WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/REG/M/62 
4 November 2011 
 (11-5619) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Sixty-second Session  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 22 AND 23 SEPTEMBER 2011 
 
Chairman:  Mr. F. Riegert (France) 
  A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The 62nd Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or 
the 'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/3790/Rev.1 dated 12 September 2011. 
2. The following Agenda was adopted: 
A. Adoption of the Agenda 
B. Work Programme on Regional Trade Agreements: Proposal for the 8th Ministerial 
Conference (MC8) - Communication from Australia; Canada; Chile; China; Hong Kong, China; India; Japan; Mexico, New Z ealand; Norway; the Republic of Korea; 
and the separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. 
C. Paragraph 20 of the Transparency Mechan ism (TM) for Regional Trade Agreements - 
Statement by the United States 
D. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements 
I. Status Report on the Committee's Work - Non-notified RTAs. II.  Economic Integration Agreement betw een the European Union and Albania, 
services.  
E. Consideration of Regional Trade Agreements involving WTO non-Members 
I. Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and Serbia, goods.  
 F. Discussion on the World Trade Report 2011  
G. Other Business  
3. The Chairman recalled that the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) had been 
granted observer status to the CRTA on an ad hoc  basis and sought confirmation to extend an 
invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee' s next meeting.  It was so agreed. 
B. WORK PROGRAMME ON REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS : PROPOSAL FOR THE 
8TH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE  
4. Under this item, the representative of Austra lia welcomed the opportunity to speak on a 
proposal for a draft Ministerial decision for MC8 on a work programme for RTAs.  The proposal had 
twelve co-sponsors and a number of other supporters, wh ich reflected the high level of interest in the 
growth and increasing prominence of RTAs in world trade.  She said the proponents were a group of 
developing and developed countries from many different  regions who shared a strong interest in the 
systemic implications of RTAs.  The proposal r esponded to the need many Members had identified 
for a work programme in the CRTA to address the systemic importance of RTAs.  The high level of interest had been apparent in the last WTO Mini sterial meeting in November 2009, and was of course WT/REG/M/62 
Page 2 
 
 
  consistent with the mandate of the CRTA itself whic h was tasked explicitly to consider the systemic 
implications of RTAs (WT/L/127).  
5. She said there was a broader cont ext to this proposal and that was the value the co-sponsors 
saw in revitalising the regular Committee work as a wa y to support and strengthen the WTO.  Even as 
Members were collectively struggling with the Doha  Round, she believed that it was in all of their 
interests to ensure that WTO Me mbers could analyse and discuss developments in the trading system, 
and in this case  the growing importance of RTAs in world trade.  
6. The proposal was a simple one and was th at WTO Members ought to assess collectively the 
implications of RTAs – both in their number and s ubstance – for the multilateral trading system and to 
so in a systematic, fact-based manner.  The proposal had three key features.  It proposed first, that the 
CRTA worked within its existing mandate to consid er the systemic implications of RTAs for the 
multilateral trading system.  Second, that Members directed this work programme through the CRTA, 
but that the Secretariat supported the work by pro ducing detailed factual repor ts.  The reports had to 
be factual and not pass judgement on RTAs and their interaction with the multilateral trading system.  
Third, that this work should take place over roughly two years, w ith results being reported to the 
Ninth Ministerial Conference scheduled for 2013.  
7. In putting together this proposal as a possibl e outcome for MC8, the co-sponsors had been 
mindful of the process outlined by the Chairman of the General Council on how to proceed.  That was 
– that they should use existing committee processes  and that those Members seeking support for an 
idea for MC8 should undertake the necessary work with other Members to try to build consensus for it 
to appear on the agenda for the Ministerial.  In  the few short weeks since the proposal had been 
drafted, the co-sponsors had tried to reach out to as many Members as possible to explain its aims and 
seek support.  They had made good progress in this re gard, but recognized that more work would need 
to continue with all interested Me mbers in the weeks ahead.  Given the importance of the issues raised 
by the increasing number of RTAs, they hoped that this was something that all Members would see as 
a priority.  They hoped that this would be clear fo llowing this meeting of the CRTA, and that further, 
more detailed consultations  could be held over the next few w eeks.  She said time was short, and 
Members needed to keep the General Council Chair' s deadline of the first week of November for 
Ministerial Conference agenda items in mind.  Th e hope was that there would be enough time to agree 
on a proposal that the General Council could recommend to Ministers for their decision in December.  
She would be listening carefully and with an open mi nd to the discussions during the current meeting, 
and looked forward to hearing Members' views. 
8. The representative of Mexico said his country was one of the co-sponsors of the proposal 
presented by the delegation of Australia.  Such a propo sal was a reflection of the growing interest of 
Members in analysing the cross-cutting issues on RTAs.  In his opinion, this proposal had a great deal 
of value as it drew on the primary data which had arisen from the current considerations and that 
when processed through the Secretariats' factua l documents and discussions within the Committee 
would give Members a broader view on the devel opment of RTAs.  Factual presentations had enabled 
Members to look at every tree in the RTA forest and the proposal would enable them to look at every 
tree species in the forest of RTAs.  He highlighted that the documents of the Secretariat would be factual and would not contain opinions nor establish new rules or obligations for RTAs.  Finally, he 
invited Members to carefully analyse the proposal and said he would be happy to hear their 
comments. 
9. The representative of India welcomed the op portunity to speak on the proposal as a 
co-sponsor.  He said his country had always been a st rong proponent of strengthening institutions like 
the CRTA and the multilateral trading system.  One of the important steps taken in that direction had 
been the development of the RTA TM.  The mechan ism had been very useful in highlighting the 
important aspects of RTAs.  He said that through this proposal, the co-sponsors were proposing to use  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the information gathered by the CRTA including und er the TM to improve their knowledge of RTAs 
in a systemic way.  The idea was to find ways of strengthening the multilatera l trading system despite 
the increasing number of RTAs.  Firs t, it was important that the work on cross-cutting issues would be 
comprehensive and robust.  In his view, this work could be comprehensive if it was based on 
authentic data submitted by Members themselves.  He said that there was always a question mark on the reliability of the data and analyses done elsewhere .  In the proposal, the basis of the descriptive 
papers prepared by the Secretariat would be th e data submitted by Members, and the factual 
presentations which were already being shared with Members.  On account of the authentic 
information of RTAs available in the WTO, he believed the WTO was in a unique position to 
consider how RTAs interact with the multilatera l trading system and to undertake detailed and 
descriptive work.  He added that this would not  duplicate the work done elsewhere but rather 
complement it from a WTO point of view.  Secondly, the proposal took into consideration the possible resource constraints of the Secretariat.  The preparation of the descriptive papers would not put any undue burden on any division of the Secretariat but would be spread out over divisions 
dealing with the specific issues as it was in  the context of the factual presentations. 
10. The representative of China expressed his full s upport for the statement made by Australia 
and other co-sponsors on the proposal.  He said that the proliferation of RTAs in past years posed 
significant challenges to the multilateral trading syst em embodied in the WTO.  In his view, it was 
therefore very important for the organization to star t analysing the implications to ensure that RTAs 
were supportive of the multilateral trading system and to improve RTA rules in the multilateral arena.  
He recalled that last year, several Members had tabl ed a joint-proposal to the CRTA to consider the 
horizontal cross-cutting elements of RTAs based on f actual and descriptive papers by the Secretariat. 
The proposal had received consider able support and had laid down th e basis for future work and the 
upcoming MC8 provided Members with a valuable opportunity to seek clear instructions from the 
Ministers to push this work forward.  He said the sponsors had engaged in substantive discussions 
with all interested parties during the past few we eks and had made their best efforts to accommodate 
their concerns.  The proposal was in his view inclusive and mature as it contained several clarifications and improvements compared to th e previous version.  He welcomed Members' 
comments and suggestions and said he believed more detailed consultations woul d be useful to help 
the General Council to choose their line of work for the MC8 agenda items.  His delegation would 
actively engage in this process. 
11. The representative of Chile fully endorsed the pr esentation made by Australia on behalf of the 
group of co-sponsoring countries.  As a co-sponsor of  the proposal, he recalled that in paragraph 4 of 
the Doha Ministerial Declaration Ministers had recognized "that regional trade agreements can play an important role in promoting the liberaliza tion and expansion of trade and in fostering 
development".  Chile was party to 21 RTAs w ith 51 countries and had several agreements under 
negotiation.  He therefore believed his country had a relevant input in this area. These agreements had 
had a positive effect in promoting trade liberalizat ion and trade expansion, and were an important 
factor for growth and development.  For this reas on, his country welcomed the initiation of a debate 
on RTAs.  Based on Chile's experience, its network of  RTAs had led to an effective tariff below 1%, 
lower than the MFN rate of 6% and even lower if compared to the bound tariff.  In addition, these 
bilateral agreements had helped Chile to reduce tari ffs unilaterally and in certain cases to fully remove 
tariffs for certain goods, thus benefiting all WTO Members.  RTAs had also led to significant 
regulatory reforms, based on MFN treatment and as such all WTO Members had benefited.  He mentioned, for instance, important amendments re lated to transparency, accountability, intellectual 
property protection standards, to name a few.  To sum up, he said that high-standard and high-
coverage RTAs such as those signed by Chile a nd considered in the CRTA could be an important 
complement to trade liberalization pursued under the multilateral trading system.  It was this objective 
of ensuring convergence and complementarity that should guide the debate.  In his view, it was 
therefore appropriate that in the run-up for MC8, Ministers should include the analysis of the relationship between RTAs and the multilateral tradi ng system as well as their impact on each other.  WT/REG/M/62 
Page 4 
 
 
  12. The representative of New Zealand  said that as a co-sponsor of the proposal his delegation 
fully endorsed the declaration by Australia as well as the additional remarks made by other 
co-sponsors.  His delegation believed that the propo sal reflected a high level of interest which WTO 
Members rightly had in the growth and increasing prominence of RTAs in world trade, which was 
also reflected in the WTO's World Trade Report 2011.  Accordingly, his delegation believed that there 
was a need for a work programme in the CRTA to ad dress the systemic importance of RTAs.  It fully 
endorsed the view that a work programme of the t ype proposed would be a valuable contribution to 
revitalize the regular committee work of the WT O in a way which would help to support and 
strengthen the WTO.  Given the importance of the issues raised by the increasing number of RTAs, 
his delegation hoped that the proposal would be one which all Members would see as a priority and to 
which they would lend their support.  He looked forw ard to participate in further consultations about 
the proposal over the next few weeks with the view  to reaching an agreement that the General Council 
could recommend to Ministers for their decision in December. 
13. The representative of Canada thanked Australia for introducing the proposal.  He said that as 
a co-sponsor of the proposal Canada supported the CRTA undertaking a work programme to consider 
the implications of the growth and prominence of RTAs in the multilateral trading system.  Canada 
considered such a work programme as falling with in the mandate of the CRTA.  His country also 
supported high quality, comprehensive and transparen t RTAs, and was interested in gaining a better 
understanding of how current trends  and in particular the quality of the increasing number of RTAs 
impacted the multilateral system.   
14.  The representative of Norway said her country was one of the twelve co-sponsors of the 
proposal for a draft Ministerial decision on a work programme for RTAs.  As many of the previous 
co-sponsors had pointed to, there was a high level of  interest in the growth and increasing prominence 
of RTAs in world trade and the CRTA had the manda te to consider the systemic implications of 
RTAs.  Her delegation saw the strong value of a work programme to address this issue and thought 
that a work programme based on factual reports prep ared by the Secretariat could help Members in 
further work.  As mentioned by Australia and ot her co-sponsors, the proposal was a contribution to 
revitalizing the regular Committee work in the WT O.  Norway believed that these efforts were 
important in order to support and strengthen th e WTO.  She said her delegation looked forward to 
continuing the work and hearing other Members'  comments and views.  She hoped to agree on a 
proposal that could be recommended to the Ministerial meeting in December. 
15. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked Au stralia for highlighting the main aspects and 
the value of the proposal and joined previous sp eakers in giving his delegation's full support to the 
proposal.  He said that the growing number of RT As was indeed an issue.  His delegation was 
convinced of the need for a work programme to an alyse the cross-cutting elements of RTAs and for 
Members to have a deeper understanding of the im plications of RTAs for the multilateral trading 
system.  In his view such work would not only improve Members' knowledge  on how RTAs interact 
with the multilateral trading system but also help to reveal how their own trade interests might be 
affected by other RTAs. To his de legation, both were timely and it was important to seek instructions 
from Ministers for this work to be undertaken by th e CRTA.  He also stressed the importance of such 
a work programme not creating new legal obligations , de facto benchmarks, nor replacing the work of 
the Negotiating Group on Rules.  He looked forwar d to further support for the proposal from other 
Members. 
16. The representative of Hong Kong , China associated his delegation with Australia and other 
co-sponsors, which had substan tially presented the background and rationale underpinning the 
proposal.  His delegation lent its full support to th e proposal and thought it was a timely response to 
the increasing need for Members to  develop a better understanding of  the relationship between RTAs 
and the multilateral trading system.  He was also mi ndful that in order to bring about constructive 
outcomes from the Ministerial Conference in Decem ber Members should proactively come up with  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 5 
 
 
  issues for Ministerial action.  Members had all alo ng been interested in pursuing RTA related work 
and had had useful discussions in the past.  In this  light the proposal for a work programme on RTAs 
for the CRTA represented a valuable  option for a meaningful deliverab le for the coming Ministerial.  
Finally, he said that he would be listening caref ully to Members' views on the proposal and would 
keep an open mind on discussing them.  
17. The representative of the Republic of Korea said that as a co-sponsor of the proposal his 
country fully supported this initiative.  Given the growing importance of RTAs in world trade and 
related challenges the benefits for Members to review  RTAs' systemic implications were clear to all 
Members.  The core elements of the proposal were simple:  starting a work programme on RTAs 
based on factual reports.  The initiative clearly fell within the existing mandate and did not create any 
new legal obligations.  He added that given that the time until MC8 was limited, he hoped that all 
Members would present their views vigorously and said that co-sponsors were open to other positions.   
18. The representative of Japan said that as a co-spons or his country fully supported the proposal. 
Currently, RTAs had greatly expanded around the worl d.  Japan was no exception to this trend and 
was involved in many RTAs.  He added that tha nks to the current TM, transparency had been 
enhanced but that this was not sufficient because the relationship between RTAs and the multilateral 
trading system was not clear enough.  The proposal  would help to strengt hen Members' understanding 
of the current trends.  His delegation believed th e proposal was a realistic one as it was based on the 
current mandate and on factual reports.  His said his delegation hoped that the proposal, which was 
well organized, would have the full support of Me mbers, and highlighted that time was limited. 
19. The representative of European Union (EU) thanked Australia for having presented the 
proposal and other co-sponsors fo r their comments.  She said that  her delegation saw the upcoming 
MC8 as a useful opportunity to establish concrete st eps for the benefit of in creased work in the field 
of RTAs.  She said Members should clearly not miss  this opportunity.  Her delegation welcomed the 
initiative presented by Australia and co-sponsored by  twelve delegations, and strongly supported its 
content and ultimate objective.  She stood ready to wo rk together with Australia and other delegations 
to bring this proposal to Ministers' consideration. 
20. The representative of Egypt welcomed the proposal but made two remarks.  He said that the 
proposal did not mention the role of the CTD in considering RTAs, although the CTD had an 
important role.  In addition, there were still some  issues that had not been finalized in the CTD 
regarding RTAs.  He therefore considered that if the proposal was to be submitted to MC8, it should 
mention the role of the CTD and also that the CR TA was dealing with RTAs that fell under Article 
XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS.   
21. The representative of Singapore, on behalf of ASEAN, thanked Australia for its efforts in 
coordinating and developing the proposal, as well as the other co-sponsors and Members for their 
useful comments and suggestions.  He said A SEAN supported an outcome on RTAs for MC8 and 
highlighted that the work of the CRTA had been always instrumental to the WTO as a whole.  
ASEAN Members agreed that revitalizing the regul ar work of the Committee served to support and 
strengthen the WTO and were supportive of initiatives that aimed to meet this objective.  He said 
ASEAN saw the text proposed by Australia and other co-sponsors as a good draft and a good basis to start working.  As regards future textual suggesti ons, it was important that the eventual text did not 
pre-judge the outcome of the MC8 work programme  in order to maximize the work programme 
potential in being neutral, yet beneficial and meani ngful to the Membership.  In the short time that 
remained, ASEAN Members looked forward to work ing with the co-sponsors and other Members and 
contributing to further discussions. 
22. The representative of Costa Rica thanked Austra lia and other co-sponsors for the proposal for 
the Ministerial Decision which contained a work progr amme for RTAs.  She said this topic was on the WT/REG/M/62 
Page 6 
 
 
  agenda and should undoubtedly be analysed by the WTO in the CRTA.  Her country considered that 
the creation of a work programme was a good start and a basis for Members to identify the relevant 
elements for the analysis of the implications of RTAs on the multilateral trading system.  Costa Rica 
hoped that the consultation process scheduled for th e coming weeks would be successful and lead to 
an outcome that could be submitted to Ministers for consideration in December. 
23. The representative of Colombia thanked Austra lia and other co-sponsors for the proposal.  
Her delegation believed it was useful, necessary and a deliverable of great value for MC8.  In her 
opinion, the proposal was an excellent opportunity  to improve and strengthen the multilateral trade 
system, as well as the WTO's work through the analys is of trade agreements.  She said the mandate 
existed and was in the recommendations of MC7 (2 009), the Doha Ministerial Declaration as well as 
in the terms of reference of the CRTA.  There was also a need for such work.  According to a report 
from 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 where they were heading, esp ecially, as they were leading to a higher level of 
integration far beyond tariff liberalization and we re covering domestic policies such as regulations on 
services and investments, competition policy, protec tion of intellectual property rights, government 
procurement, etc.  It was therefore important to identify patterns and trends, as well as to examine the impact and implications of RTAs for the multilatera l trading system to ensure their coherence.  A 
proposal such as the one presented was an excellent  opportunity to increase transparency, exchange 
information and provide a better understanding of the current trends in trade, and the impact on 
multilateralism.  She considered this to be analy tical work, to be carried out within the WTO and 
undertaken by the CRTA.  The proposal should no t create new obligations, rules, or negotiating 
benchmarks.  The work programme would not cha nge WTO disciplines or replace the mandate of the 
Negotiating Group on Rules.  Her delegation fully supported the proposal.  
24. The representative of Oman thanked all Me mbers who had presented the proposal.  The 
proposal was timely and important and her delegation was interested in participating in any future 
consultations in this regard.   
25. The representative of the United States tha nked the co-sponsors for making a proposal on 
RTAs for inclusion in the statement of Ministers at MC8.  She said her delegation could see the value 
of Ministers endorsing a CRTA work programme and th e thrust of this proposal was consistent with 
the heart of the CRTA's mandate.  Her delegation had some questions and concerns about some 
aspects of this particular formulation which it hoped might be addressed in order to move forward.  
She said first that the introduction raised more quest ions rather than sending a clear message.  From 
her delegation's perspective and from that of th e Committee's future work, the main points for 
Ministers were the CRTA's mandate and the nature of the work plan itself.  She recalled that the 
CRTA's mandate (document WT/L/127) indicated that "the term "agreements" in this Decision refers to all bilateral, regional and plurilateral trade agre ements of a preferential na ture" and paragraph 1(d) 
stated that the CRTA's terms of reference included "to consider the systemic implications of such 
agreements and regional initiatives for the multilate ral trading system and the relationship between 
them, and make appropriate reco mmendations to the General Counc il".  Her delegation therefore 
considered that the proposal fell squarely within that objective.  Concerning the proposal itself, she 
had three basic questions and concerns.  First, it a ppeared odd to consider a Ministerial statement on 
RTAs that did not explicitly acknowledge the succ ess of the TM.  Several Members had referred to 
this success during the Session, which should be incl uded in the proposal.  She highlighted that this 
would also be an opportunity for Ministers to fu rther encourage Members to submit information and 
notifications as required.  Second, as a general matte r, her government would like to avoid including 
words and phrases in Ministerial declarations if th ey were likely to provoke future semantic debates 
on their meaning.  From her perspective, th e meaning of words and phrases such as "trends," 
"common values" and "cross-cutting" could be subjec tive or ambiguous.  She would be interested to  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 7 
 
 
  know whether the proponents could agree on simpler formulations that accomplished the same goal.  
Finally, in terms of the work programme itself, she said that her delegation considered that it would be 
too narrow to be based only on specific Secretariat work and that Members should also be able to 
draw on resources outside the WTO, as well as on their own work and analysis.  Not necessarily all 
papers on RTAs and their implications for the multilate ral trading system were worth reading, but that 
was a subjective view.  She certainly saw no reas on to limit the inquiry to chapter headings, and 
indeed the Secretariat might also help inform Me mbers of other available materials.  She hoped her 
comments were constructive in help ing to develop an outcome for Ministers.  Finally, she said that 
several Members had mentioned the possibility of consultations.  While she welcomed a forum for 
Members to pursue the issue to build consensus, it had to be clear to all concerned that the 
responsibility for building that consensus was not to be shifted from the Members to the Chair of the 
CRTA. 
26. The representative of Ecuador had read the propo sal with considerable interest, as it tackled 
an issue of general interest within the WTO.  He  underlined the penultimate sentence of paragraph 4, 
which stated that the work programme would not seek  to create de facto benchmarks.  He said this 
was particularly important in an organization wh ich was known for its dive rsity: Members differed 
not only in the size and structural characteristics of their economy but also in their economic policy 
per se.  His delegation believed that such an i ndication should also be expressly contained in the 
paragraph presented for Ministerial consideration.    
27. The representative of Pakistan extended his delegation's support to the proposal which seized 
upon an important opportunity offered by MC8 for fu rther discussion and possible declaration on the 
CRTA's future work programme.  He said that li ke a blind man who was asked to describe an 
elephant, the few descriptions that Members ha d heard during the Session were variegated and 
required Members to reach a census in the coming days.  For example, India had expressed concern regarding the authenticity of data and the duplica tion of work. China shared concerns about RTAs 
posing significant challenges to the multilateral trading system as well as improving RTA rules.  
Similarly Chile and Costa Rica had mentioned regu latory aspects.  Members needed to crystalize 
ideas on which consensus could be reached as soon as possible.  If all parameters suggested by 
Members were to be taken into account, the two-year  timeframe might be short.  He underscored the 
need to work with a timeline.  He agreed that the work programme should be completed by MC9.  
Some Members had articulated their concerns such as the role of the CTD, as mentioned by Egypt.  In 
his opinion, cross-cutting and systemic issues were two slightly different things:  cross-cutting referred to the present while systemic issues referred to the future.  He was also inclined to talk about 
Document WT/L/127, but the United States had already done so.  Finally, he lent his delegation's support to the proposal while urging Members to e ngage in a constructive dialogue, keeping in mind 
the need to finalize it by the deadline so as to  reach a common denominator on which to base the 
proposal.    
28. The representative of El Salvador thanked the co -sponsors for the proposal, in particular for 
showing willingness to keep alive the mandate of th e CRTA by discussing systemic issues related to 
RTAs. He had certain comments and remarks regard ing the proposal in particular regarding its 
implications and effects.  He said first that the proposal was similar to previous proposals that had 
been presented and discussed in the CRTA. The Committee had already discussed the topic, as well as 
other proposals with the same objective, but no conclu sions had been reached so far. It was important 
that this was taken into account.  He recognized that the difference with this in itiative was that the co-
sponsors were attempting to use specific language to be used for the adoption of the mandate in the 
declaration for MC8.  He said it was the right time but  he needed to know  the terms in which such a 
statement would be made as well as the implicati ons for the work programme under discussion.  In 
this context, he asked what had happened to elements c ontained in past proposals, which had reflected 
other Members' comments such as the status quo, other guarantees on retroactive effects and other 
elements.  Also, it was not clear whether the proposal  was aimed at agreements that had already been WT/REG/M/62 
Page 8 
 
 
  notified and considered under the TM or not. Hi s delegation recalled that there had been other 
proposals on systemic issues, such as the one submitt ed by the US delegation, which could be looked 
at in parallel.  Such proposals were not exclusive so he asked the proponents if other proposals could 
be seen in parallel.  With respect to the introduc tory part of the proposal, and as mentioned by the 
United States there were certain elements his delega tion did not agree with.  If this was the language 
to be supported by Members and Ministers, it di d not necessarily need to be the genesis for the 
adoption of a work programme.  The proposal referre d to the fact that Members could use data on 
RTAs in a more effective way, but this was not a va lid objective.  In his opinion, looking at previous 
examinations was already a current practice by  each delegation when it came to negotiating new 
agreements. The objective was rather to anal yse and discuss systemic aspects of RTAs.  
29. With respect to the language used in the proposal, his delegation had several comments and 
reservations. He asked, for instance, what the co-s ponsors meant by "increasing prominence of RTAs 
in world trade". He wanted to know what was be hind this expression and suggested it would be better 
to use simpler language to capture the interest and mandate of the CRTA.  In the penultimate sentence 
of the proposal, the co-sponsors talked about ga thering collective views on negotiating RTAs. Yet, 
clearly the proposal should not set any negotiation benchmarks. He wanted to know what the co-
sponsors meant by this sentence, and to whose view s they were referring e.g. Members, experts. He 
said he would like to better understa nd the language and remove anything  that was not clear and could 
be subject to different interpretations.  In the last sentence, the proposal stated that the result would be 
reported to the MC9.  He asked the proponents how they thought these results would be presented e.g. 
through recommendations, conclusions, factual reports , joint decisions, etc. This was important as 
Members would commit to future work for the next tw o years, and thus needed to be absolutely clear 
on what they were supposed to be doing.  He al so asked how the proponents thought this language 
fitted within the report and future work of the CRTA, which was submitted to the General Council as 
part of its regular activities. As suggested by othe r Members, he hoped to hold consultations with the 
proponents to clarify this topic and other points that might arise as he would get more feedback from 
his capital.  
30. The representative of St. Lucia, on behalf of the ACP Group, thanked Australia and the other 
co-sponsors for the proposal and for their hard work and consideration on how to advance the 
transparency of RTAs.  He recalled that the Chairman's summary of the Seventh Ministerial 
Conference, inter alia, held that while the RTA TM had worked  quite well, there was "still room for 
improvement, through making the mechanism perman ent, highlighting better and common elements 
in different RTAs and in troducing an annual review."  In response to this directive agreed by 
Members, the proposal under consideration had been issued and reflected the judgment of co-sponsors 
on how that mandate could best be achieved.  Conc retely, the proposal aimed at directing the CRTA 
to undertake a work programme that would, am ongst other things, consider the cross-cutting 
elements, trends and practices in RTAs.  The outcome of such work would be reports on specific cross-cutting issues.  While on the surface, this  appeared innocuous, it was important for the 
Membership to have a clear understanding of the modalities for establishing the work programme and 
the range of issues to be tackled.  He said that should any work programme be established it had to reflect the varied interests of developed and developing countries alike.  Hence the proposed 
Ministerial language had to explicitly note that the work programme was to focus on issues that also 
touched on, and concerned developmen t.  He added that a narrow focus on market access as a mean of 
establishing new norms or fostering convergence on best pr actices was to be avoided.  In this context, 
it was imperative that equal focus be placed on development related issues.  
31. The representative of Brazil thanked Australia and the other co-sponsors for their presentation 
and comments.  He highlighted two related aspects.  The first concerned the technical assistance role 
to be performed by the Secretariat which would be important in reducing information asymmetries 
and providing valuable input for national policy making in particular for developing countries.  
Secondly, he thought the proposal went in the right direction in strengthening the principle of  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 9 
 
 
  transparency which was a cornerstone of the multila teral trading system and therefore in building 
mutual confidence.       
32. The representative of Panama thanked Australia  and the other co-sponsors for presenting their 
proposal.  He said it had been interesting to see its development over recent months, as it touched 
upon an important topic.  He was also pleased to  hear delegations expressing their support for the 
proposal.  He noted that whereas there were still so me significant concerns there was also a notable 
feeling of convergence between delega tions.  As mentioned by all previous speakers, the work set out 
in the proposal fell within the mandate of the Committee, represented a valuable complement to 
current work, and would bring new life to this work .  A decision by Ministers in this regard would 
also represent an important and substantial outcome.  His delegation agreed with these views.  He also 
remarked that there were clearly a few areas wher e further convergence was needed to reach an 
agreement and decision in December.  The co-sponsor s had indicated that consultations would take 
place in order to gain support and reach an agreem ent among Members. Such consultations had to be 
wide-ranging and take into account the concerns expressed in the current meeting as well as future 
ones.  He indicated that his delegation would like to be included in future consultations. 
33. The representative of South Africa thanked the proponents for the proposal and the 
introductory comments.  She said her delegation s upported any initiative aiming at strengthening and 
supporting the regular work of the Committee, as well  as adding value to its work programme and the 
WTO, as a whole.  She was very interested in the initiative, whic h according to the proponents was 
not designed or envisaged to entail any legal implications or prescriptions on Members, nor prejudice 
or pre-empt the work in the Negotiating Group on Rul es but mainly to be factual in nature and serve 
to assist Members in considering the systemic im plications of RTAs for the multilateral trading 
system.  She also supported the comments of the representative of St. Lucia on behalf of the ACP 
group that the development focus of any new progra mme should be incorporated in any Ministerial 
decision.  She said she had forwarded the proposal back to capital and might have more specific 
comments in the weeks ahead as Members worked on mo re detailed aspects in refining the proposal.   
34. The representative of Australia said her delega tion was very encouraged by the discussion 
that had been held during the meeting;  both by the support and the level of interest in the proposal.  
The conversation had been both collegial and constructive, which was always good for the 
Organization. She understood clearly that furt her work and discussion was required and looked 
forward to engaging with all interested  Members in the few weeks remaining. 
35. The Chairman said that the proposal had attracted significant interest and support but also 
questions and suggestions for amendments.  Sinc e there was not much time before the General 
Council meeting of 26 October, he intended to hold consultations on 29 Septem ber.  In the meantime, 
he asked the delegations to send their suggestions for amendments to the Secretariat.  Following the 
consultations, he would convene a new CRTA before the General Council to conclude on this item.  
He asked whether the Committee ag reed with this suggestion. 
36. The representative of United States expressed surprise that suggestions for amendments 
would need to be submitted to the Committee at this point since she had hoped to work with 
proponents a bit further.  She had received the copy  of the proposal recently and would therefore like 
to maintain the process of consultations with th e proponents.  She also remarked that having 
consultations in the coming week would be difficult for some delegations.   
37. The representative of Australia suggested that  if Members had suggestions and comments 
they could submit them to the co-sponsors.  Sh e also welcomed the idea of a broader meeting 
convened under the Chairmanship as the co-sponsors we re interested in reaching all the Membership.  
There was not much time and it was becoming be yond the resources of her mission and of the co-
sponsors to do it all on their own, so she very much welcomed Members' support.    WT/REG/M/62 
Page 10 
 
 
  38. The Chairman said he would keep in touch with the co-sponsors to determine when 
consultations could be held, while keeping in mind that time was running short.  
C. PARAGRAPH 20 OF THE TRANSPARENCY MECHANISM FOR REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS - 
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
39. The representative of the United States cited Paragraph 20 of the Transparency Mechanism 
for RTAs which stated that "any Member may, at an y time, bring to the attention of the relevant WTO 
body information on any RTA that it considers ought to have been submitted to Members in the framework of this Transparency  Mechanism." She said her country placed great importance on the 
notification requirements of the TM, set out in paragr aph 3 of the Mechanism, which stated that "The 
required notification of an RTA by Members that are party to it shall take place as early as possible.  
As a rule, it will occur no later than directly follo wing the parties' ratification of the RTA or any 
party's decision on application of the relevant parts of an agreement, and before the application of 
preferential treatment between the parties".  As a practical matter, the notification itself not only 
provided a great deal of information on any single RTA, but its receipt initiated the consideration of 
the RTA under the TM, starting with the submissi on of information and data by the Member, 
followed by the preparation by the Secretariat of an  invaluable factual presentation.  Accordingly, 
pursuant to paragraph 20, her delegation wanted to bring to the Committee's attention the fact that 
they as WTO Members were missing information on so me RTAs that were already in force - RTAs 
where preferential treatment was already being applie d.  Notifications of these RTAs, as well as the 
required, accompanying information,  should already have been submitted within the framework of the 
TM.  For the current meeting, the Secretariat had sep arately provided a partial list of agreements that 
had not been notified.  Without these notifications, Members were deprived of some basic information 
and reference tools.  She cited as an example th e RTA between China and Chinese Taipei.  Despite 
the absence of a notification, these Members had very helpfully provided the text of their agreement 
and annexes as part of the "early announcem ent" of their Economic Cooperation Framework 
Agreement (ECFA).  However, the related WTO le gal provisions, as well as the relevant internet 
links, were still missing.  Another example was the set of interim agreements between the EU and a 
number of African countries, including Botswana, Burundi, Comoros, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rw anda, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, 
Zambia and Zimbabwe.  Although these agreements had not been notified, the EU's recent Trade 
Policy Review acknowledged that a pplication of preferential treatment  was already occurring between 
the Parties to these agreements.  Application of pr eferential treatment had also been publicized on the 
EU's website.  Regrettably, however , none of the information that would otherwise be included in a 
notification – including the full texts of the ag reements and the related schedules, annexes and 
protocols – was readily available to the Membership.  
40. Her delegation had chosen these examples in part because of the relative size and importance 
of these economies to the rest of the Membersh ip, as well as the number of Members involved.  
However, as was clear from the Secretariat's list of non-notified RTAs to be discussed later in the 
meeting, there were dozens of RTAs for which c onsideration under the TM could not begin because 
of a lack of notification.  Overall the TM w as working well, but she believed that each Member 
needed to do its part in order to ensure its con tinued success.  As such, she requested that each of the 
agreements mentioned in her statement – along w ith others not directly mentioned – be notified 
promptly as required under the TM.  As stated in  paragraph 4 of the TM, this entailed specifying 
under which provision(s) of the WTO agreements the agreement was to be notified; providing the full 
text of the RTA (or those parts which the parties had decided to apply) and any related schedules, 
annexes and protocols in one of the WTO official  languages; and supplying references to related 
official internet links.  She asked the specific dele gations involved to do their best in consulting their 
capitals so that this important information would ma ke its way to the Membership and be publically 
available.  She looked forward to the cons ideration of these agreements under the TM.  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 11 
 
 
  41. The representative of China thanked the United Stat es for its interest in the ECFA.  He said 
his country attached importance to the principle of transparency and had made great efforts in 
providing timely notifications in accordance with to the TM.  With regard to the ECFA, he reminded 
Members that China had already made an early a nnouncement, which he thou ght was appropriate at 
this stage.  Members could refer to the early ann ouncement ID card to find the relevant information. 
The ECFA had been signed on 21 June 2010 and had entered into force on 12 September 2010.  It 
included early harvest programmes and subsequent ag reements covering goods, services, etc.  The 
ECFA would thus be notified to the WTO in due cour se once subsequent agreements were completed.    
42. The representative of the European Union reite rated its strong commitment to duly comply 
with its transparency obligations, pursuant to the RTAs TM.  The EU was making all possible efforts 
to maintain its notifications up-to-date, includi ng active coordination with its ACP partners.  For 
instance, the EU was in the process of finalizin g the notification of the Economic Partnership 
Agreement (EPA) with Papua New Guinea and Fiji, which should be transmitted to the WTO in the 
coming weeks once internal clearance by the Parties w as complete.  Her delegation was aware that the 
notification process had taken longer than expected , but the EU was determined to speed up the 
process with its partners.  Finally, she reiterate d the EU's support for keeping the Committee fully 
aware of all pending notifications and therefore also welcomed the list circulated by the Secretariat, 
which would be covered in  the meeting agenda.   
43. The representative of the Chinese Taipei thanked his US colleague for her statement.  His 
delegation also attached great importance to the TM and had long been a supporter of its operation 
and improvement.  His delegation ha d always done its best to meet  the transparency requirements 
under the Mechanism.  In collaboration with its RTA partners, four notifications and one early 
announcement had been made thus far, which covered all the RTAs that the Chinese Taipei had either 
signed or were under negotiation.  With regard to the ECFA between Chinese Taipei and China this 
was, as the name suggested, a framework agreemen t which established the basis for the Parties to 
negotiate agreements covering goods, services, et c.  An early announcement of the Agreement, 
including its full content, had been provided to th e Secretariat and posted on the RTA database.  The 
Parties were currently negotiating the subseque nt aforementioned agreem ents covering goods, 
services, etc.  Once negotiations on these had been concluded, the Parties would notify the WTO. 
44. The representative of the Japan shared the view expressed by the delegation of the US 
regarding the lack of notifications, which concer ned the implementation of the TM.  His delegation 
had noted the statements by China, Chinese Taip ei, and the European Union, although he had no 
intention to single out any specific agreement.  His delegation had often pointed out the lack of 
notification of RTAs but the situation had not improv ed.  He therefore wanted to highlight the concern 
of his delegation regarding the lack of notifications.   
D. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
D.I S TATUS REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 'S WORK   
 45. Under this Agenda Item, the Chairman provided Members with an update on the 
implementation of the Transparency Mechanism.   He informed the Committee that 38 early 
announcements had been posted on the WTO website (excluding those that had been subsequently 
notified).  He thanked those Members who had submi tted 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 .  With regards to the factual abstracts to be 
prepared on those RTAs covering trade in goods for which an examination had already been 
completed, he informed Members that the last rema ining factual abstract for an RTA covering trade in 
goods had been drafted and sent recently to the parties.   WT/REG/M/62 
Page 12 
 
 
  46. As for the preparation of the factual presentati ons under the remit of the CRTA, he said that 
in the case of RTAs involving only WTO Member s, there were 32 RTAs for which a factual 
presentation had to be prepared, counting goods an d services separately.  He recalled that at the 
Committee's 52nd Session held on 4 March 2009, Memb ers had agreed to begin considering RTAs 
involving non-Members under the TM.  Thus, factua l presentations on a further 41 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.  He reminded Members that  in the interests of cost-cutting and creating a 
paperless Secretariat, copies of the factual presentation would be no longer distributed in the 
document sets for CRTA meetings.  
47. 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 ha d agreed during the last meeting in June to 
circulate a list of non-notified RTAs.  Again, these were RTAs which had been verified by their parties as being in force.  The document had been recently circulated as document WT/REG/W/62 
and contained 73 RTAs issued in factual presenta tions as of March 2011.  He said he had received 
responses from some delegations informing him that they were in the process of consulting with the 
other parties to notify these agreements.  He urge d other parties involved to make every effort to 
notify their RTAs as soon as possible.  He also proposed that the document be updated and circulated 
in advance of CRTA meetings as necessary.  He  asked Members if they had any comment.  
48. The representative of Uruguay reported that the Members of the LAIA:  Argentina, the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Co lombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, 
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and Cuba, were having consultations  with respect to the 
notifications in the context of the TM of the ag reements signed under the Montevideo Agreement of 
1980, which had been notified under the Enabling Clause.  This statement would also be made in the 
Committee on Trade and Development.    
49. The representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat for compiling and issuing the 
list.  She observed that the list was limited to only those non-notified RTAs listed in the factual 
presentations.  Clearly, and as mentioned in her st atement under agenda item 2(c), there were other 
non-notified agreements out there.  She was pleased to hear that the LAIA Members were consulting 
with each other.  In her understanding, LAIA w as an overall framework agreed in 1980. There was 
little, if any, transparency on many LAIA agreem ents, which could conceivably involve tens of 
thousands of tariff preferences and different parties and configurations.  Each of the agreements under 
the LAIA framework, assuming they were in force,  should be notified separately.  Her delegation 
understood that it was sometimes necessary to push  colleagues in capitals, and that it could be 
difficult for delegates in Geneva to get the necessa ry direction to fully comply with notification 
requirements.  However, these notifications we re fundamental, particularly as Members were 
discussing a potential CRTA work programme.  It was useful to have such a list but she was wondering if the Chairman could informally reach out  to the Members listed, and send them a copy of 
the notification form.  She hoped that by the next CRTA meeting in early November, the list could be cut by half and go from two pages to a single one. 
50. The Chairman said he would see with the Secretar iat what could be done in that respect.  He 
then asked the Secretariat to provide further de tails on the preparation of factual presentations. 
51. A representative of the Secretariat said th at in the case of Agreements between 
WTO Members, the situation was as follows:  for Chile-China, services, the factual presentation had 
been recently circulated and would be considered  at the next CRTA meeting.  For EU-Egypt, goods, 
joint comments had been received from the parties, but there were still some data issues to be 
resolved.  In the case of four RTAs –US-Ba hrain, goods and services;  CAFTA-DR, goods and 
services;  US-Oman, goods and services;  China- Singapore, goods and services;  the factual  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 13 
 
 
  presentations had been sent to the parties (in a ll cases back in 2009), but no comments had been 
received.  For EU-South Africa and Turkey-Chile , both goods; Colombia-Mexico, and New Zealand-
Hong Kong, China, both goods and services, data ha d been received and the factual presentations 
were currently being drafted.  For Panama-Honduras, goods and services data had been received from 
Panama only. For El Salvador-Honduras-Chinese Taip ei, goods and services, data had been received 
from Chinese Taipei and some data from El Salvador.  In the case of Korea-India, services, some data 
had been received from India. For Turkey-Jordan, goods,  data had been received from Turkey only. 
For EU-Korea, goods and services, data had been rece ived from Korea only.  For India-Malaysia and 
Korea-ASEAN, both services,  data was scheduled to be submitted by 24 January and 6 February 
2012, respectively .  For Guatemala-Chinese Taipei and Peru-Korea, both goods and services, data was 
due by 28 November and 27 December, respectively.  For Japan-India, goods and services, and EFTA-Albania, goods data was due by 24 and 25 November, respectively.  
52. 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 EU-Bosnia Herzegovina , goods;  EFTA-Lebanon, 
goods;  EU-CARIFORUM, goods and services;  Turk ey-Syria, goods, CEFTA Enlargement, goods;  
Ukraine-Azerbaijan, goods; Ukraine-Belarus, goods ; Ukraine-Russian Federation, goods;  Ukraine-
Tajikistan, goods;  Ukraine-Kaza khstan, goods;  Ukraine-Turkmenistan, goods;  Ukraine-Uzbekistan, 
goods;  and the Common Economic Zo ne, goods, data was not comple te.  For EFTA-Serbia, goods, 
data was due by 16 November. 
53. 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 of six agreements:  ASEAN-Japan, goods;  
Australia-ASEAN-New Zealand, goods and service s;  EU-Cameroon, goods;  EFTA-Peru, goods; 
EU-Cote d'Ivoire, goods;  and EFTA-C olombia, goods.  She urged the parties to notify the Secretariat 
when their respective agreement w ould enter into force for all the parties.  She also urged all 
Members to comply with the deadlines in orde r to adhere to the CRTA's work programme. 
54. 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.  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 deadlines were respected and the work pr ogramme under the TM proceeded 
as planned.  He was confident that the Committee coul d rely on the cooperation of all Members in this 
regard. 
55. D.II.  (The minutes of the consideration of th e Agreements listed under agenda items D.II- are 
being distributed as separate documents). 
E. CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS INVOLVING WTO  NON -MEMBERS  
56. E.I- (The minutes of the consideration of the Agreements listed between WTO Members and 
non-Members under agenda items E.I. are be ing distributed as separate documents). 
F. DISCUSSION ON THE WORLD TRADE REPORT 2011 
57. A representative of the Secretariat thanked the Committee for the opportunity to discuss the 
main findings and conclusions of the Report.  He  said the Report title was "The WTO and Preferential 
Trade Agreements (PTAs): from Co-existence to C oherence" and was predicated on the notion that 
PTAs were increasingly numerous, and were not going to  go away.  One of observations of the Report 
was that tariff preferences were becoming less and less important, so it was important to understand what was driving these agreements.  The idea of "dee per integration" was also important in the Report WT/REG/M/62 
Page 14 
 
 
  as agreements were going beyond the WTO, in terms of what the WTO covered and in terms of new 
areas of co-operation.  These developments had clear implications for the WTO.  In terms of numbers, 
there were currently almost 300 PTAs (notified and not notified) in force in 2010, against only about 
70 PTAs in 1990.  Each WTO Member was on average a member of 13 PTAs.  About two-thirds of 
these agreements were between developing countri es; a quarter between developed and developing 
countries; and the remainder were between developed countries only.  About half of the PTAs were 
intra-regional and half cross-regional, with the sh are of cross-regional agreements increasing in recent 
years.  Also, about half of the PTAs currently in fo rce were bilateral, about one-fifth were plurilateral, 
and the remainder were agreements where an existi ng PTA allowed an additional country to join, or 
where two PTAs fused. 
58. He explained that the point that tariffs were  becoming less and less important required more 
examination and qualification.  Only 16% of gl obal merchandise trade was receiving preferential 
treatment, mostly at zero tariff rates, and 51% of  global trade was MFN duty-free.  The remaining 
third of trade flows took place at MFN positive rates.  These MFN positive trade flows could arise within PTA trade flows (as sensitive products) or represented trade between non-PTA countries, that 
was trade that could potentially be addressed by PT As.  He noted that existing MFN tariffs were 
rather low, amounting on average to 4% in 2009;  and only 2% of world trade was eligible for preference margins of more than 10 percentage point s.  If one was to take into account what really 
determined the conditions of competition in markets and weight the trade of a given country with all 
its trading partners in terms of the tariff treat ment it received, that would be the "competition-
adjusted" preference margin.  In this case, less than 13% of preferential trade benefited from a 
competitive margin larger than two percentage poi nts.  Such evidence suggested that tariffs had 
become less important in PTAs.  Two qualifications needed however to  be made.  The first was that 
tariffs were still important according to some trader s, implying that tariffs were not completely 
irrelevant.  Secondly PTAs had not always been that  effective in bringing down tariffs in areas where 
the WTO had also trouble in bringing them down.  66% of tariff lines with an MFN rate above 15% 
had not been reduced at all in PTAs.  The Re port discussed the literature, issues, and reasons 
regarding the formation of PTAs such as to neut ralize "beggar-thy-neighbour" effects of unilateral 
trade policies; gain credibility and reduce uncertainty  through lock-in effects of PTAs; and to signal 
openness to investors.  There were also some other factors that were particular to PTAs such as the 
idea of increasing domestic market size depending on the orientation of the PTA (i.e. inward or 
outward oriented), achieving deeper commitments, and a whole range of "political" factors.  
59. The Report also took a reasonably close look at some policies to validate the assertions that 
PTAs were getting deeper and deeper in terms of policy coverage.  In doing this, the Report 
distinguished between WTO+ provisions and WTO- X provisions.  This classification was based on 
the work from Horn, Mavroidis and Sapir (2010).  WTO+ were provisions th at were covered under 
the WTO such tariffs, customs valuation, conti ngency trade policy, TRIPS, GATS, etc.  WTO-X 
provisions were those not covered under the WTO.  Using data for a sample of PTAs that covered 
90% of world trade, the Report had found 37 types of policies or measures not covered by the WTO 
but embedded in PTAs.  Some were found in very few PTAs and many were not necessarily 
enforceable.  At the top of the list were competition policy, IPRs and investment provisions that were 
not covered in the WTO.  At the bottom of the list were public administration, terrorism, nuclear 
safety and innovation policies.  Looking at the overall patterns, a higher number of WTO+ provisions were found in North-South agreements, and most of them were enforceable.  This situation probably 
reflected the differential level of commitments in terms of trade policy between North and South.  A 
higher number of WTO-X provisions were also found in North-South agreements.  He said that the Report argued that this reflected the "export" of re gulatory regimes from the North to the South, but 
with limited enforceability in many cases and with  less enforceability in North-South than in 
North-North agreements.  There were also a number of WTO-X provisions in South-South agreements.  It was therefore not only a North-South or North-North phenomenon but also a South-South phenomenon, and again with relatively less enforceability.  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 15 
 
 
  60. The Report looked in particular at services, investment, TBTs and competition policy, all 
"behind-the-border" provisions.  The reason these ar eas were chosen was simply because they were 
the easiest to get information for.  There were therefore no implications on the selection of these 
policy areas.  The Report asked questions such as how much harmonization had occurred in these 
regulatory areas; what kind of co -operation was going on; how far they went beyond the WTO; and 
whether there were any family resemblances within  or among PTAs.  This was an important question 
if one was thinking about the process of multilateralization. 
61. Finally, the last part of the Report dealt w ith the relationship between PTAs and the WTO, 
and the effects of PTAs on the WTO.  The Report had identified some potential synergies between 
PTAs and the WTO.  Some deep-integration provisi ons were non-discriminatory by their nature, and 
in that sense this was an MFN dividend.  In additio n, in some PTAs there were provisions to support 
further integration such as "non-party" MFN clauses and docking provisions.  The Report also discussed some of the potential systemic risks, su ch as trade remedy provisions in PTAs (e.g. anti-
dumping and safeguards) and whether they reinforced  discrimination or not; the effect of preference 
erosion, "lock-in" and risks of regulatory diverg ence among PTAs and to what extent this was a 
problem.  
62. The Report then asked how the WTO should react to PTAs.  Members could keep pressing on 
with MFN trade opening, but not much success had b een achieved during the last decade.  The WTO 
could also seek to strengthen GATT/WTO disciplines , which were rather weak and incomplete, but it 
had not had much success with that either.  The Re port thus argued that there was space for a different 
type of approach, which was exactly what the CRTA was doing with the TM, at least as a first stage.  
The idea was that by discussing these issues and unde rstanding them better one  could lay the ground 
work for deepening disciplines related to PTAs, a nd think in terms of what was happening and then 
eventually move to new disciplines.  This would be  the idea of a softer sequential approach, rather 
than continuing on the same pa th doing with little success.  
63. The Report discussed the possibility of a pro cess aiming at "multilateralizing" regionalism. 
The agreements were not designed to be exclusiv e and therefore there was probably lots of "low-
hanging fruit" in the idea of multilateralization.  In th is context, he said there was some work to be 
done to simplify rules of origin.  As tariffs were going down, it was important to assess the importance of rules of origin as it could be that th eir impact varied across trade flows.  He also 
mentioned the idea of using the WTO to bind existin g actual tariffs and consolidate them; as well as 
the idea of turning WTO+ and WTO-X provisions into the WTO.  Finally the Report suggested that 
there could be a way of rethinking the WTO decision-making process.  
64. The representative of Pakistan said it was difficult to comment on the Report as it covered 
everything.  There was no area where he found the Repor t lacking or even lagging.  He therefore took 
the opportunity to comment on some areas where the Report was strong and where in his opinion it was weaker.  The main impression which emerged from the Report was, as stated on page 44, that 
"the explosion of PTAs is not bei ng matched by an expansion in trade flows that receive preferential 
treatment", and hence emphasized behind-the-borde r, WTO+ and WTO-X measures.  Every idea 
given in the Report, whether it was a conclusion or not, was backed up and matched by lots of figures, 
and so was difficult to question, but there were a couple of generalizations which in his opinion were 
not in order.  One on the same page stated that si nce these agreements resulted primarily in changes to 
domestic regulations, one might need to think in term s of a framework distinct from trade creation and 
trade diversion.  It was true that the Report talk ed more in terms of 21st century agreements, yet 
nearly every agreement created, diverted and deflect ed trade.  Therefore just because Viner belonged 
to the last century, 60 years ago, one could not disr egard his theory and practice.  He then referred to 
the idea expressed in the Report that the significance  of PTAs from the perspective of the multilateral 
trading system was inadequately captured by the ol d idiom of "stumbling bloc ks and building blocks", 
while in reality stumbling and building blocks still exis ted.  He also highlighted the last paragraph of WT/REG/M/62 
Page 16 
 
 
  page 188 which referred to the spaghetti/noodle bo wl argument and which stated that there was no 
indication regarding how agricultural tariff quotas should be treated in preferential agreements, 
whether members of such agreements were allowed to exclude their PTA partners from the 
application of contingency measures applied to the trade of third parties, or whether PTA parties 
might or might not apply safeguards on their trade with each other.  Another question that had been 
raised was whether the special and differential treatment provisions for developing country PTAs 
should be extended beyond those in the Enabling Cl ause.  He said that the idea in the Report of 
downgrading the importance of tariff reduction went against the reality of the majority of developing 
countries.  Developing countries were heterogeneou s, some were leading-edge, some were middle-
income, and some were low-income countries, like Paki stan.  He said that in the context of the recent 
economic crisis, every penny mattered and that the co st of doing business had gone up.  He mentioned 
for instance energy shortages, the cost of energy employed in the production of exportable 
commodities, exchange rate fluctuations, the cost of finance, shortage of finance, etc.  Although there 
was a reference to this in endnote 6, where Amiti and Romalis (2007) argued that for many 
developing countries, actual preference access was l ess generous than it appeared because of low 
product coverage or complex rules of origin; and th erefore, that lowering tariffs at the multilateral 
level in the Doha Round, especially on agricultura l goods, would likely to lead to a net increase in 
market access for many developing countries, this should not be mentioned in an endnote but within 
the body of the text.  He also supported the idea in  page 188 that both the new and the old coherence 
challenges needed to be tackled at the same time.  Finally, he said that the part of the Report dealing 
with special and differential treatment was weak and should receive more importance. 
65. The representative of the European Union we lcomed the publication of the World Trade 
Report, which had this year put emphasis on RTAs a nd had elaborated in detail on their synergies and 
possible incoherence with the multilateral trading syst em.  She thanked the Secretariat for a clear and 
comprehensive presentation of the main conclusion s drawn by this Report and by extension, she 
congratulated the Secretariat for the good piece of work  devoted to RTAs.  Overall, the Report offered 
a thorough mapping of the evolution and current state of play of RTAs.  The diagnosis was that there 
was a new era of regionalism, wherein negotiating regulatory measures was taking a central role and 
granting tariff preferences was no longer the main dr iver of RTAs.  The Report indicated that the 
number of RTAs that included a broad range of co mprehensive regulatory provisions was on the rise, 
which responded to Members' needs to adapt their regional policies to a more global economy.  In her 
delegation's view, this illustrated the increased va lue attached by a growing number of Members to 
ensuring that their RTAs tackled all different aspects that could facilitate trade between partners, since 
the mere reduction or elimination of tariffs w as clearly not a sufficient condition for effectively 
opening up markets to spur bilateral trade flows.  This was clearly not new as the EU had for a good 
number of years advocated negotiating deep and fu ll-fledged RTAs.  However, the reported trend 
should not overshadow the recurring tendency by some to negotiate shallow RTAs.  Low-quality 
RTAs that only provided for the limited reduction and elimination of tariff lines in selected sectors 
still formed part of today's RTAs landscape.  The EU agreed with the Report's conclusion that the 
spread of deep RTAs and the weightier role of non-tariff commitments had important implications for 
the way in which the role of RTAs was to be evalua ted and the way in which they interacted with the 
multilateral trading system.  Amongst them, the Repor t hinted that this new regionalism could create 
market segmentation as those regulatory regimes – which could become divergent – took now a more 
prominent role on trade flows than tariffs.  In orde r to tackle these new scenarios, the Report had put 
on the table a number of options which could help increase coherence between RTAs and the 
multilateral trading system, amongst them tackling an  ambitious, up-to-date regulatory agenda in the 
multilateral context and developing a set of non- binding good RTA practices that Members could 
follow.  In fact, these ideas had b een widely repeated recently in th e WTO Public Forum, as desirable 
options for fashioning trade policies that followed coherent tracks both at multilateral and bilateral 
level and responded to the needs of today's globa l economies.  Generally, the Report provided good 
food for thought, based on carefully crafted analys is and detailed argumentati on, which could inspire 
Members in the run-up to the Ministerial of Decem ber, and notably serve as an insightful groundwork  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 17 
 
 
  for the RTA work programme Members envisaged establishing, as discussed during the first agenda 
item of the current meeting.  
66. The representative of Australia expressed his appreciation to those involved in the Report for 
the hard work put into its production.  It was cl ear that the most basic, simple message from the 
Report was that the rapid growth in RTAs in recent y ears was undeniable.  It was also clear that there 
were many RTAs going deeper into existing areas covered by WTO agreements, as well as into areas 
not yet collectively addressed in the WTO.  The issu es raised were complex;  some had been raised 
before, other ideas were newer, and many would be contentious.  This was natural.  However, his 
delegation's view was that there was no doubt th at the relationship between the multilateral trading 
system and the growing number of RTAs needed to  be considered in more detail. The World Trade 
Report had given Members an important and inter esting new piece of research, but it was only one 
part of what needed to be a long and detailed discussion.  Indeed, the Report had highlighted that the coverage of RTAs seemed to have increasingly fo llowed two trends:  the first was of agreements 
providing greater tariff reduction and integration in  areas already covered in WTO agreements, the so-
called "WTO+" RTAs.  The second was of RTAs driv ing economic integration in areas that were not 
yet covered by Members in the WTO, the "WTO-X" RTAs.  The extent of these WTO+ and WTO-X 
agreements, and the analysis of them in the Wo rld Trade Report provided a timely reminder of many 
questions on many different aspects of trade policy.  He mentioned for example that the growth of 
both WTO+ and WTO-X RTAs raised questions on rul es of origin such as the rules of origin that 
were being used in PTAs, and their impact. Firm-l evel surveys in Asia a nd Latin America in recent 
years, conducted by the regional development banks , had showed significant exporter concern about 
rules of origin, their complexity, and issues with differing regimes.  There were also questions on 
services and, for instance, the implications of RTAs  containing services commitments beyond those in 
GATS, and whether there were any implications fo r the different way in which services commitments 
were framed in most RTAs, compared with the sch edule-specific commitments in GATS.  There were 
also questions with respect to technical barriers to trade, such as which TBT provisions existed in 
RTAs, and the effects if TBT provisions in RTAs followed those of larger economies, rather than 
regional neighbours or any global standard.  The Report suggested that TBT provisions seemed to 
follow a ‘hub and spoke' model in many PTAs, wh ere small economies signed on to TBT provisions 
to match larger economies, rather than regional neigh bours.  It was conceivable that this could lead to 
long-term consequences for the ease of regional trade.  There were also questions on investment, such 
as whether many RTAs were focusing on consolid ating international production networks through 
extensive investment provisions that went well beyond comparable multilateral agreements.  With 
regard to anti-dumping, what anti-dumping measures in RTAs were being used, and what were the 
effects on the WTO disciplines in this area.  The Re port suggested that there might be large increases 
in anti-dumping action targeted at economies that  were not members of RTAs with the country 
initiating the anti-dumping actions.  There might be many causes of this, but it was clear that 
anti-dumping was another complex area in the inte raction between RTAs and the multilateral trading 
system.  Other questions that could be asked were  questions on dispute settlement, such as the impact 
of the growing number of RTAs on the dispute settle ment system in the WTO.  The Report suggested 
there could be overlapping jurisd ictions between bilateral, regiona l and multilateral dispute settlement 
systems, even if this had only b een raised as an issue in a small number of WTO disputes so far.  
Analysis in the Report suggested that there was a growing use of WTO dispute settlement provisions 
among RTA members since the early 2000s.  This suggested that no simple assumptions could be 
made about the interaction of RTAs with the multila teral trading system – dispute settlement, at least, 
appeared to be one area where the increasing number of RTAs had not marginalised the WTO in the 
same manner that some might fear.  The list of qu estions could go on: his delegation's view was that 
every major feature of RTAs had some implicati ons for the multilateral trading system.  The Report 
had done an excellent job in examining a number of these questions, but there was also clearly a great 
deal of work to be done.  He noted that these we re not just questions of academic or theoretical 
interest.  Their answers had real implications for the way global trade functioned, for economic growth, and indeed for development and poverty re duction.  The World Trade Report and the many WT/REG/M/62 
Page 18 
 
 
  academic works surveyed in the Report gave Memb ers a basis for discussing the issues outlined 
earlier, as well as many more.  As Members were aware, this was why Australia and a number of other Members were seeking a decision by Minister s in December on a work programme in this 
Committee on the systemic implications of RTAs.  In  conclusion, Australia welcomed the hard work 
that had gone into producing the World Trade Repor t 2011 and its analysis, and looked forward to 
further, detailed discussion on the questions it had raised.  
67. The representative of Japan expressed his appreciation for the statement made by the 
Secretariat regarding the Report.  As mentioned by other Members, many RTAs had entered into 
force since the 1990s and their number was drastically  increasing.  In this context, the relationship 
between RTAs and the multilateral trading system w as of particular interest for many countries 
including Japan.  His delegation recognized that the multilateral trading system embodied by the 
WTO was very important, as was the relationship be tween RTAs and the multilateral trading system.  
According to the Report, there were many inte resting findings, which represented a good basis for 
analysis in the future.  In particular, the Repor t had found that tariff reductions were not the main 
driving force for the formation of RTAs.  The Re port also implied that aspects other than tariff 
reductions should be examined in the future.  Finally he said that the Report was a good basis for 
future discussion, in particular taking into account that a proposal on cross-cutting analysis was being 
prepared for MC8.     
68. The representative of Chinese Taipei joined pr evious speakers in thanking the representative 
of Secretariat for his useful introduction and presentation of the World Trade Report 2011.  He 
expressed his appreciation to the Secretariat for its e fforts and contributions to this excellent work.  
He viewed the Report as an invaluable addition to st udies to date in terms of the width and depth of 
the analysis on regionalism and the multilateral tradi ng system.  He shared the view that PTAs could 
foster or hinder multilateral trading opening.  The issue of coherence between PTAs and the 
multilateral trading system definitely was arising, and the WTO had a role to play in this regard.  The 
Report identified a number of options for increasi ng coherence between PTAs and the multilateral 
trading system.  All of them aimed at reinforci ng compatibility and coherence, but they differed in 
political feasibility.  Two of the suggested options, accelerating multilateral trade opening and fixing 
the deficiencies in the WTO lega l framework had been attempted for many years under the Doha 
mandate.  The adoption on a provisional basis of the TM on RTAs in December 2006 had been a remarkable achievement.  However, looking at th e development of the D oha Round and the impasse 
Members were facing now, there would seem little cau se for optimism that other concrete results 
could be achieved within the foreseeable future.  He expressed his delegation' s full support to address 
the coherence issue in a multilateral forum, and looked forward to engaging in further discussions. 
Another option suggested in the Report was to ad opt a softer approach, as a complement to the 
existing legal framework.  It had been indicated th at the exchange of views would pave the way for 
the progressive development of soft law, and th at negotiations aimed at improving the hard law 
provisions could be undertaken when governments b ecame comfortable with the soft law.  In his 
delegation's view, while this might be a good approach , it was likely to take a long time.  He was also 
not sure how, and to what extent, non-binding soft  law could effectively influence the policies and 
practices of Members in the negotiation of RTAs.  Regarding the last option on the multilateralization 
of regionalism, he very much welcomed this botto m-up approach and believed that it could contribute 
to greater coherence.  In his delegation's view, th e challenge remained for Members to ensure that 
multilateral disciplines minimized the negative effect s of PTAs, and much unavoidable work to that 
effect lay ahead.  This work was going to require greater efforts from Members, at both the 
multilateral and bilateral level. 
69. The representative of Mexico thanked the repre sentative of the Secretariat for presenting the 
Report.  In his opinion, the Report had many impor tant elements and it would take too long to go 
through all of them. He underlined certain areas, wh ich in his opinion had literately opened his eyes.  
He referred to the figure regarding the trade cove red by RTAs.  According to the Report, for the  WT/REG/M/62 
 Page 19 
 
 
  20 largest importers, which accounted for 90% of wo rld trade, only 16% of trade took place under a 
preferential framework.  This had important implications for trade itself, but also for other areas.  He referred to the spaghetti bowl and rules of origin.  Gi ven the low coverage, the effects of the spaghetti 
bowl were also probably less than previously estimat ed.  It was also possible that the spaghetti bowl 
could be present in other areas such as foreign di rect investment, investment protection or other 
regulatory areas such as TBT.  The Report was undoubtedly a good basis for future work and 
represented an excellent example of what coul d be achieved if Members decided on a work 
programme for the future. 
70. The representative of the Republic of Korea said  the Report was the best World Trade Report 
he had ever seen and was full of thought-provoking  ideas.  He asked whether the Economic Research 
and Statistics Division (ERSD) could organize an info rmal seminar with some of the writers in order 
to have a more in-depth discussion of the Report.  Given its comprehensive nature, a statement in a 
formal setting was not enough to cover in dept h all the issues raised.  The second question was 
whether the ERSD would consider a follow-up study on the Report.  Each section of the Report demanded attention from Members and follow-up di scussions.  He asked whether the Division could 
provide in the future a more detailed study on a secti on-by-section basis.  This could help to activate 
discussion on this matter.  Finally, the Report unde rlined the need for Members to discuss and review 
the implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system.      
71. The representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat for putting the study together.  
She said the Report provided an initial look at all th e existing literature, as well as many interesting 
points for consideration.  Her delegation would not necessary agree that the Report supported one 
proposition; rather the Report perhaps supported a di fferent proposition, based on her own country's 
experience and observations.  She said she would appr eciate getting a copy of the statement by the  
Secretariat.  The statement had highlighted some in teresting facts that were of consequence in the 
CRTA for the consideration of the systemic issues.  She mentioned for example the fact that the same 
products that were sensitive in many RTAs were  the same ones that were causing problems in the 
multilateral trading system.  This was not a surprise,  but there were other observations that she could 
look at and tease out.  Finally, she said she would be  glad to continue the conversation with other 
Members about some of these interesting questions.   
72. The representative of the Secretariat thanked Members for their comments.  Regarding the 
request of an informal seminar, he said he would n eed to check whether there was a market for it and 
that he would be happy to do it, if that was th e case.  He mentioned that in reports like the one 
presented, there was a slight tendency to overstate th e case in order to make the case.  Regarding the 
statement of Pakistan, the Report was not saying that  Viner's ideas were irrelevant, but rather that 
trade creation and trade diversion had become somewhat less important simply because deeper 
integration seemed to be driven by vertical in tegration, production sharing, supply chain and 
techniques of production.  That was a big part of the story.  It was important for Asia and other 
regions such as the Americas, with Africa being an outlier.  He stressed that it was not only an Asian 
phenomenon.  Regarding the question on stumbli ng and building blocks, he said this was still 
relevant.  Regular divergence was a potential source of difficulty which pushed the case, in his view, 
for a multilateralization exercise.   
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
73. The Chairman informed Members of the propo sed dates for the CRTA's meetings in 2011. 
These were 9-10 November 2011. 
74. The Committee took note of the comments made. 
 
__________