RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/74  
 
13 February 2019  
(19-0849) Page: 1/6 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 5 DECEMBER  2018  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation ( WPDR ) held a meeting on 5 December 2018 chaired by 
Mr. Henning Envall from Sweden. The agenda for the meeting was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/WP DR/12 dated 23 November 2018. The report of the previous  meeting of the Working 
Party, held on 7 and 8 November 2017, is contained in document S/WP DR/M/73.  
Before  turning  to the substance  of the meeting,  the Chairperson  recalled  that following  the 
agreement  by Members  on a slate of names  for the Chairpersons  of the Council  for Trade  in Services  
(CTS)  subsidiary  bodies,  the election  of the Chairperson s of the subsidiary  bodies,  including  the 
WPDR, had been conducted  through  a written  procedure,  and was confirmed  through  a fax dated  
5 June 2018.  He thanked  delegations  for the confidence  that they had conveyed  by electing  him as 
Chair of the Working  Party.  He reported  that since his election,  he had consulted  bilaterally  with 
several  delegations,  first in June and then before  the October  and December  services  meetings,  both 
to educate  himself on the positions  held by Members,  but also to establish  whether  any delegation  
would  like to take up any matters  in the Working  Party.   
 
The representative  of the Republic  of Korea  wished  to raise an item under  "Other Business " regarding  
the conclusion  of recent  negotiations  on domestic  regulation  in APEC.  
 
The agenda  was adopted  as modified  with the inclusion  of the item requested  by the Republic  of 
Korea.  
 
1  ITEM A : DEVELOPMENT OF REGULAT ORY DISCIPLINES UNDE R GATS ARTICLE VI:4  
1.1.  The Chairperson  stated that the delegation of India had requested him to convene a meeting 
of the Working Party during the week foreseen for services meetings (3 -7 December 2018).  The 
delegati on of India had also circulated a communication, with the title "GATS Article VI: - Disciplines 
for Supply of a Services through the Presence of a Natural Person of a Member in the Territory of 
Another Member " (S/WPDR/W/61, dated 26 November 2018) . 
1.2.  The rep resentative of India explained that the communication was an effort by India to 
rejuvenate and reenergize the discussions in the WPDR, which was the body m andated to develop 
GATS Article  VI:4 disciplines, but which had not seen any discussions in 2018.2 She thanked 
Members who had taken the time to go through the proposal and looked forward to fruitful and 
productive discussions.  
1.3.  She noted that Mode 4 was the most important mode of export interest for most developing 
countries including LDCs. Unfortunate ly, it was also the most neglected mode of supply and therefore 
needed facilitation through domestic regulation disciplines. The delegation of India believed that 
disciplines on domestic regulation were most relevant for Mode 4 service suppliers, as the is sue of 
recognition of educational qualifications and licenses acquired in the territory of another Member 
constituted a major impediment to mode 4 access, especially in the case of the regulated 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 The statement by the delegation of India was circulated a s document RD/SERV /151, dated 
5 December 2018.  S/WPDR/M/74  
 
- 2 - 
 
  professions. While India acknowledged that measures relating to Qualification Requirements (QR), 
Licensing Requirements (LR) and even Technical Standards (TS) were applied by Members to achieve 
legitimate public policy objectives, these measures could also limit access to the ranks of the 
profession within a foreign  jurisdiction, as such requirements governing the supply of services varied 
widely across Members. Put together, the regime of domestic regulation, covering LR, QR and TS, 
resulted in significant trade barriers for mode 4 service suppliers, in the absence of necessary 
disciplines. Therefore, for commercially meaningful access for mode 4 professionals, it was critical 
that Members ensured that their competent authorities took account of qualifications and licenses 
acquired in the territory of another Member on the basis of equivalency of education, experience 
and/or examination requirements, and that Members maintained  adequate procedures to meet these 
requirements. Recalling the history of domestic regulation negotiations at the WTO, Members had 
negotiated Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector  (document S/L/64) in 
1998. In fact, the WPDR had earlier been called the Working Party on Professional Services (WPPS). 
Several submissions had been made by Members for disciplines in other regula ted professional 
services like legal and engineering services. Therefore, she concluded that from the very beginning, 
Mode 4 was in fact the target for VI:4 disciplines.  
1.4.  Global changes in demographics and patterns of investment in human capital had created  
increased scope for international trade in professional services. The scope for mutually beneficial 
trade was, however, inhibited by a range of qualification and licensing requirements and 
procedures.  Commercially meaningful disciplines on domestic regula tion could therefore unleash the 
potential for mutually beneficial trade especially in professional services and more generally in trade 
in services.   
1.5.  Addressing disciplines on the entire gamut of domestic regulation for Mode 4, especially 
qualification re quirements and procedures, would also help address part 'C' of the LDC Collective 
Request pursuant to the LDC Services Waiver Decision related to recognition of qualifications of LDC 
professionals, as contained in document S/C/W/356.  
1.6.  A large group of Membe rs comprising developing countries and LDCs had been questioning the 
'necessity ' of domestic regulation disciplines in light of difficulties which might be faced by individual 
developing country Members and in particular LDC Members, in implementing horizo ntal disciplines 
on domestic regulation. Therefore, India proposed that the membership focus on developing 
disciplines on domestic regulation for Mode 4, which as mentioned earlier, was not only the key 
mode of export interest for most developing countries  but was also in dire need of disciplines for 
commercially meaningful access. The mandate for the WPDR, as per the Council Decision dated 
28 April 1999 (S/L/70) was to develop any necessary disciplines to ensure that measures relating 
to licensing requirem ents and procedures, technical standards and qualification requirements and 
procedures do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services.  
1.7.  The representative of India found it remarkable that a group of Members were developing GATS 
Article VI:4 Di sciplines outside of the Working Party , when the WPDR, in accordance with the 
Decision on Domestic Regulation adopted by the CTS on 28 April 1999 ( S/L/70) , was mandated to 
develop such necessary disciplines. Further, as per the decision, the WPDR was required to report 
its recommendations to the CTS. It was also a matter of concern that the non -attributed working 
text on GATS Article VI:4 Disciplines being developed under the joint statement initiative  (JSI) did 
not include commercially significant disciplines on qualification requirements and procedures (QRP), 
all of which were  an integral part of earlier work done in the WPDR. In particular, the JSI draft text 
did not address the issue of v erification and assessment of qualifications of foreign service suppliers, 
for example through consideration of professional experience and membership in professional 
association s; neither did the text require i dentificat ion of deficiencies in qualifications, and  it did not 
require competent authorities to provide details of how deficiencies in qualifications could be 
addressed by applicants . Finally, the text did not provide that e xaminations  that were required could 
be provided through el ectronic means, and from the home country of the applicant.  
1.8.  The delegation of India believed that the GATS VI:4 mandate had to be used to develop 
commercially meaningful disciplines in the key area of QRP, as reflected by the history of d omestic 
regulation negotiations at the WTO. Additionally, the GATS  VI:4 mandate could not be used to 
multilateralize a particular template developed in the context of some regional trade agreements.  
1.9.  The representative of India informed the Working Party th at her delegation's proposal was 
based on earlier texts discussed in the WPDR, the text on 'Disciplines on Domestic Regulation ' S/WPDR/M/74  
 
- 3 - 
 
  contained in document WT/MIN(17)/7/Rev.2, and India 's earlier submissions in the WPDR.  The text 
disciplined the five mandated el ements, namely, licensing requirements (LR) and licensing 
procedures (LP), technical standards (TS) as well as qualification requirements (QR) and qualification 
procedures (QP) for Mode 4 , instead of disciplines on 'authorization ' along broad thematic areas in 
the non -attributed working text. Disciplines on LP and QP, and LR and LP had been merged to do 
away with overlap between the separate sections on these measures , as in the earlier versions of 
the texts being discussed in the WPDR. As regards disciplines on QRP, India 's text retained the 
disciplines as contained in the earlier versions of the texts, with one additional provision, namely on 
the issue of recognition, which was included to provide adequate opportunity to developin g country 
Members to negotiate accession to existing agreements pertaining to recognition pursuant to GATS 
Article VII and the various provisions built in the GATS for increasing trade opportunities for 
developing countries (paragraph 20 of S/WPDR/W/61).  
1.10.   India had submitted its proposed draft with the hope of reinvigorating WPDR discussions; her 
delegation  welcomed any constructive suggestions to take the process forward. In order to help th e 
process, she requested the Secretariat to organize a briefing ses sion on the history of domestic 
regulation negotiations, much of which related to professional services, and the past submissions on 
domestic regulation disciplines , to guide the membership in fulfilling the mandate pursuant to 
Article  VI:4 of the GATS, in  its letter and spirit.  
1.11.   The representative of Malawi , speaking on behalf of the  ACP Group , welcomed the proposal 
but stated that he was not in a position yet to engage on its substance, as more discussions within 
the group and in capitals were needed. In his view, issues of interest to developing countries and 
LDCs should be prioritized, most importantly the concept of special and differential treatment. 
Members needed to put emphasis on developing Members ' offensive interests in reducing  and 
eliminating r estrictions relating to licensing requirements and procedures and qualification 
requirements and procedures, particularly in mode 4, in favour of developing countries and LDCs. 
He stressed that disciplines should not impinge on developing Members ' policy s pace.  
1.12.   The representative of Nigeria  associated himself with the statement made by the delegation 
of Malawi on behalf of the ACP Group.  He considered India 's proposal a complementary effort to the 
one undertaken by the participants of the JSI. Mode 4 was important for many developing countries. 
In his view, Members ' competent authorities should take account of qualifications on the basis of 
equivalence of educational standards and maintain adequate procedures to that end. Issues of 
interest to developing c ountries and LDCs should be prioritized and no discussion should negatively 
affect the rights of developing Members. He had no objection to the Secretariat holding a briefing 
session.  
1.13.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  noted that In dia's proposal was 
still being analysed in capital . The proposal might serve as an instrument to enable Members to 
resume their work on domestic regulation in an adequate and appropriate format. He welcomed the 
suggestion of a  briefing session  by the Secre tariat . 
1.14.   The representative of Rwanda  strongly supported the timely submission by India. Disciplines 
on domestic regulation in Mode 4 w ere very important for all developing countries and LDCs and 
Members could no longer continue neglecting this issue. A pre sentation on the history of the issue 
would be very helpful. There were many barriers with regard to licensing and qualification matters 
that had to be addressed. In his view, India 's proposal was a useful basis for engagement. He looked 
forward to positiv e and fruitful engagement.  
1.15.   The representative of Ecuador  considered mode 4 to be a topic of critical importance to 
developing countries. It was important to reactivat e discussions at the multilateral level to establish 
GATS Article VI:4 disciplines . The ne gotiations were based on a multilateral mandate that had to be 
complied with by all Members. The Indian proposal contained elements that would enable Members 
to deepen the discussions and address issues, such as transparency of licensi ng requirements and 
procedures.  It was important not to create additional burdens to countries that had made already 
significant commitments. He endorsed the idea of holding a briefing session on the negotiations on 
domestic regulation.  
1.16.   The representative of Cuba welcomed Indi a's initiative, which moved Members closer to 
discussing issues that went beyond market access in services  and responded to issues related to S/WPDR/M/74  
 
- 4 - 
 
  development that had not been addressed in the negotiations so far. The delegation for Cuba did 
not support discus sions in other configurations that departed from the multilateral spirit.  She 
supported the suggestion that the Secretariat organize a briefing session.  
1.17.   The representative of China  stated that his delegation attached great importance to domestic 
regulation  negotiations and welcomed India 's communication on mode 4, which was of particular 
value to developing Members. The proposal complemented the JSI discussion. While his capital was 
still analysing  the proposal, he noted that many elements thereof derived from the 2009 Chair text. 
With regard to the transparency provision in paragraph 12  of the proposal , he enquired whether the 
suggestion of two means of publication (i.e. printed and electronic) might not negatively affect 
natural persons who might face difficulties in physically accessing printed documents of another 
Member. He suggested using the expression "publish relevant documents online " instead. He 
requested India to elaborate as to how techn ical standards would apply to the movement of natural 
persons. Finally, he requested the delegation of India to clarify the relationship between the 
proposed Committee in paragraph 39 of the proposal and the WPDR. The representative of China 
echoed India 's request for a briefing session on the history of domestic regulation negotiations.  
1.18.   The representative of Turkey  stated that her delegation was an adamant supporter of 
developing reliable disciplines on mode 4, and highly appreciated India 's efforts  in thi s regard . It 
was important to develop foreseeable conditions for temporary stay and work permit procedures for 
natural persons to the benefit of  both service suppliers a s well as the host  and home countries 
involved. She hoped that the proposal would add v alue to elements not present in other efforts. 
Under the current domestic regulation  text developed by the JSI, mode 4 was already addressed 
under licensing and qualification requirements and procedures surrounding the supply of services by 
natural persons . Under these circumstances, in order to add value her delegation expected any new 
proposal to encompass disciplines that involve d procedures for the entry and temporary stay for 
natural persons, which would enable Members to bring existing commitments to life.  
1.19.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  stressed the importance of having 
multilateral discussions on services and indicated that he would revert with input from his capital. 
He supported the organization of an information session.  
1.20.   The representative of South Africa  welcomed the multilateral format of the meeting; her 
delegation was still studying the proposal by India, and could not yet comment on its substance. 
She supported the idea of a briefing session on the history of domestic  regulation.  
1.21.   The representative of Pakistan  stated that the proposal was still being studied in capital. He 
looked forward to future discussions.  
1.22.   The representative of Egypt  noted that his capital was still assessing the proposal. By way of 
a preliminary q uestion, he asked how the disciplines proposed by India would apply in relation to 
Members ' specific commitments ; and how disciplines applicable only to mode 4 might apply in this 
context . As regards the transparency provision in paragraph 12 of the propos al, he stressed that 
Egypt, with Arabic being the official language, was not able to publish measures of general 
application in an official language of the WTO. He proposed that Members discuss recognition 
elements for professional services in particularly  great detail.  
1.23.   The representative of Uganda , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , stated that India 's 
proposal allowed Members to engage in the WPDR in line with the GATS Article VI:4 mandate. She 
noted that the Indian proposal was based on the 2009 Chair text and took on board ideas advanced 
by LDCs in past discussions. Regarding paragraphs 2 and 3  of the proposal , she appreciated the 
replication of the GATS preamble concerning the right to regulate, which had also been contained in 
the 2009 Chair text .  She noted that in some instances,  the proposed requirement  of compliance 
with a discipline was more binding than in earlier drafts . For example, paragraph 15 in 2009 Chair 
text contained a "should endeavour " obligation with regard to  the opportunity to comment on 
proposed measures, whereas the equivalent provision in the Indian text (paragraph 14) contained 
a "shall endeavour " obligation. She noted that the use of electronic means for conducting 
examinations and for provid ing opportun ities for conducting such examinations from the home 
country of the applicant, as set out in paragraph  32, was an issue that had been sought by the LDCs 
in their collective request , and  that paragraph 34 addressed the important issue that graduated 
LDCs would benefit from transition periods post -graduation . She appreciated that India, in S/WPDR/M/74  
 
- 5 - 
 
  paragraph  36 of its proposal, had maintained the language from the 2009 Chair text on LDCs not 
being required to apply the disciplines.  She recalled that that language had been agreed ad 
referendum in the 2011 Chair text.  Paragraph 37 of the Indian proposal on reduced fees for service  
supplier s from developing countries, was likewise derived from  the 2009 Chair text , and was of 
importance to graduated LDCs . Disciplines on domestic regulation  needed to create export 
opportunities for LDC services suppliers, and should take  into account elements of the LDC collective 
request, namely reduction of fees, paperwork, and onerous procedures and requirements for visas, 
work and reside nce permits , and facilitation of a better enabling environment for recognition  of LDC 
institutions, degrees and qualifications . She noted  that India was the only WTO Member that was 
providing visa waiver preferences to the LDCs.  
1.24.   The representative of Indonesia  welcomed the proposal  by India , which enriched discussion 
on domestic regulation in the future, taking into account exploratory discussions on market access 
in the CTS Special Session. He hoped the proposal  would reinvigorate domestic regulation 
discussions  and supported the request for the briefing session .  
1.25.   The representative of Bangladesh  associated himself with the statement delivered by the LDC 
Group. In his view, Members needed to re -engage in accordance with the Article VI:4 mandate, 
which was built into the GATS legal framework. The Indian proposal touched upon several points 
from the LDC collective request; he stressed that any consensus on Article VI:4 negotiations would 
be contingent upon a provision exempting LDCs from the application o f the disciplines. He 
emphasized that graduating LDCs needed a lot of time. He also mentioned that India was the only 
Member who had waived visa fees for LDCs and expressed support for the idea of the briefing 
session.  
1.26.   The representative of Sri Lanka  welco med the proposal by India and the idea of a briefing 
session.  
1.27.   The representative of Nigeria  expressed the view that the WPDR would not need to confine 
discussions to the 2009 Chair text, but could examine  any proposal on the basis of its merits. Turning 
to the Indian proposal, he enquired as to how the disciplines on technical standards would be applied 
and whether India had considered any specific transition periods in its proposal. He wondered how 
Members would deal with the entire mandate of the WPDR wit hout isolating any particular 
submission. His delegation wanted to see a comprehensive package that would respond to the 
mandate  of the WPDR. In that context, he was mindful of the other negotiating track  that his 
delegation was participating in.  He asked the Chair under what conditions the WPDR was normally 
to hold meetings , and whether written submissions were required for meetings to be scheduled.  
1.28.   The Chairperson  replied  that the WPDR met based on demand by Members ; there was no 
requirement for written submission s. 
1.29.   The representative of Thailand  expressed her delegation 's commitment to developing 
domestic regulation disciplines as per the Article VI:4 mandate and supported text -based 
negotiations  in the WPDR . Engagement of all Members was essential to bu ild common ground  
towards a multilateral outcome.  She did not object to the Secretariat organizing a briefing session.  
1.30.   The representative of India reiterated that meaningful domestic regulation disciplines were 
critical and noted the questions by the deleg ations of China, Egypt, Turkey, the LDC Group, 
Bangladesh and others. She promised to revert back with answers to the se questions bilaterally.  
1.31.   The Chairman  noted that he would coordinate with the Secretariat regarding the timing of the 
requested briefing s ession, and invited delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.32.   It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B: OTHER BUSINESS  
2.1.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  updated the membership on the "APEC Non -binding 
Principles for Domestic Regulation of the Services Sec tor" which  had been agreed by APEC economies  
at the recent Summit in Papua New Guinea in November 2018 . Korea had taken the initiative of 
developing principles on domestic regulation to enhance services regulatory cohesion in the APEC S/WPDR/M/74  
 
- 6 - 
 
  context, based on relevant work of the WTO  and APEC principles for cross -border trade in services 
in 2009 . The text of the disciplines was contained in the 2019 Report to Ministers and could be found 
on the official APEC website.  
2.2.  The representative of the United States  noted the parallel work on domestic regulation 
successfully concluded  by a diverse group of economies  in another forum. Although the  context in 
APEC was different from that of the WTO, and the principles developed were non -binding, it could 
prove instructive to draw attention to success achieved in other organizations with a similar focus 
on services  trade . APEC economies  had approached th e work on domestic regulation with all the 
seriousness that they brought to binding trade initiatives; the agreed principles  were not aspirational  
in nature  but represented best practices applied  by regulators in the APEC region in their day-to-
day services licensing . 
2.3.  The representative of Peru remarked that the APEC principles could serve as a benchmark for 
work on domestic re gulation in the WTO . 
2.4.  The representative of Nigeria  requested Korea to elaborate on the substance of the APEC 
Principles.  He enquired whether the APEC Principles contained a  proviso that certain provisions were 
being applicable consistent with domestic laws  and regulations.  
2.5.  The representative of the United States  indicated that the Principles did not contain any such 
reference to consistency with domestic laws and regulations . 
2.6.  The representative of Japan  mentioned that his delegation had actively participate d in the APEC 
process together with Korea, the United States  and Hong Kong, China.  
2.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  viewed  the APEC work on domestic regulation as an 
important incubator of ideas which Members could reference in future work  in the WTO . He noted 
that APEC included a range of economies at different levels of development.  
2.8.  The representative of Canada  welcomed the APEC endorsement of the domestic regulation 
principles.  
2.9.  The representative of New Zealand  remarked that it was easy to lose sig ht of what was 
happening outside of Geneva and was pleased with the agreement on the APEC non -binding 
principles on domestic regulation.  
2.10.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  expressed readiness to provide more substantive 
details of the APEC disciplines and promised to share with Members the direct web link to the text 
thereof through the Secretariat.  
2.11.   The Chairperson  suggested that the Secretariat could make the text of the A PEC Principles 
available to Members , and requested Members to take note  of the statements made.  
2.12.   It was so agreed . 
2.13.   The meeting was adjourned . 
 
 
__________