RESTRICTED  
  
S/CSC/M/83  
 
27 October  2020 
(20-7505) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Specific Commitments    
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1 OCTOBER  2020 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) held a meeting on 1 October 2020 chaired by 
Mr. Toshihide Aotake from Japan . The agenda for the meeting, contained in document 
WTO/AIR/CSC/1 2, was adopted . 
 
1  ITEM A – IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that this item had been  included in the agenda for the last meeting 
upon a proposal by the United States, which was contained in document S/CSC/W/69. The United 
States drew attention to the fact that some schedules were conditional on the review or passing of 
legislation and a promise to update specific commi tments upon the completion of legislative action 
or policy reviews. The United States  proposed that the Committee examine  those schedules with 
conditional commitments with a view to enhancing the transparency and legal certainty of specific 
commitments . Interventions on the US proposal at the last meeting show ed that delegations share d 
the importance of ensuring transparency and legal certainty of specific commitments. Nevertheless, 
the Committee ha d yet to reach agreement with respect to the proposed exerc ise. Most delegations 
supported a step -by-step approach whereby the Secretariat would first prepare a factual compilation 
of conditional commitments for transparency purposes and the Committee would then consider and 
decide next steps. Some delegations ind icated at the last meeting that they might  need more time 
to review the proposal and seek consultations . Since then, the Chairperson  had held consultations 
with delegations . He urged delegates to have a frank exchange of views on the proposed exercise 
with a view to reach ing consensus  on this matter. He recall ed that the Committee was mandated to 
oversee the implementation of specific commitments and to improve their technical accuracy and 
coherenc y in the future . 
1.2.  The representative of the United States  reiterat ed that  his delegation's proposal was designed 
to be a transparency exercise . The Secretariat  was requested to find conditional commitments 
Members had undertaken during the Uruguay Round and  the extended negotiations in telecom and 
financial services . Not designed for the Secretariat to interpret the schedules , the exercise was 
intended to identify the schedules with additional commitments and for the Members concerned to 
update the Committee  on the process of conditions  inscribed in the commitments. The step -by-step 
approach would be first for the Secretariat to catalogue th ose entries in Members' schedules which 
contained these conditions and then for the Committee to have an open discussion  on the conditions 
in Members' domestic processes. Therefore, this exercise was designed to help the Committee have 
more clarity in the schedules  with this type of entr y. The United States looked forward to updates 
from those Members who needed more time to consult the capital and hoped that this exercise could 
be allowed to proceed.     
1.3.  The representative of the European Union  referred to her delegation's statement at th e last 
meeting that it was important to ensure transparency and legal certainty of Members' schedules of 
specific commitments. To this end, the European Union supported an exercise where, as the first 
step, the Secretariat would identify conditional commit ments in Members' schedules. The Committee 
could then have a discussion and Members could update on where they stood with these 
commitments . 
 
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/83  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.4.  The representative of Ukraine  thanked the United States for the proposal. Recognizing the 
importance of ensuring tr ansparency and implementation of GATS commitments, Ukraine supported 
the step -by-step approach where the first step was the preparation by the Secretariat of a catalogue 
of conditional commitments in Members' schedules. It would be valuable to have better information 
from Members on their measures and then consider further steps.   
1.5.  The representative of Australia  reiterated that her delegation supported the proposal for a step -
by-step approach starting with the Secretariat compiling a list of conditional co mmitments, which 
would be useful for transparency purposes. Australia would also be open to a discussion in the CSC 
once this compilation was circulated . 
1.6.  Recognizing the importance of transparency, t he representative of Chinese Taipei  reiterated 
his delega tion's support for the step -by-step exercise  starting with the Secretariat compiling 
conditional commitments in the latest version of Members' schedules . 
1.7.  The representative of Canada  thanked the United States again for presenting the proposal to 
the Commit tee. She reiterated her delegation's support for a step -by-step approach . The first step 
could be  a compilation of conditional commitments by the Secretariat . Canada saw this as an 
initiative in line with its broader transparency efforts.  Recognizing the usefulness of having this type 
of information, Canada supported to  have discussion s in the Committee. She also thanked the United 
States for showing flexibility.  
1.8.  The representative of Switzerland  stated that his delegation supported the United States 
proposal as a step forward for transparency and welcomed the work by the Secretariat.  
1.9.  The representative of Turkey  thanked the United States for the proposal. Not objecting to the 
proposal, she sought  clarification on the nature of the work by the Secretariat.  
1.10.   The representative of Barbados , speaking on behalf of the ACP Group, noted the reiteration 
by the United States that the incentive  was not for the Secretariat to interpret Members' schedules . 
Based on the internal research conducted by the Group, there were inscriptions in some Members' 
schedules which might merit the need for interpretation by the Secretariat. Any ACP countries that 
were included in the Secretariat's  findings  as were implicated  should be consulted ahead of the 
communication  to the membership. Individual Members that were consulted and wished to 
participate in the process were free to do so.   
1.11.   The representative of the United States  reiterated that the proposal was not for the Secr etariat 
to interpret the schedules. The work of the Secretariat was to catalogue the language in 
commitments such as "conditional upon " or "subject to policy review s". What t he United States 
looked for was updates from Members on what those policy reviews revealed , not negotiations . The 
United States appreciated the flexibility of Barbados and the ACP on the exercise.  
1.12.   The representative of India stated that her delegation supported the United States proposal 
which included the identification of conditional commitments by the Secretariat. India believed that 
this exercise would improve the transparency of Members' commitments. To further the objective of 
transparency, India urged the United States to improve its  level of compliance with existing 
notification requirements, notably under GATS Article III:3, especially those affecting their mode 4 
commitments, including entry -related measures, as mode 4 was the key mode of export interest to 
most developing counties and LDCs.  
1.13.   The representative of Brazil reiterated that his delegation supported and agreed with the 
proposal for improving transparency  in conditional commitments. He appreciated the clarification by 
the United States that the purpose of the exercise was to improve transparency and not to initiate 
any kind of negotiation  process in the CSC . The CSC was the right place to discuss  transparency and 
implementation of specific commitments. He however noted that there were different kinds of 
conditionalities, some of which had history behind them  and had been subject to  market access 
negotiations  before or during the Doha Round. The CSC was not the right body for market access 
negotiations . Since  the United States had clarified that the objective  of its proposal was not the 
market access negotiati ons, Brazil could fully support the United States initiative . S/CSC/M/83  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.14.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia  thanked the United States for its proposal 
on which her delegation was still having internal consultations. For the sake of transparency, it was  
important and useful to examine conditional commitments and share information prepared by the 
Secretariat in this regard.  
1.15.   With respect to the United States proposal, t he representative of China  stated that in principle, 
his delegation  supported work towar ds improving transparency and more legal certainty in Members' 
specific commitments . At the same time, China was aware of the complexity of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the Committee should take a progressive approach in the follow -up work and have furth er 
discussions on the proposal. His delegation was analysing it internally and would get back to it at a 
later stage.   
1.16.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the United States for the clarification on the 
intention of its proposal. In particular, he noted that the intention was to improve the transparency 
of schedules and seek updates on conditional commitments. He however cautioned  that any related  
updates should  not go beyond technical exercise . On the way forward,  there might be  an additional 
notification burden on some Members. Therefore, his delegation supported a step -by-step approach 
starting with the Secretariat preparing a factual account of con ditional commitments.  
1.17.   The representative of Japan  thanked the United States for its proposal. He noted the 
importance of  the proposal as it would enhance transparency  of specific commitments . His delegation 
was flexible on how to conduct the exercise and thus open to the step -by-step approach.   
1.18.   The Chairperson  noted  a broad support for the step -by-step approach to bringing the United 
States proposal  forward. He thanked delegations for their flexibility and noted the request of the 
ACP Group for consultati ons. He then suggested that  the Secretariat identify and compile  conditional 
commitments  in Members' schedules and that the Committee consider the next steps at its next 
meeting.  
1.19.   It was so agreed .  
1.20.   The representative of the United States  stated that his delegation was flexible with respect to 
how to take the work forward. Once the compilation by the Secretariat was presented, the 
Committee could decide on the next steps.   
1.21.   The Chairperson  stated that he would hold consultations on the nex t steps. He then suggested 
that the Committee take note of the statements made  and revert to this item at its next meeting.  
1.22.   It was so agreed .  
2  ITEM B – SCHEDULING  ISSUES  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that two issues had been briefly addressed under this item a t the last 
meeting, which were both related to clarity and predictability of specific commitments . One issue 
was about the meaning of "Unbound*" entries under mode 1 in GATS schedules. In schedules, 
"Unbound*" was usually annotated with "unbound due to lac k of technical feasibility". Given that 
many services where Members had inscribed "Unbound*" in their schedules bec ame tradeable as a 
result of recent technological developments, there was interest in having discussions on this issue. 
Another issue concern ed scheduling questions under mode 4, initially identified in a Communication 
from the Kyrgyz Republic (contained in JOB/SERV/287). This matter had been  discussed in several 
previous meeti ngs. 
2.2.  The representative of India reiterated h er delegation 's appreciation  for the Kyrgyz Republic for 
having tabled a useful proposal on "Scheduling issues under mode 4 ", as contained  in document 
JOB/SERV/287.  As stated in the interventions at previous mee tings, India supported discussions 
under three identified areas , namely: developing a list of specific elements such as criteria and 
details of ENT /LMT requirements, and procedures and guidelines for administration of such tests; 
developing key definitiona l elements or some common criteria for committed categories of Mode 4 ; 
and clarifying the relationship between horizontal and sector -specific commitments in case of 
mode  4. India recall ed the suggestion by the European Union at one of the earlier meetings that all 
Member s should agree to remove ENTs for the category of Intra-Corporate Transferees ( ICTs) . S/CSC/M/83  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Believing that this was a valuable suggestion, India solicited other Members' view s in this regard. 
With respect to India's suggestion  that the Secretariat compile such instances in Members' schedules 
where there was a need to clarify the relationship between horizontal and sectoral -specific 
commitments in the case of mode 4, India noted tha t at the last meeting, one Member had requested 
a written proposal . India believed that the paper from the Kyrgyz Republic contained in document 
JOB/SERV/287 was already on the table as it intended to discuss ways to improve clarity and 
accuracy of Members ' commitments in this regard. To take it forward, India requested that the 
Secretariat compile Members' horizontal and sector -specific commitments to identify any 
inconsistencies between them in mode 4 (or in all modes if Members so wished) , and as a secon d 
step, that the concerned Members consider providing necessary updates. India believed that , 
similar ly to the United States proposal, this would lead to greater clarity and transparency in 
Members' commitments . The Secretariat could consider both of them together.  
2.3.  In response to India's request, t he representative of the United States  questioned  what the 
Secretariat was asked to do. In the United States proposal, it was clear that the Secretariat was 
requested to catalogue entries in Members' schedules. What India requested was leaning more 
towards interpretative mode as the Secretariat was asked to find  inconsistenc ies in Members' 
commitments. In terms of remov ing ENTs for the cate gory of Intra-Corporate Transferees ( ICTs) , 
while Members were free to revise their schedules, this might mo ve into market access negotiations , 
which  the United States could not agree with . 
2.4.  The representative of Switzerland  recalled  that his delegation had  raised the issue of 
"Unbound*" at the last meeting. Due to technological development, many services where Members 
had inscribed "Unbound*" in their schedules bec ame tradeable . This concerned notably mode 1. 
Similar ly to the United States proposal on condi tional commitments, the aim of his delegation's 
suggestion was to have exchange of views and increase certainty and predictability of specific 
commitments. Before embarking on any potential way forward, his delegation intended to hear  
interest from other M embers  at this meeting .  
2.5.  The representative of India stated  that she had taken note of the statements by the United 
States and Switzerland and would  get back to them at the next meeting . 
2.6.  The representative of Switzerland  thanked  the delegate of  India for her intervention. His 
delegation would reflect on whether and how the issue of "Unbound*" could be pursued.  
2.7.  The Chairperson  proposed  that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to 
this agenda item at the next meeting .  
2.8.  It was so agreed .  
3  ITEM C – CLASSIFICATION ISSUES  
3.1.  The Chairperson  stated that the GATS services classification system was facing challenges as 
trade conditions ha d evolved significantly. How to classify digital platforms was a case in point. Some 
had noted at the last meeting that discussing classification would provide more clarity to specific 
commitments . 
3.2.  No intervention was made under this item.  
3.3.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee revert to this agenda item  at its next meeting.  
3.4.  It was so agreed . 
4  ITEM D – OTHER BUSINESS  
4.1.  No issue was raised under this item.  
4.2.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________