of opinion  on the issue of whethe r the CRTA was the right 
forum to discuss the systemic implications of all RTAs or whether the agreements notified under the 
Enabling Clause should be included in the process in the CTD.  
30. With respect to the substan tive aspects of the proposal, the World Trade Report 2011, for 
which he commended the Secretariat, had summed-up ma ny of the issues such as the implications of 
preferential trade agreements.  The results and infe rences that could be drawn from the report had yet 
to be digested.  He thanked the delegation of the Un ited States for its statement in this regard and also 
recalled that a discussion on the report had already been held.  Nevertheless, there was a lot of 
material that had still to be considered before ge tting into any further exercise that would inevitably 
lead to the duplication of efforts.  Second, the repr esentative of Australia had mentioned that the work  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 9 
 
 
  programme was not intended to lead to the deve lopment of new benchmarks, as that was not the 
CRTA's mandate but the responsibility of the NGR, a nd that individual RTAs were not to be put 
under the spotlight and the developm ent dimension should be covered.   He thanked the representative 
of Australia for these comments.  Yet, he was drawn to refer to Paragraph 29 of the Doha Declaration 
which stated that Members had agreed to negotiations aiming at improving and clarifying disciplines and procedures under the existing WTO provisions appl ying to RTAs.  If one read the proposal, there 
was considerable overlap in terms of the analysis  and improvement of disciplines and procedures.  
India was also concerned about a statement that had been made by an official of one of the 
co-sponsors on 17 October 2011: "it is in the world' s interest to prevent the proliferation of 
low-quality, discriminatory bilateral and regional tr ade agreements.  Disciplines should be agreed in 
order for bilateral and regional trade agreements to  qualify for WTO consistency.  The basic existing 
requirement is that such deals c over "substantially" all trade between parties to the agreement.  Yet 
"substantially" is not defined, allowing discriminatory trade deals to be WTO-consistent while 
omitting the more sensitive sectors and issues for which the gains from liberalisation might be the 
greatest.  This trophy-collecting approach to bila teral and regional trade deals degrades the WTO's 
foundation principle of non-discrimination and for qu estionable economic gain".  In this regard, he 
said that every work programme had a negotiating in tent, purpose or objective and that the negotiating 
objective, he perceived from the proposal, was to  establish benchmarks for developing countries, 
especially for those that had entered, and were going  to enter, into deals under the Enabling Clause.  
Such a situation was unacceptable to his delegation.  
31. To conclude, India was not convinced of the need for a work programme which had to be 
endorsed by the MC8.  Second, his delegation was not  persuaded by the argument that for agreements 
notified under the Enabling Clause, the CRTA was the ri ght forum.  Third, his delegation considered 
that there was a considerable amount of overlap  between Paragraph 29 of the Doha Declaration 
(i.e. work being done in the NGR) and the exercise  presented in the proposal.  Four, although the 
proponents had clarified the proposal's objective w as not to establish a benchmark, to his delegation 
the statement he had read out said the opposite.  Despite the proponents' clarifications, to his 
delegation this was not acceptable.  Finally, th e World Trade Report 2011 had a lot of valuable 
information and analysis which had to be digested  and discussed first, before embarking on any new 
exercise.  At this juncture, his delegation was thus not in position to support the proposal.    
32. The representative of Singapore expressed his appreciation to Australia and the co-sponsors 
for the proposal.  His delegation considered th e proposal as neutral and balanced and therefore 
supported the work done in developing it.  He added that it would be a useful contribution to the work 
of the CRTA and the WTO.  He also congratulated Australia and the other co-sponsors for being open 
to views from other Members.  He supported all the views conveyed by co-sponsors so far and 
expressed his delegati on's full support. 
33. The representative of Malaysia thanked Australia  and other co-sponsors for the proposal and 
for the detailed explanation provided by the represe ntative of Australia for a work programme to 
examine the systemic implications of RTAs fo r the multilateral trading system.  Although not a 
co-sponsor of the proposal Malaysia saw value in it as RTAs had become a prominent feature of the 
multilateral trading system.  More than 400 RTAs th at had been notified to the WTO.  She agreed 
with the EU and Colombia, that th ere was already an existing mandate in MC7 to look at the systemic 
implications of RTAs.  Malaysia supported the pr oposal and looked forward to further discussions.   
34. The representative of the Philippines thanked Australia and other co-sponsors for their efforts 
in trying to strike a balance among a broad range  of complementary interests of the Membership, 
which had been taken on board carefully during an intensive and thorough consultative process.   Like 
other ASEAN members , he supported an outcome on RTAs for MC8.  His delegation believed this 
would revitalize and elevate the work of the CRTA without prejudging the outcome of the proposed work programme .  The proposal as currently formulated was neutral , beneficial and meaningful to the WT/REG/M/63 
Page 10 
 
 
  Membership .  His country looked forward to a work programme that i) would focus on systemic 
issues, resulting in papers that woul d be descriptive and factual in nature , and would not contain value 
judgments or legal analysis ;  ii) would not create new legal rules or obligations on RTAs , nor de facto 
benchmarks for RTAs ;  and iii) would consider the development aspects of RTAs , without duplicating 
the work done by the CTD.  He thanked the proponents for their assurances in this regard , and would 
continue to work with them moving forward.  
35. The representative of Egypt thanked Australia, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, European Union, 
New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Hong Kong, China;  Chinese Taipei, Norway, Costa Rica and the 
Republic of Korea for their presentations, as well as other proponents for the revised proposal and for 
providing his delegation the opportunity to shar e its preliminary thoughts and comments on the 
proposed CRTA work programme.  As a number of Members had either been added as sponsors or 
had opted not to sponsor the propo sal, he sought confirmation that th e list of Members sponsoring this 
proposal was that reflected in document WT/REG/W /63/Rev.1.  He first noted that the proposal 
seemed to replicate a number of elements and ideas that had previously been discussed extensively in 
the context of the CRTA within the ambit of an earlier proposal dated the 8th of June 2010 
(WT/REG/W/54).  He would therefore limit his co mments to the new proposal.  The proposed work 
programme took as its premise, as reflected in th e first sentence of the Ministerial language, the 
growing number of RTAs and the increased percenta ge of world trade taking place under them.  First, 
while it seemed important for Ministers to note the increasing growth and prominence of RTAs in 
world trade,  it seemed as important for Ministers to reaffirm what they had recognized in Paragraph 4 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration in so far as "RTAs can play an important role in promoting the 
liberalization and expansion of trade and in fosterin g development".  This was an important point that 
needed to be referred to in order not to lose sight of the pur pose of any work programme that 
Members might agree on with respect to the consid eration of RTAs in the WTO.  Second, the first 
sentence referred to the growing prominence of RT As in world trade, while the second sentence 
referred to "the extensive information on RTAs made  available under the Transparency Mechanism".  
Clearly the issue of scope was very different in th e two cases and what was being referred to in the 
second sentence related only to those RTAs that ha d been notified to the WTO.  Accordingly he 
suggested to qualify the sentence by clearly stating that the "extensive information" the text was 
referring to related only to RTAs that had been  notified under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and 
GATS Article V and whose factual examination had been completed by Members in the CRTA.  
36. Second, the proposed Ministerial language suggested that the success of the TM was 
dependent upon Members' continued efforts to subm it relevant information in a timely manner and 
that the further success of the TM would depend on the availability of such information.  While he 
noted that the availability of RTA information might  provide one aspect to measure the success of the 
mechanism, he believed that furthering the su ccess of the TM remained dependant on its 
establishment on a permanent basis and contingent  upon addressing the procedural and legal issues 
that developing countries had raised with respect to  its provisional operation and application.  These 
procedural and systemic issues had been clearly ar ticulated in the various submissions and positions 
maintained by developing and least developed Member s in the context of the work undertaken by the 
NGR.  He also recalled that this had been the position of the Chairman of the CRTA in his letter to the 
Chairman of the NGR on the 14th of February 20 11 indicating that the success of the TM was not 
without qualification and it was in the interest of a ll Members to ensure that they understood the TM's 
workings.  He therefore believed that the TM 's further success remained contingent upon its 
appropriate application to ensure that its pro cedures were followed in a manner that carried no 
implication for the views or positions that any Memb er might hold with respect to the consistency of 
RTAs with WTO rules.   
37. Third, the proposed Ministerial language referred  in its third sentence to systemic issues.  
Although he tended to agree that it was only up to  WTO Members to assess the systemic implications 
of RTAs for the multilateral trading system, the manner in which the sentence had been drafted  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 11 
 
 
  suggested that Members were about to embark on a new exercise.  In fact, Egypt recalled the position 
of the Chairman of the CRTA in document JOB/RL /1/Rev.1 where he had indicated that the TM 
involved early announcements, technical support, th e preparation of factual presentations within 
multiple phases, all of which were at the heart of th e procedure to consider the systemic implications 
of RTAs for the multilateral trading system, and the re lationship between them.  He then turned to the 
issue of assessing systemic implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system referred to in the 
third sentence.  He thanked the proponents for providing them the mandate of the CRTA.  For his delegation the CRTA's mandate applied to the extent  that it did not undermine the terms of reference 
and mandate of the CTD.  In this context, he high lighted two points.  First, according to the CTD's 
terms of reference and as mentione d by India, the CTD was to "review periodically the application of 
special provisions in the Multilateral Trade Agreements  and related Ministerial Decisions in favour of 
developing and least developed country Members, including the application or use of the Enabling 
Clause".  He therefore maintained that before em barking on an extensive exercise in the CRTA to 
address systemic implications of RTAs, Members sh ould differentiate between RTAs according to the 
legal WTO provisions that had been invoked to not ify them.  The CRTA did not have an exclusive 
role in addressing the systemic implications arisi ng from RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause.  
The CRTA, it was evident, did not have the manda te to deal with questions arising from the 
application of the Enabling Clause and how it cont ributed to realizing development objectives 
prescribed by the WTO, which remained the sole prerogatives of the CTD.  Second as Members were 
aware, the bodies entrusted with the implementation of  the TM had been clearly articulated in section 
E of the Mechanism.  This section assigned to the CTD the sole responsibility to consider RTAs 
notified under the Enabling Clause, while the CRTA would only deal with RTAs notified under Article XXIV of the GATT 1947 and Article V of the GATS.  This provision emanated from the CTD's terms of reference and in recognition of the fact that it was the sole Committee that had the 
mandate to deal with the application of the Enab ling Clause and to receive all RTAs notified on its 
basis to the WTO.  
38. Fourth, the fourth sentence of the proposed Mi nisterial language, made a loose reference to 
the scope of RTAs that would be covered by the su ggested work programme.  It was not clear to his 
delegation which category of RTAs the proponents we re targeting.  He said a distinction should be 
made between: i) RTAs for which a factual report a nd examination had been completed;  ii) RTAs for 
which factual presentations had been prepared but not examined by Members;  iii) RTAs for which a 
factual presentation was still under preparation, a nd where the Secretariat was still awaiting data from 
the parties to an RTA;  iv) RTAs for which factual presentations were on hold;  v) RTAs that involved 
non-WTO Members; and vi) RTAs between several pa rties that fell under a framework agreement.  
Such a distinction was not a matter of convenience but of necessity and was not a novelty of his own 
making but rather followed the practice of the CRT A in reporting on its activities.  There were 
numerous reasons why such a distinction should be  made other than the obvious one that RTAs 
notified under the Enabling Clause should not be included in the ambit of the proposed CRTA work programme and he would highlight the following:  in the compendium of issues related to RTAs 
(Document TN/RL/W/8/Rev.1) prepared by the Secretariat, it was clearly indicated that "a number of RTAs currently in force have not been notified to the WTO.   This is often cited as hindering any 
comprehensive and precise evaluation of the RTA phenomenon vis-à-vis  the multilateral trading 
system".  This statement had been reaffirmed in the checklist of issues related to RTAs prepared by 
the Secretariat (JOB/RL/3).  It therefore appeared  highly irregular for the Secretariat to be in a 
position to factually report on elements and more impor tantly on practices in RTAs that had not been 
notified to the WTO.  Another reason why Members should make distinctions between various RTAs 
could be seen from the report of Chairman of the CRTA on the 14 February 2011 (JOB/RL/1/Rev.1) 
wherein he clearly recognized that that to date no RTA involving non-WTO Members had been considered by the CRTA since there appeared to be difficulties in obtaining data from non-WTO Members.  The Chair had also confirmed that no pr ovision in the TM for RTAs addressed the several 
systemic issues surrounding dual notifications.  So he asked how the Secretariat would be assisting Members in considering the systemic implications of such RTAs.  Another reason why Members WT/REG/M/63 
Page 12 
 
 
  needed to differentiate between RTAs was seen from Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the TM, wherein the 
parties to an RTA should notify any changes affect ing the implementation of an RTA and submit at 
the end of its implementation peri od a report on the realization of liberalization commitments in the 
RTA that had been notified originally.  Howeve r, given that only a few Members had submitted 
notifications of changes and no party had ever ma de a notification under Paragraph 15 the question 
arose as to what the Secretariat would be factually reporting on, whether it was the original intent of a 
notified RTA or its actual implementation or the cha nges that had been introduced to it in order to 
realize its original intent.   
39. A further reason why Members needed to diffe rentiate between RTAs related to how the 
Secretariat would be assisting Members in the case of RTAs which had been notified under GATT 1947 and for which no working party report had been  issued.  He asked how these RTAs would be 
treated under the current proposal.  He asked whet her it should be assumed that the proposal would 
only deal with RTAs that had been notified and considered by the CRTA after the establishment of 
the WTO.  Moreover, given that no distinction had be en made in the proposal to differentiate between 
RTAs notified under Article XXIV of the GATT from those notified under Article V of the GATS the 
question arose as to how the provisions of Para graph 2 of GATS Article V would be fulfilled.  
Paragraph 2 stated that where developing countries were parties to Economic  Integration Agreement 
flexibility was to be provided in accordance with th e level of development of the countries parties to 
such an agreement.  It was unclear how this de velopment dimension would be taken up or qualified 
by factual reports prepared by the CRTA.  It s hould be recalled that the CTD had an overarching 
mandate to deal with development issues and con cerns, since it was the focal point within the WTO 
for the consideration and coordina tion of work on development.  
40. In addition, the proposal mentioned that WTO Members would be assisted by factual reports 
prepared by the Secretariat.  By this sentence, he  understood that the Secretariat would prepare factual 
reports other than the ones it prepared in collaboration with the parties to a notified RTA and other 
than the ones that had been considered by Member s in the CRTA.  If this was the case, he believed 
that Members should agree beforehand on a clear se t of criteria and conditions as well as terms of 
reference for the Secretariat to prepare such repor ts.  Moreover, he asked whether the Secretariat 
would prepare these factual reports under its own r esponsibility, if it was to prepare them; whether 
these new reports would include a sort of disclaimer to determine the relationship between its factual 
findings and the dispute settlement understanding;  whether this exercise would replace the work of 
the NGR on RTAs' systemic issues, and if not how this had been safeguarded;  and whether these 
reports would create new legal rule s or obligations or create de f acto benchmarks.  These were all 
issues that required thorough and careful consideration by Members.   
41. The fifth and penultimate sentence of the pr oposed Ministerial language suggested that 
Members would discuss RTA practices that could help further the objectives of the multilateral 
trading system.  In this respect, he indicated that the monitoring of practices and implementation of a large number of notified RTAs were undertaken  by inter-governmental bodies, including the 
secretariats overseeing the implementation of COMESA, the East African Community, the MERCOSUR Administrative Commission, the African Union Commission, the ECOWAS Commission, EFTA, etc.  He requested clarificati on on whether these IGOs or secretariats would be 
invited to participate in prepar ing reports on RTAs' practices and wh ether they would participate in 
the discussions to take place on such reports.  It was not quite clear how the WTO would be preparing reports on trends and cross-cutting issues without th e participation of the IGOs in the CRTA's future 
work programme.  Finally, he asked how the outco me of the proposed work programme would differ 
from the information furnished by the World Trad e Report, which dwelled on the causes and effects 
of RTAs and gave a detailed account of the rul es that applied in different RTAs, as well as the 
relationship and synergies betwee n RTAs and the multilateral trading system and their systemic 
effects.  It was important to recall the very pe rtinent positions maintained by many developing and 
least developed Members, including the ACP, which had indicated in a submission titled  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 13 
 
 
  "Developmental Aspects of RTAs" (TN/RL/W/155),  that RTAs should support the development 
strategy of developing countries through regional integration by providing a supportive multilateral 
framework and not the other way around.  Finally, he  hoped that the suggested amendments would be 
introduced in the proposed Ministerial language so as to avoid pre-empting the outcome of the DDA 
negotiations with respect to clarifying and impr oving disciplines and procedures under the existing 
WTO provisions applying to RTAs and paving th e way for gathering the necessary consensus that 
would allow his delegation to be in a position to support the proposal.  
42. The representative of St. Lucia, on behalf of the ACP Group, thanked Australia and the other 
co-sponsors of the proposal for their efforts and th oughtful consideration of how to further advance 
the transparency of RTAs.  He recalled that the Chairman's Summary of MC7, inter alia, held that 
"there were suggestions that while the WTO RTA Transparency Mechanism had worked quite well, 
there was still room for improvement, through maki ng the mechanism permanent, highlighting better 
and common elements in different RTAs and intr oducing an annual review".  In response to this 
report, the proposal under consideration had been i ssued and reflected the collective judgment of the 
co-sponsors on how the considered view of Minist ers could best be advanced.  Concretely, the 
proposal aimed at directing the CRTA to undertake a work programme that would, among other things, consider the cross-cutting elements, trends and practices in RTAs, the outcome of this work 
being reports on specific cross-cutting issues.  Wh ile this on the surface appeared innocuous, it was 
important for the Membership to  have a clear understanding of th e modalities for establishing such a 
work programme and the range of issues to be tackled.   In this context, it should be clear who or what 
would be responsible for setting the agenda and th emes for the proposed reports.  Folklore suggested 
that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".  This  approach was not one that he could countenance – 
the agenda and themes as they related to the reports  had to be agreed by the CRTA and could not be 
reflective of the particular systemic or market acce ss focus or orientation of some Members.  More 
precisely, any programme had to reflect the specific interests of developing countries, hence any 
proposed Ministerial language had to explicitly note that the work programme was to focus on issues 
that touched on, and concerned, de velopment.  He noted that the first iteration of the proposal had an 
introduction that explicitly stated that the results of the work programme did not seek to subvert the 
role and function of the NGR insofar as the esta blishment of new standards and norms as they 
pertained to Article XXIV.  It was with some conste rnation that he noted that this explanatory header 
was absent from the latest iteration of the proposal.  In this context, it was necessary to make it clear 
that the objective of the proposed work programme w ould not impinge on, affect  or conflate the terms 
of reference or objectives of the NGR.  A narrow focus on market access as a means of establishing 
new norms or fostering convergence on best practices was to be avoided.  As a preliminary observation, he noted that the proposal also did not specifically deal with reporting on RTAs 
established pursuant to the Enabling Clause.  It wa s important that the CRTA preserve the role and 
function of the CTD as the forum applicable to RTAs  negotiated and notified pu rsuant to Paragraph 2 
of the Enabling Clause.  In this context, he in vited the proponents to provide clarity on how the 
proposal sought to preserve and support the function of  the CTD as it related to agreements under the 
"Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treat ment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of 
Developing Countries".  In view of the forgoing, the ACP Group would record that without a fulsome 
and satisfactory clarification of the issues and con cerns raised, it would prove difficult for it to go 
along in the direction proposed by the co-sponsors.  
43. The representative of Ecuador thanked Austra lia, Mexico and other co-sponsors for the 
proposal (WT/REG/W/63/Rev.1).  In the last CRTA meeting, Ecuador had noted that the Ministerial 
text should explicitly state that the work programme would not create any type of benchmark criteria.  
To his delegation, the parties to a RTA should main tain the greatest flexibility in terms of scope and 
content so as to ensure its compatibility with the WTO rules on RTAs, in particular with GATT 
Article XXIV, the Enabling Clause and GATS Article V.  The flexibility that Members had had until now should be maintained and that, this flexibilit y should not be constraine d by any benchmark.  
Second, the proposal aimed mainly at developing a work programme to examine practices and aspects WT/REG/M/63 
Page 14 
 
 
  related to the development of RTAs.  He had two comments in this respect.  The work programme or 
any other action that further deepen ed or widened the activities currently being developed in this area 
either in the CRTA or CTD should focus only on the areas contained in the agreements considered, 
since it was such areas which defined the multilateral tr ading system.  In this respect, he considered 
that the proposal was too general and thus open to  various interpretations, and could thus become a 
source of problems.  Second, the proposal's referr al to development issues was a positive addition but 
insufficient as the focal point for development issues was the CTD and the latter was not mentioned in 
the proposal.  It was also insufficient because the re ference did not coincide with the importance given 
to the development objectives of developing countries in the preamble of the WTO.   
44. The representative of Ghana, on behalf of the African Group, associated his delegation with 
the statements by Egypt and St. Lucia.  He th anked Australia for introducing the proposal and the 
other co-sponsors for their efforts in preparing th e proposal, which he believed would serve as a basis 
for further discussions.  The proposal had useful featur es that would need to be considered to enhance 
its quality.  His group had a few initial comments.  The proposal appeared to have supplanted the 
crucial development role of the CTD, and the CRTA appeared to be taking over the exclusive 
development mandate of the CTD.  The scope of the proposal was too broad to the extent that it supplanted the mandate of the CTD and its role  in examining RTAs notified under the Enabling 
Clause.  The terms of reference of the CRTA a nd the CTD should not be mixed.  The terms of 
reference of the CTD were not in doubt.  It was the only body entrusted with the responsibility of 
factually examining RTAs notified under the Enabli ng Clause, which were exclusively negotiated for 
the benefit of developing countries.  Any work programme proposed for the CRTA to analyse RTAs 
should not involve agreements notified under the En abling Clause.  His delegation had time and again 
stressed that the CRTA was onl y responsible for RTAs notified under Article XXIV of the GATT 
1994 and Article V of the GATS, and this should be cl early reflected in the draft of the Ministerial 
proposal.  The proposal should therefore differentia te between the following RTAs:  i) RTAs for 
which a factual report and an examination had b een completed;  ii) RTAs for which a factual 
presentation was still under preparation and for whic h data was still pending, iii) RTAs involving non-
WTO Members and iv) RTAs between several partie s falling under a framework agreement.  This had 
been also mentioned by Egypt.  Finally, any work programme for the CRTA should be only pursued on the basis of factual presentations prepared by th e Secretariat in collaboration with the members of 
the RTA, which had been duly notified under Artic le XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the 
GATS.  The mandate to address the development asp ects of RTAs was exclusively for the CTD.  He 
was trying to prevent a war between the CRTA and CT D, and in this regard, the representative of 
India had given a lot of food for thought.
 
45. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela thanked Australia and the other 
co-sponsors for the proposal (document WT/REG/W/ 63), which aimed at identifying the trends and 
practices of RTAs, as well as the implications of RTAs for the multilateral trade system through a work programme in the CRTA and factual reports prepared by the Secretariat.  Her comments would 
be general and preliminary and followed the logic of always favouring the development dimension, 
which her delegation considered s hould be included in every proposal submitted to the Committee.  
She reserved the right to give further comments b ased on instructions from her capital.  She shared 
Ecuador's concerns, which had requested in the last  meeting that the work programme explicitly state 
that it would not aim to modify WTO disciplines.  In addition, she cons idered that the work 
programme did not specify the "what" and "how" of the study, as well as which RTAs would be 
analysed, all of which were a priority for such st udy.  It was only indicated that the resulting work 
programme would be transmitted to the MC8, and that  it would be carried out over two years by WTO 
Members with the data provided by the Secretariat without expressing any judgement.  She observed 
that the proposal did not mention the CTD and did not provide for any interaction with that Committee.  Yet, her delegation believed that the CTD was a competent player and had a valuable 
contribution on issues which involved developing c ountries and the Enabling Clause in the related 
agreements.  The work also seemed to be duplicat ed.  This was for inst ance the case of the World  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Trade Report 2011 which had analysed this topic and RTAs involving least developed countries, 
which did not benefit from any special and differentia l treatment although they did at the multilateral 
level.  Developing countries were already parties to  RTAs that went beyond trade and this situation 
needed to be analysed in detail and with cauti on.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in 
accordance with the CRTA mandate only supported in itiatives that considered development in its 
content and benefitted from consensus, which it seemed, was not the case of the proposal.    
46. The representative of Brazil thanked Australia  and the co-sponsors for the proposal on the 
establishment of a work programme to consider the current practices and patterns of RTAs.  The 
importance of an exercise to analyse cross-cutting issues in RTAs and the economic impact of these 
agreements could hardly be over-estimated.  Neverthel ess, he agreed with Egypt, India and others that 
the proposal did not consider the role of the CTD as the focal point for issues related to development.  
In this regard, his delegation welcomed the idea to  engage in a work programme also in the CTD for 
those RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause.  This would not only guarantee a sound balance 
between the CRTA and the CTD, but also preserve th e mandate of the CTD, which he believed was in 
the interest of all Members, in particular for developing countries.  
47. The representative of China thanked Australia for introducing the proposal, as well as other 
co-sponsors for their presentations.  He associated his delegation with the statements made by the 
representatives of India and Egypt.  As Members were aware, China was one of the co-sponsors of the proposal since it believed that the proliferation of  RTAs in the past years was posing significant 
challenges to the multilateral trading system and it was vital for the WTO to start analysing such 
implications to ensure that RTAs were supportive of the multilateral trading system.  However, with 
the evolution of the proposal, his delegation had rea lized that the work programme should not expand 
the CRTA's coverage by undermining the mandate of the CTD.  This important principle had been 
pointed out by many developing countries during the formal and informal discussions.  Since the CTD 
and CRTA had clear mandates and a division of work , the work programme, if necessary, should be 
established and implemented accordingly.  The CTD should therefore conduct an analysis of the 
RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause, while the CRTA should undertake similar work but 
covering only RTAs notified under Article XXIV of  the GATT and Article V of the GATS.  In 
addition, the development dimension of RTAs s hould be discussed by the CTD and reported to the 
Ministerial Conference.  It was a pity that the s uggestions mentioned above could not be included in 
the revised proposal, which had led to the decision by China to withdraw as a co-sponsor.  As the 
MC8 was approaching, his delegation hoped that th e proposal could be modified and improved to 
address the concerns of many developing countries.  China was more than willing to engage in such 
consultations.      
48. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia thanked Australia for presenting the 
proposal.  His delegation supported the statement by  Ecuador and was concerned by the proposal.  
The Plurinational State of Bolivia considered  that the proposal overlooked the development 
dimension which for his country was essential.  As noted by the Plurinational State of Bolivia in 
January 2011 in the NGR, RTAs often did not include provisions directed to development, elements to evaluate the asymmetries between the parties, mo st favourable and differen tiated treatment and did 
not take into account the parties'  level of development.  The Plur inational State of Bolivia thus 
considered that the proposal was not appropriate fo r discussion.  He said it was not prudent to discuss 
RTA practices and to believe that this could cont ribute to the objectives of the multilateral trading 
system.  Many of the RTAs had established practices and rules which were "WTO+", such as the Singapore issues, namely competition policy, government  procurement and investments.  These issues 
could be considered in the WTO negotiations bu t at the expense of what was planned at the 
multilateral level and were negative as they we re established under a different framework and 
between parties that did not reflect the developmen t needs of many of the WTO Members.  On the 
other hand, for his country there was a clear manda te to examine the agreements notified under the 
Enabling Clause under the terms of reference of the CTD.  The Plurinational State of Bolivia did not WT/REG/M/63 
Page 16 
 
 
  see how the proposal could fit in with this mandate  and in this respect supported the statements by 
India, Egypt and others.  Finally, the proposal re peated Paragraph 1(d) of the CRTA's terms of 
reference which was redundant.  He did not consider it necessary to reiterate them in the Ministerial 
Declaration and represented a source of concern for many Members.  His delegation considered there 
was not enough consensus for this proposal to be adopted. 
49. The representative of El Salvador thanked the proponents for the work programme on RTAs, 
for revising the document, for their clarifications  and for providing guarantees on certain aspects of 
the proposal on which consultations had been held with delegations, including his own.  When the 
proponents presented their document for the first ti me in September 2010, El Salvador, based on the 
mandate of the CRTA, had raised a number of que stions and made several comments to establish a 
programme that met certain elements.  The proposal  was to be objective, not prejudge the outcome 
that Members could reach through it, and was to allow discussions among Members to comply with the mandate of the CRTA regarding systemic issues.  He noted that the proposal for the establishment 
of a work programme for systemic issues had been re vised in the right direction.  It could still be 
further revised based on comments by Members and that  could lead to a decision that would help to 
re-energize the discussions on systemic issues related to RTAs as part of the MC8.  At this point, his delegation considered that to establish a work programme that would be objective and clear on what Members would like to achieve within the scope and mandate of the CRTA, it was important to 
highlight the following points.  First, the factua l reports prepared by the Secretariat would cover 
RTAs that had already been subject to the procedures of the RTA TM.  El Salvador considered that it 
did not make any sense to consider RTAs which ha d not been examined individually, for a general 
discussion as provided in the proposal.  Second, an y intention or concept aiming at establishing 
standards or disciplines for RTAs through the work  programme should be eliminated.  Such an 
objective could only be achieved through an ame ndment of the respective WTO Agreements.  The 
proposal stated that it could help "to review pract ices" related to the deve lopment of RTAs and he 
asked what was to be understood by this.  Thir d, as a consequence, the outcome of the work 
programme developed in the CRTA should not have a retroactive effect on the legal status of the 
agreements in force to date.  He considered it im portant to express his dele gation's observations on the 
proposed work programme led by Australia and ot her co-sponsors, so that it would benefit all 
Members and contribute to the objectives of the WTO. 
50. The representative of Thailand thanked Aust ralia and the co-sponsors for presenting the 
proposal.  Thailand welcomed the proposal as it coul d help to increase Members' understanding of the 
relationship between RTAs and the multilateral trad ing system.  His delegation therefore considered 
that the proposal could be a good basis for further discussion.   
51. The representative of South Africa thanked Aust ralia and co-sponsors for the introductory 
comments.  She associated her delegation with the statements made by Ghana, on behalf of the 
African Group, and St. Lucia, on behalf of the ACP Group.  As noted previously, her delegation 
supported any initiative aiming at strengthening the regular work of the Committee, as well as at 
adding value to its work programme and the WTO as a whole, in accordance with its mandate.  The 
proposal had some positive elements, which could l ead to a constructive transparency process.  
However, she agreed with Ghana, that the fundament al issues raised should be first clarified before 
this language could gain widespread support for the Ministerial Conference.  She also emphasized the 
issue raised by other Members that the institutiona l relevance and mandate of the CTD could not and 
should not be ignored and that Members should try to find a way to incorpor ate these issues in any 
work programme going forward.  South Africa had several comments to seek  clarity on the language 
of the latest draft of the Ministerial Declaration, and the implications thereof, as well as to highlight 
some principles that should underpin these exercise and which should be reflected in any Ministerial 
language.  Her first set of queries regarded the chang es made to the original draft circulated at the 
meeting in September 2011, which ha d been transmitted to her capita l.  The second sentence of the 
proposal referred to: "submitting re levant information in a timely manner" and asked the proponents  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 17 
 
 
  to explain where the language came from and why th ey believed it was relevant to the proposal.  Her 
delegation did not consider this la nguage was necessary or appropriate, in particular in the context of 
a Ministerial Declaration.  The wording precedin g this text: "Members' continued efforts" was 
sufficient to capture Members' oblig ations in this regard as it already implied that information was to 
be submitted in a timely manner, pursuant to Members' continued efforts.   
52. Secondly, there was a change in the language re garding the Secretariat's factual report.  The 
current text read: "Members would be assisted by factual reports to be prepared by the Secretariat", which differed from the original draft.  She noted that Australia in its presentation had assured that 
factual presentations would be the basis for the work and would fall within th e existing mandate of the 
Committee.  However, to her delegation the new wo rding could imply that further documents would 
assist this process and was thus unclear what wa s envisaged.  She also said that the descriptive 
cross-cutting elements and trends had been omitted fr om the wording in the latest draft.  She asked 
whether the proponents could explain the reasons behi nd these changes.  Thirdly, she agreed that the 
language of the mandate contained in document WT/L/127 should be maintained and therefore 
believed that the Ministerial language should stat e that the "work programme could help Members 
reflect on the systematic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system".  The rest of the sentence which read "and discuss practices that can  help further the objectives of the multilateral 
trading system" was vague and could create dive rgences among Members, as to specifically what 
practices were to be discussed.  This was along the lines of the concerns of other Members regarding 
the creation of new norms, standard, templates or RT A disciplines.  She remarked on India's concerns 
about the purpose of the proposal and was interest ed in knowing how the work programme would be 
taken forward post-MC9.  She also noted that in  their presentations, several proponents referred to a 
long-term work programme envisaging long-run goals that would set the agenda for the coming years.  
She was interested in knowing the nature of  such a work programme beyond MC9.   
53. Her delegation had listened to the assurances of  the proponents to address Members' concerns 
and believed it was critical that three essential principles should be emphasized in any language 
mandating this exercise.  First, the objective of  any new work programme would be to launch a 
factual-based exercise in the CRTA based upon factua l presentations prepared by the Secretariat and 
would serve to highlight trends and cross-cutting is sues of interest of Members in the interest of 
transparency.  Second the exercise would not prej udge existing negotiations or create new rules nor 
affect existing norms or disciplines in the WTO agreements or lead to the creation of new models or 
benchmarks.  The proponents might have to high light in the proposal that the exercise would not 
ultimately lead to any value judgment with respect to  the substance, legality or compliance status of 
any particular RTA with WTO rules but mainly with the view to enhancing transparency and 
understanding key trends among RTAs.  Third, the exercise would not affect Members' rights and 
obligations under the WTO Agreem ents to notify to the relevant fora where such RTAs had 
historically been presented and examined under th e existing WTO rules.  Following the concerns 
expressed by the African group, ACP group, Egypt, India and others, the terms of reference of the 
CTD had to be respected.  Critically, consideration of  development-related issues in the context of the 
CTD, had to be given due and e qual consideration.  She noted th at the proponents had referred to 
"development aspects of RTAs" in the Ministeria l language;  however respecting the mandate and 
terms of reference of the CTD would ensure that Members would be able to consider how certain 
provisions negotiated in RTAs would impact third c ountries striving to meet their development goals.  
Finally, it would be beneficial to discuss the parame ters of any ultimate work programme as well as to 
respect the terms of reference of the work of the CTD so that all Members would be at ease with the 
proposal.  South Africa believed it was important that  all Members participated in defining the work 
programme, which would be ultimately by sanctioned by Ministers, including the incorporation of 
development-related concerns.  She said it was critical  to emphasise in any language put forward for 
Ministers that the exercise would not entail any legal implications or prescriptions on Members or prejudice or pre-empt the work in any Negotiating Gr oup but mainly be factual in nature and reflect 
the systemic implications of RTAs in conjuncti on with the multilateral trading system.  She looked WT/REG/M/63 
Page 18 
 
 
  forward to working with the proponents and other Me mbers in seeking clarity to her queries and in the 
incorporation of comments in the proposal.   
54. The representative of the Un ited States thanked the co-spons ors for the proposal and the 
consultations that had been held, as well as for including what his delegation viewed as some 
important changes.  There was, in particular, the recognition of the importance of the extensive 
information made available on RTAs pursuant to th e TM, which had made it in his delegation's view 
an appealing, positive and reasonable proposal.  His delegation remained very interested in 
undertaking work in this area of growing importa nce, and looked forward as opportunities arose to 
working with other interested Members. 
55. The representative of Nigeria thanked Australia for presenting the proposal on behalf of the 
co-sponsors.  He associated his delegation with th e statements made by Ghana, on behalf of the 
African Group, and St. Lucia, on behalf of the ACP Group.  He had listened carefully to the issues that had been raised regarding the mandates and functions of the CTD and CRTA, which he believed 
should not be mixed.  Issues regarding RTAs notifie d under the Enabling Clause had also been raised.  
Ghana had also raised some questions that required cl arification.  To that end, he agreed that there 
was a need for a balanced work programme that would incorporate development into the proposal.  
56. The representative of Cuba thanked Australia fo r the proposal and for the discussions they 
had had during consultations within  the group of Latin American countries.  She noted that some of 
her delegation's concerns, as well as those of other Me mbers, had not been taken into account.  Cuba 
believed that the text of the proposal was still too broa d, which could lead to different ambiguities.  In 
that sense, many delegations had already expressed their concerns.  She said that the proposal should 
not aim at establishing new disciplines, but that this was not clear from the text.  Her delegation 
would appreciate it if some more work could be done  in this respect.  There were also other aspects 
that were not treated such as the relevance of the CTD regarding RTAs.  As also mentioned on 
previous occasions, given that the Doha programme  was going through a critical time and with many 
pending issues of priority interest for developing coun tries, Cuba considered that the work programme 
contained in the proposal was not a priority nor relevant at this time. 
57. The representative of Tanzania thanked Austra lia and other co-sponsors for the proposal on a 
work programme.  She said that it was true that the proposal had some positive merits, but believed it 
required further work for improvement.  For exampl e, it did not include any language on special and 
differential treatment for LDCs.  From the LDC' s view, the absence of such language proved that 
there was little consensus on the proposal.  Tanzan ia therefore supported the statements made by 
Ghana, on behalf of the African Group, and St. Lucia, on behalf of the ACP Group, as well as Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa and India.   
58. The representative of Kuwait thanked Australia  and other co-sponsors for the proposal.  The 
proposal omitted the role and the work programme of  the CTD, therefore his delegation supported the 
statement made by Egypt, India, China and others. 
B.III. P ROPOSAL FOR 8TH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE FROM ARGENTINA  
59. The representative of Argentina said matters c oncerning RTAs had become of great relevance 
to the WTO.  This was reflected in the World Tr ade Report 2011 and the proposal just discussed.  He 
said that the MC8 represented an important opportunity  to refer to certain systemic issues of RTAs 
affecting developing countries.  The rules on RT As as currently drafted displayed an imbalance 
between trade in goods and trade in services in the case of agreements concluded between developed 
and developing countries.  Indeed , Paragraph 3 of Article V of th e GATS provided for flexibility for 
developing countries while Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 did not.  It was thus in the interest of 
developing countries to have RTA rules that were  balanced, to be able to better adjust their  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 19 
 
 
  development needs in the case of merchandise trade.  The harmonization of RTA rules in trade in 
goods and services implied, for instance, that the co ncept of "substantially all the trade" would not 
apply in the same way to developed and developing  countries.  A similar consideration could be 
applied to the implementation periods of RTAs (i .e. the liberalization phase-out periods).  This 
concern had been expressed by other Members in  the past and was the reason why Argentina had 
suggested to include the proposed text in the Minist erial Declaration.  He looked forward to listening 
to Members' comments and opinions regarding the proposal. 
60. The representative of the Plurinational State of  Bolivia thanked the delegation of Argentina 
for presenting the proposal and for raising a topic that was of great interest for many developing 
countries.  The Plurinational State of Bolivia s upported this proposal, which had tried to include 
special and differential treatment for developi ng countries in GATT Article XXIV to guarantee 
additional flexibilities.  The Plurinational State of  Bolivia believed there were enough elements to 
re-examine Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 to better  take into account the development aspects of 
RTAs between developing and de veloped countries, such as the difference in the level of 
development, production and export capacity, and competitiveness.  The current WTO rules on RTAs, 
including Article XXIV of GATT 1994, did not cons ider any special and differential treatment for 
developing country parties to North-South agreem ents, although such treatment was a fundamental 
component of the legal structure of the WTO.  The Enabling Clause provided a more flexible framework for South-South RTAs but it was not a pplicable to North-South RTAs.  Multilateral rules 
should not set limitations on the economic integration efforts of developing countries, which were a 
key component of their development strategies.  Although, Article XXIV of the GATT provided for  
de facto  flexibility due to the ambiguity of its language and permissible practices, in particular during 
the GATT years, such flexibility benefitted all Members and no distinction was made between 
developing and developed countries.  Therefore such de facto  flexibility could not constitute nor 
replace provisions regarding special and differential treatment that were lega lly binding, operational 
and efficient.  The Plurinational State of Bolivia therefore believed that Argentina's proposal was very 
important in particular for developing countries as it tried to re-establish an order of priorities to be 
examined in the CRTA.  His delegation supported th e inclusion of the proposal in the Ministerial 
Declaration that would be adopted in December.      
61. The representative of Costa Rica thanked Argentin a for its proposal and took the opportunity 
to ask for clarification.  Since Argentina w as proposing additional flexibilities for developing 
countries, Costa Rica wished to know which type s of flexibilities it considered necessary.  For 
instance, Central America had harmonized 97% of its tariff lines to form a customs union.  He asked whether lower coverage in an RTA or a lower le vel of harmonization in a customs union were the 
flexibilities Argentina was referring to.  He also asked how these types of flexibilities were to be 
understood with respect to the concept of "substan tially all the trade".  Costa Rica had observed that 
in the case of RTAs involving developing coun tries (excluding emergi ng and least developed 
economies) the difference in the level of develo pment had been taken into account and certain 
asymmetries in terms of liberalization commitment s had also been permitted.  He asked whether 
Argentina considered that such practices should be taken into account and that emerging economies 
should not enjoy the same benefits as other developing economies.   Argentina had also indicated that 
the number of agreements that covered goods an d services were increasing and that the WTO should 
consider this reality and adapt its rules.  His country had signed RTAs with almost 40 WTO Members 
and had noted that RTAs included more and more  provisions related to investments, government 
procurement, competition, trade facilitation, labour standards and environmental protection.  He asked 
if Argentina was considering an initiative aiming to reach a multilateral agreement in these areas, 
which were becoming more important in the WTO and RTAs.  Finally, he highlighted that RTAs 
were not compulsory.  Some countries were more ac tive than others and had employed this tool to 
meet their needs for trade liberalization.  He wondered whether it was appropriate for the WTO to 
seek harmonization or a single formula for success in this area.
 WT/REG/M/63 
Page 20 
 
 
  62. The representative of Switzerland thanked Ar gentina for its proposal to include a new 
Paragraph in the Ministerial Declaration on th e interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT. 
Argentina's communication had raised an issue that had been widely discussed in the NGR.  While his 
delegation regretted that the nego tiations, including those in RTA rules, were not moving on, he did 
not think it was up to the CRTA to decide upon the interpretation of the existing rules in Article XXIV of the GATT.  With respect to th e substance of the proposal, Switzerland considered 
that Article XXIV currently provided the necessar y flexibilities for developing countries to conduct 
negotiations on RTAs.  While he agreed with Arge ntina that developing aspects were an important 
component of the Doha development programme, no new decision by Ministers was needed to help 
Members interpret Article XXIV in this respect.  Indeed the issues of special and differential 
treatment (S&D) and of less than full reciprocity were already foreseen in Article XXIV because Part 
4 of the GATT included S&D treatment provisi ons in Articles XXXVI-XXXVIII in favour of 
developing countries and which applied entirely to th e GATT.  This approach was similar to the way 
in which S&D provisions were included in other WTO agreements.  For example, Article XXXVI.8 
stated that "developed contracting parties do not exp ect reciprocity for commitments made by them in 
trade negotiations to reduce or remove tariffs or  other barriers to the trade of less-developed 
contracting parties".  Also in Article XXXVII.1,  developed country Member s were "to the fullest 
extent possible to accord high priority to the reduction and elimination of barriers to products 
currently or potentially of particular export inte rest" to developing country Members and were to 
"refrain from introducing, or increasing the incide nce of, customs duties or non-tariff import barriers 
on products currently or potentially of particular export interest" to developing country Members.  He 
stressed that the parties to RTAs, whether developing  or developed, were free to negotiate the content 
and shape of their agreements a long as they were compatible with WTO rules in Article XXIV of the 
GATT.  If a developing country as a negotiating party to an RTA considered that such an agreement 
was not in its economic, social and development interest, no one could force it to be party to such an 
agreement, unlike the multilateral trade negotiati ons in which all WTO Members were required to 
participate.  This was also the reason why in th e multilateral trading system it was important that 
developing countries, in particular LDCs, be allowe d to take advantage of special and differential 
treatment provisions in their commitments.  Thus  the difference in nature between RTAs and the 
multilateral trading system explained, in his delegati on's view, why there had not been so far a special 
and differential treatment clause directly included und er Article XXIV.  Finally, he said that issues of 
a systemic nature like that raised by Argentina shou ld be dealt with in the NGR rather than in the 
CRTA.  Based on these considerations, Switzerland c ould not support the proposal by Argentina to 
include in the Ministerial Declaration a Paragr aph to grant additional flexibilities to developing 
countries beyond those granted by the existing GATT rules. 
63. The representative of Brazil said his delegation supported the proposal  by Argentina.  
64. The representative of El Salvador thanked Ar gentina for its proposal for the MC8 which 
aimed at harmonizing Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 w ith current WTO provisions in respect of the 
development aspects of RTAs.  He had consulte d with his capital and had a few questions.  
El Salvador and other developing countries had made significant progress in increasing trade and trading activity following trade liberalization with stra tegic partners.  RTAs had played a key role in 
his country's trade policy and integration process into  world trade.   He believed that while the 
proposal was in favor of developing countries, it went in the opposite direction regarding the 
clarification of the provisions in Article XXIV of  the GATT 1994.  The provision on the "Territorial 
Application - Frontier Traffic - Customs unions and Free Trade Areas" was in itself a very particular provision that allowed different interpretations and applications by Members.  He recalled that the 
WTO Appellate Body in the Turkey-Textiles ca se had reminded Members that GATT Contracting 
Parties and WTO Members could not agree on how to interpret the provision, that RTAs dealing with 
establishment of a Customs Union or Free Trad e Area should remove customs duties and other 
restrictive regulations with respect to "substantially  all the trade between the constituent territories".  
Argentina's proposal was closely related to the flexibility to be applied when interpreting the  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 21 
 
 
  provision when one of the parties to an RTA was a developing country.  He asked Argentina what 
positive experiences it had had with respect to the implementation of Article V of the GATS during 
RTA negotiations.  Based on that experience, he  asked Argentina how Article XXIV would work 
from both a legal and trade perspective when provisi ons similar to those in GATS Article V were to 
be included.  El Salvador still had some doubts on whether the proposal would shed light on the 
interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.  In  that sense, his delegation considered that the 
mandate for the Doha negotiations on rules might be a better channel to discuss in depth ideas like 
those presented by Argentina, and to better understand the effects of the proposal from a legal and 
trade perspective on RTAs, as well as their relationship with the WTO.  
65. The representative of the European Union tha nked Argentina for having put forward the 
proposal and for the explanations provided.  While  the proposal represented an opportunity to make a 
practical recommendation without touching the Doha  negotiations regarding RTAs as stated in 
Paragraph 6, his delegation consider ed this proposal was directly relevant for the DDA negotiations.  
As some other delegations had already pointed out , earlier this year a similar proposal had been 
discussed in the NGR.  The EU believed that the pro posal should be discussed only in the NGR.      
66. The representative of Colombia said that to his delegation RTAs responded to the objectives 
and interests of the parties that had decided to sign them.  Their coverage, degr ee of liberalization, and 
commitments in different sectors also corresponded to  the trade realities and needs of the parties.  
Colombia therefore considered that it was not ti mely for the WTO to regulate the development scope 
of agreements that were negotiated by the parties.  He thanked Argentina for its initiative, but shared 
many of the concerns expressed by Switzerland.        
67. The representative of the United States expressed his appreciation to Argentina for presenting 
the proposal.  His delegation continued to believe in the benefits of Article XXIV in its current 
formulation and that RTAs that complied with it as currently written were important in driving trade 
liberalization which contributed to  economic growth and development.   His delegation believed that 
high-calibre trade agreements were important in  paving the way for the political will necessary to 
undertake sometimes difficult pro-trad e domestic reforms needed to driv e trade liberalization.  Such 
reforms benefitted not only RTA partners but the multilateral trading system as a whole, thus 
contributing to economic growth a nd development.  In light of th e benefits of Article XXIV, the 
United States had serious concerns that Argentin a's proposal was specifically meant to reduce the 
ambition and weaken commitments in  trade liberalization in RTAs.  Over the years, various proposals 
to weaken Article XXIV had been discussed in th e NGR with no consensus reached.  His delegation 
viewed the proposal as a departure from liberalizati on that was needed to f acilitate new trade flows 
and economic growth and development.  To trul y deliver on a promise of development, Members 
needed to be expanding trade liberalization, not  retreating from it.  For these reasons, the United 
States was not in a position to support the adoption of a Ministerial Decision outlined in the proposal.         
68. The representative of Canada thanked Argentina for the interesting proposal.  As mentioned 
earlier, Canada supported high-quality, comprehens ive and transparent RTAs.  Thus like the U.S., 
Canada could not support a proposal that would provide additional flexibility in the negotiation of 
RTAs without a specific understanding of the flexib ility that was being sought.  Moreover, Canada 
considered that the proper venue for negotiating a dditional flexibility was the NGR and not through a 
Ministerial Declaration.    
69. The representative of Japan thanked Argen tina for proposing a text for Ministers' 
consideration.  She associated her delegation with th e statements by Switzerland, the EU, the U.S. and 
Canada.  Japan had, in the past, experienced  economic development through continuous trade 
liberalization.  In Japan's view, RTAs played a significant role in promoting economic development 
through increased opportunities generated by RTAs.  It  was clear that the aim of RTAs was further 
trade liberalization through obligations and commitments under that RTA.  For Members' WT/REG/M/63 
Page 22 
 
 
  information, she referred to Article 1 of the Treaty of Asuncion by which MERCOSUR was 
established.  Nevertheless, as it was often the case  for an RTA with a reference to development 
aspects such as economic cooperation among contracti ng parties, developing Members were free to 
seek flexibilities within that RTA but of course without undermining the provisions of GATT 
Article XXIV.  It was not clear what was sought by  the proposal, in other words which type of RTAs 
Argentina considered contributed to developmen t.  However, Japan re mained open to further 
discussions on the proposal.   
70. The representative of the Republic of Korea tha nked Argentina for its proposal.  She shared 
the view of previous speakers that development i ssues were very important in the DDA negotiations. 
Argentina's proposal was related to the Rules nego tiations.  She therefore considered that the CRTA 
was not the proper forum to address this issue. 
71. The representative of Ecuador thanked Argen tina for its proposal contained in document 
WT/REG/W/65.  Ecuador considered that the pr oposal aimed at ensuring legal coherence within 
RTAs, to which they attached great importance.  His delegation therefore supported the proposal to be 
included in the Ministerial Declaration.  
72. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked Ar gentina for its proposal and presentation.  
The proposal suggested that additional flexibiliti es should be considered for developing country 
Members when they were parties to RTAs under GA TT Article XXIV.  In her delegation's view, this 
was a case of clarifying and improving disciplines under the existing WTO provisions applying to 
RTAs which were part of the DDA and were curr ently negotiated in the NGR.  She shared the 
concerns expressed by previous speakers that the CR TA might not be the proper forum to discuss this 
issue.      
73. The representative of Singapore echoed the view s of previous speakers such as the United 
States, Canada, the Republic of Korea and Chinese Ta ipei and voiced his difficulties in supporting the 
proposal.  
74. The representative of Pakistan said the proposal  by Argentina was constructive and deserved 
consideration.  Members had previewed in the pr oposal by Australia and other co-sponsors countries 
the problem of lack of balance between the vari ous stipulations of GA TT Article XXIV and the 
Enabling Clause, and for that matter the CRTA and CTD, etc.  He said harmonization was an ideal to be sought for.  He found the proposal by Arge ntina constructive as well as prescient in that it 
addressed an important systemic issue.  As for the concerns regarding what additional flexibilities 
were being sought, they were worth discussing a nd should be spelled out.  At the same time, 
Argentina had shed light on the GATS which had clearer language on flexibilities for developing 
countries.  Harmonization or a greater balance coul d be brought.  He supported this argument and 
further discussion of the proposal.  It would be desirable if it would be forwarded to the MC8.    
75. The representative of Egypt thanked Argentina for putting forward the proposal.  He had 
listened carefully to the discussion and his delegation had a question about the process.  As far as his 
delegation was concerned, the Chairman of the Ge neral Council and the Director General of the WTO 
had requested Members to put forward their proposal s within the Committees.  He considered this 
proposal fell under the "Gentleman's Agreement" agreed  in the General Council.  During the meeting, 
Members had mentioned that the proposal was better suited for the NGR.  As far as he understood, the 
NGR had suspended its work in April or May and th erefore he asked Members what should have been 
the proper course of action for Argentina to presen t its proposal and where it should have done so.  
Since the NGR was not convening any more si nce April, the only place was in the CRTA. 
76. The representative of Argentina thanked all the Members for their questions and suggestions. 
He would forward them to his capital to get the respective answers.  In the meantime and as a  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 23 
 
 
  preliminary answer he said that certain delegations had maintained that the proposal sought to weaken 
or undermine Article XXIV.  This was far from the truth.  The proposal sought to strengthen 
Article XXIV and not to restrain the freedom of countries who sought to participate in RTAs.  He 
again thanked all the Members for their questions and said his delegation was open to further discuss 
the proposal in any forum. 
77. The Chairman noted that there were two proposal s on the table in view of the MC8 and that at 
that stage there was no consensus on either of them .  If the situation remained as it was, MC8 would 
not be in the position to take a decision on RTAs, which according to the World Trade Report 2011 
and other sources of information represented one of the major challenges facing the multilateral 
system.  This, in his view, would be troublesome. For his part, he would do everything he could to find consensual language to have a presentation at the MC8 on this issue.  He was ready to discuss 
with the proponents of th e proposals to see whether there was a means to finding a solution through 
consultations.  He reserved the right to consult all the delegations that had participated to see what can 
be done.  
C. A
DOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT (2011)  OF THE CRTA  TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL  
78. The Chairman said that a draft of the Comm ittee's Annual Report (201 1) to the General 
Council was distributed in document WT/REG/W/64.  In his fax of 24 October 2011, he had asked 
delegations to submit any preliminary comments on th e Report to the Secretariat in advance of the 
current meeting.  He had received a number of comments from delegations.  Those from Chinese 
Taipei and China corrected some minor factual inac curacies which had been incorporated.  He had 
also received a letter from the delegations of Chin a, Egypt and India with detailed comments which 
had been distributed at their request as document WT/R EG/W/67.  In an effort to facilitate the work 
of Members, he had asked the S ecretariat to circulate a revised copy of the draft annual report 
reflecting corrections and  comments.  This vers ion had been sent to Members by fax on 3 November 
and was also available as a room document.  He recalled that the Committee had been unable to adopt 
its annual report to the General Council in 2010.  For the 2011 Report, he had worked with the 
Secretariat to produce a report that focused solely on the activities of the CRTA for the current year to 
produce a streamlined report acceptable to all Member s.  He hoped that dele gations were willing to 
work together so that the 2011 Report could be speed ily adopted.  He suggested moving into informal 
mode and going through the draft Annual Report sec tion by section in order to agree on the changes 
to be made.  The Committee would then move back to formal mode to agree formally on the changes.   
79. The representative of Egypt recalled that in  2010 the Committee's discussions on the annual 
report were structured in a similar way and hi s capital-based colleagues had wondered what had 
happened during the informal mode.  He added that although there we re no specific rules of procedure 
regarding the informal mode, his delegation was w illing to follow the Chairman's suggestion.   
80. The Committee moved into informal mode. 
81. Following Members' discussions, the Chairman adopted the CRTA annual report contained in 
document WT/REG/W/64 dated 24 October 2011. 
D. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
D.I S TATUS REPORT ON THE COMMITTEE 'S WORK - NON-NOTIFIED RTA S 
82. Under this Agenda Item, the Chairman provided Members with an update on the 
implementation of the TM.  He informed the Comm ittee that 37 early announcements had been posted 
on the WTO website (excluding those that had been  subsequently notified).  He thanked those 
Members who had submitted information in line with  the requirements of the TM and encouraged WT/REG/M/63 
Page 24 
 
 
  others to do the same.  He also reminded Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the 
status of early announcements.     
83. With regard to the preparation of the factua l presentations under the remit of the CRTA, he 
said that in the case of RTAs involving only WTO Members, there were 23 RT As for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods an d services separately.  He recalled that at the 
Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Memb ers had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the TM.  Thus, factua l presentations on a further 35 RTAs involving 
non-Members were to be prepared, with priority fo r those RTAs notified since the adoption of the TM 
on 14 December 2006.  Data requests for RTAs notifie d since the adoption of the TM had been sent to 
the relevant parties. 
84. The Chairman then turned to the issue of non-notif ied RTAs.  He recalled that in an effort to 
promote the transparency of such RTAs, Members ha d agreed during the last meeting in June to 
circulate a list of non-notified RTAs, which had been verified by their parties as being in force.  An updated list which included RTAs which had appeared  in factual presentations issued up to October 
2011, had been recently circulated as document WT/REG/W/66.  There were four RTAs that had been 
removed from the previous list following communications from some of the Parties that these RTAs were not in force.  He urged other parties involved to make every effort to notify their RTAs or to 
inform the Secretariat of a change in their status as  soon as possible.  In this respect, he said he had 
just received a letter from Peru.  He proposed that the document be updated and circulated in advance 
of CRTA meetings as necessary.  He then asked Members if they had any comment. 
85. The representative of Peru was pleased to info rm Members about his country's intention to 
notify the Trade Integration Agreement with Mexi co signed on 6 April 2011 and the Free Trade 
Agreement with Chile in force since 1 March 20 09, for which consultations with the respective 
Parties were being held.  With regard to the fo llowing agreements: Peru-Mexico, Peru-Cuba and Peru-
MERCOSUR, his delegation would wait for a response to a letter from Peru to the Chairman.    
86. The representative of South Africa updated Members with regard to the state of play 
regarding its three non-notified RTAs mentioned in the document  WT/REG/W/66, namely South 
Africa - Malawi;  South Africa - Mozambique;  and South Africa -Zimbabwe.  She had received some 
updated information from her capital and had already tr ansmitted the information to the Secretariat.  
She informed Members that these agreements had been negotiated by the South African government, 
pre-democracy, and before the new dispensation had co me into effect in 1994.  It was not clear to 
what extent these agreements were still in force.  It was quite possible that some might have been 
overtaken by the SADC Trade Protocol, whic h might well take precedence and render these 
agreements obsolete.  Her capital-based colleagues we re investigating the extent of current use of 
these agreements, and whether they were indeed in force.  She would keep the CRTA informed of the 
outcome in this regard.  Her delegation was commi tted to respecting its obligations and intended to 
abide by the appropriate notification requirements, should these be required in respect of these three 
RTAs.  For Members’ further information, she indi cated that the SADC Protocol on Trade had been 
notified under WT/REG176/N/1/Rev.1 on 27 August 2004, and considered on the basis of a factual 
preparation prepared by the Secretariat, at the 46th Session of the CRTA on 14-15 May 2007. 
87. The representative of Egypt said that the document on the status report of non-notified RTAs 
(WT/REG/W/66) made a reference to a number of RTAs to which Egypt was a party and designated 
these agreements as having appeared in Factual Pres entations issued up to October 2011 and indicated 
that they had yet to be notified to the WTO.  The nine agreements that the Secretariat had indicated that Egypt was a party to, were agreements between  developing countries falling within the ambit of 
the Enabling Clause.  It was therefore not quite cl ear why these RTAs had repeatedly appeared in the 
CRTA's status report.  He also asked whether any of the factual presentations referred to made an 
indication that these nine RTAs were to be notified to the CRTA on the basis of Article XXIV of the  WT/REG/M/63 
 Page 25 
 
 
  GATT 1994.  According to Paragraph 20 of the TM any Member might bring to the relevant WTO 
body information on any RTA that it considered should  be submitted to Members in the framework of 
the TM.  It was clear therefore that information on a non-notified RTA should be brought to the 
relevant WTO body.  In the case of agreements involving Egypt, he did not believe that the CRTA 
was the relevant body to have received any notific ation under the Enabling Clause with respect to 
eight of the RTAs, but rather this exercise should be left entirely to the CTD to deal with in 
accordance with its procedures and pursuant to its  prescribed role under the TM, being the body 
entrusted with the implementation of the TM for all RTAs to be notified under Paragraph 2(c) of the 
Enabling Clause.  Furthermore, the bilateral RTAs referred to, some of which dated back to 1991, had 
been superseded as a result of the implementation of the Pan-Arab Free Trade Agreement which had 
been notified to the WTO in 2007 according to the pr ocedures of the TM.  Egypt’s trade with Jordan, 
Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria and Tunisia was thus governed by the aforementioned agreement and all preferences rece ived or granted to these Members and non-WTO 
Members were currently governed by the relevant provisions of the Pan-Arab Free Trade Agreement 
which had been notified to the WTO.  He theref ore requested the omission of these nine RTAs from 
the CRTA status report on non-notified RTAs. 
88. The representative of the Secretariat took the floor to provide further details on the 
preparation of factual presentations.  She said that in the case of Agreements between WTO Members, 
the situation was as follows:  for EU-Egypt, go ods, joint comments had been received from the 
parties, but there were still some data issues to be resolved with Egypt.  The Secretariat had contacted 
the Egyptian authorities and was awaiting their response.  In the case of four RTAs –US-Bahrain, goods and services;  CAFTA-DR, goods and servi ces;  US-Oman, goods and services;  China-
Singapore, goods and services;  the factual presentations  had been sent to the parties (in all cases back 
in 2009), but no comments had been received.  Fo r EU-South Africa, goods and EU-Korea, goods and 
services, data had been received and the factual pr esentations were currently being drafted.  For 
Turkey-Chile, goods;   Colombia-Mexico, and New Zealand-Hong Kong, China, both goods and 
services, the factual presentations had been sent to the Parties for comments.  These agreements were 
expected to be considered at the next CRTA me eting in March 2012.  For Panama-Honduras, goods 
and services, data had been received from Panama  only.  For El Salvador-Honduras-Chinese Taipei, 
goods and services, data had been received from Ch inese Taipei and some data had been received 
from El Salvador and Honduras.  In the case of Ko rea-India, services, some data had been received 
from India.  For Turkey-Jordan, goods,  data had been received from Turkey only.  For Japan-India, 
goods and services, and EFTA-Albania, goods, data w as due by 24 and 25 November, respectively.  
For Guatemala-Chinese Taipei, goods and servi ces, data was due by 28 November.  For 
Canada-Colombia, and Peru-Korea,  both goods and services, data was due by 16 and 27 December, 
respectively
.  For India-Malaysia and Korea-ASEAN, both services,  data was scheduled to be 
submitted by 24 January and 6 February 2012, respectively .   
89. As for the RTAs involving non-Members, the situation was as follows:  for ASEAN-China, 
services, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties in February 2010, but no comments had 
been received.  For Iceland-Faeroe Islands, goods and services,  comments had been received but some 
data was still pending from the Faeroe Islands.  For EU-Bosnia Herzegovina , goods;  EFTA-Lebanon, 
goods;  EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services;  Turk ey-Syria, goods, CEFTA Enlargement, goods;  
Ukraine-Azerbaijan, goods; Ukraine-Belarus, goods ; Ukraine-Russian Federation, goods;  Ukraine-
Tajikistan, goods;  Ukraine-Kaza khstan, goods;  Ukraine-Turkmenistan, goods;  Ukraine-Uzbekistan, 
goods;  and the Common Economic Zo ne, goods, data was not comple te.  For EFTA-Serbia, goods, 
data was due by 16 November. 
90. With regards to RTAs for which not all parties had ratified the agreement yet, the Secretariat 
would wait before the agreement had entered into  force for all the parties before starting the 
preparation of factual presentations.  This was th e case of seven agreements:  ASEAN-Japan, goods;  
Australia-ASEAN-New Zealand, goods and service s;  EU-Cameroon, goods;  EFTA-Peru, goods; WT/REG/M/63 
Page 26 
 
 
  EU-Cote d'Ivoire, goods;  EFTA-Colombia, goods; and EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, goods.  She 
urged the parties to notify the Secretariat when th eir respective agreement w ould enter into force for 
all the parties.  She also urged all Members to co mply with the deadlines in order to adhere to the 
CRTA's work programme. 
91. The Chairman said that it was clear from the Secr etariat's statement that the Committee was at 
risk of significant slippage in its work programme of consideration of RTAs under the TM.  Since it 
was generally acknowledged that the TM had been a success so far, it was in the interest of all 
Members to ensure that deadlines were respected and the work pr ogramme under the TM proceeded 
as planned.  He was confident that the Committee coul d rely on the cooperation of all Members in this 
regard. 
D.II. E CONOMIC INTEGRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHINA AND CHILE, SERVICES  
92. D.II.  (The minutes of the consideration of the Agreement listed under agenda items D.II- are 
being distributed as separate documents). 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
93. Under this item, the Chairman raised two issues.  The first concerned the technical 
cooperation activities that had been conducted in 2011 in the area of RTAs.  He recalled that at the 
Committee's 32nd Session, it had been agreed to regularly review the RTA-related Technical Assistance activities undertaken by the Secretariat.  He gave the floor to a representative of the Secretariat to present an account of the technical assistance activities carried out in 2011 and planned 
for 2012. 
94. The representative of the Secretariat  said the CRTA Secretariat conducted 13 Technical 
Assistance (TA) activities in 2011, listed in the docum ent that had been distributed.  Eleven activities 
were scheduled for 2012, seven of which were  regional trade policy courses and four were 
Geneva-based global courses.  Most  of the activities indicated in the table had been financed by the 
WTO regular budget, donations by Member countries, or by the Global Trust Fund for activities under 
the Doha Development Agenda.  The objectives of the activities listed varied from raising awareness 
on RTA dynamics in global trade, to training and advising government officials on WTO rules and procedures on RTAs, including the TM.  Virtually all TA activities were addressed to participants from broad regional groupings.  Their underlying obj ective was to contribute to the development of 
RTAs that were beneficial to their members and th at complemented the objectives of the WTO.  Since 
Doha, the RTA Section had been entrusted with the additional TA task of clarifying issues related to 
the negotiations on RTA rules to WTO Members requesting such aid.  
95. With respect to the second issue, the Chairman  informed Members of  the proposed meeting 
schedule for the CRTA in 2012, which was as follo ws:  20-21 March, 19-20 June, 18-19 September, 
and 20-21 November. 
96. The Committee took note of the comments made. 
__________