WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
S/CSC/M/32 
25 May 2004 
 (04-2243) 
Committee on Specific Commitments  
   
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 MARCH 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) held a meeting on 22 March 2004.  The 
agenda for the meeting is contained in WTO/AIR/2267.   
2. The representative of Hong Kong, China wished  to raise under other business an issue 
concerning the Committee's oversight of the app lication of the procedures under Article XXI.  
3. The representative of Brazil stated that, contrary  to what his delegation had requested at the 
meeting of 4 December 2003, Brazil's document, JO B (03)/189, had not been inserted in the Airgram 
of the present meeting.   
4. The agenda was adopted. 
A. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES  
5. The Chairperson recalled that, at the last mee ting, the delegation of Indonesia had introduced 
a proposal on the classification of energy services (S/CSC/W/42), on which a number of delegations 
had commented and raised technical questions.  Th e delegation of Indonesia had provided preliminary 
replies to some of these questions already at the last meeting.   
6. The representative of Indonesia welcomed the attention being given to his delegation's 
proposal.  Coming back to the last meeting, she fi rst addressed questions and concerns raised by 
Canada, Colombia and Chinese Taipei.  She stated  that the classification was based on commercial 
reality and complied with document W/120, even  though many additional sub-sectors had been 
identified.  Training, human resource development,  construction and engineer ing were included, due 
to the specific nature of these servi ce activities, as reflected in the standards for, and qualification of, 
the providers and their licensing.  The proposed  classification of energy services constituted 
Venezuela's proposal and those of the friends of  energy.  Regarding a comment from the United 
States, she clarified that the proposal meant to limit the coverage to energy-producing minerals.  
Wholesale Trade Services (section 3.1.1) had been  adopted from the friends of energy proposal, 
number 4B with CPC code 62271 (not including elect ricity).  Therefore, it appeared that number 
3.1.2, which covered electricity, followed CPC c ode 622.  Furthermore, Retailing Services, section 
3.2.1 followed CPC code 632 (Non Food Retailing Se rvices), which did not cover electricity, and 
therefore section 3.2.2 concerning Retailing Services for electricity had been included.  Indonesia had 
tried to include all activities related to energy sector s based on commercial reality.  This was also why 
professional services had been given their own heading.  On Australia's question regarding pipeline services, she confirmed that the correct CPC c ode was 71310.  China’s suggestions concerning 
Geology Log Services were contained in Indonesi a's classification of energy services in sections 
1A.2.2.6; 1A.2.8; and 1A.2.11.  FPSO was not included  here, but should be in a separate classification 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/CSC/M/32 
Page 2  
 
under Upstream Energy Services with number 1A.6.4 .  She agreed with Norway's proposed changes 
from CPC code 8830 to 7214 and CPC code 886 to 7212 and noted that the numbering was being adapted.  On the points raised by Chile and the Philippines, she stated that the classification of 
Indonesian energy services was inclusive of other s ectors related to energy activities, reflecting the 
commercial reality of these services, without distinguishing core and non core activities.   
7. The representative of the European Communiti es confirmed the relevance for the energy 
industry of the various training or construction ac tivities mentioned in Indonesia's paper;  however, 
her delegation preferred to stay within the W/120 sector  list.  She considered the proposal to be more 
of a checklist for some elements that went beyond pure energy services.   
8. The representative of Canada raised a number of  additional points.  The first question related 
to coal-mining, under coal development services, section 1A.5, and 1A5.5, coal excavation.  The 
correspondence that was proposed by Indonesia did not  distinguish between oil, gas or coal, which 
raised the question how Indonesia's classification e xperts would reconcile the inclusion of CPC 883 
for coal-mining when the descriptions for those servi ces referred to services that were provided on an 
oil or gas field.  With reference to the term ge othermal in section 1A, he wondered whether Indonesia 
was referring to specific geothermal sources.  Turning to management services, in section 1A.1, he 
noted that the entry referred to the CPC 86601, not to CPC 86609. Concerning remote sensing services in Section 1A.1.6, reference was made to  CPC 86754, but it was not clear whether that 
reference applied to information gathering or map making.  If the reference was to information 
gathering, the classification should be modified.  He requested elaboration from Indonesia as to what 
services were covered by section 1A2.4, solids cont rol, and wondered whether solids control was in 
fact an environmental service.  He was also intere sted in the coverage of section 1A3.6, production 
control of services.  Lastly, concerning the dow nstream section, he requested elaboration on the 
content of processing and purifica tion services in section 2.2.3. 
9. The representative of the United States stated that Indonesia's proposal complemented efforts 
by the US and other delegations in this sector.  Following up on adult education services, she 
wondered who was providing what service to whom , and under what conditions a foreign energy 
service supplier in Indonesia would provide educati onal services to Indonesian oil workers.  Would 
such services be considered education services?  Would the energy services company receive payment 
for providing the education service separately from pa yment for providing energy  services?  In the US 
view, training normally provided to employees was not an education service, unless an outside education provider was involved.  For example, how  did petroleum electrical engineering services, 
classified as adult education, differ from an energy ser vice offered in the field?  What aspects were in 
fact related to education?  She wondered whethe r Indonesia had meant to refer to instruction in 
petroleum, electrical engineering instead and was looki ng forward to a reply either in the CSC or in a 
bilateral meeting.   
10. The representative of Norway noted that Indon esia had agreed with his delegation's comments 
at the last meeting and modified their list accordingly.  It was important that Members developed a 
common understanding of the complex area of ener gy services, and a good description of all activities 
involved.  The contribution from Indonesia was very valu able in this context.  He fully agreed with 
the point in paragraph 7, that a detailed classifi cation of the energy services sector was an essential 
instrument for Members in negotiating specific co mmitments.  He reiterated that the scheduling 
guidelines were the basic point of reference also for scheduling of energy services commitments.  It 
was important to understand all activities involved, a nd schedule them in detail along the value chain.  
Norway had not contributed a paper to the discussi on in the CSC, although its initial offer contained 
an overview of the value chain to facilit ate the understanding of other Members.  
11. The representative of Venezuela considered the de bate to be of utmost value, and indicated 
that her delegation might raise questions at a future meeting.  S/CSC/M/32 
 Page 3 
 
 
12. The representative of China requested clar ification on additional questions.  Was the 
reference in section 1A2.13 on page 2 meant to cover "down hole tools services", and was the word 
"hole" missing?  Secondly, she sought further cl arification on the subheading on energy equipment 
and facilities in section 2.4., on page 7 of Indonesia' s paper.   Finally, she asked where the following 
services could be found in the Indonesian proposal: oil-, gas-, pipeline construction services;  pre-
drilling engineering services;  coring services;  and tertiary recovery services.  
13. The representative of Indonesia, on a preliminary basis, stated that drilling activities for oil 
and gas differed from coal mining activities, and we re therefore not included.  Concerning section 
1A.1.1., exploration management services, her delegation chose CPC 86601, because these services 
were part of the exploration activities.  As fo r section IA1.6, remote sensing services, CPC 86754 
applied to map making services, consisting of the pr eparation and revision of maps of all kinds, for 
example road, cadastral, topographic, planimetric and hydrographic, using the results of survey 
activities, other maps, and other information sources. In Indonesia's view, this included also remote 
sensing services.  Section 1A2.4, solids control, was in her view part of services incidental to mining, as it was a service rendered on a fee and contract basis at the oil or gas field, similar to such services 
as drilling, derrick building, repair and disman tling, as well as oil and gas well casings cementing 
services.  Likewise, section 1A3.6, production control services, fell under services incidental to mining, as they were rendered on a fee or contract basis at the oil and gas field.  Section 2.2.3, processing and purification engineering servi ces, fell under CPC 8672 which included the sub-
headings of advisory and consultative engineer ing services, engineering design services for the 
construction of foundations and building structures,  engineering design services for mechanical and 
electrical installations for buildings, as well as ot her engineering services.  On the question from 
China, she confirmed that the correct reference s hould be to downhole tools services.  Turning to the 
questions from the European Communities and the Unite d States, she stated that energy and mineral 
resources were very important sectors that had in fact contributed significantly to Indonesia's economic development.  Consequently, the governme nt wanted further to promote development in 
that sector;  education played an important role in th is context.  It was provided by the industry, in co-
operation with and under the overall responsibility of the government.   
14. The representative of Canada expressed inte rest in how Indonesia would see using its 
document in the negotiations.  He had noted the co mments that the classification reflected commercial 
reality in Indonesia, but also considerations a bout the possible role of the document as a checklist. 
15. The representative of Indonesia reiterated that  the proposal was without prejudice to his 
delegation's position in the negotiations on energy  services.  The proposed classification would allow 
Indonesia to proceed progressively and selectively in  the negotiations.  His delegation had tried to 
respond to all questions and comments to the best of its ability, but welcomed  any further questions, 
preferably in written form.   
16. The Chairperson stated that th is second in-depth discussion of the issue had helped clarify 
several questions; as new questions had been posed, he suggested to continue the discussion at the 
next meeting and requested the delegation of Indonesi a to provide its intervention and, perhaps, also 
the answers in writing.   
17. The representative of Australia, speaking on the classification of legal services, reiterated his 
delegation's position that the classification set out  in W/120, which relied on CPC 861, did not 
provide an appropriate framework for regulating tran snational or international trade in legal services 
and lacked relevance.  The classification for this sect or had to reflect the reality of cross-border trade 
in legal services and be transparent, flexible a nd meaningful.  Many of the 44 Members who had 
made legal services commitments in the Uruguay R ound had used an alternative framework that, in 
their view, reflected the reality of international trad e in legal services, by differentiating legal services 
into sub-categories of host country, home country, th ird country and internati onal law.  Against that 
background, he referred to a recent resolution of th e International Bar Association (IBA) in support of S/CSC/M/32 
Page 4  
 
a system of terminology for legal services for the purposes of international trade negotiations, which 
had been conveyed to the WTO in December 2003.   This IBA resolution acknowledged that the 
differentiated categories of law underpinned very im portant principles required from the classification 
system during multilateral trade negotiations.  The r esolution stated that "an appropriate system of 
terminology is one which is consis tent with the core values of the legal profession;  provides a solid 
neutral foundation for negotiations so that ambigui ty and uncertainty are minimized; facilitates those 
negotiations without pre-determining the negotiate d outcome and, assists in minimizing disputes over 
what has actually been agreed through negotiation".  Australia shared many of the IBA's views on 
terminology and classification.  He requested that the Resolution be circulated to Members.  The 
Committee could revert back to the topic at the ne xt meeting after Members had had an opportunity to 
consider the IBA's work in this area.   
18. He also suggested circulation of a document  by the OECD Trade Committee with the title 
"Managing request-offer negotiations under the GATS:  the case of legal services".  The OECD and 
UNCTAD had been cooperating to produce a set of sect or-specific checklists to gain greater insight 
into particular issues and how they might be appro ached in the negotiations.  He noted that a similar 
OECD document on insurance services was being cons idered by the Committee on Trade in Financial 
Services.  In reply to a request for clarification by the Secretariat, he proposed that the document be 
circulated and introduced by the OECD secretariat.  
19. The representative of the United States stated th at to her knowledge the OECD document had 
not been finalized.  Consistent with past practice,  Members could request for final documents to be 
circulated.  She stood not in the way of a presentation by the OECD secretariat. 
20. The representative of Ecuador noted that he was not against distribution of the OECD 
document on legal services, but requested flexibility on  the part of other delegations when it came to 
the distribution of other documents of interest to some Members. 
21. The representative of the United States stated that her delegation's position on the issue had 
been consistent.  Doubts expressed in the past had related to the commissioning of studies by other 
organizations with potential financial implicati ons on the WTO.  She was looking forward to seeing 
the OECD document on legal services.  Her delegation shared a lot of the views expressed by Australia.  The United States had used the general structure of W/120, which - despite references to 
CPC - was not based on that classification.  Her delegation had circulated a reference paper on legal services as part of the request-offer process, to whic h it would come back at some later stage.  She 
hoped Members would be open to options outside th e CPC, as her delegation was not following that 
system.  
22. The Chairperson, summarizing the discussion, stated that the IBA resolution would be 
circulated shortly2.   The OECD paper on legal services was currently being finalized, and he 
suggested that it be circulated once this process was completed. 
23. The representative of Hong Kong, China wondere d whether a possible presentation in the 
CSC would be confined to the classification issue.   It was his understanding that the paper covered a 
wide range of negotiation-related issues, and it might benefit Member s if the presentation could be on 
the paper as a whole rather than only on one specific aspect, such as classification.  He was open as to 
the forum in which a presentation would be given.  The compendium of classification proposals that 
had been prepared by the Secretariat was becoming out dated, as it did not capture the latest proposals.  
With a view to moving the process on classification in individual sectors forward, he suggested to task 
the Secretariat to undertake a technical comparison a nd analysis of different approaches introduced in 
the current negotiations.  Such a comparison w ould enhance the understanding of differences and 
                                                      
2 The IBA "Resolution in support of a system of terminology for legal services for the purposes of 
international trade negotiations" was circulated as JOB (04)/17.   S/CSC/M/32 
 Page 5 
 
 
commonalities, and help to focus the debate.  Perh aps legal services was a good sector to start with, 
although he was open to other proposals. 
24. The representative of Switzerland welcomed the circulation of papers, including on legal 
services.  Referring to the classification of legal ser vices, he stated that the classification based on 
CPC 861 permitted Members to undertake a broad ra nge of commitments in a very transparent 
fashion.  
25. The representative of the United States expressed re servations about tasking the Secretariat to 
analyze the US proposals.  Of course, other delegations were free to submit their own proposals to 
such an analysis.  Her delegation was open to continued discussion of classification and scheduling 
issues in the Committee. 
26. The representative of the European Communiti es stated that her delegation was looking 
forward to the distribution of papers once they we re finalized.  On Hong Kong, China's proposal, she 
considered that it was up to each Member to analyze the proposals made by other Members or to 
bring forward its own proposals; it was not the Secr etariat's role to arbitrate between different 
proposals.   
27. The representative of Australia supported the proposal made by Hong Kong, China.  
28. The representative of Chinese Taipei supported the circulation of the OECD document on 
legal services.  
29. The representative of Canada stated that at an earlier meeting his delegation had expressed 
reservations about the idea of comparing classification proposals.  He had no indications from his 
capital that this position had changed.  
30. The representative of Brazil took note of the difficulties that some Members had with the 
proposal made by Hong Kong, China.  He was inte rested in working with Hong Kong, China towards 
an alternative approach to this issue th at could give comfort to all Members. 
31. The representative of Hong Kong, China stated th at he had reiterated his suggestion in order 
to clarify to what extent the Committee and the S ecretariat could provide assistance to Members in the 
course of these negotiations.  For many delegations , including his own, technical inputs were 
essential.  He wanted to explore a possible role for the Secretariat in this process with those 
delegations that had voiced concerns.   
32. The representative of the United States welcom ed bilateral consultations, rather than 
Chairman-led consultations on the matter.   
33. The Chairperson summarized that the OECD pa per on legal services would be circulated once 
it was finalized.   He suggested that the Committee ta ke note of the statements made and  revert to 
classification issues at the next meeting.   
34. It was so agreed. 
B. SCHEDULING ISSUES  
35. The Chairperson recalled that at the last me eting the delegation of Hong Kong, China had 
wanted to make a statement under this item;  which,  due to time constraints, had been postponed.  He 
noted that ahead of this meeting, Brazil had ci rculated an informal paper  (JOB(04)/12).  S/CSC/M/32 
Page 6  
 
36. The representative of Hong Kong, China stated that a room document prepared by his 
delegation with sample questions concerning sche duling issues was being distributed.  Under the 
present agenda item, delegations were able to raise issues that warranted multilateral discussion in this 
Committee.  The terms of reference for the CSC pr ovided for addressing any horizontal issue and to 
examine, at the request of  Members, schedules of specific commitments, particularly with a view to 
improving their accuracy and coherence in the futu re.  According to the Ne gotiating Guidelines, the 
existing subsidiary bodies should be utilized to  their maximum capacity. The Committee had an 
important role to play in undertaking tasks within  its terms of reference in order to support the 
ongoing negotiations on trade in services, by ensuri ng and enhancing clarity in scheduling.   
37. The questions in the room document arose fro m a reading of initial offers and existing 
schedules of specific commitments.  His delegation would pursue questions which were specific to 
individual schedules in the context of bilateral disc ussions.  However, the questions contained in the 
room document raised general issues which warrant ed discussion on a multilateral basis to facilitate 
the scheduling of commitments and evaluation of offe rs from other Members.  In the document, issues 
were presented in a generic manner.  Their discussion would promote a better and more widely shared 
understanding of the Scheduling Guid elines and raise awareness of common pitfalls.  In particular, he 
was interested in how the Scheduling Guidelines would be applied in the situa tions alluded to in the 
room document; whether they provided sufficien t guidance; and whether Members had a common 
understanding of these issues.  The initial sa mple questions were self-explanatory.   
38. The representative of Brazil recalled that his delegation had presented in JOB(03)/189 last 
October questions to four Members on their initial o ffers, particularly relating to scheduling issues.  
Some of these Members preferred a bilateral clarific ation, whereas others had stated that they would 
further reflect on the questions and then express thei r preference.  He hoped that Members could come 
back to his delegation on the issue.  The new set  of questions had been prepared with the same 
objective in mind, namely to help inject more transp arency in the process.  Subsidiary bodies such as 
the CSC should be utilized more to support the negotia tions.  The CSC had a strategic role to play in 
complementing and supporting the bilateral track  in market access negotiations by solving, 
collectively, some of the questions that would otherw ise be addressed bilaterally.  This would free up 
time and resources to be used for the real issues  of market access negotiations.  Replies to the 
questions would also contribute to the participation of developing countries in the GATS negotiations.   
39. The document contained twelve questions to Switzerland, three each to Norway and New 
Zealand,  and eight to Australia.  The amount of que stions should not be taken as an indication of any 
judgement from Brazil as to the clarity of those initi al offers.   They were not related to the requests 
Brazil had made to these delegations.   
40. The representative of Switzerland stated that the interest shown by other delegations in 
Switzerland's initial offer was a positive element.  His delegation would pursue its own questions on 
other Members' schedules.  Given the recent arrival of  the document, he needed more time to provide 
substantive answers and to reflect on the appropriate forum.   
41. The representative of the European Communities felt that it was more appropriate to 
introduce documents under Other Business if they we re distributed only a few days before the 
meeting.  She looked forward to coming back to Hong Kong, China's paper at a future meeting. 
42. The representative of Korea stated that replies to the technical questions raised by Brazil 
would be  beneficial to all Members.  On a prelimin ary basis, she noted that the questions raised were 
pertinent to the ongoing work as well as the reques t/offer negotiations.  Her authorities had raised 
difficult technical issues domestically and during bilateral negotiations;  however, a multilateral 
discussion would contribute to the clarity a nd transparency of the final schedules.    S/CSC/M/32 
 Page 7 
 
 
43. Turning to specific points, she stated that th e word "may" in questions 3 and 6 meant that 
something might happen or prove correct in future, but was not certain at present.  If inserted, in a 
schedule, it provided scope for possible restrictions even if there were no such limitations at the time of scheduling.  Since such entr ies created uncertainty about th e commitment, Members should be 
more specific as to whether or not to apply a limit ation.  She noted that question 5 was indirectly 
related to the discussions under Article XX:2.  In the scenario with a "none" for national treatment, 
the Member could not discriminate de facto  or de jure .  In contrast, an "unbound" could capture two 
different scenarios.  First, the Member could have  entered the limitation with the intent to allow 
foreign providers to compete, but reserved the right  to apply discriminatory measures if necessary to 
support domestic providers.  In this case, as the Member had also committed on market access, it 
could not forbid foreign companies to enter and operate, and the national treatment discrimination 
should not be too restrictive so as to nullify the market access commitment.  Secondly, the Member 
might have inscribed the quota in its schedule without  any intention to open its market.  However, in 
that case, it might have been clearer to schedule "unbound". At least one foreign operator had to be 
able to operate in the country and the quota applie d to both foreign and domes tic operators.  She could 
not offer clear answers to the use of economic needs test, as specified in question 7, but the issue had 
earlier been proposed for further discussion at the CS C, and perhaps should be discussed separately in 
future.  On question 8, she stated that the Add itional Commitments column should in principle be 
used for further commitments and not for entry of restrictions.  However, there were certain cases 
where limitations seemed to fall neither under Artic le XVI nor Article XVII.  These cases should be 
clarified so that all Members could apply the same fo rmat for scheduling.  In other cases, the content 
inscribed in the Additional Commit ments column belonged there in te rms of substance, but looked at 
first sight like a limitation because of the wording chosen.  Her delegation had received questions on 
these issues, for example, concerning Legal or Architect ural Services in its initial offer.  On question 
9, with regard to commitments taken under a sub-sector  "other," she stated that this principally meant 
that the Member was willing to commit any other ar eas within the sub-sector even if this was not 
further specified.  A deletion of the entry signified  an intention to withdraw a commitment.  On 
question 10, if a Member re-classified or introdu ced a new classification for commitments in its initial 
offer, the Member should endeavour to include a ll areas covered by the existing commitment.  In 
conclusions, she noted that all these questions had come up in domestic consu ltations, and on some of 
them further discussion was necessary. 
44. The representative of Australia said that questi ons relating specifically to the request/offer 
process should be discussed bilaterally, rather than in the CSC.  Brazil's questions addressed 
objectives and policies underlying Australia's commitm ents, and were not purely technical scheduling 
issues.  The use of the CSC for questions and answer s on offers might change substantially the way in 
which Members organized the services cluster, a nd could undermine the purpose of the bilaterals.  
The desirability of such a shift would need to be discussed.  Australia  would not, in principle, have 
any objections to such a change, but wanted a ll Members to understand fully the consequences.  
45. The representative of Colombia stated that the two approaches to sch eduling issues were 
complementary in nature.  The documents showed th at greater clarity was required in the scheduling 
of commitments.  She hoped that Members would r espond to the questions posed by Brazil, as this 
would improve transparency and predictability of the commitments.  She commented preliminarily on 
two questions in the room document by Hong Kong, China.  Question 7 raised  the issue of economic 
needs tests, for which clear criteria should be speci fied.  The issue would warrant separate discussion, 
possibly in a bilateral setting.  As regards question 9, she felt that removal of a commitment from the 
"other" sub-sector should follow the provisions of Article XXI.   
46. The representative of New Zealand shared the views expressed by Switzerland and Australia 
as to the suitability of the CSC to reply to the questi ons posed by Brazil.  One would have to consider 
the appropriate forum.  The implications of bri nging the discussion of individual offers from the 
bilateral process into the CSC were not clear.  Hi s delegation looked forward to receiving Brazil's 
initial offer and have an opportuni ty to put questions to Brazil. S/CSC/M/32 
Page 8  
 
47. The representative of Norway stated that since th e initial offers helped to advance discussions 
in the services negotiations, he hoped for more initial offers from Members.  He saw merit in 
multilateral exchanges of a genera l nature, though he had doubts as to whether the CSC was the right 
forum.  The bilateral meetings were better suite d to discuss initial offers, as they allowed for more 
time to go into depth in a frank and informal setting.  
48. The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that the approach chosen by Hong Kong, China 
had merit and allowed for the necessary discussion of sch eduling issues as they ar ose in initial offers 
and existing schedules.  She considered the issues  related to economic needs tests, as set out in 
question 7, to be of high relevance and hoped that the CSC would pursue them.  As regards the 
classification issues raised in questions 9 and 10,  she noted that paragraph 24 of the Scheduling 
Guidelines stipulated that "if a Me mber wishes to use its own sub-sectoral classification or definitions 
it should provide concordance with the CPC" and "if th is is not possible, it should give a sufficiently 
detailed definition to avoid any ambiguity  as to the scope of the commitment".3  However, a look at 
the initial offers showed that several Members did not provide definitions even if they introduced a 
new classification.  Nor did they provide detailed explanations or concordance with the CPC.   
49. The representative of Nicaragua stated with  regard to Hong Kong, China's question on 
additional commitments, that scheduling under Ar ticle XVIII did not prejudge whether or not 
liberalization was involved.  He wondered how a sc heduled limitation applied if the sector coverage 
was expanded afterwards.  Brazil's paper offered th e possibility of looking at classification issues as 
presented in initial offers, which would be interesting.   
50. The representative of Japan noted the paper by Hong Kong, China would be a useful 
contribution to improving the Scheduling Guidel ines if there were no existing commitments.  
However, since diverging commitments had already b een made by Members, he felt that it might be 
impossible to clarify each ambiguity.  The problem w as similar to the question of Article XX:2, which 
could also lead to a modification of commitments for certain Members.  His delegation was uncomfortable with Brazil's approach, and agreed  with the concerns raised by the Australian 
delegation.   There were about 40 Members w ho had submitted initial offers and Brazil had posed 
questions to eight of them.  Ultimately, there would be 140 initial offers and 139 Members would 
pose questions.  His delegation therefore preferred th e traditional way of bilateral discussions to clear 
up ambiguities. 
51. The representative of Mexico requested that  the delegation of Hong Kong China share the 
responses to the questions raised in their paper.  Discussion of horizontal issues within the Committee 
would be useful for all Members.  He asked for an  indication whether Korea could provide its answers 
to the questions raised by Hong Kong, China.  Brazil' s approach was less appropriate at this point in 
time and should be considered only when all Me mbers had made their initial offers.  For now, 
questions on specific offers should be  raised at a bilateral level. 
52. The representative of the United States supporte d the statement from the delegation of Japan 
and the last part of Mexico's comments.  She di d not have a firm position on what was within the 
domain of the Committee and what fell in the realm of the market access negotiations.  Her delegation 
would study the paper by Hong Kong, China to see wh ether it was indeed a useful initiative to address 
certain technical questions.  Some of the sample quest ions could be attributed to specific offers, which 
would be a cause for concern.  Under the terms of  reference of the Committee and in light of the 
Negotiating Guidelines and Procedures, the Committee had a role to play.  However, one had to be 
clear about the implications and the risk of undermin ing another agreed process.   Also, one needed to 
be cautious with regard to legal interp retations that might be implied.   
                                                      
3 Guidelines for the Scheduling of Specific Commi tments under the General Agreement on Trade in 
Services (GATS); S/L/92.  S/CSC/M/32 
 Page 9 
 
 
53. She had welcomed efforts of some developing co untries to come up with a list of relevant 
questions to be clarified in the course of these nego tiations.  This was a very useful tool to address 
certain open issues while preserving Members' abilit y to defend a certain position if they found 
themselves involved in a dispute.  Her delegation was interested in exploring the possibility of a 
concise checklist.  
54. The representative of Hong Kong, China felt that replies to Br azil's questions would be very 
interesting, not only from the delega tions directly addressed, but also from others with a more generic 
interest.  His delegation was ready to contribute to this  end.  In order to have as broad a discussion as 
possible, it would be important to increase the number  of initial offers.  He appreciated questions on 
Hong Kong, China's offer, as those would help to enhance clarity in scheduling and prompt careful 
reflection about potential implications.  He noted that delegations had expressed an interest in the 
question of economic needs tests.  He felt that the first step should involve an analysis of how the Scheduling Guidelines would apply to  such tests.  The Guidelines pr ovided certain indications with 
regard to classification, as well as the scheduling of  economic needs tests.  Accordingly, any entry 
under Articles XVI and XVII should identify the inc onsistencies with relevant provisions.  In 
paragraph 9, the Guidelines that where economic ne eds tests were scheduled, the entry should indicate 
the main criteria on which the test was based.  A more fundamental question was whether there was 
sufficient guidance on how to specify these criteria.  
55. Commenting on Japan's concern, he felt that it might not be easy to engage in a discussion 
that avoided all implications for the interpretation of  existing commitments.  It was within the remit of 
the Committee to try to anticipate potential problems in future schedules, and to reflect on how to 
address them.  He considered the idea of a checklist to be interesting.  It was important to proceed in a 
way that, on the one hand, gave comfort to a ll Members and was without prejudice to bilateral 
exchanges and, on the other hand, helped Member s to better understand the potential ambiguities and 
pitfalls in scheduling.  At the end of the day, it was important that Members were aware of the 
problems and possible ways to avoid them. 
56. The representative of Brazil recognized that there was a thin line between scheduling and 
classification issues on the one hand and market ac cess issue on the other hand.  Brazil's paper was 
not intended to promote liberalization, but to understand the rationale in scheduling specific 
commitments and limitations.  Paragraph 11 of the Negotiating Guidelines stated that the process of 
liberalization was to be advanced through bilatera l, plurilateral or multilateral negotiations, and it was 
not his intention to modify the request-offer proces s.  Rather, the work his delegation suggested was 
complementary and covered a variety of areas beyond those referred to in the questions.  
57. The representative of Cuba noted Brazil's paper was of interest to many Members;  it was 
presented in the right forum, given the mandate entrusted to the Committee.   
58. The Chairperson referring to the late arriva l of the documents and the views expressed, 
proposed to reflect further on how to proceed with th e issues raised.  He suggested that Members take 
note of the statements made and that the Committe e revert to the issues at the next meeting. 
59. It was so agreed. 
C. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO ARTICLE XX :2 
60. The Chairperson recalled that Members had he ld a detailed discussion on the possible legal 
interpretation of situations with overlapping en tries under Articles XVI and XVII.  While some 
delegations had felt that a consiste nt interpretation of such cases was possible, others had expressed 
doubts.  He had noticed a sense of pragmatism on the part of several delegations, however.  Concerns 
had been raised about the relationship between old and new commitments.  Some delegations felt that 
the technical discussion related to Article XX:2 had been exhausted;  othe rs, however, were still S/CSC/M/32 
Page 10  
 
analyzing the issues involved.  He had not receive d further indications of interest ahead of the 
meeting.  The CSC had been requested to report back to the Council and he would submit a chairperson's report after today's meeting.  The re port would be very succinct and factual, and would 
also take into account any statements made at th e present meeting.  Noting that no delegation wished 
to make any statements, and stated that his repor t would be ready in time for the Council meeting on 
25 March 2004.
4 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
61. The representative of Hong Kong, China stated that under its terms of reference, the 
Committee was entrusted to oversee the applicati on of the procedures for the modification of 
schedules pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS.  He recalled that there was an ongoing negotiation 
under Article XXI in accordance with the procedures set  out in document S/L/80;  the latest deadline 
for these negotiations was 1 June 2004.  Given its re sponsibility in this area, his delegation wished to 
ensure that the Committee could have a discussion, as  necessary, on the application of the Article XXI 
procedures at a future meeting.  This would need to be done prior to the expiry of the deadline.  
E. APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
62. The Chairperson thanked delegations for the s upport he had received during his tenure, and 
proposed that, according to the consultations conduct ed by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in 
Services, the Committee elect Mr. Roberto Bosch  from Argentina as the Chairperson of the 
Committee for 2004.  Mr Roberto Bosch was elected by acclamation. 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
4 The report by the Chair was circ ulated as document S/C/W/217.