RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG/M/35
5 January 2004
(04-0006)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Thirty-Fifth Session
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 2-3 DECEMBER 2003
Chairman: Mr. J. Meetoo (Mauritius)
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Thirty-Fifth Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) was
convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/ 2217/Rev.1, dated 27 November.  An annotated draft agenda had
been distributed in September 2003.
2. The Chairman noted that the revised agenda included a modified order of items.  That was
due to a request from the delegation of Chile that the timing of the examination of the Free Trade
Agreements between Canada-Chile and Chile-Costa Rica be modified given that meetings on Chile's
Trade Policy Review Mechanism were taking place simultaneously.  He informed the Committee that
he would hold informal consultations on 3 December a.m., on the examination of services agreements
where no specific commitment had yet been negotiated, and on the examination of agreements thatwould cease to exist once the enlargement of the European Communities (EC) to 10 new members
would take place.  He announced that he would report on the informal consultations under “Other
Business” and would raise three matters, namely:  the calendar of meetings for 2004, technical
cooperation activities conducted in 2003 in the area of regional trade agreements (RTAs), and the
Seminar on RTAs and the WTO, held on 14 November 2003 in Geneva.
3. The representative of Chinese Taipei informed that he would like to add an item under “Other
Business” regarding procedural issues on the enlargement of the European Union.
4. The representative of the European Commun ities noted that in a previous meeting the
Committee had examined the services aspects of the Europe Agreement between the EC and Bulgaria
in conjunction with two other agreements (EC- Romania, and EC-Czech Republic).  Due to an
oversight, her delegation had only provided wri tten replies on the EC-Bulgaria Agreement, although
the questions received were identical for all three agreements.  It was up to Members to decidewhether it was better to pursue the examination of  the EC-Bulgaria Agreement alone at the meeting or
rather leave its examination to another session, a nd then examine the three agreements altogether.
5. The representative of the United States recalled that consultations had also been foreseen on
the examination of agreements in which one party was not a WTO Member, noting that it would be
appropriate to hold them before the examination of such kind were scheduled.  Regarding the EC-Bulgaria Agreement, her preference would be to examine the three relevant agreements altogether.
6. In the absence of further comments, the Committee agreed to postpone the examination of the
services aspects of the EC-Bulgaria Europe Agreement until the Committee's next meeting, and
adopted the agenda as modified.
7. The following Agenda was adopted:WT/REG/M/35
Page 2
A. Adoption of the Agenda
B. Reporting on the Operation of Agreements
C. Annual Report to the General Council
D. Examination of Regional Trade Agreements
I. Status Report on the Examination WorkII. European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Services
III European Economic Area, Services
IV. Agreement between New Zealand and Singapore on a Closer Economic
Partnership, Goods and Services
V. Agreement between Japan and Singapore for a New-Age Economic
Partnership, Goods and Services
VI. Free Trade Agreement between Turkey and SloveniaVII. Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA States and Croatia
VIII. Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA States and Jordan
IX. Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Chile,  Services
X. Free Trade Agreement Chile and Costa Rica, Goods and Services
E. Other Business
8. The Chairman recalled that the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) had been
granted observer status to the CRTA on an ad hoc  basis and sought confirmation to extend an
invitation to LAIA to attend the Committee's next meeting.  It was so agreed.
9. The representative of the Republic of Korea requested confirmation that the two questions
relating to the forthcoming EC enlargement would be  dealt with separately.  The Chairman confirmed
that the issue raised by Chinese Taipei would be considered under Other Business, while his
consultations would only deal with how to proceed with the examination of RTAs that would cease to
exist once the EC enlargement took place.
B. REPORTING ON THE OPERATION OF AGREEMENTS
10. The Chairman recalled that at its Thirty-third Session, the Committee had decided to shift by
one year, to 2004, the next submission of biennial reports, in particular to take into account the 2003
workload due to preparations for the Ministerial Conference.  The Secretariat had circulated the
Schedule for the Submission of Biennial Reports on the Operation of RTAs in 2004  as document
WT/REG/W/48.  Reports on the 19 agreements listed therein were to be submitted to the Secretariat
by 31 July 2004.  He underlined that, up to now, six biennial reports due in 2001 were still
outstanding (Caribbean Community and Common Market, Central American Common Market, EC-
Cyprus, EC-Malta, Australia-Papua New Guinea Agr eement, and United States-Israel FTA).  Further,
reports on the two latter agreements had not been submitted under the 1999 schedule.  He suggested,
and the Committee agreed, that the Parties concerned by these agreements submit a detailed and updated
single report covering all the periods.  He stressed that failure to comply with the submission deadlinesnot only went against the increasing attention given to transparency in the work of the Committee, butwas also giving rise to a backlog of work, making it increasingly difficult to respect the deadlines set
out in the calendar.  He therefore invited all Members to place considerable effort in ensuring
compliance with their reporting obligations and urged the parties to those RTAs for which reports still
stood unaccounted for to amend this situation with the shortest possible delay.
C. A
NNUAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL
11. The Chairman noted that the draft Committee's annual report to the General Council had been
circulated as WT/REG/W/49.  In this document, a number of points within square brackets had been
left blank since they needed to be completed to take into account the discussions that would be held
during that Session of the Committee.  He proposed that the Committee address the draft reportWT/REG/M/35
Page 3
section by section so that any changes could be dealt with at that time.  Very shortly after this
meeting, the Secretariat would revise the draft inco rporating the changes agreed that day and filling in
the spaces that had to be completed.  He finally noted that all this process would have to be finalized
by Friday 5 December, since this report would be in the agenda of the General Council meeting
scheduled for 15-18 December.
12. With respect to Section III, the representative of Turkey requested that the Free Trade
Agreements between Turkey and Croatia and Turkey and Bosnia and Herzegovina be included in
Attachment 2 in the Section entitled "RTAs for which factual examination has not yet commenced".
A representative of the Secretariat clarified that these RTAs had not been included in Attachment 2
because when the draft report was circulated, the Council for Trade in Goods had not yet adoptedmandates for their examination, but that this would be reflected at the final version of the Committee's
report.  The representative of Croatia noted that the same situation applied to the Free Trade
Agreement between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which should thus also be included in
Attachment 2.  Also with respect to Attachment 2, the representative of Switzerland requested that the
EFTA, Services; EFTA-Jordan; and EFTA-Croatia agreements be moved to another sub-section, as
examination of these agreements would start at that meeting.
13. The representative of Korea requested that the issues raised under Other Business at that
Session be reflected in Section VII.  The Chairman confirmed that the report of his informal
consultations and the procedural question regardin g the EC enlargement would be reflected in this
Section of the Report.
14. The Chairman proposed that the Committee entrust the Secretariat with the task of completing
the gaps and incorporating the changes, and that the Committee agree ad referendum  with its Annual
Report, which would be submitted to the General Council.  It was so agreed.
D. EXAMINATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
I. Status Report on the Examination Work
15. The Chairman said that the status of the Committee's examination work was detailed in the
Draft Annual Report.  He expressed the Chair's concern regarding what had become an unfortunate
trend in the Committee's life, namely the non-respect of its programme of work and of the deadlines
set for receiving documentation.  To illustrate this point, he observed that ten RTAs which had been
foreseen to be examined in this Session could not be included in the final agenda, despite the fact that
the 2003 work programme on examinations had been submitted to delegations in January 2003, and a
reminder and the draft annotated agenda in September.  It was not his intention to blame one Member
or another, but rather to warn the Committee about a situation that was gradually going from bad to
worse and creating an unnecessary backlog.  While the Committee's backlog of examination reportsfound its origin in various substantive interpretative issues, over and above these issues no
justification could be provided for the non-respect of deadlines for the submission of standard formats
and other needed information.  He urged Members to ensure that needed documentation reached the
Secretariat in time, so that the programme of wo rk of the Committee regarding examinations for the
year 2004 could be fully respected.
16. The Chairman also informed the Committee that, following the circulation of the draft
annotated agenda, the Mission of Slovenia had re quested that the examination of the Free Trade
Agreement between Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina be removed from the agenda, given that
the Agreement would be renounced once Slovenia became a member of the EC.  As indicated to the
Slovenian authorities, he had agreed to temporarily remove that Agreement from the agenda, it beingsaid that its examination remained under the purv iew of the Committee.  This issue – which was
generic to a number of agreements – would be considered during the informal consultations.WT/REG/M/35
Page 4
17. The representative of Slovenia confirmed that her delegation had requested the removal of the
examination of the Free Trade Agreement between Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina from the
agenda.  Her delegation had felt that there was no need to overload the agenda of the Committee for
two reasons.  First, there was no purpose in beginning the examination of the Agreement, since its
validity would not last for more than six months, until Slovenia’s accession to the European Union(EU).  Second, because of the comments made at the last Committee meeting regarding the
examination of agreements between Members and non-Members.
D.II.-X. (The minutes of the examination of the Agreements listed under agenda items D.II-X are
being distributed as separate documents.)
E. O
THER BUSINESS
18. The representative of Chinese Taipei noted that the EU enlargement would take effect on 1
May 2004.  His delegation was pleased to see that, in many aspects, the new EU members would
adopt further trade liberalization measures after accession. For the rest of the world to be benefited
from the EU enlargement, it was very important that the process of transition be made in a transparent
and predictable manner.  For that purpose, his delegation would like to highlight some procedural
concerns.  First, regarding trade remedies, in the meetings of the Committees on Safeguards, Anti-
Dumping Practices, and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures held in October 2003, therepresentative of the EC had restated their position that, after enlargement, the trade remedy measures
in place at that time for the EU-15 would be automatically extended to the EU-25.  In addition, the EC
had requested that any review resulting from EU enlargement would only be available if foreign
exporters raised a request for change of circumstance review.  His delegation had carefully considered
EC's positions, but was not convinced by the reasons that EC had provided for not initiating ex officio
reviews.  For one, the differences between the key factors of injury determination would most
certainly be different when applied to EU-15 as opposed to EU-25.  A correct reading of Article
XXIV:5(a) of GATT 1994 should reject EC's justificat ion that the burden of review should be on the
exporters.  Second, regarding market access, with the experience of the previous EC enlargement
(1995), the long drawn-out review in compensation negotiations should be avoided.  He urged the ECto strictly follow its notification obligations, as provided for in Article XXIV:7 of the GATT 1994 and
Article V:7 of the GATS.  In case that any acceding member to the EU-25 would increase its rate of
duty, or withdraw or modify its services commitments, the compensatory procedures under Article
XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 and Article XXI of GATS should be initiated promptly.  His delegation
would encourage the EC to clarify the relevant proce dures relating to review of trade remedies and to
notify the Agreement with the consolidated market access schedule that it planned to implement, prior
to the enlargement.  He added that his delegati on looked forward to working cooperatively with the
EC on this manner.
19. Echoing that statement, the representative of Korea asked the EC to comply with the
procedural requirements under Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS.   His
delegation considered that it would be desirable to notify the EU enlargement as soon as the
ratification procedures had been completed.  Even though the notification happened before the entryinto force, too short a period between ratification and entry into force would make it extremely
difficult for WTO Members to clearly understand the exact figures of the EU enlargement and
deprive them from their legitimate right to assess its effects, in an efficient and timely manner, on
trade patterns with non-parties of the RTA.  Notification at the latest by the entry into force was
thus not desirable.  His delegation believed that the EU should prepare the notification to the WTOin parallel with the ratification procedures, and that notification three or six months prior to the
entry into force would be sensible options. Without imposing undue burden on the parties to the
RTA, the notification would give a chance for other WTO Members to understand the development
of the RTA.  This position was justified under the legal requirement under the WTO Agreements
relating to RTAs.  In case of the creation or enlargement of a customs union, negotiation onWT/REG/M/35
Page 5
compensatory adjustment prior to the entry into force was obligatory under paragraph 6 of GATT
Article XXIV and the 1994 Understanding.  Quoting paragraph 4 of the 1994 Understanding, he
noted that it clearly obliged that "the procedure set forth in Article XXVIII and its Understanding
must be commenced before tariff concessions are modified or withdrawn...".  In this respect,
notification was not only a procedural matter, but also guaranteed the opportunity of other Membersto protect their interests.  If external  regulations of commerce applied to the non-parties were changed
by the extension of the EU, there should be prior notification to the WTO and the overall
assessment of the effect on other regulations of commerce or a separate comparison with
corresponding regulations should be conducted before the entry into force of the enlargement.  In
order to make a meaningful progress in the procedure, any third party which was a WTO Member
should, prior to entry into force, have full informati on regarding the exact features and contents of the
customs union and have a chance to examine its effects before negotiations under paragraph 6 ofGATT Article XXIV.
20. Concurring with the statements just made, the representative of the United States encouraged
the EU to share important information as early as possible and follow the appropriate procedures
under GATT Articles XXIV and XXVIII, and GATS Article V.  The representative of Chile requested
the EC to provide information with sufficient time so that her delegation could know how her country
would be affected by the enlargement.
21. The representative of the European Communities stated that his delegation had taken good
note of the statements made by previous speakers.  The EC had every intention of following
obligations, starting with the procedural obliga tion of notifying the enlargement under the relevant
provisions of GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V, and thereafter engage in negotiations withMembers considering that their interest had been affected.  While the departure position would be
that, in global terms, other Members would benefit from the enlargement, the EC would of course be
ready to look and discuss detailed points and co ncerns that might be raised when the time would
come.  He informed that a notification was in preparation; it was hoped that the notification could be
submitted soon.  He noted that such notification was not that simple as it had to encompass aconsiderable amount of data, for example in terms of tariff line information.
22. The Chairman provided a report on the informal consultations he had hold on three issues
related to problems encountered in the course of the Committee's examination work.   First, regarding
the examination of services agreements in which specific commitments had not yet been negotiated,
two questions had been considered, namely how should the Committee proceed with the examination
of the two Agreements in such situation, i. e. EC-Mexico and EFTA-Mexico, for which the
examination had already been mandated by the Council for Trade in Services (CTS); and how couldthe CRTA avoid the repeat of such an occurrence.  He had sensed from the discussions that a review
by the CRTA was important whenever agreements contained provisions having trade effects, even
without any defined specific commitments.  At any rate, additional information was needed from the
Parties concerned before the Committee could reach a decision vis-à-vis  the appropriateness of the
examination.  The question of whether or not it was necessary to inform the Council for Trade inServices or its Chair of the problem encountered by the Committee in that respect needed further
reflection, though several options had been advanced.  Second, with respect to the examination of
RTAs that would cease to exist once the enlargement of the EU to ten new member countries took
place, delegations present at the consultations had agreed that any of the questions arising should be
approached with pragmatism.  It was generally thoug ht that it would be futile to undertake or continue
examination of agreements that would be soon superseded, but it was not clear to delegations whether,
or to what extent, the fate of existing RTAs would be decided by the relevant Parties on a case-by-
case basis.  More detailed information in writing by the Parties concerned seemed necessary to allow
the CRTA to continue or discontinue its work with  respect to these agreements.  On this issue, a
second round of informal consultations might be necessary when more information became available.The Chairman noted that given the imminent enlargement, these could take place in January 2004 andWT/REG/M/35
Page 6
that delegations would be informed in advance.  Third, regarding the examination of RTAs concluded
by Members with non-Members, he noted that this issue was not new to delegations since informal
consultations had already taken place some time ago.  Discussions however had developed from a
specific, and largely procedural, context to more generic and substantive questions relating to the
standing of such agreements vis-à-vis  WTO rules.  While the debate had certainly been lively, the
subject that deserved further reflection and exchange of views at a later stage.
23. The representative of the United States st ated that her participation in the informal
consultations had been without any instructions from capital.  Regarding the services issue, she
stressed that the consultations had not resulted in a consensus that a piece meal review would be
appropriate in every case.  With respect to the examination of RTAs concluded by Members with non-
Members, while it was her understanding that the Chairman had requested delegations to reflect
further on some of the legal issues which might be taken up at a later stage, she was not clear whetherfurther consultations would be conducted.  In any way, her delegation would not like to see RTAs of
such kind in the agenda of a future meeting, before Members had had the time to reflect further and
resolve the question at least on a temporary basis.
24. The Chairman informed that the need to reflect further on the legal implications of RTAs
concluded by Members with non-Members had been stressed during the informal discussions.  He
therefore suggested that this question be also de alt with at the same time as the second round of
informal consultations regarding the EU enlargement.   With respect the services issue, he clarified
that there had not been consensus on how this question should be dealt with.
25. Regarding the calendar of meetings for next year's regular Sessions of the Committee, the
Chairman informed that rooms had preliminary been booked by the Secretariat for meetings on 29-30
March 2004 and 7-8 October 2004.  He invited those delegations which might foresee difficulties with
those dates to convey their remarks to the Secretariat as soon as possible.  Further, he noted that
nothing prevented the Committee to convene outside those dates if needed by progress in its work.
26. The Chairman recalled that at the Committee's Thirty-second Session it had been agreed to
regularly review the RTA-related technical assistance (TA) activities undertaken by the Secretariat.  A
representative of the Secretariat stated that the Secretariat had conducted 19 RTA-related TA
activities from June 2002 to the present day, and participated in two Ministerial Meetings of theStability Pact.  Of these, eight had taken place in 2002 and the remaining eleven in 2003.  Eleven
activities were scheduled for 2004.  Most of the TA activities had been financed by the WTO regular
budget, donations by Members or the Global Trust Fund (under the Doha Development Agenda).  At
least in one case, participation costs had been incurred by the hosting government itself.  The
objectives of the TA activities ranged from raising awareness on regional trade matters to training andadvising government officials on WTO rules and procedures on RTAs.  Their underlying aim had
been to contribute to the development of RTAs that were beneficial to their members and
complemented the objectives of the WTO.  The Secretariat had also been, since Doha, entrusted with
the task of clarifying issues related to negotiations on RTA rules.  He noted that a great deal of
informal TA was also provided; the Secretariat was continually providing answers to questions posedby Members.  Further, it was becoming clear that there was a great deal of demand by delegations and
the world at large for the RTA-related information ga thered by the Secretariat;  in that respect, he
drew the Committee's attention to a paper prepared by the Secretariat for the Seminar held in
November, entitled The Changing Landscape of RTAs .  This "landscape" was an ongoing exercise and
a "leaving" document; for many people it had become an important overview of the situation of RTAsand, as such,  it itself represented a TA activity provided by the Secretariat.
27. The representative of Chile thanked the Secretariat for the information given and for having
organized the very interesting Seminar on RTAs and the WTO in November 2003, which had
provided a good theoretical approach to the question.  Noting that TA regional seminars wereWT/REG/M/35
Page 7
foreseen in 2004, she inquired whether either the dates or venues for such seminars had been set, and
whether her country or any other country in Latin America could still propose to host a regional
seminar in 2004.  The representative of the Secretariat replied that the actual location of the regional
seminars scheduled for 2004, including that in Latin America, had not yet been decided.  They hadbeen planned responding to demand but not all had been set in concrete terms.  Should Chile want tohost this event, the Secretariat would welcome the request.  Reacting to that, the representative of
Chile informed that she would ask her capital.  The Chairman
 noted that countries might indicate their
wish to host such regional seminars to the Secretariat at a later stage.
28. The representative of the Secretariat then reported on the one-day Seminar on "Regional
Trade Agreements and the WTO" which had taken place on 14 November 2003.  The seminar had
been requested by Members following a similar event in April 2002 and scheduled in the 2003
Technical Cooperation Plan.  It had been open to WTO Members and Observers, with theparticipation of non-resident Members and regional organizations from developing countries
attending the Geneva Week.  The event had been very well attended, with 200 to 250 delegates being
present throughout the day.  The programme of the Seminar had been drawn in such a way to add
scope and depth to last year's event.  Therefore, in addition to a broad discussion the relationship
between RTAs and the multilateral trading system, its principal objective had been to explore thefunctioning of RTAs regulatory provisions and their correlation with market access and with trade
liberalization efforts being pursued at the multilate ral level.  The morning session set up the current
global/regional trading landscape, the state of play of WTO negotiations on RTA rules;  the nature of
the relationship between regional and multilateral trade liberalization;  and  the role of RTAs in
promoting economic development.  In the afternoon, the focus had been on RTAs regulatory issues,such as preferential rules of origin, safeguards and competition policies, but also intellectual property,
services and investment aspects.  The presentations benefited from the experience and perspectives of
well-known scholars, who also made concrete proposals on how some of the issues might be
approached during the ongoing negotiations on RTA rules.
29. The representative of the Secretariat continued, presenting notable questions which had been
debated during the Seminar.  First,  the proliferation of RTAs was a matter of growing concern for
many WTO Members due to its potential distorting effects on international trade relations.  In thisrespect, he noted that in the Trade Policy Review (TPR) Mechanism of Chile, which was on-going at
that time, RTAs had been a feature of the discussion;  further, in the more recent TPRs, RTAs havebeen front and centre in the discussion.  This sentiment of the possible distorting effects of RTAs
came out in many areas but particularly in the Seminar.  Several speakers had stressed that since the
drive towards RTAs could not be halted, MFN trade liberalization was the only viable mechanism to
offset any distortive effects that might arise from this trend.  Second, an RTAs' "snowball effect"
seemed to be put in motion, fuelled in part by a defensive reaction and fears of being marginalized
and discriminated against (particularly in the area of market access).  The situation had been
exacerbated by a recent policy shift in countries that traditionally favoured MFN liberalization butnow had actively embraced the regional path; it was the case that one of the parts of the world where
RTAs were most often negotiated was South and East  Asia.  It had been pointed out both by speakers
and some Members that the increasing number of RTAs such a situation was placing considerable
strain on national administrative capacities, in small economies in particular but also in larger
economies.  Calls had been made that WTO negotiations on RTA rules take this factor into account,as well as the fact that a number of these RTAs were being negotiated between developed and
developing countries.  Third, many speakers had been of the opinion that the unfettered development
of trade regulations in RTAs could lead to inconsistencies, create unpredictability in trade relations,
fuel multilayered discrimination, and ultimately impede or distort trade flows.  This prospect, many
speakers thought, worsened when countries became parties to several distinct RTAs encompassingdifferent trade rules – e.g. in Africa, COMESA and SADC.  The question of preferential rules of
origin (ROO) had been particularly highlighted in this context, with preliminary evidence pointing not
only to ROO's cost on trade transactions (up to6-7 percentage points), but also to their potential roleWT/REG/M/35
Page 8
as effective trade barriers.  It had been suggested that MFN harmonization of these and other RTA
regulatory provisions was a matter that should be given a great deal of attention in the future, so as to
minimize the costs and make sure that the RTAs being developed were properly building blocks and
not stumbling blocks for multilateral trade liberalization.  Fourth, it was often stressed that, to
accurately assess the effects and implications of RTA regulatory provisions on multilateral traderelations, more studies were required (in particular with respect to the new topics covered in RTAs
such as services, investment and intellectual property) and that the WTO had a central role to play in
gathering and providing information.  Participants thought that ensuring the transparency of RTAs
through the CRTA was an important step in th at direction, and that cooperation with other
organizations dealing with similar issues would al so contribute to building up knowledge and critical
capacity on RTAs.  (In this respect, the representative of the Secretariat informed that RTAs would be
a theme of study in next year’s Development Report, for which the World Bank had alreadyapproached the Secretariat for cooperation in building information.)  Finally, he said that, according to
the views expressed by a number of participants, the Seminar had met its main objective, to raise
awareness on the challenges and significance of RTAs in world trade and to explore ways of ensuring
coherence between trade policy initiatives at the multilateral and regional level.  Most of the
presentations made and papers circulated were available on the RTA page of the WTO Website.Further documents would be added once speakers had finalized their presentations and consented to
these being posted publicly.  Costs incurred with the organization of the Seminar had been covered by
the WTO  Technical Cooperation Plan.
30. The Chairman thanked the representative of the Secretariat for his detailed presentation.  He
had attended part of the Seminar and had learned a lot about the importance of RTAs.  The
representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat for their view of what happened in the
Seminar.  Her delegation agreed that it had been very  helpful and enriching; further, having the views
of some many academics across the spectrum was particularly interesting.  She did not think that it
would be fair to say that a consensus emerged on any of the issues at that Seminar, except perhaps
that RTAs were a source of great interest, as illustrated by the numerous TA requests.  In general,those participants asking more questions tended not to be based in Geneva.  In light of the learning
nature and the TA funding of the event, Geneva delegates – in particular from developed countries –
which participated in meetings of the CRTA and in the Negotiating Group on Rules, tried to differ
their comments so as to allow visiting officials fr om capitals to participate actively.  Her delegation
was glad that related documents were in the Website and her delegation would certainly study them,
because many of the issues raised could give food for though for the negotiations.
31. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________