RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG/M/57 
24 June 2010 
 (10-3464) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Fifty-seventh Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 14 JUNE 2010 
 
Chairman:  Mr. A. Suescum (Panama) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The 57th Session of the Committee on Regional Trad e Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the 
Committee) was convened in Airgram WTO/ AIR/3553/Rev.1, dated 4 June 2010.  
2. The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Committee's proposed work for 2010:  Cross cutting issues – Communication from 
  Australia;  Canada;  China;  Hong Kong, Ch ina;  India;  Japan;  New Zealand;  and 
  the Republic of Korea (WT/REG/W/54/Rev.1) 
C. Consideration of Regiona l Trade Agreements (RTAs) 
I. Status report on the Committee's work 
II. Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and the Philippines, goods 
and services 
III. Free Trade Agreement between Australia and Chile, goods and services 
D.  Other Business  
3. 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. COMMITTEE ’S PROPOSED WORK FOR 2010:  CROSS CUTTING ISSUES COMMUNICATION FROM 
AUSTRALIA ;  CANADA ;  CHINA ;  HONG KONG, CHINA ;  INDIA ;  JAPAN ;  NEW ZEALAND , AND 
THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
4. Under Agenda Item B, the Chairman  said that the item had been added to the Agenda at 
request of the delegations of Austra lia;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  H ong Kong, China;  India;  Japan;  
New Zealand;  the Republic of Korea and the European Union.  The communication concerned a submission on cross cutting issues on RTAs co-sponsored by Australia;  Canada;  China;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  Japan;  New Zeala nd and the Republic of Korea (WT/REG/W/54/Rev.1, 
dated 11 June 2010).  Before turn ing to Item B, the Chairman info rmed the Committee of the informal 
consultations he had carried out upon the request of Members at the last CRTA.  Most Members had 
expressed the opinion that the proposal on horizont al studies had value in the context of the 
Transparency Mechanism.  Nonetheless, others had expressed the need for further clarification with 
regard to the objectives, process, and coverage of su ch an exercise before finding sufficient comfort to 
give their agreement to start the work.  At least one Member rema ined to be convinced that the 
objectives, process, and coverage, as had been proposed  so far, would give the cross cutting exercise 
some value added compared to the process of c onsidering individual agreem ents.  Other Members, WT/REG/M/57 
Page 2  
 
  although they saw value in the exercise, had expresse d concern on certain issues, such as what topics 
should be examined and in which order, the manner in which the covered issues would be dealt with, 
and whether the Secretariat had the resources to carry out a study of this nature.  Members wanted further assurances that the process of  carrying out horizontal studies would not represent an additional 
burden on Members, especially for those with smal l missions and ministries, and would not imply 
new notification obligations on Members, so as to al low for collection of the necessary data for such a 
study.  During the informal consultations, he had presented these concerns to the main proponents and 
mentioned that one frequent request was to put in wr iting the terms of reference for the exercise.  He 
believed that the proponents had started to prepare the document before he had touched base with 
them during consultations and that, during the prepar ation of the document, they had consulted widely 
with interested Members.  He then gave the fl oor to the co-sponsors of the document and those 
delegations that had asked to include this point in the Agenda, to be followed by other Members. 
5. The representative of Australia
 said that when the proposal on cross cutting issues on RTAs 
was circulated on 4 June 2010, it had been co-sponsor ed by Australia;  Canada;  Hong Kong, China;  
India;  New Zealand and the Republic of Korea.  A revised version of the document was available in 
the room.  The substance of the proposal remained the same, but Japan and China had been added as 
co-sponsors.  From the Australian perspective, th e Transparency Mechanism had been working well 
and was widely supported.  It had enabled Members to look at individual RTAs in detail and understand their characteristics.  She believed th e CRTA could add even more value on RTAs by 
looking at horizontal and  cross cutting issues.  The CRTA had a mandate to look at these issues and 
its role had become increasingly important as RTAs pr oliferated.  To illustrate such proliferation, she 
observed that when the CRTA undertook this work  in 2002, Australia had one FTA with New 
Zealand, whereas today it had six RTAs in force with New Zealand, the United States, Singapore, Thailand, Chile, and ASEAN-New Zealand;  the Agr eement with Chile was about  to be considered by 
the Committee.  Australia was also in the process of  negotiating or considering several other RTAs.  
Australia’s experience was not unique;  several Me mbers had been just as active on RTAs over the 
last decade.  For this reason, the co-sponsors had put  forward a proposal to resume and re-energise the 
CRTA’s work on horizontal and cross cutting elements  of RTAs.  This work would be done on the 
basis of factual and descriptive papers prepared by the Secretariat.  When it was created in 1996, the 
CRTA had been given a mandate to look at the syst emic implications of RTAs;  in 2002, Members 
had looked at issues such as rules of origin regi mes and coverage of RTAs on the basis of factual 
papers prepared by the Secretariat.  This work  had been suspended when the Negotiating Group on 
Rules (NGR) started looking at RTAs' issues as part of the Doha Round.  Recently, there had been a 
number of calls for this work to be resumed;  at the 7
th Ministerial Conference and the Trade Policy 
Review Body in January 2010, the CRTA Chairman ha d been instructed to consult on this issue, 
which he had done during informal consultations at the beginning of the year, and in the CRTA 
session in March.  When the idea for this work was discussed at the March meeting, several Members 
had expressed concerns, sought further clarification,  or requested a written paper.  The co-sponsors 
had responded to such requests with a proposal a nd had consulted widely with other interested 
Members to try to address their concerns.  The written proposal would not overlap or interfere with the work of the NGR on RTAs;  in fact, the form er Chairman of the NGR had noted on several 
occasions that this work would be constructive.  The CRTA would not be lo oking to create new legal 
rules or obligations, since only the NGR had a manda te to do that.  The horizontal study would not 
create  de facto  benchmarks, would be compre hensive and look at all issues in RTAs.  There would not 
be cherry-picking of some topics while ignoring others.  Finally, the work would be based on 
descriptive and factual papers by the Secretariat;  th ere would be no value judgments or legal analysis, 
and no singling out of particular Members or agre ements.  She concluded by thanking the former and 
current Chairpersons of the CRTA for their hard work and hoped to move the proposal forward. 
6. The representative of Canada
 thanked Australia for having highlighted the value and key 
aspects of the proposal.  The proposal fitted well  with Canada's overall objective of ensuring 
ambitious comprehensive RTAs with  broad coverage that benefited the multilateral trading system.   WT/REG/M/57 
 Page 3 
 
 
  She was of the view that the preparation of comprehensive papers on cross cutting elements of the 
many RTAs Members were dealing with would pr ovide valuable transparency improvements for 
Members of the CRTA with respect to all RTAs.  Th e key elements forming the basis of the proposal 
would allow for a pragmatic and objective approach  that would help guide Members on their RTAs 
obligations under the WTO.  She thanked the suppor ters of the proposal and more generally those 
who pursued high-quality agreements. 
7. The representative of New Zealand  stated that the transparency  of RTAs, their content and 
potential impact on the multilateral system, had always  been a priority for New Zealand.  With the 
Doha Round yet to be concluded, Members were in creasingly looking to bilateral or regional trade 
agreements to lower trade barriers.  Against th is background, the work of the CRTA had assumed 
renewed significance and it was important that Members continued to work to ensure RTAs were 
truly "building blocks" towards freer trade and e ffectively supported the multilateral system.  The 
CRTA's consideration of individual RTAs under the Transparency Mechanism had been very useful 
in helping Members to understand th e scope and impact of particular  agreements.  She believed there 
would be significant value in the Committee havi ng access to aggregated information about notified 
RTAs to help inform discussion about RTAs’ potentia l systemic impacts.  The tabled proposal would 
ask the Secretariat to collate information about how each issue listed in a factual presentation was 
dealt with across all Members’ notified RTAs.  Th is would build an overall picture of how RTAs 
currently function, and inform analysis or discussi on in the Committee of the impact of RTAs on the 
multilateral trading system.  The proposal specified  that the collation would not identify particular 
RTAs, undertake any analysis of the data collected, or  draw any legal or policy conclusions;  in fact, it 
was for Members and the Committee to analyse, discuss, and draw conclusions.  She agreed that the 
Secretariat should be given the flexibility to struct ure its work and the orde r in which issues were 
taken up.  She encouraged the Secretariat to draw  on existing published work on RTAs, including that 
by the OECD, in order to build on existing work, a nd to ensure the Secretariat’s resources be used 
most effectively.  New Zealand believed such work  would produce relevant and timely information to 
be used by Members and the Committee in ongoing discussions of the impact of RTAs on the 
multilateral system.  
8. The representative of Hong Kong, China  expressed full support to the call for the CRTA's 
further work on horizontal and cross cutting features of RTAs.  As RTAs had become more prevalent, 
there was an imminent need to explore how such agreements could contribut e to the strengthening of 
the multilateral trading system.  The proposal served as a timely impetus to reinvigorate the work on 
RTA-related issues and would also enable Member s to get a better understanding on the systemic 
impact of RTAs on the multilateral trading system in or der for them to be truly "building blocks".  He 
believed the approach put forward was a balan ced and sensible one, which could represent a good 
starting point to kick off the horizontal analysis on RTAs.  He trusted the systemic analysis of RTAs 
could provide useful input and insight to stimul ate the discussion in the NGR on clear and improved 
multilateral rules on RTAs.  Hong Kong, China was read y to participate in this constructive exercise 
and urged Members' support to r esume and re-energize the CRTA's work on horizontal and cross 
cutting elements of RTAs. 
9. The representative of India  associated himself with the intr oduction made by Australia on the 
submission on cross cutting issues on RTAs.  He poi nted out that this was not a new issue, since 
echoes of such demands had been heard in the 7th Ministerial Conference, the Trade Policy Review 
Body, and the CRTA.  The issue had been discussed in  informal consultations with the Chairman at 
the last CRTA meeting in March.  On that occasi on, some delegations, including the United States, 
Brazil, Peru, Turkey, Argentina and some others , had asked for a written submission to facilitate 
discussions and possibly arrive at a decision.  In response to such requests, Members had tabled a 
proposal.  As previously mentioned by Australia, when the CRTA was created in 1996, it was given a 
mandate to look at the systemic implications of RT As and useful work had already been carried out 
on the basis of its mandate.  Since then, much wate r had flowed both inside the WTO and outside, and WT/REG/M/57 
Page 4  
 
  a plethora of RTAs had mushroomed leaving hard ly any Members untouched.  Responding in some 
measure to this phenomenon, WTO Members had ag reed on a Transparency Mechanism to better 
understand what was happening in these RTAs.  In th e process, Members had only agreed on a list of 
elements which required transparency.  A total of 70 RTAs had been considered over the last three 
years.  At the General Council in May 2010, Me mbers had agreed with the proposal from China, 
India, and Pakistan to hold consultations in th e NGR to review the Transparency Mechanism for 
RTAs with the view to making it permanent.  Th e Chairman of the NGR in a communication dated 6 
May 2010 had urged Members to begin the process as soon as possible;  however, that was a separate, 
but related, issue.  The submission on cross cutting issue made it very clear as to what the horizontal 
review should and should not be.  It would not ove rlap or interfere with the work of the NGR on 
RTAs;  not create new legal rules or obligations;  not create de facto  benchmarks, or value judgements 
or legal analyses;  and not single out any particular Member or agreement.  In a broader context, the horizontal review would also enhance the usefulness of WTO bodies, such as the CRTA and other bodies that would get involved in the exercise.  He  thus urged Members to support the horizontal 
review.   
10. The representative of Korea
 extended his appreciation to the Chairman for his consultations 
and the delegation of Australia for the introduc tion of the paper which his delegation had co-
sponsored.  He said that it was relevant and timel y to look into various aspects of RTAs in the 
horizontal context, given the increasing number of RT As in force at present.  The main focus of the 
proposal was to respond to various concerns raised by Members.  The proposal made it clear that the 
horizontal analysis of different RTAs would not undermine the multilateral trading system or create 
legal obligations.  In his view, as long as these c oncerns were addressed sufficiently, Members could 
start working on this issue since looking into the horizontal aspects of RTAs was within the mandate 
of the CRTA.  Korea remained constructive a nd fully willing to engage in future work.  
11. The representative of China  expressed full support to the statement made by Australia, the 
"captain of the team", as well as other team mates and hoped to win the match in the Committee.  He 
wanted to share with Members a sense of necessity and urgency with regard to starting horizontal 
analysis on the cross cutting issues of RTAs.  RTAs had proliferated in the past years and China had 
also witnessed such an obvious trend.  When it jo ined the WTO in 2001, China had no RTAs with any 
trading partner;  nevertheless, in preparing for the celebration of its 10th year anniversary for accession 
to the WTO in 2011, China could have more than ten RTAs, counting goods and services separately.  
China had signed agreements with many co-sponsor s of the proposal, namely Hong Kong, China;  
Chile and New Zealand, and negotiations with Aust ralia were underway.  China was also exploring 
the possibility to start negotiations with India, Japan  and Korea.  As pointed out by the delegation of 
Australia, this phenomenon was not unique for any individual Member.  In order to adapt to the 
growth in RTAs, Members needed to resume and re-energize the CRTA's work on horizontal 
cross cutting elements of RTAs sooner rather than late r.  He was confident that such work was in the 
interest of all Members and great support had b een expressed on several occasions, at the CRTA, the 
7th Ministerial Conference, and the Trade Policy Review  Body meetings.  Such interest had also been 
demonstrated by the successful implementation of  the Transparency Mechanism and the numerous 
informal consultations organized by the present and former Chairmen.  He ended by saying that the 
proposal was the result of informal consultations and looked forward to receiving support from all Members.   
12. The representative of the European Union
 thanked Australia for its clear explanation 
regarding the objectives of the proposal and other co-sponsors for their clarifying remarks.  She 
welcomed the proposal, which clearly denoted broad support from Members to continue strengthening 
the work carried out by the CRTA and the unquestionable growing relevance of RTAs in the global economy and their interconnection with the multilate ral trading system.  As underlined in the 
communication, the Transparency  Mechanism had allowed Member s to have a better understanding 
of individual RTAs.  However, the proposal ai med to complete this knowledge by improving  WT/REG/M/57 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Members’ understanding of the cross-cutting elements of RTAs and of their systemic significance.  
Therefore, she saw value in the initiative and enc ouraged other Members to support it.  She recalled 
that the same proposal had already been supported at the 7th Ministerial Conference in December 
2009.  
13. The representative of Chile  associated himself with Australia and other Members in 
supporting the proposal on cross cutting issues on RTAs.  He considered it a u seful initiative that 
deserved the support of all Members, not only because the CRTA had the mandate to do so, but also because of the obvious benefits that would be derive d from serious and factual papers to be carried 
out on RTAs.  He said that the results of such work  would contribute to future debates in the NGR and 
allow Members to focus on previous experiences a nd best practices.  Members should take advantage 
of the background and experience on the use of th e Transparency Mechanism, which had enabled 
them to have a horizontal vision of the systemic aspects of RTAs.  Chile had a dense and extensive 
network of RTAs and had often resorted to the Mech anism;  in fact, Members were about to consider 
the Agreement with Australia during the Committee.  He therefore considered it a useful addition to 
the information generated by the Transparency M echanism amongst equals.  He also agreed on the 
format that had been suggested, that was based on do cuments prepared by the Secretariat.  The papers 
should be factual, not containing any value judgement s or thresholds; not be used to establish trends 
or averages that would be contrary to the real spirit and concrete objectives of such work.  He 
proposed, as a starting point, to bring up to date the Secretariat's documents from 2002, which addressed the issues of rules of origin and coverage  of RTAs.  This task would also be a way of 
assessing what such documents had actually established in the past and what would be the future work 
for Members.  He finally expressed Chile's full supp ort to the initiative and asked to become a co-
sponsor of the proposal. 
14. The representative of Pakistan
 thanked the sponsors of the proposal for their explanations.  He 
said that this was an important initia tive, as already emphasized at the 7th Ministerial Conference, the 
Trade Policy Review Body meetings, and during informal consultations .  The formation of RTAs had 
assumed unprecedented momentum.  The Transparen cy Mechanism was mature, worked well and 
should be made permanent.  He emphasized that the proposal was ba lanced, relevant, and timely and 
hoped that it met the required value addition to the work already carried out.  In this regard, the 
proposal had listed two background documents which provided factual cross cutting descriptions of 
certain elements of RTAs:  one about rules of or igin (WT/REG/W/45) and the other on coverage of 
RTAs (WT/REG/W/46), the latter covering also the determinants of RTAs' market opening, such as 
product coverage, trade preferences, tariff disper sion, coherence among RTA concessions, reciprocity, 
non-trade concerns, among others.  He expected th e forthcoming studies to resume and re-energize 
the CRTA's work on horizontal cross cutting elements of RTAs.  He was glad to hear from Australia 
that the papers would be comprehensive and deta iled with no cherry-picking.  Although RTAs had 
been considered as "building-blocks" to the multilate ral trading system, he felt it important to identify 
those issues, although keeping in mind the ayes-a nd-nays mentioned in the proposal, that could 
represent possible "stumbling blocks" for the multilateral trading system.  He hoped the proposal would work in that direction as well.  He had full confidence in the ability of the Secretariat and the 
Chairman's guidance to get the required value addition.  
15. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 thanked the proponents for the proposal and detailed 
introduction.  The growing number of RTAs had become an issue and there was a need to have a 
deeper understanding of the interrelationship between  RTAs and the multilateral trading system.  He 
shared the view that the cross cutting comparis on of RTAs would improve  Members' knowledge of 
how RTAs interacted with the multilateral trading sy stem and how Members' trade interests would be 
affected by other RTAs in a systemic way.  He  therefore supported the proposal to resume and re-
energize the Committee's work on horizontal and cross cutting elements of RTAs and agreed that such 
work should be based on the approach descr ibed in paragraph 6 of the proposal. WT/REG/M/57 
Page 6  
 
  16. The representative of the United States
 appreciated the proposal, which provided the 
Committee with food for thought.  She commended the proponents for the good job of having set out at least some concerns expressed by Members in  the Committee and in consultations with the 
Chairman.  However, the proposal tended to leave Members with a list of what Members did not want 
from this type of work and was missing a clear sense of what Members did want in terms of content.  
Her delegation was not in a position to support the tabled proposal as “the basis” for work on the 
systemic implications of RTAs.  It remained unclear  what the proposal actually set out to accomplish, 
yet it would have the effect of delegating systemic issues to the Secretariat in a large scale program without any direct guidance from Members.  In this regard, she found the proposal surprising in a 
Member-driven organization.  Her delegation was not in a position to authorize or delegate to the 
Secretariat the task of writing papers on all areas listed in the table of contents of the factual 
presentations.  It was not at all clear to her that each and every issue area in an RTA raised systemic 
concerns worth examining or that using limited Secretariat resources to produce such papers was the 
most useful or appropriate means of exploring any systemic issues.  She noted that the Secretariat might already be overburdened in implementing the Transparency Mechanism.   The proponents said 
that the Transparency Mechanism had been very us eful at “shedding light on the key elements of 
individual RTAs”, but she wondered which “key elements” the proponents were referring to, and 
whether they all considered the ex act same elements as “key”.  She t hus asked the proponents to give 
some examples of specific issues they would like to see studied by the Secretariat.  She also 
questioned whether what would in essence be factua l summaries of the factual presentations would 
get at anything new.  For example, the proposal q uoted the previous Chairman of the Rules group, 
who had highlighted the need to understand the econo mic implications of RTAs before the rules could 
be “clarified and improved.”  However, the d escriptive summaries would not contribute to an 
understanding of the economic implications of RTAs  and/or their impact on the multilateral trading 
system any more than factual presentations already had done.  In her view, the summaries proposed by the proponents appeared to be little more than  a re-arrangement or presentation of existing factual 
presentation information in a different format.  The bottom line was that Members would be better 
served by identifying individual issues, one at a time, that might warrant further study.  Before asking the Secretariat to embark on any analytical work, she would like to request a literature review or 
bibliography, to give Members an idea of what had already been studied and/or published.  There was 
no point in repeating good work, even if it had be en done outside the WTO.  She said that several 
Members had mentioned the number of RTAs in existence, “the plethora”, and so asked the 
Secretariat to put together a list of the actual number of RTAs in force, without double-counting 
goods and services.  She would like to see a pape r on this, which would ideally also include 
information on the share of trade occurring betw een RTA partners.  This would represent a key 
starting point to any discussion on an understanding of the scope and economic implications of RTAs. 
17. The representative of Switzerland 
thanked the co-sponsors of the proposal.  He agreed with 
the idea of resuming and re-energizing the work on horizontal cross cutting elements of RTAs to 
improve Members' understanding of the cross cutting aspects of RTAs, as well as their significance in 
terms of systemic issues.  He assumed that the scope  of the proposal, if it were adopted, would extend 
not just to RTAs falling under GATT Article XXIV , but also to those falling under GATS Article V 
and the Enabling Clause.  The CRTA would have, th erefore, to work closely with the Committee on 
Trade and Development in carrying out such work.  He found that the proposal remained somewhat 
vague regarding the possible contents of the study.  He thanked Australia for clarification on the scope 
of the work but he had some doubts that all aspects of RTAs, as mentioned by the United States, could 
be examined in the context of the exercise.  Furt hermore, he wanted to know more precisely which 
RTAs would form the object of such an analysis .  Paragraph 6 of the proposal suggested the study 
would be based on all notified RTAs in force, but also, as mentioned in para graph 5, information on 
how other RTAs affected Members' trade interests in  a systematic way and how they interacted with 
the multilateral trading system would need to be considered.  He added that the study should not 
duplicate work already been undertaken elsewhere, fo r instance by the OECD.  He therefore expected 
that the Secretariat would ensure adequate coor dination with other intern ational organizations.   WT/REG/M/57 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Finally, he would like to  know the consequences of such a study for the Secretariat's resources, given 
the large backlog in the regular work of the Comm ittee with respect to the preparation of factual 
presentations of those RTAs already in the pipelin e for consideration by the Committee.  In case of 
resource conflict, the regular activities of the Co mmittee should continue to have precedence over 
new projects such as this one. 
18. The representative of Argentina  thanked the Chairman for the consultations, and the 
delegations of Australia;  Canada;  China;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  Japan;  New Zealand and 
Korea for the valid proposal.  He said that the ma ndate of the CRTA included examining the systemic 
consequences of RTAs on the multilateral trading sy stem and the relationship between them, and the 
submission of formal recommendations to the Ge neral Council.  The proposal was based on the 
premise of transparency and understanding of RTAs and their effects, which were agreed by Members 
in the Decision on a Transparency  Mechanism for RTAs of 2006.  He believed that the horizontal 
examination would fall into the framework of mon itoring and implementation of RTAs and that it was 
important to have horizontal info rmation on RTAs.  He therefore ask ed that Argentina be added as a 
co-sponsor of the proposal.  Like India and Australia, he said that such an exercise should not replace 
or prejudge the negotiations carried out on RTAs in  the NGR, and should not create or serve as a basis 
for new configurations with respect to RTAs.  He said it was necessary to agree on the format of such 
studies within the Committee.  
19. The representative of Turkey  thanked the Chairman for the consultations and all the 
proponents for the well-structured paper.  Turkey  had always supported proposals to improve the 
transparency of RTAs and found the proposal to be  a positive contribution to the discussion.  In his 
view, the paper encompassed and addressed most of the ideas that had been put forward during 
consultations and answered many questions posed by  Members, including Turkey.  Nonetheless, some 
questions required further clarification and he pref erred to continue discussions on the subject and the 
document itself.  
20. The representative of Brazil  thanked the co-sponsors for the communication on cross cutting 
issues and the details provided by "team leader" Australia.  Brazil was still awaiting reactions by 
capital on the substantive issues of the proposal.  As  a preliminary comment, he shared the appraisal 
on the positive operation of the Transparency Mech anism and that the communication addressed some 
of his delegation's concerns regard ing the enhancement of transparency and understanding of all trade 
agreements. 
21. The representative of El Salvador  thanked the Chairman for the consultations on horizontal 
issues of RTAs and the proponents for the document.  His delegation had been contacted by Australia 
prior to the meeting to have his impression on the proposal.  Although he acknowledged the efforts 
made by the proponents, he wanted to share so me suggestions on how the proposal would function 
and some comments on the substantive part contained in section III of the proposal, particularly with 
regard to practical issues.  He said that his delega tion was ready to engage in the horizontal analysis 
within the Committee, on condition that such analys is be comprehensive, detailed and based on an 
objective approach.  However, he found it difficult to  support a proposal that contained considerations 
as expressed in paragraph 5, which omitted that RTAs had been recognized by the GATT 1994 as 
legal instruments to deepen trade relations among Me mbers.  He said that th e terms of reference for 
such work should be specified by the Secretaria t and Members and that the limits detailed in 
paragraph 6 of the proposal would be better detailed under section III,  which contained the substantial 
proposal.  His suggestions could help clarify some important aspects of the exercise, such as its 
objectives, factual nature, Members' conclusions with respect to Secretariat's papers, and the 
avoidance of legal effects and obligations on Members with respect to RTAs.  
22. The representative of Mexico  welcomed the Chairman and whished him success in his work.  
He also thanked him for informal consultations and the proponents for the proposal and detailed WT/REG/M/57 
Page 8  
 
  information.  His delegation had expressed full supp ort for transparency and a better understanding of 
RTAs on several occasions, and therefore suppor ted the proposal of making the Transparency 
Mechanism permanent.  He noted that some of th e concerns previously expressed by Mexico, for 
instance with respect to the factual nature of the horizontal studies, the creation of new legal 
obligations, or value judgements, or the singling out of particular agreements  or Members, had been 
included in the proposal.  For this reason, Mexico  supported the proposal and remained engaged to 
work towards a greater understanding of RTAs. 
23. The representative of Peru
 thanked the proponents for the proposal and the Chairman for the 
consultations.  She reaffirmed the mandate of th e CRTA to examine the systemic implications of 
RTAs on the multilateral trading system and th e relationship between them, and to submit 
recommendations to the General Council.  Any stud y carried out by the Secretariat on cross cutting 
issues of RTAs should be factual, not contain value judgement, not single out any specific agreement or Member, nor create additional legal rules or oblig ations on RTAs.  Like factual presentations, they 
should not be used in a dispute settlement procedure.  Nonetheless, she said that the coverage of such 
an analysis was too ambitious, either with respect to the number of RTAs to be considered (all RTAs 
notified and in force) and the issues to be covered (all those listed in a factual presentation).  In this 
respect, the amount of resources of the Secretariat and of Members should be taken into consideration.  
It was important not to undermine the process of negotiations in the NGR a nd the functioning of the 
Transparency Mechanism.  She understood that th e Secretariat was in the process of preparing 100 
factual presentations and 23 factual abstracts on the 278 RTAs in force and subject to consideration in 
the WTO.  She therefore was more inclined towa rds the proposal submitted by the former Chairman 
of the Committee, to establish some specific elemen ts, for instance, market access, coverage, margin 
of preference, etc.  Members should agree on speci fic terms of reference on the objectives, scope, and 
contents of the studies to be carried out by Secr etariat.  With respect to the proposal, she asked 
whether the proponents suggested creating a transpar ency mechanism similar to that existing for the 
RTAs as a framework for the revision of the Secretaria t's papers or what the procedure for considering 
such analysis would be.  Finally, she shared other delegations' proposals to use studies already 
prepared outside the WTO. 
24. The representative of Uruguay
 thanked the proponents for the document.  He noted that there 
were no major contradictions among Members especia lly on the issue of increasing number of RTAs 
and their systemic impacts at the multilateral leve l.  RTAs were a reality that Members could not 
ignore.  The General Council Decision on the Tran sparency Mechanism was a step in the right 
direction.  He welcomed the proposal on horizont al cross cutting issues of RTAs, provided that it 
respected all the conditions listed in paragraph 6, sp ecifically with respect to the objective, factual, 
and descriptive nature of the analysis.  He express ed concerns, like previ ous delegations, about the 
resources of the Secretariat and asked its opinion on that, and about the timeframe that would be given 
to the Secretariat to prepare the studies.  He needed  to hear further details on the proposal before he 
could take any decision in that regard.  
25. The representative of Colombia  thanked the Chairman for the consultations and the 
proponents for the new version of the document.  She was still awaiting instructions form capital on 
the substance of the document, but wanted to expr ess her preliminary support.  She said that the 
proposal as submitted by the proponents was useful and serious, and addressed many of the Members' 
concerns expressed at the last CRTA meeting.  When she listened to the proposal for the first time it 
had seemed too ambitious;  but after having analysed  the situation and understanding the intention of 
the exercise, which would be to enrich the knowledg e of RTAs, she had concluded that the exercise 
would enrich Members and there was no reason for excluding some issues.  She understood the concerns expressed by the United States, Switzerland,  El Salvador, and Peru with respect to the 
burden of work for the Secretariat, but she believe d that a new version of the document would address 
this.  On the basis of the papers prepared by th e Secretariat in 2002, whic h represented serious, valid 
and interesting analysis of several aspects of RTAs on rules of origin and coverage, she said that the  WT/REG/M/57 
 Page 9 
 
 
  work of the Secretariat did not contain any pr ejudice or value judgement, but only a recommendation 
on the usefulness of harmonizing rules of origin.  If th e same type of work could be done with respect 
to other issues, it would prove useful for the entire Membership.  
26. The representative of Australia  thanked Members for their participation in the fruitful 
discussion.  She ascertained the level of interest that Members had in understanding the impact of 
RTAs on the multilateral trading system.  She said that  there was a reasonable sh ared view that this 
could only be done on the basis of factual and objectiv e analysis.  She was pleased to see that such a 
large number of Members supported and valued the proposal and welcomed very much the additional 
requests for co-sponsorship.  The addition of Chile and Argentina brought the team to ten, and in 
some cases this was enough to get on the field, but as Australia knew well, it was preferable to play 
with a full team.  She said that there was certainl y a basis to continue discussions on the proposal, to 
improve it and to make sure that it addressed all Me mbers’ interests.  Her delegation would continue 
work to get it underway and, as suggested by many  Members, take into consideration the papers 
prepared by the Secretariat in 2002.  
27. The Chairman  said that, based on Members' interventi ons, there were no divergent opinions 
on the importance of examining the impact of RTAs on the multilateral trading system and the 
proposal represented an important step in the discuss ion.  It helped clarify some concerns expressed 
by Members;  however, some questions remained an d there was at least one alternative proposal.  For 
this reason, he suggested the proponents of the do cument and the proponents of alternatives, in the 
spirit of ensuring that the work of the Committee be  Member-driven, contact the different delegations 
to find a more comprehensive proposal that could sa tisfy the different concerns.  For instance, this 
could be done with respect to the proposal of a pa per on the real number of RTAs and their economic 
effects.  Once such consultations  had been concluded and in the ev ent of any progress, the Chairman 
would be willing to continue informal consultations  to move the work forward within the Committee.  
28. The representative of the United States  clarified that her proposal for a Secretariat's paper on 
the real number of RTAs was not intended to be part of a comprehensive decision but was rather a 
suggestion for Members to consider something the Secretariat could start working on straight away.  
This would be useful for Members' respective gove rnments that were often confused by the double-
counting of RTAs. 
29. The representative of India  suggested the Chairman continue consultations since a written 
proposal was on the table and was shared by a fa irly large group of Members and was based on 
signals that had come from the 7th Ministerial Conference and the Trade Policy Review Body. 
30. The representative of the Philippines  informed the Committee that he was still awaiting 
reactions from capital and was not in the position to agree to any consensus at that point.  
31. The Chairman  reiterated that it would be good for th e proponents to meet with interested 
delegations and afterwards the Committee could conve ne again to evaluate the best way to move 
forward.  He remained willing and available to car ry out structured consultations, as suggested by 
India, but it was first necessary to define further th e format of the proposal or future proposal before 
engaging in consultations.  
C. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
C.I Status Report on the Committee's work 
 32. Under this Agenda Item, the Chairman provided Members with an update on the 
implementation of the Transparency Mechanism.   He informed the Committee that 34 early 
announcements had been placed on the WTO website  (not counting those RTAs which had been WT/REG/M/57 
Page 10  
 
  subsequently notified).  He thanked those Member s who had submitted information in line with the 
requirements of the TM and encouraged others to do so.  He also reminded Members to inform the 
Secretariat of any changes in the status of the early announcements.  For instance, if an agreement 
moved from being under negotiation to being signed, this should be communicated to the Secretariat 
so that the information on early announcem ents could be kept up to date.   
33. As regards the factual abstracts to be prepar ed on RTAs covering trade in goods for which a 
factual examination had already been completed, 36 had been posted on the WTO website, and 18 had 
been prepared and sent to the relevant parties for their comments.  He urged those parties to submit 
their comments as soon as possible.  In addition, a ll 21 factual abstracts in services had been sent to 
the relevant parties, 16 of which had been poste d on the WTO website.  Comments were expected on 
the remaining five. 
34. As regards the preparation of the factual pr esentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO Members only, ther e were presently 47 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods an d services separately.  He recalled that at the 
Committee's 52
nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Members had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the procedures of the TM.  Thus, factual presentations on a further 
48 RTAs involving non-Members were to be prepared, with priority for those RTAs notified since the 
adoption of the TM on 14 December 2006.  Data requ ests for RTAs notified si nce the adoption of the 
TM had been sent to the relevant parties.  The c onsideration of these RTAs would begin in 2010.  He 
asked the Secretariat to provide further deta ils on the preparation of factual presentations. 
35. A representative of the Secretariat  said that in order to provide delegations with the current 
status of the CRTA's work programme for the rema inder of 2010, an updated table was available in 
the room.  Its objective was to update the original fax sent to delegations with the table of RTAs 
scheduled for consideration in 2010.  In line with the general effort in the WTO to try and improve 
transparency, the Secretariat intended to start circul ating the document in adva nce of each meeting for 
Members to be aware of the exact status of the CRTA's work programme for the remainder of 2010.  
The list of RTAs for which the factual consid eration was delayed had become longer.  For 
Agreements between Members, the situation was as follows: for US-Peru and Costa Rica-Mexico, 
goods and services, comments had been received from the parties and the Factual Presentations would be issued shortly.  In the case of seven RTAs, namely:  EU-Cote d'Ivoire, goods;  US-Bahrain, goods 
and services;  CAFTA-DR, goods and services;  US-Oman, goods and services;  China-Singapore, goods and services;  New Zealand-China, goods  and services;  and Japan-Thailand, goods and 
services, the Factual Presentations had been sent to th e parties, in most cases  back in 2009, but no 
comments had been received to date.  In the case of China-Singapore, data from China was still 
outstanding.  In the case of Costa Rica-Panama, goods and services, and Mexico-Nicaragua, goods, 
data had been received and the Factual Presentations  were currently being drafted.  For Panama-
Chinese Taipei, goods and services, no data had been  received from Panama.  For EU-Egypt and EU-
South Africa, goods, data originally requested in  2007 had not been provided by Egypt or South 
Africa to date.  South Africa had recently indicated  that it would be in a position to submit the data 
soon.  The Secretariat continued to liaise with Egyp t's authorities in an effort to try to resolve the 
issue.  With regard to the RTAs for which the f actual consideration had been delayed which involved 
non-Members, the situation was as follows:  for ASEAN-China, services, and Iceland-Faeroe Islands, goods and services, the Factual Presentations had been  sent to the parties, but no comments had been 
received to date.  In the case of Iceland-Faeroe Islands, data was not complete either.  For EU-
Montenegro, goods, data had been received and the Factual Presentation was under preparation.  For 
EU-Bosnia Herzegovina, goods;  EU-Monten egro, goods;  EFTA-Lebanon, goods;  EU-
CARIFORUM, goods and services;  Turkey-Syr ia, goods;  CEFTA Enlargement;  Ukraine-
Azerbaijan, goods;  Ukraine-Belarus, goods;  and Uk raine-Russian Federation, goods, data was not 
complete yet.    WT/REG/M/57 
 Page 11 
 
 
  36. For the CRTA meeting in September, six RTAs between Members were originally on the 
Agenda.  The Factual Presentation of one RTA, Ca nada-EFTA, goods, would shortly be issued.  For 
four other:  Japan-Thailand, goods and services;  Nicaragua-Chinese Taipei, goods and services;  
Peru-Singapore, goods and services;  and Peru-Can ada, goods and services, comments had not yet 
been received from the parties.  In the case of Nicaragua-Chinese Taipei, comments had been received 
from Chinese Taipei only.  For Panama-Chinese Taip ei, as previously mentioned, data had not been 
received from Panama.  For RTAs involving non-Me mbers scheduled for the September meeting:  
Ukraine-Azerbaijan;  Ukraine-Belarus, and Ukrain e-Russia, data had been received from Ukraine and 
some data from Russia but not from the other part ies as yet.  For the CRTA meeting in November, 
data gaps concerned the following agreements:  Chile-Colombia, goods and services;  EU-Cameroon, 
goods;  Japan-Viet Nam, goods and services;  EU-FYROM, services;  GCC customs union, goods;  
and EU-Croatia, services.  Likewise, for those RTAs  involving non-Members, th e Secretariat was still 
awaiting data for all five RTAs programmed for November, namely:  Ukraine-Tajikistan, 
Ukraine-Kazakhstan, Ukraine-Turkmenistan, Ukra ine-Uzbekistan, and th e Common Economic Zone, 
all goods.  She urged Members to make every effort to comply with the deadlines as requested so as 
to adhere to the CRTA's work programme  and avoid any further slippage.   
37. The representative of the Secretariat  also addressed the issue of non-notified RTAs.  She 
recalled that the former Chairman had contacted sev eral Members in October 2009 about the status of 
some 65 RTAs based on a list drawn up by the Secretariat and which had been verified by their parties to these RTAs as being in force but not yet notifie d.  Since the last CRTA Meeting in March 2010, 
one additional RTA from the list – Honduras - El Sa lvador and Chinese Taipei – had been notified, 
bringing the total number of notifications of the non- notified RTAs up to five.  It also appeared that a 
couple of RTAs identified were no longer in for ce.  The Secretariat had been following up on this 
issue and encouraged all delegations that had been contacted concerning this initiative to try to notify 
the remaining RTAs as soon as possible.  She also reminded Members that partial scope agreements 
such as early harvest agreements should also be  notified under the Transparency Mechanism.   
38. The Chairman
 said that it was clear from the intervetion of the Secretariat that the CRTA 
might suffer considerable slippage in the work  programme for consideration of RTAs in the 
framework of the Transparency  Mechanism.  Since it was generally aknowedged that the 
Transparency Mechanism had been a success so far, it was in the interest of all Members to ensure 
that deadlines be respected a nd that the work programme unde r the Transparency Mechanism 
proceded as planned.  He was confident that the Committee could rely on the cooperation of all 
Members in this regard. 
39. The representative of Panama  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the reminder 
regarding the Agreement with Chinese Taipei.  He ha d been coordinating with the Secretariat in order 
to finalize shortly the preparatory work for the co nsideration of the Agreement. He informed the 
Committee that the outstanding data would be provided soon. 
40. The Committee  took note of the comments made. 
C. II-III. (The minutes of the consideration of th e Agreements listed under agenda items C.II-III are 
being distributed as separate documents).  
__________