RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG/M/59 
21 December 2010 
 (10-6845) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Fifty-ninth Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 29-30 NOVEMBER 2010 
 
Chairman:  Mr. A. Suescum (Panama)  
  
A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The 59th Session of the Committee on Regional Trad e Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the 
Committee) was convened in Airgram WTO/AI R/3643/Rev.1, dated 19 November 2010.  The 
Chairman suggested, upon the requ est of the delegation of New Zealand, whose head of delegation 
was only available in the morning, to re-order th e Agenda as follows:  Item D: Consideration of 
Regional Trade Agreements to come first;  followe d by Item C: the Committee's Proposed work for 
2010;  and finally, Item B:  adoption of the CRTA's Annual Report to the General Council.   
2. The representative of Egypt  agreed with the Chairman's proposal to change the order of the 
Agenda and proposed to consider It em D.I: Status Report of the Committee's Work together with Item 
B: Adoption of the Annual Report, since the former was part of the Report itself, as Attachment 5. 
3. The representative of India  supported the suggestion made  by the delegation of Egypt. 
4. The representative of China  agreed with the Chairman's suggestion to change the order of the 
Agenda and he also echoed the proposal made by Egypt and India to discuss the Status Report 
together with the Annual Report.  
5. The Chairman  thanked the delegations who had taken the floor and accepted their suggestions 
since this would help the Committee to d eal with the reports more effectively. 
6. Under "Other Business", the Chairman announced his intention to inform Members of three 
issues:  technical cooperation activities conducted by th e Secretariat in 2010 and those scheduled for 
2011 in the area of RTAs;  proposed meeting dates of the CRTA for 2011;  and the imminent move of the RTA section within the Centre William Rappard.   
7. The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B.  Adoption of the Annual Report (2010) of the CRTA to the General Council  
  (WT/REG/W/57). 
C. Committee's proposed work for 2010:  Cross cutting issues – Communication from 
  Argentina;  Australia;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  Japan;  
  Mexico, New Zealand;  and the Republic of Korea (WT/REG/W/54/Rev.2 and  
  WT/REG/W/54/Rev.2/Add.1). 
 – Further work to consider the systemic implication of Regional Trade Agreements 
  under Paragraph 1(d) of the CRTA Term s of Reference – Communication from the 
  United States (WT/REG/W/59). WT/REG/M/59 
Page 2  
 
  D. I. Status Report of the Committee's Work (WT/REG/W/58). 
 II.  Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Nicaragua, goods  III. Free Trade Agreement between China and New Zealand, goods and services  IV. Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and Chile, goods and services  V. Free Trade Agreement between Panama and the Separate Customs Territory 
   of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, goods and services  
E.  Other Business  
8. 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. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT (2010)  OF THE CRTA  TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL 
(WT/REG/W/57). 
9. Under Agenda Item B, the Chairman  said that a draft of the Annual Report had been 
distributed to Members in document WT/REG/W/57.  In a fax dated 8 November 2010, he had asked 
delegations to submit any preliminary comments on th e Report to the Secretariat in advance of the 
meeting and a number of comments had been receive d.  Those from Chinese Taipei;  Hong Kong, 
China;  and the United States had corrected so me minor factual inaccuracies and had been 
incorporated into the Report.  The European Union had made a suggestion for Attachment 3, which 
would be considered in due course.  He had also  received a letter from the delegations of China, 
Egypt and India concerning inconsistencies in th e CRTA's draft Report and in the RTA database.  A 
copy of this communication had been distributed to all Members in document WT/REG/W/60, dated 
23 November 2010.  He proposed to give the floor to  the delegations of China, Egypt and India to 
introduce their document and to Members for their reactions.  He then suggested to move into 
informal mode and go through the draft Annual Repo rt section by section in order to determine what 
changes needed to be made. 
10. The representative of India  thanked the Chairman for having circulated to Members the joint 
letter addressed to him by the Ambassadors of China, Egypt and India, which had noted some inconsistencies in the draft Annual Report of the CRTA to the General Council and also in the RTA 
database.  The status of the work programme for th e CRTA in 2010, contained in Attachment 5 to the 
draft Report, seemed to convey that the GCC cu stoms union was one of the RTAs scheduled for 
consideration in the CRTA.  He said that this was factually incorrect, since the mode of consideration 
of the GCC customs union was still being discusse d in the Committee on Trade and Development 
(CTD) and no decision on the issue had been ta ken to date.  The TM contained no provisions 
regarding consideration of RTAs with dual notifi cations and discussion on this issue had not even 
begun in the Negotiating Group on Rules (NGR).  He  therefore failed to understand how the GCC 
customs union had been included in the CRTA's work programme and suggested to remove it from 
Attachment 5 for the moment.  Furthermore, pa ragraph 4 of the draft Report mentioned that 
"174 RTAs were notified under GATT Article XX IV, 31 under the Enabling Clause and 83 under 
GATS Article V".  He said that it was not clear as to how the three dual notified RTAs, namely the GCC customs union, the India-Korea Comprehens ive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and 
the ASEAN-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) had b een captured in these numbers.  He suggested 
to include a clear mention of the three dual notifications in the Annual Report so that the fact was 
captured without any double counting.  The RTA database mentioned that the GCC customs union 
had been notified under GATT Article XXIV and cont ained a remark saying that the agreement had 
also been notified under the Enabling Clause.  In th e view of the three delegations, both notifications, 
the one under GATT Article XXIV and the one under the Enabling Clause, were equally valid and did 
not have a hierarchical relationship and should  therefore be mentioned together.  Similar 
discrepancies had also been noted vis-à-vis  the India-Korea CEPA and the ASEAN-Korea FTA.  
Therefore, he requested the Secretariat to remove  such discrepancies and state the correct factual  WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 3 
 
 
  position.  Also, in paragraph 5 of the Report there were four RTAs for which the factual presentation 
had been put on hold:  a list of these RTAs was c ontained in Attachment 2.  Due to the absence of 
existing guidelines in the TM regarding RTAs with dual notifications, and pending any decision in the 
CTD and NGR, the GCC customs union, the Indi a-Korea CEPA and the ASEAN-Korea FTA should 
be included under this category pending a decision by Members on the way forward for consideration 
of such RTAs.  He said that all these points shoul d be reflected in the Annual Report and the RTA 
database. 
11. The Chairman  moved into informal mode to go through the Annual Report section by section 
in order to determine what changes need to be made.   
12. Back in formal mode, he said that the Co mmittee had engaged in long and enlightening 
discussions on certain issues relating to the text  of the draft Annual Report but, unfortunately, 
Members had not been able to reach an agreem ent on the Report.  The CRTA Annual Report had to 
be submitted to the General Council by 2 December  2010 to be included in the Agenda of the 
meeting.  Given the entrenched positions of Me mbers and an unlikely successful outcome, he would 
conclude the discussion on the Annual Report and in form the General Council that the CRTA had not 
been able to agree.  He considered it unfortuna te that, due to disagreement on some language, the 
Committee had had to drop the entire Report.  He pr oposed to continue inform al consultations with 
Members and, provided that there was enough time and willingness, he would call another meeting in 
order for Members to agree upon the text.  
13. The representative of India  said that his delegation's preference was to have an Annual 
Report;  however, he trusted the Chairman's judgement  and would remain engaged in future meetings 
if any.  With respect to the RTA database, he said that it was an important part of the TM adopted by 
the General Council in December 2006.  While th e factual presentations and their consideration 
fulfilled the objective of transparency for Memb ers in the WTO, the database extended this 
transparency to the outside world.  It was, therefor e, very important that the information given in the 
database was updated and accurate.  India had noted so me inconsistencies in the database regarding 
notification of RTAs.  It was a well-known fact th at the GCC customs union, the India-Korea CEPA 
and the ASEAN-Korea FTA had been notified under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV.  However, the database ment ioned that the notification provision was GATT 
Article XXIV and, as a remark, that these agreemen ts had also been notified under the Enabling 
Clause.  In his delegation's view, such a represen tation seemed to give reduced importance to the 
Enabling Clause notification vis-à-vis  those under GATT Article XXIV.  Similarly, India was 
surprised and deeply apprehensive that in the draft Annual Report, particularly in paragraph 4, the 
Enabling Clause notification of the three dual notif ied RTAs had been completely ignored.  This 
selective consideration and reflection of notificatio ns caused serious concerns to India, since the 
Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV notifications were equally legally va lid and did not have a 
hierarchical relation.  Therefore, both should be me ntioned together in the database.  India understood 
that there were some technical issues and both notifications could not be mentioned in the same place, 
but suggested to rectify the software as soon as possible.  He said that, as long as the problem persisted, the reference to GATT Article XXIV shoul d be removed and in the remarks area a sentence 
should be included to the effect that the RTA had been notified under both the Enabling Clause and GATT Article XXIV, in order to reflect the parity of  the two notifications.  India also requested the 
Secretariat 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, as well as how long it 
would take to correct the software problem so that the dual notifications could be reflected in a more 
appropriate manner. 
14. The representative of Korea
 asked the Chairman to confirm that the CRTA's Annual Report 
would not be submitted to the General Council for approval.  WT/REG/M/59 
Page 4  
 
  15. The Chairman
 confirmed that since Members had not been able to agree on the text, the 
Annual Report would not be submitted for approval to the General Council.   He remained available to 
continue informal consultations to see whether Memb ers could change the situation, but the meeting 
was about to be concluded without the approval of the Annual Report.  If the situation persisted, this 
was what he would report to the General Council. 
16. The representative of Korea  believed that the Annual Repor t, without the language of  
paragraph 4 and Attachment 5, was better than no A nnual Report at all.  He thus urged Members to 
make a decision rather than continuing discussion. 
17. The representative of the European Union  agreed with Korea's intervention.  
18. The representative of India  made it clear that his delegation did not agree with the dropping of 
Attachment 5 and with the language  on paragraph 4 proposed by the Chairman at the beginning of the 
meeting. 
19. The Chairman  said that India's intervention demonstrated the impossibility of reaching an 
agreement at the Committee.  He remained willing to continue with  informal consultations, but to 
conclude the current discussion on the Annual Report.   
20. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
C. COMMITTEE 'S PROPOSED WORK FOR 2010:   CROSS CUTTING ISSUES – COMMUNICATION FROM 
ARGENTINA ;  AUSTRALIA ;  CANADA ;  CHILE;  CHINA ;  HONG KONG, CHINA ;  INDIA ;  JAPAN ;  
MEXICO ;  NEW ZEALAND ;  AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA (WT/REG/W/54/R EV.2 AND 
WT/REG/W/54/R EV.2/A DD.1). – FURTHER WORK TO CONSIDER THE SYSTEMIC IMPLICATION 
OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(D) OF THE CRTA  TERMS OF 
REFERENCE – COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (WT/REG/W/59). 
21. The Chairman  said that under this Agenda item there were two issues to consider.  The first 
concerned an updated submission on cross-cutting i ssues in RTAs, co-sponsored by Argentina;  
Australia;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  Hong Kong, China;   India;  Japan;  Mexico;  New Zealand;  and 
the Republic of Korea, recently circulat ed in documents WT/REG/W/54/Rev.2 and 
WT/REG/W/54/Rev.2/Add.1, dated 10 and 23 November 2010, respectively.  He gave the floor to the 
co-sponsors of this document. 
22. The representative of Australia  recalled that at the CRTA meeting in June 2010, her 
delegation had introduced the proposal on cross-cu tting issues and, as it was evident from the number 
of co-sponsors and the level of interest in the discussion thus far, there was much support and a great deal of interest in such a proposal.  Australia ha d seriously engaged with ot her co-sponsors to address 
Members' questions and concerns and, based on such  an interaction, the proposal had been revised 
and issued as a revision.  She pointed out that  the changes to the proposal were the result of 
consultations among Members.  For instance, some Me mbers were concerned that such work could be 
too resource-intensive for the Secretariat.  This issu e had been discussed with the Secretariat, that had 
indicated that it had the resources to carry out the wo rk.  However, since this was an important issue 
for some Members, the revised document stated that  if there was any question about the Secretariat's 
resources, the regular work of the Committee would be prioritized if necessary.  Some Members had 
also expressed concerns about the WTO potentially  duplicating work done elsewhere.  From the co-
sponsors' perspective, the WTO was in a unique pos ition to undertake this work since it had a broad 
membership;  it had access to raw data;  and it had an explicit mandate to look at RTAs and their 
interaction with the multilateral trading system.  The co-sponsors accepted that there had been work 
done on this issue elsewhere and that it might be useful to take it into account, and the revised 
document reflected that.  Finally, some Members had asked the co-sponsors how this work would be  WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 5 
 
 
  undertaken in practice and the revised proposal pointed  to two papers prepared by the Secretariat in 
2002, which provided a precedent for the sort of work  the co-sponsors envisaged.  The changes to the 
proposal had resulted in a new co-sponsor, Mexico , bringing their total number to eleven, and a 
number of other Members were very  supportive of this work.  During discussions with Members, the 
co-sponsors had received a very clear message that the revision narrowed many of the gaps previously 
identified.  Therefore, they believed the Committe e should adopt the work programme as a matter of 
priority and, given that the year was almost over,  look to seriously engage  on any final outstanding 
issue that there might be with Members in order to  finalise and adopt the work programme.  Australia 
acknowledged the second proposal on cross-cutting issues tabled by the United States and welcomed it;  from her delegation's perspective, it illustrated the gr eat deal of real interest in the subject and the 
importance for Members to start considering in a serious way the relationship between RTAs and the 
multilateral trading system.  She finished by saying that a lot of work had been done on Australia's 
proposal, there was a great deal of interest in it, a nd the subject could not be of greater importance to 
the system on which Members relied on so heavily.  Therefore, it was time to move on and adopt the 
work programme.   
23. The representative of India
 said that the work on cross-cutting issues should be robust in order 
to be useful.  In his delegation's view, the work could be robust if it was based on authentic data 
submitted by Members themselves.  There had always been a question mark on the reliability of data 
and analysis available elsewhere outside the WT O.  In the revised proposal, the basis for the 
descriptive papers by the Secretariat would be  data submitted by Members and the factual 
presentations, which had already been shared with Me mbers.  While other international organizations 
also had useful rules on RTAs, the WTO had an e xplicit mandate to consider how RTAs interacted 
with the multilateral trading system and a substa ntial amount of raw data on RTAs.  Due to this 
comparative advantage, only the WTO was compet ent to undertake detailed and descriptive work 
without duplication of the work done elsewhere, wh ich would rather complement it.  Secondly, the 
proposal took into consideration the possible resource  constraints of the Secretariat.  The preparation 
of the descriptive papers would not put any undue bur den on any one division of the Secretariat, but it 
would be spread out over divisions dealing with specifi c issues as listed in the tables of contents of the 
factual presentations.  He urged the CRTA to consider adopting the proposal.   
24. The representative of Hong Kong, China,  as a co-sponsor of the proposal that had been 
revised to take into account Members' concerns, re iterated that the proposed studies would not replace 
the work of the NGR on RTAs;  would not create ne w legal rules or obligations on RTAs;  would not 
create de facto  benchmarks for RTAs;  and would not create resource problems for the Secretariat.  In 
view of the proliferation of RTAs and their significant impact on the multilateral trading system, there was an increasing and immediate need to enhance Members' understanding of all existing RTAs so as 
to reflect on how RTAs could converge towards the multilateral trading system and become truly 
"building blocks".  The proposal was presently co -sponsored by eleven Members and was gaining 
support among the entire Membership.  He strongly  encouraged Members' endorsement of the 
proposed studies. 
25. The representative of Chile
 said that his country, with more  than 20 RTAs with 58 countries, 
attached great importance to the optimal functioning of RTAs and their positive impact on the multilateral trading system, and considered transparen cy as an essential requirement for this.  To this 
end, 11 countries – Argentina;  Australia;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  Japan;  
Mexico;  New Zealand;  and the Republic of Ko rea – had submitted a revised proposal on cross-
cutting issues in RTAs, whose objective was to r esume and revitalize the Committee's work on 
horizontal issues in RTAs, in order for the Committee to  work effectively and with concrete results in 
clarifying the systemic implication of horizontal issues.  The proposal was based on the mandate of 
the Committee and there would be no duplication of wo rk or additional constraints on the Secretariat.  
He urged Members to adopt the work programme as soon as possible and welcomed the United States' 
proposal, which demonstrated the interest in the issue. WT/REG/M/59 
Page 6  
 
  26. The representative of Japan
 echoed the statements by Australia, India, Chile and other 
delegations.  As they had clearly pointed out, the re vised version of the joint proposal regarding cross-
cutting issues in RTAs reflected the concerns of  Members at previous CRTA meetings and Japan 
remarked on the merits of this work.  In order for Members to enhance their understanding of the 
current expansion of RTAs, a comprehensive appr oach was important.  At the same time, Japan 
believed that such a study would not cause any resources problems for the Secretariat since it would 
proceed on the basis of existing wo rk, such as the factual presentations.  Japan urged Members to 
advance this work, since the impact of RTAs ha d been increasing over the years.  He supported the 
adoption of the work programme as soon as possible with broad support from Members.  
27. The representative of New Zealand , as a co-sponsor of the proposal, was pleased to support it 
in its revised form.  As Australia had outlined, th e paper addressed many of the concerns expressed by 
Members at the CRTA in June.  The revised proposal clarified that the outcome of the work would be a series of factual papers prepared by the Secretaria t, similar to those prepared in 2002, which collated 
information about how each issue listed in a factua l presentation was dealt with across all Members’ 
notified RTAs.  The list of topics to be covered w as clear and limited and it would be the same as the 
topics Members had approved for inclusion in factual presentations.  The revised proposal also 
clarified the value this outcome would add; a ser ies of factual reports would provide useful and 
comprehensive information to Members to build  up an overall picture of how RTAs currently 
functioned.  This picture would inform Members’  own analysis or discussion in the Committee on the 
impact of RTAs on the multilateral trading system .  She also acknowledged the proposal by the 
United States. 
28. The representative of Korea
, as a co-sponsor of the proposal, associated his delegation with 
previous speakers in supporting Australia's propo sal.  He believed that the proposal reflected the 
concerns raised by some delegations in previo us CRTA meetings, by setting up a sort of safety 
mechanism to prevent possible overload on the S ecretariat and to avoid duplication of other 
organizations' work.  He hoped all Members woul d support the proposal and move on to the next 
stage. 
29. The representative of China  expressed full support for the stat ement by Australia, the captain 
of the team, as well as by other te am-mates.  His delegation was satisfied with the formation of an 
entire international team with 11 players and looked forward to having more participants to make the 
team even stronger.  The co-sponsors had engage d in substantive discussion with all interested 
Members during the past few months and had made their best effort to accommodate their concerns.  
The revised proposal was an evolving and mature  one, which included several clarifications and 
improvements compared to the previous version.  For example, it highlighted the value of the 
horizontal, cross-cutting analysis of RTAs to e nhance Members’ understanding of the usefulness of 
this work;  it touched upon the relationship between  horizontal, cross-cutting analysis and the regular 
work of the CRTA and made it clear that the Secret ariat would prioritize the latter if a conflict of 
resources arose;  it also clarified the complement ary nature of the work being done by other 
organizations to the WTO analysis.  With th ese amendments, he believed that the CRTA should 
approve the proposal and commence the work as soon as possible, since it was in the interest of all 
Members.  He mentioned that the Negotiating Gr oup on Rules (NGR) had recently held informal 
consultations with the aim of restarting negotiati ons on RTA systemic issues.  Although the work in 
the CRTA would not change WTO disciplines on RTAs, as described in paragr aph 9 of the proposal, 
he was confident that the horizontal, cross-cutting anal ysis could definitely pr ovide valuable input and 
help re-energize discussions in the NGR and Member s should not miss this important opportunity to 
make a contribution to the Doha Round. 
30. The representative of Mexico  reminded Members that at the CRTA meeting in September, his 
delegation had made clear its intention to co-spons or the proposal.  He was thus pleased to announce 
that Mexico had become a co-sponsor and highli ghted the importance of continuing with the  WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 7 
 
 
  horizontal analysis of RTAs.  As mentioned by prev ious speakers, such analysis would not create new 
legal rules or obligations, or new de facto  benchmarks on RTAs and would not duplicate the work 
done by other organizations.  More importantly, the proposal took into consideration the existing 
resources of the Secretariat.  He urged the Co mmittee to adopt the work programme as soon as 
possible. 
31. The representative of Canada  remarked that the papers that would result from the proposed 
work would be based on actual factual presentations car efully prepared by the Secretariat on the basis 
of inputs provided by the parties and reviewed by the Committee.  All this ensured the high level of 
quality and relevance for the Committee.  Work  based on these sound and well-known sources would 
be a welcome contribution to Members' co mprehensive understanding.   Canada supported 
transparency and the adoption of the proposal.  Sh e also thanked the United States for its proposal. 
32. The representative of Turkey  thanked the proponents of the revised text on cross-cutting 
issues in RTAs and appreciated the comprehensiv e explanation.  Turkey had always supported 
proposals that enhanced transparency of RTAs.  The new text had improved language and Turkey was 
in favour of its adoption. 
33. The representative of the United States  appreciated the submission of the revised proposal but 
said that her delegation could not support it as curre ntly written as the basis for work on the systemic 
implications of RTAs.  The additional sentences that  had been included appeared to attempt to check 
some boxes of topics that had been mentioned, but did not actually aim to solve the problems identified on previous occasions by the United States and other delegations.  It  was still 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 programme, wit hout any direct guidance from the Membership.  In 
her delegation's view, simply including various princi ples of what not to do did not constitute specific 
guidance and the proposal was rather surprising in a Member-driven organization.  As previously 
mentioned, her delegation was not in the position to aut horize or delegate to the Secretariat the task of 
writing papers on all issue areas listed in the tables of contents of factual presentations.  She asked 
Members if anyone knew how many issues they were talking about.  It was not at all clear to her 
delegation that each and every issue area in an RTA ra ised systemic concerns worth examining or that 
using the Secretariat's resources to produce such pape rs was the most useful or appropriate means of 
exploring any systemic issues.  She also considered that the Secretariat was al ready very burdened in 
the implementation of the TM and in chasing af ter Members on non-notified RTAs.  She was still 
interested in hearing the proponents' answers to a number of specific questions that the United States 
had asked previously.  First, the proponents noted that the TM had been very useful at "shedding light 
on the key elements of individual RTAs".  Wh ile the United States would concur with this 
assessment, she wondered which so-called "key elem ents" the proponents were referring to, whether 
all the proponents considered the same elements  as key and whether every item in the table of 
contents of the factual presentations was a "key el ement".  Secondly, she asked the proponents to give 
some examples of specific issues they would li ke to see studied by the Secretariat.   
34. The representative of the European Union
 reiterated her delegation's support for the proposal 
presented by Australia and co-sponsored by 11 delega tions.  This broad support was illustrative of the 
keen interest by Members to strengthen the work  carried out by the CRTA.  The European Union 
continued to see value in this initiative which would help Members to get a more complete picture and 
a better understanding of the cross-cutting elements of RTAs of systemic importance.  She considered 
that the Secretariat had sufficient resources to undertake this work, as acknowledged by the 
Secretariat itself and by some Members, and that  these resources should not be used for reminding 
Members to comply with their obligations to notif y or submit comments, but rather to conduct useful 
work for the Committee.  Therefore, it was fo r Members to work together to agree on a 
comprehensive work programme and, in this rega rd, she asked the co-spons ors to convene further 
informal consultations with the help of the Chai rman, when needed, so as to make steady and swift WT/REG/M/59 
Page 8  
 
  headway in the work programme.  As already indicat ed by Australia, the Agenda Item made reference 
to "Committee's proposed work programme for 2010", but it was November already and Members 
were not yet close to a concrete outcome.  She ur ged Members to be ready to advance on the work 
programme without further delay and the European Union stood ready. 
35. The representative of Norway
 thanked the proponents for having revised the proposal and for 
their clarifications.  Norway continued to find the document interesting and appreciated the useful 
updates.  Her delegation believed that this paper would constitute a good basis for the Committee's 
further work. 
36. The representative of El Salvador  thanked the proponents for the revised proposal and in 
particular the delegation of Aust ralia for having engaged in discussions prior to the meeting with 
those delegations that had expressed concerns a bout the proposal on cross-cutting issues on RTAs.  
He had analysed the revised document and took note  of the changes made.  El Salvador remained 
fully committed to the TM for RTAs, since it  had enabled the Committee to have a better 
understanding of the different RTAs concluded by Members and considered by the CRTA.  At the same time, he confirmed support fo r a practical way forward, based on Members' consensus, to make 
use of the Committee's mandate to examine the system ic implications of RTAs.  His capital was still 
considering the proposal, but he had some preliminar y comments.  In this regard, paragraph 7 stated 
that the factual reports would inform Members' trad e and development strategies, and he asked the co-
sponsors whether this was a statement of fact or if  they intended to put it into practice.  In his 
delegation's view, it was up to Members to d ecide how to use such information as deemed 
appropriate, taking into account that such reports did not necessarily reflect the positions of all 153 
WTO Members.  As regards paragraph 11, he  asked the proponents to confirm whether by 
"comprehensive exercise" they meant the exercise that would be carried out on the basis of the 
consideration of the factual presentations prepared by the Secretariat.  It was also necessary for 
Members to clearly establish the objectives expected fr om this work, since this would ensure the best 
use of the Secretariat's and Members' time.  Hi s delegation reserved the right to present additional 
comments during the Committee or directly to the proponents at a later stage as soon as his capital 
had finalised the study of the proposal.   
37. The representative of Switzerland
 thanked the co-sponsors for the revised communication and 
agreed with the idea of resuming and reenergizi ng the Committee's work on horizontal cross-cutting 
elements of RTAs in order to improve Members'  understanding of these aspects of RTAs and their 
systemic significance.  He assumed that the scope of  such a proposal, if it were adopted, would extend 
not just to RTAs falling under GATT Article XXIV, but also to those under Article V of the GATS 
and paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause.  The CRTA would therefore have to collaborate closely 
with the Committee on Trade and Development to carry  out this work.  This point did not come out 
precisely from the paper by the co-sponsors and he would appreciate answers to this question, which 
had already been raised at the CRTA in June.  He recognized that the co-sponsors had made a 
valuable effort to clarify their proposal regardi ng the possible content of such studies and thanked 
Australia and other co-sponsors for having clarified the scope of the proposed work.  Nevertheless, 
Switzerland continued to have some doubts on whether all aspects of RTAs should be examined in the 
context of such an exercise and agreed with the United States that it was still unclear which elements 
the proponents really wanted to study.  He did not think, in particular, that all aspects of RTAs would 
be of the same interest in the context of cross-cutti ng analysis;  for instance, there were procedural or 
institutional aspects that might not necessarily be of relevance for such a study.  Also, like the United 
States had suggested in its communication, he consider ed that before engaging in such an exercise, a 
literature review should be conducte d.  He was indeed aware that comprehensive analysis had been 
already conducted in other fora, not ably in the OECD a few years ago, and that these studies had also 
recently been updated.  Members should consider th e results of these studies before starting a new 
project in the WTO, so as to avoid use of the Secr etariat's limited resources to reinvent a wheel that 
already existed.    WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 9 
 
 
  38. The representative of Australia  said that the interventions in the Committee reinforced her 
delegation's belief that there was considerable  interest among a large group of Members in 
undertaking this work and in doing it soon.  From her delegation's perspective, the list of supportive 
Members was growing and the number of gaps was shrinki ng, so they should continue to work in that 
direction.  She said that there were still some questions from Members, although some of them had 
already been answered;  for inst ance, it was clear from the proposal what issues would be looked at, 
and this ingenuous question surprised her delegation.   Australia was happy to continue to seriously 
engage with Members if they had ongoing questions about the work a nd they would continue to do so, 
but it was the time to reach consensus on taking th is work forward given that many Members had 
clear and direct interest in doing so.  She took up th e suggestion made by the European Union that the 
proponents continue informal consultations, with th e Chairman's assistance, on closing the small gaps 
that remained. 
39. The Chairman  recognized the work and efforts undertak en by the co-sponsors of the proposal.  
However, it appeared that, in order to move forwar d, further consultations were needed.  He thus 
urged the co-sponsors to continue such consultations, taking into account the concerns of various 
delegations.  He was available to facilitate the discu ssion, to the extent possible, and would be talking 
to Members to see how to proceed with this work.  He then moved on to consider the proposal by the 
United States on further work to consider the system ic implication of RTAs under Paragraph 1(d) of 
the CRTA's Terms of Reference (document WT/REG/W/59). 
40. The representative of the United States  was pleased to submit for consideration a proposal on 
further work to consider the systemic implica tion of RTAs pursuant to the CRTA's Terms of 
Reference, which were about ten years old.  Her de legation, like others, was interested in considering 
the implication of RTAs for the multilateral tradi ng system and in the paper two ideas were presented 
to proceed with methodically.  She had already menti oned the substantive elements of the proposal at 
previous CRTA meetings, and had been encouraged by support from a number of delegations.  The 
first substantive element was for the Secretariat to  undertake a study on the actual number of RTAs in 
force.  At present, such a basic question did not have a clear answer and this was due to a number of 
factors.  First, Members only needed to look at the factual presentations that had been reviewed at the 
Committee to see that a significant number of RTAs had not been notified to the WTO, and this was 
perhaps because some of the agreements were no l onger in force.  Non-notified RTAs represented a 
blind spot in Members' understa nding of RTAs and their implication for the multilateral trading 
system and needed to be accounted for.  Secondly,  although it was clear that the number of RTAs 
negotiated and put into force over the last ten year s had grown considerably, estimates on this number 
varied widely and, in some cases,  appeared inflated.  This was in part due to double counting:  for 
example, counting the goods and services aspects of  one RTA as two separate agreements, or 
counting an RTA as a separate agreement every time a new Member acceded to it, as was the case for 
the European Union customs union that had b een counted separately every time there was an 
expansion.  Third, RTAs that had been superseded  or replaced by newer agreements were included.  
In her delegation's view, an honest discussion on the economic implications of RTAs required a clear 
picture of the "field of play".  Thus, a more pr ecise count of RTAs in fo rce was necessary to move 
forward and to establish this baseline.  Ideally, th e study could also include information on the share 
of trade occurring between RTA partners.  The Unit ed States was open to Members' views on this 
aspect of the study, since it was known that the WTO World Trade Report (WTR), which would be 
released in July 2011 and would focus on RTAs, appear ed to be aimed at providing for the first time a 
precise estimate of how much trade in "preferential trade agreements" received preferential treatment.  
The second substantive element of the United States ' proposal asked the Secretariat to undertake and 
provide to Members a literature review of books, articles and economic studies published over the last 
five years.  She believed that this literature revi ew, perhaps in combination with the upcoming WTR, 
could provide an excellent springboard for identif ication by Members of further specific areas of 
interest.  She also noted that participation in re views of individual RTAs could provide a significant WT/REG/M/59 
Page 10  
 
  perspective on the effects of RTAs on the multilatera l trading system and she urged more delegations 
to participate actively.  She looked forward to Me mbers' questions and reactions to the proposal.  
41. The representative of El Salvador
 thanked the United States for th e proposal and said that it  
took up the Committee's mandate to continue the consid eration of the systemic implications of RTAs.  
He said that the proposal was based on the work al ready undertaken by Members and the Secretariat 
in the CRTA and also took into consideration the work and studies done by other organizations on this 
subject.   El Salvador took a positive view of the US proposal, which clearly took up the work done 
under the TM, and enabled it to consider, through a st ep-by-step approach, the work to be done by the 
CRTA on the systemic implications of RTAs.  His delegation had analysed the proposal very closely 
and, subject to the consideration by national authorities in capital, he hoped to communicate to 
Members the co-sponsorship by El Salvador of the US proposal soon.  
42. The representative of India  appreciated the submission made by the United States because of 
the importance his delegation attached to the issu e of systemic implications of RTAs for the 
multilateral trading system and the relationship betw een the two.  The US proposal, while addressing 
the same objective as the proposal WT/REG/W/54 by  Australia, India and other delegations, had a 
basic difference.  The latter proposal was largely WTO-centric, whereas the US proposal was centred 
outside the WTO.  Certainly, it contained several useful ideas.  India had had little time to do an in-
depth analysis of the proposal, however, he wanted to share some preliminary thoughts in order to enhance his delegation's understanding of the propo sal.  The idea of a literature review of books, 
articles and economic studies needed further elabor ation.  If the idea was to prepare a detailed 
bibliography for Members, he asked how this w ould have added value over a "Google" search.  The 
proposal also referred to a brief parenthetical descri ption of the literature, and he asked whether it was 
the expectation that the Secretaria t would go through the material, di gest it and prepare a summary.  
In the view of the United States, would the Secretar iat have the resources to undertake such a task.  
The US proposal mentioned that not all issues related to RTAs were necessarily systemic and of interest to Members and he asked how such issues w ould be identified:  by Members, the Secretariat, 
or did the United States intend to use the table of contents of factual presentations?  He understood 
that several detailed econometric studies had been do ne on various aspects of RTAs outside the WTO, 
in universities and international organizations, and asked how Members would decide on the rigor of 
the work to be done by the Secretariat.  He further asked on what basis the Secretariat would 
recognize which books, articles and economic studies we re relevant for such a purpose and asked the 
United States to give an example of a similar litera ture review done by the Secretariat in any of its 
Committees, since this would give Members a bette r idea of what the Unite d States was proposing.  
India would be happy to provide this list of pre liminary questions in writing to the United States.  
43. The representative of Thailand
, on behalf of ASEAN, thanked the co-sponsors of both 
proposals on cross-cutting issues in RTAs.  ASEAN we lcomed the revised proposal of Australia and 
the co-sponsors, since a comprehensive study conducte d horizontally across agreements and vertically 
through various topics covered under the factual pr esentations on RTAs, without duplication of the 
work done by other organizations, would be usef ul for Members to understand the overall trade and 
development strategies and the interaction between  RTAs and the multilateral trading system.  In 
ASEAN's view, a discussion with the Secretariat would address concerns over the additional burden 
this would cause and the conflict of resources previously raised by some Members.  ASEAN also welcomed many elements of the US proposal, for in stance:  that the Secretariat studied the actual 
number of RTAs in force, notified or not, without  the use of double counting;  the inclusion of 
information on the share of trade occurring between  RTA partners and of a literature review of 
previous studies on RTAs, that would shed light on the topic of preferences;  and a detailed bibliography so that good work would not be repeated.  This work would provide a starting point for discussion and would provide sufficient backgroun d for the better understanding of the scope and 
economic implications of RTAs.  Against this  background, ASEAN believed that both proposals 
could be complementary and achieve the purpose of fulfilling the mandate to consider the systemic  WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 11 
 
 
  implications of RTAs and regional initiatives for th e multilateral trading system.  The proposals could 
provide Members with preliminary background statis tics and references, as well as with a more 
comprehensive and thorough study to complete th e systemic implications of RTAs and regional 
initiatives for the multilateral trading system.  As such, ASEAN believed that, as a first step, work 
could start with the US proposal and perhaps base d on what would come out of the Secretariat's 
studies possibly move on to the proposal of Austra lia and the co-sponsors, while ensuring that there 
would be no duplication of work.  
44. The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed appreciation to the Australian delegation and 
the co-sponsors for their continuing efforts at revising and refining their proposal and thanked the United States for having put its ideas into a fo rmal written proposal.  As the number of RTAs 
continued to grow, Chinese Taipei, like other Memb ers, was becoming more and more convinced of 
the value of analysis of the cross-cutting elemen ts, since it would improve Members' knowledge of 
how RTAs interacted with the multilateral tradi ng system, and inform Members of how their own 
trade interests would be affected by other RTAs.  She saw the two proposals as basically going in the 
same direction, since both supported the renewed cons ideration of the systemic implications of RTAs 
and regional initiatives for the multilateral trading sy stem and the relationship between them.  Where 
they differed, however, was in the approach to conducting such work.  The proposal by Australia and 
the co-sponsors suggested to look horizontally at all issues listed in the tables of contents of the 
factual presentations, whereas the United States proposed a step-by-step approach to identify 
individual issues one at a time because not all issues linked to RTAs were necessarily systemic and of 
interest to Members.  One of the main concerns  regarding the two different approaches was whether 
or not resource problems would be created for the Secretariat.  Through discussion in the Committee, 
explanations from Australia and the co-sponsors ha d been heard on why they envisaged that their 
proposal would not create resource problems, and she would appreciate hearing from the United States or other Members more examples of issues listed in the tables of contents of factual presentations for which there would be no value or in terest to Members of a horizontal analysis.  Her 
delegation was also concerned that any horizontal anal ysis should not affect the regular work of the 
CRTA nor replace the work of the NGR on RTAs.  Chinese Taipei looked fo rward to engaging in 
further discussions on this issue. 
45. The representative of Chile 
expressed interest in the proposal by the United States, which was 
still under consideration by capital.  He had some preliminary questions on the literature review in 
paragraph 7.  He asked whether all publications over the past five years or only a part of them would 
be taken into consideration and what criteria w ould be used to include or exclude studies and 
publications from the review.  He asked whether there would be a recompilation of such studies and publications or a systemic organization of them, a nd how they could be compared, given the different 
methodological approaches and treatment of data  which often led to different conclusions. 
46. The representative of China
 joined previous speakers in thanking the United States for the 
proposal, which provided Members with their persp ectives on the work the CR TA should undertake. 
Since his delegation had received the paper a few days  ago, he limited his in tervention to brief and 
preliminary observations and reserved the right to  provide further comments on future occasions.  
China agreed with the United St ates that the CRTA had a clear mandate to consider the systematic 
implications of RTAs and regional initiatives for th e multilateral trading system.  He believed that 
previous work, including the two background pape rs prepared by the Secretariat in 2002 and the 
successful implementation of the TM during the past four years, had formed a good basis for future 
analysis.  Given the recent proliferation of RTAs  and their continuous growth, it was urgent for 
Members to have further analyses on the implication of RTAs for the WTO.  The US proposal and the 
joint proposal discussed at the Committee were obvious ly efforts in this regard, although different 
approaches had been illustrated.  He recognized the positive direction of the US proposal, but had 
some questions and even doubts on the concrete sugges tions in the paper.  First, the United States had 
mentioned that as not all issues related to RTAs were necessarily systematic and of interest to WT/REG/M/59 
Page 12  
 
  Members, this process should primarily emanate from Members’ identificati on of individual issues, 
one at a time, which might warrant further study.  China considered this approach problematic since, 
as witnessed in past consultations, this cherry-picki ng approach, which was more subjective in nature, 
was controversial given different interpretations and he terogeneous preferences of Members on the 
issues which they considered systemic and thus had an interest in.  Therefore, the objective approach, 
that was analytical work on all i ssues listed in the contents list of factual presentations, was more 
suitable.  Secondly, the United States recommended that the Secretariat begin with a study on the 
actual number of RTAs in force.  China realized  that the Secretariat normally counted RTAs by 
separating agreements in goods and services and this  methodology had been used for several years 
and no problem had arisen until now.  Therefore, it was very important for China to have a better and 
deeper understanding of the necessity and the valu e of re-calculation before agreeing with this 
suggestion.  Thirdly, China had serious concerns a bout the United States' suggestion that the literature 
review was a pre-condition for any further analytical work.  Such a review would not only put a heavy 
burden on the Secretariat’s already limited resources, si nce they would need to spend a lot of time to 
research the relevant materials, but also raised practical problems.  For example, who would 
determine the coverage of  this review and how, considering th at books, articles and economic studies 
on RTAs seemed non-exhaustive.  More importantly, although China had no intention to deny work 
by other organizations outside the WTO, it firmly believed that the WTO, with a clear mandate and 
well equipped for the work, was more relevant and s hould be the focal point to do analytical work on 
the relationship between RTAs and the multilateral tr ading system.  The work done by others should 
be a complement rather than in place of the WTO’ s own analysis.  He thanked the United States and 
looked forward to further discussion. 
47. The representative of the European Union
 welcomed the communication circulated by the 
United States, which confirmed the need to ensure th at Members were informed of the extent to which 
aspects of RTAs complemented or hindered multilateral trade liberalization efforts.  The two practical 
proposals, namely a literature review and a study on the actual number of RTAs in force, were valid 
but, in her delegation's view, not ambitious enough to aim at a substantial outcome.  The European 
Union considered that the Secretariat had suffici ent resources and should be given a mandate to 
develop a more extensive work programme.  In fact , this proposal could be easily combined and form 
part of a broader one, such as the one sponsored by  11 delegations, so that Members could agree on a 
proposal that covered the interests of all delegations .  It was now for Members to work together in 
order to agree on a comprehensive work progra mme which would deliver concrete, substantial 
analysis and and could give new focus for the Committee.  
48. The representative of Australia  thanked the United States for having put forward its proposal.  
Like other delegations, Australia ha d received it a few days ago, and had some preliminary comments.  
Australia welcomed and agreed with some aspects of  the US proposal:  for instance, the United States 
noted that the CRTA had a mandate to look at syst emic and cross-cutting issu es, and it was important 
for Australia that this mandate be discharged.  It  referred to the background surveys, also mentioned 
in Australia's proposal, and the subsequent debate in the Committee, which would also occur if the 
proposal was adopted by the Committee.  It also mentioned that there was support from Ministers and 
various Members to undertake substantive work in the CRTA on the systemic implications of RTAs.  
The US proposal contained two substantive ideas:  th e first referred to the study of the actual number 
of RTAs in force, which in the United States' view would increase Members' understanding of the 
systemic implication of RTAs.  From Australia's  point of view, knowing how many RTAs were in 
force would be useful but not as useful as knowi ng what Members were actually doing in those RTAs, 
and that was what Australia's proposal was all about.  The two proposals were not mutually exclusive, 
but the US proposal definitely did not get Members wh ere they needed to be in terms of the level of 
ambition.  The United States also stated in paragr aph 6 of the proposal, that studies on the number of 
RTAs should be undertaken as a first step.  He w as not sure why Members needed to know how many 
RTAs were actually into force before making a de cision to look at what Members were doing in their 
RTAs, since the number of RTAs did not change what Members were doing with them.  Australia  WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 13 
 
 
  certainly did not think that knowing the actual number was a precondition to undertaking more 
substantive and ambitious work.  The issue of a literature review had also been addressed in 
Australia's revised proposal:  in earlier discussions , the United States had referred to the risk of 
duplicating work that had already been done elsewh ere and suggested that some sort of literature 
review could be done.  In this regard, the revised  proposal recognised that there was valuable work 
done elsewhere which could be referenced as part of the process, but Australia still believed that the 
WTO was the best place to do this work because of its Membership, the raw data available and the 
explicit mandate it had to look at RT As in terms of how they impacted  the multilateral trading system.  
While others had done useful work, which could be used as a reference,  he certainly did not think that 
the CRTA should delegate its work to other inte rnational organizations or even academics.  
49. The representative of Peru  thanked the delegation of Austra lia and other co-sponsors, as well 
as the United States, for the proposals submitted to the Committee.  She said that the World Trade 
Report (WTR), due to be published in July 2011, on New Era Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs), 
would be structured as follows:  historical b ackground and current trends , which went beyond the 
classical analysis;  contents of PTAs;  and syne rgies and coherence between the multilateral trading 
system and PTAs.  Peru considered both propo sals not to be mutually exclusive but rather 
complementary.  Whereas the US proposal envisaged  a step-by-step appro ach, Australia's proposal 
asked for more comprehensive work  on all issues included in RTAs.  She took note of the evolution of 
Australia's proposal, which in her view contained ve ry positive elements, such as the reference to a 
systemic analysis of cross-cutting issues of RTAs, which was more in line with the intention behind 
the proposal on factual reports.  Moreover, the revi sed proposal clarified that such analysis would 
serve as a basis for discussion by Members in the CRT A, whereas in the original proposal it was not 
clear what the outcome of such an analysis was exp ected to be.  With regard to the determination of 
content of factual reports, she believed that the US proposal represented a useful starting point by 
identifying first the most urgent issues and iden tifying the actual number of RTAs in force, which 
could vary widely due to several factors, includi ng that many RTAs had not been notified to the 
WTO.  In her delegation's view, any work in this area should take as its point of departure a clearly 
identified number of RTAs, in order to avoid dup lication in the counting of RTAs, before giving the 
Secretariat the mandate to start working.  Peru w as fully committed to the TM and valued positively 
work that would permit a better understanding of RTAs from a systemic perspective.  Peru considered 
that such work should be based on RTAs that are notified and in force for which there was already a 
factual presentation prepared by the Secretariat or a summary by the parties.  The US proposal also 
mentioned that duplication of work already done in othe r fora should be avoided;  in this regard, she 
recognized the valuable work done by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum on 
cross-cutting issues in RTAs negotiated by its me mbers, including Peru.  Within APEC, political 
dialogue was taking place in light of these studi es undertaken in collaboration with the Inter-
American Development Bank and these studies could be used as a reference for th e work in the WTO.  
Furthermore some elements of the two proposals woul d to some extent be covered by the WTR 2011,  
such as the issues of synergies a nd coherence with the multilateral trading system.  As indicated in the 
US proposal, the study of RTAs in force, whether notified or not, should include information on preferential trade under these agreements;  in this re gard, one of the elements of the WTR 2011 was to 
provide for the first time a precise estimate of the percentage of trade falling under preferential trade regimes, which was a valuable contribution, but she wondered whether this would create duplication 
of the work possibly carried out by the CRTA.   
50. The representative of New Zealand
 thanked the United States for the proposal and agreed 
with a number of points made in its introduction,  particularly the importance of ensuring that 
Members were informed of the extent to wh ich aspects of RTAs complemented or hindered 
multilateral trade liberalization efforts.  Howeve r, New Zealand differed from the United States on 
how to achieve this objective.   At this stage, a lite rature review and a list of all RTAs in force around 
the world might be interesting, but would not in form Members' discussion and analysis as well as 
clear factual reports on how key elements were dea lt with in Members' RTAs.  Her delegation was not WT/REG/M/59 
Page 14  
 
  convinced that the US proposal would effectivel y deliver the useful factual and comprehensive 
information that Members needed to advance the discussion, but was open to keep discussing it.  On 
the scope of the proposal, New Zealand saw benefits in limiting the horizontal analysis the Secretariat 
might be asked to do to only notified RTAs becau se, thanks to the TM, uniform information was 
available about the agreements to be studied.  Lo oking at the US proposal, she wondered whether the 
Secretariat would find reliable sources of informa tion about non-notified RTAs  with enough detail to 
ensure, for example, that there was no double-counting between the goods and the services agreements that the Secretariat ha d been asked to list.  She looked forward to discussing this proposal 
in more depth with the United States.   
51. The representative of Japan
 welcomed and appreciated the United States' proposal.  Like 
other delegations, Japan had not had much time to consider this proposal, and his capital was still 
working on it, so he had some preliminary comment s.  With regard to the proposal for a literature 
review, Japan was concerned that this would create an additional burden on the Secretariat and asked 
the United States to provide a clear picture of the proposed work.  The US proposal indicated a step-
by-step approach;  normally, this kind of approach  needed a clear final outcome or goal in advance, 
and thus he asked what the United States imagined  as outcomes from this approach.  Japan believed 
that the US proposal did not exclude the proposal made by Australia and the co-sponsors and looked 
forward to discussing it further in the future. 
52. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the United States for having circulated the 
proposal that included many of the issues raised in the past.  As a preliminary comment, he said that 
the US proposal had highlighted some useful elements - for example, the study on the actual number 
of RTAs in force – and, in his delegation's vi ew, the proposal by Australia and other co-sponsors 
could include such a study.  His delegation cons idered the two proposals complementary in many 
aspects.  With respect to paragraph 7 of the US proposal, which proposed that the Secretariat 
undertake a literature review of books, articles and economic studies on RTAs published over the last 
five years, Hong Kong, China was not clear about th e scope of such a literature review and asked for 
clarification on how to identify such books, article s and economic studies.  He wondered whether all 
publications, in newspapers, magazines, by universi ty researchers and in all different languages would 
be included.  For instance, in Hong Kong, Chin a, China and Japan, there were a number of 
publications on this subject, and he asked how su ch publications would be identified and, as 
previously mentioned by India, who would decide wh ether an article was to be included or not and in 
which language the Secretariat would undertake the t ask of providing a brief description of them.  To 
his delegation, this issue was not entirely clear.  Al so the scope of the literature review was to cover 
all studies on RTAs, although some of them were focused on certain issues that the United States 
might consider not useful, since as it had said many ti mes that not all issues were relevant.  Therefore 
it was not practical to include all studies in the litera ture review, not to mention whether this literature 
review would help the Committee fulfill a mandate to understand cross-cuttin g issues of RTAs and 
the implications for the multilateral trading system .  His delegation was concerned that according to 
the US proposal, the literature review would be co nducted first, before Members would embark on 
any other analytical work.  Hong Kong, China did not see any strong reasons why the study on cross-
cutting issues proposed by Australia and the co-s ponsors should come after the literature review, 
notwithstanding the merits of such a review.  His delegation did not agree that the proposal by the United States should be used to hold up a similar and complementary proposal by Australia and the 
co-sponsors on cross-cutting issues in RTAs. 
53. The representative of the United States
 thanked delegations for their extensive comments and 
questions.  The proposal had been filed ten days be fore the meeting and thus Members had had some 
time to develop questions and comments.  The United States appreciated the support of many 
delegations to try a step-by-step approach and see how it went.  She provided some preliminary 
answers to questions and asked Members to submit their questions in writing.  With respect to the 
issue of the number of RTAs and trade coverage, as indicated by Peru there was already a certain  WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 15 
 
 
  baseline before the CRTA started analyzing all exis ting RTAs.  The Secretariat was the depositary of 
notified RTAs and also, thanks to the TM, ha d a lot of information on non-notified RTAs:  
understanding the baseline or even analyzing anythi ng in RTAs required, as a matter of ownership, 
laying out exactly what the WTO knew, as an institution, including information on non-notified 
RTAs, without a priori  exclusions and beyond those agreements had been considered by the CRTA.  
In this respect, she was disappointed by the meag re participation by Members, despite the stated 
interest in the database and data stored in the WTO,  in the consideration of individual RTAs and their 
systemic implications.  With respect to Japan's question on the literature review and its expected 
outcome, she said that such a review would represen t a resource for Members on the extent to which 
aspects of RTAs complemented or hindered multilatera l trade liberalization efforts.  Her delegation 
did not agree with New Zealand that the literature review would be less informative than a "cut and 
paste" of what was contained in the tables of cont ents of factual presentations.  Over the last few 
years, there had been a number of off-site semina rs, articles and academic contributions which had 
provided very interesting observations  on RTAs provisions that were applied on an MFN basis and, so 
far, there had been no room in the CRTA for this kind of discussion.  Members would appreciate and 
profit from sending back to their capitals the ki nd of provisions in RTAs that enhanced the 
multilateral trading system, and this was the discussion the United States wanted to have in the CRTA.  The United States had become aware of th is issue not only through negotiating its own RTAs, 
but also from academic institutions and other organi zations that had access to information on RTAs in 
the WTO and had had the time to really digest such  information, unlike Members that had been busy 
with Doha negotiations.  With respect to the questio n on the existence of similar literature reviews in 
other WTO committees, she said that  the Director General had asked  the Secretariat to undertake 
some literature searches and this had not created any strain on resource:  in her delegation's view, it 
was important to have some sense of what was out ther e and that was fully in keeping with the role of 
the Secretariat of being informed and looking at  RTAs from the premise of the effects on the 
multilateral trading system.  To her delegation, this see med to be fully consistent with the Secretariat's 
role to assemble this kind of information and she wo uld be delighted to have any perspective from the 
Secretariat on the challenges this might involve.  She said that the literature re view did not have to be 
comprehensive but it could be an initial overview of  articles, books and so forth, concerning RTAs 
and the multilateral trading system.   
54. In response to some delegations' questions on what might not be relevant in the table of 
contents, she said that for inst ance in the case of provisions on accession, institutional framework or 
cooperation, it was hard to say what the systemic  implications on the multilateral trading system 
would be.  Similarly, some co-sponsors of Australia 's proposal were concerned that the literature 
search would not be more relevant or informative than a Google search, while others said it would be 
too ambitious.  In her view, the answer would be something in the middle and it really depended on 
what the Secretariat would be able to do, since this could be useful and would allow Members to go 
beyond what they already knew or should know from the consideration of individual RTAs in the 
CRTA.  As stated by China, the table of conten ts was a sort of assembly of different Members' 
interests and these were heterogeneous;  for this reason, it was important to prioritize issues with 
systemic implications and a literature search coul d help those Members who had not participated in 
the consideration of any RTA.  The literature sear ch might help their capitals in understanding what 
many intelligent people around the world had done wh en they had looked at the information provided 
by the Secretariat in each of its factual presen tations and would provide an important and rich 
springboard for Members to identify their own intere sts.  The United States supported an ambitious 
work programme to consider the extent to wh ich aspects of RTAs complemented or hindered 
multilateral trade liberalization efforts, but it was important to proceed methodically and in an informed manner and not in a re-organization of th e description of provisions in RTAs which did not 
have a contextual background and not necessarily refl ect the specific interests of Members.  She had 
heard at the Committee much emphasis by delega tions on raw data and her delegation was also 
interested in seeing work on raw data at some point , but did not need to see a re-organization of the 
descriptive portions of legal provisions in RTAs and have  a sort of "cut and paste".  The United States WT/REG/M/59 
Page 16  
 
  remained open to suggestions on how to approach this.  Although there were not many problems on 
the idea of identifying the number of RTAs,  the issu e of a literature search raised some concerns on 
whether it was too ambitious or not ambitious enough .  She reiterated that it would be helpful to the 
Membership and represented an initial attempt to get Members' inputs.  In her delegation's view, the 
other proposal on the table, which was to include ever ything, was not in the interest of the WTO.  She 
looked forward to receiving the questions in writing.  
55. The Chairman
 thanked the delegation of the United States for its efforts in preparing the 
document and delegations who had intervened on it.   The Chairman was available to assist in 
consultations among Members, which were still need ed before moving forward with the proposal in 
the CRTA. 
D. STATUS REPORT ON THE COMMITTEE 'S WORK (WT/REG/W/58). 
56. 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.   
57. As regards the factual abstracts to be prepared  on RTAs covering trade in goods for which an 
examination had already been completed, all but  one had been posted on the WTO website.  In 
addition, all the factual abstracts on RTAs cove ring trade in services had been posted on the WTO 
website.   
58. 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 37 RTAs for which a 
factual presentation had to be prepared, counting goods and services separately.  He recalled that at the Committee's 52
nd 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 54 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 RTAs was scheduled for 2010 but it had been delayed 
due to late receipt of comments.  He then asked  the Secretariat to provide further details on the 
preparation of factual presentations. 
59. 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/58) a nd copies were included in the set of documents 
for the meeting.  The list of RTAs for which the fa ctual consideration was dela yed continued to grow.  
In the case of Agreements between WTO Member s only, the situation was as follows:  for 
EU-Côte d'Ivoire, goods, and Japan-Switzerland, g oods and services, comments had recently been 
received from the parties.  In the case of Japan-V iet Nam, goods and services, some comments had 
been received.  In the case of nine RTAs – US -Bahrain, goods and services;  CAFTA-DR, goods and 
services;  US-Oman, goods and services;  China-Si ngapore, goods and services;  Japan-Thailand, 
goods and services;  GCC, goods only;  EU-FYROM, services;  EU-Albania, services;  and EU-Croatia, services,  the factual presentations had b een sent to the parties, in most cases back in 
2009, but no comments had been received so fa r.  For EU-Egypt, goods, and EU-Cameroon, goods, 
data had been received and was in the process of verification and the factual presentation would be 
prepared shortly.  For EU-South Africa, goods, data originally requested in 2007 had still not been 
provided by South Africa whereas data from the EU ha d been received.  With regard to the RTAs for 
which the factual consideration was delayed whic h involved non-Members, the situation was as  WT/REG/M/59 
 Page 17 
 
 
  follows:  for ASEAN-China, services, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties, but no 
comments had been received so far.  For Icela nd-Faeroe Islands, goods and services, comments had 
been received but some outstanding data from the Fa eroe Islands were missing.  For EU-Montenegro, 
goods and services, comments had been received from Montenegro only.  For EU-Bosnia Herzegovina, goods;  EFTA-Lebanon,  goods;  EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services;  Turkey-Syria, 
goods, CEFTA Enlargement, goods;  Ukraine-Azer baijan, goods;  Ukraine-Belarus, goods;  
Ukraine-Russian Federation, goods;  Ukraine-Ta jikistan, goods;  Ukraine-Kazakhstan, goods;  
Ukraine-Turkmenistan, goods;  Ukraine-Uzbeki stan, goods;  and the Common Economic Zone, 
goods, data was not complete.  For the CRTA m eeting in March 2011, one factual presentation 
between Members had recently been issued:  China- Peru, goods and services.  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. 
60. 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 at that time based on a list drawn up by the Secretariat and which had been verified by their 
parties as being in force but not yet notified.  Since the last CRTA meeting in September 2010, no 
additional RTAs from this list had been notified.  The Secretariat had been following up on this issue 
and encouraged all delegations that had been contact ed concerning this initiative to try to notify the 
remaining RTAs as soon as possible.  She also remi nded Members that partial scope agreements, such 
as early harvest agreements where the coverage was relatively low, should also be notified under the 
TM. 
61. 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.II-V. (The minutes of the consideration of the Agreements listed under agenda items D.II-V are 
 being distributed as separate documents).  E. O
THER BUSINESS  
62. Under Other Business, the Chairman  mentioned three issues.  The first concerned technical 
cooperation activities that had been conducted in 20 10 in the area of regional trade agreements.  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 Secret ariat and gave the floor to the Secretariat for 
an account of these activities carried out in 2010 and planned for 2011. 
63. The representative of the Secretariat  said that, as indicated in the table distributed to 
Members, the CRTA Secretariat had conducted 11 T echnical Assistance (TA)  activities in 2010.  
Twelve activities were scheduled for 2011, of wh ich five were RTA specific regional seminars for 
Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and th e Caucasus, Asia Pacifi c, English and French-
speaking Africa, and Arab and Middle Eastern countries.   Most of the activities indicated in the table 
had been financed by the WTO regular budget, dona tions by Members, or by the Global Trust Fund 
for activities under the Doha Development Agenda.  Th e participation costs for some of the activities 
had been incurred by the hosting organizations.  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.  Thei r underlying objective was to contribute to the 
development of RTAs that were beneficial to th eir members and that complemented the objectives of WT/REG/M/59 
Page 18  
 
  the WTO.  Since Doha, the RTA Section had also been entrusted with the additional TA task of 
clarifying issues related to the negotiations on RTA rules to WTO Members requesting such aid. 
64. The Chairman
 informed Members of the proposed dates for the CRTA's meetings in 2011.  
These were 14-15 March, 16-17 June, 19-20 Septem ber, and 10-11 November 2011.  The last 
meeting, scheduled for November, had been anticip ated due to the Ministerial meeting that would 
take place in December 2011.  The proposed work programme for 2011 would be circulated by the 
Secretariat shortly.  Lastly, he informed Members that the RTA Section would move at the beginning of 2011 to the first floor, South end of the Centre  William Rappard building, beside the existing Trade 
Policy Review Division offices.  Telephone numbe rs and contact details remained the same. 
65. The Committee took note
 of the comments made.  
__________