The 15 countries in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) held an elegant virtual signing ceremony on November 15, 2020. The Asian Trade Centre will be delving more deeply into the specific details and producing a series of materials to help companies get ready to use the agreement. For now, here are our first quick technical assessments of the agreement. Note that this early look should not be taken as the definitive guide, as an agreement with 20 chapters and thousands of pages of associated schedules will take some time to unravel. To get a sense of the task ahead, the Korean tariff schedules alone run to 2743 pages. Compounding the difficulties of making a quick assessment: governments can be quite creative in burying important details inside of different provisions. Flexibilities and exceptions are going to be tough to note, understand and unravel. RCEP will, of course, have important implications for trade in the region, for economic integration and for the future of trade policy. This post, however, will focus on the details of the agreement itself. The basic structure includes 20 chapters, making RCEP a comprehensive trade agreement that includes commitments in areas like goods, services, investment, intellectual property rights, competition, trade remedies, standards, e-commerce and dispute settlement. Many of these chapters were not included in the underlying ASEAN+1 agreements that formed the original core of RCEP. Getting these negotiated took significant time, which is partly why RCEP has taken 8 years to reach conclusion. Overall, RCEP represents a significant achievement. The 15 countries involved (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam) are very diverse in nearly every imaginable dimension. Getting an agreement that could successfully navigate the domestic constraints and starting points in all 15 countries is an important accomplishment. RCEP also represents the first time that many members have engaged in this sort of trade arrangements: especially between China, Japan and South Korea. As expected, this created additional friction as officials grappled with managing outcomes.