RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/124  
 
22 January 2016  
(16-0453) Page: 1/14   
Council for Trade in Services    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 OCTOBER 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 15 October 2015, chaired by Ambassador 
Eyjólfsson (Iceland). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/4. 
The representative of India indicated that, under Other Business, she wished to place on record 
her delegation's concerns with regard to increasi ng barriers to the temporary movement of skilled 
professionals to the United Kingdom. 
The agenda was adopted as modified. 
1  ITEM A – ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN SERVICES 
1.1.  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 
delegations' attention to the reports which had just been adopted by the bodies in question, 
namely: the Annual Report of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services (S/FIN/30); the 
Annual Report of the Committee on Specific Commitments (S/CSC/21); the Annual Report of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (S/WPDR/ 18); and the Annual Report of the Working Party 
on GATS Rules (S/WPGR/26). 
1.2.  He proposed that the Council take note of  the four reports on the understanding that they 
would be annexed to the Annual Report of the Council and form an integral part of it. 
1.3.  It was so agreed. 
2  ITEM B - ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES TO THE 
GENERAL COUNCIL 
2.1.  The Chairman indicated that, in accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council for 
Trade in Services was to report each year to the General Council on the activities in the Council as 
well as in the subsidiary bodies. Accordingly, he drew Members' attention to the draft Annual Report of the Council for Trade in Services on its activities in 2015, contained in document 
S/C/W/364. The report was factual and self-explanatory, covering the period since the 2014 
Report up until the meeting held in June 2015. 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. 
2.2.  He proposed that the Council adopt the draft 2015 Annual Report to the General Council 
contained in document S/C/W/364. 
2.3.  It was so agreed. 
                                               
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/124 
 
- 2 - 
 
  3  ITEM C - NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO AR TICLES III:3, V:7 AND VII:4 OF THE GATS 
3.1.  With regard to the notifications made pu rsuant to GATS Article III:3 (Transparency), the 
Chairman drew the Council's attention to the communications received from the Russian 
Federation (in documents S/C/N/814 to 816), Peru (S/C/N/826 to 830), Switzerland (S/C/N/831) 
and Ukraine (S/C/N/832). He also recalled that, at the June meeting, India had reserved its right 
to revert to the notifications by Switzerland (in document S/C/N/793) and the European Union (S/C/N/794 to 802) addressed at that meeting.  
3.2.  The representative of India said that, as she had previously indicate d, the notification by 
Switzerland referred to the French, German and Italian version of the relevant regulation, but it 
would be very helpful if an English translatio n could be provided. The measure at issue was a 
reduction of the ceiling on highly qualified work ers by 1000 units, and hence it was of interest to 
her delegation. As for the notification by the EU, some of the measures in question were 
facilitative, but a number were not available in English. She therefore asked the EU delegation to provide English translations of those measures; she could indicate bilaterally which ones were not 
available in English.  
3.3.  In response to India's concerns, the represen tative of the European Union said that he would 
indicate where English translations could be obtained, as all EU measures were available in 
English. He then referred to the notification by the Russian Federation of Federal Law 267 on 
insurance services. He flagged that the EU would welcome a bilateral dialogue on the relevant measure, which established a limit on foreign equity participation in the insurance sector, as the issue raised some concerns for the EU. 
3.4.  The Chairman said that the Council would ta ke note of the notifications and the statements 
made.  
3.5.  It was so agreed.  
3.6.  Moving to the notifications made pursuant to Article V:7 (Economic Integration), the 
Chairman drew delegations' attention to the communications received from: Bahrain, Kuwait, 
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates (S/C/N/807/Rev.1); 
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, 
Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam (S/C/N/822 ); and the Kyrgyz Republic (S/C/N/823). 
3.7.  He proposed that the Council take note of  the notifications made, and that the agreements 
notified be referred to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for consideration.   
3.8.  It was so agreed. 
3.9.  Finally, with regard to the notifications ma de pursuant to Article VII:4 (Recognition), the 
Chairman pointed to the communications received from the Russian Federation (S/C/N/817 to 
818). He proposed that the Council take note of the notifications. 
3.10.  It was so agreed.  
4  ITEM D – OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER 
4.1.  The Chairman recalled that, by the June m eeting, the Council had received two notifications 
with respect to the LDC waiver Decision, from Canada, in document S/C/N/792, and from 
Australia, in document S/C/N/805.   
4.2.  Thereafter, the LDC Group had circulated  a communication, in document JOB/SERV/213, 
sharing further observations on the notification of preferential treatment in response to its 
collective request. The Chairman indicated that , as requested in the LDC communication, the 
Secretariat had created a dedicated webpage, under the services trade negotiations webpage 
dedicated to LDCs, where all notifications pursuant to the waiver could be accessed. 
4.3.  Since June, the Council had received a further 13 notifications, by Norway; Korea; China; 
Hong Kong, China; Chinese Taipei; Singapore; Ne w Zealand; Switzerland; Japan; Mexico; Turkey; S/C/M/124 
 
- 3 - 
 
  the United States and India. In addition, th e European Union and Chile had each issued 
communications of their intention to notify prefer ences. Chile had since submitted its notification, 
in document S/C/N/834. Iceland had also recently circulated its notification, in document S/C/N/835. These last two notifications did not appe ar on the airgram as they had been received 
after its issuance. In total, the count of notifications received with respect to the waiver stood at 
17. 
4.4.  On 21 September, the LDC Group circulated a submission (S/C/W/363) requesting that the 
Council hold a Dedicated Session on the LDC servic es waiver and the results from the High-Level 
Meeting. Just two days earlier, the Council had met informally to discuss the agenda proposed for 
the Dedicated Session. As Members had expressed no difficulties with the agenda as suggested by 
the LDC Group in its communication, it was concurred at the informal meeting that Members would 
proceed on that basis. The Dedicated Session woul d be held soon and consultations on the exact 
date were on-going.  
4.5.  For that day's meeting, the Chairman wish ed to offer an opportunity to Members who had 
submitted notifications since June to introduce them. For their part, the LDCs had indicated at that 
meeting that they would be sharing their review of the state of play with regard to notifications at 
the Dedicated Session.  
4.6.  The representative of Norway said that he r delegation supported preferential rules for LDCs. 
Norway had done its part to enhance market acce ss for service providers from LDCs and welcomed 
the fact that developing countries in a position to do so were doing the same. Still, the list of notifications was short, and she urged other Members to come forward. 
4.7.  In its notification, Norway had chosen to  present a whole schedule of market access and 
national treatment commitments. Some commitments mirrored what was already in the Norwegian GATS schedule, others went further and were by na ture “GATS plus”. LDCs ne eded to use only this 
one schedule for Norway, for ease of reference. 
4.8.  The schedule was based on Norway’s best FT A. In terms of the areas where Norway had had 
specific requests from LDCs, the schedule incl uded market access and national treatment for 
domestic maritime towing and pushing services, including anchor handling, servicing offshore 
petroleum exploration and production (parts of CPC 7214); maritime auxiliary services, including cargo handling, storage and warehousing; air transport services, including ground handling; as well as cargo handling (CPC 741), storage and warehouse services (CPC 742), which were services 
auxiliary to all modes of transport.  
4.9.  The LDC collective request had placed great emphasis on measures and restrictions related to 
mode 4, some of which were within the scope of  the GATS, while others were not. Norway was 
well aware of the LDC interest in this area, but there were also great domestic sensitivities. 
Nevertheless, Norway had been able to move forward on its horizontal commitments for the movement of personnel and had complemented its GATS commitments with three new groups, 
namely: contractual services suppliers employed  by a foreign-based company, with temporary 
entry and stay of up to 3 months for installers and 6 months for others; independent professionals, i.e. highly skilled  natural persons providing services based on a contract and not 
employed by a juridical person, with up to 6 months temporary entry and stay; and trainees 
related to intra-corporate transferees and holding a university degree, for up to 6 months entry 
and stay. For all categories, a residence permit was needed, and all other requirements regarding 
wages, social security benefits, etc. had to be met as well. 
4.10.  Norway recognized that, in many instance s, to take advantage of this market access, 
traders had to abide by the importing country requirements on domestic regulations for services. However, exemptions from qualification and quality-ensuring requirements for LDC exports were 
not an option. When those requirements were me t, LDCs would have a real advantage, but not 
before. This necessitated investment by government s, the private sector and donors, as well as 
developing countries in a position to give assistance. 
4.11.  The representative of New Zealand was pleased to submit her delegation's notification 
pursuant to the MC8 Decision establishing the me chanism for Preferential Treatment to Services 
and Service Suppliers of Least-Developed Countries and the subsequent Decision on the S/C/M/124 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Operationalization of the waiver at MC9. New Ze aland had submitted its notification on 28 July 
2015, in accordance with the indicative timeframe agreed by Members. 
4.12.  New Zealand’s notification had been developed following a number of conversations with 
LDCs and sought to directly respond to their co llective request and the priorities conveyed to 
New Zealand bilaterally. The notification complemented New Zealand’s existing GATS 
commitments, which already ensured very good acce ss for LDC services suppliers as well as those 
from other Members. Indeed, New Zealand ha d undertaken commitments under the GATS in 
around 90 sectors, and was completely open for modes 1 to 3 for both market access and national 
treatment for a third of those. This included a number of sectors identified by LDCs in their 
request, such as accounting services, a range of computer and related services and so on.  
4.13.  New Zealand’s notification included GA TS-plus treatment in a number of sectors and 
subsectors corresponding to LDC areas of interest, as follows: 
 In Professional Services, new GATS-plus elements in modes 1 to 3 on consultancy 
related to urban planning and landscape architecture, and improvements on veterinary 
services; 
 In Other Business Services, new GATS-plus elements in modes 1 to 3 on market 
research and opinion polling services, placemen t and supply services of personnel, interior 
design services, telephone answering services, and mailing list compilation and mailing 
services; 
 In Construction Services, new GATS-plus elements in modes 1 to 3 on renting services 
related to equipment for construction or demolit ion of building or civil engineering, with 
operator; 
 In Transport Services, new GATS-plus elements on aircraft repair and maintenance 
services, and cargo and baggage handling services. 
4.14.  As set out in the notification, all notifi ed preferences were subject to the horizontal 
limitations in New Zealand’s schedule, and would remain in effect until the end of the waiver period, subject to any subsequent  notification by  New Zealand. 
4.15.  New Zealand was pleased to participate in action pursuant to the waiver, which it saw as a 
positive effort towards facilitating the increased participation of LDCs in trade in services to promote their economic growth and development. 
4.16.  The representative of Iceland said that his delegation's notification had come later than 
initially expected, in spite of every attempt having been made to keep to the July indicative 
deadline. This was because Iceland had approached the issue with two goals: first, to submit a 
notification that was clear and transparent, and easy  to read. In that respect, similarly to Norway, 
Iceland had listed its entire schedule in the notification, second, to be ambitious and try to go 
beyond what Iceland had done in any other context. That approach had implied a long and complicated consultation process, both within the Ministry and with other relevant Ministries. Still, 
the final results should speak for themselves.  
4.17.  Turning specifically to the notification, th e starting point had been to go beyond Iceland's 
GATS commitments or even its DDA revised offer. As a basis for LDC preferences, the most recent 
and ambitious FTA schedule, with Central America,  had been used. In addition, Iceland had also 
included new preferential treatment for sectors and modes of supply it had never granted before. 
In this regard, most prominent was mode 4, one of  the key areas of interest for LDCs. For Iceland, 
as well as for other Members, this was a sensitive topic, and it continued to be so.  
4.18.  Iceland had never made commitments in any of its FTAs that went beyond its GATS mode 4 
commitments on intra-corporate transferees. However, in its LDC waiver notification, Iceland had offered market access commitments for two new categories: business visitors and contractual 
service suppliers. Both categories were listed as horizontal commitments applicable to all 
scheduled sectors and sub-sectors. The notification  also provided information and conditions on S/C/M/124 
 
- 5 - 
 
  market entry, including information on maximum length of stay. In addition, no labour market 
testing applied to any of the three categories that Iceland had committed to. 
4.19.  The notification also included some particular sectors that had been mentioned either in the 
LDC collective request or in bilateral consultations Iceland had had with the LDC Group. 
Specifically, the notification included full coverage of computer and related services, telephone 
answering services and specialty design services. Under recreational services, Iceland had included 
hairdressing and beauty services, and under transp ort services it had listed full commitments for 
modes 1 to 3 on cargo handling services.  
4.20.  The representative of Hong Kong, Chin a said that her delegation had submitted its 
notification under the LDC services waiver on 27 July 2015. The notification testified to Hong Kong, 
China's support for the Ministerial Decisions agr eed at MC8 and MC9. She thanked the LDC Group 
for the collective request it had circulated in July 2014. She had also particularly valued the 
constructive bilateral dialogues, which had help ed promote a mutual understanding about where 
Hong Kong, China would have the capacity to do its share in promoting the integration of the LDCs 
into the global trading system. 
4.21.  The preferences set out in Hong Kong, China's notification went over and beyond what her 
delegation had indicated at the High-Level Meetin g held on 5 February 2015. The package in the 
notification provided an extended coverage in te rms of both sectors and modes. There were nine 
more services sectors and, in addition to modes 1 and 3 indicated at the High-Level Meeting, mode 4 was also covered. The notification contained not only Hong Kong, China's DDA revised offer, but also Doha-plus elements. The preferences had been effective since 1 August 2015, and it was the 
intention of Hong Kong, China to maintain them for the period of the waiver. 
4.22.  Hong Kong, China hoped that the market access it offered to LDCs through the services 
waiver would play a constructive role in attaining the goal of better integrating them into the 
multilateral trading system.  
4.23.  The representative of Chile indicated that his delegation had submitted its notification under 
the waiver on 8 October 2015. The notification refl ected, to a large extent, the level of market 
access that Chile granted in its FTAs and had also taken into account those areas which were of 
special export interest to LDCs as indicated in their collective request. Chile intended to maintain those preferences for the duration of the waiver. 
4.24.  In terms of the highlights of its notifica tion, the representative indicated that Chile had 
included new mode 4 categories. In addition to the categories in its GATS offer, Chile had listed 
business visitors, persons responsible for establishing a commercial presence in Chile and contractual service suppliers. It had also taken on board commitments beyond its GATS offer in a 
number of sectors, such as professional services, computer and related services, research and 
development services, real estate services, and other business services, as well as distribution services. He recalled that Chile's notification needed to be seen as complimentary to its GATS 
commitments. 
4.25.  The representative of Switzerland said that, like other Members, his delegation had taken 
careful note of the LDC collective request and wa s very pleased with the whole process and all the 
work it had prompted in the WTO. Switzerland had submitted its notification and presented it as a 
full list of commitments, so that LDCs could see every single commitment Switzerland either 
currently implemented or would be granting to LDCs. The Swiss notification did not just cover 
market access, but also national treatment, as well as an additional commitment to market access 
and national treatment. 
4.26.  As a basis for its notification, Switzerland ha d used its most recent bilateral FTA. This meant 
that, for a good many sectors and sub-sectors, there were full or enhanced commitments added to 
what was already in force in its GATS schedule. As for mode 4, as his delegation had already 
indicated prior to submitting the notification, given current sensitivities, Switzerland would be implementing its WTO commitments, which covered, inter alia, contractual service suppliers and business visitors.  
4.27.  The preferences would be in pl ace for the duration of the waiver. S/C/M/124 
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.28.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said that her delegation had notified its preferential 
treatment to LDCs with effect from 1 August 2015. Chinese Taipei's services market had been 
liberalised to a relatively high degree since its WTO accession in 2002, with more than 110 service sectors and sub-sectors open, covering modes 1 to 4.  
4.29.  In the area of mode 4, Chinese Taipei had made comprehensive commitments for the 
categories of business visitors, intra-corporate transferees and contractual service suppliers, with full national treatment. Chinese Taipei was also al ready open in some of the sectors identified in 
the LDC collective request. 
4.30.  In an effort to respond favourably to the LDC request, Chinese Taipei had offered LDCs 
further preferential treatment for market access in mode 3 in eight sectors and sub sectors, and in 
mode 4 for contractual services suppliers in 13 sectors and sub-sectors, including the newly-added 
mailing list compilation services and mailing services, which was more than had been indicated at 
the High-Level Meeting held in February. It was Chinese Taipei's hope that its efforts would help LDCs better integrate into the multilateral trading system.  
4.31.  The representative of China recalled that hi s delegation's notification had been submitted on 
22 July 2015. According to the notification, China wo uld provide preferential treatment to LDCs in 
three areas, namely capacity-building and comprehensive technical assistance, Authorised 
Destination Status and market access. The relevant details could be found in China's notification. 
China believed that an early and efficient implementation of the LDC waiver would help LDCs integrate more deeply into the global trading system. To this end, and as a next step, China would focus on the concrete implementation of its pref erential treatment to LDCs, to enable them to 
benefit from China's commitments as soon as possible.  
4.32.  The representative of Turkey said that her delegation's preferential treatment had taken 
effect on 25 August 2015 and was intended to be maintained for the period of the waiver. Turkey 
saw mode 4 as the most important mode of supply, as it also affected trade via the other modes. 
Services trade under any mode required, in most cases, either proximity between the consumer and the supplier or the establishment of a contac t beforehand. This aspect made the temporary 
mobility of tradespeople an indispensable element for services trade.  
4.33.  Expeditious application procedures were a ve ry important aspect of meaningful mobility of 
tradespeople. Turkey had considered the online subm ission and processing of visa applications to 
be something it could grant for the benefit of LDCs. At this juncture, 31 out of 34 WTO Member 
LDCs benefitted from Turkey's e-visa system. An e-visa could be obtained easily, anywhere with 
an internet connection. It saved time that would otherwise be spent on the visa application and reduced the burden in terms of required document ation, as well as expense. Turkey had also 
listed, as horizontal treatment, the categories for which there was no need to apply for a work 
permit and had bound its current regulatory regime. 
4.34.  For the market access section of its notification, Turkey had taken into account its only FTA 
with a services chapter, which had not yet entered into force, as well as its revised DDA offer, 
while granting market access beyond its GATS  commitments. For instance, Turkey's mode 4 
commitments under tourism and travel-related services went beyond both its revised Doha offer and its only FTA. Under the technical assistance section, Turkey had provided information on its 
scholarship programmes, which were either solely for LDC nationals or which LDC nationals could 
also benefit from. 
4.35.  LDCs represented the poorest and weak est segment of the international community. 
Extreme poverty, structural weakness of their econ omies and lack of capacity related to growth, 
often compounded by structural handicaps, hampered these countries' efforts to improve the quality of life of their people. As an emerging development partner for LDCs, Turkey hoped that its 
notification would contribute to LDCs' finding solutions to their pressing problems through 
increasing their engagement into the multilatera l trading system. Turkey firmly believed that 
helping LDCs was a collective and shared responsi bility, because global peace and security were 
directly linked with global sustainable developm ent. Therefore, Turkey urged other WTO Members, 
that had not yet done so far, to submit their notifications as soon as possible. S/C/M/124 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.36.  The representative of India was pleased to convey that her delegation had notified 
preferential treatment to services and service supp liers of LDCs in accordance with the decisions 
taken by the Ministers at MC8 and MC9. Throug h its notification, India had made available 
substantial and commercially meaningful preferences in response to the LDC collective request. 
Similar to an effective "duty-free quota-free" scheme for goods, in services India had also notified 
substantive preferential treatment and access for LDCs. 
4.37.  India's services notification was comprehensive. It covered preferences under mode 4, 
where new categories, namely contractual service suppliers and independent professionals, had 
been included in about 8 sectors and sub-sectors. In accordance with the LDC collective request, India had also granted preferences in the new mo de 4 category of installers of services. In 
addition, it had granted preferences in about 15 new sectors and sub-sectors, and significantly 
improved upon its existing GATS commitments. 
4.38.  Under technical assistance and capacity bu ilding, in addition to several ongoing schemes, 
India had designed new schemes and programmes for LDC service suppliers in several sectors, so 
as to enable them to effectively utilise the preferences granted. Being a mode 4 demandeur itself, 
India fully realized the importance of entry regulation, which was critical for converting scheduled market access into real market access. For that reason, India had decided to waive visa fees for 
natural persons of LDCs applying for Indian business and employment visas. Given India's 
economic reality and capacity, her delegation had made its upmost effort to deliver on the LDC cause, both in goods and now in services as well. India hoped that its preferences would be fully utilised by LDCs to further integrate into the global economy.  
4.39.  Noting that there was an opportunity to go into greater details at the upcoming Dedicated 
Session of the CTS, the representative of the Repu blic of Korea wished to be brief. He indicated 
that his delegation had submitted its notification  of preferential treatment for LDCs on 13 July 
2015. Korea's preferential treatment had been prepar ed on the basis of the LDC collective request, 
as further clarified through bilateral consultation s with the LDC Group. The preferential treatment 
had already come into effect, on 1 August, and woul d be maintained for the period of the waiver.  
4.40.  Korea supported the LDC Group request to  hold a Dedicated Session on the waiver and 
looked forward to working closely with the Grou p to review the progress made and discuss next 
steps. 
4.41.  The representative of Mexico was very pleased to inform the Council that Mexico had 
submitted its notification of preferences for LDC services and service suppliers on 21 August 2015. 
Mexico's preferences were in keeping with the commercial interests indicated by LDCs in their collective request.  
4.42.  Specifically, Mexico would grant preferen ces in mode 4 for the categories of business 
visitors, intra-corporate transferees, investors and professionals. Also, its notification covered preferences in professional services, business services, computer and related services, leasing, 
sporting and other recreational services, hotels and restaurants and travel agency services, which 
were all based on the commitments Mexico had granted in its best FTA. On this basis, Mexico was complying with the Decisions taken by Ministers at MC8 and MC9 regarding the services waiver 
and its operationalization. Mexico hoped that other Members would, as soon as they were able to, 
also submit their notifications of  preferential treatment for LDCs. 
4.43.  The representative of the United States was also pleased to be able to present to the 
Council his delegation's notification in connection with the LDC waiver. He believed the US 
notification to be self-explanatory, and wished to  recall that the United States had already made 
commitments with respect to most sectors of interest  to LDCs. Still, the notification exceeded what 
his delegation had signalled at the High-Level Meeting.  
4.44.  He apologised for not meeting the July indicative deadline and expressed his delegation's 
appreciation for the patience Members had shown wh ile it identified what more it could do to 
operationalise the waiver. Some of the sectors in the US notification were also found in its FTAs, as concessions for the very extensive market openings the United States expected from its FTA 
partners, and as such this was an added benefit.  S/C/M/124 
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.45.  He joined other delegations in urging thos e Members, who had not yet notified, to do so at 
the earliest possible time.  
4.46.  The representative of Japan said that hi s delegation had submitted its notification on 
31 July 2015; the very last day of the agreed indi cative timeline. Japan's preferential treatment 
covered sectors and modes of supply of the key interest to LDCs, as per the LDC collective 
request. One of the preferences concerned the entr y and temporary stay of natural persons in the 
categories of investors, contractual service supp liers and accompanying spouses and children. With 
regard to the specific sectors and sub-sectors listed, these were all GATS-plus and based on 
Japan's current FTA practices.  
4.47.  The representative of Brazil wished to in form the Council that his delegation was in the 
process of finalising its notification and would be circulating it soon. He supported the LDC 
proposal for a CTS Dedicated Session, and stated that there might be some technical work to do in 
terms of clarifying how Members were scheduling their preferences, as it would be interesting to see if a common approach could be used by all notifying Members.  
4.48.  The representative of the European Union stated that his delegation had always been very 
supportive of the work on the waiver. For this reason, his delegation had circulated, in July, its 
intention to notify preferential treatment for LDC services and service suppliers. The EU's internal 
decision-making process was still ongoing, even th ough significant steps had been made that week 
towards the conclusion of the process. He would keep this Council and the LDC Group informed of any development, but, with the aim of being extr emely transparent, the EU had attached to its 
intention to notify what its preferences could be, which he hoped to confirm as soon as the internal 
process had concluded. 
4.49.  The representative of Uganda, speaking on  behalf of the LDC Group, expressed the Group's 
appreciation for the presentation of the notifications submitted. LDCs would comment on the 
substance of the notifications when presenting their assessment at the CTS Dedicated Session. 
Indeed, that was the first item on the agenda for that meeting. LDCs took note of the presentations and sincerely thanked Members who had notified specifically stating preferential 
treatment. He urged those Members who had not yet submitted notifications, and those who did 
not give specific indications of preferential treatment, to do so. He also extended compliments to those Members who had notified elements beyond their announcements at the High-Level Meeting and those who had made the extra effort of providing preferences beyond Article XVI. 
4.50.  The representative of Pakistan indicated th at domestic processes were on-going and that his 
delegation was doing its best to identify and pr ovide preferences to LDCs. He apologised for not 
meeting the indicative timeline and would keep  the Council informed of any progress.  
4.51.  Having submitted Australia's notification earlier that year, the representative of Australia 
said that she was well aware of how much work was implied in terms of domestic consultations. 
She congratulated Members on completing the work and encouraged those Members that had not 
yet notified and were in a position to do so, to come forward with notifications as soon as possible. 
From Australia's perspective, the number and quality of notifications submitted was very encouraging. She noted that many Members had included preferences that went well beyond commitments they had offered in the DDA, and some Members had even gone beyond 
commitments that that had undertaken in their FTAs in order to respond directly to LDC interests 
as outlined in the collective requests and bilateral discussions.  
4.52.  She acknowledged that this was no small achievement in an environment where any market 
access gains were very hard-fought. Australia had been pleased to hear very positive messages 
recognising the progress under the LDC waiver at the WTO Public Forum services sessions. She hoped that the progress achieved under the MC9 De cision on the operationalization of the waiver 
would be recognised at MC10. At the same time, she hoped that Members could look at next steps 
for increasing LDC participation in services trade, to enable LDCs to take advantage of the preferences notified and make use of market a ccess opportunities. One such step could be to 
consider supply-side constraints and addressing domestic regulatory barriers to LDC services 
trade. In that respect, Australia saw real value in, and good prospects for, a Ministerial Decision on 
LDCs and services at MC10. Her delegation was keen to work with LDCs and interested Members S/C/M/124 
 
- 9 - 
 
  on a draft decision, and she suggested that this could be discussed at the upcoming Dedicated 
Session, under agenda item 3. 
4.53.  The representative of Nigeria explained that, although his delegation was not yet in a 
position to notify preferences, it hoped to be able  to do so. Nigeria appreciated the contribution by 
Members who had submitted notifications. It also appreciated the response by the LDC Group 
acknowledging the preferences notified and indica ting that the Dedicated Session would allow for 
more substantive discussions, in terms of the a ssessment of the preferences and how LDCs could 
take adequate advantage thereof.  
4.54.  The representative of South Africa wished to inform Members that South Africa was very 
advanced in submitting its notification, which would be presented to the Cabinet in the following 
couple of weeks.  
4.55.  With respect to the Dedicated Session, the representative of the United States wished to 
express his delegations' concerns about discussing possible deliverables for MC10. He felt that the 
issue would be more appropriately discussed in the Special Session, rather than in a Dedicated 
Session of the CTS.  
4.56.  The representative of Uganda was not clear about the point made by the United States and 
sought further clarifications.  
4.57.  The representative of the United States explained that he had wanted to register his 
delegation's concerns about Member's expectatio ns in terms of discussions on MC10 deliverables 
at the Dedicated Session. The Dedicated Session had a particular purpose, which was to discuss the LDC waiver. Members were of course free to  express their wishes, but in his view the 
appropriate forum to discuss MC10 outcome deliverables was the Special Session of the CTS. 
Members should be careful about how deep the discussion went in the Dedicated Session. 
4.58.  Noting that the Special Session was a negotiating body, the Chairman recalled that the 
agenda of the Dedicated Session had been approved  earlier that week and did contain an item on 
"Recommendations to the General Council for MC10", which would thus be taken up. Members 
remained of course free to express any views under that item.  
4.59.  The representative the United States further explained that, in light of some Members' 
interventions calling for particular outcomes under that agenda item, he wanted to clarify his own 
delegation's expectations for discussions under that item. 
4.60.  The Chairman suggested that the Council ta ke note of the notifications submitted and the 
statements made and revert to this issue at the Dedicated Session. 
4.61.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E – WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
5.1.  Turning to the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, the Chairman recalled that, in 
June, the Council had addressed a communication by Chinese Taipei titled "Protection of Personal 
Information and the Development of Electronic Commerce" (S/C/W/360). 
5.2.  In addition, the Council had considered two specific suggestions made in terms of next steps 
for the Work Programme. Chinese Taipei had suggested that a workshop on trade policy issues related to e-commerce be organised under the auspices of the Council. China had proposed that Members embark on a structured information-shar ing exercise by adding a standing sub-item 
under the Council's agenda item on the e-commerce Work Programme. The information-sharing 
would not be conducted with a view to any normative or prescriptive output. 
5.3.  At the end of Members' discussions in June, it had been agreed that the Chairman would be 
holding open-ended consultations on those two pr oposals. Accordingly, an informal meeting had 
been convened on 15 July. At that meeting, Memb ers concurred that a sub-item on "Exchange of 
information and experiences based on submissi ons by Members" would be added under the e-S/C/M/124 
 
- 10 - 
 
  commerce Work Programme agenda item at subsequent meetings of the CTS. Consequently, it 
figured on the agenda for this meeting. 
5.4.  Regarding the proposal for a workshop, several delegations had requested further 
information, while others had sought more time for consideration, so it was settled to postpone 
consideration of that suggestion. 
5.5.  The representative of China recalled that, at the July CTS informal meeting, Members had 
accepted the formalization of an information-sh aring exercise under auspices of the e-commerce 
Work Programme. Members had been encouraged to share information on and experiences with e-
commerce development. Her delegation wished to sh are some relevant information, from the three 
perspectives. 
5.6.  First, she wished to provide the latest information on the development of e-commerce in 
China. In recent years, e-commerce had register ed continuous and rapid growth in China. The 
business coverage of e-commerce had been expanded from the traditional online sale of products 
to daily-life services supply. E-commerce had played an important role in boosting economic 
growth and in promoting consumption and em ployment. Over January-August 2015, e-commerce 
in China had reached a total turnover of RMB 9.81 trillion, up 24.7% year-on-year. The online 
retail transaction volume had reached RMB 2.24 tri llion, up 36.5% year-on-year. Online sales of 
physical products had attained RMB 1.87 trillion, up 35.6%; online sales of non-physical products 
had reached RMB 374.8 billion, up 41.1%. Consumption from mobile client terminals had reached RMB 1.1 trillion, accounting for nearly 50% of total online retail transactions.  
5.7.  These statistics reflected three characteristics of the current development of e-commerce in 
China. First, e-commerce business providing daily- life services enjoyed rapid growth, with huge 
potential. Second, the growth of mobile e-commerce was exponential. Third, e-commerce had extended far into 3rd and 4th tier cities and rural areas. Many e-commerce companies were 
beginning to conduct business in rural areas. For example, the Alibaba Group had launched a 
programme named "a thousand counties, ten thousand villages", which planned to invest RMB 10 billion to establish 1'000 operation centres in counties and 100'000 service centres in 
villages over the following three to five years.  
5.8.  Second, China stressed that it attached great importance to e-commerce legislation. At the 
end of 2013, the National People's Congress (NPC), China's top legislature, had initiated legislative 
work on e-commerce. The law being drafted was regarded as the basic law for e-commerce and 
the fundamental regulation for promoting the he althy development of e-commerce in China. The 
relevant drafting work was going well. The NPC endeavoured to finish the draft by the end of 
2015. In addition, in 2013, the NPC had amended th e Consumer Protection Law to strengthen the 
protection of consumers' rights in e-commerce. China's Premier Li Keqiang had repeatedly 
emphasized the importance of developing e-co mmerce in the Annual Government Work Report. 
Governments, from central to local levels, had issued a series of guidelines to encourage e-
commerce development. For example, in June 2015,  the Guidelines for Promoting the Rapid and 
Healthy Development of Cross-border E-commerce,  w h i c h  w e r e  d e s i g n e d  t o  a c t i v e l y  s u p p o r t  
companies to conduct foreign trade via e-commerce, was released by the general office of the State Department. 
5.9.  Third, China observed that SMEs were being better integrated into the world trading system 
thanks to e-commerce. In China, for example, there were 66.7 million SMEs in 2015. SMEs had 
created 50% of tax revenue and provided 80% of job opportunities for the country. E-commerce 
had brought more competitive opportunities, removed intermediation costs for businesses and 
lowered operational costs for SMEs, thereby stimulating their development. In China, many cross-border e-commerce platforms, such as Alibaba, provided advantageous transaction safeguards and 
various financing options for SMEs and were very helpful in creating a more enabling environment 
for e-commerce by SMEs.  
5.10.  China was interested in continuing discussions and would welcome information-sharing on 
the part of other Members.  S/C/M/124 
 
- 11 - 
 
  5.11.  The representative of Nigeria thanked China for the presentation and for sharing its 
experience with respect to the development of e-commerce. He also wished to share Nigeria's 
perspective given that its economy was transiting from a traditional market to an "e-market".  
5.12.  The e-commerce industry was a very significant part of Nigeria's economy. In 2012, 
retailing accounted for up to 20% of the Nigeria's GDP and this had been influenced by e-
commerce. Beyond the direct contribution to the economy, one major niche that e-commerce had cut for itself was the convenience it had brought to transactions.  
5.13.  E-commerce had experienced significant progress in Nigeria. For instance, earlier in 2012 e-
commerce sites were recording 5000 orders per day; by 2014, these had increased exponentially, to 40'000. The use of the "pay on delivery" syst em had been a fundamental tool in helping build 
consumer trust in e-commerce over time. At present, consumers were accustomed to paying 
ahead of delivery. Supermarket chains had put a system in place whereby consumers could trust 
them to deliver their groceries within 3 hours, without any hitch; as such, consumers had the confidence to pay on-line before delivery, and not after. 
5.14.  Over the past few years, Nigeria had witnessed phenomenal growth as far as e-commerce 
was concerned. Several local and international reports had noted that Nigeria had the largest e-commerce revenue in in Africa. The Ministry of Communication Technology had put this figure at 
US$25 million in 2012, but it was correctly valued at US$550 million, with an estimated growth 
rate of 25% yearly and a projected US$10 billion potential if well harnessed  
5.15.  The representative of Peru thanked China for the detailed information provided. Her 
delegation attached great importance to exchanging information on e-commerce, especially taking 
into account the impact this had on trade in services. An exchange of information offered a useful 
framework for valuable future discussions on the issue. Peru was very interested in pursuing such discussions and, for instance, had been promoting, in other fora, seminars aimed at facilitating the 
exchange of experiences on public policies that used electronic means as a means to promote the 
competitiveness of SMEs and financial inclusion. Her delegation was therefore interested in pursuing and contributing to the discussion.   
5.16.  The representative of the United States al so wished to note the important work carried out 
on e-commerce. His delegation was very supportiv e of continued discussion of the issue, on the 
basis of Member-driven proposals. He had noted the interest in the issue expressed by other Members and looked forward to working possibly with the Chairman and consulting more going 
forward.  
5.17.  The Chairman suggested that the Council ta ke note of the statements made and revert to 
this item at its next meeting. 
5.18.  It was so agreed. 
6  ITEM F – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES 
6.1.  The Chairman indicated that this 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 Australia said that TISA participants stood ready to talk to any 
interested Member at any time to discuss TISA and the progress being made in those negotiations.  
6.3.  The representative of Nigeria had noted what Australia had said in terms of sharing 
information with interested delegations in terms of progress taking place in TISA. But he wondered 
why the item had been placed on the agenda for the meeting when no actual updates or 
information had been provided by TISA participants. 
6.4.  The Chairman indicated that the item had b een placed on the agenda on the request of TISA 
participants. S/C/M/124 
 
- 12 - 
 
  6.5.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recalled that her delegation had said on numerous 
occasions that the Council for Trade in Services was not the appropriate place to lobby for TISA. 
Her delegation had also requested on some occasions that the item not be included on the agenda of the CTS. In this sense, she echoed Nigeria's concerns. 
6.6.  The representative of the United States sa id that his delegation had hosted the TISA talks 
but, due to a lapse in coordination, had inadvertently omitted to prepare a progress report for the 
CTS meeting. In light of the interest expressed by Members and for the sake of transparency, TISA 
participants would continue to provide updates in the future. 
6.7.  The representative of Pakistan confirmed th at the lack of a progress report had been an 
inadvertent omission and reiterated Australia's offer to meet and share information with interested 
Members. He noted that TISA was compatible with the GATS. 
6.8.  The representative of Ecuador said that an instance of lack of coordination could happen to 
any delegation. He reiterated his delegation's position that TISA needed to be analysed in great 
detail to ensure that it was consistent with WTO disciplines and specifically GATS Article V and 
Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement. 
6.9.  The representative of Nigeria had taken note of and accepted the reasons for the absence of 
an update. He welcomed TISA participants' sharing of information on the talks and the 
transparency aim thereof. Provided that that was the sole objective of the agenda item, he could 
support its inclusion on the CTS agenda.  
6.10.  The Chairman suggested that the Council ta ke note of the statements made and revert to 
the item at its next meeting. 
6.11.  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 Federati on thanked Ukraine for the notification submitted 
pursuant to GATS Article III:3 dated 23 Septem ber 2015 (S/C/N/832) on the adoption of the Law 
of Ukraine No. 329-VIII "On the Natural Gas Mark et" of 9 April 2015, which invalidated as of 
1 October 2015 the Law of Ukraine No. 1645-VII7 "On amendments to some Laws of Ukraine on reforming the management system of the Unifie d Gas Transportation System of Ukraine" of 
14 August 2014.  
7.3.  Recalling her delegation's previous statemen ts in respect of measures taken by Ukraine, she 
regretted having to revisit the issue to express the Russian Federation's concerns in regard to both 
the substance of the provisions of the new Law and the practical implementation thereof. The 
newly implemented Law provided preferential tr eatment for the United States and the Energy 
Community members only. The prohibition for companies from WTO Members other than the 
United States and the Energy Community to pe rform the said functions clearly put such WTO 
Members in a less favourable position.  
7.4.  Her delegation wished to draw the attentio n of Ukraine to the fact that the new Law was in 
violation of the principles of the GATS regarding MFN as well as the specific commitments 
undertaken by Ukraine under the GATS. Ukraine's sp ecific commitments in the relevant sectors did 
not provide for the right to adopt or apply the measures provided for by the new Law. In fact, such measures both restricted or required specific types of legal entity or joint venture through which a 
service supplier could supply a service, as specif ied in GATS Article XVI:2(e), and constituted a 
limitation on the participation of foreign capital in terms of maximal percentage limit on foreign shareholding, or the total value of individual aggregate foreign investment, as set out in GATS 
Article XVI:2(f). In addition, 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. Consequently, Ukraine was not in conformity with its obligations under GATS Article XVII.  S/C/M/124 
 
- 13 - 
 
  7.5.  The right to perform the operations function s of Ukraine's Gas Transportation System, as well 
as of gas storage facilities, was not extended to any other WTO Member. As such, Ukraine was not in conformity with GATS Article II, which requir ed each WTO Member to accord immediately and 
unconditionally to services and service suppliers of any other WTO Member treatment no less 
favourable than that it accorded to like services and service suppliers of any other country. 
7.6.  The Russian Federation requested Ukraine to bring its new Law in full compliance with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreement and not to undermine any WTO obligations undertaken by 
Ukraine.  
7.7.  Ukraine had also failed to provide her dele gation with responses to the questions the Russian 
Federation had posed in respect of the previous  version of Law, No. 1645-VII of 14 August 2014. 
The measures implemented by the new version of Law equalled in substance the restrictions of the 
previous version of the Law, and thus her delegation reiterated its request that Ukraine provide 
replies as soon as possible to the questions it had been sent by the Russian Federation on 13 May.  
7.8.  The representative of Brazil noted his delega tion's strong interest in the issue and indicated 
that Brazil would be monitoring the evolution of the discussions closely. 
7.9.  The representative of the Plurinational Stat e of Bolivia acknowledged the importance of the 
problem raised by the Russian Federation for the systemic implications it might have. His 
delegation was also aware of the sensitivity of the issue, which was why Bolivia hoped that it could 
be resolved in keeping with the WTO rules and on the basis of dialogue between the parties 
involved.  
7.10.  The representative of Argentina reiterated that his delegation was monitoring the issue with 
a great deal of interest on account of its possible systemic implications.  
7.11.  The representative of Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela noted the concerns registered by the 
Russian Federation regarding certain measures related to the reform of the Unified Gas 
Transportation System of Ukraine. She requested that the obligations of GATS Article II, which 
required all Members to immediately and unconditionally provide to services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable than it accorded to like services and service 
suppliers of any other country, be abided by.  
7.12.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
7.13.  It was so agreed. 
8  ITEM H – OTHER BUSINESS 
8.1.  The representative of India wished to place on record her delegation's concerns about 
increasing barriers to market access for the temporary movement of skilled professionals to the 
United Kingdom, engendered by an increasing emphasis on the part of the UK Government on 
containing foreign professionals/service suppliers entering the UK in a GATS-inconsistent manner. 
8.2.  The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) appointed by the Government of the United 
Kingdom had recently published tranche 1 of a report titled “Review of Tier 2: An analysis of salary 
thresholds”. Tranche 2 was expected in December. 
8.3.  The MAC's recommendations focused on limiting entry of foreign workers into the UK through 
various measures, ranging from wage-related requirements to imposing measures on potential employers such as "skills levies" and economic needs assessments. These recommendations 
proposed to put in place discriminatory salary thresholds, ENTs and numerical quotas. 
8.4.  In this regard, the MAC suggested that sa lary threshold be increased by £4000 for Tier 2-
General (current threshold was £20,800) and Tier 2-Short-term ICT (current threshold was 
£24,800), and to £50,000 for Tier 2-Long-term ICT (compared to the existing £41,500 threshold). 
Such measures, as the MAC itself noted, would act as deterrents to the inflow of foreign service providers into the UK. While the proposed increase s were meant only for migrants, it was not clear S/C/M/124 
 
- 14 - 
 
  whether the salary thresholds were based on non-discriminatory minimum-wage requirements. 
Her delegation wished to seek a clarificatio n from the UK delegation on that aspect. 
8.5.  India believed that the MAC recommendations were protectionist in nature and could run 
counter to the UK’s obligations under the WTO. While India was taking up the issue at the bilateral 
level, it also wanted to bring it to the attention of the Council and request the United Kingdom to 
be mindful of the WTO compliance of the measures proposed before taking a decision on the MAC 
recommendations. 
8.6.  The representative of the European Unio n said that the EU had taken note of India's 
statement, but would have preferred to discuss th e issue first in a bilateral context. While his 
delegation remained available bilaterally for an y questions India might have, it went without 
saying that any legislation, rules or regulation of the EU and each of its Member States, at any 
level of government, were compliant with the EU's GATS commitments. Trade policy managed at 
the EU level in compliance with the EU's international commitments was at the centre for trade policy. He observed that the EU's GATS commitments might have been broader than they 
currently were, if only Members had been able to continue the WTO market access services 
negotiations.  
8.7.  The representative of the United Kingdom said that, given that the issue had been raised 
under Other Business, he was unable to reply to the specific questions posed by India. He would 
have liked for India to have sent its questions to his delegation in writing in advance of the meeting; his delegation was available for bilateral consultations. That said, he stressed that the UK was fully compliant with all its existing mode 4 commitments. The UK Government had 
commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to provide advice on economic 
migration from outside the EU through reviewing skilled worker visas. The MAC was due to report on the wider Tier 2 review in mid-December. The UK Government was consulting informally with a 
range of stakeholders, including other WTO Members, to ensure that their views and concerns 
were fully understood and that all availabl e evidence was considered in the review.  
8.8.  The representative of India thanked the EU  and the UK for their comments. She added that 
the issue had been taken up bilaterally at the Government-to-Government and business-to-
business levels. She would forward her statement, as well as detailed questions, to the UK and the EU delegations for broader consultations on the issue. 
8.9.  The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the statements made. 
8.10.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________