RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSS/M/2
9 May 2000
(00-1908)
Council for Trade in Services
Special Session
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 APRIL 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Special Session on negotiations of the Council for Trade in Services held its second
meeting on 14 April 2000.  The agenda for the meeting was contained in document WTO/AIR/1279.
The Chairman suggested that the agenda be amended to include as item E "Other matters relating to
negotiations under Article XIX of the GATS".  Due to lack of time item D of the agenda "Work of
subsidiary bodies – reports by chairpersons" was postponed to the next meeting of the Special
Session.
2. It was so agreed.
A. ASSESSMENT OF TRADE IN SERVICES
3. The Chairman recalled that at the previous meeting the Council had agreed that the
"assessment of trade in services" would be a standing item on the agenda of the Special Session.  On
that occasion, the discussion under this item had been rather brief, due to time constraints.  He also
recalled that at one meeting before, the Council had held a preliminary discussion on a paper
presented by Norway entitled "Liberalization of tr ade in producer services – the impact on developing
countries", which had been submitted shortly before that meeting.  He therefore invited delegations to
comment on this paper as well as on other papers submitted for the assessment of trade exercise.
4. The representative of New Zealand said that the paper introduced by Norway and South
Africa was very informative and contained useful insights for both developing and developed
countries, which should be taken on board in the context of the mandated negotiations.  He argued
that, while significant gains might accrue to developing countries from a sound and transparent
regulatory framework, it was also important to ensure competition in the liberalized services sectors.He added that the insights in the country specific experiences illustrated in the paper were very useful.
Switzerland said that it was important that developing countries could gain from services
liberalization in an equal manner.  Its representative noted that it emerged from a UNCTAD paper thatdeveloping countries should be aware of the ro le of services for development, in particular
infrastructural services, health and education and that they should consider services growth as anopportunity for development not as a threat.
5. The representative of Venezuela found that the World Bank paper written by Aaditya Mattoo
contained some very useful insights on the impact of services liberalization on developing countries
and in particular on possible gains which might accrue from the opening of sectors of export interest
to developing countries and from greater liberalization of mode four services.  She encouraged bothdeveloped and developing countries Members to analyze the results of this paper in the context of the
assessment exercise.  The representative of Pakistan said that its capital was currently engaging in the
assessment of trade in services in consultation with the private sector and that he would need to comeS/CSS/M/2
Page 2
back to this issues at the next meeting.  He ex pressed appreciation for all papers submitted for the
assessment exercise and in particular for the World Bank paper written by Aaditya Mattoo.  He noted
that although most developing countries did not have a comparative advantage in services trade, for
many of them the export of services represented the only means of diversification.  He argued that
while developing countries had made great efforts in services liberalization, they had received little,especially under mode four, where the commitments were still very few and subject to many
limitations.  Moreover, Article IV had not really been applied yet.  He said that this was a
disappointment for developing countries and that  further liberalization commitments by developing
countries were possible only if developed countries lived up to their GATS obligations towards
developing countries.  In general he argued that developing countries had to be convinced that the
objectives of the GATS were in line with developing countries' development objectives.  For these
reasons he stressed that it was important that the assessment of trade in services be a meaningfulexercise.
6. Japan said that the paper submitted by Norway contained very interesting insights and that
would prove to be very useful for the negotiations.  He argued that comparative advantage in the
manufacturing sector could also be enhanced by the liberalization of trade in services, especially
infrastructural services.  The representative of the Dominican Republic supported the intervention of
Pakistan and in particular the reference to the liberalization of mode four services.  He proposed that
the Secretariat put together all information rele vant to the assessment exercise including the
documents and material circulated to the Council and the relevant information from the TPR reports
and suggested that the paper by UNCTAD could be expanded to include some more sectors.  He
emphasized the importance of the assessment exercise for developing countries and that this item bekept on the agenda of the Special Session.  India underlined the importance of services trade statistics
for the assessment exercise.  He pointed to some possible sources such as the IMF, UNCTAD and theCentral Banks of some Members.  Moreover, he added that the WTO Secretariat could try to take
advantage of some national experiences by asking national industry associations such the United
States CSI (Coalition of Services Industries) or the European ESF (European Services Forum) toshare any statistics on services trade they might have.
7. The representative of the United States shared India's interest in collecting statistics and said
that the United States and Canada had collected statistics on services trade that they were prepared to
share with other Members.  He added that his delegation had made a list of papers relevant for the
assessment exercise and encouraged others to do the same.  He agreed that it would be useful if the
Secretariat made a compilation of all papers and material relevant to the assessment exercise.  Panama
noted that although the assessment should be based on contributions from Members, some Members,
who had not sufficient resources, needed to avail th emselves of the help of the Secretariat.  In this
respect he said that it would be useful if the Secretariat could put together a compilation of updated
statistics on trade in services.  The representative of Guatemala speaking also on behalf of Nicaragua
expressed appreciation for all the papers submitted so  far in the context of the assessment exercise.
She said that it would be useful if the Secretariat could compile all the documents and materialssubmitted in the assessment exercise and the relevant  information in TPR reports as well as gather
some more information on statistics.  She also suggested that UNCTAD could help on the gathering
of data and statistics through their MAST database.  El Salvador supported some of the previous
intervention, including Dominican Republic and India.
8. The representative of the European Communitie s, while noting that he could not speak on
behalf of the ESF (European Services Forum), encouraged the Secretariat to contact them on
statistics.  He also offered to make available to Members services statistics collected by EUROSTAT.
The representative of Egypt supported the intervention made under this item by Pakistan, India and
Dominican Republic and said that as the assessment exercise was an integral part of the Article XIXnegotiations it should be kept on the agenda of the Special Session for the duration of thesenegotiations.  He proposed that the Council initiate a work programme with the purpose of collectingS/CSS/M/2
Page 3
all the available data and statistics on trade in services.  Cuba supported the interventions of Pakistan,
Dominican Republic and India, among the others, and said that with the help of the WTO and
UNCTAD Secretariats it would be desirable to try to collect all available statistics on trade in
services.
9. The Chairman agreed that the Secretariat could approach the sources indicated by delegations
for more updated statistics.  He said that although there was no objection to having the assessment
exercise on the agenda of the Special Session as a standing item, the fact that it appeared so frequently
sometimes left little time to prepare for a meaningful discussion.  If this item appeared more
periodically on the agenda, it might attract more attention and lead to more focused discussions.   He
suggested that delegations take note of all the statements made and revert to this item at the next
meeting of the Special Session of the Council.
10. The Council took note.
B. TOURISM SERVICES
11. The Chairman recalled that at the last meetin g of the Council held in regular session, the
delegation of the Dominican Republic had presented a paper on its own behalf, as well as on behalf of
the delegations of El Salvador and Honduras, on tourism services (S/C/W/127 and Corr.1).  The papergenerated considerable interest and contained a number of suggestions for further consideration in the
context of the new round of services negotiations.  Several delegations said that they were still
examining the proposals and it was agreed that th e Council would revert to this paper for further
discussions, which should take place in the Special Session.  He offered the floor to delegations for
further comments on the paper.
12. The representative of Norway welcomed the initiative and said that this was an appropriate
time to focus on the liberalization of the tourism sector, which presented great potential for
developing countries.  She informed the C ouncil that Norway was doing some work on the
classification of tourism and said that a first step in the analysis of this sector could be the discussion
of classification and clusters issues in the Committee on Specific Commitments.  The representativeof Peru expressed initial support for the competition provisions in the proposal and noted that
competition was central in ensuring effective market access and the benefits of liberalization intourism services.  He added that the proposal contained some useful information on classification, but
that the issue of clusters required more detailed consideration.
13. The representative of Switzerland noted that tourism was an important sector, whose
liberalization presented great potential.  He said that the proposal was interesting, but that the clusters
defined in the document were probably too wide and that members might want to consider whether
clusters are going to favour more liberalization or not.  He also expressed some doubts on the
provisions on competition contained in the document.  Canada underlined the importance of the
tourism sector and said that some additional analysis was necessary to find out the specific problemsencountered by the suppliers of tourism services.  Its representative argued that possible solutions to
the problems outlined in the proposal were offered by the development of clusters, model schedulesand reference paper.  He added that classification issues were important in this sector and that his
delegation supported work on the classification of tourism in the Committee on Specific
Commitments.
14. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the proposal and expressed
interest in the concepts of clusters and competition safeguards.  He said that his delegation was
preparing a paper on the concept of clusters and had already presented a proposal on clusters in
environmental services in the Committee on Specific Commitments.  On competition safeguards he
said that more work was needed, although the notion was interesting and it could potentially apply toS/CSS/M/2
Page 4
a number of sectors.  He suggested that the discussion on the proposal could be divided in two parts:
clusters and competition safeguards.  The representative of Brazil welcomed the proposal on tourism,
which was a sector of particular importance to his country.  He also welcomed the fact that theEuropean Communities were preparing a paper on clusters, but said that his delegation had doubts on
the meaning of this concept, which needed some clarification.  Japan said that the proposal was
interesting, although the cluster identified for tour ism might have been too wide and some reflection
was necessary on whether competition safeguards were desirable in this area.  Its representative
agreed with other delegations that the issue of clusters should be dealt with in the Committee on
Specific Commitments.  He noted that the proposal also referred to the issue of consumer protection,
which was a more general GATS issue.
15. The representative of the Dominican Republic speaking also on behalf of El Salvador  and
Honduras said that the proposal on tourism was a negotiating issue, which should be dealt with by the
Special Session.  He noted that a difficulty in the organization of work might derive from the fact that
the negotiations had started without the guidelines , however he pointed out to the fact that the
proposal focused mainly on regulation.  He underlined the importance of the pro-competitive
provisions, because experts had identified anti-competitive practices as important barriers affecting
the liberalization of tourism services.  He said that the proposal aimed at achieving coherence amongthe tourism policies of WTO Members and at creating a competitive environment favouring the
growth of tourism.  He added that on this subject it might be useful to organize a seminar, in order to
involve also the private sector.  Sri Lanka fully endorsed the proposal on tourism, which they
regarded as a key industry for developing countries.  Its representative argued that the tourism sectorshould be given specific attention in the negotiations and that an Annex might facilitate commitmentsin this sector.  The representative of Guatemala also supported the proposal on tourism and said that
the idea of an annex was good.  She expressed appreciation for the focus of the proposal on pro-competitive principles and agreed with the proposal made by other delegations to hold a seminar
involving also the private sector.  She also supported the idea of continuing to discuss this issue in the
Special Session, but underlined the need to agree on the negotiating guidelines and procedures.
16. Morocco thanked the delegations who made the proposal and agreed that it was appropriate to
give specific attention to tourism.  He noted that his country had a competitive advantage in tourism
services and that in his view an annex could facilitate a greater liberalization of this sector.  Mauritius
also agreed that it was appropriate to give specif ic attention to the tourism sector, which his country
considered of strategic importance.  He also said that further work on clusters was necessary as it was
important to clarify the meaning of this concept.  In  this respect, he said he looked forward to seeing
the paper which had been offered by the European Co mmunities.  Bolivia said it was grateful for the
proposal and supported the intervention by the Dominican Republic.  Its representative argued that for
a meaningful liberalization of tourism services it was important to consider issues involved in related
sectors.
17. The representative of Mexico said that an interesting exchange of ideas on the issue of
clusters had taken place earlier in the week in the Committee on Specific Commitments and that in his
view it was important to reflect on the meaning and the legal implications of this approach.  On
clusters he added that his delegation looked forward to seeing the paper which had been offered by the
European Communities.  On the tourism proposal, he said that it needed some revisions and that his
delegation had some reservations on it, as it prejudiced the question of setting sectoral priorities,
which was premature.  Cuba expressed support for the proposal on tourism, which focused on a sector
of importance for developing countries.  The representative of New Zealand found the proposal on
tourism to be a useful document.  On the question of clusters, which had also been raised in theCommittee on Specific Commitments, he argued that a more general discussion was needed, but that
his delegation was concerned about the risk of fragmentation of core infrastructural services.S/CSS/M/2
Page 5
18. The Chairman noted that the proposal on tourism had prompted delegations to make various
suggestions on the organization of work in this area, including the organization of a seminar, work on
clusters and the involvement of experts.  He therefore suggested that the next meeting of the Special
Session consider how to organize work in these area s.  He proposed that the Council take note of the
statements made on this issue and revert to this item at its next meeting in special session.
19. The Council took note.
C. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
20. The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to draw up a tentative calendar of meetings
for the rest of the year 2000.  He noted that a calendar would facilitate the proper organization of the
work of the Council and that it would also enable delegations and capitals to prepare for productive
meetings.  He said that from previous discussions, as well as consultations he had with severaldelegations, it was clear that there was a general agreement in favour of grouping meetings of
subsidiary bodies together with the regular and special sessions of the Council in what would be
called "Services Weeks".  The Special Session would take place at the end of the week.  He reported
that it was also the general view that other spec ial meetings of the Council on the reviews of MFN
exemptions and on air transport should be scheduled close to the Services Weeks.  He proposed thefollowing tentative calendar for the rest of the year based on four clusters of meetings:
• Week of 22 May, with the Special Session to be convened on Friday, 26 May.  The first half of
the Special Meeting on the review of MFN exemptions would take place on 29 and 30 May;
• Week of 10 July, with the Special Session to be convened on Friday, 14 July.  The second half of
the Special Meeting on the review of MFN Exemptions would take place during this period;
• Week of 2 October, with the Special Session to be convened on Friday, 6 October.  The first
meeting on the Air Transport Review would take place on 28 and 29 September;
• Week of 4 December, with the Special Session to be convened on Friday, 8 December.  The
second meeting on the Air Transport Review would take place on 30 November and 1 December.
21. The delegations of Mexico and Brazil
 expressed support for the proposal by the Chairman on
the calendar of meetings.  The representative of Hong Kong, China supported the proposal by the
Chairman, but suggested that during the Services Weeks the meetings of the Services Council might
begin on Thursday afternoon, in order to leave more  time for the Special Session in the following day.
Australia supported the suggestion made by Hong Kong, China .
22. The Council so agreed.
D. WORK OF SUBSIDIARY BODIES – REPORTS BY CHAIRPERSONS
23. Due to lack of time the Chairman proposed that the Council move on to the discussion item E
and postpone this item to the next meeting of the Special Session.
E. OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO NEGOTIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XIX OF
THE GATS
24. The representative of Singapore speaking also on behalf of Australia  introduced a joint
submission on “Elements of a Proposed First Phase for the Services Negotiations Mandated under
GATS Article XIX”, which was contained in document S/CSS/W/1.  He said that as at that stage
negotiating guidelines and procedures were still missing, it was important to organize the work ahead.S/CSS/M/2
Page 6
He underlined that the proposal contained a possible “roadmap” for the first phase of the negotiations,
including a target date for submitting proposals, but that such roadmap was distinct from and did not
substitute for the negotiating guidelines and procedures.  He added that the submission listed some
themes to be discussed by the Special Session and to be addressed in the proposals.  In their view the
negotiating guidelines and procedures could also constitute an item for discussion in the SpecialSession.
25. The representative of Argentina speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR Members (Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) introduced a proposal by these Members on “Elements of a Proposed
First Phase for the Services Negotiations Mandated under GATS Article XIX”, which was contained
in document S/CSS/W/2.  He said that the paper used as a basis the proposal by Australia and
Singapore and addressed the need of having a wo rk programme until the end of the year without
prejudice to the immediate drafting of the negotiating guidelines and procedures.
26. The representative of the Philippines, speaking also on behalf of Indonesia , Malaysia ,
Thailand and Brunei Darussalam  emphasised the primary importance these delegations attached to the
inclusion and discussion of negotiating guidelines and procedures in the context of the mandated
negotiations under Article XIX.  He said that they believed that before any deliberations could be
taken on any elements leading towards achieving progressively higher levels of liberalization in tradein services, it was absolutely imperative that the issue of negotiating guidelines and procedures be
resolved a priori.   He underlined that the mandate to negotiate rested on a legal pre-condition to
establish negotiating guidelines and procedures, as set forth in paragraph 3 of Article XIX and
lamented the fact that discussions appeared to be moving in the direction of work to be done in the
context of mandated negotiations, while the preliminary issue of negotiating guidelines appeared to beignored.
27. He stressed that any possible approach to the mandated negotiations should have, as its first
phase, the consideration of elements comprising the negotiating guidelines and procedures.  He
therefore proposed that the process of establishing negotiating guidelines and procedures be built on
the conclusions which may be drawn from the assessment of trade in services carried out by theCouncil, as indicated in the second sentence of paragraph 3 of Article XIX, in order to ensure that the
mandated negotiations fully take into consideration the unique situation of developing countries.
Regarding the use of the so-called “Seattle draft”, he pointed out that there was never a formal
agreement on such a draft, and that the Council should avoid any reference to it as a possible starting-
point for the negotiating guidelines and procedures on the mandated negotiations.
28. He agreed with the proposal that four further Special Sessions be held this year, back-to-back
with regular meetings of the CTS and of the subsidiary bodies.  In this regard he emphasised that hedid not agree with the suggestion that there would be no difference between the routine work
undertaken by the Council or its subsidiary bodies in regular sessions and the work of the Special
Session on the mandated negotiations.  He argued that while the Council in Special Session could, in
appropriate circumstances, take account of work done by the Council or its subsidiary bodies in their
regular sessions, this was not a general rule, especially since the work of the services bodies meetingin regular sessions was not undertaken in the context of the framework which was being established
for the mandated negotiations.  He took note of the papers submitted by Singapore and Australia and
MERCOSUR and found that they contained several elements, which might have deserved favourable
consideration.  However, he said that his delegations would revert to this issue at an appropriate time.
29. The representative of Australia said that the main objective of the proposals was to seek some
sort of common understanding and agreement on a work programme for the next few months and that
such work programme would not exclude the negotiating guidelines and procedures.  She pointed out
that her delegation had always been one of the main supporters of the early development of the
negotiating guidelines and procedures over the past months, but that at this point in time, AustraliaS/CSS/M/2
Page 7
like many other countries needed a timeframe to pass back to its industry, which would allow the
private sector to participate in this process as fully as possible.  For this reason she encouraged
Members to look at both proposals in a positive light and to seek an agreement on this basis.
30. The Dominican Republic supported the proposal from MERCOSUR and like the Philippines
expressed concern about the fact that the negotiations had started without the negotiating guidelines
and procedures, which should be kept as a standing item on the agenda of the Special Session.  The
representative of Switzerland noted that there was a legal obligation to develop negotiating guidelines
and procedures.  He expressed full support for the compromise solution proposed by Australia,Singapore and MERCOSUR of agreeing on a work pr ogramme for the first phase of the negotiations
and coming back to the issue of guidelines in March 2001.  He also made some specific suggestions
for amendments to the text of the MERCOSUR pr oposal.  Chile thanked the responsible delegations
for their proposals on the first phase of the negotiations and said that before these proposals were
tabled his delegation had become concerned about the fact that other mandated negotiations were
moving faster than the services ones.  Its representative made some specific suggestions for
amendments to the text of the MERCOSUR proposal.
31. The representative of Hungary speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sloven ia said there was no doubt that, pursuant to
Article XIX:3, Members had an obligation to establish negotiating guidelines and procedures for the
already started negotiations.  He argued that there was no pressing need and no legal obligation to
start work on the guidelines at that point in time, although he recognized that the guidelines were a
prerequisite for concrete market access negotiations.  He added that once Members embarked on the
preparation of the guidelines, they would not have to start from scratch, but could rely on the Seattletext.  In the meanwhile, however, he believed that it was necessary to provide some basic structure
and guidance for the work until the end of the year and said that, in the view of the delegations on
whose behalf he was speaking, an agreement on a “roadmap” would be a step in the right direction. In
this regard, he expressed support for the proposal by Australia and Singapore.  He found the deadline
for proposals of 31 December 2000 and the stock taking exercise in March 2001 acceptable, providedthat it was clear that there would be flexibility fo r tabling proposals afterwards.  He also made some
drafting comments to the MERCOSUR paper, which he gave to the Secretariat in writing.
32. The representative of Egypt noted that the proposals stressed some issues of importance to
developing countries and supported the version put forward by MERCOSUR, although he stressed
that any possible roadmap should not substitute for detailed negotiating guidelines and procedures.
Japan welcomed the proposals and stressed the need for negotiating guidelines and procedures.  Like
others it made some specific suggestions for amendments to the text of the MERCOSUR proposal.
Pakistan fully associated itself with the statement made by the Philippines.  The delegation of Norway
supported the proposal by Australia and Singapore for the first phase, while it had some comments onthe MERCOSUR version.  Ecuador supported the proposal by MERCOSUR, although it pointed out
that the roadmap should not be a substitute for the negotiating guidelines and procedures.
33. The representative of New Zealand said that as an agreement had been reached for the first
phase of negotiations in agriculture, his delegation hoped that a similar agreement could be reached at
this meeting for the services negotiations.  He welcomed the proposals and expressed flexibility on
the text.  He made comments on both texts and said that in the view of his delegation it was not
necessary to insert a best endeavour deadline for he work of the Committee on Specific Commitments
and that it would have been desirable to agree on the negotiating guidelines and procedures inadvance of March 2001.  The representative of Hong Kong, China welcomed both papers, which in
his view were helpful for constructing a framework for the work of the Council in the coming year.
He said that although it was necessary to agree on the negotiating guidelines and procedures, it was
also important that Members found a way to deal with this issue without freezing work in the SpecialS/CSS/M/2
Page 8
Session.  He made one comment on the drafting and reserved the right to come back with more
detailed comments later.
34. The representative of Korea expressed general support for the two papers and suggested two
changes to the drafting.  The representative of the European Communities noted that the two
proposals represented interim arrangements and provided appropriate flexibility for all Members to
bring the negotiations the issues that they considered important.  He added that work on the
negotiating guidelines should start as soon as possible.  Like New Zealand, he expressed reservations
on the “best endeavour” deadline for the Committee on Specific Commitments contained in both
papers.  Venezuela said that the proposals were a good initiative as it was necessary to have some
clarity and predictability on the way forward for the negotiations.  Its representative expressedappreciation for the deadline to submit proposals of December 2000.  The United States welcomed the
discussion under this item and expressed general flexibility on the proposals.  Its representative noted
that more than one set of guidelines might be necessary for the negotiations and that this proposal
might aim at constructing a first interim set.  The representative of Turkey welcomed the documents
and expressed general support.
35.  The representative of Argentina replying also on behalf of other MERCOSUR Members to
some of the comments made on their paper, said that their proposal did not mean in any way to
substitute for the work on the negotiating guide lines and procedures, but that it represented a
compromise to organize work until the end of this year.  He agreed that the request and offer process
could not start without an agreement on the negotiating guidelines and procedures.  He thanked
delegations for their comments on the draft and pr oposed some amendments to the MERCOSUR draft
taking account of the suggestions made in the meeting.
36. Canada welcomed both proposals, which repr esented useful contributions towards the
definition of a “roadmap”.  Its representative agreed with Hong Kong, China on the fact that while it
was necessary to agree on the negotiating guidelines and procedures, it was also important that
Members found a way to deal with this issue without freezing work in the Special Session.  The
representative of Malaysia repeated and emphasised the point made previously by the Philippines that,
according to Article XIX:3, the negotiating guidelines and procedures were a legal precondition for
the starting of the negotiations.  The representative of Guatemala welcomed the proposals, but
stressed that the work on the negotiating guidelines and procedures should start as soon as possible.She also supported the deadline for submitting proposals of December 2000, provided that it was clear
that there would be flexibility for tabling proposals afterwards.
37. The representative of India said that his delegation had no time to react to the proposals in
detail and asked all concerned delegations if they could circulate in writing the drafting comments on
the proposals, which were made during the meeting.  He suggested that once all comments had been
received the Chairman could call some informal consultations with a view to finalising the document
at the next meeting of the Special Session.  He agreed that it was important to begin work as soon as
possible on the negotiating guidelines and procedures, but pointed out that in the absence of these, the
only work which would be frozen was the request and offer process on specific commitments.  Therepresentative of Mexico said that his delegations agreed with many of the elements contained in the
proposals and that Members should be free to present all proposals they deemed appropriate by thedeadline of December in order to create a package for an agreement in March.  He added that the
report of the subsidiary bodies to the Special session should be factual and that in the negotiations
priority should be given to the work on the rules.
38. The representative of Singapore said that as it was not possible to finalize a consensus on the
“roadmap” at this meeting, the Chairman could call some informal consultations in order to have a
text ready for approval at the beginning of the next meeting.  He agreed with other delegations that the
“roadmap” should not be confused with the negotiating guidelines and procedures and that it shouldS/CSS/M/2
Page 9
not be considered as a substitute for these, but ar gued that the need for negotiating guidelines and
procedures should not prevent Members from discussing the themes listed in the proposals for the
“roadmap”.  He also asked delegations if they could circulate the comments made on the proposals in
writing.
39. The representative of Australia agreed with other delegations that there was some consensus
on the major elements of the two proposals, which apart from one or two differences, could be
considered as being fairly close.  Regarding the part of the MERCOSUR text dealing with the rules,
she said that, although she continued to support accelerated work in these areas, she did not want to
limit such work to being fully completed by the end of the next ten months or so as her delegation felt
that probably other issues in domestic regulation, and GATS Rules might come up, which would need
more time to be addressed.  She proposed that the Chairman tried to produce a new text bringing
together the common elements between the two pro posals and the comments made by delegations in
the meeting.  In this respect, she agreed with other delegations that it would be useful if delegations
circulated their drafting comments on the proposals in writing.  She expressed the hope that this
would help reaching a consensus on this matter as from the beginning of the next meeting of the
Special Session, in order to avoid further lengthy discussion on procedural issues.
40. The Chairman pointed out that the discussion had revealed the existence of a good degree of
convergence among the two proposals and the comments made by delegations in the meeting.  He
noted that some delegations had made substantive drafting comments on the proposals, while other
had reserved their right to do so later.  He asked the Secretariat to prepare an informal paper bringing
together the proposals and taking account of the comments made in the meeting.  Members should
then circulate any comments or suggestions they might have in writing and on the basis of thecomments received he would call some informal consultations with a view to finalising a text by the
beginning of the next formal meeting of the Special Session. The representative of Brazil agreed with
the suggestion by the Chairman and offered to collaborate with the Secretariat in the preparation ofthe new draft.  Malaysia also agreed with the Chai rman’s suggestions, provided that it was clear that
the new paper would also take account of he position expressed in the room and not reflected in thetwo proposals.
41. The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statements made on this issue and
revert to this item at the beginning of its next meeting in special session.
42. The Council took note.
__________