RESTRICTED  
  
S/CSC/M/89  
 
31 August 2022 
(22-6516) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Specific Commitments    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1 JULY 2022 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) held a meeting on 1 July 2022 chaired by  
Mr. Thomas Nauta from the Netherlands  (out-going Chair) and Mr. Jeremia Pratama from Indonesia 
(incoming Chair) .  
 
The agenda for the meeting, contained in document WTO/AIR/CSC/1 8, was adopted.  
 
Before moving on to the substance of the meeting, the Chairperson drew Delegations' attention to 
the hybrid mode  meeting format . He thank ed all for their patience and efforts in following the 
arrangements and for their understanding on the requirements and limitations imposed by the 
situation.  
 
The representative of Canada  recalled  that more than 125 days ha d passed since the beginning of 
Russia 's illegal , unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, which Canada strongly 
condemned. She reminded that this invasion continue d to bring disruption, displacement, suffering 
and death to in nocent people inside Ukraine sovereign borders. Canada st ood with the brave people 
of Ukraine, as they continue d to fight for their freedom . Canada had sincere thoughts for all the 
victims. The shock wave that this invasion ha d also sent to the global econ omy could  not be 
underestimated . For Canada,  there was no doubt that this destabilisation  had had an impact on all 
economies, including developing, and least -developed countries. Canada w ould continue to hold the 
Russian leadership to account and call on it to abandon th e path of war and return to good faith 
diplomacy. This was the best and only means for addressing what was an urgent humanitarian 
emergency, a growing threat to global food security , and the threat  Russia alone ha d created to the 
very core of rule -based institutions.  
 
The representative  of the European Union  resolutely condemn ed Russia's invasion of Ukraine, an 
independent and sovereign European country, now also a candidate country for the membership of 
the European Union. The European Union urged Russia to stop th ose horrific attacks immediately 
and unconditionally withdraw all its troops and military equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine 
within its international ly recognized borders. The European Union st ood with Ukraine and w ould 
continue to provide support to Ukraine's people and military, as well as economy including through  
trade policy means.  
 
The representative  of Australia  joined others in restating its condemnation of Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine in the strongest possible  terms. Th e unprovoked, unjust and illegal invasion of Ukraine was 
completely incompatible with the values and work of this Organization ; it had profound negative 
implications for the global economy and rules -based international order. Australia supported the 
continued collective action by the international community to impose barrage and economic 
sanctions and trade measures on Russia to inflict heavy costs on those responsible. A ustralia called 
on Russia to withdraw its troops and immediately commit to diplomatic solutions .  
 
The representative  of the United Kingdom  also wanted to add its voice to the Members who had 
intervened and supported Ukraine in condemning Russia's actions. The UK and its international 
partners stood united in condemning Russia's reprehensible actions which were an egregious 
violation of inter national law . The UK  called on Russia to urgently de -escalate and withdraw its 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/CSC/M/89  
 
- 2 - 
 
  troops. Russia  must be held accountable and stop undermining democracy, global stability, and 
international law.  
 
The representative  of Norway  joined others in condemning in the  strongest possible terms the 
unprecedented military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Norway  expressed 
concern for the severe destruction and human suffering th at illegal act of aggression was causing. 
By its unprovoked, unjustified, a nd premeditated military actions, the Russian Federation was 
grossly violating international law, the core principles on which the international rule s-based order 
was built and the fundamental principles of the UN charter that ha d prevailed since the secon d World 
War. Norway reiterate d that it stood in solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.  
 
The representative  of Japan  stated that Russia's aggression against Ukraine clearly infringed upon 
Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity and was a great violation of the UN Charter which 
prohibited the use of wars. Japan condemned Russia's action in the strongest terms. Japan continued 
to stand by Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and with the international community, including  the 
G7 to respond to th e situation.  
 
The representative  of the Republic of Korea  echoed the previous speakers. The Korean government 
also strongly condemn ed Russia’s armed invasion into Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN 
Charter. The use of force that cause d innocent casualties c ould not be justified under any 
circumstances. Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence had to be 
respected. In additi on to the humanitarian disaster, Russia’s invasion was disrupting the global trade 
system including trade in services. The way to end all of th at was obviously the immediate stop of 
Russia’s military action in Ukraine.  
 
The representative  of the United Sta tes recalled that they had already made their position clear in 
this body and in WT/GC/244 "The Joint Statement on Aggression by the Russian Federation against 
Ukraine with the Support of Belarus. "  The United States  reiterated their support for Ukraine du ring 
this unimaginably difficult time and condemn ed Russia’s premeditated and unprovoked attack on 
Ukraine. They paid tribute to the heroism of the Ukrainian people, their armed forces , and leaders.   
 
The representative  of the Russian Federation  reiterate d his delegation's  position that this was not 
the right place to rai se the Ukraine issue , which was out of the scope of the WTO and out of the 
mandate of the Committee. He reminded that  the global economy was already suffering from the 
commodity shortages, accelerated inflation and face d the threat of a global economic crisis. And th at 
was the result of the economic and financial policies of major developed economies and also of 
restrictive and discriminat ory actions against Russia imposed by cert ain Members. Russia remain ed 
committed to  the WTO principles of non -discrimination and transparency and respect ed the rights 
of other Members , but the consequences of the Ukrainian crisis should be discussed in other 
appropriate international organizations  and diplomatic agencies.  
 
1  ITEM A – APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE  
1.1.   The outgoing Chair reminded that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Services ha d 
recently concluded his consultations on the slate of names for the Chairpersons o f the subsidiary 
bodies. Accordingly, he propose d that the Committee elect Mr. Jeremia Pratama from Indonesia as 
its new Chairperson by acclamation .  
1.2.  The Committee then elected Mr. Pratama as its new Chairperson by acclamation. The meeting 
was thereafter c haired by Mr. Pratama . 
1.3.  Mr. Pratama stated that it was a huge honour to be appoint ed as the Chair of this important 
Committee and sincerely thanked the Members for their trust and hoped for their support to the 
work of this Committee.  He thanked the previous Chair for his hard work and congratulated him for 
bringing the work of this Committee into success du ring his chairpersonship.  
2  ITEM B - IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS  
2.1.  The Chair recall ed that at the last meeting, the Committee had considered a new proposal 
(S/CSC/W/73) from the delegation of Türkiye on implementation issues related to specific 
commitments and Article II (MFN) on cross -border supply of road transport services under the GATS. 
The proposal mainly raised three questions for discussion: 1) the compatibility of imposing truck S/CSC/M/89  
 
- 3 - 
 
  quotas with full market access commitments in Mode 1 on road transport services; 2) the 
understanding of "Unbound " in market access and "None" in national treatment with respect to cross 
border supply of road transport; and 3) the MFN obligation with respect to all measures affecting 
international road transport inc luding truck quotas, passage fees, customs measures . 
2.2.  Due to short notice, most interventions at the last meeting were preliminary. Several 
delegations had noted that they were still considering the proposal and would revert to it with more 
detailed comments at this meeting.  He invited the delegation of Türkiye to provide further 
explanation about their proposal . 
2.3.  The representative of Türkiye  made a presentation . He noted that road freight transport was 
one of the sub -sectors listed under category 11. F ("Road Transport Services ") of W/120 and that  
the corresponding UN Provisional Central Product Classification (CPC Prov) code was 7123. 
Previously t he Secretariat had prepared a Background Note on Road Freight Transport Services 
which was contained in do cument S/C/W/324, dated 29 October 2010. According to the information 
on the WTO website, as of the end of 2020, 49 Members (EU -25 counted as one) had undertaken 
specific commitments on road freight transport services while 38 Members had listed MFN 
exempt ions for this subsector . Main problems affecting cross -border road freight transport 
operations included: quota -permit system s, i.e. numerical restrictions; high or discriminatory fees 
and fines; imposition of mandatory routes; discriminatory treatment aga inst foreign trucks; and 
restrictions on the movement of drivers (e.g. visa restrictions, etc.). The Secretariat Background 
Note on Road Freight Transport Services (S/C/W/234) indicated: "Bilateral traffic -sharing 
agreements are the predominant mode of org anization of international road transport. (para. 68) … 
"The dominant international regime governing road transport may be compared, mutatis mutandis , 
with that applicable to air transport, except for the fact that the former is fully covered by the GATS 
whereas air transport is for the most part excluded. The road transport regime is made up of 
thousands of bilateral agreements which split the traffic between the two parties to the exclusion of 
all others …. " (para. 69)  This Secretariat Note referred to th e International Road Union (IRU)'s 
observation that "one of the effects of transit and third country quotas is that 'a pair of countries 
can decide on trade relations between another pair of countries through controlling their transit and 
third country traffic' " and that "this type of traffic distortion via 'stipulation for other s' does not exist 
in other modes of transport, even in those in which market access is tightly regulated ". (para. 95) 
The Secretariat Note (S/C/W/234) further noted: "The transport operators of the country of origin 
end up having to 'arbitrage', i.e. constantly choose, not only between transit routes but also 
countries of destination, depending on the level of prices, prices which tend to increase dramatically 
when bilater al or transit quota run out. Thus, services 'arbitraging' by the transport operators is not 
motivated exclusively by commercial factors, as it is, for example, in the vast majority of cases in 
maritime transport, but by multiple regulatory constraints. In this respect, the road transport sector 
appears to be subject to an even more restricted regulatory regime than air transport ." (para. 89) 
Türkiye  noted that several international institutions including the International Transport Forum  
(ITF), UN (e.g. UNE CE, UNESCAP), Regional institutions (e.g. ANDEAN, BSEC, EU, NAFTA) had done 
some work on road freight transport  services .  
2.4.  The representative of Türkiye  noted  that the main types of cross -border road freight transport 
operations (mode 1) included: transpor t between the territories of two economies (bilateral 
carriages , trucks of country A, either loaded or empty, entered country B to unload the freight to 
country B or load freight from country B ); transport between a point in the territory of one country 
and a point in the territory of a third country (third country carriage, trucks of country A entered 
country B to carry the load of country B to country C); transit carriage (loaded trucks of country A 
transited through countries B and C to arrive in country  D; and other combinations such as unladen 
(empty) entry, return carriage (for example, empty trucks of country A entered country B to take 
the load of country B and carried it to country A). These different types of operations involved 
different quota sys tems and required different documents, usually based on bilateral traffic -sharing 
agreements. Bilateral carriages, third country carriages and unladen entry carriages were covered 
by mode 1 under the GATS and therefore quotas or permits required for  these operations were 
subject to GATS obligations on market access, national treatment and MFN . Transit carriages were 
subject to the obligation on the freedom of transit under the GATT. Discriminatory fees and other 
discriminatory treatment were also subject to  the GATS obligations on national treatment and MFN. 
While modes 3 and 4 were relevant for road freight transport services as well, for example, measures 
concerning commercial presence of road transportation companies or mobility of truck drivers (e.g. 
visa procedures, etc.), they were not within the scope of the Turkish proposal.  S/CSC/M/89  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.5.  The Turkish proposal raised a number of basic questions for discussion: 1) if there was no MFN 
exemption, could a Member implement different numerical restrictions and discrimina tory fees and 
treatment compared to other countries ，even if it did not undertake any specific commitments on 
market access and national treatment ? 2) if there was an MFN exemption, with "None" on market 
access in the schedule, what would be the policy space in terms of numerical restrictions and 
discriminatory fees and treatment? 3) if there was an MFN exemption, with "Unbound " on market 
access and "None" on national treatment in the schedule, what would be the policy space in terms 
of numerical restrictions and discriminatory fees and treatment?  Regarding the first question, 
Türkiye  noted the Scheduling Guidelines which provided that "where an MFN exemption had been 
granted for a measure, a Mem ber is free to deviate from its Article II obligations, but not from its 
Article XVI and Article XVII commitments. " 
2.6.  Türkiye  was of the view that promoting a multilateral mechanism  for regulatory harmonization 
in cross-border road freight transport might be  needed, rather than the prevalence of bilateral 
arrangements and negotiations which relied on quota -permit instruments. Discussion s on issues 
related to  GATS commitments could help promote such multilateral mechanisms and cooperation. 
Referring to  GATS Article XXVI  which encourag ed cooperation with other international organizations, 
Türkiye  believed that enhanced communication and cooperation with the ITF, IRU and relevant UN 
institutions would be beneficial. For example, these organizations could be invited to present their 
work on road freight transport. As a second step, Türkiye  invited Members to explore  the possibility 
of establishing an "Understanding of Commitments in Cross -Border Supply of Road Freight 
Transport " by the Committee . Türkiye  also would like to have more focused discussions on "Freedom 
of Transit " in the context of GATS, GATT and the Trade Facilitation Agreement.   
2.7.  The representative  of India thanked Türkiye for their presentation and proposal which was still 
being examined by ex perts in capital as it required some time.  Once this was done, India would 
engage in more substantive discussion s.  
2.8.  The representative  of the United States  thanked Türkiye for its proposal and for the interesting 
and insightful presentation  which helped the US gain a better understanding of Türkiye’s concerns 
in that sector and some unique aspects of it . The US would study it and discuss it in capital.  While 
open-minded on how to address road transport, the US  insisted that the work fell within the mandate 
of the Committee .  As Türkiye had pointed out, some of the more sprawling elements f ell outside 
the GATS.  Even for those that d id fall within GATS, the US feared that this Committee  might  not be 
the right forum, as it was not  an appropriate body to interpret schedules or create new commitments.  
He recalled that the representative of Türkiye had said in the past they were open to the mandate 
proposals to address Members' concerns.  
2.9.  The representative  of the European Union  thanked Türkiye for its communication and for having 
provided further explanations about  their interest in road transport  as well as for highlighting the 
challenges for cross -border trade in road transport . The European Uni on insisted that any further 
questions and proposals for discussion should  stay in the mandate of this Committee. The EU would 
generally  find it difficult to engage in discussions on legal assessment of  theoretical examples of 
compatibility with the GATS . Members ' concerns  about  GATS compatibility of  specific measures taken 
by other Members should be raised in the C ouncil for Trade in Services . While  the EU would  continue 
to assess the Turkish proposal in light of further  clarification, it would like any further discussions to 
be within the mandate of the Committee.  
2.10.  The representative  of Australia  thanked Türkiye for its presentation  and for the details 
provided which were very useful to further understand the specific measures and barriers  that they 
were looking at in th at specific sector. Australia  noted the importance of carrying out any work in 
line with the mandate of the Committee and echoed comments made by previous Members, who 
thought that it was not the appropriate forum to be interpretating Members GATS commitments . If 
there were issues o n particular measures maintained by certain Members, there were other 
Committees where the issues would be more appropriately taken up.  
2.11.  The representative  of China  appreciated Türkiye's proposal on cross -border supply of road 
transport services and believed that the sector, and also the logistics sector as a whole, were very 
important services areas with significant implications for Members' participation in the global market. 
However, due to the complexity of the issue and limited time , China  needed to hold  further 
consultations with domestic authorities and might come back with more questions in the future.  S/CSC/M/89  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.12.  The representative  of Saudi Arabia  thanked Türkiye  for their presentation which had enriched 
delegations' knowledge about their proposal. Saudi Arabia was still assessing the proposal back in 
capital.  
2.13.  Regarding  the proposal of T ürkiye on cross -border supply for transport services , the 
representative  of the Russian Federation  called for caution because interpretations could  have 
systematic implications for  some other sectors  under  the GATS . 
2.14.  The Chair sought Members' views on Türkiye 's suggestion  that other relevant international 
organizations be invited to present their work on road transport .  
2.15.  The representative  of Canada  stated that  Canada's competent authorities were still examining 
Türkiye's proposal  to determine  whether or not to engage on it. Canada  share d similar views 
concerning the importance to engage on a work related to the Committee on Specific Commitments  
mandate. On the Chair's  question, if Türkiye was proposing to have a webinar or a workshop on 
road t ransport services, Canada suggested that a detailed proposal be submitted and then Canada  
could  analyse it and consult its capital appropriately.  
2.16.  Türkiye  thank ed all the delegations for their comments on its presentation. It underst ood that 
delegations need ed some time to assess the presentation and  the proposal in their capitals  and 
looked forward to  Members ' further comments in the future.  
2.17.  Türkiye  took note of the concerns raised by the US, Australia and the EU regarding the 
mandate of the Committee . Before submitt ing its proposal , Türkiye  had examined the 
communications previous ly submi tted by Members and noted  similar submissions under the agenda 
item "Implementation of Specific Commitments ". Türkiye's proposal was to initiate  a discussion 
exactly about  the implementation of specific commitments on a specific sector. It was thus  in line  
with the mandate of the Committee . Türkiye  underst ood that the concern raised was mainly with 
respect to the term "interpretation ". She stressed that Türkiye had no intention to interpret specific 
commitments on behalf of a panel but wishe d to open a discussion to exchange  views with Members 
on the  understanding of commitments. Previously in this Committee there were  communications 
regarding computer services  which were about the understanding of the commitments in that specific 
sector . Türkiye  therefore thought that its proposal  was in line  with the CSC mandate . Türkiye sought  
the Secretariat 's comments on whether the Committee on Spec ific Commitments  was the right 
platform to raise issues on the implementation of specific commitments.  
2.18.  Türkiye  thank ed all delegations again and expressed its  readiness for bilateral engagements. 
With respect to the issue raised by Canada, Türkiye would prepare a proposal , maybe in corporation 
with Canada , should  other organizations be invite d.  
2.19.  The Chair took this opportunity to thank Türkiye  and all Members for their views and 
observations on this matter. He encourage d Members to contribute to this substantive discussion at 
the next meeting.  
2.20.  He then move d to another subitem under this agenda item: implementation of conditional 
commitments.  
2.21.  He recall ed that this was a transparency exercise following a proposal from the United States 
(S/CSC/W/69, dated 5  March  2020). The exercise ha d been conducted on a voluntary basis and 
facilitated by the Compilation of Conditional Commitments in GATS schedules prepare d by the 
Secretariat. At previous meetings, several delegations had provided updates on the "conditions " 
included in their commitments, which were usually about domestic legislative actions or policy 
reviews associated with the entry into force, implementa tion or updating of commitments. These 
updates were incorporated in the revisions of the Compilation. The latest update (contained in 
document S/CSC/W/70/Rev.4) was about the conclusion of certification of Thailand's improvements 
of commitments on telecomm unications pursuant to document S/L/84, as a result of Thailand's 
implementation of its conditional commitments.  
2.22.  The representative  of the United States  thank ed all Members that ha d participated in this 
useful exercise . He also  recognize d the Secretariat’s hard work in scouring the numerous schedules 
and making the relevant information easily available to Members. He however noted  that the updates S/CSC/M/89  
 
- 6 - 
 
  from Members ha d waned in recent meetings.  It would be better to either transform th e exercise  
into an annual exercise or pursue it on a needed basis in the future  if there was  insufficient new 
substance to discuss. That said, he looked forward to hearing if there were other updates from 
Members.   
2.23.  The representative  of India reiterated her delegation' s position. W hile th e compilation of 
conditional commitments by the Secretariat was useful for the purpose of transparency, any updat es 
of a schedule should only be based on market access negotiation s which went beyond the  purview 
of the CSC. Therefore, India did not support taking this exercise any further.  
2.24.  The representative  of China  thanked the proponent and the WTO Secretariat for th eir good 
work and appreciated Member s' pragmatism in  updat ing relevant information on their specific 
commitments.  Noting  that implementing specific commitments was a basic obligation of all WTO 
Members, China  was open to discussing related  issues. At the same time, it was worth noting that 
the review and update of schedules should be limited to the implementation of Members ' existing 
commitments without entailing  further market opening obligation s.  
2.25.  The representative  of Canada  thanked the US for initiating this  useful  transparency exercise 
and the Secretariat for preparing the compilation and the revisions. Canada  also thank ed all the 
Members who had participated in the exercise and provided updates on their own measures. It was 
on the transparenc y basis that Canada ha d been supporting this initiative and was open to having 
the same type of exercise on an annual basis or a needed  basis. Canada  thought the past meetings 
useful  and d id not agree with India's  interpretation. A Member ha d the right to modify its schedule 
unilateral ly.   
2.26.  The Chair suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to th at 
agenda item at its next meeting.   
2.27.  It was so  agreed .  
3  ITEM C – SCHEDULING ISSUES  
3.1.  No intervention was made under this item.  
3.2.  The Chair suggested that the Committee revert to th at agenda item at its next meeting.  
3.3.  It was so agreed .  
4  ITEM D - CLASSIFICATION ISSUES  
4.1.  The Chair recall ed that at the previous  meeting, the Committee had been informed of the 
ongoing work by the UN Statistics Division and the WTO Secretariat to add the Services Sectoral 
Classification List (MTN.GNS/W/120) to the digital tool for the visualization of the correspondence 
between the CPC Provisional and CPC Version 2.1.  
4.2.  A representative of  Secretariat  noted that  discussions remained  ongoing with the UN Statistics 
Division, with the support of the Secretariat colleagues dealing with IT issues, to explore possibilities 
of appending the visualization tool with MTN.GNS/ W/120. The Secretariat would continue informing 
the Committee of progress made on this investigation.  
4.3.  The Chair suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to this 
agenda item at its next meeting.  
4.4.  It was so agreed .  
5  ITEM E – OTHER BUSINESS  
5.1.  No intervention was made under th at item. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________