RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/116  
 
2 April 2014  
(14-2014)  Page: 1/14  
Council for Trade in Services    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26 FEBRUARY 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
On 26 February 2014, the Council for Trade in Serv ices held a meeting under the Chairmanship of 
Ambassador Al-Otaibi (Saudi Arabia). The agen da was contained in document WTO/AIR/4249. 
Under Other Business, the Chairman indicated that he would make an announcement on the 
appointment of the new Chairperson to the Council for Trade in Services, and that the Secretariat 
also wished to make a brief announcement.   
The representative of the Russian Federation said that his delegation wished to add an item of 
Other Business to update Members on developments with its privatization process, pursuant to 
paragraph 72 of the Report of its accession Working Party Report. 
The representative of Ecuador asked that, as far as possible, meetings of the Council and its 
subsidiary bodies not be scheduled at the same time as the meetings of other WTO Councils, since 
small delegations found it difficult to attend concurrent meetings. The representative of Nicaragua 
echoed the concern expressed by Ecuador.  
The Chairman took note of the statements made. 
The agenda was adopted, as modified by the addition of the items of Other Business. 
1  ITEM A –NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  ARTICLES III:3 AND V:7 OF THE GATS 
1.1.  Starting with the notifications made pursuant to GATS Article III:3 (transparency), the 
Chairman drew the Council's attention to the communications received, respectively, from Norway 
(S/C/N/714), Australia (S/C/N/718), Ukraine (S/C/N/719), and the European Union (S/C/N/720-
26).  
1.2.  Referring to her delegation's notification under Article III, the representative of Australia 
explained that it concerned a measure related to international mobile roaming known as the 
Telecommunications (International Mobile Roamin g) Industry Standard 2013.  The Standard 
introduced certain requirements for carriage service providers that supply international mobile roaming services. Specifically, the Standard required mobile service providers to provide a range 
of consumer protection features to help overseas travellers monitor and manage their mobile 
usage. Mobile service providers were required to  send SMS notifications to all consumers upon 
arrival at an overseas destination, warning that significantly higher charges for using roaming services may apply. They were required to send  SMS notifications to customers providing pricing 
information for using a range of roaming services. They were to provide timely and accurate 
advice to customers about how to stop international roaming and provide spend management tools, including usage notification. The Standard applied to all countries where Australians used 
international mobile roaming services. Complaints made by customers about matters related to 
the Standard were referred to the Tele communications Industry Ombudsman.  
1.3.  The representative of Switzerland thanked Australia for the interesting information provided 
with regard to the measure it had notified. He also highlighted the notification by Ukraine, which 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/M/116 
 
- 2 - 
 
  concerned a liberalization measure in the insura nce market that, in accordance with Ukraine's 
accession commitments, was to be introduced within five years of Ukraine's accession to the WTO. He then noted the usefulness of the analysis in the Secretariat Note in JOB(09)/10/Rev.3, which contained a statistical account of all services notifications submitted by Members. He proposed 
that the document be updated to add relevant information for the whole of 2013.  
1.4.  The Chairman suggested that the Council would take note of the statements made. He 
further suggested that Members agree to the propos al that the Secretariat update the Secretariat 
Note in JOB(09)/10/Rev.3, and further proposed th at updates be produced on an on-going, annual 
basis.  
1.5.  It was so agreed.  
1.6.  With regard to notifications made pursuant  to Article III:5, the Chairman recalled that, in 
October 2012, the delegation of Norway had su bmitted a notification concerning Thailand's 
telecommunication regulations (document S/C/N/653) . As follow-up to the notification, Norway 
had subsequently circulated a number of questions (JOB/SERV/126). By way of response, on 
20 January the delegation of Thailand had circ ulated a communication providing replies to 
Norway's questions. The communication was contained in document JOB/SERV/172. 
1.7.  The representative of Thailand indicated that her delegation had submitted formal written 
replies to Norway’s questions regarding the Noti fication on Foreign Dominance of the NBTC in 
document JOB/SERV/172. The questions were of a technical nature and answers had been provided by a team of capital-based experts. In addition, at the occasion of the services cluster 
held in June 2013, capital-based experts had also held a fruitful meeting with Norway and other 
concerned Members, namely the EU, the United States and Japan. She hoped that her delegation's 
sincere efforts would provide clarity and hence alleviate the concerns raised. She thanked Members for their interest in the issue.  
1.8.  The representative of Norway thanked Th ailand for the responses they had provided, and 
also for the fruitful expert meeting that had b een held in the margins of the Council meeting in 
June 2013. Thailand's responses had been helpful in clarifying a number of questions relating to 
the foreign dominance notification and had improved Norway's understanding of it.  
1.9.  She had noted Thailand's assurances that the foreign dominance notification was not and 
could not be applied or interpreted by the NBTC in a manner inconsistent with Thailand's international commitments. However, Norway remained concerned with the foreign dominance 
regulation as it stood. In her delegation's view, the responses did not provide the required clarity 
and assurances with regard to the foreign dominance notification. A clear framework for foreign investors was crucial to ensure continued investments in a capital-intensive sector such as 
telecommunications. Norway was foreseeing a fo llow-up process, including further questions, 
answers and clarifications amongst interested parties in an appropriate format. She trusted that Thailand would continue to apply or interpret the foreign dominance notification in a manner that 
was consistent with its international commitments.    
1.10.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked Thailand for the replies provided. He 
underscored the importance of receiving reassurances that the new regulation was in no way 
inconsistent with the GATS obligations and commitments undertaken by Thailand. The EU was one 
of the delegations concerned and was thankful for the fruitful discussions held until then because, 
as Norway had indicated, certain concerns did remain. The EU remained available for any appropriate follow-up with all interested parties.   
1.11.  The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the statements made.  
1.12.  It was so agreed. 
1.13.  Turning to the notifications submitted pursuant to Article V:7, the Chairman drew 
delegations' attention to the communications received from Chile and Nicaragua (S/C/N/697); 
China and Hong Kong, China (S/C/N/264/Add.7); China and Macao, China (S/C/N/265/Add.7); New Zealand and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (S/C/N/715); Colombia (S/C/N/681/Rev.1/Add.1); Canada and Chile (S/C/N/65/Add.1); the S/C/M/116 
 
- 3 - 
 
  European Union (S/C/N/716), Mexico and Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua (S/C/N/717/Rev.1). He then highlighted that, further to a request from the delegation 
of China, the discussion of the notification of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement between China and Hong Kong, China (in document  S/C/N/264/Add.7) and of the Closer Economic 
Partnership Arrangement between China and Maca o, China (in document S/C/N/265/Add.7) would 
be postponed to a future meeting of the Council. 
1.14.  He proposed that the Council take note of the notifications considered and refer the 
agreements notified to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for consideration. 
1.15.  It was so agreed.  
2  ITEM B - COMPLIANCE WITH GA TS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that recent discussi ons on this agenda item had focused on the 
suggestion that Members consider the creation of an  online system for the submission of services 
notifications. The Secretariat had been asked to investigate the possibility of adapting the SPS and TBT online notification submission systems to serv ices notifications, and had briefed Members on 
the results of its investigations at the October meeting. The Council had then decided that the 
Secretariat would prepare a Note on the feasibility of setting up an online system for the submission of GATS notifications. Accordingly, a Se cretariat Note on this issue had been circulated 
on 12 February, in document JOB/SERV/174.  
2.2.  A representative of the Secretariat explaine d that the Note expanded on the oral report on 
the issue that the Secretariat had provided to de legations in October. He suggested that Members 
may like to focus in particular on the last section of the Note, which contained a number of 
considerations delegations may like to consider. He highlighted two elements in particular, namely 
the cost of setting up an online system for the su bmission of services notifications, which had been 
estimated at roughly CH 100,000, and the overall IT priorities for the WTO, which were assessed 
by the IT Steering Committee, taking into account current budgetary constraints.  
2.3.  The representative of Switzerland thanked the Secretariat for the Note. He recalled that his 
delegation had put forward the proposal to set up an online system for the submission of services 
notifications in the context of discussions on how to improve compliance with notification 
requirements, after having listened to the pres entation of the experience with TBT and SPS 
notifications. He had been struck by the fact th at only 50% and 35% of SPS and TBT notifications, 
respectively, were being submitted through the rele vant online submission systems. Against this 
background, and concurring with the observations in paragraph 4.8 of the Note, he said that more 
reflection was warranted and that it might be premat ure to take a decision on the proposal at that 
stage.  
2.4.  With regard to paragraphs 2.2. and 2.3 of the Secretariat Note, he observed that an obvious 
conclusion might be that the online submission of notifications should be made compulsory. However, such an action might result in a reduction in the total number of notifications, which 
would not be at all a desirable. It would be usef ul to understand why there was such a low rate of 
online usage in the TBT and SPS areas, and he su ggested that delegations might like to enquire 
with their TBT and SPS colleagues to gain more clar ity. Were those relatively low rates a result of 
a lack of awareness about the existence of the on line submission systems? Or was there another 
reason, in which case his delegation's proposal might need to be reconsidered?  
2.5.  Paragraph 3.2 of the Note seemed to sugge st that a separate system may be created that 
would render the retrieval of information about notifications simpler and more user friendly by 
using keywords. This would be a step forward. He wondered if such a system would possess 
functionalities similar to those which already existed in the online system for TBT and SPS notifications and what the cost implications would be. In closing, he reiterated that his delegation's 
objective was to make the submission of notifications a more attractive and user-friendly process. 
2.6.  The representative of the United States concurred that it was premature to agree on the 
proposal to set up an online system for services  notifications and that the cost element was one 
key concern. He wondered what the utility and valu e of devoting significant resource to setting up 
such a system would be given the current number of services notifications. Notifications under S/C/M/116 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Article III:3 were for measures that significantly af fected trade in services, not services. Having a 
database that increased the information about Swiss Cantonal measures was not necessarily going to be very useful. His delegation would consider the issue in more detail before deciding if the investment involved was warranted. 
2.7.  The representative of Australia thanked the Se cretariat for its Note. She said that the case for 
implementing an electronic notifi cation system for the GATS appeared not to have been made out, 
mainly because a GATS notification system coul d not be simply adapted from the TBT and SPS 
systems, but would need to be developed anew at  a cost of around CHF 100,000. As set out in the 
Note, GATS notifications were very low in number compared to SPS and TBT notifications. Thus, the cost of implementation would seem to outw eigh the benefits of creating an electronic 
notification system, which was to cut out a lot of work by the Secretariat and Members. However, 
the workload of the current GATS notification sy stem was very limited and as such it did not 
appear to put a lot of strain on the Secretariat or Members. Furthermore, it appeared that even 
the possible benefits of the automated production of a searchable database system would not be 
realised from an electronic GATS notification sy stem, as much of the input to such a database 
would, in any case, have to be undertaken manually.  At that point, therefore, she did not consider 
it worthwhile to introduce an electronic system for GATS notifications. However, should the 
number of notifications start to rise to a level that would constitute a serious burden to the 
Secretariat and Members, she said that the issue should be revisited. 
2.8.  The representative of Turkey thanked the Secretariat for Note and concurred with many of 
the statements made. He argued that both on-l ine notifications and the creation of databases 
should be taken up horizontally across the WTO, rather than specifically for services. This would be 
the most cost-effective way of dealing with the issue and would create a single window for all notification needs. He also noted that, if the online submission system remained voluntary, this 
would not be ideal in terms of cost-effectivene ss. One possibility would be to put in place a 
transition period to enable delegations to adjust to the new system, as well as to identify any bugs, and make it compulsory thereafter.   
2.9.  The representative of Hong Kong, China echoed the comments by Australia. In light of the 
fact that the WTO was operating with a zero nominal growth for its budget, and considering the 
investment that was necessary to set up an online submission system against the current number of 513 notifications, the business case did not add up. She had found the Secretariat Note very 
informative in terms of exploring possibilities for improving the retrieval of information on 
notifications. She supported the suggestion in paragraph 4.3 that a presentation of the WTO Documents online facility be organised. Given the financial constraints that the WTO faced at that 
juncture, resources should be spent on areas where imminent needs existed.   
2.10.  The representative of the European Union said that his delegation continued to be attracted 
to the idea of an online system for the submission of services notifications. Any initiative that 
would contribute to more transparency and accessibility in terms of the information contained in 
notifications was welcome in principle. At the same time, he had noted the comments about the contrast between the investment necessary to set up such a system and the number of services notifications that had been submitted so far. He  wondered whether ways to reduce the budget 
could be explored, to arrive at a cost more commensurate with the volume of notifications that 
needed to be handled, and suggested that the issue be revisited at a later stage. 
2.11.  The representative of Switzerland suggeste d that the Secretariat might explore three issues. 
First, with regard to paragraph 3.2, whether, on the basis of existing notifications, it would be 
possible to add search functionalities similar to those that existed for TBT and SPS notifications. Second, he concurred with Turkey that such issues  should be addressed on a horizontal basis, for 
the entire WTO Secretariat. Clearly, what happe ned in one Committee could be of inspiration for 
the entire WTO and this should be borne in mind for future work. Third, echoing the EU comment, he also wondered if it might be possible to deve lop a cheaper system for the online submission of 
notifications while also improving performance, alth ough he did acknowledge that if such a system 
had to be developed anew, the figures presented di d appear to be in line with market prices. 
2.12.  By way of response to the comments by Sw itzerland, a representative of the Secretariat 
indicated that the suggestion in paragraph 3.2 was not for a system that would be equivalent to 
what existed in TBT and SPS. He noted a data retrieval mechanism of sorts existed through the 
Documents online facility and that the Secretariat could organize a presentation of the S/C/M/116 
 
- 5 - 
 
  functionalities of that system at the next Counc il meeting, for Members to see whether and what 
kind of improvements might be made to that system. As for the comment about considering IT policies in a more horizontal manner, this was not an issue for the Council to decide on, but could be raised in the appropriate forum. Finally, as fo r minimising costs, he indicated that, while costs 
would not change depending on the number of notifi cations submitted, the returns to creating an 
online submission system was related to ho w many Members would commit to using it.  
2.13.  The Chairman proposed that the Secretariat organize a presentation of the Documents 
online system at the next meeting of the CTS. He also suggested that the Council take note of the 
statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
2.14.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C - WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
3.1.  The Chairman drew Members' attention to  the Bali Ministerial Decision on the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce contained in document WT/L/907, dated 11 December 2013. 
As Members knew, Ministers had instructed the General Council and its relevant bodies "to 
continue substantially invigorating" work under the Work Programme, "especially under the 
initiatives taken into relation to commercial issues, development and evolving technology addressed in the discussions and the two compleme ntary workshops held under the auspices of 
the CTD and CTS on electronic commerce". The Decision also mandated the General Council to 
hold periodic reviews, to assess progress with the Work Programme, based on the reports submitted by relevant WTO bodies. The first such review was scheduled for July. Against that background, it was apparent that the Council had some work to do in order to respond to 
Ministers' instructions.  
3.2.  The representative of the United States no ted the positive work done by the Council and the 
Committee on Trade in Development in 2013 on the e-commerce Work Programme. He hoped that 
2014 would be equally productive in following up on Ministers' instructions. His delegation was 
reviewing the relevant Decision and looking to ad vance the issues therein, although he had no 
specific concrete proposals to share at that stag e. The United States looked forward to working 
with other Members who were looking to advance e-commerce, in the Council, the CTD and other 
relevant WTO fora. 
3.3.  The representative of China noted that e-commerce was changing how economies traded, 
what they traded and who could trade. It also had a direct bearing on development and 
employment. In light of the importance and comple xity of the issues involved, China believed that 
Members needed to utilize the Council and its subsidiary bodies to continue substantially invigorating the e-commerce discussions, as instructed by the MC9 Ministerial Decision. China was 
interested in discussing service-related aspects of e-commerce such as electronically delivered 
software, cloud computing, the protection of confidential data, privacy and consumer protection. An important element was the classification of th e relevant services, and China was interested in 
continuing discussions on classification issues, both in the CSC and in the Council. 
3.4.  The representative of Switzerland echoed th e statements by the United States and China.  
3.5.  The representative of Japan said that his delegation was interested in participating 
proactively in the discussions on the e-commerce Work Programme.  
3.6.  The representative Australia was also pleased with the work carried out under the e-
commerce Work Programme in 2013 and the workshops held in the Council and the CTD. Her 
delegation welcomed the MC9 Decision and stood re ady to work with other Members on the issue. 
3.7.  The representative of the European Union welcomed the reinvigoration of the Work 
Programme and stood ready to contribute to discussions on the issue. He concurred that e-
commerce was becoming increasingly more important in trade relationship. The EU welcomed 
further discussions of the topics that Members should focus their work on. China had highlighted 
some interesting issues and the EU was ready to propose additional topics to explore. One way to set up the future agenda in this regard would b e  to look b a c k at th e different communications 
tabled by Members in 2012 and 2013. Many comm unications had highlighted topics that were S/C/M/116 
 
- 6 - 
 
  critical to the development of e-commerce, and ad ditional elements of interest had been discussed 
also in two workshops held in 2013.  
3.8.  The representative of Cuba emphasized the hard work that had been done by the Council and 
in the CTD on the e-commerce Work Programme. He said that, amongst the topics that Members 
could consider in 2014 were the protection of data, private standards, the development of 
infrastructure for developing countries, non-discrimination, the importance of consumer protection and, above all, the question of unequal access to information technology, an area where 
developing countries and LDCs continued to be vulnerable. He therefore urged the Council to 
continue working on this basis, and hoped that discussions in 2014 would proceed in the same spirit and arrive at better results.  
3.9.  The representative of Canada welcomed the MC9 Decision to reinvigorate the Work 
Programme on electronic commerce, including the extension of the customs duty moratorium. His 
delegation was hearing increasing calls from industry to explore how trade policy could adapt to promote commerce in the digital economy. Canada  looked forward to engaging with Members as 
they renewed the Work Programme. 
3.10.  The representative of Colombia echoed pr evious statements and expressed her delegation's 
appreciation for the work that had been done on e-commerce. Colombia stood ready to continue 
engaging in discussions on the items mentioned.  
3.11.  The Chairman proposed that the Council take  note of the statements made and revert to the 
issue at its next meeting. 
3.12.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM D - OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER 4.1.  The Chairman recalled that the waiver, which had been adopted in 2011 by a Decision of the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference, enabled Member to notify and grant more favourable treatment to 
services and service suppliers of LDCs with respect to the measures falling within the six 
categories of market access listed in Article XVI, or under other GATS provisions if approved by the Council for Trade in Services. Until then, no  waiver preferences had been notified.  
4.2.  At the Bali Ministerial Conference in December 2013, Ministers had adopted Decision 
WT/L/918 concerning the operationalization of the waiver. The Decision mandated, inter alia, that the Council for Trade in Services initiate a process aimed at promoting the expeditious and effective operationalization of the waiver, and periodically review its operationalization. 
4.3.  To provide a first opportunity for Members to discuss how they saw the Council embarking on 
the Ministerial mandate, on 12 February he had convened an informal open-ended meeting on this topic. A number of suggestions had been put forwar d, but no conclusions could be drawn at that 
juncture. Still, there appeared to be concordance on  two elements: first, the importance of starting 
a dialogue on the areas where preferences might be  sought and given; and, second, the need to 
concentrate on the process first, and look at the sp ecifics of the review only thereafter. Therefore, 
the question that Members had to address at that stage was what kind of process the Council 
should put in place to promote the operationalization of the waiver. 
4.4.  On behalf of the LDC group, the representative of Uganda thanked the Chairman for his 
report on the discussions Members had had on the operationalization of the waiver. He requested 
that the statement he had delivered on behalf of the LDC group during the informal meeting of the 
Council on 12 February be reflected in the record of the meeting. 
4.5.  At the informal meeting, he had said that, after several years of initiating and leading 
discussions on the need to operationalize the modali ties for the special treatment of LDCs in the 
services negotiations, the LDC group had felt victory when, in 2011, Ministers had adopted a waiver allowing Members to grant special priority market access to LDC services and service 
suppliers. They had also welcomed the Ministerial Decision at MC9, instructing the CTS to initiate a 
process for the next urgent step on the waiver, i.e. its implementation. The group had welcomed S/C/M/116 
 
- 7 - 
 
  the informal meeting's focus as an early indication that, coming to three years into the lifespan of 
the 15-year waiver, Members were very keen on ensuring that it bore fruit.  
4.6.  Recalling the key aspects of the MC9 Deci sion titled "Operationalization of the Waiver 
Concerning Preferential Treatment to Service and Service Suppliers of LDCs" contained in 
WT/L/918, he had noted that Ministers had decided on three key things. First, that the CTS "shall 
initiate a process aimed at promoting the expediti ous and effective operationalization of the LDC 
waiver" and "shall periodically review" its operationalization. Second, that, in order to accelerate 
the process, the CTS "shall convene a High-level meeting six months after the submission of an 
LDC collective request". And, third, that Members,  in their individual capacities, were encouraged 
at any time to extend preferences to LDCs.  The Decision had also given some pointers as to the kind of preferences Members might consider, notably improved market access through the 
elimination of economic needs tests and other quantitative limitations, or provision of the level of 
access arising from preferential trade agreements to which they were party. Ministers had also underlined the need for enhanced technical assistance and capacity building to help LDCs benefit 
from the operationalization of the waiver. 
4.7.  He had provided Members with an update on the preparatory process of LDCs' collective 
request. Work had been initiated in 2013 and some indicative results were available. However, as 
Members would imagine, the task of bringing a request comprehensive enough to represent all 
LDC interests, yet specific enough to speak to what was realistic in a GATS framework, was not a simple one. That said, the group had been work ing hard to ensure that that endeavour was 
finalized as soon as possible, so that it could be shared with Members. 
4.8.  As the group finalized its technical work, what was important and urgent was to start a 
discussion with Members about what they might have in mind in terms of sectors and modes where preferences could be granted to LDCs. Ther e was scope to offer such unilateral preferences 
from a broader perspective and the group encourag ed Members to grant them. LDCs viewed this 
as a pragmatic step in the process, in light of th e fact that the discussion on the waiver had been 
with Members for several years. It was the group's hope that Members had also had some time to 
reflect on what they could do within their own systems and markets. LDCs wished for Members to 
share that information with them, and counted on their support in that process. 
4.9.  Regarding the periodic review, it was the LDC view that, at that stage, it might be too early 
to get into the details of what a review process should look like. The group would very much like 
an annual review of steps undertaken by Members pursuant to the waiver and its scope, based on 
an assessment of the economic benefits accruing to  LDCs. However, the current focus had to be on 
kick-starting consultations. In the same vein, the group invited the Secretariat to prepare a note 
on the standard practice in conducting reviews in  the CTS, to guide Members' future discussions on 
this issue. The group also asked that the Operatio nalization of the waiver concerning preferential 
treatment to service and service suppliers of LDCs be a standing item on the Agenda of the CTS. 
4.10.  In addition to the statement delivered on 12 February, at that meeting the LDC group 
w i s h e d  t o  r e s p o n d  t o  s o m e  i s s u e s  t h a t  h a d  b e e n  m e n t i o n e d  a t  t h e  i n f o r m a l  m e e t i n g .  O n  t h e  question of process raised by the delegation of  India, the group proposed holding a series of 
consultations with interested Members, and groups  thereof, to get a better sense of their own 
ideas. LDCs believed that these conversations could enrich the process of finalizing their request. 
In terms of process, they would be reporting back to the Membership at subsequent Council meetings. 
4.11.  On the issue raised by the delegation of Colombia regarding the role of ITC in the process, 
the LDCs group was still not convinced about the objective scope, nor the additional value, this discussion would bring to the process. Looking at  the mandate for the operationalization of the 
waiver, there were actually two important tracks that had been determined, and therefore the CTS 
had to have a two-dimensional approach, one of which involved Members, in their individual 
capacity, voluntarily and proactively, extending pr eferences to LDC services and service suppliers, 
consistent with the waiver Decision, which had commercial value and promoted economic benefits 
for LDCs.   
4.12.  Ministers had never envisaged the two processes to run sequentially. On the contrary, they 
had foreseen a situation where the two processes would and could run in parallel. This was an S/C/M/116 
 
- 8 - 
 
  element that should preoccupy the CTS and it was a discussion that would be helpful in 
implementing the Decision.  
4.13.  To that end, the LDC group requested th e Secretariat to facilitate technical discussions 
through the provision of a background Note on the information containing, inter alia, measures of 
general application as stipulated under GATS Article III; information on existing recognition 
measures as mentioned in GATS Article VII and the associated processes; and measures notified by Members pursuant to GATS Article V. This would provide a good reference point from which 
Members could respond to the Ministerial mandate calling for efforts to be made, not only by the 
LDCs, but also unilaterally by Members.  
4.14.  The representative of China said that his delegation fully supported the operationalization of 
the Ministerial Decision on the LDC waiver, which could serve to advance the economic 
development and poverty eradication in LDCs. China would participate positively in the technical 
discussion amongst Members on how to translate the promises of the waiver into a meaningful and effective outcome in favour of LDCs. He echoed the call by Uganda for the Secretariat to provide 
some necessary technical support to LDCs on how to identify their interests. 
4.15.  The representative of Colombia reiterated her delegation's constructive contributions aimed 
at increasing the participation of LDCs in services trade, as evidenced, inter alia, by the 
consultations held in 2013 that had led to the adoption of the Bali Ministerial Decision on the 
operationalization of the waiver. Colombia wished to continue to engage with LDCs to further their objectives, and in that spirit had made some suggestions for activities that could contribute to the operationalization of the waiver. The starting point was the identification of the modes and sectors 
of export interest to LDCs. Then, information abou t export opportunities could be provided to LDC 
services providers. Third, the experiences of LD C services exporters could be shared. Although 
these activities were currently suffering from a lack of information, other organizations, such as 
the ITC, were working in these areas, as part of their mandate to help LDCs develop their supply 
capacity and keep them informed about export opportunities. In this sense, at the informal 
meeting Colombia had suggested that the WTO Secretariat, in collaboration with the ITC, obtain 
the factual documentation the ITC had prepared on the issue of LDC service exports. Once this had 
been received, the WTO Secretariat would share it wi th Members, for them to decide if this could 
contribute to the Council's work regarding the operationalization of the waiver. Colombia believed that this would be very useful work that the Council could undertake while the LDC collective 
request was being prepared.   
4.16.  The representative of Brazil reiterated that his delegation had always been supportive of 
positive and ambitious outcomes for LDCs in the se rvices area in the run-up to Bali. In the same 
spirit, they were fully committed to an effective and expeditious operationalization of the waiver. 
As Members set in motion the process mandated fo r the Council in the operationalization of the 
waiver, they should avoid being patronizing or prescriptive on what needed to be done to 
implement the waiver, and rather pay attention to  the interests and priorities indicated by the 
LDCs themselves. This did not mean totally refrai ning from proposing a possible way forward, but 
doing so while being responsive to LDCs priorities  and mindful of their conc erns. He looked forward 
to hearing more details about the preparation of the collective request and the technical and 
material challenges faced to bring it into being. Brazil supported the suggestion the LDCs had 
made regarding technical support from the Secretariat, and further actions that could lead to an effective and speedy implementation of the waiver. In order for the process to be effective, it 
would need to be focused on what was enabled by the waiver and lead to a meaningful outcome.   
4.17.  The representative of Nepal supported the statement by Uganda. He was appreciative of 
those Members who had expressed their support to implement the LDC services waiver. The 
operationalization of the waiver had been a long standing interest of the LDC Members in the WTO, 
but it was a pity that, more than two years afte r the Decision had been taken, no Member had 
taken the initiative to implement it. Against this background, in Bali Ministers had adopted the relevant Decision to revive and push the issue once again. His delegation stressed the importance 
of the effective and expeditious implementation of the MC9 Decision. Until the LDC Members came 
up with concrete proposals as per the Bali Decision, Nepal would ask developed and developing country Members who were in the position to do so to come up unilaterally with a scheme that 
extended preferences to LDC service and service supplier which had commercial value and 
promoted economic benefit to LDCs. Such an initiative would improve market access for LDC services and service suppliers. Members could start with some initial preferences and gradually S/C/M/116 
 
- 9 - 
 
  expand them. Finally, he underscored the need for dedicated and coordinated technical assistance 
and capacity building to help LDCs benefit fr om the operationalization of the waiver.   
4.18.  The representative Zambia echoed the st atement by Uganda and looked forward to the 
Council setting in motion a process to respond effect ively to the needs of LDCs in terms of securing 
commercially meaningful preferen ces in the area of services. 
4.19.  The representative Japan welcomed the MC9 Decision on the waiver and noted the 
importance, in terms of moving forward, of the LDC group submitting the collective request as a 
starting point. 
4.20.  The representative of Bangladesh adde d his support to the statement by Uganda. He 
thanked those Members who were constructively engaging with LDCs and the broader Membership 
for the operationalization of the waiver. The waiver represented a very first step towards realising 
a small piece of the development of objectives of  the DDA. LDCs understood that the scope of the 
waiver was very narrow, but had pinned much hope on it. The quantitative limitations listed in Article XVI of the GATS were a significant barrier to services trade, but in most cases processes 
themselves were also cumbersome. As such, getting economically meaningful preferences only 
from the quantitative scope of Article XVI was extremely challenging. Any preferences would be 
meaningful only when they tackled both qua litative and quantitative aspects of services 
regulations.  
4.21.  The waiver was a voluntary instrument, and as such it was the prerogative of Members to 
provide preference to LDCs. He renewed his call to Members to offer unilateral and voluntary preferences to services and service suppliers  of LDCs, thus demonstrating their strong 
commitment to the cause of the most vulnerab l e  W T O  M e m b e r s .  L D C s  w e r e  w o r k i n g  o n  t h e  
preparation of the request; its submission would fu rther facilitate the granting of preferences.   
4.22.  With regard to the issue of inviting the ITC, he acknowledged the good work done by the 
ITC, but also noted that it had been prepared for a limited use and specific purpose. It had indeed 
been helpful to deepen LDCs' understanding of  the great prospects of services trade for 
development, along with the important role of aid for trade. However his delegation was not yet 
fully convinced about the relevance of such factual reports to the CTS, in particular as the 
discussion about granting preferences was technical in nature. There was no scope for referencing the qualitative or quantitative aspects of services preferences from the ITC work. He was instead supportive of the proposal that the Secretariat prepare a background Note on, inter alia, the 
information on measures of general application, as stipulated in Article III of the GATS, existing 
recognition measures as mentioned in Article VII and the associated processes.   
4.23.  The representative of Australia said that her delegation was very supportive of efforts to 
operationalise the LDCs services waiver and had been actively engaged in the negotiation of both 
the MC8 and MC9 waiver Decisions. Australia also strongly supported activities designed to assist in the development of the LDC collective request. For example, it had provided partial funding of 
an LDC brainstorming session on the collective request in 2013. However, her delegation also 
believed that it was important that the Membership be open to having a discussion on the challenges and opportunities facing LDCs services suppliers in foreign markets. Whether that was directly from LDCs themselves, or through information available from relevant organizations, at 
the very least the documentation of what information was available could be useful, as had been 
suggested by Colombia.  
4.24.  It would be a missed opportunity if such dialogue were not to be included as part of the CTS 
process to promote the expeditious and effective op erationalization of the LDCs services waiver. 
Such a discussion would serve to more actively engage Members on both the challenges and opportunities facing LDCs services suppliers when attempting to access foreign markets. This 
would help Members understand more fully the issues faced by LDCs and would feed into 
consideration of the type of preferences that would be most effective in assisting LDC services suppliers into foreign markets. This would impact both the tracks that Uganda had identified: the so-called voluntary preferences and also the prefer ences that would come after a collective request 
had been submitted. The appropriate sequence was to start with a discussion between possible 
preferences granters and LDCs about what their actual interests were, so that Members could identify areas that would be useful before movi ng to implement the preferences themselves. Her S/C/M/116 
 
- 10 - 
 
  delegation looked forward to receiving the LDC co llective request and to discussing with individual 
LDCs on what specific access to the Australian market might be beneficial to them. On the latter point, she noted that Australia had a very open and transparent services economy and that many opportunities already existed to access their market which they would also be happy to discuss.  
4.25.  The representative of Chile reiterated that his delegation remained committed to the 
process of implementing the LDC waiver as stated  in the Ministerial Decision. Chile had already 
moved on with unilateral liberalization for the good s side, to duty-free, quota-free, so the services 
element to the process should come naturally. When it came to the operationalization of the 
waiver, the question was not how to do it, but rather how far to go in doing so. With regard to that question, the information coming from the LDC community also took into account the views of the business sector of those LDC Members and, as  such, was a very important element for the 
discussion, which could expedite it and take it to a fruitful conclusion.   
4.26.  The representative of Lesotho endorsed the comments made by his LDC colleagues. One 
fundamental question had been asked, namely what  kind of process the CTS should put in place. 
In his view, the MC9 Decision had laid out the key elements which should inform the Council 
process. Pending the work that the LDCs would undertake and present to Members, paragraph 1.3 
of the Decision stated clearly what Members should do. With regard to comments about 
understanding the kind of preferences that would benefit LDCs and what could be done in that 
sense, he indicated that, again, the Decision provided some preliminary indications. The Council discussions should not be about sequencing, as issues could run in parallel.  
4.27.  With regard to the request by Uganda that the Secretariat collect some data about 
measures notified, mutual recognition agreements and preferential trade agreements concluded in 
the services area, he stressed that such information would be important because it went in the direction of what was contained in the Decision. With regard to the question of the ITC 
participation, while he valued the work that the ITC had done, the question was why Members 
should stop at the ITC work. At lot of literature ex isted on LDCs and services in general, but his did 
not mean that everything would have to be discussed by the Council and that the process would 
be limited to a dialogue. LDCs wanted to have a process focused on specific measures and specific 
actions that Members could take. He had looked at the ITC study, which was publicly available. Other delegations could do so too, to educate themse lves individually. As many of the issues in the 
work by the ITC went beyond the scope of the Decision, discussing them in the Council would not 
be helpful. Against that background, his delegation could not support the suggestion to discuss the 
ITC work in the Council.  
4.28.  The representative of Cuba supported the op erationalization of the LDC waiver and, echoing 
the statement by Uganda, encouraged LDCs to work with the Secretariat and other relevant 
international organisations towards the identification of their specific technical assistance needs and capacity building.  
4.29.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation had always been supportive 
of the development of the LDC waiver and its oper ationalization. He also noted that Members were 
wading into unchartered waters and needed to identify and learn more about the key export interests of LDCs in the services economy. Pref erences could not just be made in a knowledge 
vacuum. Members needed to learn more, understan d what the interests were in services and 
comprehend how the waiver might assist LDCs services exports. The suggestion by Colombia to include the ITC was helpful in building Members' knowledge-based and learning about the interest 
of LDCs services suppliers themselves. While the ITC document was certainly accessible, it did 
touch upon some important issues that should be ex plored further. This was not to the exclusion of 
other dialogues and discussions, but in terms of calls for preferences that had commercial value, 
Members needed to know what those areas might be. The Council process was a knowledge-
building exercise, for Members to be able to identify areas in which they could operationalize the waiver to the benefit of LDCs, which wa s in the interest of all Members.  
4.30.  The representative of the European Union welcomed the opportunity to have an exchange 
on the operationalization of the waiver in the Council, in response to the MC9 Decision. He thanked 
Uganda and the LDC group for the update on their work and the announcement of the engagement that they planned to have with other Members to discuss the operationalization of the waiver. The 
EU was committed to working with the LDCs on the waiver in the most useful and beneficial way. 
However, to make an efficient use of the waiver, he concurred that it was important to understand S/C/M/116 
 
- 11 - 
 
  exactly the issues that Members were going to addr ess. It was essential to get the diagnostic of 
the situation right, in order to implement solution s that addressed the problems at hand. At that 
stage, there was insufficient information on those issues. The more specific the information about the precise barriers that LDCs exporters faced in foreign markets, the more capable Members 
would be to define the tools that would help address those barriers. Given that cases-studies and 
specific experiences would be a key contribution, the EU supported the suggestion by Colombia to 
try to draw from the ITC work, as another source of information to fill the current information gap. 
A contribution by the ITC would in no way replace the exercise of research and data-gathering that 
the LDC Group was undertaking itself. It would ju st be a complement, to help Members make the 
best of use of the waiver. In that sense, he su pported the suggestion that the Secretariat contact 
the ITC to explore what contribution the ITC could bring to the exercise. The EU remained 
available to engage in the consultative process announced by Uganda.   
4.31.  The representative of South Africa said th at his delegation had been concerned by the low 
level of ambition of the Decision, but it was now a Ministerial Decision to which South Africa was 
committed. Members needed to look at areas for operationalization of the waiver. Based on South 
Africa's experience, market access was not sufficient, and questions related to standards, licensing and qualification requirements and procedures would also need to be looked at. These were 
challenging for developing countries, but even more  so for LDCs. It was important to examine how 
the meeting of licensing and qualification requirem ents on the part of LDC service suppliers could 
be facilitated. He said that both the market access and licensing and qualification requirements would need to be looked at to arrive at commercially meaningful preferences. That should be the 
starting point for the Council process. The MC9 Decision was clear in mandating that the Council 
process be comprehensive and not imply any sequencing. 
4.32.  The representative of Australia clarified a possible misunderstanding regarding the reference 
made to a dialogue. That reference was certainl y not aimed at slowing down the provision of 
preferences. Rather, for her delegation it was important to have clarity about what would be useful and meaningful to LDCs. Without this, Australia could not go back to its stakeholders with a case 
a s  t o  w h y  p r e f e r e n c e s  s h o u l d  b e  g r a n t e d .  A  s t r o n g  c a s e  w o u l d  h a v e  t o  b e  m a d e  t o  t h e i r  o w n  
ministries for them to consider any recommendation they would make in that area. There had to be discussion between her delegation and those wh o wanted preferences in the Australian market 
as of the specifics of what would be useful.   
4.33.  The representative of Norway said th at her delegation remained committed to the 
operationalization of the waiver and looked forwar d to receiving the LDC collective request, which 
would serve as a basis for further consideration. Norway believed that exploratory exchanges were 
important to clarify areas of export interest and potential of the LDCs. 
4.34.  The representative of India indicated that her delegation had always been a supporter of the 
LDC cause and had already implemented the duty -free, quota-free scheme on the goods side, 
which was an indicator of India's commitments and fond support to the LDC cause. On the services 
side as well, India was committed to fully cooperating for the expeditious and effective operationalization of the waiver. India's position with regard to the work of other organisations was that the operationalization of the waiver n eeded to emanate from the discussion of Members 
in the Council, and not from any particular body or institution. While Members were free to follow 
any methodology or study, it would be fruitful if the contours of the operationalization of the waiver were arrived at by discussion between the Members, rather than being based on the work 
of any single agency or body. As Uganda had me ntioned, LDCs themselves wished to discuss with 
other Members on how the envisioned the waiver to be operationalized. It was only a matter of time until Members came to the contours of how the preferences would be granted and 
operationalized, in terms of both voluntary preferences and a collective request of LDCs that would 
be placed before the Council.   
4.35.  The representative of Canada welcomed the Council's efforts to initiate the process that had 
been called for by Ministers at Bali. It was clear that Members did not have all the information they 
needed to arrive at meaningful results. Canada would continue to encourage a constructive 
exchange on the sectors and modes of supply of pr iority to LDCs and the challenges facing LDC 
service suppliers. A two-way exchange of information would help identify preferences that were 
both commercially meaningful and doable. Canada would welcome hearing from organizations like 
the ITC, to benefit from their experience wo rking on the challenges faced by LDC service S/C/M/116 
 
- 12 - 
 
  providers, and would therefore support Colombia's proposal in this regard. The representative of 
Japan also expressed his delegation's support for the suggestion by Colombia. 
4.36.  A representative of the Secretariat noted that two demands had been made of the 
Secretariat. The first concerned the LDC request for a background Note collecting information on 
measures of general application, under GATS Article III, measures under economic integration 
agreements notified under Article V:7, and measures on recognition notified under Article VII:4. The scope of what had been requested would bene fit from some clarification. Starting with 
measures of general application, as per Article III:1 these were the whole universe of services 
measures, and no organization or government possessed such information. If one focused only on those measures of general application which had been notified pursuant to Article III:3, a body of information was available. In fact, in March 2013 the Secretariat had prepared a Note on the 
typology of measures notified under Article III:3, which might be a useful starting point. When it 
came to measures notified under Article V:7, the notifications indicated that the relevant agreement existed and provided a link to the te xt of the agreement concerned, but were not 
measure-specific, so some clarification as to the kind of information that was requested would be 
useful. Finally, with regard to Article VII:4, th e information available with the Secretariat came 
from Members' notifications, of which there were  currently only 51 in total submitted since 1995. 
There had been repeated comments about the lack of notifications of recognition measures, so 
there were likely to be additional recognition measures that had not been notified. In sum, the Secretariat would be delighted to help with the LDC request, but would need a little more guidance to sharpen the focus of the Note. With the Chairman's permission, he suggested that this issue 
might be subject to some consultations with LDCs and other interested delegations. 
4.37.  Moving on to the other request, that the Secretariat contact the ITC, the Secretariat was of 
course ready to do so. The ITC was an observer to the Council as an organization affiliated to the 
WTO and UNCTAD. However, although there would be  no difficulty with having the ITC making a 
contribution to the Council, he had not sensed that an agreement existed about whether the Secretariat should contact them. He therefore suggested that this issue could be taken up as part 
of the consultations envisaged to clarify the cont ent of the Note that had been requested of the 
Secretariat. 
4.38.  The representative of Bangladesh said that  if Members so decided, as an observer, the ITC 
could be invited to make a presentation to the Council. However, before inviting them, the Council 
needed to decide what their contribution would be. If the ITC had information about the barriers 
faced by LDCs in export markets, this might prov e useful, but the work that the ITC had presented 
in the context of the global review of Aid for Trad e would not be directly helpful. LDCs still had to 
be convinced that the ITC had the kind of information that was relevant to the operationalization 
of the waiver. 
4.39.  The Chairman said that the Council would ta ke note of the statements made and revert to 
this item at its next meeting. 
4.40.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E – FOLLOW-UP TO SECTORAL AND MODAL DISCUSSIONS 5.1.  The Chairman said that this item had been  added to the Council's agenda at the request of 
the delegation of Switzerland. As a follow-up to the Council's sectoral and modal discussions, 
Switzerland had recently circulated a communication on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), titled "Services Sector, Small and Medium -sized Enterprises and Employment: the Case of 
Switzerland", in document S/C/W/340/Add.1 dated 30 September 2013. A number of delegations 
had also shared information about the role that services SMEs played in their own economies.   
5.2.  The representative of Switzerland recalled that, at the previous Council meeting, there had 
been a discussion on some of the issues raised in the Swiss submission. He noted that his 
delegation had also tabled an earlier submission (document S/C/W/340), which had focused on the absolute numbers of employees in Switzerland's SMEs in the services sector. The latest one, in S/C/W/Add.1, was centred on how SMEs were ab le to create new jobs. Both documents had 
looked at the same 12 services subsectors. Amongst the findings of that analysis were, first, that 
no definite conclusions could be drawn between the size of SMEs and their ability to create jobs. S/C/M/116 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Second, from a sectoral perspective, the information and communication sector and the financial 
sector had created most new jobs over the observed period, from 1995 to 2008. Third, in terms of the most common SME size in Switzerland, no clear conclusions could be drawn, and a whole variety of SMEs existed. Fourth, no inferences could be made about the job creation impact of 
state-owned enterprises due to limitations in the statistical information available. By far the most 
important finding was that, compared to big enterprises, SMEs had created more than twice as many jobs as large companies over the observed period. His delegation would welcome questions 
or suggestions from other Members, at that stage or a later one.   
5.3.  The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the statement made. 
5.4.  It was so agreed. 
6  ITEM F – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that that item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of a group of Members, who wished to up date Members on progress with their discussions 
on a framework for negotiations on a Trade in Services Agreement. The delegations concerned had 
also submitted a relevant communication, in document JOB/SERV/164/Rev.1. 
6.2.  The representative of the European Union welcomed the opportunity to update the Council on 
the progress with the TISA negotiations. The effort led by a number of WTO Members to further 
liberalize trade in services was gaining momentum. The latest round of TISA negotiations had just 
ended after 8 intensive days of talks. At that stage, most of the participants had tabled initial offers, following the new hybrid approach descr ibed in the framework adopted in 2013 amongst 
TISA members and circulated to the Council. Participants were particularly satisfied with the 
dynamic created by the exchange of offers. Discussions over regulatory disciplines were 
progressively moving towards negotiating text. Latest work had focused on new and improved regulatory disciplines in several areas: telecommunication services, including mobile roaming and 
e-commerce, financial services, maritime transport, professional services, domestic regulation and 
transparency and the temporary movement of service suppliers. Other sectors of interest for the negotiations that had been discussed included air transport services, road transport, competitive 
delivery services and energy-related services. The next round of negotiations would take place at 
the end of April. They stood ready to answer an y questions that WTO Members might have on the 
TISA initiative, within the natural boundaries of confidentiality that the different Members participating in TISA had agreed upon among themselves.  
6.3.  The representative of Cuba noted that it was both interesting and paradoxical that, in the 
first meeting of the Council in 2014, in the same room that had witnessed several days of intense 
discussions in the run up of to the Bali Minister ial Conference, Members were being updated about 
the results of the TISA plurilateral negotiation. Th e lack of progress in the DDA had been the main 
argument used by the TISA group to put forward thei r plurilateral initiatives for services. In Bali, 
Members had managed to revive the DDA and had committed themselves to try to move forward 
with the outstanding DDA issues, to defend the multilateral trading system and strengthen the 
credibility of the WTO. Therefore, Cuba wonder ed what was happening in the Council and what 
argument the TISA group would bring forward to continue moving on with a plurilateral initiative which was reportedly sectarian and discriminatory vis-à-vis the participation of countries which 
had asked to participate. His delegation did not understand that political dichotomy, that double 
talk, at a time when Members had to continue working to reinforce the GATS in the WTO to defend multilateralism. Cuba reiterated its position in defence of multilateralism, and would continue to 
consistently reject the TISA plurilateral approach, whose strategic objective was to reduce the 
policy space of developing countries by establishing new disciplines with higher standards that undermined the multilateral system and the unity of WTO Members. 
6.4.  The representative of Venezuela supported  the statement made by Cuba. In the past, his 
delegation had expressed its concern regarding a propagation of initiatives such as TISA. It was 
clear that the provisions in TISA were going beyond the GATS and being negotiated under a different format. Venezuela was interested in the discussing trade in services issues, so long as 
Members continued deliberating in a multilateral format, which was where Members' activities 
should be focused. He reiterated his delegation 's disappointment with the insistence of some 
Members to promote such regulatory disciplines  under the current circumstances. Members had S/C/M/116 
 
- 14 - 
 
  just arrived at an agreement in Bali, with meagre results. Although this had highlighted a crisis in 
the multilateralism trading system, Members had continue to support it because it was the least onerous for everybody, and particularly for developing countries.   
6.5.  The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statements made. 
6.6.  It was so agreed. 
7  ITEM G - OTHER BUSINESS 
7.1.  The Chairman recalled that the rules of pr ocedure for meetings of the Council for Trade in 
Services (document S/L/15) stipulated that the election of the Chairperson was to take place at 
the first meeting of the year and take effect at th e end of that meeting. Since consultations on the 
appointments of Chairpersons to Councils and Committees in the WTO were still under way in the General Council, the handover of the Chairmanship of the Services Council would take place at the 
beginning of the following meeting of the Council , which was scheduled for the week of 5 May. 
7.2.  After the meeting of the General Council of 14 March, as outgoing Chairman of the CTS, he 
would start consultations on the appointments of Chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies of the 
Council for 2014. He invited Members to start thinking, and consult amongst each other, about 
possible candidates. His consultations would result in a proposal for a slate of names, on the basis of which elections would take place in each subsid iary body when those met in the May cluster.   
7.3.  The representative of the Russian Federation  indicated that, in accordance with paragraph 72 
of the report of the Working Party on the Accessi on of the Russian Federation to the WTO, he 
wished to report on developments with the privatization programme in the Russian Federation. According to the "Forecast Plan (Programme) for the Federal Property Privatization and the main 
directions of the Federal Property Privatization for 2011 and 2013" approved by the Order of the 
Government of the Russian Federation No. 2012-r of 27 November 2010, shares in 704 joint stock companies belonging to the Russian Federation an d 49 properties belonging to the State Treasury 
of the Russian Federation had been sold. More over, privatization decisions had been taken 
concerning 80 joint stock companies and 401 proper ties belonging to the State Treasury of the 
Russian Federation, which would be put in the stat uary capital of integrated groups. Privatization 
conditions in respect of 196 State unitary enterprises had been defined. The privatization 
programme in 2011-2013 had brought into the federal budget of the Russian Federation RUB 352.2 billion.  
7.4.  The updated privatization plan for the curre nt period had been established by the "Forecast 
Plan (Programme) for the Federal Property Privatization and the main directions of the Federal 
Property Privatization for 2014 and 2016" approved  by the Order of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 1111-r of 1 July 2013. The Programme contained a list of 440 joint stock 
companies belonging to the Russian Federation fo r which shares would be put up for sale in 2014-
2016 as well as 514 Federal State unitary enterprises and 94 properties belonging to the State Treasury of the Russian Federation which were planned to be privatized in 2014-2016. According 
to the privatization plan, the Government of the Russian Federation intended to sell its shares in 
several large companies and banks (OJSC "Sovko mflot", OJSC "Bank VTB", OJSC "ROSNANO", 
OJSC "Aeroflot – Russian Airlines", OJSC "Rossp irtprom", OJSC "RusGidro", OJSC "Unite Grain 
Company" and others). 
7.5.  A representative of the Secretariat took th e opportunity to announce the retirement of Rolf 
Adlung. He was certain many delegations knew Rolf very well and appreciated his work, reliability, 
intellectual rigour and his friendship. There was some symbolism in the fact that that day was 
Rolf's birthday and, although he was not present,  his departure should be marked. Rolf had been a 
member of the "Services family" for 15 years. It had been a privilege for colleagues in the Division to have worked with him and he would be missed terribly. His contact details could be obtained 
from the Secretariat. 
7.6.  On behalf of the Council, the Chairman aske d the Secretariat to convey to Rolf Adlung his 
sincere thanks for his contribution to the work of the WTO and the Services Division. He concluded 
that the Council would take note of the statements made. 
7.7.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________