RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/63  
 
19 May 2015  
(15-2617)  Page: 1/3  
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17 MARCH 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held a meeting on 17 March 2015, chaired by 
Mr. Christian Wegener of Denmark. The agenda for the meeting was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/WPDR/1 dated 6 March 2015. An annotated agenda for the meeting was circulated in JOB/SERV/204 dated 13 March 2015.  
 
1  ITEM A - DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON DOMESTIC REGULATION DISCIPLINES IN REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1.  The Working Party continued with its dedica ted discussion on domestic regulation disciplines 
in Regional Trade Agreements. One additional cont ribution was received in informal mode and the 
Chairman recalled that he would be providing delegations with an informal summary of the 
proceedings upon its conclusion. He further stated that this item would be placed on the agenda of 
any forthcoming meeting depending on any further contributions by delegations.  
2  ITEM B - DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY  DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS ARTICLE VI:4 
2.1.  As on past occasions, the Chairman prop osed that the discussion on the development of 
regulatory disciplines under GATS Article VI:4 be conducted in informal mode.  
2.2.  Before opening the floor for comments, he noted that at the last meeting in September, there 
had not been any further discussions on the Reflection Papers (RD/SERV/88 and RD/SERV/96/Rev.1). Co-sponsors had indicated th eir willingness to answer questions and to 
provide any additional clarification on the document s. He invited Members to give any feedback on 
the conclusions in the Reflection Papers. 
3  ITEM C - FUTURE WORK 
3.1.  The Chairman informed the Working Pa rty that due to scheduling difficulties, the 
International Standards Organization (ISO) had not been able to accept the invitation of the Working Party to make a presentation on the role of international standards. The Secretariat would 
try to arrange for the ISO to make its presentation at a subsequent meeting of the Working Party. 
3.2.  With regard to the substance of the agenda item "Future Work", he recalled that different 
views had been expressed at the last meeting as to whether the Working Party should return to 
text-based negotiations. Some delegations had stated that clarity was needed on how the 
negotiations would proceed overall, before text-based discussions would make sense, while others 
had expressed the view that the mandate of the Wo rking Party was to continue with negotiations 
on horizontal disciplines on the basis of the existing texts and contributions by Members. 
3.3.  He noted that since the last meeting in Se ptember 2014, the discussion of the post-Bali Work 
Programme had been unblocked, and discussions on  the elements of the Work Programme were 
on-going in various WTO bodies, including in the Special Session of the Council for Trade in 
Services. Against this backdrop, he invited delegations to share their views as to what contribution 
the Working Party could make to the common ob jective of establishing a post-Bali Work 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. S/WPDR/M/63 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Programme, and, more generally, how the Working Party should go about fulfilling its mandate on 
developing disciplines.  
3.4.  The representative of Australia stated th at the post-Bali Work Programme was the perfect 
vehicle to move discussions on domestic regulation disciplines forward and conclude the work. This 
would send a strong signal to the business community that WTO was capable of addressing long-
standing concerns. Since the commencement of the Doha round, considerable experience of negotiating domestic regulation disciplines had been accumulated, not least in free-trade 
agreements. As not all Members were parties to such  agreements, multilateral disciplines were still 
needed. The discussions were at a mature stage, as was expressed in the 2011 Chairman's progress report and evidenced by the technical work that had taken place in the last two and a half years. Her delegation was pragmatic and flexible, but urged the Working Party not to 
postpone recommencing of negotiations any longer. She recalled that there was in any case an on-
going mandate to develop disciplines. She suggested starting work on the basis of the 2011 text which embedded the 2009 text but represented si gnificant progress. Of course, as nothing was 
agreed at this stage, further proposals could be made, and any element of the text could be 
reconsidered. 
3.5.  The delegations of Chile; the European Union; Colombia; Mexico, China; New Zealand; 
Switzerland; Korea Rep.; Chinese Taipei and Japan supported the idea of restarting the text-based 
discussions on the basis of the 2011 text. They em phasized that domestic regulation was an 
important element of a post-Bali Work Progra mme, and would ensure that market access 
commitments were not undermined. It was recalled that a separate pre-Doha mandate for the 
development of horizontal DR disciplines existed.  Negotiations on domestic regulation required 
some time, and resumption could not wait until all other elements had been agreed upon. Excessive sequencing increased the risk of failure of the overall negotiations. Pragmatism was 
needed in the upcoming discussions. The 2011 text captured and reflected considerable additional 
work carried out since the 2009 text. Many differences in view had been captured in bracketed language which would facilitate further work. All reservations expressed on the text would of 
course need to be taken into account in the continuation of the negotiations. 
3.6.  The delegations of South Africa; Brazil; Ecuador; Bolivia; Nigeria; Zimbabwe; and Venezuela 
stated that the current status of the discussion on the post-Bali Work Programme was not clear 
and that progress in other areas needed to be made before more clarity on the services element 
could be sought. The Chair of the Special Session had just started consultations on the overall 
services element. Commencing text-based work on  domestic regulation in the Working Party was 
hence premature. There had not been any agreement on using the 2011 text as the basis for 
further negotiations, and several delegations had expressed strong reservations on the 2011 text. 
The view was expressed that the 2009 text reflected a greater level of convergence and contained a stronger section on development.  
3.7.  The representatives of Canada and the Un ited States expressed the view that domestic 
regulation negotiations should proceed in parallel with negotiations on services market access. In 
this context, they supported a doable and realistic outcome on domestic regulation, by focusing on elements on which consensus could be achieved . The representative of Canada stated that 
necessity test language could not be considered doable.  
3.8.  The representative of India suggested not ge tting into text negotiations before more clarity 
on the overall services element of the post-Bali Work Programme had emerged.  
3.9.  The representative of Uruguay expressed th e view that progress on domestic regulation was 
necessary, but that a clearer idea on progre ss in agriculture was needed beforehand.  
3.10.  The representative of Australia, support ed by Japan; Chile; Mexico and Switzerland 
suggested that the Secretariat be asked to arrange the 2009 and 2011 texts side-by-side, so as to 
better allow delegations appreciate the differences in the two texts.  
3.11.  The representatives of Venezuela; Brazil; Bolivia; Ecuador and South Africa disagreed on 
the suggestion of a preparation of a side-by-si de comparison of the 2009 and 2011 texts. Members 
could make any comparisons they deemed necessary in their preparatory work for the eventual 
resumption of work. A side-by-side would also implicitly suggest that the two texts were equally S/WPDR/M/63 
 
- 3 - 
 
  accepted, which was not the case. A comparison would lead to an attempt to bridge gaps and 
restart negotiations, thus prejudging that it would be part of the post-Bali Work Programme. 
3.12.  The representative of Nigeria stated that he had no objection in principle to a side-by-side, 
but expressed concern on any further discussion at this stage.  
3.13.  The representatives of Australia; Mexico and Chile expressed their disappointment at the 
excessive caution expressed by some delegations to the effect that the Working Party could not 
even agree on a factual arrangement of two docu ments. The proposal was without prejudice to 
any delegation's position; any work by the Special Session or any other WTO body, or the timing 
for restarting the negotiations. 
3.14.  The representative of Pakistan had no objection to providing clarity on issues on which 
different views existed. He cautioned against excessive sequencing. 
3.15.  The Chairman noted that there was neither agreement on the restarting of negotiations, nor 
on the proposal for a side-by-side arrangement of the 2009 and 2011 texts. He suggested that the Chair would remain in contact with delegations on these issues, and that the Working Party take 
note of the statements made. 
3.16.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM D - OTHER BUSINESS 
4.1.  No matters were raised under 'Other Business'.  
5  ITEM E – APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE WORKING PARTY 5.1.  The Chairman informed the Working Party th at the consultations by the out-going Chair of 
the Council for Trade in Services were still on-going. Therefore, the handover of the 
Chairpersonship of the Working Party would need  to be postponed until the conclusion of the 
consultations.  
5.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________