RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/119  
 
10 October 2014  
(14-5773) Page: 1/13  
Council for Trade in Services    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 17 September 2014 chaired by 
Ambassador Choi (Republic of Korea). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/4345. 
The agenda was adopted. 
1  ITEM A – NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III:3 OF THE GATS 
1.1.  The Chairman drew the Council's attention to the communications received from Senegal (in 
documents S/C/N/746 to 765).  
1.2.  The representative of Switzerland thanke d Senegal for the notifications submitted, which 
concerned measures taken in commercially important sectors such as telecommunications, finance 
and maritime transport services. He was appreciati ve of the fact that Senegal had fulfilled its 
obligations pursuant to GATS Article III:3 and hoped that other Members would continue the current trend of submitting notifications to the Council. 
1.3.  The Chairman proposed that the Council ta ke note of the notifications and the statement 
made. 
1.4.  It was so agreed.  
1.5.  Moving on to the notifications made pursuant to Article V:7 (Economic Integration), the 
Chairman drew Members' attention to the communications received from: Switzerland and China 
(S/C/N/742); the European Union and the Republic  of Moldova (S/C/N/743); the European Union 
and Ukraine (S/C/N/744); the European Union and Georgia (S/C/N/745). 
1.6.  He proposed that the Council take note of the notifications and refer the agreements notified 
to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for consideration. 
1.7.  It was so agreed.  
2  ITEM B – WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 2.1.  Turning to the Work Programme on Electron ic Commerce, the Chairman recalled that, over 
the past few meetings, Members had referred to various issues that the Council might usefully 
focus on in terms of its work on this issue. In addition, the United States had indicated that it was 
preparing a formal submission and the announcement was widely welcomed.  
2.2.  The representative of the United States  said that his delegation's submission was 
unfortunately not yet ready for circulation to Members, but he hoped that it would be so in 
advance of the following meeting of the Council. The US submission would focus on some of the 
principles outlined in an earlier contribution the United States had tabled with the European Union, some additional principles that were put forward in subsequent documents by Members, as well as 
                                               
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/119 
 
- 2 - 
 
  issues surrounding cloud-computing and how those services helped in terms of development and 
expansion of e-commerce opportunities.  
2.3.  The representative of the European Union und erscored that the Bali Ministerial Decision on e-
commerce had demonstrated that all Members had an  interest in that topic. The Decision gave 
Members a clear mandate, not only to continue, but to invigorate work, while also taking into 
account the special situation of developing countri es. In light of the importance of electronic 
commerce, Members should consider what actions could be taken to further facilitate its use and 
free flow. In that sense, her delegation wished to give, at the following meeting of the Council, an 
informative presentation on its new regulation on electronic identification and trust services for 
electronic transactions. The EU regulation had been adopted on 23 July 2014 and was thus relatively new. It established a regulatory framew ork for electronic signatures and authentication 
in the EU. It also stipulated rules for the recognition of electronic identification across EU Member 
States and ensured the proper functioning of the internal market for trust services for providers 
across all Member States. The EU would be very happy to work together with the Chairman and 
the Secretariat to see how to best structure its presentation and discussion at the following 
meeting of the Council.  
2.4.  The representative of the Republic of Korea noted that e-commerce was a 21st century issue 
that was as cross-cutting as trade issues could ge t. It was therefore important that Members find 
common ground in terms of a meaningful and doable work programme. Issues of interest to his delegation were privacy protection and the promotion of improved access to e-commerce by SMEs. These were topics on which many Members had expressed an interest in the past and Korea stood 
ready to engage with interested Members on any concrete proposal. 
2.5.  The Chairman welcomed the announcemen t of the forthcoming US submission and EU 
presentation, as helpful contributions to the Council's discussions. He suggested that the Council 
take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
2.6.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C – OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the June m eeting, the Council had considered the Secretariat 
Background Note on measures of general applicat ion notified under GATS Article III:3, measures 
under economic integration agreements notified under Article V:7, and measures on recognition notified under Article VII:4, limited to those take n in the professional services sectors by the top 
ten services traders. The Note, which was contained in document S/C/W/355, had been requested 
by the LDC Group as an input to help with th e finalisation of their collective request.  
3.2.  On 21 July, on behalf of the LDC Group, th e delegation of Uganda had submitted the Group's 
collective request to the Council, pursuant to the MC9 Decision on the operationalization of the 
LDC services waiver. The collective request was contained in document S/C/W/356. A Corrigendum, in English only, had subseque ntly been issued, on 5 September.  
3.3.  Speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, the representative of Uganda said that the Group had 
circulated its collective request on 21 July 2014, pursuant to the MC9 LDC services waiver 
Decision. As stipulated in the Decision, six months after the date the collective request was submitted, a high-level meeting was to take place, whereby any non-LDC Member, in a position to 
do so, would pronounce itself on the preferences it would grant to LDCs.  
3.4.  That was the first opportunity to present the collective request to the Council. The journey for 
LDCs had been long: they had been driven for several years to see Members implement GATS 
Article IV:3, had negotiated the LDC Services Modalities in 2003 and additional provisions in 
Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declarat ion in 2005, appealing for the promised special 
priority Members had to accord to sectors and modes of supply of interest to LDCs.   
3.5.  Following on the instruction at the Hong Kong Ministerial in 2005, Members had agreed in 
2011, at MC8, to a mechanism, in the form of a waiver, to enable preferences to be granted in favour of LDCs. However, two years later, no concrete actions had emerged to implement that 
Decision. A new Decision was agreed at MC9, in 2013, to create a process to stimulate Members to S/C/M/119 
 
- 3 - 
 
  provide preferences, utilizing an instrument that  was very well known in the services context, 
namely a collective request, and a high-level meeting to indicate what Members would do.   
3.6.  LDCs had done extensive research. This had been complemented by further data and 
information provided by institutions such as UNCTAD, the ITC, and the WTO Secretariat. LDCs did, 
indeed, have services suppliers, services exports and imports, and wished to increase the 
participation of their suppliers in services trade. Robust and concrete responses to the collective request would contribute to that goal. The spill-ov er effects of meaningful responses could improve 
LDC competitiveness, diversification of exports, employment and reduce poverty, but also improve 
responses to demand for LDC services in all markets. Preferences could diminish the obstacles and challenges facing LDC suppliers in supplying to that demand. 
3.7.  Over some years, LDCs' strengths, in the aggregate, had been in travel/tourism, transport, 
other business services, communication, construction, entertainment/sport and financial services, 
along with a number of professions. Between 2012 and 2013, the data showed slight increases in 
aggregate LDC services exports in transport, other business services, and insurance; travel, 
communications, and computer and information services had remained the same, while the other 
sectors (financial services, cultural and recreational, and royalties) had experienced declines. 
3.8.  Markets with consumer demand for LDC services were not only in developed countries, 
although all LDC suppliers were interested in ad vancing their opportunities there. Consumers in 
regions where LDCs were located had frequently su rfaced in interviews, surveys and the research 
undertaken. Sometimes, it was the most traditional and culturally similar markets that were of interest to LDC suppliers. LDCs were in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific and the Gulf region. 
Research had also found LDC suppliers in Africa attempting to respond to demand in large Asian 
economies.  
3.9.  LDC internal interviews and country rese arch had showed that, while modes 1 and 2 were 
critical for sectors such as travel and tourism and BPO-ICT services, mode 4 remained a priority 
for LDC suppliers in those sectors and all other sectors. The greatest impact of restrictions on the supply of services was in mode 4, across a num ber of sectors, especially for independent 
professionals and contractual service suppliers who had contracts or offers from consumers in 
target markets. In addition, LDCs had identified a number of restrictions under mode 3, where LDC small enterprises were facing difficul ties responding to offers or pote ntial clients in other markets.   
3.10.  The rationales behind the co llective request were as follows: 
 Fulfilling the mandate in paragraph 1.2 of  the MC9 Decision, without prejudice to 
individual initiatives by Members, at any time, under the separate mandate in paragraph 1.3; 
 Building LDC ownership, via bottom-up preparation based on new data, experiences, 
and research, as well as inputs from delegations and capitals;  
 Pursuing collective areas of priority, which did not mean that individual LDCs might 
not pursue further areas; 
 Outlining elements that might appear to go  beyond the scope of the GATS (e.g. fees 
for intellectual property and equipment accompanying musicians/performers), but 
where LDCs hoped that Members could also consider ways of responding positively, 
whether under the waiver mechanism or an alternative one. 
3.11.   It was understood that some Members might require the approval of the Council for 
preferences that went beyond market access under the GATS. However, the LDC Group collective 
request targeted collective priorities and the expectation was that Members would respond 
favourably to the grant of those preferences. The procedure for adopting those preferences, within 
the remit of the waiver Decision, could be elab orated in time for the high-level meeting. 
3.12.  The LDC Group was available for consultation s with partners, in order to exchange views on 
how Members might shape responses to the requ est, to increase understanding about LDCs' 
objectives and what could be achieved. Any questi ons received from Members would be taken into S/C/M/119 
 
- 4 - 
 
  account to facilitate interaction during the following six months. However, questions should not 
delay or disrupt advancement of an early underst anding on the areas where preferences might be 
granted at the high-level meeting. 
3.13.  The main elements of the Collective Request were as follows: 
• An introduction that highlighted the mandate Members were working under;  
• A summary of the objectives of the request, with a focus on the barriers faced by LDC 
service suppliers; 
• The request itself, which had been elaborated under the following main positions: 
- Waiving of Article XVI and Article XVII restrictions on LDC services suppliers; 
- Across all sectors, especially those found in the Annex, waiving of visa, work 
permit, residence permit measures, specifically fees, coupled with the 
simplification of documentation requirements; 
- Waiving of any restrictions to taking actions in order to allow recognition of 
qualifications of LDC professionals and accreditation of LDC institutions; 
- An annex containing a non-exhaustive list of professions and services identified 
by LDCs. A footnote stated that the list did not prejudge whether Members 
wished to grant preferences using the CPC, W/120, ILO or their own national 
classifications to describe the professions or services; 
- In paragraph 3.2, a request for specific assistance and capacity building, 
facilitation of training and orientation in any program to familiarize suppliers with the preference benefits available;  
- In paragraph 3.3, Members were implored not to dilute preferences already 
granted to LDCs in different regions when granting the preferences pursuant to paragraph 1.2 of the MC9 Decision and in response to the collective request; 
- A modification clause was contained in paragraph 3.4, which was boilerplate in 
many collective requests tabled in 2006 under Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. The purpose of the clause was to accommodate any 
additional refinements or elements from capitals.   
3.14.  The representative then highlighted the main  elements of the request. The first element, on 
market access and national treatment, included ho rizontal requests implicating different modes of 
supply, and especially mode 4. These included quot as, restrictions on the category of contractual 
service suppliers and independent professional s, residency requirements, social security 
deductions. In mode 3, they concerned Economic Needs Tests and Labour Market Tests, conditions on local hires, and other obstacles, such as discrimination in access to hospitals and salary 
thresholds. 
3.15.  That first element also contained highlights  of sectors, including modes of supply, that had 
emerged from country reports, interviews, past LDC negotiations and experiences. The sectors 
were: 
 Travel, tourism, hospitality and conference services;  
 Banking and non-bank services;  
 Transport and logistics services;  
 Education and training-related services;  S/C/M/119 
 
- 5 - 
 
   ICT and Business Processing Outsourcing services; 
 Creative industries, performing and entertainment services.  
3.16.  In addition, but not replacing the other elements in the request, LDCs had taken the 
opportunity to canvass existing conditional offers to see where sectors of interest to them had 
been offered. LDCs recognized that those offers could be modified or withdrawn by Members at 
any time, whether the DDA was concluded or not. Stil l, they noted that some of the sectors offered 
complemented some of the entries in the Annex to the request, and could be more easily explored 
by a wide range of partners. LDCs encouraged Members to mine the relevant offers to provide 
preferences in favour of LDCs.    
3.17.  The next element dealt with the overwhel ming reports from LDC services suppliers of, 
essentially, services "non-tariff barriers" in the form of fees, charges and other administrative 
procedures attached to visas, work permits, licenses, transit. Those measures effectively became 
market access barriers to LDC suppliers and had sometimes resulted in loss of offers and contracts.  
3.18.  The penultimate element addressed recognition and accreditation issues. LDCs sought 
preferences that put more teeth into GATS Article VII and Article VI:4 in favour of LDCs. Recognition issues were indeed covered by the GATS. 
3.19.  Finally, with respect to the core of the re quest, LDCs had decided to include an Annex of 
professions and services of interest to their suppli ers. The list was a non-exhaustive representation 
of sectors different LDC delegations had wanted to include, particularly in connection with the elements in sections B and C of the request. The Annex was a combination of professions and 
services and did not prejudge how Members might unilaterally reflect preferences, whether using 
CPC, W/120, ILO or domestic classifications. What mattered were the substantive preferences granted to LDC suppliers. 
3.20.  LDCs also requested technical assistance an d capacity building, to enable their suppliers to 
utilize the preferences granted. In addition, they implored Members, in the granting of 
preferences, not to dilute preferences already granted to LDCs in different regions. 
3.21.  Turning to "housekeeping" issues, the Group would be working on mapping out how it 
envisioned the high-level meeting in mid-January to proceed. The Group would present its ideas to 
the Council, to begin planning with the Membership and the Chairman. In that regard, LDCs would also keep the Council and Members apprised of progress in consultations that should assist in the 
choreography of the high-level meeting. 
3.22.  Finally, the representative asked that the item referring to the collective request remain on 
the agenda of the Council until after the successf ul conclusion of the results of the high-level 
meeting. He said that the Group was looking forward to constructive interaction with Members 
during the following six months.   
3.23.  The representative of Nepal aligned his dele gation with the statement by Uganda on behalf 
of the LDC Group. The much-awaited collective re quest on the LDCs services waiver had been 
finalised and submitted to the Council on 21 July 20 14, for consideration by all Members. Pursuant 
to the MC9 Decision concerning the operationaliza tion of the LDC services waiver, the collective 
request had been prepared following intensive research and brainstorming with concerned 
stakeholders. While it was not exhaustive and was subject to further modification as per the needs 
of the Group, it reflected LDCs' collective interest s and priorities to a large extent, and served as 
an important document in terms of significantly promoting their international services trade.  
3.24.  The collective request had clearly identified key service sectors and subsectors that were of 
particular interest to LDCs. Besides, it had outlined major obstacles faced in services markets, and suggested possible actions LDCs' trading partners co uld take to increase LDCs services exports. 
The request was expected to function as a solid working document towards the operationalization 
of the waiver. LDCs were hopeful that their request would enjoy unwavering support from other Members.    S/C/M/119 
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.25.  By preparing and submitting the request as  mandated by the Bali Ministerial Decision, the 
LDC Group had exhibited its sincerity towards faithfully implementing that Decision. The LDC Group hoped that the same level of honesty and commitment would be shown by other partners in 
implementing other LDC specific decisions, namely DFQF, Preferential Rules of Origin and Cotton. 
3.26.  It was now up to the LDC partners to see how to respond to the Group's collective request. 
How serious and sympathetic they were toward s the problems and challenges faced by LDC 
services suppliers would be gauged by how quickly and enthusiastically they engaged in that 
process. Given that no significant steps had been taken until then, despite more than two-and-a-
half years since the adoption of the Decision on the services waiver, all non-LDC Members were now expected to remain engaged in the process constructively, with maximum flexibility and determination.  
3.27.  Having submitted its request, the LDC Group considered that it was now high time to 
operationalize the waiver. LDCs were now earnestly waiting to see how enthusiastically developed and developing Members, who were in a position to do so, would react to their proposal. They 
expected to receive positive actions. Withou t their trading partners' strong commitment, 
generosity and flexible approach, LDCs would not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the services 
waiver. 
3.28.  In this regard, he indicated LDCs' determination to engage constructively in consultations, 
as required. He hoped that, based on the collective request, LDC trading partners would come up with their preferential schemes voluntarily by th e high-level meeting, which was supposed to take 
place six months after the date of submission of the request. He was highly optimistic that the 
upcoming high-level meeting would be an histor ic event, where Members would announce their 
preferences in response to the LDC collective request. These would not only help implement the Bali Ministerial Decision, but also help address problems and challenges faced by LDCs in exporting 
services. Enjoying preferential treatment in th e major services export markets LDCs had been 
striving to access for years would facilitate the gr owth and expansion their services exports. LDCs 
looked forward to working closely and constructively with their partners on the request. 
3.29.  All delegations who spoke thanked Uganda  and the LDC Group for the submission of the 
collective request and for the presentation that had just been offered, which had usefully clarified 
a number of elements in the request. They also acknowledged the enormous work and effort which 
had gone into the preparation of the request. 
3.30.  The representative of the Republic of Korea said that the request was a positive sign that 
Members were making progress in operationalizing the services waiver. Relevant Ministries were 
reviewing the contents of the collective request ba ck in capital, and the Korean government would 
engage constructively in the follow-up process and collaborate with LDCs in the days ahead. 
3.31.  The representative of China said that the LDC collective request had been promptly sent to 
capital for further analysis and comment. Since the Request was a comprehensive, in-depth and 
well-researched document, covering almost every important service sector, and cutting through 
both market access and domestic regulation policy areas, the relevant authorities in capital were still reviewing it and his delegation did not have concrete comments to share as yet. But the preliminary responses received from capital were positive: some colleagues, especially experts 
from the education and tourism authorities, had indicated that they were looking through the 
request with keen interest and would provide detailed comments and feedback in the coming 
months. 
3.32.  The operationalization of the LDC services  waiver was an important element and mandate of 
the Bali package. However, its success would depend  on the goodwill and full cooperation of all 
Members, especially developed Members and Member s with the capacity to contribute. China, as 
the biggest market for LDC goods exports and one of the markets with the highest potential for 
LDC services exports, would do its best to accommodate the requests from LDCs. China also encouraged other Members, based on their market  capacity and economic structure, to make 
contributions to the waiver mechanism, with a view to matching the specific demands of LDC 
service suppliers, benefiting and boosting their econ omic development and thus fulfilling one of the 
most important elements of the DDA. With this objective in mind, China wished to register its support for the suggestion that Members should  promptly convene a high-level meeting six S/C/M/119 
 
- 7 - 
 
  months after the date of the submission of the collective request, so as to provide concrete 
feedback and indicate the policy changes they inte nded to make and the new trade measures they 
would adopt in order to match the requests from LDCs. 
3.33.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation, like others, was reviewing 
and analysing the request and would continue to engage with LDCs as that review proceeded. As 
had been noted by Uganda, the LDC waiver Decision  had been adopted at MC8. It was an enabling 
instrument to waive MFN, and not an obligation, but the United States intended to fully understand 
the interest of the LDCs in using that tool to help expand their services markets. The collective 
request that had been tabled would be helpful in that regard. There had been a number of references to the Bali Ministerial Decisions, including the one that was being discussed by the Council. He noted that some uncertainty existed about how those Decisions might be impacted 
given the actions by some Members affecting other Bali Ministerial Decisions.  
3.34.  The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the collective request helped summarize 
the process of securing meaningful preferences fo r LDCs and their services and service suppliers. 
The collective request was quite ambitious, covering a wide range of demands on various sectors, 
some of which her delegation understood were sensitive areas for some individual Members. In that sense, she welcomed the statement by Uganda and looked forward to constructive 
engagement from Members. Some of the requests  were not immediately clear to her delegation, 
but that was a reason for continued engagement with LDCs. The presentation by Uganda had helped better clarify some elements of the reques t. Hong Kong, China would continue working with 
other Members to contemplate how to operationalise the LDC waiver and better integrate LDCs 
into the multilateral trading system. 
3.35.  The representative of Cuba said that hi s delegation supported the collective request just 
presented. The request had achieved its desired objective, and he hoped that all Members would 
respond favourably to the demands of the LDC Group.  
3.36.  The representative of Canada agreed with the United States that there was some 
uncertainty about the implementation of the MC9 Decisions but Canada was nonetheless carefully 
reviewing the collective request and intended to fully engage with LDCs on how to implement the 
LDC wavier Decision.  
3.37.  The representative of Japan said that hi s authorities in capital were also reviewing and 
analysing the collective request to see how to respond, and Japan would engage constructively 
with LDCs. Given the uncertainty surrounding th e implementation of the Bali Decisions, his 
delegation wished to see how the situation evolved. 
3.38.  The representative of Ecuador expressed his delegation's support for a rapid and effective 
implementation of the LDC waiver. The collective re quest just presented was a fundamental tool to 
achieve that objective. 
3.39.  The representative of Tanzania also aligne d her delegation with the statement by Uganda on 
behalf of the LDC Group. Now that the collectiv e request had finally been tabled, she exhorted 
Members to react positively and consider the ec onomic situation of LDCs. She urged Members to 
respond to the request with preferences, and note d that procedures might be addressed at a later 
stage. 
3.40.  The representative of Chile indicated that his delegation was reviewing the collective 
request in capital in the same positive, open-minded and constructive spirit that Chile had shown 
in all its previous interventions on the issue. LDCs were guaranteed that Chile would be acting in 
good faith, in line with what had been agreed by Ministers.  
3.41.  The representative of the European Union said that the collective request was a crucial step 
towards the implementation of the LDC waiver. With regard to the references made to the Bali 
Ministerial Decisions, she stressed that Members should keep in mind that development issues 
were central to their work. The EU was prepared to continue its efforts to make progress on LDC 
issues in general, and would like to avoid seeing LDCs impacted by the current situation. Like other Members, the EU was still reviewing the request and might get in touch with the LDC Group S/C/M/119 
 
- 8 - 
 
  bilaterally to obtain a better understanding on some of the issues. Her delegation looked forward 
to engaging in that process. 
3.42.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia hoped that Members would respond 
positively to the request and engage constructively with LDCs, which were the most vulnerable 
WTO Members.  
3.43.  The representative of Brazil noted that the collective request was an essential step towards 
the implementation of the waiver and marked the beginning of a more substantive phase of 
exchanges amongst Members. The request covered a wide range of sectors and modes of supply 
and comprised measures going beyond market access and national treatment. As such, it usefully offered a vast array of options to draw from for the consideration of preferences. His authorities were reviewing the request and intended to initiate quickly a preliminary technical exercise, with a 
view to identifying areas that could potentially make up an eventual Brazilian offer. 
3.44.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said that the collective request was being reviewed by 
her domestic authorities. The process was taking some time due to the request's broad coverage 
and the amount of detail involved. Her delegation  would appreciate receiving further details and 
discussing with the LDC to group in order to clarify a number of technical questions. 
3.45.  The representative of Mexico indicated that her authorities were analysing the collective 
request in capital and, subject to a more detailed analysis of the request, were looking favourably 
at the information provided. Her delegation would continue working in a positive and active spirit to implement the Ministerial Decision and to contribute to the LDC requests. 
3.46.  The representative of Pakistan said that the request contained many different elements, 
perhaps a little too ambitiously. He wished to assure LDCs that his delegation stood by what had 
been agreed by Ministers, and intended to engage with LDCs to identify their sensitivities, as well as those of other Members, with the objective of finding mutually acceptable solutions. His 
authorities were still reviewing the request and stood ready to engage with LDCs towards the 
implementations of the waiver. 
3.47.  The representative of India welcomed the tabling of the LDC collective request. Her 
authorities were going through the request in gr eat detail, with the objective of designing an 
appropriate response, and looked forward to engaging with LDCs going forward. 
3.48.  The representative of the Kingdom of Sa udi Arabia noted that the submission of the 
collective request was an important step towards the operationalization of the LDC waiver. Over 
the following six months, Members would engage in consultations with LDCs in order to respond to 
the collective request at the high-level meeting. Her delegation encouraged Members to keep up 
the spirit of goodwill and dialogue, in order to  agree upon a way forward towards bringing the 
waiver into operation.  
3.49.  The representative of Australia said that  the collective request was very comprehensive and 
specific, and would helpfully inform negotiations on possible preferences. Australia was giving very 
careful consideration to all elements of the requ est, to see where it might be able to provide 
commercially meaningful trade preferences under th e waiver. Her delegation was also giving some 
thought to possible areas of capacity building and technical assistance that could address some of 
the constraints highlighted in the request and that might complement any trade preferences 
provided by WTO Members. 
3.50.  She noted that there were a number of areas in the request that appeared to go beyond the 
scope of the waiver. Uganda’s presentation had b een very useful in providing some insight into 
where LDCs considered that those requests might fit into the process. Australia would look to 
further explore the idea of a possible package of measures, including trade preferences and 
technical assistance. 
3.51.  She also noted that the type of measures that Members provided might have an impact on 
the format used in responding to the request, because the format for providing specific trade preferences might not be appropriate for responding to other areas of the request that went beyond trade commitments. Her delegation looked forward to further discussions, to better S/C/M/119 
 
- 9 - 
 
  understand how LDCs were approaching elements of the request that were outside the scope of 
services trade negotiations.  
3.52.  For Australia, the collective request had also been useful in underscoring again the 
importance of services trade for LDCs and the value of the DDA negotiations, given that many of 
the elements of the LDC request were also part of the DDA collective requests and that a number 
of DDA offers in 2005 went a long way to delivering on those requests. In addition, many of the barriers raised in the request had been the subjec t of on-going WTO negotiations. For example, in 
the Working Party on Domestic Regulation, Member s had explored for some time commitments on 
documentation requirements, streamlining of applic ation procedures and correction of deficiencies 
in applications, and it was helpful to see such issues highlighted as an area of interest to LDCs. Similarly, the LDC requests to expand commitments on air transport services were directly in line 
with work underway as part of the Second Review of the Annex on Air Transport Services.  
3.53.  Her delegation had a number of questions on specific elements of the request that it looked 
forward to discussing with LDCs in more detail, th at week and in coming months. For example, she 
noted that a number of the LDC requests referred to cooperation under agreements such as 
double-taxation agreements, co-production agre ements, and mutual recognition agreements 
(Section C), which were generally negotiated on a bilateral basis. It was important to get a better 
understanding from LDCs about how Members could respond to those requests under the services 
waiver, and whether that was an example of an ar ea where technical assistance would be useful. 
She said that the request provided a very good  basis for further detailed discussions with LDC 
Members. 
3.54.  On the procedural aspects going forward, Australia remained committed to operationalising 
the LDC services waiver, just as it remained committed to all elements of the Bali Package. She encouraged all Members to do what was necessary to deliver on all aspects of the package.  
3.55.  The representative of South Africa said that the LDC collective request was currently being 
studied in capital. 
3.56.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela said that the submission of the 
collective request was in line with the Bali mandate and in line with the DDA. 
3.57.  The representative of Zambia thanked those Members who had indicated that they were 
reviewing the collective request with a positive mind-set. As stated by Uganda, the LDC waiver had 
been agreed at MC8 in 2011, and was time-bound. Three years had already passed, and Members 
could not afford to lose traction on this matter. The developments of July 2014 should in no way 
obstruct Members from working towards achieving the objectives set out in the waiver Decision, as well as the process agreed at MC9. 
3.58.  The representative of Uruguay indicated that his authorities were still reviewing the 
collective request, which was a rich and complex document. The request was a tool to discuss the 
objective of expanding LDC participation in world services trade through the granting of 
preferences.  
3.59.  The representative of Peru said that Members should be working to implement all MC9 
Decisions, and especially those that concerned LDCs. Similarly to what other delegations had 
indicated, at that stage his authorities were carefully reviewing the collective request, and hoped 
to revert to the issue with specific consultations. 
3.60.  The representative of Norway said that her delegation had been involved in the work leading 
up to the adoption of the waiver, as well as the MC9 Decision. Her authorities were studying the 
collective request carefully and would participate constructively in further discussions. The waiver 
had been discussed since MC8, and had been on the Council agenda on a regular basis, and 
Norway welcomed the continuation of those discu ssions. However, Members needed to keep in 
mind that deliberations on the follow-up to Bali were part of a broader picture and that the on-
going consultations could have an impact on some elements in the LDC waiver Decision. 
3.61.  The representative of Switzerland welcomed the positive echoes that the collective request 
had generated in the Council until then. It was an encouraging sign, and at that juncture Members S/C/M/119 
 
- 10 - 
 
  needed encouraging signs. Reporting that the Co uncil had held constructive discussions might be 
helpful to the broader WTO work. Similarly to ot her Members, Switzerland would be examining the 
collective request in detail and would engage closely in further discussions on the issue. 
3.62.  The representative of Argentina hoped for a swift operationalization of the LDC waiver, and 
believed that the collective request and its presentation by the LDC Group had advanced this 
objective. 
3.63.  The representative of Cambodia endorsed the presentation made by Uganda on behalf of 
the LDC group. A few Members had indicated that the collective request was too ambitious and 
unclear, but clarity, comprehensiveness and reliabili ty had been provided by the presentation by 
Uganda. Working towards the ultimate objective of increasing the participation of LDC service suppliers in services trade, his delegation encouraged Members' comments and efforts in 
consultation with their capitals. Cambodia urged those Members who required further clarity on 
elements of the request to continue consultati ons with the LDC Group or individual LDCs to 
elucidate those elements and communicate them back  to capital, so as to achieve results at the 
high-level meeting. It was time for Members to show their commitment to pursue the mandate at 
hand, including the Modalities for the Special Treatment for LDCs of 2003, the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration of 2005, the MC8 Decision  of 2011 and the MC9 Decision of 2013. Finally, 
he urged Members to communication to LDCs the sectors and modes of supply where they could 
provide preferences. LDCs were open to discussing all offers, in order to operationalise the waiver. 
3.64.  The Chairman said that the Council had ha d very substantive and encouraging discussions. 
His sense was that three main issues had emerged. First, all Members had welcomed the 
submission of the collective request, as a stepping  stone in the process of the operationalization of 
the LDC waiver. Second, delegations were reviewing and analysing the request, and would revert to it. Third, there was willingness on the part of  all Members to engage in discussions with LDCs, 
to further clarify specific elements of the request and make progress on the proposal. Some 
delegations had made initial comments and posed questions. He encouraged delegations to continue consultations, whether bilaterally, plurilaterally or multilaterally, to improve their 
understanding of the collective request and consider how to operationalise the waiver.  
3.65.  The next meeting of the Council for Trade in Services was scheduled for the last week of 
November. By then, Members might be in a bette r position to have a more in-depth formal 
discussion. In the meantime, just as Uganda had indicated, the LDC Group would be working on 
mapping out how to organize the high-level meeting that might take place in January 2015, and 
would share its ideas with the Council. If those ideas were to emerge before November, Members 
might engage in more concrete consultations on those bases.  
3.66.  He then indicated that the Chairman of  the TNC and the Chairman of the General Council 
had asked the Chairpersons of both regular and Special Session Committees and Councils to prepare a report on progress with, respectively, the Work Programme and the implementation of 
the Bali Decisions, for the following TNC or General Council meeting. With regard to the Council for 
Trade in Services, he was planning to report, either orally or in a written form, at the General Council meeting scheduled for 21 October. He would report on his own responsibility and provide just a factual account of the Council's discussions on the e-commerce Work Programme and the 
operationalization of the LDC services waiver, wher e he would refer to the three points he had just 
highlighted. 
3.67.  Speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, the representative of Uganda wished to convey his 
appreciation to all Members who had expressed positive comments on the LDC submission. LDCs 
looked forward to conducting consultations with Members. They had already been approached by 
some, and would approach others. He hoped for a constructive engagement, with a view to 
holding the high-level meeting in mid-January.  
3.68.  The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statements made, and revert to 
this item at its next meeting. 3.69.  It was so agreed. S/C/M/119 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4  ITEM D – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES 
4.1.  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).   
4.2.  In a spirit of transparency, the representa tive of the United States wished to inform the 
Council of recent developments on trade in services. The United States had hosted the latest round 
of TISA negotiations, in June. TISA was a negoti ation among WTO Members, both developed and 
developing, who were committed to advancing se rvices liberalization. The negotiation was 
progressing and addressing many key issues for the promotion of a modern economy. Issues covered included robust disciplines in market access in, among other areas, telecommunications, e-commerce, financial services, domestic regulation (including greater transparency in regulatory 
systems), professional services, transport services and also included areas relating to all modes of 
supply.  
4.3.  His delegation had taken note, in past Council meetings, of some of the criticisms of other 
Members about TISA. But the United States viewed TISA like any other trade agreement being 
negotiated outside the WTO which addressed services trade, whether it was the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) or the negotiations the United States were involved 
in, like TTIP and TPP, as well as the recently concluded India-ASEAN trade agreement in services 
and investment.  
4.4.  The sad truth was that services liberalization was not moving within the multilateral trading 
system. Therefore, it was clear that there were ot her avenues to pursue such objectives, and TISA 
was one of those. There was a very constructive attitude and approach by TISA participants. There 
were also disagreements, but there was at the same time a level of trust and confidence that each participant was committed to an ambitious outcome to those negotiations. In terms of greater 
transparency, the United States and other TISA participants, had talked to, had met with, and 
were open to meeting with, any Member interested in finding out more details on those negotiations. The United States looked forward to the next round of TISA negotiations to be hosted 
by the European Union. 
4.5.  Wishing to follow-up on the transparency in itiative, the representative of the European Union 
highlighted that TISA was meant to be multilatera lised, and the EU hoped that it would be brought 
back to the multilateral trading system. That was the spirit in which those negotiations were taking 
place. With regard to the criticism of TISA being on the Council's agenda, she noted that, outside 
of the Council setting, Members had the chance to see what was happening with TISA thanks to the relevant EU transparency initiative. A new website had been created, where general 
information could be obtained about the architec ture and scope of the agreement, answers were 
provided to frequently asked questions, and a few negotiating documents that the EU was 
responsible for and that did not touch upon the negotiating positions of other parties were also 
available.  
4.6.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia noted that his delegation's position on 
the issue was well-known. Bolivia did not support plurilateral initiatives taking place at the margins 
of the WTO and the principles and rules agreed at the multilateral level. Those types of initiatives 
did not uphold the fairly delicate balances that had been secured in the GATS at the end of the 
Uruguay Round. Similarly, they did not strengthen the principles of the Negotiating Guidelines and 
Procedures for the services negotiations adopted in 2001. Those types of initiatives, where the 
more developed Members took advantage of the ab sence of balanced and critical views from the 
various development perspectives, did not contribute to achieving the balanced multilateral trade outcomes that were delivered by multilateral negotiations. Although such multilateral processes 
were more complex, they were also more legitima te for the WTO mandate. It was very difficult to 
envisage the results of the TISA negotiations providing a basis for multilateralisation. 
4.7.  The representative of Switzerland indicate d that his delegation also hoped that the TISA 
participants would eventually be in a position to return to the WTO to propose the 
multilateralisation of the agreement. It was in that  spirit that the TISA parties considered it useful 
to continuously keep the other Members of the Council informed of developments in TISA. He was aware that, to that end, it was important that the agreement be attractive, and there were valid S/C/M/119 
 
- 12 - 
 
  reasons to think that it would indeed be so. In the same spirit of openness and transparency, from 
the first half of 2012 Switzerland had also put in place a dedicated webpage on TISA. It had been updating it regularly, and it presently containe d all the submissions tabled by Switzerland, the 
Swiss offer, other general information about the pr ocess, the timetable, and other elements on the 
domestic Swiss consultation processes. The page wa s in the three Swiss official languages, as well 
as in English. 
4.8.  The representative of India wished to put on record her delegation's well-known position on 
TISA. India firmly believed that the WTO was the best option to move the services negotiations 
forward. She reiterated her delegation's concern with the TISA negotiations. TISA was clearly outside the WTO context, and at best could qualify as  an Article V-type services FTA. This had also 
been echoed by some of the TISA participants th emselves. The meetings of the Council for Trade 
in Services could not be used to push the TISA initiative into the WTO. Indeed, given that 
transparency was one of the most fundamental WTO principles, if the reporting was being done to 
enhance the transparency element of the WTO, Indi a appreciated the intention of the participants. 
However, in that case transparency had to be fully respected and the participants needed to 
provide their updates in an adequately detailed ma nner, including on the textual elements and the 
market access being negotiated, with referenc e to the GATS and commitments under the GATS. 
She was highly appreciative of the EU and Swiss initiatives in terms of providing information on 
TISA on their respective websites. 
4.9.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela also reiterated her delegation's 
long-standing position on TISA. Her delegation could not agree to plurilateral initiatives, which did 
not have a place in the WTO, and the Council should therefore not be a forum to promote such 
initiatives. As WTO Members, they still truste d that the discussion could be entertained in a 
multilateral setting with a balanced and a transparent approach. 
4.10.  The representative of Cuba reiterated his delegation's concerns with regard to the practice 
which continued to take place in the Council with regard to the recurrent inclusion of that item on 
the agenda. The TISA initiative ran counter to th e disciplines of the GATS, was non-inclusive and 
discriminatory, and reduced the multilateral spirit and credibility of the WTO. GATS Article V:7(b) 
stipulated that Members who were part of an economic integration agreement had the right to 
periodically inform the Council on developments wi th their agreement. That was not the case with 
TISA, which was a simple initiative and not an agreement. Cuba reiterated its defence of 
multilateralism and rejected the TISA plurilateral approach, whose strategic objectives were to 
reduce the policy space of developing countries and establish new disciplines with higher standards, barriers and difficulties which, in pa rticular, did not respond to the LDC collective 
request.  
4.11.  The representative of Ecuador stressed the importance of the TISA initiative being subjected 
to the principles and disciplines of the WTO, and in particular those contained in Article V of the 
GATS. On the other hand, if TISA were to be implemented on an MFN basis, as was the case with 
the ITA and as the proponents had assured would be  the outcome of the plurilateral negotiations 
on environmental goods, this would constitute a significant contribution to the strengthening of the multilateral trading system. 
4.12.  The representative of Brazil reiterated his delegation's concerns with the TISA initiative as 
reflected in the records of previous meetings. He hoped that the initiative, as it progressed, did not 
unduly interfere with the talks that Members had been having on the services pillar of the post-Bali 
work programme once those were resumed. TISA wa s totally outside of the WTO, and Brazil hoped 
that the Members that were involved did not hold unrealistic expectations in the context of the WTO as far as an outcome in the services pillar was concerned. He thanked some of the TISA 
participants for their efforts to increase transparency, which helped see how the talks were 
progressing and which elements were being considered. On the other hand, he noted that inclusiveness remained limited, due to the nature of the initiative as a plurilateral process that did not offer trade-offs for other WTO Members. 
4.13.  The Chairman asked if delegations whose positions on TISA had already been recorded in 
the record of previous meetings and who simply wished to restate those same positions could keep 
their interventions short, as reiterating well-kno wn positions might end up diluting their message. S/C/M/119 
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.14.  The representative of Egypt thanked the EU and Switzerland for their transparency 
initiatives. Nonetheless, he reiterated Egypt's concerns with regard to TISA and asked that his 
delegation's statement at the Council meeting held on 8 May2 b e  a d d e d  t o  t h e  r e c o r d  o f  t h e  
meeting. 
4.15.  The representative of Uganda also asked that his delegation's statement at the meeting of 
the Council held on 8 May3 be added to the record of the meeting. 
4.16.  The representative of Australia wished to reiterate that TISA participants remained at the 
disposal of any delegation, or groups of delegati ons, that wished to discuss TISA in more detail. 
They had indeed spoken to a number of groups already, but were very open to talking in-depth to anyone about how the TISA talks were going and what was included in those negotiations. 
4.17.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela wished to note that, although it 
was true that some delegations had already expressed their disagreement with the services 
plurilateral initiative in the past, it was also true that the fact that the initiative continued being discussed in the Council made it necessary for those Members to reiterate their concerns. If, as a 
result of continued attempts to promote such an initiative in the Council, delegations felt the need 
to repeat their positions, they would continue to do so. She thanked those TISA participants who 
had put in place transparency initiatives, but aske d them to be mindful of the concerns expressed 
by many Members. She noted that transparency  was not only about informing Members about 
what was happening outside of the WTO, but also involved recognising that other WTO Members belonged to a multilateral setting. 
4.18.  The Chairman clarified that he had not discouraged delegations from speaking. He had just 
said that, given that continually repeating the same argument would not be constructive, if there 
was nothing new that delegations wished to share,  they might like to keep their interventions 
short. 
4.19.  He noted that the Council had had a constructive debate. He indicated that the purpose of 
the discussion was to enhance transparency, and th erefore encouraged TISA participants to make 
their best efforts to be more transparent and devise any necessary mechanisms to this effect. With 
regard to the concerns expressed by many non-TISA participants about the multilateralisation of 
TISA, he noted that it was up to the TISA participants to continue consulting with those Members about how the initiative could be multilateralised. Those concerns were well-taken, and the responsibility of having consultations to assuage them lay with the TISA participants. He proposed 
that the Council take note of the statements made , and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
4.20.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E – OTHER BUSINESS 
5.1.  No items under Other Business were raised.  
5.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________  
                                               
2 Contained in paragraph 6.16 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014. 
3 Contained in paragraph 6.14 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014.