RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPGR/M/85  
 
5 November 2014  
(14-6462)  Page: 1/6  
Working Party on GATS Rules    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 SEPTEMBER 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Working Party on GATS Rules (WPGR) held a meeting on 18 September 2014, chaired by 
Mr Saqer Almoqbel of Saudi Arabia. The proposed agenda and the Chairperson's annotated agenda 
for the meeting were circulated in documents WTO/AIR/4347 and JOB/SERV/192 respectively. The agenda was adopted. 
1  ITEM A - NEGOTIATIONS ON EMERGE NCY SAFEGUARD MEASURES (ESM) UNDER 
ARTICLE X OF THE GATS 
1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that,  at its two preceding meetings in February and May 2014, the 
Working Party had conducted a dedicated discussi on on Members' experiences with emergency 
safeguard provisions for service sectors in Region al Trade Agreements (RTAs). In the course of 
these discussions, the proponents had identified seve ral RTAs – to which they were parties, either 
individually or collectively – that contained so me type of emergency safeguard provisions. These 
typically consisted in consultation, and in some cases notification mechanisms with some 
agreements providing for more detailed and binding procedures than others.  
1.2.  As requested by Members at the Working Party's May 2014 meeting, the Secretariat prepared 
an updated Note entitled "Safeguard-type Provisions in Economic Integration Agreements − a 
Consolidated List as of 31 July 2014 based on Notifications to the WTO under Article V of the GATS" .
2 Updating previous Secretariat notes on the same topic, it provided an overview of RTAs 
currently in force containing some type of safeguard-related provision for trade in services. Out of 
122 economic integration agreements notified under Article V of the GATS currently in force, 29 
contained either a mere reference to the negotiating agenda in Article X of the GATS or some safeguard-type, or safeguard-related, provision. The Chairperson asked the Secretariat to present 
its document. 
1.3.  A representative of the Secretariat explai ned that, given the many developments that had 
occurred since the last update, the Note was released as a new document (as opposed to an 
addendum to S/WPGR/W/4/Add.23). Indeed, since March 2009, 65 new economic integration 
agreements had been notified to the WTO under Article V:7 of the GATS and 16 agreements had lapsed.
4 The Note tried to capture all the options across the various RTAs: safeguard- type 
provisions, but also safeguard- related  ones. Examples of safeguard- type provisions included 
notably the following three situations: (a) measures providing for the possibility to take a 
safeguard action in case of a substantial adverse impact to a service sector; (b) a mere commitment by the parties to develop mutually acceptable procedures for the application of 
emergency safeguard measures in the future; or (c) a commitment by the parties to conduct a 
review, upon conclusion of the multilateral negotiations pursuant to Article X of the GATS, for the purpose of discussing appropriate amendments to the RTA so as to incorporate those results. In 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 Document S/WPGR/W/64, dated 4 September 2014. 
3 Note by the Secretariat on "Safeguard-Type Provisions in Economic Integration Agreements", 
S/WPGR/W/4/Add.2, dated 25 March 2009. 
4 Among the agreements that had become inactive, there were 11 so-called "Europe Agreements" as 
well as the free trade agreements concluded by Mexico respectively with Costa Ri ca; El Salvador, Guatemala 
and Honduras; and Nicaragua, which were no longer appl icable since the entry into force, in September 2012, 
of the Mexico − Central America Free Trade Agreement concluded among these same countries. S/WPGR/M/85 
 
- 2 - 
 
  contrast, a safeguard- related  provision could for instance also consist in an outright prohibition on 
taking any kind of safeguard action, as forese en by some RTAs. The representative of the 
Secretariat encouraged Members to make comments on the Note. 
1.4.  The Chairperson opened the floor for Members' questions and comments. 
1.5.  The representative of the Philippines, also on behalf of the delegations of Brunei Darussalam, 
Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam, informed the 
Working Party that Lao People’s Democratic Republic, which had acceded to the WTO in February 
2013 and was a signatory to ASEAN RTAs previously  discussed by the ESM proponents, had joined 
the 'Friends of ESM'. He welcomed and thanked Lao People’s Democratic Republic for its solidarity and support. 
1.6.  Turning to the Secretariat Note (S/WPGR/W/64), he observed that it included the provisions 
already reported by the 'Friends of ESM', but al so further ones in a number of other RTAs. The 
Secretariat document constituted a useful factual reference guide to inform the discussions. The many new economic integration agreements with safeguard-type provisions suggested that there 
were more to come. In fact, another recently signed agreement between ASEAN and one of its 
partners, not yet included in the Note, might be considered in future discussions once it was in force. He then shared the proponents' preliminary comments regarding the Secretariat Note. 
1.7.  First, while most of the RTAs with a safeguard-type provision involved at least one ESM 
proponent, the Note showed that other WTO Members had also included safeguard provisions in their agreements. The Members concerned might sh are their views and experiences. Second, as 
previously mentioned, most safeguard provisions provided for consultations and sympathetic 
consideration. However, not all of the provisions identified in the Note were in favour of a 
safeguard. The RTAs involving at least three WTO Members provided that neither party  "shall take 
safeguard action against services and service suppliers of the other Party”,  nor “initiate or continue 
safeguard investigations in respect of services and service suppliers of the other Party” . These 
RTAs nevertheless provided that the parties “shall review the issue of safeguard measures in the 
context of developments in international fora of which both parties [were] members” , presumably 
including the WTO. Furthermore, these same Members appeared to have had a more 
accommodating stance on emergency safeguard measures in other RTAs they had signed. Fourth, the proponents considered the more loosely worded review clause (i.e., the parties “shall review 
the issue of safeguard measures in the context of developments in international fora of which both 
parties are members” ) to proceed from the same spirit as the stronger “ rendez-vous ” clause 
included in many RTAs involving the Friends of ESM.
5 Fifth, while agreed in different contexts and 
for various reasons, all safeguard provisions aimed at enabling further market opening, not at 
closing borders. Sixth, the proponents observed th at some deeper regional integration agreements 
contained more precise and detailed emergency pr ocedures in the event of 'serious economic 
difficulties'. However, their invocation was often limited to a defined number of years following the 
date of entry into force of the agreement. Seventh, emergency safeguard disciplines that could be 
developed under the GATS – while similar, in their spirit, to those contained in deeper integration agreements – would have to be more general in order to accommodate the needs and realities of a broader Membership.  
1.8.  Finally, the representative of the Philippi nes detailed the following three key 'take-home' 
messages from the Secretariat Note: firstly, emergency safeguard measures continued to be relevant. They were not uncommon in RTAs invo lving a broader range of Members, beyond the 
'Friends of ESM'. As mentioned by the Chairp erson, 29 out of the 122 economic integration 
agreements reviewed in the Note contained either a reference to the negotiating agenda in Article X of the GATS or some safeguard-type, or safeguard-related, provision. Secondly, while 
three RTAs considered in the Note contained an outright prohibition for the parties to take a 
safeguard action against services or service su ppliers of the other party, these agreements 
nevertheless allowed for the review of the issue in the context of developments in international fora. Thus, they were not closing the door completely to ESM disciplines at the multilateral level. 
Thirdly, discussions at the multilateral level need ed to continue, as a number of RTAs, even those 
                                               
5 The "rendez-vous" clause typically stipulates that: “Upon conclusion of such multilateral negotiations 
[referring to the GATS Article X negotiations] , the Parties shall  conduct a review for the purpose of 
discussing appropriate amendments  to this Agreement so as to incorporate  the results of the multilateral 
negotiations”  (emphasis added). S/WPGR/M/85 
 
- 3 - 
 
  that did not favour safeguard measures at the bilateral level, were open to considering – and 
perhaps incorporating – multilateral disciplines.   
1.9.  The representative of the Philippines conclu ded by affirming the intrinsic value of safeguard-
type provisions even if they were not actually utilized. Emergency safeguard disciplines remained 
relevant in the context of international services trade, and would only gain greater relevance in an 
era of anticipated greater liberalization, integration and interconnection.  
1.10.  The representative of the European Union took note that, in its document, the Secretariat 
listed some of the EU agreements, notably the EU 's enlargement treaties and some Stabilization 
and Association Agreements, as encompassing sa feguard components. Her delegation, however, 
believed that these provisions were not emergency safeguard measures in the traditional sense, and within the meaning of Article X of the GATS. In  the EU's case, the provisions were adopted in 
a context of far reaching integration, where liberalization provided for the full freedom of 
movement for goods, services, people and capital, and there was no possibility to withdraw commitments (unlike in Article XXI of the GATS). For that reason, her delegation believed that the 
agreements involving the EU did not fall within the scope of the Secretariat's Note. 
1.11.  The representative of the United States informed delegations that its capital was analysing 
the Note and that his delegation might have comments at the next meeting. His delegation's 
position on emergency safeguards was well known; in particular a broad sweeping ESM would 
undermine the legal certainty of commitments. 
1.12.  The representative of India noted with interest that about one fifth of the economic 
integration agreements notified under Article V of the GATS contained some safeguard-type, or 
safeguard-related, provision. However, all thes e agreements with safeguard-related provisions 
were either limited to taking note of the mandate in Article X of the GATS (in some instances coupled with a ' rendez-vous ' clause), or went a step further by including a consultative mechanism 
in case of a negative or adverse impact. None of the examined RTAs appeared to get deeper into 
explaining what the negative impact could be, how it should be measured, and indeed if there was 
a negative impact, how the appropriate remedy sh ould be designed. This might result from the 
inherently intangible character of services, which was probably not amenable to a safeguard-type 
instrument. There were many challenges in designing and implementing a safeguard-type 
instrument in services. Further, the question arose of how to ensure that ESM would not be used to protect domestic stakeholders. Her delegation remained unconvinced about the desirability of 
an ESM in the services context, yet they were  open to participating in the discussions. 
1.13.  In concluding, the Chairperson thanked the delegations who took the floor for their 
comments. He suggested that the Working Party take  note of the statements made and revert to 
this topic at its next meeting. 
1.14.  It was so agreed. 
2  ITEM B - NEGOTIATIONS ON GOVERNME NT PROCUREMENT UNDER ARTICLE XIII OF 
THE GATS 
2.1.  Turning to government procurement, the Chairperson reminded delegations that, at the 
Working Party's October 2013 meeting, a first, preliminary version of the Staff Working Paper 
entitled "The Relationship between Services Trade and Government Procurement Commitments: 
Insights from relevant WTO agreements and recent RTAs" was presented by its authors. The 
Paper, prepared by its authors in their personal  capacity, represented a cooperative work between 
members of the Secretariat's Intellectual Property Division and the Trade in Services Division. The 
Staff Working Paper had benefited from comments and discussion in this Working Party on two 
separate occasions whereby delegations had made a number of useful suggestions for its improvement. The final version would be released in  the last quarter of the year. He then opened 
the floor for Members' questions and comments. 
2.2.  The representative of India questioned th e fact that the Working Party was discussing a WTO 
Staff Working Paper prepared by its authors in th eir personal capacity. Her delegation was unsure 
about the purpose and final objective of these di scussions. Her delegation was prepared to discuss S/WPGR/M/85 
 
- 4 - 
 
  any proposal presented by any Member on the issu e, but devoting the Working Party's attention to 
a WTO Staff Working Paper prepared in personal capacity did not seem desirable. 
2.3.  In response, a representative of the Secretar iat recalled that a request had been made to the 
Secretariat (originally at an informal meeting of the Working Party held in December 2012) that it 
update its Note on " Government Procurement-Related Provisions in Economic Integration 
Agreements "6 in order to capture recent developments in these provisions.7 At the time, it had 
been suggested that the Secretariat supplement its Note with information regarding the scope of 
services-related government-procurement commitments in Economic Integration Agreements 
(EIAs); relevant scheduling approaches; and whether EIAs made a link between government procurement and services market-access commitments.  
2.4.  Furthermore, he explained that, at the su bsequent formal meeting of the Working Party on 
20 March 2013, the Chairperson had informed dele gations about the results of the Secretariat's 
internal consultations, whereby research was currently under way on services commitments and services-related procurement commitments, to comp are the GPA and recent RTAs in that regard. 
The results would be published in a WTO Staff Working Paper. The latter would discuss the 
relationship between services and government procurement-related disciplines, and compare the 
coverage of commitments on commercially-purchase d services versus government-purchased ones 
under recent RTAs. In the March 2013 meeting of the Working Party, the then Chairperson had, in 
order to avoid duplication, proposed that, as a first step, Members would discuss the WTO Staff 
Working Paper once released. Based on these discussions, Members could then review the information already available and decide what further work they would like the Secretariat to carry 
out. Members had agreed to the Chair's proposal at that meeting. On the same occasion, it was 
also approved that a representative of the Secret ariat in charge of government procurement would 
give a presentation on the revised GPA, with part icular focus on services, at the Working Party's 
meeting planned for June 2013.
8  
2.5.  The representative of India thanked the Secretariat for this clarification. She enquired 
whether, once the final version of the Staff Working Paper would have been tabled by its authors, 
the Secretariat would prepare a revised document on that basis. 
2.6.  A representative of the Secretariat explained that the idea, as it had been understood by the 
Secretariat, was that after the final version of the Staff Working Paper had been circulated, and 
after Members had reviewed it, Members would be in a better informed position to decide what 
further work they would like the Secretariat to carry out. 
2.7.  The representative of the European Union re called the position of his delegation on this 
question. His delegation had welcomed the preliminary version of the Staff Working Paper. It had 
provided the Secretariat with comments and was looking forward to continuing the discussion on 
the basis of the final version of the Staff Working Paper. His delegation thought that this could be 
a very interesting discussion for the Membership. 
2.8.  The Chairperson invited the Working Party to take note of the statements made and revert to 
this item at its next meeting.  
2.9.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C - NEGOTIATIONS ON SUBS IDIES UNDER ARTICLE XV OF THE GATS 
3.1.  Turning to subsidies, the Chairperson reminded delegations that, at the preceding meeting, 
the Secretariat had circulated a restructured version of its Background Note entitled "Subsidies for 
Services Sectors ‒ Information contained in WTO Trade Policy Reviews"  (S/WPGR/W/25/Add.7). 
The document had the same content as Addendum 6. The difference was that, in Addendum 7, the 
information on subsidy measures was structured according to individual service sectors and sub-sectors. He informed delegations that the Secretariat had noticed several small numbering errors 
in the quotations of the trade policy reports contained in Addendum 7. While these did not affect 
                                               
6 Document S/WPGR/W/49/Add.1, dated 28 September 2009. 
7 See the Summary by the Chairperson of the inform al meeting of the Working Party on GATS Rules 
held on 5 December 2012 in document JOB/SERV/132, paras. 4-9. 
8 See the report of the WPGR meeting held on 20 March 2013, document S/WPGR/M/80, paras. 2.1-2.4. S/WPGR/M/85 
 
- 5 - 
 
  the Note's substance, they might in some instances make more difficult the identification of the 
pertinent paragraphs in the TPR reports. As the errors concerned the English and French versions, the Secretariat would issue a revision to document S/WPGR/W/25/Add.7 in these two languages only. Before opening the floor for comments, he encouraged interested Members to share their 
experiences regarding subsidies in service sectors.  Delegations might wish to discuss these issues 
on a sector-by-sector basis.  
3.2.  The representative of Chinese Taipei pointed out that two measures regarding Chinese Taipei 
included in document S/WPGR/W/25/Add.7 (as well as in its preceding versions, Addenda 5 and 6) 
had been wrongly classified under the category 'duty-free inputs, free zones & offshore'. Instead, the two provisions at issue − one measure regarding financial services and one measure belonging 
to 'recreational, cultural and sporting services'
9 − s h o u l d  a p p e a r  u n d e r  t h e  c o l u m n  ' o t h e r  &  
unspecified measures'. She asked for her statement to be duly reflected in the minutes of the 
meeting. 
3.3.  The representative of India thanked the Secr etariat for the effort put in while preparing the 
Background Note. She emphasized that the complete  set of TPR reports consisted of Reports by 
the Secretariat, Reports by the Government and a compilation of Questions and Answers by WTO 
Members. However, document S/WPGR/W/25 and its addenda were based on the Secretariat’s 
Reports only. Thus, what had been characterized as a subsidy might not actually be a subsidy. She 
suggested there might be a need to broaden the scope of the Note and include the insights from the Reports by the Government, and Questions an d Answers by Members. Regarding the question 
posed by the Chair on whether to collect more information and discuss the issues on a sector-by-
sector basis, her delegation was wondering about the ultimate goal of such an exercise. How would 
the information be collected, who would collect it, and how would the trade effects of a “subsidy” be determined? Before embarking on any such under taking, its contours must be clearly defined. 
3.4.  Regarding the suggestion and questions listed in the Annotated Agenda by the Chairperson 
(JOB/SERV/192), the representative of the United States underlined that this information should 
be provided by Members. Like the previous spea ker, his delegation had questions on some of 
these terms and held the view that the contours of  such an exercise needed to be better defined. 
He recalled that his delegation had submitted a list of questions for Members10 to help identify the 
trade-distortive effects that services or service suppliers had encountered due to subsidies. Except 
for oral responses by one Member, his delegation had not yet received any written answers to its 
questions. As suggested by the Indian delegate, his delegation would encourage a Member-driven 
discussion on these issues. 
3.5.  The Chairperson gave the floor to the Secretariat to reply to some of the points made. 
3.6.  In response to the inte rventions by the delegates of India and the United States, a 
representative of the Secretariat explained that th e process was guided by Article XV of the GATS. 
The effort by the Secretariat, in response to a request by the Working Party, to compile empirical 
evidence of subsidy programmes for service sectors aimed at providing information on actual 
subsidy programmes. Indeed, that information shou ld be provided by Members, notably under the 
information exchange pursuant to Article XV:1. Members had asked the Secretariat to try and help fill the information gap. Members needed to consider how they wanted to proceed further: whether 
they wanted to ask the Secretariat to broaden the scope of its information collection exercise, or 
preferred to rely exclusively on Members' information.  
3.7.  The representative of Chile stated that hi s delegation would not, in principle, object to 
incorporating into the Secretariat Note information derived from the Trade Policy Review (TPR) 
Reports by governments. The real question and underlying concern, if any, would be if the Secretariat, or any other Member (other than the Member having provided the information), would 
look into the measures and interpret whether, or  not, they constituted a "subsidy". This was a 
totally different exercise requiring further discussions amongst Members. However, if the 
suggestion was solely to incorporate already existing information from Members in the Secretariat Note, his delegation would be very supportive. It was important that document S/WPGR/W/25 and 
its Addenda remained a living document. 
                                               
9 See document S/WPGR/W/25/Add.7, p. 16 and p. 18 respectively. 
10 Document S/WPGR/W/59, dated 28 May 2010. S/WPGR/M/85 
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.8.  The representative of Turkey expressed he r delegation's appreciation for the Secretariat’s 
Background Note restructured according to individual service sectors as it gave Members the 
possibility to deal with subsidy issues in a detailed manner. In the interest of more accurate and updated data, her delegation supported the sugges tion made by the delegate of India: namely 
that the Secretariat make use of the TPR Government  Reports to reflect the real picture of service 
sectors. For instance, in the case of Turkey, cons iderable legislative changes had occurred in some 
sectors that had not been reflected in Turkey's latest TPR Report by the Secretariat.  
3.9.  The representative of Ecuador stated that his delegation saw merit in the exercise carried out 
to compile subsidies in service sectors. His delegation considered the document prepared by the 
Secretariat as an important effort. If the latter could be complemented with other sources, this should be done. The most important was to have as much information available as possible. 
3.10.  The representative of the United States remarked that the most valuable information could 
only be provided by the Members themselves, by answering the questions to identify the problems 
that might have been caused by subsidies. That  was the point made in their May 2010 submission. 
His delegation had doubts about the value of the information on this subject that could be 
extracted from TPR reports, and some of the ca veats mentioned by the delegate of Chile were 
worth noting. TPR reports were limited and did no t cover all sectors. In addition, some Members 
were subject to review every two years, while others only every four years. His delegation 
suggested that Members take a little more time to figure out what precisely the Secretariat should 
be asked to do in relation to Trade Policy Review reports. 
3.11.  The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to respond to the different suggestions made and 
concerns expressed.  3.12.  The representative of the Secretariat th anked delegations for their remarks. A suggestion 
had been made that the Secretariat might expand the substance of its Background Note with two 
elements: to include information from the Governments' TPR reports and from the compilations of 
Questions and Answers by WTO Members. Howeve r, the Secretariat's understanding was that 
there was no agreement yet among Members on how to proceed. He emphasized that the 
provision in GATS Article XV, which required an exchange of information, called upon governments 
to provide the information. The delegate of Turkey made a very good point about how difficult it was to rely only on TPR reports by the Secretariat that took a snapshot at a certain point in time, which might not reflect the actual situation on the ground. The Secretariat effort in this respect 
could only be a second-best proxy for what had b een originally conceived in Article XV:1 of the 
GATS, which stipulated: 
"[…] For the purpose of such negotiations, Members shall exchange 
information concerning all subsidies related to trade in services that they 
provide to their domestic service suppliers".  
3.13.  The Secretariat was trying to provide a second-best substitute for how we should have been 
proceeding in the first place. As usual, the Secretariat was in the Members' hands. It was up to the 
Membership to decide how it wanted to proceed.  
3.14.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their constructive engagement, and invited the 
Working Party to take note of the statements made and revert to the item at its next meeting.  
3.15.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM D: OTHER BUSINESS 
4.1.  No topic was raised under this agenda item. 
4.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________