RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPGR/M/91  
11 November 2016  
(16-6231) Page: 1/7 
Working Party on GATS Rules   
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 5 OCTOBER 2016  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Working Party on GATS Rules (WPGR) held a meeting on 5 October 2016 chaired by 
Mr Gustavo Héctor Mendez of Argentina. The agenda for the meeting contained in document 
WTO/AIR/WPGR/ 6 was adopted . Ahead of the meeting, a n annotated agenda by the Chairperson 
had been circulated in document JOB/SERV/2 41 dated 29 September 2016.  
1  ITEM A  – NEGOTIATIONS ON EMER GENCY SAFEGUARD MEAS URES UNDER ARTICLE X  
OF THE GATS  
1.1.  Regarding emergency safeguard measures (ESM),  the Chairman  recalled that the Working 
Party had held dedicated discussion s on emergency safeguard provisions in Members' bilateral a nd 
regional trade agreements  in 2014 . Since then , however,  no more targeted  work ha d been 
undertaken . 
1.2.  The r epresentative of the Philippines , on behalf of the delegations of Brunei Darussalam , 
Cambodia , Indonesia , Lao People’s Democratic Republic , Malaysia , Myanmar , the Philippines , 
Thailand  and Viet Nam , recall ed the proponents' previo us statements regarding wh at had  been 
done and the possible way forward for the discussions o n emergency safeguard measures .In 
particular, she referred  to the dedicated discussion on safeguard -type provisions in bilateral and 
regional trade agreements, to the proponents' proposal f or draft d isciplines on ESM contained in 
document JOB(07) /155, and to a dedicated discussion on ESM -relevant data  held by the Working 
Party in March 2011 . She also referred to the b uilt-in mandate of GATS Article  X, as confirmed by 
subsequent Ministerial D eclarations, as being the framework for undertaking work on these 
matters .  
1.3.  In view of a possible services outcome at the 11th Ministerial Conference  in 2017 , the 
proponents wished to reaffirm their commitment to engage constructively in the services 
negot iations, particularly with regard to unfinished work , including  on emergency safeguard 
measures.  While the context of the overall negotiations impacted  progress , particular ly in technical 
areas such as  GATS Rules, the proponents n onetheless  stood ready to continue their consultations 
with interested Members on plausible next steps, including further dedicated discussions, for 
instance on statistical developments  relevant for ESM . She stated that the  proponents  would  revert 
to the Working Party  if and when they were read y to come forward with a formal proposal . 
1.4.  The Chairman  thanked the proponents for their statement. He suggested that the Working 
Party take note of the statement made and revert to this topic at its next meeting.  
1.5.  It was so agreed . 
 
                                                
1 This document  has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO . S/WPGR/M/91  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  ITEM B  – NEGOTIATIONS ON GOVERN MENT PROCUREMENT UND ER ARTICLE XIII OF 
THE GATS  
2.1.  Concerning government procurement,  the Chairman  reminded delegations that , in 
September  2015, the EU delegation had circulated a "Proposal for Future Work on Government 
Procurement" (JOB/S ERV/215 ), which suggested that Members exchange  information  on a 
voluntary basis  on how they treat ed foreign -owned or –controlled,  established service suppliers in 
their government procurement practices , notably with respect to national treatment. Followin g this 
introduction, h e opened the floor to seek Members' views on possible future work on this subject.  
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  informed Members that his delegation was  still in 
the process of assessing the best way forward with respect t o its proposal , and that it would revert 
to the Working Party if and when it was to submit a revised proposal.  
2.3.  The Chairman  thanked the delegation of the European Union for its statement . He invited the 
Working Party to take note of the statement made and  to revert to this item at its next meeting.  
2.4.  It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C  – NEGOTIATIONS ON SUBS IDIES UNDER ARTICLE XV OF THE GATS  
3.1.  The Chairman  acknowledg ed that there had  been no substantive discussions on subsidies for 
some time . He then opened the floor for  Members' comments . No delegation took the floor .  
3.2.  In the absence of any statement , the Chairman  invited the Working Party to revert to this 
item at its next meeting.  
3.3.  It was so agreed . 
4  ITEM D: FUTURE WORK AND TIMING OF THE NE XT MEETING  
4.1.  The Chairman  opened  the floor for delegations ' views  regarding future work and timing of the 
Working Party's next meeting.  
4.2.  Noting that some statements had been made  repeatedly over the years, t he representative of 
the United States  wondered whether, in the interest of efficient use of time , there was a means  to 
reaffirm the proponents' long -standin g interest s in a way that would not require the full convening 
of a meeting . In case some  delegations had institutional or systemic concerns about  skipping one 
or several ( or tempor arily suspen ding) meetings , his delegation was more than willing to make it 
clear that it remained open to, and would carefully review,  any future proposals that  would be 
made . His delegation would not see any efficiency improvements in the way of convenin g 
subsidiary body meetings  as closing any doors to anyone in the future. If other delegations felt 
that such a change would lock any doors, which  they could not re -enter in the future , they should 
say so. If some delegations needed more of a comfort level about them being able to return at any 
time to th e Working Party with new ideas , his delegation was ready to provide the assurance that 
it would welcome and review any new proposal  made .  
4.3.  The representative of Brazil  expressed support for  the statement made by the delegat ion of 
the United States. He noted that , in their interventions at the meeting,  both proponents had said 
that they would revert to the W orking Party "if and when " a revised proposal was underway . He 
believed that this was the key  to the Working Party's future work , and that  meeting s should only 
be convened  if there was substance to be discussed , for instance in the form of a new or revised 
proposal.  
4.4.  The representative of Ecuador  thanked the Chair man for his Annotated Agenda and for his 
efforts to encourage a debate  on this subject . He suggest ed that the Chairperson  of the Council for 
Trade in Services (CTS) could coordinate with the Chairperson of the Working Party on GATS R ules 
(as well as those of the other subsidiary b odies) ahead of a ser vices cluster to assess whether 
there were any issues of substance to be discussed . If a Member wished to raise an y issue, a 
meeting of the corresponding Committee or W orking Party would be organized . Otherwise, no S/WPGR/M/91  
 
- 3 - 
 
  meeting would be convened during that clu ster. This  did not in any way imply that the subsidiary 
body would be  abolished . Rather,  meetings would be convened depending on the issues to be 
discussed . In this way, time could be used more efficiently and delegations could concentrate their 
efforts on negotiating issues discussed in other group s. 
4.5.  The representative of Nigeria  wished to seek  guidance from the Secretariat  with respect to 
issues of both substance and procedure . With respect to procedural matters , he asked whether 
there were any rules of p rocedure regarding the frequency of meetings. He noted that d elegates in 
Geneva needed to advise their capital -based experts  regarding their attendance of meetings 
sufficiently in advance of a cluster. His delegation sought guidance  from the Secretariat on  these 
questions, as well as on how delegations could manage their time more efficiently.  
4.6.  A representative of the Secretariat  explained that the "Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the 
Council for Trade in Services " (which are based on those  of the General  Council) applied  mutatis 
mutandis  to the meetings  of the Working Party on GATS Rules.2 The rules of p rocedure of the 
Working Party did not impose any particular requirements  regard ing the frequency of  its meetings . 
They simply stated that the Working Part y "shall meet as appropriate". It was therefore up to 
Members to decide  whether they wished to meet, or not. The rules further  provided that 
"[m]eetings … shall be convened by the Director -General by a notice issued not less than ten 
calendar days prior to  the date set for the meeting. … Meetings may be convened with shorter 
notice for matters of significant importance or urgency at the request of a Member concurred in by 
the majority of the Members".  
4.7.  The representative of the Secretariat drew delegations'  attention to the fact that the agenda 
item under consideration mentioned the " timing ", rather than  the date , of the next meeting . 
Delegations might  not want  to decide on a particular date  at this stage . They might want to leave 
open the question of the da te, and let the Chairman conduct consultations,  at the appropriate 
time, on whether or not to convene a meeting during the next services cluster . The rules of 
procedure were very flexible , leaving it  up to the Members  to decide . The representative of the 
Secretariat emphasised that such a decision – to convene  a meeting , or not – would not affect in 
any way the current structure , or existence , of the W orking Party.  
4.8.  Noting that the meetings on trade in services were normally organised in 'clusters' (with 
meetings of the CTS and its subsidiary bodies being bundled – or 'clustered' – over two or three 
days), t he representative of Nigeria  asked the Secretariat whether , and how , meetings of one (or 
several) subsidiary bodies could be 'delinked' from a particular  cluster.  In his view, it was difficult , 
in practice , to separate the question of the timing  from the question of the date of a meeting. 
Having said that , he agreed that in the  absence of any new substance, Members might want to 
review the need to hold a meeting . 
4.9.  In response to the question raised by the delegate of Nigeria, the  representative of the 
Secretariat  explained that  the scheduling of services meetings in 'clusters ' dated back to the start 
of the GATS negotiations in 2000-01. This practice was developed for the convenience of delegates 
travelling from capitals so that they could attend all services meetings. When negotiations were 
still quite active, clusters would typically extend over a period of two weeks. However, n othing in 
the rules of proced ure required  that meeting s should be held back-to-back as they currently were . 
He underscored that, if  a subsidiary body of the CTS did not meet during one or several clusters , 
this would  not have any consequence on the structure  or existence  of this body .  
4.10.   The representative of the European Union  support ed the pragmatic approach  suggested by 
Ecuador  to meet when ever was appropriate , without there being a need to have more formalize d 
rules in this regard . The Secretariat's  explanation regarding the rules of  procedure show ed that 
there was flexibility in the current system regarding the  convening of meetings. His delegation 
trusted  the C hairperson  to consult with Members in order to assess whether there was a need for 
the Working Party to meet.  
4.11.   The represent ative of Barbados  noted that this issue , among others , had been discussed at 
an informal meeting of the CTS on 26 July  2016 and recalled that the ACP Group had made a 
                                                
2 The Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the Council for Trade in Services are contained in  document 
S/L/15. The Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the General Council are contained in document WT/L/161, 
page 6 ff. S/WPGR/M/91  
 
- 4 - 
 
  statement in this context .3 She thank ed the Secretariat for its explanations of the terms  used in 
the rules of procedure, according to which the subsidiary bodies of the CTS shall meet "as 
appropriate ". At the informal CTS meeting in July 2016, the ACP Group had indicated that they 
would support  a proposal stating that meeting s shall be conven ed when there was an issue to be 
discussed – as it might  not always be necessary for all the subsidiary bodies to meet at each 
services cluster .  
4.12.   The representative of Canada  wished to acknowledge the GATS built -in agenda in the areas 
of emergency safeguar d measures , government p rocurement  and subsidies . His delegation 
understoo d and recognised that these were issues of importance to different WTO Members , and 
remained willing to engage in these areas.  However, as other delegations had pointed out , work in 
the WPGR  had been at an impasse on all fronts . In his delegation's view, new initiatives would 
have to be put forward by the proponents in order for the work to resume. In the absence of such 
proposal s, useful discussion s or progress  seemed unlikely . His d elegation wished to support the  
previous speakers who had called for a flexible approach where by the Working Party could 
reconvene when there was substance to be discuss ed. In his delegation's view, this would probably 
require a new proposal fro m one of th e proponents.  
4.13.   The representative of Australia  agreed with other delegations that the current rules of 
procedure were sufficiently flexible and that  no additional or more formal rules were needed on 
whether to convene a meeting  or not . Australia also agreed  that the Chair person  would be best 
placed to decide whether there were issues of substance that would require the Working Party to 
meet. As long as sufficient advance notice was provided , there was no need to formalize the 
procedures . Her delegation was o f the view that no decision needed to be made at this time on the 
date of the next meeting, and trusted the judgement of the Chairperson , in consultat ion with 
Members , in this regard . 
4.14.   The representative of Nigeria  said that his delegation support ed the fle xible approach 
outlined by the last few speakers . He agreed with the view that meeting s should be convened "as 
appropriate",  after consultations by the Chair person  with Members and the Secretariat. His 
delegation also agreed with the stance taken by Austra lia that there was no need to decide about 
the date of the next meeting at this time . This could be left to the judgement of the Chairperson in 
consultation with Members.   
4.15.   The representative of South Africa  asked for a clarification regarding the rule of procedure 
mentioned by the Secretariat according to which  any Member  had the right to ask for a meeting as 
long as his request wa s supported by the majority of the Members.  
4.16.   The representative of the Secretariat  explained that the  majority rule applied only  in case of 
meetings convened with a prior notice  that was  shorter  than the mandatory ten calendar days.4 
The "Rules of Procedure  for Meetings  of the Council for Trade in Services " stipulated that the CTS 
(and mutatis mutandis  its subsidiary bodies)  "shall  meet as appropriate".  In practice, this wa s 
applied in a very flexible way, by relying on the ju dgment of the Chair , in consultations  with 
delegations . It was considered that the Chairperson  was able to best assess the support for 
holding a meeting . When a meeting wa s requested, the Secretariat had seldom witnessed any 
situation in  which an objection to holding the  meeting was raised since, normal ly, a meeting would 
be convened if request ed by a Member when there was substance to discuss . The practice had 
evolved over the years in a very flexible way , relying  to a large extent on the judgment of the 
Chairperson  in consultation  with Members.  
4.17.   The representative of Barbados  enquired  about the currently applied practice with respect to 
convening meetings . 
4.18.   The representative of the Secretariat  responded that the currently ap plied practice wa s to 
hold formal meetings in clusters . However, not all the subsidiary bodies necessarily had to meet at 
each cluster . In addition , there wa s also the possibility of holding i nformal meetings at any point in 
time, as deemed appropriate. Usually the decision to hold a meeting was guided by the substance 
                                                
3 An informal meeting of the CTS had been convened to discuss, inter alia, Brazil's proposal (presented 
orally at an earlier formal meeting of the CTS) on future work of the subsidiary bodies to the Council for Trade 
in Services.  
4 See document WT/L/161, p. 6, Rule 2.  S/WPGR/M/91  
 
- 5 - 
 
  of what that meeting was going to address , or the need for the meeting per se. As explained  
previously , the rules of procedure  stipulated that formal meetings shall be convened  by the 
Director -General by a notice issued not less than ten calendar days prior to the date set for the 
meeting. I nformal meetings  could  be convened at a short er notice.  The usual practice was to rely 
on the Chairperson's  judgement in light of his consultations with Members.  
4.19.   The representative of India asked whether it would be  possible that a particular  subsidiary 
body held no meeting at all in one year.  She understood that the rules of p rocedure did not 
mandate any given meeting frequency . However, she wondered  about the implications of not 
holding any  meeting  during one or several years , and whether this would not violate any rule . 
4.20.   The representative of the Secretariat  indicated that there was no rule in  this regard, and 
that Members  could actually go over a whole year without convening a meeting. Pursuant to the 
annual reporting requirements, all the subsidiary bodies needed to report to the Council for Trade 
in Services at the end of every year . If there had been no meeting, the annual report would say 
that no meeting  had been held.  One further point to be clarified in this regard was how the 
subsidiary bodies adopted their draft annual report for transmission to the CTS. Subsidiary bodies 
did not need t o meet in order to adopt their annual report; the latter  could be adopted through a 
written procedure . 
4.21.   The representative of Colombia  asked , in case a given subsidiary body did not meet dur ing 
a cluster , whether a delegation could raise an issue of relevan ce to the work of that subsidiary 
body in the CTS .  
4.22.   The representative of the Secretariat  responded that Members could raise at the CTS any 
issue they wished to raise.  The practice had  always been , however,  that subsidiary bodies 
operate d with a certain de gree of autonomy and handle d their own substantive business. The very 
purpose for establishing a subsidiary body  was that that it would focus on its own age nda and then 
report to the CTS.  However, th ere was no procedure or rule against the  suggestion made  by the 
representative of Colombia . 
4.23.   The representative of  South Africa  enquired , in the event a subsidiary body did not meet  
during an entire year or even two years, whether a Chairperson  would still be elected for this 
subsidiary body at the beginning of e ach year . She wondered with whom delegations would be 
consulting with, in case no meeting was convene d during an entire year. 
4.24.   The representative of the Secretariat  explained that, as long as the subsidiary body existed 
– as did therefore  the possibility of bringing  substantive items on to its  agenda  – a Chairperson  
would be needed , even if the frequency of meetings of that subsidiary body was very low. He 
noted that the Working Group on the Relationship between  Trade a nd Investment  established at 
the 1996 Ministerial Conference in Singapore had remained without a Chairperson following the 
suspension of its work. In the case of the Working Party on GATS Rules , however, even if it was  
not to meet for a whole year, a Chairperson would normally be appointed. This  was especially the 
case given the need to hold consultations with Members in order to decide whether, or not, to 
convene a meeting.  
4.25.   The representative of Nigeria  underlined that, i n the absence of substantive discussions, 
delegations could still have a useful discussion on procedural matters.  He also wished to stress the 
Chairperson 's and Members ' shared  responsibility to ensure engagement and productive 
discussions in the different subsidiary bodies. While t he Chairperson wa s responsible for being 
active and for engag ing with delegations , Members  had the responsibility to keep the C hairperson  
busy. Based on the question posed by the delegate of South Africa and the Secretariat's response , 
he concurred that the Working Party needed a Chairperson. His delega tion did not think that the 
Working Party on GATS Rules should take the same route as the Working Party on the Relationship 
between Trade and  Investme nt. He agreed with other delegations who spoke before him that 
Members needed to reflect on how to  reinvig orate the work in the subsidiary bodies  of the CTS and 
how to organize meetings in a more efficient and productive manner. He suggested that  the 
Secretariat could organize a briefing session  on the rules of procedure and related matters for 
delegations tha t may not be familiar with the se issues . S/WPGR/M/91  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.26.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  observed that , in the absence of new 
substance to be discussed , if delegations considered it useful to have discussions on procedural 
aspects , a meeting of the Working Pa rty could still be scheduled  during the next cluster . His 
delegation was looking for formal guidance from the Secretari at regarding the aspect s that needed 
to be taken into account – including new issues that  could be taken up by the Working Party , and 
their interaction with other items on the agenda . 
4.27.   In light of the foregoing,  the representative of Côte d'Ivoire  asked whether h e had 
understood correct ly that, in order  to hold a meeting of the Working Party , two conditions needed 
to be fulfilled : first, that there be substance to be discuss ed; and second , that Members needed to 
be consulted in advance to see whether there was a majority in favour of holding the meeting. His 
delegation  was of the view that , as long as there was a new proposal , such new propos al 
constituted the essential condition for the Working Party to meet – without subject ing the holding 
of a meeting to a majority  of Members being in favour . 
4.28.   The representative of the Secretariat  explained that the question of a majority decision 
came into play only in the case of emergency  meetings that had to be convened a t short notice  – 
i.e., by a notice issued less than ten calendar days  prior to the date set for the  meeting . Except in 
this particular case,  the rules of p rocedure did not stipulate  any majority requirement in order to 
convene a meeting . The practice had  always been to rely on the judgmen t of the Chairperson  
based on his/her consultations with delegatio ns.  
4.29.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked  the Secretariat for providing an overview  of 
some of the procedural elements relating to the convening of meetings. His delegation supported 
the existing practice of relying on the judgement of the Chair person  and did not see any problem 
with following such flexible  approach.  
4.30.   In light of the disc ussion, t he Chairman  propose d to consult informally with Members ahead 
of the next cluster  on the scheduling of the next  meeting  of the Working Party . 
4.31.   The representative of Barbados  recalled that the question of the streamlining of the work of 
the CTS' subsidiary bodies  had been the subject of a wider discussion  at an informal meeting of  
the CTS  held in July  2016.  At the time, the ACP G roup had requested that the proposal  that had 
triggered this discussion  be circulated in writing. She reiterate d the reques t of the ACP Group that, 
in light of the complexity involved and the possibility that the proposal could have far -reaching 
consequences across  WTO bodies, the proposal be circulated in writing. The same proposal was 
now being introduced on the agenda of th e Working Party via this agenda item . Many questions 
had been raised with respect to the implications of such a proposal and consideration had to be 
given to such questions . To that end, the proposal needed to be put in writing. Meanwhile, her 
delegation c ould go along with the Chairman's suggestion to consult with Members to determine 
whether a  meeting of the Working Party should be convened in the next cluster. The same process 
of prior informal consultations by the Chairperson could be followed for the subsequent meeting of 
the Working Party – at least until all issues related to the proposal on streamlining the CTS 
subsidiary bodies had been clarified.  
4.32.   The r epresentative of  Brazil  thanked  the delegation of Barbados for renewing its request 
made on behalf  of the ACP Group. He  explained  that the suggestion made by his delegation at the 
CTS meeting in June 2016  had simply been an invitation for all Members to reflect  on the best way 
to allocate time and resources in a more efficient manner , as called for in paragraph 29 of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaration adopted in December 2015 . His delegation had discussed internally 
whether or not to put its 'invitation to reflect' in writing, and had concluded not to do so. His 
delegation fully support ed the suggestio n that the scheduling of meetings be driven by the 
substance  to be discussed . 
4.33.   The r epresentative of  Turkey  noted that the lengthy debate under this agenda item 
indicated  the lack of clarity on  some of the  issues at stake . Since  there was no agreement on 
changing the procedures  on the convening  of meetings , his delegation suggested that the Working 
Party on GATS Rules met during the next cluster even if was to be only a short meeting .  S/WPGR/M/91  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.34.   The r epresentative of  Nigeria  emphasised the importance of discussing the  issues of both 
substance and procedure  relating to the proposal to streamline the work of certain subsidiary 
bodies  of the CTS .  
4.35.   The Chairman thank ed the delegations for their statements  and suggested to consult  
informally with Members ahead of the next c luster of meetings (scheduled to take place in  the last 
quarter of 2016 ) regarding the timing of the next  meeting . 
4.36.   It was so agreed . 
5  ITEM E  – OTHER BUSINESS  
5.1.  No issues were raised under this agenda item.  
5.2.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________