RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/126  
 
19 April 2016  
(16-2174) Page: 1/18   
Council for Trade in Services    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 MARCH 2016 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 18 March 2016, chaired by Ambassador 
Eyjólfsson (Iceland). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/6. 
The Chairman informed Members that the agenda did not contain an item for the appointment of 
the new Chairperson because, for unescapable reasons, the designated new Chairman of the 
Council, Ambassador Vanerio of Uruguay, could not be  present at that meeting.  Therefore, as has 
been done in past occasions, Ambassador Vanerio's appointment as the new Chairman of the Council would be the first item on the agenda of the following meeting.  
The representative of Brazil said that Brazil had completed the domestic procedure necessary to 
give legal effect to the financial services commitm ents it had annexed to the Fifth Protocol to the 
GATS. He wished to ask the Council to consider reopening the Fifth Protocol to enable Brazil to deposit the instrument of acceptance of the Protocol. He also indicated that the relevant 
documentation had been circulated to Members at the start of the week. Although the relevant 
agenda item did not appear on the airgram of th e meeting, he asked the Membership to agree to 
add it, if possible amongst the first items to be considered. 
The Chairman proposed that the Council agree to Brazil's request to add an item to the agenda, 
titled "Re-opening of the Fifth Protocol for acceptan ce by Brazil" and to insert it as item A.   
It was so agreed. 
The representative of Canada wished to raise, under Other Business, China's Administrative 
Regulations for Online Publishing Services, which had come into force on 10 March 2016. The representative of Australia also wished to add an item of Other Business, on recent 
developments in trade in services. 
Under Other Business, the Chairman would provide a quick account of the status of his 
consultations on the appointment of Chairpersons to the Council's subsidiary bodies for 2016, and 
the Secretariat would make a brief announcement rega rding a thematic course on trade in services 
statistics for LDCs it was organising in November. 
The agenda was adopted as modified. 
1  ITEM A – RE-OPENING OF THE FIFTH PROTOCOL FOR ACCEPTANCE BY BRAZIL 1.1.  The Chairman said that, as had just been agreed, the Council would consider the re-opening 
of the Fifth Protocol for acceptance by Brazil.  The communication from Brazil (document 
S/C/W/365) requested that the Council reopen the Fifth Protocol to allow the Government of Brazil to deposit the instrument of acceptance that would give legal effect to Brazil's commitments 
annexed to that protocol.   
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/M/126 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.2.  As usual in such cases, a draft decision, contained in document S/C/W/366, had been 
prepared by the Secretariat for adoption by the Co uncil, according to the standard format followed 
in similar situations.  
1.3.  The representative of Brazil said that his delegation already had in its possession the 
instrument of acceptance of the Protocol, and th erefore would ask the Council to agree to reopen 
the Fifth Protocol for just one week. If the Council so agreed, Brazil would deposit its instrument of 
acceptance that same day. He also indicated that, as soon as Brazil's commitments under the Fifth 
Protocol had entered into force, his delegation intended to submit for certification further improved 
commitments in financial services. 
1.4.  The Chairman proposed that the Council take note of the statement made and agree to re-
open the Fifth Protocol for acceptance by Brazil until 25 March 2016 in accordance with the draft 
decision. 
1.5.  It was so agreed. 
2  ITEM B - NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  ARTICLES III:3 AND V:7 OF THE GATS 
2.1.  With regard to the notifications made pu rsuant to GATS Article III:3 (transparency), the 
Chairman drew the Council's attention to the communications received, respectively, from 
Paraguay (in documents S/C/N/836 to 838), Lesotho (S/C/N/842 to 852) and Switzerland 
(S/C/N/859). 
2.2.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the notifications made.  
2.3.  It was so agreed.  
2.4.  As for the notifications made pursuant to  GATS Article V:7, the Chairman drew Members' 
attention to the communications received from the European Union and Ukraine (S/C/N/744/Add.1 
and Corr.1); China and the Republic of Korea (S/C/N/854); the Republic of Korea and New 
Zealand (S/C/N/855); the European Union (S/C/N/ 856); and Australia and China (S/C/N/858).   
2.5.  The Chairman suggested that Council take no te of the notifications and refer the agreements 
notified to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for consideration.   
2.6.  It was so agreed.  
2.7.  The Chairman indicated that on the agen da was also consideration of the Note by the 
Secretariat titled "Overview of notifications made under relevant GATS provisions", which Members 
had agreed would be updated annually. The Note had been circulated as document 
JOB(09)/10/Rev.6. 
2.8.  A representative of the Secretariat said th at the Note provided a statistical account of the 
notifications made under relevant GATS provisions , updated to incorporate notifications submitted 
between January and December 2015. As indicated in the Note, during 2015, 37 notifications were 
made pursuant to Article III:3, by nine Member s, six economic integration agreements were 
notified under Article V:7(a), and two mutual recognition agreements were notified under Article VII:4. Two observations could be made based on the update. First, several new measures, or 
changes to existing measures, reflected in the DG's Monitoring Reports had yet to be notified 
under GATS Article III:3. Second, compared to pr evious years, fewer regional trade agreements 
had been notified under Article V:7.   
2.9.  The representative of Australia thanked the Secretariat for its updated Note. She recognised 
that, when it came to services, Members had a rela tively poor track record of notifications. Her 
delegation was giving some thought to how to make better use of notifications to strengthen the role of the Council in examining developments affecting trade in services, including by improving 
the rate of notifications under Article III:3 and making more use of Article III:5 to raise measures 
that affected the operation of the GATS. 
2.10.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. S/C/M/126 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.11.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C – OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that, in Nairobi, Ministers had adopted a Decision on the 
"Implementation of preferential treatment in favour of services and service suppliers of Least-
Developed Countries and increasing LDC participation in services trade", which was contained in 
document WT/L/982. He expressed his personal appreciation to all Members for their constructive engagement at MC10, which had been indispensable to the adoption of that important Decision. He 
also wished to apologise for not having consulted as widely as he would have liked and thanked 
Members for the contribution the Decision had ma de to the Nairobi outcomes and the WTO system 
as a whole. 
3.2.  The Decision gave a number of instructions to the Council, including maintaining a standing 
item on the agenda to review and promote the oper ationalization of the LDC waiver. Therefore, the 
current item, which had been on the agenda since the relevant Bali Ministerial Decision, would continue to figure on the Council's agenda at future meetings.   
3.3.  He then drew delegations' attention to th e nine notifications of preferences the Council had 
received since October, as listed on the airgram. They had been submitted by: Chile, Iceland, Brazil, the European Union, Liechtenstein, South Africa, Canada, Uruguay and Thailand. The total 
tally of notifications received with respect to the waiver stood at a very encouraging 23. He offered 
an opportunity to Members who had submitted notifications since October to introduce their notifications if they so wished.   
3.4.  The representative of Uruguay said that her delegation's notification provided preferences for 
LDCs that had been drawn from Uruguay's regional trade agreements and that were in force since 
1 January 2016. Preferences were granted in sector s and modes of supply of particular interest to 
LDCs, as indicated in their collective request. New mode 4 categories, i.e. contractual service 
suppliers, professionals and specialists, were added to Uruguay's current horizontal commitments, 
with an indication of their permitted duration of stay. At the sectoral level, the notification provided for preferential treatment with regard to  professional services (accounting, auditing and 
bookkeeping; architectural services; engineering se rvices), other business services (e.g. cleaning 
services) and construction services, more specifically in modes 2 and 3 in business services (professional and other business services) and in construction services (general construction work for civil engineering). Uruguay intended to maintain  its preferences for the duration of the waiver 
as extended as MC10, i.e. until the end of 2030. 
3.5.  The representative of South Africa noted that his delegation had been a loyal supporter of the 
LDC waiver since its inception and the fact that many LDCs were in Africa was an issue that South 
Africa took very seriously. Although South Africa was a developing country that had already 
undertaken extensive GATS commitments, after widespread consultations with national departments and relevant stakeholders, it was please d to present its notification of preferences in 
favour of services and service suppliers from LDCs. His delegation looked forward to further 
engagement with the LDC Group. 
3.6.  The representative of Canada said that Canada had been the first Member to submit a 
notification of preferences under the waiver, on  9 March 2015. As other Members’ notifications 
were circulated, good practices with respect to scope and format had emerged, which Canada had 
not foreseen. His delegation had heard from LDCs that its notification could be more ambitious and better presented; it had reflected on those comments and prepared a revised notification. The 
revised notification, which replaced Canada’s first notification, had been circulated to Members on 
16 December 2015. Like Canada’s first notification, the revised notification had been developed in consultation with provinces, territories and relevant federal departments.   
3.7.  The revised notification was formatted to be  consistent with GATS scheduling, included only 
sectors where coverage extended beyond Canada ’s existing GATS obligations (and therefore 
covered fewer sectors) and spelled out the specific limitations that were applicable. Canada intended to maintain the preferences in the notification for the period of the waiver, including the 
period of extension until 31 December 2030 as decided by Ministers at MC10. S/C/M/126 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.8.  The representative of the European Unio n said that, on 18 November 2015, the EU had 
notified the Council of its preferential treatment for services and service suppliers from LDCs. The 
EU notification confirmed the draft EU notificati on of July 2015 and was fully in line with the 
preferences the EU had signalled at the High-Level Meeting of February 2015.  
3.9.  The EU notification covered preferences within  practically all the groups of sectors identified 
in the LDC collective requests of July 2014. In some areas, the EU preferences went beyond the already extensive offers presented as part of th e DDA, and included elements from the EU's most 
recent development-oriented FTAs. The EU pref erential treatment extended to market access 
measures (in the sense of Article XVI) as primaril y covered by the waiver, but also to the removal 
of national treatment limitations to ensure the full benefit of the preferences.  
3.10.  A particularly important feature of the EU notification was the inclusion of horizontal 
preferences related to the movement of natural persons (mode 4) which had been presented as a 
key interest of LDCs in their collective requests. Fo r this mode of supply, the EU was pleased to be 
able to significantly improve sectoral scope, extend categories and offer possibility for longer stay 
for LDC service suppliers.  
3.11.  Another part of the EU notification concerned sectoral preferences in modes 1 to 3. These 
preferences extended to all groups of sectors iden tified in the LDC collective requests and across 
all those three modes. For example, in travel and tourism-related services, new commitments 
were taken for commercial presence of travel agen cies and tour operators, and on tour guides 
services. In transport and logistics services, preferences were extended in all relevant modes of transport and most of the related auxiliary services . LDC services suppliers would, for example, be 
able to establish a commercial presence in the EU to provide a very wide range of activities, 
ranging from cargo handling to freight-forwarding services, on the same footing as EU services suppliers. In some cases individual EU Member States had been able to further improve 
commitments. For example, freight agency services on a cross-border basis, one of the activities 
mentioned in the LDC requests, were covered in the EU notification.  
3.12.  Overall, EU preferences to LDCs expanded into most of the 155 service subsectors of the 
W/120 classification, for both market access and national treatment, and across all modes of 
supply. As indicated previously, the EU remained  at the LDC disposal for any further discussion 
they might wish to have in respect of the EU's notification. 
3.13.  The representative of Turkey informed the Council of a recent governmental decision 
regarding part 3 of Turkey’s LDC services waiver notification (dated 3 September 2015 and 
contained in document S/C/N/824) covering info rmation on current tec hnical assistance and 
capacity-building opportunities provided by Turk ey. The Government of Turkey had decided to 
streamline all scholarship programmes to be administered by the Presidency for Turks Abroad and 
Related Communities. Therefore, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) did not continue the scholarship programme for scientists coming from LDCs mentioned 
in paragraph 3.3 of Turkey’s LDC waiver notificati on. For further clarity, the Presidency for Turks 
Abroad and Related Communities was currently the single authority responsible for granting international scholarships in the name of Turkey, and continued the scholarship programmes mentioned in paragraph 3.1 of Turkey’s LDC waiver notification. 
3.14.  The representative of India was pleased to  note the increased number of notifications of 
preferences for LDCs and wished to update the Me mbership on its own notification. India was fully 
committed to the meaningful implementation of its preferences. New capacity-building 
programmes were being organised that year, as per India's notification, and details had been 
passed on to the LDC coordinator. Most of the agencies which were providing those capacity-building and technical assistance programmes to LDCs had included pertinent weblinks on their 
websites. India's Department of Commerce had also created a centralised hyperlink on its website 
for increased transparency, under "What's new" in the "International Trade" section. The visa fee waiver was also fully operational; necessary instructions had been passed on to all Indian missions in LDCs. She encouraged LDCs to fully utilise the preferences granted by In dia in its notification. 
3.15.  The Chairman noted that the Nairobi Ministerial Decision instructed the Council to 
"expeditiously consider approval of preferences re lating to measures other than those described in 
GATS Article XVI, in accordance with the Waiver".  According to the notifications and the indications 
provided by delegations, there seemed to be five of the notifications on the agenda that contained S/C/M/126 
 
- 5 - 
 
  measures other than market access ones, namely those submitted by Iceland, the European 
Union, South Africa, Canada and Thailand. If that  was indeed the case, and in keeping with the 
Nairobi Decision, he asked that, at that meeting, the Council consider approving the preferences in 
question. He suggested that Members proceed as they had done in October, and that, unless there 
were any objections, the Council approve the preferential treatment with respect to the application 
of measures other than those described in GATS Article XVI contained in those five notifications. 
3.16.  It was so agreed. 
3.17.  Moving to the other issues mandated to the Council by Ministers, the Chairman noted that 
paragraph 1.5 of the Nairobi Decision stipulated that the Council for Trade in Services shall:  
"with a view to furthering the objectives of GATS Article IV, facilitate an exchange of 
information by Members on technical assistance measures undertaken to promote the 
increasing participation of LDCs in world services trade; 
initiate a process to review the operation of notified preferences, on the basis of information 
provided by Members. In support of that process, Members may request WTO Secretariat 
inputs, as appropriate; and  
further discuss any issues that may facilitate benefits provided under the notified 
preferences." 
3.18.  He opened the floor for delegations to share initial ideas on how that work could be 
approached.  
3.19.  The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, expressed LDCs' 
profound appreciation for the notifications received since the Dedicated Session in 
November 2015. LDCs also appreciated that, while in Nairobi, Canada had circulated a revised 
submission. Since then, two more notifications had been received, from developing countries. LDCs were sincerely pleased that Members had remained committed to the submission of 
notifications.   
3.20.  The Group was in the process of examining those notifications. It had already begun 
bilateral meetings with some Members to clarify certain elements of their notifications and would 
revert with any necessary comments at the next meeting of the Council.   
3.21.  LDCs wished to applaud Members for the consensus reached on the LDC Services Waiver 
Decision in Nairobi. They also wished to congratulate the Chairman and his delegation for having been closely associated with that success, and th e members of the Secretariat who had worked on 
that file. LDCs knew it had not been easy but the Chairman had managed to score a "hat trick 
during injury time". While the outcome was far from the ambition LDCs had initially sought, it was nonetheless a good step forward in the implementa tion of the waiver Decision. It was therefore 
important that Members implemented all aspects of the MC10 Decision. In the same vein, LDCs 
stressed the need for preferences to be implemented in a manner that allowed to bring forward cases demonstrating their success.    
3.22.  Preference-granting Members needed to prov ide assistance to orient LDC suppliers on how 
to benefit from the preferences provided. In addi tion, preference-granting Members had to inform 
and sensitise their own domestic constituencies about the preferential treatment that had been 
granted to LDCs services and service suppliers, so as  to facilitate the utilisation of the preferential 
treatment granted.  
3.23.  LDCs further urged Members to undertake th e necessary steps to extend the duration of the 
preferential treatment. They had been please d to hear at that meeting Members that had 
specifically indicated that they were already implementing this requirement. 
3.24.  They would encourage more notifications of  preferences, especially those that eliminated 
barriers to market access for LDCs, including measures identified in the LDC collective request that 
went beyond GATS Article XVI.   S/C/M/126 
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.25.  The representative of Bangladesh associated his delegation with the statement by Uganda 
on behalf of the LDC Group. He expressed his ap preciation to Members for the LDC waiver MC10 
Decision and thanked in particular the Chairman. Although the Decision did not capture all that LDCs had sought in their submission of November 2015, it would provide the opportunity to 
discuss issues that would enable LDCs to make best use of the preferences they had been granted.  
3.26.  He thanked all the Members who had submitted notifications since the October meeting of 
the Council and also expressed appreciation for Ca nada's revised notification. The fact that 23 
notifications of preferences had been submi tted was testament to Members' commitment to 
operationalising the waiver. He was pleased to note that the number of services notifications exceeded the number of notifications of pr eferential treatment in the goods area. 
3.27.  LDCs were still reviewing the notifications and might request bilateral meetings with the 
notifying Members to arrive at a better understanding  of the preferences notified. In that context, 
a brief summary of the preferences provided und er the notifications would be very useful.  
3.28.  LDC participation in services trade was negligible. Whatever progress had been made was 
directed towards catering for LDC domestic needs. In order to expose LDC services suppliers to 
international markets, orientation was needed. In this sense, he asked notifying Members to offer assistance to LDC service suppliers to take adva ntage of the preferences granted. Match-making 
initiatives between service consumers in the pref erence-granting Members and service suppliers in 
LDCs would be very useful in that respect. 
3.29.  The representative of Australia welcomed the opportunity the Nairobi Decision provided for 
the Council to consider how to further integrate LDCs into global services trade. Her delegation 
would be particularly interested in having an exchange with other Members on technical assistance 
and capacity-building measures designed to promote that objective. Australia was also keen to hear from LDCs in the Working Party on Domestic Regulation about their priorities as Members 
progressed discussions on how to deliver on the negotiating mandate under GATS Article VI:4.  
3.30.  The Chairman noted that the many notifi cations submitted had been welcomed by the LDC 
Group. He suggested that the Council take note of the statements made, the notifications 
submitted and the preferential tr eatment approved, and indicated that Members would revert to 
this item at its next meeting. 
3.31.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM D – WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
4.1.  Turning to the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, the Chairman drew Members' 
attention to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on this issue contained in document WT/L/977.  In 
Nairobi, Ministers had decided to "continue the work under the Work Programme" and instructed 
the General Council to hold periodic reviews base d on the reports "that may be submitted by the 
WTO bodies entrusted with the implementation of the Work Programme". The first occasion for the 
services Council to report to th e General Council was in July.  
4.2.  Against that background, it seemed apparent that Members had some work ahead in order to 
respond to Ministers' instructions. In that regard, he would welcome hearing delegations' views about how to take work forward under the Work Programme. Indications of forthcoming contributions would be useful too. He also offered the floor to delegations for any information they 
might wish to share with the Membership under the "exchange of information and experiences" 
sub-item. 
4.3.  The representative of China recalled that, in October 2015, his delegation had made a 
presentation on the latest developments in e-commerce in China and wished now to provide an 
update. In recent years, e-commerce and online sales had both witnessed rapid growth in China and had provided added impetus to national econ omic development. E-commerce and online sales 
had played important roles in transforming an d upgrading the country's economic structure, 
promoting innovation and business start-ups, and stimulating consumption.  S/C/M/126 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.4.  In 2015, the total turnover of e-commerce in China was more than RMB 20 trillion, up 27% 
year-on-year. The online retail transaction volume reached RMB 3.88 trillion, up 33.3% year-on-year. The B2C trading volume was RMB 2.02 trillion, which for the first time exceeded the C2C volume of RMB 1.86 trillion. Online retail sales of  physical products attained RMB 3.24 trillion, up 
31.6%, accounting for 10.8% of total retail sales of social consumer goods for the corresponding 
period. Online retail sales of non-physical products reached RMB 634.9 billion, up 42.4%. The number of online consumers was also increasing ra pidly. By the end of 2015, online consumers in 
China had reached 413 million, up 51.83 million since the end of 2014 and corresponding to an 
increase of 14.3%. China was interested in further discussions and would welcome continued information-sharing from other Members. 
4.5.  The representative of Canada said that hi s delegation continued to place importance on the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and related discussions in relevant WTO bodies. The 
Internet and ability to move data across borders were transforming how g oods and services were 
traded across the globe. Maximizing opportunities  and openness of the Internet for international 
trade, including through trade policy disciplines, would benefit developed and developing countries 
alike. 
4.6.  Canada had taken electronic commerce-related commitments in the context of bilateral, 
plurilateral and multilateral trade agreements to facilitate trade in an electronic environment. In 
general, the e-commerce-related objectives in Canada’s FTAs were to facilitate economic growth and trade opportunities for Canadian enterprise s through electronic commerce; encourage the 
protection of consumers and personal informatio n; and enhance cooperation on global issues 
affecting electronic commerce. 
4.7.  In the Work Programme, Canada welcomed  the opportunity to identify supportive trade 
policy measures that enhanced digital trade, as  well as regulatory practices that addressed 
existing and new constraints to digital trade. Cana da supported exploring topics of mutual interest, 
such as disciplines on online privacy and cons umer protection across borders and a permanent 
customs duties moratorium. His delegation would work with interested Members to shape a 
substantive discussion under that item at  the following meeting of the Council. 
4.8.  The representative of the United States reiterated his delegation's deep interest in the e-
commerce Work Programme and hoped for progress to be made in that regard. His delegation had 
undertaken internal consultations to identify ideas to share with the Membership in the course of 
the year. 
4.9.  The representative of Australia said th at e-commerce was one of the areas where her 
delegation saw real prospects for more substantive discussions in 2016. Australia was considering 
what it could contribute to the discussion and lo oked forward to working with interested Members 
to stimulate a productive exchange of information on developments in trade policy and negotiations, including on recent trade disciplines. 
4.10.  A representative of UNCTAD appreciated th e opportunity to bring the Council up to date 
with UNCTAD's work related to e-commerce, and wished to draw Members' attention to a few 
activities of direct relevance to trade in services.  
4.11.  First, on 19-20 April, UNCTAD would hold an expert meeting on data protection and privacy. 
The ad hoc  expert meeting would contribute to a gl obal dialogue on the link between data 
protection and international trade. Industry pl ayers and consumers, as well as governments and 
international organizations, would present their perspectives on the current, fragmented legal 
situation for protecting data online, discuss what an ideal situation should look like, taking the 
concerns of different stakeholders into account. 
4.12.  The meeting offered a rare opportunity to meet and discuss with leading experts on the 
subject matter, which was of growing relevance as more activities and transactions were taking 
place online. This was particularly true for trade in services. The changing nature of the digital economy enhanced the importance of coherence between data protection and privacy frameworks.  
4.13.  The meeting would include the launch of a new UNCTAD study entitled "Data Protection 
Regulations and International Data Flows: Implications for International Trade". It was UNCTAD's 
hope that the analysis contained in that study could serve as a basis for further dialogue towards S/C/M/126 
 
- 8 - 
 
  reaching consensus on how best to protect data, including during future meetings of the Council 
on Trade in Services. 
4.14.  Second, UNCTAD was organi sing an "Aid for eTrade" initiative. E-commerce and digital trade 
could be powerful drivers of economic growth, in clusive trade and job-creation in the developing 
world. However, significant divides still remained. Most people and small businesses, especially in 
the developing world, had yet to start using the Internet, let alone leverage the potential of e-commerce. In most developing countries, less than 3 percent of the population bought goods or 
services online. 
4.15.  Numerous development partners, foundations and private sector actors were working from 
different angles to unlock the power of the Intern et for economic development. However, current 
efforts were highly fragmented. Accelerating th e uptake of e-commerce in developing countries 
required a more concerted approach.  
4.16.  Against this background, UNCTAD had taken the initiative of exploring the feasibility of 
launching an Aid for eTrade initiative. It was envisioned as a demand-driven mechanism for 
leading development partners and international organizations, in partnership with the private 
sector, to make actions more coherent, pool capabilities and resources, and avoid duplication. In order to ensure effective public-private dialog ue, a Private Sector Advisory Council would be 
established, comprising e-commerce platform comp anies, merchants, payment providers, logistics 
firms, IT infrastructure and other companie s from developing and developed economies. 
4.17.  Aid for eTrade would seek synergies with existing initiatives and mechanisms, including Aid 
for Trade and the Enhanced Integrated Framework, as well as with projects implemented by the 
individual partner organizations. It would help developing countries to navigate more easily the 
supply of capacity-building from the internationa l community, while at the same give donors a 
clearer picture of technical assistance programmes that they could fund. The overall intention 
would be more transparency and greater aid efficiency. 
4.18.  Preliminary discussions with selected donors, beneficiary countries, international 
organizations and business representatives had been very constructive and encouraging. UNCTAD 
was about to circulate a draft Call for Action that was open for comments by all stakeholders. 
There would also be an open consultations meeting on 21 April.  
4.19.  Third, work was underway to measure cross-border e-commerce and digital trade. UNCTAD, 
WTO and UPU had jointly begun work on improving the measurement of cross-border e-
commerce. One workshop had been held at the WTO in February, and there would be a second 
session discussing the issue on 22 April in the Palais des Nations. It was a sad fact that currently it was not known how much trade could be attributed to e-commerce. Work was currently exploring 
possible ways to improve the situation, using bo th official statistics and private sector data 
sources. It would also be linked to the Task Force on International Trade Statistics, which was coordinated by WTO and the OECD. 
4.20.  Another relevant area in which UNCTAD had taken the lead concerned the measurement of 
digital trade, or trade in ICT-enabled servic es. The previous week, at the UN Statistical 
Commission, UNCTAD had presented a new meth odology that should help in conducting 
enterprises surveys related to trade in ICT-enabled services. This methodology had been 
developed in collaboration with other international organizations, including the WTO, OECD, ITU 
and the UN Statistics Division. The next step was to pilot the methodology in selected developing countries. 
4.21.  Fourth, UNCTAD was organising an E-Commerce Week on 18-22 April in the Palais des 
Nations, for the second time. The week would offer an opportunity for member States to discuss among themselves and with other stakeholders recent developments and policy issues related to 
e-commerce. On Monday 18 April parallel sessions were organized by various partners, including 
the WTO Secretariat, the World Bank, the Governme nt of Sweden and ICT business associations in 
the US, Europe and Japan. Topics included trade and regulation in the digital economy, global 
attitudes towards data protection and privacy online, the new OECD and UN Guidelines for 
consumer protection online, new tools to address cybercrime and cybersecurity, and business 
priorities on ICT for the next G7 meeting. The ex pert meeting on data protection and privacy was 
on 19-20 April, 21 April was devoted to consultations with stakeholders on Aid for eTrade and S/C/M/126 
 
- 9 - 
 
  22 April would be dealing with improving the way e-commerce readiness and cross-border e-
commerce were measured.  
4.22.  He hoped that some of the sessions would be  of interest to WTO delegations and could help 
inspire further work in the Council. Online Registration was open. 
4.23.  The representatives of Mexico and New Zealand stressed their respective delegation's 
interest in advancing work under the e-commerce Work Programme. They had no concrete 
proposals to share at that stage but were ready to participate and contribute constructively. 
4.24.  The representative of Nigeria asked the UNCTAD representative if the various e-commerce 
initiatives would focus also on SMEs or MSMEs.  The representative of UNCTAD indicated that 
statistical analysis indicated that MSMEs were less frequent users of e-commerce, so that was 
indeed a priority area of UNCTAD's work, including in the Aid for eTrade initiative.  
4.25.  The Chairman suggested that the Council ta ke note of the statements made and revert to 
this item at its next meeting. 
4.26.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E – MODE 4 – ASSESSMENT OF BARRIERS TO ENTRY – STATEMENT BY INDIA  5.1.  The Chairman indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of India.   
5.2.  The representative of India indicated that  her delegation had tabled a submission titled 
“Mode 4: Assessment of Barriers to Entry”, circulated in document JOB/SERV/229. She hoped 
Members had had time to go through the submission and were able to engage in a fruitful discussion on that very important subject. 
5.3.  As a share of total trade in services, mode 4 trade accounted for less than 5%, making it the 
least-traded mode of supply. This was despite th e fact that existing literature on the subject 
pointed to substantial gains for both origin and destination countries resulting from liberalisation of 
temporary movement of natural persons. The Secretariat’s 2009 Background Note on mode 4 
(S/C/W/301) gave an extensive account of the existi ng empirical literature on the subject. A more 
recent 2015 report by the National Board of Tr ade of Sweden showed that liberalisation of 
temporary movement of persons was a win-win reform. It was a process through which the 
liberalising country gained in export performance from reducing its own barriers to the temporary 
movement of persons.  
5.4.  Supply of services through mode 4 was particularly important for developing countries and 
LDCs, as they were well endowed with a diverse ca tegory of skilled service providers. For these 
countries, the mode 4 route for supply of services was crucial for their export competitiveness as well as for maintaining their comparative advantage in the area.  
5.5.  India’s interest in mode 4 was well-known and in the past her delegation had tabled several 
documents expressing its interests and concerns on various aspects of mode 4 trade. It was 
however disappointing that commitments in an area of critical interest to developing countries and 
LDCs were shallow and, quoting from the LDC Collective Request, fraught with “the most 
staggering market access, administrative and other barriers”. 
5.6.  Some of those issues had been highlighted in the Secretariat Note on mode 4. Building on 
the Secretariat Note, India’s own submission illustrated the increasingly complex nature of barriers 
to mode 4 entry that had emerged from the experience of Indian service suppliers. Those kinds of 
regulatory requirements and limitations impeded,  or could impede, scheduled mode 4 access. In 
its submission, India was sharing its experience with respect to certain select countries, which 
were major export markets for India. The submission also elucidated how subjective definitions of 
sub-categories, such as "executive", "specialist" and "managers/senior managers" under the Intra Corporate Transferee (ICT) category, had resulted in rejection of bona fide applications and 
undermined relevant commitments.  S/C/M/126 
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.7.  Non-portability of social security benefits was another significant mode 4 barrier, as had also 
been highlighted in the Secretariat Note. This problem was prevalent in several countries, and its nature and extent, as well as possible solutions, were highlighted in India's submission. 
5.8.  The representative emphasized that the meas ures of the kind outlined in her delegation's 
submission undermined any effective mode 4 access into the countries maintaining such 
measures. As brought out in the submission, Members were implementing a variety of regulatory measures.  These included increased application f ees for entry by certain categories of foreign 
professionals; increased salary thresholds for foreign professionals, implementation of visa 
categories in a manner that rendered effective market access meaningless, and non-portability of social security benefits. All those measures impeded committed mode 4 access. 
5.9.  It was well-documented that movement of persons across borders was integral to the new 
trading landscape of specialised international production. High visa costs, lengthy and uncertain 
procedures for such movement could, therefore, restrict trade. The importance of procedures and disciplines was well recognised when it came to trade in goods, where the trade facilitation agenda 
reduced border bottlenecks through harmonisation, simplification, disciplining fee-related matters 
and transparency. It was time that Members applied the same principles of trade facilitation to entry procedures, and especially visas and work permits. In the case of mode 4, the already 
difficult situation was getting worse, as some countries were using entry procedures for clear 
protectionist intent and saw visa fees as revenue streams. It would be a matter of concern if this became a trend in important export markets for mode 4 service suppliers of developing countries.  
5.10.  As far as India was concerned, it had alre ady waived off visa fees for LDC service suppliers 
through its LDC services waiver notification. In India's view, the benefits of mode 4 trade 
liberalisation were so substantive for both the host economy and the home economy of the supplier that all possible steps had to be taken to facilitate that movement. While it was important 
for Members to engage in progressive liberalisation under the GATS framework, the first crucial 
step was the need to ensure that regulatory barriers to the existing mode 4 commitments were effectively redressed.  
5.11.  Her delegation looked forward to Member’s comments, even if preliminary at that meeting, 
and to a productive discussion of the issues highlighted in its submission. It was an opportunity to constructively engage on real and substantive issues that were being faced by developing countries while accessing important markets. India was also taking up those issues with the 
countries concerned through the bilateral channel, but it was important to appraise the larger 
Membership of the barriers that its service suppliers were facing. In India's view, that discussion was relevant to several developing countries that had interests in mode 4, as their service 
suppliers could potentially also be facing the sa me barriers. India was requesting Members’ due 
consideration of the concerns raised and challenges identified in its submission. The representative also urged Members to come forward and shar e their own experiences on the barriers and 
regulatory requirements that impeded, or might impede, mode 4 access.  
5.12.  In addition, as a next step, she suggested that the Secretariat be tasked with updating its 
2009 Background Note on the basis of the discussio n that would be held under that agenda item, 
as well as its own research and analysis on the subject.  
5.13.  The representative of the European Union had taken note of India’s submission on mode 4 
and assessment of barriers to entry. At that stage,  the EU wished to note that the reference made 
to one of its Member States was in relation to a report from an independent consultative body. 
Hence, India’s submission discussed neither a me asure in the meaning of the GATS nor even a 
draft measure. As a matter of fact, no governmental  authority had taken position yet on the report 
in question. 
5.14.  From the EU's perspective, that put in qu estion the relevance of the example proposed by 
India in its submission. Every day, throughout  the European Union, various stakeholders 
expressed ideas or circulated proposals. The EU di d not believe that all should be discussed in the 
Council for Trade in Services of the WTO. And in no circumstances should ongoing domestic 
debates be used to question the EU’s compliance with its international obligations, which the EU 
fully respected. S/C/M/126 
 
- 11 - 
 
  5.15.  Following the concerns expressed by In dia at the November meeting of the Council, a 
bilateral channel had been opened to provide mo re explanation on ongoing domestic discussions. 
The EU was surprised to see the issue being ra ised again in the Council, while the bilateral 
dialogue was still ongoing. 
5.16.  The representative of the United Kingdom aligned his delegation with the statement by the 
EU. The UK used the opportunity to update the Council of developments since the last meeting 
where the issue had been discussed. Since then, the UK Government had held bilateral 
consultations with the Government of India, both in Geneva and between the respective capitals.  
5.17.  The Migration Advisory Committee, to whic h the Indian statement and submission referred, 
was an independent, non-statutory, non-time limi ted, non-departmental public body that advised 
the Government on migration issues. It had pub lished an independent report on 19 January 2016, 
which was available online. The UK Government had thanked the MAC for the report, was 
considering the findings and would take decisions on its recommendations in due course.  
5.18.  The UK fully respected its international commitments, through both Tier 2 and Tier 5 visa 
routes in its immigration system. It remained strongly committed to the multilateral trading 
system and its WTO obligations. The UK had be en, and would continue to be, happy to hold 
bilateral discussions with any interested Member on that matter.  
5.19.  By way of preliminary comment, the representa tive of China said that his delegation shared 
the concerns expressed by India and was alarmed by the trend of increasing barriers and undue 
burdens to the entry of natural persons from developing Members. He urged Members to take concrete measures to address those concerns in a timely manner, so as to live up to the 
fundamental WTO principles and faithfully implement their specific commitments in the area of 
mode 4. 
5.20.  The representative of the United States took note of India's remarks and submission. His 
delegation did not believe that it was appropriate to discuss the US measure referenced in India's 
submission in the Council for Trade in Services , as India had raised the issue as a dispute 
settlement matter and, in so doing, had chosen a different forum to address it. 
5.21.  The representative of Canada appreciated India’s interest in Canada's programmes related 
to the temporary entry of business persons. While it might have been more efficient to have 
discussed those interests bilaterally in advance of the meeting, Canada nonetheless took that opportunity to clear-up some of the errors captured in India’s communication.  
5.22.  He indicated that, in Section B, India had misunderstood the distinction between the 
Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) and the International Mobility Program (IMP) and therefore the conclusions drawn on the basis of that  distinction were incorrect. First, the elements 
of the IMP had always existed within the TFWP , and the only change that had occurred was a 
rebranding of the programme. The IMP collectively identified the streams of foreign workers that 
were able to enter Canada without the need for a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA), 
streams that had previously been part of the TFWP . Second, rather than a differentiation based on 
employer demand, as India suggested, the key distinction was that for those workers entering under the TFWP, the employer had to be able to demonstrate that there was no Canadian available to perform the job (via the LMIA process), wher eas under the IMP, the process was exempt from 
that requirement. 
5.23.  He also noted that, contrary to the descrip tion in India’s paper, work permits issued under 
the IMP related to Canada's trade commitments were also specific to the employer (e.g. intra-
company transferees). However, the IMP did also cover certain streams that were provided with 
open work permits (i.e. not specific to the employer), such as under Canada's working holiday programmes for youth. He hoped that that cleared up  some of the misperceptions in India's paper. 
5.24.  The representative of Australia thanked In dia for its submission. Australia was encouraged 
to see Members using the Council to identify current issues affecting service suppliers where there 
were concrete measures that warranted discussion . Her delegation believed that Members could 
benefit from more substantive exchanges in the Co uncil of contemporary services trade interests 
and trade barriers, as a way of ensuring that futu re negotiations were appropriately targeted at 
addressing evolving priorities of those involved in services trade.  S/C/M/126 
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.25.  Regulatory barriers had a real impact on market access in all sectors and modes of supply. 
This situation was not unique to mode 4; mode 1 services suppliers could not benefit from Members’ market access commitments where ICT regulation limited cross-border trade, and financial regulation limited foreign investment despite Members’ mode 3 commitments. 
5.26.  Australia recognised the right to regulate as a central principle of the GATS, but where it 
had been able to go further in its FTAs and negotiate regulatory disciplines (on temporary entry, electronic commerce, professional services, financia l services), that was when its services suppliers 
had benefitted fully from market access commitments. Her delegation was disappointed that it had 
been blocked from progressing such negotiations in the WTO and increasingly saw that WTO rules were unable to keep pace with trade developmen ts outside the multilateral system. She hoped 
that post-Nairobi there would be a greater willingness to consider how Members might be able to 
update WTO rules to better reflect commercial realities.  
5.27.  The representative of Uganda expressed the LDC Group's appreciation for India's 
submission on the assessment of barriers to mode 4 entry, which provided additional information 
about barriers to market access in the form of  regulatory and other measures. LDCs were 
concerned about the extent to which the barriers identified by India could adversely impact the preferential treatment provided by the Memb ers to LDC suppliers. The communication also 
highlighted that some of these barriers had been registered in the LDC collective request, which 
was indeed the case. In the collective request, LDCs  had asked for the removal or reduction of fees 
for visas, permits and other measures that hindered access. LDCs hoped that the Members identified in India’s submission would be able to  explain the measures in question and reassure 
LDCs that those measures would not become a problem for their suppliers. It was important for 
LDC suppliers to be reassured that the successful process leading up to the 23 notifications submitted thus far under the waiver would bring benefits to them.    
5.28.  Speaking on behalf of the ACP group, the representative of the Dominican Republic 
welcomed India's submission and indicated that it was currently being reviewed and would be 
reverted to. 
5.29.  The representative of Bangladesh said  that India's submission clearly showed how 
regulatory measures could hinder mode 4 trade. This had been requested also by LDCs in their 
collective request, as referred to in the Indian submission. 
5.30.  The representative of El Salvador noted that mode 4 was an issue of importance for most 
developing countries, including El Salvador. Her delegation echoed the concerns expressed by 
India and supported the suggestions contained in the Indian communication, as well as the proposal that the Secretariat update its 2009 Back ground Note on mode 4, and called on the 
Council to address those issues. The representative of Nigeria was also in favour of updating the 
Secretariat Note. 
5.31.  The representative of Turkey thanked In dia for its statement and submission. Mode 4 was 
one of the core pillars of services trade and theref ore Turkey believed that, in order to achieve the 
real potential of mode 4 trade, Members needed rules regulating the procedures for accepting and 
processing the applications for entry and temporary stay. Turkey understood countries' need to regulate the movement of natural persons based on security concerns, but believed that this 
should not nullify or impair the entry and temporary stay of service supplier or trade in services in 
general. From that perspective, her delegation supported India's statement and called upon Members to work towards the establishment of provisions to regulate Members' application and 
processing procedures, with the aim of liberalizi ng the movement of service suppliers and enabling 
global services trade to reach its full potential. 
5.32.  Speaking on behalf of the African Group, the representative of South Africa welcomed the 
new agenda item and India's communication on th e assessment of mode 4 barriers to entry. The 
African Group recognised that the temporary move ment of natural persons represented a primary 
interest for its Members, especially LDCs. Having  received India's communication that week, the 
Group’s preliminary view was that it presented a novel way to approach transparency in the 
Council. In principle, the implementation of commitments under any mode of supply was relevant 
and the Group looked forward to more constructive engagements under that agenda item in the future. S/C/M/126 
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.33.  The representative of India thanked Members for their comments and was pleased with the 
support her delegation's communication had receiv ed from many delegations. Responding to the 
comments made by the EU, she agreed that the MAC recommendation was only a draft and not yet a measure. However, although it was not in  force, the recommendation was a matter of deep 
concern to her delegation as, in the past, all of the MAC recommendations had been accepted 
without any modification by the UK Government. In that sense, the Council was the appropriate forum to raise the issue. The UK was a very impo rtant market for Indian IT suppliers, as it 
accounted for 18% of total Indian IT exports. It  had been estimated that US$250 million would be 
lost if the measure was implemented. As such, her delegation's serious concern was understandable and the Council was indeed the right venue to discuss the matter.  
5.34.  Turning to the US comments, she recognised that the US measure increasing visa fees was 
being addressed under the WTO's dispute settlemen t mechanism, but India's concern was with the 
broader issue. What she was suggesting was that the Council discuss regulatory barriers of a similar nature without getting into the legality or technicality of the specific US measure. 
5.35.  As for Canada's response, she indicated that her delegation had raised the issue bilaterally 
as well as in Canada's TPR, but was still concerned with the clarification provided and would revert to it at the following meeting. 
5.36.  She concurred with Australia that regulatory measures could impact market access in all 
modes of supply, but India's submission had drawn attention to those in mode 4 as this was India's own area of interest.  She thanked all de legations who had supported India's position and 
looked forward to further constructive engagement on the issue. 
5.37.  The representative of European Union re peated that the MAC recommendation was neither a 
measure nor a draft measure. 
5.38.  The representative of United States reiter ated his delegation's strong opposition to the 
discussion in view of the fact that the United St ates was prevented from commenting on the issues 
involved because India had requested consultations on those same issues. A fruitful discussion of those matters was not possible when one Member was effectively prevented from commenting. 
The forum had been chosen and, as such, that discussion was a process foul. 
5.39.  The representative of Nigeria asked the Secr etariat for clarifications with respect to India's 
request for an update to the Background Note on mode 4. 
5.40.  A representative of the Secretariat explained that, if Members wanted to task the 
Secretariat with the updating of the Background Note on mode 4 (S/C/W/301), it would be 
important to see what Members would find useful in terms of an update. He explained that document S/C/W/301 had been one of the Notes th e Secretariat had been asked to produce for 
the Council's sectoral and modal discussions. The Note addressed the scope of mode 4; reviewed 
the main categories included in Members' commitments, given that mode 4 had generally been scheduled starting from an "unbound, except"; pres ented the difficulties involved in statistically 
measuring trade via the movement of natural persons; discussed the benefits of mode 4 
liberalization; presented the perceived barriers and obstacles to trading services through mode 4 identified in the literature; and reviewed Member s' commitments and MFN exemptions in mode 4. 
Against that background, an updated Note could cover an analysis of the commitments and MFN 
exemptions taken by economies that had acceded to  the WTO since 2009, as well as an update of 
factual information, such as more recent literature, depending on what Members agreed could be useful.  
5.41.  The representative of India suggested that the Secretariat could indeed update its Note in 
certain regards, for instance to cover the commi tments of newly-acceded Members, new literature 
on the subject as well as the perceived obstacles to mode 4 trade, as a trend of increasing barriers 
had emerged since 2009. While the Secretariat could not pronounce on whether a measure was an 
obstacle, it could nevertheless update the Note based on perceptions, while keeping that caveat. In addition, as it was the first time the Council addressed that agenda item, it was possible to ask for further updates depending on how the discussion  proceeded. The representative of Nigeria said 
that he could support that kind of endeavour on the part of the Secretariat. S/C/M/126 
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.42.  The representative of the United States stated that there was no consensus in the Council 
for the Secretariat to carry out any additional work. The issue had been brought up in a highly 
prejudicial manner and additional reflection was needed to understand what kind of update might be possible and how it would navigate the issues at hand. His delegation could have engaged in 
such a conversation a few months back, but, give n that they had not been approached bilaterally 
as India had done with some other Members but had just been presented with the consultation request, they were now operating in that sphere. To now bring that conversation and that try to 
prejudice it in such a way was extremely unhelpful.  
5.43.  The representative of Canada was also uncomfortable with India's suggestion. A discussion 
of "perceived" obstacles to trade could be very su bjective, as was proven by India's reference to a 
recommendation by a non-governmental body as a possible measure or its mischaracterisation of 
Canada's own measures. He added that transpar ency discussions could be entertained in the 
Council via Article III and that was the way to proceed, rather than addressing "perceived 
barriers".  
5.44.  The representative of the European Union said that there was no clarity as to the objective 
of the discussion and as such it was too soon to agree to any further work. 
5.45.  The representative of India noted that her delegation was not asking for a new paper, but 
just an update of an existing one. When the Secretariat had produced the 2009 Background Note, 
no Member had had any problem with the inclusion of a section on perceived obstacles to trade. She was of the view that the Note could therefor e be updated in that regard, on the basis of 
Members' discussions and the Secretariat's own analysis, without necessarily referencing India's 
specific examples. It was unfortunate that there was no consensus on a request for an update of a 
Note.  
5.46.  The representative of the United States stated that it was unfortunate that a Member 
wanted to discuss an issue another Member could not engage in and wanted that discussion to 
form a basis of an updated Secretariat Note.  
5.47.  The representative of India could understand that the United States might be uncomfortable 
in engaging in discussions on some aspects of the Indian submission, but other aspects should not 
prove problematic, such as section E of the submission, for instance. And even for the rest of the issues, the idea was not to discuss the legality of the measures under dispute, but rather the 
broader, systemic issue of the barriers to mode 4.  
5.48.  The representative of the United States responded that, while he understood that not all the 
issues mentioned in the Indian submission we re under dispute, India had just revised its 
consultation request, so there was no way of knowing what other issues might one day also be 
subject to dispute. The conversation India was sugg esting was extremely prejudicial, as the United 
States was prevented from participating. The stan dard practice in other WTO bodies, such as the 
SPS and TBT Committees, was that, once a specific trade concern moved to dispute, Members 
ceased all relevant discussions.  
5.49.  The representative of India noted that Indi a's additional consultation request had nothing to 
do with the point raised by her delegation about social security contributions. On the broader issue 
of the appropriate forum, she concurred with the United States about the forum shifting when the 
dispute settlement mechanism was in motion, but the Indian submission raised other issues that 
were unrelated to the dispute, and, as such, could be discussed in the Council. 
5.50.  The representative of South Africa said that, on a recent occasion, a developing country had 
objected to a request by a developed country that the Secretariat produce a paper, but the paper 
had been prepared nonetheless. The representative of Nigeria sought guidance on whether the 
Secretariat could carry out work when no consensus existed amongst Members. 
5.51.  A representative of the Secretariat explained the customary way in which the Secretariat 
responded to Members' requests. If the request concerned an output to be circulated and 
discussed in a Committee, the output would be produced only if a consensus decision was arrived at, if no objections were raised. The situation wa s different, however, if the Secretariat was asked 
by a delegation for factual information that woul d then be owned and used by the delegation in 
question for its own purposes, including to table an own submission. The case South Africa was S/C/M/126 
 
- 15 - 
 
  referring to was the latter; the Secretariat had be en asked to provide information extracted from 
its I-TIP database and had supplied it to the requesting delegation, as the Secretariat would do if asked for similarly factual information by any ot her Member. The representative of Uganda asked 
if the Secretariat would accept a request from In dia to update the mode 4 Background Note, so 
that India could then submit it as its own communication. The Secretariat representative reiterated 
that the Secretariat provided factual information and assistance to delegations for the purposes of 
the latter; delegations took ownership of the in formation supplied and thereafter proceeded as 
they wished. For a Note to be issued as a Secretariat Note, however, Members' consensus was 
required. 
5.52.  The representative of India noted that no consensus existed on its proposal that the 
Secretariat update its Note on mode 4 and, as such, no consultations were necessary at that 
stage. Nonetheless, her delegation might revert  with creative ideas to otherwise update and 
circulate such a Note. 
5.53.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
5.54.  It was so agreed. 
6  ITEM F – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATE D TO THE REFORM OF THE UNIFIED GAS 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF UKRAINE - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
6.1.  The Chairman indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of the Russian Federation.  
6.2.   The representative of the Russian Federati on recalled her delegation's previous statements 
in respect of the measures taken by Ukraine in the energy sector. Unfortunately, the Russian 
Federation had to revisit the issue once more and express its serious concern as regarded both the 
substance of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine No. 329-VIII "On the Natural Gas Market" of 9 April 2015, which had invalidated on 1 October 2015 the Law of Ukraine No. 1645-VII "On 
amendments to some legislative acts of Ukrain e on reforming the management system of the 
Unified Gas Transportation System of Ukra ine" of 14 August 2014, and the practical 
implementation thereof. 
6.3.  The new Law of 9 April 2015 provided for pref erential treatment for the United States and the 
Energy Community Members to perform the functions of an operator of the Ukrainian Gas Transportation System (GTS) as well as of gas storage facilities, which was not extended to any other WTO Member. The Russian Federation drew the attention of the Membership to the fact that 
the new Law was in clear violation of the fundamental principles of the GATS MFN and National 
treatment, as well as of the specific commitments undertaken by Ukraine under the GATS.  
6.4.  She also noted that, despite her delegati on's statements and requests, Ukraine had not 
provided the Russian Federation with any reasonable justification for the adoption and 
implementation of those restrictive and clearly WTO-inconsistent measures. In that regard, her delegation again requested Ukraine to bring its new Law in full compliance with the WTO 
Agreements and not to undermine the WTO obligations it had undertaken. 
6.5.  The representative of Ukraine had taken note of the concerns expressed by the Russian 
Federation and other WTO Members related to certain provisions of the newly adopted Ukrainian 
Law "On the Natural Gas Market", No. 329-VIII of  9 April 2015. Overall, Ukraine commended the 
attention paid by the international community to the comprehensive reform of the Ukrainian 
energy sector currently underway. 
6.6.  Ukraine restated its position that the current regime for access to all Ukrainian gas 
infrastructure, as established by the new Gas Market Law and its implementing regulations, 
complied with its WTO obligations. 
6.7.  As per Ukraine's GATS schedule of specific commitments, Ukraine was obliged, in particular, 
to "ensure adherence to the principles of non-discriminatory treatment in access to and use of 
pipeline networks under [Ukraine's] jurisdiction, within the technical capacities of these networks, with regard to the origin, destination or owners hip of product transported, without imposing any S/C/M/126 
 
- 16 - 
 
  unjustified delays, restrictions or charges, as well as without discriminatory pricing based on the 
differences in origin, destination or ownership".  
6.8.  The new Gas Market Law was centred on the requirement of non-discriminatory and equal 
third-party access to all gas infrastructure. Article 19 thereof stipulated that any business entity - 
regardless of its country of origin - could proc ure transmission and storage services from the 
relevant system operator. This provision was duly reflected in the secondary legislation, such as the network codes. In a nutshell, current rules for access to Ukrainian gas infrastructure were 
standard, non-discriminatory, transparent and applic able to all network users. The new Gas Market 
Law also established a strict system of controls over activities of vertically integrated undertakings based on best international practices for separation of network management from production and supply of natural gas and electricity. 
6.9.  Ukraine was ready to consider any question from WTO Members regarding the current 
regulations of its gas market. It had to be noted that Law No. 1645-VII of 14 August 2014 "On amendments to some Laws of Ukraine on reform ing the management system of the Unified Gas 
Transportation System of Ukraine", on which qu estions had been previously forwarded by the 
Russian Federation, had been repealed on 1 October 2015 by the entry into force of the new Gas Market Law. 
6.10.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
6.11.  It was so agreed. 
7  ITEM G - DATE OF THE FOURTH REVIEW OF MFN EXEMPTIONS – STATEMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN 
7.1.  The Chairman recalled that the Council had conducted its third review of MFN exemptions in 
2010-2011. At its meeting of 2 May 2011, upon closin g that review, the Council had agreed that it 
would hold its fourth review of MFN exemptions "no later than 2016". Given the absence of further 
specificity about when in 2016 the Council should be holding the review, he had decided to put to 
the Membership the question of when the Counc il should start the fourth review of MFN 
exemptions. 
7.2.  The representative of Hong Kong, China stated that the GATS contained a clear mandate to 
review MFN exemptions with a view to reducing their number. MFN exemptions were not meant to 
continue indefinitely; as per the relevant GATS An nex, they should terminate on the date provided 
for in the exemption, should not last for more than 10 years and were subject to negotiation in 
subsequent trade liberalizing rounds. Members needed to uphold that mandate, as it was a 
cornerstone of the multilateral trading system. He therefore proposed that Members start the 
fourth review at the following meeting of the Council, although he was open to other dates in 2016 
if Members had practical difficulties with the timing he was proposing. His delegation was also 
flexible in terms of procedure, suggesting that Members might discuss these at the first review session. 
7.3.  The representative of Chinese Taipei welcom ed the Chairman's statement. She noted that the 
last review of MFN exemptions had been held in dedicated meetings of the Council, via a question-
and-answer process and that the whole process had taken over a year. As such, she suggested 
that the fourth review be started early, at the following meeting, so as not to conflict with the 
workload leading up to MC11.  
7.4.  The representative of China was also in favour of starting the review at the following 
meeting, but, as long as the mandate was upheld, his delegation was flexible on timing. 
7.5.  The representative of the United States said his delegation was also interested in fulfilling its 
responsibilities in that area. The United States were reflecting on the timing, but did have some 
concerns with how time-consuming past reviews had been and therefore suggested that it might 
be useful, as a first step, to consult on how to make the review a more efficient and streamlined 
process.  S/C/M/126 
 
- 17 - 
 
  7.6.  The representative of Japan said that the fo urth review should start as early as possible and 
indicated that his delegation was open to consultations. The representative of the Republic of 
Korea stressed the importance of the review, calling on a starting date to be set as soon as 
possible. The representative of the European Union also underscored the importance of the 
exercise, adding that his delegation was flexible and open to ideas on how to streamline the 
process. 
7.7.  The Chairman recalled that previous revi ews had started with discussions of procedural 
issues. He therefore suggested that the Council agree to start the fourth review of MFN 
exemptions at its following meeting, when Members would discuss how to conduct, and possibly streamline, the exercise.  
7.8.  The representative of the United States said that he could agree with the Chairman's 
suggestion. He noted that previous reviews had been lengthy processes that had not yielded any 
concrete outcomes. 
7.9.  It was so agreed. 
8  ITEM F – OTHER BUSINESS 8.1.  As indicated at the start of the meeting,  the Chairman wished to provide Members with a 
quick account of the status of his consultations on the appointment of Chairpersons to the CTS 
subsidiary bodies for 2016.  Since the announcem ent at the February meeting of the General 
Council, and the fax communication sent to Members on 25 February, he had held a series of meetings on 11 March with delegations wishing to make proposals in that regard, individually or in a group.  
8.2.  In accordance with the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies of 2002, in 
order to ensure balance in the proposed slate of  names for the Chairmanships of the subsidiary 
bodies, he had also been consulting with the Chairman of the Goods Council. As there were 13 
subsidiary bodies to the Council for Trade in Goods, the balance to be achieved required taking 
many factors into account. 
8.3.  He would have wished to propose a slate of names at that meeting, but the process had 
proved very cumbersome and at that point he was not yet in a position to make a suggestion that 
would be acceptable to all Members. He would continue with his consultations, with a view to finalising the process as soon as possible. 
8.4.  The representative of Canada said that , in February 2016, the Government of China had 
released the text of its Administrative Regulations for Online Publishing Services, issued by its 
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology an d the State Administration of Press, Publication, 
Radio, Film and Television. The Online Publishing Regulations prohibited foreign firms from 
providing “online publishing services” through either a wholly foreign-owned enterprise or a joint-
venture enterprise in China, while permitting a foreign company, organization or individual to cooperate on a project-by-project basis with a purely Chinese firm, subject to Government 
approval. Those regulations had come into force on 10 March 2016. Given the potential for those 
measures to significantly impact trade in services, Canada asked whether China intended to notify them to the Council under GATS Article III:3. 
8.5.  The representatives of Japan, the European Union, the United States and Australia supported 
Canada's statement. The representative of the United States also expressed his delegation's 
disappointed that WTO Members had not been provided an advance notice and opportunity to 
comment on the draft before finalisation, while the representative of Australia noted how that 
instance illustrated the point her delegation had made earlier with regard to notifications.  
8.6.  The representative of China said that hi s delegation had taken note of the statement by 
Canada, as well as related statements by other Members, and would relay them back to capital. 
8.7.  The representative of Australia informed Members that TISA Ministers and Ambassadors had 
met in the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos and had agreed to accelerate 
negotiations in 2016, with a view to concludi ng TISA in 2016. The commitment by Ministers had S/C/M/126 
 
- 18 - 
 
  intensified the negotiations and TISA participants had made good progress at the first negotiating 
round of 2016, which the United States had chaired from 30 January to 5 February. Australia would chair the next negotiating round, from 10 to 15 April. The focus of the round was on mode 4, electronic commerce and transport services, following intersessional meetings on 
telecommunications and financial services. There would be two more negotiating rounds before the 
summer, in May and July. TISA parties had agreed to exchange revised market access offers in May and further revised offers in October.  
8.8.  TISA participants were conscious of the mixed views in the Council about TISA updates. As 
part of its ongoing transparency efforts, Australi a continued to meet with any interested Member 
bilaterally and in regional groups to provide more detailed information on the state of play in the negotiations. From those meetings, Australia understood that there was an interest in continuing 
transparency activities in the WTO, but had also  heard the strong views of some Members that 
suggested that the Council was not an appropriate venue for this information-sharing. With its TISA colleagues, they were thinking about how to best balance those interests in continuing to 
provide transparency about the TISA negotiations in the future. 
8.9.  The representative of China recalled that , at the previous meeting, no update had been 
provided on the TISA talks due to an oversight. The 16th round of those negotiations had just 
recently concluded. At the start of the TISA negotiations, participants had emphasised their aim to 
be transparent, open and inclusive to all Members and had claimed that their final objective was reinvigorating the multilateral services negotiations. However, the transparency they had provided was insufficient to analyse if TISA was compatible  with WTO disciplines and principles, and this 
was reason for concern. China therefore urged TISA participants to take practical actions to 
demonstrate their sincerity on upholding the basic WTO principles and not undermining the multilateral trading system as a whole. 
8.10.  The representative of Nigeria hoped that TISA would be multilateralised and provide 
impetus to the multilateral process, for the services negotiations to advance in the WTO. He asked 
if previous updates by TISA participants had been provided in writing. The Chairman replied that 
the TISA parties had tabled one written communication and had otherwise provided oral updates. 
8.11.  A representative of the Secretariat wished to make a brief announcement about a thematic 
course on services statistics it was organising for LDCs. He noted that, in Annex C of the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Declaration, developing economies, and in particular LDCs, had requested 
targeted technical assistance on compiling and analysing statistics on trade in services. In that 
context, the Secretariat was organizing a thematic course on trade in services statistics for experienced services trade statisticians of LDC Members. The course was fully sponsored by the 
WTO. It would be held at the WTO from 14 to 18 November 2016, in English only. A French course 
was being discussed for 2017.  
8.12.  During the course, individual half-day se ssions would be dedicated to service sectors of 
particular trade interest to LDCs. Statisticians in LDCs would therefore be invited to submit 
concrete examples of difficulties they faced in data collection and/or compilation. At the WTO, they would then discuss possible solutions with experts from national statistical offices and Central Banks, other international organizations, and the WTO Secretariat. An informal session would also 
gather LDC delegates dealing with trade in servic e at the WTO and LDCs statisticians to provide a 
unique opportunity to exchange information on specific services data needs.  
8.13.  The Secretariat considered this course a step towards a more comprehensive approach to 
technical assistance on trade in services statistics for developing economies, which was currently 
developed by the Secretariat in cooperation with  the Inter-Agency Task Force on International 
Trade Statistics. For information, the development of detailed trade in services statistics had been 
listed among the priority areas in the WTO Tec hnical Assistance Plan for 2016-2017 approved by 
Members. Delegations would receive an invitation letter in the following weeks. 
8.14.  The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the statements made. 
8.15.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________