RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
 9 May 2022 
(22-3623) Page: 1/15 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 MARCH  2022 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held a meeting on 29 March 2022  chaired by  
Mr. Devabrata CHAKRABORTY from Bangladesh . The proposed agenda for the meeting was 
contained in document WTO/AIR/WPDR/1 6 dated 8 March 2022 and WTO/AIR/WPDR/16/Corr.1 
dated 14 March 2022 . The report of the previous  meeting of the Working Party, held on 
30 June 2021, is contained in document S/WPDR/M/7 7. 
Before  turning  to the substance  of the meeting,  the Chair man recalled  that, following  the agreement  
by Members  on a slate of names  for the Chairpersons  of the Council  for Trade  in Services  (CTS)  
subsidiary  bodies,  the election  of the Chairpersons  for 2021 had been conducted  through  a written  
procedure  and had been confirmed  through  a fax dated  5 August  2021. Since  his election,  the Chair 
had consulted  bilaterally  with several  delegations.  
 
The Chairman also indicated  his intention  to make  a brief statemen t on the "appointment  of the 
Chairperson  for the WPDR  for 2022" under  "Other  Business ".  
 
With these  changes,  the agenda  was adopted . 
 
The representative  of Ukraine  made  a statement  about  the current  situation  in her country , and its 
effects  on Ukraine 's participation  in the WTO.  It was already  the 34th day of war started  by the 
Russian  Federation  against  Ukraine  and its people.  For more than a month  already,  Russia  had 
continued  to commit  an unprecedented  aggression  against  her country,  an attack  on the sovereignty  
and the territorial  integrity  of Ukraine  in brutal  violation  of international  law. Ukraine  – being  devoted  
to the core principles  and values  of the WTO,  as well as to the multilateral  trading  system  in general  
– was convinced  that the military  aggression  of one WTO Member  towards  another  WTO Member  
was putting  the trading  system  in an unprecedented  situation  that could  not allow Members  to 
conduct  business  as usual.  Russia 's military  aggression  was destroying  the development  of 
infrastructure  and the economy.  Effects  on trade,  prices,  and the global  flow of goods  and services  
could  already  be observed.  The full scale war launched  by Russia  had strong  and long-term economic  
and trade consequences,  which  needed  to be acknowledge d and address ed. Bearing  all this in mind,  
Russia 's aggression  had created  an uncertain  situation  directly  related  to the process  of 
implementation  of Ukraine 's commitments  under  the GATS  with regard  to all modes  of supply  and 
most - if not all - services  sectors.  In the current  situation,  Ukraine  was not in a position  to provide  
usual  business  conditions  for services  suppliers  and consumers  of other  WTO Members.  Therefore,  
Ukraine  hoped  that WTO Members  would  continue  to stand  in solidarity  with Ukraine  and its people  
and would  impose  trade  restrictive  measures  against  the aggressor  state in order  to stop the 
unjustified  attack. Moreover,  Ukraine  urged  all WTO Members  to consider  taking  further  action  with 
a view to suspending  the participation  of the Russian  Federation  in the WTO for its violation  of the 
purpose  and principles  of the Organization.  Ukraine  was very grateful  to all WTO Members  that had 
stood  with Ukraine  in response  to this terrible  war and were refusing  to engage  with Russia.  
 
The representative  of the Russian  Federation  raised  a point of order.  She noted  that the comments  
of the previous  speaker  did not fall within  the competence  of the WTO,  the issues  were not part of 
the mandate  of the WPDR , and were not relevant  to the meeting 's agenda , as reflected  in document  
WTO/AIR/WPDR/16  and Corr.1  and agreed  by all the Members  at the beginning  of the meeting . 
 
 
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/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 2 - 
 
  The representative of the United Kingdom  thank ed Ukraine for its statement.  As Members  were 
meeting  to discuss issues related to d omestic regulation , they could not sit by and ignore the 
egregious violations of international law and the UN Charter committed by one WTO Member against 
another.  Members could not pretend that this was  "business as usual ", given not only the impact of 
Russia 's unjustifiable aggression on Ukraine, but the broader global economic and humanitarian 
impact of Russia 's actions across the world.  Members had already seen the direct consequences of 
Russia 's actions , which were impeding the ability of Ukraine to fully participate in th e WPDR and in 
the work of th e WTO . While Russia was continuing  to violate international law, human rights , and 
multiple commitments to peace and security, the United Kingdom would  continue  working with its 
allies and partners across the multilateral system to condemn Russia 's appalling actions and to 
isolate it on th e international stage.  
 
The representative of the United States  strong ly support ed for Ukraine during this unimaginably 
difficult time.  The United States  was deeply impressed with the heroism of the Ukrainian people and 
the bravery of their armed forces a nd their leaders.  The United States condemn ed Russia 's 
premeditated and unprovoked attack on Ukraine as well as the actions of the Belarus ' regime which 
was aiding Russia 's war of aggression.  President Putin 's premeditated war had brought catastrophic 
loss of life and human suffering.  Russia was solely responsible for this death and destruction, and 
the world had to  hold Russia accountable.  The United States called upon Russia to immediately cease 
its use of force against Ukraine a nd refrain from any further unlawful threat or use of force against 
any UN Member State. The United State s stood  united with its allies and partners in a commitment 
to ensure the Russian government pa id a severe economic and diplomatic price for its furthe r 
invasion of Ukraine.  The WTO was predicated on certain values, among these that a fair and just 
international order was built on rules, reciprocity, and transparency.  The actions of Russia were 
incompatible with the rules -based system that WTO Members  had built and work ed to 
improve.  Russia 's conduct in perpetrating a war of aggression against Ukraine undermine d the rights 
of Ukraine in this Organization and was fundamentally incompatible with the values and principles 
of the WTO.  
 
The representative of Australia  stated that Ukraine had explained very clearly how Russia 's attack 
had paralysed Ukraine 's ability to participate in the WTO  and the profound destabilis ing effects it 
was having on the global economy, including on provid ing predictability and certainty for global 
services trade. Australia joined the United Kingdom  and the United States in condemning Russia 's 
unprovoked , unjustified , and ongoing attack on Ukraine in the strongest possible terms.  Russia 's 
actions breach ed internat ional law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a neighbouring 
state.  The humanitarian, security and economic impacts of this crisis were profound.  The Russian 
Federation had to  withdraw its forces from Ukrainian territory and commit to a diplomatic solution.  
Australia support ed collective action by the international community to impose costs and increase 
leverage on Russia and those in Russia who bore responsibility for this unspeakable situation.  
 
The representative of the European Union  express ed full solidarity with Ukraine and its people. The 
extensive discussion that had already taken  place at  the meeting of General Council  about Russia 's 
military aggression had reflected the broad  condemnation felt by many Members, and squarely put 
responsibility on the Russian Federation for the negative effects on food security, trade in goods and 
services and global economic stability.  The European Union and its Member States would  continue 
to support Ukraine. The E uropean Union had already adopted significant economic and trade 
sanctions against Russia and remain ed ready to move with further measures.  The European Union 
called upon  Russi a to immediately put an end to the aggression, withdraw its military  forces , and 
respect Ukraine 's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
 
The representative  of Canada  joined others  to strongly  condemn  Russia 's unjustifiable  and 
unprovoked  invasion  of Ukraine.  It was already  34 days that the attacks  were causing  widespread  
humanitarian  consequences  and resulting  in the senseless  deaths  of innocent  people.  The 
international  community  had to be seized  of this issue. This was not just an attack  on Ukraine , but 
an attack  on international  law, including  the UN Charter,  as well as democracy,  freedom,  and human  
rights.  
 
The representative  of Japan  condemned  Russia 's aggression  against  Ukraine  in the strongest  terms,  
as it clearly  infringe d upon Ukraine 's sovereignty  and territorial  integrity,  constitute d a serious  
violation  of international  law prohibiting  the use of force,  and was a grave  breach  of the UN Charter.  
Japan  strongly  urged  Russia  to cease  the attack  and withdraw  its forces  back to Russian  territory  S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 3 - 
 
  immediately.  Japan  stood  in solidarity  with Ukraine  and its people,  together  with the international  
community.   
 
The representative  of New Zealand  joined other  Members  in condemning,  in the strongest  possible  
terms,  President  Putin's unprovoked  and unjustified  attack  on Ukraine.  Russia 's illegal  invasion  was 
causing widespread  humanitarian  consequences  and had already  resulted  in the senseless  deaths  of 
innocent  people.  New Zealand  strongly  support ed Ukraine 's sovereignty  and territori al integrity  and 
stood  with Ukraine  as it defend ed itself against  Russian  aggression.  New Zealand  support ed 
steadfastly  collective  action  by the international  community  to denounce  the egregious  and unlawful  
actions  taken  by Russia,  and to censure  those  in President  Putin's Government  who bore 
responsibility.  
 
The representative of the Republic of Korea  strongl y condemned Russia 's armed invasion against 
Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter. The use of force that was causing  innocent 
casualties could not  be justified under any circumstances. Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity 
and polit ical independence had to  be respected. Korea  share d the deep concerns that the 
international community expressed  over the unfolding humanitarian situation in Ukraine.  
The representative  of Switzerland  condemned  in the strongest  possible  terms  the military  aggression  
of the Russian  Federation  against  Ukraine,  which  constituted  a flagrant  violation  of international  law, 
notably  the prohibition  on the use of force and the principle  of territorial  integrity.  Switzerland  called  
upon Russia  to respect  its international  obligations,  to reverse  its actions,  as well as to withdraw  its 
troops  and contribute  to de-escalation  of this situation.  Switzerland  urged  all actors  to respect  
international  law, and in particular  international  humanitarian  law. 
 
The repr esentative of the Russian Federation  expressed her  disappoint ment that this meeting of the 
WPDR  had started with a violation of the procedure that require d Members to follow the agenda  as 
adopted . Unfortunately, Members had raised issues that were beyond  the scope of the WTO . 
Lamentably, the meeting  had started with disinformation, which was actively being used to 
manipulate public opinion and incite hatred towards Russians.  Many Members had called themselves 
supporters of the multilateral system  at a recent General Council meeting , and had co-sponsored a 
statement  on immediate action to support the multilateral trading system in preparation for a 
successful MC12 .2 However, those same M embers call ed for an economic war against Russia, 
introduce d aggressive restrictive discriminatory measures , which were  ineffective as a political tool, 
and led to damage s to the world economy, to an increase in business costs, to disruptions in supply 
chains, and to shocks in various markets. The friends of the  multil ateral trading  system were not 
those who sought  further turbulence to trade , but those who abide d by its rules and remember ed 
that trade , even in the most difficult times , had been  able to play a stabilizing role.  The Russian 
Federation called on Members to respect the rules of procedures and not turn this formal meeting  
of the WPDR  into a talk show.  
1  ITEM A  SYSTEMIC CONCERNS OF GATS ARTICLE VI:4 AND THE REFERENCE PAPER – 
REQUESTED BY INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA  
The Chairman stated that the substantive item of the agenda  was titled "Systemic Concerns of 
GATS Article V I:4 and the Reference Paper ". This item had been requested by the delegations of 
India and South Africa.   
The representative of India, on behalf of India and South Africa , said that , in December 2021, 
67 Members of the WTO (52 developed and 15 developing countries) had concluded negotiations in 
the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulations, affirming  that the outcome of their negotiations 
would  be applied on a n MFN basis.  India, South Africa and Namibia, in the General Council meeting 
which had been held in February 20223, had raised the issue of legality of Joint Statement Initiatives  
(JSIs), including the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. The submission had inter alia 
highlighted the contradiction between the JSIs  and the fundamental principles of the WTO , as well 
as systemic and development implications of JSIs.   
With respect to the systemic concerns raised on the relationship between GATS Article VI:4 
and the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation, India and South Africa noted that the 
Initiative 's proponents had maintained  that no multilateral consensus was required for bringing in 
 
2 WT/GC/W/841/Rev.3 .  
3 WT/GC/W/819/Rev.1 .  S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 4 - 
 
  such results under the umbrella of the WTO since these new rules were to be appended to Schedules  
of specific commitments . India and South Africa stated , however, that amendments or additions to 
rules were governed by multilateral consensus -based decision. As no such procedure had been  
followed in the case of the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation , this was contrary to the 
fundamental principles and objective s of the multilateral system, as enshrined in the Marrakesh 
Agreement . Specifically, the GAT S, read in concert with the Marrakesh Agreement , provide d for 
different rules and procedures pertaining to the amendment of rules versus the modification of 
Schedul es. While GATS rules were g overned by GATS Part II  on 'General Obligations and Disciplines ', 
Part III of the GATS contain ed provisions concerning Members ' individual 'Specific Commitments ' to 
be inscribed in Schedules  for specific sectors . Whilst both Article VI:4 ( contained in Part II) and 
Article XVIII ( contained in  Part III)  referred to qualifications, licensing, and standards, the 
differences between general rules and specific commitments could not  be overlooked and GATS 
Article XVIII should  not be used for bringing rules under 'General Obligations and Disciplines ', as 
envisaged under GATS Article VI:4, into the multilateral framework. Members ' rights to schedule 
"additional commitments " in their Schedules under GATS Article XVIII should not directly  or 
indirectly amount to a variation (dilut ion, amend ment or clarif ication ) of any of the provisions of the 
GATS.  
More broadly,  India and South Africa recalled that  their submission recognize d that there were 
systemic and development implications in the work of the  JSIs. Any attempt s to introduce new rules 
resulting from JSI negotiations into the WTO without  fulfilling the requirements of Articles IX and X 
of the Marrakesh Agreement  would be detrimental to the functioning of the rule based multilateral 
trading system  and erode its integrity by subverting established  rules and foundational principles of 
the Marrakesh Agreement ; it would create a precedent for any group of Members to bring an y issue s 
into the WTO without the required consensus ; it would bypass the collective oversight of Members 
for bringing in any new rules or amendments to existing rules in the WTO ; it would usurp limited 
WTO resources available for multilateral negotiations ; it would result in Members  disregarding 
existing multilateral mandates arrived at through consensus in favour of matters without multilateral 
mandates ; it would lead to the marginalization or exclusion of issues which were difficult but 
remain ed critical  for the multilateral trading system, such as agriculture  or developmen t, thereby 
undermining balance in agenda setting, negotiating processes and outcomes ; it would leave 
Members with no option other than to choose between remaining outside the discussion s or 
participating on matters that were inconsistent with their economic development priorities, needs, 
concerns and levels of economic development ; and it would fragment the multilateral trading system 
and undermine the multilateral character of the WTO.  India, South Africa and others had presented 
these concerns in the meetings of the WPDR held in December 2019 and June 2021.  
Moreover, India and South Africa stated that, w hile there were studies which attempted to 
estimate the gains in terms of global trade and lowering of trade costs to the global economy (WTO, 
September 2021  and WTO & OECD, November 2021), there were very few studies which had 
assessed the impact of these regulatory dis ciplines on developing countries, especially in terms of 
compliance  costs with these disciplines and implications for policy and regulatory space for 
developing countries. It had been estimated that the disciplines on services domestic regulation 
would lead to a reduction in services trade costs and the gains to the participating countries would 
be around USD 150 billion annually . However , these studies did not shed light on these gains at a 
disaggregated and comparative level, i.e., the total gains to deve loped countries that had already 
implemented these regulations , and the costs for those participating developing countries that had 
yet to put in place these  disciplines . Further more, while these studies argue d that there was a high 
correlation between imp lementation of the services domestic regulation disciplines and volume of 
services trade and participation in global value chains , they failed to establish any causality between 
the two. The WTO Staff Working Paper also found that there was a rising number of countries that 
were including services domestic regulation  provisions in their  trade agreements . However, for India 
and South Africa, including such provisions  with respect to the partner countries in the region was 
very different from und ertaking commitments on the same matters  under the GATS . For example, 
a small developing country might  be willing to include a discipline on "inform ing applicant s of reasons 
for rejection of application and allow resubmission " for its partner countries in a regional trade 
agreement,  but under taking  this commitment  towards  all WTO Members  would  not be feasible for a 
developing country and would  entail huge cost s of compliance and dedicated human and financial 
resources. According to the statistics provided b y the WTO Staff Working Paper,  while more than 
70% of high -income countries had included such a provision in their trade agreements , only 30 % of 
lower - and middle -income  countries had done so . This was in contrast to a very limited  inclusion  of 
such disciplines in trade agreements which had been adopted by  low-income  countries.  In a similar S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 5 - 
 
  vein, the WTO Staff Working Paper  noted  that more than 60% of non -participating Members in the 
sample had included at least one GATS -plus regulatory oblig ation in their trade agreements. Again, 
the suggestion that the inclusion of these disciplines in trade agreements  allowed  to assume that it 
was easy for developing countries to extend such commitments in their GATS Schedules ran into 
difficulty since the latter would apply on a  MFN basis and their compliance costs at this level could  
be enormous for a developing country.  Just to give an example, with respect  the disciplines  on 
regulatory quality and facilitation , the percentage of  the Initiative 's particip ating Members that had 
taken commitments in their trade agreements was  around 68 %, as compared to 11 % of non -
participa nts. Therefore, the regulatory burden  for developing countries undertaking these additional 
commitments was much higher compared to developed countries.  
India and South Africa also stated that the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation 
did not address the needs and areas of interest o f developing countries , including the following:  
a. The Reference Paper did not contain  substantive provisions on qualification requirements 
and procedures,  including rules on  giving due consideration to the professional experience 
of service supplier s. Thes e rules had significant bearings on developing countries , 
particularly for least -developed countries , under Mode 4;  
b. The Reference Paper did not contain  robust S&D T provisions. While the Reference Paper 
include d provisions on transition al periods  and a waiver for least-developed country 
Members , it did not provide for reduced administrative fees for service suppliers from 
developing countries. Similarly, it did not provide for longer phase -in periods for measures 
in service sectors and modes of supply of  export interest to developing countries ; 
c. The development dimension appear ed to be inadequately addressed in the Reference 
Paper. There was no binding obligation on developed country Members to provide technical 
assistance to developing and least -developed  countries. On the contrary, the disciplines 
related to 'Development ' were included in Section I of the Reference Paper , which was not 
even required to be inscribed in Members ' Schedules . Indeed, Section I state d that 
"Members shall inscribe the discipline s in Section II in their Schedules as additional 
commitments under Article XVIII of the Agreement. " The Reference Paper merely 
encourage d the participants  (both developed and developing country Members) to provide 
technical assistance and capacity building  to developing  and least -developed  countries 
upon their request, and if they are "in a position to do so ". 
In conclusion, India and South Africa  noted that the WPDR had not met regularly or advanced 
any technical work on matters falling within the scope of its mandate. The development deficit in 
the Reference Paper highlight ed the importance of continuing the mandate of the WPDR. India and 
South Africa invite d suggestion s from other Members and urge d them to reinvigorate discussions 
under the WPDR on domestic regulation as per the mandate of GATS Article VI.4 with the aim to 
achieve multilaterally agreed disciplines that  would  increase the participation of developing coun tries 
in global services trade through inclusive , development -oriented disciplines.  
The representative of Costa Rica  stated that , as the Coordinator of the Joint Initiative on 
Services Domestic Regulation, he had  listened carefully to the statement deliver ed by India, on 
behalf of India and South Africa.  He clarified that the fact that Members  were having this 
conversation in the WPDR  had not to be misunderstood as an acknowledgement that the disciplines 
developed by and agreed upon by the Joint Initiative fell under the purview of the WPDR, or that the 
WPDR was the best venue to address them. Rather, t his was just testament to the Initiative 's 
participants willingness and flexibility to listen and engage on the concerns raised.     
He noted that one  of the points raised related  to the alleged need for a multilateral negotiating 
mandate for WTO Members to work on matters dealt with in WTO agreem ents, or any new matters 
of a multilateral nature. He did  not see how such a need for a multilateral mandate c ould be read 
into the words "the WTO shall provide the forum for negotiations ", as set out in Article III:2 of the 
Marrakesh Agreement. The Initia tive did not agree with the view that Article III:2 of the Marrakesh 
Agreement had to  be read to effectively muzzle negotiations on issues that were covered by WTO 
Agreements, unless all WTO Members agree d that these could  be discussed.  S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 6 - 
 
  
The Coordinator st ated that one of the concerns raised at previous meetings  relate d to the 
relationship between the WPDR mandate and the outcome achieved in the Joint Initiative. This was 
an issue to which participants had responded clearly on numerous occasions.  He reitera ted, 
therefore , that the multilateral mandate in GATS Article VI:4 remain ed for all WTO Members to fulfil 
collectively. The decision by a subset of the WTO Membership to undertake additional commitments 
of a GATS -plus nature in the same area in accordance with GATS Article XVIII did not render the 
mandate ineffective. The additio nal commitments undertaken by individual Members c ould not be 
considered as either full or partial fulfilment of the collective GATS mandate. Indeed, some 
participants clearly saw an outcome in the Joint Initiative as a steppingstone towards a multilateral  
outcome in the future.  He could only assume that the concern with the  GATS  Article VI:4 mandate 
was based on a desire to make progress in the WPDR on the development of domestic regulation 
disciplines. The Initiative 's participants  would be ready  to explo re any proposals  for work on 
disciplines under the Article VI:4 mandate .  
The Coordinator  also noted  that the co -sponsors  of the agenda item  maintain ed that the 
disciplines that had been agreed upon by the Joint Initiative diminish ed existing GATS obligati ons or 
accord ed new interpretations to existing WTO concepts. He highlight ed that the Reference Paper 
explicitly state d that the disciplines shall not be construed to diminish any Member 's obligations 
under the GATS. It was really self -evident  as any new commitments that Members undert ook in 
their Schedules could not  contradict nor undermine existing GATS obligations. The reason why the 
Initiative 's participants had decided to include such a sentence in the Reference Paper t ext was to 
provide further reassurance, especially to those Members that had decided not to participate in th e 
outcome, that their rights under the WTO would  not be affected.  
With regard to the concerns expressed about the scheduling approach through whic h the 
disciplines on services domestic regulation would  be given legal effect, the Coordinator highlight ed 
the following points: f irst, GATS Article XVIII explicitly provide d for the possibility to schedule 
additional commitments in the area of services regulation . This was important because the disciplines 
that the Initiative had agreed upon cover ed exactly those types of measures that were listed in the 
GATS as areas for additional commitments, namely "qualifications, standards, or licensing matters. " 
He had also heard that additional commitments could  only address individual sectors but could not  
apply horizontally. However, he was not able to find any textual basis for this claim in the GATS. He 
reiterated that the disciplines would  apply for each participant to a distinct set of sectors , namely 
those that were contained in their GATS Schedules, plus, as participants would decide, any additional 
sectors  that individual Members chose to include.  Second, in accordance with the scheduli ng 
approach under GATS Article XVIII, the disciplines on services domestic regulation would  bind only 
participating Members. As a result, t he implementation of this outcome would create additional rights 
for other Members, but would  not, and could not , impose any additional obligations on them.  Third, 
by incorporation into participating Members ' GATS Schedules, the disciplines on services domestic 
regulation would  apply to all Members on an MFN basis. This was a very important aspect , because 
even those ser vices suppliers from Members that opted not to participate in the Initiative  would  be 
able to equally benefit. The participants, contrary to what some Members had maintain ed, were not 
claiming that any benefits that the Joint Initiatives  were willing to ex tend on an MFN basis could  be 
brought into the WTO by a subset of the Membership alone. What the participants were doing was 
to use the well -established GATS mechanism for improving their specific commitments, and within 
the precise boundaries that the dra fters of the GATS had stipulated.  The necessary consequence 
was that these improved commitments would  apply on an MFN basis, and the benefits from their 
implementation would  therefore accrue to all Members.  Finally, he emphasize d that there was clearly 
no risk of fragmentation of the multilateral trading system through the improvement of existing 
GATS commitments. This was because GATS Schedules were flexible instruments to accommodate 
Members with higher and lower commitments . In fact , this flexibility was one of the architectural 
features of the GATS that developing countries had fought for during the Uruguay Round. The 
Coordinator noted that Members found themselves  in the peculiar situation where a few delegations 
held the view that other Mem bers were not entitled to legally bind themselves and grant better 
trading conditions to service suppliers of the entire WTO M embership of 164 , including th is very 
limited number of Members  that has raised some concerns .  
The Coordinator  also stated that India and South Africa  had shared insights on perceived 
areas in which the Reference Paper did not, in their view, address certain issues adequately, such 
as qualification requirements and procedures, or S&D T. He recalled that  the outcome that 67 
particip ating Members had  agreed on reflect ed a compromise among all the negotiating parties. It 
reflect ed a landing zone that all participants felt comfortable with. He emphasize d that the S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 7 - 
 
  negotiations had always  been open to all WTO Members, and  the delegation s of India and South 
Africa  could have pursued issues of their interest at any time during the negotiations  in the Joint 
Initiative . 
Moreover, the Coordinator noted that India had also mentioned that expanding regulatory 
commitments beyond regional trading partners could  go beyond the resource capacity  of developing 
countries . However, throughout the Initiative 's discussions, the group had had the opposite 
experience . Typically, particip ants had indicated that they were implementing regulatory disciplines 
on a non -discriminatory basis , and that having different regulatory regimes for different trading 
partners was impracticable and would incur additional costs.  
The Coordinator  recalled th at, on 2 December 2021,  67 Members had adopted a Declaration 
to announce the successful conclusion of the negotiat ions on services domestic regulation . This was  
a real success, for businesses, for all WTO Members, and for the WTO as an Organization. And it  
was even more so for the global development agenda. While services now represent ed around two -
thirds of global GDP, this outcome – among Members representing 90% of global services trade – 
promise d to increase services trade and facilitate participation i n global value chains. It would  also 
boost the competitiveness of manufacturing and agriculture businesses, since efficient services were 
an increasingly critical input for those sectors. Importantly, because trade -related fixed costs fell 
predominantly on smaller businesses, the biggest gains from implementing this outcome would  
accrue to small and medium -sized service suppliers, including  in developing countries.  He noted that 
developing country Members that were part of the outcome had explained that domestic regulatory 
reforms of services markets had been a cornerstone of their development strategies, and that 
participation in the Initia tive was seen as  a building block to achieve this objective. In the past three 
years, several developing country Members had decided to join th e Joint  Initiative  on Services 
Domestic Regulation , based on the recognition that the Reference Paper 's disciplin es were clearly 
consistent with their recently adopted regulations aimed at streamlining administrative procedures 
and facilitating business operations, with a view to further supporting trade in services. On the other 
hand, regulatory reform was not limit ed to low - and middle -income economies. Research undertaken 
by the World Bank had shown that, since 2003/04, many of the OECD high -income economies had 
carried out a total of 464 internal regulatory changes, "suggesting that even the gold standard 
setters have room to improve their business climates ". This clearly confirm ed that this was a win -
win outcome that would  benefit WTO Members at all levels of development and across all regions of 
the world. The Coordinator also h ighlighted that a  recent OECD -WTO t rade policy brief estimate d a 
potential reduction in trade costs by 11%, with trade cost savings in the range of USD 150 billion 
annually.  Not surprisingly, most of these savings would accrue to those Members that implement ed 
the disciplines in their own jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the OECD -WTO research found that non -
participants would significantly benefit as well, with annual cost savings of around USD 17 billion.  
In conclusion,  the Coordinator  invite d all Members to take a good look at the disciplines and 
decide whether these could  be useful in furthering their domestic agendas and contribute to their 
own development aspirations.   
The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the African, Caribbean and  Pacific (ACP) group,  
thank ed the delegations of India and South Africa fo r requesting the meeting. The ACP group 
enquire d whether the participants of the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation intended 
to invoke GATS Article XXI in order to modify their Schedules and implement the results of their new 
MFN commitments . In particular, the ACP group asked whether this procedure would require a 
submission to the C ouncil on Trade in Services  and subsequent  consultations with affected Members . 
The ACP group attached great  importance to the multilateral nature of the WTO and on the 
development of rules multilaterally agreed by consensus. In conclusion, the ACP Group express ed 
its willingness and readiness to engage in the work of the WPDR.  
The representative of the European Union  expressed  full support  for the statement delivered  
by the Coordinator of the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.  She noted that the 
concerns raised had already been presented  at previous meetings of th e WPDR and other WTO 
meetings  and recall ed the EU position on these matters. For the European Union, domestic regulation 
was one of the key areas of trade in services where further convergence amongst the Membership 
was necessary  and the EU continue d to be  a strong supporter of multilateral work on domestic 
regulation.   S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 8 - 
 
  
The European Union recalled that in the run -up to the 11th Ministerial Conference in 2017, 
Members had  worked hard in th e WPDR to achieve a multilateral outcome . However , it had not been 
possible to achieve such a result at the Ministerial Conference due to opposition of some Members. 
Since then, a large group of interested Members had continued working  to negotiate domestic 
regulation disciplines – in the form of the Reference Paper - in an open -ended format based on the 
Joint Statement  on Services Domestic Regulation (WT/MIN(17)/61), adopted  at Buenos Aires  in 
2017. These negotiations had successfully concluded with the adoption of a Declaration (WT/L/1129) 
by a group of 67 WTO Members, i ncluding the European Union . The outcome of these negotiations 
consisted of a  Reference Paper providing for  a set of disciplines that any WTO Member s could decide 
to incorporate in their GATS Schedules. The outcome reflect ed an agreement among all Members 
who participated in the negotiations, including developing countr y Members , in line with their own 
objectives and interests.  The European Union i nvited all WTO Members to consider attaching the 
Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation  to their Schedules and stood  ready to discuss with 
any interested Member s.  
The European Union noted that GATS Article XVIII provided  Members  with the right to 
negotiate additional commitments with respect to measures affecting trade in services  which were  
not subject to scheduling under GATS Articles XVI and XVII, including those regarding qualifications, 
standards or licensing matters , with a view  to inscrib ing them in their Schedules.  For the EU, i f 
Member s decide d to schedule additional commitments on domestic regulation, under no 
circumstances could this be seen as a dilution of their existing GATS commitments. As the Initiative 's 
Coordinator had explained, the use of the scheduling approach under  GATS Article XVIII would  
benefit all WTO Members who trade d with the Initiative 's participants . That was particularly 
important since participating Members currently represent ed more than 90% of world t rade in 
services.  
The representative of Australia  fully support ed the comprehensive statement  provided by the 
Coordinator  of the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.  As it had outlined at General 
Council  meetings  on several occasions, Australia  did not agree with the arguments advanced by 
India and South Africa on the legal form of this  Joint Initiative . There was nothing in the GATS to 
prevent  – rather  the GATS specifically allow ed – Members to incorporate improv ements to their 
GATS Schedules, whether unilaterally, or as a group. This did not require the consensus of the whole 
Membership , either in terms of a negotiating mandate or for the incorporation of the final outcomes. 
Australia had full confidence in the W TO consistency of this approach to incorporate the Initiative 's 
outcome  into the WTO legal framework. Moreover, Australia did not agree with the arguments made 
that the disciplines on services domestic regulation constitute d some form of "rules" which could not  
legally fit into Members ' GATS schedules. Australia considered that t he disciplines cover ed precisely 
those types of measures that were listed in the GATS as areas for additional commitments under 
Article  XVIII, i.e. , "qualifications, stan dards, and licensing matters ". There was no textual limitation 
which suggest ed that  commitments under GATS Article XVIII could not  be made on a cross -sectoral 
basis.  
Australia recalled that the Initiative 's participating Members were taking on these discip lines 
in addition to their existing market access and national treatment commitments under the GATS . 
Therefore, by their very design, the disciplines built on, and constitute d improvements to, Members ' 
GATS commitments. The disciplines would  also be applied on MFN terms to the benefit of all 
Members, including non -participants.  The GATS had clearly envisaged a process of incremental 
efforts to expand the ambition of Members ' commitments over time, consi stent with its trade 
liberalisation objectives . This was what the participating Members were  doing in the Joint Initiative 
on Services Domestic Regulation . While a v ery limited number of Members maintained that the 
participants were not entitled to do that , such a statement was neither borne out by the language 
nor consistent with the  spirit of the GATS.  As the C oordinator  had outlined, all Members  should be 
proud of the fact that a group of them was able to achieve the outcome on services domestic 
regulati on, the first set of WTO services rules agreed in a quarter of a century. These rules would 
assist Members ' businesses, consumers and their communities to reap the benefits of services trade  
and support their recovery from the pandemic. Significant trade cost savings were expected to flow 
from implementation of  this outcome, and particular benefits would accrue to MSMEs and female 
entrepreneurs , particularly in developing countries . This outco me would help the WTO to revive its 
much -needed rule -making function and make progress in other areas of rule -making interest. In 
conclusion, Australia looked forward to continuing work to implement the Initiative 's outcome  and 
stood ready to continue outreach efforts to encourage other Members to join.  S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 9 - 
 
  
The representative of China  thanked India and South Africa  for sharing their views and 
expressed his delegation 's support for the statement delivered by the Coordinator of the Joint 
Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. China was of the view that the Initiative 's outcome would 
complement multilateral discussions in the following ways : first , since its very begin ning, the 
Initiative 's negotiation s had been strictly conducted in line with WTO principles of openness, 
inclusiveness and transparency ; second, the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation 
clearly provide d that the disciplines contained therein shall not be construed as diminishing any 
obligations of Members under the GATS ; third, the Initiative 's outcome would  be incorporated into 
participants ' Schedules as additional commitments  and would be applied on an MFN basis  to the 
benefit  of all WTO Member s.  
China stated that the outcome on services domestic regulation would  enhance transparency 
and efficiency of the services business environment. Research by the WTO and the OECD had found  
that the reduction in trade costs among the Initiative 's participants from implementing the new 
disciplines would  amount to USD 135 billion annually. The annual cost savings for non-participants ' 
services exports to wards  participants would  be around USD 17 billion. While the pandemic continue d 
to wreak havoc , the Initiative 's outcome would  support the global econom ic recovery and boost 
growth, especially in services sectors , due to the reduction in red tape and increased transparency. 
Moreover, it would  enhance the efficacy and relevance of the WTO by providing a concrete response  
to the needs of the business community.  As a staunch supporter of the multilateral trading system, 
China was willing to work with all Members to advance discussions in the WPDR. China considered 
that the WPDR and the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation  could complement  each 
other, with the aim to establish universally applicable multilateral rules on domestic regulation  as 
the ultimate  goal. 
The representative of Chinese Taipei  thank ed India and South Africa for sharing their views 
and concerns regarding GATS Article VI :4 and the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation. 
However, as it had been reiterated at previous  General Council meetings, Chinese Taipei  did not 
share the se concerns and support ed the statement made by the Coordinator of Joint Initiative on 
Services Domestic Regulation . The plurilateral negotiations in the Joint Initiative had provided 
Members with the tools and means to enhance their interest in services trade and respond ed to the 
needs of their businesses and consumers i n a timely manner. The disciplines on services domestic 
regulation  were conducive to an efficient, transparent, predictable and non -discriminatory 
environment for trade in services. They augment ed and improve d the core disciplines of the GATS 
on domestic r egulation. Chinese Taipei note d that Members participating in th e Joint Initiative could 
not legally undermine their existing obligations under the GATS and thereby disturb the balance 
between rights and obligations among Members , as it had also been clari fied in paragraph  6 of 
Section I of the Reference Paper . The additional commitments that Members participating in t he Joint 
Initiative intended to  inscribe in their Schedules according to Art icle XVIII of GATS were in essence 
improvement s to their existing  commitments. Chinese Taipei believed that  it was Members ' right to 
undertake  additional commitments on domestic regulation  as improvement s to their existing 
Schedules. These additional commitments would  be implemented on MFN basis and benefit all 
Members.  Chinese Taipei  welcome d the opportunity to continue discussion on issues relating to the 
development of  disciplines on  domestic regulation in th e WPDR.  
The representative of the Republic of Kore a suppor ted the statement made by the Coordinator 
of the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. Korea was a strong supporter of the 
multilateral trading system and the WTO. Like many other Members, Korea was confident  that the 
outcome on services domestic regulation  would  supplement existing WTO Agreements and not 
undermine them, including the GATS Article VI:4  mandate. Korea emphasized  that all Members, 
regardless of the ir level of development or interests , were free to take part in the Initiative 's 
discussions.  Despite the conclusion of negotiations in the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic 
Regulation , all WTO Members could  pursue further outcomes through the WPDR. Korea noted that 
GATS  Article XVIII allowed the Initiative 's participan ts to implement the outcome  on services 
domestic regulation by updating their Schedules of commitments. This would  have a legally binding 
effect  only on the Members participating in the Joint Initiative . Most importantly,  additional 
commitments would  benefit service suppliers of all Members on MFN basis, eventually creating a 
GATS -plus effect. The outcome on services domestic regulation  would  ultimately serve to creat e a 
more transparent, predictable, and competitive busin ess environment for global trade and 
investment in services. In the long run, the implementation of good regulatory practices would result 
in improvement  of consumer welfare, more inbound FDI, more competent foreign human resources, 
and upgraded competitiv eness in the service sector of participating Members.  S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 10 - 
 
  
The representative of New Zeal and support ed the intervention of the Coordinator of the Joint 
Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. As it had  been the case with other initiatives in the 
services agenda throughout the history of the WTO, Members participating in the Joint In itiative 
were paving the way for a more open, liberali zed approach to trade in services, not just for 
themselves but for th e whole Membership and the Organisation at large. For New Zealand, it had 
been pleasing to see a range of WTO Members continuing to join this Initiative  and he was hopeful 
that others would  do the same as the Initiative  move d forward. While the Initiative 's participants 
had already developed a significant outcome , New Zealand was committed to achieve further 
progress on rules on domestic regulation  in the WTO  in the future . 
The representative of Turkey  thank ed India and South Africa for their interest in the outcome 
delivered by the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation . She stress ed that Turkey  remained 
committed to the mandate of the WPDR contained in GATS  under Article  VI:4. Indeed, Turkey  
regard ed the Initiative 's outcome on services domestic regulation as a solid step in putting forward 
the importance of good regulatory practices.  Turkey had  actively contributed to the Initiative 's 
discussions, and was proud of the outcome  achieved , which would  be binding only for the 
participating Members, but would  create rights for the whole WTO M embership on an MFN basis.  
Turkey, as a developing country, greatly value d this outcome since domestic regulation  disciplines 
would not only play a cruc ial role for global development of trade in services but would also  help 
create an environment conducive for  the domestic services sector to prosper.  Turkey invited 
Members not currently part of the Initiative to consider joining the Declaration of 2 Decem ber 2021 
and incorporate the Reference Paper into their GATS Schedule s, and it looked forward to developing 
further disciplines on domestic regulation under the WPDR.  
The representative of Hong Kong, China  echoed the statement made by the Coordinator of 
the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation . Hong Kong, China had been actively engaging 
in domestic regulation discussions in various WTO bodies, including the WPDR, as well as the J oint 
Initiative  on Services Domestic Regulation . Hong Kong, China r emain ed of the view that discussions 
in the Joint Initiative had  never been intended to replace the work under the WPDR nor its mandate 
under Article VI:4 of GATS.  On the contrary, the Initiative 's outcome  would  help modernise and 
strengthen the mul tilateral trading system, reinvigorate the rule -making efforts of the WTO, and 
respond to business needs. He noted that the disciplines adopted by the Joint Initiative would apply 
on an MFN -basis to the benefit of all WTO Members. The outcome on services d omestic regulation  
would not amount to  a dilution or amendment of any GATS provisions nor would it undermine the 
existing obligations of Members under GATS. In the Reference Paper adopted by Initiative 's 
participants in December 2021, it was clearly stated  that the disciplines on services domestic 
regulation  had not to be construed as diminishing any obligations of Members under GATS.   
Hong Kong, China noted that, a s shown by WTO and OECD research, implementation of the 
new services domestic  disciplines was expected to result in potential savings in trade costs of up to 
USD 150 billion per year. This underscore d the value and importance of the work of the Joint 
Initiative  in facilitating the ecosystem of the global services trade, especially in times of the COVID -
19 pandemic.  Hong Kong, China remain ed committed to working closely with other Initiative 's 
participants to harvest the benefits of the outcome and stood  ready to engage constructively in any 
discussions or proposals to develop multilateral domestic regulation  rules at the WPDR.  
The representative of Canada  stated her delegation was a strong supporter of the multilateral 
trading system and had been participating constructively on a broad range of trade -related issues, 
including domestic regulation , under various configurations offered by the WTO framework.  Canada 
believe d that new  GATS -plus disciplines on services domestic regulation would reinforce good 
regulatory practices surrounding authorization of regulated services in a manner that provide d 
further certainty and predictability to services suppliers from both developed and developing country 
Members.  Given the lack of progress through the multilateral negotiations, Canada  had joined the 
Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation  with other interested Members  and was  pleased with 
the ambitious outcome achieved  in that forum . Canada express ed its full  support for the statement 
delivered by the Coordinator of the Joint Initiative on Services  Domestic Regulation. Canada strongly 
maintained  that the Initiative 's work  was not in violation of GATS Article VI:4 mandate . While the 
Reference Paper provide d sufficient reassurance  that it did not affect existing rights and  obligations 
of non -participa ting Members, the latter would  benefit fro m the enhanced predictability and 
transparency deriving from the implementation in the participants ' internal regulatory 
frameworks . For Canada, improving sound governance and reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers 
could support economic growth by facili tating the ease of doing business.  S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 11 - 
 
   
Canada strongly considered  that plurilateral  initiatives  constitute d an integral part of the 
multilateral trading system  and that no multilateral mandate was required for launching any 
negotiations among interested Members.  Looking at past WTO practice, including in the context of 
acceding governments , there were several  examples where Members, individually or in a coordinated 
manner, had decided to unilateral ly improve their GATS Schedules.  Canada believe d that  the 
Reference Paper offer ed the most pragmatic and transparent approach  for the Initiative 's 
participants  to incorporate the new disciplines on services domestic regulation in their GATS 
Schedules.  As the disciplines  would  be applied on a n MFN basis, all WTO Members, not just the 
participants, stood  to benefit  to some degree  from th e outcome achieved by the I nitiative.  Against 
this backdrop , if some Members were choosing to improve their own commitments based on 
established WTO procedures with a view to benefitting the entire Membership and the global services 
industry, including MSMEs, in concrete ways, it was difficult for Canada to understand any real 
concerns .  
Canada noted that a number of non -participants had attended  or observed the  Initiative 's 
discussions. Canada welcome d any  interested Members to consider joining the services domestic 
regulation outcome  and encourage d Members to approach the Initiative 's Coordinator for any 
questions. Canada considered that  the WPDR was not  the appropriate forum to discuss the content 
of specific disciplines adopted by the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation . In terms of 
future multilateral work, Canada remain ed open to consider  any proposals by Members that sought  
to constructively advance the mandate contained in GATS Article VI:4. Until then, Canada remain ed 
focused on making progress on domestic regulation  within the Joint Initiative , and support ed the 
WTO as a relevant negotiating body for meaningful trade rules.  
Furthermore, Canada highlighted that, in WTO Agreements , key provisions such has the Most 
Favoured Nation and the National Treatment obligations prevent ed Members from discriminat ing 
between trading partners or between domestic and imported goods and services. Paragraph 22 (d) 
of the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation  aimed to prevent  gender -based 
discrimination in the context of authorization procedures for service su ppliers. This obligation would  
be scheduled as an additional commitment in participating Members ' GATS Schedules. For Canada, 
given the very different meaning and ambit of these obligations, paragraph 22 (d) did not amount 
to a limitation on the MFN or NT obligations. In fact, to cite WTO DDG Ellard, this provision 
"institutionalizes the issue of gender in the WTO, transforming the Organization from a gender -blind 
to a gender -responsive one. " In order to achieve gender equality, concepts of justice and fair ness 
had to be taken into account to compensate for the historical and social disadvantages that 
prevent ed women and men from benefiting from equal opportunities.  The footnote to paragraph 
22 (d) provided  that differential treatment between men and women  did not necessarily amount to 
discrimination and that there could  be legitimate reasons for employing differential treatment 
between men and women. The Initiative 's discipline on non-discrimination represe nted a concrete 
action taken to advance women 's economic empowerment through trade. This provision contribute d 
to making international trade work for women by ensuring a level playing field for female service 
providers.  
The representative of the United Sta tes echoed the statement by the Coordinator of the Joint 
Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. For the U nited States, the benefits of the outcome on 
services domestic regulation were clear: by addressing opaque authorization procedures that 
negativel y impact ed service suppliers, Members could  improve opportunities for workers, drive down 
costs for consumers, and enhance the conditions of trade.  This achievement was particularly 
important for MSMEs for whom such opaque procedures effectively impeded  exports.  The 
United  States hoped that other M embers would consider joining the Initiative .  
The representative of the United Kingdom  added her voice to th at of other Members affirming 
the validity and value of the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation  and strongly supported 
the interventio n made by the Coordinator . The United Kingdom maintained that the outcome on 
services domestic regulation would benefit services trade and service suppliers of all WTO Members . 
The Joint Initiative constituted  a success for the WTO, its Members and global business, and the 
United Kingdom encourage d other interested M embers to sign up to it. 
The representative of Mexico  thank ed India and South Africa for sharing their views on the  
work of the Joint Initiative on  Services Domestic Regulation and expressed her support  for the 
statement by the Coordinator.  It was Mexico 's view that the disciplines on services domestic S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 12 - 
 
  regulation would  complement the existing specific commitments undertaken by participating 
Members in their respective GATS Schedules. The  disciplines  would  not affect any existing rights and 
obligations under the GATS or any other WTO Agreements . Moreover , the disciplines  would  become 
binding only for those WTO Members that inscribe d them in their GATS Schedules. By being applied  
on a MFN basis, equal treatment for services suppliers from all WTO Members would be ensured . 
Finally, Mexico remain ed open to continuing a dialo gue that could address any Members ' concerns . 
The representative of Switzerland  thanked India and South Africa for sharing their views and 
concerns on the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation  and support ed the statement 
delivered by the Coordinator of the Joint Initiative . Switzerland had always been a strong supporter 
of the multilateral trading system, including of the work on services domestic regulation. This was 
why Switzerland had  actively engaged in different configurations to discu ss the development of 
disciplines on domestic regulation, including in the WPDR and the Joint Initiative . The aim of the 
disciplines developed under the Joint Initiative  was not to fulfil the mandate in GATS Article VI:4 – 
which  remain ed untouched - nor to  alter or diminish any existing obligation under the GATS. On the 
contrary, the disciplines buil t upon and complement ed existing GATS commitments of the Members 
that had adopted the Reference Paper, and expand ed the rights of all WTO Members including the 
ones that did not intend to adopt it.  
The representative of Colombia  thanked Members for the discussion and considered that it 
was particularly important to exchange ideas and learn more about different Members ' perspectives 
with respect to the work of th e Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. Colombia expressed 
its full support for the statement delivered by the Initiative 's Coordinator. Colombia, like many other 
developing countries, regarded trade in services as a great opportunity to strengthen its export 
capacity, favoring  people at all levels of training and from all regions . Indeed,  the variety of services 
had the pote ntial to  accommodate the different business realities of the country.  For Colombia, 
domestic regulation had always been a priority issue  since the beginning of negotiations on this topic 
in the WTO  for the following two key reasons : first, domestic regulat ion disciplines ensured that 
market access obligations were not adversely affected by domestic  measures; second, the  disciplines  
created basic governance conditions for the proper functioning of the service sector at the domestic 
level. This was why Colomb ia considered that  domestic regulation disciplines would  benefit both 
exports and the very functioning of the national market.  
Colombia stated that the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation addressed  fully 
its domestic  interests. The development  of the text had advanced  through an open process, where 
interested Members  had proposed  those  disciplines they considered important. This was a process 
very similar to the one that had always been carried out in the past, for ex ample, for the prepara tion 
of the WPDR Chair document s of 2009 and 2011, when the Members had presented and discussed 
their vision on the subject . Back then, like today, Colombia had been  active in presenting proposals 
and supporting  the importance of the issue, as could  also be seen in documents JOB(06)/34; 
JOB(06)/193; JOB/ SERV/ 231, among others.  Moreover, the representative of Colombia emphasized 
that domestic regulation provisions  were already  include d in its regional liberalization  agreements , 
since it was convinced of the importance and utility of these measures. In addition, in the process 
of continuous improvement of Colombia 's internal institutions, it had already implemented many of 
the obligations conta ined in the Referenc e Paper – not as the result of the Initiative 's negotiation s, 
but as the natural consequence of the objective to seek the best conditions for its service companies. 
Colombia was strongly committed to the multilateral trading system , and it would not have 
participated in the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation if it had not been confident that 
the outcome would strengthen the WTO and benefit its entire Membership.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  thank ed India and South Africa for their 
contribution to the discussion on services domestic regulation. The Russian Federation was convinced 
that a strong rule -based WTO was critical for the effective functioning of the multilateral trading 
system. It concurred  with India, South Africa , and other delegations that the consensus  principle for  
decision -making , as it was defined in the Marrakesh Agreement , had to  be respected.  The Russian 
Federation also shared India and South Africa 's interest in clarifying technic al aspects of the 
certification process  and was open to continue discussions  in the Committee on Specific 
Commitments or in other appropriate formats.  
The Russian Federation noted that it had acceded the WTO in 2012 when the negotiating 
function had already been under pressure from serious divergence s among Members. At the same 
time, the urgency  to negotiate up -to-date trade rules, especially in such an important economic S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 13 - 
 
  sector like services, was clear. The Russia n Federation had decided to  join the Joint Initiative  on 
Services Domestic Regulation since it was convinced that  disciplines on transparency, legal certainty, 
and predictability that would aim  to reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers  for businesses and 
consumers around the globe ,  were closely in line with the spirit of th e WTO and did not contradict 
the mandate of GATS Article VI:4. The Russian Federation did not  consider that the disciplines could  
affect any existing rights and obligations of Members under the GATS. Members ' right to regulate 
and to introduce new regulations in order to meet national policy objectives, especially in developing 
countries, as a key principle of the GATS remain ed unquestionable. This was very important not only 
in the context of domestic regulation, but also when negotiating  any new rules on trade in services.  
Moreover, the Russian Federation noted that the activities of WPDR were to some extent unique , 
and its mandate  provided space for  further  negotiati ng work. In this regard, she echoed the 
Initiative 's Coordinator to encourage all Members to consider what provisions on services domestic 
regulation could be discussed in the WPDR . While the Reference Paper on Services Domestic 
Regulation already provided  a good set of rules , it was  not necessarily exhaustive. In deed, in  many 
regional agreements and at the national level, there were already examples of  different  and more 
ambitious provisions  on domestic regulation in services  sectors . 
To conclude, the Russian Federation encouraged all Members  to continue working on  any 
necessary disciplines to ensure that measures relating to licensing requirements and procedures, 
technical standards and qualif ication requirements and procedures would  not constitute unnecessary 
barriers to trade in services. There were still many barriers and restrictions, which mean t that 
working to remove them was an important priority for negotiators.  
The representative of Indonesia  took note of the concerns expressed  by the delegations of 
India and South Africa with regard  to the relationship between Article VI:4 GATS and the Reference 
Paper. Indonesia recognize d that each of the Joint Initiatives  had different characteristics. Hence, 
despite its participation in two other plurilateral processes, namely on e-commerce and investment 
facilitation for development, Indonesia considered that clarifying the institutionality of the Joint 
Initiatives  within th e WTO  was crucial to ensure smooth implementation of the ir outcomes in the  
WTO. With respect to the outcome achieved by the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation , 
Indonesia was aware that GATS Article XVIII allowed M embers to negotiate additiona l commitment s 
on measures including those regarding qualifications, standards or licensing matters , in close 
connection with  the obligations  contained in GATS  Article VI:4. However, for Indonesia , Members  
needed to clarif y whether the additional commitment  could incorporate or cover "new disciplines " or 
whether the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation contain ed "new disciplines " as 
expected to be addressed  under Article VI:4 GATS. Against this backdrop, Indonesia would  study 
carefully the views expressed by other Members at the meeting. In the meantime, Indonesia hoped  
that all  Members would maintain their willingness and commitment to continuing the negotiation on 
domestic regulation within the WPDR with a view to achi eving a multilateral outcome that would  
benefit the entire Membership and the multilateral trading system.  
The representative of Singapore  reiterate d his delegation 's strong support for the statement  
delivered by the Coordinator of the Joint Initiative on  Services Domestic Regulation . Singapore  
emphasi zed that the outcome on services domestic regulation  was in line and in sync with the 
workings of the WTO. The most significant feature of the Joint Initiative was  that it remain ed open, 
transparent and inclusive  to all Members . He encourag ed all Members to participate  in the Joint 
Initiative , with the aim of attaining a multilateral outcome. For Singapore, the outcome on services 
domestic regulation  strengthen ed the raison d 'être of the WTO and enhance d its relevance at a time 
where this Organization was facing  numerous challenges. The Joint Initiative on Services Domestic 
Regulation  had proved this format  could bring Members together to work towards meaningful and 
relevant outcomes  with a view to  address ing new and emerging issues faced by businesses, big and 
small alike.  
The representative of Brazil  fully supported  the statement  delivered by the Initiative 's 
Coordinator . As already stated at previous meetings, Brazil reiterate d that there was nothing in the 
WTO Agreement that prevent ed groups of Members from improving their Schedules of specific 
commitments, individually or in a coordinated manner. Brazil consider ed that, once incorporated 
into Schedules of the Initiative 's participants, the disciplines of the Reference Paper on Services 
Domestic Regulation would  bring benefits to all WTO Members, for both developed and developing 
countries alike. For the Initiative 's participants, the provisions of the Reference Paper would bring 
more transparency and predictability to their regulatory environments, contributing to reduce costs 
and facilitate trade for domestic and foreign service suppliers. In the case of Brazil,  like many other S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 14 - 
 
  developing countries, a series of domestic r eforms had already  been implemented over the past few 
years  with the idea of improving the internal business climate, and these reforms  were closely 
aligned with the good regulatory practices contained in the Reference Paper. For their part, service 
suppli ers of non -participants would  also benefit from the improved regulatory conditions  through the 
application of the provisions in the Reference Paper on an MFN basis. Finally, he encourage d non-
participants to consider adopt ing the disciplines of  the Referen ce Paper in order to extend the 
benefits of the improved regulatory environments to a larger number of service suppliers.  
The representative of Chile reiterated his delegation 's support for the Joint Initiative on 
Services Domestic Regulation , and for all Joint Initiatives more generally. Chile noted that the 
incorporation of the disciplines on services domestic regulation in Schedules of specific commitments 
of each participant in accordance with GATS Article XVIII was fully consistent with WTO law and  did 
not require consensus. Finally, with  respect to  the effects deriving from the implementation of the 
Reference Paper  in developing country Members , Chile , as a developing country , had already  been 
adopting these types of measures for several years, firmly convince d about the benefits that these 
would  bring to trade in services and to trade more generally. The adoption of good regulatory 
practices would  only be beneficial to all WTO Members irrespective of their level of development . 
The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the ACP group, note d that the new commitments 
that had been put forward under the Joint Initiative touch ed upon the GATS, and in particular Article 
XVIII of the Agreement, as the participants had repeatedly indicated . And there were procedures in 
the context of GATS Article XXI on the modification of Schedules  of specific commitments . In this 
light, the ACP group enquire d whether the Initiative 's participants intend ed to invok e GATS Article 
XXI in order to implem ent the results of their new MFN commitments in their Schedules , and whether  
this procedure require d a submission to the C ouncil on Trade in Services  and consultations with 
affected Members .  
The representative of Costa Rica  noted that, a s set out in the Declaration adopted on 
2 December 2021 (WT/L/1129), the participants intended to incorporate the disciplines set out in 
the Reference Paper on Services Domestic Regulation as additional commitments into their GATS 
Schedules.  The disciplines would appl y to sectors contained in participants ' GATS Schedules, as well 
as to any additional sectors identified by the individual  participants. At present, draft Schedules 
representing 65 Members had been submitted, with only 2 draft Schedules outstanding. Subject  to 
the completion of any required domestic procedures, participants aimed to submit their Schedules 
for certification by 1 December 2022, in accordance with the "Procedures for the Certification of 
Rectifications or Improvements to Schedules of Specific C ommitments ", as set out in document 
S/L/84 (14 April 2000) . All WTO Members would be informed in due course.  
The representative of India thank ed Members for their comments . India was  heartened to 
note the appetite for further discussions under WPDR as ha d been expressed by some Members.  
India reiterate d that the WPDR had not met regularly or advanced any technical work on matters 
falling within the scope of its mandate and therefore invite d suggestions from other Members  to 
reinvigorate discussions on domes tic regulation in the WPDR  as per the mandate of GATS Article 
VI:4, with the aim to achieve multilaterally agreed disciplines that  would  increase the participation 
of developing countries in global services trade through inclusive development -oriented disciplines.  
The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the ACP group,  enquired whether certification 
would only occur among the Initiativ e's participants or whether GATS Article XXI was implicated.  
The ACP group remained ready  to engage on this issue  with other Members and  wished to receive 
some technical guidance from the WTO Secretariat in this regard.  
A representative of the  WTO Secretar iat noted that the certification procedure that the 
participants were planning to follow was a multilateral procedure adopted in document S/L/84. There 
was no possibility to certify an outcome in the WTO only among a subset of the Membership.  
The representative of Venezuela  appreciated the perspectives  presented by  India and  South 
Africa. Venezuela was  not a services demande ur, but it was  undoubtedly in favour  of multilateral 
processes agreed upon in the WTO. For this reason, Venezuela  regret ted that negotiations had not 
continued  in the WPDR  within the mandate of GATS Article  VI:4. Venezuela also shared  the same 
questions  expressed by Barbados  and the ACP group  on the procedures for the certification of the 
outcome of the Joint Initiative . S/WPDR/M/7 8 
 
- 15 - 
 
  
The Chair man noted that delegations held different views on the points raised at the meeting , 
but he was hopeful that the exchange had prove d useful to clarify Members ' perspectives. He 
encourage d delegations to continue their discussions bilaterally and in any settings they consider ed 
appropriate. In order to resume substantive work in th e Working Party, the input of Members  was 
necessary . He underst ood that, at this stage, it could be  difficult f or delegation s to make concrete 
proposals on multilateral work. He would  therefore reach out to  delegations bilaterally in what areas 
under the WPDR mandate they would find the development of disciplines "necessary " and would be 
ready to contribute.   
It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B: OTHER BUSINESS  
The Chair man recalled that the appointment of the Chairperson of the WPDR should normally 
take place at the end of the first meeting of the year . However, since the slate of names for the 
Chairpersons of the CTS subsidiary bodies for 202 2 had not been confirmed to date, it was not 
possible to appoint the 202 2 Chair at the present meeting. Once the slate of names was confirmed, 
Members would be informed, including on further arrangements concerning the appointment and 
hand-over of the Chairpersonship . 
 
 
__________