RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSS/W/114
9 October 2001
(01-4954)
Council for Trade in Services
Special SessionOriginal:  English
COMMUNICATION FROM CUBA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, HAÏTI, INDIA, KENYA,
PAKISTAN, PERU, UGANDA, VENEZUELA AND  ZIMBABWE
Assessment of Trade in Services
The following communication has been received from the delegations  of Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Haiti, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Peru, Uga nda, Venezuela and Zimbabwe with the request that
it be circulated to the Members of the Council for Trade in Services.
__________
1. This paper is intended to renew the call for an assessment of trade in services and looks at the
following issues:
(i) The objectives of the GATS as stipulated in the Preamble and in Article IV and XIX,
as well as the objectives set out in the preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organisation.
(ii) Secondly, it highlights reasons why assessment of the GATS continues to be so
important, giving a brief outline of what we already know has been the effects of the
GATS on developing countries so far.
(iii) It then attempts to address the issues for an assessment  by suggesting a
comprehensive set of criteria by which an assessment can be conducted.
(iv) Finally, the paper gives recommendations of a desired timeframe and mechanism for
such an assessment to be carried out.
INTRODUCTION
1. Article XIX.3 stipulates that for each negotiating round, negotiating guidelines and procedures
should be established, and that for this purpose, ‘the Council for Trade in Services shall carry out an
assessment of trade in services in overall terms and on a sectoral basis with reference to the objectives
of this Agreement, including those set out in paragraph 1 of Article IV.’
2. As we know, such as assessment has not taken place even though developing country
delegations, in the Services Council meetings have repeatedly underlined the importance of such anassessment for developing countries.
1
                                                     
1See statements repeatedly calling for an assessment in ‘Assessment  of Trade in Services: Compilation
of Relevant Statements and Submissions made at the Council for Trade in Services’, Background Note by the
Secretariat, S/CSS/W/104, 28 September 2001.S/CSS/W/114
Page 2
3. In March 2001, the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services adopted negotiating
guidelines, which said that this Council shall conti nue to carry out an "assessment of trade in services
in overall terms and on a sectoral basis with reference to the objectives of the GATS and of Article IV
in particular. This shall be an ongoing activity of the Council and negotiations shall be adjusted in the
light of the results of the assessment."
4. Since March, however, there has been little, if any progress in assessment.
I. OBJECTIVES OF THE MARRAKESH AGREEMENT AND GATS
We would like to reiterate the commitment for an assessment. We therefore underscore the
need to recall the objectives that have been set out for GATS and the WTO as a whole:
1. Objectives of the Marrakesh Agreement
(a) The Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO recognised in its preamble that
‘trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards
of living , ensuring full employment  and a large and steadily growing volume of real
income  and effective demand.
(b) Secondly, it also says that there is a need ‘for positive efforts designed to ensure that
developing countries , and especially the least developed  among them, secure a share
in the growth in international trade  commensurate with the needs of their economic
development’.
2. The preamble of the GATS agreement also states the following:
(a) That multilateral rules in services should take place under conditions of ‘progressive
liberalisation and as a means of promoting the economic growth  of all trading
partners and the development of developing countries ’;
(b) Negotiations should be ‘aimed at promoting the interests of all  participants on a
mutually advantageous basis  and at securing an overall balance of rights and
obligations, while giving due respect to national policy objectives ’;
(c) That the GATS should ‘facilitate the increasing participation of developing countries
in trade in services and the expansion of their service exports’ ‘through thestrengthening of their domestic services capacity  and its efficiency and
competitiveness’.
3. GATS Article IV: Increasing Participation of Developing Countries, also sets out clearly the
criteria of how participation should take place:
(a) Article IV:1(a) states that developing countries’ increasing participation in word trade
should be facilitated by ‘ strengthening of their domestic services capacity and its
efficiency and competitiveness, inter alia through access to technology  on a
commercial basis’;
(b) Article IV:1(b) talks about increasing developing countries’ participation through
‘improvement of their access to distri bution channels and information networks ’;S/CSS/W/114
Page 3
(c) And IV:1(c) refers to increasing developing countries’ participation through ‘the
liberalisation of market access in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to
them ’.
4. Furthermore, Article XIX:2 also states that the ‘process of liberalisation shall take place with
due respect for national policy objectives and the level of development of individual Members…There shall be appropriate flexibility for individual developing country Members for opening few
sectors, liberalising fewer types of transactions, progressively extending market access in line with
their development  and, when making access to their markets available to foreign service suppliers,
attaching to such access conditions aimed at achieving the objectives referred to in Article IV’ .
5. The Preamble of the GATS agreement also underlines the issue that members have a right to
‘regulate’… ‘in order to meet national policy objectives’. It acknowledges ‘the particular need of
developing countries to exercise this right’.
6. All the above objectives and principles should therefore be guiding principles for the
assessment of the GATS.
II. WHY ASSESSMENT CONTINUES TO BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
1. Developing Countries Have Not Received Benefits From Their Commitments
7. According to UNCTAD’s 1999 Assessment, deve loping countries have made substantial
commitments under GATS with respect to many service industries, often binding recently adopted
legislation or pre-committing future policies without having had much experience in their
implementation, and have undertaken a higher share of full bindings under the cross-border and
commercial presence modes of supply. In contra st, they have not received concessions of any
meaningful economic value under the movement of natural persons mode of supply.
2  A s  a  r e s u l t ,
most developing countries have a deficit in trade in services except in the areas of tourism and travel
and worker remittances.3
8. Hoekman has also pointed out that ‘market access commitments by high-income countries
tend to be restrictive with respect to activities where developing countries have a comparative
advantage – both low-and high-skill labour intensive activities that require either temporary entry orestablishment or work permits’. Most members have only allowed entry of specialists and higher-
level management staff, significantly curtailing the scope for cross-border (non-establishment related)
trade in services.
4
9. UNCTAD has also drawn the same conclusions, that developing countries do have potential
to export services in the following sectors – through the movement of natural persons: professional,
business services, health services, tourism, construction, audiovisual services, transport. However,
they have received little concessions in these areas due to constraints imposed by the developedcountries, such as economic needs tests etc. Lack of commercially meaningful commitments (except
on intracorporate transferees) on the movement of natural persons, have created a major imbalance in
trade.
5
                                                     
2UNCTAD 1999 ‘Assessment of services of developing countries: summary of findings’, 26 August.
3UNCTAD 1999 ibid.
4Hoekman, B. 1996 ‘Assessing the General Agreement on Trade in Services’, in the Uruguay Round
and the Developing countries, W. Martin and LA. Wi nters (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5UNCTAD 1999 ibid.S/CSS/W/114
Page 4
10. In the same vein, a study by OECD on assessment of the GATS (submitted by Slovenia,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovak Republic to the Council of Trade in Services6)
concluded that ‘Liberalisation of trade in services within the GATS has not brought about specific
tangible results for transition economies.’
2. GATS’ Implications and Effects on Domestic Regulation
11. The continuing concerns of developing countries regarding regulation also makes it
compelling to have an early assessment:
12. Firstly, in the process of implementing GATS, developing countries spontaneously ‘re-
regulated’ to remove trade barriers in various areas. However, as alluded to above, this spontaneity
has not been reciprocated to the same extent. Developing countries have clearly not received the
benefits they thought they would. Developed countries continue to be heavily regulated in the form of
maintaining trade barriers especially in several sectors of interest to developing countries. Forexample, technical standards and licensing in certain professional services, is used to effectively
restrict entry by developing countries into the industry.
13. Secondly, the regulatory initiatives taken by developing countries would already seem to be
having a negative impact on them since many developing countries have adopted regulations that
have turned out to be more suited to the needs and level of development of services industries of thedeveloped countries.
14. Furthermore, there is the danger that re-regul ation as promoted in Article VI could in fact
become de-regulation. The EC’s Guide to GATS written for business, for example, says that ‘The
GATS reflects the basic belief of its Members in open economies, deregulation, fair market rules and
the protection of the consumer’.
7  Indeed, re-regulation in market-oriented ways, could be
fundamentally incompatible with the requirement or the desire of many governments to provide basic
public services for their people, especially since certain sections of their population may not be able to
afford to pay market prices for these services.
3. Market Power of Services Corporations Dw arf, Even Wipe-out Developing Countries
Small Suppliers
15. Many services markets are dominated by only a few large firms from developed countries and
a number of small players. The top 20 service exporters are mainly from developed countries. In spite
of GATS, developed countries account for 80% of world exports of services, and developing
countries’ share of services export is about 20%, even though they make up 90% of WTO
membership.8  It is therefore difficult, if not impossible for developing countries, without the
advantage of an early start, to catch up with the large firms. Developing country providers (mostly
SMEs) face competition from large service multinationals with massive financial strength, access tothe latest technology, worldwide networks and sophisticated IT infrastructure.
16. Liberalisation under these circumstances of une qual competition has aggravated the alarming
divide in supply capacity between developed and developing countries. Since GATS, developing
countries share in exports have increased only by 6% a large part of this is associated with the Asian
countries’ export of goods. However, during the same time, developing countries’ services imports
                                                     
6S/CSS/W/18, 5 December 2000, "Note on Assessment on Trade in Services in Certain Transition
Economies", Communication from Slovenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovak Republic.
7European Commission, 1998, ‘GATS 2000: Opening Markets for Services’, Brussels.
8International Trade Statistics 2000, by WTO Secretariat.S/CSS/W/114
Page 5
have increased by 15%. Assessments conducted at the national level have therefore not shown
positive results. Malaysia, for example, has concluded that despite exporting services, and being a
relatively open market, it is still suffering a trade deficit in services. In conducting their own
assessment, the Malaysian authorities ‘had not found that developing countries had benefited from
services trade’.9  For developing countries with services sectors which are even less developed than
Malaysia, liberalisation under conditions of such unequal competition has led to de-industrialisation,
rather than economic growth.
17. Developing countries’ small suppliers are also disadvantaged in other ways, such as through
discriminatory access to information channels and distribution networks – eg. suppliers of
telecommunications network may discriminate by ex cluding certain users, charging higher fees, or
imposing restrictions on attaching equipment. An example is the display bias on CRS and GDS
screens, which has restricted competition in the air transport sector.
4. Privatisation of Service
18. Under conditions of liberalisation, privatisation of services could very easily happen since
foreign corporations which are more competitive are likely to enter the new market and take over
from the local company. This could have consequences on access to basic services for those who may
not be able to afford these commercial prices of services. According to Asbjor Eide, Norwegianexpert on the Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, ‘There are serious
risks that, once privatised, international services will opt for the solutions that are most profitable and
forget about the most vulnerable sectors of the population, given that privately-run services are not
subject to the same democratic controls as public services’. He warned that there could be serious
dangers if the states transfer their responsibilities to transnational service providers that lack a socialconscience about the local communities.
10
19. In addition, investments, when they come in, ha ve often not been in sectors that could most
benefit the host countries. Investors tend to flock to where there are already existing activities, rather
than moving into new, greenfield sectors. For example, the major privatisation examples in
developing countries have been in public utilities.
5. Marketisation and Commodification of Common/ Public Resources
20. For the rural sectors in many developing countries, these basic services may not even be
provided by the state, but by communities and local authorities which use currently common
resources, such as water, minerals, fuels. Through marketisation, previously available public goods
are put out of reach of many when these are commodified in the process of privitisation. The
experience of several developing countries with structural adjustment already shows that large
segments of the population are having serious difficulties gaining access to basic commodities andservices at prices they can afford.
III. MOVING BEYOND THE STALEMATE IN GATS ASSESSMENT
1. Many developing countries, at the time of the Uruguay Round were hesitant to negotiate GATS
given the non-existence of statistics. However, they were reassured that the problem would be
addressed with urgency and ways would be found to  gather meaningful data, to match the directions
                                                     
9Council for Trade in Services in Special Session, 26 May 2000, Note by Secretariat, S/CSS/M/3, and
Council for Trade in Services, Report of the Meeting Held on 21 Sept 1999, S/C/M/39.
10Cited in SUNS 29 Aug 2001.S/CSS/W/114
Page 6
of trade data in goods. On the basis of these reassurances, GATS negotiations went ahead and
developing countries made concessions.
2. To date, however, substantive assessment has continued to be stalemated. In large part, this is
because too much emphasis has been placed on the difficulties to obtain statistics.  Certainly, work
underway to obtain the long desired break-down in bala nce of payments statistics, as well as accurate
statistical information in the various modes of supply must continue.11  However, it is time that urgent
consideration also be given to other elements to assess the effects of GATS. There are indeed a broad
range of elements on which an assessment could be made so as to complement the existing statistical
information.
3. In accordance with the objectives outlined in Part I of this paper, the following is a list of
issues/elements, by which evidence can be gathered to assess the GATS. This is by no means
exhaustive, and work can continue to further define and refine this list.
(i) General Economy:
1. What has been the evolution of trade in services vis-a-vis the general economy since
1995? (This assessment could be done with the help of economic trends and other
national indicators). Has GATS played any part in contributing to economic growth?
2. Has GATS brought about more employment?
3. Has GATS been instrumental in creating the promised synergies between trade in
services and trade in agricultural and industrial sectors? Has there been growth in
these due to GATS?
4. Have developing countries’ economies become more diversified as a result of GATS?
(ii) Trade in Services:
1. Have developing countries, especially LDCs, secured a larger share of this growth in
international services trade? Has trade in services, or services exports increased -
horizontally and vertically?
2. Have developing countries’ services suppliers been able to exploit opportunities
offered in regional and international markets? Has GATS led to increased marketaccess for developing countries’ suppliers in sectors and modes of supply of export
interest to them?
3. What has been the actual inroad and progress in terms of market share and market
access for developed countries into the developing countries’ markets?
4. Has GATS led to the ‘strengthening’ of developing countries’ domestic services
capacity, efficiency and competitiveness?
5. Has GATS strengthened developing countries’ services capacity through greater
access to technology? Have there been more dynamic technological advances in
services sectors as a result of GATS in developing countries?
                                                     
11Efforts of the Inter-Agency Task Force should be supplemented by other international organisations.S/CSS/W/114
Page 7
6. Have developing countries’ suppliers had more access to distribution channels and
information networks?
7. Has the economic benefits of GATS been ‘mutually advantageous’ for developed and
developing countries?
8. Have there been investments in new sectors in developing countries, or are
investments in services flowing only to sectors which have already been developed?
(iii) GATS Commitments / Rules
1. To what extent have nationality, visa and residency requirements prohibited the
movement of natural persons from developing countries since 1995? Has the same
been true for the movement of natural persons from the developed countries into
developing countries?
2. What is the extent of subsidies provided by developed countries to their services
suppliers? In what sectors have these subsidies been granted, and how? To what
extent are investment incentives available to developed countries’ suppliers, and what
is the trade distortive impact of this?
3. What has been the effect of MFN exemptions?
(iv) Access to Basic Services
1. Has GATS brought about greater access to basic infrasturcutre to a larger number of
people (especially the poor), for example, water, energy, health care, transport etc?
Has there been an increase or decrease in the standards of services provided
especially to populations that are poor, vulnerable or socially disadvantaged?
2. Has GATS contributed to greater access to telecommunications and internet services
by people in developing countries?
3. Has GATS led to an increase in privitisation of services? What has the impact been
for the development of developing countries?
IV. TIME FRAME AND MECHANISM FOR AN ASSESSMENT
1. Once again, in March 2001, WTO members adopted the ‘Guidelines and Procedures for the
Negotiations on Trade in Services’. Paragraph 14 of the Guidelines states that
‘The Council for Trade in Services in Special Session shall continue to carry out an
assessment of trade in services in overall terms and on a sectoral basis with reference
to the objectives of the GATS and of Article IV in particular. This shall be an
ongoing activity of the Council and negotiations shall be adjusted in the light of the
results of the assessment.’
2. In order for such an assessment to be on-going, it should in the first place commence. It is
therefore imperative that an assessment is conducte d now in order to ensure that the negotiations
proceed on an informed basis. Furthermore, since it is to be continuing, there is need for an objective
framework for such an exercise to be conducted on a predictable and certain manner, and at the same
time, making it meaningful for future assessments.S/CSS/W/114
Page 8
3. We therefore recommend that:
(i) The first of such an assessment is carried out based on the comprehensive
submissions made by member states and international organisations, including the
WTO.  Conclusions should be drawn based on these submissions by the end of March
2002, as a first contribution under the mandate given in Article XIX:3 as well as inParagraph 14 of the Guidelines cited above.
(ii) Further negotiations may only commence after conclusions from this first assessment
have been drawn. Negotiations should be adjusted in accordance with these
conclusions.
(iii) In accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Guidelines, assessments of trade in services
should remain an ongoing activity of the Council and conclusions should be drawn at
regular intervals so that the negotiations can be adjusted accordingly.
(iv) Given the expertise and work of UNCTAD on issues pertaining to developing
countries, these assessments should be carried out with the assistance of UNCTAD,
and if necessary, other relevant UN agencies. Studies on national experiences can also
be fed into this assessment process. Demand driven technical and financial assistance
should be provided for this purpose to developing countries, especially the LDCs.
__________