RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/118  
 
15 August 2014  
(14-4747) Page: 1/14  
Council for Trade in Services    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 JUNE 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 20 June 2014 chaired by Ambassador Choi 
(Republic of Korea). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/4319. 
The agenda was adopted. 
1  ITEM A – NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III:3 OF THE GATS 
1.1.  With regard to the notifications made pu rsuant to GATS Article III:3 (transparency), the 
Chairman drew the Council's attention to the communications received from the Kingdom of 
Morocco, contained in documents S/C/N/740 and 741.  
1.2.   The Council took note of the notifications made.   
2  ITEM B – COMPLIANCE WITH GA TS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the previous  meeting, the Secretariat had circulated a Note 
containing a statistical account of all services notifications submitted by Members covering the 
period up to the end of 2013. Also at the May m eeting, the Secretariat had made a presentation of 
the functionalities of the Documents Online facility, to provide delegations with an overview of currently available means of obtaining information about notifications.   
The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation had welcomed the Secretariat Note and 
the presentation delivered at the May meeting. Notifications were a key part of legislative 
transparency vis-à-vis  trading partners, and Switzerland was th us pleased to see this item on the 
Council's agenda. However, as at that juncture there was no great drive in the Council for 
discussions on compliance with notifications, his delegation would revert to the issue at a later 
date.    
2.2.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take  note of the statement made and revert to this 
item at a future meeting. 
2.3.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C – DEVELOPMENTS IN SERVICE TRADE AND REGULATION 
3.1.  The Chairman recalled that an item de aling with "Developments in services trade and 
regulation" had featured on the Council's agenda in the past, to provide an opportunity for 
Members to address issues that may strengthen mu tual learning and experience-sharing. The item 
had been revived for that meeting at the request of the delegation of the European Union, which 
wished to provide information on its Directive on conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals in the context of intra-corporate transfers. 
3.2.  The representative of the European Union explained that the EU had recently agreed on 
common rules for inter-company transferees. His delegation would be formally notifying this 
                                               
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/118 
 
- 2 - 
 
  measure to the Council at the beginning of 2015, as part of its annual notification of measures 
relevant to trade in services. Like Switzerland, the EU also considered notifications to be important, and the Council's discussions of notified measures to be valuable.  
3.3.  The EU wished to provide a quick presentati on of its new measure as this had attracted quite 
a lot of interest in the business community, both  in the EU and in other WTO Members. The new 
rules harmonized and simplified the conditions for entry, stay and intra-EU mobility of foreign managers, specialists and graduate trainees posted  b y  a  f o r e i g n  e n t e r p r i s e  i n  a n  e n t i t y  o f  t h e  
same group established in the EU. The new rules would make the EU a more attractive destination 
for foreign investment, while also providing an example of economic integration, given that the measures also included elements, such as intra-company mobility, that could be inspiring for other Members and other regional integration ventures. 
3.4.  He highlighted that, while the new rules cont emplated the possibility of internal mobility for 
managers, the EU internal rules also allowed for internal mobility of establishment, what was known as "secondary establishment". If a third-party service supplier established itself in one EU 
Member State, it was subsequently allowed to move and establish from that Member State into 
any other Member State. The new rules now provid ed for the right not only to move investment 
from one Member State to another, but also for the right to move managers to accompany a 
secondary movement of investment to an other Member State within the Union.  
3.5.  He underscored that the EU's FTAs had established a link between commitments in mode 3 
and commitments on intra-corporate transferees (ICTs). Those two issues were very closely linked, and indeed the EU's negotiating positi on typically was that if commitments were 
undertaken on mode 3, commitments on ICTs would be taken too, as an important accompanying 
measure to make investment effective and to ensure that the Union remained an attractive investment destination.  
3.6.  Before presenting the new rules in more detail, he indicated that what had been adopted was 
a "Directive", namely an EU-level act setting common rules that were subsequently implemented 
by each Member State in its respective domestic legislation. 
3.7.  The Directive provided common rules for the admission of intra-corporate transferees. The 
rules covered entry, residence and mobility with in the EU, the rights of transferees and their 
families. They concerned managers, specialists, an d trainees, and brought about improvements in 
four main areas. 
3.8.  First, in terms of intra-EU mobility. The new scheme offered the right to stay and work in 
other Member States without the need for a new visa or a new application, and enabled transferees to continue working without interruptions. Working conditions were similar to those for 
EU posted workers, but with slightly higher sala ry requirements. Member States would be required 
to make information on the scheme available (e.g. online), to increase transparency for users.  
3.9.  Second, with regard to family reunificatio n. Family members could join the transferee, work 
in the first EU Member State and in any other Member State where the transferee stayed long 
term (i.e. more than three months) and were not subject to labour market tests. Additionally, applications for permits for family members were processed in parallel with those of the transferees, ensuring that family members did not face delays in joining up the transferee. Rights 
to education, guidance and training were maintained, as in existing EU rules on family 
reunification. 
3.10.  Third, in terms of the rights of intra-co rporate transferees. The Directive stipulated equal 
treatment between transferees and EU nationals with regard to social security, freedom of 
association, recognition of qualifications and pensions. Some limited exceptions existed, such as instances where the right to family benefits could be constrained in the first Member State if the 
transferee's stay was short.  
3.11.  Fourth, in terms of procedures, facilitation and fees. The rules foresaw no labour market 
tests, a procedure not lasting more than 90 days, and even simplified procedures that could be applied to trusted undertakings, which might include faster procedures or exemption from 
documentary requirements. Fees were kept low, lower than in many other countries.  S/C/M/118 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.12.  In terms of overall timeline, the Directiv e had entered into force on 28 May 2014. It still 
needed to be implemented at the Member State level, and Member States had until 29 November 2016 to transpose the Directive into their own national legislation.  
3.13.  The representative of South Africa asked if the Directive set a salary threshold: for instance, 
would a South African service supplier wishing to transfer one of its employees to the EU be 
required to pay its employee the same salary as th at paid to a EU national, or possibly an even 
higher one?  
3.14.  The representative of China had been very interested by the EU presentation, as China had 
export interests in mode 4. He had a question conc erning recognition, and specifically asked if the 
Directive foresaw equality of treatment between ICTs  and EU nationals, and if ICTs were subjected 
to similar qualification requirements as EU citizens. 
3.15.  The representative of India welcomed the ad option of the Directive. She had two questions. 
First, it had been explained that the Directive ha d to be ratified by Member States within a two-
and-a-half year period and would enter into force thereafter. What would happen if some Member 
States ratified it before the two-and-a-half year period had lapsed? Would it enter into force for 
those Member States? Second, she wondered if any legislative initiatives were planned for any of the other mode 4 categories of persons, and specifically for categories, such as independent 
professionals and contractual service-suppliers, that were de-linked from commercial presence, 
which were of interest to her delegation. 
3.16.  In reply to the question raised by South Africa, the representative of the European Union 
answered that there was no premium on the salary, but minimum wage clearly had to be 
respected. As to the question by China, he indicated that qualifications would only become a 
requirement if the person exercised a regulate d profession; if that was the case, then the 
recognition procedure would not be less favourable than for a EU national. Responding to India's 
query, he explained that the Directive was alread y into force but the period up to 2016 was for the 
Directive to be transposed into Member States' own national legislation. In the interim, Member States were prohibited from legislating in a manner that run counter to the prescriptions of the 
Directive. 
3.17.  The representative of Sri Lanka was aware that managers and specialists were permitted a 
duration of stay of three years, while trainees we re given a one-year period of stay, but wondered 
if the Directive provided for an extension of their st ay in case a branch wanted to continue to make 
use of the services of a particular transferee. Also, he sought a clarification about the taxation on 
the income earned by these professionals. 
3.18.  The representative of United States expre ssed his delegation's appreciation to the EU, both 
for its presentation and for the ITC Directive. The US business community had been monitoring the 
issue for some time and very much welcomed th e new Directive put into place in the EU, which 
would provide financial benefits to businesses operating in Europe. His delegation would continue 
to study the Directive and its implementation  by EU Member States, but the US business 
community was very much appreciative of the effo rts that had gone into the new rules and looked 
forward to reaping the benefits that the new Directive offered. 
3.19.  The representative of India asked if the EU could reply to the second question her 
delegation had asked, about mode 4 categories de-linked from commercial presence. With regard 
to the first question she had raised, she sought an additional clarification, namely if the fact that the Directive was in force since 28 May implied that companies could already transfer people 
between Member States.  
3.20.  In reply to India's remarks, the representa tive of the European Union answered that there 
were currently no plans for similar legislative action with regard to other mode 4 categories de-
linked from commercial presence, although such action could not be excluded. As for the other 
question by India, he explained that if a Member State had not yet transposed the Directive in its national legislation, a secondary transfer of an ICT to that Member State was not possible. With 
regard to Sri Lanka's questions, he indicated that the length of stay was indeed limited, to three 
years for managers and specialists and one year  for trainees, and could not be extended. He 
underscored the temporary nature of such transfers, but also explained that ITCs were entitled to S/C/M/118 
 
- 4 - 
 
  be transferred to the EU again at a later point in  their career. As regarded taxation, he explained 
that this was handled in the country of origin of the ITC, and that taxation agreements also existed that might play a role. 
3.21.  The Chairman thanked the EU for its info rmative contribution and suggested the Council 
take note of the statements made and revert to this at a next meeting. 
3.22.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM D – WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
4.1.  Turning to the Work Programme on Electron ic Commerce, the Chairman recalled that, at the 
May meeting, Members had engaged constructively in discussions under that agenda item. In 
particular, they had referred to various issues that the Council might usefully focus on in terms of its work going forward. In addition, the United St ates had indicated that it was preparing a formal 
submission, and the announcement had been widely welcomed.  
4.2.  By way of update, the representative of th e United States indicated that the submission by 
his delegation was still being revised and reviewed. Although he could not commit to a precise 
timeframe, he hoped to be able to table the subm ission in time for the following meeting of the 
Council. 
4.3.  The representative of the Republic of Korea said that e-commerce and information 
technology innovation had become key comp onents of the global economy, and were 
fundamentally changing the nature of internationa l trade. Against this backdrop, Members had to 
keep in mind the many policy challenges that they  needed to confront together, in order to make 
the best use of the opportunities presented by e-commerce for the global economy. Ministers had 
mandated the establishment of the e-commerce Work Programme in the WTO so that Members 
could arrive at a better understanding of the issue and how it fitted into the multilateral trading framework. In that sense, his delegation was appreciative of the US forthcoming submission, 
which could help promote Members' consultative discussions. Korea welcomed the US indication 
that its submission would focus on the issue of pr ivacy protection, and looked forward to engaging 
in meaningful and constructive discussions with all Members. 
4.4.  The representative of the European Union expressed his delegation’s strong support for an 
ambitious Work Programme in e-commerce, with concrete deliverables. The EU wished to focus on 
enhancing trust and legal certainty in e-commerce, as these were essential elements for the development of electronic trade, and suggested a few issues that could be addressed. First, the 
question of e-signatures. Second, on-line consum er protection, which could tackle, for example, 
the information that on-line services providers n eeded to provide on their website (e.g. contact 
details, prices, complaint handling procedures), enforceability, digital protection measures, 
cooperation on enforcement, so as to address consumer problems across countries and look into 
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Third, unsolicited commercial communications and spam, which should only be possible if consumers had given their prior consent, also known as 
"opting in", and provided they also had the po ssibility of "opting out" at any time. Fourth, 
rendering the moratorium on the application of custom duties to electronic transmissions  
permanent and legally binding.  
4.5.  The representative of Brazil looked forwar d to receiving the US submission. She underscored 
the importance of ensuring a proper balance between trade and development concerns when 
discussing e-commerce. Amongst the issues that the Council should discuss were enabling infrastructure, digital inclusion, as well as institutional and regulatory framework cooperation. 
4.6.  The representative of India echoed the interv ention by Brazil, and asked that her delegation's 
statement at the previous meeting of the Council2 be added to the record of the meeting.  
4.7.  The representative of Cuba also supported Brazil's intervention, which was in line with the 
views of his delegation as expressed at the May meeting of the Council. He reiterated the need to 
                                               
2 Contained in paragraph 4.7 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014. S/C/M/118 
 
- 5 - 
 
  revitalize the electronic commerce Work Programme, which should include, for example, issues 
relating to internet access, infrastructure development in developing countries, non-discrimination and, above all, the unequal access to ICT which many developing countries were confronted with. 
4.8.   The Chairman thanked the United States for the update about its forthcoming submission 
and all other delegations who had intervened for their comments. He then recalled the Ministerial 
Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce of 7 December 2013 (document WT/L/907). The Decision instructed the General Council to periodically review progress with the 
Work Programme, based on the reports submi tted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the 
implementation of the Work Programme. The first such review was scheduled for July 2014. Therefore, in line with usual practice, he woul d be producing, under his own responsibility, a 
Chairman's Report to the General Council of the discussions the services Council had had under 
the Work Programme since December, in time for the General Council meeting scheduled for 24 
and 25 July. The report would be purely factual, reflecting the essence of Members' discussions at 
that meeting, in May and back in February. The Chairman also suggested that the Council take 
note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
4.9.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E – OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER 
5.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the May meeting, the Council had had an interesting 
discussion under that agenda item. The Secretariat had indicated that it had starting working on 
the background Note that the LDC group had requ ested, and had been collecting information on 
measures of general application notified under GATS Article III:3, measures under economic 
integration agreements notified under Article V:7, and measures on recognition notified under 
Article VII:4, but limiting itself to measures  taken by the top ten services traders in the 
professional services sectors. The work had no w been completed, and the Secretariat Note had 
been circulated in document S/C/W/355, dated 17 June 2014. Before giving the floor to the 
Secretariat to introduce its submission, he also recalled the seminar held on 8 and 9 May by the ITC, and sponsored by Australia, on "LDC Services Exports; Business Success Stories and 
Challenges".  
5.2.  A member of the Secretariat explained that the Note just issued reflected what had been 
agreed in the course of the Council's consultations. One question was whether the Note should 
contain information for the top ten services traders or for the top ten traders of professional 
services. Consultations with colleagues in the WTO Statistics Division had revealed that statistical 
information for trade in professional services presented reliability issues, and it had thus been decided to focus on the top ten services traders. In practice, in terms of the Members concerned, 
the two rankings overlapped for all but one Member.  
5.3.  The Note contained information for the three categories of measures referred to by the 
Chairman, but those notified under Article V:7 accounted for the bulk of the data presented. The 
Secretariat had not compared economic integration agreements, but presented the information in 
a purely factual and descriptive manner. He cautioned that, in view of the amount of information presented, there were bound to be a few factual inaccuracies in the Note. A case in point was found in paragraph 3.99, which referred to Hong Kong, China's commitments in taxation services. 
Contrary to what was stated in the Note, Hong  Kong, China had undertaken full commitments for 
mode 2 in market access only, but not in nati onal treatment. Mode 3, instead, was fully 
committed, as correctly stated in the Note. The representative encouraged delegations to 
communicate to the Secretariat any inaccuracies they identified, so that the Secretariat could 
compile them and issue a revised version of the Note. 
5.4.  Thanking the Secretariat for its Note and ob serving that it had been produced at the request 
of the LDC group, the representative of Hong Ko ng, China wondered about its correlation with the 
LDC waiver and how it would help LDCs with  the operationalization of the waiver.  
5.5.  The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC group, thanked the Secretariat 
for the background document, which the group ha d requested. The information provided by the 
Secretariat would complement the efforts LDCs had already initiated and help fast-track the S/C/M/118 
 
- 6 - 
 
  submission of their collective request. The group was currently studying the Note and would 
communicate any clarifications at an opportune moment.  
5.6.  For the sake of transparency, the representa tive indicated that, with the help and generosity 
of a developed Member, the LDCs group had contracted a consortium of consultants to help with 
background data collection that would form the basis for their collective request. As part of their 
methodology, the consortium had undertaken a study with a view to identifying the areas of export interest for LDCs as well as the barriers to accessing destination markets. The study had a 
two-dimensional approach, namely a desk study targeting five importing countries, as well as 
sixteen LDC country-studies. The results of the stud y had been delivered to the LDC group in form 
of a catalogue, a comprehensive document that responded to the Ministerial Decision. The group was now working to translate that information into a collective request and would be submitting its 
collective request as soon as possible, hopefully before the summer break.  
5.7.  That said, the group urged Members to expl ore the second track of the Ministerial Decision, 
as some Members had already done, so that they could, individually, voluntarily and proactively, 
extend preferences to LDCs' services and services suppliers consistent with the waiver Decision, 
preferences which had commercial value and promoted economic benefits for LDCs. The waiver decision had been with Members for some time, without operationalization. It also had to be noted 
that the contribution of LDCs to commercial services trade was below 1.2%. LDCs were the poor 
and vulnerable members of the multilateral tradin g system. The group therefore urged Members to 
accord its collective request, upon submission, the attention it deserved, with a view to granting preferences that had commercial value and promoted economic benefits for LDCs.  
5.8.  The representative of Singapore thanked Ug anda for the update, as well as the Secretariat 
for its Note and the interesting analysis of Singapore's FTAs. Her  delegation was still studying the 
contents of the document, which would require some time given the extensive references to 
Singapore's FTAs. As a preliminary comment, the representative sought clarification from the 
Secretariat about the FTAs cited in the Note. Singapore had made 17 notifications under GATS Article V:7, not 13 as mentioned in the Note. She indicated that these included, for instance, those 
for the ASEAN agreements as well as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. 
5.9.  The representative of Brazil thanked the Se cretariat for the Note and Uganda for the update 
it had provided. 
5.10.  The representative of India reiterated her delegation's firm support for the implementation 
of the LDC waiver and full cooperation for it s effective and expeditious implementation and 
operationalization. She thanked Uganda for the update, as well as the Secretariat for its efforts with its Note. Her delegation was reviewing the document and would revert to it at the following 
meeting. Her delegation would also check the fa ctual accuracy of the information presented and 
inform the Secretariat. The information would help LDCs in identifying their export interests and facilitate in the preparation of the collective request.  
5.11.  As mentioned by the Secretariat, India's understanding was that the Note would cover the 
top ten traders in professional services, and measures undertaken by them under specific notification obligations of the GATS. However, the Note in its current form covered the top ten traders of all commercial services and might, as such, lose the focus on professional services, 
given that professional services might not be of much importance in the sectoral composition of 
the trade volume of the Members under consideration. As such, the Note might not give a correct picture of the importance of professional services  and the market opportunities available to LDCs 
in these countries for exports of those services. Thus, she suggested that, given that the Note had 
focused on the top ten traders of commercial services, it would be pertinent to look at the entire range of services contained in the export basket of each of those traders, to assess the relative 
importance of professional services, which were the services of particular interest to LDCs. 
Alternatively, the analysis could focus on the entire range of commercial services, without any specific importance being given to professional services, but it would then lose the focus on professional services. She wished to enquire of the Secretariat if what we she had suggested was 
feasible. 
5.12.  The representative of China thanked the Se cretariat for the Note and Uganda for the update 
it had provided, and looked forward to receiving the collective request, possibly before the summer S/C/M/118 
 
- 7 - 
 
  break. At the previous meeting of the Council, his delegation had suggested that LDCs might 
undertake a study on their tourism services exports under mode 2. It had also indicated that those LDCs that were looking to foster tourism cooperation with China could present their request to his delegation. These suggestions had generated positive  feedback on the part of both LDCs and other 
Members.   
5.13.  For the first time since the establishment of the WTO, Members would be implementing 
special treatment for LDCs in services trade. This was very important for LDCs' economic 
development, and China would try its best to help LDCs realize that objective.  
5.14.  China wished to share some further ideas with Members. First, it noted that the outbound 
tourism industry was booming in China. Upon the LDCs' request, the Chinese government would grant to more LDCs "Approved Destination Status" (ADS) and might streamline relevant 
administrative procedures for LDCs. This would make it easier for Chinese citizen to travel to those 
LDC destinations.  
5.15.  Second, China attached great importance to capacity building for LDCs aimed at enhancing 
their services supply. Those LDCs that had tourism export interests might consider the following 
three areas where China might make a positive contribution through cooperation or the granting of preferential treatment. First, encouragement for LDCs government agencies and enterprises to 
come to China to participate in exhibitions and promotional events, so as to showcase and 
advertise their respective tourism industries. China would support this kind of cooperation by offering more opportunities and preferential condit ions for LDCs. Second, in light of the essential 
role of human capital for the development of services industries in developing countries and LDCs, 
and China's advantage in training tourism practitioners, China would offer various platforms of 
training programmes for LDC tourism practitioners (such as tourism management personnel, for instance), on preferential conditions, in order to help them develop the necessary capacity to 
supply tourism services. Third, in view of the essential role tourism infrastructure (e.g. roads, 
bridges) played for any tourist destination, China would consider providing technical and financial assistance to LDCs in terms to creating and developing their tourism infrastructure.  
5.16.  As the ideas presented were preliminary and evolving, China would appreciate receiving 
feedback from LDCs, so as to better understand th eir needs and review its proposals. China also 
hoped that its ideas could inspire other Members in their exploration of concrete ways to operationalize the waiver. 
5.17.  The representative of the European Union thanked the Secretariat for its useful Note. As 
much as his delegation welcomed technical inputs from all sources, the Secretariat contribution 
was important to inform the process overall. His delegation attached great importance to making 
the operationalization of the waiver a collective success, and remained committed to it. 
5.18.  The EU understood that the Secretariat had restricted its analysis to ten Members in order 
to focus the exercise, but also wished to recall that the responsibility to address the 
operationalization of the wavier pertained to all developed and developing Members alike, and this 
needed to be taken into account. He also noted that the analysis had been undertaken for EU Member States separately. Again, while he understood the rationale in terms of convenience for data handling, he recalled that the Union undertook services commitments as a whole, given that 
trade in services was part of the common commercial policy of the Union. In terms of the sectoral 
focus of the Note, professional services and mode 4 were interesting areas, but he wondered whether they were really representative of the ex port potential and strength of LDCs, and if at a 
certain point Members might want to look beyond those two areas. 
5.19.  The representative thanked Uganda for the update and had noted with interest that work 
had been progressing well. The EU looked forward to the LDC collective request to all WTO 
Members, and stood ready to continue engaging with the LDC group. 
5.20.  The representative of Australia said that he r delegation had been very pleased to be able to 
support the ITC-organized seminar on "LDC Services Exports; Business Success Stories and 
Challenges". Australia's main objective with the seminar was to provide an opportunity for service 
exporters from LDCs to share their stories with Members and highlight the opportunities and 
challenges they faced in reaching international ma rkets. A better understanding of the constraints S/C/M/118 
 
- 8 - 
 
  faced by LDCs in exporting their services was an im portant step in the process of assisting LDCs to 
better integrate into the global services economy.  Her delegation wished to thank once again the 
ITC, LDCs and other WTO Members for their active participation in the seminar, and acknowledged 
the excellent contribution by the speakers, particularly from LDCs service suppliers. 
5.21.  She also thanked Uganda for the update on the collective request. The identification by 
LDCs of priority areas where the waiver could de liver meaningful trade preferences would be an 
important step in Members' efforts towards implementing the waiver. Australia looked forward to 
the request and would consider it thoroughly when circulated. 
5.22.  She was also thankful for the Secretariat Note, which represented a very extensive body of 
work, particularly in its examination of mode 4 and professional services regimes of the top ten services traders. The Note painted a very positive  picture of the improved liberalization since the 
GATS had been negotiated. It was useful to capture the progress made, both unilaterally and in 
trade commitments, and highlighted the extent to which Members had been willing to liberalize in 
their preferential trade agreements compared to  the multilateral setting. The level of openness 
reflected in the Secretariat Note was much closer to the existing levels of openness in those 
markets. 
5.23.  The representative of Canada said that his delegation was still reviewing the Secretariat 
Note and might revert to it. He welcomed the commitment of LDCs to the process and thanked 
Uganda for the update. He regretted that the collective request was being finalized without 
consultation with potential preference-granting countries and feared that this could negatively impact the chances of success in the process. None theless, Canada looked forward to receiving the 
request and to engaging constructively and collaboratively with LDCs in moving forward with the 
process. 
5.24.  The representative of the Republic of Korea also thanked the Secretariat for the Note and 
indicated that his delegation might revert to it . He hoped that the assistance provided by the 
Secretariat would help LDCs identify their needs.  He wished to commend efforts made by the LDC 
group to draft their collective request, and than ked Uganda for the update on the progress with 
this work. That was not an easy task, but was certainly an essential step to facilitate the 
operationalization of the waiver; his delegation looked forward to seeing the request. In that 
sense, Korea was supportive of all relevant ac tions to help LDCs and had found the Australian-
sponsored ITC seminar held on 8-9 May to be va luable. Members had heard real and vivid stories 
from LDC service exporters at the event. Such ex changes of views and information-sharing helped 
better understand the challenges facing LDC services exporters and provided valuable inputs into the preparation of the LDC collective request. 
5.25.  Thanking the Secretariat for its Note, the representative of Ecuador noted that the purpose 
of that document was to help LDCs identify the sectors and modes of supply which were of 
particular export interest to them. He also wished to thank Australia for sponsoring the ITC 
seminar, which had looked at LDCs service exports. He reiterated that Ecuador, in line with the 
decision adopted at the Bali Ministerial Conference, supported the rapid and effective operationalization of the LDC services waiver. 
5.26.  The representative of Cuba was also grateful for the Secretariat Note, as well as for the 
Australian-sponsored ITC seminar. He expressed his delegation's support to LDCs for the 
operationalization of the waiver. 
5.27.  The representative of South Africa also expressed his gratitude to the Secretariat for the 
Note, to Australia for the ITC seminar, and to Uganda for the update. His delegation took the issue 
of the waiver very seriously and fully supported its operationalization. He noted that it was not necessary for Members to wait for the collective request before making offers of preferences. 
China's intervention went precisely along those lines and represented a good example of how to 
move forward. South Africa had been undertaking consultations domestically with relevant Ministries with a view to identifying specific sectors that were commercially meaningful to LDCs and where an offer of preferences could be made, even without the collective request and without 
knowing if South Africa would be a recipient of that request. S/C/M/118 
 
- 9 - 
 
  5.28.  His delegation had also identified another useful area to consider, namely regulatory aspects 
such as standards and qualifications. As Me mbers moved forward, those aspects could be 
considered, as they often represented the biggest barriers in accessing foreign markets. Two-thirds of all LDCs were located in sub-Saharan Africa and thus for South Africa this was an issue of 
development that it took very seriously.  
5.29.  The representative of the United States thanked Uganda for the update and looked forward 
to seeing the result of the LDCs' work. His delegation was still reviewing the Secretariat Note for 
any helpful guidance into its thinking, but agreed with the EU that focusing only on the top ten 
services markets might ignore that services interests of LDCs were likely to be more regional than simply in those markets, as alluded to by South Africa. He noted that the Australian-sponsored ITC seminar had been informative and instructive, and had brought out some of the regional focus of 
LDC service suppliers. His delegation remained open to further discussion on how the waiver could 
help expand and integrate LDC service suppliers into global services trade. 
5.30.  The representative of New Zealand also th anked the Secretariat for its Note and Uganda for 
the update on progress towards the preparation of  the collective request. Between the Note, the 
work being undertaken by the LDC group and it s consultants, and the seminar supported by 
Australia, Members had a solid and growing body of information on the challenges and 
opportunities faced by LDC services suppliers. This showed that Members in the Council had made 
very good progress over the previous six months  on improving their understanding of the various 
issues involved in the implementation of the waiver Decision. Like other Members, New Zealand continued to consider all the information available and how it might best be utilized to support 
implementation of the waiver, as well as the broader objective of increasing LDCs participation in 
services trade. Her delegation looked forward to further constructive, collaborative and timely dialogue on those issues. 
5.31.  The representative of Japan thanked the Secretariat for its Note, which his delegation was 
still reviewing. He also thanked Uganda for the upda te on the preparation of the collective request; 
he was interested to see how LDCs would take into account the Secretariat Note in finalizing their 
request and looked forward to seeing it. He ec hoed the United States' intervention about the 
Secretariat Note and the usefulness of a regional focus. Finally, he expressed his delegation's gratitude to Australia for sponsoring the ITC seminar, which had been very informative. 
5.32.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repu blic of Venezuela thanked the Secretariat for the 
Note and Australia and the ITC for the seminar held in May. She also thanked Uganda for the 
update and encouraged the LDC group to pursue its efforts in order for Members to get the information necessary for the operationalization of the waiver.  
5.33.  The representative of Nepal thanked the Secretariat for the Note, which had been produced 
upon the request of the LDC group. By comple menting the group's ongoing research, the Note 
ultimately contributed to the production of the collective request, which LDCs were hoping to 
submit before the summer break. He was encourag ed by the warm response of different Members 
towards the operationalization of the waiver, an d hoped that, once submitted, the request would 
enjoy full support and consideration from all Memb ers. Nonetheless, he wished to remind all 
Members that preferences could be extended at an y time, on a voluntary basis, without needing to 
wait for the LDC request, as clearly stated in paragraph 1.3 of the relevant Bali Ministerial 
Decision. He thus urged all Members to implement the Decision and was thankful to those of had already taken initiatives in that sense.  
5.34.  A representative of the Secretariat responded to the comments and questions raised. With 
regard to the number of FTAs concluded by Singapore, he explained that this had been drawn from 
the Secretariat's database, but could be rectified on the basis of any specific information Singapore 
could provide. As for India's question about the fo cus of the Note being on the top ten services vs. 
professional services traders, he indicated that  this would not have changed the list of Members 
considered save for one Member, and that the data on professional services trade presented accuracy problems. He also recalled that the Note had been focused on the top ten services 
traders as this was what the LDC group and the Council had specifically asked for. The Secretariat 
stood ready to extend the scope of the Note to cover more Members, if the Council so agreed. 
Finally, he reiterated his call to Members to verify the information in the Note and report any 
inaccuracies to the Secretariat, who would collate them and issue a revised version of the Note. S/C/M/118 
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.35.  The Chairman noted that the Note had been  produced at the request of the LDC group, as 
an input to help them with the preparation of the collective request. It was an evolving Note, that 
would be revised on the basis of Members' comments. He thanked Uganda for the update on the preparation of the collective request and the indica tive date for its submission. He had also taken 
note of the comments, concerns and requests raised by other Members. He thanked Australia for 
hosting the ITC seminar, an initiative that might be replicated by other Members in the future. He suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next 
meeting. 
5.36.  It was so agreed. 
6  ITEM F – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES 6.1.  The Chairman explained that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of a group of delegations, who wished to  update the Membership on progress with their 
discussions on a framework for negotiations on  a Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).   
6.2.  The representative of the United States wished to update the Council on recent developments 
in trade in services. He indicated that, since the May Council, preparations had been on-going for 
the round of the TISA negotiations that the Unit ed States would be hosting the following week. 
There was nothing else to report on developments in that regard, but he would revert to the item 
at the following meeting of the Council.  
6.3.  The representative of Brazil recalled that  his delegation had taken the floor many times to 
raise its concern with the potential systemic impact  of the TISA on the multilateral trading system. 
Brazil's position in that respect had not changed. The TISA was set to undermine the value of one 
of the most important components of the trade-offs of the DDA. It was also likely to fuel unrealistic 
expectations as regarded the ambition of an outcome in the services negotiations. Likewise, Brazil believed that it was inappropriate to speak of an alleged complementarity between the TISA and 
the DDA services negotiations. The two initiatives were not on parallel, mutually reinforcing tracks. 
Rather, the TISA had no formal linkages with the WTO negotiations and could only be viewed as a GATS Article V agreement still in the making. 
6.4.  The Chairman suggested that, when dele gations were restating positions previously 
expounded, they could just request that their earlier statements be included in the record of the 
meeting. 
6.5.  The representative of Cuba wished to register once again its concern with the very 
unfortunate practice being followed in the Council with regard to that item, which appeared 
repeatedly on the agenda under a rather imaginative title, suggesting the updating of developments in trade in services. The inclusion of that point on the Council's agenda was just an 
attempt by a small group of Members to promote a plurilateral initiative that run counter to the 
provisions of the GATS, was discriminatory and non-inclusive, and was increasingly watering down the multilateral spirit which had prevailed in Bali in an attempt to bring new life into the DDA, 
strengthen the multilateral system and enhance the credibility of the WTO. Cuba's position was to 
defend multilateralism. As such, Cuba rejected a plurilateral approach whose strategic objective was to reduce the policy space of developing countries by attempting to establish new disciplines with higher standards, and which would undermine the multilateral trading system and the unity of 
WTO Members. 
6.6.  The representative of Ecuador reiterated that his delegation was very concerned about the 
TISA initiative, which was pushing plurilateralism to the detriment of multilaterism. As suggested 
by the Chairman, he asked that, in addition to the statement he had just made, the Council take 
note also of his delegation's statement on the issue made at the previous meeting.3  
6.7.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela wished to repeat his delegation's 
position with regard to the plurilateral approach being taken in the services negotiations and its 
persistence. It was very regrettable that, once again, the Council was being used to encourage and 
                                               
3 Contained in paragraphs 6.6 to 6.8 of docume nt S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 
8 May 2014", dated 27 May 2014. S/C/M/118 
 
- 11 - 
 
  promote plurilateral negotiations. The TISA had no place in the WTO. On the basis of the 
information available, which was limited given the lack of transparency about the initiative, the systemic effects that the TISA might have would have a negative impact on the multilateral trading system, and the level of ambition in the TISA negotiations did not correspond to the real 
possibilities of the WTO. 
6.8.  The representative of Egypt reiterated his delegation's concerns with the TISA initiative and 
indicated that Egypt's position remained unchanged. He asked that his delegation's statement at 
the previous meeting of the Council4 be added to the record of the meeting.  
6.9.  The representative of Canada said that hi s delegation remained fully committed to the TISA 
negotiations and saw those negotiations and the post-Bali services negotiations as mutually 
supportive processes. He had heard many concerns raised in the Council, and in the Special 
Session, about the TISA talks undermining the multilateral services negotiations. Unfortunately, 
those same delegations had not put forward any concrete proposals for how to move forward in the multilateral services negotiations. As his delegation had stated during the Special Session, 
Canada was concerned that the services pillar was beginning to lag behind agriculture and NAMA. 
Canada was prepared to engage with delegations on how to move ahead in the services pillar and would encourage delegations to put aside the issue of how the TISA related to multilateral 
negotiations and focus on what kind of outc ome could be achieved in the WTO services 
negotiations.  
6.10.  The representative of Uganda recalled the concerns he had previously expressed about the 
TISA initiative and asked that his delegation's statement at the previous meeting of the Council5 
be added to the record of the meeting.  
6.11.  The representative of India reiterated her delegation's concerns about the TISA initiative 
and asked that her delegation's statemen t at the previous meeting of the Council6 be added to the 
record of the meeting. By way of brief response to Canada's statement, she said that, from what 
she had understood from the interventions of the TISA participants, most agreed that the TISA was an Article V negotiation happening outside the WTO. Given that premise, Members who were 
not participating in the TISA negotiations viewed the continuous reference to the TISA in the 
Council as an attempt to get the plurilateral initiative into the WTO forum.  
6.12.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia also wished to register its concerns 
with the WTO being used to push a plurilateral initiative which did not take into account the checks 
and balances that existed within the WTO. He also asked that his delegation's statement at the 
previous meeting of the Council7 be added to the record of the meeting. 
6.13.  The representative of Bangladesh associat ed his delegation with the statement by Uganda. 
Its position on that agenda item remained unchanged. While the DDA was under discussion, any 
plurilateral approach would be of detriment to th e value of the multilateral trading system. This 
was a big concern to Bangladesh. Nonetheless, his delegation was closely following developments 
in TISA and, although it appreciated the TISA participants' regular short briefings, it would 
welcome more detailed updates, particularly touching upon the scope and coverage of the agreement and the sectors and sub-sectors under discussion. Such indications would help Bangladesh understand how high was the wall in the making.  
6.14.  The representative of Argentina reiterated his delegation's concerns with the implications 
that the plurilateral initiative might have on the multilateral trading system and the DDA. 
6.15.  The representative of Nicaragua echoed the statements by Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and 
Argentina and the apprehensions of other Members. His delegation was also concerned with the 
                                               
4 Contained in paragraph 6.16 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014. 
5 Contained in paragraph 6.14 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014. 
6 Contained in paragraphs 6.11 and 6.12 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 
8 May 2014", dated 27 May 2014. 
7 Contained in paragraph 6.10 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014. S/C/M/118 
 
- 12 - 
 
  TISA initiative, which affected the services negotiations in the DDA. Negotiations in services had to 
be conducted in a multilateral setting. 
6.16.  The representative of the European Union said that, regardless of the position that each 
Member took with regard to the TISA, transpar ency was a very important element of the WTO 
system and the Council was the right place to ca rry out such an exercise of transparency on 
aspects that were relevant to trade in services. Indeed, his delegation's presentation of the ICT Directive under item C of the agenda had gone precisely in that direction. The EU supported 
continuing to use the Council to update Members on progress with the TISA. In that regard, he 
had taken good note of the comments by Bangladesh, who would welcome even more transparency on the TISA negotiations. There wa s no contradiction between the TISA and the 
WTO, and he stressed the EU's continued engage ment with the WTO system, the GATS and the 
post-Bali work programme, as witnessed by the concrete proposals put forward by the Union at 
the Special Session held the day before. 
6.17.  The representative of Australia echoed th e EU statement that transparency was one of the 
key elements of the WTO. The Council meetings provided a good opportunity for Members to share 
developments in trade in services. There was no contradiction between what was being undertaken in the TISA negotiations and in the DDA, and the TISA and other such agreements could be 
mutually supportive of the work in the WTO. She also referred to her delegation's previous 
statement in that regard.
8  
6.18.  The representative of Japan supported the statements by the EU and Australia, and referred 
to his delegation's previous statement on the issue.9  
6.19.  Wishing to react to the statements by Au stralia and the EU, the representative of Ecuador 
underscored that transparency was indeed one of the fundamental principles of the WTO and, in 
that sense, it would be important for the TISA participants to provide detailed information on the 
disciplines they were intending to strengthen comp ared to the GATS, particularly when it came to 
the market access objectives and how their offers compared to the binding GATS commitments which were currently in force. 
6.20.  The representative of Cuba also wished to react to that latest statements made. His 
delegation was not against transparency or inclusiveness. Cuba's main concern was that the 
presence of that item on the Council's agenda represented a continued infringement of various provisions of the GATS. Specifically, he noted that, while Article V:7(b) stipulated that Members 
that were parties to an economic integration agreement had to report periodically to the Council 
on its implementation; this was not the situation that existed in that case. The plurilateral negotiations addressed under that agenda item were an initiative which did not have any sense 
and which run counter to the disciplines and the principle of multilateralism.  
6.21.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela indicated that the fact that no 
proposals had been put forward in the Special Session in terms of the post-Bali services 
negotiations did not imply that Members were givi ng up on the single undertaking. She also fully 
endorsed the statement just made by Cuba.  
6.22.  The Chairperson noted the many interven tions made, on the part of both TISA and non-
TISA participants, each from their own perspective. He encouraged the TISA participants to 
enhance the transparency aspect, as requested by  non-TISA participating Members. The matter of 
the WTO consistency of the TISA and whether and how the agreement would be multilateralized was for the TISA participants to decide. He suggested that the Council take note of the statements 
made and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
6.23.  It was so agreed. 
                                               
8 Contained in paragraph 6.24 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014. 
9 Contained in paragraph 6.22 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014. S/C/M/118 
 
- 13 - 
 
  7  ITEM G – TRADE RESTRCTIVE MEASURES IN SERVICES OF CERTAIN MEMBERS 
7.1.  The Chairman indicated that that item has been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the representative of the Russian Federation.   
7.2.  Following her delegation's previous communications circulated on 23 April and 3 June 2014, 
respectively, the representative of the Russian Fe deration wished to reiterate her delegation's 
concerns in respect of measures adopted by the United States and Canada. She also wished to 
express the Russian Federation's concerns in respect of measures adopted by Australia, which 
would be applied in accordance with the instruments under Australia's sub-regulation 6(1) of the 
Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011, of 17 June 2014. Those measures were designed to block assets of certain persons listed by an authority of their respective state and to prohibit any transactions with those persons. The listed persons included both natural and juridical persons. 
Such measures were not in conformity with a number of WTO agreements, in particular with the 
basic principles contained in the GATS MFN and national treatment, market access commitments, 
domestic regulation disciplines as well as the prohibition of restrictions in respect of transfers and 
payments.  
7.3.  A foreign-service supplier was prevented fr om successfully supplying its services in the 
markets where its assets were automatically blocked and when other operators in that market 
were by law prohibited to engage in any transaction with such services supplier. That measure was 
not in compliance with GATS Article I and the specific commitments of those three Members. 
Moreover, the measure was not applied in a transparent manner and was discriminatory and arbitrary, which was contrary to GATS Article VI.  
7.4.  Neither Canada, nor the United States, nor Australia had provided the Russian Federation 
with a justification for these restrictions. The acts of these Members which constituted the legal ground for the application of those measures also did not provide for any WTO-compatible 
explanation as to why they had been adopted and were still in place.  
7.5.  Her delegation hoped that, whatever the internal political motivation in those three Members, 
this would not predominate over trade common sense. She requested the United States, Canada 
and Australia to bring their measures into full compliance to the WTO requirements, before this 
non-conformity with the US, Australian and Canadian international commitments, respectively, became an actual impairment to trade with Russia. WTO was a unique forum, the agenda of which to the maximum extent possible was free from political issues. All WTO members should jointly 
protect it, so as to keep it that way. That required Members not to sacrifice their WTO obligations 
for their non-economic objectives that were not covered by the WTO agreements. 
7.6.  The representative of Cuba had taken note of the statement made by the Russian Federation 
at that Council meeting and the previous one. His delegation objected to any kind of restrictive 
measure applied not only to trade in services, but to all trade, that might constitute unilateral, extra-territorial, arbitrary and discriminatory non-tariff measures of that type. 
7.7.  The representative of Canada said that Canada was a committed and responsible WTO 
Member. Canada took its WTO obligations very se riously and had performed its due diligence when 
developing and adopting the measures in question. As a result, Canada was confident that the measures it had taken were in full compliance with its GATT and GATS obligations. 
7.8.  The representative of Nicaragua thanked th e delegation of the Russian Federation for the 
inclusion of that item on the agenda of the Council,  both at that meeting and at the previous one. 
Nicaragua had noted the statement by the Russia n Federation and reserved its right to make 
further comments about the matter in the future. Nicaragua was also against measures that had 
historically affected the trade of many WTO Members. Nicaragua called on the parties involved in the matter to reach a solution. 
7.9.  The representative of Australia wished to assure the Russian Federation and other WTO 
Members that Australia took its WTO obligations very seriously and that it believed that it met and 
continued to meet those obligations. S/C/M/118 
 
- 14 - 
 
  7.10.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation remained confident that all 
its actions were consistent with its WTO obligations. He asked that his delegation's statement at 
the May meeting of the Council10 be repeated in the record of the meeting.  
7.11.  The representative of the European Union underlined that the EU, just like the 
United States, Canada and Australia, took its obligations under the WTO Agreements very 
seriously, and trusted that the measures referred to by the Russian Federation's communication to 
the CTS and the CTG, as well as the EU measures  announced on 28 April, were consistent with 
WTO rules. 
7.12.  The Chairperson suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
7.13.  It was so agreed. 
8  ITEM H – OTHER BUSINESS 
8.1.  No items under Other Business were raised.  
8.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________  
                                               
10 Contained in paragraph 7.8 of document S/C/M/117, "Report of the Meeting held on 8 May 2014", 
dated 27 May 2014.