RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/125  
 
25 January 2016  
(16-0509) Page: 1/14  
Council for Trade in Services    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services (CTS) held a meeting on 2 November 2015, chaired by 
Ambassador Eyjólfsson (Iceland). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/5. 
The Chairman recalled that a request to hold a Dedicated Session, as well as a draft agenda, had 
been put forward by the LDC group in document S/C/W/363. The agenda for the Dedicated 
Session had subsequently been discussed at an informal meeting of the Council on 13 October, at 
which Members concurred to proceed on the basis of the suggestion in the LDC group's submission. This is reflected in the agenda for the meeting.  
The agenda was adopted. 
1  ITEM A - REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED SO FAR 1.1  LDC Group Presentation of its Init ial Assessment of the Notifications and 
Responsiveness to the LDC Collective Request 
1.1.  The Chairman recalled the notifications that the Council had received with respect to the LDC 
waiver Decision, submitted by: Canada; Australia; Norway; Korea; China; Hong Kong, China; 
Chinese Taipei; Singapore; New Zealand; Switzerland; Japan; Mexico; Turkey; the United States; 
India; Chile; and Iceland. In addition, he noted that  Brazil's notification of preferential treatment 
pursuant to the waiver was currently being processed, and that the European Union had issued a communication of its intention to notify preferences. 
1.2.  The representative of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the LDC group, introduced the 
group's first assessment of the notifications received in accordance with the LDC services waiver. 
At the outset, he applauded the efforts made by Members given the long journey that had led to the first notifications to operationalize the LDC services waiver. He noted that LDCs were less 
integrated in international service trade and accounted for only 0.7% in world export of 
commercial services. Their participation remained too marginal to enable them to fully benefit from services trade-led economic development. Acco rding to the WTO, low to middle-skill services 
sectors such as travel, consisting mainly of tour ism and transport, characterised the bulk of LDC 
services exports, while participation in higher segments of services trade such as finance, 
insurance, royalties and licence fees, remained negligible. LDCs had been waiting with high expectations for the preferential treatment that would enable them to expand and diversify their 
services exports. With the submission of seventee n notifications, he hoped that this expectation 
would be fulfilled.  
1.3.  Members had provided a significant spotlight for LDC services suppliers by having notified 
preferential treatment in a number of sectors that  LDCs had identified in their collective request 
submitted in 2014 (document S/C/W/356, and Corr.1 and 2). In addition, many Members had surprised LDCs by notifying more new sectors compared to the already robust announcements 
made in February at the High-level meeting (HLM).  LDC constituents would find ample evidence to 
show that Members were committed to advancing opportunities for and reducing barriers faced by LDC service suppliers. The current notifications marked the beginning but more needed to be 
                                               
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/125 
 
- 2 - 
 
  done, in terms of clarifying notifications, submitting more notifications responsive to the collective 
request, addressing administrative and other domestic procedural barriers faced by LDC exporters and assisting LDCs to orient their suppliers to the benefits anticipated from the notifications.  
1.4.  Preferential treatment in the services sector  was not as simple as in trade in goods, where 
preferences were granted on the basis of the a pplied tariffs. Therefore, the question of how 
preferential treatment was accorded to service an d service suppliers of LDCs was important. As 
Members had notified in different  formats, it was at times difficult to discern where the real 
preferential treatment was to be found. It was important to inform LDC constituents of the precise 
incidence of preferences. He hoped that an exchan ge of views during that session would help bring 
clarity to the issue. He suggested that Members that had submitted their entire GATS schedule as part of their notification should provide an executive summary or highlight exactly where the 
preferential treatment was to be found in the notification. From the perspective of a service 
supplier, notification of a schedule might be understood to mean that derogation from MFN was invoked for the entire schedule of commitments. In addition, more clarity might be needed in 
terms of the definition of preferen tial treatment. He further noted that there was a need to identify 
non-market access preferences which required a pproval of the Council for Trade in Services 
pursuant to paragraph 1 of the waiver Decision. 
1.5.  The representative of Uganda introduced the assessment by the LDC group of the seventeen 
notifications received until then. He explained th at the assessment proceeded from the mandate of 
the LDC services waiver Decision of 2011, which prov ided both an initial definition of preferential 
treatment and the starting point for invoking the waiver. It also clearly stipulated that the 
invocation of the waiver constituted a derogation from GATS Article II. Any preferential treatment 
extended to LDC services and service suppliers need ed to be notified, as without notification there 
would be no invocation of the waiver. 
1.6.  The representative of Uganda expressed his appreciation of the fact that many Members were 
challenged by the format and content of the notifi cations. The waiver Decision required that the 
notifications specify the preferential treatmen t made available, the sectors or subsectors 
concerned, and the period of time during which the Member was intending to maintain those 
preferences. The waiver Decision clearly noted that GATS Article XVI preferences could be provided subject to simple notification by the Member concerned, whereas those beyond 
Article XVI-type measures would require approval by the Services Council. He noted that the LDC 
group did not view that Article XVI-only preferences would be responsive to the LDC collective 
request. The LDC group welcomed notifications beyo nd Article XVI. He further noted that the Bali 
Decision had catalysed the LDCs, and Members in a position to grant preferences, to take steps to 
operationalize the LDC waiver. The submission of the LDC collective request had triggered the 
successful HLM. The LDC group had particularly appreciated the 22 indications of preferential 
treatment and the level of specificity provided by prospective preference-granting Members.  
1.7.  In March, Canada had circulated a submissi on to the CTS. However, it was not clear to the 
LDC group whether this notification satisfied the re quirements of the waiver Decision, as it did not 
"specify" preferential treatment in favor of LDCs . Sixteen notifications specifying preferential 
treatment as required by the waiver Decision ha d been submitted until then, which demonstrated 
Members' commitment to LDC integration into the multilateral trading system. This was an 
impressive showing towards implementation of the 2011 waiver Decision. 
1.8.  Turning to the substantive part of their asse ssment, the representative of Uganda stated that 
the LDC group had sought to determine: first, whether the notifications invoked the waiver 
pursuant to paragraph 2 of the waiver Decision; second, whether they contained preferential treatment in accordance with paragraph 1; and, th ird, whether the notifications were responsive to 
the LDC collective request. 
1.9.  LDCs considered the responsiveness of the no tifications to the collective request on the basis 
of the following three elements: section A of th e collective request, which comprised preferences 
on Article XVI (market access) and Article XVII (national treatment) restrictions, including 
horizontal restrictions, priority sectors specifically linked to restrictions, a list of sectors and 
correlation with DDA offers, and an annex of LD C sectors and professions; section B, covering 
issues of visas, work permits, residence permit-r elated fees and measures; and section C, covering 
preferential treatment with regard to recognit ion of qualifications of LDC professionals and 
accreditation of LDC institutions. The following other considerations were taken into account during S/C/M/125 
 
- 3 - 
 
  the examination of the notifications: readability and clarity so as to enable LDC service suppliers to 
understand what was on offer; precision of the sectors in relation to what had been specifically requested in the LDC collective request; improvements and relationship to HLM indications; where entries in the notification matched entries of th e GATS schedule, clarification on the nature and 
operability of the derogation; and the extent to which non-LDCs were not receiving the same 
treatment, unless under other preferential arrangements.  
1.10.  Before turning to specific observations on each notification, the representative of Uganda 
conveyed some general observations about the notifications. All notifications were made for the 
duration of the waiver and followed paragraph 2 of  the waiver in that they specified preferential 
treatment. A number of sectors requested by LDCs were strongly reflected in the notifications and 
some Members had even improved on HLM an nouncements. Mode 4 had an overall weaker 
showing compared to HLM impressions. A few Members had found ways to provide preferences 
beyond Article XVI. Overall, more needed to be done concerning sections B and C of the collective request. At this stage about 54% of the collective  request appeared to be met. In terms of broad 
sector coverage, the combined professional and other business services sector represented 52% of 
the sectors related to the LDC collective request,  followed by combined logistics and transport 
at 29%; travel, tourism, tour guides and hotels and restaurants at 10%; 
entertainment/recreational services at 4%; computer/ICT and distribution at 3% and 2% 
respectively. These figures tallied broadly with the impressions from the HLM, where, however, some relevant sectors, namely computer/ICT and entertainment/recreational services had been better represented. Next, the LDC group presented their comparison of the sector coverage in 
notifications with broad data on LDC services expo rts by sector, as a percentage share of total LDC 
services exports. With the exception of travel and tourism, the LDC group observed a correlation 
with the sectors in which preferences had been no tified. Travel had been for many years a strong 
export sector for all LDCs and was well reflected in the collective request. The group held the view 
that the notifications should have reflected more of that sector. However, it might have been the 
case that the group's comparison did not captur e GATS commitments where the sector might have 
been already very open. He noted that some Members had indicated that it was challenging to 
provide preferences in "open" sectors given the nature of GATS commitments. The LDC group had, 
however, found that if Members reached into the realm of mode 4 and considered reduction of administrative burdens, fees and charges, they co uld find creative ways to provide preferences for 
existing GATS commitments.  
1.11.  LDCs' trade in services growth had been flat  in recent years, with a few sectors experiencing 
more growth than others, such as "other servic es" and travel. In 2011 "other services" had peaked 
to more than 45%. Travel had peaked in 2008 to near ly 45% at the time of the financial crisis, the 
ripple effects having caused declines steadily from 2009 to 2011 from 42% to 36%, with LDCs rebounding gradually to 40% in 2012, only to decline again in 2013 to 38%. This demonstrated 
the volatility of LDC exports and how important it was for restrictions to be removed in the travel 
sector in favour of LDCs, as requested in the collective request. At the same time, while the LDC share of world services trade was below 1%, aggregate growth had increased steadily from below 0.5% in 2001 to nearly 0.8% in 2013. This strong performance demonstrated how 
significant services trade was becoming for LDCs and how critical the granting of preferences was 
to galvanizing this growth. Those snapshots we re also important for the LDC group as they 
considered the important role the LDC services waiver results could play in harnessing technical 
assistance and capacity-building.  
1.12.  Before turning to the characteristics of the sixteen notifications, the representative of 
Uganda suggested that, where existing commitments  had been notified but restrictions remained 
that still applied to all Members, one way to make the preference clear to LDCs was to remove or 
reduce the restrictions inscribed in favour of LDCs. While all notifications contained entries for modes 1, 2 and 3, only nine notifications cont ained specific entries for mode 4. Based on 
impressions from the HLM, LDCs had expected a larger number of mode 4 commitments. 
1.13.  The representative of Uganda further proceeded with the group's observations and 
clarifications on individual notifications starting with the notification made by Australia. The notification provided preferences to LDCs in sectors not included in Australia's DDA offer or 
existing commitments which were responsive to th e collective request, i.e. packaging, washing, 
cleaning and dyeing, and hairdressing and othe r beauty services. Preferences appearing to 
improve on the DDA offer or existing commitmen ts in modes 1 to 3 related to selling and 
marketing of air transport; travel agencies and tour operators; and aircraft repair and S/C/M/125 
 
- 4 - 
 
  maintenance services. For those instances in which notifications contained the same entry as 
Australia’s GATS schedule in modes 2 and 3, the LDC group requested clarification from Australia 
as to how the preference operated or whether the intention was simply to show where the GATS schedule was modified to include a preference. 
1.14.  Turning to the notification by Chile, the LDC group noted that sixty-one sectors and 
subsectors notified were drawn from Chile's DDA offer. There were new sectors and modes which went beyond Chile's DDA offer. Some notified sect ors were related to the collective request while a 
few others had not been requested by LDCs. Chile's notification concerned only Article XVI 
measures. Examples of sectors related to the collective request included: entertainment, sporting, travel agencies, tour guides, hotels, convention, publishing, printing, investigation/security, maintenance and repair, building-cleaning, entertainment, and freight transport services, as well 
as services auxiliary to all modes of transport, including cargo handling, storage/warehousing, etc. 
The LDC group enquired whether natural persons re ferred to under item 4 (c) in the notification, 
were considered by Chile to be contractual service suppliers or rather intra-corporate transferees. 
The LDC group expressed its appreciation for the flexible application implied in the statement that 
both technical and professional personnel could pr ovide services under this category, but indicated 
that they would prefer the contractual service supp liers category. With regard to footnote 2 of the 
Chilean notification
2, the LDC group enquired whether Chile co uld provide preferential treatment in 
favor of LDC suppliers to streamline and simplify any such procedures, as well as whether Chile could also facilitate the necessary recognition of LDC professional competences. 
1.15.  China’s notification contained both market access and non-market access measures. A new 
category on business visitors constituted an improvement on existing commitments. In addition, 
three sectors from the collective request had been included on the basis of China's DDA offer. These included: building-cleaning; printing of pack aging materials; computer reservation services 
in air transport.  The notification also referred to training in tourism, medical, and software and 
information technology services. The representative of Uganda enquired whether the market access coverage in the notification covered only mode 3 and requested confirmation that an 
economic needs test was removed for LDCs only. He further asked whether China was planning to 
provide to LDCs a preference for contractual serv ice suppliers and/or independent professionals. 
On measures beyond Article XVI, the LDC group' s assessment found that the confirmation of the 
"Approved Destination Status" request was contained in the collective request. He requested China 
to elaborate on the meaning of one particular related condition, namely "provided Chinese tourists 
and their property can be secured", and enquired wh at assurances were required. LDCs enquired if 
China could elaborate on its plans to examine the possibility of providing additional preferential 
treatment to LDCs in the future.  
1.16.  The notification by Chinese Taipei cont ained mode 3 preferences without market access 
restrictions for audio-visual; commission agents, wholesale, retail; road freight transport; and 
rental or leasing concerning aircraft services. The notification also contained the category of 
contractual service suppliers in the following sectors found in the collective request: publishing, rental/leasing, building-cleaning, packaging, duplicating, translation and interpretation, storage and warehousing, advertising, food serving, phot ographic, telephone answering, mailing list and 
entertainment services. The representative of Ugan da requested clarification from Chinese Taipei 
as to how these preferences operated in favour of LDCs. He further enquired whether Chinese Taipei could also consider providing assistance that would help LDC suppliers to orient themselves 
to the preferences, including through training programmes. Also, he asked whether Chinese Taipei 
would consider supplementing its notification with reduction or elimination of visa, work permit and other fees, as well as reduction of paperwork involved in applications by LDC applicants.  
1.17.  Turing to the notification by Hong Kong, Ch ina, he noted that the preferences notified were 
drawn from the DDA offer. However, entries for some of the modes were the same as in the GATS schedule. Most preferences concerned mode 1. The following sectors indicated in the collective request were contained in the notification:  urban planning and landscape architecture; computer-
related; placement; packaging; printing; publishing; other lodging; travel agencies and tour 
operators; entertainment; maintenance and repa ir of vessels; maritime agency and maritime 
                                               
2 Footnote 2 reads: "Without prejudic e to what is stated in the Horizontal commitments, the suppliers of 
professional services included in the present Schedu le may be subject to assessment by the competent 
authorities in connection with which they must show that they fulfil the requirements designed to ensure that they perform competently in the sector." S/C/M/125 
 
- 5 - 
 
  freight forwarding services. Other sectors notified  were not found in Hong Kong China’s DDA offer 
but responded to the collective request, namely photographic services (mode 1); specialty design (mode 1 and 2); and interpretation services (mode 1). He enquired whether these sectors were found in other preferential arrangements Hong Kong, China concluded, whether Hong Kong, China 
was planning to include these sectors in a future revised DDA offer, and, if so, how preferences for 
LDCs would be preserved for the duration of the waiver Decision. Other sectors contained in the notification appeared to be unchanged from GATS commitments: this was the case for travel 
agencies and tour operators (modes 2 and 3); and maintenance and repair, and maritime agency 
services (modes 2, 3 and 4). The representative of  Uganda pointed out that for the benefit of LDC 
suppliers and policy makers, it was important to clarify how the preferences were operationalized for these cases.  
1.18.  The notification by Iceland provided for both Article XVI and Article XVII preferences as 
follows: removal of labour market tests for mode 4; removal of restrictions for computer and related services; removal of restrictions for rental leasing without operator, and other transport 
equipment and ships for mode 3; telephone answer ing services; specialty design services; travel 
agencies/operators; news agency services; hairdressing and other beauty services and cargo handling services. The representative of Uganda expressed the group's gratitude to Iceland for 
offering the category of contractual service su ppliers without sector limitations. However, he 
requested a clarification on whether the preference  applied across all sectors in the schedule. The 
LDC group enquired whether Iceland could provide a summary of the preferences granted, as it 
was not possible for the group to clearly identify what preferential benefits LDCs had beyond the 
bolded areas in the notified schedule. Another request for clarification concerned washing, dyeing 
and cleaning services that had been linked in th e notification to building-cleaning, as these were 
found under two separate CPC codes (874 for building-cleaning and 970, and in particular, 9701, 
for washing, cleaning and dyeing services). He stressed that washing, cleaning and dyeing were an 
important sector for LDC suppliers, and enquired whether Iceland could consider separating these services from building cleaning services in a supplemental notification. He recalled that at the HLM 
Iceland had mentioned the following sectors which were not apparent in the notification as 
preferential: construction and related engineerin g services; freight transport agency services; 
landscape architecture; placement and supply services of personnel. As these sectors appeared to be already bound in Iceland's GATS schedule, he th erefore requested a clarification from Iceland in 
this respect. 
1.19.  The representative of Uganda expressed the satisfaction of the LDC group with the format of 
India's notification, which was split into three pa rts and followed the structure of the collective 
request. India's notification covered both market access and non-market access measures. Sectors 
of interest to LDCs appeared to be drawn from  India's DDA offer and covered modes 1, 2 and 3. 
India had also offered training assistance.  The preferences would be applied 
from 1 December 2015 for the duration of the wa iver.  Sector-specific market access preferences 
responsive to the collective request included: engineering, computer and related, building cleaning, packaging, hotels and lodgings, conven tion, sporting, and maritime transport services 
(including cargo-handling and customs clearance services). He thanked India for including the 
mode 4 categories of contractual service suppliers, independent professionals and installers. LDCs 
observed that the sector commitments for contractual service suppliers were limited to: engineering; integrated engineering; computer and related; management consulting (excluding all 
services relating to legal consultancy); project management other than for construction; hotel and 
other lodging; travel agency and tour operator; tourist guides conversant in a foreign language other than English; language teachers (of any fo reign language other than English); specialist 
chefs; and sportspersons. The sector coverage fo r independent professionals sectors was the same 
as for contractual service suppliers, with the exception of specialty chefs and sportspersons. The representative of Uganda requested a clarificatio n from India on the issue of LDC tourist guides 
that were subject to a quota of 250 persons at any one time, since this limitation did not exist in 
the DDA offer. The LDC group was interested to know whether the quota was used to provide the 
preference or to control the number entering at any particular point in time, as well as whether there were any quotas for non-LDCs in the same sector. The representative of Uganda also 
enquired as to why India restricted preferential treatment to LDC tour guides to those conversant 
in foreign languages other than English and whether this served the purpose of preserving the competitive market for Indian tour guides. Finally, he requested clarification as to the exact 
meaning of the notion of "short stays", namely whether a supplier could stay continuously for up 
to one year without leaving the country, or whether the supplier had to stay for one, two or three months and request extensions up to one year.  S/C/M/125 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.20.  Japan's notification contained about twenty-e ight specific sectors, most of which were found 
in the LDC collective request. Many sectors were drawn from Japan’s DDA offer, with a few others going beyond the DDA offer and existing commitments, and a few appeared to be the same as in the GATS schedule. The representative of Uganda  expressed his gratitude to Japan for providing 
preferences for independent professionals. He en quired whether the category of investors also 
entailed intra-corporate transfers. Regarding references to preferences that had been provided "in accordance with relevant laws and regulations", he sought clarification as to what types of laws 
and regulations could limit LDC suppliers' utilizatio n of the horizontal preferences. Preferences in 
convention services, entertainment services (mode 3), and all of storage and warehousing services 
appeared to be the same as provided for in Japan's GATS schedule. He therefore sought clarification as to how these entries would work as preferences for LDCs. For placement services, 
he requested an explanation regarding mode 1, namely whether it contained a commercial 
presence requirement. The understanding of the LD Cs was that cross-border supply of a service 
took place without a presence in that market. In the same sector, the same professions were 
excluded in Japan’s DDA offer. However, the "transparency note"
3 of the DDA offer on the included 
professions was not provided in Japan's notification. A number of professions were listed. Clarification was hence sought as to whether Japan was providing a preference in favour of LDC 
suppliers better than as set out in the DDA offer in all sectors other than the three listed in the 
first
 column and not limited to those found in the DDA offer "transparency note". 
1.21.  Korea's  notification contained thirteen sectors without limitations in modes 1 to 3, most of 
which had been requested by the LDC group.  Some sectors that had been requested by LDCs were 
drawn from the DDA offer, namely:  rental of vessels with crew; pushing and towing; tally, 
measuring and survey services; freight transpor tation; passenger transportation; entertainment 
services; computer reservation systems; tour guide services; air transport maintenance and repair 
of aircraft; consulting services related to agriculture and animal husbandry; placement services of 
personnel; professional engineers; services related to instalment, management and repair; accounting, auditing and bookkeeping consultancy and architectural services. The LDC group 
appreciated Korea’s inclusion of contractual serv ice suppliers and independent professionals. He 
noted that the LDC group had no problem with th e approval procedure in the CTS and therefore 
requested Korea to reconsider and supplement its no tification with preferences beyond Article XVI. 
The representative of Uganda requested a clarification as to how LDCs could benefit from the 
preferences in the horizontal section where there were numerous restrictions and conditions. He 
requested Korea to submit a supplemental notifica tion that provided preferences that reduced 
these restrictions for LDCs.  
1.22.  Mexico’s notification was limited to Article XVI measures and covered twenty-three sectors 
that had been drawn from its DDA offer. Most sectors in the notification were contained in the collective request, such as: accounting; engineering; architectural; rental of machinery; rental of 
machinery and equipment for fishing services; computer consulting; database; computer 
processing; hotel; restaurant; building-cleaning; washing and cleaning; convention and conference; entertainment; sporting and other recreational services and  organization of sporting 
events. The representative of Uganda sought se veral clarifications from Mexico. Firstly, he 
enquired as to whether the notification on mode 4 included independent professionals. Secondly, 
similar to the case of Japan, he asked for clarification on the "investor" category and whether it was similar to intra-corporate transferees. He also sought an explanation of footnote 1 of the 
notification
4. The representative of Uganda enquired whet her it was not the purpose of a waiver of 
MFN to have a defense if a non-LDC Member was to invoke dispute settlement challenging non-adherence to GATS Article II. Thirdly, he  requested clarification of footnote 3
5. He noted that 
                                               
3 The note for transparency reads as follows: "The  category where placemen t services of personnel 
within Japan are permitted include the following occupations that are stipulated in the Schedule of Specific Commitments of Japan (GATS/SC/46): (i) fine artist, (ii) entertainer, (iii) scientific technician, (iv) physician, (v) dentist, (vi) pharmacist, (vii) midwife, (viii) nurse, (ix) medical technician, (x) dental technician, (xi) dress designer, (xii) audiovisual and theatrical  technician, (xiii) lawyer, (xiv) certified public accountant, (xv) patent 
attorney, (xvi) business manager, (xvii) fresh cake making technician, (xviii) house keeper, (xix) barber, (xx) hairdresser, (xxi) Japanese-kimono dresser, (xxii) attend ant for services at table, (xxiii) model, (xxiv) cook, 
(xxv) bartender, (xxvi) laundry technician, (xxvii) interpre ter, (xxviii) floor sales person, and (xxix) sightseeing 
bus tour conductor." 
4 Footnote 1 of the notification reads: "For greater clar ity, this notification will not be subject to Annex 2 
to the WTO Agreement." 
5 Footnote 3 of the notification reads: "For greater clarity, given that national treatment does not fall 
under the waiver approved pursuant to the Ministerial Decision of 17 December 2011 (document WT/L/847), S/C/M/125 
 
- 7 - 
 
  paragraph 1 of the 2011 LDC services waiver Decision clearly allowed Members to provide 
preferential treatment in the form of national tr eatment or any other measures beyond Article XVI. 
The only difference was that approval by the CTS was required. The representative of Uganda enquired whether Mexico could supplement its notification to include national treatment 
preferences in response to the LDC collective request. Fourthly, for restaurant services, he 
requested clarification as to whether the restriction in mode 2 was intended, as it appeared to be less than Mexico’s GATS commitments.  
1.23.  The representative of Uganda stated that the LDC group appreciated the sectors notified by 
New Zealand, some of which were drawn from the DDA offer. New Zealand's notification contained 
only Article XVI measures. Some of the access no t i f i e d  w e n t  b e y o n d  t h e  D D A  o f f e r ,  s u c h  a s  
consultancy related to urban planning and landscape architecture services, aircraft repair and 
maintenance services in mode 1 and cargo and baggage handling services in relation to air 
transport services in mode 1. The following sectors matched some of the sectors requested in the collective request and were provided without restriction in modes 1 to 3: veterinary services; 
market research and opinion polling services; placement and supply services of personnel; interior 
design; telephone answering; mailing list compilation and mailing services and renting services related to equipment for construction or demolition of building or civil engineering with operator. 
Modes 2 and 3 for veterinary services appeared to be the same as set out in New Zealand’s GATS 
schedule. He therefore requested a clarification as to how the preferences would operate. For 
those entries drawn from New Zealand’s DDA offer,  the LDC group wanted to know if New Zealand 
would maintain those preferences for LDCs if the DDA was concluded.  
1.24.  The representative of Uganda expressed the appreciation of the LDC group for Norway’s 
preferences for contractual service suppliers. However, it was not clear to the group where preferential treatment was granted, because it ap peared that Norway's entire GATS schedule had 
been notified, with many conditions and restrictions that applied to all WTO Members. The 
representative of Uganda enquired if Norway could remove the restrictions found in the notification 
for LDCs to better demonstrate preferential treatm ent compared to other Members as required by 
paragraph 1 of the waiver Decision. In addition , he enquired whether Norway could submit an 
executive summary or supplemental notification th at would help LDCs determine the preferential 
treatment offered. 
1.25.  The LDC group appreciated Singapore’s mode  2 and 3 preferences in sectors related to the 
collective request. These were: laundry collection services; textile and fur product cleaning 
services; dry cleaning services; pressing services and  dyeing and colouring services. He requested 
Singapore to confirm that there were no restrictions implied in those preferences.  
1.26.  The notification by Switzerland provided a special contact point for LDC temporary entry and 
national treatment preferences. The LDC group appreciated preferences in sectors that went 
beyond Switzerland’s GATS schedule. These included: architectural services (national treatment – 
no restrictions in modes 1, 2 and 3); engineering services (national treatment - reduced 
restrictions in modes 1 and 3); leasing or rental services concerning personal and household goods (modes 1, 2 and 3); consulting services on agri culture, hunting and forestry (modes 1, 2, 3); 
other auxiliary transport services (modes 1,  2 and 3); maritime cargo handling (mode 3); 
storage/warehousing (modes 2 and 3); customs clearance (modes 2 and 3); container 
station/depot (modes 2 and 3); maritime agency (modes 1, 2 and 3) and maritime freight forwarding (modes 1, 2 and 3). The LDC group took  note of the subsector in "other computer and 
related services", namely "services for the analysis and diagnosis of addictive and compulsive 
Internet-related behaviour and Internet addiction treatment services" and requested an explanation as to how LDC suppliers could benefit from the preference in that subsector. The LDC 
group noted some sectors that appeared to contain linguistic changes. However, it was not clear 
that the substance was very different from Switzerland's GATS schedule. The representative of Uganda requested clarification as to how the following were improvements on Switzerland’s GATS schedule: legal services; R&D services; advertising services; insurance and insurance related and 
banking and other financial services (excluding insurance).  
1.27.  The notification by Turkey provided for ei ght new sectors that were related to the collective 
request. The treatment notified appeared to go  beyond both Turkey's GATS schedule and DDA 
                                                                                                                                               
the preferences granted by Mexico in this notification include only limitations that are non-discriminatory in 
respect of domestic services and service suppliers." S/C/M/125 
 
- 8 - 
 
  offer. The notification contained both market a ccess and non-market access elements. The sectors 
notified included integrated engineering services without restrictions for modes 1 and 3; rental/leasing services without an operator relating to other transport equipment without restrictions for modes 2 and 3; rental/leasing services related to other machinery and equipment 
without restrictions for modes 2 and 3; building-cleaning services without restrictions for modes 2 
and 3; convention services without restrictions for modes 2 and 3; translation and interpretation services without restrictions for mode 2 but with restrictions for mode 3; construction work without 
restrictions for modes 1-3; pre-erection and other construction work without restrictions for 
modes 2 and 3; and hotels and restaurants without restrictions for modes 2 and 3. The representative of Uganda sought several clarifications from Turkey. Firstly, for hotels and restaurants, mode 4 permitted 20% of foreign personnel, whilst in the GATS schedule the amount 
of foreign personnel was limited to 10% of total pe rsonnel, with the possibility of an increase to 
20% through a decision of the Ministry of Cultur e and Tourism. He requested confirmation of the 
accuracy of this conclusion from the delegation of Turkey. Secondly, Turkey’s horizontal mode 4 
preference for LDCs was in the form of the "e-vis a" system to expedite entry. He asked whether 
any LDCs had already been included in the e-visa system before the notification and if all LDCs were included now, as well as whether all non-LD Cs were included in the e-visa system. He noted 
that Turkey had also notified the elimination of a work permit requirement for certain sectors for 
limited timeframes, varying from one month up to  two years. He enquired whether work permits 
were required for these categories of service suppliers of non-LDCs. 
1.28.  The notification by the United States spec ified preferential treatment for Article XVI only. 
The representative of Uganda appreciated the expa nsion of the sector coverage compared to the 
announcement at the HLM to nineteen clearly specified sectors, many of which had been requested by the LDC group. Similarly to other notifications, preferential treatment was granted for the 
duration of the waiver. The notification appeared  to contain modes 1, 2 and 3 and possibly mode 4 
for all sectors, mostly without limitations. Sectoral entries that appeared to go beyond the US GATS schedule and related to the collective requ est concerned: technical testing and analysis; 
translation and interpretation services; mailing list compilation and mailing services; specialty 
design services; competitive delivery services; physical well-being services; road freight transport (without limitations in modes 1 and 3); cargo handling; storage and warehouse services; freight transport agency services. He sought several clarifications from the US. First, he requested 
confirmation as regards the preference for audi ting, accounting and bookkeeping for mode 3 which 
appeared to be GATS-plus to the extent it cont ained the removal of a restriction. For the same 
sector, he noted that there appeared to be a mode 4 preference for LDCs for those persons 
lawfully in the US in all US States except for those listed, whereas for the listed States commercial 
presence was required. He asked whether the above understanding was correct. He enquired whether there was a condition that the LDC supplier had to be already in the United States, and, if 
that was the case, whether there was a market access gain for LDCs in the stated preference. 
1.29.  The representative of Uganda posed a number of general questions to all notifying 
Members. First, he enquired how preference s would operate where GATS commitments were 
notified. Second, for those preferences that were based on DDA offers, how would Members 
ensure that preferential treatment for LDC suppliers was not eroded if the offers were turned into 
commitments at the conclusion of the DDA? Third, he enquired whether Members would introduce initiatives to help LDC service suppliers orient themselves to the preferences provided. 
1.30.  The representative of Uganda also offered the group's general assessment of the sixteen 
notifications. He noted the following positive developments: first, notifications specifying preferential treatment spotlighted LDC services and services suppliers so that consumers and 
suppliers could better create linkages; second, there was potential for new services opportunities 
in terms of jobs for LDCs and diversification of their job pools; third, six Members' preferences concerned market access and non-market access measures; fourth, more preferences were found in the notifications than announced at the HLM; fifth, some GATS-plus preferences were included; 
sixth, some restrictions contained in GATS sch e d u l e s  w e r e  r e m o v e d  i n  f a v o u r  o f  L D C s ;  a n d  
seventh, many Members extended preferential treatment to LDCs on the basis of other preferential arrangements.  
1.31.  The representative of Uganda, however, highlighted the following concerns: first, in some 
cases clarifications or an executive summary was needed; second, some notifications did not delineate precisely how a preference would operate fo r LDCs; third, in a couple of notifications an 
assumption seemed to exist that the CTS appr oval procedure for preferences beyond GATS S/C/M/125 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Article XVI was problematic, and therefore, none were notified; fourth, some Members notified an 
entire schedule that matched their GATS schedul e while one Member’s notification highlighted 
areas in which preferences were granted. Notifications under the waiver Decision should enhance LDC capacity rather than require more technical assistance to understand where the preferential 
treatment was in the notifications. Fifth, LDCs di d not have the full benefit of the waiver period 
of 15 years; sixth, the fewest responses were in categories B and C of the collective request. He further observed that, while it was the prerogative of Members not to include measures 
beyond-Article XVI, a few Members had made the effort to do so. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland 
had provided national treatment preferences, In dia had addressed elimination of fees for LDC 
suppliers applying for visas where possible, China had provided "authorized destination status" and 
Turkey had addressed simplified procedures throug h the e-visa system and waived work permits. 
The LDC group was convinced that Members could find creative ways to address categories B 
and C of the collective request and supplement their notifications, as contemplated in the waiver 
Decision. 
1.32.  The representative of Brazil stated that Brazil had finished its internal processes and was 
going to circulate its notification shortly. 
1.33.  The representative of the United States stated that his delegation had not been presented 
with any of the questions in advance of the meetin g, and noted that the US notification contained 
mode 4 commitments in almost every entry. The treatment provided to LDC providers in that 
regard was clear. However, some qu estions required bilateral dialogue. 
1.34.   The representative of India stated that  she would reply comprehensively to the LDC group 
bilaterally after having consulted with capital. In a preliminary response to the question concerning 
tourist guides, she explained that India's DDA offer specified a total quota of 500 persons for 
certain languages other than English.  
1.35.  The representative of Hong Kong, China co ngratulated the LDC group as the only group that 
had been given assurance of enhanced market a ccess in services since the beginning of the DDA. 
Her delegation's notification provided preference s in most modes of supply. All sectors mentioned 
in Hong Kong, China's notification contained GATS-plus elements or elements that went beyond 
the revised Doha offer.  
1.36.  The representative of Singapore explained that  the five subsectors notified by his delegation 
were in line with requests made by LDCs. The preferences were granted without any restrictions in 
modes 2 and 3 for Article XVI-type measures for the subsectors concerned.  
1.37.  The representative of Turkey stated that her delegation had notified preferences that went 
beyond its DDA offer and were based on the LDC co llective request. Turkey had taken into account 
its only preferential services agreement, which had not entered into force yet. In response to the 
question regarding the e-visa system, she noted th at not all WTO Members would benefit from this 
facility. While some LDCs had already been incl uded in the system, Turkey had managed to add 
more LDCs as of the end of August 2015. Turkey ha d also listed several categories of persons that 
did not need to apply for work permits.  
1.38.  The representative of Mexico underscored that preferences notified reflected the best 
treatment Mexico granted in its free trade agreem ents. Regarding the specific questions raised, 
Mexico needed to consult with capital but remained ready to hold bilateral meetings with the LDCs 
to provide them with appropriate responses to every question.  
1.39.  The representative of China recalled that  his delegation's notification of preferential 
treatment had been submitted on 22 July 2015. The focus of preferential treatment to LDCs was in 
two areas: capacity-building and market access. As a newly-acceded Member to the WTO, China had made binding commitments in one hundred serv ices subsectors, providing for only a small 
difference between China's GATS commitments and real market openness. China's notification 
contained a preference on mode 4 that covered all the one hundred subsectors committed in the GATS schedule. In addition to that, the notificati on placed great emphasis on capacity-building. 
With regard to the questions raised by the LDC Group, China noted the need to convey them to 
capital and respond at a later stage.  S/C/M/125 
 
- 10 - 
 
  1.40.  The representative of New Zealand congratulated all LDCs on the positive response to the 
Ministerial Decisions from MC8 and MC9 and the se venteen notifications received to date. LDCs 
should be very encouraged that, despite the lack of progress in market access negotiations elsewhere in the WTO system, Members had still been  forthcoming with notifications of preferential 
treatment for LDC services and service suppliers. New Zealand welcomed the LDC 
acknowledgement that the notification it had put together had gone beyond New Zealand's GATS commitments and the DDA offer and that preferen ces had been provided without restrictions. 
New Zealand's notification provided GATS-plus tr eatment in professional services, other business 
services, transport and construction services and a number of subsectors within those sectors. Those were all sectors and subsectors featured in paragraph 40 of the LDC collective request and highlighted by LDCs in their bilateral discussio ns with New Zealand. Re ference to veterinary 
services in New Zealand's notification, in partic ular regarding modes 2 and 3, had been included 
for transparency purposes. New Zealand pointed out that it was also very important to read its notification in the context of its already high-qua lity GATS commitments comprising ninety sectors 
and subsectors including many of the ar eas specifically highlighted by LDCs.  
1.41.  The representative of Iceland thanked the LDC group for the comprehensive analysis of the 
notifications. The notification from Iceland represented the best offer Iceland had ever made: it 
included both Articles XVI and Article XVII measures as well as comprehensive mode 4 
commitments that went beyond what other WTO Members and free-trade partners of Iceland had received. The notification contained six new se ctors not included in GATS or FTA schedules. 
Iceland had also highlighted and bolded substantive commitments that went beyond what it had 
offered before, either in the WTO or to FTA part ners. In its notification, Iceland had used as a 
baseline its latest free trade agreement, and included several editorial changes for purposes of transparency. Preferences for contractual service su ppliers applied to all committed sectors in the 
schedule, without economic needs tests. Preferen ces for washing, dyeing and cleaning services, 
had been inscribed under building-cleaning services for reasons of transparency and clarity. Numerous other sectors that LDCs had included in their collective request had already been 
committed in Iceland's GATS schedule.  
1.42.  The representative of Nepal expressed his appreciation to all Members who had contributed 
to the operationalization of the LDC services  waiver. Preferences granted by Members would 
encourage LDCs' service sectors to grow further and gradually facilitate LDC service suppliers' 
participation in global value chains. He reiterated that out of 22 Members having indicated 
preferences during the High-level meeting, so far 16 had submitted their formal notifications 
covering a wide range of preferences. It was en couraging to note that some Members were close 
to submitting their notifications. As highlighted in the assessment report, most notifying Members 
had lived up to their indications. He noted also that developing countries had offered extensive preferences to LDCs. Most preferences had been  confined to the market access pillar. Some 
Members had gone beyond market access and also extended preferences to other areas, such as 
reducing fees for visa, simplifying visa proced ures and documentary requirements for certain 
sectors, etc. In terms of sector coverage, profe ssional and other services represented broadly 52% 
of the total, followed by transport/logistics services and tourism-related services with 29% 
and 10% respectively. In terms of modes, almost on e third, i.e. 29% of preferences, appeared to 
be related to mode 3, with preferences under mode 1 and 2 accounting for 23%. Despite LDCs strong call, preferences in mode 4 represented the smallest part of notifications and had not lived 
up to expectations. LDCs had expected Members to submit notifications matching the collective 
request to the maximum and provide preferences in sectors and modes of particular interest to LDCs. Where notifications had not clearly spelled out preferences, Nepal urged Members to submit 
addenda or supplementary notifications clarifying ambiguities in the original notifications.  
1.43.  The representative of Nepal requested th at the Chairman organize a CTS meeting at the 
earliest possible opportunity to approve the preferences that fell beyond Article XVI of the GATS, in order to allow LDCs to benefit from those preferences. He urged Members to pay special attention 
not to erode preferences when they moved ahead towards finalizing their DDA services offers. He 
encouraged Members who had already notified preferences to maintain them for at least 15 years from the date of submission of the notification an d, if possible, extend them until graduation from 
LDC status. Finally, Nepal encouraged Members to gradually improve and further expand the 
coverage of preferences to the sectors and modes of  supply of interest to LDCs through continuous 
revision of their notifications.  S/C/M/125 
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.44.  The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked the LDC group for its overall positive 
assessment of its notification. As a Member with a highly liberalized services regime, her 
delegation had committed to opening ten sectors and subsectors in modes 1, 2 and 3. Mode 4 commitments were likewise extensive in the categories of business visitors, intra-corporate 
transferees, and contractual service suppliers. Ch inese Taipei had offered LDCs preferential 
treatment in sectors and modes of interest to LDCs. Mode 3 preferences expanded the existing 
sector coverage by incorporating relevant CPC clarifications or expanding the range of permitted 
activities. 
1.45.  The representative of Japan stated that he would respond to questions with respect to 
Japan's notification bilaterally.  1.46.  The representative of Norway offered several clarifications regarding the notified preferential 
treatment to LDCs concerning mode 4. For intra-corporate transferees, temporary stay had been 
increased from a maximum of two years to up to four years; newly included preferences for trainees provided for a stay of six months; contractual service suppliers could now operate across 
all scheduled sectors and not just in the six su bsectors indicated in Norway's GATS schedule; 
installers of equipment had been given up to three months stay, and for all other categories the preferences had remained at the level of six months; the newly included category of independent 
professionals was permitted to stay for up to six months. With regard to preferences in maritime 
transport services, Norway did not have GATS commitments. 
1.47.  The representative of  Switzerland confirmed the conclusions offered by the representative of 
Uganda. Switzerland's notification had gone beyond Article XVI and contained preferences in 
several sectors identified by LDCs.  Switzerland was available to answer questions on a bilateral 
basis.  
1.48.  The representative of the Republic of Ko rea assured the LDC group that his delegation had 
done its best to reflect both the collective request and LDCs' specific requests to Korea as 
conveyed in its bilateral consultations. Korea had managed to include mode 4 for contractual service suppliers, and had targeted sectors with almost full market access in modes 1 to 3. The 
specific questions raised by LDCs would be taken back to capital and addressed with the LDCs on a 
bilateral basis. 
1.49.  The representative of Australia noted that all preferences listed in Australia’s notification 
improved on Australia’s GATS commitments and several went beyond it s revised Doha offer. 
Australia had focused on market access preferences in accordance with the focus of the MC8 
waiver Decision. To complement its preferences, Australia had also committed nearly AUD2.5 million over two years in new development funding to support effective implementation of the LDC 
services waiver, by assisting LDCs to identify se rvices export capacity and secure outcomes in 
future services trade negotiations including through country-specific studies and regional multi-stakeholder dialogues in Africa, South Asia, South-East Asia and the South Pacific. The Institute for 
International Trade had already facilitated a number of LDC services trade workshops in Geneva to 
complement those regional programs. Building on the significant progress under the waiver, the Membership should now focus on what could be done to help LDCs utilize market access opportunities and benefit fully from preferences no tified by addressing domestic capacity, supply-
side constraints, and other barriers identified in the individual country studies and the LDC 
collective request, including in sections B and C. The membership needed to look beyond the waiver, and examine how it could complement market access opportunities with aid for trade and 
targeted development assistance programs and how it could focus work in the Council to progress 
services trade negotiations to further integrat e LDCs into global services markets. The LDC 
collective request had identified a number of domestic regulatory issues that fell within the scope 
of the Article VI:4 mandate. The membership could explore options for improving recognition in 
accordance with Article VII and seek further market access gains in areas of LDC interest pursuant to Article XIX. 
1.50.  The representative of Chile  confirmed the assumption by the representative of Uganda that 
the requirements imposed in conformity with Chile's domestic legislation and set out in 
paragraph c on page 2 of the notification did not refer to intra-corporate transferees. Chile would follow up on the issue of mutual recognition arrangements bilaterally.  S/C/M/125 
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.51.  The representative of Nigeria noted the hi gh quality of the notifications and the specific 
concerns raised by LDCs. Nigeria thanked all the Members for their constructive engagement and 
expressed confidence that there was scope for further improvement.  
1.52.  The representative of Uganda recognized the preliminary responses that Members had given 
to the issues that LDCs had raised and looked forward to bilateral consultations in the coming 
days.  
1.53.  The Chairman suggested that the Council ta ke note of the assessment provided by the LDC 
group and the subsequent interventions by Members. He noted that follow-up to the questions 
raised would be provided directly between indi vidual preference-granting Members and the LDC 
group. 
1.54.  It was so agreed. 
1.2  Consideration of Next Steps for Notifi cations Containing Pref erences beyond GATS 
Article XVI Measures Requirin g Authorization in the CTS 
1.55.  The Chairman recalled that the LDC servic es waiver provided that "preferential treatment 
with respect to the application of measures other than those described in Article XVI is subject to 
approval by the Council for Trade in Services".  
1.56.  The representative of Uganda stated that the LDC group had asked that the issue of 
approval for preferences going beyond Article XV I be addressed at the present meeting. For the 
moment, six notifications appeared to be relevant in this regard, namely China concerning the preference on authorized destination status; India concerning the elimination of visa fees; Iceland, 
Norway, and Switzerland with regard to national  treatment preferences, Switzerland again with 
regard to contact points, and Turkey with regard to the e-visa facility and the removal of certain 
work permit requirements. He requested these Members to confirm his understanding that the 
measures in question went beyond Article XVI of the GATS, or provide any appropriate 
clarifications. He also requested Members to indicate whether their notifications contained other 
measures contained that fell under the approval category. He requested Members to approve the relevant measures at the present meeting. For any additional measures that might be identified 
after this meeting, he requested that the Council hold a meeting to approve those measures 
expeditiously.  
1.57.  The representatives of Switzerland, Icel and, Turkey, Norway, India and China confirmed 
that the understanding by the representative of  Uganda was correct, i.e. that the measures 
identified did not fall under Article XVI and therefore required approval by the Council. 
1.58.  A representative of the Secretariat clarifie d the procedural aspects of the approval process 
as it was laid down in the waiver Decision. The waiver Decision referred in paragraph 1 to the 
approval requirement by the Council for measures that went beyond Article XVI. Such approval 
was to be granted in accordance with the procedures of the Council. The procedures of the Council with respect to decision-making followed those of the General Council, and were set out in 
Article IX of the WTO Agreement, which foresees decision-making by consensus. As there were no 
further formal requirements for decision-makin g, the Council could, if Members were in 
agreement, approve the measures in question. Th ere was no requirement to extract or separate 
those measures from the individual notifications.  
1.59.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela enquired about the relationship 
between the measures in questions and the DDA. She understood that several Members had 
indicated that they would bilaterally respond to the questions raised by the LDC group, but to a 
certain extent other delegations who had been following the negotiations also wanted to 
understand the responses were before a decision was taken in the Council.  
1.60.  The Chairman stated that the preferences provided under the waiver Decision did not have 
any relationship with the DDA as such.  
1.61.  In response to a question by India, a re presentative of the Secretariat explained that an 
approval of preferences at the present meeting woul d not affect the date of entry into force if the S/C/M/125 
 
- 13 - 
 
  notification foresaw a date later than that day' s meeting. If approved, then preferences would 
enter into force as of the date set out in the respective notifications.  
1.62.  Upon request of the delegations of Switze rland, Iceland, Turkey, Norway, India and China, 
the Council approved preferential treatment containe d in these Members' notifications with respect 
to the application of measures other than those mentioned in Article XVI.  
2  ITEM B: REVIEW OF THE STATE OF PLAY CONCERNING NOTIFICATIONS NOT YET 
RECEIVED 
2.1.   The Chairman offered the floor to the LD C group, for their review of the state of play 
concerning notifications not yet received.  
2.2.  The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC group, noted that Brazil, the 
European Union, and South Africa had indicated to  the LDC group that they would follow through 
on their HLM indications to provide preferential tr eatment to LDCs in accordance with the terms of 
the waiver. These delegations had provided updates at the last Council meeting on 15 October, and Brazil had just indicated that their domestic processes were completed. When submitted, the 
LDC group would add these important notification s to its assessment. He appealed to other 
delegations, which had not provided indications at the HLM, to also consider ways of operationalizing the waiver Decision by submitting notifications in that regard. 
2.3.  The representative of the European Union expected more Members to notify preferences in 
future. The EU was concluding its own internal procedures and would present its final notification 
soon. The notification would ensure full legal and po litical backing for EU LDC services preferences. 
There would be no change on substance compared to the preliminary notification submitted at the 
end of July, contained in document S/C/W/361.  
2.4.  The representative of South Africa stated th at her delegation's draft notification was in the 
final stages of executive processes and would shortly be presented to Cabinet. It would be 
submitted as soon as the green light was given by Pretoria.  
2.5.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made under this 
agenda item.  
2.6.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL FOR MC10 
3.1.  The Chairman opened the floor on the agenda item, "Recommendations to the General 
Council for MC10". 
3.2.  The representative of Bangladesh thanked Members for having listened to the LDC group's 
long presentation which had attempted to provide an objective assessment of the notifications 
circulated until then. He further thanked the Council for giving approval to preferential measures 
going beyond Article XVI. He hoped that this would give other Members impetus to come up with 
new notifications that covered measures other than those in Article XVI, because these were very important for LDCs. With regard to next steps, the LDC group looked forward to the expeditious 
clarification to the various questions it had raised, as indicated by Members. He further requested 
Members to provide supplementary notifications that eliminated and reduced any restrictions still in place and responded to sections B and C of the LDC collective request. He recalled that 
supplementary notifications were contemplated in  paragraph 2 of the waiver Decision. The LDC 
group had requested executive summaries of pr eferences from some Members, and would be 
grateful to obtain those summaries before MC10. 
3.3.  He requested Members to agree to a deci sion in Nairobi whereby the duration of the 
notifications submitted pursuant of the waiver Decision was deemed to be 15 years from the date 
of notification of the pr eferences. Further, he requested that Members agree on a clear and precise 
definition of preferential treatment, as "the remo val of restrictions and/or the provision of, special 
access or procedures, in favour of LDC suppliers over non-LDC suppliers, unless the preference 
accorded to LDCs is drawn from other pre-existing or future preferential arrangements." Lastly, he S/C/M/125 
 
- 14 - 
 
  drew the attention of notifying Members to paragr aph 3.2 of the collective request concerning the 
provision of capacity building and assistance in relation to the utilization of the preferences or orientation to the preferences, including awarenes s-building and training. He noted that India and 
China had already expressly provided information in this regard. He expressed interest in other 
Members' views on how to proceed. It was important that the spotlight generated by the waiver 
process and the notifications remained, and he drew Members' attention to paragraph 1.4 of the Decision to operationalize the waiver. 
3.4.  The representative of Australia hoped that  the significant progress that had been achieved 
under the MC9 Decision on the operationalization of the LDC services waiver would be recognized 
at MC10. At the same time, Members could look at next steps for increasing LDC participation in trade in services to help LDCs take advantage of  the preferences that had been notified and make 
use of market access opportunities. She saw real value in, and good prospects for, a ministerial 
decision on LDCs and services at MC10 and was very interested in working with LDCs and other interested Members on a draft decision.  
3.5.  The representative of Bangladesh stated that the LDC group was looking forward to working 
with Australia to develop a draft decision that could be adopted at MC10.  
3.6.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
3.7.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM F – OTHER BUSINESS 4.1.  No items were raised under Other Business.  4.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________