. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/W/172
3 October 2000
(00-4033)
Council for Trade in Services Original:  Spanish
COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA
Review of Article II Exemptions
Replies to the Questions Posed on Colo mbia's MFN Exemptions in the Course
of the Review of MFN Exemptions
The attached paper has been received from the de legation of Colombia with the request that it
be circulated to members of the Council for Trade in Services.
_______________
Colombia would also like to make it clear th at the MFN exemptions in force are subject to
negotiation, and that Colombia therefore reserves the right to discuss them during the negotiations on
services.
I. REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 22 OF CHILE (S/C/W/142, PAGE 3)
Question
General question:  Antigua and Barbuda, Honduras and Colombia list exemptions from
the MFN principle to third countries because of their respective economic integration
agreements.  Would these agreements not be exempt under Article V of GATS?
Reply
These exemptions were included under Article II because there was no decision on services in
the framework of the Cartagena Agreement.  Decision 439, which sets out the principles and rules for
the liberalization of trade in services in the A ndean Community, was only adopted in 1998 and is in
the process of being implemented.
II. REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 1 OF AUSTRALIA (S/C/W/152, PAGE 1)
Question
General questions: A number of Members have created an exemption for "All
countries", or similar, on the basis of reciproc ity.  In the interests of transparency, we ask
Members to list the countries wi th which they have reciprocal agreements, and the basic terms
of the agreements.
Colombia.  Page 78.  Financial services – banking and insurance:  Access to the
Colombian market through the commercial presen ce of foreign suppliers of financial services
depends on whether or not the country of origin of such suppliers grants satisfactory
possibilities of access to their markets for Colombian suppliers of financial services.S/C/W/172
Page 2
Justification:  The conditions justifying the exemption  are:  improves the conditions for
the commercial presence abroad of Colombian suppliers of financial services.
Reply
While Colombia's initial offer in this sector had included a reciprocity clause as indicated
above, this clause was eliminated at the end of 1997 just before the round of negotiations was
completed.  Thus, document S/FIN/W/12/Add.54 of 12 December 1997 (currently
GATS/SC/20/Suppl.3) c ontaining Colombia's Schedule of Specific Commitments does not include
this reciprocity clause.
III. REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 2 OF AUSTRALIA (S/C/W/152, PAGE 1)
Question
We would like clarification of the instances in which only some members of a specific
regional agreement have listed an exemption for that agreement.
What are their reasons for listing it, when other members of the same agreement have
not found it necessary to do so?
Reply
Each country negotiated independently.  Thus, each country listed the exemptions that it
considered relevant.
These exemptions were included under Article II because there is no decision on services in
the framework of the Cartagena Agreement.  Decision 439, which sets out the principles and rules for
the liberalization of trade in services in the Andean Community, was only adopted in 1998 and is in
the process of being implemented.
IV. REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 320 OF JAPAN (S/C/W/140/Add.2, PAGE 2)
Question
Colombia, page 78 – Insurance and banking services.  Have there been any cases to date
where Colombia has actually refused, due to reci procity, access to Colombia by foreign services
suppliers?  If so, please explain.
Reply
Colombia does not apply a reciprocity clause with respect to access.  Consequently, there
have not been any cases in which access has been denied to foreign services suppliers due to
reciprocity.
__________