WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG229/M/1 
27 October 2008 
 
 (08-5185) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Fiftieth Session  
 
 
 
CONSIDERATION OF THE TRANS-PACIFIC STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP 
AGREEMENT BETWEEN BRUNEI DARUSSALAM, CHILE, NEW ZEALAND AND 
SINGAPORE, GOODS AND SERVICES 
 
Note on the Meeting of 18-19 September 2008  
 
Chairman:  Mr. D. Brauns (Germany) 
 
 
1. The meeting was convened in document Ai rgram WTO/AIR/3202 and Corrigendum 2, dated 
5 June and 9 July 2008, respectively. 
2. Under Agenda Item B.III of its 50th Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(CRTA or the Committee) took up consideration of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 
Agreement between Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Z ealand and Singapore (herei nafter referred to as 
'the Agreement'), goods and services. 
3. The Chairman  said that the Agreement had been notifie d by the Parties to the WTO on 18 May 
2007 under Article XXIV:7(a) of the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994 as an Agreement es tablishing a free-trade area (document 
WT/REG229/N/1) and under GATS Article V:7(a) as an  Agreement providing for the liberalization of 
trade in services within the meaning of Article V of  the GATS (document S/C/N/394).  The text of the 
Agreement was available, together with its Annexes,  on the Parties' official websites.  The Factual 
Presentation on the goods and services aspects (doc ument WT/REG229/1, da ted 9 May 2008) had 
been prepared by the Secretariat on its own respons ibility in full consultation with the Parties, in 
accordance with paragraph 7(b) of the Transpar ency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements 
(document WT/L/671).  In addition, written questi ons and replies on the Agreement had been recently 
distributed in document WT/REG229/2, dated 7 July 2008. 
4. He proposed to organize the consideration of the Agreement by asking first the Parties and 
then other Members to give any general comments.  The Committee would then turn to the specifics 
of the Agreement using the factual presentation,  document WT/REG229/1, to guide the debate.  
Given that the goods and services aspects of this Ag reement were dealt with together, he proposed to 
go through the Factual Presentation by section, and then through the questions and replies document. 
5. The representative of New Zealand  welcomed the opportunity to present the Agreement, 
colloquially known as the P4, to WTO Members, a nd thanked the WTO Secretariat for preparing a 
detailed Factual Presentation and Members for thei r interest.  In her delegation's view, this 
WTO-consistent and WTO-plus Ag reement, which had come into force in 2006, was unique and one 
to which the Parties were all proud to be party.  It was the first FTA linking Asia, Latin America and 
the South Pacific.  The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreem ent had been conceived 
as a way to build new strategic and economic li nks between four fellow Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation (APEC) economies, and as a pathway to wider Asia-Pacific economic integration within 
the broader WTO context.  Towards this end, it  was open to accession on terms to be agreed among WT/REG229/M/1 
Page 2 
 
 
  the Parties.  The Agreement was high-quality and fo rward-looking, leading to liberalization of 100% 
of trade and tariff lines for Chile, New Zealand a nd Singapore, and over 99% for Brunei Darussalam.  
With respect to rules of origin, the Agreement pr ovided for cumulation among the Parties.  For trade 
in services, the Agreement followed a "negative list" approach, and significantly expanded on the 
Parties' GATS commitments.  In addition to liber alizing trade in goods and services, the Agreement 
also included chapters on customs, SPS and TBT ma tters including cooperation, competition policy, 
intellectual property, government  procurement, temporary entry of business persons, and dispute 
settlement.  There was a strategic partnership ch apter covering cooperation in fields such as 
education, primary industry, culture and science and technology.  The Parties had also concluded a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on labour cooperation and an Environment Cooperation 
Agreement in connection with the Agreement.  Th e negotiations on investment and financial services 
had resumed in 2008, and the Parties had conducted fruitful discussions so far.  She emphasized that 
the Agreement was the only plurilateral agreement li nking Asia, Latin America and the South Pacific.  
It was an important platform for deepening the ec onomic linkages between the Parties.  The Parties 
were confident of its potential to grow into a larg er strategic agreement for trade liberalization in the 
Asia Pacific, and looked forward to the future pa rticipation of like-minded members who would share 
the Parties' vision. 
6. The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat and the Parties for the 
information provided on the Agreement, including th e answers to their questio ns.  The United States 
recognized that coordinating among four Parties to meet  the task of the review was not easy.  In her 
delegation's view, it was clear that the Parties had negotiated an Agreement th at would liberalize trade 
among them, and in a very substa ntial way and she commended the Parties for this.  She looked 
forward to hearing more about Brunei's commitm ents in services and government procurement once 
those negotiations were finalized.  In r esponse, the representative of Brunei Darussalam  replied that 
negotiations on government procurement were more  or less concluded while the negotiations on 
services were still ongoing. 
7. The representative of Australia  noted that Brunei had excluded a range of products on moral, 
health and security grounds.  According to the WTO Trade Policy Review of Brunei in January 2008, 
there were to be ongoing discussions on ways to accommodate these products under the Agreement.  
His delegation wanted to know what the framework  for those discussions was and whether they had 
commenced.  Alcohol was amongst those products on the exclusion list; according to the Factual Presentation waivers on the import of alcohol applied on a non-discriminatory basis, and he asked 
what this meant and how it operated. 
8. In response to the question raised by Au stralia, the representative of Brunei Darussalam
 stated 
that the discussions on the exclusion of producti on on moral, health and security grounds had not 
commenced, but letters had been exchanged stating that the negotiations were to be accommodated in 
a review.  Imports and the manufacture of alcohol and alcohol products had been restricted for 
religious reasons under the Customs Prohibitions an d Restrictions of Impor ts and Exports amended 
Order 1990 as stated in the Secretariat's Report of the Trade Policy Review of Brunei.  The import 
restrictions had been implemented since 1991, although 
9. ugh non-Muslims were allowed to import a certain  number of litres of alcohol and a standard, 
limited quantity of beer duty-free for personal consumption.  The representative of Australia  thanked 
the representative of Brunei Darussalam for its answer and said that if further clarification was 
required he would do so in writing. 
10. The representative of th e European Communities  (EC) noted that as indicated by the Parties, 
and as set out in Article 20.6, the Agreement was open to accession, on terms to be agreed among the 
Parties, by any APEC economy or other state.  She asked for details of the minimum conditions 
required to apply for accession to the Agreement.  This question was along the same lines as question  WT/REG229/M/1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  17 in document WT/REG229/2 raised by Hong Kong, China, but the EC requested further 
clarification in this respect.  Secondly, she ask ed about the relationship with other agreements 
concluded by the Parties.  In the case of New Zealand and Singapore, the Agreement built upon their 
existing agreement on a Closer Economic Partners hip (NZSCEP), which remained in force.  The 
Parties had confirmed that exporters from either country might take advantage of the provisions of 
either Agreement depending on which provided them w ith the most benefits.  In this regard, the EC 
asked whether the Parties could explain:  how economic operators were duly informed about the 
different treatment under both Agreements to en able them to better understand their respective 
advantages;   the reasons for not having terminat ed the former Agreement, which could have been 
superseded by the P4 Agreement;  the benefits of maintaining two Agreements at the same time;  and 
whether they had calculated the impact on transaction costs of maintaining both Agreements in force? 
11. In response to the questions raised by th e EC on the conditions for accession to the 
Agreement, the representative of New Zealand  explained that Article 20.6 of the Agreement provided 
that the Agreement was "open to accession on terms to be agreed among the Parties, by any APEC 
Economy or other State".  The terms of accession fo r each new member would therefore need to be 
agreed among the Parties.  The P4 Commission ha d agreed that decisions on accession, as with all P4 
decisions, were to be taken by consensus.  Any communications regarding accession should be 
directed to the Parties, through New Zealand as  depository to the Agreement.  Regarding the 
relationship with other agreements concluded by the Parties, she e xplained that material published on 
each Party's website and in other publications advised exporters and importers that the NZSCEP 
remained in force and that they were able to take advantage of the provisions of either the P4 or the 
NZSCEP.  The material also highlighted situations  where exporters might wish to choose between the 
Agreements.  The official websites providing the information were http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-
and-Economic-Relations/T rade-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/index.php , and http://www.fta.gov.sg . 
Singapore and New Zealand had decided to leave bot h the P4 and the NZSCEP in place and to allow 
exporters, service suppliers or investors to claim th e more favourable treatment  accorded under either 
Agreement.  In her delegation's view, maintaini ng the two Agreements gave greater flexibility to 
traders.  For example, trade in goods was comp letely free between New Zealand and Singapore, 
subject to rules of origin being met.  The rules of origin in the NZSCEP were based on regional value 
content, whereas the rules of origin in P4 were ma inly based on change of tariff classification.  A 
trader could choose the more preferable rule of or igin.  For trade in services, services suppliers were 
able to use the provisions under either Agreem ent.  The NZSCEP used a positive-list approach, 
whereas the P4 used a negative-list approach.  At  present, as the P4 did not contain chapters on 
investment and financial services, New Zealand and Singapore investors were able to use the 
provisions in the NZSCEP.  The Parties did not have information on transactions costs for 
maintaining both Agreements in force, but remain ed open to any feedback from the users of the 
Agreements.  
12. On the questions and replies doc ument, the representative of Japan  thanked the Parties for 
their comprehensive explanations, and said her de legation had a follow-up to question 23 raised by 
the United States.  From the answers, her de legation understood that Singaporean exporters to 
New Zealand did not need to specify the Agreemen t under which they were exporting goods, and the 
Customs Authority of New Zealand would charge  the lowest possible duties available to the 
exporters.  The representative of New Zealand  clarified that given that trade between New Zealand 
and Singapore was completely duty-free there was no ta riff to be applied to goods traded;  however 
the trader could select the more favourable rule of  origin, as they differed in the two Agreements. 
13. The Chairman  noted that the consideration of the goods and services aspects of the 
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnershi p Agreement between Brunei Darussalam, Chile, 
New Zealand and Singapore had allowed the Committ ee to clarify a number of questions and oral 
discussion of the Agreement could be  concluded in accordance with pa ragraph 11 of the Transparency 
Mechanism.  If any delegations wished to ask fo llow-up questions they were invited to forward WT/REG229/M/1 
Page 4 
 
 
  submissions in writing to the Secretariat by 25  September 2008 and Parti es were asked to submit 
replies in writing by no later than 9 October 2008.  In accordance with paragraph 13 of the 
Transparency Mechanism all written submissions , as well as minutes of this meeting would be 
circulated promptly, in all WTO official langua ges, and would be made available on the WTO 
website. 
14. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________