RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/FIN/M/62 
16 March 2010 
 
 (10-1401) 
Committee on Trade in Financial Services  
  
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 FEBRUARY 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
1. The Committee on Trade in Financial Services held a meeting on 4 February 2010, under the 
Chairmanship of Mr. Sudhir Sooklal (South Africa) .  The proposed agenda was contained in airgram 
WTO/AIR/3498.   
2. The representative of Panama  indicated his intention to make a statement under Other 
Business regarding certain measures recently adopted by Ecuador. 
3. The Committee adopted  the agenda with that addition. 
A. ACCEPTANCE OF THE FIFTH PROTOCOL TO TH E GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN SERVICES 
EMBODYING THE RESULTS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES NEGOTIATIONS  
4. The Chairperson  recalled that three WTO Members had yet to accept the Fifth Protocol:  
Brazil, Jamaica, and the Philippines.  At the prev ious meeting, these three delegations had informed 
the Committee that they had not been  able to make progress on this issue.  He invited them to provide 
further information on the status of their domestic processes, and give some indication as to when 
they might be able to accept the Protocol.  
5. The representative of Brazil  said that the domestic procedures had not yet been concluded, 
and that it was not possible to indicate a precise frame work for their completion.  He would keep the 
Committee informed of any further development. 
6. The representative of Jamaica  said that no progress had been made with regard to the 
ratification of the Fifth Protocol.  However, he reassured Members of his country's commitment to 
finalize the process in the near future. 
7. The Chairman  thanked these delegations for their updates, called upon the Philippines to 
provide further information at the next meting, and encouraged the three Members concerned to 
accelerate their internal procedures for the acceptance of the Protocol.   
8. The Committee took note  of the statements made and decided  to revert to this agenda item at 
the next meeting. 
B. TECHNICAL ISSUES  
9. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had been considering two proposals under this 
agenda item:  one from Pakistan and another one from the United States.  He first turned to the 
                                                      
1  This document has been prepared  under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/FIN/M/62 
Page 2  
 
  proposal submitted by Pakistan, and entitled "Impact of technological developments on regulatory and 
compliance aspects of banking and other financ ial services under GATS" (document Job(09)/107).  
He recalled that the proposal called for a dedicat ed discussion on these issues, a background Note by 
the Secretariat, and a discussion on the possibility and need to modify the current classification of financial services to take account of developments  in this area.  Some Members had supported the 
ideas put forward by Pakistan, while others expressed that they needed some more time to review the 
proposal or raise questions.  
10. The representative of Pakistan
 said that earlier that day he had submitted a room document 
providing replies to some of the questions raised in previous meetings.  Firstly, he said this proposal 
should be seen not only as part of the Committee's work, but also as part of the broader work 
programme on e-commerce, which had been resumed as per a decision taken at the last Ministerial 
Conference.  Secondly, he drew Members' atten tion to a document submitted by Switzerland in 2003 
(S/FIN/W/26 and Add.1), describing the Swiss regul atory framework for e-banking, and a document 
submitted by Brazil in 2005 on e-commerce in financ ial services (document JOB(05)/103).  The latter 
could also be part of the discussion envisaged in th e Pakistani proposal, while the former could serve 
as inspiration to other Members.   
11. He explained that the purpose of the proposal was not to treat e-commerce as a separate mode 
of supply or sector, but as a means of delivering services which had prompted significant changes in domestic regulatory frameworks.  In his view, re gulatory and supervisory issues were drastically 
different when financial services were supplied throu gh electronic, rather than physical means.  That 
was the main rationale for starting the discussion in  the Committee.  He then referred to the three 
proposals made by his country.  The first one – to have a detailed discussion of this topic – was 
intended to explore the issue further.  The discussi on was meant to be a starting point.  By discussing 
and sharing experiences, Members might come up with a complete questionnaire or a work 
programme identifying the aspects that deserved furt her consideration.  S econdly, the background 
paper by the Secretariat was intended to provide a f actual account of developments in this area.  The 
third proposal dealt with classification issues.  He cl arified in that regard that his delegation was not 
proposing any specific change to the classification, but rather to consider whether any change was 
needed in light of recent developments.   
12. In closing his statement, the representative of Pakistan said that at the next meeting he would 
be coming up with some concrete examples, and perhaps share Pakistan's experience with the 
regulation of e-finance.   
13. The representative of Switzerland
 supported the proposal.  In his view, the approach taken by 
the Pakistani delegation was the right one.  He en couraged Members to continue working on this 
subject.  
14. The representative of South Africa  also supported the proposal.  In his opinion, the proposal 
was timely and relevant in light of current events in the financial services sector. 
15. The representative of Brazil  reiterated his support for the proposal, and suggested that Brazil's 
submission on this topic could be incorporated into the program envisaged by Pakistan.  He reiterated 
his suggestion to invite relevant international st andard-setting bodies, such as the Basle Committee on 
Banking Supervision and the International Organiza tion of Securities Commissions to share their 
knowledge and experience in this topic with Members.   
16. The representatives of India  and Mexico  also supported the proposal.  
17. The representative of Chile  lent his support to the proposal and suggested that other Members' 
communications on this topic in previous mee tings should be brought up, since they provided  S/FIN/M/62 
 Page 3 
 
 
  additional elements for consideration.  He expre ssed the hope that the subject would remain on the 
Committee's agenda.  He concurred with Pakistan on the relationship between this discussion and the 
broader Work Programme on E-commerce, which ha d been recently resumed.  The discussion in the 
Committee could prove a very useful contribution to that process.  
18. The representative of Colombia  supported the proposal and agreed with Brazil that relevant 
international standard-setting bodi es should be invited to share th eir experience with the Committee. 
19. The representative of the United States  said that the proposal was very constructive and 
thoughtful.  In his view, Members should continue working in this area.  
20. The representative of Australia  supported the proposal.  She then referred to whether the 
discussions should be conducted on a regular or dedi cated session of the Committee.  In her view, 
discussions should be part of the regular work of th e Committee;  if necessary, they could be given a 
separate agenda item to enhance their profile and focus.   
21. In conclusion, the Chairperson asked  Members whether they could accept the three elements 
contained in the Pakistani proposal, namely to reque st the Secretariat to prepare a background Note, to 
hold a dedicated discussion on this issue, and to address classification issues.  The Committee so 
decided .  
22. After that, the Chairperson  turned to the proposal by the United States to carry out an 
information exchange programme on trade in non-life insurance services.  He recalled that the United 
States had submitted this proposal for the first tim e in June 2009;  in light of comments and 
suggestions made by Members on that occasion, th e United States had revised the proposal and the 
new version was discussed by the Committee in Oc tober and November 2009.  In the Chairperson's 
view, the revised proposal, which had elicited wi de support among the Membership, was a good basis 
for the organization of such an information exchange , which would be to the benefit of all Members. 
23. The representative of the United States  said that he had nothing in particular to add to what 
had already been said, and restated his delegation' s interest in having a workshop, which would be 
balanced and include opportunities to have various views expressed by different types of experts, 
including industry representatives, academics and policy makers. 
24. The representatives of Switzerland , Norway , and Japan  supported the proposal. 
25. The representative of South Africa  supported the proposal, on the understanding that 
presentations would provide balanced  views and perspectives on this sector and of market access 
opportunities .  This balance had to be ensured also with respect to the ind ividuals and organ isations 
that would participate .  He added that his dele gation reserved its righ t to amend this position pending 
the views expressed on the proposal to be  discussed under the next agenda item. 
26. The representative of Malaysia  subscribed to the statement made by the representative of 
South Africa, and on that basis supported the US proposal.  
27. The representatives of the European Union , Australia  and Indonesia  supported the proposal.  
28. The representative of Chile  supported the proposal.  He added that the revised proposal was 
more balanced, and took account of the comments a nd suggestions made by a number of delegations 
at previous meetings.  
29. The representatives of Chinese Taipei  and Turkey  supported the proposal.  S/FIN/M/62 
Page 4  
 
  30. The representative of India
 said that, in principle, this was a good proposal.  However, he 
reserved his right as to how to proceed, since the pro posal might have implications for market access.  
He suggested that all market access issues be handled bilaterally.  
31. The representative of Mexico  supported the proposal.  
32. The representative of Canada  also supported the proposal.  In her view, the proposal was a 
significant contribution to the work of the Comm ittee, and underlined the importance of financial 
services liberalization in the context of these negotiations. 
33. The representative of Argentina  subscribed to the statements  made by the representatives of 
South Africa and India.  He reserved the right to  pronounce himself on this proposal until after the 
proposal under the next agenda item had been discussed.  
34. The Chairperson  noted the widespread support for the proposal and asked Members whether 
the Secretariat could be given authorization to organize the workshop.  
35. The representative of India  said that, although his delegation was not opposed in principle, he 
would rather await the discussion of the proposal  submitted under the next agenda item before  
deciding on the US proposal.  
36. The Chairperson  said that there seemed to be agreem ent to organize the workshop on non-life 
insurance services, but as linkages had been draw n to the proposal to be discussed under the next 
agenda item, he suggested that a final deci sion be postponed until the Committee had completed 
consideration of the next agenda item.  
37. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FINANCIAL SERVICES TRADE  
38. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had been considering a proposal entitled 
"Revised Discussion document by Argentina, Ecuador,  India, and South Africa on the financial crisis 
and related matters”, which had been circulated as a room document on 3 November 2009, and which 
had been supported by a majority of Members.  In addition, he drew Members' attention to the room 
document submitted by the United States the day prior to this meeting, proposing to hold a discussion 
within the Committee on the effects of the fina ncial crisis on trade in financial services. 
39. The representative of Argentina  recalled that the original proposal had been circulated on 
17 September 2009.  It had been discussed in detail at an informal meeting of the Committee on 23 September, when Members had made comments and suggestions.  The proponents had responded 
to many of those questions at the formal meeting he ld on 8 October.  While the steps envisaged in the 
proposal were welcomed by many Members, othe rs suggested that their questions should be 
addressed in writing as well.  Consequently, on 26 Oc tober, the proponents had circulated another 
room document, including those clarifications and su ggested steps.  During the informal consultations 
held on 30 October, many Members had welcomed tho se clarifications in writing.  However, there 
was a request to submit a revised proposal;  it had been circulated on 3 November and discussed at the formal meeting held on 9 November.   
40. He said that the proposal envisaged two phases.  The main objective was an analysis by the 
Committee of the impact of support measures take n by Members on trade in financial services.  
Although the report of the last meeting of the Co mmittee was not yet available, the discussions that 
had taken place at that meeting showed support for phase one of the proposal.  He recalled that phase 
one of the proposal included a request to the Secret ariat to draft a Note setting out the provisions of  S/FIN/M/62 
 Page 5 
 
 
  the GATS of particular relevance for trade in financ ial services;  the organization of a half-day event 
with the participation of financia l services experts in order to discuss their work in this area;  and a 
review by the Secretariat of work done in th is area by other international organizations and 
academics.  The proposal also envisaged a second pha se, consisting of a non-attributable examination 
of the impact of these measures on financial servic es.  Safe for a few Members, phase one of the 
proposal had been broadly supported at the previous meeting.  He encouraged  the Committee to take a 
decision at the present meeting.  
41. The representative of South Africa  supported the statement made by the representative of 
Argentina, and called upon Members to agree to the steps contained in this proposal , especially the 
steps as contained in phase one.  Whilst understanding that some Members might have concerns about 
phase two, in his view that should not preven t the Committee from proceeding with phase one.  
42. The representative of Ecuador  also supported the statement by the representative of 
Argentina, and expressed the hope that the Committee would be able to take a decision at the present 
meeting.  
43. The representative of India  also supported the statement made by the representative of 
Argentina.  He added that, having quickly exam ined the background Note on financial services 
prepared by the Secretariat, there could be no doubt  about its competence to deal with these issues.  
He requested the Committee to take a decision at th e present meeting, at least with regard to phase 
one, parts of which had actually already begun to be  implemented with the fi nancial services Note.  
For example, the Note already contained a fairly good overview of the GATS provisions of particular 
relevance to trade in financial services, and discu ssed the economic and financial crisis.  The latter 
sections could be further expanded in the context of th is proposal.  He finally considered that it would 
have been better if the report of the previous mee ting had been issued, because it had implications for 
the current meeting.  He did recall that  the proposal had elicited wide support.  
44. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation supported a discussion of the 
effects of the financial crisis on trade in financia l services.  It was true, in his view, that some 
elements of the proposal had already been addressed in the Secretariat's Note, and in that sense that 
called into question what would be endorsed as a pr oposal at the present stage.  In his view, it might 
be better to take a fuller look at the Note and then  consider whether the prop osal was still valid or 
needed some adaptation in order to  reflect what had been already done and what further work was 
needed.  It would be rather difficult in this view  to take a decision at the present meeting without 
digesting the Secretariat's paper.  Nevertheless, he  considered there was a broad consensus that the 
Committee should take up this subject in one form or another, and it was in that light that his 
delegation had put forward a room document at this meeting.   
45. The Committee had an on-going mandate to discuss matters such as this one, as reflected in 
the standing agenda item on recent developments in financial services trade.  It was important to recognise that there were some serious challenges in considering the effects of the crisis on trade in 
financial services.  Services trade data were spo tty, suffered from an extensive time lag, and were 
difficult to compare from one country to another.  In addition, available trade data did not provide 
updated information on flows through mode 3.  The analysis of service trade flows was therefore 
extremely challenging.  It was for this reason that hi s delegation had suggested at the last meeting that 
Members engage in a discussion not only on the basis of statistical information, but also on the basis 
of anecdotal information.  That discussion could he lp the Committee identify issues of relevance.  
With a view to facilitating that kind of exchange  among Members, his dele gation had put on paper 
some topics for consideration.  He stressed that this was not a formal proposal.  His delegation was not looking for endorsement of theses topics by th e Committee, nor was it seeking to add to the 
agenda.  These issues were presented as a way of fra ming the discussion on the effects on the crisis on 
trade in financial services. S/FIN/M/62 
Page 6  
 
  46. The representative of Switzerland
 noted that, in his view, the two proposals were 
complementary, and went in the same direction.   His delegation supported phase one of the proposal 
submitted by Argentina and others, and was indeed inte rested in the holding of a seminar.  The US 
statement was also a step in the right direction.  It was essential that the Committee examined the 
measures taken in the last couple of years by differe nt Members, and as a first step, it was logical to 
begin with an exchange of views among Member in order to get acquainted with the different 
experiences.  Summing up, he said that the Swi ss delegation supported moving forward with both 
proposals – the one submitted by the United States on 3 February, and the one submitted by Argentina, Ecuador, India and South Africa.   
47. The representative of Chile
 said that his delegation's position was very similar to that 
expressed by the Swiss representative.  He did not see any contradiction between the proposal just 
submitted by the US and phase one of the proposal submitted by Argentina and others.  Both 
proposals could be developed in parallel.  His de legation supported the idea of the Committee taking a 
decision to begin work on both proposals.  Having said that, it was not clear to him what connection the US delegation wanted to draw between the Se cretariat paper on financial services and phase one 
of the proposal by Argentina and others.  In his view, the Note by the Secretariat was a useful 
contribution to the discussions foreseen in both proposals.  He reiterated that phase one of the proposal by Argentina et al., as well as the US sugg estion to hold discussions on the financial crisis 
under the agenda item of recent developments in financial trade services were two complementary 
initiatives that could be carried out in parallel.   
48. The representative of Mexico
 endorsed the statements made  by the representatives of 
Switzerland and Chile.  In her view, both proposal s were complementary.  She reiterated her 
delegation's support for phase one of the Argentinean pr oposal and for the proposal just made by the 
United States.   
49. The representative of Turkey  seconded the views expressed by the representatives of 
Switzerland, Chile, and Mexico.  It was important that the Committee discussed the effects of the 
financial crisis on trade in financial services.   
50. The representative of Pakistan  supported the start of a work programme on this subject based 
on both proposals. 
51. The representative of Malaysia  supported phase one of the proposal submitted by Argentina, 
Ecuador, India, and South Africa.  In her view, the US proposal was not that different from the 
Argentinean proposal, as both of them intended to a ddress the effects of the financial crisis.  There 
were some common elements in both papers.  Fo r example, paragraph 5 of the US proposal was 
already covered by phase one of the other proposal.  She suggested that perhaps some elements of 
both proposals might be combined.  
52. The representative of the Republic of Korea  regarded both proposals as complementary.  In 
his view, it would be appropriate for the Committee to examine whether and how trade in financial 
services had been affected by the crisis and by  recent governmental measures.  The discussion should 
focus on the sectors particularly relevant to this  Committee.  Experts and industry representatives 
could be invited to the Committee to share their e xperiences with the crisis.  In doing so, without 
touching upon the legitimacy of the G20 mandate , Members would be able to focus on financial 
services, with a view to expanding trade in the sector.  
53. The representative of Argentina  said that the US proposal was a positive step forward.  A first 
reading showed that both proposals were fully comp lementary and did not contradict each other in 
any way.  The discussion proposed by the United Stat es could be incorporated in phase one (item b) 
of the other proposal.  The discussion would not only be among Members, but would include the  S/FIN/M/62 
 Page 7 
 
 
  participation of academics, experts and other intern ational organizations that had done work in this 
area.  He suggested that the Committee moved forw ard with phase one of his delegation's proposal, 
incorporating the suggestions made by the United States in the framework of the event that was 
foreseen in phase one.   
54. The representative of Hong Kong, China  supported the continuation of discussions among 
Members on the effects of the financial cris is (including the response by governments) on 
international trade.  He thus welcomed both proposal s, which, in his view, were complementary.  He 
also encouraged the Secretariat to continue suppor ting and facilitating the work of the Committee.   
55. The representative of Brazil  reiterated his support for the proposal submitted by Argentina, 
Ecuador, India and South Africa, particularly the idea of holding a seminar on this issue with the 
participation of experts.  Additi onally, he agreed with the statements made by the representatives of 
Switzerland, Mexico, and Chile on the comple mentarities between the two proposals. 
56. The representative of the European Union  expressed surprise that this issue be raised again by 
Argentina, Ecuador, India, and Sout h Africa, taking into account that it had been discussed at the last 
meeting of the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) , held in the previous week.  As expressed on 
previous occasions, the EU had always been of th e opinion that the proper forum for discussing the 
impact on trade of measures taken in the wake of the crisis was the TPRB, within the framework of 
the work that had already been undertaken there.  That would allow Members to have a global view.  
Her concerns with duplication of work had been inte nsified as the same proposal was discussed in two 
fora.  The financial crisis was, in her view, an appropriate subject for discussion for this Committee.  
However, she did not think that the papers before  the Committee were similar, as some Members had 
said.  While one proposal looked only at the measures taken by Members to combat the crisis in the 
financial services sector, the US paper looked at the e ffect of the crisis on trade in financial services in 
a more comprehensive manner.  That was an importa nt distinction for her delegation, and the reason 
why the EU supported the US paper, which frame d the discussion in a proper manner.  This 
discussion should be driven by Members, on the basi s of information provided by Members and not 
by the Secretariat. 
57. The representative of India  said that both proposals had common elements.  The US proposal 
contained very good ideas that could be incorporated into the proposal by Argentina, Ecuador, India, 
and South Africa – some in phase one and some in  phase two.  The Secretariat paper contained 
information relevant to both proposals.  In his vi ew, all these ideas should be combined, and a one- or 
two-day event be organized with a view to shari ng experience and information on the impact of the 
crisis on trade in financial services and on the measur es that had been adopted in the financial services 
sector to mitigate the effects of the crisis.  This  information exchange could involve presentations of 
country experiences, and the participation of academics and other experts.  Prior to that event, it might 
be a good idea to have a background paper – the literature review foreseen in the proposal by 
Argentina and others – that would be basically an e xpansion of the relevant parts of the Note by the 
Secretariat on financial services.  He suggested th at the Chairperson conducted consultations on how 
to proceed.   
58. The representative of Japan  supported the idea of combining both proposals.  The information 
shared among Members would provide useful inputs for phase one of the proposal by Argentina and others.  In his view, the Committee shoul d take a decision at this meeting.  
59. The representative of Australia
 said that the Australian financial sector had not escaped 
untouched from the global financial crisis.  On the import side, funds had been withdrawn and lending 
by off-shore institutions to Australian business had dropped.  On the export side, Australian financial 
institutions overseas had experienced some deterior ation in transaction volum es and in asset quality.  
It was in that context that the Australian government  had undertaken to collect some new data with a S/FIN/M/62 
Page 8  
 
  view to assessing the impact of the financial crisis  on Australian financial in stitutions.  Unfortunately, 
that data would not be available until 2011 or 2012 given the long coll ection times.  In his view, there 
were complementarities between the two proposals.  His delegation would like to see this Committee 
undertake substantive work on financial services, an d was supportive of developing a substantial work 
programme.  In his view, a decision should be taken at this meeting.  He suggest ed in that regard that 
the work could start on the basis of phase one (par t b) of the Argentinean proposal, including the 
terms of reference suggested in the US paper and the information sharing exercise among Members.  
60. The representative of Canada
 said that her delegation was not opposed to a constructive 
discussion on the effects of the crisis on trade, but at  the same time remained very supportive of the 
efforts of those Members that had taken measures in  response to the crisis and encouraged them to 
continue these efforts to strengthen their financ ial sectors' regulatory frameworks.  The support 
measures had been very important in protecting financial systems a nd contributing to global economic 
stability.  Members should be mindful of the fact that these had been taken at the urging of international leaders and had been generally viewed as very successful in mitigating the impacts of the 
crisis.  Her delegation was looking fo r a broader discussion on the effect s of the crisis and the success 
of those measures must be part of this discussion.   In addition, she said that there were many 
international bodies currently undertaking work on th e question of the economic crisis.  For instance, 
the Financial Stability Board was studying changes in competitive conditions in the financial sector 
and was expected to bring forward a report in April.  It was also important to take into account that 
measures had already been put in place to mitigate th e impact on trade.  In particular, the G20 had 
implemented a two-year US$250 billion trade finance initiative with particular assistance directed 
towards emerging markets and low-income countries.  She requested Argentina, Ecuador, India, and 
South Africa (as proponents of the proposal being di scussed) to be mindful in not duplicating work 
that was already done in other international fora .  Should the Committee decide that a discussion on 
the effects of the crisis was warranted, her dele gation would prefer a positive exchange.  Both this 
proposal and the US room document contained helpfu l elements.  Her delega tion would like to see 
them evolve before supporting either  of them.  She finally said that, while Canada coul d be supportive 
of a discussion on the effects of the crisis, that discussion should not focus solely on the response 
measures. 
61. The representative of Norway
 said that the impact of government measures on trade in 
financial services was a valid topic for discussion in the Committee.  His delegation was also very supportive of the measures taken by different Member s, and would expect this kind of discussion to 
underline the usefulness of these measures as well.  He reiterated his delegation's support to the 
proposal form Argentina, Ecuador, India and South A frica.  He also supported the US proposal, which 
he found very constructive.  Both proposals were co mplementary and not mutually exclusive.  Like 
the Indian delegate he felt the Note by the Secretariat seemed to address at least some elements of the proposal from Argentina and others.  The Committee s hould take a decision at this meeting, along the 
lines suggested by Australia, i.e. by taking forwar d the US proposal and phase one of the proposal by 
Argentina and others.  
62. The representative of South Africa
 said that both proposals were complementary.  
Responding to the point made by the EU that the US paper was more comprehensive, he said that this 
was no reason to support one and not the other.  If both papers were combined, that would make the 
exercise still more comprehensive.  The US pape r envisaged a discussion by Members about their 
individual experiences.  He was concerned that a few countries might not be in a position to talk about 
their experiences before learning more about th e background and what had already been done.  
Additionally, the proposal by Argentina and others also sought to avoid duplicating the work of other 
international organizations, since the idea was precis ely to learn what had been done elsewhere.   
63. The representative of Chinese Taipei  welcomed any initiative to make good use of the 
Committee.  From that perspective, he supporte d the ideas presented by the United States.  A  S/FIN/M/62 
 Page 9 
 
 
  discussion on the effects of the financial crisis on trade in financial services was quite relevant to the 
work in the Committee.  It would be interesting fo r Members to share their experience with mitigation 
efforts to ensure the stability and soundness of fi nancial services sectors during the global financial 
crisis.  In addition, it would also be interesting to  get acquainted with the work done by other relevant 
international organizations.  His delegation was also  inclined to along with phase one of the proposal 
by Argentina and others.   
64. The representative of Chile  commented on the statement made by the representative of the 
European Union.  Since Argentina, Ecuador, India,  and South Africa had reiterated their proposal, it 
was quite logical to discuss it again.  It was a pity that the report of the previous meeting had not been 
available because, according to his recollection, towa rds the end of that meeting the European Union's 
representative accepted the initiation of phase one of the proposal submitted by these four Members.  
But unfortunately, he could not verify this now.  Responding to the EU delegate's reference to the 
TPRB, he said that the discussion was becoming rather circular.  It had been clear from the deliberations in the TPRB that the subsidiary bodi es with specific mandates could discuss in greater 
detail, with more specificity, the impact of the cr isis in their own areas of competence.  However, 
when the issue was raised at th is Committee, some Members referred to the TPRB.  The Australian 
proposal was a good way out.  The Committee should take a decision at this meeting in order to overcome the paralysis it had been facing over this issue. A decision on this item would also have an 
impact on other proposals considered under other ag enda items, as some delegations had pointed out.  
65. The representative of Guatemala
 said that it was necessary to have a substantive programme 
covering the effects of the financia l crisis, and supported the proposal made by Argentina and others.  
She saw no difficulties in initiating phase one of that  proposal.  The US initiative could be fed into 
that process.  
66. The representative of Ecuador  said that certain elements of the US proposal could be 
incorporated into the proposal submitted by Argentin a, India, South Africa and his own country.  It 
would be useful to share the experiences of other Me mbers in relation to the crisis, and also take this 
opportunity to hear what financial services experts in  other organizations had to say on this subject.  
Turning to outside experts was common practice in WTO subsidiary bodies.  
67. The representative of Peru  said that phase one of the proposal  by Argentina and others and the 
US proposal were complementary.  Therefore, there would be synergies.  Phase one of the proposal 
by Argentina and others could result in an ex change of experiences am ongst delegations in the 
manner suggested by the US.  From that pe rspective, he supported both proposals.  
68. The representative of Mexico  referred to the statement made by the EU representative to the 
effect that the TPRB was taking up this issue.  In he r view, this aspect had been fully debated at the 
previous meeting of the Committee, and the co-sponsors of the Argentine proposal had shown a high degree of flexibility by taking into account the co mments made by other Members.  She added that 
the TPRB had mentioned the fact that this Committe e was undertaking work on  the financial crisis 
and trade.  She finally supported the views express ed by the Chilean representative in this regard. 
69. The representative of the European Union
 clarified that she had said at the previous meeting 
that the EU could eventually support some elemen ts of phase one of the proposal by Argentina and 
others, but not in the current form.  In her view, the mere title "phase one" su ggested that there was a 
second phase, which, however, the EU could not suppor t.  Secondly, she reiterated that the EU had 
said that the TPRB was the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion.  It was her understanding 
that the Argentine proposal had been submitted to, a nd discussed at, the TPRB at the last meeting. In 
turn, that had prompted her comments about dupli cating work.  In her view, the TPRB was the right 
forum, since it dealt with the impact of measur es taken by Members on trade, and this discussion was 
part of that.  Two developments since the last Co mmittee meeting had prompted  the EU to reconsider S/FIN/M/62 
Page 10  
 
  this issue.  First, the discussion at the TPRB a nd second, the background Note on financial services 
issued by the Secretariat.  Since the Note already touched upon elements of phase one, it was 
necessary to think about what was left to discuss.   Once the Committee had decided, it would be 
necessary to see a revised proposal which shou ld eliminate all references to phase two and 
expressions such as "introductory steps" or "stepping stones".   
70. The representative of Argentina
 responded to the statement by the EU representative.  He said 
that the General Council had taken up th is issue first, on the basis of a proposal by Argentina.  On that 
occasion, the permanent representative of the EU ha d said that these issues, including subsidy-related 
ones, should be discussed in the relevant Committees.   Later on, when the issue was raised in this 
Committee, the EU changed its position and called for a discussion in the TPRB.  At the last meeting 
of the TPRB, there had been simply a discussi on among representatives which was not based on a 
proposal.  Therefore, the item was not in the TP RB, but remained in the General Council.  The 
discussion in the TPRB was in the light of a subm ission to the General Council, which only referred 
to trade in goods.  Financial services had not been included, but were raised at this Committee, thus 
avoiding any duplication of work.  Finally, the EU had made a procedural argument, which could not 
be verified since the report of the last meeting wa s not yet available. In any case, he requested the 
Committee to take a decision at this meeting to m ove forward with the thr ee points included in phase 
one of the proposal, and the points made in the room document from the United States, without referring to the rest of the Argentine proposal.  In  that way, the procedural argument put forward by 
the EU could be avoided. 
71. The representative of the United States
 offered support to the comments made by the EU 
representative about the different phases in the Argen tinean proposal.  In the light of the background 
Note by the Secretariat, what seemed to be le ft from the proposal, was the organization of a 
workshop.  That seemed to be the core element of phase one, which remained outstanding.  But if that 
was the case, it would be necessary to see how the pr oposal would look like in order to have some 
basis on which to consult domestically.  He reite rated his concerns about the phase one/phase two 
distinction, which seemed to imply the existence of  a second phase.  He suggested that the proponents 
put together a simple proposal, stating what should be done next.  It should include some sort of on-
going discussion, in a workshop or at the next meeting of the Committee.  He assumed that the Secretariat paper would be discussed in detail at that time.  Finally, since some Members had drawn linkages between progress on this proposal and progress on the US proposal to hold a workshop on 
non-life insurance services (discu ssed under the previous agenda item), the Committee was heading 
for sort of a package deal.  If so, it would be helpfu l to have more clarity on the potential trade-offs.  
72. Before summing up the discussion, and since some  Members had alluded to the fact that the 
Secretariat paper, which had been circulated onl y one day before the meeting, touched upon some 
aspects of both proposals, the Chairperson
 asked the Secretariat to provide its views on how the 
upcoming discussion could be structured. 
73. A representative from the Secretariat  apologized for the late release of the background Note 
on financial services which had left little time to st udy it.  In his view, it would make more sense to 
first review the Note and consider it thoroughly, and then see exactly what else was needed from the 
Secretariat.  Turning to the present discussion, he  said that when a Committee considered a proposal, 
the following steps reflected Memb ers' collective will. They were always based on proposals from 
Members, but did not necessarily require the ad option of a particular proposal as it had been 
submitted.  Therefore, Members simply needed to decide on the next steps, taking into account that 
some elements of the proposals submitted to the Co mmittee, such as the organization of an event, 
were more ripe for decision than others.  If a decision was taken in favour of an event, the Secretariat 
could start thinking about its organization accordi ng to the usual practice, explained at the last 
meeting.   S/FIN/M/62 
 Page 11 
 
 
  74. The Chairperson  said that it was clear that a major ity of Members saw complementarities 
between the two proposals under consideration.  In  particular, the idea of holding a workshop, 
sponsored by Argentina, Ecuador, India, and Sout h Africa, and the discussion foreseen in the US 
proposal were complementary.  Participants at the workshop could include experts from relevant 
international organizations as well as Members' re presentatives who might be in a position to present 
their experiences thus far, as articulated in the US proposal.  The Committee had been debating this 
issue since last October.  No decision had been ta ken to commission the Secretariat to start work on 
the way forward, and that was a waste of time.  As  explained by the Secretariat, what the Committee 
needed to do was not necessarily to take a decisi on supporting one proposal or the other, but take a 
decision in terms of the work that would emanate fro m those proposals.  In that vein, he proposed that 
the Committee request the Secretariat to begin organi sing such a workshop, along the lines he had just 
indicated.  He would also hold consultations with Members regarding the agenda and the substance of 
such a workshop.  
75. The representative of Nigeria  supported the suggestion made by the Chairperson.  
76. The representative of Canada  asked the Chairperson to clarify the topic of the workshop.  
77. The Chairperson  replied that, in terms of substance, the workshop would be held along the 
lines advocated in the proposal by Argentina and others.  However, as he had indicated, it would 
include elements of the US proposal, notably the presentation of country experiences.  Consultations 
would be held on the specific details of the programme.   
78. The representative of the United States  said that he had no official clearance to go ahead and 
endorse a workshop at that moment.  Perhaps, there c ould be an interim step to develop a provisional 
agenda for the workshop, including its structure and the organizations to be invited, before the next 
meeting of the Committee.  The formal decision would then be taken at that meeting.  
79. The representative of Chile  said that, as indicated in the US paper, if the discussion could not 
be held in a workshop, it could be held under th e agenda item on recent developments in financial 
services trade.  In his view, that should be acceptable to the United States as well, given its paper's 
content 
80. The representative of India  supported the statement made by the Chilean representative.  He 
assumed that the various issues mentioned in the US  room document had all been cleared by the US 
authorities. He did not see any problem, therefore,  for the membership to reach consensus on the 
issue.  
81. The representative of the European Union  said that it would be helpful to have a provisional 
agenda, on the basis of which internal consultations  could be held.  Referri ng to Canada's question, 
she said that the EU would like to see a wider discussion that would not only look at the impact of mitigating measures, but also at the effects of  the crisis on trade in financial services. 
82. The Chairperson
 expressed concern that the preparation of a provisional agenda as an interim 
step might simply delay the preparation of the event.   
83. The representative of India  suggested that the Committee took a decision to hold the 
workshop, and entrusted the Chairperson to cons ult on the agenda.  That would accommodate the 
points made by Canada, the US, and the EU.  He accepted the idea of having a wider agenda, including not only the aspects mentioned in the proposal sponsored by India, but also the effects of the crisis on trade in financial services.  S/FIN/M/62 
Page 12  
 
  84. The representative of South Africa
 supported the suggestion made by the Chilean 
representative to organise this discussion under ite m C of the Committee's agenda.  The detailed 
agenda could be provided later, in the light of consultations with Members.  
85. The representative of Argentina  said, with reference to the concerns expressed by Canada and 
the EU, that the agenda could include any item Member s might like to consider.  In addition, since the 
US representative had no clearance for a workshop, but  for a discussion, he suggested that the event 
be called "discussion", and that experts from interna tional institutions be invited to participate, as 
proposed by Argentina and others.  In that wa y, everybody's concerns would be accommodated.  
86. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation wa s willing to engage in a 
discussion within the Committee on any topic that Memb ers wished to raise.  Hosting an event that 
would bring in outside participants was a different decision.  In principle, there should be no difficulty 
to take such a decision, but not at the present mee ting.  He suggested again that the Committee request 
the Secretariat to start preparing the contours of what such an event might look like. 
87. The representative of Switzerland  proposed, as a compromise, th at the Committee request the 
Secretariat to go ahead with working out the topic of  a seminar and even the first organizational steps, 
such as the date.  In addition, he suggested that the Committee put a deadline for expressing 
reservations against a seminar, so that delegations  that needed to consult domestically had enough 
time to do it, but without delaying the Committee's wo rk.  In his view, the two delegations that had 
expressed concerns were not fundamentally against an  event, such as a seminar.  So basically, once 
the deadline had passed, without reservations, the Ch airperson would be able to move forward.  
88. The Chairperson  commended this proposal, which would allow the Committee to take a 
decision at this meeting.  As had been made cl ear, a decision on the US proposal on non-life insurance 
services was linked to this issue.  However, it would be necessary to clarify whether Members would be agreeing on a dedicated discussion in the Co mmittee or a workshop or seminar outside the 
Committee.  He requested the Secret ariat to clarify the difference.  
89. A representative from the Secretariat
 explained that there were basically two options.  One 
was to have a dedicated discussion under an agenda  item of the Committee, not necessarily one of the 
standing agenda items.  Members could foresee a sp ecific item for such a discussion, which would 
then be considered as part of the Committee's bus iness, and would be duly recorded. The discussion 
could be formal or informal.  If informal, only the fact that the Comm ittee had such a discussion 
would be mentioned in the records of the Committee.  The other option would be to organize a workshop or seminar.  In terms of procedure, such an event would not be part of the regular business 
of the Committee.  It would be an informal even t and its organization woul d not necessarily be bound 
by the rules of procedures.  There would be no  recorded statements, nor would there be any 
conclusions.  The materials presented (papers, Powe rPoint presentations) could then be posted on the 
WTO website, was usually the case.  Often, such ev ents were not chaired by the Chairperson of the 
Committee, but by the Secretariat, with a view to de-linking the discussion, from a procedural and 
formal standpoint, from the day-to-day business of the Committee.  Such events provided a more 
informal setting and allowed for flexibility.  He fu rther explained that seminars and workshops had 
always been organized whenever Members had wanted to have a frank and open discussion on a 
particular topic, and to invite a variety of persons to give different perspectives from the outside.  If 
the Committee decided on the organization of such an  event, the Secretariat would then circulate a 
draft outline.  
90. The representative of Switzerland
 said that paragraph 11(i)(b) of the proposal by Argentina 
and others, dated 3 November 2009, said that the ev ent would involve experts in financial services 
who had already undertaken relevant work and could brief the Committee on the results already 
achieved.  It was clear that what was envisaged  fell within the Committee's mandate business, as  S/FIN/M/62 
 Page 13 
 
 
  captured by the first option presented by the Secretaria t.  On the other hand, the first paragraph of the 
US room document (dated 3 February 2010) made reference to "a discussion within the CTFS".  
91. The Chairperson  reiterated that Members should decide what option to follow – a dedicated 
discussion within the Committee or a seminar.  
92. The representative of the United States  noted the Secretariat's statement that a seminar would 
give greater flexibility in terms of attendees.  He ask ed the Secretariat to indicate what the constraints 
were in each case, and who could attend the Committee meeting or the seminar. 
93. The representative of the Secretariat  explained that a regular Committee meeting would be 
subject to the rules of procedure of the Committee.   In terms of attendance, those normally invited 
included observers.  A seminar provided the opportunity  to invite others, since it would not be subject 
to the constraints of the rules of procedure.  In terms of potential speakers, there would be no 
difference, as even in the case of Committee meetings , speakers from other organizations that did not 
have observer status, could be invited.  That was usual practice in the Council for Trade in Services, 
where certain international organizations had been invited on an ad-hoc  basis to attend a particular 
meeting and discuss a particular subject.  In term s of participants, the seminar would provide more 
flexibility since even private sector repr esentatives could be invited to attend.  
94. The representative of Australia  said that it was important to reinvigorate the work of the 
Committee.  In that vein, he preferred that th e discussion be held within the Committee structure 
rather than in a separate workshop. 
95. The Chairperson , assuming that Members wanted to hold such an event within the Committee 
structure, proposed that the Secretariat be requ ested to develop a draft programme/agenda.  Drawing 
on Switzerland's proposal, Members should be given until 28 February to indicate whether they were 
still opposed to this event.  In th e meantime, he would have consultati ons to seek views on its content.  
He asked whether Members could agree on this course of action.  
96. The representative of the United States  thanked the Chairperson for what he considered to be 
a reasonable suggestion.  
97. The Chairperson  invited the Committee to take a d ecision.  The Committee so decided .  
98. The representative of the United States  suggested that the deadline for negative responses to 
the proposal on non-life insurance be fixed on 27 February. 
99. On invitation from the Chairperson,  the Committee so decided .  
100. Since 28 February was a Sunday, the Chairpers on suggested to bring the deadline forward to 
Friday, 26 February.  He also clarified that the decision to hold both events was a package.  The 
Committee so agreed .    
D. FINANCIAL SERVICES – BACKGROUND NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT  
101. The Chairperson  recalled that, at the previous meeting, and in the context of discussions 
under the previous agenda item regarding the pro posal by Argentina, Ecuador, India, and South 
Africa, it had been agreed that the Secretariat would produce the Background Note on financial 
services for this cluster of services meetings.  The Note  had finally been circulated the day before the 
meeting, as document S/FIN/W/73.  Since Member s had not had enough time to review  the 
document, he suggested that its discussion be postp oned until the next meeting of the Committee.  It 
was so decided .  S/FIN/M/62 
Page 14  
 
  E. O
THER BUSINESS   
102. The representative of Panama  expressed his delegation's con cern regarding certain measures 
taken by Ecuador, which were detrimental to the co mmercial interests of both countries.  One of the 
measures was the recently adopted law amending the Internal Tax Regime Law and Tax Equity Act 
(published in the Official Gazette No. 94, dated 23 December 2009), which taxed in a significant, 
discriminatory and arbitrary manner the internationa l financial transactions with Panama.  He added 
that this measure had significantly hurt trade in fi nancial services between Pa nama and Ecuador.   
103. In addition, last year the Cent ral Bank of Ecuador had dramatically increased local reserves to 
be maintained by commercial fina ncial institutions, to the equivalent of 45 per cent of the funds 
received by an institution, thus severely limiting tran sactions with financial institutions abroad.  This 
measure significantly affected the supply of fi nancial services from Panama, where currently six 
Ecuadorian banks were licensed to operate, and which had historically been a major destination for 
Ecuadorian reserves. 
104. He underlined his delegation's concern about  these and other measures, which seriously 
damaged bilateral trade between Ecuador and Panama , and represented an erosion of Panama's rights 
under WTO agreements.  He called upon Ecuador to jointly examine the effects of these measures on 
the bilateral trade and on Panama's rights under the WTO agreements, and expressed confidence that 
the friendly spirit that had historically characteri zed commercial relations between the two countries 
would allow them to find a mutually convenient solution.  
105. The representative of Ecuador  said that, since he was unaware of Panama's intention to raise 
this matter, he was not in a position to respond to th e substantive points raised.  Nonetheless, he took 
note of them, and expressed the expectation that both countries could reach a mutually satisfactory 
solution through bilateral contacts. 
F.  APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
106. The Chairperson recalled that according to th e Rules of Procedure, the Committee should 
elect its Chairperson at the first meeting of the year, effective at the end of the meeting.  However, 
given that the consultations on that matter by th e Chairman of the Council for Trade in Services had 
not finished yet, he suggested that the formal el ection of the Committee's Chair for this year and the 
hand over took place at the beginning of the next mee ting, right after the adoption of the agenda.  The 
Committee so decided .  
__________