   
  
WT/REG395/2  
 
16 June 2021  
(21-4946) Page: 1/40 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish  
 
COMPREHENSIVE AND PROGRESSIVE AGREEMENT FOR TRANS -PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP 
(CPTPP) (GOODS AND SERVICES)  
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
 The following communication, dated 16 June 2021, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of  Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore and Viet Nam . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Questions from the delegation of Brazil  
 
1.1.  Regarding article 2, is there any ongoing negotiations or timeframe to review the 
suspension of the application of the articles of the original TPP agreement? During the 
accession process of a country, is it possible to review this suspension entailed in 
article  2? Can this suspension be overruled by a single or a group of countries or it shall 
be applied for all CPTPP members? The overrule of article 2 would mean a new process of 
ratification to its Parties or it would be considered an amendment to the ori ginal 
agreement?  
 Article 2 of the CPTPP suspends the application of the twenty -two provisions set out in the 
annex to the CPTPP Agreement.  Each of the suspended provisions forms part of the CPTPP and their 
suspension has been ratified as part of the Agree ment by each Party.  Article 2 indicates that the 
only way that the suspension of one or more of these provisions could be ended would be by 
agreement by the Parties to the Agreement. Under Article 27.3 of the Agreement, all decisions by 
the Parties must be  taken by consensus, unless otherwise provided or agreed by the Parties.  
 
 There is no current timetable or stipulated criteria for review of the suspension of these 
provisions, nor any current proposal by any CPTPP member to end any of the suspensions.   
 
 The footnote 2 to Article 2 goes on to make clear that, in the event that there is agreement 
among the Parties to end the suspension of one or more of the suspended provisions, this would 
only apply to an individual Party upon completion of  that Party 's applicable legal procedures. The 
nature of those procedures is dependent on each Party 's legal system. It would be expected that 
each Party would notify the other CPTPP Parties when they had completed their relevant domestic 
legal procedures.  
 
1.2.  With regards to Annex 2 -A for Canada on import prohibitions/restrictions and the 
waiving of national treatment disciplines on i) the internal sale and distribution of wine 
and distilled spirits; and ii) waiving of national treatment disciplines on measur es 
affecting cultural -related goods: what is the legal basis for this exception to national 
treatment principle (article 2 of GATT)? How to conciliate this waiver for Canada in CPTPP 
with the obligations under the WTO?  
 Canada has always included a derogat ion for its liquor policies in its free trade 
agreements.  While this may have been achieved through different approaches over time, the CPTPP 
exemption is not unprecedented. In fact, it closely mirrors, for example, the text of the exemption 
found in the C anada -Korea FTA and the Canada -Ukraine FTA.  Ultimately, the outcome reflects the 
balance of concessions achieved between the negotiating parties. It has no impact on the rights of 
WTO Members who are not Party to those agreements.  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
   Likewise, under the CPTP P, Canada also included a derogation from national treatment 
obligations for any measure affecting the production, publication, exhibition or sale of goods that 
supports the creation, development or accessibility of Canadian artistic expression or content.  A 
number of Canada 's cultural policies and programs touch on tangible 'cultural -related goods ', such 
as books, CDs, DVDs and magazines. We secure protections for such cultural policies in our free 
trade agreements, including by excluding cultural -related goods from the scope of commitments on 
national treatment. The only requirement is that the measures need to be for the purpose of 
supporting, directly or indirectly, the creation, development and accessibility of Canadian artistic 
expression or content. A s with the above exemption for Canada 's liquor policies, the CPTPP outcome 
reflects the balance of concessions achieved between the negotiating parties. It has no impact on 
the rights of WTO Members who are not Party to the agreement.  
 
1.3.  One of the steps of the accession process of a country to CPTPP is the creation of a 
Working Group to discuss the offer on market access of the interested economy and certify 
the compliance to CPTPP benchmarks. Furthermore, the reading of decision 
CPTPP/COM/2019/D002 of CPTPP  Commi ssion  says the aspirant economy shall 
"demonstrate the means by which they will comply with all of the existing rules contained 
in CPTPP". Bearing these elements in mind, is there any room for particular waivers to be 
negotiated during the accession process? Considering CPTPP has a number of waivers and 
side letters between its parties on different matters, would exceptions be considered 
when dealing with compliance with those benchmarks? Exceptions can be negotiated 
bilaterally through side -letters o r it will be necessary consensus among all CPTPP 
members?  
 The CPTPP Accession Process (Annex to Doc CPTPP/COM/2019/D002) makes clear that 
accession candidates are required to demonstrate the means by which they will comply with all of 
the existing obligat ions and rules in the CPTPP (paragraphs 3.3 and section 5 "Benchmarks " refer).  
 The CPTPP also incorporates annexes containing member commitments on goods, services, 
financial services, investment, temporary entry for business persons, government procurement and 
state-owned enterprises.  Economies aspiring to accede to the CPTPP are re quired to submit market 
access offers that deliver the highest standard of market access, in support of the CPTPP 's objective 
of comprehensive market access commitments through the elimination of tariffs and other barriers 
to goods and services trade and i nvestment.  
 These elements – the means by which an aspirant economy will comply with all existing rules 
contained in the CPTPP and delivery of the highest standard of market access commitments – form 
part of the terms and conditions for accession to CPTPP (paragraphs 3.4 -3.6 and Section 5 of the 
Accession Process document refer).  
1.4.  In relation to the waivers agreed to within the CPTPP, could the CPTPP members 
please indicate whether any waiver is related to labour  or environmental matters?  If so, 
between whi ch countries and why?  
 Chapters 19 and 20 on Labour and Environment specifically provide that there shall be no 
waiver or derogation from the Parties laws or regulations giving effect to their labour and 
environment commitments under the Agreement (Article s 19.4 and 20.3.6). The aim is to ensure 
the protections afforded under the Parties laws and regulations in these areas are not weakened or 
reduced to encourage trade or investment.  
 
1.5.  Article  20.17 ( Conservation and Trade) is sus pended. Could the CPTPP members 
please provide comments on the reasons for the suspension? Is there any prospect for 
this article to be renegotiated or for the suspension to be terminated?  
 To clarify, only the phrase "or another applicable law ", including  footnote 26, from paragraph 
5 of Article 20.17 is suspended.  
 
 The CPTPP Environment Chapter includes commitments for Parties to take measures to 
combat the illegal take and the illegal trade of wild flora and fauna (Article 20.17 refers). The 
suspension  of the phrase "or another applicable law " in paragraph 5, including footnote 26, refines 
the scope of law that would apply in determining whether flora or fauna has been taken or traded 
illegally. The suspension narrows the scope of applicable law to a Pa rty's domestic law.  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.6.  Article  20.18  deals with environmental goods and services. Does it cover an 
illustrative or definite list of environmental goods? If not, could the CPTPP members 
please kindly provide comments on the definiti on of such goods and services?  
 The CPTPP Environment chapter does not include a list or definition of environmental goods 
and services. Rather, the Environment Committee shall consider issues that may be identified by a 
Party as related to trade in enviro nmental goods and services (Article 10.18.3) and the Parties may 
develop bilateral or plurilateral cooperative projects on environmental goods and services 
(Article  10.18.4).  
 
1.7.  The chapter on environment does not contain any provision on climate change. Cou ld 
the CPTPP members please provide comments on the absence of such provision? Were 
climate change issues addressed otherwise in the chapter? If so, how?  
 The CPTPP Environment chapter includes provisions on the transition to a low emissions and 
resilient economy (Article 20.15) and the promotion of trade and investment in environmental goods 
and services (Article 20.18), each of which play a role in addressing climate change.  
 
 CPTPP members also recognise the importance of cooperation as a mechanism to implement 
this Chapter (Article 20.12).  This commitment does not prejudice commitments by CPTPP countries 
in other fora; rather, it highlights the importance of practical cooperation between CPTPP parties, 
including to implement the Articles m entioned above.  
 
Questions from the delegation of China  
 
National Treatment and Market Access for Goods  
 
Article 2.8 Temporary Admission of Goods  
 
1.8.  Regarding paragraph 1, how does the Customs Authority of each Party identify if 
software or recording belong to the field of digital trade? If yes, how to regulate them? 
Whether they are regulated as intangible goods?  
 It is not clear exactly what China is referring to when it states "if software or recording belong 
to the field of digital trade ". Customs authori ties process physical goods, including physical copies 
of software or recordings, which are within the scope of Chapter 2 (National Treatment and Market 
Access for Goods) of the CPTPP.   
 
1.9.  Regarding paragraph 4, has each Party joined  the Istanbul Convention ? Has any 
article of the Convention been reserved by a Party? What's the legal basis when drafting 
the definition of container and pallet?  
 Australia and Viet Nam are the only CPTPP Parties that are contracting parties to the Istanbul 
Convention. No article of the Convention has been reserved by the Party. Definitions for container 
and pallet are a negotiated outcome drawn from the WCO convention on Temporary Admission 
(Istanbul 1990).  
 
1.10.   Regarding paragraph 9, has each Party joined the Customs Convention on 
Containers 1972  (CCC Convention) and the Transports Internationaux Routiers (TIR 
Convention)? Has any article of these Conventions been reserved by a Party? What are 
the regulatory requirements of each Party on containers and internatio nal pallets which 
have entered its territory? Have these requirements been set by a Party on the basis of 
International Convention which it has acceded to or its relevant domestic law?  
 Canada, New  Zealand and Australia are Parties to the CCC Convention. C anada is Party to the 
TIR convention.  
 
 See above in relation to regulatory requirements on containers and international pallets.  
 
 
 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Chapter 7 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
 
Article 7.10 Audit, paragraph 7  
 
1.11.   In accordance with international practice, the cost of the audit is usually borne by 
the exporter, i.e., the audited party. This paragraph is contrary to international practice. 
Please clarify the considerations related to this provision. Please clarify the specific scope 
of the "costs" included in this paragraph and the main involved aspects of the audit.  
 This Article acknowledges that for trade to take place there needs to be reliance on the 
exporting competent authority 's ongoing controls and monitoring to provide any nec essary 
assurances, with any audits undertaken by the importing party taking a 'systems -based ' approach, 
aimed at checking the effectiveness of the regulatory controls maintained by the exporting party.  
Accordingly, it encourages closer alignment and cooperation between competent authorities, and 
provides for the possibility of occasional systems -based audits to check the effectiveness of the 
regulatory controls of the exporting Party 's competent authorities.  The process outlined in this Article 
ensures discussions are focussed around whether the system achieves the required outcomes. This 
approach,  which is consistent with the CCFICS guidance, has been found to work well in practice.  
 
 No notification to the CPTPP Commission is required or expected.  Any audits undertaken are 
a bilateral process, with  Article 7.10.4 providing for discussions between  the importing Party and 
the exporting Party on the rationale, objectives, scope, criteria, itinerary and procedures for conduct 
of the audit prior to the commencement of any audit.  
 
 Under Article 7.10.7: "The costs incurred by the auditing Party shall be  borne by the auditing 
Party, unless both Parties decide otherwise. " This means that if the importing country wants to audit 
the exporting country 's controls, then it is up to the importing country to pay, unless otherwise 
agreed.  Article 7.10 reflects the  CPTPP Parties understanding that an importing Party should have 
the right, subject to the other specific provisions in the article, to audit another Party 's competent 
authorities and associated or designated inspection systems, but that the exercise of th is right should 
come with certain costs.  This approach is consistent with the relevant Codex Standard.  
 
1.12.   According to paragraph 3.50 of the Factual Presentation, Singapore and Mexico 
have applied equivalence to some imported products. Please clarify whether  this is a 
unilateral practice of a certain party or a mutual recognition.  
 Singapore has evaluated the SPS measures of other CPTPP Parties, including Mexico, and has 
authorised the import of various food products from Mexico following satisfactory evaluat ion. The 
recognition is accorded by Singapore with regard to the measures by Mexico.  
 
Chapter 8 Technical Barriers to Trade  
 
Article 8.7 Transparency, paragraph 18(b) and (c)  
 
1.13.   Regarding Article 8.7.18(b), please clarify the definition of "alternative 
approaches" and the content of "alternative approaches" after receiving a request. 
Regarding Article  8.7.18(c), please clarify that the scope of "significant or substantive 
issues presented in comments" refers to the comments from CPTPP members or all WTO 
memb ers. 
 The definition of "alternative approaches" is not stipulated in the CPTPP text. The content of 
"alternative approaches " depends on each case of technical regulations or conformity assessment 
procedure.  
 
 Article 8.7.14 stipulates that "each Party shall normally allow 60 days from the date it 
transmits a proposal under paragraph 13 for another Party or an interested person of another Party 
to provide comments in writing on the proposal".  Article 8.7.18 is related to Article 8.7.14, so the 
Party's response to the "significant or substantive issues presented in comments" (referenced in 
Article 8.7.18 (c) refers to the comments  received from other CPTPP members.  
 
 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Chapter 11 Financial Services  
 
Article 11.1 Definitions  
 
1.14.   The definition of public entity in Article 11.1 of the CPTPP is different from that in 
the Annex on Financial Services of GATS. What were Parties' considerations behind such 
difference?  
 With respect to "public entities," the GATS Annex on Financial Services defines that as "a 
government, a central bank or a monetary authority, of a Member, or an entity owned or controlled 
by a Member, that is princi pally engaged in carrying out governmental functions or activities for 
governmental purposes, not including an entity principally engaged in supplying financial services 
on commercial terms."  
 
 In the GATS Annex on Financial Services, a "financial service supplier" "does not include a 
public entity" (paragraph 5(b)), with a "public entity" being defined as being "an entity owned or 
controlled by a Member, that is principally engaged in carrying out governmental function or 
activities for governmental purpos es", but not including an "an entity principally engaged in 
supplying financial services on commercial terms" (paragraph 5(c)(i)).  
 
Chapter 11 of the CPTPP does not exclude a public entity from the definition of either "cross -
border financial service suppl ier of a Party" or "financial institution."  
 
 It is not clear what China means by "state -owned commercial financial institutions". To the 
extent the measures in respect of what China describes as "state -owned commercial financial 
institutions" are conside red a measure adopted or maintained by a Party relating to (a) financial 
institutions of another Party, (b) investors of another Party, and investments of those investors, in 
financial institutions in the Party's territory; and (c) cross -border trade in fi nancial services, Chapter 
11 shall apply to those measures. Note that the Chapter includes exceptions that could help to clarify 
how the commitments of the Chapter will apply to measures of a public entity. In particular, see 
Article 11.11 on how the Chapt er will apply to a Party's measures relating to certain activities.  
  
1.15.   It seems that the state -owned commercial financial institutions fall into the 
definition of public entity under CPTPP. However, when they engage in financial activities 
or services in c ompetition with other financial institutions, they are also bound by the 
Chapter on Financial Services. Please confirm whether that's the right understanding. For 
state -owned commercial financial institutions, what is the difference between their 
obligatio ns regarding public entities under the CPTPP, and under the Annex in Financial 
Services of GATS?  
Combined with answer for 1.14 above.  
 
1.16.   Is there any linkage between "public entity" in the Financial Services Chapter of 
CPTPP and "public body" under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures ?  
 We recall there is no reference to the SCM Agreement in this Chapter.  
 
Article 11.6 Cross -Border Trade  
 
1.17.   Please explain the difference between the cross -border trade of financial services 
defined in paragraph 2 of Article 11.6 and mode 2 consumption abroad under GATS with 
examples.  
 Mode 2 Consumption Abroad under GATS generally refers to situations where a service is 
supplied in the territory of a Member to a service consumer of any other Member.  
 
 For example, Member A would permit its nationals to purchase travel insurance from a 
financial institution located in the territory of Member B when travelling to Member B.   
 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 6 - 
 
   An example of mode 2 (consumption abroad) is a case in which a national of Japan travelling 
to Canada, purchases travel insurance from a Canadian insurance company. On the other hand, if a 
national of Japan living in Japan seeks to purchase a life insuranc e policy from a Canadian insurance 
company that does not have any commercial presence in Japan, that case would fall under mode 1 
(cross border supply).  
 
 Paragraph 2 of Article 11.6 requires a Party to permit "persons located in its territory, and its 
nationals wherever located, to purchase financial services from cross -border financial services 
suppliers of another Party located in the territory of a Party other than the permitting Party ". In 
terms of the GATS modes of supply, this is comparable to commit ments with respect to mode 1 and 
mode 2 service consumption, but it does not require a Party to permit the cross -border financial 
service suppliers of another Party to do business or solicit in its territory, provided that any such 
limitations are not inco nsistent with the commitments taken under paragraph 1.  
 
Article 11.7 New Financial Services  
 
1.18.   Could the Parties please give some examples of new financial services?  
 Article 11.1 defines a "new financial service " as "a financial service not supplied in the  Party's 
territory that is supplied within the territory of another Party, and includes any new form of delivery 
of a financial service or the sale of a financial product that is not sold in the Party 's territory ".  
 
Chapter 14 Electronic Commerce  
 
Article  14.2 Scope and General Provisions  
 
1.19.   Please further clarify the relationship between the Electronic Commerce Chapter 
and other Chapters like Cross -border Trade in Services, Investment and Financial 
Services, as well as the market access commitments in the above -mentioned Chapters.  
 The "Scope and General Provisions " article (Article 14.2) of the Electronic Commerce chapter 
clarifies the relationship between that chapter (given its more cross -cutting themes) and other 
chapters in the agreement with a more specific focus, including chapters 9 (Investment), 10 (Cross -
Border Trade in Services), 11 (Financial Services) and 15 (Government Procurement).  In particular, 
paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article 14.2 address the relationship with the investment, cross -border 
services and financial services chapters and the non -conformin g measures in regard to these 
chapters listed by individual CPTPP members.   
Article 14.10 Principles on Access to and Use of the Internet for Electronic Commerce  
 
1.20.   Please provide more information on the policy objective of this Article.  
 Article 14.10 sets  out three principles that CPTPP members see as of benefit to consumers in 
their territories. These principles are important ones in giving effect to the concept of 'net neutrality'. 
The Article indicates that these will apply subject to the Party's "appli cable policies, laws and 
regulations" (chapeau to Article 14.10) and that the first principle in Article 14.10 (a) will be "subject 
to reasonable network management". The latter term is not defined in the chapter. Article 14.10(b) 
also makes clear that the  principle "connect the end -user devices of a consumer's choice to the 
Internet" would only apply "provided that such devices do not harm the network".  
 
1.21.   Please clarify the relationship between this Article and the principle of "network 
neutrality".  
 See the response to question 1.20 above.  
 
1.22.   Please explain the relationship between this Article and the market access 
commitments of the Parties under the Chapter of Cross -Border Trade in Services and the 
Chapter of Investment.  
See the response to question 1.19 above.  
 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.23.   How to understand and identify "reasonable network management" under the 
background of existing differences in the regulatory systems of Members?  
 See the response to question 1.2 0 above.  
 
Article 14.11 Cross -Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means and Article 14.13 
Location of Computing Facilities  
 
1.24.   Both Article 14.11 (Cross -Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means) and 
Article 14.13 (Location of Computing Facilities) allow the Parties to adopt or maintain 
non-conforming measures for "legitimate public policy objectives". How do the Parties 
define the phrase "legitimate public policy objectives"? What kind of policy measures will 
be deemed as "constituting a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination o r a 
disguised restriction on trade", or "greater than are required to achieve the objective"? 
And please clarify the relationship between Article 14.11 and the Mode 1 of market access.  
 Chapter 14 does not contain a definition of the term "legitimate publi c policy objectives ". A 
CPTPP Party adopting or maintaining a measure inconsistent with Article 14.11.2 or 14.13.2 would 
need to  ensure that it was:  
 
 not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustified 
discrimination or a dis guised restriction on trade (Articles 14.11.3(a) and 14.13.3(a); and  
 did not impose restrictions greater than required to achieve the objective of the measure 
(Articles 14.11.3(b) and 14.13.3(b)).  
Reliance on the ordinary meaning of these terms is long -standing, including in other trade 
agreements such as the WTO.  
 
 GATS Article 1.2 defines mode 1 as the supply of a service 'from the territory of one Member 
into the territory of any other Member '. While in practice, the bulk of this kind of 'cross-border su pply 
of services ' these days is likely to involve transfer by electronic means, this is not exclusively the 
case. Similarly, while much of the cross -border transfer of information by electronic means referred 
to in Article 14.11.2 is likely to relate to th e supply of services, this will not be so in all cases, e.g. 
some may concern an investor or investment not related to the cross border supply of a service.  So 
the scope of coverage in each situation differs.  See the answer to question 97 above regarding t he 
relationship between the relevant chapters in the CPTPP covering cross -border trade in services and 
the Article 14.11 disciplines.  
 
Article 14.13 Location of Computing Facilities  
 
1.25.   Please clarify and provide examples on how to understand "security and 
confidentiality of communications", as well as the relationship between this Article and 
investment.  
 Article 14.13.1 does not contain a specific definition of "security and confidentiality of 
communications ". These terms should be understood by their ordina ry meaning in their context and 
in light of the object and purpose of the Agreement.  The text and structure of the article indicate 
that the disciplines in Article 14.13.2 are likely to sit within a Party 's broader regulatory framework 
or requirements rela ting to the use of computing facilities which, inter alia, may be directed at 
ensuring security and confidentiality in communication, including with respect to the communications 
network (Article 14.13.1 refers).  
 
 On the relationship between this article and Chapter 9 on Investment, please see the response 
to question 1.19 above .  
 
Article 14.17 Source Code  
 
1.26.   Please further clarify the concept and scope of "mass -market software" and 
"critical infrastructure".  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 8 - 
 
   "Mass market software ", as referred to in Article 14.17, is understood as referring to software 
that is widely available to the general public.  Article 14.17.2 does not define "critical infrastructure ". 
 
Chapter 15 Government Procurement  
 
Article 15.21 Facilitation of participation by SMEs  
 
1.27.   What are the main procurement contracts to which the facilitation of SMEs' 
participation applies? What measures are allowed to facilitate the participation of SMEs? 
Is there a need to give equal treatm ent to foreign SMEs? Are there other requirements to 
be complied with in addition to transparency?  
 Article 15.21 aims to facilitate the participation of SMEs in government procurement. The 
article applies to the procurement covered by the agreement; it is  not restricted to particular 
procurement contracts.  Paragraph 3 of Article 15.21 sets out the measures that would facilitate 
participation by SMEs in covered procurement but includes some flexibility (i.e.to the extent possible 
and if appropriate) in appl ying these measures in the particular circumstances of a specific 
procurement or of the Party.  
 
 The commitments in the Government Procurement chapter continue to apply, including 
commitments in Article 15.4 to non -discrimination and national treatment as  well as the 
transparency requirements set out in paragraph 15.21.2 and throughout the chapter. In other words, 
Article 15.21 does not allow parties to the agreement to give preference or otherwise discriminate 
in favour of domestic SMEs over foreign SMEs or other interested suppliers, domestic or foreign.  
This is subject to any specific notes or exceptions that CPTPP parties have negotiated and included 
in their market access schedules.  
 
Chapter 17 State -Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies  
 
1.28.   Please provide more information on the necessity of setting rules on designated 
monopolies and potential implications of those rules.  
 The definition of "designated monopoly " is "a privately owned monopoly that is designated 
after the date of entry into fo rce of this Agreement and any government monopoly that a Party 
designates or has designated. The word "monopoly " is, in turn, defined as "an entity … that in any 
relevant market in the territory of a Party is designated as the sole provider or purchaser of  a good 
or service … " Please note Article 17.2.1 and Article 17.4.2, among others.  
 
 These provisions reflect CPTPP Parties ' recognition that a designated monopoly should act in 
accordance with commercial considerations in its purchase or sale of the mono poly good or service 
in the relevant market and not discriminate based on nationality when buying or selling the monopoly 
goods or services. Additionally, a designated monopoly should not use its monopoly position to 
engage in anticompetitive practices in a non -monopolised market that negatively affect trade or 
investment between the Parties . 
 
Article 17.1 Definitions  
 
1.29.   Article 17.1 does not provide a definition for "State Enterprises". Please clarify the 
concept of "State Enterprises", particularly the difference between it and SOE.  
 The term "state enterprise " is defined in Chapter 1 of the Agreement.  It means "an ente rprise 
that is owned, or controlled through ownership interests, by a Party " (Article 1.3 refers).  
Article 17.7 Adverse Effects and Article 17.8 Injury  
 
1.30.   What are the differences between the definitions of "Adverse Effects" and "Injury", 
and the related ones in the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ? 
 The notion of "adverse effects" is defined in Article 17.7, while "injury" is clarified  in 
Article  17.8. The SCM Agreement has its own definition for these concepts. It should be noted that 
Chapter 17 applies not only to trade in goods, but also to trade in services.  
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Chapter 19 Labour  
 
Article 19.4 Non Derogation  
 
1.31.   According to this articl e, no Party shall derogate from its labour statues or 
regulations. There is no provision in the Chapter recognizing the sovereign right of each 
Party to regulate in this field, including establishing its own levels of protection and 
adopting/amending relev ant laws and policies. In this context, does "derogation" mean 
that the right of the Parties to adopt or amend their relevant legislations is restricted?  
 Article 19.4 requires that Parties do not waive or otherwise derogate from their statutes or 
regulati ons in a way that would weaken or reduce the protections provided in each Party 's labour 
laws that implement Articles 19.3.1 (Labour Rights) or Article 19.3.2.  Article 19.4 does not restrict 
the right of Parties to amend their relevant legislation, provide d the amendment is not inconsistent 
with, or does not weaken or reduce the protection of labour rights as set out in Article 19.3.1 or 
weaken or reduce the acceptable conditions of work in Article 19.3.2, in order to encourage trade 
and investment.  
 The ai m of Article 19.4 is to ensure that each Party does not diminish or downgrade the 
protection provided under its prevailing legal framework, with the latter needing to be in accordance 
with Articles 19.2 and 19.3.  
Article 19.14 Public Engagement, paragraph 2 
 
1.32.   According to this paragraph, each Party shall establish and consult a national labour 
consultative or advisory body. How do the Parties do that in practice?  
 There is no unique or specific model to comply with the requirement in Article 19.14.2.  The 
provision recognises that different means, including a national labour consultative or advisory body 
or a similar mechanism, may be used to achieve the objective of the article, including existing 
mechanisms that a Party may have in place, provided they en able members of the public, including 
representatives of labour and business organisations, to provide views on matters regarding Chapter 
19 of the Agreement.  
 
Chapter 30 Final Provisions  
 
1.33.   Do the Parties intend to invite certain countries or separate custo ms territories to 
join the CPTPP in the future?  
 The CPTPP accession clause (Article 5) states: "After the date of entry into force of this 
Agreement, any State or separate customs territory may accede to this Agreement, subject to such 
terms and condition s as may be agreed between the Parties and that State or separate customs 
territory. "  
 
 Requests to accede to the agreement will be handled in the manner outlined in the CPTPP 
Accession Process (Annex to Doc CPTPP/COM/2019/0002 of 19 January 2019). The Ac cession 
Process indicates clearly that economies aspiring to join the CPTPP must (a) demonstrate the means 
by which they will comply with all the existing rules of the CPTPP; and (b) undertake to deliver the 
highest standard of market access offers on good s, services, investment, financial services, 
government procurement, State -owned enterprises and temporary entry for business persons.  It 
also recalls the CPTPP objective of comprehensive market access commitments through the 
elimination of tariffs and oth er barriers to goods and services trade.  
 
 The Accession Process document also outlines the steps any aspirant economies should take 
to engage with CPTPP signatories on their interest in joining the Agreement.  
 
Questions from the delegation of Colombia  
 
1.34.   Under the environment chapter, Article 20.16 of the Agreement refers to marine 
capture fisheries. Parties agreed not to grant or maintain any subsidies for fishing that 
negatively affect fish stocks that are in an overfished condition, and to eliminate sub sidies 
provided to vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Could WT/REG395/2  
 
- 10 - 
 
  the parties share information on how these provisions have been implemented? Have 
there been exchanges of information on national legislation in this area and on  the lists 
of IUU vessels maintained by national authorities and fisheries management 
organizations? Has there been consultation among members regarding the 
implementation of these provisions? How does the implementation of these provisions 
relate to the W TO's ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies?  
 Through the Environment Committee 's meetings, Parties have shared information regarding 
steps they are taking to ensure conformity with the fisheries subsidies provisions in Article 20.16.  
 
 Parties also agreed that fisheries subsidies notifications will remain a standing item on the 
Environment Committee agenda.  
 
1.35.   As regards rules of origin, could the parties provide further details on the 
functioning and application of the provisions on the principle of absorption and on full 
cumulation of origin? Could the Parties provide information on whether cumulation of 
origin is already applied? If so, how do the parties monitor these operations? Which 
document (the bilateral certificate, the certificate of origin of the country with which it 
cumulates, or another document) certifies the origin of the inputs and what impact has it 
had on trade flows between the parties?  
 Article 3.6 provides that if non -originating material undergoes further production such that it 
satisfies the requirement of the Chapter the material is to be treated as originating.  Article 3.10 
paragraph 3 outlines the provision for full cumulation under CPTPP.  In utilising this provision, 
consideration needs to be given to the related Articles 3.6  to 3.8 of the Agreement, which outline 
the approach to treatment of materials used in production of a good.  
 
 Application of the provisions in Article 3.10 Accumulation commenced at entry into force of 
the Agreement on 30 December 2018.  The agreement has no provision for central monitoring of 
cumulation.  
 
Origin of goods and materials is certified through the Certification of Origin and supporting 
documentation.  Article 3.21 of the Agreement indicates that a Certification of Origin by:  
 
1.  producer shall be completed on the basis of the producer having information that the 
good is originating;  
 
2.  exporter shall be completed on the basis of the exporter having information that the 
good is originating, or reasonable reliance on the producer 's information t hat the good 
is originating; or  
 
3.  importer shall be completed on the basis that the importer has documentation that the 
good is originating or reasonable reliance on supporting documentation provided by the 
exporter or producer that the good is origina ting.  
 
 Article 3.26 of the Agreement indicates that an importer making a claim for preferential 
treatment shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the good is originating for a period 
of no less than five years from the date of import.  In the  case of certification of origin by producer 
or exporter, the producer or exporter shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the good 
is originating for a period of no less than five years from the date of certification.  
 
1.36.   Could the parties report on how the provisions on small and medium -sized 
enterprise (SMEs) under Chapter 24 of the Agreement have been implemented? We would 
be particularly interested to find out whether the SME committee has met and whether 
specific areas  have been identified to enable SMEs to take advantage of the trade 
opportunities of the Agreement.  
 To date, the Committee on SMEs has met twice since the entry into force of the CPTPP, in 
October 2019 and August 2020.  
 
 In meetings of the Committee, the  CPTPP members have focused on discussion on the 
following issues:  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 11 - 
 
  
 implementation of the provisions on SMEs, including information exchange to assist Parties 
with tracking implementation;  
 ways to assist SME understanding of the benefits of the CPTPP and h ow to take advantage 
of the opportunities under the Agreement, with a view to promoting their increased 
participation in global value chains;  
 exchanging information on the Party 's experiences and success in supporting SMEs to 
engage in trade and investmen t opportunities; and  
 understanding more about the perspectives of industry, including SMEs, and researchers 
on the kinds of initiatives that can facilitate increased SME involvement in trade.  
 The Committee has also emphasised the importance of coordinatin g its work with that of the 
Committees on Competitiveness and Business Facilitation and Cooperation and Capacity Building.  
 
1.37.   a. Could the parties indicate whether they have identified specific areas of work 
under the  provisions of Article 19: Environment?   
 Parties have focused initially on ensuring compliance with the provisions of Chapter 20, such 
as compliance with Article 20.7 (Procedural Matters), Article 20.8 (Opportunities for Public 
Participation), Article 20.9 (Public Submissions), Art icle 20.12 (Cooperation Frameworks), Article 
20.16 (Marine Capture Fisheries), Article 20.19 (Environment Committee and Contact Points).  
 
 Parties have also identified and shared potential areas of mutual interest for cooperation that 
fall under different  articles of Chapter 20. Two cooperation activities under these topics have also 
taken place so far: the Dialogue on Green Recovery from COVID -19 in December 2020, and a 
Workshop on Combating Illegal trade of Wildlife Species focused on turtles and tortois es in March 
2021. In addition, a series of webinar sessions on topics such as biodiversity, circular economy and 
climate change are planned for later this year.  
 
 b. Could the parties share national experiences of the implementation of the 
 environment cha pters in other trade agreements into which such provisions have 
 been incorporated?  
 
 Canada has Free Trade Agreements that include stand -alone environment chapters with other 
partners such as the European Union, the United States and Mexico, Korea, Israel , and Ukraine.  
 
 Singapore has stand -alone Environment chapters in the Free Trade Agreements with partners 
such as China, the Eurasian Economic Union, the European Union, the United Kingdom and the 
United States.  
 
 New Zealand has a long-standing  practic e of incorporating trade and environment chapters in 
its FTAs (e.g. with Korea, Hong Kong, China) or concluding trade and environment arrangements 
alongside these FTAs (e.g. with Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines).  
 
 Australia has standalone environment chapters with the US, Peru and Korea.  
 
 Please see below examples of implementation work conducted under the environment 
chapters of Canada 's FTAs:  
 
• September 2018: The first meeting of the CETA Committee on Trade and  Sustainable 
Development (TSD) took place in Brussels. Canada and the EU took stock of the joint work on 
setting up the procedures and institutional structures for the effective implementation of the 
TSD chapters, and exchanged views on potential priority areas, including trade and 
environment.  
• November 2019: The second meeting of the CETA Committee on Trade and Sustainable 
Development (TSD) took place in Ottawa. Canada and the EU reviewed progress on the first 
year of the joint 2018 -2019 TSD Committee wor k plan which included activities on trade and 
environment and the Early Review of the TSD chapters. The Parties provided updates on 
existing and new developments in policies and legislation in each of the areas discussed.  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 12 - 
 
   In Singapore 's experience, the implementation of the environment chapters in its FTAs has 
been useful in promoting mutually supportive trade and environmental policies, encouraging Parties 
to improve respective levels of environmental protection as well as encouraging co operation and 
information exchange between Parties.  
 
 For New  Zealand, examples of implementation experience under our trade and environment 
chapters or arrangements includes cooperation with partners in the following areas:  
 
 - on vehicle emissions, clima te change and water catchment with Thailand;  
 
- on geothermal energy development, energy efficiency, marine conservation and waste 
management with Chile;  
 
- on water pollution, remediation of contaminated sites and invasive alien species 
management with Ch ina; and  
 
 - on environmental impact assessment with Brunei and Indonesia.  
 
1.38.   Could the parties indicate the current situation and future prospects of the 
treatment of the "suspended" articles of this Agreement, particularly those related to 
investment, inte llectual property and pharmaceuticals.  
See the response to question 1. 1 above . 
  
1.39.   Could the parties share information on the implementation of the commitments 
under Chapter 25 of this Agreement: Regulatory Coherence, as well as the outcomes 
achieved to date ? Is it possible to share experiences on the implementation of these 
provisions?  
 The Parties have followed up on the implementation of this chapter through meetings of the 
Regulatory Coherence Committee.  The Committee has met twice, in July 2020 and in April 2021.  
 
 The Committee meetings have allowed Parties to share information on the ways and regularity 
with which covered regulatory measures are expected to be issued in each country, as well as to 
discuss cooperation activities Parties have carried ou t in international fora, such as APEC or OECD.  
Parties have also discussed possible ways to establish an appropriate mechanism to provide 
opportunities for interested persons to provide inputs to the Committee 's work; as well as the 
possibility of carrying  out meetings, seminars or workshops that could involve the participation of 
such interested persons.    
 
1.40.   On Chapter 8: Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), we would like to receive further 
information regarding the implementation of the sectoral annexes on r egulatory 
harmonization. We would be particularly interested to find out about the progress made 
on the implementation of the following specific aspects:  
a. Annex 8 -B: Information and Communications Technology Products: Has progress 
been made in harmonizi ng standards or technical regulations for the 
electromagnetic compatibility of information technology equipment (ITE) 
products?  
b. Annex 8 -C: Pharmaceuticals: What progress has been made on the 
harmonization of regulatory requirements for pharmaceutical p roducts and 
collaboration on pharmaceutical inspection?   
c. Annex 8 -D: Cosmetics: What progress has been made in the areas of marketing 
authorization? Have regulatory changes or adjustments been made to parties' 
regulations?  
d. Annex 8 -G: Organic Products : Could Parties provide information on the 
implementation of provisions on the development and maintenance of TBT 
measures relating to the production, processing, or labelling of products as WT/REG395/2  
 
- 13 - 
 
  organic for sale or distribution? Have any regulatory changes or adjustments 
been made to parties' regulations in implementing this annex?  
 Although there is no specific progress regarding the above, CPTPP Parties have been 
discussing the implementation of this chapter through the TBT Committee.  
 
e. The Agreement indic ates that new annexes on other sectors may eventually be 
negotiated to further the objectives of the chapter (TBT). Could the parties 
please advise whether negotiations on new annexes on regulatory harmonization 
have been concluded, or whether there are on going negotiations on regulatory 
harmonization in new sectors?  
 There is currently no specific discussion about new annexes.  
 
1.41.   Could the Parties provide more information on the scope of the Investor -State 
Dispute Settlement mechanism under this Agreement and how such provisions are 
compatible with members' obligations under other bilateral or regional agreements?  
 The Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism in CPTPP allows foreign investors to pursue 
remedies directly against a CPTPP Party in  relation to breaches of CPTPP investment chapter and 
limited aspects of the financial services chapter.  
 
 Article 9.25 provides that any claim that the respondent has breached a provision under 
section A of the Chapter would be decided in accordance with this Agreement and applicable rules 
of international law.  
 
 Article 1.2 of the Agreement explicitly affirms the Parties ' intention for the CPTPP to coexist 
with their existing international agreements.  
 
 The Agreement does not preclude a Party from conclud ing bilateral or plurilateral side 
instruments with individual partners, including those with whom it has concluded a bilateral or 
regional agreement, to further elaborate on how the CPTPP operates in relation to another treaty.  
 
Questions from the delegat ion of the European Union  
 
Provisions on Trade in Services  
 
General provisions on trade in services  
 
Market access  
 
1.42.   Paragraph 4.12, "4.12. Article 10.5 lists the limitations on market access that the 
Parties cannot adopt or maintain unless otherwise specified in their lists of reservations 
(Article  10.5). These mirror those found in GATS Article XVI.2 (a) -(e)."  
 Does the market access obligation for services (Article 10.5) also apply horizontally, 
for example with respect to the acquisition of land?  
 
Article 10.5 (Market Access) lists the types of limitations or restrictions that are non -
conforming with a CPTPP Party 's obligations under the Market Access discipline. Limitations with 
respect to the acquisition of land would only be non -confor ming with the Market Access discipline to 
the extent that they:  
 
 impose limitations on:  
i. the number of service suppliers, whether in the form of numerical quotas, monopolies, 
exclusive service suppliers or the requirement of an economic needs test;  
ii. the tota l value of service transactions or assets in the form of numerical quotas or the 
requirement of an economic needs test;  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 14 - 
 
  iii. the total number of service operations or the total quantity of service output expressed 
in terms of designated numerical units in the f orm of quotas or the requirement of an 
economic needs test; or  
iv. the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular service sector 
or that a service supplier may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related 
to, the supply of a  specific service in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement 
of an economic needs test; or  
 restrict or require specific types of legal entity or joint venture through which a service 
supplier may supply a service.  
Table 4.1 Overview of commitments for Mode 4 under the Agreement and the GATS  
 
1.43.   As regards intra -corporate transferees, Singapore's commitments under the GATS 
are reportedly broader than under the Agreement. Question: Could it be clarified why is 
this reportedly the case?  
 Singapore 's commi tments on Mode 4 in the CPTPP are different from those in the GATS. In 
the Temporary Entry for Business Persons Chapter for the CPTPP, Singapore has committed entry 
for up to 30 days for both (i) Business Visitors; and (ii) Investors, which was not committ ed under 
the GATS.  
 
Liberalization commitments  
 
Overview  
 
1.44.   Paragraph 4.34 states  that in a number of  cases commitments are narrower than in 
the GATS. In the country specific documents, these are listed for each case (for Japan in 
doc 395 – 1A3 para 3.9/Table 3.1; for Singapore in doc 395 -1A6 para 3.6/Table 3.1, for 
Australia in doc 395 -1A1 para 3.1 and i n Table 3.1, and for Mexico in doc 395 -1A4 para 
3.6 /Table 3.1).  
 How should the term "narrower" be understood is each case; as narrower in scope, 
or by the nature of the restrictiveness of the commitments?  
 
For Australia  
 
 Australia notes that entry 7 in  its Annex II reserves for Australia the right to adopt or maintain 
any measure with respect to the provision of law enforcement and correctional services, and a list 
of services to the extent that they are social services established or maintained for a p ublic purpose.  
 
 These services cut across sectors where Australia included commitments under GATS, 
including environmental services and human related and social services.  
 
For Mexico  
 
Mexico would like to highlight that its commitments are broader than G ATS sectoral 
commitments.  
 
 Market access for investment is reflected in the main disciplines of the Investment Chapter 
and the limitations are provided in the non -conforming measures, based on a negative list approach.  
 
For Japan  
 
 As for Japan, it indic ates a more limited commitment.  
 
For Singapore  
 
 Under the CPTPP, Singapore committed to liberalisation in the Tourism and Travel -related 
services sector.  Singapore has further defined the requirements for the Tourism and Travel -related 
services sector for  selected sub -sectors.  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Reply from the Secretariat  
 Table 3.1 in Country Annexes provides a comparison between the commitments under the 
CPTPP and the Parties' GATS schedule that covers both the scope (in terms of services) and the 
restrictiveness of a measure. Subsector commitments under the CPTPP are desc ribed as narrower 
compared to the GATS if commitments under the RTA cover fewer services (i.e. coverage in terms 
of scope) and/or the measures are more restrictive (i.e. coverage in terms of restrictiveness).  
 
Sector specific provisions on trade in servic es 
 
Telecommunications  
 
1.45.   Paragraph 4.75: "4.75 Chapter 13 expands upon the GATS Annex on 
Telecommunications and the Reference Paper, which not all the Parties have adopted".  
 Would the CPTPP Members that have not yet adopted the Reference Paper in the 
WTO now consider doing so?  
 
 When acceding to the WTO in 2007, Viet Nam made commitments on telecommunications 
services.  It's Schedule of Specific Commitments in Services clearly states that "Viet Nam undertakes 
the obligations in the Reference Paper attached hereto ". These commitments are incorporated as a 
part of Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Viet Nam, which was ratified by Viet Nam 's 
National Assembly on 29 November 2006. Therefore, this is understood to mean that the Reference 
Paper has be en adopted and ratified by Viet Nam.  It does not require any additional or separate 
procedure to adopt the Reference Paper.  
 
General Provisions of the Agreement  
 
Electronic commerce  
 
1.46.   Paragraph 5.89: "5.89. Chapter 14 addresses electronic commerce. It applies to 
measures adopted or maintained by a Party that affect trade by electronic means and not 
to Government procurement <…>."  
 What is the reasoning behind excluding government procurement from the scope of 
the e -commerce chapter?  
 
 The CPTPP rules an d commitments on government procurement are found in Chapter 15 of 
the Agreement and its annexes.  The statement in Article 14.2.3(a) (Scope and General Provisions) 
of the Electronic Commerce chapter makes clear.  
 
Document WT/REG395/1/Add.7 – Viet Nam  
 
Liberalization of Trade in Goods  
 
Tariff rate quotas  
 
1.47.   Paragraph 2.10, Table 2.4 Viet Nam: CPTPP -wide TRQs . Why did Viet  Nam decide to 
agree on full liberalisation of raw tobacco under the CPTPP following a transition period 
of 20 years, but not in the framework of the EU -Viet Nam FTA?  
 Viet Nam 's commitments under the framework of Free Trade Agreements to which Viet Nam 
is a Party, are based on request and offer of the other Party and equivalent to benefits of each Party 
during the process of negotiatio n and signing. Therefore, Viet Nam 's commitments under the CPTPP 
and the EVFTA are different.  
 
  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Questions from the delegation of the Philippines  
 
Table  1.1 List of overlapping RTAs as of 5 March 2021  
 
1.48.   Table 1.1: Why are the ASEAN -China, ASEAN -Hong Kong, China, ASEAN -India, and 
ASEAN -Korea FTAs not included when they overlap between Singapore and Viet Nam and 
they have been notified to the WTO?  
 Singapore would like to clarify that there are presently 12 overlapping RTAs, with five other 
Parties, including the ASEAN -China, ASEAN -Hong Kong, China, ASEAN -India, and ASEAN -Korea 
FTAs, listed under Table 5.1.  
Reply from the Secretariat  
 These RTAs are not included in Table 1.1 because they do not change the preferential 
relationship between Sing apore and Viet Nam.  
Characteristic Elements of the Agreement  
 
Structure of the Agreement  
 
1.49.   Paragraph 2.3: "Article 1 of the CPTPP incorporates the provisions of the TPP and 
makes them part of the CPTPP mutatis mutandis, except for Articles 30.4 (accession),  
30.5 (entry into force), 30.6 (withdrawal) and 30.8 (authentic texts), while Article 2 
suspends the application of certain provisions of the TPP. An Annex to the CPTPP lists the 
suspended provisions, which do not apply between the Parties during an undefi ned period 
of suspension. As at March 2021, these provisions continue to be suspended. Articles 3 
through 5 govern the entry into force of, withdrawal from and accession to, the 
Agreement. In Article 6, in particular circumstances and upon request by a Par ty, the 
operation of the Agreement shall be reviewed with a view to consider any amendment 
that may be required. Article 7 makes the texts of the Agreement drafted in English, 
Spanish and French authentic, though, in the event of divergence, the English ve rsion shall 
prevail. " 
a. Regarding Article 6 (Review of the CPTPP), will the review be conducted by the 
Parties as one review committee, or will the review be spearheaded by a separate 
committee which consists of Party members?  
No decisions have yet been taken on the precise format for any review that may be undertaken 
pursuant to Article 6 of the CPTPP.  Article 27.2 clearly provides that the CPTPP Commission shall 
consider any matter relating to the implementation and operation of the Agreement.  Article 27.2 
also states that the CPTPP Commission may establish or refer matters to any ad hoc or standing 
committee, working group or any other subsidiary body.    
 
b. What will be the procedure for a possible reactivation of the suspended 
provisions?  
See the  response to question 1.1 above.  
c. Noting that there are provisions that are suspended for an undefined period, does 
the Agreement stipulate any criteria/conditions to uplift the suspension of these 
provisions?  
See the response to question 1.1 above.  
1.50.   Paragraph 2.5: "The Agreement is complemented by a range of side instruments, 
most of them taking the form of bilateral exchanges of letters; one side instrument has 
been agreed by all the Parties. The number of side instruments vary according to the 
Parties, as shown in Table 2.1 below. " 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 17 - 
 
   Are new entrants allowed to make use of side instruments as a form of flexibility?  
 
 See the  response to question 1.3 above.  
Provisions on Trade and Goods  
 
1.51.   Paragraph 3.3: "Article III of GATT 1994 on national treatment is incorporated into 
the Agreement (Article 2.3). National treatment at the regional level of Government is 
treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment it accords to any like, 
directly competitive or substitutable goods, as th e case may be, of the Party of which it 
forms a part (Article 2.3.2). Exceptions to national treatment disciplines are listed in 
Annex 2 -A of the Agreement. " 
 Are new entrants also allowed to apply/implement such exceptions?  
 
 Annex 2 -A outlines certain sp ecific measures relating to import and export restrictions 
maintained by some CPTPP members, to which national treatment obligations under Article 2.3.1 
shall not apply.  For greater certainty, nothing in Annex 2 -A affect the rights or obligations of any 
Party under the WTO Agreement.  
 
It contains two types of measures: (a) measures maintained by individual CPTPP members; 
and (b) measures maintained by a group of CPTPP members pursuant to the multilateral 'Kimberley 
Process ' certification scheme.  Apart from the measures taken pursuant to  the 'Kimberley Process ' 
scheme, the individual listed exceptions reflect specific identified circumstances determined during 
the course of the negotiation of the original agreement.  
 
The Agreement does not make any provision for further non -application of  these national 
treatment disciplines, either for existing or for new members to the Agreement.  
 
Liberalization of trade and tariff lines  
 
1.52.   Paragraph 3.16: "Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore have a single schedule 
for all Parties. While Viet Nam als o has a single elimination schedule, its implementation 
towards Mexico is delayed by one year (see paragraph 3.18. below). Japan and Mexico 
have different liberalization categories for a limited number of tariff lines – those subject 
to country -specific ta riff-rate quotas (TRQs), those for which the liberalization schedule 
from another RTA is used, or those subject to "tariff differentials". Further, Mexico's 
liberalization towards Viet Nam is delayed by one year compared to other Parties. Table 
3.1 summari zes how Parties' commitments on trade in goods are applied, including the 
number of tariff schedules and liberalization categories used by each Party. " 
 Are new entrants allowed to negotiate/implement separate schedules of 
liberalization for each CPTPP par ty? 
 
 Article 1.1 of the Agreement establishes a plurilateral free trade area among the eleven 
signatories.  This delivers considerable benefits in promoting greater regional alignment in trade 
conditions across the membership, making this plurilateral appr oach a particularly important feature 
of the CPTPP.   The Accession Process sets out the benchmarks expected of accession candidates, 
including in regard to market access commitments.  See answer to question 22 above for more detail.  
 
1.53.   Paragraph 3.18: "The CPTPP provides for a catch -up mechanism for "late -comers" 
– i.e. implementing at once all tariff cuts already in force for other Parties. Viet Nam 
applied the catch -up mechanism to all the Parties except with Mexico, granting two cuts 
in its tariff in January 2019 and thus synchronizing its liberalization with that of other 
Parties. Given that Mexico and Viet Nam have opted out of the catch -up mechanism in 
their bilateral trade, their bilateral concessions are a year behind all the othe rs." 
 The paragraph mentions a "catch -up" mechanism for "late comers". May we seek 
clarification if this has been applied by all Parties, except for Viet  Nam and Mexico? What 
is the rationale behind the "catch -up" mechanism?  
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 18 - 
 
   Will the same mechanism (i.e.  catch up mechanism) also apply to new 
entrants/acceding economies?  
 
 The "catch up mechanism " under Annex 2 -D has been applied in all cases to date, except one 
(between Mexico and Viet Nam).  
 
 The "catch -up mechanism " is established as the general rule fo r original signatories for whom 
the agreement enters into force subsequent to the entry into force for the "original Parties " (first six 
countries to ratify the CPTPP), under paragraph 3 (b)(i) of Section A to Annex 2 -D. With this 
mechanism, the preferenti al tariff applicable to the later ratifier jumps to what it would be as if they 
had been among the 'original Parties ' (but without any retroactive effect).  An alternate to the 'catch 
up mechanism ' is available to 'original Parties ' as outlined in subparagraph 4(a)(i) of Annex 2 -D. 
1.54.   Paragraph 3.19: "Table 3.2 below summarizes liberalization under the Agreement 
in terms of percentage of lines becoming duty -free at entry into force and during the 
implementation period. Information is al so provided on the percentage of lines that were 
MFN duty -free at entry into force as well as of those remaining dutiable following CPTPP's 
full implementation. "  
 May we seek clarification if the liberalization being referred to in the summary table 
perta ins to both tariff elimination and tariff reduction?  
 
 Table 3.2 documents commitments made by CPTPP Parties leading to tariff elimination.  The 
columns entitled "At Entry Into Force " and "During Implementation Period " outlined the proportion 
of tariff lines on which tariffs have been eliminated at that stage, with the final column indicating 
the overall tariff elimination outcome.  
 
Reply from the Secretariat  
 
 The liberalization reflected in the table only includes tar iff elimination.  
 
1.55.   Paragraph 3.21: "Consultations on the acceleration of the elimination of customs 
duties among two or more Parties are to take place upon request by a Party (Article 2.4). 
If agreed, all Parties shall be informed "as early as practicable".  Acceleration may also 
occur on an autonomous basis; in this case, the duty may be subsequently increased up 
to levels not higher than those specified in the Party's schedule of tariff commitments. 
Besides, with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Japan has  a reciprocal "upon request" 
rendez -vous clause providing for consultations on Japan's commitments in its Tariff 
Schedule, as follows:  
a. to review liberalization commitments – in terms of tariffs, TRQs and safeguards 
- no sooner than seven years after entry into force – namely after end -December 
2025; and  
b. concerning the extension of more favourable treatment granted by either Japan 
or the other Party under another RTA. Such consultations are to take place within 
one month from the request (whic h can only be made following ratification of 
the relevant RTA) unless the Parties agree otherwise. This clause constitutes a 
non-automatic MFN clause within an RTA. " 
 Is Japan the only Party who has a clause on reciprocal arrangements with regards 
to unila teral acceleration of tariff commitments?  
 
 The "upon request " rendez -vous clause referred to in para graph  3.21 of the Factual 
Presentation applies in respect of those Parties mentioned in Party -specific Annex 2 -D, paragraphs 
5, 6 and 9.  
 
Liberalization Sc hedule  
 
1.56.   Paragraph 3.25: "Before the entry into force of the Agreement, between 31.4% and 
72.3% of the Parties' MFN applied tariffs were duty free; Singapore maintains MFN applied 
tariffs on only six tariff lines. At the entry into force of the Agreement ha lf of the Parties WT/REG395/2  
 
- 19 - 
 
  had over 90% of their tariff lines liberalized – namely Australia, New Zealand and 
Singapore, the latter liberalizing all lines immediately. At the end of implementation, only 
New Zealand and Singapore will have removed tariffs on all lin es for their partners. The 
lowest liberalization will be that by Japan – 95.9% of tariff lines by the end of 
implementation – while for others more than 98% of tariff lines will have been 
liberalized. " 
 What is the benchmark for new entrants/acceding econo mies in terms of tariff 
liberalization? Is it going to be the same as that of Japan?  
 
 Section 5 of the CPTPP Accession Process sets out the benchmarks accession candidates are 
expected to meet.  In the case of an accession candidate 's market access commitm ents they are 
expected to deliver "the highest standard " of market access, including on goods.  Paragraph 5.2 
provides further guidance.  It refers to the long -standing objective of comprehensive  market access 
commitments, through the elimination of tariffs  and other barriers  to goods and services trade 
and investment.  
 
Tariff rate quotas  
 
1.57.   Paragraph 3.30: "Canada, Japan, Mexico and Viet Nam provide TRQs under the 
Agreement. The TRQs may be either Agreement -wide or country -specific; they are 
included in Appendix A to each Party's tariff schedule in Annex 2 -D. Some of Viet Nam's 
TRQs are allocated from existing WTO TRQs. " 
 Are new entrants/acceding economies allowed to maintain TRQs?  
 
 See answer to question 1.56 above . 
 
Rules of Origin  
 
1.58.   Paragraph 3.34 (b): "The basic requirements for a good to be considered 
originating, as in Article 3.2, are:  
a. it is wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one of more of the 
Parties; or  
b. it is produced entirely in the territory of one or more of the Parties exclusively 
from originating materials; or " 
1.59.   Is there a minimum domestic value addition required for goods that are produced 
entirely in the territory of one or more of th e Parties exclusively from originating 
materials? If none, how will CPTPP Parties ensure that substantial transformation took 
place in the exporting Party considering that the Agreement does not have an Article on 
Minimal Operations? Will this impact the d etermination of country of origin?  
 No. Article 3.2 (b) provides that a good is originating if it is 'produced entirely in the territory 
of one or more of the Parties exclusively from originating materials '. 
 
 There is no requirement under CPTPP to demonst rate that substantial transformation has 
occurred in the exporting Party, in order for a good to meet the requirements of Article 3.2(b).  The 
concept is not one of "country of origin ", but of "CPTPP origin ". What is required is to demonstrate 
that substant ial transformation has occurred in the CPTPP free trade area.  
 
1.60.   Paragraph 3.35: "The Agreement provides four methodologies for calculating the 
RVC:  
a. methods based on the transaction value of the good:  
i. the build -down method is based on the value of non -originating materials 
used in production;  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 20 - 
 
  ii. the build -up method is based on the value of originating materials used in 
production; and  
iii. the focused value method is based on the value of only certain specified  non-
originating materials used in production  
b. the net cost method, which only applies to certain automotive goods, calculates 
the cost of all non -originating materials used in relation to the total cost of the 
good. Article 3.9 includes additional detai ls and definitions associated with the 
net cost method. " 
 May we seek clarification on the focused value method in calculating the RVC, i.e., 
why is it based only on certain non -originating materials?  
 
 The focused value method is one of four methodologie s available to calculate RVC. It provides 
flexibility to traders by limiting the value of non -originating/undetermined origin material used in 
the focused value method calculation to that from the HS headings specified in the relevant PSR, 
rather than requ iring the value of all non -originating/undetermined origin material be included as 
per the build down method.  
 
 In CPTPP, automotive goods may only use the Net Cost method and not the other 
RVC calculation methods specified in Article 3.5?  
 
The automotive goods PSRs specify the relevant methodologies for calculating RVC for specific 
goods under certain HS headings.  Such goods classified in Chapters 84 and 87 have a range of RVC 
options available including, but not limited to, the Net Cost Method.  Article 3.9 simply describes how 
to calculate the net cost for certain goods in Chapters 84 and 87, but use of this methodology  is not 
mandatory.  
 
1.61.   Paragraph 3.36: "The CTC is the general rule, more frequently so at the heading 
level – though requirements at the chapter and subheading levels are also frequent (the 
former in particular for agricultural and mineral products). Whenever a value -added rule 
applies, the thr esholds for RVC are generally a minimum of 40% of originating materials 
or a maximum of 60% of non -originating materials under the build -down method, a 
minimum of 30% of originating materials under the build -up method, or a minimum of 
50% of specific origi nating material under the focused value method. Article 3.7 stipulates 
how to determine the value of a material which is imported, acquired in the territory 
where the good is produced or self -produced. Article 3.8 further details the valuation rules 
by spe cifying that certain expenses may be added to the value of originating materials or 
deducted from the value of non -originating materials. The Chapter does not include a list 
of minimal operations that do not confer origin. " 
 "The Chapter does not include a  list of minimal operations that do not confer origin."  
The Philippines would like to confirm whether the rules allow minimal operations to confer 
origin.  
 
 There is no minimal operations article in CPTPP.  Article 3.2 "Originating Goods " sets out the 
criteria for conferring origin.  
 
1.62.   Paragraph 3.37: "A de minimis/tolerance rule (Article 3.11) applies so that the good 
is considered originating if the value of all non -originating materials that do not comply 
with the required CTC do not exceed 10% of the f.o.b . value of the good. Additional RVC 
requirements will apply without any change. Annex 3 -C specifies that the tolerance rule 
does not apply to certain dairy products; citrus fruits and orange juices; fats and oils; 
peaches, pears or apricots, when used in t he production of certain goods (respectively 
other dairy and related goods; orange juices or some other fruit or vegetable juices; 
soybean, groundnut, sunflower or rape oils (headings 15.07, 15.08, 15.12 and 15.14); 
goods of heading 20.08). Article 4.2 pro vides the tolerance rule for textile and apparel 
goods, see paragraph 3.41.  below. " 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 21 - 
 
   May we seek clarification why were certain goods excluded from the application of 
the Tolerance Rule?  
 
 The exceptions to Article 3.11 of the CPTPP, as outlined in Annex 3-C, reflect the negotiated 
outcome.  
 
1.63.   Paragraph 3.38(b): "b. full cumulation, so that both the value of originating 
materials used and of the processing carried out in any of the Parties during production, 
is counted towards the determination of origin. " 
 Can the CPTPP Parties provide some examples of sectors which utilized Full 
Cumulation since the implementation of the Agreement?  
 
 The agreement has no provision for central monitoring of cumulation and only entered into 
force on 30 December 2018 . It is therefore difficult to provide specific examples.  
 
1.64.   Paragraph 3.41(c): "by way of derogation from the rules of origin, products 
included in the "short -supply" list – i.e. materials generally not produced by the Parties – 
of Appendix 1 to Annex 4 -A can be used if they are non -originating, provided they meet 
the end -use requirements specified in that same Appendix, if applicable (paragraph 7 of 
Article 4.2). A permanent derogation applies to 179 materials, while a temporary 
derogation of five years fro m the CPTPP's entry into force applies for eight types of 
fabrics; " 
a. Is the short supply list a single list agreed by all CPTPP members?  
b. Can the short supply list be expanded once other countries accede to the CPTPP?  
c. Is the understanding correct that "end -use requirement" specified in the short 
supply list (SSL) refers to the final goods where the SSL is applicable?  
 Yes, the "Short Supply List of Products " set out in Appendix 1 to Annex 4 -A is agreed by all 
parties.  The shor t supply list contains 187 products.  8 of these products are in the 'temporary ' 
category and will be removed from the short supply list five years after the entry into force of the 
Agreement.  The other products are in the 'permanent ' category.  
 
 The Short Supply List cannot be expanded once other economies accede to the CPTPP. The 
fibre or material listed in Column 2 of the SSL is deemed to be an originating material when it is 
used in the production of a final good listed in Column 3.  If no end use is list ed in Column 3 the 
material may be used in the production of any textile or apparel good.  
 
1.65.   Para 3.41(e)(i): "through a side letter, Mexico and Viet Nam agreed to modify the 
disciplines specified in c. above on trade between them:  
i. for certain materials unde r the permanent short -supply list, Mexico sets a 
maximum amount of duty -free imports from Viet Nam - the "tariff preferential 
limits (TPLs)". This amount is increased annually during ten years, and 
remains at that volume thereafter; " 
May we seek clarificat ion how is the "Tariff Preferential Limit" applied by Mexico to 
textile importations from Viet Nam different from TRQ?  
 Both the tariff preference limit and the tariff quota have the same function for the purpose of 
granting preferential tariff treatment f or a certain amount of goods.  The difference is that the tariff 
preference limit is associated with origin issues.  
 
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
 
1.66.   Paragraph 3.46 (c): "For Mexico, export restrictions on mineral fuels, oils and 
waxes of HS 2709 -2712. In the context of monitoring the economic relationship and WT/REG395/2  
 
- 22 - 
 
  partnership among the Parties (Article 27.2), the CPTPP Commission is to review this 
authorization by the end of 20 21 and at least every five years thereafter. " 
 Does the Commission also provide for a review of export restrictions by other 
countries and other products, such as those also mentioned in this paragraph?  
 
 Under Article 2.10, Parties are prohibited from ado pting or maintaining prohibitions or 
restrictions on the importation of any good of another Party or on the exportation or sale for export 
of any good destined for another Party, except in accordance with Article XI of GATT 1994 and its 
interpretative note s. Certain exceptions to 2.10 are identified in Annex 2 -A. The Commission has 
the authority to consider any issue relating to the implementation or operation of the agreement 
(Article 27.2.1(a)). In addition, the Commission is directed to review specific e xport restrictions as 
part of its review under Article 27.2.1(b) – Annex 2 -A to Chapter 2 refers.  
 
1.67.   Paragraph 3.51: "Risk analysis provisions (Article 7.9) increase transparency as 
compared to the respective provisions of the WTO Agreement, while reaffirmin g the basis 
of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement – namely the importance for SPS measures to be based 
on scientific principles and conform with international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations. Measures that do not conform with international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations are to be based on documented and objective scientific evidence that 
is rationally related to the measures. In such cases, however, dispute settlement cannot 
be invoked. The Article clarifies that a Party may require that risk  analysis be conducted 
before the good is granted access to its market. Unless in cases of emergency (under 
Article 7.14), if an importing Party is undertaking a review of an SPS measure, it cannot 
stop the previously authorized importation of a good of an other Party solely for that 
reason. " 
 In cases where dispute settlement may not be invoked, how are issues in SPS 
measures alternatively discussed/managed/resolved?  
 
 Multiple articles within the Chapter oblige the competent authorities of the parties to w ork 
constructively and cooperatively to deal with any issues needing discussion or resolution e.g. 
Article  7.13, 7.15, 7.16 and 7.17.  
 
1.68.   Paragraph 3.52: "Article 7.10 – "Audits" – is a novel provision compared to the SPS 
Agreement. It authorizes a Party to audit the exporting Party's competent authorities and 
associated or designated inspection systems in order to determine the Party's ability to 
provide re quired assurances and meet the SPS measures of the importing Party. A 
footnote indicates that "nothing in this Article prevents an importing Party from 
performing an inspection of a facility for the purposes of determining if the facility 
conforms with the  importing Party's sanitary or phytosanitary requirements or with SPS 
requirements that the importing Party has determined to be equivalent to its SPS 
requirements." Prior consultation and cooperation between the involved authorities are 
foreseen. " 
 Is a f ormal notification to the Commission or Party to be audited required prior to 
carrying out the audit? Will outcomes of said audit be shared to other Parties as well?  
 
 See the response to question 1.11 above.  
 
1.69.   Paragraph 3.56: "Beyond encouraging cooperatio n among the Parties 
(Article  7.15), the Agreement establishes a bilateral mechanism of "cooperative technical 
consultations" (CTC, Article 7.17) under which a Party may request technical 
consultations on any matter under the SPS Chapter that it considers a s adversely affecting 
its trade if it deems that administrative procedures that the other Party's competent 
authority has available, or bilateral or other mechanisms, would not resolve the matter. 
Specific timeframes are associated with the CTC (normally 1 80 days from the request). 
Recourse to the Agreement's dispute settlement procedures can only be initiated if the 
CTC has been unsuccessful. " 
  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 23 - 
 
   Does the Agreement provide for a similar mechanism involving more than two 
parties (i.e. more than one complainant)?  
 
 Article 7.15 is not about disputes, so there is no concept of "complainant " in the Article.  The 
intention of Article 7.15 is to encourage cooperati on mechanisms between the Parties, including to  
explore opportunities for collaboration and information exchange, for example on trade facilitation 
and technical assistance, as outlined in Article 7.15.1.  Article 7.15.2 also provides a mechanism for 
multip arty collaboration to help eliminate unnecessary obstacles to trade between the Parties.  
 
1.70.   Paragraph 3.59: "An SPS Committee is established under Article 7.5. Also foreseen 
in the Chapter is the need to identify SPS -related competent authorities and to esta blish 
SPS contact points. Contact points have been notified for most if not all of the Chapters, 
some of which are generic virtual secretariat contact points. " 
 What will be the potential key considerations of the Parties in identifying SPS -
related compete nt authorities?  
 
 The intention of this article is for members to provide a road map of which of their Government 
Ministries/Agencies has responsibility for implementation of their sanitary and phytosanitary 
regulatory requirements impacting trade.  
 
 For example, in New  Zealand the Ministry of Primary Industries and Customs are responsible 
for biosecurity.  
 
Technical Barriers to Trade  
 
1.71.   Paragraph 3.61: "Certain provisions of the TBT Agreement are incorporated into the 
Agreement – namely Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.9 -2.12, 5.1 -5.9, as well as paragraphs D, 
E and F of Annex  3. In light of that, recourse to CPTPP dispute settlement provisions is 
prohibite d for disputes exclusively alleging violations of the incorporated TBT Agreement 
provisions. Further, the definitions in Annex  1 of the TBT Agreement are also incorporated 
into Chapter 8, mutatis mutandis. " 
What are the mechanisms in the CPTPP, if any, ava ilable for the Parties in case of 
concerns with regard to a Member's TBT measure?  
 
 CPTPP stipulates "Information Exchange and Technical Discussion" (Article 8.10), which 
includes commitments for the Parties to provide information when requested and to engage in 
technical discussions regarding any matter arising under Chapter 8, as well as to endeavour to 
resolve the matter as expeditiously as possible.  
 
Global Safeguards  
 
1.72.   Paragraph 3.76: "A Party taking a safeguard measure under the WTO may exclude 
impo rts of originating goods subject to a TRQ under the Agreement if such imports are 
not a cause of serious injury or threat thereof (paragraph 4 of Article 6.2). " 
 Were there instances where a Member of the CPTPP imposing safeguard measures 
excluded a develo ped country that is a Party to the agreement, and not on a non -CPTPP 
country? If yes, were issues from the non -CPTPP country on the basis of most favored 
nation (MFN) and how did the imposing Member resolve such issues?  
 
 Australia, New  Zealand , Singapore and Japan have not taken safeguard measures under 
Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement, since the entry into force of the CPTPP.  
 
 Canada has imposed one safeguard measure under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the 
Safeguards Agreement since the entry into force of the CPTPP, on certain steel products. Certain 
developing and developed countries were excluded from the application of the safeguard measure 
in accordance with the Safeguards Agreement and Canada’s obligations under various free -trade 
agreements.  
 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Bilateral Safeguards  
 
1.73.   "A Party may apply a transitional safeguard measure for a period that may not 
exceed two years; an extension of one year is possible if, in accordance with Art 6.5 
procedures, this is necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate 
adjustment. " 
 What will happen if the two years with extension of one year is not enough for a 
Party to prevent or remedy the serious injury to its domestic industry?  
 
 Article 6.4 (Standards for a Transitional Safeg uard Measure) paragraph 3 states that no Party 
shall maintain a transitional safeguard beyond the expiration of the transition period – in this case 
two years, with the optional extension of one year if the competent authority determines that the 
transitio nal safeguard measure continues to be necessary. Further, Paragraph 5 states that "on the 
termination of the transitional safeguard measure, the Party that applied the measure shall apply 
the rate of customs duty set out in their tariff schedule, as if tha t Party had never applied the 
transitional safeguard measure.  
 
Special Safeguards  
 
1.74.   Paragraph 3.87: "Safeguard measures take the form of an increase in tariffs to a 
level not exceeding the lesser of (a) the MFN tariff rate applied at the time of the 
applica tion of the SSG; (b) the MFN tariff applied on 29 December 2018; and (c) the tariff 
rate set out in the Appendix (which is periodically reduced). The Appendix also includes 
specific transparency measures applying to SSGs. " 
 Does the CPTPP have their own no tification and/or transparency mechanism when 
invoking SSG duties? If so, can further information be provided?  
 
 Article 2.26 states that the WTO Agricultural Special Safeguard (WTO SSG) will not be applied 
to originating goods between the CPTPP Parties, s o there is no need for a general CPTPP notification 
mechanism.  
 
Distinct from the WTO SSG, agricultural safeguard measures under the CPTPP, specific to 
Japan, are listed in Appendix B -1 of Annex 2 -D (Tariff Schedule of Japan).  Japan shall implement 
those measures in a transparent manner, including provision of notifications etc, as specified in 
paragraph 4, Section A, Appendix B -1 of Annex 2 -D.  
 
Subsidies and State -aid 
 
1.75.   Paragraph 3.100 -102: "The Agreement prohibits the use of export subsidies on 
agricultural goods (Article 2.21) (Section 3.5.1 of this Factual Presentation).  
Chapter 20 on Environment includes substantive obligations to prohibit subsidies for 
fishing that contribute to overfishing and overcapacity that negatively  affect fish stocks 
that are in an over -fished condition (Section 5.12 of this Factual Presentation).  
 
The Agreement has no further provisions on subsidies and State -aid." 
  
What is the Agreement's position on the use of export subsidies on non -agricultura l 
goods?  
 
 Chapter 6 (Article 6.8) of the Agreement reaffirms that both the rights and obligations of the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) apply under CPTPP.  The WTO SCM 
disciplines on export subsidies on non -agricultural goods also apply in the CPTPP.  The CPTPP also 
incorporates an explicit provision prohibiting the use of export subsidies on any agricultural good 
destined for the territory of another party (Article 2.21).  Subsequent to negotiation of these 
provisions, agreement  was reached at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015 to eliminate 
agricultural export subsidies.  
 
 
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Granting of preferential treatment  
 
1.76.   "The Agreement provides that an importer may make a claim for preferential tariff 
treatment based on a cer tificate of origin completed by either the exporter, producer or 
importer41 (Article 3.20). Mexico and Viet Nam have a grace period of five years with 
respect to the certification of origin by the importer. " 
 "Viet Nam and Mexico have a grace period of fiv e years with respect to the 
certification of origin by the importer " – does this mean that all CPTPP parties are required 
to put in place mechanisms to allow for self -certification by importers?  
 
 Yes. Article 3.20 of the Agreement indicates that, except a s otherwise provided in Annex 3 -A 
(related to certification required by an exporting Party), "each Party shall provide that an importer 
may make a claim for preferential tariff treatment, based on a certification of origin completed by 
the exporter, produc er or importer ". Footnote 3 to that article provides for a five year transition 
period for the implementation of this obligation for the two current Parties (Mexico and Viet Nam); 
as well as for signatories Brunei, Malaysia and Peru.  
 
Customs administration and trade facilitation  
 
1.77.   Paragraph 3.113 . "Chapter 5 has disciplines on customs administration and 
cooperation as well as trade facilitation. The provisions on the WTO Customs Valuation 
Agreement are reaffirmed. The Parties are to ensure that  their customs procedures are 
applies in a predictable, consistent, and transparent manner (Art 5.1). " 
 Are there any initiatives for the CPTPP members to have a single window platform 
for trade facilitation similar to ASEAN Single Window (ASW)?  
 
 There is no initiative or specific provision under the CPTPP for CPTPP members to 
develop/implement a single win dow platform which operates on a regional/international level (e.g. 
the ASEAN Single Window).  
 
 Notwithstanding, under Article 5.6 on Automation, there are provisions for Parties to work 
toward developing a set of common data elements that are drawn from t he World Customs 
Organization 's (WCO) Data Model and related WCO recommendations as well as guidelines to 
facilitate government -to-government electronic sharing of data for the purposes of analysing trade 
flows. In addition, under Article 5.6.2, Parties sh all also endeavour to provide a facility that allows 
importers and exporters to electronically complete standardised import and export requirements at 
a single entry point, similar to the way a National Single Window would function.  
 
Agriculture  
 
1.78.   Paragraph  3.119: "Section C of Chapter 2 is devoted to disciplines in the agricultural 
sector. In addition to prohibitions on export subsidies and special safeguards for Japan 
(see Sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.2.3.1 above), these include:  
a. a new set of transparency disciplines regarding export restrictions for food 
security consistent with Article 12.1 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture 
(Article 2.24); and  
b. transparency disciplines for trade in products of modern biotechnology 
(Article  2.27), in parti cular by establishing an information -sharing system on 
inadvertent "low level presence", within a shipment, of genetically -modified 
goods that is authorized for use in at least one country, but not in the importing 
country, which, if authorised for food us e, have undergone a Codex -compliant 
food safety assessment. The Parties' rights under the WTO Agreements are 
reaffirmed. " 
 Five countries in the CPTPP have SSG rights in the WTO; what is the rationale for 
Japan having specific SSG commitments? How about th e application of SSG in the case of 
the remaining four (4) countries with SSG rights?  
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 26 - 
 
   Article 2.26 of the CPTPP precludes Parties from applying the WTO Agricultural Special 
Safeguard (WTO SSG) to originating agricultural good from another CPTPP Party (i. e. goods that are 
traded preferentially under the CPTPP in accordance with its rules of origin and origin procedures).  
This applies to all CPTPP parties, including the five CPTPP Parties who have reserved the right to use 
WTO SSGs on specific agricultural products under Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.   
  
 This is distinct from Japan 's agricultural safeguard measures under the CPTPP, which are 
applicable to specific originating agricultural goods on which Japan has made market access 
commitmen ts in the CPTPP (Japan 's Appendix B -1 refers).   
 
 Note - the text of paragraph 3.119 of the Factual Presentation is not fully accurate and should 
be revised.  
 
Textiles and Apparel  
 
1.79.   Paragraph 3.123: "The Parties are required to establish monitoring programm es or 
practices to identify/address textiles and apparel customs offences (Article 4.5), 
including the accuracy of claims for preferential tariff treatment. These can include 
collecting/sharing information on textiles or apparel goods for use for risk mana gement 
purposes. The existence of bilateral monitoring mechanisms is also recognized. " 
 Does the CPTPP Agreement provide specific guidelines in establishing the Parties' 
monitoring programmes for textiles and apparel?  
 
 There are no specific guidelines est ablished under the Agreement in relation to the monitoring 
programmes or practices to be adopted by the Parties to identify and address textiles and apparel 
customs offences.  Article 4.5.3 does note, however, that some Parties have bilateral agreements 
that apply between them relevant to the requirements in Articles 4.5.1 and 4.5.2.  
 
1.80.   Paragraph 3.125: "A Committee on Textile and Apparel Trade Matters is established 
in Article 4.8, and  is responsible for considering any matter arising under the Chapter. " 
a. Under Art. 4.8, Committee on Textile and Apparel Trade Matters, how will the 
Committee lead be chosen?  
 The general practice the CPTPP has adopted in relation to the chairing of subsidiary 
committees is that the Party chairing the CPTPP Commission for that year will mostly also provide 
the chairs for the subsidiary committees.  There have been some instances, however, in which some 
limited ad hoc sharing has taken place in regard t o the chairing of subsidiary committees according 
to the capacities of different Parties.  
 
b. Under Art. 4.9 on Confidentiality, Each Party shall adopt or maintain procedures 
for protecting from unauthorized disclosure confidential information submitted 
in accordance with the administration of the Party's customs or other laws 
related to this Chapter, or collected in accordance with this Chapter, including 
information the disclosure of which could prejudice the competitive position of 
the person providing t he information. What are the sanctions provided to the 
erring party?  
 The commitments under Article 4.9 are that: each Party must protect the confidentiality of 
information collected in accordance with the chapter, including information provided by another  
Party (as per Art 4.9.2); and each Party must have laws, regulations or policies in place to prevent 
unauthorised disclosure of confidential  information collected in accordance with the chapter.  Further 
written assurances may be requested and under Articl e 4.9.3 a Party may decline to provide 
information requested by another Party if that Party has failed to act in conformity with the above 
commitments.   Any breach of such confidentiality or unauthorised disclosure of information would 
be pursued under the  relevant laws or regulations of the Party and through dispute settlement.  
 
Commercial presence  
 
1.81.   Paragraph 4.17: "Unless listed in their reservations, a Party cannot require a 
services supplier of another Party covered under Chapter 10 to establish or main tain a WT/REG395/2  
 
- 27 - 
 
  representative office or any form of enterprise, or to be resident in its territory as a 
condition for the cross -border supply of a service (Article 10.6). " 
 Given that trade in services was mentioned to be covered in Chapter 9, is there a 
similar p rovision that prevents a Party from establishing commercial presence under 
covered investments (i.e. mode 3)?  
 
 The CPTPP provisions under Article 10.6 (Local Presence) apply only to the modes of supply 
covered by the CBTS Chapter, as defined under Article 10.1 (Definitions) – namely modes 1, 2 and 
4. 
 Obligations that apply with respect to investors of another Party and covered investments, 
under Chapter 9 (Investment), would affect the supply of a service through a commercial presence 
(mode 3), to the extent that the definition of a covered investment is met.  
 
 See also the response to Question 1.82 below relating to the cross -application of Article 10.5 
(Market Access).  
 
Provisions on Trade in Services and Investment  
 
Liberalization Commitments  
 
1.82.   Paragraph 4.27: "Commitments on cross -border trade in services (Chapter 10) and 
investment (Chapter 9) are scheduled on a negative list basis so that obligations on (a) 
national treatment, (b) MFN treatment, (c) market access (Chapter 10 only), (d) local 
presence (Chapter 10 only), (e) performance requirements (Chapter 9 only) and (f) senior 
management and boards of directors (Chapter 9 only) apply to all services, unless 
specified otherwise in the Parties' existing and future non -conforming measures listed  in 
Annexes I and II, respectively. " 
1.83.   Paragraph 4.28: "For existing non -conforming measures listed in Annex I and 
Section A of Annex III, a standstill and a ratchet mechanism apply. Under the standstill 
mechanism, the Parties can maintain non ‑conforming mea sures that existed when the 
Agreement was signed, and which are listed in the Annex, but cannot increase their 
restrictiveness. Under the ratchet mechanism, any amendments that decrease the 
restrictiveness of a non -conforming measure, as it existed immedia tely before the 
amendment, are automatically incorporated into the Agreement. Viet Nam is allowed to 
not apply the ratchet mechanism for a period of three years from the date the Agreement 
entered into force. During this transition period (until January 20 22) Viet Nam can roll -
back to the situation existing when it entered the Agreement (Annexes 9 -I, 10 -C and 
11-C) so that any amendment decreasing the restrictiveness of a measure affecting cross -
border trade or investment does not need to be permanent excep t when a service supplier 
has already taken business related actions in that Party, for instance applying for permits 
or licences. Viet Nam shall notify to the other Parties any amendment that increases the 
restrictiveness of a non -conforming measure, as i t existed immediately before the 
amendment at least 90 days before making the change. In this regard, Viet Nam indicated 
that it has not used so far the roll -back mechanism. " 
a. Does the CPTPP Agreement provide for transitional periods on the application o f 
the ratchet mechanism, including for acceding parties?  
 See answer to question 1.3 above.  
 
b. Is there any mechanism adopted to monitor/review any developments in 
measures implemented by parties on cross border trade in services, particularly 
as it relates to the increase/decrease of the measure's restrictiveness?  
 The CPTPP Commission, established under Chapter 27 (Administrative and Institutional 
Provisions), shall consider any matter relating to the implementation or operation of this Agreement 
and is charged with undertaking a periodic general review of the Agreement under Article 27.2.1(b).   
 
1.84.   Paragraph 4.29: "In addition, five Parties - Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand 
and Viet Nam – have listed separately (as a reservation or Appendix) in Annex II market WT/REG395/2  
 
- 28 - 
 
  access improvements to their existing GATS schedules. At the same time they reserve the 
right to adopt or maintain any measure consistent with the obligations under GATS Article 
XVI, and so no more restrictive than these improvements. Such improvements provide 
therefore a new and lower "floor" among the Parties in terms of restrictiveness. " 
a. How are market access obligations treated vis-à-vis mode 3 given that: i) CBTS, 
as defined in Chapter 10 (Article 10.1), only covers GATS modes of sup ply 1,2 
and 4; and ii) it is stated that market access does not apply to covered 
investments in Chapter 9 (Investment)? Could this lack of obligation for mode 3 
be considered below existing commitments specifically under Article XVI of 
GATS?  
b. Given above mentioned clarification on the application of market access 
obligation to mode  3, may we also seek clarification on basis of Australia, 
Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and Viet Nam for listing under their respective 
Annex II market access improvements made for  mode 3 vis-à-vis commitments 
under Article XVI of GATS?  
 Article 10.2 (Scope), paragraph 2(a) cross -applies the Market Access obligation to "measures 
adopted or maintained by a Party affecting the supply of a service in its territory by a covered 
investm ent". 
 
 As noted above, the Market Access obligations under Chapter 10 are cross applied to mode 3 
supply of a service in a Party 's territory by a covered investment.  Section 4.4 of the WTO 
Secretariat 's Factual Presentation, including paragraphs 24.27 -4.37 and Table 4.3 contain a detailed 
comparison of CPTPP Parties commitments, including in respect of mode 3, in comparison to their 
commitments under the GATS.   
 
Domestic Regulation  
 
1.85.   Paragraph 4.38: "In addition to these GATS provisions, the Partie s agree that where 
authorisation is required for the supply of a service, they shall inform applicants of a 
decision within a reasonable period of time; establish an indicative timeframe for the 
processing of applications to the extent practicable; inform applicants of the reasons for 
rejection of an application; provide them with the opportunity to correct minor errors and 
omissions in the application; and accept copies of documents that are authenticated in 
place of original documents in accordance with t he Party's laws ." 
 How is "reasonable period of time" determined? How do the parties ensure that that 
this will not constitute a restriction in cross -border trade in services?  
 
 The term "reasonable period of time " is not defined in the CPTPP.  Reliance on the ordinary 
meaning of the term is longstanding, including through its inclusion in Article VI, paragraph 3 of the 
GATS.  
 
1.86.   Paragraph 4.40: "If the results of the negotiations under paragraph 4 of Article VI 
of the GATS, or of any similar negotiations under taken in other fora enter into effect, the 
Parties shall jointly review these results with a view to bringing them into effect, as 
appropriate, under the Agreement. " 
 Among the CPTPP signatories, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam 
are not m embers of the WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Services Domestic Regulations 
(JSI-SDR). As the only ongoing negotiations which seeks to establish disciplines in 
services domestic regulations, what will be the effect of concluding negotiations in the 
JSI-SDR in the CPTPP Agreement?  
 
 The WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation (WTO JSI), is a 
plurilateral initiative to establish new disciplines relating to licensing requirements and procedures, 
qualification requirements and procedures, and technical standards.  It is inclusive, transparent and 
open to all WTO Members to join.  The WTO JSI is an example of a negotiation of the type envisaged 
in Article 10.8.9, so its results would  be jointly reviewed by the CPTPP Parties pursuant to that 
Article.  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Recognition  
 
1.87.   Paragraph 4.44: "For engineering and architectural services, they recognize APEC's 
work in promoting mutual recognition of professional competence and mobility within the 
APEC region through the APEC Engineer and APEC  Architect frameworks, which includes 
the maintenance of an engineer and architect register by country. The Parties have agreed 
to encourage their relevant professional bodies to work towards becoming authorised to 
operate such registers and to enter into mutual recognition arrangements. " 
 Are there efforts from the Parties for mutual recognition arrangements on 
qualifications among other professions as well?  
 
 Through the Professional Services Working Group, which met twice in 2020 (in July and 
November), CPTPP Parties have begun a process, which includes the compilation of information on 
the regulatory systems for professions across CPTPP member economies, to promote the use of 
mutual recognition or similar arrangements to better facilitate the movement of  professional services 
providers.   
 
Safeguards  
 
1.88.   Paragraph 4.47: "The Agreement allows the Parties to maintain or adopt restrictive 
measures affecting trade in services, payments or transfers in the event of serious balance 
of payments or macroeconomic diff iculties or threats thereof. Such measures must be 
consistent with the Parties' national and MFN obligations under the Agreement, their 
commitments on expropriation and compensation (Article 9.8) and with IMF clauses 
(Article 29.3). Moreover, they must be temporary, progressively phased out and shall not 
exceed 18 months in duration, except in exceptional circumstances and subject to 
notification procedures and the Parties' agreement. In the case of restrictions on capital 
outflows, they shall not interfere  with investors' ability to earn a market rate of return in 
the territory of the restricting Party on any restricted assets; and not be used to avoid 
necessary macroeconomic adjustment (Article 29.3). Measures should be price -based. 
Should quantitative res trictions be used the Party shall explain the rationale. " 
 What circumstances are deemed exceptional that could warrant the extension of 
safeguards imposed by any Party?  
 
 The term 'exceptional circumstances ' is not defined within the Agreement.  As set out  in 
Article  29.3, section 3. (e), if the Party implementing the safeguard feels an extension is warranted, 
it would need to notify the other Parties in writing.  As circumstances could vary widely, the other 
Parties would need to assess the situation on a c ase-by-case basis.  If more than one half of the 
Parties do not agree that the extended safeguard satisfies the conditions set out in subparagraphs  3. 
(c), (d) and (h), it would need to be removed or modified.  
 
Current payments and capital movements  
 
1.89.   Paragraph 5.3: "With respect to cross -border trade in services, as well as with 
respect to investment, each Party shall permit all transfers relating to the cross -border 
supply of services and/or a covered investment to be made freely and without delay int o 
and out of its territory (Articles 10.12 and 9.9). " 
 Are there circumstances which may prevent or delay a transfer or payment with 
respect to CBTS and investment?  
 
 Article 9.9, paragraph 4, and 10.12, paragraph 3,  of the Agreement provide that a Party m ay 
prevent or delay a transfer related to a covered investment or to the cross -border supply of services , 
through the equitable, non -discriminatory and good faith application of its laws relating to a limited 
range of matters, including bankruptcy or the p rotection of the rights of creditors, criminal or penal 
offences, and financial reporting or record keeping to assist law enforcement (full list found in Articles 
9.9.4 and 10.12.3).  
 
 A footnote to Article 9.9.4 clarifies that, separately to this list, t he Agreement 's provisions on 
transfers related to a covered investment  or to the cross -border supply of services do not preclude WT/REG395/2  
 
- 30 - 
 
  the equitable, non -discriminatory and good faith application of a Party 's laws relating to its social 
security, public retireme nt or compulsory savings programmes.  
 
 Further, in certain circumstances and subject to conditions, a Party may also temporarily 
restrict of limit payments and transfers due to serious balance of payments and external financial 
difficulties or threats under Article 29.3 (Temporary Safeguard Measures).  
 
Accession and withdrawal  
 
1.90.   Paragraph 5.9: "Article 4 of the CPTPP addresses withdrawal by providing that 
withdrawal shall take effect six months after a party provides written notice of withdrawal 
unless the Parties agree on a different period. " 
a. Are there any criteria/conditions for the withdrawal? In particular, are there 
specific provisions on the "reasons" that the "withdrawing Party" must indicate? 
Or is it open to any reason for w ithdrawal (e.g. political)?  
 Combined with response below.  
b. Related to the first question, can Parties veto/reject the withdrawal?  
 Article 4 of the Agreement indicates that 'any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by 
providing written notice of withd rawal to the Depositary '. It does not stipulate the form or content 
of that written notice.  The article goes on to require a withdrawing Party to simultaneously notify 
the other Parties of its withdrawal, but does not refer to any specific role for other P arties in this 
process.  Paragraph 2 of the article provides for a withdrawal to take effect six months after a Party 
provides written notice, unless the Parties agree on a different period.  It also clarifies that if one 
Party withdraws, the Agreement shall  remain in force for the remaining Parties.  
 
c. If Parties withdraw from the Agreement , how will this affect existing pending 
disputes that have yet to be settled under the Dispute Settlement Mechanism? 
Is the withdrawing Party obliged to resolve/settle th e dispute first before it can 
withdraw from the Agreement? If not, how will this be settled outside of the 
Agreement?  
 The Agreement is silent on this issue. Under Article 4 of the Agreement regarding withdrawal, 
any withdrawal by a Party will not take eff ect until six months after the Party provides written notice 
to the Depositary of its intention to withdraw.  If a Party were to withdraw from the Agreement before 
a dispute was resolved, there is provision under Article 4.2 for the Parties to agree on a di fferent 
period for withdrawal.  
 
d. Can a Party that has successfully withdrawn from the Agreement, re -
apply/accede again to the Agreement? If yes, is there a certain period before it 
can re -apply/accede again?  
 The CPTPP has an open accession clause which states: "After the date of entry into force of 
this Agreement, any State or separate customs territory may accede to this Agreement, subject to 
such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the Parties and that State or separate customs 
territory. " Nothing in this clause precludes a Party that has previously withdrawn from the 
Agreement to apply to accede. Requests to accede to the agreement will be handled in the manner 
outlined in the CPTPP Accession Proce ss (Annex to Doc CPTPP/COM/2019/0002 of 19 January 2019.)   
 
General Provisions of the Agreement  
 
Dispute Settlement  
 
1.91.   Paragraph 5.13: "Disputes arising on the same matter under the Agreement and 
any other international agreement to which the disputing Parties are party, including the 
WTO Agreements, may be settled in either forum at the discretion of the complaining 
Party. Once the forum is selected, it shall be used to the exclusion of the other fora in 
respect of the matter under dispute (Ar ticle 28.4). " WT/REG395/2  
 
- 31 - 
 
   In case a complaining party initially decides to use the dispute settlement 
mechanism under the CPTPP but the following situations arise in the course of the dispute 
settlement: (i) the responding party fails to eliminate the measure at issu e; (ii) there is 
disagreement between the disputing Parties as to whether the responding Party has 
eliminated the non -conformity or the nullification or impairment; or (iii) the parties are 
unable to reach a mutually acceptable resolution, will the complai ning party be allowed 
to transfer the dispute under the WTO Dispute Settlement Body? If yes, what are the 
requirements to be complied with?  
 
 Article 28.4.2 provides that "once the complaining Party has requested the establishment of, 
or referred a matter to, a panel or other tribunal under an agreement referred to in paragraph 1, 
the forum selected shall be used to the exclusion of other fora." If a complaining Party selects the 
dispute settlement mechanism under the CPTPP, that Party must proceed with its  claim only under 
the CPTPP dispute settlement mechanism. If (i) the responding Party fails to eliminate the measure 
at issue; (ii) there is disagreement between the disputing Parties as to whether the non -conformity 
or nullification or impairment has been  eliminated; or (iii) the Parties are unable to reach a mutually 
acceptable solution, the complaining Party may avail itself of the temporary remedies, including 
suspension of benefits, pursuant to Article 28.20.  
 
1.92.   Paragraph 5.21: "Compensation, suspension  of benefits and the payment of a 
monetary assessment shall be temporary and not preferred to full implementation 
through elimination of the non -conformity or the nullification or impairment. Such 
measures shall only be applied until the responding Party h as eliminated the non -
conformity or the nullification or impairment, or until a mutually satisfactory solution is 
reached. " 
 If the responding party has yet to eliminate non -conforming measure, what are the 
mechanisms under CPTPP to encourage the party to conform aside from compensation 
and suspension of benefits?  
 
 In addition to compensation and suspension of benefits, Article 28.20 provides that the 
responding Party whose measure was found to be non -conforming may pay a monetary assessment 
in lieu of the suspension of benefits by a complaining Party for up to 12 months. This period of time 
can be extended with the agreement of the complaining Party. When the first quarterly instalment 
of the monetary assessment is due, the responding Party shall provide to the complaining Party a 
plan of the steps it intends to take to eliminate the non -conformity. Further, the disputing Parties 
may agree that the monetary assessment be paid into a fund designated by the disputing Parties 
and used for actions or i nitiatives to address the dispute.  
 
Government Procurement  
 
1.93.   Paragraph 5.38: "At the time the Agreement entered into force, four Parties 
(Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Singapore) were parties to the GPA. Australia became 
a party to the GPA at a later sta ge. These Parties maintain the same thresholds as under 
the GPA for all types of procuring entities as well as for procurement of construction 
services. " 
 Do the five (5) GPA Parties CPTPP Members have the same threshold, goods and 
services commitments und er the GPA? Are there also plans for the non -GPA Parties CPTPP 
Members to accede to the plurilateral agreement?  
 
 Australia, New  Zealand and Singapore have the same goods and services thresholds in SDR 
for Section A (Central Government Entities) and C (Oth er Entities).  Canada and Japan have different 
thresholds in SDR for Section B (Sub -Central Government entities), noting this Section does not 
apply to members without sub -central entities.  All five are the same as their thresholds under the 
GPA. 
 
 Mexico h as included GPA -based disciplines in its government procurement chapters of the Free 
Trade Agreements to which it is a Party. Mexico acknowledges the importance of adhering to the 
principles of non -discrimination, national treatment and transparency in the  access to its government 
procurement market.  
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 32 - 
 
   Currently, Viet Nam is studying and considering joining the GPA.  
 
Environment  
 
1.94.   Paragraph 5.77: "The Parties affirm their commitment to implement the multilateral 
environmental agreements to which they are a party (Article 20.4). With respect to the 
protection of the ozone layer, each Party shall take measures to control the production 
and consumption  of, and trade in, certain substances that can significantly deplete and 
otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that is likely to result in adverse effects on 
human health and the environment (Article 20.5). Additionally, each Party shall take 
measur es to prevent the pollution of the marine environment from ships in order to 
protect and preserve the marine environment (Article 20.6) ." 
 What quantitative/qualitative framework will the Parties utilize in determining the 
characteristics in environmental goods with respect to the protection of the ozone layer?  
 
 Under CPTPP Article 20.5 (Protection of the Ozone Layer), Parties commit to take measures 
to protect the ozone layer in accordance with relevant multilateral environmental agreements. This 
cooperation may include the exchange of information and experiences between Parties in areas 
related to environmentally friendly alternatives to ozone -depleting substances.  
 
1.95.   Paragraph 5.82: The Philippines would be interested in knowing whether Parties 
have raised any issues subject for consultations.  
 To date, no issues or requests for consultations under Article 20.20 have been raised by 
Parties.  
Labour  
 
1.96.   Paragraph 5.84: "Moreover, they agree not to fail to effectively enforce their labour 
laws after the date of entry into force of the Agreement (Article 19.5). " 
 What steps/recourse would be undertaken should a Party fail to comply with the 
enforcement of its labour laws after entry into force?  
 
 If a Party fails to comply with the enforcement of its l abour legal framework after the entry 
into force of the Agreement, there are several mechanisms provided under Chapter 19 to address 
specific concerns arising from this.  These include Article 19.9 Public Submissions, Article 19.11 
Cooperative Labour Dialog ue, Article 19.12 Labour Council and Article 19.15 Labour Consultations. 
As a last resort non -compliance with labour obligations could be addressed through the remedies 
prescribed in Article 28.20 of the Dispute Settlement Chapter.  Each mechanism provides for specific 
steps or actions to be taken.  
 
1.97.   Paragraph 5.85: "Each Party shall also establish or maintain, and consult with, a 
national labour consultative or advisory body or similar mechanism, for members of the 
public, including representatives of labour  and business organisations, to provide views 
on matters regarding Chapter 19 (Article 19.14). " 
 The Philippines would like to know whether Parties have to establish a consultative 
or advisory body specific only for this Agreement or if they are allowed to  use existing 
consultative or advisory bodies for this Agreement.  
 
See the  response to question 1.32 above.  
 
Electronic Commerce  
 
1.98.   Paragraph 5.90: "The Parties agree not to impose any customs duties on electronic 
transmissions, including content transmitted  electronically, between a person of one 
Party and a person of another Party (Article 14.3). A Party shall nevertheless not be 
precluded from imposing internal taxes, fees or other charges on content transmitted 
electronically in a manner that is consisten t with the Agreement. " WT/REG395/2  
 
- 33 - 
 
   Will the decision to not impose any customs duties on electronic transmissions be 
dependent on the WTO General Council's future decisions?  
 
 No. Article 14.3 makes permanent between CPTPP Parties the prohibition on the imposition of 
customs duties on electronic transmissions.  In doing so, it builds on the WTO moratorium on the 
imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions that has been in place now for 23 years 
(since 1998).  
 
1.99.   Paragraph 5.94: "The Parties agree to allow the cross -border transfer of 
information by electronic means when it is for the conduct of business of a covered person, 
though this does not prevent measures inconsistent with this achieve a legitimate public 
policy objective, consi stent with certain conditions (Article 14.11). The Parties also agree 
not to require a covered person to use or locate computing facilities in that Party's 
territory as a condition for conducting business in that territory, though this does not 
prevent mea sures inconsistent with this to achieve a legitimate public policy objective, 
consistent with certain conditions (Article 14.13) . Each Party shall also adopt or maintain 
measures regarding certain forms of unsolicited commercial electronic messages (Articl e 
14.14). " 
 Given the understanding that each government will have its own regulatory 
requirements for the transfer of information, how can the seamless and interoperable 
transfer of data be ensured, particularly from business to business across the TPP 
markets?  
 
 The purpose of Article 14.11 is to ensure that no undue impediments are put in the way of 
the cross -border transfer of information by electronic means when this is being undertaken for the 
conduct of the business of a service supplier, investor or  investment covered under the Agreement 
(as defined in Article 14.1).  At the same time, the Article recognises that each Party may have its 
own regulatory requirements concerning the transfer of information by electronic means (Article 
14.11.1).  Nor does i t prevent a Party from adopting or maintaining measures inconsistent with Article 
14.11.2 to achieve a legitimate public policy objective, provided the conditions set out in Article 
14.11.3 are fulfilled.  
 
1.100.   Paragraph 5.97: "With respect to existing measures  and during a transitional 
period of 2 years after the entry into force of the Agreement for it, Viet Nam shall not be 
subject to dispute settlement under Chapter 28 regarding its obligations on the 
non-discriminatory treatment of digital products, cross -border transfer of information by 
electronic means and the location of computing facilities. " 
 Will the same grace period be accorded to future members? The Philippines would 
like to inquire whether this is a fixed period or is contingent on the respective country's 
progress in updating its legal framework in pursuant to CPTPP commitments. Further, the 
Philippines would like to ask whether any assistance will be granted to aid the future 
members' in the transition period.  
 
 See answer to question 1.3 above.  
 
Small and Medium -sized Enterprises (SMEs)  
 
1.101.   Paragraph 5.98: "A Committee on SMEs is established (Article 24.2) to, inter alia , 
identify ways to assist SMEs of the Parties to take advantage of the commercial 
opportunities under the Agreement and to exchange and discuss each Party's experiences 
and best practices in supporting and assisting SME exporters. " 
a. Given that there is no unified definition of an SME in the parties involved, how 
will the Committee resolve this?  
 Although there is no unified definition of SMEs among the Parties, so far this has not proved 
a problem.  It has not been necessary to define the term in implementing the Chapter 's provisions 
or undertaking the work of the Committee as outlined in Article 24.2.  
 WT/REG395/2  
 
- 34 - 
 
  b. On information shari ng (Art. 24.1), will there be a single trade repository 
containing all MSME -related information among the CPTPP Members? How will 
the repository be maintained? How regular will the information be updated?  
 Under Article 24.1, each Party is to establish or  maintain its own publicly accessible website 
containing information regarding the CPTPP, including information designed for SMEs.  There is no 
requirement to maintain a single repository of SME -related information, but Article 24.2 also 
provides for each Party to  include in its website links to the equivalent websites of the other Parties, 
so that this broader information about matters of interest to SMEs in other Parties is available 
through this means.  In addition, each Party is to regularly review and update the information and 
links on its website operated pursuant to Article 24.1.  
 
Cooperation and capacity building  
 
1.102.   Paragraph 5.101: "Each Party shall designate and notify a contact point on matters 
relating to the coordination of cooperation and ca pacity building activities. The Agreement 
also establishes a Committee on Cooperation and Capacity Building to, inter  alia, facilitate 
the exchange of information between the Parties and discuss and consider issues or 
proposals for future cooperation and c apacity building activities. The Parties shall work 
to provide the appropriate financial or in -kind resources for cooperation and capacity 
building activities under Chapter 21, subject to the availability of resources and the 
comparative capabilities. " 
 The Philippines would be interested in knowing if the Parties could share their 
experience in implementing this provision. Have the Parties pursued cooperation and 
capacity building under the Agreement and, if so, are these limited only to Parties for 
which the Agreement has entered into force?  
 
 This chapter seeks to promote cooperation and capacity building activities to assist in 
implementing the Agreement and enhancing its benefits.  Under the Chapter the Parties have 
established contact points for matters concerning cooperation and capacity building activities (Article 
21.3 refers) and have convened the  Committee on Cooperation and Capacity Building to facilitate 
the exchange of information and coordinate the work of cooperation between the Parties.  The 
Committee, established under Article 21.4, has met annually since 2019.   
 
The initial focus of the Committee has been on:  
 
 exchange of information and experience in undertaking cooperation and capacity building 
activities;  
 identifying technical assistance available through seminars and workshops, and the 
exchange of experts; and  
 information on best practices in policies and procedures to implement cooperation and 
capacity building.  
 All CPTPP members have participated in the meetings of  the Committee, including those 
signatories still to ratify the Agreement.  
 
QUESTIONS REGARDING APPENDI X 7 – VIET NAM   
 
1.103.   Paragraph 3.4: "Under its reservations on future measures Viet Nam reserves (like 
Canada and Mexico) the right to adopt or maintain any measure conferring rights or 
privileges to socially, economically and geographically disadvantaged minorities and 
ethnic groups. It reserves the right to limit the transfer or disposal of interests in existing 
State enterprises to nationals of Viet Nam (si milar to Australia, New Zealand and Japan); 
to limit the level of equity purchased on the Vietnamese stock exchange by foreign 
investors in accordance with limits set in Annexes I and II; to adopt or maintain any 
measure on land ownership; regarding assist ance to SMEs; and with respect to the 
establishment and operation of various cooperatives. " WT/REG395/2  
 
- 35 - 
 
   How does the obligations under Annex 10 -C (Non -Conforming Measures Ratchet 
Mechanism) and Annex 9 -I (Non -Conforming Measures Ratchet Mechanism) in the 
Chapters on Cross -Border Trade in Services and Investment affect effectivity of Viet Nam's 
reservations on future measures?  
 
 Chapter 9 (Investment) and Chapter 10 (Cross -border Trade in Services) in the CPTPP apply 
a standstill and ratchet mechanism. However, a ratch et mechanism applies only to existing  non-
conforming measures listed in Annex I for all CPTPP Parties, including Viet Nam. Under the ratchet 
mechanism, any amendments that decrease the restrictiveness of a non -conforming measure, as it 
existed immediately before the amendment, are automatically incorporated into the Agreement.  
 
 Particularly, Viet Nam will not be subject to the ratchet mechanism for a period of three years 
from the date the Agreement entered into force in accordance with the provisions und er Annex 10 -
C (Non -Conforming Measures Ratchet Mechanism) and Annex 9 -I (Non -Conforming Measures 
Ratchet Mechanism).  During this transition period (until January 2022) Viet Nam can roll -back to 
the situation existing when it entered the Agreement (Annexes 9-I, 10-C and 11 -C), so that any 
amendment decreasing the restrictiveness of a measure affecting cross -border trade in services or 
investment does not need to be permanent - except when a service supplier has already taken 
business related actions in that Party, for instance applying for permits or licences. Viet Nam shall 
notify the other Parties of any amendment that increases the restrictiveness of a non -conforming 
measure, as it existed immediately before the amendment, at least 90 days before making th e 
change. In this regard, Viet Nam would like to indicate that it has not used the roll -back mechanism 
to date.  
 
Under Article 9.12.2 and Article 10.7.2, the ratchet mechanism does not apply to any measure, 
including future ones, that Viet Nam adopts or ma intains with respect to sectors, subsectors or 
activities set out by Viet Nam in its Schedule to Annex II.  
 
Questions from the delegation of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen, and Matsu  
 
Trade Environment  
 
Merchandise trade  
 
1.104.   Paragraph s 1.3 and  1.4: There are 4 CPTPP signatories that are yet to ratify the 
agreement.  
1.105.   As reflected in Chart 1.3, we noticed that the share of trade between CPTPP 
members is very small vis-à-vis the rest of the world before the CPTPP came into force, 
despite the existence of overlapping RTAs.  
a. When do you anticipate that the 4 signatories will complete their ratifications? 
What are the possible impacts on the CPTPP members, regional trade, and these 
4 signatories if the agreement is not ratified by t hem?  
 All four signatories have continued to provide updates on progress with their ratification 
processes and have indicated they are working to complete their applicable domestic procedures to 
enable ratification.  None have yet been in a position to indi cate a specific date of expected 
completion.  
 
 The four signatories have remained closely engaged with the work of the CPTPP and have 
regularly kept other CPTPP members informed of progress in their domestic procedures to enable 
ratification.  In the case of formal decisions taken under the Agreement, Article 27.3 makes clear 
that these are taken by those that have ratified the Agreement and brought it into force, and are 
full Parties to the CPTPP.  Over time, the Parties expect this to include t he remaining four signatories, 
as they work to complete their domestic processes to enable ratification.  
 
b. How much has intra -CPTPP trade grown since the CPTPP came into effect? What 
plans are there to facilitate intra -CPTPP trade in the future?  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 36 - 
 
   The CPT PP entered into force for six Parties from 30 December 2018 and for a seventh Party 
from 14 January 2019.  As a result, available trade and investment data is still limited. Given this, 
it is not possible and would not be appropriate to try to discern any i dentifiable trends from such 
limited data, particularly at this early stage in the implementation of the Agreement.  
 
Provisions on Trade in Goods  
 
Regulatory provisions on trade in goods   
 
Standards  
 
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
 
1.106.   Paragraph  3.52: "Article 7.10 – "Audits" – is a novel provision compared to the 
SPS Agreement. It authorizes a Party to audit the exporting Party's competent authorities 
and associated or designated inspection systems in order to determine the Party's ability 
to provide re quired assurances and meet the SPS. " 
We would like the Parties to explain from their experience how the audits are carried 
out in practice.  
 
 Same response as to question 1.11 above.   
 
Provisions on Trade in Services and Investment  
 
Regulatory provisions  
 
Domestic regulation  
 
1.107.   Paragraph  4.40: "If the results of the negotiations under paragraph 4 of Article VI 
of the GATS, or of any similar negotiations undertaken in other fora enter into effect, the 
Parties shall jointly review these results with  a view to bringing them into effect, as 
appropriate, under the Agreement. " 
a. Is the "WTO Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation (DR JSI)" included 
in any negotiations referred to in this paragraph?  
b. If the DR JSI is concluded, how will the CP TPP members bring it into effect?  
 Same response as for question 1.86 above.  
 
General Provisions of the Agreement  
 
State -owned enterprises  
 
1.108.   Paragraph 5.73: "Transparency disciplines in Article 17.10 with respect to, for 
example, the provision, including through official websites, of a list of state -owned 
enterprises. " 
 Are these websites already in operation and can they be accessed by non -members?  
 
Japan 's list is on the following:  https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/ecm/ep/page24_000968.html  
 
Information regarding Australia can be found on:  
https://www.finance.gov.au/government/govern ment-business-enterprises  
 
Information regarding New  Zealand can be found on:  
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information -and-services/commercial -portfolio -and-
advice/commercial -portfolio   
 
 Canada notes that each Party is to provide to the other Parties or otherw ise make publicly 
available a list of its State -Owned  Enterprises.  Canada has provided such a notification.  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 37 - 
 
  1.109.   Paragraph 5.75: "The Agreement establishes a committee on State -owned 
Enterprises and Designated Monopolies to, inter alia , review and consider the operation 
and implementation of Chapter 17. " 
According to Article 17.12 of this Agreement, the Committee on State -Owned 
Enterprises and Designated Monopolies shall meet within one year after the date of entry 
into force of this Agreement, and at least annually thereafter, unless the Parties agree 
otherwise. In meetings of the Committee thus far, what have been the main issues 
discussed by the Parties? How has the implementation of this Chapter gone?  
 The Committee on State -Owned Enterprises an d Designated Monopolies has met annually 
since 2019, pursuant to Article 17.12, to discuss issues including the operation and implementation 
of the Chapter.   
 
Labour  
 
1.110.   Paragraphs 5.84 and 5.87:  
a. Paragraph 5.84: "The Agreement also contains provisions on forced or 
compulsory labour. " 
b. Paragraph 5.87: "The Agreement establishes a Labour Council to consider 
matters related to Chapter 19. " 
 According to Article 19.6 of this Agreement, "Taking into consideration that the 
Parties have assumed obligations in this regard under Article 19.3 (Labour Rights), each 
Party shall also discourage, through initiatives it considers appropriate, the importation 
of goods from other sources produced in whole or in part by forced or compulsory labour, 
includin g forced or compulsory child labour." Has the Labour Council discussed matters 
related to discouraging the importation of goods from sources by forced or compulsory 
labour?  
 In accordance with Article 19.12, the Labour Council may discuss any issue related  to the 
implementation of the Labour Chapter.  
 
 In the last Labour Council meeting, held on March 2021, the Parties agreed to work in four 
priority areas.  This included sharing updates and exchanging information relating to the promotion 
of ethical and sustainable supply chains.  
Small and Medium -sized Enterprises (SMEs ) 
 
1.111.   Paragraph 5.98: "Chapter 24 addresses Small and Medium -sized Enterprises 
(SMEs). Each Party commits to establish or maintain its own publicly accessible website 
containing information re garding the Agreement. A Committee on SMEs is established 
(Article 24.2) to, inter alia , identify ways to assist SMEs of the Parties to take advantage 
of the commercial opportunities under the Agreement and to exchange and discuss each 
Party's experiences and best practices in supporting and assisting SME exporters. " 
 According to Article 24.2 of this Agreement, the Committee on SMEs shall meet 
within one year of the date of entry into force of this Agreement, and thereafter as 
necessary. In meetings of the Committee thus far, what have been the main issues 
discussed by  the Parties? How has the implementation of this Chapter gone?  
 
 Same answer as question 1.36 above.  
 
Competitive and business facilitation  
 
1.112.   Paragraphs under 5.16.2 : "Chapter 22 on competitiveness and business 
facilitation establishes a Committee on Compe titiveness and Business Facilitation (CCBF)  
….The CCBF shall also explore ways in which the Agreement may be implemented so as 
to promote the development and strengthening of supply chains in order to integrate WT/REG395/2  
 
- 38 - 
 
  production, facilitate trade and reduce the c osts of doing business within the free trade 
area. It may develop recommendations and explore best practices. " 
 Global supply chains are facing pressure to reform structurally due to pressing needs 
to enhance resilience, levels of security and other consid erations. What roles does the 
CPTPP expect to play in light of such new dynamics? How can the CPTPP work with non -
members to address the aforementioned challenges of structural reforms?  
 
 Recognizing the importance of developing and strengthening supply ch ains, the Committee on 
Competitiveness and Business Facilitation (CBF) has met annually since the CPTPP 's entry into force 
to discuss ongoing work to establish and strengthen regional connectivity. To further this objective, 
Members have also conducted act ivities, including a virtual workshop which discussed, inter alia, 
topics on the involvement of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as well as supply chain 
vulnerabilities and resilience. Members will commence a review of how the CPTPP has facilitated the  
development, strengthening and operation of supply chains in the fourth year of the Agreement 's 
entry into force. A report will be submitted to the Commission subsequently with findings and 
recommendations by the Committee.  
 
 As part of efforts to make global supply chains more resilient, Members welcome initiatives to 
promote exchanges of views among experts to discuss ways to achieve this goal.  
 
Cooperation and capacity building  
 
Development  
 
1.113.   Paragraphs under 5.16.1  and 5.16.3 3.21.3: Paragraph 5.16.1: "Chapter 21 covers 
cooperation and capacity building….for the promotion of education, culture… and disaster  
risk management. The Agreement…facilitate the exchange of information between the 
Parties…The Parties shall work to provide the appropriate financial or in -kind resources 
for cooperation and capacity building activities. " 
1.114.   Paragraph 5.16.3 : "Chapter 23 encourages the Parties to cooperate…to take 
measures, including cooperative activities, aiming at enhancing broad -based economic 
growth……and promo ting the development of education, science and technology, research 
and innovation. It also lists areas for possible joint development activities. " 
 What kinds of development and capacity building cooperation did the Parties 
undertake in the past or do they  plan to undertake in the future?  
 The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu has long 
been dedicated to providing capacity building assistance to countries in need and 
hopes to cooperate with the Parties on this. Can the Parties pr ovide some 
suggestions on carrying out such cooperation?  
 See answer to question 1 .102 above.  
 
APPENDIX 1 AUSTRALIA  
 
Liberalization of Trade in Services  
 
Sector -specific commitments  
 
Recreational, cultural and sporting services  
 
Table 3.1 : Australia and paragraph 1.21  
 
1.115.   Table 3.1 Australia: comparison between the GATS and Agreement of sector -
specific commitments (modes 1 -3 only) / 10. Recreational and cultural and sporting 
services/ C. Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services : In accordance with 
the General Agreement on Trade in Services, Australia has not made any commitment to 
open libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services in the World Trade WT/REG395/2  
 
- 39 - 
 
  Organization. Table 3.1 presents Australia's commitment in the CPTPP to fully open up 
libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services.  
Paragraph 1.21 : "According to the authorities, Australia made full commitments in 
libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services. " 
 
 According to item 10 of ANNEX II SCHED ULE OF AUSTRALIA of CPTPP (see page 12), 
Australia reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measures for all regulations on 
cross -border trade and investment in creative arts, indigenous traditional cultural 
expressions and other cultural heritage. Cult ural heritage has also been clearly defined, 
namely ethnological, archaeological, historical, literary, artistic, scientific or technological 
moveable or built heritage, including the collections which are documented, preserved 
and exhibited by museums, ga lleries, libraries, archives and other heritage collecting 
institutions. Based on our interpretation, Australia has not further opened up libraries, 
archives, museums and other cultural services. However, page 11 (Table 3.1) and page  13 
(3.2.10 Recreational, cultural and sporting services) of WT/REG395/1/Add.1 indicate 
that Australia has committed to the CPTPP to fully open up libraries, archives, museums 
and other cultural services. This is different from our interpretation. How should we 
inter pret this?  
 Australia appreciates the questioner identifying an error in the summary at Table 3.1 of the 
Factual Presentation.  
 
 Australia 's level of commitment across these sectors is outlined in paragraph 3.21 under the 
heading Recreational, Cultural an d Sporting Services:  
 
 "In recreational, cultural and sporting services Australia expanded sectoral coverage, which 
under the GATS is limited to news agencies, sporting services and certain recreational services, and 
made commitments in all subsectors but not without limitations. It reserves the right to adopt or 
maintain any measure with respect to gambling, betting, creative arts (except for live 
performances), indigenous traditional cultural expressions and other cultural heritage activities. For 
live pe rformances, such right covers only measures with respect to subsidies or grants for 
investment in Australian cultural activity. According to the authorities, Australia made full 
commitments in libraries, archives, museums and other cultural services. " 
 
Questions from the delegation of Thailand1 
 
Liberalization of trade and tariff lines  
 
1.116.   Paragraph 3.18: "The CPTPP provides for a catch -up mechanism for "late -comers" 
– i.e. implementing at once all tariff cuts already in force for other Parties. Viet Nam 
applied the catch -up mechanism to all the Parties except with Mexico, granting two cuts 
in its tariff in January 2019 and thus synchronizing its liberalization with that of other 
Parties. Given that Mexico and Viet Nam have opted out of the catch -up mechan ism in 
their bilateral trade, their bilateral concessions are a year behind all the others. " 
 Referring to Paragraph 3.18 : The CPTPP provides for a catch -up mechanism for 
"late -comers" after the agreement has been in force for other Parties. It means that "late -
comers" have to implement all tariff cuts that specified in Annex 2-D: Tariff Commitments 
to other Parties. In this regard, Viet Nam, as the late -comer, has to apply the catch -up 
mechanism to all the Original Parties by granting tariff cut and elimin ation for 20 years 
(during 2019  – 2038) starting from January 2019 to the 6 Original Parties except with 
Mexico. Given that Viet Nam will grant tariff cut and elimination for 21 years (during 2019  
– 2039) starting from January 2019 to Mexico as specified i n Viet Nam 's Tariff 
Commitments.  It would be appreciated to explain:  
 
a. How does the catch -up mechanism apply to parties and non CPTPP parties that 
joined the agreement later on? For example, the starting and ending of transition 
period?  
 
1 Questions were submitted to the Parties on 7 May 2021 (six weeks, 3 days before the meeting).  WT/REG395/2  
 
- 40 - 
 
  Combined with the answer below.  
b. Does the catch -up mechanism only apply for "late -comers"?  
 Same response as to the second part of question 1.53 above.  
 
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
 
1.117.   Paragraph 3.50: "Regarding equivalence (Article 7.8), the "Parties shall apply 
equivalence to a group of measures or on a systems -wide basis, to the extent feasible and 
appropriate". Singapore has evaluated the SPS measures of other CPTPP Parties including 
Australia, Canad a, Japan, Mexico and New Zealand, and has authorised the import of 
various food products following satisfactory evaluation. As of February 2021, Mexico was 
yet to apply equivalence to a group of measures or on a system -wide basis. Procedures 
for performing  equivalence assessments and determinations are also specified. An 
importing Party is required to recognise equivalence to an exporting Party's SPS measure 
if the exporting Party can objectively demonstrate that, in relation to the importing Party's 
measur e, its measure either achieves the same level of protection or has the same effect 
in achieving the objective. In the latter case, however, dispute settlement cannot be 
invoked. " 
a. Could the Parties elaborate how they use the guidelines established by rel evant 
international organizations, and whether they would be applying these 
guidelines in a manner that does not discriminate against other trading partners?  
 Combined with the answer below.  
 
b. Could the Parties  confirm whether these guidelines are only a pplied in the 
context of this FTA, or whether they are generally applied with respect to all 
trade? If the former, please explain the rationale.  
 Article 7.8 is consistent with the obligations contained within the WTO SPS Agreement and 
provides some succin ct pragmatic process steps for the parties to follow.  These process steps are 
consistent with the WTO SPS Committee 's decision (G/SPS/19) on the implementation of Article 4 
of the WTO SPS Agreement. The guidelines established by the relevant international standard setting 
bodies provide useful guidance for how each of the steps outlined in this article may be implemented.  
The obligations outlined in this Article are consistent both with the WTO SPS Agreement and the 
other relevant international standards.  As such there is unlikely to be any inconsistency with the 
way this article is applied in respect of requests by CPTPP members or requests from any other WTO 
member.   
 
__________  