RESTRICTED  
  
TN/S/M/46  
 
24 May 2017  
(17-2826) Page: 1/12 
Council for Trade in Services  
Special Session    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 3 MAY 2017 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
  The Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services held a formal meeting on 
3 May 2017. The agenda, contained in document WTO/AIR/ TN/S/ 2, was adopted.  
The Chairperson  recalled that h e had summarized the state of discussions in December 2016 
in JOB/ SERV/246 , after the Special Session's last formal meeting . He had sensed a readiness to 
advance the negotiations and to engage, subject to keeping flexibility and taking into a ccount 
develop ment aspects.  Three broad areas had been highlighted by Members as priorities: domestic 
regulation, market access, and e -commerce.  Since then, he  had held numerous consultations with 
delegations, either one -on-one or in groups.  With respect to domestic reg ulation, negotiating work 
continue d to advance in the Working Party and he encourage d further engagement from all sides 
in that context.  Concerning market access and services elements of e -commerce, the Chairperson  
better underst ood the views of Members on these issues.  A number of delegations  had interest in 
these two topics.  He had stressed for some time the need for concrete proposals in order to move  
discussions forward . However, proposals on these topics had not been received, which was why 
the Special  Session had not met e arlier this year.  Obviously, for any discussions to constructively 
advance in 2017 , any proposals would have to be put forward soon.   
 
1  ITEM A : TRADE FACILITATION  AGREEMENT FOR SERVIC ES 
1.1.  The Chairperson  said that services trade facilita tion was one area where a concrete proposal  
had been submitted . Communications from India on this topic had already been discussed in the 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation (W PDR) and the Regular S ession of the Council for Trade in 
Services.  After the in itial presentation of its proposal in other bodies, India indicated that it was 
now prepared to discuss it s communication (TN/S/W/63) in the Special Session, which was w hy 
today's meeting was taking place.  
1.2.  The representative of India said that f ruitful and  constructive  discussions of the proposal had 
taken place during the cluster of services meetings last March.  She appreciated the interest 
generated and the general recognition of the need to address  issues relating to trade facilitation in 
services.  Some Members had expressed the view that the proposal was comprehensive and well 
balanced.  In earlier discussions, India had outlined the sources for each of the provisions 
contained in the draft legal text.  Comments and feedback received from delegations had p roved 
valuable  and her delegation was now ready to circulate its responses  and comments  on the key 
issues raised by M embers . These would be circulated shortly as a Room Document.  
1.3.  Highlighting the increasing contribution of service s to global GDP , exports, and employment, 
the representative saw this initiative as the services counterpart to the goods -specific T rade 
Facilitation Agreement (T FA). Despite its importance, trade in services remained subject to 
numerous border a nd behind -the-border barriers, and t he proposal aimed to address these.  A 
Trade Facilitation Agreement for Services (TFS) could only be meaningful if it had comprehensive 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
 
 TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 2 - 
 
  scope and covered measures across all modes of supply.  The proposal was about making market 
access effective and commerci ally meaningful, and not about new market access.  Trade facilitation 
as a natural corollary to the GATS.   
1.4.  Since the proposed legal text had already been presented in two previous meetings, she 
would focus on areas where delegations had expressed concerns o r sought clarifications.  She 
recalled that the inspiration for the draft provisions came from a number of familiar sources, 
including obligations of the GATS, negotiating text s on domestic regulation , Australia's proposal on 
administration of measures (JOB /SERV/239), Turkey's proposal on economic needs tests 
(JOB/SERV/224), the TFA, bilateral, plurilateral , and regional trade agreements  (RTAs) , India's 
earlier WTO submissions, and stakeholder consultations.   
1.5.  The representative had carefully noted the concer ns of some Members regarding the 
potential compliance burden that could arise from undertaking TFS obligations , and emphasized 
that the draft text contained  significant provisions on special and differential treatment .  For 
example, LDCs would not be requi red to implement the provisions of the TFS. With respect t o 
Article 1 .1 on scope and definitions, she noted  that concerns had been raised about the TFS 
diluting Member s' rights to maintain limitations under Article XVI and Article XVII  of the GATS . She 
confirmed that this was not the intent.  Nevertheless, her delegation would assess whether 
modifications to the text were required to confirm this understanding.  
1.6.  Some members ha d expressed conce rns about the fact that  Article 2 ( publication and 
availability o f information) applied  to all sectors – whether committed or not.  India's level of 
ambition with respect to this provision was similar to that of GATS Article III on transparency, 
which was a general obligation that applied irrespective of commitments.  These were matters of 
ambition  that n eeded to be carefully balanced with compliance -related concerns.  Turning to the 
principle of the right to regulate i n Article  1.2, the representative acknowledged that some 
delegations  had suggested shifting this provision  to the p reamble.  Her delegation  was still 
reflecting and appreciated that most Members ha d recognised the importance of this principle.  
1.7.  Regarding definitions, some developed countr ies were concerned that the proposal covered 
immigration formalities . She clarified that t he TFS was not going to address issues relating to 
immigration , such as employment or residence on a permanent basis.  The proposal focused on 
visa categories and work permits that were relevant to categories of service suppliers in respect of 
which Members ha d under taken commitments.  Those clearly f ell within the scope of " measures 
affecting trade in services ". The terms " immigration formality " and "immigration measures " had 
commonly been used in chapters of RTAs that were dedicated to the temporary entry of natural 
persons . With respect to the definition of the term s "requirements and procedures ", she had taken 
note of the concerns expressed by some delegations regarding the need for such an overarching 
definition . India's intent was to have  a term that encompass ed all  measures affecting trade in 
services.  Her delegation was working to streamline the text.  
1.8.  Several delegations had raised concerns about Article 2.1.2, which provided for p ublication in 
one of the official languages of the WTO.  She noted that the TFA ha d a similar provision.  This 
requirement was useful because service suppliers often operate d in multiple jurisdictions.  She 
wished to further engage with other Members to arrive at a solution . The provision on opportunity 
to comment had cause d some apprehension amongst developing countries.  She stressed that this 
provision was one of best endeavour . Foreign investors and other stakeholder s should be provided 
with reasonable opportunity to comment when  measures were introduced or amend ed, especially 
if these changes significantly alter ed the business environment.  It would, however, be the 
prerogative of the host country to decide ho w to address comments received.  
1.9.  Some Members appeared to have reservations about the wide ambit of Article  3 on 
administration of measures.  The representative wished to emphasize that most of the provisions 
under this Article were qualified by the terms "to the extent practicable ". This provide d ample  
flexibility.  Nevertheless, her delegation was re viewing the  scope of this provision.  Concerning the 
issue of single window , some Members had observed that  services would often fall within the 
jurisdiction of multiple authorities.  However, the provision was qualified by the terms " as far as 
practicable ". She did no t expect one authority to be the deciding entity for all aspects  relating to 
the supply of a service . The main purpose was to ensure that  governments consider , to the extent 
practicable, streamlining certain administrati ve procedures.  Still, India was considering some edits 
based on Members ' suggestions in order to allay concerns.   TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.10.   With respect to Article 3.5  on appeals and review, she noted that this provision was inspired 
from the TFA.  In view of comments received from Members, India was assessing the rel evance of 
the provision , given that the same topic was addressed by GATS Article VI :2. As regards the 
provision on information and verification requests  in Article 3 .6, the objective was to allay the 
need for multiple documentation.  India was  examining app ropriate modifications  in response to 
comments made , but did not intend to include a necessity test.  In response to a delegation's 
question on whether this provision covered professional standards, she said  that it would apply to 
professional standards to the extent relevant for qualification or licensing.  With respect to 
Article  3.7 on f ast-track procedure, th is obligation was qualified by the terms " as far as 
practicable ". The criteria mentioned  in the provision were only illustrative.  The concept of trus ted 
traveller programme , which was similar,  had been used in some recent RTAs.  
1.11.   Regarding Article 4, she h ad taken note of concern s expressed about limiting fees and 
charges to a level commensurate with the costs incurred.  The footnote to the definition of  "fees 
and charges " in Article 1 clearly exclude d fees for the use of natural resources, payments for 
auction, tendering or other non -discriminatory means of awarding concessions, or mandated 
contributions to universal service provision.  For other aspects,  India wanted to prevent high fees 
and charges that c ould adversely impact service suppliers , especially those from developing 
countries and LDCs.  Further, Article 11.3 of the Indian proposal specifically provide d that Members 
endeavour to apply  reduced fe es and charges to service suppliers  from developing countr ies, and 
in particular from LDCs.   
1.12.   With respect to Article 5 on the administration of  economic needs tests ( ENTs), the proposal 
sought greater clarity and certainty in relati on to the use of ENTs that had been inscribed in 
schedules.  This would not prevent Members from using ENTs.  The objective was to better 
understand how ENTs were administered by enhancing transparency about the relevant criteria 
and process . Her delegation recognize d the importanc e of services liberalization, and believed that 
this should be carried forward.  However, the TFS was not a vehicle for greater market access . The 
objective was more modest and limited , as it simply s ought to make existing commitments more 
meaningful and ef fective. Concerning provisions relating to recognition, the representative agreed 
that Article 6 .2 of the proposal was essentially a reiteration of GATS Article VII :1, except for the 
additional text that drew special attention to a ccording recognition oppo rtunities to developing 
countr ies. A 2005 UNCTAD report had observed that recognition agreements were often entered 
into by developed countries, and that this had a trade -distorting effect.  
1.13.   Acknowledging the concerns of some delegations with respect to Art icle 7 on the cross -
border flow of informat ion, she indicated that t he objective was to ensure meaningful 
implementation of existing commitments under mode 1.  Her delegation was reflecting on the need 
to incorporate some drafting changes in order to clarify this position.  The proposal was not about 
e-commerce, which ha d a different and wider ambit.  With respect to paragraph 2 of Article 7, she 
said that this provision was based on the understanding that there was no  single approach to 
regulation s on the pro tection of personal information . Members should not use differences in 
regulatory approaches to defeat commitments made under m ode 1.  India's proposal d id not go 
against the letter or spirit of GATS Article XIV. Regarding Article 7 .3, some delegations  had asked  
why recognition agreements w ere mentioned , given the broader provision on this matter in 
Article  6.2. The reason was that the latter provision, like GATS Art icle VII: 1, referred to recognition 
of education  or experience obtained, requirements met, or  licenses or certifications grante d in a 
particular country.  This did not directly cover r ecognitio n pertaining to data -related issues.  India 
had therefore proposed a specific and separate provision on this i ssue to ensure greater clarity.  
1.14.   Regarding  Article 8.1 on cross-border insurance coverage , this was a soft law obligation and 
her delegation wished  to maintain such an approach. This obligation aimed to make commitments 
under mode 2 more meaningful.  India was not seeking that Members mandate private insu rance 
companies to extend insurance coverage to treatment received i n foreign hospitals.  She 
underst ood that coverage for treatment abroad  was a business decision of insurers . However, the 
intention of the proposal  was to ensure that governments did not pr event coverage for treatment 
received abroad.  Regarding Article 8 .2 on emergency authorizations, she recalled that this was a 
best endeavour  obligation that aimed  to facilitate consumption abroad by such natural persons a s 
medical patients, students , and tourists . She looked forward to hearing the views of delegations  on 
the practical utility of such a provision , given its focus on the country of the service supplier, 
rather than on that of the consumer.  Further, since th e provision on emergency authorizati on TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 4 - 
 
  focused on immigration formalities for foreign consumers, it was not linked to specific 
commitments and therefore applied to all sectors.   
1.15.   A number of Members, especially develop ed countr ies, had sought clarifications regarding 
mode 4 aspects of the pro posal.  The intent of Articles 9.1.1 and 9.1.2  was to increase 
transparency and ensure th at mode 4 commitments were not undermined because of a lack of 
correlation between a Member 's commitments and the relevant visas or work permits required.  
Article 9.1.2  also proposed a GATS visa  in order to distinguish temporary entry for servi ce supply 
covered by the GATS from permanent migration.  The latter was  outside the scope of the GATS and 
therefore not covered by the TFS . For its part, A rticle 9.1.3 aimed to ensu re th at the 
representation of the employer was given due consideration by authorities . Nothing in Article 9.1.3 
interfere d with the right of competent authorities to seek evidence of qualifications or licenses 
relevant to the supply of a service , and India was considering appropriate drafting changes to 
clarify th is. Regarding  Article 9.2  on multiple entry visas , she clarified that the  provision was about 
facilitati ng commitments under taken , and not about seeking periods of stay beyond the duration 
that had  been committed.  The representative indicated that the objective of Article 9.3 on soc ial 
security contributions was to address a major barrier faced by exporters from developing 
countries . She appreciated the supp ort received from some delegations , in par ticular the LDC 
group.  She had taken note of a suggestion to resolve such issues through bilateral social security 
pacts . However, India's experience in this regard suggested that such agreements were difficult  to 
conclude . Hence, her delegation was propos ing a multilateral solution through two simple rules 
rooted in fairness, namely: (i) to exempt from such payments  the categories of natural persons 
committed in schedules or, where such exemption s were not possible, (ii) to allow for refund of 
payments at the end of the stay.  
1.16.    Article 10 on cooperation was inspired by the TFA , and she acknowledge d the support from 
delegations regarding the value of closer cooperation amongst authorities with responsibility for 
trade in services.  The representative was encou raged to see the importance that delegations  
attached to Article 11 (special and differential treatment) and Article 12 (technical assistance).  
Two options were possible on these issues, one b ased on the Chairman's texts in the domestic 
regulation negotiat ions or one inspired from the TFA.  India had opted for the former and 
appreciated the support received  on this matter.  With respect to institutional arrangements,  one 
delegation had wondered whether the proposed new committee on trade facilitation in servi ces 
would duplicate the work of the Council for Trade in Services.  She thought that Members would 
need to collectively discuss whether the C ouncil could fulfil such an additional task.   Regarding 
Article 14 on final provisions, a number of delegations had proposed incorporating GATS provisions 
in relation to regional and local levels of governments, and her delegation was considering such 
suggestions.  
1.17.   Regarding next steps, the representative would  ask the Secretariat to circulate a room 
document containing India's responses and comments on all key issues raised by delegations so 
far. Her delegation intended to submit a  revised draft text on TFS  soon. Such revision would take 
account of  the suggestions received from Members.  India would seek to deepen engagem ent, 
bilaterally and multilaterally , over the next days and months.  
1.18.   The representative of Ukraine  supported India's proposal from a systemic point of view.  She 
welcomed the approach of using key principles from the TF A in the context of trade in services.  
Provisions on mode 4, however, were s ensitive.  More consideration should be given to 
implementation of existing commitments  and to achieving balance a cross Members' schedules.  She 
drew attentio n in that regard to the high levels  of commitments undertaken by WTO Members that 
went through the accession process.  
1.19.   The representative of Rwanda , speaking on behalf of the African Group , wondered whether 
India's proposal was realistic in the current political climate . The African Union Ministers of Trade 
had undersc ored that agriculture remain ed central to Africa' s interests in the WTO and  that it  
would determin e the overall level of ambition in the negotiations.  In the absence of any discernible 
progress on priorities of the African Group, notably  domestic support i n agriculture and public 
stockholding for food security purposes , realistic prospects  for taking up the TFS seemed minimal .  
1.20.   The Group had various  concerns in relation to the issue of mandate . Only a limited number 
of provisions in the proposed TFS fell within the existing s ervices negotiating mandate.  Many were 
not covered by the Doha Ministerial mandate and the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Paragraph  1(g) of the 2004 July Framework General Cou ncil Decision  explicitly stated  that no work 
towards negotia tions on investment would take place within the WTO during the Doha 
Development Agenda (DDA) . Further, paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration  
recognized that some Members did not agree to identify or discuss other issues for negotiations.  
Respect for WTO mandates should not be taken lightly  because developing countries, including 
India, were asking for mandates to be adhered to in other areas.  The Group also had concerns 
about undertaking several new and potentially onerous obligations  that app eared to expand 
Members' market access commitments.  The scope of the TFS  was very broad.  He did not feel that 
it was appropriate to transpose the TFA -template , which was limited to customs procedures , to 
trade in services.  The Group acknowledge d the obstac les faced by Indian exporters . African 
suppliers faced similar challenges w hen trying to ent er foreign markets , and t he experience 
encountered under the LDC Services Waiver spoke to this . The Group  acknowledge d that one of 
the underlying objectives of the TFS related to  mode 4.  However, given the current c limate , the 
Group did not feel that it was realistic to expect the TFS to deliver  significant outcomes on the 
movement of natural persons  or benefits to developing countries more generally.  
1.21.   The representat ive of Chinese Taipei  had raised specific questions in earlier meetings and 
was seeking clarifications on such issues  as the administration of ENTs, cross-border flows of 
information, portability of health insurance, and facilitation of the movement of con sumers seeking 
medical services.  She looked forwar d to India's detailed responses . If it could address services 
barriers in a comprehensive manner, a TFS might provide an opportunity to address the various 
issues raised by Members' stakeholders.  She noted that h er delegation had always supported 
market access and domestic regu lation moving ahead together.  Without access to services 
markets, trade facilitation would be less meaningful and beneficial.  
1.22.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  wished to provide preliminary 
comments  on the proposal . With respect to scope, he thought that the impact of disciplines would 
be m ore strongly felt on those Members that had a greater number of sectors in their schedule.  
The implications of this needed to be further considered.  Regarding mode 4, the majority of 
developing countr ies had interest in deeper disciplines.  However, he wondered how realistic it was 
to expect outcomes in this regard given the current context and the fact that this had historically 
been a difficult issue in negotiations.   
1.23.   Regarding  cross-border information flows, his delegation was still assessing the implications 
of addressing data flows and related privacy issues from a commercial and trade -rules perspective.  
He believed that t his issue lacked a negotiating mandate.  With respect to  transparency, the 
provisions seemed unfavourable to the majority of developing country Members.  The proposed  
rules on prior comment went further than GATS Article III, and there was no negotiating mandate  
to expand this Article.  He was worried that the proposal  would imply shifting government 
resources away from such areas as health or education in order to strengthen administration 
functions dedicated to notifications.  Regarding disciplines on such measur es as licensing or 
qualification requirements, he wondered how India proposed to address duplication of work with 
the WPDR.  On special and differential treatment, India's proposal did not meet the standards 
achieved in the WTO.  Developing countr ies had wor ked hard to ensure that commitments were 
implemented on the basis of their respective capacities, and not only through longer transition 
periods, as was suggested in the proposal.  His delegation did not support such an approach.  He 
encouraged the Indian de legation to re -evaluate its proposal  in view of what could realistically be 
achieved and taking account of implications for other areas of negotiation in the WTO.  
1.24.   The representative of Canada  referred delegations to comments that he had conveyed 
during the  services meetings in March.  Adapting TFA disciplines to the services context was a bold 
concept , and it could help frame future services negotiations.  Still, his delegation believed that the 
proposal touched on aspects , such as immigration and social secu rity, which  should not be 
addressed in the WTO.  Regarding the relationship between services trade facilitation a nd the 
ongoing discussions on domestic regulation , he supported keeping TFS discussions on a track 
separate from the WPDR.  The proposed  TFS was broader in scope and introduce d a number of 
concepts that were new to services trade agreements.  It would take some time to work through all 
implications.  Members' engagement on TFS should not p revent near -term outcomes on domestic 
regulation.  With respect  to the scope of the TFS, his delegation agreed that the disciplines should 
be linked to  Members ' schedules of commitments.  However, Canada would have difficulty 
contemplating broad new rules in the context of the current imbalance in Members ' schedules.  Any 
TFS negotiations should be undertaken in conjunctio n with negotiations on  market access.   TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.25.   The representative support ed the inclusion of e -commerce in the TFS, but took note of  
India' s insistence that there was no mandate to do so.  India' s proposal on data flows was  very 
ambitious, but should be complemented by a balanced set of disciplines on e -commerce.  His 
delegation continue d to value services market access at the WTO.  Improving Members ' schedules 
of specific commitments would provide certainty for se rvice providers, and could contribute to 
sustainable and inclusive economic growth.  His delegation was  currently reflecting on how to 
revitalize WTO negotia tions on services market access . It was time to consider fresh approaches, 
including sectoral negoti ations, which would allow Members to improve their commitments in the 
spirit of progressive liberalization.  
1.26.   The representative of South Africa  associated her delegation with the statement made by 
the African Group.  The propos al was overly ambitious and com prehensive , and her delegation 
could n ot support it.  Many questions remained unanswered.  Her delegation  was not a demandeur  
in services.  Yet, at a time of great  economic uncertainty during the transition from apartheid, 
South Africa had undert aken extensiv e services commitments.  Just over a decade later, the 
country had submitted a substantial offer in the WTO services negotiations.  She thought that a 
TFS would exacerbate the already wide differences in commitments and obligations  across 
Members , and would further limit the right to regulate.  She stressed that the DDA was launched 
with the promise to help developing countries integrate into the global economy  in part by 
correcting the systemic imbalances caused by agricultural subsidies . Agriculture continue d to be 
her delegation's main priority and p articipation in the s ervices negotiations was contingent on the 
level of ambition in agriculture.  
1.27.   She thought that the proposal was incompatible w ith the existing mandate and negotiating 
framework.  The Guidelines  and Procedures for the Negotiations (S/L/93 ) under Article XIX were 
made part of the DDA  and, read together with Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 
serve d as the basis for the services negotiations.  There was no mandate  to negotiate the proposed  
TFS in its current form . South Africa was of the view that there was no mandate to negotiate 
regulatory disciplines beyond what was specified under GATS Art icles VI:4, X, XIII and XV.  Her 
delegation had also raised concerns about proposals on investm ent facilitation and e -commerce, 
and she thought that t he TFS was attempting to introduc e these same issues in a different 
context.  Paragrap h 1(g) of the 2004 July Framework General Council Decision explicitly exclude d 
any work towards negotiations on  investment . In addition, paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration recognize d that some Members d id not agree to discuss new issues for negotiations.  It 
was difficult to see how Members could agree to launch discussions on new, non -Doha, issues  
when areas of priority interest, like agriculture, were not progressing .  
1.28.   The representative considered that the TFS would extend the application of existing market 
access commitments.  She was aware of India's offensive interests under modes 1 and 4, but the 
inclusion of modes 2 and 3 in the proposal, as well as inclusion of e -commerce elements, created 
significant difficulties for her delegation.  For example, facilitating cross -border flows of information 
had implications on the scope of existing market access commitments.  She did not consider th at 
the GATS was technolog y neutral.  While mode 4 elements in the TFS could have been considered a 
development outcome, the proposed expansion of commitments under modes 1, 2 and 3, the 
inclusion of new issues, new and on erous transparency obligations, the lack of a mandate on most 
provisions, and the absence of any discernible progress in agriculture, did not provide sufficient 
basis for her delegation to pursue discussions on a TFS.  
1.29.   The representative of Uganda , speakin g on behalf of the LDC Group, expressed support  for 
the intervention of the African Group.  He observed that exports of commercial services from LDCs 
had reached US$36 billion  in 2015 , while imports where valued at US$75 billion.  LDCs accounted 
for 0.8% of world exports and 1.6% of world imports of commercial services.  The LDCs' overall 
services trade deficit ha d widened from US$16.3 billion in 2005  to US$39 billion in 2015.  At the 
same time, 70% of the population in LDCs depended on agriculture for their li velihood.  The 
objective of the LDCs was to i ncrease the participation of their suppliers in the  benefits that 
services brought to LDC economies, in particular with regard to competitiveness, diversification of 
exports, increased employment and reduction of  poverty, improving availability and access to 
basic services , and ensuring sustainable development.  This informed efforts in relation to the LDC 
services waiver.  
1.30.   He believed that trade rules were primarily designed to ensure market access, and not to 
prom ote efficiency or social welfare. There was a growing preoccupation about  the intrusiveness of TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 7 - 
 
  disciplines that required trade considerations to prevail over other policy objectives . This could 
constrain the capacity to effectively regulate in the pursuit of public interest . For this reason, t he 
LDC group appreciate d the inclusion of LDC-related provisions on special and differential treatment 
in India's proposal , specifically Article 11.2 which provid ed that LDCs would  not be required to 
implement the prov isions of the TFS.  LDCs were nevertheless encouraged to apply these 
disciplines to the extent compatible with their special economic situation and their development 
trade and financial needs.  He welcomed the inclu sion in the proposal of some elements of the LDC 
collective request, for example i n relation to the reduction of fees and charges.  Such reductions 
should take the form of preferences in favour of LDCs.  It was important to help suppliers from 
LDCs compete with suppliers from countries with greater capacity and resources.  
1.31.   The representative noted that LDCs had proposed that their natural persons supplying 
services through temporary contracts should not be charged social security contributions.  India's 
ideas were therefore of interest.  Attempts to red uce obstacles to mode 4  through multiple entry 
visas and a GATS visa were useful.  He asked how India envisaged these provisions being 
implemented.  He also wondered whether it was realistic to expect progress on such issues in the 
current environment.  The representative also asked the delegation of India to clarify why Articles 2 
and 8.2 would apply to all sectors, and not only to sectors where commitments had been 
undertaken.  With respect to the single window, he observed that India had drawn a distinction  
between competent authorities for authorizations and those for immigration and other matters.  He 
wondered whether the delegation had conducted cost analysis on the application of a single 
window in services, given the number of competent authorities invol ved. Moreover, did the  
provisions on ENTs , as well as those on modes 1, 2, and 4, modify the flexibilities available to 
developing countries under GATS Articles IV and XIX? He wonde red why India felt that a distinct 
committee to monitor the TFS would be ne cessary.  Finally, h e asked India how it envis ioned  
reaching consensus on this proposal by MC11.   
1.32.   Despite the importance of mode 4 to LDC suppliers, the representative believed that the 
proposal was not covered by existing mandates.  While t here was no negot iating mandate in the 
WTO on e-commerce , the proposal sought to initiate negotiations on  this topic without a specific 
mandate from Ministers.  The Indian proposal would also lead to the introduction of issues that ha d 
been explicitly prohibited through paragraph 1(g) of the 2004 July Framework , such as 
investment.  In contrast, issues of negotiating interest to the LDCs were rooted in some mandate, 
whether cotton, the services waiver, or the reduction of domestic support in agriculture.  The most 
vulnerable M embers of the WTO relied on the organization's rules for protection and these should 
not be set aside.  
1.33.   The representative of the Republic of Korea , without prejudice to India's proposal, agreed in 
principle that it was important to have a services counterp art to the TFA.  However, delegations 
had to be mindful of the differences between trade facilitation in services and the TFA . The TFA 
aimed to streamline, simplify and standardize customs procedures , but trade facilitation in services 
was more complicated and of a fundamentally different nature , as illustrated by India's proposal . 
Various other elements  that were not addressed in the Indian proposal , such as e -commerce and 
foreign investment regimes, could be addressed under the notion of services trade fac ilitation .  
1.34.   The representative considered that some of the elements included in the proposal were 
sensitive and had barely been discussed in the WTO, while others seemed relatively easily 
achievable.  For example, Members ha d discussed domestic regulation f or about 20 years and now 
seemed in good position to reach agreement.  Although he saw some merit in India' s holistic 
approach, delegations should be strategic and practical if they wished to  reach agreement.  Certain 
elements should be prioritized in light of thei r state of discussion and maturity . A concrete first-
step achievement was needed in order to build momentum.  He believed that cross-border flow s of 
information and mode 4 were difficult issues.  It seemed too early to discuss those topics in a 
negoti ating context . Instead,  such issues could be further discussed through seminars or 
workshops in order to build the foundation for an eventual negotiation.  With respect to cross-
border insurance , the Republic of Korea ha d a universal health care system  and this was a pillar of 
the country's social safety net.  If the national health insurance service provider expand ed 
coverage to include  medical consumption  abroad , fund shortages  might arise , and this could 
undermine the system.  It was difficult for his deleg ation to negotiate  on any provisions that might 
put the social security system at risk.   TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.35.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  underscored  that his delegation was a strong 
demandeur  in negotiations on domestic regulation.  He wished to see progress in the development 
of such disciplines  and, if possible , an outcome at MC11.  The proposed TFS had a wider scope and 
contained elements that did not relate to domestic regulation.  The relationship between TFS and 
the ongoing domestic regulation negotiation s should  be carefully considered . In his view, priority 
should be given to fulfil ling the mandate under GATS Article VI:4.  Regarding Article 5 on the 
administration of ENTs, he noted that Article 5.1 limit ed the transparency obligation to scheduled 
ENTs, but that Article 5.2 could apply to all ENTs.  He asked India to clarify whether the intention 
was to cover only scheduled ENTs in both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5.  With respect to 
Article 7, he wondered if  India could provide examples to illustrate what data fl ows under mode 1 
might consist of, and how such a mode -specific obligation could operate.  He also wished to know 
how a Member could be allowed to adopt or maintain measures to protect personal information , as 
suggested in the first part of Article 7.2, whi le at the same time being forbidden to impose barriers 
because of difference s in Members' measures on the protection of personal information , as 
suggested in the second part of Article 7.2.  Such measures would certainly not be the same a cross 
all Members.  If no Member c ould impose restrictions on data flow s as a result of different 
standards of data protection, how could there b e free flow of data under the proposal?  
1.36.   The representative of Cuba shared the  concerns expressed by a number of Members.  She 
was p reoccupied by the broad scope of the propos al and believed that it went beyond the mandate 
laid out in GATS Article VI:4.  She noted that obligations on transparency that went beyond GATS 
Article III, such as on prior comment, had been proposed.  Her delegat ion had expressed 
reservations about such proposals in the past.  The proposal interfered with the right to regulate 
and included elements that administrations would find hard to comply with, such as  provisions on 
a single window.  She also had concerns  about the issue of cross -border data flows, which was 
being analysed in discussions on e -commerce, a topic for which there was no negotiating mandate.  
Her delegation agreed with the African Group that it was necessary to reac h a balance with 
negotiations on a griculture, which were currently fraught with uncertainty.   
1.37.    The representative of Kenya  considered that the proposal was overly broad and that it 
touched on issues that lacked a  negotiating mandate.  The implementation of such a broad 
proposal would create difficulties for countries like Kenya, which had capacity constraints.  The 
provisions on special and differential treatment were not sufficient to address many of the 
challenges faced.  While some provisions had been imported from previous WPDR texts and fr om 
the TFA,  domestic regulation negotiations were limited to the elements set out in GATS Article VI:4 
and the TFA was limited to customs procedures.  Applying such provisions in a broader context 
would pose difficulties.  He thought that some aspects of  the proposal would lead to new market 
access.  Further, t he fact that some provisions applied to sectors where no commitments had been 
made reduce d the  flexibilities available  to developing countries.  He hoped that the Indian 
delegation c ould consider other ap proaches to take this proposal forward.  
1.38.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  share d a number of the concerns 
raised by other delegations, in particular th ose of th e African Group, South Africa, Uganda, Cuba, 
and Bolivia.  He thought th at the proposal lacked realis m in the current context.  Ensuring b alance 
across negotiating areas remained paramount, as issues of great  interest to many Members, such 
as agriculture, remained stalled.  Further, many of the proposed disciplines exceeded nego tiating 
mandates, such as on transparency and cross-border flows of information.   
1.39.   The representative of  the Kingdom of Bahrain  shared some of the concerns expressed by 
other delegations, including with respect to immigration matters.  His delegation would c ome back 
with more specific comments after further analysis of the proposal.  The representative of 
Cameroon  shared the views expressed by the African Group and lent support to the interventions 
of South Africa and Uganda.  He asked the delegation of India t o specify the mandate and rules 
that should govern discussions of this text.  The TFA clearly mentioned the mandate that gave rise 
to it and the rules that governed the negotiating process.  Respect for mandates  was fundamental  
in a rules -based organization.  More time should  be given to  working to achieve outcome s on 
agricult ure.  
1.40.   The representative of Argentina  considered that India's proposal provided a good basis for 
further discussions and negotiations.  Since the proposal  touched on several domestic issue s that 
involv ed many Ministries, he suggested that  future meetings of the Special Session be organized TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 9 - 
 
  with a view to facilitating focused discussions o n the different themes covered by the  proposal, 
rather than discussing all aspects of the proposal simul taneously.   
1.41.   The representative of Switzerland  shared certain concerns that had been expressed by other 
delegations today.  India's document contained a number of new ideas , as well as proposals that 
had been discussed for many years and that had reached a c ertain level of maturity.  He welcomed 
the fact that a number of provisions had been inspired from earlier proposals in the WPDR.  
Additional inspiration from past WPDR work might prove useful.  His delegation approached the 
proposal with an open mind.  Switze rland was a demandeur  on services, whether in relation to 
domestic regulation or as regards any realistic and useful provisions on the facilitation of trade in 
services.   
1.42.   Regarding Article 1, h e thought that it would be necessary to move the provision o n the 
right to regulate to the preamble.  With respect to Article 2, he reiterated his concern about 
paragraph 1.2 on publication in one of the official languages  of the WTO , which could not be 
implemented by Switzerland . This clause could be eliminated or mod ified, possibly by limiting its 
application to the federal level of government.  Turning to paragraph 2 on prior comment, he 
considered that  WPDR documents from 2009 and 2011 might offer guidance on what was doable.  
He thought that he could support a provis ion like that of Article 3  on timeframes for application 
procedures . His delegation could also support provisions on transparency and publication.  
Regarding Article 4 on fees and charges, he asked whether India could delet e the second part of 
the first sen tence in sub -paragraph (a).  Indeed, requiring that fees and charges not themselves 
restrict or impair the supply of the services seemed redundant and might introduce some 
uncertainties.  Concerning Article 7 on facilitating cross -border flows of information , further work 
on the text would be required in order to find a n adequate  balance.  Greater focus might be put on 
facilitation, as suggested by the Article.  However,  the first sentence of the Article said "shall 
allow", which made it about market access.  Regarding Article 9, further progress on facilitating 
mode 4 would be beneficial.  He suggested that India substitute " grant of temporary entry" with 
"grant of entry and temporary stay"  in the title of the first paragraph.  As noted in March, 
Switzerland could  support some of the provisions under that Article, while it was more complicate d 
for other provisions.  
1.43.   He reiterated that the necessity test was important for his delegation, and he appreciated 
that India was reflecting on this.  He believed that t he issue  of the sectoral scope  of application 
would require close attention . A case-by-case, article -by-article,  assessment seemed like the best 
approach.  Finally, the suggestion of the delegation of Argentina was constructive and prudent.  This 
would allow for bet ter preparations and for more focused discussions.   
1.44.   The representative of New Zealand  looked forward to seeing how the feedback provided by 
delegation s would be incorporated i nto a revised proposal.  While her delegation was willing to 
engage constructively , the membership needed to find a more efficient way of pursuing this work.  
In past discussions, India seemed reluctant to break its proposal into different sections, preferring 
instead to maintain a holistic approach.  Given that the scope of the proposal went well beyond the 
mandate  of Article VI:4 , and to avoid undermining the momentum in the WPDR, she suggested 
that India pursue its proposal in either  the Regular or the Special Session of the Council , but 
refrain from duplication across both  bodies.  
1.45.   The representative of China  believed  that the proposal demonstrated the attention that 
India attache d to the rule -making function of the WTO. The text was  comprehensive and his 
delegation saw it with interest . He wished to seek further explanations on certain aspects.  First, he 
would welcome further explanation of the definition of "each application " in Article 3.1 . His 
understanding was that service suppliers were often required to obtain multiple approvals related 
to qualification, land or environmental stand ards from various authorities for the supply of 
services.  Should such a situation be regarded as "approaching more than one competent 
authority ", as stipulated in the proposal?  Second, regarding Article 3.5 , he asked the Indian 
delegation to explain the ma jor differences with GATS  Article VI:2. Third, Article 6.1.2 state d 
"where appropriate, each Member shall allow applicants to fulfil such requirements in the home 
country, host country or any third country jurisdiction ". Did this mean that applicants would  be 
allowed to submit relevant documents in other countries, or did it rather mean recognizing 
certificates granted by, and work experience gained from , other countries?  Fourth, the proposal 
contained both hard -law and best -endeavour  disciplines . The latter would be easier for Members to 
contemplate  and he suggested that India change some hard -law disciplines into best -endeavour  TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 10 - 
 
  ones, for example in Article 2.1.2.  The delegation wished to work towards a meaningful and pro -
development outcome on services at MC11.  
1.46.   The representative of Turkey  felt that the proposal was a balanced package that her 
delegation could work on.  The delegation had forwarded some comments  to the Indian delegation, 
but supported the general substance of the proposed text.  The proposal stimulated discussion of  
such issues as mode 4 and cross -border insurance coverage, which were of key interest for 
developing countries.  She hoped that discussions would lead to a text reflecting the interests of 
the whole membership.  Her delegation hoped to start an article -by-article discussion of the text as 
soon as possible through dedicated sessions.   
1.47.   The representative of Australia  looked forward to India's responses to the questions raised 
so far  and was interested to hear how India planned to take t he discussions forward.  It seemed 
that a  number of overarching questions needed to be addressed in order to reach a common 
understanding on what might be done in the area of services trade facilitation.  She felt that 
repetitions should be avoided and that the discussions should be organized so as to facilitate 
constructive exchanges, for example by focusing on selected topics.  The proposed workshops on 
mode 4 and on e -commerce were good examples.  However, she was not convinced of the need for 
an article -by-article approach, given that  delegations still had diverging views on what disciplines 
should aim to achieve.  
1.48.   The representative of the European Union  reiterate d some of the comments from previous  
meetings.  His delegation could work under the general notion of trade facilitation for s ervices.  
However, he did not see the need to work towards a formal agreement . While his delegation was 
not a demandeur , a trade facilitation initiative could provide an umbrella cover ing various services  
issues on which the mem bership might  work in view of MC 11 , and possibly beyond. This might 
allow reaching  an outcome more rapidly , while achieving the same in substance. 
Comprehensiveness c ould not become an obstacle to delivering on existing WTO mandates.  Under 
such a n umbrell a, his delegation attached value to a strong domestic regulation pillar . This was a 
topic where the membership stood a chance to produce a  concrete deliverable for MC11.  He 
encourage d Members to continue discussions on domestic regulation disciplines in th e WPDR.  He 
considered that the proposal co vered certain issues that went beyond the boundaries of what  trade 
policy should deal with.  His delegation had never made commitments regarding multiple entry 
visas or insur ance portability in its R TAs, and did not  intend to change its approach.  Also, the 
negotiation of international agreements on social security was outside the remit of international 
trade . He welcome d the proposal's development component and was open to further suggestions, 
taking into account dev eloping countries' views on the flexibility needed for each provision.  
However, before moving to a detailed discussion of this aspect , it was necessary to better 
understand the disciplines.  He remained open to discuss any trade -related elements that facili tated 
trade in services, including elements currently not covered by the proposal.  
1.49.   The representative of Nigeria  underscored the contribution of the service sector in his 
country's economy, and noted its importance for domestic regulation, trade facilitati on, and 
market access.  He supported the intervention of Rwanda on behalf of the African Group, noting in 
that regard the concerns expressed with respect to the scope and level of ambition, as well as 
negotiating mandate.  He believed that the proposal shoul d be treated on its own merit s and 
remained open to further discussions.  Fresh approaches to services liberalization and 
commitments should be explored given linkages between services and agriculture.   
1.50.   The representative of Zimbabwe  shared the views expres sed by the delegations of the 
African Group, the LDC Group, South Africa, Cameroon, Cuba, Venezuela, Kenya and Bolivia.  She 
wished to see progress on agriculture and overall balance in the negotiations.  Many elements of 
the proposal went beyond existing ma ndates.  Provisions on the cross -border flow of information 
were similar to e -commerce proposals on data flows, to which her delegation had already 
objected.  Further, t he obligations on transparency went beyond GATS Article III.  Provisions in 
relation to pr ior comment were too burdensome  and m ost developing countries lacked 
implementation capacity.  She felt that the provisions on fees and charges exceeded the mandate 
under Article VI:4.  Such fees and cha rges were a critical source of revenue for a number of 
developing countries.  She also had concerns about provisions on a single window, which did not 
seem practical given the diversity of competent authorities involved in the supply of services.   TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.51.    The representative of Paraguay  had expressed interest in this i nitiative in earlier  meetings.  
It was a novel and constructive effort to move ahead negotiations.  It seemed sensible to follow an 
approach similar to the one used in the TFA, which had been successful because it took account of 
challenges faced by all coun tries and established commitments of cooperation and assistance.  He 
asked  when India would present the revised text proposal.  He lent support to the delegation of 
Argentina's suggestion  for thematic sessions, which would allow addressing  specific concerns put 
forward by delegations.  
1.52.   The representative of the United States  recalled his delegation 's views on characteristics 
that it believed were necessary for any proposal: it should focus on clearly defined problems, 
provide obvious benefits to all Members, and avoid known sensitivities.  His delegation was still 
waiting for more specific responses from India  on these issues . Significant  work still remained to 
be done at a conceptual level.  He noted with interest the comments made today , which seemed to 
indica te broader difficulties with the proposal.  The current environment had only made known 
sensitivities more difficult to navigate, especially when Members had not achieved a common 
understanding on the problems that the proposal intended to address.  Delegati ons seemed to have 
raised various significant issues , and it  would take considerable time to resolve  them.  
1.53.   The representative of Brazil  noted that India's intervention touched on some of the issues 
that his delegation had raised on earlier occasions.  He looked forward to seeing how delegations' 
comments would be taken into account in India's revised proposal . He supported Argentina's 
suggestion to have thematic discussions in the Special Session.  The representative of Norway  
looked forward to India's Room Document and revised text. The proposal included interesting 
elements, but also elements that were sensitive and not open for negotiations, such as issues 
relating to social security, coverage of medical insurance, and visa requirements.  Questions 
relating  to data flows were challenging from a policy perspective.  
1.54.   The representative of Mexico  considered that the proposal contained elements that were of 
commercial relevance to developing countries, such as the provisions on mode 4 and health 
services.  She wou ld provide additional comments after further analysis of the proposal.  She 
agreed with the suggestion to hold thematic discussions.  This would help delegations to focus their 
efforts and yield a better understanding of each section of the proposal.  The rep resentative of 
Colombia  was open to considering all concrete proposals and w ished to pursue further discussions 
on India's submission . Such discussions best belonged in the Special Session, which, by its nature, 
was the most adequate forum.  Duplication of discussions should be avoided.  His delegation had 
conveyed preliminary comments  in previous meetings, but the proposal was still analysed in 
capital.  He welcome d India's intentions to submit a revised proposal and to circulate responses to 
questions raised .  
1.55.   The representative of Chile appreciated the efforts o f the delegation of India to reply to 
questions raised and to prepare a revised text. He highlighted that the proposal was very broad in 
scope, that it often touched upon sensitive issues, and that qu estions had been raised in regard of 
a negotiating mandate.  In that context, it w ould be difficult to r each an outcome at MC11.  He 
welcomed the suggestion for thematic discussions.  He wished to underscore the work unde rway on 
domestic regulation in the WPD R pursuant to the longstanding mandate in Article VI:4.  Results  on 
domestic regulation at MC11 w ere a priority.  
1.56.   The representative of Peru thought that  discussi ons on some of the elements covered by 
India's proposal  were useful , such as the administration of ENTs, data flows, or mode 4.  However, 
the proposal grouped together specialized disciplines on different services matters, such as mode 
4, domestic regulation, and e -commerce.  Such an approach made it more difficult to conduct 
discussions  and to reach n egotiating outcomes . His delegation was seeking  concrete results at the 
forthcoming Ministerial meeting, especially on domestic regulation.  He supported the suggestion of 
the delegation of Argentina to have thematic discussions on the elements contained in  India's 
proposal.  Given that the same proposal had been presented and discussed in different WTO 
bodies, it was important to find a more efficient approach.   
1.57.   The representative of India was grateful for the comments and feedback.  She hoped that 
the Room D ocument would answer  most of the questions raised by Members.  Her delegation  would 
provide responses to outstanding questions at the earliest opportunity.  All the suggestions and 
comments made today would be considered in the process leading to the revisio n of the text.  The TN/S/M/4 6 
 
- 12 - 
 
  intention was t o circulate a revised proposal shortly and she hoped that it would be more 
acceptable to the larger membership.  
1.58.   The Chairperson  acknowledged the high level of participation of delegations and felt that the 
discussions had  been useful.  Various aspects had been  raised and would need to be further 
discussed, for example issues  relating to mandate, scope, mode 4, or the relationship with 
domestic regulation.  In terms of way forward, he took note of the suggestion to have thema tic 
discussions, which was supported by many delegations.  He undertook to consult with India and 
other delegations with respect to the organization of future discussions . 
2  ITEM B: OTHER BUSINESS  
2.1.  Since there was no other business, the meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________