RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/113  
 
17 May 2013  
(13-2590)  Page: 1/19  
Council for Trade in Services    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 MARCH 2013 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
On 21 March 2013, the Council for Trade in Services held a meeting under the Chairmanship of 
Ambassador Reiter (Sweden). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/4096 and 
Addendum 1. 
Under Other Business, the Chairman indicated that the Secretariat wished to make a brief 
statement concerning technical assistance in the field of trade in services statistics, and that he 
would ask a representative of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to provide an oral update on recent developments in the ITU's work that might be of relevance to the Council's discussions. 
The representative of Australia said that her delegation wished to add an item under Other 
Business to inform on discussions on a trade in se rvices agreement. The representative of India 
indicated that his delegation also had an item to add, concerning the entry into force of the 
certified EU-25 schedule. 
The agenda was adopted, as modified. 
1  ITEM A - NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  ARTICLES III:3 AND V:7 OF THE GATS 
1.1.  Starting with the notifications made pursuant to GATS Article III:3 (transparency), the 
Chairman drew the Council's attention to the communications received from Togo (S/C/N/672); 
Lesotho (S/C/N/673-677); Canada (S/C/N/679); South Africa (S/C/N/682-683); and the European Union (S/C/N/684-688). 
1.2.  The representative of India said that the notification from the European Union in document 
S/C/N/684 was particularly interesting. His delegati on understood that the Regulation that was the 
object of the notification represented an attempt to  fill the regulatory gaps that had contributed to 
the financial crisis and excessive speculation. On a preliminary basis, he wondered if the European 
Union viewed the measures notified as prudential ones taken under the GATS prudential carve-out. He stressed that his delegation was not disputing the need for, nor the merits of, these measures, 
but only wished to better understand the regulatory environment in Members with deep 
commitments in financial services.  
1.3.  The representative of Switzerland noted th at he had read with interest the introductory 
paragraph the European Union had inserted in its notifications. He stressed the importance of 
receiving notifications and remaining pragmatic as to how the notion of "significantly affect[ing]" 
trade in services might be interpreted. Pragmatism was probably the best way forward with regard to an issue that was still being discussed amon gst Members. The other notifications had been 
submitted by Members at different levels of development and with different administrative 
capacities with a view to complying with the obligation in Article III:3. 
1.4.  The representative of Norway had three ques tions with regard to the measures notified by 
Canada. First, while Norway appreciated the lifting  of foreign equity caps, it would appreciate a 
more detailed description of the changes introduc ed. Second, noting that the change introduced 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/M/113 
 
- 2 - 
 
  only applied to companies with a market share of  less than 10%, the representative asked what 
the relevant basis was for measuring this share and whether the relevant sector or sub-sectors would be made publicly known. Third, she wond ered what would happen if a company accounting 
for less than 10% of the market grew so that  the 10% limit was exceeded. Would the company 
then be required to refuse customers or se ll foreign equity to Canadian shareholders? 
1.5.  The representative of the United States al so sought additional clarifications from Canada. 
First, in his delegation's understanding, Canada would continue to bar investment in operators 
representing more than 10% of the market by revenue. He wondered about the logic behind the 
restriction, as the operators concerned would still benefit from additional foreign investment beyond the currently permitted levels. How many companies would be affected by the restriction, and what were their market shares? Second, the clear trend in communications was for operators 
to seek returns on very expensive infrastructure  investments by offering complementary services 
over transmission networks, particularly video offerings. Since Canada's new rules appeared to preclude this possibility, the representative asked how and why restrictions on video services were 
addressed in the legislation. Were there any video offerings a foreign investor controlling a 
network could engage in under the current rule s? If there were cultural reasons for the 
restrictions, could Canada explain whether ownership of infrastructure mattered, and why even 
restrictive cultural policies could not be pursued in the context of foreign ownership? Third, he 
wondered if there were any prospects for further liberalization, thereby ensuring that investment 
flowed into Canada in this sector? 
1.6.  The representative of Japan echoed previous comments and sought further background 
information about the legislative change notified  by Canada. The representative of Hong Kong, 
China reiterated Norway's questions. In particular, he asked for more detail about the rationale 
behind the 10% threshold, and what would happ en to enterprises whose market share changed 
over time. 
1.7.  The representative of Canada thanked de legations for these questions, appreciating in 
particular the advance information received from  Norway. The representative explained that, in 
June 2012, the Government of Canada had amended the Telecommunications Act to exempt 
companies with less than 10% of the market, measured by total telecommunication revenue, from the foreign investment restrictions contained in that Act. This had been done in order to help Canadian telecom companies with small market shares access the capital they needed to grow and 
compete. To encourage long-term investment, companies that were successful at growing their 
market shares in excess of 10% by means other than merger or acquisition would continue to be exempt from the restrictions. 
1.8.  Under the change, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission 
(CRTC), the independent regulator, would be resp onsible for assessing a company's market share. 
Information on telecommunication revenues was publicly available in the CRTC Communications 
Monitoring Report. This answered the US question on information on companies operating in the 
Canadian market. By way of example, accordin g to the CRTC's 2009 Communications Monitoring 
Report, total communication revenues in 2008 amounted to CND$40.3 billion. A 10% threshold in 2008 would therefore have been set up at CND$4.03 billion. Telecommunication revenues resulted 
from local, access, long distance, internet, data, private line and wireless activities. While telecom-
specific revenues of individual companies were not publicly available, more information, including a breakdown by sub-sectors, could be found in the annual reports on the CRTC website. To answer 
part of the US question, restrictions on foreign ownership under the Broadcasting Act, which was a 
separate Act, would remain for all companies with broadcasting distribution activities. As was the case with any direct foreign investment, the provisions of the Investment Canada Act continued to 
apply. She would revert later to the remaining US questions. 
1.9.  With regard to India's question, the repres entative of the European Union confirmed that in 
both the Regulation on short-selling and the Regulation on OTC derivatives, central counterparts 
and trade repositories were measures taken under  the prudential carve-out. Both Regulations 
aimed at mitigating the risk for financial stability arising from OTC derivatives and certain types of 
short-selling. 
1.10.  With regard to Switzerland's comments,  she took the opportunity to explain why the 
notifications had been made after a decade of non- notifications. It was not that all problems with 
Article III:3 had been resolved. Rather, the European Union had decided to take a very pragmatic S/C/M/113 
 
- 3 - 
 
  approach to live up to its own transparency standard and, although concerns with Article III:3 
persisted, notify measures that it thought were relevant for trade in services. It had looked through EU legislation, particularly in areas with high regulatory activity, and focused on measures that had a very explicit link to third countries. As a result of the process, six notifications had been 
submitted. This was a point of departure and could surely be improved. 
1.11.  The representative of India said that his delegation might revert to the measures notified. 
1.12.  The Chairman encouraged delegations to su bmit technical questions and answers in writing. 
The Council would take note of the notifications and comments made and might refer again to 
some of these issues as appropriate. 
1.13.  It was so agreed. 
1.14.  With regard to the notifications made pursuant to Article V:7 (Economic Integration), the 
Chairman recalled that a few questions had been asked by India regarding the Free Trade 
Agreements concluded between the United States an d Chile, and the United States and Singapore, 
to which the delegation of the United States had provided some initial responses. The delegation of 
India had asked that this item remain on the Council's agenda. 
1.15.  The representative of India said that, at  the previous Council meeting, his delegation had 
sought a clarification about the clauses in the US-Chile and US-Singapore FTAs which annually 
provided for approval of 6,800 initial applicatio ns of business persons from Chile and Singapore 
seeking temporary entry to engage in a business acti vity at a professional level. India's question 
was how those FTA commitments related to, or affected, the US market access commitments under mode 4 of the GATS of granting access annually to up to 65,000 persons. 
1.16.  At the previous meeting, by way of prelim inary response, the US delegation had replied to 
the question which had already been raised earlier by India, that the FTA commitments did not cut into the 65,000 threshold committed under the GA TS. They were therefore compatible. India 
appreciated the answer, but wished to elaborate furt her on its concern and place it on record. This 
was all the more important as some major FTAs were being negotiated at that juncture which would have mode 4 provisions. 
1.17.  As observed by the United States at th e previous meeting, India was aware that related 
questions had been raised earlier in the Commi ttee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) and 
also in the context of the TPRs of the United Stat es, not only by India but also by other Members. 
This very fact underlined the importance of the issue and also implied that concerns still remained. 
In previous discussions, the United States had re sponded that the quotas under the US-Chile and 
US-Singapore FTAs did not cut into the H-1B qu ota limits, quoting figures showing that those 
quotas were not filled. India was aware of those answers. 
1.18.  However, India's concern was more systemic  in nature and had not, to the best of his 
knowledge, yet been addressed. It related to the language used in the implementing legislation for those FTAs. In both FTAs, the relevant clause s (Appendix 14.3(D)(6)(2)(c) of the US-Chile and 
Appendix 11A.3.2(c) of the US-Singapore FTA) stated that, for the purposes of approval under the 
FTA, the United States did not take into account admissions under the H-1B visa clauses. The quotas for the FTAs were implemented through the cr eation of a separate category of H-1B1 visas. 
1.19.  Looking at the implementing legislation, as per Section 214(g)(8)(B)(i) read in conjunction 
with (B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security was required to establish annual country-specific numerical limits for initial applications for admission under Section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)(i) of the INA for nationals of Chile and Singapore, 
which could not exceed 1,400 for nationals of Chile  and 5,400 for nationals of Singapore. Section 
214(g)(8)(B)(iv) provided that the worldwide annua l numerical specification of 65,000 H-1B visas, 
as provided under section 214(g)(1)(A), be reduced by the amount of the annual numerical 
limitation established under clause (i). 
1.20.  In addition to the above reduction, Sect ion 214(g)(8)(D) of the INA provided for a further 
reduction from the worldwide annual numerical specification of 65,000 H-1B visas under Section S/C/M/113 
 
- 4 - 
 
  214(g)(1)(A), when a national from Singapore or Chile was granted an extension under Section 
214(g)(8)(C) after having obtained five or more earlier extensions. 
1.21.  That language appeared to reduce the num ber of H-1B visas available in principle by the 
amount made available to the FTA partners and by the extensions granted beyond five prior 
consecutive extensions. This raised issues of consistency per se  with the principle in Article V:4, 
that any integration agreement must not, in resp ect of any Member outside the agreement, raise 
the overall level of barriers to trade in services within the respective sectors or subsectors 
compared to the level applicable prior to such an agreement. 
1.22.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation had already responded to 
questions raised by India on the matter and referred to the CRTA do cuments WT/REG/161/5, 
dated 28 April 2005, and WT/REG/160/5, dated 1 August 2005. The simple answer was that the 
United States annually issued specialty occupation , or H-1B visas, well in excess of the 65,000 
minimum committed under the GATS. Between 2005 an d 2012, on average the United States had 
issued over 129,000 of those visas on a global basis, double the amount that had been committed 
under the GATS. Indeed, during that period, the average number of H-1B visas received by India 
alone had exceeded 65,000 which thus had actually received 50% of visas from that category. In 
furthering the understanding of the issue, the Unit ed States would invite the review of India's own 
responses to questions from Members regarding the relationship between its GATS commitments 
and its commitments under the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Agreement with respect to foreign bank branches. This was in the CRTA document WT/REG/228/2-3. 
1.23.  The representative of India reiterated that his question related to the regime per se , not to 
applied measures, and its consistency. As for more than 65,000 visas being granted, India was 
aware that in most years demand had exceeded th e number of available visas, to such an extent 
that the H-1B quotas had been filled within a few days of being opened up. India was aware of the 
CRTA meeting minutes mentioned by the United States but would appreciate receiving the exact reply as captured therein. 
1.24.  Concerning India's FTA with Singapore, by  way of preliminary reply, he indicated that 
India's commitments on 15 bank branches referred to a period of four years that had already expired. He asked for the exact quote in the rele vant documents mentioned by the United States 
in order to respond more precisely. 
1.25.  With regard to the India-Singapore FTA, th e representative of United States explained that 
in the CRTA India had replied that its practice of issuing more licences than committed allowed it 
to respect its GATS bindings, in spite of an apparent inconsistency. The United States considered 
this to be a parallel situation. 
1.26.  The representative of India looked forwar d to receiving the exact reference mentioned by 
the US representative. 
1.27.  The Chairman said that Council would take  note of the statements made. Turning to the 
newly received notifications pursuant to Article V:7, he drew delegations' attention to the 
Communications from Nicaragua and Panama (S/C/N/678); Central America and the European Union (S/C/N/680); and Colombia, Peru and the European Union (S/C/N/681/Rev.1). 
1.28.  The representative of Colombia said that document S/C/N/681/Rev.1 clarified that the 
notifying Members were Peru and the European Union, as the contracting parties to the agreement 
were Peru and Colombia on the one hand, and th e European Union on the other. The agreement 
was not yet in force in the case of Colombia, and Colombia would submit the relevant notification 
when it had entered into force. 
1.29.  With regard to the notification by the European Union in document S/C/N/680, the 
representative of El Salvador explained that her delegation was coordinating some changes to its 
content and was hoping to present a revised notification in the coming days. S/C/M/113 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.30.  The representative of Peru explained that her delegation was also in the process of 
introducing some changes to the notification in document S/C/N/681 as reflected in the revision 
that had just been circulated. 
1.31.  The Chairman proposed that the Council take  note of the notifications and statements made 
and refer the agreements notified to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for 
consideration. 
1.32.  It was so agreed. 
2  ITEM B - COMPLIANCE WITH GA TS NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, following discussi ons on the issue of compliance with notification 
requirements in December, the Council had agreed to task the Secretariat with the production of a 
Note on the types of measures notified under  Article III:3 of the GATS. Accordingly, the 
Secretariat had circulated a Note, titled "Typology of measures notified pursuant to GATS Article 
III:3", which was contained in document S/C/W/351. 
2.2.  A representative of the Secretariat explained that the original request had been that the 
Secretariat prepare a Note clarifying the term "significantly affect trade in services" in Article III:3. 
In light of the interpretative work such a request would have implied, it was eventually agreed that the Secretariat would look instead at the types of measures notified pursuant to Article III:3. As 
there was no apparent pattern in the information that had been notified, the Secretariat had 
constructed its own typology. It had thus classifi ed measures depending on the sector, mode, and 
government level, as well as on the basis of the nature of the measure, i.e. whether it concerned 
issues subject to scheduling under Articles XVI and XVII, domestic regulatory measures, 
institutional provisions, other regulatory measures or non-specific measures. The paper had three 
Annexes: a numerical account of the notifications made by type; the notification format that was attached to document S/L/5; and the main feature of all the notifications made. 
2.3.  The representative of Switzerland said that the Note contained very useful information. He 
had two specific questions. First, looking at the level of government involved in the notifications, 
he wondered if it could be concluded that none of the notifications made related to measures taken 
by non-governmental bodies in the exercise of delegated powers. The figures presented seemed to 
indicate some difficulty in notifying measures not taken at central government levels. Second, he asked why a single category covered both Article XVI and XVII measures. 
2.4.  The representative of Peru stressed that her delegation was in favour of any initiative that 
facilitated the process of notifications so as to increase transparency. 2.5.  Replying to the questions raised by Switzerl and, a representative of the Secretariat explained 
that it had not been possible to specifically detect measures taken by non-governmental bodies. 
Measures under Articles XVI and XVII had been coded together, as it had not always been possible 
to separate them and, more importantly, as the Secretariat had tried as much as possible to avoid 
making interpretative assessments. The Secret ariat would welcome any inputs from Members 
providing further information or clarification with respect to their own notifications. 
2.6.  The Chairman said that the Secretariat Note  provided a useful background against which to 
consider further means to improve transparency. He then recalled that, on 28 February, he had 
convened an informal meeting of the Council to discuss the various suggestions raised on how to 
improve transparency with regard to services measures, pursuant to his statement in 
December 2012. 
2.7.  In preparation for that meeting, he had circulated an Annotated Agenda, entitled "Means to 
Improve Transparency", contained in document JOB/SERV/136. As this Note had formed the basis 
of the interesting informal discussions the Council  had had in February, it might again provide a 
useful starting point for deliberations. It was clearly not intended to confine the scope of 
discussion, and was without prejudice to any additional ideas that Members had brought, or might 
further bring, to the table. S/C/M/113 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.8.  Indeed, a number of helpful suggestions had already been made at the informal meeting in 
February. The delegation of India, for exam ple, had suggested the Members also address 
notifications pursuant to Article VII:4. The delega tion of Canada had proposed that the Council be 
informed of experiences with notifying TBT an d SPS measures, and that relevant Secretariat 
experts be invited. These had been contacted accordingly. 
2.9.  A representative of the Secretariat explai ned the notification obligation in the TBT and SPS 
areas. Members had to notify technical regulations or SPS measures that might have a "significant 
effect" on trade. Although the implications of the word "significant" were not entirely clear, 
Members' approach had been to notify even when in  doubt. They had tended to err on the side of 
transparency. Both the SPS and TBT Agreements contained a presumption that, if a measure was based on an international standard, it did not create an unnecessary barrier to trade and would not 
need to be notified. However, Members were incr easingly also notifying such measures, for the 
sake of transparency. In both the SPS and TBT ar eas, a notification was a two-page document, not 
the full text of the regulation concerned, along wi th a hyperlink to where the text of the document 
could be found. 
2.10.  It was difficult to say to what extent Members were notifying SPS and TBT measures. 
Members only had an obligation to notify measures that were about to go into force, so it was not 
possible to determine whether a measure had not been notified. Sometimes the fact that a 
measure had not been notified was a reason for a complaint or a "specific trade concern" in the relevant Committee. 
2.11.  To date, some 15,000 SPS notifications had been received; until September 2012, 104 
Members had made at least one notification. The major "notifiers" were the United States, Brazil, 
China, Canada, Korea and the European Union. More than 50% of the SPS notifications were being received through an on-line system, and a similar system was being created in the TBT area. For 
TBT notifications, there had been some 16,000 notifications to date and the main notifying 
Members were the European Union, the United St ates, China, Brazil, Korea, Japan and Mexico. A 
growing number of notifications were being received  from developing countries in the TBT and the 
SPS areas. Members had also gone further than what was actually mandated by the Agreements, 
in terms of also notifying when a measure had been adopted or gone into force, even if the actual 
obligation was only to notify the measure at the drafting stage. Through recommendations 
developed by the Committee, steps were being taken to complete the cycle of transparency in the 
regulatory area. 
2.12.  SPS and TBT notifications referred to draft measures, and Members had about 60 days to 
provide comments. Enquiry points were usually disseminating those notifications. Out of the 
15,000 and 16,000 SPS and TBT notifications received, respectively, most had caused no concern 
and were simply an instrument of transparency. However, a small fraction led to "specific trade 
concerns" being brought up either in the SPS or the TBT Committee. Compared to the number of 
notifications received, very few such trade concerns had been received. For instance, in 2012 there 
had been 94 trade concerns brought to the atte ntion of the TBT Committee, compared with over 
2,000 notifications. An even smaller number of the measures notified were the object of dispute settlement. In TBT, there had only been 4 disput es, against 356 trade concerns raised, and just a 
little more on the SPS side. 
2.13.  The Chairman noted that, in comparison to  the SPS and TBT areas, there was only a very 
small number of notifications, some 500, under the GATS. 
2.14.  The representative of Norway said that the increased number of notifications recently 
received demonstrated that Members were ready to  contribute to an important function of the 
Council. On a preliminary basis she said that th e Secretariat Note in S/C/W/351 seemed to be a 
very useful reference for future work. 
2.15.  The Annotated Agenda contained in document JOB/SERV/136 provided a good starting point 
for Members' continued discussions on means to improve transparency. With regard to paragraph 4b, in deciding whether a change in a regulation potentially had a significant effect on trade in 
services, Norway had tried to find a balance: when in doubt, it had chosen to notify. The 
authorities had also looked at areas that migh t be of interest to other Members. The same S/C/M/113 
 
- 7 - 
 
  assessment had been used, and made explicit, in the EU notifications just received. This 
represented a good way forward. 
2.16.  Norway considered the suggestions in paragraphs 4a and 4c timely and appropriate, and the 
proposal in 4e to also be a useful contribution. With regard to 4f, Norway believed that the use of 
Article III:5 served as a useful platform for di scussions among Members. In that regard, she 
reverted to the notification made by her delegation under that Article, and thanked Thailand for the efforts to respond to the questions her delegation had posed in document JOB/SERV/126. She 
was still awaiting formal written responses and en couraged Thailand to provide an update on the 
status of the response. 
2.17.  The representative of Switzerland echo ed Norway's comments on JOB/SERV/126. With 
regard to paragraph 4b, he indicated that his authorities had followed a similar approach to 
Norway's and the European Union's, preferring to  err on the side of transparency by notifying 
measures even when in doubt as to whether these significantly affected trade in services. It was interesting to see that the same difficulty with regard to the interpretation of the term 
"significantly" existed also in the SPS and TBT areas. It had also been useful to learn that, out of 
15,000 and 16,000 measures notified in those areas, only a tiny fraction had been raised as specific trade concerns and even fewer had been brought to dispute. 
2.18.  With regard to paragraph 4c, he had noted that SPS and TBT notifications could be 
submitted on-line. This was certainly an element that could contribute to increasing compliance with the notification obligation in Article III:3, and Members might consider inviting the Secretariat to look into the feasibility of submitting services notifications on-line. As concerned paragraph 4f, 
the possibility of notifying pursuant to Article III:5 was always available to Members. The 
suggestion, in paragraph 4e, to update the statistical information on notifications annually was helpful, and he hoped that Members accept it. 
2.19.  Finally, with regard to paragraph 4a, he no ted that the challenges that existed already with 
the domestic consultative process necessary to notify services measures were amplified at the sub-federal level. Members might benefit from exchanging information about their own 
experiences with such processes. 
2.20.  By way of preliminary response to Norway’s  questions regarding the Notification on Foreign 
Dominance by the National Broadcasting and Telecommunication Commission, circulated at the previous CTS meeting, the representative of Thailand said that her delegation had just received 
formal written replies from the authorities concerned. As the explanation was very technical, and given the challenge to translate the legal and technical terminology into English, she could only provide a summary of the written reply. Once the formal translation into English had been 
completed and approved, she would circulate it to all Members. 
2.21.  Concerning questions 8-10, she said that the Notification applied to all Thai telecom 
operators, whether foreign-invested Thai companies or not. Since the Notification was under the 
scope of the Telecom Business Act and the Foreign Business Act, which were consistent with 
Thailand's WTO obligations, there was no provision in the Notification inconsistent with WTO disciplines. 
2.22.  With regard to questions 11 and 12, she in dicated that the conduct of the operator must 
first fall under one or more of the threshold criteria  under the definition of "foreign dominance" in 
Article 4. This could be derived from the minutes  of shareholders' meetings. Then, the NBTC had 
to consider whether or not the conduct was inconsistent with the Prohibition Guidelines prescribed 
in the schedule annexed to the Notification. Thus, if the conduct did not fall under one or more of 
the threshold criteria, the conduct would not be deemed inconsistent with the Prohibition Guidelines. However, when the NTBC considered that the operator's conduct was inconsistent with 
the Guidelines, it had the authority to order the relevant operator to correct its conduct within a 
specific timeline (Article 11). The NTBC would not need to cancel the operator's licence if the operator adjusted within the given time-limit. 
2.23.  Finally, in reply to question 13, she said that the eight prohibited actions listed in the Annex 
served as guidelines for operators and provided  information for the purpose of promoting good 
corporate governance. Additionally, they could be used as the framework for the NBTC to S/C/M/113 
 
- 8 - 
 
  investigate and monitor which cases should be considered as actions of foreign dominance. 
However, the examples in the Annex were not rules per se . An occurrence of such actions or facts 
was not immediately regarded as foreign dominance. For this to happen, such actions needed to fit the relevant definition of "foreign dominance". 
2.24.  She added that, in a spirit of goodwill  and cooperation, the two delegations would be 
meeting bilaterally after that meeting.  Her delegation had fully alerted capital-based experts about 
the urgency of the matter and the importance of their presence in Geneva, and she was confident 
that they would be able to arrange a trip to Geneva in due course to respond to Norway's 
questions, in the hope of settling its concerns on ce and for all. She also reiterated Thailand's 
strong intention to comply with its commitment to the WTO, respecting the principles of predictability and transparency. 
2.25.  With regard to JOB/SERV/136, the representative of Brazil said that his delegation was 
agreeable to exploring the suggestion in paragraph 4a as a first step to addressing the deficiencies 
in the current notification system and to allow for constructive interaction. With regard to the 
suggestion in 4f, he concurred with other Memb ers that encouraging Article III:5 notifications 
might not be the most positive way of overcoming Members' present difficulties, although the right 
to invoke this provision was duly acknowledged. He could not see how the proposal in paragraph 
4d could help in boosting notifications, as Members would still need to grapple with the uncertainty 
about what should be notified. 
2.26.  The representative of Canada had found th e presentation on SPS and TBT notifications very 
useful. She wondered if there had been an in-built process to learn from the notification 
experience in trying to improve SPS and TBT proced ures, and what kind of decisions, voluntary or 
agreed, had been taken to improve notifications in the two Committees. 
2.27.  The representative of India fully supported  the need to improve transparency and had found 
the ideas in JOB/SERV/136 to be quite useful. Pa rticularly, India saw value in Members sharing 
their experiences to understand the difficulties with notifications, as well as what were practical and achievable solutions. At the morning's WPDR  meeting, many Members, both developed and 
developing, had raised the same lack of mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) as a barrier to the 
supply of professional services. An important element in this regard was the obligation of prior notification of the opening of negotiations for MRAs under GATS Article VII:4(b), which was intended to provide adequate opportunity for other Members to signal their interest in those 
negotiations. India had submitted a paper in the CT S on this issue. This was especially important 
since, as indicated by the Secretariat at the informal meeting of the Council, not a single notification had been made under VII:4 (b). There was definitely a need to improve this situation, 
and India was ready to work with other Members to this effect. 
2.28.  The representative of the United States  echoed other Members' call for transparency, 
although he cautioned that sometimes more notifications were not necessarily better. He also 
wondered if Members were really missing notifications or whether it was possible that many 
potentially relevant measures were not significantly affecting trade, particularly as most were aimed at the domestic market. He noted that contact points existed, but that the US point was very rarely used. However, whenever concerns were voiced, his delegation would listen carefully, 
and had had positive responses from other Members to its own enquiries. 
2.29.  With regard to the suggestions in JOB/SERV/136, the United States could support 
encouraging the submission of notifications pursuant to Article III in either direction. This was a 
Member-driven process. His delegation could also endorse the suggestions in paragraphs 4a and 
4b, but was not sure about the proposal in 4c and needed to see what options were being proposed. 
2.30.  His delegation could not support the proposal in 4d, which would not lead to a productive 
exchange, and still had reservations about the one in 4e, which would not necessarily provide Members with meaningful information. 
2.31.  As concerned JOB/SERV/136, the representative of the European Union said that her 
delegation could, by and large, support all six suggestions with the exception of the one in 
paragraph 4d. Given widespread acknowledgement that it was not necessarily clear which S/C/M/113 
 
- 9 - 
 
  measures significantly affected trade in services, it was contradictory to require Members to affirm 
that they had notified all relevant measures. 
2.32.  The representative of Switzerland noted that there was no risk involved in notifying 
measures that were not significantly affecting trade in services. While the provision in Article III:3 
was an obligation on all Members, it was not a demand-driven process. As concerned contact 
points, these were not intended as a substitute for the obligation to notify in Article III:3. Overall, he could see some convergence emerging among delegations on ways to improve transparency 
and compliance with notification requirements. 
2.33.  The representative of China expressed support  for all efforts to increase transparency. This 
was a basic requirement for the improvement of national legislative mechanisms, and China had 
strived to fulfil its notification obligations under relevant GATS provisions. With regard to 
JOB/SERV/136, China could support the suggestions in paragraphs 4a, 4b and 4c. However, like 
others, his delegation could not endorse the proposal in paragraph 4d, which appeared unfeasible particularly for large economies with comparatively more complicated regulatory mechanisms. He 
looked forward to continuing discussions on this issue. 
2.34.  In response to the question on whether and how transparency disciplines had been 
improved in TBT and SPS, a representative of the Secretariat explained that both Agreements 
provided for a review (every three years for the TBT Agreement, and every four years for the SPS 
Agreement). Over the previous 18 years, the focus had mainly been on transparency, so most of 
the recommendations and decisions by the Commi ttees had indeed been on transparency. The 
purpose of the reviews had been to create a bett er understanding of the disciplines and how they 
had been implemented over time. This had led to specific recommendations on deadlines, time-
frames, terminology, etc. Those recommendations were all voluntary; they had been adopted by consensus. 
2.35.  As concerned implementation, Members had gone very far. Enquiry points had thus become 
central in the context of TBT. Brazil and Argentin a, for example, had created websites and export 
alert systems to send notifications to industry, which could react and revert back to trade officials 
and eventually to the Committee. The reason for the many industry-driven specific concerns was 
not only the notification exercise per se , but arguably the fact that the domestic coordination 
process worked well. 
2.36.  The Chairman recalled that, as part of  the discussion on how to implement the MC8 
instruction to improve and strengthen the functi oning of the regular bodies, the Services Council 
had decided to focus on transparency. Generally, Members seemed agreeable to discussing the suggestions in paragraphs 4a, 4b, 4c and 4e. There was more scepticism with regard to the 
proposal in 4f, given that the possibility of notifying pursuant to Article III:3 already existed; and 
there was definite opposition to the suggestion in paragraph 4d. He suggested that the Council 
take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
2.37.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C - DEDICATED DISCUSSIONS ON INTERNATIONAL MOBILE ROAMING 
3.1.  The Chairman indicated that item C had be en placed on the Council's agenda further to a 
request by New Zealand. He recalled that Members had already discussed the issue of 
international mobile roaming over a number of meetings in 2011-12. 
3.2.  Further to her delegation's interventions at the June 2011 and October 2012 meetings of the 
Council, the representative of New Zealand wished to provide an update on the joint market 
investigation into trans-Tasman roaming charges conducted by New Zealand's Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE). 
3.3.  As had recently been announced by the two Prime Ministers, the New Zealand and Australian 
governments had agreed to implement the recommendations of the final report of the investigation to ensure that New Zealanders travelling to Australia and Australians travelling to New Zealand had a clear understanding of the costs of using their mobile phone, tablet or laptop, S/C/M/113 
 
- 10 - 
 
  and that those costs were fair and reasonable. The final report made clear that, in the area of 
international roaming, mobile operators did not have the normal competitive incentive to offer lower prices to their customers, either by push ing for lower wholesale charges from their partner 
networks abroad or by cutting their own retail margins. The new regulatory environment would 
mimic the effects of normal competitive tension and incentivise operators to offer lower pricing. 
3.4.  The changes would require the regulators (the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the 
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) to collect and report regularly on pricing 
trends for roaming to popular overseas destinations . Regulators would also be able to select from 
a wider range of remedies than they currently had available should it be determined that there was market failure. Officials were developing an agreement that would extend the measures under the Protocol on Trade in Services to the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade 
Agreement. They hoped to be in a position to  implement the changes by the end of the year. 
3.5.  The trans-Tasman experience demonstrat ed that, although Members' views diverged 
regarding the application of the GATS to international mobile roaming, it was nonetheless possible 
for governments to take action to address high roaming costs in a manner consistent with their 
GATS obligations. 
3.6.  The Council took note of the statement made. 
4  ITEM D - WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 4.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at the inform al meeting he had convened on 28 February, the 
Council had discussed the notional outline for a workshop on electronic commerce co-sponsored by 
a number of delegations in document RD/SERV/82, dated 22 February 2013. 
4.2.  Members had had a useful exchange, from which a widely shared interest in having a 
balanced workshop had clearly emerged. On that ba sis, it had been agreed to task the Secretariat 
with the preparation of a draft outline for the workshop, for consideration at that meeting. 
Accordingly, on 13 March, the Secretariat had ci rculated a proposed programme for the event, 
contained in document JOB/SERV/142. 
4.3.  The representative of the United States said that this was a balanced programme which 
would facilitate Members' understanding of e-commerce. His delegation could support holding the 
workshop in June, during the services cluster, over a day and a half, to effectively cover all the issues raised by delegations. To ensure a meanin gful discussion, he proposed moving the review of 
the lessons learnt from the CTD workshop to the start of the event. He also suggested that the 
Chairman, who had played an active role in advancing the issue, consider chairing the event. 
4.4.  The representative of Peru said that Members' experience in developing a regulatory 
framework for data protection should be discuss ed in detail in the workshop, as the issue was 
crucial to enhancing consumer confidence and promoting e-commerce. 
4.5.  The representative of Indonesia stressed the significance of e-commerce in empowering 
SMEs to participate in, and reap the benefits of, global trade. She also emphasized the importance 
of ensuring a balanced composition of speakers for the workshop. 
4.6.  The representative of Japan expressed his delegation's willingness to participate in the 
workshop by sharing relevant knowledge and experiences. 
4.7.  The representative of Australia supported the proposed agenda and dates, and echoed the 
comments by the United States on moving forw ard in the programme the review of the CTD 
workshop. She suggested that Session 1 be renamed to "Overview of Trade and Policy Issues in E-commerce", to better reflect the content of the session, and that Session 3 be renamed to "Case 
Studies on E-commerce Regulation". She noted that the draft agenda had scheduled "data 
protection, privacy and consumer rights" as a case study near the end of Session 3. Her delegation wished to see those important, overarching issues covered in Session 1, possibly as an "emerging 
regulatory trend". As appropriate, Session 3 could also include a specific case study on those 
issues. Fostering confidence in a secure and consumer-friendly e-commerce environment was essential to encouraging its growth and development. S/C/M/113 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.8.  The representative of the European Un ion was supportive of the proposed dates and 
programme, which covered all relevant issues. He also echoed previous statements on the need to 
provide sufficient time to discuss the main lessons  of the CTD workshop, as the two events were 
complementary. He could also support the US proposal of having Ambassador Reiter chair the 
event. The representatives of Hong Kong, China, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Chinese Taipei, 
Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Switzerland and Canada concurred. 
4.9.  The representative of China expressed willingness to contribute to the workshop and 
suggested adding to Session 1 discussions on how to build inter-agency coordination in the 
supervision and promotion of e-commerce, as well as on efficient mechanisms to deal with cross-border business disputes arising from e-commerce. 
4.10.  The representative of Brazil said that the Secretariat draft programme went a long way 
towards meeting Members' past concerns. It removed any remaining traces of pre-judgment and 
also signalled flexibility with regard to the inclusion of new issues. Most, if not all, issues that proponents had flagged an interest in were contem plated in the Secretariat draft. His delegation 
could support the programme, as well as the suggestions made by the United States. He 
understood that additional details still needed to be settled, such as how to ensure balanced representation between developed and developing countries, large and small companies and 
reporting possibilities. If any informal consultations were to be held, his delegation would be 
interested in participating. 
4.11.  The representative of South Africa echoed the statement by Brazil about ensuring a 
balanced approach. He reiterated the need for th e workshop to include elements that supported 
the development of infrastructure for developing countries. South Africa might be in a position to 
share its experience and challenges in e-commerce with Members. 
4.12.  The representative of the Philippines said  that the Chairperson of the APEC Steering Group 
on e-commerce was from the Philippines and would be  playing an active role in the CTD workshop. 
His delegation would be checking how the Chairperson might possibly contribute to the CTS workshop. 
4.13.  By way of concluding remarks, the Chairm an said that Members had a very good basis to 
move forward with the workshop. There were still some placeholders for additions and 
amendments to the programme, such as moving  up the lessons drawn from the CTD event, 
including a discussion of data protection, privacy issues, enhanced cross-agency coordination and 
cross-border resolution of disputes. A number of delegations had highlighted the need for balanced 
representation from developed and developing countries, and he suggested that Members communicate potential speakers to the Secretariat. He proposed that the Secretariat prepare a 
detailed programme, amended on the basis of th e comments conveyed. With regard to the US 
suggestion about chairing the event, he said that  he would be ready to do so if Members so 
wished. He suggested that, like the CTD workshop , the CTS workshop also be held as a public 
event. 
4.14.  It was so agreed. 
4.15.  The Chairman then drew Members' attent ion to the communication circulated by Chinese 
Taipei entitled "Protection of Personal Informat ion and the Development of Electronic Commerce", 
contained in document JOB/SERV/140. 
4.16.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said that e-commerce had rapidly become a major 
platform for trade and business across the globe. In Chinese Taipei's case, the value of Business-
to-Consumer online sales of services in 2012 acco unted for around 10% of the sales of the whole 
retail services sector, reflecting a 17.4% increase on the previous year. A recent industry survey predicted that the growth rate would remain strong for the foreseeable future. Any efforts to 
enhance the development of e-commerce could therefore only be beneficial. 
4.17.  Another noticeable major trend was the expansion of e-commerce from domestic to cross-
border sales. In Chinese Taipei's case, over 28% of e-commerce suppliers were serving both 
domestic and overseas consumers, and a further 20% intended or planned to expand into cross-
border sales over the following three years. Significantly, this development required much greater S/C/M/113 
 
- 12 - 
 
  multilateral cooperation, to identify and solve problems that were currently hindering the cross-
border supply of e-commerce. 
4.18.  Consumers using e-commerce services across borders faced unfamiliar challenges and 
uncertainties that were sometimes difficult to address for traditional regulatory mechanisms and 
legal concepts at a national level. Therefore, Chinese Taipei shared Australia's view that protecting 
consumers of cross-border e-commerce services was crucial to establishing credibility and confidence in the market-place. 
4.19.  In its communication, Chinese Taipei had shared its experience with its new regulatory 
regime, the Personal Information Protection Act, which had been brought into force in October 2012. This included a provision for regulating and protecting the cross-border transmission of personal information. Being relative late-comers to the debate on this issue, 
Chinese Taipei was very keen to learn from other Members' experiences and practices, particularly 
in the area of building confidence among consumers and regulators alike. 
4.20.  To encourage further discussions, her dele gation proposed including this topic in the 
forthcoming workshop, and examining important se rvices-related issues for the development of 
e-commerce. The workshop was a valuable opportunity for experience-sharing and confidence-building with regard to the cross-border transfer of personal information. Specifically, Chinese 
Taipei proposed three questions to be discusse d in the workshop. What had been the main 
experiences and what were considered best practices in terms of international cooperation on the cross-border transfer and protection of personal information? What were the appropriate criteria for deciding whether an adequate and comparable level of protection existed in the receiving 
Member? Were there any exceptions to the princi ple of "comparable level of protection"? She 
hoped that this could be a practical and significant first step towards more efficient and effective cooperation at the multilateral level. 
4.21.  The representative of Australia welcomed Chinese Taipei's Communication as a useful 
contribution to the discussion of how developments in consumer protection were essential to the 
expansion of e-commerce. 
4.22.  The representative of the European Unio n also welcomed the submission. He stressed the 
importance of privacy as an enabler of trust in e-commerce and a facilitator of trade in services. 
The European Union was willing to share its own experience in this field and was in the process of reviewing its regulatory framework with regard to privacy. 
4.23.  The representative of Peru concurred that Chinese Taipei's thoughts were very important to 
understand Members' experiences in this area, and indicated that Peru had enacted a law on data 
protection that included the notion of "comparable level of protection". 
4.24.  The Chairman proposed that the Council would take note of the statements made and revert 
to the issue at the workshop and at future meetings. 
4.25.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E - DEVELOPMENTS IN SERVICES TRADE AND REGULATION 
5.1.  The Chairman recalled that this item had been placed on the Council's agenda following 
Members' discussions at the informal meeting of 24 October, as a way of strengthening mutual 
learning and experience-sharing. One delegation, supported by many others, had suggested that 
UNCTAD be invited to deliver a presentation on their on-going work on services. While the 
UNCTAD Secretariat had not been available to make this presentation in December, it was present at today's meeting. 
5.2.  A representative of the UNCTAD Secretariat explained that UNCTAD's work on the regulation 
of infrastructure services had been undertaken through so-called "expert meetings". Such 
meetings dealt with technical issues and were meant to provide a platform for experience-sharing. 
Meetings on the regulation of infrastructure services had been held between 2009 and 2012, and 
again in February 2013. S/C/M/113 
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.3.  Infrastructure services had been defined as covering five sectors: energy, 
telecommunications, water supply, transport and financial services. While the first four sectors were obviously infrastructural in nature, the financial services sector had been included because it shared some of the same features, such as the public-good component, the input function and the 
importance of regulation. However, given Members'  extensive discussions of financial services in 
the CTFS, her presentation would focu s only on the first four sectors. 
5.4.  The objective of regulation in those sectors was to correct market failures. In the absence of 
regulation, infrastructural sectors might face prob lems relating to competition, under-investment, 
bad performance, lack of consumer protection, inadequate universal access, no promotion of innovation or environmental sustainability. The ke y regulatory issues identified concerned market 
entry, pricing methodologies, universal access and the interface between competition authorities 
and sectoral regulators on anti-competitive practices. 
5.5.  Starting with market entry, discussio ns had touched upon three key areas, notably 
privatization, public-private partnerships and st ate-owned enterprises. Privatization was a notion 
that used to be very popular in infrastructure services because of the unsatisfactory performance 
of public enterprises providing such services. However, one important consideration was when to privatize. Factors to be considered involved whether the private companies concerned had the best 
management capabilities; the State retained the ability to discipline or regulate the sector; risks 
were appropriately allocated to the private companies; reform would be financially and socially sustainable; regulators had the capacity to manage post-privatization politics; no conflict of interest existed between maximizing the treasury's and public interest in the sector; and 
privatization would effectively introduce competition, so that a state monopoly did not become a 
private monopoly. Privatization should only be a means to achieve an end, not the end itself. 
5.6.  There was also increasing interest in relying on public-private partnerships (PPPs). PPPs 
enabled the State to retain ownership while foster ing innovation. They required, inter alia, good 
preparation, skilful government officials to negotiate with the private sector, careful specification of the contract, the setting of performance benchmarks on the private sector and effective evaluation 
of the contract implementation. 
5.7.  The issue of State-owned enterprises (SOEs)  was also relevant in infrastructure services. 
Since the mid-1990s, the focus had not been on ab olishing SOEs, but rather on improving their 
performance. Public ownership did not imply bad performance, but necessitated good corporate 
governance, increased transparency, and performance indicators similar to those for the private 
sector. In both developed and developing countries , examples existed of SOEs performing as well 
as private companies. In situations where there was only a State-owned monopoly, it might be 
difficult to benchmark the performance of SOEs, but it should nevertheless be possible to do so 
against counterparts in the region. 
5.8.  Pricing methodologies were also very important in the regulation of infrastructure sectors. 
Likewise, universal access obligations were key. They had to be realistic, clearly defined and 
adaptable to changes in technology and market situations. Many questions had been raised in 
particular with regard to subsidies, including how to use them, which groups to target, which criteria to set, for how long to maintain  them, and how to evaluate their effects. 
5.9.  There had also been discussions about th e interface between regulators and competition 
authorities in the event of anti-competitive prac tices. Competition authorities dealt with such 
practices, which were frequent in infrastructure sectors, and this implied a need to coordinate and 
address any overlap with regulatory authorities, to avoid forum-shopping and regulatory jeopardy. 
5.10.  Institutional issues were also important, as good regulations required institutions capable of 
implementing them properly. There were different  types of regulators: single-sector and multi-
sector, competition agencies and sectoral regulators, etc. As for regulatory governance, factors to 
focus on included: independence in legal, financial and administrative matters; transparency; meaningful stakeholder involvement to balance different interests; and skilful and professional legal, financial, economic and technical staff. The latter issue in particular represented a big 
challenge for developing countries. Regulatory capacity-building was proving very difficult for 
many developing countries, particularly in terms of scarcity of qualified staff. Possible remedies S/C/M/113 
 
- 14 - 
 
  included pooling regional resources or twinning  arrangements between developed and developing 
countries or between developing country regulators. 
5.11.  Lastly, the expert meeting had come up with a few recommendations. First, instead of 
discussing which ownership structure was best for infrastructure services, it was preferable to 
focus on the quality of regulation and institutional capacities. Second, there was not a "one size 
fits all" recipe. Third, regulation had to be a dynamic process, as had been well-proven by the financial crisis. Fourth, regulators had to be transparent and independent in terms of decision-
making. Fifth, regulatory co-operation was very important in helping developing countries build up 
necessary capacity. 
5.12.  The representative of Bolivia wished to stress a few points related to the issue of water 
supply. While Bolivia had not participated in the ex pert meeting, there was a global consensus that 
access to water resources was a human right. Resolutions to this effect had been adopted by the 
UN General Council in New York and the Human Rights Council in Geneva. As such, the issue could not be looked at from a market perspective. He disagreed with the statement that private 
enterprises had better management than publicly owned ones. This was an ideological statement, 
not a technical one, originating from the time of the Washington consensus and had since been 
overtaken. He also wondered what it meant to be "realistic" with regard to universal access with 
regard to water resources. Should only those wh o could afford it be given access to water? He 
reiterated that water should not be discussed from a commercial perspective, and especially so in the WTO. 
5.13.  The representative of Brazil expressed appr eciation for the very useful work in services 
trade and development carried out by UNCTAD through the series of expert meetings. These had 
provided an invaluable collection of success stories and best-practices countries could draw from and feed into their own policy making. Moreover , they had allowed a close examination of the 
challenges and bottlenecks that countries, especially  developing ones, had to grapple with, both on 
the demand and the supply side, to harness th e potential benefits from trade in services. 
5.14.  The representative of Switzerland noted that in Switzerland, SOEs existed in practically all 
infrastructure sectors addressed in the expert meeting. When it came to prices, it was important to 
avoid that SOEs take advantage of favourable competitive conditions to keep prices high. Switzerland had thus put in place an independent entity called "Monsieur prix" that enjoyed a number of prerogatives and that could, including on its own initiative, analyse the pricing structure 
of an SOE, in particular administrated prices, and issue recommendations. SOEs were required to 
set cost-based prices. 
5.15.  The Chairman said that copies of the pr esentation by UNCTAD would be circulated to 
delegations electronically. In view of the lateness of the hour, he proposed that Members conclude 
their discussion of this item and that the Council take note of the statements made. 
5.16.  It was so agreed. 
6  ITEM F - OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE MC8 DECISION ON THE SERVICES WAIVER 
FOR LDCS 
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that an LDC servic es waiver had been adopted on 17 December 2011 
by a Decision of the Ministerial Conference. From  that date, notwithstanding the MFN requirement 
in Article II of the GATS, Members had been free to  notify and grant more favourable treatment to 
services and service suppliers of LDCs with respect to the measures falling within the six categories of market access listed in Article XVI, or under other GATS provisions if approved by the 
Council for Trade in Services. So far, no waiver preferences had been granted. 
6.2.  On 4 February 2013, the LDC Group had requested that an item be added to the agenda of 
the Council on the operationalization of the Minist erial Decision on the services waiver for LDCs. 
6.3.  Speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, the re presentative of Nepal said that the MC8 Decision 
on the LDC services waiver had been an importan t deliverable. The Decision was the first of its 
kind in the form of an enabling clause on trade in services. It provided authorization for Members to grant preferences to LDCs. Their focus now was on translating the promises of the MC8 Decision S/C/M/113 
 
- 15 - 
 
  into action, to help them in their efforts to secure a share in the growth in international trade as 
spelled out in the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement. 
6.4.  The waiver was designed to promote the trad e of LDCs in sectors and modes of supply that 
were of particular export interest to them. It allowed Members to grant market access preferences, 
as well as other kinds of preferences subject to the Council's approval. Members could offer 
preferential quotas, for example, and, by seeking approval from the Council, grant other privileges 
such as preferential national treatment and regu latory arrangements. It was important that both 
of those two-tiered solutions were put into effective operation. 
6.5.  The Decision specified that LDCs wo uld be granted preferences immediately and 
unconditionally. As it had rightly been pointed out, no waiver had been granted so far. In order to operationalize the Decision, LDCs' trading partners would have to design and effectively implement 
the appropriate trade preference schemes targeted towards LDC services supply. 
6.6.  LDCs had already initiated homework on thei r part towards the operationalization of the MC8 
Decision. Their work programme specified concrete  steps. First, the Group needed to identify 
potential sectors and modes of interest to LDCs for services exports, the current and possible 
future LDC supply possibilities, as well as trade barriers that were affecting exports of services. An internal brainstorming session was envisaged to be held this summer, aimed at developing 
requests based on identified priorities vis- à-vis potential preference-granting countries, 
highlighting concrete options for commercially meaningful preferences to LDC services and service suppliers. To be commercially meaningful, such preferences would have to reflect the services sectors and modes where LDCs had existing or potential export capacities. 
6.7.  Based on their identified priorities, LDCs envisaged having consultation meetings with 
potential preference-granting countries to explain their requests. They believed that better knowledge of their priorities would be helpful for trading partners to take appropriate measures 
towards granting commercially meaningful prefer ences. The LDC work programme also specified 
the need for a "Signalling Conference", where partners could pronounce their preference schemes for LDCs. 
6.8.  The LDC Group had requested the inclusion of that item on the Council's agenda with a view 
to generating a forward-looking discussion on that  important issue. It expected to hear other 
Members' observations and how they planned to operationalize the waiver. Announcement of possible preferences could make a meaningful commercial difference for LDCs' services and 
services suppliers. 
6.9.  An additional aspect of the implementation  of the MC8 Decision was the notification to the 
Council. The Group underlined the importance of regular notification on the specific efforts 
Members had undertaken in granting preferences resp onding to LDCs' priority interests in trade in 
services. LDCs counted on the political will on th e part of their trading partners to ensure the 
effective operationalization of the waiver. The Gr oup asked that the item remain on the Council's 
agenda. 
6.10.  The representative of the United States ex pressed support for LDCs' efforts to extend their 
services trade. Services played a critical role for development, and competitive service markets 
would help expand economic opportunities. As for the waiver, when the mechanism was developed 
and adopted at MC8, his delegation had noted throughout the process that it was an area of 
uncharted territory. Members had no experience with  such a waiver in the services world. When 
the waiver Decision had been adopted, the United States had not identified any particular actions 
that might be taken under it. However, his dele gation remained open to exploring the issue 
further, to better understand how LDCs viewed services as important to their development needs. The United States might then be in a better position to see how the waiver might be used to serve 
those interests. 
6.11.  The representative of the Tanzania supported  the statement made by Nepal on behalf of the 
LDC Group, which was timely as Members were considering the future of the services waiver 
agreed at MC8. While Members were moving towards the Bali Ministerial Conference, her 
delegation hoped that some other deliverables could also be achieved. S/C/M/113 
 
- 16 - 
 
  6.12.  She appreciated Members' support in agreeing to the services waiver. LDCs considered it as 
a special opportunity to move forward together in the area of trade in services. Services touched the lives of the poor in LDCs. The importance of trade in services for them, thus, went beyond pure economic significance, due to the major role services played in achieving social and 
development objectives and as a means of addressing poverty, upgrading welfare, improving 
universal availability and access to basic services, as well as ensuring sustainable development, including its social dimension. LDCs were facing serious difficulties in addressing a number of 
complex issues simultaneously, such as lack of institutional and human capacities. 
6.13.  The LDC Group recognized the importance of  the waiver to allow developing and developed 
countries to provide preferential treatment to LDC exports, consistent with the special provisions 
of the WTO Agreement. Members could grant market  access preferences as well as other kinds of 
preferences subject to the approval by the CTS. LDCs believed that the waiver would not only 
promote increased trading opportunities for them, but also facilitate expansion of trade in services 
and development within the multilateral trading system. 
6.14.  It had been over a year since the waiver had been delivered at MC8, and nothing had been 
achieved on its implementation. LDCs had understood that, through the waiver, Members were willing to provide preferential treatment to se rvices and services suppliers of LDCs, without 
according the same treatment to like services and service suppliers of all other Members, with a 
view to promoting LDCs' service trade in sectors an d modes of supply that were of export interest 
to them. 
6.15.  The LDC Group had developed a work plan, with a view to designing an effective way of 
implementing services trade preference schemes. Th ey were also trying to identify commercially 
meaningful access opportunities, reflecting sectors and modes where LDCs had existing or potential export interests. The implementation part of the waiver would materialize only if 
Members continued to willingly support LDCs in the process. The Group hoped that the WTO would 
assist them in further pursuing their work with a view to finalizing it in a transparent and timely manner. 
6.16.  The representative requested that the LDC's services waiver remain an area of focus while 
the Group considered effective ways of implementing it, based on constructive engagement with the Membership in that very important matter. 
6.17.  The representative of Indonesia said that, as mentioned by the Chairman of the TNC during 
the TNC meeting on 25 February 2013, LDC issues were being discussed as part of the deliverables 
for the Bali Ministerial. These included the outsta nding discussion on the operationalization of the 
services waiver. The best way to proceed was to carefully consider the best interests of LDCs, 
rather than offering them preferences that they  could not operationalize. She suggested that the 
Council conduct a series of consultations among LDCs and key players aimed at collecting possible preferences. Indonesia was ready to lend its supp ort to the process, working towards MC9 and the 
conclusion of the DDA. 
6.18.  The representative of Norway welcomed th e timely inclusion of the item on the Council's 
agenda. Norway had been involved in the work leading up to the adoption of the LDC services 
waiver that was an important tool, alongside other types of work, to foster further development of 
LDC services trade. 
6.19.  There was a need to know, in more concrete terms, the priority areas. The LDC Group was a 
diverse group of countries with varying interests and needs, and input from both the LDC Group as 
a whole as well as individual LDC Members would be welcome. Her delegation was interested in 
hearing LDCs' views on how other Members could assist in identifying such areas of interest, and to explore ways in which to support the further development of LDC services trade. Norway would 
reflect on the proposals made for the process ahead, keeping in mind LDC issues that were being 
discussed elsewhere in the WTO. 
6.20.  The representative of South Africa noted that, with the services waiver, Members had the 
requisite legal basis to grant preferences to services and service providers from all LDCs. Those 
preferences should include national treatment, pr eferential treatment on domestic regulation, and S/C/M/113 
 
- 17 - 
 
  market access. South Africa was committed to pr oviding commercially meaningful preferential 
market access to LDCs, and encouraged other Members to contribute. 
6.21.  The representative of India said that his de legation was willing to work with LDCs and other 
Members to take the issue forward in a constructive manner. 
6.22.  The representative of China mentioned that his delegation had always supported the 
effective implementation of the LDC services waiver . The concrete steps taken by LDCs to identify 
sectors and modes of export interest were useful , and the proposed "Signalling Conference" was a 
good opportunity for Members to exchange views and find ways to match their offers with LDCs' 
specific needs. China was willing to make its du e contribution to the operationalization of the 
waiver as soon as possible. 
6.23.  The representative of Australia stressed the importance of the LDC waiver in the run-up to 
MC9. Australia was happy to work with LDCs to he lp them identify preferences. She noted that, in 
the past, the issue had been discussed in the Specia l Session of the CTS, and this option remained 
available if Members wished to give the LDC waiver a special focus and more time for 
consideration. 
6.24.  The representative of the European Union was open to exploring different avenues. The 
European Union would appreciate if LDCs identified their needs and offensive interests and 
exchanged this information with the Members concerned. This was essential for any successful 
Signalling Conference. 
6.25.  The representative of Brazil expressed his delegation's support for a robust outcome on LDC 
issues at MC9, to include the operationalization of the services waiver. Brazil was at the disposal of 
the LDC Group to help operationalize the waiver in any way the Group deemed useful. 
6.26.  The representative of Chinese Taipei indica ted her delegation's readiness to contribute to 
the operationalization of the waiver and to work with LDCs on identifying their needs and moving 
the work forward. 
6.27.  The representative of Nepal appreciated Members' willingness to work on the LDC waiver. 
The LDC Group was engaged in identifying its priori ties and would keep the Council updated. They 
intended to come up with concrete proposals and expected their partners to undertake the 
necessary exercise to identify what they could offer to LDCs. 
6.28.   The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the statements made and revert to 
this item at its next meeting. 
6.29.  It was so agreed. 
7  ITEM G - OTHER BUSINESS 
7.1.  In view of the lateness of the hour, the Chai rman said that the Secretariat had agreed not to 
brief the Council on technical assistance in the fi eld of trade in services statistics, and the ITU 
representative had also agreed not to debrief Me mbers on recent developments in the ITU's work. 
7.2.  The representative of Australia said that she wished to keep the Council informed on 
discussions among a group of Members on a trade in services agreement, which had continued 
that week. The group had considered ideas on ho w a new agreement could build on the GATS, for 
instance by replicating certain articles or enhancing others while retaining consistency with the GATS. The group had also discussed ideas about new and enhanced disciplines in mode 4 and in 
ICT services. She reiterated the groups' readiness to talk to any Member who was interested in 
their work and to remain open to any new participant. 
7.3.  All delegations who spoke on this issue th anked Australia for the update and appreciated the 
transparency provided. 
7.4.  Representative of Uruguay reiterated his dele gation's previous position and, in particular, its 
concerns about the devastating effects that the group's initiative could have on 12 years of DDA S/C/M/113 
 
- 18 - 
 
  negotiations by unbalancing the equilibrium achieved so far. His delegation did not believe that the 
initiative had anything to do with the political guidance given by Ministers at MC8, which had reasserted the objective of ensuring a successful co nclusion of the DDA. Nor was it compatible with 
the Declaration made on that occasion by the members of the G-90 and Friends of Development 
Group, which had reaffirmed the centrality of th e single undertaking within the WTO. It was not 
appropriate for a group of Members, however importan t, to take the initiative and then expect the 
rest of the Membership to join them. 
7.5.  The representative of Cuba disapproved of the so-called "Real Friends of Services" using the 
Council to update the rest of the Membership about an initiative that went against multilateralism, 
a concept in which Members had invested so much. The group also seemed to expect the rest of the Membership to accept a future "Trade in Services Agreement". Fortunately, the group had 
stopped using the WTO meeting rooms, where Members were working hard to breathe new life 
into the DDA mandate and set up a balanced pack age for MC9. However, this group was trying 
instead to conclude plurilateral negotiations by the time of the Bali Ministerial. Cuba was concerned 
about the fate of the GATS and the DDA negotiations, especially in the areas of development and 
agriculture, special and differential treatment for developing countries, and small and medium-sized enterprises, once the group's agreement had been concluded. 
7.6.  The representative of the United States supported the statement by Australia in a spirit of 
transparency and inclusiveness. To advance work in Geneva, it was important to proceed in a 
flexible way, including through various configurations of Members and topics. The WTO was more than a set of Agreements. It was a meeting place to work on trade, and had a rich history of 
plurilateral initiatives. Such efforts should be  encouraged as a means of achieving Members' 
common goal of supporting and building upon the multilateral trading system. 
7.7.  The representative of Switzerland echoed Australia's statement. His delegation was part of 
the initiative with a view to contributing positively to the WTO negotiating process. Switzerland 
was unhappy with the state of the DDA negotiations and was looking for options to break the deadlock. The group's initiative could be integrated into the multilateral system: the resulting 
agreement had to be based on the GATS. His de legation was actively participating in the 
development of enhanced disciplines for mode 4 and non-binding principles on ICT. 
7.8.  Echoing previous statements to that effe ct, the representative of Bolivia reiterated his 
delegation's concerns that the resulting plur ilateral agreement would undermine the DDA and 
multilateralism would suffer. 
7.9.  The representative of the European Unio n supported Australia's intervention. The group's 
initiative could significantly contribute to further services trade, both through additional 
liberalization and new and enhanced disciplines. The European Union remained strongly committed 
to multilateralism and was convinced that the initiative was supportive of the WTO and the GATS. Participants had had productive, concrete exchanges that week, and talks would continue in the 
forthcoming months. He stressed that the group was available for discussions with any Member on 
its initiative. The representative of Norway also echoed Australia's statement. 
7.10.  The representative of India said that hi s delegation's position on this initiative was 
unchanged. India continued to have concerns on the impact on multilateralism and Members' goal 
of concluding Doha Round in an inclusive and transparent manner. 
7.11.  The representative of Egypt wished to see the group displaying the same enthusiasm 
towards the multilateral negotiating track, whic h urgently needed to be reinvigorated. Other 
options could not substitute for the benefits that could accrue to WTO Members from multilateral 
negotiations with a single undertaking and a de velopment dimension. Egypt encouraged the group 
to share more details about their negotiations. 
7.12.  The representative of China said that his delegation's position had not changed. China was 
concerned with the impact that the so-called "TIS A" could have on the multilateral mechanism, 
and on the DDA in particular. He reiterated his delegation's support for any efforts to move the 
DDA forward. It was the most efficient route to sustain the recovery of the world economy and 
resist protectionism. At that critical moment for the DDA, Members should refrain from activities 
that undermined the multilateral process. Furthermore, China considered it important to reach an S/C/M/113 
 
- 19 - 
 
  early harvest package with trade facilitation as a core component. This delegation stood ready to 
collaborate with others Members, including RGF part ies, to contribute to the success of MC9, which 
would instil new vitality into the DDA. 
7.13.  The representative of Brazil echoed the concerns voiced by a number of other developing 
countries on the potential systemic impact of the group's initiative, as well as the potential 
deleterious effects on the DDA. His delegation's position had not changed, and Brazil remained 
committed to a successful outcome in Bali. The representatives of South Africa, the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela and Nigeria concurred, as did the representative of Argentina, who stressed 
the single-undertaking principle of the DDA and called for a balanced outcome in all three 
negotiating pillars. 
7.14.  Speaking on behalf of SVEs, the representative of Barbados said that the governments 
concerned continued to strongly prefer multilateral negotiations, which had development at its 
core and were based on a single undertaking. The political guidance developed by Ministers at 
MC8, for Members to develop new negotiating approaches aimed at progressing the DDA 
negotiations, was multilateral in nature and in process. It had not materialized so far, but SVEs hoped that greater emphasis would be placed on new negotiating approaches within the 
multilateral context that respected the core values of the WTO. Developing countries, small 
economies and LDCs in particular, strongly relied on multilateralism to further integrate into the trading system while respecting the need for special and differential treatment for the most 
vulnerable. Multilateralism needed to be based on the principles of full participation, inclusiveness 
and transparency. SVEs stood ready to engage in that regard. 
7.15.  Turning to the remaining item of Other Bu siness, the representative of India expressed his 
delegation's concern at the delay in the entry into  force of the EU-25 schedule. He understood that 
there had been some progress in the number of EU Member States who had ratified the certified schedule, which was encouraging, and requeste d the European Union to provide an update. 
7.16.  The representative of the European Unio n said that 19 EU member States had concluded 
their ratification of the consolidated schedule. One more member State had finalized its internal 
procedures and was swiftly moving to the last step of ratification. The European Union continued engaging informally with affected Members to keep  them up to date on the pending ratifications. 
7.17.  The Chairman said that the Secretariat would circulate the documents that the ITU 
representative had intended to present to the Council. He proposed that the Council would take 
note of the statements made. 
7.18.  It was so agreed. 
8  ITEM H - APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW CHAIRPERSON 
8.1.  Based on the consensus reached in the General Council, the Chairman indicated that he was 
pleased to pass on the Chairmanship of the Council for Trade in Services to Ambassador Al-Otaibi 
of Saudi Arabia. He was confident that, with his wisdom and integrity, his successor would guide 
the future work of the Council skilfully and effici ently. As the outgoing Chairperson of the Council, 
he had enjoyed working with Members, appreciating their cooperative and constructive spirit in 
fulfilling the mandate of the Council. He then proposed that the Council elect Ambassador Al-Otaibi 
by acclamation as the new Chairperson. 
8.2.  The Council elected Ambassador Al-Otaibi by acclamation. 
8.3.  The new Chairman, Ambassador Al-Otaibi, thanked Ambassador Reiter on Members' behalf 
for his hard work during the previous year. He had given impetus to many issues, and would no 
doubt continue to do so as the new Chairman of the TPRB. One way of acknowledging Ambassador 
Reiter's contribution was, as had been suggested, to invite him to chair the upcoming e-commerce 
workshop. He would do his best to chair the Council in the most efficient way possible and was confident that, with Members' collaboration, work would move forward smoothly and fruitfully. He then suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and adjourn the meeting. 
8.4.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________