RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/120  
 
28 January 2015  
(15-0618) Page: 1/23   
Council for Trade in Services    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28 NOVEMBER 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 28 November 2014 chaired by 
Ambassador Choi (Republic of Korea). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/4400. 
The Chairman explained that the item dealing wi th the operationalization of the LDC services 
waiver had been placed at the top of the agenda  because the second "Dedicated Discussion of the 
Relevant Trade-Related Developments on Cotton", which was of interest to many LDCs, was also 
scheduled for that day. In view of the capacity co nstraints of LDC delegations, who might not be in 
a position to attend two simultaneous meetings, it had been decided to start the meeting of the Council earlier than usual and to put the item deal ing with operationalization of the LDC services 
waiver up front on the agenda, while also pushing back the start of the Dedicated Discussion on 
cotton. 
The agenda was adopted. 
1  ITEM A – OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER 1.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the previous  meeting of the Council, the LDC Group had given 
a detailed overview of the collective request it had submitted on 21 July pursuant to the Bali 
Ministerial Decision on the operationalization of  the LDC services waiver. In their presentation, 
LDCs had provided additional background informat ion and context to the various elements of the 
Request.   
1.2.  Around 30 delegations had taken the floor. At  the end of the discussion, he had shared with 
Members some summary observations. He had noted how Members had welcomed the collective 
request as a stepping stone in the process of the operationalization of the LDC waiver. All 
delegations had indicated that they were still in  the process of reviewing the request, and would 
revert to it. Also, all had indicated a willingness to engage in discussions with LDCs, to further 
clarify specific elements of the request and make progress towards the operationalization of the waiver.   
1.3.  With regard to the High-Level Meeting (HLM) that the CTS was mandated to convene six 
months after the circulation of the collective request, in September LDCs had indicated their 
expectation that the HLM would take place in the second half of January 2015. They had further announced that they were reflecting on the procedural aspects, and would present their views on 
the organization of the event to the Council. He had encouraged the Group to share its ideas with 
Members as early as possible, so that planning for the HLM could proceed effectively.   
1.4.  On 17 November 2014, on behalf of the LDC Group, Uganda had submitted a communication 
entitled "LDC Group Preliminary Ideas on Preparations for the High-Level Meeting mandated under 
the Bali Ministerial Decision on the Operationali zation of the Waiver concerning Preferential 
Treatment to Services and Services Suppliers of Least Developed Countries", in document 
JOB/SERV/194. 
                                               
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. S/C/M/120 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.5.  Speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, the representative of Uganda recalled that the LDC 
Group had circulated the LDC collective request on 21 July 2014 pursuant to the MC9 LDC services 
waiver Decision. As provided in the MC9 Decision, six months after the date the collective request was submitted, the High-Level Meeting (HLM) was to take place, whereby any non-LDC Members, 
in a position to do so, would indicate the preferences they would grant to LDC services suppliers.  
Therefore, the date for the HLM had to be on or about 21 January 2015.  
1.6.  At the last meeting of the Council, the Group had noted that it would provide an update on its 
bilateral consultations around the content of the collective request and put forward some ideas on 
the preparations for the HLM. They had since circulated some thoughts in document JOB/SERV/194. 
1.7.   First, on the bilateral consultations, LDCs  wished to report very positive engagement from 
the Members they had met with until then; meetings had been held either at the initiative of other 
Members or of the LDC Group. Notwithstanding the bilateral meetings, the collective request had been submitted to all non-LDC Members. The LDC Group welcomed discussing with all Members in 
a position to provide preferences that met the collective request.   
1.8.  The bilateral consultations were intended to provide further clarifications on elements where 
Members had questions, especially with respect to  barriers LDC suppliers faced in those markets. 
The consultations also provided an opportunity to  discuss the preparations for the HLM. In that 
regard, LDCs had received some questions about, inter alia, the date, the level of representation, 
the duration of the meeting and length of in terventions, the agenda and breakdown of the 
meeting, the record of the meeting,  and the format of preferences. 
1.9.  The LDC Group wished to recall that unlike the Signalling Conference held in 2008, the HLM 
and collective request were governed by the Mi nisterial Decisions of 2011 and 2013. Therefore, 
some of the format issues and questions were already answered and made preparations easier. 
1.10.  In Bali, Ministers had charged the Council for Trade in Services to convene the HLM. That 
was the reason why the collective request had been submitted to the Council. The collective request itself was the collective expression of  the LDC Group and was prepared bottom-up. It 
represented where the Group could find some co mmon threads and priorities to submit to all 
Members. That initiative under paragraph 1.2 of the Bali Decision to operationalize the LDC services waiver did not prevent Members from al so providing preferences under paragraph 1.3 of 
the Decision.   
1.11.  Members were now focused and directed to fulfil the mandate on the collective request and 
the HLM that would receive indications of Members’  intentions to provide preferences. That was 
where Members' energies and efforts should be. LDCs hoped that this would yield results that all 
Members could be proud of.    
1.12.  Given the fact that the CTS was to convene the HLM and that the LDC collective request had 
been submitted to the CTS, the LDC Group believed that the HLM should be a formal CTS meeting, 
in dedicated session. Two days should be allotted to the HLM, in order to allow for as much time as 
possible for Members to make interventions and state their intentions. It might be that interventions would not require a full two days, but this was something that had been easily managed for all WTO meetings and Ministerial Co nferences. The LDC Group relied on the usual 
procedures of the Secretariat in conducting meetings and recording minutes for meetings. There 
was no need to devise a new system.    
1.13.  The Chairman of the CTS would convene the meeting. The airgram should be circulated in 
accordance with WTO rules. The agenda should fo llow the mandate found in the MC9 Decision. The 
Group wished to include also opening remarks from the Director-General, the Ugandan Ambassador on behalf of the LDC Group and the CT S Chairman. Thereafter, Members in a position 
to grant preferences should raise their flags to inte rvene. LDCs were of the view that such a clear 
process was in accordance with the core guidance provided in the MC9 Decision.   
1.14.  With regard to the date for the meeting, LDCs had received signals from Members that they 
could proceed with the HLM in January. Some wanted to delay the meeting for a few days to allow 
them more time for consultations. Others said th at they could proceed but might not be able to S/C/M/120 
 
- 3 - 
 
  bring their Ministers. Some said that the meeting should not clash with major international 
meetings in the month of January, such as in Davos. Others were worried that if the HLM was delayed too much it would fall into their national calendar holidays. The LDC Group urged Members to strive to maintain the deadline envisaged by Ministers.   
1.15.  LDCs wished to draw Member’s attention to the indication in their paper that the duration of 
preferences should capture the entire 15 years envi saged and intended by Ministers at MC8. That 
way, the three years already lost for LDC suppliers would not take a further toll. Regarding how 
high the representation of the HLM should be, the LDC Group preferred Ministerial level. To ensure 
that any issues could be fine-tuned before the HL M, the Chair might convene an informal meeting 
sufficiently close to the HLM, as a dress rehearsal.  
1.16.  Concerning capturing the announcements made about preferences to be granted, those 
would be recorded in the minutes and should also  be followed by a notification. The MC8 Waiver 
Decision provided, in paragraph 2, that “each Me mber according preferential treatment pursuant 
to this waiver shall submit a notification to the Council for Trade in Services.” Ministers had 
already mandated the legal method to invoke the waiver. Some Members had asked the LDC 
Group about the form of the notification. In th eir submission, LDCs had called upon the WTO 
Secretariat to provide information on similar services notifications in the WTO or for preferential 
arrangements in favour of LDCs. In the meanti me, the Group had provided its own ideas with a 
mock notification annexed to the submission, but believed that Members providing preferences 
should be allowed the greatest flexibility in how they prepared their notifications. However, at a minimum, in addition to the parameters in pa ragraph 2 of the MC8 waiver Decision, Members 
should explain what element of the collective re quest they had responded to. Such notifications 
should clearly have the same legal significance and treatment as any other WTO waiver notification.  
1.17.  Regarding technical assistance and capacity -building in response to the additional element 
in paragraph 4 of the MC9 Decision and paragrap h 3.2 of the LDC Group collective request, the 
Group wished to stress that those efforts should remain supplemental. Such welcome assistance 
and capacity-building initiatives were needed and most welcome. However, they should not 
replace the mandate to provide GATS Article XVI and beyond Article XVI preferences. LDCs would 
not need a waiver to simply discuss the provision of technical assistance and capacity-building.   
1.18.  For those Members who had said that their markets were already open, the Group 
welcomed their efforts to help LDC suppliers avai l themselves of such openness. However, LDCs 
also wished to recall that the WTO was all about ma rket access bindings and certainty. Preferences 
had to be binding in accordance with the waiver. The Group's research had revealed that even for 
Members with the highest level of bindings in their schedules, there were areas, such as mode 4, 
that were not sufficiently bound or responsive to the LDC collective request. For example, 
recognizing the sensitivities around mode 4 for a number of Members, LDCs had endeavoured to 
target the following areas: 
a. where an independent professional or contractual service supplier had obtained an offer 
or a contract; 
b. fees and essentially “non-tariff barriers” in services that rendered market access 
impossible even if the market was technically open in accordance with Article XVI; 
c. quotas, for those Members who could respond. 
1.19.  Regarding the sectors and modes of supp ly other than mode 4, the collective request 
provided specificity, priorities, and flexibility based on the Group's research, country assessments 
and feedback from capitals. It did not address the entire W/120 coverage, but focused on those 
areas prioritized by the Group as a collective. Th ere might be other sectors and modes prioritized 
by individual Members, but the request was focused on the collective.   
1.20.  To help those Members that felt that they had already bound everything in their existing 
GATS schedules and could not provide preferences,  the Group asked whether the intention of the 
waiver was to allow Members a derogation from MFN bindings as well, in order to grant 
preferences to LDCs. Where an area identified by  the collective request was already bound, wasn't S/C/M/120 
 
- 4 - 
 
  the waiver there so that the Member concerned coul d derogate in favour of a preference for LDCs? 
In addition, the LDC Group had tried to help Memb ers by mining offers tabled in the DDA that 
indicated where Members were ready to improve commitments. Many of those sectors, reflected in item A.40 of the collective request, also matched se rvices found in the Annex to the request. LDCs 
had highlighted categories of sectors, included an  annex of services sectors, and listed a few sub-
sectors harvested from some of the DDA offers. In  that regard, the Group wished to register a 
clarification on the record of the meeting. In the collective request, where "maintenance and repair 
of machinery and passenger transport services" was mentioned, this included such services for air 
transport as well; and where “physiotherapists” we re indicated, this included providers of well-
being services as well. Members could look at where they were going in DDA offers and easily begin to craft preferences in sectors of interest to  LDCs, before they locked them in under the DDA 
or remove them from offers.  
1.21.  The LDC Group hoped to hear views that were constructive and allowed them to move 
forward smoothly. The WTO had been plagued with stagnation and attempts to frustrate deadlines. 
The Group hailed those Members who, all along, had stated that they would not punish LDCs for 
those incidents and that they were already workin g on the collective request in capitals. LDCs 
wished to recall that nearly three years had lapsed since the waiver Decision had been adopted 
and that the waiver was time-limited. No preferences had been granted up to that point. Ministers 
in Bali had provided Members the impetus to stim ulate results. The MC9 Decision comprised both 
paragraph 1.2 and paragraph 1.3; LDCs supported any initiatives taken under paragraph 1.3 that were drawn from RTAs, but Members were required to  fulfil the specific mandate in paragraph 1.2. 
1.22.  The LDC Group remained available for consultations and bilateral meetings to further efforts 
to shape preferences to be announced at the HLM. They also welcomed the efforts of the Chairman 
to support LDCs and, with the Secretariat, to  help Members make the HLM and its results a 
success for the WTO. 
1.23.  The Chairman encouraged Members to fo cus their interventions on the organisational 
arrangements for the HLM mandated by the Bali Ministerial Decision. He noted that the LDC 
Group's proposal highlighted some key parameters  for the HLM and he invited Members to share 
their views in that regard.  
1.24.  The representative of the Republic of Korea commended the LDCs for their efforts towards 
the operationalization of the waiver. The collec tive request submitted in July and the latest 
communication on the HLM all added substance to Members' discussions. The WTO was at a critical 
juncture and it was thus important to implement that Bali Decisions as agreed by Ministers. Korea supported holding the HLM six months after the collective request had been submitted.  
1.25.  With regard to the proposed specific date for the HLM, in order to maximise the outcome 
and facilitate participation by as many high-level officials as possible, it would be preferable to 
slightly adjust the proposed date of 21 January  2015, as this date coincided with the Davos 
meetings. As for the level of representation at the HLM, it was better not to be too prescriptive. As 
long as the official in charge had the authority and mandate to deliver, this was to be considered "high-level" participation, as mandated by Ministers in Bali. Regarding the nature of the meeting, the HLM should be a signalling meeting. "Next steps", including how to capture the preferences 
indicated by the granting Members or how to approve preferences beyond Article XVI measures, 
could be an agenda item at the HLM. The next regular CTS meeting after the HLM could take up discussions from there. Korea had preliminary views on other issues as well, which it would 
communicate in due course to LDCs, either in writing or during the informal consultations leading 
up to the HLM.  
1.26.  The representative of China said that the LDC submission was a useful basis to explore the 
organisational arrangements for the HLM. The impl ementation of the MC9 waiver Decision was an 
important part of the DDA negotiations and China supported the timely convening of the HLM. In 
terms of level of representation, LDCs expected the HLM to be at Ministerial level. China was open in this regard, and considered that if Ministers were unable to attend the HLM, the participation of 
Ambassadors might be another option. He encouraged LDCs to continue consultations on this issue 
and, if necessary, the Chairman might also consult to arrive at a solution. China was agreeable with the other elements in the LDC communication, such as the suggestion that the HLM last two 
days, be a formal meeting and that a rehearsa l meeting be organised. With regard to the 
indication of preferences, this could be followe d by the formal submissi on of detailed written S/C/M/120 
 
- 5 - 
 
  notifications to the CTS. It was therefore po ssible to distinguish between the signals or 
announcement of preferences by high-level offi cials at the Meeting and the submission of 
notifications. With regard to the LDC collective re quest, this was still being examined in capital and 
some positive feedback had been received from the relevant authorities. China would continue to 
work closely with the LDC Group on how best to contribute to the forthcoming HLM. 
1.27.  The representative of Australia was committed to implementing all the Bali Decisions and it 
was timely to put Members' collective mind to the timing and format of the HLM on the LDC 
services waiver. The work that had gone into the collective request to identify LDC priorities had 
offered a basis for very informative and constructive discussions with LDCs on possible trade preferences and complementary capacity-building activities. Australia wanted to ensure that the HLM resulted in best outcomes for LDCs. Members should therefore consider what was likely to 
deliver the greatest number of preferences from the greatest number of Members. The timing of 
the meeting should be decided to allow maximum participation. Similarly, the level of the meeting should not be set in a way that precluded participation. A successful Ministerial-level meeting took 
time to prepare; hence, a senior official, or Ambassador-level meeting could be a constructive way 
forward. Members' shared objectives for a success ful implementation of the waiver should also 
inform consideration of the format of the meeting. A more informal meeting that allowed Members 
in a position to do so to signal areas where they were considering providing preferences might 
contribute more than a formal meeting. Australia would welcome the Chairman undertaking consultations to decide the questions of the timing and format for the HLM as soon as possible.  
1.28.  The representative of Nepal aligned himself with the statement made by Uganda on behalf 
of the LDC Group. The operationalization of th e services waiver was a longstanding Decision. 
Considering the paltry share LDCs had in world se rvices trade, Ministers had decided in 2011 on a 
waiver that allowed developed and developing co untry Members to treat LDC services and service 
suppliers more favourably by derogating GATS  Article II:1. Despite the waiver Decision, 
operationalization in this field was still lacking. At MC9, in 2013, Ministers had taken another Decision on the LDCs services waiver, whereby they  outlined specific procedures to be followed 
and clarified some elements to facilitate the impl ementation of the waiver. Accordingly, LDCs were 
asked to submit a collective request, indicating services sectors, sub-sectors and modes of supply 
of particular interest to them.  
1.29.  Following the Bali Decision, the LDC Group had submitted its collective request on 
21 July 2014, for the consideration of all WTO Members. While the collective request was not an 
exhaustive list, and was subject to further modification as per the needs of the Group, it reflected LDCs' collective interests and desires to a large extent, and served as an important document in 
terms of promoting their services trade significantly in the international market. The collective 
request had clearly identified key sectors and sub-sect ors of particular interest to LDCs. Besides, it 
had outlined the major obstacles encountered and suggested possible actions needed to be taken 
by LDC partners in order to promote LDCs services exports. The request was expected to offer a 
solid basis for non-LDC Members to resolve issues related to the waiver. LDCs were hopeful that the collective request would enjoy unwavering support and the requisite response from other Members.  
1.30.  The Bali Ministerial Decision on the operat ionalization of the services waivers required the 
CTS to convene a HLM six months after the submi ssion of the LDC collective request, where non-
LDC Members were expected to announce their preferences for LDC services and services suppliers 
based on the collective request. LDCs were workin g, including with the Secretariat, to convene the 
meeting sometime in the last week of January 2015. Given that three years had already elapsed 
without tangible results since the waiver Decision had been adopted, LDCs were now committed to 
convening the HLM as mandated by the Bali Minist erial Decision to operationalise the waiver.  
1.31.  The HLM would be a milestone event for LDCs  to expeditiously operationalise the waiver. To 
that effect, LDCs had already started preparatio ns and entered into bilateral talks with those 
Members who had shown their keen interest and willingness to remain engaged in the process. 
LDCs' initial observations and experiences remained positive. The Group hoped that, by the time of 
the HLM, a good number of Members would come forward with offers of preferences that supported and facilitated LDCs to operationalise the waiver and enhance their share in world 
services trade.    S/C/M/120 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.32.  The submission of the collective request had triggered sincere discussions on the waiver and 
helped LDCs move ahead with its operationalization in the near future. LDCs were earnestly waiting to see how enthusiastically developed and developing country Members, in a position to do so, reacted to their proposal and expected to receive positive actions. As the waiver was a 
voluntary undertaking, without a strong commitment, generosity and flexibility on the part of their 
trading partners, LDCs would not be in the position to enjoy the fruits of the waiver. In this regard, LDCs were determined to engage  constructively in consultations with partners, as required.  
1.33.  The Group was extremely optimistic that th e upcoming HLM would be an historic event for  
Members to announce their preferences in response to the LDC collective request. This would not only help implement the Bali Ministerial Decision on waiver, but also truly help address problems and challenges faced by LDCs in services trade, eventually helping LDCs service exports to grow 
and expand further thanks to preferential treatment in major destination markets.   
1.34.  The representative of Bangladesh aligned himself with the statement by Uganda, on behalf 
of the LDC group, and Nepal. He then asked what  would happen after the HLM, and the straight 
answer was that, as Members' offers of preferences were voluntary and unilateral, this would leave 
LDCs again back to where they had started. 
1.35.  He reiterated that the HLM process was additional, and aimed at helping Members to 
expeditiously provide preferences to LDC services  and service suppliers. According to the wavier 
Decision, the provision of preferences was vol untary and depended on the preference-granting 
Member. As such, any Member could, at any time , provide meaningful preferences under Article 
XVI and beyond. The Bali Decision only called upon the CTS to initiate a process aimed at 
promoting the expeditious and effective operatio nalization of the LDCs services waiver, and 
Members should not lose sight of that. 
1.36.  He understood that Members had completed their thought process and were ready with 
their own “offer” menu. In that regard, the sooner  they indicated the preferences they were going 
to grant, the better. Time was precious to all, but it was particularly costly to LDCs. Therefore, he 
encouraged all Members to come up with preferences at the HLM. 
1.37.  Providing preferences in services trad e was not an uncharted area. Preferences were 
granted under different economic integration agreements. As it was very difficult to micro-manage the concerns of all Members, for the sake of co llective comfort and convergence, the LDC group 
had adjusted many times its ambitions in order to arrive at a common landing zone for the comfort 
of all. He hoped that Members would display the same spirit, as demonstrated in General Council 
the day before, for the cause of the weakest segm ent of the Membership. LDCs had put their good 
faith in the S&D provisions of the WTO agreements , which had encouraged them to join the WTO. 
1.38.  He noted that all the LDC Decisions relating to services were non-binding by construct and 
operation; therefore, making them legally binding should be given priority in the coming Work Programme.   
1.39.  The representative of Japan said that the entire Membership had a responsibility to 
revitalise and promote the DDA negotiations. In that regard, he reiterated the importance of 
steadily operationalizing the LDC services waiver  as Members implemented the Bali Decisions, in 
order to promote the participation of LDC services and service suppliers in international service 
markets. Japan was currently reviewing in detail the LDC collective request, and seriously 
considering what kind of measures it was in a position to take. The HLM needed to yield a successful outcome. In that sense, Japan was not certain whether 21 January was a realistic date 
to hold the HLM, given that it coincided with the World Economic Forum meetings in Davos.  
1.40.  The representative of the European Union reiterated that development issues were central 
to the work of the EU, and her delegation attached high importance to the LDC services waiver. 
The EU appreciated the progress that had been achieved on the waiver until then, and was pleased 
to see that the impasse created by discussions on Trade Facilitation was solved. Her delegation was currently working on a response to the LDCs ' collective request at full speed, and would be 
prepared for the HLM mandated under the Bali Ministerial Decision.  S/C/M/120 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.41.  With regard to the various elements in the communication submitted by the LDC Group, the 
EU saw no particular value in having a dress rehearsal; this could turn out to be an obstacle for the HLM, since it would take up substantial preparatory time. As concerned the preferences, the entry into force was an issue to be left to the signalling Members; the preferences were unilateral 
and no constraints should be imposed on Members in that sense. Similarly, the duration of 
preferences should not be prescribed beyond the natural link to the period of validity of the waiver. She acknowledged that the waiver was not prescriptive, and Members should be able to work in 
that spirit. 
1.42.  She further highlighted that the EU preferred to not create another process for the HLM, but 
rather use the regular CTS meetings, for transparency. Lastly, regarding the logistical aspects of the HLM, she wondered whether the date envisaged by the LDC group would be conducive to 
ambition, particularly with regard to the level of participation. Her delegation would welcome the 
Chairman holding consultations on the logistics of the meeting. Irrespective of the decision taken 
by the LDC Group, the EU would be ready to engage. Her delegation remained available for 
discussions with the LDC Group also on a bilateral basis. 
1.43.  The representative of Canada said that th e LDC submission had usefully identified many of 
the parameters Members should be looking at in terms of setting up the HLM. Canada was 
committed to implementing all the Bali Decisions, including the one on the operationalization of 
the LDC services waiver. His delegation would certainly attend the HLM, although the level might well depend on when the meeting took place, as there might be conflicts on the particular date 
proposed by LDCs. The HLM should be a success, and in that regard Canada would welcome 
consultations by the Chairman to agree on the appropriate date.  
1.44.  The representative of the United States said that the LDC submission was helpful in 
outlining the possible parameters of the HLM. By way of preliminary reaction, he said that the CTS 
seemed the appropriate venue to convene the HLM. Like the EU, his delegation had some 
questions about the need for a dress rehearsal before  the meeting, and in particular questioned its 
utility. With regard to the timing, the United States was open to what was most practical and 
constructive and could consider extending the timi ng of the HLM to a couple of weeks beyond the 
proposed date of 21 January. As to the level of  representation, he echoed comments by Australia 
that Ministerial-level meetings were often difficult to manage and prepare, while also noting that his Minister would at any rate be engaged and involved in discussions on that issue quite 
extensively. Hence, regardless of the level of participation at the HLM, Ministerial engagement 
would have certainly taken place from the US perspective. His delegation was still reviewing the LDC collective request, which was helpful in givi ng Members more focus on some of the areas to 
consider. The request elevated the importance  of services to LDCs and their economic 
development. Further reflection in that sense was warranted, including on the role of a waiver and preferences when many other issues were important for services and the services economy. He 
would support further consultations by the Chairman on the appropriate organizational 
arrangements for the HLM. 
1.45.  The representative of Pakistan felt that the proposal that the HLM be held on 21 January 
was quite daunting, as the proposed date was only a few months after the collective request and 
left little time to consider how to respond. At the same time, he wished to offer reassurances to 
LDCs that his delegation was supportive of their efforts. He also noted that, in the WTO, when 
Members wished to break deadlocks and find a solution, they were able to do so, and on this issue 
this could also be done.  
1.46.  The representative of New Zealand noted that  services trade could play an important role in 
achieving the development objectives of LDCs and commended them for their on-going efforts in 
relation to the waiver, as well as for the constructive bilateral meeting held on details of the LDC 
collective request. New Zealand was giving consideration in capital to the issues raised under the waiver decision and the collective request. These were complex and required time to work through, especially in light of New Zealand's already open market. 
1.47.   In terms of the arrangements for the HLM,  she echoed many of the points made by others. 
She was of the view that the meeting should be  a signalling meeting, the CTS would be the 
appropriate venue, and that the level of attendance should not be set in too prescriptive a manner. 
While she appreciated LDCs' efforts to ensure consistency with the MC9 Decision, she concurred 
with the concerns raised around the most suitable timing for the meeting. Her delegation would S/C/M/120 
 
- 8 - 
 
  welcome consultations by the Chair regarding th e appropriate level of attendance, timing and 
other practical arrangements for the HLM, with the aim of ensuring the best results from the meeting.  
1.48.  The representative of Norway recalled that  her delegation had been involved in the work 
leading up to the adoption of the waiver as well as its operationalization. Norway was studying the 
collective request and would participate constructively in further discussions and in the HLM, where it aimed to indicate concrete deliverables. LDCs had indicated in their submission that the HLM 
should be held on 21 January; while her delegation remained flexible and constructive regarding 
the timing, that particular date might pose difficulties, given meetings taking place in Davos. She thus encouraged LDCs to look into the matter with the aim of finding the most suitable timing. She also suggested that holding the HLM at the Ambassador or senior official level might be as fruitful 
as a meeting convened at Ministerial level.  
1.49.  The representative of India indicated that her delegation was working on the LDC collective 
request and actively consulting various stakeholders  in capital in that regard. India had also had a 
very fruitful bilateral discussion with the LDC Coordinator, which had helped further her 
delegation's understanding of the collective request. As to the organizational arrangements for the HLM, her delegation was open. However, there mi ght be merit in organising the HLM in a manner 
that brought the most benefit to the LDCs and wh ich maximised participation on the part of the 
rest of the Membership. She would welcome consultations by the Chairman to finalise the organizational arrangements for the HLM. 
1.50.  The representative of Haiti echoed the statements by Uganda, Nepal and Bangladesh, as 
well as all other delegations who had expressed support for the LDC proposal. Just the previous 
day, the WTO had taken an important step in the implementation of the Bali package. Haiti wished 
to encourage Members to continue in that vein, to put into practice all the Bali Decisions, including 
the one on the LDC waiver. He also encouraged Members to participate as much as possible in the 
HLM in order to send a clear signal for the operationalization of the waiver. 
1.51.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that her delegation remained committed 
to all elements of the Bali package and the DDA. The LDC collective request was very 
comprehensive, covered a wide range of sector s, modes and measures. Some issues were the 
subject of on-going negotiations, such as documentation, application and registration 
requirements, which were discussed in the Working Party on Domestic Regulation. Other elements 
were traditionally the subject of bilateral arrangements, such as with double taxation agreements, 
mutual recognition agreements, labour and visa-related agreements. Russia was committed to working bilaterally with LDCs in order to find solutions suitable for particular situations of given 
Members. Her delegation was still examining the collective request in capital. However, Russia 
faced certain constraints when it came to the part of the request relating to mode 4, and it believed that market opening in that regard should be in line with government efforts to ensure 
appropriate quality of the services provided do mestically, protection of consumer rights and 
required levels of qualification of service suppliers. The request should be focused on issues covered by the GATS: elements relating to visas, sa lary and social security issues should be raised 
and solved under the auspices of other international organisations specialised on those issues, as 
the WTO had no mandate in that sphere. As for the organisation of the HLM, she favoured 
consultations by the Chairman. 
1.52.  The representative of Brazil indicated that his delegation was still considering the LDC 
proposal on the organization of the HLM. Although he was not in a position to make specific 
comments on the proposal at that stage, he stressed that Brazil remained strongly committed to the operationalization of the waiver pursuant to the relevant Ministerial Decision, and reaffirmed 
his delegation's willingness to carry on with the ongoing exercise to identify potential areas where 
preferences could be envisaged. His authorities were considering some alternatives for the operationalization of the wavier, while looking into trade statistics to better assess where meaningful contributions could be made. As others had indicated, he would also welcome 
consultations by the Chairman on the organizational aspects for the HLM. 
1.53.  The representative of Mexico said that he r delegation supported the implementation of all 
the Decisions in the Bali package, including the one on the operationalization of the waiver and the 
holding of a HLM. In terms of organizational arrangements for the HLM, she suggested that 
Ambassadorial-level representation at the HLM would be sufficient to comply with Members' S/C/M/120 
 
- 9 - 
 
  objectives on that issue. Her delegation was flex ible with regard to the timing of the HLM and 
ready to participate in any Chairman's consul tations. She stressed the importance of the 
consultations leading to the objective of operationalising the waiver. She added that her authorities in capital were currently studying the LDC collective request. 
1.54.  The representative of Guinea hoped that Members would demonstrate the same level of 
engagement with regard to the operationalization of the LDC waiver as during the General 
Council's meeting the previous day, as LDCs were the most vulnerable of all Members. She echoed 
the statement by Uganda and called for political engagement on the part of all Members to be 
displayed at the HLM.  
1.55.  With regard to the timing of the HLM, the representative of Vanuatu noted that the MC9 
Decision mandated for the HLM to be convened  6 months after the submission of the LDC 
collective request. As the request had been submitted on 21 July 2014, this implied a date of 
21 January 2015 for the HLM. In light of the clas h with the Davos meetings, he wondered if an 
agreement to hold the HLM on a different date would require a decision by the General Council.  
1.56.  The Chairman indicated that, in his view, this would not be necessary, as the Bali Decision 
did not specify a date but a time-frame and it was up to the CTS to come to a decision. 
1.57.  The representative of Uganda expressed ap preciation on behalf of the LDC Group to all 
delegations that had intervened. He had noted that Members were taking the LDC collective 
request very seriously and that work was being undertaken in their domestic constituencies. With regard to the date for the HLM, he indicated that the LDC proposal for 21 January had been made on the basis of paragraph 2.1 of the Bali Decision , which called on the CTS to convene a High-level 
meeting "six months after the submission of an LDC collective request". As to whether the HLM 
had to be held on 21 January, in his statement on  behalf of the LDC Group he had proposed that 
the HLM be convened "on or about" that date. In the course of consultations with Members, LDCs 
had taken note of the concerns expressed about the Davos meetings scheduled for 21 January, 
and thus were proposing that the HLM be held immediately after the Davos meetings. LDCs were in the Members' hands in this regard and support ed consultations by the Chairman. They remained 
open to further bilateral consultations, including to clarify some elements of the collective request. 
He stressed that the key of the process was the outcome. He further recalled that LDCs had not been the spoilers in the July events and that Members had taken note of this fact and had not 
created linkages between LDC issues and those events. As such, LDCs were hopeful of going 
forward.  
1.58.  By way of concluding summary, the Chairman indicated that all delegations were committed 
to upholding the MC9 Decision to convene the HLM and it was just a question of setting the exact 
date for the HLM. All Members had stressed the importance of the early operationalization of the 
waiver. Several delegations had indicated that they were still considering the LDC collective request in capital, but all hoped for a successful HLM, to enable LDCs to benefit from the waiver. 
Many delegations had also asked him to engage in consultations to finalise the organizational 
arrangements for the HLM. He said that he would be consulting in different formats and planned to hold an informal meeting of the CTS in the afternoon of Friday 12 December to arrive at a final decision. 
1.59.  He intended to consult Members on both procedural and substantive issues, and he hoped 
for Members' constructive engagement. On the proc edural side, he would seek Members' views on 
the following issues. First, the date of the HLM, bearing in mind the Davos meetings, other 
international events and national holidays, but also noting that the HLM should be held very close 
to the proposed date of 21 January 2015. Second, its duration, noting the proposal made that the 
HLM last two days. Third, the nature of the HLM, indicating that delegations seemed to agree that 
the HLM should be a dedicated meeting of the CTS. Fourth, the level of representation, an issue on 
which different suggestions had been made, from Ministerial to Ambassadorial to senior official level, with several Members calling for flexibility. Fifth, the record of the meeting, keeping in mind that, if the HLM were held as a formal CTS meeting, the record would be in the form of minutes. 
Finally, the proposal to have a dress rehearsal, no ting that different opinions had been expressed 
in that regard. S/C/M/120 
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.60.  As to the more substantive elements, he noted that, as far as the agenda of the HLM was 
concerned, paragraph 3.7 of the LDC Group submi ssion proposed four items for inclusion on the 
agenda. While items one, two and four were more procedural in nature, item three was substantive, concerning the adoption of preferences notified that went beyond Article XVI. He 
recalled that paragraph 1 of the LDC waiver Decision stated that "notwithstanding the provisions of 
Article II:1 of the GATS, Members may provide pr eferential treatment to services and service 
suppliers of LDCs with respect to the application of measures described in Article XVI and any 
other measures as may be annexed to this waiver, than to like services and service suppliers of 
other Members. Any such treatment shall be granted immediately and unconditionally to like services and service suppliers of all least-developed country Members. Preferential treatment with respect to the application of measures other than those described in Article XVI, is subject to 
approval by the Council for Trade in Services in accordance with its procedures and will be 
annexed to this waiver." Thus, the procedures for measures falling under Article XVI and those going beyond Article XVI were different. With regard to proposed item three for the HLM agenda, 
Members might like to think about this item in conjunction with the language of paragraph 1 of the 
MC8 Decision. Preferences relating to measures other than those falling under Article XVI would not be automatically adopted but would need to be approved by the Council first.  
1.61.  With regard to the start of the pref erences, LDCs had suggested the simultaneous 
commencement of all preferential measures, but dissenting views had been expressed by some 
delegations. As concerned the duration of the pref erences, LDCs had asked that they last 15 years 
from their starting date; in that regard, he drew Members' attention to the duration of the waiver, 
as specified in paragraph 7 of the MC8 Decision of 2011. 
1.62.  He then proposed that the Council take note of the statements made, and revert to this 
item at its next meeting. 
1.63.  It was so agreed. 
2  ITEM B – ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN SERVICES 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council for 
Trade in Services was to consider the Annual Report s of its subsidiary bodies. Accordingly, he drew 
Members' attention to the reports which had been adopted by the respective bodies for 2014: Annual Report of the Committee on Trade in Financ ial Services (S/FIN/29); Annual Report of the 
Committee on Specific Commitments (S/CSC/20); Annual Report of the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulation (S/WPDR/17); Annual Re port of the Working Party on GATS Rules 
(S/WPGR/25). 
2.2.  He suggested that the Council take note of  the four reports on the understanding that they 
would be annexed to the Annual Report of this Council and form an integral part of it. 
2.3.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C – ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
SERVICES TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL 
3.1.  The Chairman noted that, in accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council for 
Trade in Services was to report each year to the Ge neral Council on its activities as well as those in 
its subsidiary bodies. Accordingly, he drew Members' attention to the draft Annual Report of the 
Council for Trade in Services on its activities in 2014, contained in document S/C/W/357. The report was factual and self-explanatory. As he had mentioned under the previous item, the Annual 
Reports of the subsidiary bodies would be annexed to the Council's report for submission to the 
General Council. 
3.2.  The representative of the European Union, speaking on behalf of all Members participating in 
the TISA negotiations, wished to introduce a fa ctual supplement to paragraph 6.2 of the draft 
Annual Report, which referred to the TISA talks. As the TISA delegations had stated on multiple occasions in the Council and in their submission in document JOB/SERV/164/Rev.1, TISA was being developed in a way that was compatible with the GATS, was intended to attract broad S/C/M/120 
 
- 11 - 
 
  participation, and could be multilateralised in the future. TISA participants had also stated that 
they continued to welcome the participation in TISA of all WTO Members who shared their objectives. As such, they wished for those elements , that had been previously expressed orally as 
well as in writing, to be incorporated in paragraph 6.2 of the CTS Annual Report. 
3.3.  The representative of Bangladesh noted that  it was not clear what kind of agreement TISA 
would be, and sought a clarification in that regard. The representative of the Plurinational State of 
Bolivia echoed the statement by Bangladesh, noting that in order to know if TISA would be 
compatible with the GATS, the text of the ag reement had to be shared with Members. The 
representative of India sought additional clarific ations about the change that was being proposed 
by the EU. 
3.4.  In relation to the questions raised by Ba ngladesh and Bolivia, the representative of the 
European Union explained that his intention was not to discuss any substance related to TISA or to 
ask the Membership to agree on what TISA was.  He was only requesting that the different 
elements he had mentioned, which TISA participants had put forward in the debate, be added to 
the summary about the TISA discussions contained in paragraph 6.2 of the draft Annual Report, 
without prejudice of any Member's position on TISA . Specifically, after the sentence starting with 
"TISA participants saw no contradiction betwee n the TISA talks and the DDA negotiations, they 
noted that the two could be mutually supportive" he wished to insert the following text: ", that the 
TISA was developed to be compatible with the GATS, was intended to attract broad participation and could be multilateralized in the future. TISA participants continued to welcome the participation of all WTO Members who shared their objectives and". The sentence would then 
continue with the text as in the current draft, namely "expressed their readiness to meet with any 
Member interested in obtaining more information about their initiative". He certainly was not asking delegations to agree with that statement, but only wished to factually recount what the 
TISA participants had stated in the relevant CTS meetings and had also indicated in writing in their 
JOB document. 
3.5.  The Chairman explained that the langua ge suggested by the European Union referred 
exclusively the position of the TISA participants, and was in no way intended to represent 
Members' agreed position. 
3.6.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela recalled that her delegation and 
many others were opposed to TISA, and that it was not clear how the agreement would be 
compatible with the GATS.  
3.7.  The representative of Australia echoed the clarification offered by the Chairman. She further 
explained that the request made by the EU, on  behalf of the TISA participants, was to add 
precision to how the draft annual described the position of the TISA participants. She noted that 
the first part of paragraph 6.2 elaborated on the concerns expressed by non-TISA Members, while the second part described the position of the TISA participants; it was only this second part that 
the TISA group wished to amend.  
3.8.  The representative of Chile supported the interventions by the Chairman and Australia. The 
EU proposal was only to amend the way in whic h the views of a group of Members, i.e. TISA 
participants, had been registered in the draft An nual Report. They were not asking that other 
Members agree with their views or with what was happening with TISA; that was a whole other 
debate, that did not belong to the discussion of the CTS Annual Report. What was being asked was only that issues that TISA participants had stated over a number of meetings be factually reflected 
in the Annual Report.  
3.9.  The representative of India said that she di d not object in principle to recording what some 
Members had said, but wished to see the suggeste d amendment in writing. The Chairman agreed 
that India's request was very valid and asked the Secretariat to distribute to Members the text of 
the amendment being proposed by the EU at that point. 
3.10.  On a different but related issue, the representative of Bangladesh asked that the LDC 
proposal on the organizational arrangements for the HLM be included in paragraph 4.6 of the draft 
Annual Report. The Chairman explained that the Annual Report covered the work of the Council S/C/M/120 
 
- 12 - 
 
  only up until its September meeting. As such, anything that was happening at that meeting would 
not be included in the 2014 Report, but rather in the one for the following year. 
3.11.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that she could not accept 
the suggested amendment, as her delegation was against the Council becoming a lobbying venue 
for TISA, either on paper or in practice. This was exactly what was happening. TISA was not only 
incompatible with the GATS, but also went far beyond the GATS. 
3.12.  The representative of Panama could not understand the attempt by some Members to 
somehow edit and censure what had been said by other Members in meetings of the Council. The 
Annual Report was a factual account of what had been stated in various Council meetings. Furthermore, in the case at issue, the relevant se ction of the report referred to an exchange that 
had taken place for transparency purposes, similar to other transparency exchanges concerning 
regional agreements, bilateral agreements or issues happening outside of the WTO. It was not a 
question of propaganda of lobbying; it was just a question of keeping Members informed. 
Therefore, it would be an extremely negative precedent if Members took that road, as annual 
reports would never be agreed if Members were unable to amend them to ensure their own 
positions were properly reflected. The proposed amendment was factual and in no way implied that any Member had to accept its content. At any rate, the minutes of the meeting would reflect 
the position of those Members who had objected to TISA being discussed in the Council. However, 
there should be no attempts to  change factual information.  
3.13.  The representative of Cuba called for th e balance between the positions of TISA and non-
TISA participants that existed in the current draft Annual Report to be preserved.  
3.14.  The Chairman noted that all interventions wo uld be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 
He stressed that the amendment proposed by EU on behalf of the TISA participants concerned 
exclusively the way in which TISA Members' own position, which had been expressed in past 
meetings of the Council, was recorded in the Annu al Report. The EU was not asking to change the 
description of other Members' positions, nor was it asking or implying that the Council should agree to the substance of TISA Members' position. He therefore proposed that the Council for 
Trade in Services adopt the draft 2014 Annual Report to the General Council contained in 
document S/C/W/357, as amended by the EU suggestion. 
3.15.  It was so decided. 
4  ITEM D – NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III:3 AND V:7 OF THE GATS 
4.1.  With regard to the notifications made pursua nt to GATS Article III:3, the Chairman drew the 
Council's attention to the communications received, respectively, from South Africa (in documents 
S/C/N/766 to 770) and Mauritius (in document S/C/N/772). He proposed that the Council take 
note of the notifications made. 
4.2.  It was so agreed.  
4.3.  Moving on to the notifications made pursua nt to Article V:7, the Chairman drew Members' 
attention to the communications received from: China and Hong Kong, China (S/C/N/264/Add.7); 
China and Macao, China (S/C/N/265/Add.7); the European Union and Georgia (S/C/N/745/Add.1); 
the European Union and the Republic of Mo ldova (S/C/N/743/Add.1); Iceland and China 
(S/C/N/771); and Hong Kong, China and Chile (S/C/N/773). He proposed that the Council take 
note of the notifications and refer the agreements notified to the Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreements for consideration. 
4.4.  It was so agreed.  
5  ITEM E – WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 5.1.  Turning to the Work Programme on Electron ic Commerce, the Chairman recalled that, at the 
previous Council meeting, the European Union had indicated that it would be submitting a 
communication on electronic authentication and trust services for discussion under that agenda 
item. The EU communication, contained in document S/C/W/358, had been circulated on 13 S/C/M/120 
 
- 13 - 
 
  November. He then recalled that the United Stat es had also conveyed its intention to submit a 
communication for the e-commerce Work Programme. The US communication had been circulated the day before, and was contained in document JOB/SERV/196.   
5.2.  The representative of the European Union re iterated that his delegations strongly supported 
the e-commerce Work Programme. If well designed, e-commerce could increase the opportunities 
for cross-border trade and open new markets. The EU, along with several other Members, had also consistently stressed the importance of creating an environment of trust and confidence in e-
commerce, signalling, inter alia , issues like consumer protection, the treatment of spam messages 
and recognition and facilitation of cross border electronic authentication and trust services, the latter being the focus of their intervention that day.  
5.3.  The e-commerce Work Programme should aim at identifying those elements that facilitated 
the ability of service suppliers to provide services over the internet. The EU Regulation on 
electronic authentication and trust services for electronic transactions within the EU (eIDAS Regulation, No. 910/2014) did just that, by creating one set of rules that would be directly 
applicable in all 28 EU Member States and would also facilitate the free movement of services 
within the Union. He hoped that Members would find their presentation useful and that, when 
considering the regulation of e-commerce within their own jurisdictions, they might take 
inspiration from the EU model and the key principles that underpinned it, and in particular the 
inter-operability of the system, mutual recognition and technological neutrality.   
5.4.  Turning specifically to the eIDAS Regulation adopted in July, the representative started off by 
noting that the overall ambition of the Regulati on was to strengthen the EU Single Market by 
boosting trust and convenience in seamless and secure cross-border electronic transactions. In 
drawing up the Regulation, the steps associated wi th a generic e-transaction had been considered. 
For instance, in the case of a tax declaration, users would need to electronically authenticate 
themselves, understand who was behind the webpage, sign a document, deliver it, upload it and 
obtain a receipt for what had been delivered, with the associated timing issues and checks, all in a cross-border context. Not all those steps would necessarily be involved in all e-transactions, but 
they represented the tasks that users might be confronted with. The purpose of the Regulation 
was not just to serve the public sector and transactions in that domain. Consideration had also been given to the needs and opportunities in relati on to making digitization an enabler of growth 
and competiveness at the European level, as in the case of electronic public tendering, in particular 
for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).  
5.5.  The Regulation comprised two main chapte rs. The first was about mutual recognition of 
electronic identification means, which were identified, at the initial level, by Member States as 
appropriate for their citizens and their legal entities  to access on-line public services. It focused on 
making it possible for such credentials, which were rolled out and used at the national level, to be 
also recognised when the online access was happening cross-border. The second chapter 
concerned electronic trust services, where the exis ting legal framework on electronic signatures 
established in 1999 was extended to cover other services necessary to put electronic signatures to full fruition in the digital marketplace.  
5.6.  Why was eIDAS addressing the cross-border  dimension? First, because of the insufficient 
scope of the existing legal framework. Provision of electronic identity remained the responsibility of 
individual EU Member States, and no legal basis existed to harmonize the way in which Member States might or might not rely on electronic identification means to allow their citizens or public 
legal entities to access public services on-line. Nevertheless, it was important to ensure that a 
citizen who was allowed to access certain services using an electronic identification means domestically should be able to access cross-bo rder services requiring the use of credentials 
equivalent to the ones that person possessed. The Regulation had also considered the 
underpinning technical interoperability needed to support mutual recognition. EIDAS was providing benefits to a vast community: not only the 14 million European citizens resident in another Member State but, even more importantly, 21,6 million SMEs, 40% of which had cross-border 
activities at the European level. 
5.7.  The Regulation broke new ground in several areas. First, it provided legal certainly and 
fostered the use of electronic identification means.  This helped ensure that citizens and companies 
in Europe had much easier and more secure access to public sector bodies, as it provided baseline 
requirements allowing mutually-recognized credentials to be accepted cross-border. Second, it S/C/M/120 
 
- 14 - 
 
  addressed all the different stages necessary to en sure that convenience and security were at the 
heart of the trustworthiness of the transaction. Th ird, it provided requirements and obligations on 
Member States in relation to mechanisms and services to boost trust and confidence in e-transactions.  
5.8.  The Regulation took a risk-management perspe ctive. It articulated, in baseline requirements, 
a number of principles, such as transparency; a ccountability; trustworthiness; proportionality 
between the public safety functi on exercised by supervisory bo dies and the nature and legal 
bearing associated with the services at issue;  and assurance that the market would provide 
solutions that met the requirements and needs of users. The Regulation applied to all 28 Member 
States and did not need to be transposed and implemented in national jurisdictions, but was 
applied as such across the EU. Its legal basis was the free movement of products and services. 
5.9.  Turning to the key principles of the Regulati on, with regard to the electronic identification 
part the focus was on the cross-border aspect. To ensure e-credentials were considered trustworthy in a cross-border context, the Regula tion introduced a mechanism of notification of 
electronic identification means. Member States were  obligated to recognise electronic identification 
means that had been notified for all access to services that, at a national level, required the use of an electronic identification means of the same natu re and of the same level of assurance as set out 
in the Regulation.  
5.10.  Concerning trust services, eIDAS contained two main provisions. First, non-discrimination of 
electronic trust services vis-à-vis their paper equivalent. Second, specific legal effects associated to qualified trust services, which were, as such, subject to much stricter security and accountability 
provisions than in the case of non-qualified trust services. Moreover, in terms of private sector 
interests, the Regulation referred to the possibility of listing technical standards, the adoption of which ensured a presumption of compliance with the provisions set in the Regulation. That was an 
important mechanism that would allow, on the one hand, perspective trust service providers to be 
more acquainted with the process to be put in pl ace to fulfil the Regulation's requirements; and, 
more importantly, it would help the supervisory bodies to be established in Member States 
understand to what extent the technical infrastructure and procedural and organizational 
arrangements that trust service providers had pu t in place were based on good practices that 
might provide the presumption of compliance with  the Regulation. Finally, the Regulation was 
technologically neutral, to ensure that the lega l framework would not be rapidly superseded by 
changes in technology. 
5.11.  In order to ensure that the mandatory recognition of notified electronic identification means 
worked across borders, it had been necessary to consider how national liability regimes, which 
were different across the 28 Member States, would apply and could be enforced. Additionally, it 
had been essential to have a common understanding of the due diligence necessary for the provision of electronic credentials, as well as to monitor the way in which such credentials were 
provided. The mandatory recognition of electronic identifications was prescribed only for those 
electronic identification means benchmarked agai nst the criteria of "high" or "substantial" 
assurance levels. It was important to cover also the identity-proofing process, as without a reliable system at the start of the process, nothing coul d be sensibly associated to authentication.   
5.12.  With regard to trust services, the different elements that needed to be considered in terms 
of due diligence included liability provisions, which were of a different nature depending on the legal bearing that the service was carrying with it; supervisory roles, which had been strengthened 
compared to the earlier Directive; prior authorization obligations, which were introduced to ensure 
that when services entered the markets, they were  all meeting the requirements established in the 
Regulation.  
5.13.  In terms of services, the Regulation went  beyond electronic signatures, which were now 
d e f i n e d  a s  as s o c i a t e d  o n l y  w i t h  n a t u r a l  p e r s o n s .  A s  a  f e w  M e m b e r  S t a t e s  h a d ,  o v e r  th e  y e a r s ,  introduced a kind of electronic signature for legal entities, this was captured in the concept of the electronic seal. This was not a signature in itself, but rather a proof of origin and integrity. Another 
important element was time-stamping, to ensure that when a transaction was carried out, its 
timing could not be repudiated in terms of authen ticity. The electronic registered delivery service 
was another important component. If qualified, th is carried the presumption of compliance with 
respect to the requirements of integrity of th e content and identification of the sender and 
recipient.  S/C/M/120 
 
- 15 - 
 
  5.14.  Beyond the legal framework, from a technological standpoint the STORK and STORK 2 
projects had brought together the majority of Memb er States to prototype and pilot the electronic 
infrastructure that made it possible for diverse electronic identification means to be recognised across borders. A fully operational infrastructure would be rolled out over the following couple of 
years.  
5.15.  The legal framework of the Regulation levera ged the availability of standards. An initiative 
had been launched in 2010 with the European Standardization Organization to upgrade the 
standards which had been developed since the adop tion of the electronic signature Directive of 
1999, as well as the framework, so as to take into consideration the needs related in particular to other trust services, for which the availability of standards would indeed be critical, in particular for the private sector and the relying party. 
5.16.  The Regulation had been adopted by the Eu ropean Parliament and the Council in July 2014, 
and had entered into force on 17 September. The date of application for the rules associated to trust services was 1 July 2016 and the mandatory recognition of e-identification means by Member 
States and public administrations in Member States, including at the local level, was 
September 2018. However, as of September 2015 those Member States that were already prepared to recognise their cross-border electronic identification means could, on a voluntary 
basis, start applying the Regulation, given that its basic elements, and in particular the 
interoperability framework, cooperation mechanism, assurance levels and notification template, would be adopted by the Commission by 18 September 2015. 
5.17.  The representative of the United States indicated that his delegation's submission was 
intended to outline issues of growing importance in the e-commerce area. A number of those 
issues had been raised over the course of the prev ious couple of days, notably, in the context of 
the seminar on mobile banking, in terms of the use of mobile services. The first part of his 
delegation's submission drew on some of the US-EU ITC principles, focusing on cross border 
information flows and local infrastructure. But as any discussion on cross border data flows and localisation raised issues related to privacy and data protection, the document also addressed one 
of the principles found in the relevant submission by Australia, as well as some of the input from 
Chinese Taipei. The goal of the submission was to start a discussion, to encourage experience-
sharing and enhance Members' understanding of how the various principles and objectives mentioned could be achieved without undermining each other.  
5.18.  The second part of the submission soug ht to clarify the coverage of cloud computing 
services, drawing in part on the critical development aspect of those services. (Indeed, footnote 11 of the submission quoted a report about clou d computing and the benefits to developing 
countries.) But it additionally noted the importance of cloud computing for SMEs, an issue which 
had been raised also by Switzerland in that cont ext. The submission had tried to build upon some 
of the contributions tabled by Members over the previous few years, as well as the 2013 
workshops, raising issues of growing importance  for e-commerce, with huge trade implications, 
that the WTO should be examining. 
5.19.  Replying to the questions posed in the EU  communication, the representative of Australia 
shared elements of Australia's Electronic Tran sactions Act (ETA). The ETA was based on the 
UNCITRAL model laws on e-commerce and provided a set of internationally accepted rules to 
remove legal obstacles and create a more secure environment for e-transactions. The ETA stipulated that transaction taking place under the laws of the jurisdiction would not be invalid 
simply because they were completed electronically. It established criteria for providing electronic 
transactions with the same legal certainty as paper-based transactions. The main principles implemented by the ETA were: functional equivalence, i.e. avoiding as much as possible having 
dual regimes for electronic and paper-based transactions; and technological neutrality, i.e. not 
discriminating between different types and forms of  technology and not presupposing the use of 
particular types of technology, so that future technological developments could be accommodated 
without legislative reform.  
5.20.  The absence of litigation or problems arising under the ETA was evidence of its 
effectiveness, and industry stakeholders supported the legal certainty that it provided.  S/C/M/120 
 
- 16 - 
 
  5.21.  Australia was supportive of the inclusion of provisions on electronic authentication in its 
regional integration agreements and had typically included them in the e-commerce chapter. In terms of content, the provisions stated that neither Party could adopt or maintain legislation for electronic authentication that would prohibit parties to an electronic transaction from mutually 
determining the appropriate authentication methods for that transaction, or prevent parties from 
having the opportunity to prove in court that their electronic transaction complied with any legal requirements with respect to authentication. Australia had embraced such provisions as part of its 
regional agreements and believed that the issue should be discussed also in the multilateral 
context. As such, it was looking to have further exchanges with Members of that issue. 
5.22.  The representative of Brazil reiterated his delegation's support for the implementation of the 
Work Programme pursuant to the relevant MC9 Decision, on a Member-driven basis. He also 
recalled that there was no negotiating mandate und er the Work Programme. By way of preliminary 
comments on the US proposal, he noted that it read more like a position paper than a note intending to promote discussion on particular e-commerce topics. His delegation had no problem 
discussing the topics related to the ITC principles, but was hesitant to discuss the ITC principles 
themselves, due to their normative, prescriptive  content and their market access and domestic 
regulation implications.  
5.23.  With regard to paragraph 4.3 of the US proposal, he was not sure that his delegation would 
be ready to engage in discussions to arrive at common understanding on those matters, although Brazil would be open-minded about sharing information and having technical discussions on the issues mentioned therein. Paragraph 4.6 seemed to imply a value judgement, and any discussion 
o f  t h a t  i s s u e  r e q u i r e d  t h a t  d i f f e r e n t  p e r s p e c t i v e s  b e  a l s o  c o n s i d e r e d ,  t o  b e  a b l e  t o  a r r i v e  a t  
different conclusions. Given that the US docume nt had just been received and was still being 
reviewed in capital, he reserved his delegation's ri ght to revert to it at a future meeting. At any 
rate, he anticipated a positive response to prop osals for technical, conceptual or experience-
sharing exercises of a non-prescriptive negotiating nature which implied no normative outcomes. 
5.24.  The representative of Colombia expressed his delegation's support for the Work Programme 
and interest in the e-commerce topics raised. Regarding the US paper, it was still being examined 
but, by way of preliminary comment, he indicated that it raised a number of interesting topics to which his delegation hoped to contribute constructively. 
5.25.  As for the EU paper, he wished to brie fly answer some of the questions posed therein. 
Colombia had addressed the issue of electronic signatures since 1999, when Law 527 on the issue 
was enacted. The Law, which incorporated the relevant UNCITRAL model, recognised the importance of electronic signatures, based on certification by specialized agencies. While it did not 
aim to replace official documentation with e-signature, it offered an opportunity to use electronic 
documents and signatures as a way of authenticating transactions that took place domestically. In 2000, the use of the electronic signatures was re gulated by Decree 1747, which set out the basis 
on which certifying entities had to work. The initial framework law was changed in 2012 with 
Amendment 2364, which clarified the application of el ectronic signatures in order to simplify their 
use by public administrations, and included the principle of technological neutrality for all procedures regarding electronic signatures. In term s of any challenges faced when using electronic 
signatures cross-border, the main one concerned th e mutual recognition of the bodies certifying 
electronic signatures, an issue Colombia had b een working on. Finally, in terms of regional 
integration agreements, Colombia had not only included provisions on the regulation of electronic 
signatures in all of its FTAs, but had also focused on ensuring that no barriers were created, so as 
to facilitate the development of such procedures  at the private level and the use of e-commerce 
cross-border. 
5.26.  Starting with the EU submission, the repres entative of Norway noted that digitalization and 
online trade were changing markets rapidly and stated that e-commerce offered great 
opportunities. Consumers and companies could connect with one another across borders more easily than ever before. E-commerce enabled consumers access to a greater selection of products 
and services, at more competitive prices. Enhancing trust in electronic transactions and 
strengthening the conditions for cross border e-commerce was thus important for international e-commerce. This could be obtained via efficient regulatory frameworks capturing areas such as 
consumer protection, personal data protection and electronic authentication and electronic 
signatures. It was important to ensure the necessary quality and security for both governmental and private sector services.  S/C/M/120 
 
- 17 - 
 
  5.27.  The EU had posed some questions in its submission. In reply to the first question, the 
representative said that Norway had put in place a regulatory framework which addressed the use of electronic signatures, in particular the requirem ents to use qualified trust services, in Act No. 81 
on electronic signatures of 15 June 2001. As a member of the EEA, Norway had implemented the 
EC Directive on electronic signatures of 1999, wh ich the new EU Regulation repealed. The process 
of considering the incorporation of the new Regu lation into the EEA agreement had started, and 
Norway also participated in the Commission Expe rt Group which prepared the implementing Act. 
As for the third EU question, she indicated that No rway had not included electronic authentication 
and trust services in its bilateral FTAs.  
5.28.  Turning to the US communication, in a preliminary manner she noted that it appeared to 
provide a very good overview of the Council's discussion on electronic commerce until then, as well 
as outlining in a useful way ideas on further issues for discussion. She agreed that those issues 
warranted further exchanges of views and her delegation would revert with more detailed comments. 
5.29.  The representative of Ecuador underli ned the importance of the e-commerce Work 
Programme. With regard to the first of the three questions raised in the EU submission, he said 
that the relevant legal framework in Ecuador comprised the Law on electronic commerce and 
electronic signatures and data messages, which had primacy, as well as other legislations. As for 
the second EU question, he was unsure about its precise scope and sought further clarifications, for instance as to whether the difficulties mentioned in the question referred to instances of electronic fraud. Regarding the third question , the regional agreement concluded with Chile 
included a clause about certificates of origin aimed at increasing the safety and trust of sending 
and receiving digital certificates of origin. While the EU submission contributed to moving forward 
the e-commerce discussions, it was important to look more in depth at questions related to the 
original Work Programme mandate, such as th ose related to development, with the aim of 
improving internet connectivity, access to ITC technologies and telecommunications in public spaces particularly for developing countries an d LDCs. Regarding the US proposal, by way of 
preliminary comment he echoed the statement by Brazil. 
5.30.  In reply to the questions posed by the EU , the representative of the Republic of Korea 
explained that in 1999 Korea had enacted a law on electronic authentication, the Digital Signature 
Act. Korea had recognised that, in order to stimulate the use of electronic documents and 
transactions, it was critical to establish the basic legal framework for digital signatures, which 
would promote the security, trust and convenience of electronic transactions. The Act stipulated 
the basic requirements of instruments used for electronic identification and signatures. He added 
that the Act had worked well, providing a solid legal infrastructure to facilitate e-transactions. In 
terms of FTAs, Korea had included an e-commerce chapter in eight of its FTAs, five of which contained provisions on e-authentication. He wo uld revert to the US submission, but, in a 
preliminary way, said that his delegation apprecia ted the contribution, and wished to have further 
details about the concrete ways in which the United States was thinking of facilitating the Council's discussion on the issues raised in its submission. 
5.31.  The representative of the Plurinational Stat e of Bolivia called for the Spanish translation of 
the US submission to be made available as soon  as possible. He then echoed the statement by 
Brazil. 
5.32.  The representative of India noted th at while the Work Programme comprised the 
examination of all the trade related issues of e-commerce, it did not include a negotiating 
mandate. Therefore, all submissions had to be considered in that light; she would revert to the two submissions on the table with more specific comments in the future. 
5.33.  The representative of Switzerland said th at the two submissions focused on areas of key 
importance for the development of e-commerce, and usefully complemented other submissions 
made to the Council. As such, they contributed to providing a more complete picture of the possibilities for the Council to develop a sort of consensus platform, with the aim of making 
progress on e-commerce. His delegation was planning to contribute substantially to the issue in 
the near future. S/C/M/120 
 
- 18 - 
 
  5.34.  The representative of Chinese Taipei th anked the EU for its comprehensive presentation. 
She noted that e-authentication played a very important role in e-commerce, to secure the safety 
of electronic transactions and enhance confidence. Chinese Taipei had passed its e-signature law in 2002, and had also included the issue in its bilateral FTAs; her delegation would share more details 
with Members at the following meeting. As for the US proposal, it highlighted in a comprehensive 
manner the issues discussed in the Council and could serve as a good basis for further discussions.  
5.35.  The representative of Hong Kong, China recalled her delegation's strong support for the e-
commerce Work Programme. Briefly responding to  the three questions by the EU, she indicated 
that Hong Kong, China had passed the Electronic Transaction Ordinance to accord electronic record and electronic signature the same legal status as that of their paper-based counterparts. The 
Ordinance also established the voluntary certification of authority recognition systems, for 
organizations to operate as recognised certification authorities to issue digital certificates and 
authenticate digital signatures used in electron ic transactions. With regard to the second EU 
question, she echoed the point made by Ecuador, and, in order to provide further information, 
asked what kind of problems the EU was referring to in that question.  
5.36.  She explained that Hong Kong, China had launched a mutual recognition scheme for 
electronic signature certificates issued by Hong Kong, China and the adjoining Guangdong Province 
of China. Under the scheme, mutually recognised el ectronic signature certificates would be legally 
protected in Hong Kong, China and Guangdong within the scope of their relevant laws and regulations. The arrangement had helped enhance the security and reliability of electronic information and transactions exchanged between Hong Kong, China and Guangdong. 
5.37.   Hong Kong, China had not signed many RTAs, but the RTA concluded with New Zealand 
contained, in its e-commerce chapter, two relevant provisions. The Parties undertook to cooperate in promoting the interoperability of infrastructure s, such as secure electronic authentication and 
payments. They also agreed to work to build consumer and business confidence, to support the 
fullest economic and social be nefits from e-commerce by encouraging the use of electronic 
signatures and certification in order to secure authenticity, integrity and confidentiality. She stood 
ready to share additional details about the Electronic Transactions Ordinance with any interested 
Members. 
5.38.  The representative of Chile said that the two submissions before the Council were very 
interesting. He would revert to the EU submission to provide information about Chile's experience. 
As for the US submission, it usefully brought together many issues which had already been 
addressed in the Council, and provided a helpful balance between trade liberalization and other concerns. As e-commerce implied new rules and realities, it was important to address them to see 
if they fell under the scope of the GATS an d, if so, how the Agreement applied to them. 
5.39.  The representative of New Zealand expressed her delegation's support for discussions under 
the Work Programme. She would revert to the US pa per, but wished to respond, briefly, in the 
interest of time, to the questions raised by the EU. New Zealand did have a relevant regulatory 
framework in place, which included the Electronic Transaction Act of 2002. The Act aimed to facilitate the use of electronic technology, by reducing uncertainty about the legal effect of information in electronic form or in communication by electronic means, as well as the time and 
place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications. It also established that certain paper-
based legal requirements might be met by using el ectronic technology functionally equivalent to 
those legal requirements.  
5.40.  More recently, New Zealand had passed the Electronic Identity Verification Act of 2013, 
which established a "real me" identity verification service. This allowed customers to securely pass verified information to authorized organizations, including a number of public agencies, such as 
customs or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but also private entities, such as 
banks. It also enabled verification of resident ial addresses and provided secure authentication 
services. Of particular note, the legislation ensured that a "real me" credential could be used to make any legal requirement for signature. New Zealand was currently in early discussions with 
some other countries regarding mutual recognition, to enable the trusted online identities to be 
mutually accepted. In relation to the second question posed by the EU, she did not have any specific example of problems to offer, which hopefully meant that everything was going well. New 
Zealand did have an electronic commerce chapter in a number of its FTAs, which often included S/C/M/120 
 
- 19 - 
 
  specific disciplines on electronic authentication and digital certificates. She would happily provide 
more information to any interested Members. 
5.41.  The representative of Japan expressed his delegation's appreciation for both submissions, 
which were useful contributions to the e-commerce Work Programme and to which his delegation 
would revert. 
5.42.  The representative of China indicated his de legation's interest in continuing discussion on 
the EU presentation and submission, which was still being reviewed in capital. With regard to the 
US submission, he could only offer preliminary comments, but was open to discussing the issues 
mentioned in the proposal. He noted that pa ragraph 4.1 of the submission mentioned two 
principles for ITC services, namely cross-border information flows and local infrastructure, and China was of the view that they actually concerne d market access issues, not only in ICT services, 
but in other services sectors as well, such as financial services, audio-visual services and education 
services.  
5.43.  When it came to mode 1 trade, the cross-border information flows principle had to be 
considered not only with regard to ITC services but also for other service sectors delivered through 
this mode. With the development of information technologies, some services could now be delivered electronically, which represented a new issue to consider.  
5.44.  As for local infrastructure requirements, this appeared to be a mode 3 issue. Looking at 
some Members' WTO and FTA schedules, local presence was a limitation on mode 1, or sometimes on mode 3; this implied that it was a market access issue. Legitimate public policy concerns could lie behind such restrictions, such as the protection of the public interest, consumer interests, 
national security, as well as data. Such public policy objectives had to be considered when 
discussing trade liberalization. In this sense, it was important to be cautious that the two principles mentioned in the US submission did not impede Members' right to regulate in some new service 
sectors. He added that such issues needed to  be discussed in the services market access 
negotiations, and not in the e-commerce Work Programme. He also noted that the US communication touched upon the complicated issue of the classification of cloud computing, which 
was an emerging new service in China. He would welcome hearing other Members' views in that 
regard. 
5.45.  In reply to the questions posed by the EU submission, the representative of Pakistan 
indicated that relevant legislation had been in force in Pakistan since 2002, with the Electronic 
Transaction Ordinance, along with a detailed surve illance system and the Prevention of Electronic 
Crimes Ordinance of 2007, which dealt with issues such as theft and electronic forgery, electronic 
fraud, system damages. He would be providing mo re information on the other questions raised by 
the EU at a later meeting. He would also revert to the US submission, which had just been 
received. 
5.46.  The representative of UNCTAD indicated th at UNCTAD had been mapping legislation across 
the world in the area of e-transactions, data privacy, cybercrime and consumer protection, areas 
which were essential for e-commerce. She invited those Members for whom no information had been collected to provide it to the UNCTAD Secretariat. Information collected would be made available in March 2015, when an Expert Group m eeting on those issues would also be convened. 
UNCTAD was pleased to continue contributing to the discussions in the Council. 
5.47.  The representative of the European Unio n expressed appreciation for the many comments 
and information provided by Members. He was pleased to see that many Members had also 
adopted, in their domestic legislative framework, principles that the EU considered core principles, 
such as technological neutrality and giving the same legal effect to e-signatures as their paper equivalents. In reply to the question raised by Ecuador and Hong Kong, China, he explained that 
the EU's second question referred in particular to issues at the cross-border level, such as 
differences in standards or burdensome testing requirements, which the EU in its new framework had focused on via the principles of interoperabili ty and mutual recognition. He indicated that his 
delegation remained available for further discussions with Members and would be circulating its 
presentation to Members.
2 Finally, with regard to the US submission, in a preliminary manner the 
representative noted that it raised many interest ing topics and had the value of gathering them in 
                                               
2 Subsequently issued as document JOB/SERV/197. S/C/M/120 
 
- 20 - 
 
  one submission. He looked forward to discussing it at future meetings of the Council, and called on 
all Members to make submissions under the Work Programme, for the debate to be as inclusive as possible. 
5.48.  The representative of the United States said that he would revert to the EU proposal. In 
reply to Korea's question about the proposed process for the US submission, this had been 
purposely left vague as his delegation wished to discuss with other Members on the best way forward, but the EU example of experience-sharing would be a first step. He also wished to react 
to the point raised by Brazil about not addressing market access and domestic regulatory 
questions under the Work Programme. He was in complete disagreement, as the WTO's Work Programme was precisely where e-commerce issues that had a market access and domestic regulatory component should be discussed. In that sense, the US submission was perfectly 
appropriate and fell within the framework of th e Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme. 
5.49.  The Chairman thanked the EU and the United  States for their respective submissions, which 
had helpfully reactivated discussions under the Work Programme and which touched upon real-life 
issues, issues where the WTO could not fall behind. The papers were not negotiating proposals, 
but just discussion pieces. The e-commerce Work Programme did not have a specific direction; it was a standing item on the CTS agenda and Members would continue their deliberations in 
upcoming meetings. In this regard, he noted that several Members had indicated that they would 
revert, in particular, to the US submission, which had just been received. He added that the Secretariat would circulate the EU presentation.
3 
5.50.  He then recalled that the Bali Ministeria l Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce (document WT/L/907) instructed the General Council to periodically review progress 
with the Work Programme, based on the reports submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the 
implementation of the Work Programme. The next such review was scheduled for December 2014.   
5.51.  Therefore, as had been done in July, and in  line with usual practice, he would be producing, 
under his own responsibility, a Chairman's Report  to the General Council of the discussions the 
Council had had under the Work Programme since July, in time for the General Council meeting in 
December. The report would be purely factual, reflecting the essence of Members' deliberations 
that day and in September. He then suggested that  the Council take note of the statements made 
and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
5.52.  It was so agreed. 
6  ITEM F – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES 6.1.  The Chairman explained that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of a group of delegations, who wished to  update the Membership on progress with their 
discussions on a framework for negotiations on  a Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).   
6.2.  The representative of the European Unio n wished to debrief Members about the latest 
development with the TISA negotiations, which gathered 23 participants accounting for 51 WTO 
Members. The last negotiating round had taken place from 21 to 25 September and had been 
hosted by the EU. During that round, the focus of the discussion had been on sectoral and horizontal disciplines relating to, inter alia , mode 4, financial services, domestic regulation and 
telecommunications. Further discussions had also been held on transparency, maritime and road 
transport services, environmental services, heal th services, government procurement, delivery 
services, distribution and professional services. The intention of the participants was to try to define rules to would complement market access and national treatment. Further to those 
discussions, TISA participants had launched a bilateral process to discuss their respective offers, 
and that process was taking place in-between the negotiating rounds. The next round of discussions would take place the following week, starting on Monday. TISA participants remained 
committed to ensuring a great level of transparency vis-à-vis WTO Members and were available for 
any questions Members might have in that respect. 
                                               
3 Document JOB/SERV/197. S/C/M/120 
 
- 21 - 
 
  6.3.  The Chairman proposed that, in view of th e lateness of the hour, and given that the positions 
of the TISA and non-TISA groups were well-known, the statements made under that agenda item 
at the June and September meetings of the Coun cil by those delegations who so signalled be 
reflected in the minutes of the meeting. 
6.4.  It was so agreed. 
6.5.  The following delegations asked that their respective statements at the June and September 
meetings of the Council be reflected in the reco rd of the meeting: the Plurinational State of 
Bolivia4; Ecuador5, Egypt6, Australia7, Cuba8, Argentina9, Brazil10, India11, the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela12, Uganda13 and South Africa. 
6.6.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
6.7.  It was so agreed. 
7  ITEM G – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATE D TO THE REFORM OF THE UNIFIED GAS 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF UKRAINE - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
7.1.  The Chairman indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of the Russian Federation.   
7.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation wished to inform the Membership that, in 
September 2014, Ukraine had adopted Law no.1645-VII, on Amendments to some Legislative Acts 
of Ukraine on Reforming the Management System of the Unified Gas Transportation System of 
Ukraine. According to that Law, the functions of the operator of the Ukrainian unified gas transportation system and gas storage facility we re assigned to an enterprise that could be 
founded or owned exclusively by the State, the Ukrainian energy company Naftogaz of Ukraine or 
a joint-venture of the State and the legal entity owned and controlled exclusively by residents of 
the European Union, the United States or the Energy Community Members. 
7.3.  The Russian Federation had serious concerns as regarded both the substance of this Law and 
the practical implementation thereof. The provisio ns of the Law were in clear violation of the 
fundamental principles of the GATS, as well as of specific commitments undertaken by Ukraine under the GATS. The Law provided for preferential treatment for the EU, the United States and the 
                                               
4 Contained in paragraph 6.12 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014", 
dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.6 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
5 Contained in paragraphs 6.6 and 6.19 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 
20 June 2014", dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.11 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
6 Contained in paragraph 6.8 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014", 
dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.14 of docume nt S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 
17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
7 Contained in paragraph 6.17 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014", 
dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.16 of docume nt S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 
17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
8 Contained in paragraphs 6.5 and 6.20 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 
20 June 2014", dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.10 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
9 Contained in paragraph 6.14 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014", 
dated 15 August 2014. 
10 Contained in paragraph 6.3 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014", 
dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.12 of docume nt S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 
17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
11 Contained in paragraph 6.11 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014", 
dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.8 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
12 Contained in paragraphs 6.7 and 6.21 of docume nt S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 
20 June 2014", dated 15 August 2014, and paragraphs 4.9 and 4.17 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. 
13 Contained in paragraph 6.10 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014", 
dated 15 August 2014, and paragraph 4.15 of docume nt S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 
17 September 2014", dated 10 October 2014. S/C/M/120 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Energy Community Members. The right to perf orm dispatch and operation functions of the 
Ukrainian Unified gas transportation system (GTS), as well as of gas storage facilities, was not extended to any other WTO Member. Thus, Ukraine was not in conformity with GATS Article II, which required each WTO Member to accord immediately and unconditionally to services and 
service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than that it accorded to like 
services and service suppliers of any other country. The prohibition for the companies from any WTO Member except for those from the EU, the United States and the Energy Community 
Members to perform the said functions clearly put other WTO Members in a less favourable 
position. 
7.4.  In addition, she wished to draw attention to the specific commitments undertaken by Ukraine 
in the sector of pipeline transport services and storage and warehousing services, a sub-sector of 
services auxiliary to all modes of transport. The specific commitments of Ukraine in those sectors 
did not provide for the right to adopt or apply th e measures provided for by the Law, as such 
measures both restricted or required specific types of legal entity or joint-ventures through which 
a service supplier was allowed to supply a service, as specified in GATS Article XVI:2(e), and 
constituted a limitation on the participation of foreign capital in terms of maximum percentage limit on foreign shareholding or the total value of individual or aggregate foreign investment, as 
set out in GATS Article XVI:2(f). Along with that, Ukraine failed to provide to foreign service 
suppliers and their services treatment no less favourable than that it provided to its national service suppliers and their services. Consequent ly, Ukraine was not in conformity with its 
obligations under GATS Article XVII. The specific commitments undertaken by Ukraine in the 
pipeline transportation sector did not provide for th e right to adopt or apply the measures provided 
for by the Law and, in particular, for the right not to extend the treatment granted to national service suppliers of Ukraine to service suppliers of all WTO Members. 
7.5.  Her delegation did not touch upon the issu e of the use of the Ukrainian GTS system for the 
purpose of the transportation of goods. They were referring to the right to participate in dispatch 
and operation services of the Ukrainian GTS system and gas storage facility. The Russian 
Federation saw no justification for such blatant and prominent violation of the fundamental 
principles of the WTO. Moreover, she noted that it was highly doubtful that the measures set out in the Law in question might contribute to security, stability or reliability of the energy market of Ukraine. Her delegation urged Ukraine to promptly bring its Law into full conformity with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreement. 
7.6.  The representative of Ukraine had taken note of the interest expressed by the Russian 
Federation concerning reform of the Unified Gas Transportation System (GTS) of Ukraine. The GTS 
was reformed in accordance with the international obligations of Ukraine under the Treaty 
Establishing the Energy Community of 2005, and in particular Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July  2009 concerning common rules for the internal 
market in natural gas, and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for acce ss to the natural gas transmission networks. 
7.7.  The reform was aimed at enhancing and stre ngthening the long-term stability and security of 
energy trade, transit, storage, transport, transmis sion, distribution and mark eting, and the sale of 
gas, in accordance with international rules, in particular the Energy Charter Treaty and the WTO 
Agreement. In compliance with its WTO commitmen ts, Ukraine had provided full transparency in 
the formulation, adoption and application of measures affecting access to and trade in pipeline 
transportation services. The reform was conducted in accordance with the Law of Ukraine of 
14 August 2014, No. 1645-VII, adopted after extensive public hearings and duly published in official newspapers as required by GATS Article III. 
7.8.  Ukraine had undertaken to ensure adherence to the principle of non-discriminatory treatment 
in access to and use of pipeline networks under its jurisdiction, and he underscored its jurisdiction, within the technical capacities of those networks, with regard to the origin, destination or ownership of the product transported. Indeed, nothing in the Law provided for discrimination of 
Members' service suppliers in access to and use of gas pipeline networks with regard to the origin, 
destination or ownership of the product transported. 
7.9.  Ukraine had acceded to the WTO as a country with integrity of its borders recognized and 
respected. Today part of it, i.e. Crimea, had been occupied and annexed by the Russian 
Federation. The Eastern part of Ukraine had been invaded, human lives were being lost every day, S/C/M/120 
 
- 23 - 
 
  increasingly challenging the terms of its trade. Uk raine drew Members' attention to the fact that 
the GTS was reformed in circumstances where a genuine and very serious threat was posed to the fundamental interests of society. Ukraine believed  that those circumstances should be seriously 
taken into consideration when discussing the matter of the reform of the Unified Gas 
Transportation System. 
7.10.  The representative of the Plurinational Stat e of Bolivia said the issue raised by the Russian 
Federation seemed to have systemic implications and therefore required further analysis from the 
Membership. In that regard, he wondered if Ukraine had notified the measure at issue. 
7.11.  The representative of Nicaragua said that , from a systemic point of view, his delegation 
shared the concern expressed by the Russian Fe deration, as the measures adopted by Ukraine 
could be inconsistent with the MFN obligation and Ukraine's GATS commitments. 
7.12.  The representative of Argentina expressed his delegation's systemic concern in case Ukraine 
had enacted a law that established limits on the participation of foreign capital in its gas 
transportation system, and also in case the la w did not extend to foreign providers the same 
treatment granted to national providers. In that  sense, his delegation would welcome any further 
clarification from Ukraine, especially in relation to notification issues in the WTO. 
7.13.  The representative of Cuba had duly note d the statement by the Russian Federation with 
regard to the measures adopted by Ukraine. He wi shed to use that opportunity to exhort Members 
to refrain from applying any economic barriers, including unilateral measures that could affect trade and development of other Members.  
7.14.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
7.15.  It was so agreed. 
8  ITEM H – OTHER BUSINESS 8.1.  No items were raised under Other Business.  
8.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________