RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/WPDR/M/19
29 January 2003
(03-0590)
Working Party on Domestic Regulation
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 4 DECEMBER 2002
Note by the Secretariat1
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held its nineteenth meeting on 4
December under the chairpersonship of Mr. Sérgio Santos from Brazil.  The agenda for the meeting is
contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/1982.  Before adopting the agenda, the Chairperson proposed that
the Working Party amend it by adding, as the first item, “Adoption of the Annual Report to the
Council for Trade in Services (S/WPDR/W/19)”.  Members agreed to adopt the agenda, as amended.
2. Before moving to the agenda items, the Chairperson reminded Members that a strikeout
version of the Summary  of Discussions on the Checklist of Issues for WPDR  (JOB(02)/3/Rev.3 dated
2 December  2002), which had been updated from the previous WPDR formal meeting, was available
at the back of the room.
A. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES
(S/WPDR/W/19)
3. The Chairperson opened the floor for comments on the Annual Report to the Council for
Trade in Services, as contained in WTO document S/WPDR/W/19 dated 21 November 2002.
4. The delegation of the United States noted that the phrase “development of horizontally
applicable disciplines” in para 2 did not address the development of sectoral disciplines, and asked
that it be revised.  She also noticed a typo in the date at the end of para 3.
5. The Chairperson suggested that the phrase “development of regulatory disciplines”, as stated
in the paragraph heading, be used instead in para 2.  A representative of the Secretariat also pointed
out that, in the English version, the dates of some of the documents in the footnotes were incorrect.
This had already been revised in the French and Spanish versions, and would be corrected in the finalEnglish version as well.
6. Members adopted the Annual Report, as amended.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS ARTICLE VI:4
1. Discussion of Concepts Relating to the Development of Disciplines
7. The Chairperson turned to the agenda item Development of Regulatory Disciplines under
GATS Article VI:4 , noting that the first sub-item was the Discussion of Concepts Relating to the
Development of Disciplines .  He observed that, at the previous meeting on 22 October, Members
continued examining the measures listed in the Examples  paper, focusing on the second and third
categories of Annex I, i.e. Licensing requirements  and Licensing procedures .  His Chairperson’s
summary of those informal discussions was contained both in the Minutes and the Summary  of
Discussions.  A more detailed resume of the discussions was contained in Annex III of the Examples
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.S/WPDR/M/19
Page 2
paper, the most recent version of which was circulated by the Secretariat as JOB(02)/20/Rev.3, dated
3 December 2002.
8. The Chairperson noted that Annex I of the Examples  paper, consisting of submissions of
examples by Members, had also been revised to include new contributions as well as some minor
editing.  He then asked the Secretariat to expl ain the editing changes.  A representative of the
Secretariat stated that, as a result of the new contributions and the discussions at the previous meeting,
it seemed appropriate to remove all national references from the examples.  The Secretariatrepresentative also clarified that, despite appearin g to be a national treatment measure, the fifth
example under licensing requirements in part A (i.e. Branches of a foreign company ….) had been
included in Annex I in order to give the benefit of the doubt, as there was a possibility it referred to a
non-discriminatory measure affecting foreign companies.  If this was not the case, the example should
be deleted.
9. The delegation of Thailand noted they had submitted the example referred to by the
Secretariat.  Although the delegation felt it was a national treatment measure, and had therefore
offered to withdraw it at the previous meeting,  they also noted that the measure had not been
scheduled.  Thailand was willing to delete the measure, but wanted to register the question of how to
deal with unscheduled measures, i.e. whether under Article VI:4 or outside of the Working Party.
10. The Chairperson then observed that, since the previous WPDR meeting, China had
contributed regulatory examples in an informal paper, JOB(02)/203 dated 2 December 2002.  He
asked if the delegation wished to introduce their paper.  The delegation of China provided some
background to their submission, noting his country’s increasing interest in exporting construction andrelated engineering services.  China’s paper contained seven examples of the difficulties encountered,four of which were added to Annex I of the Examples  paper.  Regarding the para 4 example
concerning local performance, the delegation wished to adjust the wording, and to have the example
added to Annex I.  The delegation also wished to add the para 5 local hiring requirement example and
the visa procedures example in para 7 in the same manner.
11. The Chairperson noted that, in his latest Chairperson’s Note (JOB(02)/206 dated 3 December
2002), he had observed that very little discussion had taken place at the last WPDR meeting in
relation to examples of concrete measures on the basis of the Examples paper.  He had also stated that
that he still believed the discussion of concrete examples could be useful in helping to clarify to all
Members what could be the object and purpose of any possible future disciplines under Article VI:4.
To that effect, he had encouraged delegations to continue the examination of those examples on the
basis of the four questions Members agreed to aski ng when looking at each measure individually, i.e.:
(a) Is the measure already covered by Articles XVI and/or XVII?
(b) If not, is it addressed by any other provisions of the Agreement (e.g. Articles II, III,
VIII, IX)?
(c) If not, does it fall clearly within the scope of Article VI, in particular VI:4 (licensing
requirements, qualification requirements, technical standards, licensing procedures
and qualification procedures)?;  and
(d) If so, is the measure adequately addressed by the relevant provisions of the
Accountancy Disciplines , or are modifications required?
12. The Chairperson observed that, despite the lack of extensive comments on the regulatory
examples at the last meeting, some important issues were raised, as reflected in Annex III.  For
example, there was the extremely important issue of how unscheduled measures that are de facto
discriminatory should be addressed.  Another issue was whether the administration of scheduledS/WPDR/M/19
Page 3
measures, including the procedures for their application, should be subject to Article VI:4 disciplines.
On this last point, he noted that, the first paragraph on page 4, of the Summary  of Discussions  already
included a comment from the Secretariat on this issue.  The Secretariat had observed that, in the
GATS context, there needed to be a distinction between a licensing system and its various
components, in terms of their different requirements and different measures.  Licensing systems couldbe composed of both Articles XVI and XVII and Article VI:4 measures, the Secretariat had noted, and
there was no overlap.  The Chairperson said this was an issue where it could probably be stated that
the Working Party had achieved a common understanding.
13. The Chairperson then asked whether any Members would like to make comments on those or
any other related issues, or to comment on any of the measures in the Examples  paper.  As with the
previous meetings, he stated, Members should indicate if they wished their interventions to be
recorded in the Minutes;  otherwise, the examination would be on an informal basis followed by a
summary of discussions from the Chairperson.  Members might also comment on their plans to
contribute additional regulatory examples, or to clarify existing examples, he stated.
14. Summarizing the informal discussions, the Chairperson  noted that the debate had been much
more substantive than the previous discussion, and that a number of delegations had made comments
of various degrees of detail concerning concrete examples of regulatory measures.  Important issueswere raised, some not for the first time (e.g. the case of visa procedures), as well as new issues.  More
general issues were also mentioned, for which the Chairperson thanked Members, stating it was
important not to lose sight of the general picture.
15. Members should be in position to start answerin g the four questions by early next year, the
Chairperson observed, in order to help determine the common elements of any disciplines to be
developed, including whether they would differ substantially from what Members had already agreed
for accountancy.  On the question of application, in his personal view, it seemed that the Working
Party had extensively discussed the issue.  It woul d appear, he stated, that any disciplines would be
aimed at giving effect to market access and national treatment commitments, and not to go beyond
that objective.
16. The Chairperson also noted the re-emergence of an old discussion in the Working Party, i.e.
the distinction between Article VI:4 measures and those under Articles XVI and XVII.  Many
delegations had made the point in the WPDR that the drafters of the GATS had very clearly visualized
explicit definitions of the market access and national treatment measures that Members could impose,
he stated.  A separate distinction was made for all the other non-discriminatory, typically non-
quantitative barriers that affected the conditions of entry or operation of service suppliers.
17. The Chairperson concluded by noting that China had raised some questions regarding the lack
of inclusion of regulatory measures they had submitted into the Examples  paper.  A representative of
the Secretariat responded that a preliminary decision was made not to include certain measures,
because they did not appear to match the criteria specified by Members.  Several delegations hadmade comments to this effect during the inform al discussions.  The local performance requirement,
for example, appeared to be a de facto  national treatment measure, and the visa procedures example
was not included as it did not appear to be directly linked to the categories specified in Article VI:4.
The Secretariat would of course help to reformulate the examples if requested.
18. Returning to formal mode, the Chairperson
 moved to comments on any of the issues covered
under the Summary  of Discussions (i.e. General Issues, Transparency, Equivalence and International
Standards), or under this agenda sub-item as a whole.  He noted that, at the last meeting, Japan hadintroduced an informal paper, JOB(02)/150, dated 21 October 2002, and Members made extensive
comments as recorded in the Minutes.  He then opened the floor for any further comments on Japan’s
paper, as well as on any of the issues covered under the Summary  of Discussions .S/WPDR/M/19
Page 4
19. The representative of the European Communities expressed appreciation for Japan’s paper,
noting that it included a very structured approach.  She agreed it was important to examine existing
GATS provisions, including Article VI:2.  Regarding the relationship between disciplines and the
GATS exceptions provisions, the representative emphasized that her delegation considered measures
taken under such provisions to be clearly outside the scope of any Article VI:4 disciplines.
20. The Chairperson stated that the Working Party would take note of the statements made, and
revert to the issue at the next meeting.
2. Development of Disciplines for Professional Services
21. The Chairperson then turned to the other main aspect of the work on regulatory disciplines,
i.e. the Development of Disciplines for Professional Services .  As observed in his Chairperson’s Note,
significant progress was made as Members reached consensus on the question of the Secretariat
consultations with international professional services associations.  The Secretariat had informed himthat no objections were received to the revised letter, which was sent as Members instructed.
22. The Chairperson noted that Members also had a useful exchange of views at the October
meeting on the basis of the Synthesis paper .  Interesting remarks were made on the question of
recognition of qualifications and other issues related to the movement of natural persons.  He
encouraged delegations to follow up on this discus sion as well as raise any other issues in regard to
professional services.  He again emphasized that he saw the professional services “track” of the work
as complementary to the discussions concerning horizontal disciplines.
23. Before opening the floor for comments, the Chairperson noted that China had also circulated
a report on their domestic consultations, as document S/WPDR/20 , dated 2 December 2002, and
asked if they wished to introduce their second paper.
24. The delegation of China said they began domestic consultations in July, consulting with both
government bodies and professional associations in the areas of legal services, architecture,
engineering, medical services, dental services, real estate and urban planning.  Concrete comments,
however, had to date been received only for legal services.  Many professional associations had no
comments, the delegations stated, mostly because they were uncertain of the potential implications ofhorizontally transposing the Accountancy Disciplines  to their own profession.  Regarding legal
services, the paper indicated that some measures regarding enhancing transparency and streamlining
licensing procedures were generally applicable to the sector.  It was also noted there were no readily
available internationally recognized standards, and that qualification requirements varied substantially
from one country to another.  Flexibility to developing countries should be granted in the scheduling
of examinations, the delegation stated.
25. The Chairperson then opened the floor for comments.
26. The delegation of Chinese Taipei stated they would soon submit a formal document regarding
their domestic consultations.  Chinese Taipei had consulted eight government bodies and fifty-eight
local professional associations on the applicability of the Accountancy Disciplines  to other
professional services.  The professions were asked to answer the three questions proposed in the
Chairperson’s Note dated 13 August 2002.  The professions which responded included architectureservices, engineering services, legal services, medical and dental services, taxation services and
veterinary services.  In general, most of the consulted professions indicated that the Accountancy
Disciplines  were relevant and generally applicable to their business.  However, some professions such
as engineering and veterinary services indicated, as a preliminary reaction, that specific features or
conditions of individual profession should be duly taken into account.  Those features included, butwere not limited to, nature, goals of regulatory regime and domestic market condition with respect to
competition in each profession.S/WPDR/M/19
Page 5
27. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that the idea of holding a seminar had been
raised earlier by other delegations.  A seminar or workshop might be useful to promote greater
understanding among regulatory authorities on the scope and purpose of Article VI:4, including how
VI:4 might affect their work, the representative stated.
28. The delegation of Canada said that, in regard to domestic consultations, they had obtained a
response from land surveyors.  Generally, the surveyors supported and saw the relevance of the
accountancy disciplines.  Canada intended to make a written submission on the response, the
delegation stated, particularly because the surveyors had noted some particular characteristics of the
profession that might require attention.
29. The delegation of Colombia supported the idea of a workshop, stating that it should be
practical rather than theoretical.  The delegation of Thailand also supported the idea, emphasizing that
the seminar should not be too technical, instead providing background on what Members were trying
to negotiate and how it came into being, the possible implications for developing countries, and the
relationship between the work on Article VI:4 and Members’ right to regulate.
30. The representative of Argentina expressed some doubts on holding a seminar, noting that the
professions were regulated by different types of associations and other non-state entities.  There was a
question of who would be the audience for the seminar, he stated, as it would be virtually impossibleto invite all parties concerned.
31. The delegation of the Ivory Coast said a seminar could help build greater capacity, and that
increased use of videoconferencing could also be an option.  The delegation of China stated that
capacity building was crucial to facilitate domestic consultations, and supported the seminar idea.
32. The Chairperson concluded by stating it had been a very interesting exchange, with reports on
domestic consultations by a number of delegations.  The idea of holding a seminar had drawn interest
from many delegations, he stated, but the issue still needed further consideration and refinement in
terms of scope, format and possible dates.  Those delegations expressing interest in a seminar could
send their suggestions to the Secretariat, and an informal document could be compiled and circulated
for discussion at the next meeting.
33. The Chairperson then offered the floor for further comments on the Synthesis  paper, the latest
version of which had been circulated as JOB/(02) /204, dated 2 December.  Members may also wish to
comment on whether they would like to add a summary of discussions to the Synthesis  paper as well,
he stated.  Once again, Members should indicate if they wish their interventions to be recorded in the
Minutes;  otherwise, the examination would be on an informal basis, followed by a summary of
discussions from the Chairperson.
34. In response to a question from a Member, the Secretariat noted that no responses had been
received to date regarding the letter sent to international professional services associations.  Returning
to formal mode, the Chairperson  noted that no comments had been made.
C. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
35. The Chairperson stated that the next item on the agenda was the date for the next meeting.  In
accordance with the practice of grouping meetings of subsidiary bodies close to meetings of the
Council, he suggested that the next meeting be held during the week just before the next CTS and
Special Session meetings, i.e. the week beginning 24 February 2002.  If there was sufficient interest,
he might also call an informal meeting before the next formal session.   Members approved the
Chairperson’s suggestion.
__________