RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/12 7 
 
13 September  2016 
(16-4807) Page: 1/28   
Council for Trade in Services    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 17 JUNE 2016 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 17 June 2016, opened by 
Ambassador  Eyjólfsson (Iceland ), and chaired by Amba ssador Gustavo Vanerio (Uruguay) . The 
agenda was contained i n document WTO/AIR/ CTS/7. 
The Chairman informed Members that , under Other Business , the designated new  Chairman  would 
make a statement about the WTO Secretariat updating the Council on developments in trade in 
services statistics.   
It was so agreed . 
The re presentative of Morocco , speaking on behalf of the African Group , wished to raise a question 
regarding recent developments concerning the Trade in Services Division  under Other Business .  
The representative of the European Union  also wished to add an item under  Other Business , to 
share some information on  the TISA negotiations . 
The agenda was adopted  as modified . 
1  ITEM A – APPOINTMENT OF THE N EW CHAIRPERSON  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the election of the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in 
Services was normally to take place at  the first meeting of the year.  However, for unescapable 
reasons, the designated new Chairman of the Council, Ambassador V anerio , had not be en present 
at the first CTS meeting of 2016, which had been held in March. The item was  there fore being  
addressed  at that meeting, as the first item of the agenda.  
1.2.  Based on the consensus reached in the General Council, he was  very pleased to pass on the 
Chairmanship of the Council for Trade in Services to Ambassador Vanerio . He was  confident that,  
with his experience and wisdom, Ambassador Vanerio will guide the work of the Council over the 
following year skilfully and efficiently.  
1.3.  As outgoing C hairman, he had enjoyed working with Members during the previous year and 
had truly appreciated delegati ons' cooperative and constructive spirit in fulfilli ng the mandate of 
the Council. In particular, he wished to express  his personal appreciation to all Members for their 
construc tive engagement at MC10, which had been  indispensable to Ministers adopting th e 
important Decision on the "Implementation of preferential treatment in favour of services and 
service suppliers of Least -Developed Countries and increasing LDC pa rticipation in services trade".  
He then proposed that the Council elect Ambassador Vaneiro a s its new Chairperson.  
1.4.  The Council elected  Ambassador Vanerio by acclamation .  
1.5.   The Chairman  thank ed Ambassador Eyjólfsson for his kind wo rds and hard work during the 
previous  year, saying that h e had set the bar very high. He also wish ed to thank delegati ons for 
their trust and support.  He would do his  best to chair the Council for Trade in Services in the most 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Se cretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/C/M/127  
 
- 2 - 
 
  efficient way possible and was confident that , with Members' cooperation and the Secretariat's 
assistance, the Council's  work w ould move forward sm oothly and fruitfully.  
1.6.  In the last decades there had  been a technological revolution , a quantum leap,  in the 
capacity for information transmission. A change had taken place in the nature of commercial flows 
and especially in services trade that had been difficult to follow. Uruguay had not been just a 
witness to this revolution , but had been abl e to open up over the past 20 years , participating in 
global  services  trade flows in areas that went beyond  traditional  sectors like tourism. It had  begun 
a new chap ter in logistics and global services. Export s of global services from Uruguay were 
estimated at  US$ 1.3 billion and employ ed directly more th an 16 ,000 persons. Services we re 
indeed  a fundamental component of the Uruguayan economy and that was  the case for all 
Members . For that reason, t he greater the efforts of  Members in pursuit of their work on trade in 
services  in the WTO, the better they would be placed in  adapting to the future.  
1.7.  All delegations who spoke  at the meeting thanked Ambassador Eyjólfsson for his work and 
congratulated Ambassador Vanerio  on his appointment as Chairman of the Council, wel coming him 
to his new position.  
2  ITEM B - NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO ARTICLES III:3 AND V:7  OF THE GATS  
2.1.  With regard to the notifications made pursuant to GATS Ar ticle III:3 (transparency), the 
Chairman  drew the Council's attention to the communication received from Egypt (in document 
S/C/N/8 62).  
2.2.  The Chairman  suggested  that the Council take note of the notification  made.  
2.3.  It was so agreed .  
2.4.  As for  the notification s made pursuant to GATS Article  V:7, the Chairman  drew Members' 
attention to the communications received from the Republic of Korea and Viet Nam (S/C/N/861); 
China and Hong Kong, China (S/C/N/264/Add.9); China and Macao, China (S/C/N/265/Add.9); 
Mongolia a nd Japan (S/C/N/863); and Mexico and Panama (S/C/N/864).  
2.5.  The representative of the United States  noted that comments had been  made at the previous 
meeting about the need for "real transparency" with regard to negotiations  that were taking place 
outside the  WTO. His delegation had been  very vocal and outspoken about the importance of 
transparency in RTAs across various Committees , wished to reiterate its great interest in relevant 
notifications  and appreciated those  that had been submitted. In the spirit of urging greater 
transparency, while he acknowledged  the two notifications submitted by China that were on the 
agenda for that meeting , he reiterate d his delegation's previous requests concer ning the Cross -
Straits  Economic Cooperation Framework A greement . The Agreement  had entered into force on 
12 September  2010 but had not as yet been notified to the WTO by the parties. He noted that, 
while an early announ cement had been submitted by the parties  to the WTO , such an 
announcement was not a notification . As per  the obligations in the Transparency Mechanism, 
notifications were due prior to preferences being extended. According to Articles 7 and 8 of the 
ECFA, the two parties had agreed to implement an "early harvest " in respect to  services . Relevant 
press release s on the  MOFCOM's website referred to t he success of the early harvest. These  
included the statement that , on trade in services , more than 340  Chinese Taipei  enterprises and 
more than 137 investment projects made by China in Chinese Taipei had benefitted from the early 
harvest. As preferential access  had obviously been granted  under the ECFA , he again called on the 
parties to correctly notify, with respect to the CTS, the services part of the agreement.  
2.6.  The representative of China  said that she had taken no te of the US statement and would 
relate it back to capital. The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked  the United States for its 
interest in the ECFA. In her delegation's view, the ECFA wa s only a Framework Agreement, with 
follow -up agreements to be nego tiated. Her delegation  would notify the ECFA and its follow -up 
agreements to the WTO  once the follow -up agreements had  been signed.  
2.7.  The Chairman  suggested that Council  take note of the notifications  and statements made and  
refer the agreements notified to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for consideration.   
2.8.  It was so agreed .  S/C/M/127  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3  ITEM C – OPERATION ALIZATION OF THE LDC  SERVICES WAIVER  
3.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at its previous  meeting, the Council  had taken  note of the 
notifications of the waiver preferences  received since October and  had approved preferential 
measures going beyond GATS Article XVI, which were contained in five of the notifications on the 
agenda for that meeting.  The many notifications submitted to the Council had been  welcomed by 
the LDC Group and the Membership at large.   
3.2.  The Ministerial Decision on the "Implementation of preferential treatment in favour of 
services and service suppliers of Least -Developed Countries and increasing LDC participation in 
services tr ade" adopted in Nairob i, contained  a number of mandates for the Council. Paragraph 1.5 
stipulate d, inter alia,  that the Council for Trade in Services "shall, with a view to furthering the 
objectives of GATS Article IV, facilitate an exchange of information by Members on technic al 
assistance measures undertaken to promote the increasing participation of LDCs in world services 
trade "; "initiate a process to review the operation of notified preferences, on the basis of 
information provided by Members "; and "further discuss any issu es that may facilitate benefits 
provided under the notified preferences. " 
3.3.  He wished to open the floor to delegations to share initial ideas on how this work could be 
approached. He would of course also entertain comments by any Member wishing to revert to the 
notifications addressed at the Council meeting in March.  He then drew delegations' attention to the 
revision to Turkey's notification of preferential treatment, which had been  issued the previous day 
and was  contained in document S/C/N/824/Rev.1.  
3.4.  The representative of Benin , speaking on behalf of the LDCs Group, inform ed the Council that 
for that  year, over the course of each CTS meeting,  the Group  would provide an examination of 
the latest notifications received . This would give LDCs time to conduct bi laterals before each CTS 
meeting at which they could  register their initial assessment and reactions to the notification s with 
the Member concerned . In addition, LDCs  continue d to monitor the implementation of all 
notifications submitted pursuant to the waiver. LDCs would also consider notifications submitted in 
the context of the new elements provided by Ministers under the Nairobi Decision . These  include d 
steps taken to build awareness among LDC suppliers and consumers in the notifying countries and 
steps  taken to build LDC supplier capacity to benefit from the notifications.  
3.5.  At that day's meeting they wished to introduce  a few elements on the EU and South Africa n 
notifications, and provide further considerations at the following meeting along with their  review of 
other notifications.  
3.6.  With regard to the EU notification , the LDC Group appreciated the preferences notified 
therein and  in particular the breadth of sectors covered from their collective request and in the 
mode 4 categories of "Independent Profess ionals " and "Contractual Services Suppliers ". They  also 
appreciate d that the EU notification cover ed both market access and national treatment  measures . 
3.7.  It appear ed to the Group that  the preferences notified were the same or nearly the same as 
what the EU had agreed in the EU -CARIFORUM  Economic Partnership Agreement, and they wished 
to confirm this with the EU . If indeed this  was confirmed, the Group asked the EU to share with the 
Council  how the same preferential treatment provided to CARIFORUM countries h ad fared and 
whether an assessment  had been done on the extent to which CARIFORUM EPA parties had  
benefitted from th at preferential treatment ; the Group  would appreciate  if that assessment could 
be shared with them  as well. In addition, they asked if  the E U would  provide assistance to orient 
LDC suppliers to the benefits of the notification and how those benefits could be operationalized.  
3.8.  The LDC Group would  have further comments on the content of the EU notification, including 
highlights of usef ul provisio ns and how tho se might be implemented in favour of  LDC suppliers. 
However, at that time they wished to highlight one area that they had raised repeatedly at the 
time of the submission of the Collective Request  and through to the Nairobi Minis terial Confere nce, 
namely measures beyond GATS Article XVI that had  been identified as tantamount to essentially 
"non-tariff barriers" in the services context.  
3.9.  LDCs had met with the EU bilaterally to explore one issue brought to their attention by an 
LDC services suppli er, who reported that a psychiatrist from an LDC responded to an invitation to 
apply for a position announced on the internet for openings in two EU member states. The s earch  S/C/M/127  
 
- 4 - 
 
  agency was based in Spain. However, after promising exchanges, the agency dropped  the 
application on grounds that the applicant had already to be in possession of a residency permit in 
the respective EU member states. The Group  had met bilaterally with EU representatives and 
asked the EU to clarify the  issue, and the EU had explained t hat its notification did  cover 
psychiatrists under the Contrac tual Services Supplier category . The LDC Group wishe d to further  
confirm with the EU that the preference for C ontractual Services Suppliers did  not require a 
residency per mit, as that issue was not clear to them. In any case, in the event that Contractual 
Services Supplier s did require a residence permit, they asked if the EU would consider, in the spirit 
of the waiver mechanism, to fast -track the acqui sition of such permit if there wa s a bona fi de offer 
and/or contract . 
3.10.   The LDC Group  reiterated its  thank s to all Members  who had submitted notifications and 
looked  forward to concrete benefits for LDC services suppliers res ulting from the preferences 
notified . They  encourage d more Members to submit notifications  pursuant to the w aiver and also 
called for assistance  to be provided to  LDCs to increase the ir participation in services trade and to 
ensure utilization of the preferences .  
3.11.   Turning to the notification b y South Africa of December 2015 , the Gr oup was thankful for 
the preferences  notified therein.  The LDC  Group particularly appreciated that South Africa had  
provided both market access and national  treatment preferences.  Specific sectors mentioned  in the  
LDC C ollective Request were contained in S outh Africa's notification, namely : hotels and 
restaurants; tour guide services; rental of aircraft with crew;  maintenance and  repair of aircraft ; 
supporting services for air transport ; computer reservation systems  services;  and selling and 
marketing servi ces, rental of commercial vehicles with operator, and maintenance  and repair  of 
road transport equipment. LDCs  appreciate d that South Africa ha d provided  preferences that were 
either DDA offer, DDA offer-plus or GATS schedule -plus.  
3.12.   The Group  had met with South Africa bilaterally to  discuss the notification  but wishe d to 
pose a few questions for purposes of clarification.  First, South Africa ha d provided preferences for 
intra-corporate transferee s (ITCs) . However, the Contractual  Services Supplier and Indep endent 
Professional categories appear ed not to  have been explicitly covered . They therefore wondered  if 
the "professional " category was only relevant under ICTs or intended to go  beyond ICT s. 
3.13.   Second, S outh Africa's telecommunications preferences improved  on the  GATS 
commitments  and the DDA offer in a few places. However, were any of the  modifications for LDC 
suppliers alone  or did  supplier s from any WTO Member enjo y the same conditions in South Africa's 
applied regime ? For example , as concerned  the removal of the mode 3  restriction of the Telkom 
monopoly, t his monopoly was  intended to be terminated in 2003. Had  this take n place and , as 
stated in South Africa's schedule, did a duopoly exist now? The " none" preference for LDCs 
appear ed to improve on  South Afri ca's DDA offer ; however, the DDA offer  stated that "value -
added network services licensees may carry voice traffic using fixed links  from Telkom and SNO, 
but may not co nstruct their own facilities." Was that limitation not appl icable  to LDCs? Or d id it 
apply to all service suppliers?  
3.14.   Third, u nder financial services, LDCs we re mainly  present  in non -banking services , such as  
check cashing, currency  exchange, mon ey transfer and insurance  services . Did  South Africa's  
notification capture preferences  for LDCs in  those  subsector s? Were re-insurers for life insurance 
allowed to provide  service s without local incorporation?  Were any of th e preferences indicated, 
which either corresponded to or were  better than South Africa's  DDA offer, for LDC suppliers alone , 
or did all services suppl iers benefit from  the applied regime?  
3.15.   Fourth, in air transport services, as concerned the  rental of aircraft with crew and 
maintenance and repair  services , were the  equity limitations  (of 49% for operations in S outh Africa 
and 25% for o perations from S outh Africa to third parties ) applied to all countries  or just to LDCs? 
Could they be improved for LDCs?  
3.16.   Fifth, the LDC Group appreciate d that South Africa ha d not notified preferential treatment in 
the format  of its entire GATS schedule. H owever, the telecommunications Reference P aper was 
attached to the notification, which South Africa had already committed to for all WTO Members.  
Was it  attached  to the notification for any particular reason?  Finally, did South Africa plan to 
provide LDC s uppliers with orientation to the benefits of the notification?  S/C/M/127  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.17.   The representative of Turkey  said that his delegation  attached great  importance to its 
relations with LDCs . With its n otification of  preferences for services and s ervice suppliers of LDCs  
(docu ment S/C/N/824), which had  been in effect since 3 September 2015, Turkey had  shown its 
positive approach to  LDC requests of preferential treatment in services. Turkey’s notification was 
largely  based on the LDC collective request, as a reply to their needs .  
3.18.   With regard to the section of the notification dealing with horizontal treatment  (section 1 ) 
Turkey had  listed the categories of persons that did  not need to apply for work permit s and had 
bound its existing regulatory regime. This was  something Turkey had never done before. With its 
revised notification , circulated the previous day in document S/C/N/824/Rev.1,  Turkey aimed to 
clarify further the exemptions regarding work permits  under the horizonta l part of the notification. 
Accordingly, Turkey had redr afted the relevant paragraphs, clarified the term s and duration of stay 
for LDC nationals for those exemp tions and in some paragraphs had extended the waivers.  
3.19.   Moreover, as his delegation had  stated at the  March meeting, with regard to the scholarship 
programmes under section 3, the Presidency for Turks A broad and Related Communities was now  
the single authority responsible for granting international scholarships in the name of Turkey. 
Accordingly, paragraph 3.3 in the original notification had been deleted , in order to prevent any 
confusion  regarding  the institution granting scholarship s.  
3.20.   Reacting to the LDC Group statement about the EU notification, t he representative of the 
European Union said that his delegation was grateful for the positive assessment that had been 
shared. He then proceeded to address  some of the points raised by the LDC  Group , but indicated 
that the dialogue could also continue bilaterally. First, w ith regard  to the potential overlap between 
the EU LDC preferences and existing agreemen ts such as EU -CARIFORUM Agreement,  he said that,  
as indicated at the H igh-Level Meeting in 2015 , the Economi c Partnership Agreement was the EU's  
flagship development trade agreement and thus the EU had sought inspiration in that  agreement 
to build the noti fication for LDC s. Therefore, while t here was certainly an overlap , the EU had not 
just wholesale repackage d the EU -CARIFORUM agreement into the LDC notification. It had simply 
used it as  a source of inspiration , but his delegation had mainly taken  into ac count the  LDC 
collective request in designing  a tailor-made package of preferences for LDCs.   
3.21.   Second, with regard to the specific case of a psychi atric service provider who had  allegedly 
tried to provide services in the EU, while he was not sure the Counci l was the appropriate forum to 
deal with individual cases , his delegation was ready to respond and follow -up bilaterally. The 
information his delegation had about the case in question had been provided by private operators 
and was not an official response from governmental bodies or agencies ; on that basis , it was  very 
difficult to assess the implementation of the preferences . His delegation's understand ing was that 
the service supplier was an independent professional and, as the LDCs had  also pointed out, the 
preferences notified by the EU did not cover independent professional s for psychiatric  services,  but 
only contractual service suppliers . As such , the case in question did not seem relevant , but his 
delegation stood read to discuss further the scope of its notification . 
3.22.    Third, as concerned  technical assistance , the European Union was  very serious in 
implementing the Nairobi Ministerial Decision , and paragraph 1.4  in particular , and was  also 
keeping an eye on paragraph 3.2 of the LDC collective request  related to the provision of specific 
technical assistance and capacity -building. He therefore offered an update on the technical 
assistance that could potentially be used to support the implementation of the services waiver 
preferences , and in particular th ose offered by the EU. He recall ed what the EU had  presented at 
the C ommi ttee o n Trade and Development session on Aid for Trade in May. The EU and its Member 
States were in the process of  reviewing the joint strategy for A id for Trade, with the aim of  
ensuring that the strategy best reflect ed the needs and realities  the EU  tried to deliver using the 
collective annual A id-for-Trade provisions of about  EUR 12 billion . Support for the LDC services 
waiver was being put forward as one of the potential priorities  for inclusion in the review ; it would  
be considered in due course against the other priority issues included therein . In addition, EU 
technical assistance could already be requested under the current  Aid-for-Trade framework. 
Therefore, countries that requ ired support in the implementation of the services waiver should 
communicate those needs as a priority to their local EU delegation as part of their on -going 
dialogue on official development assistance . This possibility existed and was already available.   
3.23.    The representative of South Africa  said that her delegation  had had a very constructive 
bilateral engagement with the LDC Group and was  seeking to address some of the issues that h ad S/C/M/127  
 
- 6 - 
 
  been raised , which had been received very  positively. Her delegation wou ld continue tho se 
discussions bilaterall y with a view to reporting on them  at the next meeting.  
3.24.   Noting that her delegation had always been a strong supporter of LDCs and  of fostering 
their participation in global services trade, the representative of China recalled that, on 
22 July 2015, China had submitted its notification of preferences  for LDCs, which include d 
preferential measures on market access, capacity buildin g and technical assistance. Since 2015, 
China had implemented its notified preferences an d achieved fruitful results. For instance, China 
had provided training for nearly 2000 officials and technical staffs fr om LDCs in the field of medical 
services, tourism services and IT services. The subjects of the training  include d public health, 
hospita l management, infectious disease prevention and cure , basis software, ICT , internet 
technolog y, tourism and hotel services . China ha d also played an important rol e in strengthening 
various LDC M embers’ services infrastructure.  
3.25.   In addition, at the occasion of China's International Fair for Trade in Services , which had 
been successfully held in Beijing  in May, her delegation had provided financial support to 30 
enterprises and associations from 15 developing and LDC M embers to participate  in the event,  in 
order to facilitate the promotion of their services export.  To better implement the mandate 
contained in the Nairobi  Ministerial Decision, China encourage d other WTO M embers to submit 
their notifications of preferential treatment to LDCs, and help LD Cs benefi t from those preferences . 
3.26.   The representative of Australia  was pleased to update the Council on Australian 
development activities in support of  the implementation of preferences notified under the waiver , 
in accordance with the MC10 Ministerial Decision. Ju st the previous  week, Australia had  supported 
the fifth in a series of regional LDC services trade t raining workshops run in Fiji by the Institute f or 
International Trade.  The purpose of tho se workshops was to build LDC under standing of the 
services sector  and of opportunities for services to contribute to sustained and inclusive growth , 
particularly in relation to the use of the waiver. The workshop had been well attended , by 25 
participants from various government ministries and private sector representat ives from the 
Solomon Islands, S amoa, Vanuatu as well as Fiji. It had followed  on from the successful regional 
workshop held in Addis Aba ba from 29 February to 4 March, which had been attended by  over 40 
government and private sector participants and had included a focus on services trade 
negotiations at a crucial time for Ethiopia as it prepare d for its WTO accession . Australia had  
supported similar regional workshops that had been held in 2015 in Cambodia, and attended by 54  
LDC representatives from South -East Asia, as well as in Geneva , for 36 representatives from 24 
LDCs.   
3.27.   Australia’s funding to the Institute for International Trade was only part of its AUD 3 million 
contribution to projects aimed at increasing LDC parti cipation in trade in services. Australia was 
also partnering with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development to build 
understanding of opportunities for increasing services trade, including throug h private sector 
workshops for E ast Africa, Southern Africa and the Pacifi c. In the second stage of that  program me, 
which was  currently underway, building on the outcomes of those regional workshops, the ICTSD 
would be developing targeted sector -specific strategies to create jobs and combat poverty by 
empowering entrepreneurs an d making SMEs working in targeted sector s more competitive. Her 
delegation looked forward to continuing to work with LDCs in the WTO and in capitals to increase 
LDC participation in trade in services.  
3.28.   The representative of India was pleased to note that 23  notifications of preferences h ad 
been rece ived thus far , which that was very encouraging. H er delegation  hoped that, with the 
meaningful implementation of th e notified preferences , LDCs would become further integrated into 
the global economy. India wa s fully committed to the meaningful implementation of the 
preferences it had  notified  under the waiver . At the previous meeting, her delegation had informed 
the Membership of the steps that it was taking to fully implement its preferences and facilitate the 
utilisation of the preferential treatment granted. She would also encourage the LDCs to inform the 
Council of the difficulties that we re being faced by their service suppliers in accessing markets, 
despite preferences, so that Members could collectively work  to address th ose barriers.  
3.29.   Regardless of the fact that his delegation had not submitted  a notification  of preferences , 
the representative of Nigeria  said that Nigeria was very interested  in the effective 
operationalisation of the waiver , which was  a very important issue on the CTS agenda . Nigeria 
appreciate d the notifications made, as well as the updates provided by Members. While it was very S/C/M/127  
 
- 7 - 
 
  encouraging that 23 notifications had been submitted,  Members still ha d a long way to go  to 
effectively operational ise the waiver . The LDC Group's assessment of the notifications had been 
very helpful in that respect. He had been encouraged to note the bilateral engagement between 
LDCs and those  Members who had submitted notifications and had found useful the reporting  to 
the Council on those conversations . He hoped that in the nearest future Nigeria would also be in a 
position to contribute .  
3.30.   A representative of the World Bank  highlighted the key messages from the analysis the 
Bank had carried out on  LDC services trade  and the preferences notified under the waiver.  First, 
there was much room to grow for LDC services  trade and services were  critically important for 
poverty reduction, productivity  and jobs. Second, s ome of the preferences notified under the 
waiver were areas of immediate potential impact , and others  would take more time to realize.  
Third, there was a need for LDCs to address their services competitiveness on three pillars: skills; 
regulation and institutions; and connectivity. But it was also important to look comprehensively at 
the role of indirect services exports and other features unique to services trade.  Finally, the Bank 
was ready to assist on research, experience -sharing and  country -level assistance.  
3.31.   He highlighted that t here had been strong growth in LDC services trade . This had important 
consequences for economic diversification, productivity gains, employment and poverty reduction. 
LDC services trade as a share of total services trade  was essentially stagnant, without the growth 
exhibited  by some middle -income countries. Travel and tourism were the dominant service export s 
for LDCs , followed by  transport and  business services, which, however, accounted  only for around 
one-third of the tourism  exports . LDC export potential existed in other sectors a s well , and it was 
important to remember that each LDC was unique . 
3.32.   Recapping the notifications submitted under the waiver, he noted that preferential 
treatment had been granted across all sectors, though a few marked differences existed among 
notifying  Members. Most Members had given  preferences by extending their commitments to 
sectors or sub -sectors that they had not previously inscribed in their GATS schedule, especially in 
business, transport and tourism services . Preferential treatment had been  accorde d across all four 
modes of supply by most Members, with a few doing so through the extension of the coverage  of 
mode 4 to  contractual service suppliers and independent professionals. A significant share of 
preferences refer red to the elimination of limitat ions in mode 3 . All notifying Members had 
accorded preferential treatment for market -access measures, with a handful also including  
preferences on national treatment or technical assistance/capacity -building measures.  Although a 
considerable number of pref erences  were derive d from DDA offers or best PTAs concluded by the 
granting countries with non -LDC economies, a few had made available preferential treatment 
specifically designed for LDCs.   
3.33.   In terms of what happened after the notifications, he noted that,  although preferential 
goods trade was different, lessons could be drawn with regard to  transparency , the domestic 
capacity of exporters to take advantage of preferences, rules of origin  and non -tariff measures.  
Preferences could be prioritized in terms of  their poten tial commercial impact for LDCs: on the one 
hand, those with a high, immediate potential of being translated into commercial reality; on the 
other,  those where translating the notifi cation into commercial impact was more challenging , due 
to LDCs being currently  in less of a position to take commercial advantage of preferences in given 
sectors or modes . Still, a  more detailed assessment  needed to be done on a country -by-country 
basis, building on previous analytical work.  
3.34.   Examples of preferences with immediate potential commercial value to LDCs included those 
according full liberalization under mode 1 for communication services, including voic e services, 
packet -switched data  transmissions services, circuit -switched data transmission services, tele x 
services, facsimile services, private leas ed circuit services  and others, provided there was access 
to a cheap and reliable supply of electricity. Other examples comprised a preference allowing 
mode  4 access to contractual service suppliers , for 90 days  within a 12 -month period , on a range 
of business services.  Mode 4  was a practically attainable mode for LDC service suppliers who did 
not yet have the capacity to benefit fully from mode 1 or mode 3 liberalization.  
3.35.   Examples of preferences  whose potential c ommercial impact was more challenging for LDCs 
to realize, at least in the short term , included the provision of  full liberalization of mode 3 for 
tourism services, including hotels and restaurants, travel agencies and tour operators servi ces, S/C/M/127  
 
- 8 - 
 
  and tourist guide services , and the granting of  full liberalization under mode 3 for general 
construction work for civil engineering.  
3.36.   Service  sector competitiveness rested on three pillars:  skills and training, as the quality of 
education was correlated with the part icipation in services trade ; regulation and institutions , as the 
openness of the services policy environment  mattered ; and connectivity, as shown  by the 
experience  of developing countries who had  become top world exporters of services  such as India, 
Egypt or the Philippines, and by the anecdotal evidence about the impact of lower broadband 
prices in LDCs such as Bangladesh or Cambodia . 
3.37.   He highlighted s ome features of LDCs services trade . First, LDC  service exporters relied  on 
all modes of supply , as evidenc ed by the c omplementarity between modes 1, 3 and 4 in their BPO 
and IT services exports from LDCs . Second,  LDC individual suppliers, such as musicians and other 
artists, wishing to  export their services  faced quantitative restrictions , in addition to  immigration 
and labour regulation . Third,  domestic infrastructure , as well as international connectivity, played 
a key role for service exports and for tourism  in particular . It was also  important to remember that 
direct exports of services were not the only wa y of exporting. Services , and especially financial, 
telecoms, transport , logistics and professional services , played a key role in increasing the overall 
competitiveness of the economy  and in support ing export s of other goods and services. Indeed, 
the most  important channel of LDC service exports were  not direct exports, but services as input s 
to exported goods. Comprehensive, country -specific plans, complemented by sharing of knowledge 
and experience, were needed to increase LDC competitiveness in services , and efforts at the 
multilateral level had to be sustained to tackle remaining barriers to services trade . 
3.38.   He concluded by saying that the World Bank Group could provide assistance in two broad 
areas . First, by continuing its analytical work, looking at its research and experience in working 
with countries on the ground, focusing both on  the global level but also following up with specific 
country work. Examples of the latter include d the regulatory assessments in Lao, Libe ria, Burkina 
Faso and Cambodia, a s well as in non -LDCs. That work needed to continue to help identify some of 
the priority reform s and areas where LDCs could take advantage of the opportunities created. 
Second,  by pursuing projects to address the fundament als of services competitiveness a cross the 
three pillars of skills,  regulation and institutions , and connectivity, while also looking at trade 
policy settings.  The Bank stood ready to discuss any follow -up with any LDC , or any other 
interested delegation  in Geneva, as well as in capitals where World Bank offices were present.   
3.39.   The representative of Benin  welcomed the World Bank presentation. He took note that much 
of what had been presented that day had been observed by the LDC Group  the year befo re. That 
was why the Group had sought for a ction to be taken in Nairobi towards the implementation of the 
waiver. The Group would continue to monitor the implementation of the notifications submitted 
and encouraged  other Members to notify preferences. The Collective Request had identified the 
barriers that LDC service suppliers were facing  in several sectors and modes of supply . Supply -side 
constraints had to be addressed too, but at that stage  the Group wished to know what kind of 
assistance could be provided in LDCs to  enable  LDC suppliers to bene fit from notified preferences 
and improve  on the supply -side needs identified by the World Bank. However, it was critical that 
the World Bank as well  as preference -providers respond ed to the request made several on 
occasions by the LDC Group , as explicitly  reflected in paragraph 1.4 o f the relevant Nairobi 
Decision.  
3.40.   Responding to the question about what assistance the Bank could provide, the  
representative of the World Bank  indicated that  for the Bank , and for many  development partners , 
assistance was  discussed on demand and at the country level. Resources were available in the 
Bank for work on trade and LDC s: US$1.1 billion  had been provided  in 201 5 in development 
assistance to LDCs on trade in general, and increasingly services were an important part of th at. 
The Bank  was committed to being active in that area, but this needed to be done on a country -by-
country basis, where  assistance was provided across the three pillars  mentioned in the 
presentation . While in Geneva they stood ready to facilitate conversa tions, assistance was 
provided at the country level.  
3.41.   The Chairman  said that Members had stressed the importance of preferential  treatment for 
LDCs and of successfully integrating LDCs into the multilateral trading system. Replies had been 
provided to sever al of the questions raised by LDCs and updates had also been usefully shared. He S/C/M/127  
 
- 9 - 
 
  suggested that the Council  take note of the s tatements made and revert to that  item at its next 
meeting.  
3.42.   It was so agreed . 
4  ITEM  D – WORK PROGRAMME  ON ELECTRONIC  COMMERCE  
4.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at the previous meeting, a number of delegations  had indicated 
that they had started reflecting on possible contributions they might share with the Membership to 
advance discussions under the e -commerce Work Programme. He would welco me any updates on 
progress with tho se reflections , as well as  any other view s Members might  have on how to take 
discussions  forward under the Work Programme. He  would also offer delegations  the floor for any 
information they  might wish to share under the " exchange of information and experiences" sub -
item. 
4.2.  The representative of China  noted that e -comme rce wa s a cross-cutting issue which covered  
various industries, departments and topics. Members should collaborate to  find an appropriate way 
to address thei r respective concerns. China had  been actively engaging with other M embers in 
discussions under the Work Programme . As the host to G20 Summit that  year, China ha d 
advocated t hat the G20 members expand pragmatic cooperation on e-commerce, promote p ublic-
private dialogue, share the ir regulatory and development experiences, and discuss the 
opportunities and challenges in that field. When M embers  share d those experiences , they  needed 
to bear in mind that e -commerce could be a powerful driving force of economic gr owth and trade 
promotion  in the developing world. To that  end, Members  should also focus on the concerns of 
developing Members  and tackle those issues in order to account for  the development dimension.  
4.3.  The representative of Turkey  said that his delegation attribute d great importance to the 
development of trade through e -commerce, especially in terms of integration  of SMEs in  the 
international trading  system . To this end, in its services trade negotiations in bil ateral and 
plurilateral fora, his delegation s ought to inscribe provisions on development and facilitation of e -
commerce as well as on increasing consumer confidence and protection in online activities.  As 
such, Turkey was ready to contribute to fu ture work in e -commerce  in the WTO , and believed that 
such work should take into consideration the question of how to balance the importance of internet 
openness an d cross -border data flows vis -à-vis the legitimate public policy objectives of ensuring 
cyber-security and protectin g privacy and personal data. Turkey wa s also in favo ur of the 
moratorium on custom duties on electr onic transmission becoming permanent.  
4.4.  The representative of Brazil  said that the challenge in analysing e -commerce from a WTO 
perspective was  that deliberations had been on -going in diffe rent bodies , which did not h elp arrive 
at an over all assessment of the issue. At the same time, e -commerce wa s an evolving concept, 
and e-commerce in the 90 ies and e -commerce in 2016 were certainly not the same.  Against that 
background, Brazil wished to re quest  that the Secretariat update the background note  on the issue 
it had produced in 1998, issued  in document S/C/W/68 . The note contained very useful 
information but was set against e-commerce in 1998, which was not like e-commerce in 2016. 
There we re two other documents which contained useful services insights that would deserve to be 
revisited , namely the General Council document WT/GC/W/90  as well as the 1999 report by the 
CTS to the G eneral Council contained in document S/L/74. While he was not sugges ting that those 
two documents be updated as such , because of their nature , the information they contained could 
be useful in terms of  the update of document S/C/W/68. Two aspects , specifically , would be very 
useful in terms of an update.  First, the relatio nship between e -commerc e and like services and 
service  suppliers , where he wondered if any recent jurisprudence on the issue of like ness would 
affect past  considerations . Second , recent business examples or  real-life examples , which  would be 
very helpful t o Members ' understand ing of  what aspect of e -commerce could be affected or related 
to GATS provisions , particularly in light of rapid technological changes.   
4.5.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  wished to share some information regar ding an 
up-comin g e-commerce event. On behalf of Mexico, Indonesia , Korea, Turkey and Australia, he 
was pleased to announce that, under the name of MIKTA,  these delegations were holding a one -
day workshop on e -commerce in the WTO  on 5 July. E -commerce ha d an increasing  role in 
international trade , enabling ec onomic growth and development;  it was therefore important for 
Members to continue discussin g the issue. T he MIKTA countries had organised the workshop  with 
the aim of  increas ing Members' awareness of  e-commerce issues and without prejudging  any S/C/M/127  
 
- 10 - 
 
  conclusion or national position. Experts , including  from the WTO, UNCTAD, ITC, WEF, CUTS and  
the Global E xpress Association, individual consu ltants and academics had been invited to share 
their views on various issues relating to  e-commerce, including regulatory issues and 
developmen tal aspects . A general discussion on possible way s forward in th ose areas was also 
scheduled, as detailed in the programme that had been circulate d to all WTO missions and 
observers.  He encouraged dele gations to participat e and stood ready to answer  any questions.  
4.6.  The representative of Nigeria  had taken note of the forthcoming MIKTA workshop , whose 
objective was to share information without prejudice to Members' position s, and looked forward to 
attendi ng it. Both t he Nairobi Decision  on e-commerce and the mandate for the Work Programme 
were very clear, as was the nature of Members'  discussions . There existed also a Friend of the 
Chairman of the General Council to facilitate e -commerce discussions and th e CTS would , with 
other bodies, report to the General Council in July on the status of th ose discussions.  
4.7.  Two elements were important  in terms of the Council's work: first, the experience -sharing 
exercise and, second, the fact that discussion s were Member -driven, and, as such, submissions by 
Members would be welcome . The development dimension was l inked to those elements; given  the 
challenges faced by many Members,  including Nigeria , that dimension had to be taken into 
consideration . 
4.8.  As for Brazil's suggest ion for an update of the 1998 Secretariat note, he agreed that, given 
the many developments that had taken place in e -commerce since 1998, an update  appear ed 
warrant ed. He sought to clarify, however, what the value -added would be and which elements 
would b e updated.  
4.9.  He noted that e -commerce implied two divides between advance d and developing economies: 
one related to technological capabilities and the other to regulatory and legal frameworks. Without 
a uniform regulatory framework it was difficult to conte mplate a multilateral framework. Finally, he 
noted that other international organizatio ns, such as UNCTAD or the ITC, were also doing 
important work on e-commerce and underscored the usefulness of  inviting them to share that 
information  and collaborating  with them more generally .  
4.10.   The representative of Japan  thanked the MIKTA countries for organising the workshop. E-
commerce was  changing significantly all aspect s of commercial activities , including trade and 
investment. It had a  particularly  positive impact  on developing countries and SMEs , enabling them 
to be better integrated into global value chain s. It also ha d the potential to become an effective 
engine for inclusive economic growth. With that in mind, his delegation intend ed to submit a 
proposal to the  Dedicated S ession on e -commerce in July , with the aim of  reinvigorat ing 
discussion s, bearing in mind the importance of making rules in that area  in the future.  
4.11.   The representative of South Africa  thanked Brazil for its proposal  but indicated that her 
delegation needed more time to assess  it precisely. The note Brazil was seeking to update 
described the provisions of the GATS in relation to e-commerce, and given that the GATS had not 
changed, more clarity was needed on the rationale for the proposal.   
4.12.   The European Union  concur red with previous interventions that the digital economy had 
undergone  remarkable developments over the past few years and it was important to see how the 
WTO could  continue to play a role in that  regard . The EU had seen a dramatic evol ution in its FTA 
practice , for example , from consolidating the moratorium to laying down  a very complex and 
comprehensive e -commerce chapter that tried to address all aspects of the matter. It was very 
clear that the WTO already had in place different elem ents that support ed e-commerce, such as 
services commitments, the telecom Reference P aper, the Understanding  on computer services, the 
moratorium , and that trade principles were extremely useful. At the same time,  there was also a 
need to see if the multil ateral rulebook could not be complemented by more elements and this was 
an area his delegation was reflecting on.  
4.13.   Since Nairobi  there had certainly been an increased interest and readiness on the part of  
Members to look into th e issue in a more thorough m anner. It was true that the range of issues at 
stake c ould be very broad : there was the moratorium but also much more. The EU was of the view 
that the WTO could usefully engage in  a number of issues on the rule -making side , including 
access to and use of s ervices , increasing legal certainty and transparency , to name just a few 
objectives of possible future work. He concurred with those other delegations who had called for S/C/M/127  
 
- 11 - 
 
  more clarity , and  indeed an extensive mapping exercise could be a useful starting p oint. His 
delegation looked forward to pursuing discussion s in the dedicated session in July but also in th e 
Council for Trade in Services . The EU felt comfortable with the multilayer institutional setup that 
existed at the WTO; it was  useful and there was no  reason to discuss e -commerce  in only one 
place.   
4.14.   The representative of Australia  echoed the statement by Korea inviting Members to 
participate actively in the upco ming MIKTA workshop on 5 July. Her delegation had been very 
happy to work with MIKTA  collea gues to put th e workshop together , which had an  interesting list 
of speakers from government, private sector and civil society organization s. The workshop was 
intended to initiate more substantive discussions, by informing Members o f the current state of 
play in e-commerce and encouraging them to think of next s teps in the WTO negotiations. 
Australia  looked forward to engaging with Members through the workshop and thereafter on a 
broad  range of e-commerce issues ; indeed, she agree d with other  delegations th at had  mentioned 
the very broad scope of e -commerce . Australia was already engaged and would continue to 
engage  with other Members to advance e -commerce discussions in relevant WTO committees, 
including in the Dedicated Session as well as  in the Council fo r Trade in Services , where it  looked 
forward t o making  best use of opportunities to share information on developments in e -commerce 
trade policy and negotiations.   
4.15.   The representative of India reiterated her delegation's willingness to engage and play a 
constructive role in the mandated e-commerce discussion s based on Members' proposal s, as 
stipulated in the relevant MC10  Decision , in an explorat ory and experience -sharing mode , without 
any no rmative or prescriptive content or intent. As concerned Brazil’s pr oposal  to update 
document S/C/W/68, her concern wa s similar to that expressed by South Africa: it was necessary 
to understand specifically what wa s being proposed for update . Document S/C/W/68 look ed at the 
treatment of e -commerce under the GATS  and, as me ntioned  by South Africa,  the GATS ha d not 
changed , the Work P rogramme ha d not changed  and it was therefore not clear what the update 
would concern. As for the  other documents mentioned by Brazil , document WT/GC/W/90  looked at 
the Work Programme and how it applied to  the WTO Agreements and how the WTO Agreements , 
including the GATS,  relate d to e-commerce ; again, it was unclear what would warrant  an update.  
Finally, document S/L/74 wa s a progress report  to the General Council of the discussions held in 
the CTS. As she did not recall any discussion having taken place on the elements listed in the 
progress report in the context of the W ork Programme , it was not possible to update the report . 
She therefore asked Brazil to provide further clarifications on its pro posal, so as to enable her to 
consult with capital.  She then thanked the MIKTA countries for organising the seminar and sharing 
the programme; her delegation would be pleased to participate in an exploratory mode .  
4.16.   The representative of Canada  was also gra teful to the MIKTA Members for organising an e-
commerce seminar . The event  would certainly help inform Members' discussions , including in the 
Council in spite of the seminar not being  directly connected to  the CTS. He echoed much of the EU 
intervention.  Canada was  also seeking to make more effective use of the Work P rogramme ; it saw 
an important role for the Dedicated Session under the General Council but also saw value in 
pursuing substantive discussions in  all of the relevant WTO bodies.  As with the EU, Canadian FTA 
practices  on e-commerce  had evolved significantly in recent years  and his delegation looked 
forward to sharing its experience with Members in the CTS . He also echoed Japan's statement 
that, over the medium term, pursuing r ules mul tilaterally wo uld be worthwhile.  
4.17.   As for the mapping exercise  mentioned by  the EU , he said that it  was a very good idea. The 
e-commerce Work P rogramme had been defined very broad ly because there wa s quite a wide 
spectrum of trade policy that relate d to e-commerce and th e digital economy . It would therefore 
be useful for Members , as a first step, to consider where the WTO c ould add value in that  respect ; 
Canada looked  forward in participating in that type of exercise. His delegation also welcome d that  
standing item on the  CTS agenda and believed that Members could make good use of it in the 
coming years.   
4.18.   The representative of Mexico  echoed the statements  by Korea and Australia  and, as one of 
the MIKTA countries, encourage d all Members  to participate  in the upcoming semina r. As could be 
seen from the programme , the event was balance d, with speakers from  the private sector, 
international  organization s, academia and private consultants. It was very important to reactivate 
discussions on e -commerce in the WTO and the seminar w as intended to initiate an informal S/C/M/127  
 
- 12 - 
 
  debate and provide an opportunity  for Members  to discuss recent elements  of relevance  to e-
commerce.   
4.19.   The representative of Turkey  wished to support previous MIKTA interventions . The MIKTA 
workshop would  be very benefici al for Members  to discuss opportunities , as well as challenges  with 
e-commerce , and to examine different regulatory approaches in t he area. With other MIKTA 
countries,  his delegation wished to encourage all col leagues to participate  active ly in the 
worksho p. 
4.20.   Replying to questions by South Africa and India, the representative of Brazil  explained that 
his proposal was to have a standard  update  to the Secretariat note , something that was regularly 
done in the WTO.  While he agreed that the  Work Programme had no t changed , he noted that e-
commerce  had. Brazil wishe d to ensure is that , in light of all  the changes in e -commerce , there 
were no new elements, in terms of GATS implications , that Members might be overlooking . He also 
wished to clarify  that his delegation  was only requesting that one document, S/C/W/68, be 
update d. He had mentioned the two other documents to illustrate the sort of input that seemed  
interesting to his delegation in terms of  trying to understand if there were any changes . If the 
update turne d out not to add any new elements , that was in itself also useful to know. Finally, 
given that many delegations had indicated their interest in continuing work under the Work 
Programme, not being able to update documents produced in that framework would di minish 
Members'  options about how to move the  discussion  forward .  
4.21.   The representative of Nigeria  asked under what  circumstances notes could  be produced by 
the Secretariat and wondered what kind of update to document S/C/W/68  the Secretariat could 
prepare .  
4.22.   A representative of the Secretariat  explained that the practice had always been that 
Secretariat notes for WTO bodies would be produced and circulated to the entire Membership  only 
if the relevant body had agreed to it by consensus. The situation was diff erent when delegation s 
approached the Secretariat to request specific information that was in the Secretariat's possession, 
such as that contained in its  I-TIP database . In such cases, the Secretariat would extract the 
information  from the  relevant  databas e and provide it to delegations who had requested it  for their 
own use. I n the same vein , the Secretariat would provide to delegations who so requested 
academic  references, information  sources , work undertaken by other international organization s 
that the WTO Secretariat collaborate d with or was aware of. Such information was also provided 
through the Secretariat's  technical assistance activities across the world. There was therefore an 
important distinction between a document such as the one Brazil was pro posing be drafted, which 
would be produced for the benefit of a body within the institutional structure of the WTO and, as 
such, would require Members' consensus agreement,  and individual request s for information that 
the Secretariat  respond ed to every day .  
4.23.   He then addressed  the second part of the question posed by Nigeria,  about what kind of 
update the Secretariat could provide . Document S/C/W/68, which had been  produced  in the 
context of the CTS W ork Programme discussions in 1998, detailed various provis ions of the GATS 
to highlight the ir relevance to e -commerce. S ome parts of that document were consolidated as 
reflecting Members' understanding  in the progress report to the General Council adopted by the 
Services Council , contained in document S/L/74. Whi le the GATS had not changed, he understood 
Brazil's request to be motivated by the wish to assess if there was anything new in the fast-
evolving world of e -commerce that might bear relevance to Members' discussions under the Work 
Programm e. Brazil's sugges tion that the update include real-life examples spoke to the rationale 
for the request. For example, a t the recent meeting of  the Committee on Trade in Financial 
Services, Members had addressed a Secretariat note  on barriers to financial inclusions , which,  in 
spite of the limited sectoral scope, also bore relevance to  what was being discussed  in e-
commerce . The update would not be about what changes had taken place in the GATS , but rather  
what ha d changed in the world that the GATS applied  to.  
4.24.   The represen tative of India noted that the Secretariat  note in JOB/GC/73,  produced in 2015, 
provide d a useful  update of the events that had taken place under the Work Programme, in the 
CTS as well as the other  WTO bodies where the subject was discussed . Against that  background, 
she was still wondering what would be addressed under an updated note. As it was the first time 
Members were hearing about Brazil's  proposal, her delegation needed to understand  it properly S/C/M/127  
 
- 13 - 
 
  before it could agree to it, and she therefore requeste d more information before a decision was 
made.  
4.25.   The representative of Chile noted  Members' renewed interest in advancing discussions on e -
commerce at the multilateral level and indicated his delegation's willingness to contribute to 
concrete results on the issue, given the importance of creating a robust regulatory framework that 
offered legal certainty to consumers and suppliers of services for trade policy development. Over 
recent years, significant progress had been made in terms of exchanges of informati on and 
experiences related to e -commerce, and at that juncture it was essential to hold concrete 
discussions focused on  the areas in which Members could come to  an agreement in the WTO. In 
that regard, it was important to have shared objective s and for del egations to be flexible and 
pragmatic.  
4.26.   Chile looked forward to holding substantive discussions over the coming months . Members' 
deliberations should be guided by the objective of arriving at concrete results, at MC11 and 
beyond. It was important to have c ontinuity in those deliberations, without reiteration of known 
positions in different contexts. To make progress, discussions should focus on issues on which 
agreement could be found. From Chile's perspective, making the moratorium permanent could  be 
a goo d candidate for agreement , although this should not be the only issue on which progress 
should be sought in  the area  of e-commerce.   
4.27.   Members should reflect on the most appropriate forum to hold such discussions, given that 
it would be necessary to intensif y them. He underscored the important contribution that the 
Secretariat could make towards substantive discussions by providing technical assistance to 
Members. He reiterated Chile's support for the Work Programme, the seminar organised by MIKTA 
and looked forward to contributing positively to Members' deliberations on e -commerce.  
4.28.   The representative o f Nigeria  agreed that it wa s the right of any Member to seek 
information in a manner it deem ed fit and to request  more time before a decision was made . His 
delegation also needed to reflect further and better familiarise itself with the content of the 
documents referred to by Brazil. He suggested that some consultations might be helpful. The 
representative of Rwanda  flagged that his delegation would be interested  in participating in any 
consultations that might be organised.  
4.29.   The Chairman  said that the Council  would  take note of the statements made and  that he 
would be holding consultations on Brazil's proposal.   
4.30.   It was so agreed .  
4.31.   Thereafter, the  Chairman  recall ed that the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce (document WT/L/977 ) instru cted the General Council to 
periodically review progress with the Work Programme, based on the reports that might  be 
submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the implementation of the Work Programme. As the 
next such review was scheduled for July, and in line with past practice, he would be producing, 
under his own responsibility, a Chairman's Report to the General  Council of the discussions the 
CTS had had under the Work Programme since January , in time for the General Council meeting  in 
July. The report would be purely factual, reflecting the essence of Members'  discussions at that 
day's meeting  and back in March.   
4.32.   It was so agreed . 
5  ITEM E – FOURTH REVIEW OF MFN EX EMPTIONS  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that t he fourth review of MFN exemptions was set to start "no later 
than 2016". In March, Members  had agreed to commence the review at the following Council's 
meeting, i.e. at that day's meeting, by discu ssing how to conduct, and possibly streamline, the 
process.  
5.2.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  underscored the importance of upholding the MFN 
principle. His delegation was a strong supporter of the mandated review of MFN exemptions, 
whose objective wa s to examine if the conditions which had created the need for the listing of S/C/M/127  
 
- 14 - 
 
  exemptions still prevailed , leading  to the elimination of those exemptions for which this need no 
longer existed.  
5.3.  He proposed that t he Secreta riat update the informal N otes it ha d prepared for the previous  
review, namely  the compilation of exemptions by sector, by Member and the statistical information 
on exemptions, contained in  JOB/SERV/29, JOB/SERV/30 an d JOB/SERV/31, respectively. In terms 
of format and structure, he asked if the Secretariat could  explain what had been done for past 
reviews , as the same approach could be followed. He was cognisant that some Members had 
suggested that the process for the review be streamlined, and indicated that his delegation was 
flexible as lo ng as the mandate d review  was upheld. The representatives of Switzerland  and China  
fully supported the statement by Hong Kong, China.  
5.4.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that t he MFN principle was the cornerstone of the 
WTO system and that her  delegation support ed the mandate contained in the GATS Annex on 
Article II Exemptions, which instruct ed the  Council to review all exemptions granted for a period of 
more than 5 years and, in the review, examine whether the conditions that had  created the need 
for such exemptions still prevail ed. Accordingly, her delegation was looking to work with all 
Members to fulfil th at mandate and to have a fruitful and meaningful exchange of views.  
5.5.  Turning to organizational matters, her delegation  was generally comfortabl e with past 
practice. The review could be conducted in dedicated meetings, on a sector -by-sector basis 
through a question -and-answer process. Ideally, such dedicated meetings  should be held during 
the services clusters , to enable the participation of capit al-based experts.  
5.6.  At the same time, she noted the need to make the review more efficient and less 
burdensome for Members. Her delegation  was open to consider ing any ideas for streamlining the 
process, such as  holding one dedicated meeting  instead of two  or providing written replies in 
advance of  the meeting so as to avoid lengthy statements during the meeting. Chinese Taipei was 
also flexible as far as the timing  of the dedicated meeting  was concerned . Her understanding was 
that the Secretariat would  be pr oviding background material, notably two updated compilations of 
MFN exemptions , by sector and by Member,  and updated statistical information on the number of 
MFN exemptions. To facilitate preparations for the review , her delegation would be grateful if th e 
Secretariat could circulate the background material early and, if possible, include Members' 
responses from past revie ws, as a reference for Members in preparing questions for that review . 
5.7.  The representative of Brazil  indicated his delegation's flexibili ty as concerned the conduct of 
the review. He was in favour of having a question -and-answer process, and concurred with 
Chinese Taipei that, given the possibility that the conditions which had justified the listing of 
several exemptions might be unchanged,  the focus of the review should be on those instances 
where those conditions might indeed have altered . 
5.8.  The representative of Republic of Korea  underscored the importance of the GATS -mandated 
review of M FN exemptions. His delegation  would engage constructi vely with other Members to 
make the review process more meaningful; Korea was also open to making it more effective and 
streamlined. As the process was new for delegates who had arrived after the last review had been 
conducted in 2010 -2011, he wished to as k for guidance  and assistance  from the Chairman and the 
Secretariat in that regard .  
5.9.  The representative of Japan  also said that his delegation was open to suggestions to 
streamline the process and indicated that a number of helpful suggestions had already been made 
in that regard . 
5.10.   The representative of the United States  indicated his delegation's interest in fulfilling the  
mandate for the  review, although, given  that previous reviews had not led to concrete outcomes , 
he called on Members to use time efficie ntly and not get bogged down in details . He had found 
Brazil's comment interesting and asked if the Secretariat could explain how past reviews had been 
conducted. He added that his delegation had a strong preference to hold the substantive meetings 
for the  review after the autumn.  
5.11.   The representative of Nigeria  said that the mandate for the review was very clear and it was 
only a question of agreeing on its format.  In that regard, as that was not the first review, it was 
possible to rely on the  experience of  previous review s while also address ing Members' concerns in S/C/M/127  
 
- 15 - 
 
  terms of making the process more effective and efficient  and less burdensome . He requested the 
Secretariat to refresh  delegations' memories about how past reviews had been organised.  
5.12.   The represe ntative of Canada  said that, while recognising the mandate  for the review, his 
delegation was sympathetic to those delegations that had suggested a more streamlined process 
and was particularly attracted to the suggestion floated by Brazil to focus the exe rcise on a 
marginal basis. There was no sense in repeating the same questions and the same answers on a 
sector -by-sector basis over two dedicated sessions; Members should find a way to look for any 
updates to the existing material.  
5.13.   The representative of th e European Union  stated that the EU stood ready to embark on the 
mandate d review. He had  also heard some requests for more discussions on the process , including 
the valid points raised by Nigeria.  He had found the idea floated by  Brazil realistic and worth y of 
consideration , as it could  be expected that the conditions that had required the listing of many 
exemptions had not changed, but he also heard the point made by Hong Kong, China that the 
review was an opportunity to make the Membership aware of the ex istence of exemptions and 
engage them in that regard . He was open and would  welcome further  discussions on how to make 
the review more effective  and focused on the value -added aspect . 
5.14.   The representative of New Zealand  said that her delegat ion was ready to constructively 
engage  in the mandated review  and was agreeable to the suggestion  to streamline the process  to 
make it more effective. Like other delegations, she would welcome getting further guidance from 
the Chairman and the Secretariat and thought that the many interesting ideas that had been 
raised could be discussed in consultations.  
5.15.   The representative of Australia  said that her delegation also stood ready to engage 
constructively in the review and agreed that informal  consultations would be helpful t o make the 
review as meaningful and effective a process as possible.  
5.16.   The representative of the Secretariat  explained that past reviews had been run in dedicated 
meetings  of the  Council . The Secretariat had updated  three background notes,  one compiling all 
exemptions by sector, another listing them by Member and a third one providing a statistical 
account. Discussions were organised on a sectoral basis, through a question -and-answer process.  
In terms of timing for the current review, Members were required to  start the process before the 
end of 2016, which they had indeed done by agreeing to co mmence it at that day's meeting;  
however, they were under no obligation to finish the review  by the end of the year. The Secretariat 
could update the  background  notes rather quickly, by factoring in  the exemptions  of Members who 
had acceded to the WTO since the previous review in 2010. In the past, d elegations wishing to ask 
questions were required to do so in writing three or four  weeks in advance of the  dedicated  CTS 
meeting for the review, but it was clearly also possible to allow for more time, especially if ideally 
Members were looking to get answers in writing. By the end of the review,  Members needed to 
determine "the date of any further review", as prescribed by th e Annex.   
5.17.   The Chairman  said that he would be holding consultations on how to streamline the review 
and suggested that the Council  take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its 
next meeting.  
5.18.   It was so agreed . 
6  ITEM F – CERTAIN MEASURES REL ATED TO THE REFORM OF  THE UNIFIED GAS 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTE M OF UKRAINE - STATEMENT BY THE RUS SIAN FEDERATION  
6.1.  The Chairman  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of the Russian Federation.  
6.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  regretted that her delegation had to reiterate 
its repeatedly expressed  concerns as regard ed the measures related to the reform of the unified 
gas transportation system of Ukraine.  Since November 2014 , the Russian Fe deration had sought 
clarity from Ukraine at different levels , both bilaterally and multilaterally as well as in the form of 
questionnaires , in respect of  a reasonable justification for  the adoption and implementation of the 
Law of Ukraine No. 1645-VII "On amendments to some legislative acts of Ukraine on reforming the 
management system of the Unified Gas Transportation System of Ukraine"  and the Law of Ukraine S/C/M/127  
 
- 16 - 
 
  No. 329-VIII "On the Natural Gas Market" of 9  April 2015, which had invalidated the Law of 
Ukraine  No. 1645-VII as of 14 August  2014. 
6.3.  Unfortunately Ukraine had remained unresponsive to the specific questions that the Russian 
side had sent to the Ukrainian side in May 2015 and in  April 2016. In that  regard , concrete 
responses from Ukraine were highly  anticipated .  
6.4.  The answer of the Ukrainian side to the set of questions raised by the  Russian Federation 
within the Trade Policy Review of Ukraine was  hardly informative , as Ukraine had  stated:  "Ukraine 
would like to refer  the Russian Federation to the inform ation that Ukraine has provided to  the 
Russian Federation on this issue in the context of the Committee on  Trade in Services meetings of 
June 2015 and March 2016".  However,  the information that the Ukrainian side had provided in 
respect of that  matter at the meetings of the Council for Trade in Services of  June 2015 and March 
2016 was partial and did not  contain any WTO -compatible explanation for the adoption and 
implementation of measures  envisaging  preferential treatment for the United States  and the 
Energy Community Members to perform  the functions of an operator of the  Ukrainian GTS System 
as well as of gas storage facilities , which were not extended to any other WTO Member.  
6.5.  Except for general statements by Ukraine that the clearly WTO -inconsistent  measu res were 
nevertheless somehow WTO -consistent,  Ukraine had  failed to provide any legal or economic 
justification for the  violation of the fundamental principles of the General Agreement on  Trade in 
Services, namely  MFN and the specific commitments undertake n by Ukraine under the GATS.  
6.6.  The strategy chosen by Ukraine of remaining silent  did not contribute to  the predictability for 
the operators on the Ukrainian market as well as  those dependent upon the Ukrainian GTS.  The 
lack of progress on the clarification of the reasons for the adoption of th ose restrictive measures 
and why they were still in place wa s particularly  troubling.  In that  regard, the Russian Federation  
reiterate d its request to bring the Law of Ukraine No. 329-VIII "On the Natural Gas Market" of  
9 April 2015 in full  conformity with Ukraine's  obligations under the WTO Agreement.  
6.7.  The representative of Ukraine  thank ed the Russian Federation  for the continued interest in 
Ukraine's Gas Transportati on System reform. The Law of Ukraine "O n the Natural G as Market" of 
9 April 2015 aim ed to ensure that the market of  natural gas in Ukraine developed  in line with the 
industry on a global scale. Therefore , its norms reflect ed the principles used in global  practice and 
provided at their core for free compe tition, consumers' protection and security of supply. As set 
forth in the Law, its provisions were based on the principle of free competition; hence , all subjects 
in the natural gas market were equal in their rights with respect to gas transmission and 
distribu tion systems, gas storages and LNG facilities. Any business entity could  obtain access to 
the transmission services regardless of its country of origin. Rules for all actors  in the  natural gas 
market were standard, transparent and nondiscriminatory.  
6.8.  Ukrain e wishe d to reiterate that the Law "On Natural Gas Market " complied  with its 
commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services, particularly regarding the 
adherence to the principles of "non-discriminatory treatment in access to and use of pipel ine 
networks under Ukraine's jurisdiction, within  the technical capacities of tho se networks, with 
regard to the origin, destination or ownership of product transported, without imposing any 
unjustified delays, restrictions or charges, as well as without d iscriminatory pricing based on the 
differences in origin, destination or ownership"  as stated in Ukraine's s chedule of commitments at 
accession.  Ukraine was ready to respond to any enquiries from WTO Members regarding  the 
current regulation  of its natural gas market.  
6.9.  The representative of Armenia  shared the concerns expressed by the Russian Federation and 
called for the reform of Ukraine's Unified Gas Transportation System to be performed and 
organized in full compliance with Ukraine's WTO obligations and p rocedures . 
6.10.   The representative of Nicaragua  also echoed the Russian Federation's preoccupations and 
urged Ukraine to provide further information in the near future .  
6.11.   The representative of Cuba noted the statement  by the Russian Federation and took the 
oppor tunity to urge Members to abstain from raising unnecessar y trade barriers, adding that such 
measure s run counter to the WTO obligations  and could have important system ic implications.  S/C/M/127  
 
- 17 - 
 
  6.12.   The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made . 
6.13.   It was so agreed . 
7  ITEM G - MODE 4 – ASSESSMENT OF BARRIE RS TO ENTRY – STATEMENT BY INDIA  
7.1.  The Chairman  indicated that the item ha d been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
reque st of the delegation of India. He also drew Members'  attent ion to the c ommunication on the  
issue that India had submitted, in d ocument JOB/SERV/229. This communication had not been 
included in the airgram for the March meeting of the Council as it had been circulated after its 
issuance.  
7.2.  The representative of India recalled t hat her delegation had tabled a submission titled 
"Mode 4: Assessment of Barriers to Entry ", circulated in document JOB/SERV/229 a few days 
before the March  meeting  of the Council . At that meeting , her delegation had  introduced the paper 
and explained its objectives in tabling it. India was encouraged by the constructive engagement 
and support that the proposal had obtained from a large number of Members, hoped to continue 
that discussion and urge d Members to come forward and share their own experiences with the 
mode 4 barriers they faced . She also wished to thank the delegation s of the E uropean Union, the 
United Kingdom  and Canada for providing responses to some of the issues raised in her 
delegation's submission; India deeply appreciate d the engagement of Members on that  important 
issue.  
7.3.  Building on the discussions at the previous meeting , she wished to elaborate further on some 
of the measures listed in her delegation's submission. Starting with the UK Migration Advisory 
Committee (MAC), the submission had raised some issues on the recommendations emerging from 
the recent report on the MAC  review of Tier 2  visas. At the March meeting , the EU delegation had 
stated that the India’s submission discussed neither a measure in the meaning of GATS nor even a 
draft measure and had put in question the relevance of the examples put forth by India. She 
wished to inform the Members hip that, since that meeting , the said measure had  been adopted by 
the UK Government and was now in the process of being partially implemente d. The issue had 
been raised by her delegation as it was a matter of deep concern for India's  service providers. The 
UK was a very important market for the Indian IT industry and , as per some estimates, the 
financial impact of the MAC  measures on companies  leveraging Indian talent would be in excess of 
GBP 250 million each year. Her delegation was in the process of a ssessing the extent to which 
those new measures dilute d the effectiveness or impair ed the committed mode 4 access for 
service suppliers. In tha t regard, India had  request ed to discuss th e matter bilaterally with the UK 
delegation. The UK delegation had accepted the  request and she looked forward to th ose bilateral 
discussion s. As those deliberations move d ahead , she would keep the Membership upda ted on 
future developments on the matter.  
7.4.  Turning to the measures in Canada, she recalled that, at the March meeting of the CTS, 
Canada had provided some clarifications on her delegation's understanding of the Canadian  
measure s. At that meeting, she wished  to share some more details about the measure s. Indian 
mode 4  service providers had been facing an increasingly restrictive regime in Canada since 2012. 
Some of the important points highlighted by Canada  relate d to several changes in the TFWP and 
IMP since  2012. Not only had  the regime become much more restri ctive but the frequent changes 
had impacted the predictability of the regime and negatively affected the ability of the Indian 
computer and related services companies that had  invested in Canada from so urcing global talent. 
The measures at issue include d hikes in visa fees, more restrictive guidelines on ICT visa s, 
customer certification being made mandatory for all LMO visas, frequent upw ard revisions in 
minimum salary . Those and other similar issues ha d been highlighted in India's  bilateral dialogue 
between capital -based experts, but had  not resulted  in any  forward movement.  
7.5.  Finally, her delegation had not raised the sp ecific issue regarding the US hike in v isa fees as 
the matter was currently  under th e WTO  Dispute Settlement process under the DS -503. But she 
did hope that her delegation would be able to engage in a discussion on the gener ic regulatory 
issues impacting m ode 4 access contained in the submission.  
7.6.  India’s submission had built upon the 200 9 Sec retariat Background Note and highlight ed the 
increasingly  complex nature of barriers to m ode 4 entry that  had emerged from India's  own 
experience. Her delegation had also brought into focus some important challenges that render ed S/C/M/127  
 
- 18 - 
 
  existing mode 4 commi tments meaningless. These included: subjective definitions of m ode 4 
categories such as managers, executives and spec ialists under the ICT category; non-portability of 
social security c ontributions; discriminatory salary thresholds, lack of clarity in visa  categories ; and 
massive increases in visa fee s for certain categories of foreign professional s. Those issues were 
generic in nature and had  also been highlighted in the LDC Collective Request. In India's  view, 
discussions  on regulatory barriers in mode 4 were relevant to sever al developing countries that 
had interests in m ode 4, as their service suppliers could also be facing potentially the same 
barriers. It would be a matter of concer n if tho se measures were to become a trend i n important 
export markets for m ode 4. That further reinforce d the need for and relevance of a discussion of  
an issue in which a very large proportion of the Membership had an active interest, and she hoped 
that further deliberations would contribute to furthering Members' understan ding.  
7.7.  She recall ed that, as a next step , India had proposed that the Sec retariat update its 2009 
Background Note on mode 4 . Her delegation had been disappointed that Members  could not re ach 
consensus on that  issue at the March meeting . She hope d that those delegations that had objected 
to the update had  had time to reconsider and could  agree to a simple factual update of the Note. 
The update could cover  commitments undertaken by recently acceded m embers since 2009, DDA 
offers, if Members so agreed, and upd ated factual information such as more recent literature on 
the subject.  
7.8.  The representative of the European Union said that he was perplexed by the objective of that 
discussion and by India's proposal. Although India  had stated that the idea was to address generic 
measures, its proposal did not deal with general measures , but with very specific ones, and as 
such it was not clea r what its intention was. Was India's proposal  meant as a negotiating proposal? 
In which case, why had it been raised in the regular Council rather than in the Special Session? His 
delegation was also interested in  a more detailed  discussi on of mode 4 , but that discussion had to 
be conducted in the usual manner that deliberations in the CTS happened, rather than in the 
rather acrimoniou s manner manifest  at that meeting. While there was no need to reiterate or 
question how attached the EU was to  its multilateral commitment s, his delegation  was uneasy 
about having such deliberations in the Council, also in light of the fact that bilateral discussions 
with India had been ongoing, including with the United Kingdom, which  had made reverting to the 
CTS unnecessary.  
7.9.  The representative of the United Kingdom  aligned himself  with the statement made by the 
EU. The UK wished to use the  opportunity to  update the Council of developments  on the issue 
raised by India  since the March  meeting.  The Migration Advisory Committee was an independent, 
non-statutory, non -time limited, non -departmental public body that advise d the government on 
migration issues. It  had published an independent report in 19 January 2016.  The UK Government, 
after considering the findings of the report, ha d set out its response , which could  be found online 
(at https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written -questions -answers -
statements/written -statement/Commons/2016 -03-24/HCWS660/ ). The UK fully respec ted its 
international commitments , through both Tier 2 and Tier 5 visa routes in its immigration system, 
and remain ed strongly committed to the multilateral trading system and its WTO obligations.  The 
UK had  been, and would  continue to be, happy to hold bilateral d iscussions with any inte rested 
Member to explain the proposed changes.  
7.10.   The representative of Canada  was surprised and disappointed by India’s intervention.  India 
was fully aware that its communication misrepresent ed Canada’s regime.  Sweeping as sertions that 
Canada’s regime was  unpredictable and restrictive were unhelpful and incorrect.  Canada had  
explained the specific errors in the  Indian  submission during the previous  meeting of the CTS in 
March.  Simply put , the essential difference between Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Prog ram 
and its International Mobility Program was whether or not a Labour Market Impact Assessment 
(LMIA) had to b e undertaken.  An LMIA was require d when a service supplier entered  under the 
Temporary Foreign Worker Program.  An LMIA wa s not required when a se rvice supplier enter ed 
under the International Mobility Program.  This 2014 reform could  hardly be characterized as 
"frequent changes making it difficult to access the Canadian  market ". On 10 March , Canadian 
officials had met bilaterally with Indian officia ls in Ottawa to discuss changes to the Canadian 
program me. At that meeting, Canada’s officials advised India that the problems that Indian IT 
firms had experienced briefly in June 2014,  after the implementation of tho se reforms, were now 
resolved, as th e firms had  become more familiar with the new temporary -foreign -worker rules. 
This was thanks in part to pro -active outreach by Canadian diplomatic missions in India.  S/C/M/127  
 
- 19 - 
 
  7.11.   This le d his delegation to questions India’s motives in pursuing this discussion in the CTS.  
Did India wish to pursue a market access discussion?  Canada would be open to exploring market 
access questions, although it wonder ed if the CTS Special Session wo uld not be better suited for 
that kind of work.  Canada stood  by its GATS mode 4 commitments, which were among  the best at 
the WTO. Canada had  consistently sought the liberalization of presence of natural persons 
commitments in  WTO negotiations, and continued  to pursue ambitious outcomes on m ode 4 in its 
trade negotiations. However, while his deleg ation value d mode 4 market access, it would seek to 
broaden a WTO market access discussion to include other elements.  In particular, Canada would 
suggest examining the sect oral coverage of Members’ GATS c ommitments.  Of course, Canada 
would be willing to me et bilaterally with India if further clarifications were required.  
7.12.   The representative of Brazil  said mode 4 was an area of interest to his delegation and to 
developing countries in general.  Commitments in mode 4 were not satisfactory and, as such, his 
delegation supported discussion  of that issue , but had concerns  about the approach that had been 
taken. The discussion implied separate issues : on the one hand, there was the identification of 
market access and national treatment restrictions, which had to be scheduled and for which the 
definition of the various categories was an  issue; on the other, there were domestic regulatory 
measures, which were not trade barriers unless they were unjustified or unnecessarily 
burdensome. With regard to visas and general i mmigration measures, moreover, it was important 
to understand how the Annex on the Movement of Natural Persons , and particularly footnote 1, 
applied and what the specific problem s were. As concerned measures relating to social security , he 
observed that th ey were difficult to consider given that mode 4 was of a  temporary nature. Against 
that background, he said that it was best to keep the various issues separate and discuss the m in 
light of the applicable GATS provisions.  
7.13.   The representative of Turkey  thank ed India for bringing the  important issue of mode 4 to 
the agenda of the Council. Mode  4 had been one of the most neglected areas of negotiations in  the 
WTO until then as well as  the least  committed mode . This impacted not only mode 4 supply but 
also the a bility of service suppliers to benefit  from already existing commitments  in other modes . 
Her delegation was in complete agreement that the expansion of m ode 4 trade would  have overall 
positive impacts on  the expansion of trade, foreign investment  inflows , and income and human 
capital transfers.   
7.14.   Procedures that  applied to m ode 4 were sometimes opaque and arbitrary. In many 
countries , approval procedures were complex and discretionary, particularly where no specified 
criteria exist ed for judging equivalence.  She agree d with India that the mobility o f service 
suppliers, especially  business visitors or service sellers , was crucial for all modes of service supply. 
Without liberalization, transparency and expeditious procedures for the mobility of suppliers, 
liberalization in other  mode s would be meaningless and inapplicable. Turkey wa s ready to address 
and discuss mode 4  barriers  in every platform , especially as concerned  framework s for visa, work 
permit  and residency permit procedures applied by WTO M embers . However, pointing out specific 
measures by specific Members might  not be a constructive approach to revive fruitful discussions 
on the issue.  
7.15.   She underscored the  importan ce the definitional issues raised in the Indian paper. In order 
to have commercially mean ingful m arket access commitments, definitions unde r mode 4 had to be 
discussed in the CTS. It was not clear under which mode 4 category  many indispensable service 
providers were covered . For example,  clarify ing the category of seafarers, truck drivers and other 
operators transporting goods and passengers or loading and unloading goods was very important 
for Turkey. Were they contractual service suppliers, business visitors or was another category 
needed?  Her delegation wished also to discuss  that issue, whi ch was of great importance given 
that cross-border transport operations straddled mode s 1 and 4. A discussion on that aspect and a 
study by the Secretariat would  be very helpful.  
7.16.   The representative of China  said that India's submission reflected the shared  concern s of 
many Members. As a dev eloping Member, China's service  suppliers ha d also encount ered similar 
problems when going abroa d to conduct business in the territory  of other M embers. He 
encouraged Members to discuss those  issues further  and share  additional  information , so as to 
help ad dress the problems they raised. Meanwhile, h e hope d that the Sec retariat could assist by 
conduct ing technical analysis and further research, in order to facilitate a more fruitful discussion 
in the future. As domestic co nsultation s in his capital were still on-going, his delegation might 
come back to that  item with more details in the future.  S/C/M/127  
 
- 20 - 
 
  7.17.   The representative of Morocco , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that, in 
addition to the  mode 4  barriers mentioned in India's submission, suppliers from the African Group , 
which comprised many LDCs, faced numerous other barriers that undermined market access 
commitments under mode 4 . These included lack of recognition  of qualifications , restrictions to the 
movement of Con tractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals, and the fact that , even 
for short stays in the host country , suppliers had to undergo  lengthy procedures and  pay fees to 
have their qualifications assessed and  equivalency tests conducted . He noted that the African 
Group  had an interest in those discussions and reserved the Group's  right to add other areas that 
affected its mode 4 suppliers  to the discussion . 
7.18.   Speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, the representative of Benin  reiterate d LDCs'  support 
for a dis cussion o f India's submission . LDCs associate d them selves with the submission, which also 
referred to the LDC Collective Request, wh ich in turn  referred to similar barriers faced by LDC 
mode 4  suppliers. Many notifi cations of preferential treatment addressed sectors and mode 4 
categories of interest to LDCs. However, it was glaring that some of those preferences were found 
replete with regulatory barriers that could hinder their beneficial effect . As India had  indicated in 
its submission, while LDCs were happy that a few notifications covered  preferences for the 
category  of Contractual Services Supplier s, mode 4 restrictions remain ed a concern. Quite 
frequently, those barriers had  led to loss of clients for LDC service supplier s even when they had  
already obtained a bona fide contract with a consumer in the host country.  
7.19.   The LDC Group had anticipated th at problem based on evidence from LDC suppliers , and 
had attempted to address it in a modest way  in section B of the  Collective Request . LDCs 
recognized  that many countries had  domestic sensitivities with regard to domestic  regulation , 
especially in mode 4 . This wa s why they had  targeted the elimination or reduction of onerous visa 
and permit application fees and cumbersome administrative paperwork. Many restrictions 
stemmed from burdensome or prohibitive documentation, application and registration 
requirements , and associated delays in response to visa applications.  
7.20.   Like India's submission, the LDC Collective Request also ref erred to residency requirement s 
and the non-portability of social security benefits, which act ed as mode 4  barriers or disincentives 
to provide services abroad. In the Collective Request, LDCs had requested that social security, 
income tax and other similar deductions to remuneration o f LDC services suppliers be waived if the 
supplier was supplying services under a services contract and not as a salaried employee.  
7.21.   Many of tho se kinds of barriers had  a ripple effect on LDC suppliers seeki ng to provide 
services through m ode 3 as well. While India's submission focused  on mode 4  regulatory barriers, 
the LDC Group wished to emphasise  a few other barriers addressed in the Collective Request 
impacting mode 3 and mode 1 supply  by LDC suppliers . For example, many LDC suppliers had  
been operating non-bank services to their diaspora worldwide and within LDC regions. With 
improvements in technology, as well as capacity built in LDC regions, LDC suppliers had  become 
skilled and in demand. In addition , the Group had requested simplified licensing proce dures for 
remittance and money transfer operators  from LDCs , including facilitation of "authorized payment 
institution " status. They had also requested nat ional treatment for non -banks under mode 3, 
where LDC suppliers face d at times clandes tine local cont ent requirements . In closing,  the LDC 
Group  support ed India's call for the removal of th ose barriers , so that commitments to 
liberalization in services could be fully realized.  
7.22.   The representative of South Africa  echoed the statement s by Morocco for the African Group  
and Benin for the LDC Group. She underscored the  need to address regulatory barriers that had 
the capacity to significantly impair mode 4 commitments. Having listened to the discussion, she 
stressed the importance of recognising the intrinsic r ole that the CTS played in the implementation 
and monitor ing of the GATS . This should be distinguished from the role  of the Special Session , 
which was the body established to oversee the services negotiations. Her delegation would not 
agree to move the dis cussion to the Special Session , primarily because market access  was not the 
issue on the table, but rather the implementation of legally binding  commitments. She added that, 
in the past, South African measures had also been the object of questions  and enqu iries in the 
CTS. 
7.23.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  echoed China's suggestion that 
the Secretariat conduct technica l analysis and further research on the definitions of the various 
mode 4 categories.  S/C/M/127  
 
- 21 - 
 
  7.24.   The representative of the United States  expressed his delegation's disappointment at the 
unconstructive and unproductive manner in which the mode 4  issue had been raised, adding that it 
was difficult to imagine how it could contribute to meaningful work in th e area. He had taken note 
of the approach taken by India  and was not optimistic that any consensus could be reached for 
further discussion on the issue ; he suggested that the proponent might reconsider its approach 
going forward . As for India's suggestion that the Secretariat update the background note on mode 
4, his delegation's opposition persisted.  
7.25.   The representative of Nigeria  echoed the state ments by Morocco for the African Group  and 
Benin for the LDC Group  and un derscored the importance of th at discussions, given the intere st his 
delegation had in mode 4 and  in light of the fact t hat the 2009 Secretariat background note stated 
that mode 4 accounted for less than 5 % of total services trade and was by far the least liberalised 
mode of supply. His delegation was open to ideas for f urther discussions under that agenda item.  
7.26.   The representative of El Salvador  also underscored  the importance of mode 4 for her 
delegation and for developing countries more generally, and thanked India for raising the issue. 
She noted the importance of unde rstanding the effect s of different measures on service suppliers 
who were trying to access other markets to export services via mode 4. Her delegation was 
interested in pursuing  further discussions and open and flexible on how to conduct them.  
7.27.   The represen tative of India thanked those M embers who had intervened for the ir 
contribution s to the  discussion . A number of very pertinent issues and interesting points of views 
on how to enrich the  debate had been  raised.  
7.28.   She agree d with Brazil that mode 4  was a comp lex issue that involved  both scheduled 
limitations and barriers that we re regulatory in nature. India's  submission was about lack of clarity 
in the manner  in which existing commitments we re being implemented. Brazil had  also wondered 
about  the relevance of  social security issues when it came to  temporary entry . That wa s precisely 
the point : service  suppliers under mode 4  were not only being subjected to social security 
payments , but those payments wer e not being allowed to be repatr iated when the supplier 
returned home .  
7.29.   Turkey had raised some very important questions regarding the definition of different 
mode  4 categories and where some professionals should be classified. They had also spoke n of the 
relevance of looking at issues related to visas and work p ermits , a discussion that her delegation 
also support ed. China, the African Group  and South Africa had  also pointed to some very relevant 
barriers being faced by their mode 4  suppliers when accessing foreign  market s. The LDC Group 
had also made some very p ertinent points about the lack of commitments on Contractual Service 
Suppliers  and I ndependent Professionals  and the fact that,  even when commitments existed, they 
were nullified by extensive paper work, lengthy procedures and discretion at the time of gran ting 
entry.  She also thank ed the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , Nigeria and El Salvador for 
supporting her delegation's  proposal and suggesting possible ways forward.  
7.30.   The EU and  Canada had  wondered about India's  final objective  in submitting its paper and 
noted that the debate was rather acrimonious. At the March meeting, when introducing its 
submission , she had explained in detail the objectives that underpinned it , but revert ed to them 
for clarification. India’s submission illustrated  the increasingly  complex nature of barriers to 
mode  4 entry that had  emerged from the experience of its service suppliers. Tho se kind s of 
regulatory requirements and limitations impede d, or might  impede , scheduled mode 4  access. In 
the paper, India was sharing its experie nce with respect to c ertain select countries that  were major 
export markets for its suppliers . A discussion on tho se specific examples of barriers that Indian 
service supplier were facing provided  an opportunity to constructively engage on real and 
substan tive issues that were being faced by mode 4  suppliers in general.  
7.31.   The EU  had also  stated  that the discussion focused on  very specific measures of given  
Members and should take place in the S pecial Session . In that regard, she noted that Article 24 of 
the GATS stated that the Council for Trade in Services " shall carry out such functions as may be 
assigned to it to facilitate the operation of this Agreement and further its objective ". She also drew  
Members ' attention to para graph  11 of the Nairobi Ministeria l Declaration,  which read: "W e 
reaffirm the importance of work in regular bodies in furthering the objectives of the WTO 
Agreements and in facilitating meaningful exchange of information and sharing of experiences 
regarding the effective implementation an d operation of their provisions". That was  exactly what S/C/M/127  
 
- 22 - 
 
  India was doing by sharing  the experience of specific problems that its service suppliers were 
facing in benefitting from  committed mode 4  access. Her delegation was not presenting a 
negotiating propos al and was only using specific examples to build up a more generic discussion 
on issues regarding mode 4 . In her previous statement, she had  indeed highlighted the generic 
issues that emerge d from tho se specific instances. That was  exactly what th e Council  was 
mandated to do.  
7.32.   She also stressed that her delegation 's intention was not to get into an acrimonious 
discussion on th at issue but  rather  to bring to Members ' notice  the issues that mode 4  suppliers  
were confronted with . India did not doubt the EU's commitment to the multilateral trading system 
and in actual fact India and  the EU were major trading partners.  At the March meeting it had been 
noted that India’s concerns in the case of the United Kingdom did not relate  to any exist ing or 
proposed measure. However, since the measure had now  been adopted and was being 
implemented, her delegation needed to bring clarity to the Council's discussions. She had not 
raised specific issues regarding the measures as such, as those could be dealt  with in bilateral 
discussions  with the United Kingdom, which her delegation had indeed requested and was looking 
forward to . The intention behind her delegation's  proposal was not to discomfort any Member  but 
rather to revive discussion s on the mode 4  barriers that service sup pliers face d in accessing 
markets.  
7.33.   The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made  and revert to 
that item at its next meeting . 
7.34.   It was so agreed . 
8  ITEM H – FUTURE WORK OF THE S UBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN 
SERVICES – STATEMENT BY BRAZIL  
8.1.  The Chairman  indicated that the item ha d been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of Brazil .  
8.2.  The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation had added the  item as an invitation to 
Members to brains torm on the WTO work on services. A fter 21 years of services, it was time to 
reflect on the structure of the CTS subsidiary bodies . In Brazil's view, the CTS subsidiary bodies 
had been losing relevance over time, as clusters of meeting s had gone from lasti ng three weeks to 
three hours. Every new Chairperson spent time and effort consulting with Members on what work 
could be use fully conducted in those bodies.  It was as if Members  were chasing subjects that could 
be candidates for discussion, and form had ended up taking precedence over substance. At a time 
when the dispute settlement functions in the WTO were lacking resources, it was maybe time to 
re-think the way in which resources were allocated.  
8.3.  He stressed that his statement concerned structure, and no t substance, and recalled 
paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which directed the General Council to consider 
the need for adjus tments in the structure of the  subsidiary bodies . 
8.4.  Starting with the Committee on Trade in Financial Services (CT FS), he noted that it had been 
created in 1995 for the purpose of the extended negotiations  on the sector , which had led to the 
Second and Fifth Protocols to the GATS. Given that the Fifth Protocol had now been ratified by all 
the Members concerned, a cycl e had possibly ended. He therefore suggested that a standing item 
be added to the agenda of the CTS, on trade in financial services, to allow Members to discuss 
relevant issues is they so wished, and that the work of the Committee be discontinued.  
8.5.  When it came to the Working Party on GATS Rules (WPGR), very little if anything had 
happened in that body  in the previous five years. He therefore proposed that, again, a standing 
item be added to the agenda of the CTS to cover the  relevant  issues and that work in  the WPGR be 
suspended; if and when the Chairperson believed that substantive discussions were on the table, 
the Working Party could be instructed to resume work.  
8.6.  Similar considerations applied to the Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC). Outside of 
a negotiating context, work in the Committee had been losing relevance . This included  discussions 
on classification  issues , which had a strong negotiati ng element  given that changes in classification 
were not neutral and would impact the scope of the commitme nts already undertaken . He S/C/M/127  
 
- 23 - 
 
  therefore proposed to add a standing item to the CTS agenda to address the relevant issues and to 
suspend the work of the Committee.  
8.7.  Finally, the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) was witnessing increasing 
momentum, but  the fate of discussions there depended on what Members would agree to do. If 
they decided to move to text -based negotiations, then clearly the WPDR should continue as it was; 
if not, then a standing item on the CTS agenda was all that was needed, without the whole WPDR 
structure.  
8.8.  In his delegation's view, the upside of implementing the suggested changes was to 
reinvigorate work in the CTS. He was open to discussing his proposal and called on Members to 
focus on the substance of the deliberations, rather t han their form , when considering it. He called 
on the Chairman to consult, in different formats and configurations.  
8.9.  The representative of Nigeria  asked if Brazil could put its proposal, which could have far -
reaching implications, on paper, to enable him to  consult with capital. He wondered about the 
implications of paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Declaration in relation to Brazil's proposal, and 
suggested that, subject to further reactions from Members, the Chairman could hold consultations. 
He then asked wheth er the Council could take a decision under "Other Business". A representative 
of the Secretariat  explained that, while it was not expected that Members ta ke decisions under 
"Other Business", Brazil's suggestion had not been raised under "Other Business" bu t under a 
regular agenda item.  
8.10.   The representative of Benin , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, had taken note of Brazil's 
suggestion but echoed Nigeria's request for the ideas to be circulated in writing , in order to enable 
consultations. He noted that t he MC10 Decision provided for the possibility to adjust the structure 
of the subsidiary bodies, but that consideration had to be given to which adjustments would favour 
LDCs and indicated that the LDC Group would revert to Brazil's suggestion.  
8.11.   The represen tative of the United States  said that Brazil's proposal w as very interesting and 
welcome,  and his delegation would consider it carefully. Brazil had brought other adjustment ideas 
in the R ules discussions , where some changes had been made that had sparked renewed interest 
and real results. In the Rules context, a similar  suggestion had been made, i.e. to suspend the 
added  formality of a meeting that had to open and close  but where there was no  substance in the 
middle, and to move the  substantive  issue to an  agenda item. For the first time in years, 
delegations  had made submissions on the issue in question, to show that it was important, and it 
had been a useful experience. He therefore called on delegation s to keep an open mind in 
considering Brazil's ideas,  as it was difficult to argue that the cluster of services meetings just 
concluding  had been productive  and not stuck in the past . Indeed, most meetings could have been 
conducted by relying on 10 -year old notes. Given that Brazil's proposal d id not preclud e any 
interests or future outcomes,  his delegation would also be interested in having consultations on 
the Brazilian  suggestion s.  
8.12.   The representative of Australia  said that suspending the work of services bodies would send 
the wrong message at a time when services  work was increasing, not diminishing. She said, 
however, that consideration could be given to the appropriateness of having all bodies meet at all 
clusters, depending on the substance to be addressed. She had a different assessment of the 
usefulne ss of the subsidiary bodies ' meetings. In WPDR in particular, n ew ideas had emerged 
which might require a greater frequency of meetings, although, again, she noted that not all 
subsidiary bodies needed to necessar ily follow the same rhythm of meetings. She  would be 
interested in consultations on how to intensify the work of the subsidiary bodies and  on to how to  
establish whether  a meeting should be held if there was nothing substantive to discuss. For 
instance, the CTFS had addressed the important issue of  financial inclusion, but her capital had not  
provide d substantive inputs as it was still considering the Secretariat note which had been 
circulated too close to the meeting . It might be possible to envisage rescheduling meetings for 
which mandated notes w ere not ready. She also noted the very packed CTS agenda; if standing 
items were added to it to cover the work of the subsidiary bodies, Members would still need to 
address them and this would result in extremely long CTS meetings.  
8.13.   The representative of Brazil said that it would be difficult to put his ideas on paper as such a 
paper would require internal clearance. The idea was not to put forward a formal proposal, but to 
raise an issue and suggest ideas. He concurred with Australia that the WPDR meeting just S/C/M/127  
 
- 24 - 
 
  concluded had been substantive, but noted that both WPDR and the CSC had held 15 minutes -long 
meetings just to appoint their respective new C hairpersons, and that while t he issue of financial 
inclusion  addressed in the CTFS was very important, he wond ered if a Committee was truly needed 
to discuss such issues. He also echoed Australia's observation that it was unnecessary for a body 
to meet if there was no substance to be addressed, in the same way that  it was needless for an 
item to be standing on an agenda if no discussions took place under that item. He invited  Members 
to brainstorm on the issue, in line with the direction provided by Ministers at MC10.  
8.14.   The representative of Nigeria  said that without a written contribution, delegations who were  
absen t would be disadvantaged, and urged Brazil to reconsider and present its ideas in writing. 
Although he was open to Brazil's  suggestion s, he was not ready to take a decision at that juncture. 
He observed that what had changed in terms of services discussion  was that little interest had 
existed  after 2008.  
8.15.   The representative of Jamaica  also encouraged Brazil to consider submitting its ideas in 
writing. In order for her delegation  to engage, her capital needed to see a proposal in writing. She 
added that Brazi l's ideas were a good opportunity to reconsider how work on services could be 
improved.  
8.16.   The representative of India agree d that delegations  should utilise their time usefully and n ot 
waste resources. But in the cluster  that had just ended  good discussion s had taken place in  almost 
all subsidiary bodies. It might therefore  not send the correct signal if Members decided at that 
juncture to  suspend the discussions in the subsidiary bodies . Services negotiations were very 
important for India. She added that i n the Rules area, the  Working Group on Implementation on 
anti-dumping had  not been suspended , but only its working method ha d been revised and ha d 
become less formalised. In fact, in the Rules area Brazil had proposed  to create  more 
Implementation Groups , in Safeguards and ASCM as well. Delegations needed to consider both 
content and format when they addressed  issues of that nature . She also echoed the statements by 
Nigeria and Jamaica urging Brazil  to submit its proposal in writing.  
8.17.   The representative of China said that the s ervices negotiation was one of the major pillars of 
the multilateral negotiations in the WTO. Although the progress Members had achieved in recent 
years had not met  China's expectations, his delegation still believe d that continuous discu ssions 
under the CTS and its subsidiary bodies was imperative and valuable. Apart from concrete 
negotiations, such as in the WPDR, M embers could use those  fora to e ffectively exchange 
information and  experiences,  and carry out  preparatory work for future n egotiations , and, most 
importantly, to fulfil the mandates  of the GATS.  
8.18.   China  welcome d the spirit with which Brazil had put forward its suggestion, and appreciate d 
its candour , which was  much needed. Members  needed such sense of urgency to stimulate and 
revitalize their discussions in  the various subsidiary bodies. However, faced with  the same 
symptom s, different people might come up with different therap ies. As the core platform for 
negotiation s, technical discussion s and information -sharing, the subsidia ry bodies of CTS were 
irreplaceable . Structured  and disaggregated discussions continued to be necessary, and it was not 
desirable to overload the agenda of  the CTS. China was also unsure about the legal implications of 
moving the agenda items from  the subsidiary bodies to the CTS. He encourage d Members to draw 
on their collective wisdom and make more effective use of the services  cluster meeting s, so as to 
fulfil the full mandates of the GATS in that regard.  
8.19.   The representative of South Africa  wonder ed what problem Brazil's suggestion was trying to 
solve. She noted that the Brazilian proposal had broader substantive implications, as including the 
subsidiary bodies' discussions under the CTS had effects on the rules of procedures and the 
decision -making proces ses. Brazil had proposed an expansion of the subsidiary bodies in the Rules 
area, which was not consistent with what it was suggestin g for services. In order for her 
delegation to properly consider and consult on the proposal, it was indispensable to have it in 
writing.  
8.20.   The representative of the United States  observed that Brazil's statement would be reflected 
in the minutes of the meeting, and hence something would be available in writing  at any rate . He 
then clarified, in response to  India's observation,  that in his previous statement he had been 
referring to the Anti -Circumvention Group, not the Working Group on Implementation . S/C/M/127  
 
- 25 - 
 
  8.21.   The representative of Switzerland  echoed calls for Brazil to submit a written contribution . 
Although  Brazil's statement would be  recorded in the report of the meeting, it was  difficult  to 
consult with capital officials on the basis the report alone . While he could partly understand the 
motivations for Brazil's proposal, he urged delegations not to lose track of the horizontal 
implications that the suggestion could have across the WTO . He also indicated that there were 
possible  juridical consequences , noting , for instance,  that the mandate for the WPDR was 
contained in the GATS itself and its terms of reference were based on GATS pro visions. He 
concurred that Members could look for ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of services 
work, but he disagreed with the method Brazil was suggesting. If problems existed in the current 
set-up, it was important to consider possible so lutions , without , however , prescribing what that  
solution should be. A clear diagnostic was needed before any decisions could be made on what the 
required medicine was. At that stage, it was not possible to determine if Brazil's suggested remedy 
was the ap propriate one. His delegation was ready to engage in consultations on the issue.  
8.22.   The representative of Japan  concurred with Brazil about the need to reinvigorate work in the 
CTS subsidiary bodies, but stressed the importance of considering their mandate. H is delegation 
was interested in discussing Brazil's suggestions further, but sought a clarification as to whether 
Brazil was suggesting abolishing or suspending the subsidiary bodies , and the CTFS in particular . 
8.23.   The representative of Brazil  explained that,  as soon as Members had a renewed appetite to 
discuss substantive issues, relevant work could resume in the subsidiary bodies, but currently  that 
was not the case.  The CSC work , for instance, was tied to negotiations, while the CTFS was t he 
only sectoral c ommittee. As f or Switzerland's point about the legal impl ications of Brazil's 
suggestion, it was important to consider the origins of the various b odies: the CTS had created 
them and could therefore  also consider their abolishment. He concluded that the fa ct that many 
Members had recognised that there was a problem and that maybe the situation could be 
improved was already a result, and that it might be possible to envisage a variety of  solutions.  
8.24.   The representative of Argentina  said that Brazil's proposal  was a useful "wake -up call"  that 
should help give impe tus to services work. As Australia had indicated, he believed that Member s 
should work towards fostering more services discussions in the WTO  and wondered, in that regard, 
if the method proposed by Bra zil was the most appropriate to achieve that objective.  He echoed 
other delegations' call for Brazil to submit its proposal in writing but also wondered if their 
suggestion would not be counterproductive, with Members spending time discussing the proposal 
instead of using it to reinvigorate services discussions.  
8.25.   The representative of Nigeria  sought more information about the scope of the authority of 
the CTS. A representative of the Secretariat  explained that the CTS had been established by 
Article  IV:6 of the WTO Agreement, while Article XXIV:1 of the GATS defined its functions. Article 
IV:6 also provided the CTS with the authority to establish its own subsidiary bodies, as required, 
without any need for the intervention of the General Council. While t he CT FS and the now -defunct 
Working Party on Professional Services had been established by Ministers before the creation of 
the WTO, those Decisions had been subsequently  adopted by the CTS. The CTS had also the 
authority to abolish its own subsidiary bodies.  
8.26.   The representative of Nigeria  sought further clarifications on the role of the General Council 
and any possible conflict with the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration . A representative of the 
Secretariat  explained that WTO d ecisions were normally taken by the bo dy authorised to take 
them under the general political guidance of the Ministerial Conference. Ministerial Declarations 
were adopted by Ministers and then again by the various bodies to give them institutional effect; 
in the case of the Nairobi Declaration , paragraph 29 contained an exhortation by Ministers to 
consider "the need for adjustments in the structure" of the respective body's subsidiary bodies. 
The CTS had never sought approval from the General Council when it had created or abolished any 
of its subsidiary bodies.  
8.27.   The Chairman  said that it was Brazil's prerogative to decide whether to submit its proposal 
in writing, but noted  that many delegations had indicated that a written contribution would be very 
helpful. H e said that he would be holding con sultations on the proposal and s uggested that the 
Council take note of the statements made.  
8.28.   It was so agreed . S/C/M/127  
 
- 26 - 
 
  9  ITEM I – OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  The representative of the European Union  said that transparency about  the TISA negotiations 
was very important to TISA par ticipants , who wished to offer the opportunity to interested 
Members to ask for information  and pose questions  on TISA . An information session was being 
organised and he would revert to the Membership with the necessary logistical information.  
9.2.  The represe ntative of Morocco , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , had observed that 
the name of the "Trade in Services Division " had recently been changed to the "Trade in Services 
and Investment Division ". In light of the fact that the purpose of the Trade in Services Division 
was to provide support and technical advice to WTO Members on the implementation of the GATS, 
in the interests of transparency the African Group  requested  the following  from the Secretariat: 
details as to the rationale for the change; cla rification as to the mandate under which the change 
had been brought about; and written and evidence -based justification for the name change. 
Further, the Group requested clarity as to why the term "investment"  in particular had  been 
added, how this interf ered with current work  undertaken by the Division  and the budgetary 
implications of the change.  The African Group  raised the matter in light of the serious systemic 
implications that the inclusion of "investment" would have on Members' rights under paragra ph 29 
of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, where the authority to consider the need for adjustments 
rested with Members and for adoption by the General Council.  
9.3.  The representative of South Africa  supported the statement by Morocco on behalf of the 
African Group . She said that the name change for the Division had not gone unnoticed. It was 
especially sensitive in light of the different views amongst WTO Members about whether the WTO 
should deal with the issue of investment , beyond the disciplines already  contained in the covered 
Agreements , and the possible prejudging of an outcome in that respect. She said that, while the 
Trade in Services Division had been responsible for investment before June 2016 , the fact that a 
decision was taken that  one mode , the very specific type of investment  covered  under the GATS,  
be used in the name of the entire Division, raised fundamental questions as to why one mode had 
taken precedence over the other three . At first glance , the changed  name for the Division indicated  
that investme nt was a separate and new issue , in spite of there being no agreement on the 
matter .  
9.4.  The representative of Uganda  also echoed the statement by the African Group . She wished to 
know how the decision had been arrived at. Why had this been done in  2016 and not earlier? Why 
were no other issues considered? Was there a purpose for the change, and,  if not, why had it been 
made? Sh e recalled that , as in the July package the decision had been made that no work should 
be carried out in the WTO on investm ent until after the end of the DDA , the change was in 
contravention  with paragraph 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration  which prescribed that a 
decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on new issues would need to be agreed by all 
Members. No  such discussion  had taken place, and moreover no consensus existed . The WTO as 
an organization  belonged to its Members , therefore any decision  Members adopted was owned by 
them as Members and had to b e respected , promoted and defended  by all Members.  
9.5.  The repr esentative s of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , Haiti and Cuba supported the 
statement by Morocco on behalf of the African Group .  
9.6.  The representative of India said that the African Group  had raised an interesting question and 
also wished to understand  why and how the decision to change the name had been taken.  
9.7.  After supporting the statement by Morocco on behalf of the African Group , the representative 
of Zimbabwe  asked for clarifications as to the objective, justification and mandate for the name 
chang e. He noted that it could affect Members' rights, given that investment was a new issue on 
which Members had not agreed to negotiate and, in line with paragraph 34 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration, such agreement was necessary before the WTO could ad dress new issues.  
9.8.  A representative of the Secretariat  said that the Secretariat was humbled by the attention the 
name change of the Division had received, albeit  maybe not for the right reasons, and was grateful 
for the opportunity to explain the backgroun d and motivations behind it. The modification had 
been made essentially for transparency and signposting reasons, to clarify how the investment file 
was handled in the WTO.  He recalled that i nvestment was one of the  four "Singapore issues ". The 
change had been made to reflect the reality that had existed since  January 2009 , when  the Trade S/C/M/127  
 
- 27 - 
 
  in Finance Division of the WTO was abolished and the responsibility for work on investment was 
transferred to the Services Division. The rationale behind the transfer of r esponsibility was the 
compelling overlap between FDI and mode 3 of the GATS; indeed, services accounted for around 
two-thirds of all FDI stock. The subject had been dormant until the recent rise in activity resulting 
from active interest by Members, the G2 0, other organization s and requests for technical  
assistance  in the issue of  trade and investment , investment and development, investment and the 
Sustainable Development Goals . All of this had led to more active collaboration on the part of the 
Secretariat  with other international organization s, such as the World Bank, UNCTAD or the OECD , 
academia and NGOs. Such rise in activity  had made it practically necessary to clarify to outside 
interlocutors, as well as interested Members, which part of the Secretaria t to address for 
information and assistance in the investment area.  
9.9.  Paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial De claration spoke of the regular C ommittees and the 
subsidiary bodies, i.e. the institutional structure of the WTO as provided for in Article IV of  the 
WTO Agreement. Revitalisation of work in regular C ommittees, as such, was very much in the 
hands of Members. The role of the Secretariat, its organizational structure and how tasks were 
allocated amongst Divisions were separate issues  that were the re sponsibility of the Director -
General, to ensur e that the Secretariat provided Members with service of the highest quality. 
There was nothing in the current rules, nor had it been practice, that decisions in that respect 
were subject to prior consultations with Members. When it came to budgetary implications, there 
were none; in actual fact, the Services Division had been shrinking in recent years, not growing. 
He invited any delegation who wished to have additional information on the issue to contact him or  
pay him a visit, and he would be more than happy to provide any further details or clarifications.  
9.10.   The representative of Morocco  was grateful to the Secretariat for the explanation given and 
the information provided and might indeed take it on up the kin d offer to discuss the issue further.  
9.11.   The representative of Rwanda  agreed that there was no need for the Director -General to 
have prior consultations with Members on internal arrangements for the Secretariat, and that the 
issue at hand was indeed an intern al issue. Nonetheless, he noted that not all Divisions had 
changed their name over the course of the WTO's life , and that when these changes were 
considered of a fundamental nature by some Members it should be possible to question them at 
some level, such as, for instance, at the General Council.  
9.12.   By way of clarification, the  representative of China  asked what the terms of reference were 
for the Trade in Finance Division with regard to investment.  
9.13.   A representative of the Secretariat  explained that the Worki ng Group on Trade and 
Investment had been established to address one of the four "Singapore issues", which also 
included trade and competition  policy , trade facilitation and  transparency in government 
procurement . The Working Group on Trade and Investment had not been abolished, and the 
Secretariat work on investment had continued internally, but the subject had been dormant for 
years. When the Trade in Finance Division was dissolved in 2009, the four Singapore issues had 
been reallocated: trade and competi tion policy and transparency in government procurement  had 
gone to the TRIPS Division; trade facilitation to the TPR Division, initially, and to the Market Access  
Division  thereafter; and investment to the Services Division.  
9.14.   Turning to the point about pri or consultations, indeed the internal management of the 
Secretariat was an issue under the responsibility of the Director -General, who was entitled to take 
"executive decisions" in that regard. Clearly, as the Secretariat's job was to serve Members, 
delega tions were free to express their views to the Director -General. He reiterated that the change 
in name had been motivated by the objective of making the situat ion clearer and more transparent  
for the Secretariat's interlocutors.  
9.15.   As he had indicated at the b eginning of the meeting, the Chairman  said that he  planned to 
ask the Secretariat to update the Council on developments in trade in services statistics. It was his 
intention to add an item to that  effect to the agenda of the next meeting  of the Council . He 
underst ood that the Secretariat could provide the Membership with updated information about:  
developments in trade in ser vices, globally and by sector; the status of cooperation with UNCTAD 
and the International Trade Centre to maintain the trade in servi ces data set; data availability in 
the Balance of Payments and Foreign Affiliates Statistics; progress reports on the data sets for 
bilateral services trade and trade by mode of supply , being developed by the WTO in cooperation S/C/M/127  
 
- 28 - 
 
  with other international org anizations and national ent ities; and the status of technical assistance 
activities and the work of the inter -agency Task Force.   
9.16.   While on the issue of services statistics, he recall ed that, as announced at the March 
meeting of the Council, the Secretariat  would  be holding a thematic course on services statistics 
for LDCs from 14 to 18 November 2016. The Secretariat was currently looking for LDC negotiators 
who would be willing to participate in a panel discussion aimed at identifying LDC statistical needs.  
The invitation letters for the course had been  sent out to LDC delegations in early June .  
9.17.   He concluded by  saying that the Council would take note of the statements made.  
9.18.   The meeting was adjourned . 
__________