RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPGR/M/67 
23 April 2010 
 
 (10-2123) 
Working Party on GATS Rules  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1 FEBRUARY 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Felipe Lopea ndia from Chile.  The agenda for the meeting 
was contained in WTO/AIR/3495.  The agenda was adopted
.      
I. NEGOTIATIONS ON EMERGENCY SAFEGUARD MEASURES UNDER 
ARTICLE X OF THE GATS   
2. The Chairman  recalled that two rounds of informal technical discussions had been conducted 
on the concept of "domestic industry".  In this connec tion, he noted that at the informal meeting of the 
Working Party on 28 January 2010, the delegati ons of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Viet nam had indicated that they were not yet in a 
position to table a revision of their proposal on emergency safeguard measures, as contained in 
document JOB(07)/155.  He suggested that the Work ing Party may wish to await this revision and 
then consider if further technical discussions would be required.  
3. The representative of Malaysia  noted that the  issues raised during the informal meeting were 
still being considered by the co-sponsors of JOB(07) /155 and that they would revert back to the 
Working Party when a revision was ready.  In the in terim, she proposed continuing with the technical 
discussion on "domestic industry". 
4. The Chairman  took note of the statement made and proposed that the Working Party revert to 
this item at the next meeting.  It was so agreed.  
II. NEGOTIATIONS ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT UNDER ARTICLE XIII 
OF THE GATS 
5. The Chairman  recalled that two rounds of informal technical discussions had been conducted 
on the proposal from the European Union for a GATS Annex on Government Procurement, as 
contained in document S/WPGR/W/54.  He noted that  he would be willing to continue with technical 
work in this area, nonetheless, only a limited number of  questions had been raised at the last technical 
discussions on 10 November 2009.  He thus sought  guidance from Members on what further technical 
work would be required at this stage.  
6. The representative of the European Union  recalled that the informal discussions had provided 
a good opportunity to clarify the European Union's proposal for an Annex to the GATS on Government Procurement and to discuss in detail the various provisions contained therein.  She 
recalled that The European Union had provided two presentations of its proposal, covering general 
principles and procedural rules, including special a nd differential treatment.  Examples had also been 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/WPGR/M/67 
Page 2  
 
  given of how the commitments on government procur ement could be made using the existing format 
of schedules of specific commitments.  At the first presentation some very interesting questions had been raised and her delegation had been able to cl arify a number of issues.  She indicated that the 
European Union would welcome the continuation of su ch exchanges, in either a formal or informal 
format, so as to receive any further questions , comments or suggestions from Members.   
7. The Chairman
 took note of the statement made and proposed that the Working Party revert to 
this item at the next meeting.  It was so agreed.  
III. NEGOTIATIONS ON SUBSIDIES UNDER ARTICLE XV OF THE GATS 
8. The Chairman  proposed that the Working Party continue with its discussion on the Work 
Programme for information exchange under Article XV of the GATS.  He also noted that a room 
document on export subsidies, da ted 28 January 2010, had been received from the delegation of 
Switzerland.  On the Work Programme he recalled that Members had previously agreed to provide, wherever possible, written replies to questions liste d in the document entitled "Questions relevant to 
the information exchange required under the subsidies negotiating mandate" (S/WPGR/W/16).  
During the consultations, many Members had indicated that the approach agreed  to in that document 
provided a useful basis for reviving work on inform ation exchange.  Based on the consultations, he 
had circulated an informal Chairman's Note (J OB/SERV/1), which provided an indicative framework 
for the submission of information, as well as a dditional flexibilities on the choice of sectors and 
measures to be reported.  
9. He recalled that as a main element of th e framework, between March and July 2010, 
Members would submit to the Secretariat written re plies to the questions listed in S/WPGR/W/16, 
wherever possible.  Members would be free to select the number of sectors and the scope of measures 
to include.  Submissions to the Secretariat would be compiled and only circulated at the end of July 2010 for a discussion at a dedicated meeting of the Working Party on GATS Rules.  He underscored that the ultimate objective of Article XV was to negotiate disciplines on any distortive effects on trade 
in services arising from subsidies.  Members were encouraged in their submissions to the Working 
Party to also provide information on any trade-dist ortive effects encountered.  In this connection, 
Members were requested to consider two specific qu estions:  (i) what trade-distortive effects have 
services and service suppliers encountered due to subs idies not subject to the provisions of Article II 
and XVII of the GATS?; and (ii) why has it not been possible to deal with these problems, if they involve discriminatory subsidies, through ne gotiating Article XVII commitments on national 
treatment?   
10. It was emphasised by the Chairman that the Wo rk Programme facilitated but did not alter the 
existing requirement on information ex change contained in Article XV of the GATS.  He also stressed 
that, while the participation of all Members would be important to the success of the Work 
Programme, the amount of information to provide, as well as what might be appropriate or relevant, 
would be up to each Member to decide.  The im portant point was that submissions by Members 
would provide the Working Party w ith a much needed base of info rmation for further discussion and 
some direction for its future work.   
11. The representative of Switzerland
 expressed support for the Work Programme and the 
timelines contained therein.  Beyond the initiative per se , he also appreciated the efforts by the 
Chairman to reiterate that the ultimate purpose of th e exercise would be to facilitate the negotiation of 
disciplines on subsidies, an obligation that all Me mbers have.  The Work Programme, as explained by 
the Chairman, would assist Members to go further in this very important exercise.  Having said that, 
he emphasised that each Member had a legal tr eaty obligation under international law to submit 
information on subsidies, as soon as possible.  He st ressed that this point merited emphasis as the 
information exchange obligation covered discrim inatory subsidies, which were subject to  S/WPGR/M/67 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Article XVII, as well as non-discriminatory subsidies.   Thus, information should be provided on all 
subsidies whether or not these are considered to have  distortive-effects.  He noted that the approach 
taken in the Work Programme provided Members with flexibility, which was supported by his 
delegation.  The flexibility enabled Members to ente r into this task progressively, by selecting certain 
sectors to begin with.  This approach was practical as subsidies in some sectors might perhaps be 
easier to deal with than in others.  It also  provided Members with the opportunity to submit 
information in the way they saw most fit.  He drew  attention to the list of questions contained in the 
document S/WPGR/W/16, which was released in 1 997 and annexed to the informal Note by the 
Chairman.  These questions had been the result of substantive debate in th e Working Party and his 
delegation remained convinced that they were appropriate and relevant, and that  Members should take 
them into account when submitting information.  He thanked the Chairman for the initiative, and 
hoped that this important effort would lead to some  movement in the course of the year, thus making 
it possible to accomplish the other work covered under Article XV. 
12. The representative of Hong Kong, China , noted that, as pointed out by the Chairman, the 
mandate on subsidies from the Hong Kong Ministeria l Declaration required Members to exchange 
information required for the purpose of negotiations  under Article XV.  His delegation was pleased to 
note that discussions had continued on formulating a work plan to fulfil this mandate.  The discussion on the definition of subsidies had so far been inconc lusive.  He thus appreciated the view of Members 
to conduct the information exchange exercise in parallel with further exploration of a definition by the 
Working Party.  More examples of subsidies from Members would allow the Working Party to focus 
on various aspects of the matter.  This would en rich subsequent discussions on how to address the 
other negotiating issues under Article  XV.  His delegation was amongst the few Members who had 
responded to the previous call for information on  subsidies and would be pleased to share its 
experience with any interested Members.  With re gard to the current Work Programme, his delegation 
would respond positively and provide  new  information.  The Work  Programme was practical and 
reasonable in terms of its approach and proposed tim eframe, and catered to th e various circumstances 
of Members.  Hong Kong, China fully supported th e programme and encouraged other Members to 
respond positively to it. 
13. The representative of the United States
 expressed appreciation for the Work Programme and 
the Chairman's efforts in trying to drive the discussion forward.  The document contained in 
S/WPGR/W/16, which dated back to 1997, clearly recognized that questions are to be responded to 
when possible.  He noted that the Chairman had re called this point.  It seemed to his delegation that 
this meant that some Members might not consider it possible to address the questions listed, at least at 
the immediate time.  He recalled that his delegati on had noted from the beginning of the discussions 
that there were three issues which had to be addr essed by way of antecedents.  First, what were the 
practical problems which the Working Party was tryi ng to address?  His delegation believed that the 
Work Programme had moved this particular discussi on forward. Second, what  measures were covered 
and how should these impact on the definition of subsid ies in services?  Third, what remedies would 
be anticipated for the reported s ubsidies?  He recalled that the same three questions had been asked 
for the last 15 years.  Setting them aside for th e moment, he understood that some Members believed 
it would nevertheless be possible to provide useful information.  After consultations in the Working 
Party by the Chairman, it was the understanding of his delegation that the Chairman's proposed Work Programme sought to address the wishes of those Members who believed that useful reporting would 
be possible this time.  It would not be the  inte ntion of the United States to prevent Members who 
desired to volunteer information, according to a particular timetable, from doing so.  With that understanding of the function of the Work Programme, the United States could go along with the Chairman's proposal.  He also noted that the Ch airman had specifically called for a discussion of 
problems Members had encountered due to subsidies in  the services area.  His delegation viewed this 
as an integral part of the Work Programme and l ooked forward to reviewing the information Members 
might provide under this item. S/WPGR/M/67 
Page 4  
 
   
14. The representative of Chile
 expressed appreciation for the Work Programme and room 
document submitted by Switzerland.  Her delegation supported the Work Programme and had already 
commenced work on notifying the few subsidies provided by her government.  She stressed the 
importance of having a large number, if not all Memb ers, participate in the information exchange as 
this would be necessary for its success.  She emphasised that it would be necessary to promote and activate participation.  A good timeframe had been specified but the document did not refer to what 
would happen if an insufficient number submissions  were to be received.  Members must commit to 
this information exchange and defi ne the conditions for the public release of the information provided.  
The flexibility of the elements contained in the Work Programme would facilitate Members' 
participation.  However, since Members self sel ected sectors, as well the subsidy programmes to be 
notified, it could mean that by the end of the ex ercise, information would be provided on only a few 
significant subsidies as compared to those in existe nce.  To avoid this problem, she suggested that 
Members either select subsidies with the greatest ef fect or use some other formula which provided a 
good picture of actual subsidies.  In this connection,  rather than proceed on the basis of the questions 
contained in the document S/WPGR/W/16, Members should base their selection on criteria that best described a subsidy. 
15. The representative of Barbados
 expressed appreciation for the ef forts made by the Chairman 
to advance work in this area and for recalling the consultation process as well as the elements within 
the informal Note JOB/SERV/1.  On behalf of the delegations of sma ll and vulnerable economies 
(SVE), she recalled the preliminary comments that had been made at the informal meeting of 28 January 2010.  SVE delegations recognized and respected the need to fulfil the mandate in relation 
to information exchange, but had some concerns in terms of how to go about such an exercise.  They 
were also concerned with how such informati on could be used after it had been provided and 
requested clarification on this point.  She underscore d that it would have to be very clear that any 
information provided, as well as any Work Programme or substantive exercise that might be agreed, 
could not automatically prejudge subsidies to be trade distortive.  In addition, a very important element of the Article XV mandate for all delega tions related to the recognition of the role of 
subsidies in relation to the devel opment programmes of developing count ries.  In this connection, the 
need to take into account developing country needs and flexibilities should be a significant element of 
any Work Programme.  She stressed that this final point was quite fundamental to the nature of the 
information exchange exercise and highlighted that SVE delegations faced resource constraints, such 
as in the collection of relevant details, which would make it difficult for them to fulfil the 
requirements. 
16. The representative of Australia
 thanked the Chairman for th e Work Programme.  He noted 
that he had been following these negotiations for al most 10 years and could understand the frustration 
of some Members.  Efforts over the last decade to establish rules on subsidies had sought to find a 
middle ground between the recognition that subsidies could distort trade in ways that undermine the 
objective of trade liberalization and the acknowledgement  that subsidies were also an important tool 
of social, public and economic polic y.  He believed that most Me mbers would agree and acknowledge 
that they had both offensive and defensive interests with regard to services subsidies, though for many 
defensive interests might be stronger.  He noted that his government had consulted industry bodies 
and the Australian Services Roundtable but they ha d found it difficult to identify problems for service 
suppliers due to subsidies.  Thus, the inclusion in  the Work Programme of the sharing of information 
on problems encountered was very important.  The dual positive/negative aspects of developing rules 
on services subsidies had resulted in considerable  complexity, which was why  little progress had 
been made.  Although 15 years had passed sin ce the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, Members 
could still not agree on the definition of a servi ces subsidy nor to exchange information in a 
substantive way.  However, afte r listening to delegati ons, he believed that some work could be 
undertaken on subsidies.  The Chairman could outli ne a definition under his own responsibility.  Such  S/WPGR/M/67 
 Page 5 
 
 
  a definition might be a way forward and important wo rk could also be undertaken on the exchange of 
information on a voluntary basis.  His de legation could support such an exercise. 
17. The representative of Mexico  thanked the Chairman for his efforts to re-energize work on 
subsidies which was a priority area for her delega tion.  She underscored that Mexico fully supported 
the Work Programme and would participate in  the activities organized by the Chairman.  
18. The representative of Brazil  noted that his delegation was in favour of the idea of 
commencing discussions on the subject of subsidi es and supported the indicative timeframe for 
providing information between the months of Marc h and July.  His delegation was in favour of 
flexibility in the choice of sectors, and supported th e idea that there be a provisional definition to 
enable the Working Party to continue with its discussions. 
19. The representative of Canada  noted that his delegation r ecognized that improved subsidy 
disciplines might be desirable for trade in services.  Specifically on the Work Programme, he affirmed 
that Canada supported the objective of exchangi ng information on subsidy programmes related to 
services, as proposed by the Chairman in his inform al Note of 4 December 2010.  This work would  
help clarify some of the questions that the Worki ng Party had been grappling with in discussions on 
the possible definition of subsidies.  He reiterate d that Canada supported the proposal for Members to 
limit themselves to providing information on five  sectors of their choice;  that only subsidy 
programmes at the central government level be revi ewed; and that publicly available information be 
used as much as possible.  Member s should endeavour to complete this process during the March/July 
timeframe.  In addition, Members could as much as po ssible follow the first nine of the ten questions 
agreed by the Working Party in 1997, and which were contained in the document  S/WPGR/W/16.  
With regard to the analytical statistical work im plied by question number ten, this could perhaps be 
left to be performed late r by either the WTO Secretariat or anot her appropriate group, at the discretion 
of the Working Party.  He also emphasised that, at the same time, it would be very important for Members calling for subsidy disciplines to present c oncrete examples of how  subsidies might distort 
trade in services.  Tangible examples would help set  aside concerns that his delegation had that the 
Working Party was working on a remedy in search of a problem. 
20. The Chairman
 thanked delegations for thei r suggestions.  As the matter had been raised by the 
Canadian delegation as well as other Members, he clarified that it would be up to each Member to decide on the number of questions to which they wo uld respond.  Also, while the Working Party had 
previously suggested five sectors, delegations had the flexibility under the Work Programme to decide 
on as many sectors as possible for the submission of information.   
21. The representative of Colombia
 expressed appreciation for the efforts undertaken to re-
energize discussions in the Working Party.  His delegation fully supported the Work Programme  and 
agreed that this could facilitate the discussion on the trade-distortive effects of subsidies in services.  
He noted that various flexibilities had been provided to  Members in terms of the definition to use, the 
number of sectors and the scope of the information to be provided.  In terms of the issues raised by the 
representative of the United States, he believed th at delegations would keep them in mind when 
responding to the questions listed in the document S/WPGR/W/16.  With respect to the comment 
from Chile on action to be taken in case of insuffici ent responses, his delegation felt that it would be 
best to wait for the results obtained through the ex change of information, which would be compiled 
by the Secretariat, before considering what furthe r steps could be taken.  He expressed the full support 
of Colombia for continuing work on the basis of the Work Programme. 
22. The representative of India  expressed the support of her delegation for the Work Programme 
and the approach of commencing the information ex change exercise, as Members continued work to 
concretize a definition of subsidies.  She undersco red that the Work Programme was reasonable and S/WPGR/M/67 
Page 6  
 
  feasible, as an appropriate amount of flexibility had been built-in.  Her delegation would thus like to 
see all Members commit themselves to fulfilling the Work Programme.   
23. The representative of Japan
 expressed support for the Work Programme and raised several 
points.  Firstly, the flexibility given to Member s to choose sectors was appreciated, but it would be 
difficult domestically to prioritise the subsidie s for which information should be submitted.  
Therefore, it may be helpful to have a working de finition of trade-distortive subsidies for the purpose 
of information exchange, as it could serve as a guidelin e for internal coordination.  The timeframe and 
the use of publicly available information were also  very practical suggestions.  His delegation also 
supported the idea of viewing the information exch ange mandated in Article XV as a "fact finding" 
exercise.  In this connection, he noted that so me Members had doubts on its purpose, whether it 
helped to find out what kind of subsidies there we re, or what kind of disciplines were needed.  As it 
could be difficult for Members to commence exchanging information if they viewed that the exercise 
would serve the purpose of formulating disciplines, it would be better to emphasise the "fact finding" aspect.  
24. The representative of China
 appreciated the efforts of the Chairman to revitalize the 
negotiations and the Work Programme.  He also expressed appreciation for the flexibilities reflected 
in the programme, namely that Members might ch oose the number of sectors, scope of information 
and the subsidy definition to be used.  It was recal led that at the last informal meeting, China had 
expressed difficulties in gathering relevant informa tion.  Nevertheless, his delegation would do its 
best to contribute toward these discussions on subs idies.  He encouraged developed economies, 
especially those who had the capacity and the statisti cs, to provide more information on subsidies. 
25. The representative of Peru  supported the Work Programme a nd encouraged other Members to 
do so as well, since it was sufficiently flexible to f acilitate the exchange of information as required by 
Article XV.  
26. The representative of the European Union  affirmed that her delegation did not have any 
objections to the proposed Work Programme.  The flexibility and guidance contained therein were 
welcomed, as well as the additi onal explanation given by the Chairman.  The Work Programme 
should allow all Members to contribute to the ex ercise and could stimulate discussions which had 
been stuck for a long time.  The information excha nge exercise could help overcome some of the 
frustration which appeared to have reigned over th is subject since 1997.  However, she stressed that 
the results would only be interesting if all Members contributed as much as possible.  Most 
importantly, information should be shared about  problems that had been encountered, as was 
highlighted in the last point of the Work Progra mme.  While exchanging information about subsidies 
could be interesting from an academic perspectiv e, she reminded Members that the task of the 
Working Party was to deal with the question of trade distortions caused by subsidies in services. 
27. The representative of Chinese Taipei  affirmed that his delegation could go along with the 
Work Programme with the specified timelines and fl exibility for Members to select a specific number 
of sectors for information sharing.  To contribute to the exercise, his capital had been reviewing 
current practise based on the working definition of  subsidies as contained in Article I of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM).  The information exchange exercise 
would be important as it could pave the way for future discussions on possible disciplines on services subsidies.  He encouraged all Members to make th is exercise a successful one and to share their own 
experience with a view to fulfilling the mandate of Article XV.  He noted that experience-sharing by 
Members would not prejudice their future position on this subject.  
  S/WPGR/M/67 
 Page 7 
 
 
  28. The representative of Pakistan  thanked the Chairman for his efforts and the well structured 
Work Programme, which would help Members to ex change information, as well as to develop other 
aspects of the subsidy negotiations.  He encouraged all Members to participate in the exercise, which 
was facilitated by the flexibility given on the num ber and choice of sectors on which information 
would be provided.  He assumed that wherever problems were encountered, Members could resort to 
the Secretariat for support, especially in terms of assistance with the interpretation of data.  He also 
highlighted that it might not be that easy, in the fi rst instance, for Members to identify trade-distorting 
effects in the information submitted.  Thus, it woul d be appreciated, once all the information had been 
compiled, if there could be an interim period wher e Members could informally consult each other on 
the information that had been submitted.  This would help those Members who might not be in a 
position to identify the real trade-distorting effects, even though these might exist.  Through the 
examples identified, the  information exchange exercise would ultimately help Members to finalize 
the definition of subsidies and further discussions on the development of disciplines. 
29. The Chairman  explained that the organization of a dedicated session after the circulation of 
the compilation would give Members the opportunity  to consider the information submitted and 
decide on what further steps are needed.  This  session would thus serve the purpose mentioned 
requested by the delegation of Pakistan and, as he had explained to some delegations in the past, the 
Working Party would have to decide either at the Se ptember meeting, or at a later meeting, on how to 
analyse the information and evaluate its usefulness. 
30. The representative of Korea  expressed support for the Work Programme.  He emphasized the  
importance of focusing on the actual subsidies provided by every Member and hoped that all 
delegations who had expressed s upport would be able to provide useful information.  
31. The representative of Argentina  expressed appreciation for the Work Programme which had 
received broad support from all dele gations.  He noted that consider able efforts had been made to 
prepare the Work Programme and he was confiden t that the Article XV and Doha Development 
Agenda mandates would be complied with.  Concerning the proposed indicative timeframe, he 
questioned to what extent had it taken into account  the on-going stocktaking exercise and the efforts 
to conclude the Doha Round by the end of the y ear.  Assuming that Members were in a position to 
actually conclude the Round, the time indicated in the Work Programme would not be sufficient  to 
complete the exercise, as the compilation of submissions would only be ready after the summer break.  He stressed that his delegation did not disagree wi th the programme, but had thought it relevant to 
highlight that there might not be enough time to complete the information exchange exercise.  
Nonetheless, his delegation believe d it would be important to go ahead with the programme as it 
would be a contribution towards the completion of the Round.  
32. He noted that the Chairman had given comprehe nsive explanations and other delegations had 
also recalled the degree of flexibility available to  Members, as specified in the Work Programme. 
With respect to the level of the information provide d on subsidies, he recalled that the Chairman had 
said that for practical reasons it need only cover subsidies granted by the central government.  He 
requested clarification on this point as there were both federal and unitary states in existence, and it 
had not been clear what was meant by central gov ernment.  Also, unlike the Work Programme, in 
document S/WPGR/W/16 reference had been made to subsidies granted at any level of government.  
He understood that this flexibility had been given w ith a view to speeding up the process.  However, 
he also recognized that in the spirit of the Work Programme, nothing would prevent any Member 
from reporting on subsidies provided by other levels of government.  Nevertheless, he was mindful 
that a bureaucratic tendency would be to simplify and to report only those subsidies provided by the 
central government as this was specified in the Work  Programme.  This might create a dilemma as the  
official responding to the request might believe that  only subsidies granted by the central government 
were subject to the Work Programme.  The unfortunate  result might be that existing subsidies at other 
levels of government would not be reported.  He  stressed that these questions in no way detracted S/WPGR/M/67 
Page 8  
 
  from the support his delegation had for the approach taken in the Work Programme, but he sought to 
draw attention to the fact that it would not r esolve all issues, as had been suggested by some 
delegations.    
33. On another matter, unlike the document S/WPGR /W/16, which contained the definition of 
subsidies from the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) as the basic 
concept, the Work Programme rai sed the possibility that Members mi ght use any definition.  Some 
respondents could thus feel that the definition was somewhat open and on that basis could hold back 
from giving certain information.  He believed that this approach might result in a Member adopting a 
definition which would exclude the need to make any notifications.  Thus, while the flexibility was 
welcomed, it could lead to unwanted results.  On the fundamental issue concerning problems 
encountered by service suppliers, the delegati on of Australia had indicated that industry 
representatives sometimes found it difficult to identify  distortive effects.  He noted that Argentina 
faced the same problem, though this did not mean th at subsidies did not exist, nor did it mean that 
there were hidden subsidies.  Lack of informati on on difficulties encountered by certain suppliers did 
not mean that subsidies did not have distortive effect s.  He noted that some delegations might take the 
view that, as no problems had been identified, there would be no need for further work.  On this point, 
he supported the delegation of Switzerland, which had indicated that it would be important to 
continue working on the mandate on parallel fronts, as had been suggested by the Work Programme.  
He encouraged all delegations, not just the devel oped Members, but also those who had the financial 
resources, to make the necessary notifications.  
34. The Chairman
 said that he was mindful of the need to  define how work on subsidies would be 
adjusted to the needs of the overall negotiations, esp ecially in light of the stocktaking exercise that 
had been planned for the end of March 2010.  He  would be reporting to the Council for Trade in 
Services in Special Session on the Work Progra mme, and Members would have the opportunity to 
consider how the programme would fit into the ove rall timeframe of the Round.  He recalled that 
consultations had been conducted w ith a large number of delegations  and the indicative timeframe in 
the Work Programme was the result of the inputs that  he had received.  Indeed, one of the issues 
raised was the possible shortage of time to cond uct the information exchange exercise, which was 
why the suggested timeframe for submissions would al ready start in March and run to July of this 
year.  He stressed that what was ultimately im portant was not to debate the timeframe but to 
commence the exercise.   
35. As had been highlighted by the delegation of Argentina, the Work Programme had specified 
that information might be focused on subsidies that were granted by the central government.  
However, this did not mean that Members might not submit information rega rding subsidies granted 
at lower levels of governments.  On the ques tion of the definition, which had been discussed 
extensively in the past, a major difficulty had been  the interminable circular discussion over whether 
information exchange should precede agreement on a de finition or vice versa.  One of the objectives 
of the Work Programme would be to break this dead lock and enable delegations  to collect information 
based on definitions felt to be the most appropriate.  This would at least give the Working Party a base 
of information which could be fu rther refined and help give discussions greater focus.  He asked 
delegations not to prejudge the final results before  September, especially given the level of support 
which had been expressed by delegations to try an d meet the objectives of the Work Programme.  It 
had also been clarified in past meetings that th e Work Programme would not cover all aspects of the 
mandate of Article XV, and that the Working Part y could in parallel develop other areas of discussion 
concerning subsidies.  In this connection, he enco uraged delegations to provide him with inputs on 
what other issues Members would like to work on.   
36. The representative of Switzerland  supported the Chairman's explanations.  He also shared the 
views expressed by the delegation of Argentina rega rding the approach that should be followed in 
collecting information on subsidies provided by various levels of governme nt.  His delegation had  S/WPGR/M/67 
 Page 9 
 
 
  also taken note of the paragraph in the Work Progra mme, which in the first sentence stated "not yet in 
a position to submit information".  He reiterated that  his delegation had understood that to mean that 
Members should ultimately be in a position to notify all subsidies.  Thus, the flexibility provided was 
a means to facilitate the beginning of the exercise within a limited duration up to July 2010.  Since 
this would be a six month period, it would be reasonabl e to focus on a restricted scope of application.  
His delegation nonetheless supported Argentina's a pproach for a number of reasons.  Drawing an 
artificial division between various levels of govern ment would give rise to a number of problems.  
Frequently, funds were transferre d from one level of government to another, for instance from the 
central to regional government.  The regional govern ment would then transfer funds to even more 
decentralized levels of government.  From a financia l point of view, there were no strict delimitations, 
which was why it would be important to have a more comprehensive approach.  The levels of 
government were related a nd it would not be possible to set others aside and focus on just one.  This 
could just be an academic exercise, or in the worst of case, it could turn out to be completely biased.  
He expressed appreciation to the large numbe r of delegations who had supported the Work 
Programme and the timeframe from March to July 2010.  It demonstrated how seriously Members 
took this exercise for transparency as well as legal reasons.  He believed th at all delegations who 
attached importance to this mandate would be satisfi ed upon the successful conclusion of the exercise.  
37. The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their comme nts.  He noted that there had been 
broad support for the Work Programme on the basis of the guidelines contained in JOB/SERV/1.  He 
took note of the various comments and suggestions, and reiterated that the flexibilities contained in 
the Work Programme were needed to  ensure its success.  He stressed that the most important element 
as some delegations had stressed, would be the particip ation of all Members.  In this connection, he 
recalled that in keeping with the mandate of Artic le XV, every Member should make the effort to 
provide information which would be helpful to ach ieving the objectives of the Working Party.  The 
exchange of information would not prejudge any de cision that the Working Party might adopt in the 
future, with regard to services subsidies, nor did it complete the subsidy negotiations.  He proposed 
that the Working Party adopt the Work Programme, toge ther with all the statements made.  It was so 
agreed.  Turning to the room document on expor t subsidies, he called upon the delegation of 
Switzerland to introduce the paper 
38. The representative of Switzerland  noted that his delegation had chosen to present its proposal 
in the form of a room document as it would be the fi rst time that such a proposal had been floated at 
the Working Party, and that it might be further refi ned.  He recalled that export subsidies had been a 
priority for Switzerland for quite some time.  In many previous mee tings, his delegation had 
repeatedly stressed the importance of tackling such su bsidies.  For his delegation, disciplining services 
export subsidies were a priority, as they are the most harmful.  Such subsidies were designed to affect 
trade, and by definition if not by purpose, distor t competition in third markets thus reducing the 
benefits of securing market access commitments.  In addition, since these measures were often non-
discriminatory they were not subject to scheduling,  despite being potentially, or in effect, trade 
distortive.  He stressed that the use of such subsid ies raised concerns of an un-level playing field and a 
lack of transparency 
39. He emphasised that from an institutional persp ective, problems arising from export subsidies 
could only be properly addressed in a multilatera l organisation like the WTO, through the GATS 
framework.  The difficulties in dealing with export subsidies resulted from the involvement of three 
players.  For example, country B exported services to country A and might have secured 
commitments to that effect; country C, however, su bsidized its services exports into the market of 
country A.  By doing so, country C would affect th e domestic suppliers of country A, but also the 
exporters from country B, whose government woul d have little legal recourse, in the absence of 
multilateral disciplines, to counteract the measures ta ken by C.  The ultimate objective of the proposal 
would be to ensure that these type of subsidies w ould be prohibited and it contained a series of legal 
provisions covering all modes of supply.  He noted th at consideration had been taken of the difficulty S/WPGR/M/67 
Page 10  
 
  that this could possibly entail for some delegations, and the approach in this document was thus 
flexible and progressive.  Account had also been take n of the differences in the level of development 
of WTO Members.  
40. He underscored that the proposal had to a great extent been based on Part 2 of the ASCM 
with similar provisions on scope and definition.  In addition, in paragraph 3 of the  proposal, Members 
had the flexibility of establishing a list of export subsidies which could c ontinue to be applied 
following the adoption of the disciplines.  The lis ted subsidies would nonetheless be subject to 
paragraph 4 which provided for a standstill and a timeframe for their progressive phase out.  The  
phase-out period had yet to be defined, as it wo uld be subject to negotiations, but had been 
provisionally inscribed as 10 years.  Paragraph 6 provided the possibility to extend the transitional 
period for a further duration, the length of which woul d be less than that contained in paragraph 4.  In 
addition to these flexibilities, by virtue of paragra ph 7, in certain cases an export subsidy might be 
inscribed for an unlimited period of time.  The va rious flexibilities provided for by paragraphs 4, 
6 and 7 were accompanied by provisions which take into account the situation of developing 
countries.   
41. He noted that the proposal struck a balan ce between the flexibilities provided and the 
requirement to negotiate the removal of subsidi es inscribed on the list.  Should a trade round be 
underway, Members would be free to bilaterally, or in any another format, to open negotiations with 
another Member with the aim of reducing transiti onal periods or removing subsidies from the list.  
The provisions related to negotiations were found in  paragraph 4.  Furthermore, remedies for the 
unauthorized application of subsidies are contained in paragraph 8, which had been  drawn from the 
ASCM.  The representative of Switzerland underscored that the draft was far from being perfect, and 
some points might perhaps require further elaborati on.  It had been put forward today in order to 
receive Members' reactions and contributions, and Switzerland hoped to improve on this text and to 
provide Members with a consolidated text at a later stage.  
42. He highlighted that in goods trade, export subsid ies were prohibited.  In agriculture, work was 
well underway in the context of the Doha Round to wards achieving a similar prohibition.  It would 
therefore be inconceivable, as well as impossible to explain, that the Round could be completed with 
no disciplines whatsoever in services.   Unfortunately, at this time,  Members seemed to be heading 
towards that outcome.  Moreover, the recent financ ial crisis provided unquestionable proof of this 
type of measure.  Members for some years might have believed that this was a subject of the past.  The past two years had shown just how quickly and how effectively the whole arsenal of trade 
policies could be adapted with distortive effects, esp ecially if the political authorities considered it to 
be appropriate and if there were no disciplines to st op them from doing so.  He commented that never 
in economic history had there been such an upsur ge of subsidies resulti ng in huge budget deficits, 
posing a major problem for the world economy.   
43. He noted that in earlier discussions, various questions had been raised, including by the 
delegation of Canada, on what woul d be the purpose of disciplines on subsidies.  He stressed that 
disciplines on export subsidies would guarantee stabi lity and predictability of the international trading 
framework.  Without disciplines, an unstable situat ion was created, since measures could be adopted 
at any time.  Typically, private traders, operators, we re hit twice.  First, by the crisis or a difficult 
economic situation and second, by the respon se of governments through the introduction of 
discriminatory measures.  Accepting disciplines in th is area would help to solve this problem and 
create a predictable situation for ec onomic operators.  He reminded that   export subsidies affected not 
only national operators in a given market, but also thei r foreign competitors.  He stressed that this was 
not a new subject and there had been discussions on  this matter in the Working Party and in other 
fora.  He drew attention, in particular, to th e work by UNCTAD and the OECD, which had published 
a paper (working document number 66) on export subsid ies just a year ago.  He looked forward to 
hearing delegations' reactions to the proposal from Switzerland.  S/WPGR/M/67 
 Page 11 
 
 
  44. The Chairman  thanked the representative of Switzerla nd for introducing the room document 
dated 28 January 2010.  As delega tions might not have had sufficient time to analyse the proposal, 
they might perhaps wish to provide preliminary reactions. 
45. The representative of the United States  noted that his delegation had not had the opportunity 
to study the proposal in length and that his comment s would be very preliminary.  Despite a number 
of concerns, his delegation very much appreciated Switzerland's hard work on this interesting and 
complex subject.  He noted that given the complexi ty and the scope of the questions that had been 
tackled, the proposal must have taken many years to prepare.  He highlighted that there are a 
multitude of issues that had been a ddressed in the proposal.  In this connection, he had hoped that the 
representative of Switzerland in his oral interventi on would have provided more detail about some of 
the issues.  His delegation found it difficult that the discussions had gone from having no definition or 
even real idea of what problems were created by subs idies, to a fully elaborat ed textual proposal.  He 
requested the delegation of Switzerland, when it ha d the opportunity, to describe the actual processes 
that had led to the various provisions.   
46. The issue of export subsidies in services was a very interesting concept, but needed to be 
explored thoroughly.  He suggested that Members start by discussing some of the most basic 
scenarios in terms of export subsidies before launchi ng into the complexity of formulating ASCM-like 
disciplines.  To accept disciplines on subsidies, Me mbers would need a very clear idea of what 
precisely would be the effects.  He noted that the proposal extended to de facto  export subsidies, a 
very complex concept, which required considerable  reflection by Members.  Nevertheless, he had 
some preliminary ideas on what might constitute de facto  export subsidies, in terms of expenditure by 
governments, and would ask the delegation of Switzerla nd and others to consider various scenarios.   
47. He also noted that Switzerland had reproduced the footnote on de facto  export subsidies from 
the ASCM.  He found the footnote quite difficult to understand, even in the ASCM context, and asked 
if others in the room with more experience of  this Agreement could explain it.  While many 
delegations had said that the ASCM definition c ould be a good starting point for discussions on the 
definition of subsidies in services, it was noted that  the definition used in the Swiss proposal departed 
quite significantly from that Agreement.  He requ ested Switzerland to explain why these changes had 
been made.  For example, he noted that the concept of "entrust or direct", which had been frequently 
discussed in the ASCM context in recent years,  had been dropped entirely from the definition 
contained in the Swiss proposal.  The concept of a "specificity test" had also been removed, and 
further elaboration from Switzerland on that point w ould also be appreciated.  Similarly, in the 
ASCM, export subsidies are not subject to a determin ation or a demonstration of injury, and this had 
been replicated in the Swiss proposal.  He request ed further information on the thinking behind this 
parallelism.  With respect to the remedies section of the proposal, he  asked  Switzerland whether this 
was intended to be confined to export subsidies.   
48. He recalled that Article XV requested Memb ers to consider the appropriateness of 
countervailing duties. In this context, he wondere d if paragraph 8 of the proposal represented a 
decision by Switzerland that countervailing duties were not appropriate for services and, if that was the case, why such a conclusion ha d been reached.  In this connection, he suggested spelling out 
rather than merely including a mutatis mutandis  clause in paragraph 8.  Future interpreters of 
whatever disciplines the Working Party might come up  with, should not be left to guess what changes 
were deemed to be necessary by Members and which are not.  In this context, he noted that in making 
a link to Article. 4.2 to 4.12 of the ASCM, Switzerland had replicated  the provision for a permanent 
group of experts.  He requested clarification as to wh y this particular body should be replicated in the 
services context and what experience Switzerland had with respect to the ASCM permanent group of 
experts.  He noted that, while Switzerland had fo cused on export subsidies, it had neither in this 
proposal nor in prior comments mentioned other prohibited subsidies such as import substitution S/WPGR/M/67 
Page 12  
 
  subsidies.  He wondered if Swit zerland had given any thought to whether those types of prohibited 
subsidies in goods trade should be equally  transposed to the services context.   
49. On the types of government expenditures that might be covered by a prohibition on export 
subsidies, he requested Switzerland and other Member s to consider some of the following examples.  
In the tourism sector, would spending on tourism in frastructure or promotion, particularly in small 
economies with very limited intern al consumption markets, be considered to be a prohibited export 
subsidy or otherwise be disciplined by the WTO?  Similarly, should disciplines on export subsidies 
prohibit spending on transportation infrastructure, particularly for activities like maritime transportation?  In the goods context, he belie ved that such spending would be categorized as non-
specific subsidies, since any goods export would,  of course, benefit from government expenditure on 
ports and on other kinds of transportation facilities.   
50. In the services context, a very different analys is would apply, since there would only be one 
industry, the transportation industry, which would benefit from that expenditure.  Thus, unlike the 
goods context, such subsidies would be more spec ific in services.  He wondered if Switzerland and 
other Members would view spending on transportation,  particularly transporta tion-related to export, 
as de facto  export subsidies.  In the case of banking, pa rticularly in an economy such as Switzerland, 
with a  market for the consumption of banking services, there might be aspects of the industry and the regulation of the industry, which were designed to  attract deposits from abroad and thus deprive 
foreign competitors of the possibility to provide servi ces.  Would this be viewed as an export subsidy, 
or would enforcement of banking regulations in Switzerland be a prohibited export subsidy?  He 
emphasised that there were probably other exam ples of government expenditure which diverted 
consumption of services from one market to anothe r, and Members would need  to think very hard 
about exactly which types of expenditure s hould be prohibited and which allowed.   
51. He noted that Switzerland had provided a very cl ear explanation of the theoretical basis for 
wanting to prohibit export subsidies, which would apply across the board,  but his delegation had been 
asking from the beginning what practical problem s had been encountered.  He wondered if 
Switzerland was aware of any export subsidy in ser vices, and if so, his delegation would appreciate a 
further description of these measures.  While he had laid out a few measures that could be defined as export subsidies, if Members so choose, in reality his delegation had not encountered many complaints from industry.  He recalled that Swit zerland had also referenced  the recent OECD paper 
on this issue, but the OECD had also drawn atten tion to the fact that industry had shown very little 
concern.  This should give Members some cause to think about why the Working Party should be 
going ahead when the industry did not seem to be  concerned about the possible effects of export 
subsidies.   
52. The representative of Pakistan
 expressed appreciation for the ve ry meaningful and concrete 
proposal from Switzerland.  Firstly, he noted th at, while a comprehensive proposal on  export 
subsidies had been tabled,  that would not preven t Members from exploring the options or disciplines 
with respect to  other types of subsidies.  Sec ondly, with regard to scope, Switzerland had adopted a 
good definition of export subsidies, namely that  these subsidies were c ontingent upon export 
performance.  However, the definitional scope of  export subsidies in services might have to be 
enlarged.  Using the example given by the represen tative of Switzerland, banks from country B were 
present in country A, while those from country C would either like to establish, in, or to export banking services to country A.  A bank from country  B established in country A, might receive some 
financial support from its government for operations in  country B.  In other words, these subsidies 
might not be directly based upon export performance  or export contingency, yet, they would surely 
affect the  operations or ability to operate in c ountry A.  He wondered whether such measures would 
also be an export subsidy, and suggested that the definition in the proposal be widened by including 
words such as "impact on exports" or something along similar lines.   S/WPGR/M/67 
 Page 13 
 
 
  53. With respect to the listing and phasing-out of e xport subsidies, he highlighted the importance 
of development concerns as menti oned in Article XV.  Most developing countries, at least in  the case 
of Pakistan, might not be in a position to list a ll export subsidies.  Indeed, governments may not 
always be fully aware of all the subsidies that are provided.  He referred to Annex VII under the 
ASCM and suggested that it may be worth explori ng what type of broad special and differential 
treatment could be used to address development concer ns.  In terms of remedies, he agreed with the 
observation made by the representative of the United St ates that Members might need to reflect on the 
appropriateness of replicating Articles 4.2 to 4.12  of the ASCM, and that some of these provisions 
might need to be adapted.  With regard to the pe rmanent group of experts, he felt that this might be 
more useful in the context of services than in goods, however, the mechanism might need to be 
different, as his understanding was that it had not been  that helpful in the goods context.  On other 
issues, he noted that through discussion it would be necessary to consider whether countervailing 
measures might be appropriate, and if so, what fo rms these might take.  He wondered, for instance, 
how a countervailing measure would be applied to m ode 4 in the event of an export subsidy.  He 
noted that the delegation of Switzerland had presen ted the proposal as an initial document for further 
refinement.  In this connection, he underscored that his delegation would support the work going 
forward and would be ready to contribute to that effort.   
54. The representative of Argentina  expressed appreciation for the room document that had been 
introduced by the delegation of Switzerland.  While the proposal could be improved upon, it was the 
first time that such a subject had been dealt with, and had the merit of having tried to provide some 
replies to certain types of subsidies.  His dele gation would not be making any specific comments on 
the Swiss proposal at this initial stage, but would certa inly do so at the next meeting.  Nonetheless, he 
noted the interest of his delegation in working on and improving certain aspects of the  proposal.  He 
emphasised that while work assigned under Article XV  should continue to be pursued, his delegation 
would be prepared to focus on the Swiss proposal, if the majority of Members would like to do so.  
55. The representative of Canada  thanked the delegation of Switzerland for the room document 
and noted that he would need consult with some  of his experts in capital before providing more 
detailed comments.  While not specifically on the pr oposal, he believed that it would be important to 
have a discussion in general on whether there was indeed a problem which needed to be addressed 
through specific disciplines.  From that perspective,  he did not think that the information exchange 
exercise would be helpful in terms of guiding Members'  exploratory work on this particular matter.  If 
Members in fact deemed that there were problems th at needed to be resolved , then the Swiss proposal 
might be useful for the purpose of discussion.  However, as observed by the delegation of the United 
States, it seemed that the proposal had focused on only one type of prohibited subsidy.  He noted that 
the Canadian delegation had mentioned in the Novemb er cluster that, should there be a potential case  
for disciplines on subsidies, then some of the mo st distortive subsidies, should be identified and 
examined from a services perspective.  
56. The representative of India  thanked Switzerland for the room document, but noted that his 
delegation would need more time to study th e proposal.  His delegation supported the Work 
Programme on information exchange.  The discus sion generated by the Swiss proposal and the 
questions posed by the delegation of the United St ates, was precisely the kind of debate that the 
Working Party needed to have.  He hoped to ha ve similar engagement once the information on 
subsidies had been compiled and circulated to Members. 
57. The representative of the European Union  expressed appreciation to the Swiss delegation for 
having stimulated the discussion.  However, her dele gation was rather surprised to have only received 
today the room document that had been dated 28 January 2010.  She requested clarification from 
Switzerland on the process leading to the tabling of the proposal and the reasons behind it.  While she 
understood the wish to safeguard against problems th at might arise, it would be necessary to specify 
these problems in a more concrete way, as it would not be possible to create safety nets for all S/WPGR/M/67 
Page 14  
 
  imaginable situations.  The existence of problems a nd concrete rules in the area of goods, of which all 
Members are aware, did not justify, per se  the transposition to services.  Moreover, had the task been 
so easy, delegations would already have done so b ack in 1997.  Thus, her delegation would like to 
know more about what had led Switzerland to this proposal. 
58. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 thanked Switzerland for a ve ry interesting proposal.  
He noted that his delegation was very interested in  the subject and would certainly contribute to the 
discussion.  Concerning specific priorities, as far as his delegation was concerned, it hoped to see Members contribute first to the Work Programme on information exchange.  Once the relevant 
information had been submitted, then the Working Party could perhaps undertake parallel discussions 
on other subsidy proposals.  With regard to the Swiss proposal, he noted that Hong Kong, China had 
been struggling with the concept of export subsid ies for quite a number of years.  Given the 
complication of the four modes of supply for services, it had not been easy to operationalize the concept of a subsidy contingent upon export perfo rmance, and further discussion would be needed.  
He also noted that, as had been observed by ot her delegations, the proposal did not mention the 
concept of specificity, a key condition under the ASCM.  Clarification was sought from the Swiss 
delegation on how this concept would relate to the pr oposal.  He also requested further explanation on 
how subsidies which have social objectives would be dealt with since such subsidies, although 
intended for the promotion of public goods, might ha ve export performance effects.  In other words, 
would there be a need to create a "green box" concept, as some Members had suggested in past 
discussions?  His delegation would appreciate the views of Switzerland on this question.  With regard 
to the provisions on standstill and the phasing out of e xport subsidies, these were  interesting elements, 
and he suggested coming back to them after a cl earer idea had been obtained on the scope of the 
disciplines.  As these were preliminary observati ons, his delegation would study the proposal more 
closely and come back with further comments. 
59. The representative of Switzerland
 expressed appreciation to th e various delegations who had 
read the document and given their preliminary co mments.  He believed that the main purpose he 
wanted was for delegations to take note and to come back to the matter at a future meeting.  
Nonetheless, he wanted to give an initial response to  some of the points raised.  Firstly, a  number of 
delegations had mentioned counterva iling measures.  While thought had been given to this aspect, in 
the area of services, unlike for goods and agriculture , Members had a statistical challenge in front of 
them.  It would thus be much more difficult to measure in statistical terms the effects, and countervailing measures that would result, from the use of an illegal subsidy.  Consequently on this 
subject, a very cautious approach had been taken.  At this point, the procedural provision calling for 
consultation seemed to be a good basis, and his dele gation would certainly like to discuss this issue 
with interested delegations with a view to seeing how it could be moved further.  Secondly, a point 
which seemed to be of interest to all delegations, as had been raised by the delegation of Hong Kong, 
China, was how to deal with subsidies that had unde rlying social objectives or were related to matters 
of public policy.  In formulating the proposal, it was felt that this was not a matter which could be 
based on certain specific cases, as this would unl ikely be acceptable to each and every Member.  
Thus, it had been considered more appropriate to  develop a list of subsidies excluded from the 
disciplines.  If delegations felt that a subsidy might  affect exports but, nonetheless, had a social or 
public policy objective, they could try and convinc e other delegations that the objective was well 
founded and the subsidy should therefore have a tran sitional or extended grace period.  In some cases, 
where there are exceptional circum stances, such as the ones mentione d, an unlimited period could 
apply.  In principle, such cases would be rare sin ce most export subsidies were likely to be driven by 
commercial objectives.  
60. Thirdly, on the matter of internal procedures and coordination with the Work Programme, the 
subject of export subsidies had been discussed in the Working Party on a number of different 
occasions.  He noted that his delegation had clearly set out its objectives previously, and other 
delegations had expressed support for a ban on export  subsidies.  Also, quite  often delegations had  S/WPGR/M/67 
 Page 15 
 
 
  requested a written proposal.  This was a logical and legitimate reaction as specific proposals were 
needed for discussion and therefore, his delegation felt that the time had come to develop such a 
proposal with all the necessary balan ce that needed to be included.  This process and thinking had 
developed over several years.  He stressed that it was not mere coincidence that the proposal had been 
tabled at the same time as wh en the Working Party was adopting a Work Programme.  Indeed, 
Switzerland supported the Work Programme, which shoul d not be affected by the proposal.  He hoped 
that he had reacted to the three points which had a ppeared to be of interest to all delegations, and 
would be pleased continue the discussion at the next meeting of the Working Party. 
61. The Chairman  took note of the statements made with regard to the room document and 
proposed that the Working Party revert to this ite m at its next meeting.  It was so agreed.  
IV. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON FOR THE WORKING PARTY. 
62. The Chairman recalled that as this was the first meeting of the Working Party for the year, the 
item on the "Appointment of Chairperson for the Wo rking Party" had been included on the agenda.  
Consultations were still on-going on the slate of names for the various bodies and the process would 
be formally launched by the Chair of the Council fo r Trade in Services at its meeting on 11 February.  
It would thus only be at the second meeting of the Working Party, that a new Chairperson would be 
appointed.   
V. OTHER BUSINESS 
63. No items were raised under this agenda item. 
__________