RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/CSC/M/47 
10 March 2009 
 (09-1198) 
Committee on Specific Commitments  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 DECEMBER 2008 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) held a meeting on 3 December 2008, 
chaired by Mr. Nicolas Torres from Colombia.  The agenda for the meeting, contained in 
WTO/AIR/3287, was adopted
.  
2. Before turning to the items on the agenda , for transparency purposes, the Chairman  reported 
to the Committee on the consultations he had held since the last meeting.  The purpose of the 
consultations was to get delegations ' views and suggestions on future work of the Committee.  During 
the consultations, delegations had e xpressed their wish to revive discussions in the Committee as soon 
as possible.  More specifically, some delegations had suggested that the Committee proceed with a 
work programme focusing on short-term issues that were closely linked to the conclusion of the current services negotiations, such as scheduling i ssues and the relationship between old and new 
commitments.  Another suggestion was that classification issues be part of the medium or long–term 
work programme of the Committee.  The Chair also noted that delegations had supported the proposal 
for a workshop on the scheduling of specific commitme nts to be organized by the Secretariat.  He 
would continue his consultations on the programme, logistics and timing of the workshop.  He said 
that it would be desirable if the workshop could take place during a service cluster so that officials from capital could benefit from the workshop.  He i ndicated that his consultations had also addressed 
the possibility of having factual and non–attributab le compilations of the Committee’s discussions. 
A. 
ADOPTION OF ANNUAL REPORT  
3. The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report contained in document 
S/CSC/W/53.  He said that the report was factual, reflecting the only meeting held during the past 
eleven months.  He noted that the report suggested th e urgency to revive the work of the Committee.   
He proposed that the Committee adopt the report. 
4. It was so agreed . 
B. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES  
5. The Chairman  reminded delegations that there had been no discussion at the last meeting 
under this item.  He recalled that during his consul tations, some delegations had suggested that the 
Committee hold further discussions, sector-by-sector, b ased on the consolidated summary of previous 
discussions as part of the long–term work programme .  He invited delegati ons to consider this 
approach as a possible way to move forward the work  of the Committee.  He also welcomed any other 
suggestions. 
                                                      
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/CSC/M/47 
Page 2  
 
  6. The representative of th e European Communities
 noted that the Chair had made a distinction 
between two categories of issues, those that could be  addressed in the short term and those that might 
be better tackled in a longer term.  Having sympathy with such a distinction, his delegation considered 
that those issues not directly related to the DDA negotiations should be addressed in a longer term, 
and such was the case for classification issues .  While noting the usefulness of discussing 
classification issues, his delegation did not consid er it indispensable for the continuation of the 
negotiations of the DDA.  For his delegation, the DDA negotiations were the priority. Therefore, his 
delegation would prefer to focus fi rst on the issues that were linked to the DDA negotiation. Such was 
the case for the scheduling issues, a nd also to a certain extent for the relationship between old and 
new commitments.  His delegation saw merit in having discussions in these two areas in a short 
period, but would not favour addressing classificatio n issues at the Committee's next meeting, since 
the Committee would be sufficiently busy with other issues .  
7. The representative of Canada  thanked the Chair for his excellent annotated agenda which 
constituted a good basis for considering how to pr oceed with the overall work.  His delegation 
supported the idea that detailed work on classification would be more of a medium term issue.  He wished to hear explanations from those delegati ons that had suggested discussing classification issues 
on a sector-by-sector basis, if this was a priority.  Maybe one way to proceed next year was to think 
about how to prioritize issues.  If Members had rai sed or wished to raise any specific concerns on 
classification issues, they could do so under this pa rticular item.  Until there was more information on 
the work load for next year, it might be best to pr oceed on that basis, as opposed to launching directly 
a full review of the W/120 classification. 
8. The representative of Australia
 thanked the Chair for the annotated agenda and his 
consultations.  She asked whethe r the Chairman's summaries of previous informal discussions on 
classification issues, referred to in footnote 1 of the annotate agenda, covered all the discussions that 
the Committee had had to date.  She also asked wh ether there had been further discussion since June 
2006.  It would possibly be useful if the Secretar iat issued a summary of the discussions that had 
taken place since then.   
9. In responding to the enquiry from Australia, the Chair  confirmed that there had been no 
discussion on classification issues since June 2006 a nd that what was referred to in his annotated 
agenda represented a complete list of the Chairman's  summaries of previous informal discussions on 
classification issues.    
10. The representative of New Zealand  also thanked the Chair for the consultations he had 
undertaken.  With respect to the future work progra mme, her delegation supported the idea that issues 
of most immediate relevance to the DDA would be the priority.  On classification issues, education 
services were noted as a sector requiring further clar ification.  New Zeala nd had coordi nated the 
plurilateral request on education services and had issued  for consideration by recipients a definition of 
some of the classification issues in this sector.  He r delegation would be happy to circulate that paper 
more broadly if that would be helpful, but in the meantime would not be inclined to include education 
as a sector for classification review. 
11. The representative of Chinese Taipei  noted that the discussion of technical issues at the 
Committee was very helpful, not on ly for the preparation of services offers, but also for deepening 
Members' understanding of various issues related to specific commitments.    His delegation therefore 
looked forward to continuing discussion on technical issues in the near future as they were also 
related to the DDA negotiations.  He noted that  the Committed had not touched upon classification 
issues for quite some time and that some Members had reshuffled their delegates in Geneva since 
2006.  He suggested that the Secretariat re-circulate  the consolidated summary of previous discussions 
on classification issues for ease of reference.  S/CSC/M/47 
 Page 3 
 
 
  12. The representative of Hong Kong, China  recalled that during the Chair's consultations, there 
had been a general consensus that the Committee should prioritize its work.  She supported the 
statements made by the European Communities a nd Canada that priority should be given to 
scheduling issues and the relationship between ol d and new commitments.  In particular, her 
delegation attached importance to the latter one, on  which it had expressed its views at the last 
meeting.  She suggested that the Chair hold inform al consultations on these two issues so as to  launch 
the work programme in the time available.  On classification is sues, she noted that the Committee 
might have another round of discussion on a secto r-by-sector basis in a longer term.  She supported 
the suggestion that the Secretariat re-circula te the summary of previous discussions.   
13. The representative of China  stated that her delegation shared the view that those issues 
directly related to the negotiations, such as sche duling issues and the relationship between old and 
new commitments, should be prioritized.  Classifica tion issues should be considered to be a medium 
or long-term item. The feedback her delegation ha d gathered from China's various service agencies 
was that this round should stick to the current cl assification, as otherwise the negotiations would 
become too complicated.  While recognizing the need to further clarify some sectors or sub-sectors, 
she noted that the issue was when and how to do it.   Noting that some Members were interested in 
carrying out further discussion on classification issues next year in addition to other issues, she pointed out that Members might need to work out th e best approach to deal with those two sets of 
issues if they wished to do both.  
14. The representative of Switzerland
 stated that his delegation supported the suggestion that the 
Committee prioritize its discussion.  For his delegation, the relationship between old and new 
commitments and scheduling issues were a priority.  His delegation looked forward to the discussion 
of these two items at the next meeting.  
15. The representative of the United States  stated that his delegation also supported the 
suggestion that the Committee prioritize its work and that those issues most related to the negotiations 
be chosen.  His delegation also shared the view that classification issues should be considered as a 
medium or long-term item. 
16. The representative of Argentina  thanked the Chair for his consultations on the work 
programmed of the Committee.  He noted the emergen ce of consensus on the need  to review the work 
of the Committee.  In his view, if certain delegatio ns had priorities in terms of the work programme, 
they needed to put them forward.  His delegati on would have no problem w ith prioritizing scheduling 
issues and the relationship between old and new commi tments, but delegations needed to be given the 
possibility to raise classification issues if they cons idered it appropriate to do so.  There should be 
flexibility in the work programme to  ensure that the specific concerns  of delegations could be taken 
into account. 
17. The representative of Chile  echoed the statement made by Argentina with regard to 
classification issues.  If there was a consensus to prioritize certain areas of the Committee's work, his 
delegation was prepared to support such an initiative.   However, in recent meetings of the Committee, 
there had been little discussion on scheduling issu es and the relationship between old and new 
commitments.  He hoped that the delegations who had raised these issues would be pro-active in 
dealing with them and that they would act in acco rdance with the consensus Members were trying to 
achieve on these issues in the future.  While supporting  the prioritization of certain issues, he thought 
it important to ensure the necessary flexibility for those delegations who might wish to raise particular 
questions or put forward proposals in other areas.  He hoped that the prioritization of certain issues 
would govern in the Committee's future work. S/CSC/M/47 
Page 4  
 
  18. The representative of Japan
 said that her delegation suppor ted the suggestion that the 
Committee prioritize its agenda items, such as the re lationship of old and new commitments as well as 
other issues.  Her delegation would co ntribute to moving the process foreword. 
19. The Chairman  observed that delegations broadly supported the idea that the Committee 
should prioritize its work.  He noted the suggestion that classification issues be maintained in the 
work programme, but as a medium or long-term item .  He also noted the suggestion that the work 
programme be flexible so that delegations inter ested in discussing particular classification issues 
could put forward these issues at the Committee.  He would continue hi s consultations with a view to 
moving foreword the work of the Committee.  He requested the Secretariat to re-circulate the 
summary of previous discussions on classification is sues.  Finally, he suggested that the Committee 
take note of the statements made and reve rt to this item at its next meeting. 
20. It was so agreed .  
C. SCHEDULING ISSUES  
21. The Chairman  recalled that there had been no interv ention under this agenda item for quite 
some time.  However, he noted that in his consulta tions, delegations had indicated their strong interest 
in various scheduling issues as part of the envisag ed short–term work.  One specific suggestion was 
that the Committee discuss issues related to ENTs on a sectoral and/or modal basis.  He invited 
delegations to comment on this suggestion or make  other suggestions regarding scheduling issues to 
be addressed in the Committee. 
22. Referring to Annex C of the Hong Kong Minister ial Declaration, the representative of China  
stated that her delegation was particularly interested  in discussing issues related to ENTs so as to have 
further clarification on ENTs that were or would be  included in Members' schedules.  Referring to a 
previous Secretariat document on ENTs, she suggested that the Secretariat prepare a note addressing 
ENTs on a sectoral or modal basis in order to fac ilitate discussions at the Committee.   ENTs were 
applied in various sectors with different wording or  nature, and her delegati on wished to understand 
what was meant by ENTs and what measures would qualify as ENTs. 
23. Recalling that the Chair had mentioned the wo rkshop on scheduling at the beginning of the 
meeting, the representative of Canada  asked whether the Chair had an y organizational proposals about 
the workshop.  His delegation considered that havi ng the workshop early next year could be a good 
idea and that any relevant documents such as the one  referred to by China on ENTs could be made 
available for the workshop. 
24. The representative of Chile  stated that his delegation also attached importance to engaging in 
the discussion on ENTs.  Concerning the delegations in terested in ENTs, he wished to know what 
aspects they were considering so as to prepare for th e future discussion on this issue.  He echoed the 
request by Canada, stating that his delegation also  wished to know more about the workshop.   
25. Recalling that the Committee had had intensiv e discussions on ENTs during 2005 and 2006, 
the representative of Chinese Taipei  requested that the Secretariat re -circulate the summary of those 
discussions.  
26. The representative of India  also recalled the Secretariat's paper on ENTs.  He suggested that 
future work build on that paper along the lines proposed by China.  He understood that ENTs, residency requirements and other scheduling issu es would be covered in the workshop which was 
intended to be a capacity-building exercise.     S/CSC/M/47 
 Page 5 
 
 
  27. The representative of the Secretariat  recalled that at the beginning of the negotiations, the 
Special Session of the Council for Trade in Servi ces had requested the Secretariat to prepare a 
background note on ENTs.  The document, which responded to this request, was contained in 
S/CSS/W/118, dated 13 November 2001.  It placed  ENTs in the legal framework of the GATS and 
provided an overview of ENTs in Members' schedul es with regard to different modes and sectors.  
The document also took into account those entries th at did not specifically refer to ENTs, but were 
comparable in nature.  The document counted in to tal 253 ENTs which were listed in the annex in a 
tabular form.  The list was on a sectoral basis and referred to the Member concerned for each ENT.  Noting that the factual information and analysis in the document remained vali d, the representative of 
the Secretariat suggested that delegations first revi ew the document and then inform the Secretariat of 
what was needed in addition.    
28. The representative of China
 noted that most of the ENTs sch eduled did not specify the criteria 
on which the test was based.  This situation created uncertainty in the implementation of 
commitments.  If a Member had scheduled specifi c criteria on which the ENT was based, the Member 
would be bound by those criteria.  In order to enc ourage Members to specify their ENT-related entries 
in the schedules, a clear understanding was needed  as to what was an ENT.  She thought that a 
sectoral discussion on ENTs would help to achieve that understanding.  Her delegation would take a 
closer look at the background note by the Secretaria t and consider how to promote the discussion on 
ENTs in the Committee.     
29. With respect to the workshop,  the representative of India  indicated that the Chair might start 
by working on the tentative programme.  On the s ubstance of the workshop which he considered  
most important, he suggested that various questions raised by Members, such as those raised by 
China, be covered by the workshop.  In order to  do so, the workshop could be broken up into sub-
sections.  Based on a tentative programme, delegations  might put forward more concrete suggestions. 
30. Noting that the Secretariat had prepared a document on ENTs and would re-circulate the 
summary of previous discussions, the representative of Argentina  stated that the Committee could 
build on what had been done in the past few years so as to avoid repetition.  With respect to the 
criteria related to ENTs, he recalled that the Co mmittee had conducted discussi ons on this topic a few 
years ago, which had been initiated by  the delegation of Korea.  He al so recalled that the delegation of 
Korea had circulated an informal document regard ing what criteria needed to be included when 
scheduling ENTs.   He stated that the Committee could also consider other issues, such as back-
tracking in schedules.  There had been discussions on many of these issues, but they were causing 
new problems due to the urgency of the work delegations were facing. 
31. Regarding the organization of the workshop, the representative of the Secretariat  stated that 
the Secretariat would follow its previous practice.  A questionnaire would be circulated to delegations 
inviting them to identify their priority topics.  On  the basis of the responses to the questionnaire, the 
Secretariat would prepare a programme and circulate it to delegations.    
32. The Chairman  noted that the Committee had agreed that a workshop on the scheduling of 
specific commitments would be organized by the Secr etariat early next year.  He suggested that the 
Secretariat follow the approach described above to  organize the workshop.  On the work under this 
item, he suggested that delegations first revi ew previous documents and that he then hold 
consultations on how to move from there.  He al so proposed that the Committee take note of the 
statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting. 
33. It was so agreed .  S/CSC/M/47 
Page 6  
 
  D. R
ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OLD AND NEW COMMITMENTS  
34. The Chairman  noted that in his consultations, sev eral delegations had expressed strong 
interest in continuing with the discussion under this item, as part of the short–term issues of the 
Committee's work programme.  He recalled that  the Committee had undertaken a substantive 
discussion based on an informal note from Canada.  The discussion mainly addressed the first element 
in Canada's note, i.e. whether certain language in  the final instrument at the end of the round was 
needed to ensure that old schedules constituted a source for interpreting commitments in the new 
schedules.  Canada's note also raised a supplementary  question, i.e. how to address rollbacks when old 
commitments were replaced by new commitments.    
35. The representative of Canada  noted that the Committee had gained an enormous amount of 
knowledge from the paper submitted by Canada in  April 2006.  It was a short paper but it had 
remained on the agenda for a number of years.   Ca nada's objectives in puttin g this paper forward was 
to invite Members to think about the issues that w ould be wrapped up in a protocol at the end of the 
negotiations.  It would be desi rable to make explicit that ne w schedules should not include any 
rollbacks from the Uruguay Round schedules.  This was the first time in the GATS context where 
schedules of specific commitments replaced previous schedules.   Such situation had happened in 
goods before.  It was in Members' interest to think about how to ensure or promote legal certainty in 
this regard.   
36. He noted that the Secretariat had mentione d on previous occasions that when using a 
replacement or a consolidated method of schedu ling, the existing schedules of commitments could 
still constitute a source for interpreting commitments in new consolidated sch edules in the future.  
There were relevant precedents.   
37. He agreed with the Chair that there were two el ements in the Canadian paper.  The paper first 
addressed the idea of including specific language in th e relevant legal instrument that would recognize 
that previous schedules would constitute a source fo r interpreting new schedules, whether explicitly or 
not.  The paper also invited Members to consider whether it was worthwhile to include language in 
the legal instrument to ensure that commitments in a Member's new consolidated schedule would not 
accord or be construed to accord treatment less  favourable than that provided under Member's 
previous schedule.  There had been some discussions on this issue.  In particular, he noted the views 
expressed about the implications of explicitly stati ng that previous schedules were to be used as a 
source of interpretation.  However, it was important  to have a clear and enforceable understanding on 
the scope of Members' possibility to roll back their existing commitments so that Members would not 
inadvertently end up with schedules that would provide less access.  The questions had been raised 
whether the paper was talking about overall levels  of openness in the schedules or specific levels 
item-by-item? He reiterated that the paper focused on rollbacks, item-by-item.  The paper was seeking 
to avoid a situation whereby the entry for a specific line and a specific sector might be made more restrictive than previously had been the case.   
38. This was an area his delegation wished to prio ritize.  Many thoughts raised in the past 
remained valid. His delegation encouraged other Members to express their views and put forward written submission for consideration, in particul ar those Members who had commented on the his 
delegation's paper in the past. 
39. The representative of New Zealand
 said that her delegation fully endorsed the Canadian 
paper's objectives and had previously given a prefer ence for the second element of the proposal.  The 
second element was the idea of explicitly stating that commitments in new schedules should not 
provide for less favourable treatment than commitmen ts made earlier.  Her delegation continued to 
think that this component was appropriate and suffi cient on its own to ensure, as intended by Canada's 
proposal, that commitments did not go backwards.    S/CSC/M/47 
 Page 7 
 
 
  40. The first element of the proposal referred to the idea that previous schedules be explicitly 
mentioned as a proper source for interpreting comm itments in new schedules.  However, it was not 
clear whether this component was either desirable or  necessary in order to achieve the objective of no 
roll-back.  This idea was problematic in view of th e rules of treaty interpretation contained in the 
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, specifi cally Articles 31 and 32.  Article 32 allowed for 
reference to supplementary means of interpretati on, but it was pre-conditioned by Article 31, as 
relating to instances where the interpretation acco rding to Article 31 would leave the meaning 
ambiguous or obscure or lead to absurd or unreasona ble result.  So her delegation had two concerns 
with this element in Canada's proposal.  First, th e rules of interpretation in the Vienna Convention 
operated as a package, while the proposal singled out Article 32.  This might create problems of 
interpretation in dispute settlement.  Second, refere nce to Article 32 might not provide any cover in 
situations where the ordinary meaning of a Member's  new schedule made it clear that there had been a 
rollback in commitments.  Alternatively, an exp licit statement within the legal instrument that 
commitments in the new schedules should not provide for less favourable treatment than 
commitments made earlier, as contained in the second element of the proposal, could provide the 
necessary assurance sought by the Canadian paper. 
41. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that the general view of her delegation was 
captured in the report of the last meeting, held in  June 2008.  In short, her delegation still supported 
the Canadian proposal.  It was high time to focus again on the issues raised in the paper.  She 
suggested that the Chair hold info rmal consultations on these issues.  Her delegation would consider 
what sort of contribution it could make in response to the call from Canada. 
42. The representative of Chinese Taipei  reiterated the appreciation of his delegation for the 
Canadian paper.  His delegation had expressed its vi ew on the paper in previous meetings, and would 
support further discussions.     
43. The representative of the European Communities  noted that the issues raised by the Canadian 
paper would need to be addressed directly as the ne gotiations approached their end.  His delegation 
had expressed its views on these issues in previous meetings.  In terms of legal certainty, it was 
important to ensure that there would be no rollback s in the new schedules.  While open to considering 
any language to be included in the final protocol, his delegation was of the view that Members should 
collectively undertake a verification exercise to this effect before the final result of the negotiations 
was adopted by the membership. 
44. Commenting on the statement by the European Communities, the Chair  noted that, while the 
verification exercise was helpful, small Members might have more constraints in making use of that 
exercise than big Members.    
45. The representative of China  said that her capital was still considering the language that was to 
be included in the final protocol, given its legal im plications.  Referring to a question raised in the 
annotated agenda, she thought it useful to hold t echnical discussions on the issue of rollback.  
However, she wondered how to conduc t such discussions and suggested that the issue of rollback be 
included in the programme of the workshop.   
46. The representative of India  noted that the issues raised in the annotated agenda under this item 
were very important.  While some additional in struments might be needed in addition to the 
verification exercise, it was unclear what those in struments were.  What constituted rollback was also 
unclear.  Suppose that a Member ma de a sectoral improvement as a result of a legislation in a 
particular sector, the legislati on might have introduced some rest rictions in addition to providing 
progressive liberalisation, but overall there was pr ogressive liberalization in a certain mode.  For 
instance, permissible foreign equity levels could have  been raised in the legi slation, combined with 
more conditionalities.  Some might view this as  a roll-back, but others might interpret it as S/CSC/M/47 
Page 8  
 
  progressive liberalisation.  He wondered whether th ere would ever be agreement on what constituted 
rollback.  The issue ultimately would need to be decided by each Member.  He echoed China's 
suggestion that the issue of rollback be covered by  the workshop in order to see where Members could 
go from there.   
47. The language to be included in the final protocol  had legal implications.  His capital was still 
considering it and did not have a final stand ye t.  Noting the importance of legal certainty of 
schedules, his delegation would work with the Chair in this regard to see how this could be best 
achieved. 
48. In response to New Zealand's comments, the representative of Canada
 said his delegation 
would tend to share one of the points made.  Usi ng old schedules as a source of interpretation would 
indeed be in conformity with public internationa l law and practices and therefore arguably, the first 
part of his delegation's proposal  would thus be redundant.   
49. His delegation also shared the points raised by the European Communities with respect to 
legal certainty as well as the importance of having on e set of commitments to refer to.  Having raised 
the same points in the context of the current status of the EC-25 schedule, his delegation agreed on the 
importance of having a clearer status of commitments.   
50. On the issue of rollback, he en couraged Members to think about and respond to the questions 
put out in the annotated agenda.  He acknowledged that it might be difficult to have an overall 
discussion of rollback, because relevant entries varied on a case-by-case basis and Members would 
have different views.  His delegation would reflect further on this issue and consider how it might be 
addressed in the context of the work shop as suggested by China.   
51. The Chairman  suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to 
this item at its next meeting.  
52. It was so agreed .  
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
53. There was no intervention under this item.  The Chairman  adjourned the meeting. 
 
__________