RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/W/383  
 
8 November 201 9 
(19-7600 ) Page: 1/7 
Council for Trade in Services    
 
- DRAFT - 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE I N SERVICES  
TO THE GENERAL COUNC IL (201 9) 
Since its Annual Report of 201 8 to the General Council1, the Council for Trade in Services held five 
formal meetings, respectively on  7 December 2018 , 21 March,  27 June, 29-30 October ( dedicated 
session to review the operation of preferences notified under the LDC services Waiver)  and 
30 October 2019.2 During the period covered by this report, the Council addressed the following  
matters.  
1  NOTIFICATIONS MADE TO THE COUNCIL PURSU ANT TO GATS ARTICLES  III:3 , V:7 AND 
VII:4  
1.1.  The Council for Trade in Services took note, altogether, of the following notifications:  
a. Notifications pursuant to Article III:3 of the GATS  
Switzerland  S/C/N/ 922 
Japan   S/C/N/930  
New Zealand  S/C/N/931  - S/C/N/ 945 
Macao, China  S/C/N/9 46 
India   S/C/N/ 947 - S/C/N/ 950 
Senegal  S/C/N/955  - S/C/N/ 958 and  
  S/C/N/958 /Corr.1  
Hong Kong, China  S/C/N/874/Add.1  
Kazakhstan  S/C/N/960  
Lesotho  S/C/N/962  - S/C/N/ 968 
Bahrain, Kingdom of  S/C/N/969  
Australia  S/C/N/970  
b. Notifications pursuant to Article V:7 of the GATS  
Peru and Honduras  S/C/N/ 918 
Philippines, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Norway  S/C/N/919  
Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan,  
 Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore  
 and Viet Nam  S/C/N/920  
European Union and Japan  S/C/N/92 1 
Hong Kong, China; and  Georgia  S/C/N/92 3 
United States and the Republic of Korea   S/C/N/ 621/Add.1  
Canada and Chile  S/C/N/ 65/Add.2  
Bangladesh, China, India, Lao PDR, Republic  of Korea  
 and Sri Lanka  S/C/N/9 54 
European Union and Armenia  S/C/N/959  
Chile and China  S/C/N/577/Add.1  
 
                                                 
1 Document S/C/55.  
2 Reports of these meetings are contained in documents S/C/M/1 37 to 141, with S/C/M/140  and 
S/C/M/ 141 forthcoming , and should be read in conjunction with this repo rt. S/C/W/383  
 
- 2 - 
 
  The agreements notified in these documents were referred to the Committee on Regional 
Trade Agreements for consideration.  
c. Notifications pursuant to Art icle VII:4 of the GATS  
India   S/C/N/9 24 - S/C/N/ 929 
New Zealand and Australia  S/C/N/ 951 
Montenegro  S/C/N/9 52 - S/C/N/ 953 
Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand and  S/C/N/961  
 Thailand  
1.2.  At the meeting held in March, the Council took note of the updated Secretariat Note containing 
a statistical account of the notifications made under relevant GATS provisions.3 Several Members 
observed that , as the Note detailed , developing countries and LDCs had submitted more GATS  
notifications , especially under Article III:3,  than most developed countries , including those that were 
championing transparency and strengthened notification requirements in other WTO areas . These 
Members called for a discussion o f the reasons behind this anomaly , while also stressing the need  
to take into account the capacity constraints faced by developing countries and LDCs with regard to 
notification  obligations . One Member  argued that , in light of  the push to negotiate rules on e-
commerce, investment facilitation and MSMEs, notifications of measures related to these areas that 
significantly affect ed trade in services were especially relevant.  
1.3.  All Members who spoke underlined the importance of trans parency. A delegation noted that 
the measures notified pursuant to GATS Article III:3 were significantly fewer than those listed  in the 
Director -General's Report on trade -related developments , although the discrepancy might be partly 
explained by the fact that not all measures in the Report related to sectors where specific 
commitments had been undertaken.  This delegation, supported by several  others, called on 
Members to exchange views on how notification efforts under the GATS might be improved ; in this 
regard , it suggested that the Council could  consider examples of best practice in notifications; ways 
in which Capitals and the private sector might be better involved in the notification process; whether 
sufficient time was provided for notificat ions to be analysed; whether some notifications, such as 
those under Article VII:4, could be jointly submitted by the Members concerned; and whether  a 
central notification submission portal might prove useful for services trade measures.  A couple of 
Member s underscored the  interpretation and implementation challenges  of Article III:3, in terms of 
the subjective nature of the obligation and its relevance to "trade in services" rather than "services" 
more general ly. Delegations who intervened stated that they  looked forward to discussing those 
issues with interested Members, in different configurations.  
1.4.  One delegation noted that the Secretariat Note omitted the  notification obligation contained in 
paragraph 5(c) of the GATS Annex on Telecommunications.  
2  AN INC LUSIVE APPROACH TO T RANSPARENCY AND NOTI FICATION REQUIREMENT S IN 
THE WTO  
2.1.  At its October meeting, the Council addressed a communication on "An inclusive approach to 
transparency and notification requirements in the WTO"  from the African Group, Cuba, India a nd 
Oman.4 The co -sponsor s highlighted that transparency was important for the operation and 
monitoring function of the WTO . They  noted that notifications required capacities that developing 
countries often lacked , called for e xisting obligations to be made  commensurate with Members ' level 
of development  and objected to proposals for new transparency obligations and punitive  
enforcement  approaches.  
2.2.  They stated that transparency should not be pursued  selectively, and noted that, based on the 
information p roduced by the Secretariat5, most developed countries had submitted few er GATS 
notifications than developing countries and LDCs , particularly under  Article III:3 , and thus 
encouraged developed Members to improve compliance.  They argued that notifications o f measures 
related to e -commerce, investment facilitation and MSMEs that significantly affected trade in services 
                                                 
3 Document JOB(09)/10/Rev. 9. 
4 Document JOB/SERV/292/R ev.2. 
5 Document JOB( 09)/10/Rev. 9. S/C/W/383  
 
- 3 - 
 
  were especially relevant  in light of the push to negotiate rules in these areas . They also emphasised 
that transparency was not only about not ifications.  
2.3.  All the delegations who intervened said  that they shared the proponents' objective to improve 
transparency and compliance with notification requirements and welcomed suggestions about how 
this objective might be pursued. A number of Members ack nowledged the capacity constraints faced 
by developing countries  and, while appreciative of the Secretariat's technical assistance efforts in 
this area,  one delegation called for an examination of why it had not been enough to remedy the 
difficulties encou ntered  by developing countries with notifications . A couple of delegations welcomed 
the fact that the discussion was taking place in the relevant WTO bodies wit h specific expertise .  
2.4.  Several Members stated their readiness to engage in a conversation on how transparency of 
services trade measures could be improved . A number of Members mentioned relevant suggestions 
that had been put forward at the March meeting. One delegation presented  information about the 
manner in which it had organised its  domestic consultations  related to services notifications , and 
other delegations also referred to the importance of domestic coordination processes . Another 
delegation underlined its practice of de veloping services measures in a transparent and open manner 
and, while welcoming efforts to improve transparency, stressed that transparency ha d to be 
assessed in actual practice and should not be only about a perfunctory submission of notifications.   
2.5.  The proponents  said that they  would be  updating their communication  in order  to reflect the 
many useful comments made and to see how to account for Agreement -specific issues , and indicated 
their intention to submit a draft decision on transparency to the Gene ral Council.  
3  OPERATIONALIZATION O F THE LDC SERVICES W AIVER  
3.1.  The Council discussed the operationalization of the LDC services  Waiver at all meetings held 
during the reporting period.  As part of the process to review the operation of preferences notified 
unde r the Waiver, it also held a dedicated session on 29 and 30 October 2019.  
3.2.  At the meeting held in December 2018 , Members continued discussions of the LDC Group 
communication titled  "Possible Elements for a Review of the Operation of Notified Preferences"6 and 
agreed to hold a dedicated session as part of the process to review the operation of the preferences 
notified under the Waiver  that was mandate d by the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. They also agreed 
that the Chairman would engage with delegations to refine the format, date, content and overall 
organisation of the dedicated session. In March, the LDC Group informed the Council that its own 
consultations were still ongoing.  
3.3.  At the June meeting, the Chairman informed Members  that, following two rounds of informal 
consultations  with the LDC Group and notifying Members , broad agreement had been found among 
participants to structure the dedicated session in two parts: Part I would be a workshop, to allow 
Members and relevant stakeholders to exchange information related to the participation of LDCs in 
services trade, and Part II would be organised as a formal meeting of the Council. The Secretariat 
had been asked to prepar e a draft prog ramme outline for the workshop7, based on the information 
and comments exchanged, while  the Chairman had been requested to draw up the proposed agenda 
items for the formal meeting, together with an annotation to provide context and guidance to 
Members in p reparing their participation in the meeting.8 The LDC Group had expressed a preference 
to hold the dedicated session in late October; as there had been no opposition to that suggestion, 
the Chairman proposed that the workshop be held on 29  October and  the dedicated formal meeting 
on 30 October. The Council endorsed the proposed approach in its entirety.  
3.4.  At the  start of the formal  dedicated  meeting held  in October, the Chairman provided a factual  
account of the informal workshop, titled "Facilitating the Increasing Participation of Least Developed 
Countries in Trade in Services", held the previous day.9 He stated  that p resentations and 
contributions had been  rich and diverse, and had offered interesting and valuable insights.  
                                                 
6 JOB/SERV/284.  
7 Document JOB/SERV/290.  
8 Document JOB/SERV/289.  
9 The programme of the event with speakers' presentations and remarks may be accessed at: 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/workshop291019_e.htm . S/C/W/383  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.5.  The Secretariat gave a present ation o n the main trends in LDC services trade, focusing  
principally on bilateral trade, and highlighted in detail gaps in data collection and reporting .  The 
presentation prompted a  number of questions , mostly revolv ing around what strategies and best 
practices could be put in place to improve data collection.   
3.6.  The LDC Group, and individual LDCs that intervened , noted the limitations that their service 
suppliers faced, such as infrastructural constraints, regulatory obstacles in export markets , 
insufficie nt financing or the high costs of obtaining insurance coverage. A couple of LDCs  referred to 
the national strategies they had implemented related to services trade.  Many LDCs underscored the 
significant data and information gaps regarding their services ex ports  and called on UNCTAD and 
ITC to help them, inter alia, i dentify those services sectors where they had a comparative advantage , 
and on the WTO Secretariat to continue with its efforts to remedy  the shortcoming in their trade 
data. 
3.7.  The LDC Group thanke d all Members having notified preferences under the Waiver and called 
on those that had not  yet submitted notifications  to do so . They underlined the elements in the 
preferences notified that they had found to be of particular value, called on notifying Me mbers to do 
more to orient LDC suppliers to the preferences granted and to build awareness in their markets 
about those preferences. They noted the importance of the Waiver but also argued that preferences 
needed to go hand -in-hand with a strengthening of their domestic supply capacity , and called on 
Members to undertake further capacity -building and technical assistance  efforts  to this end. A 
number of  LDCs pointed to visa, stay and work permit requirements, lack of accreditation of their 
institutions and non -recognition of qualifications as amongst the most significant export obstacles 
that their service suppliers faced.   
3.8.  Many notifying Members interv ened,  with several indicating  that the information shared at the 
workshop had been helpful to understand the challenges faced by LDC exporters. Most noted the 
supply -side constraints, as also highlighted by the LDCs themselves, and underscored the need to 
look beyond the Waiver and take a more holistic approach to increas e the participation of LDCs in 
world services trade. A number emphasised  that it was important  for the Waiver preferences to be 
complemented by Aid for Trade and other relevant capacity -building initiatives.  
3.9.  Many of the notifiers noted the need for better statistics and for further assistance to be 
provided to LDCs with regard to data collection. Several also remarked that  the available data 
showed that most LDCs exports went to neighbourin g markets.  
3.10.   Given the various references made in the workshop to the importance of the domestic 
regulatory environment, of attracting foreign investment and of the digital infrastructure, several of 
the notifiers  referred to the relevance of the discussions  under the JSIs on domestic regulation, 
investment facilitation and e -commerce , and invited LDCs to engage  in those initiatives.  
3.11.   Several delegations  recalled the  details of the preferences they had notified, with a number 
presenting the data they had been able to gather about the utilisation of the ir preferences; a couple 
of the notifiers  cautioned, however,  that the information necessary to assess the use of their 
preferences did not exist.  A number  of Members  also presented their development assistance ef forts 
in favour of LDCs.  
3.12.   At its October meeting, the Council took note of the dedicated session that had just been 
held. 
3.13.   To date, t he Council has received a total of 24 notifications of preferences in favour of LDC 
services and service supplier s, on the part of 51 Members.10 As the Operationali zation of the LDC 
Services Waiver is a standing item on its agenda, the Council will take up  the issue  again at its next 
formal meeting .  
                                                 
10 Notifications  were submitted by: Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile;  China; the European Union; 
Hong Kong, Chin a; Iceland;  India; Japan;  the Republic of Korea ; Liechtenstein ; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; 
Panama;  Singapore; South Africa; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Turkey; the United States and  
Uruguay.  S/C/W/383  
 
- 5 - 
 
  4  WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
4.1.  The Council discussed the Work Programme  on Electronic Commerce at all its formal meetings, 
in accordance with the  Buenos Aires  Ministerial mandate to continue the work under the Work 
Programme and endeavour to reinvigorate work  by Members .  
4.2.  At the December  2018  meeting , India drew Members' atte ntion to the communication 
submitted to the General Council  jointly with  South Africa, titled "Moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions : Need for a re -think"11, and affirmed that the Moratorium's implications 
needed be re -examined. Numerous other delegations referred to their own position on the 
Moratorium as articulated at the General Council , and noted that dedicated discussions on that issue 
were taking place in that forum .  
4.3.  One Member was of the view that, given th at e-commerce presented not only opportunities 
but also challenges,  particularly for developing countries,  suggestions for WTO rules on  e-commerce 
were premature. This delegation reiterated its  concern s with regard to the plurilateral Joint 
Statement Initiati ve (JSI) on e-commerce , which it viewed as running counter to the exploratory 
mandate of the multilateral Work Programme  on Electronic Commerce . Another delegation noted 
that the JSI was an open and transparent process , where ideas were welcomed .  
4.4.  At the M arch meeting, China presented information on its new Electronic Commerce Law, the 
United States reported on  its initiative with Lao PDR on digital economy issues  and Australia shared 
information about its "Tech Future" digital economy strategy.  All delegat ions who intervened 
expressed appreciation for the information and experiences shared. Many Members called for work 
under the Work Programme to continue and be intesified,  and to focus on the issues of relevance to 
developing countries  and LDCs . Several Me mbers said t hat it was premature to consider negotiating 
rules on e -commerce , and one  delegation reiterated its serious concern s with plurilateral e-
commerce  discussions under the JSI. 
4.5.  In June, the United States introduced a submission on "The Economic Benefits of Cross -Border 
Data Flows"12, intended to  both reinvigorate work under the Work Programme and complement 
efforts in the JSI negotiations. All delegations who intervened expressed appreciation for the US 
submission . Several said that the c ommunication illustrated the importance of data flows for digital 
trade in different sectors;  a couple noted that  data flows could contribute to improving the economic 
participation of under -represented groups ; and a few others observed that obligations we re 
increasingly being placed on companies in relation to data flows.  
4.6.  A number of Members underscored the point in the submission about the importance of finding 
a balance between the free cross -border flow of data and the pursuit of public policy objectiv es. 
Certain delegations maintained that the paper focused excessively on the benefits of data flows and 
did not adequately discuss the risks. Noting that data was a critical asset, they said that data 
ownership and localisation were essential  for developin g countries' economic development. LDC s 
called for discussions to focus on their experience and the challenges they faced.  
4.7.  Some delegations were supportive of the suggestion in the US submission that international 
groups having carried out work on the issue of data flows, like the OECD or APEC, be invited to 
present it to the Council. Other delegations called for UNCTAD to be invited to contribute as well. 
One delegation cautioned against the WTO discussing privacy regimes, underscoring that privacy 
was not a trade issue but a fundamental right.  
4.8.  Several delegations shared relevant experiences and information : China presented t wo case 
studies on how e -commerce could contribut e to inclusive and sustainable growth ; Canada shared 
information about relevant activities of its Trade Facilitation Office ; Egypt gave an overview of its 
new Consumer Protection Law ; and  New Zealand provided examples of the role of digital 
technologies and data flows in the agritech and gaming and apps sectors.  
4.9.  At the October meeting, the United States provide d additional clarifications  on various 
questions that had been posed at the pre vious meeting about  its submission, and  a couple of 
                                                 
11 WT/GC/W/747.  
12 S/C/W/382.  S/C/W/383  
 
- 6 - 
 
  delegations offered further observations on the US paper.  China presented a case -study on e -
commerce and poverty alleviatio n. One delegation noted the impeding expiry of the Moratorium and 
recalled its p osition on the issue.  
4.10.   The Buenos Aires  Ministerial Decision mandates the General Council  to hold  periodic review s 
of work under the Work Programme based on the reports submitted by the relevant WTO bodies. 
Pursuant to that mandate, in December 2018 , and again in  June 2019 , the Council agreed that the 
Chairman would produce, under his own responsibility, a factual report of the essence of the 
discussions the Council had had under that agenda item up to th ose respective  points in time.13 In 
addition, in Octob er the Council agreed that, since the 12th Ministerial Conference would not take 
place in December 2019 but in June 2020, the Chairman would produce, under his own responsibility, 
an additional report for the December meeting of the General Council.  
5  UPDAT E OF THE SECRETARIAT BACK GROUND NOTE ON MODE 4 
5.1.  The Council addressed this  agenda  item upon India's request. In December  2018 , India put 
forward  an earlier request  that the Secretariat update its 2009 Background Note on mode 414 and, 
following discussions with other delegations who had made suggestions, proposed that the 
Secretariat also update its  two other modal Notes15 and produce an additional Note on inter-modal 
linkages. Various Members supported India's proposal. One delega tion said that, although it failed 
to see why updating the modal Notes was necessary, it could be flexible . Another indicated  that, in 
a spirit of compromise, it could support the production of new Notes on each mode of supply,  rather 
than updates,  either in one single document or in separate ones, provided that new and relevant 
information or statistical updates were  available.  The Council agreed that the Chairman would have 
further contacts with the delegations concerned to see if an agreement could be re ached.  
5.2.  At the March meeting, India reiterated its request that the Secretariat update its Note on 
mode  4, a request that  was supported by a number of delegations. India also proposed that, based 
on the suggestions by other delegations, the Notes on the remaining  modes of supply be updated 
as well, and that in addition the Secretariat prepare a new Note on inter -modal linkages. A couple 
of delegations, however, sought additional clarifications on how the updated Note on mode 4 would 
differ from the previous one, and questioned that there was significant new information to justify an 
update.  
5.3.  At the June meeting, India repeated its request and indicated that it could explore the idea of 
the Secretariat producing new, rather than updated, Notes, given that it h ad been told that this 
would be acceptable to the one delegation that had reservations . It wished to understand , however,  
what the specific concerns of that delegation were with regard to the previous Note. In response, 
that delegation clarified that it ha d been open to determin ing if any new relevant literature  was 
available , but that it had never agreed or suggested that new Notes, on any of the modes of supply, 
would be appropriate; a Note on intermodal linkages, instead, would be novel and might be 
considered. At the October meeting,  noting that there appeared to be a misunderstanding,  India 
restated its request, and asked  the delegation that had reservations  to confirm its position; the 
delegation in question confirmed that its position as expressed at the June meeting remained 
unchanged.  
6  CYBERSECURITY  MEASURES OF CHINA  
6.1.  At the request of Japan and the United States, at its December 2018 meeting the Council 
addressed the cybersecurity measures adopted and under development by China. The United States 
also submitted a communication under that agenda item.16 The two requesting delegations shared 
their concerns with  various aspects of  the measures at issue  and soug ht additional information and 
clarity on the same. They were echoed by several  Members . After noting the challenge that all 
Members faced in ensuring cybersecurity, China shared the replies it had already provided in the 
past and the reafter  reiterated its concerns about measures by the United States that it allege d might 
affect other Members’ cybersecurity interests . 
                                                 
13 The report s are contained in documents S/C/56 and S/C/57. 
14 Document S/C/W/301.  
15 Document S/C/W/304 on modes 1 and 2, and document S/C/W/314 on mode 3.  
16 Document S/C/W/378.  S/C/W/383  
 
- 7 - 
 
  6.2.  At the March meeting, at the request of Japan, the Council reverted to China's cybersecurity 
measures. Japan shared its continuing concerns wi th the measures at issue, and its statement was 
supported by a number of Members . China recalled the clarifications it had provided at the previous 
meeting and then raised  its own concerns about the definition of "critical infrastructure" in Japan's 
Action  Plan on information security measures.  
6.3.  At the request of Japan and the United States, the Council reverted to China's cybersecurity 
measures at its June meeting. Japan and the United States shared their  persisting concerns with 
several aspects of China's Cybersecurity  Law and implementing  measures and sought explanations 
from China about two new  draft measures  that had been recently released for comment . Several 
Members  echoed the concerns raised . In reply, China provided preliminary feedback on th e questions 
posed  on its newly released draft measures , and then shared some of its own concerns with a 
cybersecurity measure by the United States.  
6.4.  At the request of Japan and the United States, at its October meeting the Council again 
addressed  China's cy bersec urity measures.  The two requesting delegations raised their enduring 
concerns about China's cybersecurity  measures , including its recently adopted Encryption Law , and 
sought various clarifications. Their concerns were echoed by several Members . China  provided 
updates on its Encryption Law and offered responses to the questions raised.  
7  CYBERSECURITY MEASUR ES OF VIET NAM  
7.1.  At the request of Japan and the United States, at its December 2018  meeting the Council 
addressed Viet Nam's  Law on Cybersecurity and related implementing measures . The two requesting 
delegations shared their concerns with the measure s at issue . Their statements  were echoed by  
several Members . Viet Nam provide d information about the  relevant  legislative  process  and indicated 
that the scope of some obligations in the measures at issue had been reduced . 
7.2.  The Council reverted to Viet Nam's cybersecurity measures, a gain at the request of Japan and 
the United States, at its March  meeting. While t he two requesting delega tions appreciated Viet Nam's 
efforts to narrow down the scope of certain obligations  in the measures at issue , they still had 
concerns with various elements . Their interventions  were echoed by a number of Members . Viet Nam 
recalled the explanations provided at the previous meeting and reiterated that its legislative process 
was open and transparent.  
7.3.  At the June meeting, Japan and the United States again requested the Council to address 
Viet Nam's cybersecurity measures . They sought clarifications on the status of the legislative process 
and urged Viet Nam to continue to engage with stakeholders and take their comments into account. 
Their statement was ec hoed by several Members . Viet Nam underlined  that its legislative process 
was open and  transparent.  
7.4.  At the request of Japan and the United States, the Council addressed  Viet Nam's  cybersec urity 
measures again at its October meeting.  The two requesting delegations reiterated their continuing 
concerns with the measures at issue. T heir interventions were echoed by several Members . Viet Nam 
reiterated  that its legislative process was open and transparent.  
8  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES  STATISTICS  
8.1.  At the October  meeting of the Council, the Secretariat delivered  a presentation on recent 
developments in trade in services statistics, which focus ed on the WTO's trade in services Data Hub, 
technical assistance activities, latest developments and new initiatives.  
9  WORK OF THE SUBSIDIA RY BODIES  
9.1.  The activities of the subsidiary bodies in 201 9 are reflected in their respective reports, which 
are annexed  to this report, as follows:  
 Annex I Report of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services (S/FIN/ XX) 
 Annex II  Report of the Committee on Specific Commitments (S/CSC/ XX) 
 Annex III  Report of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (S/WPDR/ XX) 
 Annex I V Report of the Working Party on GATS Rules (S/W PGR/XX). 
__________