WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/REG/W/67 
1 November 2011 
 (11-5516) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:  English 
  
  
COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA, EGYPT AND INDIA 
 
Preliminary comments on the Draft Report (2011) of the  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/W/64) 
   The Chairman of the CRTA has receiv ed the following communication, dated 
28 October 2011, from the Delegations of China, Egypt and India, with the request that it be circulated to all Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
1. SECTION II - OBSERVER STATUS 
1. The draft annual report makes a reference in para graph 3 to "requests for observer status listed 
in document WT/REG/W/11/Add.3, pending the definition of guidelines by the General Council." 
2. Could the Secretariat provide more clarification as to what is meant by "pending the definition 
of guidelines by the General Council", given that the aforementioned guidelines have already been 
adopted by the General Council in 1995, and have been incorporated as Annex 3 to the rules of 
procedures of the General Council (WT/L/161).  Sh ould Members understand from the inclusion of 
this phrase that the guidelines have in themselves not  been adequate or are insufficient to address the 
issue of granting observer status to Inte rgovernmental Organizations in the CRTA? 
2. SECTION III - CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
3. Paragraph 4 of the draft annual report indicates that the CRTA received 19 notifications with 
respect to RTAs.  Given that the CRTA has the purview to deal only with RTA's "falling under 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994 an d Article V of GATS"  - as stipulated by the provisions of the 
Transparency Mechanism (TM) for RTAs (Section E. Bodies Entrusted with the Implementation of 
the Mechanism- paragraph 18) - we would assume that the RTAs referred to in this context relate to 
those agreements where the goods part have b een notified under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  We 
would therefore suggest qualifying this statement by  making a clear reference to those provisions that 
the CRTA has been entrusted to consider. 
4. We would appreciate it if the Secretariat could pr ovide details on the 19 RTAs that have been 
notified.  A footnote may be added to indicate the notifications referred to in paragraph 4. 
5. It would also be important to enclose an attachment, and as proposed in the draft annual 
report of 2010, to indicate the status of the work  undertaken by the CRTA with respect to notified 
RTAs (i.e.: RTAs for which factual examinati on has been completed; those for which factual 
presentation has been distributed;  RTAs for which factual presentations are under preparation; as WT/REG/W/67 
Page 2  
 
  well as RTAs for which factual presentations ar e on hold including the three RTAs with dual 
notification status). 
6. Paragraph 5 indicates that the "Secretariat distributed factual  presentations of 18 RTAs 
(counting goods and services separately)".  Could the Secretariat provide more details as to why the 
goods part has been treated separately from the services and investment part?  As far as we 
understand, and as had been the practice, the Secret ariat issues one single compilation/report for each 
RTA regardless of whether an RTA covers trad e in goods and/or services. Accordingly, the 
Secretariat would have in fact issued 13 rather than  18 reports as mentioned in the draft annual report.  
7. Paragraph 6 indicates that according to paragraph 22 of the TM "the Secretariat is to prepare 
a factual abstract for ... RTAs notified to  the WTO under the Enabling Clause".  However, Article 22 
of the TM never mandated the CRTA to present fact ual abstracts regarding RTAs notified under the 
Enabling Clause.  In fact, Article 22 of the TM refe rs this procedure to sections D to G of the TM, 
including section E which clearly delineates and distinguishes between the responsibilities of the 
CRTA from those carried out by the CTD, wherein th e latter should have the responsibility to perform 
the functions established under the Mechanism (includi ng the preparation of a factual abstract) with 
respect to RTAs falling under paragraph 2 (c) of the Enabling Clause. 
8. The report also indicates in paragraph 6 that "Seventy-two factual abstracts have been 
prepared."  It would be important to revise this figure in light of the previous remark, as well as make 
a clear distinction between the factual abstracts that have been prepared by the CRTA for RTAs 
notified on the basis of Article XXIV of GATT 199 4 and Article V of GATS from those related to 
RTAs notified on the basis of the Enabling Clause for which the CRTA has no mandate to have dealt 
with in the first instance. 
3. SECTION IV - EARLY ANNOUNCEMENTS 
9. Paragraph 7 of the draft annual report indicates that a total of seven early announcements 
have been received by the Secretariat from five WTO Members.  The emphasis here is on the 
Members that have made early announcements.  We be lieve that in tandem, it  would be important to 
indicate that two of these RTAs involve four non-WTO Members.  Such a reference is  important 
given that the Chairman of the CRTA had i ndicated in document (JOB/RL/1/Rev.1) that "to date no 
RTA involving non-Members … has been  considered by the CRTA" and that "there appear to be 
difficulties in obtaining data, especially from the non-Members concerned." 
4. SECTION VI - DATABASE ON RTAS 
10. It should be recalled that th e delegations of China, Egypt and India had submitted a 
communication noting a number of inconsistenc ies with respect to the RTA database 
(WT/REG/W/60).  It would be important to make a reference to this communication in paragraph 10 
so that the Secretariat could provide details on how  the inconsistencies in the database have been 
rectified.  It is also worth recalling that the dele gation of India had posed a question to the Secretariat 
during the course of the CRTA's 59th Session on 29- 30 November 2010 with respect to RTAs with 
dual notification status, wherein the Secretariat was re quested to "inform Members of the nature of the 
problem and the constraints within the RTA database inhibiting the accommodation of this new category of notifications" (WT/REG/M/59).  While we  understand that the software did not foresee a 
case where RTAs would be notified twice each on the basis of a different WTO legal provision, we do 
note that some modifications have been introduced to the RTA database in  a manner that does not set 
any hierarchy between the legal provisions invoked in notifying RTAs with dual notification status.  
However, we still note that, for example with r espect to the India-Korea RTA (an RTA with dual 
notification status), that while the factual presentation for the goods part is on hold, the factual presentation for the services part is under preparation.  This matter requires further clarification by the  WT/REG/W/67 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Secretariat.  It should be recalled that the delega tions of China, Egypt and India requested that all 
RTAs with dual notification status be kept on hol d until the specific and systemic issues arising from 
their consideration in the Committee on Trad e and Development had been exhausted. 
5. SECTION VIII - SYSTEMIC IMPLICATIONS OF RTAS & INITIATIVES FOR THE 
MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM . 
11. We would assume that the title for this heading refers to the proposal submitted by a number 
of delegations and discussed in the CRTA during the 62nd & 63rd Sessions.  This proposal was 
initially presented as a communication entitled "C ross-Cutting Issues on RTAs" (WT/REG/W/54 and 
Rev.2).  We therefore are of the view that the head ing of this section should reflect the original nature 
and emphasis of the proposal i.e:  "Cross-Cutting Issues on RTAs." 
__________