WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/REG/M/64 
16 April 2012 
 (12-1980) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Sixty-fourth Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 20 MARCH 2012 
 
Chairman:  Mr. F. Riegert (France) 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The 64th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/3888/Rev.1 dated 9 March 2012. 
2. The Chairman welcomed Members to the 64th Session of the CRTA and said he would raise 
two issues under the item "Other Business".  The fi rst referred to measures being taken by the CRTA 
to reduce documentation costs;  while the second re ferred to the CRTA's meetings for the rest of 
2012.  He asked Members whether they wished to include any additional points under "Other 
business". 
3. The Chairman adopted the following Agenda: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Election of Officers 
C. Statement by Australia on the 8th Ministerial Conference and Regional Trade  Agreements 
D. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs  II. Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Chile, goods 
III.  Closer Economic Partnership Agreement between Hong Kong, China 
and New Zealand, goods and services.  IV. Free Trade Treaty between Colombia and Mexico 
E. Other Business  4. The representative of Egypt asked which inte rgovernmental organizations (IGOs) were 
attending the current meeting.  He had no ted that UNCTAD and EFTA had attended the 63rd meeting.  
He also asked whether Rule 10 of Annex 3 of th e Rules of Procedures was being followed for IGOs 
that had been granted permanen t observer status in the CRTA. 
5. The Chairman said that according to document WT/REG/W/11/Add.3 dated 28 September 
2000, IGOs that had been invited as observers to the CRTA were the European Free Trade Association 
(EFTA), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),  International Monetary  Fund (IMF), Organization 
of American States (OAS), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Bank.  In addition,  LAIA was invited on an ad hoc  basis at each meeting. 
6. The representative of Egypt thanked the Chairman  and asked whether Rule 10 of Annex 3 of 
the Rules of Procedures was being followed.  He unde rstood the answer to this question might require 
some time and could impede the work of the CRTA, so  he requested the Secretariat to prepare a list of WT/REG/M/64 
Page 2  
 
  the IGOs with permanent observer status which ha d not been attending the CRTA for more than one 
year for the next meeting.   
7. 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
8. The Chairman recalled that there was consen sus in the General Council meeting of 24 
February 2012 that he should continue to hold th e position of Chairman of the CRTA.  He thanked 
Members for their confidence and hoped, with their co-operation, to continue to move forward the 
work on RTAs. 
9. The representative of Uruguay, on behalf of the member countries of LAIA, Argentina, the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Co lombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, 
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Cuba , informed Members that they were holding 
consultations regarding notifications under the Tr ansparency Mechanism (TM) of agreements signed 
under the Montevideo Treaty of 1980, which had been  notified under the Enabling Clause.  He would 
also make this statement in the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD). 
C. STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA ON THE 8TH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE AND REGIONAL TRADE 
AGREEMENTS  
10. The representative of Australia thanked Memb ers for the opportunity to speak and make a 
few points about issues of relevance for the CRTA th at were raised at MC8.  Australia had been  
encouraged by the number of Ministers at MC8 th at had expressed their interest in the growing 
number of RTAs, and their interaction with the multila teral trading system.  This was reflected in the 
Chairman's summary (WT/MIN(11)/11) , which stated that a large number of Ministers had pointed to 
the growing number of RTAs and stressed the need to  ensure that they remained complementary to, 
not a substitute for, the multilateral trading system.  In that regard, many Ministers had stressed the 
need for the WTO to address the system ic implications of RTAs for the m ultilateral trading system, 
study RTAs t rends and re port to MC9.  Austral ia fully agreed that the interaction between RTAs and 
the multilateral trading system was one of the most pressing issues for the WTO .  WTO Members 
collectively had now negotiated hundreds of RTAs.  Australia was part of this, with six 
comprehensive b ilateral or regional ag reements , with a further nine currently being negotiated .  At the 
same time , Australia was a strong supporter of the multilateral tr ading system and believed that the 
high degree of liberalization and comprehensive scope of its ag reements reinforced the multilatera l 
trading system.  He said that there was no doub t that this topic had a real impact on the practice of 
international trade and had to be a priority for their discussions in the Comm ittee.  Members should 
not lose sight of the great importance of this issue for the long- term strength and relevance of the 
WTO.  Australia continued to be ready for any discussion in the CRTA on the interaction between 
RTAs and the multilateral trading system.  As time passed , the need to d iscuss th is issue 
comprehensively only increased and Australia  would continue to look for ways of tak ing the 
discussion forward.  He hoped that  other Members shared this view, and were also ready to engage in 
a pos itive spiri t to address th is important area of wor k.  
11. The representative of Chile recalled the concern expressed by an important number of 
Ministers during MC8 regarding the increasing number of RTAs.  On that occasion, it had been 
reaffirmed that RTAs had to be complementary to the multilateral trading system and that it was 
essential to study their implications and systemic impacts.  Chile shared this concern and was 
convinced of the importance of analysing the impa cts of RTAs on the multilateral trading system.  
Chile was party to 22 RTAs with 58 different Memb ers.  Its agreements had a very comprehensive  WT/REG/M/64 
 Page 3 
 
 
  and broad scope and covered more th an 97% of Chile's trade with tariffs close to zero.  However, 
RTAs had a limited scope and did not fully eliminat e all trade barriers.  Fo r instance, they did not 
cover export subsidies, domestic s upport for production in fisheries a nd agriculture or highly sensitive 
products, thus reinforcing the relative level of protec tion.  There were many distortions that RTAs not 
only could not resolve but they created additional proble ms such as the diversity of rules of origin and 
trade disciplines, as highlighted by the World Trad e Report 2011.  Moreover, RTAs included several 
issues that had not been discussed multilaterally, such as energy, investment, electronic commerce, 
coherence of regulations, environment, labour stan dards and competition.  There were also some 
mysteries, that were worthy of investigation.  Fo r instance, despite the fact that notified RTAs had a 
dispute settlement system, often the same Parties turned to the WTO to resolve bilateral trade 
disputes.  It was the responsibility of the CRTA to think about these issues and find future ways to 
harmonize such disciplines with those of the WTO.  
12. The representative of Costa Rica shared Austra lia's comments expressed.  As mentioned by 
the Chairman in his concluding statement at MC8 , RTAs were complementary to the multilateral 
trading system.  It was therefore necessary that th e WTO examine the systemic implications of RTAs 
for the multilateral trading system.  Costa Rica had a strong interest to continue analysis of this issue 
in the CRTA and reiterated its interest to contribute positively to the discussion.  
13. The representative of Norway supported the st atement by Australia and others regarding 
RTAs, which had become a significant trade reality.  Bilateral trade agreem ents promoted economic 
growth and development important to all participan ts.  Although the multilateral trading system was 
the foundation for international disciplines in trade, Norway was an active user of RTAs.  It was thus 
essential that regional and intra-regional arrangement s did not weaken the multilateral trading system 
created by the WTO.  He acknowledged that a comp rehensive credible set of multilateral rules and 
disciplines under the WTO was crucial to minimi ze frictions and ensure the strength of the 
multilateral trading system.  Indeed, Norway recogni zed the need to carefully follow the development 
of deepening trade relationships bilaterally and re gionally; and the impact of RTAs on the multilateral 
trading system.  He welcomed the proposal by Au stralia to continue the discussions on RTAs and 
looked forward in participating in this work.  
14. The representative of Vietnam, on behalf of  the ASEAN Members, supported the statement 
by Australia and others on engagi ng in constructive work on RTAs.  The relevance and the interaction 
between RTAs and the multilateral trading system was indeed important.  ASEAN members supported the call by their Ministers at MC8 to address such issues and believed that taking forward 
the work on RTAs in the CRTA was appropriate an d useful.  He added that the work of the CRTA 
had been always instrumental to the future as a whole.  ASEAN stood ready to contribute to such 
work and hoped that all Members would continue to engage positively in the common aim of having 
discussions that were neutral, meaningf ul and beneficial to the Membership. 
15. The representative of Mexico endorsed the statem ent by Australia and others.  Mexico as one 
of the WTO Members with the highest number of  RTAs, was convinced of the importance of 
discussing their systemic implications on the multilatera l trade system as mentioned in the Chairman's 
report at the MC8.  Like other Members, Mexico  was ready to discuss su ch issues in the CRTA, 
where such issues should be discussed but was precisely where they were not discussed.   
16. The representative of the European Union thanke d Australia for having added this agenda 
point and for its resolute commitmen t to keep the work of the CRTA up to date and substantive.  They 
were certainly on the same page, as were a number of Members as clearly expressed by Ministers 
during the MC8.  They had once again reiterated the need to carefully monitor and assess how the 
increasing number of RTAs interacted with the multilateral trading system.  The CRTA needed to 
address the current realities in regionalism and antic ipate future trends as well as potential impacts on 
the functioning of the multilateral trading system.  Members needed to ensure that the CRTA was at WT/REG/M/64 
Page 4  
 
  the heart of contemporary discussions on RTAs and could deliver analytical work that stirred 
discussions in other forum and not the other way around.  As Australia had noted, there was a 
pressing need to address these discussions without fu rther delay as the number of RTAs continued to 
grow at a very fast pace, for which they were all responsible and should be accountable for ensuring 
their positive impact on the multilateral trading system .  The EU remained r eady to work with the 
Members of the Committee to facilitate fruitful and enriching discussions.  
17. The representative of India thanked Australia fo r its statement on the MC8.  He appreciated 
the message that there was a pressing need to ma intain a complementarity between RTAs and the 
multilateral trading system, so that RTAs became bu ilding blocks and not stumbling blocks for the 
multilateral trading system.  The complex web of RTAs which had evolved over recent years had 
indeed complicated the task of analysing their im plications on the multilateral trading system.  While 
several economists had done a deeper analysis on the subject, the latest World Trade Report 2011 was 
an important contribution to shedding some li ght on the complexities of RTAs.  These studies 
provided critical inputs to Members, who were al so parties to different RTAs, to analyse the 
implications on their economies.  The phenomenon of Members getting associated with different 
RTAs was rather new.  While some RTAs were alre ady in force, there were many others that were 
awaiting ratification or still under negotiation.  Bu t some developed countries were in the process of 
forming ambitious plurilaterals with like-minded developed and de veloping countries which not only 
encompassed non-trade issues but went beyond WTO pr ovisions.  In this complicated scenario, there 
was no doubt that the multilateral trading system woul d be a victim of short-term interests.  The 
solution did not lie in analysing the proliferation of  RTAs but vigorously enga ging in the protection of 
the multilateral trading system by focusing on the nego tiations to conclude th e Doha Round.  In the 
current situation, where one ignored the implicatio ns of even minor variables, common to many 
RTAs, any attempt to judge RTAs or set certain standards would not serve the multilateral trading 
system.  This was the reason why during the last CRTA meeting, before MC8, a large number of 
delegations had expressed strong c oncerns over a proposal put forward by some Members for a work 
programme on RTAs.  Members had raised serious concerns about any attempt to impose so called 
high-quality RTAs, but also had opposed the establis hment of any benchmarks or standards.  They 
had also raised concerns over the mandate of th e CRTA to undertake such  a work programme, when 
many RTAs had not been notified under GATT Articl e XXIV and GATS Article V.  India hoped that 
if at all any work programme had to be adopted in  the CRTA, it would be restricted to those RTAs 
notified under GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V.   Several developing Members felt that an 
attempt was being made to undermine the role of th e CTD, which had the exclusive mandate to be a 
focal point for concentrating and coordinating th e work on development within the WTO.  As 
Members view's towards the proposal differed, the Chairman of the CRTA had summarized the 
situation by saying that there was no consensus concer ning the proposal.  It was thus a fact that there 
was no consensus for undertaking any work programme  on RTAs and it was futile to discuss the same 
issue again.  Drawing from the co mparison by economists of the web of RTAs to a bowl of spaghetti, 
he added that each strand of spaghetti was distinct in its quality, physical characteristics and had a 
unique flavour reflecting local tastes.   It was theref ore premature to analyse the effect of the bowl of 
spaghetti on health, when there w as no consensus on which spaghetti was to be picked up.  He 
concluded by saying that the foremost task was to  refocus on the multilateral negotiations so that 
Members would not be motivated to conclude bila teral, regional or plurilateral agreements.   
18. The representative of Canada, said with rega rd to the recent proposal co-sponsored by 
Canada, which did not reach consensus in the CRT A, that it was clear that a large number of 
Members, including Canada continued to be intere sted in the relationship between RTAs and the 
multilateral trading system.  Indeed, Canada wanted  to understand how current trends and practices, 
and in particular the quality of the increasing the number of RTAs impacted the multilateral trading 
system.     WT/REG/M/64 
 Page 5 
 
 
  19. The representative of Chinese Taipei said he fu lly appreciated the importance of RTAs and 
their implications to the multilateral trading system .  He supported the proposal by Australia and the 
idea of studying and analysing this issue, which would be helpful in strengthening the multilateral 
trading system.  He looked forward to participate in this important work.    
20. The representative of China congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  He thanked 
Australia for its statement and commended its activ e role in making the CRTA more dynamic.  He 
shared Australia's concern that with the prolifera tion of RTAs, it was vital for the WTO to conduct in-
depth analyses on the relationship be tween RTAs and the multilateral trading system, to ensure that 
RTAs remained complementary to, not a substitute for the multilateral trading system.  He realized 
that the successful implementation of the RTA TM, albeit provisional in nature, had led to a solid 
foundation for such work; and added that the Wo rld Trade Report had also provided good food for 
thought in this regard.  China was in general suppor tive of conducting such analyses.  Nevertheless, as 
already mentioned in previous discussions, especia lly during the discussion on the Australian proposal 
before the MC8, any decision Members would ma ke regarding the analytical work, should be 
balanced and objective.  In concrete terms, the ma ndate of the CRTA and the CTD had to be equally 
respected.  Although the CRTA had the mandate to cons ider the systematic implications of RTAs for 
the multilateral trading system, as a number of Members had pointed out, the CTD was the focal point to consider and coordinate WTO work on development, including reviewing RTAs notified under the 
Enabling Clause, as clearly instruct ed by the TM.  Therefore, in China's view, the CRTA was not the 
single forum for considering the systematic implic ations of RTAs, and the CTD had to do its part 
according to its mandate.  More attention had to be paid to the development aspects of RTAs, rather 
than focusing only on market access issues.  He re mained ready to discuss how to find a solution 
satisfactory to all Members.   
21. The representative of Hong Kong, China congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  His 
delegation associated itself with the statement made by Australia.  He was mindful that while some 
useful work had been undertaken by the WTO in i nvestigating RTAs, there were still a long way to go 
to fully understand the implications of RTAs fo r the multilateral trading system.  He had heard 
Members expressing their concerns from different pe rspectives.  Some Members had focused on the 
development aspects of RTAs, while others mentioned the possible impacts of RTAs on the functioning of the multilateral trading system.  He shared all these concerns, and thus was mindful 
that there was a pressing need to understand and promote further work to identify the systemic 
implications of RTAs on the functioning of the WTO.   He welcomed any constructive initiative in this 
regard and believed the CRTA was well placed an d mandated to undertake such work.  He looked 
forward to a constructive dialogue in the CRTA and was open to similar discussions in other 
Committees.    
22. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia thanked Australia for sharing its 
interpretation of the Chairman's concluding remarks at  MC8.  Bolivia had a different interpretation of 
this document, which contained a number of principles to guide WTO work, but did not specify any 
mandate regarding the topics under discussion.  The Ch airman's statement could not be interpreted in 
a way to favour the interests of developed countr ies.  Bolivia could not talk about including new 
topics, when there were a number of topics of interest to developing countries that had not been treated in the WTO and would never accept such in itiatives.  The mandate of the CRTA provided that 
RTAs were to be notified and examined by Members.   He said that the initiatives in question did not 
support this type of work and that the CRTA had to focus on its work, before looking to other topics.  
He supported the statements by India and China hi ghlighting lack of consensus by Members on these 
types of initiatives. 
23. The representative of El Salvador thanked Austra lia for its declaration.  Like Australia, El 
Salvador believed that this issue had been discussed  by Ministers during the MC8.  For El Salvador, 
RTAs had to be a means of deepening trade liber alization and promoting economic development for WT/REG/M/64 
Page 6  
 
  the Parties, as provided by Articles XXIV of  the GATT 1994, V of the GATS and the Enabling 
Clause.  El Salvador also saw the need to discu ss in the CRTA the systemic effects of RTAs, whose 
aim had to be the strengthening of the multilateral trading system.  He noted that unlike the elements for political guidance agreed by Ministers in Part I of the Declaration of the Chairman at MC8, RTAs 
were in Part II of the Chairman's statement as there had been different views on how to undertake 
such analysis in the WTO.  The CRTA had alr eady a mandate concerning the systemic aspects of 
RTAs, and in that sense El Salvador confirmed its commitment and willingness to discuss how Members should examine the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system. 
24. The representative of Brazil thanked Australia a nd others for their proposal.  Brazil welcomed 
discussion on the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system.  He also 
supported the statements by India, China and others  that the CTD was the focal point for development 
issues, including RTAs notified under the Enabling Clau se.  For this reason, he understood that the 
CRTA's work should be restricted to RTAs notified under Articles XXIV of GATT and V of GATS.   
25. The representative of Ecuador said that an y work programme should not create any 
benchmarks or standards.  First, Members who wish ed to negotiate or were party to a RTA had to 
maintain the greatest flexibility in terms of scope  and content while ensuring compatibility between 
the RTA and WTO provisions on RTAs, in particul ar GATT Article XXIV, GATS Article V and/or 
the Enabling Clause.  The flexibilit y that Members had had until now s hould be maintained and not be 
constrained by any benchmark.  Second, any work programme or action that further deepened or widened current activities in this area either in the CRTA or CTD should focus only on the areas contained in the agreements considered, since it wa s such areas which defined the multilateral trading 
system.  Ecuador could not agree that based on cer tain RTAs one aimed to multilateralize disciplines 
that were not included in the RTAs considered.  Fi nally any work programme or action that deepened 
or widened the current activities in this area s hould include S&D treatment, development needs of 
developing countries and in genera l the development dimension.   
26. The representative of New Zealand congratulated  the Chairman on his re-election.  He 
welcomed Australia's reminder to Members of the Chairman's statement at MC8, which highlighted 
the strong interest of WTO Members in RTAs a nd their relationship with the multilateral trading 
system.  These agreements were increasingly a fact of life.  The existence of the CRTA was a constant 
reminder that the WTO considered these agreements  extremely relevant to its work.  He also 
reminded Members that RTAs were considered in the WTO as falling within an existing legal 
framework.  As highlighted by Australia, the key issu e was the need to continue to look for ways to 
discuss this issue, which was relevant to the func tioning of the WTO, and deepen their understanding. 
He welcomed the expression of interest by Members.         
27. The representative of Japan appreciated the initiativ e by Australia to include this point in the 
agenda.  As already mentioned by other Memb ers, Japan thought it was a good occasion to re-
emphasise the importance of RTAs.  At the MC8, many Members had shown their interests in RTAs, 
especially their impact on the multilateral trading system.  He was also very happy to see that many 
Members continued to have an interest in RTAs .  Recently, the number of RTAs had drastically 
increased for both developed and deve loping countries.  Japan was not an exception to this trend, as it 
had concluded more than ten RTAs.  At the same  time, Japan had always emphasized the importance 
of the multilateral trading system and believed th at RTAs should aim to strengthen it.  Members 
needed to discuss RTAs in order to better unde rstand their long-run impact on the WTO.  He 
emphasized Japans' engagement in th is critical and important issue. 
28. The representative of Colombia supported the statement by Australia.  Colombia had a 
different interpretation to that by India and believed that the greater the complexity or the number of 
flavours, the greater the need for an analysis.  In  addition, the CRTA had the mandate to analyse the 
systemic implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system.  For Colombia, it was important to  WT/REG/M/64 
 Page 7 
 
 
  better understand the interaction be tween RTAs and the multilateral trading system.  This was an 
opportunity to strengthen the multilateral trade system, as well as its coherence.  According to a report 
by the Secretariat, in 2010 there were about 300 RTAs in force and each WTO Member was on 
average party to 13 RTAs.  A cross-cutting and systemic  analysis would therefore be very useful.  She 
said that thanks to the TM, Members had learned about RTAs individually, but it was important to 
have an overall view of such RTAs and their im plications for the multilateral trading system 
especially as they were leading to a higher level of integration far beyond tariff liberalization and 
were covering domestic policies such as regulati ons on services and investments, competition policy, 
protection of intellectual property rights, government pr ocurement, etc.  It was therefore important to 
identify patterns and trends, as well as to examine the impact and implications of RTAs for the 
multilateral trading system to increase their coheren ce.  Colombia was ready to participate in this 
process.   
29. The representative of Cuba congratulated the Chairman on his re-election and thanked 
Australia for its statement.  She supported the stat ement by India, China, Brazil, the Plurinational 
State of Bolivia and Ecuador and shared their co ncerns as well as other concerns expressed prior to 
the MC8.  Cuba did not support these type of initiatives.  At the moment, Members had to focus on 
resolving all the pending issues under the Doha R ound, with a focus on development issues which 
should be their immediate concern.  She acknowledged that there was a proliferation of RTAs and that 
their implications should be considered as provi ded by the mandate of the CRTA, but without 
deviating into other directions such as creating a new work programme.  Members should focus on the 
pending issues under the Doha Development Round.  With regard to Uruguay's statement, she added 
that LAIA Members were analysing and consulting on the notification issue, and once a consensus 
was found, they would inform the Secretariat.   
30. The representative of South Africa thanked Australia  and others for their declarations, and for 
alerting Members to Ministers discussion on this issu e.  She noted that Australia had quoted elements 
from the Chairman's concluding statement at the MC8, but the statement also contained other 
reflections on discussions by Ministers at MC8, as well as political guidelines for the Membership on 
how to move forward.  She reminded Members of the status and outcomes of Ministers' discussions 
on the work of the CTD, in particular the importance of the development dimension of the WTO's work, which had been highlighted by a large number of Ministers, many of whom expressed the need 
of strengthening the CTD as the focal point for devel opment issues.  Similarly, in the elements for 
political guidance, Ministers had reflected on current  global challenges and noted in particular that 
any new issue should only be brought to comm ittees in accordance with their normal rules and 
procedures and within their respective mandates.  T hus any assessment of the systemic implications of 
RTAs for the multilateral trading system had to take place in accordance with the direction by Ministers and not in isolation of Members' end eavours to complete the Doha Development Round.  
She therefore supported the statements by India, Ch ina, Bolivia, Brazil and others that any further 
work on RTAs could not take place in isolation of the development aspects of such RTAs, the 
analysis of the impact of certain revisions on deve loping countries, and the ability to compete in the 
international trade arena; and they should take place in the appropriate forum.  Fundamentally, the 
terms of reference of the CTD had to be respected .  Critical consideration of the development aspects 
in the context of the CTD had to be given due a nd equal consideration in any work programme going 
forward. 
31. The representative of the United States thanked Australia for its positive statement.  Her 
country also remained ready to engage in a di scussion in the CRTA on the interaction between RTAs 
and the multilateral trading system.  As mentioned by El Salvador,  this type of work fell squarely 
within the mandate given to the CRTA in 1996 to c onsider the systemic implications of all RTAs, 
whether bilateral, regional, plur ilateral and regional initiatives for the multilateral trading system and 
the relationship between them; and make appropriate recommendations to the General Council.  This 
particular mandate was distinct from another pa rt of the CRTA mandate, which had been more WT/REG/M/64 
Page 8  
 
  specifically addressed in the TM.  In  the past, the U.S. had often shared its concerns about the impact 
that protecting agricultural markets through regional  trade agreements had on the pace of multilateral 
liberalization on all fronts.  The U.S. was also interest ed in before and after snapshots of the effects of 
different aspects of RTAs.  There were a number of potentially interesting topics in this regard, 
including development, but in general she suspected  that snapshots could help Members to focus on 
the positive lessons they might learn from the effe ct of RTAs on the real world. Deepening their 
understanding on what was happening practically with RTAs was important, but CRTA work, like 
any WTO work, had to be driven by Members.  Sh e hoped to see interested Members make the effort 
to submit papers for Members consideration, as the WTO role in examining the systemic implications 
of RTAs depended on it. 
32. The representative of Egypt thanked Australia fo r its statement which he had taken note of.  
However, he noted that no specific suggestion had been made, besides the fact that Australia had 
indicated its intention to keep on trying to find ways of discussing the effects of RTAs on the multilateral trading system.  With respect to the Chairman's concluding remarks during the MC8, the 
statement did not reinterpret or change any WTO ru les, arrangements or prejudices to Members' right 
and obligations.  The Chairman had also said that  Part II was not an exhaustive summary.  Many 
Ministers from developing countries had raised different issues regarding RTAs during the MC8, which had not been captured in an adequate manner.  Yet, this did not mean that there had been a lot 
of apprehension and concern about how to discuss a nd assess the implications of RTAs in the CRTA.  
He recalled that a large number of Ministers had stre ssed the need to strengthen the role of the CTD as 
the focal point for development issues, including the mandate of the CTD which was to oversee the 
systemic implications of RTAs that had been notified under the Enabling Clause.  This had been 
substantiated, by the TM which distinguished be tween the role of the CTD and CRTA when it came 
to dealing with RTAs in the WTO.  With regard to  the assessment of RTAs and their implications for 
the multilateral trading system, this was a practice th at they had already been doing since the creation 
of the CRTA in 1996.  Members had been studyi ng the factual presentations prepared by the 
Secretariat and to substantiate this, a World Trade Report on RTAs had been published in 2011.  This 
was an on-going discussion and he did not understa nd the difference between what they had been 
doing and what was proposed.  They were discussing again something that had been already reported 
by the Secretariat in its report, and that had ra ised concerns and suggestions from Members.  He 
indicated that the work of assessing RTAs would be based on paragraph 4 of the Doha Declaration and RTAs could play an important role in promotin g the liberalization and expansion of trade and in 
fostering development.  This was an important point th at needed to be referred to in order not to lose 
sight of the purpose of any work programme.  S econd, he would have pr eferred to conclude 
discussions on improving RTA disciplines and legal provisions before embarking on a work programme or discussion to assess RTA implicati ons for multilateral rules, which were being 
improved under the Doha mandate within the NGR.  Once the negotiations to improve RTA 
disciplines had been finalized, and after the systemic , legal and procedural issues had been improved, 
one could embark on an analysis of the effects of RTAs on the new rules.  Egypt also recalled that the Chairman of the CRTA had indicated in in document JOB/RL/1/Rev.1 that the TM involved among others, technical support, the preparation of factua l presentations within multiple phases, all of which 
were at the heart of the procedure to consider th e systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral 
trading system.  This was an on-going discussion.  He did not understand what was being proposed as 
no specific proposal had been submitted and the propo sal submitted prior to the MC8 had not gained 
consensus.  He did not understand how the di scussion was going to be taken in the future.  
33. With regard to assessing the systemic impli cations of RTAs for the multilateral trading 
system, he said that the CRTA's mandate applied to  the extent that it did not undermine the terms of 
reference and mandate of the CTD, which had been  mentioned a couple of times during the meeting.  
Thus before embarking on an extensive discussion in the CRTA on the systemic implications of 
RTAs, Members should identify the RTAs to be consid ered for the analysis.  It was not clear which 
category of RTAs were being considered: RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause for which the  WT/REG/M/64 
 Page 9 
 
 
  CRTA had no mandate or RTAs notified under GATT Article XXIV which fall under the mandate of 
the CRTA.  In this regard, there were a number of i ssues.  There was a loose reference to the scope of 
RTAs.  Instead of using RTAs at large, one should  distinguish between: i) RTAs for which a factual 
consideration and examination had been completed;   ii) RTAs for which factual presentations had 
been prepared but not examined by Members;  iii) RTAs for which a factual presentation was still 
under preparation, and where the Secretariat was stil l awaiting data from the parties to an RTA;  iv) 
RTAs for which factual presentations were on hold;  v) RTAs that involved non-WTO Members; and 
vi) RTAs between several parties th at fell under a framework agreement.   Such a distinction was not a 
matter of convenience but of necessity and was not a novelty of his own making but rather followed 
the practice of the CRTA in reporting on its activities.   Moreover, in the compendium of issues related 
to RTAs (Document TN/RL/W/8/Rev.1) prepared by the Secretariat, it was clearly indicated that a 
number of RTAs currently in force had not been notified to the WTO.   This was often cited as 
hindering any comprehensive and precise evaluation of the RTA phenomenon vis-à-vis  the 
multilateral trading system.  This had been reaffi rmed in the checklist of issues related to RTAs 
prepared by the Secretariat (JOB/RL/3).  It therefor e appeared highly irregular for the Secretariat to be 
in a position to factually report on elements and mo re importantly on practices in RTAs that had not 
been notified to the WTO.  In that context, he  understood from the statement by Australia that it 
would be Members and not the Secretariat who would assess or report on such issues since the Secretariat could not deal with non-notified RTAs or  RTAs for which data was incomplete or difficult 
to get.  It was therefore important to define the scope of RTAs to be cons idered and who was going to 
undertake the analysis.  He added that Members should not put an extra load of work on the 
Secretariat.  Another issue that needed to be considered was that these would be factual reports 
prepared by the Secretariat in collaboration with the Parties, other than those being already prepared.  
This was futile and he asked whether these new re ports would include a disclaimer to determine the 
relationship between its factual findings and the dispute settlement understanding;  whether this 
exercise would replace the work of the NGR on RTA systemic issues, and if not how this would be 
safeguarded;  and whether these reports would create ne w legal rules or obligations or create de facto 
benchmarks.  These were all issues that required t horough and careful consideration by Members.  
D. C
ONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
D.I S TATUS REPORT ON THE COMMITTEE 'S WORK - NON-NOTIFIED RTA S 
34. Under this Agenda Item, the Chairman provided Members with an update on the 
implementation of the TM.  He informed the Comm ittee that 39 early announcements had been posted 
on the WTO website (excluding those that had been  subsequently notified).  He thanked those 
Members who had submitted information in line with  the requirements of the TM and encouraged 
others to do the same.  He also reminded Members to inform the Secretariat of any changes in the 
status of early announcements.     
35. With regard to the preparation of factual ab stracts covering trade in goods for which an 
examination had already been completed, the last re maining factual abstract was that on the EU (25) 
Enlargement, which had been sent to the Parties in June 2011.  He urged them to send their comments 
as soon as possible.   
36. With regard to the preparation of the factua l presentations under the remit of the CRTA, he 
said that in the case of RTAs involving only WTO Members, there were 46 RT As for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods an d services separately.  He recalled that at the 
Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Memb ers had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the TM.  Thus, factua l presentations on a further 38 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. WT/REG/M/64 
Page 10  
 
  37. The Chairman then turned to the issue of non-notif ied RTAs.  He recalled that in an effort to 
promote the transparency of such RTAs, Members had agreed during the meeting hold in June 2011 
to circulate a list of non-notified RTAs, which had been  verified by their parties as being in force.  
The document had been recently circulated as WT/REG/W/68 and contained 61 RTAs issued in factual presentations up to March 2012.  To a ddress concerns by some Members a disclaimer had 
been added to the list indicating that it was without  prejudice to Members' rights to notify their RTAs 
under the relevant WTO provisions.  He also pointed out that the Secretariat had recently begun including all LAIA partial scope ag reements in the table which account ed for their increasing number.  
He reminded Members of their obligation to notify ag reements before the application of preferential 
treatment.  In instances where an RTA was envisaged  to cover both goods and services, but only the 
goods concessions were in place, these should be notif ied.  A notification for the services concessions 
could be added once these were negotiated.  He ur ged the parties to non-notified RTAs to make every 
effort to notify their RTAs as soon as possible.  Once an RTA had been notified it would be removed from the list.  He asked Members if they had any comment. 
38. The representative of the United States thanked th e Secretariat for this document.  The U.S. 
placed great importance on the notification requirement s of the TM, which were  detailed in paragraph 
3 of the mechanism and stated that the required notification of an RTA by Members that were party to it should take place as early as possible.  As a rule, it had to occur no later than directly following the 
parties' ratification of the RTA or any party's de cision on application of the relevant parts of an 
agreement, and before the application of preferentia l treatment between the parties.  The notification 
not only provided important information on any single RTA but its receipt by the Secretariat initiated 
the consideration of an RTA under the TM, starting with the submission of Members' information and 
data, and followed by the preparation by the Secretar iat of a factual preparation.  The U.S. understood 
that sometimes it was necessary to push their colleagu es in capitals and that it could be difficult for 
delegates in Geneva to get the permission ne cessary to fully comply with the notification 
requirements, but without these notifications Member s were deprived from of basic information and 
reference tools.  This also prevented the TM from working as well as it could.   
39. The Chairman drew Members' attention to the issue of implementation reports which were 
required under Paragraph 15 of the TM.   At the e nd of the RTA's implementation period, the parties 
had to submit to the WTO a short written report on the realization of the liberalization commitments 
in the RTA as originally notified.  Thus far, no such reports had been received from Members.  In 
order to operationalize this aspect of the TM, he had asked the Secretariat to prepare a list of 
implementation reports of agreemen ts that have been notified under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 
and Article V of the GATS that needed to be su bmitted.  This document would be circulated to 
Members by fax and email after the meeting.  He asked Members to check the Annex of this document which contained the dates of the end of  the implementation period and to inform the 
Secretariat of any discrepancies as this informati on would also be added to the RTA database.  He 
proposed that a job document was then  issued in advance of the next meeting in June so that Members 
could discuss how to proceed with the issue of implementation reports. 
40. A representative of the Secretariat took the fl oor to provide further details on the preparation 
of factual presentations.  She said that in th e case of Agreements between WTO Members, the 
situation was as follows:  for EU-Egypt, goods, join t comments had been received from the parties, 
but there were still some data issues to be resolved  with Egypt.  The Secretariat had received new data 
from the Egyptian authorities that was currently be ing analysed.  In the case of four RTAs –
US-Bahrain, goods and services;  CAFTA-DR, goods and services;  US-Oman, goods and services;  China-Singapore, goods and services;  the factual pr esentations had been sent to the parties in 2009, 
but no comments had been received.  For EU-South Africa, goods, preliminary comments had been received but final joint comments from the Parties were pending.  She hoped to issue the factual 
presentation in time for the next CRTA meeting in June.  For EU-Korea, goods and services, 
comments had been received and the factual presentation was to be issued shortly in time for the next  WT/REG/M/64 
 Page 11 
 
 
  CRTA meeting.  For Peru-Korea, and Canada-Col ombia, both goods and services, data had been 
received and the factual presentations were currently  being drafted.  For EFTA-Albania, goods, data 
from Iceland had been just received and the factua l presentation would be shortly sent for comments.  
For Panama-Honduras, goods and services, data had been received from Panama only.  For El 
Salvador-Honduras-Chinese Taipei, goods and services, da ta from Chinese Taipei and El Salvador;   
as well as some data from Honduras had received.  For Korea-India, services, some data had been 
received from India.  For Turkey-Jordan, goods, no data had been received.  For Japan-India and 
Guatemala-Chinese Taipei, both goods and services, data had been received from Japan and Chinese Taipei only.  For India-Malaysia, services, data ha d not been received.  For Korea-ASEAN, services, 
data had been received from Korea only.  Fo r Chile-Honduras, and Chile -Peru, both goods and 
services, data was due by 16 April.  For New Ze aland-Malaysia and Japan-Peru, both goods and 
services, data was due by 17 April and 4 May.  For Dominican Republic-Central America, goods and services, data was due by 25 May.  For Peru-Mex ico and China-Costa Rica, both goods and services, 
data was due by 11 and 17 July. 
41. As for the RTAs involving non-Members, the situation was as follows:  for ASEAN-China, 
services, the factual presentation had been sent to the parties in February 2010, but no comments had 
been received.  For Iceland-Faeroe Islands, goods and services,  comments had been received but some 
data was still pending from the Faeroe Islands.  For EFTA-Serbia, goods, some complementary data 
from Iceland had just been received and the factua l presentation was soon to be sent for comments.  
For EU-Bosnia Herzegovina; EFTA-Lebanon;  Turkey-Syria; CEFTA Enlargement;  
Ukraine-Azerbaijan; Ukraine-Belarus; Ukrain e-Russian Federation; Ukraine-Tajikistan;  
Ukraine-Kazakhstan;  Ukraine-Turkmenistan;  Ukraine-Uzbekistan;  and the Common Economic 
Zone,  all goods, and EU-CARIFORUM, goo ds and services, data was not complete. 
42. With regards to RTAs for which not all parties had ratified the agreement yet, the Secretariat 
would wait before the agreement had entered into  force for all the parties before starting the 
preparation of factual presentations.  This was the case for six agreements:  ASEAN-Japan;  
EU-Cameroon;  EFTA-Peru; EU-Cote d'Ivoire;  EF TA-Colombia; and EU-Papua New Guinea, Fiji, 
all goods.  She urged the parties to notify the Secret ariat when their respectiv e agreement entered into 
force for all the parties.  She understood that th e Australia-ASEAN New Zeal and, goods and services 
agreement was now in force for all Parties and th e Secretariat was awaiting formal notification from 
the parties before drafting the factual presentation.  She also urged all Members to comply with the 
deadlines in order to adhere to the CRTA's work programme. 
43. The Chairman said that it was clear from the Secr etariat's statement that the Committee was at 
risk of significant slippage in its work programme  of consideration of RTAs under the TM and thus 
requested the cooperation of all Members in this regard.  
44. Before turning to the consideration of th e three RTAs under Item D on the Agenda, the 
Chairman drew Members attention to a corrigendum to the factual presentation of the Turkey-Serbia 
agreement (document WT/REG288/1/Corr.1 issued on 14 March).  This RTA had been considered at 
the CRTA meeting on 22 September 2011.  Serbia had r ecently informed the Secretariat of an error in 
their original data submission which for a number  of products had errone ously included concessions 
granted to the EU instead of those granted to Turkey .  The Secretariat had rerun the tariff analysis and 
produced the relevant tariff tables and charts wh ich could be consulted in the corrigendum.   
D.II. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT INTEGRATION AGREEMENT TURKEY AND CHILE, GOODS  
45. D.II. (The minutes of the consideration of th e Agreement listed under agenda items D.II- are 
being distributed as separate documents). WT/REG/M/64 
Page 12  
 
  D.III. C
LOSER ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN HONG  KONG , CHINA AND 
NEW ZEALAND , GOODS AND SERVICES  
46. D.III. (The minutes of the consideration of th e Agreement listed under agenda items D.III- are 
being distributed as separate documents). 
D.IV. FREE TRADE TREATY BETWEEN COLOMBIA AND MEXICO , GOODS AND SERVICES  
47. D.IV. (The minutes of the consideration of the Agreement listed under agenda items D.IV- 
are being distributed as separate documents). 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
48. The Chairman informed Members of the measures being taken by the CRTA to reduce 
documentation costs.  He recalled the discussions that had taken place in the Budget Committee in 
October and November 2011 (WTO document WT/BFA /128) where Members had agreed to a series 
of cost-cutting measures to achieve a zero nomin al and zero real growth budget in 2012 and 2013.  
This included a reduction in the overall volume of of ficial documents produced by 5% in 2012 and by 
a further 5% in 2013.  It also included a numbe r of measures aimed at substantially reducing the 
printing and distribution of documents.  Thus, for in stance, as of January 2012, the distribution of 
official documents in meeting rooms had been discontinued.  The CRTA had already undertaken 
efforts in this regard.  As of September last y ear, copies of the factual presentation were no longer 
distributed in the document sets for CRTA meetings .  In an effort to comply with the Budget 
Committee's recommendations, he suggested that the minutes of CRTA meetings no longer be distributed in paper form.  Henceforth, minutes of th e consideration of RTAs would be made available 
on the RTA database and general minutes (which were  restricted) would be made available on the 
Members' website until they were derestricted.  He  also suggested that Me mbers make efforts to 
shorten their introductory statements for their RTAs under consideration and avoid repetition of 
information already communicated by the Chair.  Th e Secretariat continued to look into ways to 
reduce further the volume of printed documents and those sent for translation.  In 2011, CRTA documents had amounted to 1,148 pages and some 4 46,000 words.  As was currently being discussed 
in the TPRB, possible steps to reduce printed matt er and documents sent for translation included 
podcasting of CRTA meetings, and eliminating the paper distribution of CRTA documents such as 
factual presentations and questions and replies.  The Secretariat was also looking into ways of 
reducing the length of factual presentations.  Any suggestions by Members in this regard were 
welcome. 
49. Finally, he informed Members of the proposed dates for the CRTA's meetings in 2012, which 
were as follows:  19-20 June, 18-19  September, and 20-21 November. 
50. The Committee took note of the comments made.  
__________