RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPGR/M/86  
 
22 May 2015  
(15-2702)  Page: 1/8  
Working Party on GATS Rules    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 MARCH 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Working Party on GATS Rules (WPGR) held a meeting on 18 March 2015, chaired by Mr Saqer 
Almoqbel of Saudi Arabia. The proposed agenda and the Chairperson's annotated agenda for the 
meeting were circulated in documents WTO/AIR/WPGR/1 and JOB/SERV/203 respectively. The agenda was adopted. 
1  ITEM A - NEGOTIATIONS ON EMERGE NCY SAFEGUARD MEASURES (ESM) UNDER 
ARTICLE X OF THE GATS 
1.1.  The Chairman recalled that,  at its preceding meetings ‒ in February, May and September 
2014 ‒ the Working Party had initiated a dedicated discussion on Members' experiences with 
services-related emergency safeguard provisions in  their regional trade agreements (RTAs). In the 
course of these deliberations, the ESM proponents had identified a number of RTAs – to which they 
were party either individually or collectively – that contained some type of emergency safeguard 
provisions. These typically consisted in consultation, and in some cases notification mechanisms, 
with some agreements providing for more detailed and binding procedures than others.  
1.2.  The Chairman also reminded delegations th at the Secretariat had prepared, upon Members' 
request, an updated Note on "Safeguard-Type Provisions in Economic Integration Agreements − a 
Consolidated List as of 31 July 2014 based on Notifications to the WTO under Article V of the 
GATS" .2 According to that Note, out of the 122 economic integration agreements currently in force 
that had been notified under GATS Article V, 29 contained either a reference to the multilateral negotiating agenda in GATS Article X or some sa feguard-type, or safeguard-related, provisions. 
The latter could amount to, either: (a) a commitment by the parties to "initiate discussions" within 
X years from the entry into force of the RTA to develop mutually acceptable guidelines and procedures for the application of emergency sa feguard measures; or (b) a commitment by the 
parties to conduct a review, upon conclusion  of the multilateral negotiations pursuant to Article X 
GATS, for the purpose of discussing appropriate amendments to the RTA so as to incorporate those results; or (c) the possibility for the affected  party, in the event that the implementation of 
the RTA caused substantial adverse impact on one of its service sectors, to request consultations 
with the other party (or parties) to discuss any measure with respect to that affected sector. Some 
agreements in addition specified that, in these consultations, the parties shall endeavour to reach a mutually acceptable solution within a reasonable amount of time; or (d) in three cases,
 a 
prohibition between the RTA parties to initiate or continue any safeguard investigations in respect 
of services or service suppliers of the other pa rty. Following this introduction, the Chairman 
opened the floor for Members' comments and questions. 
1.3.  The representative of the Philippines, on  behalf of the delegations of Brunei Darussalam, 
Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand 
and Viet Nam, thanked the Secretariat for its comp rehensive briefing on the negotiating history of 
ESM held on 10 March 2015. It had also included developments regarding ESM-relevant statistics 
and emergency safeguard provisions in region al and bilateral trade agreements. She also 
reminded delegations of the proponents' statemen ts and submissions in 2014 with respect to ESM 
                                               
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. 
2 Document S/WPGR/W/64, dated 4 September 2014. S/WPGR/M/86 
 
- 2 - 
 
  provisions in FTAs ‒ including their statement regarding the Secretariat Note (S/WPGR/W/64) at 
the Working Party's meeting on 18 September 2014, as contained in the minutes of that meeting.3 
1.4.  While work on ESM had not yet progressed to  text-based negotiations, the proponents were 
encouraged by developments on many fronts – in particular that Lao People’s Democratic Republic 
had joined the 'Friends of ESM', as well as the continued interest in their proposal shown by some Members. The proponents were also encouraged by recent developments in statistics suggesting 
that elements present in goods safeguards were also, in principle, possible for safeguards in 
services. The proponents wished to highlight the continued political importance placed on 
emergency safeguard measures, as evidenced by th eir inclusion in many regional and bilateral 
FTAs. Provisions in recent trade agreements included rendez-vous  clauses as well as provisions 
allowing for consultations, sympathetic consideration, emergency procedures and/or application for 
authorization to take protective measures in the event of serious economic difficulties.  
1.5.  The representative of the Philippines on behalf of the proponents urged Members to build 
upon the work conducted in the past few years.  She reminded delegations of the proponents’ 
October 2007 Communication on a “(Draft) Annex on Article X Emergency Safeguard Measures”  
(JOB(07)/155). The document contained proposed rules to establish an ESM mechanism in 
Members’ domestic framework, including a timeline for emergency safeguard procedures. The 
proponents were considering whether to update their 2007 proposal. She invited Members to revisit that proposal and, if possible, revert with further thoughts and comments at the next meeting. The proponents concluded their statement by calling for continued work on ESM, 
including as part of the post-Bali work programme, in order to abide by the mandate in GATS  
Article X, the Doha Development Agenda, and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
1.6.  The Chairman thanked the proponents for th eir intervention. He suggested that the Working 
Party take note of the statement made and revert to this subject at its next meeting. 
1.7.  It was so agreed. 
2  ITEM B – NEGOTIATIONS ON GOVERNME NT PROCUREMENT UNDER ARTICLE XIII OF 
THE GATS  
2.1.  Turning to government procurement, th e Chairman reminded delegations that, at the 
Working Party's October 2013 meeting, a preliminary version of the WTO working paper entitled 
"The Relationship between Services Trade and Government Procurement Commitments: Insights 
from relevant WTO agreements and recent RTAs" had been presented by its authors. The paper, 
prepared by its authors in their personal  capacity,  represented a cooperative effort between 
members of the Secretariat's Intellectual Property  Division and Trade in Services Division. The 
working paper had benefited from comments and di scussion in the Working Party on two occasions 
whereby delegations had made a number of useful suggestions for improvement. The final version 
was released in November 2014 as WTO working paper, No. ERSD-2014-21.4  
2.2.  The Chairman reminded delegations that, at its March 2013 meeting (thus almost two years 
ago) the Working Party had agreed that, as a first step, Members would discuss the final version of the working paper. Based on this, Members would then decide what further work, if any, they would like the Secretariat to carry out. The need for additional work, if any, could be assessed in 
light of the request originally made at an informal meeting of the Working Party held in December 
2012: namely that the Secretariat update its Note on " Government Procurement-Related 
Provisions in Economic Integration Agreements "
5 to capture recent developments in these 
provisions.6 Back then, it had been suggested that th e Secretariat supplement its September 2009 
Note with information regarding: 1) the scope of services-related government-procurement commitments in Economic Integration Agreements (EIAs); 2) relevant scheduling approaches; and 
3) whether EIAs included a link between government procurement and services market-access 
commitments. The Chairman gave the floor to one of the co-authors, working in the Secretariat's 
                                               
3 Contained in document S/WPGR/M/85. 
4 https://www.wto.org/ english/res_e/rese r_e/wpaps_e.htm   
5 Document S/WPGR/W/49/Add.1, dated 28 September 2009. 
6 See the Summary by the Chairperson of the inform al meeting of the Working Party on GATS Rules 
held on 5 December 2012 in document JOB/SERV/132, paras. 4-9. S/WPGR/M/86 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Intellectual Property Division in charge of the GPA, to present the final version of the working 
paper. 
2.3.  The co-author stated that his presentation would focus on the changes  introduced in 
response to the comments received from Members. The European Union had asked to add an 
executive summary, as well as more specific conclusions and policy recommendations. India had 
indicated that the paper paid insufficient attent ion to the development dimension and questioned 
the relevance for developing countries of the set of agreements studied in the Paper.  Switzerland 
had posed some challenging questions concerning technical aspects of the analysis. 
2.4.  In finalizing the paper, the authors had done their best to respond to these suggestions to 
the extent possible.  As suggested by the EU, an  executive summary had been added, as well as a 
new sub-section on possible approaches to deepen disciplines in this subject area.7 The authors 
had made it clear that they were not endorsing or proposing any particular approach in this 
respect.  This was clearly for WTO Members to decide.  
2.5.  In response to the comments of India, mo re attention had been given to the development 
dimension of government procurement throughout the paper, and a new section on this aspect 
had been added (pp. 9-13). This section built on related discussions that took place earlier in this 
Working Party – notably the analysis provided by Professor Simon Evenett,8 and also on earlier 
discussions in the WTO Working Group on Transpar ency in Government Procurement when that 
body was active.  It also profiled the way in wh ich development issues had been addressed in the 
r e c e n t  r e v i s i o n  o f  t h e  p l u r i l a t e r a l  G P A .  A n d ,  f i nally, a checklist had been included of potential 
challenges and costs associated with international commitments on government procurement 
liberalization, and factors that could impact on th eir magnitude. Still, the authors fully recognized 
that there were a broad range of perspectives on development aspects; the perspective developed in the paper clearly did not reflect the views of all Members.  
2.6.  With respect to the more technical aspects of the research, the RTAs ‒ including those not 
containing detailed provisions on government procurement ‒ were further described in terms of:  
(a) distribution among developing, transition  and developed economies; (b) geographical 
distribution; and (c) other noticeable trends. This was done in response to the comments of India, but also of Switzerland. It was important to note that no particular geographical or other selection 
had been made in choosing the RTAS analysed. Fu rthermore, the data showed that 48% of the 
RTAs were concluded between developing or tran sition economies; 40% were between developed 
and developing/transition economies; and only 12% of the agreements did not involve any 
developing or transition economies. The paper also found that 74% of the RTAs had been 
concluded between developed and developing/transit ion economies, and included at least a single 
or a few provisions on government procurement. Although it was not possible to make a definitive 
statistical correlation on this point, nearly all the RTAs with detailed government procurement 
disciplines also included a separate chapter on trade in services. In fact, out of the 68 RTAs with a chapter on government procurement, only three did not include a chapter on trade in services. 
2.7.  Also in response to the comments received, mode 4 had been included in the analysis, at 
least to a limited extent. In particular, the authors had identified some literature concerning 
differential treatment of foreign service suppliers in government procurement (and specifically constraints on the movement of natural persons) as one of the major constraints on international 
trade in services facing developing countries. In this context, he wished to highlight the 2002 
analysis by Professor Rupa Chanda, regarding which relevant details were included in the paper.  
2.8.  As already mentioned, a new section had been added on alternative approaches for 
deepening disciplines in the area of government procurement and service trade liberalization. That 
section was not intended to be dispositive in any way, and strictly aimed at stimulating reflection without advocating any particular approach. The concluding part of the paper had also been revised in order to present the findings in a more succinct and clearer way (see pp. 43-45). In a 
nutshell, those findings were that important potential synergies existed between service trade 
commitments (as under the GATS) and service procurement commitments (as in the GPA and also 
                                               
7  Section 5, on pp. 42-43 of the Paper. 
8 See minutes of the meeting of the Working Party on GATS Rules held on 24 November 2010 in 
document S/WPGR/M/71, paras. 7-9. 
 S/WPGR/M/86 
 
- 4 - 
 
  in a number of RTAs). The authors' perception wa s that, to date, the relevant synergies had been 
partially, but not completely, captured by relevant agreements and negotiating initiatives. Of course, it was for WTO Members to determine what, if anything should be done to address this situation. 
2.9.  The Chairman thanked the authors for their presentation and opened the floor for Members' 
questions and comments. 
2.10.  The representative of India thanked the authors for their presentation. Before commenting 
on the study, she wished to issue a note of caution. In her delegation's view, the Working Party 
should focus its discussions on proposals presented by Members (instead of devoting attention to a WTO working paper prepared in the personal capacity of its authors). However, her delegation did understand that, in the previous meetings of th e WPGR, there had been an agreement to discuss 
this paper and to then decide what future cour se of action could be taken on the matter. Her 
delegation proposed that the discussions on the pa per be held without prejudice to any Member's 
position. On this issue, she wished to make tw o comments. Firstly, the development dimension, 
though now included in the paper, had not been fully looked at. Public procurement was an 
important development tool, and could have immense implications for national development, promoting local business, and job creation. The abil ity of the government to procure from firms of 
its own choice and provide preferences to local goods producers and service suppliers could be a 
part of social objectives to pursue a development policy, or an instrument of macroeconomic management. Secondly, the paper's main highlight was a study of 250 RTAs.  Out of those, only 68 (about a quarter) contained provisions related to government procurement. Out of these 68 
agreements, about 48 were between either GPA pa rties, or between GPA and non-GPA parties. 
Only 20 (about 8%) of these RTAs were between non-GPA parties. These 68 RTAs also did not include any large developing country or any least developed country.  Her delegation believed that 
there was no discernible trend in RTAs that could lead to the conclusion that more and more 
countries were including GPA-related provisions in their RTAs; nor was there a need to take up this issue in this Working Party. 
2.11.  The representative of the European Un ion thanked the authors for their paper. His 
delegation believed that the latter would become a very valuable source of information and 
inspiration for all those working on these issues. In particular, the tables and appendixes provided a wealth of information. The paper provided a comprehensive synopsis of the history, as well as 
the current state of play of the plurilateral WT O Agreement on Government Procurement and the 
main areas of work in the WTO on service trade related to government procurement. His delegation took note of the thorough description of the development dimension included in the 
paper. The analysis of the relationship between service and government procurement disciplines in 
RTAs provided many concrete examples. It was also interesting to see that both GPA and non-GPA 
Parties were involved .  
2.12.  The analysis of the interrelationship between  service trade and specific disciplines related to 
government procurement gave an overall picture of  their economic and legal complementarity. His 
delegation noted that the paper had found that the rules on government procurement in RTAs 
followed to a large extent the approaches adopte d in the GPA and extended their reach to some 
non-GPA parties. This finding, together with the growing membership of the GPA, raised the 
question as to whether, in the future, RTAs and further accessions to the GPA might facilitate the 
advancement of multilateral approaches integratin g government procurement into general rules on 
trade in (goods and) services. The EU delegation had studied with interest the part of the paper 
that looked into the various dimensions of market access that WTO Agreements and recent RTAs 
with chapters on government procurement addressed. They also looked at how service-specific commitments were undertaken under the GPA and the GATS, in particular with regard to how covered sectors were identified; whether or not, modes of supply were taken into account; and the 
use of positive versus negative lists.  
2.13.  Regarding the inter-linkage between government procurement (GP) and services 
commitments in bilateral and regional negotiations, the paper highlighted that there was not yet 
one, widely used model. It could thus happen that, while GP chapters opened up the procurement 
of certain services, such commitments could de facto  remain an empty shell because of missing 
corresponding commitments on services. That was an aspect that needed further discussion.  S/WPGR/M/86 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.14.  With respect to the way forward, the EU considered the four options set out in part 5 of the 
paper not to be mutually exclusive. The EU believ ed that those options should be further explored 
(with consideration of pros and cons for each of them). His delegation continued to place high importance on the in-built mandate in GATS Article XIII:2.  
2.15.  In terms of further analysis, perhaps a conv ersation could be started, possibly on the basis 
of a Note from the Secretariat, on the issue of  mode 3. The question was whether established 
service suppliers were discriminated, or not, in procedures relating to public procurement of 
services based on their foreign ownership or cont rol. The representative of the EU expressed his 
delegation's interest to continue discussions with Members on this important issue.  
2.16.  The representative of Brazil thanked th e authors for their presentation. His delegation 
supported the point made by the delegation of India when it called into question whether the 
Working Party should carry on with discussions on the basis of a document written by its authors 
in their own capacity. They invited Members interested in pursuing work on public procurement in this forum to come forward with specific proposals,  preferably in writing. Any mandate given to the 
Secretariat to prepare a new note should first be  discussed among Members, and prior approval of 
its parameters and content should be obtained. Havi ng said that, he turned to the working paper. 
One of the few additions that it incorporated was an executive summary, and a prescriptive line in 
its conclusion. It also tried to address development-related issues in response to comments rightly 
made by India. In this connection, his delegation noticed that emphasis was placed mainly on theoretical  developmental benefits from liberalising government procurement in services. One 
lacking key angle were some insights in, and reflections on, why it made sense to retain policy 
space in this area for the attainment of developmental objectives such as the build-up of 
productive capacity in services.  
2.17.  The representative of Canada thanked th e authors for their comprehensive paper, which 
clearly outlined the strong economic comple mentarity between service trade and service 
procurement commitments. It also painted a clear picture of the different approaches taken so far by various parties, including through their regional trade agreements. The paper constituted a 
useful starting point for further reflection on the interrelationship between service and government 
procurement commitments. His delegation was still reviewing the paper but, in principle, supported efforts to bridge gaps between the tw o types of commitments. The paper also raised 
some very important questions, including the desira bility of multilateralizing the GPA or at least 
some of its elements; and the best avenues to  maximize synergies between service trade and 
procurement commitments. His delegation would co ntinue analysing the paper, and was looking 
forward to substantive discussion of these issues in this and other fora.  
2.18.  The representative of the United States informed that his delegation's capital was still 
examining the paper. They were looking forwar d to further discussions on these issues. His 
delegation agreed that work in the Working Part y should, ideally, be based on Members' proposals 
and exchange of information. 
2.19.  The representative of Australia thanked the authors for their very interesting paper. She 
wished to note that Australia, a non-GPA party, routinely included government procurement 
commitments in their RTAs, mainly because they recognized the advantages to their economy of 
having an open, transparent and non-discriminatory regime on government procurement. 
2.20.  The representative of Japan indicated that his delegation was still reviewing the paper in 
capital and might revert to it at forthcoming meetings. His delegation also took note of the 
comments made by some Members with regard to the development dimension, to which his 
delegation might also come back at a later stage.  
2.21.  The representative of the European Union re iterated his delegation's concrete suggestion on 
a possible way forward ‒ namely to have further discussions, and possibly some background 
research, on: (a) government procurement discrimination regarding established service suppliers 
(mode 3) that might, or not, be happening on th e ground; and (b) the types of tools developed in 
RTAs addressing established service suppliers' rights to participate in government procurement 
procedures. 
2.22.  The Chairman passed the floor to the Secretariat to comment on the proposal made. S/WPGR/M/86 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.23.  A representative of the Secretariat noted th e request of the EU delegation for further work 
by the Secretariat relating to mode 3. The Secretariat remained open to any kind of suggestions as 
long as Members all agreed. Some elaboration on what exactly Members wished the Secretariat to do would be helpful, possibly following some informal consultations. 
2.24.  The representative of the United States similarly wished to better understand what had 
been proposed by the EU and further consult with his capital. He agreed that informal 
consultations might be a good way forward. 
2.25.  The representative of India, echoed by the representatives of Brazil and Turkey, also wished 
more details on the EU proposal, preferably in writing, so as to consult with their capital before 
deciding on the scope of any future study. 
2.26.  The representative of Chile signalled his dele gation's interest in this issue, without prejudice 
to the fact that they were not a party to the GPA. His delegation viewed favourably the suggestion 
made by the EU and wished to participate in the informal consultations, should they be held. 
2.27.  The representative of the EU agreed that , possibly, some consultations might be necessary 
to give further clarity. His delegation suggested focusing on the specific issue of mode 3 ‒ i.e., 
when a service supplier was established in the te rritory of another Member. The questions that 
could be addressed included: (a) what type of government procurement regime applied to 
established service suppliers? (b) Were there specif ic rules applying to them? (c) How open were 
government procurement procedures for them? (d) Did RTAs include specific provisions to take into account the specificity of mode 3?  
2.28.  The Chairman invited the Working Party to ta ke note of the statements made and revert to 
this item at its next meeting. In the meantime, informal consultations could be held by the 
incoming Chair. 
2.29.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C – NEGOTIATIONS ON SUBS IDIES UNDER ARTICLE XV OF THE GATS 
3.1.  Turning to subsidies, the Chairman reminded delegations that the Secretariat had circulated a 
revised version of its Background Note entitled "Subsidies for Services Sectors ‒ Information 
contained in WTO Trade Policy Reviews"  (S/WPGR/W/25/Add.7/Rev.1). The information on subsidy 
measures contained therein was structured by service sector and, within each sector, grouped by 
Member. For that purpose, 19 "sectors" or "sub-sectors" had been identified. Recognizing that the 
Secretariat Background Note had been on the table for quite a while, he asked Members whether 
they would be willing to engage in a more detaile d discussion of the Background Note on a sector-
by-sector basis. He opened the floor for Members' observations. 
3.2.  Regarding future work on subsidies under GATS Article XV, the representative of the United 
States stated that, until his delegation did not get a better sense of the specific problem that 
needed to be addressed, it would not support collecting more information. He reminded the 
Working Party of the United States' Communication, circulated in 2010, comprising a series of 
questions for Members to help identify the concrete commercial problems that companies were facing. However, to date, no delegation had pr ovided formal responses to those questions.  
3.3.  A representative of the Secretariat clarifie d that the suggestion made by the Chairman was 
not about collecting more information, but re garded how Members wished to organize their 
interventions in commenting document S/WPGR/W/25/Add.7/Rev.1. The latter had not been discussed before. Therefore, the Chairman's questi on was whether delegation s wanted to organize 
their interventions on a sector-by-sector basis, or whether they preferred to have interventions 
comprehensive of all aspects of the document in one go.  
3.4.  The representative of Turkey wished to make interventions regarding the Turkish railways 
system and savings deposit insurance fund (on p. 82 and p. 95, respectively, of the Secretariat 
Background Note). Regarding Turkey's railways company, the Law regarding the Liberalization of 
Railway Transportation in Turkey  (“Law No. 6461”) had entered into force in May 2013, i.e., after 
the publication of Turkey's 5th Policy Review in 2012. Currently, the state monopoly in the rail S/WPGR/M/86 
 
- 7 - 
 
  network and train operation was in the process of being replaced with a competitive and 
transparent market environment. The liberalization process was not yet completed. The Law turned the Turkish state railway into an infrastructure manager, while a newly established corporate entity under the name of "TCDD Transportation" would take over service provision. 
TCDD would continue to function as an infrastructural manager for lines under state control, and 
would have its share of the state budget for the maintenance and renovation works. Law No. 6461 also empowered the Ministry of Transport, Mariti me Affairs and Communication to grant operating 
rights to private companies to build and operate rail lines to carry freight. 
3.5.  With regard to Turkey's savings deposit in surance fund, she requested that her delegation's 
intervention be formally recorded in the minutes of this meeting.  She stressed that her delegation did not regard Turkey's Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ("SDIF") as a subsidy and requested the 
Secretariat to delete that section from the Note. SDIF was not different from any other deposit 
insurance scheme in the world. The deposit insurance system was an association established to protect deposits. The system worked between de posit owners, banks accepting the deposits and 
the institutions taking the deposits under insurance guarantee. Her delegation stood ready to 
provide further information if Members so wished.  
3.6.  The Chairman passed the floor to the Secretariat to reply to some of the points made. 
3.7.  A representative of the Secretariat explai ned that the Secretariat Note provided no legal 
precision when capturing the measures cited in it. Turkey's comment was exactly the kind of 
observation that the Secretariat would appreciate to shed more light on the measures included in its Background Note. He clarified that, for the time being, the Secretariat did not envisage 
producing a revised version of its Background Note.  
3.8.  The Secretariat would include the statement by the delegation of Turkey into the formal 
record of this meeting, and Turkey's position woul d thus be officially registered. The representative 
of the Secretariat suggested that, once a proper discussion of the document as a whole would 
have taken place, the Secretariat would take another look at the situation to see whether the number and nature of comments would warrant producing a revised version of the Background 
Note. For the time being, the Secretariat would continue collecting comments made by Members.  
3.9.  A representative of the Secretariat furthe r explained that the measure regarding Turkey's 
Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ("SDIF") had been included in the Note because, in that particular case, the relevant Trade Policy Review Report stated that: "The overhaul of the Turkish banking 
system, including the restructuring of public bank s, [was] estimated to have cost the Government 
some US$53.6 billion".   Indeed, measures regarding deposit guarantee schemes were not usually 
included in the Background Note because it was well understood that they did not constitute a 
subsidy since they were often paid for by the banks themselves. 
3.10.  The representative of Turkey said that she would be in touch with the Secretariat and 
provide further information with regard to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund. 
3.11.  The representative of Honduras thanked the Secretariat for its very thorough report. His 
delegation wished to add information contained in Honduras Trade Policy Review conducted in 
September 2010 (as contained in document WT/TPR/S/234) with regard to the following service subsectors: maritime transport; air transport; tourism; and recreational, cultural and sporting 
services (including gambling services). His delega tion therefore requested that the Secretariat take 
note of, and include, this missing information in its document S/WPGR/W/25/Add.7/Rev.1. His 
delegation would be submitting their detailed comments in writing as well. 
3.12.  A representative of the Secretariat thanked the delegation of Honduras for its useful 
comments and additions. The Secretariat would continue to collect such comments and, at some 
mature point in the discussion of the Note, come back with suggestions on whether to issue a 
revised document. He remarked that some of the comments made might relate to information 
included in Trade Policy Reviews carried out after the cut-off date of the current Secretariat 
Background Note. The latter covered only 45 Trad e Policy Reviews (mainly those carried out from 
April 2007 to the end of 2009). This raised another aspect namely whether, at some point in time, 
Members would want an update of the Note covering more recent Trade Policy Reviews. S/WPGR/M/86 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.13.  The Chairman thanked delegations for their constructive engagement, and invited the 
Working Party to take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting.  
3.14.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM D – FUTURE WORK 
4.1.  The Chairman explained that this topic had be en placed on the agenda in light of the ongoing 
discussions, in various WTO bodies, on elements for the post-Bali work programme.  The Chairman 
of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services had been consulting on the services 
elements of the work programme over the last week s. Members might wish to reflect what type of 
discussions, if any, could be carried out in the Working Party in that respect.  
4.2.  No delegation took the floor. 
4.3.  The Chairman invited the Working Party to revert to this item as its next meeting. 
4.4.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E – OTHER BUSINESS 5.1.  No matters were raised under this agenda item. 
6  ITEM F – APPOINTMENT OF THE NE W CHAIRPERSON FOR THE WORKING PARTY 
6.1.  The Chairman informed the Working Party that  the consultations by the outgoing Chair of the 
Council for Trade in Services were still ongoing. Therefore, the handover of the Chairpersonship of 
the Working Party would need to be postponed until the conclusion of the consultations.  
6.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________