RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/M/19
27 April 2001
(01-2131)
Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 MARCH 2001
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments held a meeting on 22 March 2001.  The agenda for
the meeting was contained in WTO/AIR/1506.
A. SCHEDULING GUIDELINES
2. The Chairman recalled that at the previous formal meeting the Committee had agreed that it
could realistically aim at finalizing the revision of the scheduling guidelines by the best endeavour
deadline of March 2001 for completion of the on-going work.  After several informal consultations, itseemed that the Committee might be able to take a decision under this item that day.  At the informal
meeting held on 12 March 2001, the Committee had considered a fifth draft of the revised scheduling
guidelines and a second draft of a decision by the Council.  In that occasion considerable progress had
been made, as most outstanding issues had been resolved.  As a result of that meeting, a new version
of both drafts taking into account the comments made by delegations had been circulated.  The latestversion of the draft revision of the scheduling guidelines was contained in Job No. 5415/Rev.5, dated
15 March 2001, and the revised draft decision by the Council, dated 22 March 2001, had been made
available with no Job number.  Given that the discussions on this matter would constitute a drafting
session, he suggested to switch to informal mode and revert to formal mode once the drafting was
concluded.  The Committee so decided.
3. In resuming the formal discussions, the Chairman proposed that the Committee agree the
revised text of the guidelines for the scheduling of specific commitments as contained in document
Job No. 5415/Rev.5, dated 15 March 2001, with the following modifications:  a) Paragraph 1, in the
last sentence, the word "authoritative" should be deleted, to read: "The answers should not be
considered as a legal interpretation of the GATS.";  b) Paragraph 20, the fourth sentence should be
replaced by the following: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Agreement, a Members shall
not be prevented from taking measures for prudential reasons in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of theAnnex on Financial Services.";  c) Paragraph 28 should be modified by adding after the word "goods"
the following phrase in parenthesis:  (i.e.  services supplied in or by a physical medium, such as a
computer diskette or drawings);  and then the rest of the paragraph as it was.  The Committee so
agreed.
4. The Chairman also proposed that the Comm ittee agree to recommend to the Council for
Trade in Services the  adoption of the revised text as a non-binding set of guidelines by a formal
decision.  The Committee so agreed.
5. The Chairman added that in his view the discussion on paragraph 28 of the guidelines for the
scheduling of specific commitments, and the revision introduced to it, would not prejudice in any way
any on-going or future discussion on classification of digital products in the WTO.S/CSC/M/19
Page 2
6. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the EC had had a very firm
position concerning paragraph 28, as her delegation had been amongst those who had opposed
changing the text.  The issue which was dealt with in paragraph 28 was a matter of principle to the EC
and from the start her delegation had been arguing that the expression "services embodied in exported
goods", with the relevant examples, was the correct expression and thus no change was appropriate.That expression stated why all electronic supply consisted of services.  During the discussion of that
paragraph concerning whether that expression should be kept or not, no concrete problems had been
identified with the expression "services embodied in exported goods".  So it should be concluded that
there was no ambiguity in the said expression and in its spirit.  However, her delegation had taken
note of the fact that there had been some suggestions for adding some words to the original text which
would give comfort to the delegations who felt that clarification was necessary.  Her delegation had
been able to agree to the change to the original text in the understanding that the additional wording
proposed by the Chairman did not change the meaning of the original paragraph 28.  In other words,
her delegation understood that the text of paragraph 28 that had been agreed in the revision did not in
any way change the content of the original text.  Her delegation also could not accept any declaration,
either separate or in a footnote, concerning the debate on classification because that would somehow
indicate that there was a problem, which in the view of her delegation was not the case.
7. The representative of the United States recalled that his delegation had expressed some
concerns as to the original language of paragraph 28.  The additional wording introduced in the text
was helpful and provided some clarity.  Like the EC, his delegation did not see the need for a
footnote.  It had been clear throughout the discussion in the Committee that its work on scheduling
guidelines was without prejudice to the issue of classification that was properly before the GeneralCouncil, i.e. the classification of electronic products.  Furthermore, throughout the discussion his
delegation had made clear the concerns about the ambiguity of the text in paragraph 28.  In that
respect some very useful discussions had been held where there appeared to be some sympathy for the
merits of the US' arguments.  His delegation was content that the new formulation while not changing
the text did provide the clarification that had been felt necessary.
8. The representative of Panama took note of the statements made by the EC and the US, to the
effect that the scheduling guidelines would not prejudice the debate on matters relating to electronic
commerce.  He took special note of the comment made by the EC indicating its position regarding the
classification of any electronic product, which in his view fully justified his delegation's concerns
regarding the content of paragraph 28.
9. The representative of Canada referred to paragraphs 18 and 48 of the guidelines.  Regarding
the last sentence of paragraph 18, she recalled that her delegation had supported the use of could, as
opposed to should, because the use of should in that sentence would constitute a reinterpretation of
GATS Article XX, paragraph 2.  Such a reinterpretation was not something the revision exercise
could do.  In fact there was nothing in Article XX:2 that said that a Member should indicate in its
schedule when a market access restriction was also a national treatment restriction.  Her delegation
agreed that that constituted an ambiguity in the GATS;  however, that ambiguity had been intentionalon the part of the negotiators, given the complexity involved in making such a determination.  Even if
that ambiguity had not been intentional, the revi sion exercise should not be reinterpreting a GATS
Article.  Such a reinterpretation or clarification of the GATS Articles could be pursued during the
negotiations through Article IX:2 of the Agreement establishing the WTO.  The support of "could"
did not arise out of a desire to establish a best practice or to indicate that transparency would be bestserved by following this guideline.  Having "could" in that sentence would help Members to
understand that they may choose for their own reasons to indicate if a market access reservation was
also a national treatment reservation and to that extent Canada could certainly support that.
10. As to paragraph 48, her delegation still had serious questions about the text of that paragraph
since it seemed to create confusion, concerning what "unbound" meant.  Particularly the first sentenceS/CSC/M/19
Page 3
of that paragraph where it said that an unbound could amount to some kind of reservation potentially
setting up a contradiction with paragraph 46, which defined "unbound" as leaving the Member free on
a given sector and mode of supply to introduce or maintain measures inconsistent with market access
or national treatment.  Her delegation felt that th at problem had not been present in the original
paragraph 7 of the scheduling guidelines, MTN.GNS/W/164/Add.1, as that first sentence in that oldparagraph stated that unbound meant that Members remained completely flexible.  Furthermore,
Canada had a particular problem with including residency requirements in that paragraph as it
currently read, since it was clear that such requirements were not necessarily difficult to meet and did
not set up a de facto  unbound at all.  Furthermore, the decision of what measures would be an
advantage for Members to schedule was a matter for negotiations and not scheduling guidelines.
Canada remained of the opinion that paragraph 48 was not only unnecessary but also factually
incorrect and that constituted a poor revision of the scheduling guidelines.
11. In relation to paragraph 18, the representative of Hong Kong, China added that a Member
could not choose whether or not a measure limited national treatment;  it was a question of fact, which
explained  why his delegation had been keen to have something clear in that paragraph.  The
representative of Australia said that her delegation had listened to the comments by other with regard
to paragraph 18, and despite their concerns over the use of the word "could" her delegation had agreed
not to block concensus on that issue.  The representative of Uruguay supported the Statement by
Canada regarding paragraph 18.
12. The representative of India stressed the importance of the scheduling guidelines remaining the
way they were throughout the course of the access negotiations, as those guidelines as agreed
provided a stable framework and his delegation would not be inclined to see them undergoingchanges.  He sought  clarification from Members regarding paragraphs 43 and 44.  On paragraph 43,
it was stated that a no-limitation entry in the national treatment column would mean that national
treatment was bound for the entire mode and not limited to what was bound in the market access
column.  His authorities considered that two options  should be available for Members: the first option
would be to indicate "none" in the national treatmen t column and this can be interpreted to mean that
there was full commitment for the entire mode;  the second could be to indicate "none for the
commitment inscribed in the market access colu mn" meaning thereby that national treatment
commitment is not taken for the entire mode, but is related to the commitment.  His delegation was
able to support the language in that paragraph on the understanding that these two options were
available.  On paragraph 44, again two possibilities were contemplated:  the first was the binding of
an existing situation described as standstill;  the second was the binding of a more liberal situation.
Now the guidelines prescribed that the entry should describe each measure concisely indicating theelements which made it inconsistent with article XVI or article XVII.  Was it understood that the
standstill situation related not to the ground reality but to the schedules of commitments?  Again it
was obvious that the standstill related to the schedule of commitments, the commitments made by
Members and not the situation on the ground.
B. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
13. The Chairman circulated, under his responsibility, a Note on “State of Play on Classification
Issues” (document Job No.(01)37, dated 16 March 2001), which was meant to help delegations in the
discussions of classification and organization of future work.  He invited comments on his note with a
view to reporting to the Council for Tr ade in Services in Special Session.
14. The representative of India observed that the Note was dated 16 March and for that reason
more time was necessary for his Capital to consider it.  He suggested to focus the discussion on how
to proceed with this issue.  On the organization of future work, he was not in a position to give
definite views at that time.  Classification was an issue on which India's thinking was evolving and his
delegation would not like any possibility to be precluded.  He recalled that the Committee had decidedS/CSC/M/19
Page 4
to focus on scheduling guidelines to conclude that work.  Having done that, his delegation would then
turn to this issue.  As indicated by the Note, the discussion so far had covered construction,
environment, energy, legal and postal but those did not represent the universe of classification issues.
India had not been able to focus on these issues, thus he felt that the Committee should clearly
indicate to the CTS in its report that delegations were still reflecting on these issues and would becoming up with proposals in due course.
15. The representative of the United States said that his delegation had also focused on
scheduling guidelines and temporarily had de-emphasised work on classification.  The Committee
should begin to move back into the classification work.  The representative of Uruguay concurred
with India on the fact that the focus had been the scheduling guidelines, so the questions ofclassification had not been revisited for some time.  In paragraph 5 of the Note questions were raised,
which his delegation was not in a position to answer as domestic consultations were still in process.
16. The representative of Indonesia, Cuba,
 and Mexico  welcomed the Chairman's note but were
not in a position to respond the questions posed therein, as they were still under consideration by
Capital.  Conclusions as to what had been done could not be drawn yet as Capitals were still
considering the matter and whether to put forward proposals.
17. The representative of Venezuela said that the Note presented a very useful recapitulation of
the classification work on certain sectors, pointing out what Members had referred to as market
realities which must in one way or another be reflected in classification for up-coming negotiations.
Without prejudice to the inclusion of new sectors and without necessarily answering all the questions
the Chair had posed in the note in connection with  the stock-taking, she reiterated the need for a
classification of energy services which reflected existing regulations and realities.  That was a pre-condition for being able to move forward with any degree of assurance in future negotiations.
Venezuela would continue its studies and contribute to further discussion of the matter because of its
great importance.  Her delegation would like to see a re-birth of the proactivity by other Members
who had tabled initiatives under this subject and whose proposals, while not necessarily overlapping
fully with Venezuela's criteria, were along satisfactory lines.
18. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the work done over the last three years had
been very helpful and had deepened delegations' understanding.  The Committee had had an
interesting debate on clusters which enhanced the understanding of what delegations meant by that.
As it had been obvious, the interest in trying to sign off any of those had waned and no doubt that was
because of the up coming request-offer process.  Progress on classification matters was related to
negotiating proposals and the details of the request-offer, which would contribute to determine
whether in fact W/120 was inadequate.  It was valuable to be able to continue the discussions duringthe request-offer phase, because that phase would raise issues that would need to be looked up from a
classification point of view.  For instance, in mode 4, which might be considered a classification
issue, there were issues that some Members would like to get as much agreed amongst the group as
possible.  The Committee would not see any particular progress in those sectors under discussion any
faster than any others that might come up, as negotiating proposals would bring forward morescheduling and classification issues.
19. The representative of the European Communities found the classification discussion helpful
in clarifying various aspects involved.  On a preliminary basis, it would be useful to continue
discussing technical aspects of classification in  the Committee but her delegation would not want to
prejudice where such a discussion should take place.  There were technical aspects that should belooked into and probably the CSC would be a good forum for those discussions.
20. The representative of Colombia said that the existence of a classification that gave details and
discriminated between the different subsectors would facilitate the evaluation efforts as well as theS/CSC/M/19
Page 5
decision-making process.  Breaking down the activities would add transparency as to the possible
options available within a sector and would give a higher level of discretion and thus inspire the
taking of more commitments.  In general, developing countries did not have highly integrated services
sectors and they had the capacity only certain aspects of certain service sectors to develop on a
competitive basis.  One way to improve the situation was to open up to external competition thoseactivities in the production chain where countries could not be as efficient as required for competition
in international markets.  Nevertheless, within ce rtain services sectors there were certain activities
which countries would like to protect from external competition and others which could be open to
external competition.  The negotiating mandate called for flexibility for developing countries and,
without doubt, the negotiations would be more flexible with a more detailed and disaggregated
classification.
21. The representative of the United States concurred with Hong Kong, China on how to proceed.
The Committee might have encountered some road blocks and at the same time delegations would be
beginning to look at negotiating proposals in the CTS in Special Session.  In that respect, there might
be an understanding of the context for classification that eventually would flow down to the technical
work in the Committee.  While the US did not have any objections to continue with technical
discussions in the CSC, it may be necessary to cons ider the larger context, the negotiating context,
before the Committee could actually make progress on some of those issues.  He also shared the view
of Colombia.  Certainly with respect to some sectors there could be benefits in terms of
disaggregation, namely: to understand the various facets of a sector;  and in terms of looking at future
negotiations on commitments and the ability to make  commitments, in fact the flexibility associated
with making commitments.  Disaggregation could, at least with respect to some sectors, have thosebenefits.
22. The representatives of Korea  and Japan
 found the Note helpful and a good basis for the stock
taking exercise and were ready to discuss sector by sector.  The representative of Canada also found
the discussions helpful.  She observed that one of the three important pillars of any trade agreement
was its classification system, the other two being the rules and commitments made under theagreement.   A classification system was a dynamic tool that needed to be revised over time to
account for changes in the services sector.  Given that reality, a mechanism might need to be created
at some point in the future to determine how regularly to update the GATS sectoral classification list.
The market access negotiations were going to bring up classification issues that would have to be
dealt with and given that negotiations were close, it might be preferable to wait and see what those
issues were.  In any case, her delegation wanted to wait for the outcome of the stocktaking before
deciding what further work on classification needed to be done and how to structure that work inCSC.
23. The representative of Ecuador supported the summary made in the Chair's note.  His
delegation was very interested in the work that Venezuela had referred to regarding the need to
classify energy services reflecting the realities of the sector.  That work should be carried out for
gaining a better understanding of benefits and commitments in services.  That work would notprejudge the position on respecting the current structure of the GATS and preserving the document
W/120, but certain sectors needed to be discussed.
24. The Chairman observed great interest in the classification exercise as it was considered useful
for the understanding of issues.  As to the organization of future work, more time was needed for
consideration on how to proceed.  Some delegations had made reference to the usefulness of theclassification discussion for market access negotiations and to how that work was linked to
negotiating proposals before the CTS.  He then invited delegations views on the sectors covered by
his note, the questions posed therein, and general comments.S/CSC/M/19
Page 6
Energy Services
25. The representative of Venezuela said that groups had been created at a national level to
conduct detailed studies of this sector.  Thus the views on the initial proposals had evolved but had
not yet reached a final position that could be presented that day.  In reply to the three questions posedin the Note, dated 16 March 2001, paragraph 14, some of the views already expressed in previous
meetings were repeated.  As to the first question, i.e. to what extent W/120 covered the entire energy
universe, Venezuela considered that the classification was a crucial matter in the future negotiation of
commitments.  The W/120 did not reflect the current situation of the market of energy services.  At
the international and domestic levels, clear distinctions were drawn between the various sub-sectors of
the energy sector, amongst which there were different levels of development and differences within
the regulatory framework that governed those services.  Therefore, a higher level of disaggregation inthe classification for energy services, as long as it corresponded to the regulations and technology of
the existing market situation, would facilitate the taking of future commitments.  In other words, if it
were not possible to adopt a new classification with those characteristics, it would be extremely
difficult to make any headway with respect to en ergy commitments.  This would be particularly the
case for a country like Venezuela whose economic foundations and commercial advantages dependedon so many different aspects of the energy sector, which were far from being reflected in the
categories established under W/120, namely services incidental to mining, services incidental to
energy distribution and pipelines transport of fuel.
26. As to the second question, i.e. what level of detail should this issue be pursued under W/120,
Venezuela believed that the revision of the classification should begin by subdividing the sectors intoenergy sources.  If this were to be done, there should be a set of other criteria to make it possible to
individualise the activities corresponding to the processes of transformation, transport, distribution
and marketing.  Finally, an effort should be made  to make it possible to differentiate between the
services that were part of, or embodied in, the main processes of each energy chain, that were core
services;  and those that supported those processes, that were the non-core aspect of this chain.Within this approach, the core services would be t hose that intervene directly in the main aspects of
the chain of value, and the non-core aspects would be those associated with the support process of this
chain.  As to the third question, i.e. is there a need to improve the classification in this area and to
create a specific energy sector, Venezuela supported the creation of a classification specific to the
energy sector, as long as this heading incorporated the criteria mentioned before.  As to the last
question, i.e.  whether the classification of energy sources should be looked at from different energy
sources, the answer would be yes, the different energy sources should necessarily be the initial criteriato be used in the classification of the energy sector as described under W/120.
27. The representatives of Japan shared the views expressed in the note as to several questions
having been raised and thus the discussion needed to continue.  For instance, one important question
was whether all the activities in the chain could be defined as services.
28. The representative of the United States clarified the characterisation of the US proposal
contained in the Note, dated 16 March 2001.  In the Note it was said that the US proposal stated that
the energy universe was already covered by W/120, when in fact the proposal said that it appeared to
be covered by W/120.  It was clear that more work was needed in terms of making that kind of
determination.  In terms of the idea of a new energy services classification, the US had indicated that
it might include the three energy specific sub-items found within W/120, but not that it would bebased on a sub-division of those items.  He observed that the US had a proposal before the CTS in
Special Session, which was a comprehensive proposa l, although exploratory, and the US expected
that discussion of such a proposal in the CTS might provide some ideas for further work on
classification at a technical level in the Committee.  In response to the question in the Note relating to
the comprehensiveness of W/120, he said that W/120 appeared to cover all activities, it was a matterof finding them in W/120.  As to what level of detail should the issue be pursued, the US was trying toS/CSC/M/19
Page 7
find a happy medium between detail and understanding of a very complex and diverse sector.  As to
the need for improved classification and for a specific energy sector, it would become clear as
discussions proceeded since delegations needed a better understanding of how classification related to
eventual negotiations of commitments.  With respec t to whether the classification needed to look at
different energy sources, his delegation remained dubious about whether that could or should be done.
29. The representative of the European Communities said that the fact that there was no energy
section in W/120 made it clear that there was a need to evaluate what the universe of energy services
in countries was, taking into account the fact th at the energy universe was seen in different ways in
WTO countries.  The second step had to be to evaluate if that energy services universe was present
already in some form in the CPC and particularly in W/120.  Contributions to this work presented by
some Members had, in some ways, created the momentum and were a good basis for trying to give
some replies to the important questions.  That technical work needed to be continued in the
classification of energy services, taking into account some of the aspects which had already been
underlined.  First, the need for an approach which was neutral in terms of energy source, except when
there was a need to take into account specific characteristics of the energy service which depended on
the energy source.  Secondly, specificities of this sector needed to be taken into account when trying
to verify if energy services were present in the existing classification system;  some activities couldnot be addressed in cross-sectoral terms because of the specific aspects of the activity.  Thirdly, this
sector was highly regulated in some countries and this needed to be taken into account as this aspect
of regulation was very important, even if there was a balance to be achieved between regulation and
liberalization.
30. The representative of Korea referred to the US proposal.  The energy-neutral approach
suggested by the US might not reflect the commercial reality and regulatory situation of markets.  The
regulatory regimes of  energy services in many countries, including Korea, were different according
to the energy sources.  Thus, in classifying energy services, we need to take into account different
energy sources as well as activities.  This answered the question as to whether the classification
needed include different energy sources.  Furthermore, energy itself was considered to be a good andnot a service, according to the CPC provisional, section I.  Thus the production of energy was
definitely considered to be manufacturing and therefore out of the scope of the service sector.
Discussions should exclude refining the classification of natural gas under the category of production-
related activities for the energy service classification, because they were production itself and not the
product-related activities.  Furthermore, it was necessary to clarify what were production-related
services and how they were different from production itself which was not in the scope of service
sector.  Finally, it was necessary to make a distinction between the two kinds of energy services,"core" services and "energy related" services.
Legal Services
31. The representative of Japan said that the Note captured the state of play on this issue as well.
However, it would have been better if the note had referred to the fact that the actual schedule of
many Members was not based on CPC classification.  Japan understood that legal systems differed
from Member to Member and therefore it would be difficult to reach concensus on a detailed
classification.  However, Members should be able to develop an outline of the classification of the
sector which each Member could specify in detail in their own schedule.
32. The representative of Korea observed that some Members had expressed a preference for the
W/120 classification but  that classification did not appropriately reflect the reality of legal services
trade.  So it was difficult to assert its usefulness for future discussions.  Therefore, rather than using
W/120 an alternative method of classification reflecting the reality of legal services trade should be
established as the foundation for future work.  They supported the adoption of a classification based
on the notion of foreign legal consultancy services as suggested.  Some Members preferred toS/CSC/M/19
Page 8
individually define the notion of foreign legal consultancy but the lack of a common understanding
would make it difficult to judge the balance of concessions among Members.  Therefore the creation
of a common and useful category of classification of legal services, i.e. foreign legal consultancy,
would be a prerequisite in order for the current discussion to proceed in a more favourable manner.
33. The representative of Poland stated that his delegation would be  in a position to go along with
any proposed new division of legal services provided that it would be possible to identify the newly
classified services, that such identification would not be contradictory to the CPC, and
correspondence tables with the CPC would be included in the new classification.
Production on a Fee or Contract basis
34. The representative of Japan shared the views contained in the Note as to this issue and
concurred that there was no clear conclusion as to whether any future work was needed in this regard.
He recalled that some delegations, including his, had raised the issue of legal consequences of the
classification based on the notion of production on a fee or contract basis.
35. The representative of the United States said that it was not appropriate to continue discussion
on this issue in the Committee.  The main question was the definition of a service and such a
discussion would not be productive in the CSC.  The representatives of Switzerland and the
European Communities concurred.  The representative of Korea  recalled that at the previous meeting
his delegation had expressed difficulty in concurring with the three points made in the Chairman'sNote, Job No. 7294, dated 16 November 2000, for technical reasons.  Korea would agree with closing
the discussion on this issue.
36. The representative of Poland said that the definition of production on a fee or contract basis as
contained in the CPC should be retained.  Furthermore, he posed three questions to those delegations
that were not convinced about using definitions contained in the CPC:  On what basis do those
Members who are opposed to using the definitions contained in the CPC intend to identify specific
services, if it were the case that the use of the CPC definitions was rejected? What is the obstacle to
accepting the CPC definitions (the CPC being an established set of concepts)?  If the proposal tomaintain consistency with the CPC classification we re rejected, who is going to undertake drawing up
definitions of each of the services contained in the W/120 list?
Postal and Courier Services
37. The representative of the European Communitie s recalled that the starting-point for the EC
proposal for the classification of postal and courier service was the recognition of the fact that the
current classification did not reflect market realities anymore.  Its proposal introduced an overallapproach which reflected the market realities better, referring to both postal and courier services
because there were links between the two sectors, and flexible enough to accommodate various
concerns and also sufficiently general to take into account future developments.  The EC had tabled a
GATS 2000 proposal on postal and courier, which included the classification proposal for postal and
courier services.  It was to be decided at a later stage whether further technical work should beconducted on the basis of that and that technical work could be conducted by the CSC.
Environmental Services
38. The representative of the European Communities announced that his delegation was in
contact informally with several delegations who had forwarded technical comments which were under
examination at that time.  When those discussions are finalized, his delegation will inform the
Committee of the result of such a discussion and possibly present a revised proposal.  The
representative of Poland underlined that in accordance with the definition contained in the CPC,S/CSC/M/19
Page 9
recycling was a service.  His delegation had comments on the EC proposal which he would convey to
that delegation.
C. ORGANIZATION OF FUTURE WORK
39. The Chairman recalled that at the informal m eeting of the Council for Trade in Services held
on 2 February, delegations had discussed the organization of future work.  It had been suggested that
Members should consider how on-going work in the subsidiary bodies could be structured in the most
efficient and productive way, in terms of issues which might need to take priority and of how to
allocate time among them, while taking into account the concerns and constraints of small
delegations.  It was agreed that an item to that effect would be inserted in the agenda of each of the
subsidiary bodies.  He invited delegations' views on how the Committee should organize its future
work.
40. The representative of Japan recalled that the Note on the State of Play on Classification
Issues, Job No. (01)/37, dated 16 March 2001, reflected that there were several issues that needed
more discussion in the CSC.  At the same time, as stated by some delegations, there were several
proposals put before the CTS which dealt with classification issues that also needed to be studied.  As
to how to go forward, it was best to wait for the stock taking to be conducted by the CTS as well as
the discussion of those proposals before the Special Session before deciding how to proceed.
41. Based on the previous intervention and those made under the previous agenda item, the
Chairman concluded that delegations would like to reflect more on this issue and revert to it at a
future meeting.
D. OTHER BUSINESS
42. The representative of Canada requested a revision to the report of the formal CSC meeting on
20 November 2000, contained in S/CSC/M/18.  Her delegation had noticed an error in paragraph 22
of the document concerning Canada's intervention and wanted to ensure that Canada's comments
during that meeting were accurately reflected in the minutes.  In that paragraph two sentences, the one
starting with "On environmental services" and the one starting with "On water distribution", were
incorrect statements of her intervention.  She requested the removal of the whole paragraph as Canadahad not made any formal intervention at that meeting.  She recalled that the last formal meeting of the
CSC had ended somewhat in a little bit of disarray because of time constraints, without a formal
summary by the Chair of the informal classification discussion being provided, as had normally been
the case in the past.  Paragraph 22 did not reflect what Canada said on environmental services and
water distribution and thus a correction was necessary.  The Chairman indicated that a revision would
be issued as requested.
E. APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON
43. The Chairman recalled that he had come to the end of his tenure as Chairperson for the
Committee and according to the Rules of Procedures the time had come to elect his successor.
According to the consultations conducted by the Chairman of the Council, he proposed that the
Committee elect Ms.  Pimchanok VONKHORPORN of Thailand as it’s Chairperson for 2001 by
acclamation.  The Committee so decided.
__________