Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement For Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (Goods and Services)

WT/REG395/2
16 June 2021
(21-4946) Page: 1/41
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 original
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 Agreement 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 measures
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 derogation 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 Canada-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 CPTPP, 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. As 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 Commission 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 or 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 obligations 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 required 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 investment.
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 which 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 (Articles 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 suspended. 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
WT/REG395/2
-3-
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 Party's domestic law.
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 definition 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 environmental 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.
Could 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 mentioned 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 authorities 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 international 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. Canada 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 necessary
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 this 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 evaluation.
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
members.
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,
WT/REG395/2
-5-
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.
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 principally 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 purposes", 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 supplier 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 considered 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 financial 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 Chapter 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 competition 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 obligations 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.
WT/REG395/2
-6-
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.
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 insurance 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 commitments 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 inconsistent 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-conforming 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 "applicable 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.

WT/REG395/2
-7-
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.
1.23. How to understand and identify "reasonable network management" under the

background of existing differences in the regulatory systems of Members?
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 or 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 public 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:
a. not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustified

discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade (Articles 14.11.3(a) and 14.13.3(a);
and
b. 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
supply 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 the 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 the 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 ordinary 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 relating 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).
WT/REG395/2
-8-
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".
"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 treatment 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 applying 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 force 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 monopoly 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
enterprise that is owned, or controlled through ownership interests, by a Party" (Article 1.3 refers).
WT/REG395/2
-9-
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.
Chapter 19 Labour
Article 19.4 Non Derogation
1.31. According to this article, 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 relevant 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
regulations 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, provided 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 aim 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 enable 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 customs 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 conditions 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 Accession
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 goods, services, investment, financial
services, government procurement, State-owned enterprises and temporary entry for business
WT/REG395/2
- 10 -
persons. It also recalls the CPTPP objective of comprehensive market access commitments through
the elimination of tariffs and other 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
subsidies provided to vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)
fishing. Could 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 WTO'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 that 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 originating.
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.
WT/REG395/2
- 11 -
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:
a. implementation of the provisions on SMEs, including information exchange to assist
Parties with tracking implementation;
b. ways to assist SME understanding of the benefits of the CPTPP and how to take
advantage of the opportunities under the Agreement, with a view to promoting their
increased participation in global value chains;
c. exchanging information on the Party's experiences and success in supporting SMEs to

engage in trade and investment opportunities; and
d. 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 coordinating 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), Article 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 tortoises 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 chapters 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 practice 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.
WT/REG395/2
- 12 -
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 work 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.
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
cooperation 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, climate 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 China; 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, intellectual property and pharmaceuticals.
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 out 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 regulatory
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 harmonizing standards or technical regulations for the
WT/REG395/2
- 13 -
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 products 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
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 indicates 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 ongoing 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 concluding 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 delegation 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?
WT/REG395/2
- 14 -
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-conforming with the Market Access discipline
to the extent that they:
a. 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 total value of service transactions or assets in the form of numerical quotas or
the requirement of an economic needs test;
iii. the total number of service operations or the total quantity of service output
expressed in terms of designated numerical units in the form 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
b. 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 commitments 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 committed 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 in 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
public purpose.
These services cut across sectors where Australia included commitments under GATS,
including environmental services and human related and social services.
WT/REG395/2
- 15 -
For Mexico
Mexico would like to highlight that its commitments are broader than GATS 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 indicates 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.
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 described 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 services
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 been 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 and 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

WT/REG395/2
- 16 -
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 negotiation and signing. Therefore, Viet Nam's commitments under the
CPTPP and the EVFTA are different.
WT/REG395/2
- 17 -
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.
These RTAs are not included in Table 1.1 because they do not change the preferential
relationship between Singapore 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 undefined
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 Party,
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
version 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?
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?
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
- 18 -
Are new entrants allowed to make use of side instruments as a form of flexibility?
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 the 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 specific 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 also 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 tariff-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 summarizes 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 party?
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 approach 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 others."
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
- 19 -
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 for 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 preferential 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 also 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 pertains 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.
The liberalization reflected in the table only includes tariff 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 (which 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 unilateral acceleration of tariff commitments?
The "upon request" rendez-vous clause referred to in paragraph 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 Schedule
WT/REG395/2
- 20 -
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 half of the
Parties 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 lines
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 economies 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 commitments 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 the 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 determination 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 demonstrate 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 substantial 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:

WT/REG395/2
- 21 -
i. the build-down method is based on the value of non-originating materials

used in production;
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 details 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 methodologies 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 requiring 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 thresholds 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 originating 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 specifying 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 the 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 provides the tolerance rule for
textile and apparel goods, see paragraph 3.41. below."
WT/REG395/2
- 22 -
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 from 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 short 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 listed 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 under 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 clarification 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 for a certain amount of goods. The difference is that the
tariff preference limit is associated with origin issues.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures

WT/REG395/2
- 23 -
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
partnership among the Parties (Article 27.2), the CPTPP Commission is to review this
authorization by the end of 2021 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 adopting 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 notes. 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 export
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 reaffirming 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 another
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 work
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 required 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 formal 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?
1.69. Paragraph 3.56: "Beyond encouraging cooperation 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 as 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 180 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
- 24 -
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 cooperation 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
multiparty 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
establish 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 competent 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 prohibited 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, available 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
imports 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 developed 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
- 25 -
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 Safeguard 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 transitional 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 that 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
application 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 notification 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, so 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-

agricultural 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
- 26 -
Granting of preferential treatment
1.76. "The Agreement provides that an importer may make a claim for preferential
tariff treatment based on a certificate 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 five 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 as 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, producer 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 window 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 the 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 shall 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 particular 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 use, 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 the application of SSG in the case
of the remaining four (4) countries with SSG rights?
WT/REG395/2
- 27 -
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
commitments 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 programmes

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 management
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 established 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 to 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 the 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 Article 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.
WT/REG395/2
- 28 -
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 maintain a
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 provision 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 measures 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 immediately 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 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 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 to the other Parties any
amendment that increases the restrictiveness of a non-conforming measure, as it
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
of the ratchet mechanism, including for acceding parties?
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
WT/REG395/2
- 29 -
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 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 supply 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 abovementioned 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 investment".
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 Parties 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 the 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 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."
Among the CPTPP signatories, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore and

Vietnam are not members 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?
WT/REG395/2
- 30 -
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.
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 difficulties 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 restrictions 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 case-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 into
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?
WT/REG395/2
- 31 -
Article 9.9, paragraph 4, and 10.12, paragraph 3, of the Agreement provide that a Party
may 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 protection 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, the Agreement's provisions on
transfers related to a covered investment or to the cross-border supply of services do not preclude
the equitable, non-discriminatory and good faith application of a Party's laws relating to its social
security, public retirement 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 withdrawal (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 withdrawal 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 Parties 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 the 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 effect 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 different 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 Process (Annex to Doc CPTPP/COM/2019/0002 of 19
January 2019.)
WT/REG395/2
- 32 -
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 (Article 28.4)."
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 issue; (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 complaining 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 has 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 initiatives 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 stage. 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 under the GPA? Are there also plans for the non-GPA Parties
CPTPP Members to accede to the plurilateral agreement?
WT/REG395/2
- 33 -
Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have the same goods and services thresholds in SDR
for Section A (Central Government Entities) and C (Other 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 has 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.
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 measures 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 labour 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 Dialogue, 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)."
WT/REG395/2
- 34 -
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.
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 consistent with the Agreement."
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, consistent 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 measures 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 (Article 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 it 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.
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)

WT/REG395/2
- 35 -
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.
b. On information sharing (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 capacity 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 capacity 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:
a. exchange of information and experience in undertaking cooperation and capacity

building activities;
b. identifying technical assistance available through seminars and workshops, and the
exchange of experts; and
c. 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.
WT/REG395/2
- 36 -
QUESTIONS REGARDING APPENDIX 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 (similar 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 assistance to SMEs; and with respect to the
establishment and operation of various cooperatives."
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 ratchet 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 under
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 the 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 maintains 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. Paragraphs 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 them?
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
WT/REG395/2
- 37 -
enable ratification. None have yet been in a position to indicate 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 the 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?
The CPTPP 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 identifiable 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
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 required 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 CPTPP members bring it into effect?
Same response as for question 1.86 above.
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."
WT/REG395/2
- 38 -
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/government-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 otherwise make publicly
available a list of its State-Owned Enterprises. Canada has provided such a notification.
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 and 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, including 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 regarding 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."
WT/REG395/2
- 39 -
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 Competitiveness 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 production, facilitate trade and reduce the costs 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 considerations. 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 chains, 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 activities, 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 5.16.33.21.3: 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 promoting the development of education, science and technology,
research and innovation. It also lists areas for possible joint development activities."
a. What kinds of development and capacity building cooperation did the Parties
undertake in the past or do they plan to undertake in the future?
b. 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 provide some
suggestions on carrying out such cooperation?
APPENDIX 1 AUSTRALIA
WT/REG395/2
- 40 -
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 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 SCHEDULE 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. Cultural 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, galleries, 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 interpret 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 and 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 performances, 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
mechanism in their bilateral trade, their bilateral concessions are a year behind all the
others."
1
Questions were submitted to the Parties on 7 May 2021 (six weeks, 3 days before the meeting).
WT/REG395/2
- 41 -
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 elimination
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 in 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?
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.
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, Canada, 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 measure, 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 relevant
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 applied 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 succinct 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.
__________

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement For Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (Goods and Services)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement For Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (Goods and Services)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WT/REG395/2

(21-4946) Page: 1/41

Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original: English/Spanish

COMPREHENSIVE AND PROGRESSIVE AGREEMENT FOR TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP

QUESTIONS AND REPLIES

Questions from the delegation of Brazil

1.1. Regarding article 2, is there any ongoing negotiations or timeframe to review the

1.5. Article 20.17 (Conservation and Trade) is suspended. Could the CPTPP members

CPTPP members also recognise the importance of cooperation as a mechanism to implement

Questions from the delegation of China

National Treatment and Market Access for Goods

Article 2.8 Temporary Admission of Goods

1.10. Regarding paragraph 9, has each Party joined the Customs Convention on

See above in relation to regulatory requirements on containers and international pallets.

Chapter 7 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

Article 7.10 Audit, paragraph 7

1.12. According to paragraph 3.50 of the Factual Presentation, Singapore and 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

so the Party's response to the "significant or substantive issues presented in comments"

Chapter 11 Financial Services

Article 11.1 Definitions

Combined with answer for 1.14 above.

We recall there is no reference to the SCM Agreement in this Chapter.

Article 11.6 Cross-Border Trade

An example of mode 2 (consumption abroad) is a case in which a national of Japan travelling

Article 11.7 New Financial Services

Chapter 14 Electronic Commerce

Article 14.2 Scope and General Provisions

1.20. Please provide more information on the policy objective of this Article.

See the response to question 1.20 above.

See the response to question 1.19 above.

1.23. How to understand and identify "reasonable network management" under the

See the response to question 1.20 above.

1.24. Both Article 14.11 (Cross-Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means) and

a. not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustified

Article 14.13 Location of Computing Facilities

1.25. Please clarify and provide examples on how to understand "security and

Article 14.17 Source Code

"Mass market software", as referred to in Article 14.17, is understood as referring to

Chapter 15 Government Procurement

Article 15.21 Facilitation of participation by SMEs

The commitments in the Government Procurement chapter continue to apply, including

Chapter 17 State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies

1.28. Please provide more information on the necessity of setting rules on designated

Article 17.1 Definitions

Article 17.7 Adverse Effects and Article 17.8 Injury

Article 19.4 Non Derogation

Article 19.14 Public Engagement, paragraph 2

Chapter 30 Final Provisions

Questions from the delegation of Colombia

c. exchanging information on the Party's experiences and success in supporting SMEs to

b. Could the parties share national experiences of the implementation of the

New Zealand has a long-standing practice of incorporating trade and environment chapters

- on vehicle emissions, climate change and water catchment with Thailand;

- on geothermal energy development, energy efficiency, marine conservation and waste

- on water pollution, remediation of contaminated sites and invasive alien species

- on environmental impact assessment with Brunei and Indonesia.

See the response to question 1.1 above.

1.39. Could the parties share information on the implementation of the commitments

a. Annex 8-B: Information and Communications Technology Products: Has

electromagnetic compatibility of information technology equipment (ITE)