RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/W/62
16 November 1998
(98-4578)
Council for Trade in Services
MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES
Background Note by the Secretariat
INTRODUCTION1. This note has been prepared at the request of the Council for Trade in Services.  It provides
background information on maritime transport servic es for discussion in the information exchange
programme of the Council.  It contains basic and general information on trade in these services and
should not be considered exhaustive.
2. During the Uruguay Round a special Working Group was set up for transport services.  In the
course of its work, this Group examined, in particular, a note by the Secretariat MTN.GNS/W/60dated 4 July 1989 on "Trade in Transport Services", of which paragraphs 49 to 94 and Tables 6 to 10
are devoted to maritime transport.  The Secretariat also produced at the request of this Group another
document (MTN.GNS/TRANS/W/3 dated 24 September 1990) containing supplementary information
on maritime transport.  Notes on the Group's two meetings concerned with maritime transport are
reproduced in documents MTN.GNS/TRANS/2 of 6 August 1990 and MTN.GNS/TRANS/6 of30 November 1990.  Also of interest is document MTN.GNS/TRANS/W/1, dated 19 September 1990,
containing a communication from the Nordic countries about possible sectoral annotations.
3. The results of the Uruguay Round, while incorpor ating in the services schedules the maritime
transport commitments made, also contain an annex to the GATS on negotiations in maritime
transport services and a ministerial decision on maritime transport services whose effect was to
prolong maritime transport negotiations until 30 June 1996 and create to that effect a Negotiating
Group on Maritime Transport Services (NGMTS).  This group held 17 meetings between May 1994and June 1996.  As a result of its work, the Council for Trade in Services adopted on 28 June 1996 a
Decision on Maritime Transport Services (S/L/24 dated 3 July), which again incorporates the
maritime commitments and the MFN exemptions re lated to those commitments in the schedules,
suspends the negotiations until the commencement of the next comprehensive negotiations on
services, and suspends the MFN obligation until the end of the negotiations.  The text of this decisionis in Annex 1.
4. Numerous formal and informal documents relating to maritime transport were produced in the
context of the NGMTS. Among the informal documents the "Draft Schedule on Maritime Transport"
(Job N°1872) dated 15 April 1996 in its last version is certainly the most important.  A complete list
of the NGMTS formal documents is appended in Annex 2.
5. Of particular interest among these are the answers to the questionnaire on maritime transport
services (S/NGMTS/W/2 dated 21 October 1994).  This questionnaire was answered by 37 Members
- counting the EU as one - representing 46.6 per cent of the tonnage of the world fleet in terms of
registration (237,250.3 million Gross Registered Tons out of a total of 509,465.62 million GRT) and
more than 80 per cent in terms of ownership.  (Ships  registered in open registry countries (Bahamas,S/C/W/62
Page 2
Bermuda, Liberia, Malta, Panama, Vanuatu1) and which represent 192.61 million GRT (another
37.8 per cent) are almost entirely possessed by shipowners from developed countries2, which all
answered except for Israel and South Africa.)  The questionnaire was structured so as to include not
only national flag vessels but also the nationally owned or operated fleet (see for instance question 1
and chart 1) in accordance with the definition of a "service of another Member" given in
Article XXVIII (f) (i):  "a service which is supplied… in the case of maritime transport, by a vessel
registered under the laws of that other Member or by a person of that other Member which supplies
the service through the operation of a vessel and/or its use in whole or in part".
6. The questionnaire includes questions on the type of vessels, the tonnage, the proportion of
seaborne trade, the respective shares of bulk and liner and inside liner traffic, the share of conferences
as compared to that of outsiders, the presence of foreign providers of port and auxiliary services, the
regulatory structure, restrictions on maritime trade in the sense of Articles XVI and XVII of
the GATS, access to and use of port facilities, bilateral agreements, retaliation measures, governmentprocurement, competition law and shipper-carrier relations.  Overall the corpus of information
constituted by the answers, which run to several hundred pages, represents a unique source of
reference which has no equivalent for any other service covered by the GATS.
7. The overall picture resulting from the answers to the questionnaire is of a very liberalised
sector as compared to many other services sectors and in particular to other transport sectors.
8. The whole of bulk traffic (i.e. transport of oil, crude and refined, iron ore, grain, coal, bauxite)
which accounts for 67.7 per cent of the volume of traffic faces no restrictions except in one or two
countries.  It is organized as a spot market, (there is a also a futures market), and contracts are
allocated on an extremely competitive basis;  business is won on the basis of freight rates a few cents
per ton lower than the competition.
9. On the liner side (i.e. the transport of containerised and general cargo by regular lines
publishing in advance their calls in the various harbours) it appears that the operators are organized in
two ways:  in "conferences" that are more or less integrated cartels fixing prices and frequencies and
as "outsiders" that are very big or very small independent operators.  Two types of conferences exist
in the word:  open conferences on the US routes, closed conferences in the rest of the world.Conferences, which appeared around 1870 with the appearance of steamers on the UK to India lines,
enjoy antitrust immunity and benefit from block exemption from the competition authorities as they
are thought to constitute a factor of stability and a source of technical progress and better services red
to customers.
10. In practice over the last 30 years the share of the traffic held by the conferences has been
eroded as new state trading and South East Asia n operators have emerged and become powerful
enough to offer on their own services equivalent to those of the conferences.
11. The attempt of the UN Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences
3 which entered into force
in 1983 to open the restricted "club" of the confer ences to third world shipping lines through a cargo
sharing arrangement (the famous 40-40-20 formula) has largely failed. The Code was only effectively
implemented, in spite of its wide membership (more than 70 contracting parties) on a marginal part of
the world traffic, that between Western Europe and West Africa,  which accounts for less than 3 percent of the world liner trade.  Finally the competit ion directorate of the EU dissolved the conferences
concerned on the grounds of abuse of dominant position towards outsiders.
                                                     
1 List drawn by UNCTAD in its Review of maritime transport, 1997, Annex III A, page 113, Cyprus
being excluded to avoid double counting as it has answered the questionnaire.
2 Ibidem, table 13, page 24.
3 United Nations, Treaty series 1983.S/C/W/62
Page 3
12. In the rest of the world the conference system has coexisted with a framework of bilateral
intergovernmental cargo-sharing agreements that were either the result of historical and colonial links,
or were developed to deal with state trading econom ies such as China and the USSR.  Other bilateral
agreements were inspired by similar import-substitution economic theories than the liner code (Latin
America).  There again this framework has gradually eroded .
13. This is linked to the erosion of the "mercantilist model" which dates back as far as the 17th
century (British "Navigation Acts", French régime of the Colbert ordinances and of the "exclusif
colonial").  Under such regimes the external trade of a country had to be transported by ships flagged
in the country manned with nationals and where colonial traffic was reserves to the flag of the
country.  The UK abolished this model in 1847 but traces of it remain in the legislation of numerous
countries.  However, during the 1960's and 1970's the "mercantilist model" largely disappeared as a
result of decolonisation, of the "deflagging" of bulk fleets, which has effectively severed the link
between flag and ownership, and of the developmen t of "third traffics" meaning trade between two
countries carried in ships belonging to neither.  (One of the first examples of this was the transport of
Central American bananas to the US by Norwegian ships early in the present century.)
14. Finally on the harbour side the answers to the questionnaire show  that many countries have
adopted the principle of the "landlord harbour" where part of the operations is left in the hands of
private operators, which are  sometimes foreign-owned.
I. RECENT REGULATORY AND TRADE DEVELOPMENTS
A. OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS
15. Shipping remains by far the main mode of international transport of goods, although the rate
of growth of cargo transport by air is much higher:  5 per cent over the last ten years as compared to
2 per cent for shipping.4  Maritime transport is also still an expanding activity; it registered in 1997 its
twelfth consecutive year of growth with  a volume of 5,074 billion metric tons.
16. Freight rates are diminishing as a proportion of the value of the goods transported.  They
represented 6.64 per cent of value in 1980, and 5.27 per cent in 1997.  These costs are however higher
for developing countries (8.3 per cent in 1997) than for developed countries (4.2 per cent), a
difference that can be explained by several factors:  a bigger volume with bigger and more efficientships (carrying up to 6,600 containers), and stronger competition added to a higher average value of
goods transported for the developed markets.
17. In spite of technical progress (the average container load of a ship has more than doubled in
the last 15 years) recent productivity indicators show a certain decline due to overcapacity.  This
overcapacity is estimated at 10 per cent of the flee t for tankers and 6.7 per cent for the dry bulk sector.
18. In terms of structure of the traffic, tanker traffic (i.e. the transport of both crude oil and
refined products) accounts for 44.7 per cent in volume, dry bulk traffic (i.e. essentially the transport of
iron ore, grain, coal, bauxite and phosphates) 23 per cent and liner traffic (i.e. the relatively high-value
traffic essentially carried by container ships, roll -on-roll-off vessels and the remaining classic twin-
decker cargo ships) 32.6 per cent.  In terms of the value of goods transported the figures are higher for
liner trade, due to the higher unit value of the goods transported.  Detailed statistics on value are
however lacking.  The proportion of liner trade which is containerized is growing quickly (by nearly10 per cent per annum in the 90's, the forecast for the years 1998 to 2000 being 7 to 8 per cent
5) and
now represents 55 per cent of liner trade.  More than  half of this traffic is now handled in developing
                                                     
4 Source:  World Bank "Lessons and practices – ports" operations evaluation department, number 9,
June 1996.
5 Source:  Drewry Shipping Consultants.S/C/W/62
Page 4
countries harbours.  Graph 1, compiled by UNCTAD, gives an idea of the geographical distribution of
this trade.
Graph 1:  World Seaborne  Trade By Country Groups
(Percentage distribution of tonnage, 1996)
19. The world fleet amounted in 1996 to 758.2 million dead weight tons(DWT).  The vast
majority of this, 542.5 million DWT, is owned by developed countries and major open registry
countries6 but developing countries own a significant part of it:  145.7 million tons.  The following
tables compiled by UNCTAD give a more detailed view of the distribution of the world fleet and of
its evolution over time.7
                                                     
6 For details about the true ownership of the fleet of major open registries see UNCTAD's "Review of
Maritime Transport", 1997, table 19, page 32.
7 For information country by country see UNCTAD "Review of Maritime Transport" 1997,
Annex III b), pages 117-121.Goods unloaded
26.7
2.1
3
68
Developing Socialist Asia Eastern Europe Developed market-economy countriesGoods loaded
51.3
2.13.742.8
Developing Socialist Asia Eastern Europe Developed market-economy countriesS/C/W/62
Page 5
Table 1:  the 35 most important maritime countries and territories, as at 31 December 1996a
Number of vessels Deadweight tonnage Country of
territory of
domicilebNational
flagcForeign
flagTotal National
flagForeign flag Total Foreign
flag as
percen-
tage of
totalTotal as
percen-
tage of
world
total
Greece 912 2,003 2,915 46,444,947 71,954,723 118,399,670 60.77 17.41
Japan 922 1,829 2,751 22,116,501 65,171,700 87,288,201 74.66 12.84
United States 482 732 1,214 13,134,699 35,994,699 49,129,398 73.27 7.22
Norway 836 568 1,404 28,127,282 20,781,990 48,909,272 42.49 7.19
China 1,594 378 1,972 23,162,264 13,095,430 36,257,694 36.12 5.33
Hong Kong 104 503 607 5,401,167 28,079,400 33,480,567 83.87 4.92
Rep. of Korea 501 303 804 10,253,709 12,869,037 23,122,746 55.66 3.40
UK 388 510 898 5,269,713 15,875,697 21,145,410 75.08 3.11
Germany 478 984 1,462 6,140,698 11,918,853 18,059,551 66.00 2.66
Russian Fed. 2,595 239 2,834 12,231,787 5,113,585 17,345,372 29.48 2.55
Taiwan
Prov.of China179 254 433 7,577,719 7,534,148 15,111,867 49.86 2.22
Sweden 203 163 366 2,099,323 12,490,165 14,589,488 85.61 2.15
Singapore 402 252 654 8,876,995 5,544,741 14,421,736 38.45 2.12
Denmark 439 219 658 7,215,240 5,337,867 12,553,107 42.52 1.85
India 381 57 438 11,172,932 1,252,316 12,425,248 10.08 1.83
Italy 452 151 603 7,654,238 4,359,353 12,013,591 36.29 1.77
Saudi Arabia 69 58 127 1,078,603 9,749,334 10,827,937 90.04 1.59
Brazil 205 20 225 7,178,283 2,538,505 9,716,788 26.12 1.43
Turkey 420 23 443 8,997,546 107,859 9,105,405 1.18 1.34
France 178 105 283 4,313,260 3,446,166 7,759,426 44.41 1.14
Iran, Isl Rep. 147 6 153 6,133,908 206,284 6,340,192 3.25 0.93
Netherlands 463 199 662 3,597,792 2,196,115 5,793,907 37.90 0.85
Switzerland 14 191 205 618,880 459,769 5,168,649 88.03 0.76
Ukraine 577 64 641 3,587,740 1,261,689 4,849,429 26.02 0.71
Philippines 321 16 337 4,507,147 95,424 4,602,571 2.07 0.68
Romania 250 29 279 3,506,400 978,725 4,485,125 21.82 0.66
Belgium 30 140 170 148,155 4,105,155 4,253,310 96.52 0.63
Indonesia 463 86 549 3,060,844 1,154,412 4,215,256 27.39 0.62
Thailand 233 57 290 2,505,101 1,537,913 4,043,014 38.04 0.59
Malaysia 182 15 197 3,561,745 131,747 3,693,492 3.57 0.54
Spain 127 173 300 657,073 2,764,284 3,421,357 80.79 0.50
Finland 115 51 166 1,136,444 2,249,188 3,385,632 66.43 0.50
Croatia 68 106 174 696,043 2,591,991 3,288,034 78.83 0.48
Australia 68 29 97 2,807,519 479,388 3,286,907 14.58 0.48
Kuwait 33 6 39 2,863,725 351,028 3,214,753 10.92 0.47
Total
(35 countries)14,831 10,519 25,350 277,835,422 357,868,680 635,704,102 56.29 93.48
Percentage 58.5 41.5 100 43.7 56.3 100
World total 17,274 11,480 28,754 303,417,789 376,626,659 680,044,448 55.38 100
Percentage 60.1 39.9 100 44.6 55.4 100
Source:  Lloyd's Maritime Information Services Ltd. (London).
a Vessels of 1,000 grt and above, excluding the United States Reserve Fleet and the United States and Canada Great Lakes
fleets.
b The country of domicile indicates where the controlling interest of the fleet is located, in terms of the parent company.  In
several cases, this has required certain judgments to be made.  Thus, for instance, Greece is shown as the country of domicilewith respect to vessels owned by a Greek owner with representative offices in New York, London and Piraeus, although the
owner may be domicilied in the United States.
cIncluding vessels flying the national flag but re4gistered in territorial dependencies of associated self-governing territories .
For the United Kingdom, British flag vessels are included under the national flag, except for Bermuda and Hong Kong(shown separately in the present table).S/C/W/62
Page 6
Table 2:  Development of shares of major national groups in the world fleet 1981-1995
Mid 1981 End 1994 End 1995
Million
grt% World
tonnageMillion
grt% World
tonnageMillion
grt% World
tonnage
OECDcountries
a214.7 51 143.1 30.1 139.5 28.4
NIS/CEESCs
b30.3 7.2 30.7 6.5 28.8 5.9
Developing
Asian
Economiesc17.8 4.2 36.7 7.7 40.5 8.3
China 7.7 1.8 15.8 3.3 16.9 3.4
OpenRegistrycountries
d105.3 25 196.5 41.3 213 43.4
Developingmarketeconomycountries42 10 50.4 10.6 46.5 9.5
Otherse3.1 0.7 2.7 0.6 5.5 1.1
Total 420.8 100 475.9 100 490.6 100
Source:  Lloyd's Register, World Fleet Statistics 1995, London, 1996.
a Including Great Lakes Fleets and United States Reserve Fleets.
b Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary,  Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia,
Ukraine, Yugoslavia and other NIS.
c Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, Chinese Taipei, Thailand.
d Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Honduras, Libanon, Liberia,
Malta, Mauritius, Oman, Panama, Saint Vincent and Vanuatu.
e Cuba, Falkland Islands, Indonesia, Israel, North Korea, South Africa and Vietnam.
B. OVERVIEW OF REGULATORY AND TRADE DEVELOPMENTS
20. One should distinguish between maritime transpor t in the strict sense and harbour activities.
1. Maritime transport
21. The process of "de-flagging", that is the transfer of ships registered in developed countries to
open registries in order for the shipowners to enjoy the benefits of the low labour costs allowed bythese registries, has continued to spread.  The whole developed world bulk fleet is now under such
flags as well as an increasing part of the liner fleet.  To try to slow this movement, at least for the liner
fleet, developed countries have had recourse since the beginning of the eighties to a series of fiscal
measures and to the creation of "second registries" retain the national flag while allowing more
flexible conditions of manning (the crew except for some officers does not have to be composed ofnationals paid at national rates).
22. This tendency has now become general and has expanded outside Europe.  In addition to the
Norwegian, Danish, French and German examples that already existed before the end of the last
maritime negotiations, second registries have been instituted or are envisaged in Italy, Spain, Korea,
Brazil and Australia.  In Japan a ministerial authorization is now required to de-flag from the Japaneseregistry.  If this authorization is refused, the shipowner is entitled to a special tax treatment in
compensation.  This measure was triggered by the fact that the Japanese fleet is only one-fifth of what
it was at its highest level.  In the Netherlands a new fixed tonnage tax has been created to replace the
corporate income tax.  A similar tax was introduced  in Norway as well as reimbursements of income
tax for seafarers and additional depreciation for ships.  Reimbursements of income tax for seafarers
have also been instituted or are envisaged in Sweden and the United kingdom.  The UK has alsoS/C/W/62
Page 7
introduced roll-over relief on capital allowances balancing charges and assistance in relieving UK
crews in foreign ports.  France and Germany have recently eliminated certain fiscal advantages and
depreciation allowances, but these measures were in both instances linked to non-shipping
considerations.  The Commission of the European Communities issued in July 1997 "State Aid
Guidelines on Shipping" which are viewed by the European Communities Shipowners Association as
a framework  flexible enough to allow "positive measures" to be taken in favour of EC fleets.  Onemay note however the relative absence of direct subsidies in all these recent packages of measures.  In
that respect the US Maritime Security Act dated October 1996, which creates a ten year, US$ 1 billion
programme providing payments to owners and operato rs of US vessels in return for a commitment to
provide sealift support  in time of war or national emergency, constitutes an exception.
8
23. In parallel one may note a movement toward privatization of the last remaining state-owned
shipping companies, for instance Australian National Lines, Compagnie Générale Maritime in France
or Czech Ocean Shipping Joint Stock Company in the Czech Republic.  This movement can also beobserved in developing countries, notably under the impulsion of the World Bank, and has sometimes
led, as in Western Africa, to the closure of shipping companies.  Transnational take–overs have
recently increased considerably, as witness the take-overs of American President lines (USA) by
Neptune Orient Lines (Singapore), of DSR-Senato r Linie (Germany) by Han Jin (Korea) or the
merger between P and O (UK) and Nedlloyd (Netherlands).  The liner sector, which ten years ago haddozens of actors, has seen a great concentration.  In 1988 the 20 leading carriers controlled 35 per cent
of world-wide capacity, in 1996 48,6 per cent and forecasts based on new building orders indicate that
this share should exceed 60 per cent in 2000.
9  Alliances that were previously dedicated to specific
routes (such as Scandutch or Trio between Eur ope and the Far-East or ACL on the Atlantic) have
become global and imply world-wide cooperation between the shipowners concerned.  Examples
include the Maersk (Denmark)- Sealand (USA) arrangement (200 container vessels), the Global
Alliance composed of American President Lines(USA), Mitsui OSK(Japan), Orient Overseas
Container Lines (Hong Kong, China), Nedlloyd (N etherlands) and Malaysia International Shipping
Company, the Grand alliance with Hapag Lloyd (Germany), Neptune Orient Lines(Singapore),
NYK(Japan) and P and O (UK) and the alliance between Han Jin (Korea) DSR-Senator( Germany),Cho Yang (Korea) and United Arab Shipping Company (Arab, multinational).
24. However in spite of the emergence of mega-carriers and mega–alliances the picture remains
very fluid.  The alliances (whether be it consortia or conferences) are unstable, their membership
varies constantly and the competition authorities m onitor their activities closely.  For instance the
shipping companies members of the transatlantic agreement TIACA were recently fined heavily forillegal fixing of landleg tariffs by the competition directorate of the EU.  Similarly the US Federal
Maritime Commission has extended the geographic scope of the investigation started in 1994 for
illegal rebating and considers it has indications of increasing malpractices in a number of trades.  At
the same time there is intense legislative activity tending, under the impulsion of Sealand and the
National Shippers Association, to revise the US competition legislation in the sense of deregulation.
The "Ocean Shipping Reform Bill" voted by the House of Representatives but still pending before the
Senate foresees the suppression of the Federal Maritime Commission, which would be merged withthe Surface Transportation Board, the suppression of the administrative filing of tariffs - which would
nevertheless remain publicly available on the Internet - and the possibility for shippers to negotiate
confidential services contracts.  In Japan the competition law for maritime transport which provides a
block exemption for shipping activities is also under review.
25. The multiplication of decisions by competition authorities, such as the grant of anti trust
immunity to tolerated outsider agreements, the individual exemptions given to consortia and the
                                                     
8 most of the information contained in this section 996 and 1997 a nnual reports of the OECD  Maritime
Transport Committee, which are available on the we bsite:  http://www.oecd.org//dsti/sti/transpor/sea/prod/ar
9 source. International Association of Ports and Harbors ,"Biennal report on ships trends-1997",
available on the website:  http://iaph.or.jp/shiptrends_97rep.htmS/C/W/62
Page 8
authorization of mergers creates a risk of conflict of law.  To try to prevent this conflict the OECD
maritime transport committee published in November 1997 a report titled "Maritime Transport
Committee Conclusions on Work on Promotion of Co mpatibility of Competition Policy Applied to
International Shipping Including Multimodal Transport with a Maritime Leg".10
26. In terms of cargo reserved unilaterally to the national flag numerous liberalization processes
can be observed.  For example New Zealand liberalized its cabotage trade in 1994 and Australia isenvisaging doing so.  On becoming a member of the OECD Korea made in November 1995 a
commitment to abolish gradually its "Designated Cargo System".  Four items (raw materials for
fertilizers, grain, petrochemicals, crude oil ) were removed from the list of cargo reservation by the
end of 1996 and the three remaining items (coal, liquefied gas, iron ore) will be removed by the end
of 1998.
27. A certain movement of liberalization can also be observed regionally and multilaterally.
OECD members, for instance, signed in 1993 with the Newly Independent States and Central andEastern European Countries ("NIS-CEEC") Bulgaria , Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russian
Federation and Ukraine, an "understanding on comm on shipping policy principles" largely inspired by
the "common shipping policy principles" agreed in side the OECD in 1987. According to the annual
reports of the Maritime Transport Committee of the OECD this understanding has not given rise to
any problem of implementation.  Similarly OECD me mbers have begun a dialogue with the Dynamic
Non Member Economies ("DNME" that is Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong China, Korea,
Malaysia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei).  This dialogue has revealed much common ground on such
issues as the promotion of free access to international maritime trade, respect of the principle of free
and fair competition on a commercial basis, the promotion of maritime safety and the protection of the
marine environment, the need to prevent the operation of substandard vessels and to improve thetraining of sea-going personnel and the promotion of modern business technologies such as electronic
data interchange.  OECD members and DNME are now working on a draft understanding on common
shipping policy principles similar to the one conc luded with the NIS-CEEC.  OECD has also opened
an initial dialogue with China on shipping questions through a workshop on maritime policies and
practices held in Paris in November 1997 and has set itself the goal to broaden this dialogue to India,South America and selected African countries.  Finally in preparation for the next WTO maritime
negotiations the OECD is compiling a catalogue of existing impediments to maritime and multimodal
trade in non-OECD countries.
28. In Africa too several countries, such as Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal, have liberalized their
shipping policy and abandoned their cargo–sharing schemes.
29. In spite of this general tendency towards liberalization shipowners still consider that they are
facing serious obstacles.  For instance the European Communities Shipowners Association identifies
in its 1997-1998 Report the following "negative factors":  restricted/regulated access to port and port
services, preferential cargo allocation, restrictions on establishment of owned branch offices,
discriminatory measures favoring the use of national carriers, cumbersome procedures and/or personal
harassment during port calls, abusive tariffs for services (often not rendered), unrealistic and
unjustifiable liability claims by customs.  The famous "list of sins" of the Council of European andJapanese Shipowners Associations (CENSA) has si milar features.  The individual cases mentioned by
professionals, which include the limited granting of freight agency or terminal operators licences, the
prohibition of transshipment, the blocking of amounts collected by shipping lines for containers
demurrage, unilateral actions with extra-territorial impact are often of a kind that could be dealt
through the negotiation of commitments.
30. Another important regulatory development is the extension outside Europe, and notably to the
pacific region, of the "port state control" principle,  that is the right recognized to the state of the
                                                     
10 See OECD document DSTI/SI/MTC(98)1 dated 24 January 1998…S/C/W/62
Page 9
harbour where the ship calls to arrest and detain substandard ships for safety reasons.  OECD has also
manifested a renewed interest in this question through its study "Competitive advantages obtained by
some shipowners as a result of non observance of applicable international rules and standards"11
containing a number of recommendations and through a declaration of its Members on theimplementation of international rules and norms concerning maritime transport
12, which has also been
subscribed by the following countries:  Bulgaria, Korea, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,Czech Republic, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.
13  In the same area the International Maritime
Organization has continue to elaborate international conventions on safety and has widened the
membership of existing conventions.14
2. Harbour services
31. The same logic of restructuring and reform through privatization and liberalization is at work
for harbour services.15  This is true both in the developed and the developing world (it is worth noting
that among the top 30 harbours in the world, 12 are located in developing countries).  The aims ofthese reforms are to improve efficiency and to diversify sources of capital inflows.
32. For instance long term-leases, joint ventures and build-operate-transfer options have been
agreed or will shortly be decided in Aden (Yemen), Cristobal and Balboa (Panama), Tanjung Priok
(Indonesia), Yangon (Myanmar), Port Raysud (Oman), Kadok Island, Pusan and Inchon (Korea),
Shantou, Tian Jin and Xiamen (China), Mumbai (India), Colombo (Sri Lanka), Karachi and Port
Kasim (Pakistan).
33. Other examples include:  Buenos Aires, where ship to gate terminal tariffs have dropped in
the space of three years from over US$ 600 to under US$ 200 through long term leases of terminals
and investment in container handling equipment a nd management systems;  the ongoing industrial
reform of the waterfront in Australia (new rules for the employment of dockers, corporatization ofregional ports and in the long term privatization of all port functions except non commercial
regulatory and community services obligation functions);  the "commercialization" of the Great lakes-
Saint Lawrence seaway in Canada (locks and ch annels remaining however operated and maintained
by a non profit organization);  and the separation of infrastructure and operational activities in Poland.
34. The World Bank, which has spent US$ 8 billion between 1950 and 1996 in harbour projects
(57 projects between 1980 and 1996), has developed a doctrine and practice going beyond the
expansion and modernization of facilities to development of the political autonomy and economic
viability of port authorities and more recently to promotion of the participation of the private sector in
port investment and operation.  The World Bank
16 notes a beginning of an evolution of the structures
from "statutory companies" to "s hare companies".  Between the two types of ports, the "landlord
ports" (where port authorities limit their role to the building and owning of infrastructure, leaving
superstructure, pilotage, cargo operations and towage to be conducted by private operators) and the
"service ports" (where all operations are integrated and conducted by the port authority itself), the
World Bank tries to privilege the first model.  It notes that in some instances it has been possible to
convince the private sector to finance port infrastructure, as has been the case in Hong Kong China,
Mexico and Panama.  In exchange the private sector has obtained long term monopoly rights on cargo
handling and storage.  The World Bank considers that the private sector should be encouraged to
                                                     
11 Document OECD/GD(96)4.
12 Documents OECD SG/PRESS(94)34 and (94)53.
13 Document OECD SG/PRESS(95)32.
14 For more details on this work, see the International Maritime Organization website:
http://www.imo.org.
15 For an overview of the ongoing reforms, see UNCTAD" Review of Maritime Transport 1997"
para 103 to 111, pages 67-70.
16 Those elements are drawn from "lessons and practices–ports", Operations Evaluation Department,
number 9, June 1996 available on the website:  http://www.worldbank.org/html/oed/lp009.htm.S/C/W/62
Page 10
invest in port facilities and heavy port equipment such as container cranes and to share the risks and
rewards of financing these lumpy and massive investments through build-operate-transfer schemes
and concessions.  In this context lease of public facilities and management contracts may be used as
initial steps towards fuller privatization.
35. This institutional development takes place in a context where the competition between
harbours is fiercer than in the past because of technological evolution:  the increasing size ofcontainerships implies only a few calls in three or four harbours at each end of the trade (for instance
on the Europe –Far East trade Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp and possibly Le Havre on the one hand
and Singapore Hong Kong and Kobe on the other) the rest of the traffic being served by smaller
feederships.  It is therefore essential for big harbours to be selected as one of these calls by the main
shipowners, consortia and alliances to avoid marginalization.  Hence the development of "hub and
spoke" strategies similar to those existing in air tr ansport.  In developing such strategies shipowners
sometimes create their own private hubs, often at the crossroads of several routes:  for instance theAlgeciras terminal of Maersk at the crossroads of  the East-West (through the Mediterannean sea) and
North –South routes in the Atlantic or the Gioi a Tauro terminal in southern Italy developed by
Contship at the crossroads of the Mediterranean routes and of the railroad routes towards north sea
harbours (see Secretariat document on rail transport).
36. The harbours themselves tend not only to export their technical amd managerial know how
but also to develop direct management of foreign harbour or container terminals.  For instance the
Port of Singapore Authority is managing or planni ng to manage projects in China (Dalian), India,
Indonesia, Korea and Sri Lanka.
37. Finally regional organizations are also undertaking work in the field of harbour services.  The
European Commission issued in December 1997 a green paper
17 which defines a neutral policy
towards ownership and organization but tries to ensure that subsidies granted to infrastructures and
tariffication do not distort competition between ha rbours and between their users.  APEC has also
created an expert group on maritime transport which has up to now focused its work on the efficiency
of infrastructure and maritime safety.
II. ANALYSIS OF COMMITMENTS
38. There are currently 29 WTO Members who have commitments in international shipping
services.  Of these 29 Members, 21 include both freight and passenger transportation services, five
only freight services and three only passenger services.  The most important limitations include
foreign equity ceilings, nationality requirements for ownership and registration of vessels under the
national flag, requirement to appoint a local agent, limitations on government owned cargoes,discriminatory taxation and discriminatory port charges.  Twenty-six Members have scheduled
commitments in services auxiliary to maritime transport, including cargo handling, storage and
warehousing, freight agency and freight forwarding, pre-shipment inspection, custom clearance,
container station and depot.  Six Members have undertaken commitments on port services, such as
towing, pushing, tug assistance, port dredging, and port captain’s services, while 11 Members have
scheduled additional commitments relating to access for consumers of port services on a
non-discriminatory and reasonable terms.  Finally ten Members have scheduled commitments onmaintenance and repair of vessels and six Members on rental of vessels with crew.  These
commitments are described in a synthetic manner by the following chart.
                                                     
17 "Green Paper on Sea Ports and Maritime Infrastructure", COM(97) 678 final, executive summary
available on the website:  http://www.serv.caiw.nl/~empa/p11.htm.S/C/W/62
Page 11
SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS IN MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES
MEMBER INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPINGAUXILIARY
SERVICESPORT SERVICES OTHER
Antigua* and
BarbudaFreight:  None except
(3) MA&NT:
reference toMerchant ShippingAct.No commitment onpassengerNo commitments No commitments Maintenance and
repair of vessels: (3),
reference to BusinessAct
Aruba* None except (3) NT:
vessels registered in
Aruba must flyNetherlands flag,must be owned by anAruban company andcaptain must be
Dutch nationalCommitments on
cargo handling,
storage andwarehousing, freightagency and freightforwardingNo commitments
Australia None except
(1a) MA:requirement ofrepresentative agentwho is a resident;NT, Trade Practices
Commission can
examine restrictivepractices;(3a) establishment ofcompanies operating afleet under Australian
flag nationality
requirements forownership andregistration of vesselsCommitments on
storage andwarehousingservices; andmaritime freightforwarding services;
pre-shipment
inspectionNo commitments International rental of
vessels with crew
Benin* None except on
freight transportation(1) MA: access to
only 20%None except often
(3) MA: statemonopoly, NT:
unboundNo commitments Rental of vessels
with crew
Canada Unbound None except
Customs clearance(1)-(4) MA:Requirement for acommercialpresence/permanent
residencyNo measures shall be
applied which denyreasonable and non-discriminatory access
Cuba* None except on
freight transportation
MA (3a): foreignerscannot register shipsunder Cuban flagCommitments on
(partially covered)
cargo handling, andstorage andwarehousingNo commitments Maintenance and
repair of vessels
Egypt* None except (1)
unbound, and (3)only through joint
ventures with max.
equity of 49 per centNo commitments Commitments only
on port dredging but(1) unbound and (3)
through joint
ventures with max.equity of 75 per centS/C/W/62
Page 12
MEMBER INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPINGAUXILIARY
SERVICESPORT SERVICES OTHER
European
CommunityNo commitments Storage and
warehouse services(other than in ports);freight transportagency/freight
forwarding services;
pre-shipmentinspectionNo commitments Rental of vessels
with crew (F: priornotificationrequirement; D:unbound)
Finland No commitments Storage and
warehousingservices; freighttransport agency;
other supporting and
auxiliary transportservicesNo commitments Charter services:
leasing of vesselswith crew; sea androad
Gambia* None
No commitments onfreightNo commitments Commitments on
towing and pushingand supportingservices for maritime
transportMaintenance and
repair of vessels
Ghana None except (1)
access to only 20 %of bulk and linercargo, and (3a)unboundCommitments on
cargo handling,storage andwarehousing,container station anddepot, with a
limitation on (3) state
monopoly -privatisationenvisaged in 5-7yearsMade available on
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
Hong Kong Freight none except
(1-2) NT: unbound,
and (3) NT: income
tax exemption foroperation of nationalflag shipsNo commitments onpassengerNone except (1)
unbound, and (2) NT:
unbound.
No commitments onfreight forwardingMade available on
reasonable and non-
discriminatory termsMaintenance and
repair of vessels;
rental of vessels with
crew
Hungary No commitments Commitments on
storage and
warehousingCommitments not
technically feasibleMaintenance and
repair of vessels
Iceland* None except
(3a) MA&NT:Unbound forestablishment ofcompanies operating a
fleet under Icelandic
flagNone Made available on
reasonable and non-discriminatory termsAdditional
commitments onmultimodalS/C/W/62
Page 13
MEMBER INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPINGAUXILIARY
SERVICESPORT SERVICES OTHER
Indonesia None except (1) NT:
requirement toappoint local agent,(1b) "Government'scargo" and (3) MA:
"may establish
owner'srepresentative" andNT: horizontalNo commitments Access to and use of
facilities
Jamaica* Freight:  none except
(3) MA: registrationand licensing
requirement
No commitments onpassengerNo commitments No commitments
Japan Unbound Commitments on
storage andwarehousing(excluding petroleum
products), and
customs clearance.Made available on
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
Commitments on
pushing and towingservices; salvagingservices; wateringservices; fuellingservices; garbage
collecting services.
Korea RP None except
(1b) MA:  Cargopreference for coal,iron ore and liquefiedgas(3a) Unbound for
establishment of
companies operating afleet under KoreanflagNone except
storage andwarehousingexcludes agriculture,fish and livestockproducts.
Agency, freight
forwarding, andbrokerage requireincorporation as ajoint stock company
(Includes
commitments onshipping brokerage)Made available on
reasonable and non-discriminatory termsMaintenance and
repair of vessels
Malaysia None except (3) MA:
only through rep.office, or jointventure with max.equity of 30%, and
(3a) nationality and
ownershiprequirements forvessels registration inMalaysiaCommitments on
agency services with(3) MA: only throughrep. office, or jointventure with max.
equity of 30%Made available on
reasonable and non-discriminatory termsVessel salvage and
refloating serviceswith (3) MA: onlythrough rep. office,or joint venture with
max. equity of 30%
Malta None except (3) MA:
horizontalNo commitments No commitmentsS/C/W/62
Page 14
MEMBER INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPINGAUXILIARY
SERVICESPORT SERVICES OTHER
Myanmar No commitments No commitments No commitments Tourist transport
operation: operatinga tourist business bywater craft: (3) NT:unbound
Netherlands
Antilles*None except (3) NT:
vessels registered in
N.A. must flyNetherlands flag,must be owned by anN.A. company andcaptain must be
Dutch nationalCommitments on
cargo handling,
storage andwarehousing, freightagency and freightforwardingNo commitments
New Zealand None except
(3a) MA&NT:unbound forestablishment ofcompanies operating afleet under New
Zealand flagStorage and
warehousing services;and maritime freightforwarding servicesNo commitments
Nigeria None except (1)
unbound with cargoreservations (40% ofliner cargo, 50% ofbulk trade, 100% ofgovernment cargo,
50% of aid generated
cargo)No commitments No commitments Maintenance and
repair of vessels, (2)NT: authorizationrequired; rental ofvessels with crew(1,3,4) unbound, (2)
none
Norway None except
(3a) MA&NT:ownershiprequirements fornationally registered
shipsNone Made available on
reasonable and non-discriminatory termsAdditional
commitments onmultimodal
Papua New*
GuineaNone No commitments No commitments
Peru* Commitments on
passengertransportation byferries exclusivelyfor internal touristservices and (1,3)
MA: authorization
required, (1) NT:unbound, (2)MA&NT: unboundNo commitments No commitments
Philippines* None except
government ownedcargoes to be shipped
on board Philippines
flag vessels.No limitation on (4)except time-limit forspecialized vesselsNone, but no
commitments oncustoms clearance
and maritime agency
servicesNo commitments Maintenance and
repair of vessels but(2) MA: requirement
to use domestic ship
repair yards
St. Kitts andNevisCommitments on
ship registrationNo commitments No commitmentsS/C/W/62
Page 15
MEMBER INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPINGAUXILIARY
SERVICESPORT SERVICES OTHER
St. Lucia None Commitments only
on trans-shipmentservices and freezone operationsNo commitments
St. Vincent and
the GrenadinesNone except (3) MA:
subject to Exchange
Control Act,
Commercial Codeand NT: withholdingtaxCommitments only
on trans-shipment
services and free
zone operations with(3) MA: subject toExchange ControlAct, CommercialCode and NT:
withholding taxNo commitments
Senegal No commitments Commitments on
consignment,handling, forwardingand shiphandlingwith (1) MA:unboundNo commitments
Sierra Leone* None except
(3) MA: compliance
required withnational laws forestablishing businessFull commitments on
MTN.GNS/W/120
list with (3) MA:joint venturerequirementFull commitments on
supporting services
for maritimetransport
Singapore Freight: None
No commitments onpassengerCommitments on
shipping agency andbrokerageMade available on
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
Slovenia No commitments Commitments on
storage and
warehousing,
customs clearance,freight forwardingand pre-shipmentinspectionNo commitments Maintenance and
repair of vessels
Thailand None except freight:
(1) restrictions on
traffic with China
and Vietnam, (3a)unbound, (3b) MA:horizontal, NT:income taxexemptions for
national flag vessel
operatorsCommitments on
storage and
warehousing, freight
forwarding (andmaritime surveys andclassificationservices) with (1)unbound, (3) MA:
horizontal, NT: no
limitations as long asforeign equity notmore than 49%Made available on
reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms
Commitments on
international towing,shore receptionfacilities (collection
of waste), and port
captain's services
Trinidad andTobagoNo commitments No commitments Commitments on
navigation aids, andcommunication
/meteorological
servicesCommitments on
ship surveys andrepairs/building with
(1,2) unboundS/C/W/62
Page 16
MEMBER INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPINGAUXILIARY
SERVICESPORT SERVICES OTHER
Turkey None except (1) NT:
discriminatory portcharges; (1b) 10%preference marginsfor public cargoes;
(3a) MA: ownership
requirementsNo commitments No commitments Maintenance and
repair of vessels;rental of vessels withcrew: (1-2) NTlimitations
Venezuela* Freight: none, except
(1) unbound.No commitments onpassengerCommitments on
cargo handling andstorage andwarehousingNo commitments
1 *Shipping commitments include cabotage.
2 As in the Schedules none stands for no limitations to the commitments undertaken in the sector.
3 This table relies on the classification adopted in the model draft schedule on maritime transport
services of 15 April 1996 as well as on the services sectoral classification of document MTN.GNS/W/120.
39. As far as MFN exemptions are concerned, 26 Members have MFN exemption lists in
maritime transport services.  However, according to paragraph 4 of the Decision on Maritime
Transport Services of 3 July 1996 (S/L/24), Article II of the GATS and the Annex on Article II
Exemptions are suspended for international shipping, auxiliary services and access to and use of port
facilities until the conclusion of the next round of services negotiati ons.  Paragraph 4 of the Decision,
however, does not apply to any specific commitment on maritime transport services which is inscribed
in a Member’s schedule.  The only MFN exemption lists which are not suspended are those taken by
Members who have maintained specific commitments in the sector.  There are therefore only14 Members who have MFN exemption lists actually in force.
40. Four MFN exemptions among those whose effects are not suspended cover measures taken by
Members under the UN Convention on a Code of Conduct on Liner Conferences.  These exemptions
are of a preferential nature in so far as they favour countries who are signatories to the Code.
However, treatment under the Code is partially
18 based on reciprocity and has a partial exclusionary
effect on third parties (which are limited to 20 per cent of the cargoes carried by the conference). Four
other exemptions are specific to cabotage, three to  tax treatment and four are of a broad and generic
nature covering a bundle of existing and future measures in the maritime sector.  The vast majority of
exemptions (15) do not specify the intended duratio n and have entries such as “indefinite, unlimited
or indeterminate”; three exemptions link the duration of the exemptions to the expiry date ortermination of existing bilateral agreements.  Fina lly six exemptions are both of a preferential and
reciprocal nature, nine are only reciprocal and four are only preferential.
                                                     
18 For instance EC regulation 954//79 known as the "Brussels package" disapplies between EC shipping
companies the strict bilateral cargo sharing (40-40) foreseen by the code.S/C/W/62
Page 17
MFN EXEMPTIONS IN MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES
Member Sector affected Countries to which the
measure appliesIntended duration Nature of exemption
Benin Coastal shipping
(cabotage) and liner tradeNot specified 10 years renewable Preferential/reciprocal
Maritime transport: UN
Convention on a Code of
Conduct on Liner
ConferencesNot specified Unlimited Preferential/reciprocal
Canada Maritime transport: tax
exemptionAll Indeterminate Reciprocal
Cuba Freight transportation All countries with which
bilateral agreements havebeen concludedUntil end of notice of
termination by one of thepartiesPreferential
European
CommunityRental/leasing services
without operators, relatingto ships; rental of vessels
with crew
(Chartering of foreignships to consumersresident in Germany)All Indefinite Reciprocal
Finland Cabotage All Indefinite Reciprocal
Jamaica Cargo reservations under
the UN Code of Conduct
on Liner ConferencesSignatories to the UN
Convention on a Code of
Conduct on LinerConferencesIndefinite Preferential/reciprocal
New Zealand Maritime (passenger and
freight): supply of servicesby officers on NewZealand ships –
qualification requirementsEire, Hong Kong, United
Kingdom, India, Malaysia,Singapore, Pakistan, SouthAfricaIndefinite Preferential
Peru Transport: land and sea Andean Group countries Indefinite Preferential
Philippines Cabotage All Expiry date or
termination of bilateralagreements on Amity,Commerce and
NavigationReciprocal
Senegal Coastal shipping
(cabotage) trade25 countries Near future, while the
objective pursued takes
rootReciprocal
Maritime transport: UN
Convention on a Code ofConduct on Liner
ConferencesNot specified Unlimited Preferential/reciprocal
Maritime transport Not specified Unlimited Preferential/reciprocal
Thailand Selling and marketing of
maritime transport
services: value added tax
collectionAll Indefinite Reciprocal
Trinidad and
TobagoCargo reservations under
the UN Code of Conduct
on Liner ConferencesSignatories to the Code Unlimited Preferential/reciprocal
Turkey Transportation services:
income and corporate tax
rates. Value added taxexemption.All Indefinite Reciprocal
Treatment of
transportation vehiclesAll Indefinite Reciprocal
Venezuela Maritime freight transport
servicesNot specified Indefinite Reciprocal
Maritime freight transport
services: cargo sharingUnited States Indefinite PreferentialS/C/W/62
Page 18
41. This table only lists the MFN exemptions of those Members who have commitments in
maritime transport services as, according to paragraph 5 of the Decision on Maritime Transport
Services of 3 July 1996 (S/L/24), the continued suspension of Article II and of the Annex on Article II
exemptions does not apply to Members’ specific commitments on maritime transport inscribed in the
schedules and to the relevant MFN exemptions.
42. This table does not take account of MFN exemptions applicable to all sectors, it only lists
MFN exemptions specific to the maritime sector.
III. POSSIBLE AREAS FOR FURTHER WORK ON CLASSIFICATION MATTERS
43. Members may wish first to examine the modifications brought to CPC provisional by CPC
rev1 with regard to maritime transport (A).  They ma y  also find of interest the fact that as a result of
the discrepancies between the two classifications mo st frequently used (CPC and draft schedule) there
are services mentioned in one classification which do not appear in the other and vice –versa, which
seems to trigger the need for a composite all-encompassing classification (B).  They may also beinterested in finding ways to liberalize internal waterways transport and road transport only if they are
the land leg of a maritime transportation (C), and finally they may wish to address the classification of
certain peripheral services such as container leasing, dredging, and harbour services delivered to ships
other than transport ships (D).
A. E
XAMINATION OF THE CHANGES RESULTING FROM CPC REV1
44. Members will find a complete description of the changes brought by CPC rev1 to CPC
provisional with regard to maritime transport in document S/CSC/W/6/Add.5,  paragraphs 13 to 20.
They will also find a discussion of the potential impact of these changes on the commitments already
undertaken in document S/CSC/W/9 paragraphs 21 to 24.
45. In summary the main changes brought about by Revision 1 for maritime transport are the
following.  Transport is defined by geography ("coas tal and transoceanic transport") instead of by the
type of vessel ("sea going vessel");  cruises are explicitly included in passenger transport;  freight is
defined by type of vessel (refrigerator vessels/tanker s/containerships/other vessels") instead of by type
of goods (refrigerated goods/bulk li quids/containerized cargoes/others); and there is some additional
precision in the definitions of the other cargoes (e xplicit addition of mail and dry bulk such as flours,
cereals, cement, sand and coal). They do not affect the structure or the scope of corresponding items in
the original CPC.
46. Unfortunately these changes do not solve the questi on of "sea-river ships".  It was difficult with
CPC provisional to schedule commitments on traffic on rivers (an important subject in certain countries
in the process of accession) as the scheduling was based on the type of vessel (sea going/non sea going)with the assumption that inland wa ter transport can only be made by non sea going vessels which is
false as certain sea going ships, the "sea-river sh ips" can operate inland waterways transport.  A
distinction based on the geography as introduced by rev is better in that respect.  However as the
criterion of the nature of the vessel reappears in the definitions
19 it remains impossible to schedule the
activity of sea-river ships on the basis of the CPC.  It can of course be scheduled explicitly, without
reference to the CPC.
B. POSSIBLE NEED FOR A COMPOSITE CLASSIFICATION
47. The negotiations were focused on the three pillars of the maritime transport sector:
international shipping, maritime auxiliary services, and access to and use of port facilities.  The draft
                                                     
19 For instance rev. 65121 titled "coastal and transoceanic water transport services of freight by
refrigerator vessels" is  defined as "transportation by seagoing vessel …"S/C/W/62
Page 19
schedule contains a more detailed classification of these services, and indicates how commitments on
each may be scheduled.  While commitments on the first two pillars are scheduled under Article XVI
(market access) and Article XVII (national treatment), commitments on the third pillar are scheduled
under Article XVIII (additional commitments).
48. The new commitments made during the additional negotiations have generally followed the
draft schedule.  However, of the 31 countries which have maintained their Uruguay Roundcommitments on maritime transport services in their final schedules, only some have followed the
draft schedule classification.  Others have followed the classification given in document GNS/W/120.
49. The choice of different approaches creates difficulties in comparing the range of
commitments undertaken by Members.  More significantly, neither the draft schedule nor the
GNS/W/120 classification offers the possibility of scheduling comprehensive commitments.  The
following developments identify the main problems and suggest possible solutions.
1. Differences in coverage
50. The coverage of maritime transport services in the two classifications is not the same
(Table 1).  Most notably, the draft schedule does not include rental of vessels with crew  (CPC 7213)
and maintenance and repair of vessels  (part of CPC 8868) - the latter being only partially included as
emergency repair facilities .  On the other hand, the GNS/W/120 classification does not explicitly list
certain auxiliary services  (such as customs clearance  and container station and depot services ) and
certain port services  (such as port captains services ).
51. In the GNS/W/120 classification, the second pillar, i.e. auxiliary services, is not part of
maritime transport services per se , but part of a general category services auxiliary to all modes of
transport .  Several countries who have followed the GNS/W/120 classification, have scheduled
commitments in this sector ( storage and warehousing ).
2. Differences in scope of commitments
52. A more significant difference arises in the manner of scheduling commitments, particularly
with regard to port services.  Port services are treated as a sub-sector in the GNS/W/120 classification
(under supporting services for maritime transport ).  Thus, if a Member scheduled this sub-sector and
did not impose prohibitive restrictions, it would be possible for the suppliers of another Member toprovide these services.  On the other hand, in the draft schedule, Members have the possibility of
entering an additional commitment which states that port services shall be made available to
international maritime transport suppliers on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.  Whereas this
assurance, contained in the draft schedule, of availability of these services is not provided by
commitments under the GNS/W/120 classification,  the draft schedule structure does not include thepossibility of allowing the service suppliers of another Member to provide port services.  To
summarise:  while the GNS/W/120 is concerned only with the rights of suppliers of port services, the
draft schedule is concerned only with the rights of consumers of port services.
53. This gap in the draft schedule may be important.  Many countries are in the process of
privatizing port facilities and frequently seek to attract foreign investment in these areas.  For instance
Thailand is one of several countries which have already scheduled commitments on the supply of port
services .
3. Possible further work
54. If Members seek to make comprehensive commitments, there would be a need to supplement
either the draft schedule or the GNS/W/120 classi fication.  Members who have followed the draftS/C/W/62
Page 20
schedule, may wish to include in future rental of vessel with crew (CPC 7213), maintenance and
repair of vessels (part of CPC 8868), and port services as additional sub-sectors.
55. Members who have followed GNS/W/120 may choose to explicitly list in the future certain
auxiliary services  (such as customs clearance  and container station and depot services ) and certain
port services  (such as port captains services ) as sub-sectors.  Furthermore, they may choose to make
an additional commitment which states that port services shall be made available to international
maritime transport suppliers on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.
56. Alternatively Members may want to agree at the outset of the next negotiations on a
composite list drawn from both the draft schedule and from GNS W/120 and encompassing all the
services possible.  Such a list could be designed on the basis of the following chart:
Alternative Classifications of Maritime Transport Services:  Draft Schedule and GNS/W/120
DRAFT SCHEDULE GNS/W/120
MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES 11A.  MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES
International Transport (freight and passengers)
CPC 7211 and 7212 less cabotage transportAa. Passenger transportation CPC 7211
Ab. Freight transportation CPC 7212Ac. Rental of vessels with crew CPC 7213
MARITIME AUXILIARY SERVICES
-  Maritime Cargo Handling Services
(not including direct activities of independently
organised dockers)-  Storage and Warehousing ServicesCPC 742 (as amended)-  Customs Clearance Services-  Container Station and Depot Services-  Maritime Agency Services-  Maritime Freight Forwarding Services11H.  SERVICES AUXILIARY TO ALL MODES
OF TRANSPORTHa. Cargo-handling services CPC 741
Hb. Storage and warehouse CPC 742
services
Hc. Freight transport agency CPC 748
services
PORT SERVICES 11Af. SUPPORTING SERVICES FOR MARITIME
TRANSPORT           CPC 745
1. Pilotage (Af) Pilotage and berthing           CPC 7452
2. Towing and tug assistance Ae. Pushing and towing services   CPC 7214
3. Provisioning, fuelling and watering
4. Garbage collecting and ballast waste disposal (Af) Other supporting services for CPC 7459
water transport
5. Port Captain's services
6. Navigation aids (Af) Navigation aids                    CPC7453
7. Shore-based operational services essential to shipoperations, including communications, water andelectrical supplies
8. Emergency repair facilities Ad. Maintenance and re pair        CPC 8868*
of vessels
[9. Anchorage, berth and berthing services] (Af) Pilotage and berthing           CPC 7452
(Af) Port and waterway operation  CPC 7451
(Af) Vessel salvage and refloating  CPC 7454S/C/W/62
Page 21
C. POSSIBILITY TO COMMIT ROAD TRANSPORT AND INTERNAL TRANSPORT ONLY FOR THE LAND
LEG OF A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
1. Road transport
57. The model schedule provides in its additional commitments section for the possibility for
shipowners to consume land transport services, but not to provide them directly.  However in manyinstances shipowners are interested in providing and complete multimodal door to door service where
they would master the whole logistic chain.  Th at explains why OECD members and DNME countries
(see above paragraph 21) have also agreed during the course of their dialogue that although "port to
port shipping had been extensively liberalized, the continued existence of barriers to the  development
of land carriage activities  prior to or following ocean shipping in multimodal transport, created real
problems".  Similarly one of the main requests of European Shipowners in the context of negotiations
with China, be it in a bilateral EU-China context or in the perspective of China's accession to WTO, is"the right to establish wholly owned branch offices for serving their customers and to arrange and
control all operations necessary for modern door to door shipping service".
58. WTO Members may be willing to offer such possibilities without implying a complete
liberalization of road transport services.  The classical request of shipowners is limited to mode 3 and
therefore does not imply liberalization of mode 1, which is politically more sensitive notably becauseof its non–MFN traditional regime.  However, Members may want to limit the liberalization of
mode 3 to shipowners only, excluding trucking companies for instance.
59. Technically speaking it is already possible to schedule commitments in the road transport
section of the schedule while limiting the benefits of the mode 3 liberalization to the holder of a
shipowner licence.  However no such commitment has been taken because road transportcommitments have been negotiated separately from shipping commitments and in a wider perspective.
They all date back to the Uruguay round or to accession negotiations and were not included in the
ambit of the NGMTS.  Even there it would have been  possible to take such commitments through a
unilateral improvement of road transport schedules but no Member did so.
60. A practical solution could be to create in a revision of the draft schedule an item "road
transport as an element of multimodal transport" in the sectoral column, which would be defined by a
footnote in order to avoid circumvention as being a transport having a common transport document
with the sea-leg, the through way bill of lading.
2. Internal waterways transport
61. The river extension of a multimodal maritime transport (say for instance Marseilles-Lyons or
Belem-Manaus) raises similar problems and could be dealt through similar arrangements.  This would
by the same token solve the question of the difficu lty of scheduling commitments for sea-river ships
(see above).  This would also present a certain commercial interest in the perspective of the
negotiation of accession of CIS Member countries where sea–river transport is an important feature of
the transport economy.
D. C
LASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PERIPHERAL SERVICES
1. Harbour services delivered to non-transport vessels
62. Harbour services are not delivered only to transport vessels but also to fishing vessels, leisure
boats, tugboats, dredging barges and even to military ships.  However the title of the first column of
the draft schedule is "MARITIME TRANSPORT SE RVICES ".  This may imply that commitments
on access to/and use of harbour services are limited to transport vessels.S/C/W/62
Page 22
63. Members may wish to clarify this point.  A possible solution would be to agree that
non-transport vessels are included because the titles of the harbour services concerned do not
distinguish among the type of vessels.  Even if a narrow interpretation limiting the scope of
commitments to transport vessels because of the ti tle of the first column, was to prevail, Members
may wish nevertheless to open a de novo possibility to take commitments on access to and use of
harbour services for non transport vessels.
2. Rental and leasing of containers
64. Rental and leasing of containers is an impor tant economic activity:  according to UNCTAD
47 per cent of the containers used  worldwide for maritime transport are the property of lessors.
However, it is not adequately dealt with in the mode l schedule or in any of the classification systems.
CPC rev1 seems to perpetuate the classification of containers as land transport equipment which is
technically and economically an error.  In view of the economic importance of the container leasing
sector Members may wish to clarify this point.
3. Dredging
65. The question of the classification of dredging services has already been raised during the
Exchange of Information Program.  However it may be sufficiently clarified by the definition of
CPC 72140 "pushing and towing services":  ("towing and pushing services on the high seas and in
coastal waters.  These services are generally provided by vessels which do not themselves carryfreight or passengers.  Included here towing services  of oil rigs, floating cranes, dredging vessels…").
4. Classification societies
66. Classification societies such as Lloyds or the American Bureau of Shipping or the Bureau
Veritas, play an important role in maritime tr ansport by inspecting and certifying ships and
equipment.  They are also a subsector of real economic importance.
67. Strangely the words "classification societies" do not appear at all in CPC provisional.
CPC rev1 includes them in r83569 "other technical testing and analysis" with a definition clearly
mentioning those services ("this subclass includes…ce rtification of ships aircrafts, dams").  This rev1
item is put in correspondence with two provisional CPC items, CPC p86764 "technical inspection
services" and CPC p86769"other technical testing and analysis services".  Certification of ships fallsprobably in the latter category ("not elsewhere classified").
68. However as the correspondence established by rev1 has no legal value for WTO Members,
Members may wish to confirm that correspondence and to include classification societies services' in
another category or institute them as a de novo category.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Bimco: www.bimco.dk
Chamber of shipping: www.seanet .co.uk/classifi/marassoc/chamber
Federal Maritime Commission: www.fmc.gov
International Association of Ports & Harbours www.iaph.or.jp
Lloyd's of London Press: www.llplimited.com
IMO: www.imo.orgUNCTAD: www.unicc.org/unctad
World Maritime University: www.wmu.se
OECD: www.oecd.org//dsti/sti/transporS/C/W/62
Page 23
ANNEX 1
WORLD TRADE S/L/24
3 July 1996
ORGANIZATION
(96-2539)
Trade in Services
DECISION ON MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES
Adopted by the Council for Trade in Services on 28 June 1996
The Council for Trade in Services,
Having  regard to the Annex on negotiations on Maritime Transport Services,
Having  regard to the Decision on Negotiations on Maritime Transport Services, adopted at
Marrakesh on 15 April 1994,
Noting  the Report of the Negotiating Group on Maritime Transport Services and the
commitments scheduled by Members in this sector,
Desiring  to further the liberalization of internationa l trade in maritime transport services within
the framework of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS),
Decides  as follows:
1. To suspend the negotiations on Maritime Trans port Services and to resume them with the
commencement of comprehensive negotiations on Services, in accordance with Article XIX of theGATS, and to conclude them no later than at the end of this first round of progressive liberalization.  At
an appropriate time decisions pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article XIX of the GATS will be taken on
procedures for the conduct of such negotiations.  It is agreed that negotiations will be resumed on the
basis of existing or improved offers.
2. Members wishing to exercise their rights under paragraph 3 of the Annex on Negotiations on
Maritime Transport Services may do so during a period of 30 days from the date of this Decision.
3. Any commitments resulting from these negotiations  will be inscribed in Schedules of Specific
Commitments annexed to the GATS.
4. Article II of the GATS and the Annex on Artic le II Exemptions, including the requirement to
list in the Annex any measures in consistent with most-favoured-na tion treatment that a Member will
maintain, shall enter into force for international shipping, auxiliary services and access to and use of port
facilities at the same time as the conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph 1.  During the
course of negotiations the effects of the continued suspension of Article II will be kept under review by
the Council for Trade in Services.S/C/W/62
Page 24
5. Paragraph 4 of this Decision shall not apply to any specific commitment on maritime transport
services which is inscribed in a Member's Schedule.
6. Notwithstanding Article XXI, a Member may impr ove, modify or withdraw all or part of its
specific commitments in this sector, during a period of  sixty days the end of which shall coincide with
the conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph 1.  During the same period, Members shallfinalize their positions relating to  MFN Exemptions in this sector.
7. Commencing immediately and continuing until th e conclusion of the negotiations referred to in
paragraph 1, it is understood that Members shall not apply any measures affecting trade in maritime
transport services except in response to measures  applied by other countries and with a view to
maintaining or improving the freedom of provision of  maritime transport services, nor in such a manner
as would improve their negotiating position and leverage.S/C/W/62
Page 25
ANNEX 2
Negotiating Group on Maritime Transport Services
List of Documents
S/NGMTS/-
S/NGMTS/1 10.6.94 Note on the Meeting of 5 May 1994
S/NGMTS/2 4.8.94 Note on the Meeting of
13 July 1994
S/NGMTS/3 31.10.94 Note on the Meeting of
17 October 1994
S/NGMTS/4 9.3.95 Note on the Meeting of
9-10 February 1995
S/NGMTS/5 21.4.95 Note on the Meeting of
6-7 April 1995
S/NGMTS/6 3.8.95 Note on the Meeting of
17-19 July 1995
S/NGMTS/7 16.11.95 Note on the Meeting of
30 Oct.-1 Nov. 1995
S/NGMTS/8 5.1.96 Note on the Meeting of
5 and 8 Dec. 1995
S/NGMTS/9 8.3.96 Note on the Meeting of
13 and 16 Feb. 1996
S/NGMTS/10 11.4.96 Note on the Meeting of
26 and 29 March 1996
S/NGMTS/11 14.5.96 Note on the Meeting of
14 May 1996
S/NGMTS/12 3.6.96 Note on the Meeting of
24 May 1996
S/NGMTS/13 11.6.96 Note on the Meeting of 4 June 1996
S/NGMTS/14 24.6.96 Note on the Meeting of
17 June 1996
S/NGMTS/15 27.6.96 Note on the Meeting of
25 June 1996
S/NGMTS/16 3.7.96 Report of the Negotiating Group on
Maritime Transport ServicesS/C/W/62
Page 26
S/NGMTS/17 1.7.96 Note on the Meeting of
28 June 1996
S/NGMTS/W/-
S/NGMTS/W/1 2.5.94 Note by the Secretariat Negotiations on Maritime Transport
Services
Questionnaire and Responses to the Questionnaire on Maritime Transport Services  S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.---
S/NGMTS/W/2 21.10.94 Note by the Secretariat Questionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.1 17.1.95 Comm. fm
SwitzerlandResponse to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.1/Corr.1 20.2.95 Comm. fm
SwitzerlandResponse to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services –
Corrigendum
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.2 18.1.95 Comm. fm New
ZealandResponse to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.3 20.1.95 Comm. fm Japan Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.3/Supp.1 5.4.95 Comm. fm Japan Supplementary Information on the
Japanese Response to the
Questionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.3/Supp.2 18.7.95 Comm. fm Japan Supplementary Information on the
Japanese Response to theQuestionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.4 24.1.95 Comm. fm Australia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.4/Corr.1*(English only)17.2.95 Comm. fm Australia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services –
Corrigendum
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.5 24.1.95 Comm. fm Canada Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.5/Supp.1 24.4.95 Comm. fm Canada Supplementary Information on the
Canadian Response to theQuestionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services – Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.6 26.1.95 Comm. fm Norway Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.6/Supp.1 23.3.95 Comm. fm Norway Supplementary Information on the
Norwegian Response to the
Questionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.6/Supp.2 30.6.95 Comm. fm Norway Supplementary Information on the
Norwegian Response to theQuestionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - SupplementS/C/W/62
Page 27
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.7 1.2.95 Comm. fm Korea Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.7/Corr.1 17.2.95 Comm. fm Korea Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services -Corrigendum
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.7/Supp.1 23.3.95 Comm. fm Korea Supplementary Information on the
Korean Response to theQuestionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.8 6.2.95 Comm. fm Cyprus Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.9 31.1.95 Comm. fm Egypt Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.9/Supp.1 26.6.95 Comm. fm Egypt Supplementary Information on the
Egyptian Response to theQuestionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.10 31.1.95 Comm. fm Poland Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.11 31.1.95 Comm. fm the United
States of AmericaResponse to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.11/Supp.1 6.4.95 Comm. fm the United
States of AmericaSupplementary Information on the
United States Response to the
Questionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.12 19.2.95 Comm. fm the
EuropeanCommunities and their
Member StatesResponse to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.13 22.2.95 Comm. fm Chile Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.14 30.3.95 Comm. fm Indonesia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.15 10.2.95 Comm. fm Hong Kong Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.16 17.3.95 Comm. fm Mexico Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.16/Suppl.1 18.7.95 Comm. fm Mexico Additional Information concerning
the Response of Mexico to theQuestionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.17 15.3.95 Comm. fm Côte
d'IvoireResponse to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.17/Supp.1 18.7.95 Comm. fm Côte
d'IvoireAdditional Information Concerning
the Response of Côte d'Ivoire to theQuestionnaire on Maritime
Transport Services - SupplementS/C/W/62
Page 28
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.18 19.4.95 Comm. fm Tunisia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.19 13.3.95 Comm. fm Malaysia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.20 3.4.95 Comm. fm Romania Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.21 29.3.95 Comm. fm Ghana Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.22/Rev.1 12.6.95 Comm. fm Argentina Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services -
Revision
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.23/Rev.1 25.9.95 Comm. fm Turkey Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services -
Revision
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.24 5.4.95 Comm. fm the
PhilippinesResponse to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.25 6.4.95 Comm. fm Singapore Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.26/Rev.1 17.10.95 Comm. fm Morocco Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services -
Revision
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.27 22.5.95 Comm. fm the
Dominican Rep.Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.27/Supp.1 19.7.95 Comm. fm the
Dominican Rep.Additional Information concerning
the Response of the DominicanRepublic to the Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services -
Supplement
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.28 14.6.95 Comm. fm Slovenia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.28/Corr.1 19.7.95 Comm. fm Slovenia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services -
Corrigendum
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.29 27.6.95 Comm. fm Thailand Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.30 17.7.95 Comm. fm Colombia Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.31 17.7.95 Comm. fm Mauritius Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.32 17.7.95 Comm. fm Nigeria Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.33 17.7.95 Comm. fm Cuba Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.34 18.7.95 Comm. fm Brazil Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport ServicesS/C/W/62
Page 29
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.35 20.10.95 Comm. fm the Czech
Rep.Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.36 30.10.95 Comm. fm India Response to Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/2/Add.37 19.12.95 Comm. fm Iceland Response to the Questionnaire on
Maritime Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/3 26.6.95 Comm. fm the
EuropeanCommunities and their
Member StatesConditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/4/Rev.1 23.5.96 Comm. fm Norway Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services - Revision
S/NGMTS/W/5 17.7.95 Comm. fm the
European
Communities and theirMember States[EC Position re: Measure about to
be taken by the US Government]
S/NGMTS/W/6 18.7.95 Comm. fm Japan Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/7 18.7.95 Comm. fm Australia Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/8 18.7.95 Comm. fm Canada Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/9 18.7.95 Comm. fm New
ZealandConditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/10 22.1.96 Comm. fm Panama Statement by the Republic of
Panama
S/NGMTS/W/11 13.2.96 Comm. fm Korea Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/12 13.2.96 Comm. fm
SwitzerlandConditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/13 16.2.96 Comm. fm Chile Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/14 20.3.96 Comm. fm Colombia Schedule of specific commitments
and Final list of Article II (MFN)exemptions -Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/15 26.3.96 Comm. fm Côte
d'IvoireConditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/16 2.4.96 Comm. fm Brazil Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/17 13.5.96 Comm. fm Slovenia Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/18 15.5.96 Comm. fm Indonesia Draft Offer on Maritime Transport
ServicesS/C/W/62
Page 30
S/NGMTS/W/19/Rev.1 4.6.96 Comm. fm Mexico Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services - Revision
S/NGMTS/W/20 3.6.96 Comm. fm the
Dominican RepublicConditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/21 3.6.96 Comm. fm Morocco Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/22 3.6.96 Comm. fm Poland Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/23 4.6.96 Comm. fm Nigeria Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
S/NGMTS/W/24 4.6.96 Comm. fm Romania Conditional Offer on Maritime
Transport Services
__________