RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/S/M/29 
9 October 2008 
 
 (08-4804) 
Council for Trade in Services 
Special Session  
 
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17 AND 23 JULY 2008 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 
1. The Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services held a formal meeting on 17 and 
23 July 2008, chaired by Ambassador Fernando de Mateo of Mexico.  The agenda for the meeting, 
contained in document WTO/AIR/3224, was adopted. 
A. THE REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN ON ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE 
SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS , CONTAINED IN DOCUMENT TN/S/33  DATED 26 MAY 2008 
2. The Chairman  said that the principal focus of the meeting was to discuss a new draft 
(JOB(08)79 of 17 July 2008) of a revised versio n of his Report on "Elements Required for the 
Completion of the Services Negotiations".  Th e draft, which had been based on extensive 
consultations with Members, was intended for tr ansmission to the TNC prior to the Ministerial 
meetings the following week. 
3. In order to facilitate discussion, the Chairman  proposed, and it was agreed, that the meeting 
be conducted in informal mode .  
4. Several delegations requested specifically that th eir statements made during informal mode be 
reproduced in the formal minutes of th e meeting.  These statements follow. 
5. The representative of Argentina  thanked the Chairman for the work done since October 2007 
on the draft text.  The text did not impose any additional obligations on Members;  the only new 
element was dates for revised offers and draft sch edules of commitments.  These needed to be in 
brackets since they would depend on the negotiations  as a whole.  Argentina supported the proposal 
by Barbados on behalf of a group of Members for new language on SVEs, as well as the drafting 
suggestion by Turkey on the proposed text.  
6. The representative of Bolivia  pointed out that the document under discussion did not enjoy 
consensus in terms of Article IX of the WTO Agr eement.  Bolivia wished to make progress in the 
services negotiations, but within the framework of the mandate established by ministers in 
Hong Kong.  That mandate was clear and specific e nough to carry out the request/offer procedure.  As 
for the alleged "breakthrough" in paragraph 4, this  had taken place in conditions unfavourable to the 
majority of the Membership.  In Bolivia's vi ew, there had been a lack of involvement and 
transparency, rendering it impossible for there to  be genuine negotiation amongst all Members.  
Bolivia expressed concern that the positions of a fe w Members had been picked up in the media and 
portrayed as a "breakthrough" before they were presented to the entire Membership.  There was no 
"breakthrough" because not all Members have been involved in the negotiations.  There was thus no 
                                                      
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. TN/S/M/29 
Page 2  
 
  "text" for services.  As for the process, Bolivia not ed that the views of three WTO Members, which 
had been expressed repeatedly, were not reflected  anywhere in the new draft, and this was 
discriminatory.  Documents had to reflect all exis ting positions, and this was not the case even with 
the earlier version of the report contained in TN/S/ 33.    Bolivia could not agree either with the 
revised version or the earlier version.  The WTO was supposed to be a rules-based, bottom-up, 
multilateral organization.  Bretton Woods institutions  had the reputation of running counter to the 
position of their smaller members, imposing on them po licies that were against their interests.  This 
seemed to be the case with the draft revised report under consideration. 
7. In Bolivia's view, the new document introduced a procedure for services negotiations that was 
much more ambitious and demanding than that originally adopted in the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration.  The language in the Declaration was more balanced, highlighting that the objective was 
to gradually expand trade in services, with appr opriate flexibilities for developing countries under 
Article XIX, including the right to regulate ser vices.  The main method for negotiation was the 
request/offer process.  The current draft on the other hand required that Members "to the maximum extent possible respond to the bilateral and plurila teral requests by offering deeper and/or wider 
commitments".  Likewise, Bolivia did not agree with the concept of "no a priori  exclusion of any 
services sector or mode of supply".  Fundamental  basic services affecting human rights – such as 
education, health, water, energy and communications  – had to be excluded.  Consequently, Bolivia 
requested that JOB(08)79 spell out clearly that th ere was no consensus on this report so that this 
would be duly taken note of by the TNC and the General Council. 
8. Bolivia stressed that in its view the essential el ements needed to complete the negotiations in 
services had already been adopted.  There was no manda te to negotiate a new te xt, which in any case 
would not be legally binding.  The modalities in  such documents, including in agriculture and 
NAMA, could only be established by ministers, but could be revisited at any time by any Member.  
The only matter pending was the dates for request/o ffers.  Bolivia requested Members to take note 
that there was no consensus for the te xt, and that this statement be contained in the core part of any 
report tabled before the appropriate bodies.  Boliv ia had understood that the Chairman's mandate was 
to draft a single report, not a text divided in two.   There was no mandate for a report divided into an 
introduction and an annex, only for a single, integral report. 
9. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the elements required for the 
completion of the services negotiations, as set out by the Chairman, were important and appropriate, even if they did not fully meet EC expectations.  It was probably the best common language that could 
be found.  The EC would have liked earlier dates,  giving Members more time to finalize the services 
negotiations.  Pressure would now be placed on Memb ers between the submission of the revised offer 
and the final offer.  Nonetheless, if others accepted the Chairman's suggested dates, then the EC could 
go along. 
10. The EC highlighted that paragraph 4 was the mo st debated and finely-balanced part of the 
text.  The balance was not only between but also w ithin sentences of the provision.  Where the EC and 
others had tried to set high levels of ambition, they are i mmediately qualified with references to 
'where possible'.  Language had also been include d that clearly recognized that commitments should 
be commensurate with levels of development, regu latory capacity and national policy objectives of 
individual developing countries.  For the EC, that clearly captured the specific needs of all developing countries.  While recognizing the special situation of the small and vulnerable economies, the EC did 
not think, with the proposed textual changes, that there was a need further to highlight this matter. 
11. In the EC's view, the language on the table gave ample comfort to all Members, since the text 
recognized individual situations.  It would be risky to  reopen it.  If that were to happen, the EC would 
feel obliged to defend its own positions, and Members would have difficulty in arriving at a new text.  
Members could not now play with individual elem ents of the text without running the risk of  TN/S/M/29 
 Page 3 
 
 
  completely reopening it.  The EC therefore conc urred with those who called for a very careful 
assessment of the text, and support for the Chairman  who had now put the text before Members.  
12. The representative of Malaysia  emphasized that the submission of revised offers should be 
done only after the conclusion of modalities in ag riculture and NAMA.  Th e dates inscribed in 
paragraphs 7 and 8 were tenta tive and therefore had to be put between square brackets. 
13. The representative of Pakistan  drew attention to the wording in paragraph 9, which the 
Chairman had indicated would be included specifically  in the cover report to the text.  This appeared 
not to be the case.  Pakistan wished to reiterate that the bracketed text was based on a principled 
stance.  It had nothing to do with the LDC modaliti es, which Pakistan supported.   Pakistan was 
interested only in the provision of new preferential market access to LD Cs, and wished to ensure that 
it did not prejudice the rights of other Members. 
14. Pakistan stressed that the wording it had propo sed was drawn from Annex F and was thus part 
and parcel of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration subscribed to by the en tire Membership.  It was 
difficult to understand the hesitancy in including this provision in paragraph 9 of  the Chairman's text.  
Pakistan requested that this bracket be included as a part of the text of paragraph 9, to be inserted 
before the last sentence.  
15. Pakistan recalled that at Hong Kong its Minister had stated, prior to agreeing to Annex C, that 
"the Membership is not agreeing to any new comm itments or obligations aside from those clearly 
provided for in the GATS and the Negotiating Guide lines."  Pakistan re-affirmed this statement, 
noting the common view that the new draft (JOB(08) 79) was pursuant to and fully consistent with 
Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  While Pakistan could associate itself with the 
objective in paragraph 4 – of offering, to the maximum extent possible, deeper and/or wider 
commitments, including attempting to bind current practice, where possible – this objective did not 
enshrine a general, unqualified obligatory principl e.  Any other understanding was unacceptable and 
would undermine the hard-won flexibilities under th e GATS, and the fundamental nature of 
progressive liberalization under Article XIX of the GATS.  
16. Pakistan noted that as with Annex C, Member s had to find once again a delicate balance. 
While the document provided no new commitments or  obligations aside from those already provided 
for in the GATS and the Negotiating Guidelines, Me mbers were enjoined, in good faith, to make 
"substantial efforts" to reach a successful c onclusion to the services negotiations.  Once more, 
developing Members had demonstrated leadership a nd commitment to the multilateral trading system:  
firstly, by agreeing to a text in services that was clearly not needed for the negotiations but required 
by other Members for political comfort;  and sec ondly, for having met services demandeurs half-way 
on a number of sensitive issues.  
17. On that understanding, Pakistan was in a pos ition to join any consensus on the proposed 
Elements Required for the Completion of the Services Negotiations.  
18. The representative of Venezuela  said that he felt obliged to repeat his government's position 
as expressed at the informal meeting of the Special Session on 2 June.  Venezuela continued to 
believe that it was unnecessary to have a new text on services which focused on the market access needs of developed countries in services sectors of interest to them, and designed to balance the 
concessions they supposedly would make in agricu lture.  The services negotiations needed to be 
guided by the priorities laid down in the text already agreed by ministers, including LDC modalities and necessary disciplines for domestic regulation.  A ll of this work would require flexibility on the 
part of developed countries.  If these objectives we re met, then Members could begin thinking about 
negotiations in market access, and complete the negotiations in accordance with the economic needs 
of all partners, in particular the promotion of the development of developing countries and LDCs.  TN/S/M/29 
Page 4  
 
  This would mean giving priority to the sectors of interest to them, and would lead to the effective 
conclusion of the services negotiations.  For those Me mbers who were interested in obtaining market 
access immediately, without passing through the steps mentioned, they would have the opportunity at 
the Signalling Session to open up their mark ets in exchange for other concessions. 
19. Venezuela reiterated its objection to a negotiating text in this area, and did not understand the 
Chairman's intentions behind the text presented in  JOB(08)79, which amended the text contained in 
TN/S/33.  This was a source of confusion.  Three Members did not join the consensus, and the text 
did not reflect this.  The Chairman of the TNC ha d told delegations that the Chairs of all the 
negotiating groups, except for NAMA and agriculture, would make a report at the formal session of 
the TNC.  Consequently, although the Chairs had a mandate to move the negotiations forward, he did 
not have the mandate to frame it as a negotiating text.  With respect to an agreed text, it was important 
to note that a majority consensus was not sufficient.  Venezuela reca lled that in the WTO, decisions 
are taken on the basis of consensus.  If one Member  is against, then there is no consensus.   
20. At the conclusion of the discussion, th e Chairman reverted to formal mode
.  Since no Member 
requested the floor under item B (Other Busin ess) of the agenda, he adjourned the meeting. 
__________