RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG/M/58 
30 September 2010 
 (10-4984) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Fifty-eighth Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 27-28 SEPTEMBER 2010 
 
Chairman:  Mr. A. Suescum (Panama)  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The 58th Session of the Committee on Regional Trad e Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the 
Committee) was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/ 3598/Rev.1, dated 17 Se ptember 2010.  Under 
"Other Business", the Chairman announced his inten tion to inform the Committee of an exchange of 
letters with the Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology. 
2. The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Committee's proposed work for 2010:  Cross cutting issues – Communication from 
  Argentina;  Australia;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  Japan;    New Zealand;  and the Republic of Korea (WT/REG/W/54/Rev.1/Add.1) 
C. Consideration of Regiona l Trade Agreements (RTAs) 
I. Status report on the Committee's work (WT/REG/W/56) II. Free Trade Agreement between Peru and Singapore, goods and services III. Free Trade Agreement between th e United States and Peru, goods and 
services 
IV. Free Trade Agreement between Ca nada and Peru, goods and services 
V. Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the EFTA States, goods VI. Free Trade Agreement between Nicaragua and the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, goods and services 
VII. Free Trade Treaty between Costa Rica and Mexico, 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 
ARGENTINA ;  AUSTRALIA ;  CANADA ;  CHINA ;  HONG KONG, CHINA ;  INDIA ;  JAPAN ;  
NEW ZEALAND , AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
4. Under Agenda Item B, the Chairman  addressed the submission on cross-cutting issues on 
RTAs co-sponsored by  Argentina;  Australia;  Cana da;  Chile;  China;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  
Japan;  New Zealand;  and the Republic of Kore a (WT/REG/W/54/Rev.1/Add. 1, dated 24 September 
2010).  He informed the Committee of a meeting he  had had with the co-sponsors of the document 
who were carrying out consultations with several delegations in order to address their concerns, 
questions, etc. WT/REG/M/58 
Page 2  
 
  5. The representative of Australia
 said that although the document had been redistributed, it had 
not changed in the substantive terms.  The new vers ion only showed the addition of two co-sponsors, 
bringing the number of co-sponsors to ten.  Sh e took the opportunity to advise Members of the 
process of consultations the co-sponsors had undertaken  in response to the statements made at the 
CRTA Meeting in June.  The co-sponsors had spoken  to all Members who had made a statement or 
asked questions at the last meeting in order to provide a greater understanding and, on that basis, 
generate greater support for the proposal, which in he r view was an important one for the WTO.  She 
reported that the co-sponsors had listened to a number  of questions and concerns and were reflecting 
upon those and hoped to be able to revise the propo sal in a way that addressed as many of those as 
possible.  The intention of the co-sponsors was to re-circulate the proposal in coming weeks and, on 
that basis, to engage in further consultations with Members with the hope of taking the proposal 
forward.  She welcomed any assistance  from the Chairman in that regard. 
6. The representative of Thailand  took the floor on behalf of ASEAN.  She thanked the 
co-sponsors of the proposal on cross-cutting issues on RTAs and said that ASEAN agreed with the 
proponents that the Transparency Mechanism (TM)  had been very useful in helping Members 
understand the key elements of individual RTAs.  However, ASEAN was of the view that Members 
could do more to have a better sense on how RTAs affected each Member's trade interests in a systemic way and how they interacted with the multilateral trading system.  ASEAN was likewise 
supportive of the elements outlined in the paper, in  particular that the proposed papers:  i) be 
descriptive and factual in nature, not contain valu e judgements or legal analyses and not single out 
particular Members or RTAs;  ii) not create new legal rules or obligations on RTAs;  and iii) not 
create de facto  benchmarks for RTAs.  She recalled that at last Meeting of the Committee in June, the 
delegation of the United Stated had suggested the Se cretariat put together a list of the actual number 
of RTAs in force, without the use of double-counting, and like the United States, she was of the view that such information, including the share of trad e between RTA partners, could be a starting point for 
discussions to understand the scope and economic imp lication of RTAs.  She added that a literature 
review of studies on RTAs could also be a good building block for discussion and provide further 
clarity on the most appropriate way to study the syst emic issue arising from the proliferation of RTAs.  
In order to better understand the ot her elements of the proposal, ASEAN members would appreciate if 
the proponents could provide some clarification on wh at they meant by a comprehensive exercise:  
did such an exercise entail looking at all the elemen ts listed in a Factual Pr esentation or would there 
be individual papers for each of the elements listed in the Factual Presentations and, if so, what would 
the timeline be?  She said that these were ASEAN' s preliminary observations as a group, and that 
ASEAN members might also provide individually additional questions and comments on the proposal. 
7. The representative of Mexico
 expressed his delegation's support for the proposal since it 
contained many positive elements, such as the factual na ture of the papers and the fact that they would 
not create new binding commitments.  At present, the proposal was under discussion in capital, in 
order the evaluate whether Mexico would join as co-sponsor. 
8. The representative of Norway  said that her delegation was looking with interest at the 
proposal from Australia and the co-sponsors.  Cons idering the proliferation of RTAs, her delegation 
saw value in looking at some of the cross-cu tting issues in a descriptive and fact-based way. 
9. The representative of the European Union  reiterated support for the proposal.  She recalled 
the considerable political support to revamp the CRTA's work expressed at the Committee meeting in 
December 2009 and said that similar views were also heard at the WTO Public Forum.  Her 
delegation stood ready to work with the co-sponsor s and looked forward to informal consultations.  WT/REG/M/58 
 Page 3 
 
 
  10. The representative of Australia  thanked all Members who had ta ken the floor and said that the 
process of consultations would con tinue and involve ASE AN and other Members in order to move the 
proposal forward. 
11. The Chairman  said that he was willing to facilitate such consultations. 
C. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
C.I Status Report on the Committee's work 
 12. Under this Agenda Item, the Chairman
 provided Members with an update on the 
implementation of the TM.  He informed the Comm ittee that 34 early announcements had been placed 
on the WTO website (not counting those RTAs which had been subsequently notified).  He thanked 
those Members who had submitted information in line with the requirements of the TM and 
encouraged others to do the same.  He also re minded Members to inform the Secretariat of any 
changes in the status of early announcements. 
13. As regards the factual abstracts to be prepared  on RTAs covering trade in goods for which an 
examination had already been completed, 36 ha d 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, all 21 f actual abstracts in services had been sent to the 
relevant parties, 16 of which had been posted on the WTO website.  Comments were expected on the 
remaining five. 
14. As regards the preparation of the factual pr esentations under the remit of the CRTA, in the 
case of RTAs involving WTO Members only, there 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 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Members ha d agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the TM.  Thus, factua l presentations on a further 48 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.  The consideration of these RT As had been scheduled for 2010.  He then asked 
the Secretariat to provide further details on the preparation of factual presentations. 
15. A representative of the Secretariat  said that in order to provide delegations with the current 
status of the CRTA's work programme for the remainder of 2010, an updated table had been 
distributed to Members (document WT/REG/W/56) a nd copies were also available in the room.  The 
list of RTAs for which the factual consideration was delayed continued to grow.  In the case of 
Agreements between WTO Members, the situation was as follows:  for  EU-Croatia, EU-Albania and 
EU-FYROM, all services, and GCC, goods,  factual presentations were currently being drafted and 
would be sent to the Parties shortly.   In the case of eight RTAs  – 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;  Japan-Thailand,  goods and services;  Japan-Viet Nam, goods 
and services;  and Japan-Switzerland, goods and services,  the factual presentations had been sent to 
the parties (in most cases back in 2009) but no comments had been received.  For EU-South Africa, 
goods , data originally requested in 2007 had still not been provided by South Africa.  For EU-Egypt, 
goods, data from Egypt had been rece ived recently and was in the pr ocess of verification.  With 
regard to the RTAs for which the factual consid eration was 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 th e parties but no comments had been received.  In 
the case of Iceland-Faeroe Islands, data was not complete.  For EU-Montenegro, goods and services, 
the factual presentation was currently being draf ted.  For EU-Bosnia Herzegovina, goods;  EFTA-
Lebanon, goods;  EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services;  Turkey-Syria, goods;  CEFTA WT/REG/M/58 
Page 4  
 
  Enlargement, goods;  Ukraine-Azerbaijan, goods;  Ukraine-Belarus, goods;  Ukraine-Russian 
Federation, goods;  Ukraine-Tajikistan, goods;  Uk raine-Kazakhstan, goods;  Ukraine-Turkmenistan, 
goods;  Ukraine-Uzbekistan, goods;  and the Common  Economic Zone, goods, da ta was not complete.  
For the CRTA Meeting in November, four RTAs  between Members had recently been issued, 
namely:  Chile-Colombia;  New Zealand-China;  Panama-the Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu, all goods and services, and Mexico-Nicaragua, goods.  She urged Members to 
make every effort to comply w ith the deadlines as requ ested so as to adhere  to the CRTA's work 
programme which was increasingly becoming more difficult to adhere to.  
16. 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 
65 RTAs based on a list drawn up by the Secretariat a nd which had been verified by their parties as 
being in force but not yet notified.  Since the last  CRTA Meeting in June 2010, three additional RTAs 
from this list – India-Nepal, ASEAN-Korea and Me xico-Colombia – had been notified, bringing the 
total number of notifications of non- notified RTAs to eight.  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 or let the Secretariat know what  the status of such 
agreements was.  She also reminded Members that  partial scope agreements, such as early harvest 
agreements, should also be notified under the TM.  Lastly, she said that the Secretariat had received 
some notifications of RTAs from Members indicating that the agreement was not yet in force for all 
parties.  This was particularly – though not uniq uely - the case for plurilateral RTAs which involved a 
number of countries, such as:  ASEAN-India, A SEAN-Korea, ASEAN-Australia and New Zealand, 
ASEAN-Japan and EU-Cameroon.  She took the opportunity to remind Members to notify the 
Secretariat when the RTA entered into force for all pa rties so as to start the preparation of the factual 
presentation. 
17. The Chairman  said that it was clear from the Secretaria t'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 deadlin es be respected and the work pr ogramme under the TM proceed as 
planned.  He was confident that the Committee coul d rely on the cooperation of all Members in this 
regard. 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
18. Under "Other business", the Chairman  informed Members of an exchange of letters with the 
Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology.  On 13 August 2010, the 
Chairman of the Working Group wrote a letter to the Chairman of the CRTA asking whether the CRTA was conducting any work on trade and transfer  of technology.  With the assistance of the 
Secretariat, the Chairman had prepared a written answer saying that the CRTA was not carrying out any work on trade and transfer of technology an d there were no plans in this regard, unless any 
Member wanted to raise the issue in the CRTA.  If this was the case, the Chairman of the Working 
Group would be informed accordingly. 
19. The Committee took note
 of the comments made. 
__________