RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/W/303 
17 September 2009 
 (09-4388) 
Council for Trade in Services  
  
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 
  
Background Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. This Note has been prepared at the request of  the Council for Trade in Services, with a view 
to stimulating discussions in the Council on the ar chitectural services sector.  It provides background 
information and updates a previous Note on trade in architectural and engineering services (S/C/W/44, dated 1 July 1998).  This Note focu ses on  developments and  issues considered to 
be most relevant to the GATS.  It is not inte nded to provide a comprehensive account of the sector. 
2. The following discussion revolves around architect ural services as professional services, i.e., 
the services provided by qualified architects.  Th e economic activities of physical construction and 
related engineering works, although obviously inter-related, are covered predominantly by the sectoral 
Note on Construction and Related Engineering Se rvices (S/C/W/302, dated 15 September 2009).   
3. As observed in the 1998 Note on architectural  and engineering services, globalization - and  
the development of the Internet in particular  - has opened new opportunities and made the cross-
border provision of certain professional services more viable than before.
2  Nevertheless, professional 
service providers continue to face significant obst acles, particularly due to the high number and 
variation of regulatory measures.  In the c ontext of the GATS negotiations under the Doha 
Development Agenda, the architectural profession has taken an active interest in the ongoing 
negotiations under GATS Article VI:4, as detailed below (section IV. D.).   
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SECTOR 
4. Under the WTO's Services Sectoral Classification List  (MTN.GNS/W/120), architectural 
services are listed as a subsector of professional ser vices.  The associated classification, Architectural 
Services (8671), of the United Nations' "Provisional Central Product Classification" (CPC) 3,  contains 
five sub-headings: 
(a) Advisory and pre-design architectural services (86711):  
                                                      
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. 
2 In the course of the Uruguay Round negotiations, the Secretariat had alread y produced a Note on 
Trade in Professional Services (document MTN.GNS/W/67 of 25 August 1989).  This earlier Note provided an overview of the various activities comprising professional services, described the forms of trade in those 
services, and discussed the objectives and the content of measures affecting such trade.  Architectural services 
were briefly discussed in this Note, although the focus was on accountancy, legal services, management 
consulting and advertising. 
3 United Nations, Provisional Central Product Classification, Series M. No. 77, 1991. S/C/W/303 
Page 2  
 
  Assistance, advisory and recommendation services concerning architectural and related 
matters.  Included here are services as undertaking preliminary studies addressing issues such as site philosophy, intent of development, c limatic and environmenta l concerns, occupancy 
requirements, cost constraints, site selection analysis, design and construction scheduling and 
any other issues affecting the nature of the design and construction of a project.  The 
provision of these services is not necessarily related to a new construction project.  For 
example, it may consist of advice concerni ng the means of carrying out maintenance, 
renovation, restoration or recycling of buildin gs, or appraisals of the value and quality of 
buildings or of advice on any other architectural matter; 
(b) Architectural design services (86712):   
 Architectural design services for buildings and ot her structures.  Design services may consist of 
one or a combination of the follo wing:  schematic design services
, which consist of 
determining, with the client, the essential char acter of the project, defining intent, space 
requirements, budget limita tions and time scheduling; and of preparing sketches including floor 
plans, site plans and exterior views; design development services , which consist of a more 
precise illustration of the design concept in term s of siting plan, form, material to be used, 
structural, mechanical and electrical systems and probable construction costs; final design 
services , which consist of drawings and written spec ifications sufficiently  detailed for tender 
submission and construction, and of  expert advice to the client at the time of calling for and 
accepting tenders; 
 
(c) Contract administration services (86713):  
 Advisory and technical assistance services to the client during the construction phase to ensure 
that the structure is being erected in conformity with the final drawings a nd specifications.  This 
involves services provided both in offices and the field, such as construction inspection, 
preparation of progress reports, issuance of certificates for payments to the contractor, guidance 
to the client and the contractor in the interpre tation of contract documen ts and any other advice 
on technical questions that may develop during construction; 
 
(d) Combined architectural design and contra ct administration services (86714):   
 Combinations of architectural services utili zed on most projects including schematic design, 
design development, final design and contract ad ministration services.  This may include post 
construction services which consist of the as sessment of deficiencies in construction and 
instructions regarding correctiv e measures to be taken during the 12-month period following the 
completion of the construction;  and 
 
(e) Other architectural services (86719):   
 All other services requiring the expertise of architects, such as the preparation of promotional 
material and presentations, preparation of as- built drawings, constant site representation 
during the construction phase, provi sion of operating manuals, etc. 
 5. As already mentioned in the 1998 Note on the sector, the above definitions do not explicitly 
cover services provided by surveyors or topographical engineers.  In the Provisional CPC 
classification, such services would seem to belong to:  "site investigation work" (5111, a subsector of 
construction services), "advisory and pre-design architectural services" (86711, a subsector of architectural services), "advisory and consultativ e engineering services" (86721, a subsector of 
engineering services), or "surface surveying services" and "map-making services" (86753 and 86754, included in "related scientific and technical consultin g services").  Since the functions of a surveyor or  S/C/W/303 
 Page 3 
 
 
  a topographical engineer differ from country to country, one would need to look at the content of the 
service provided, or individual segments thereof, in  order to determine the relevant classification 
category.4 
6. Services provided by construc tion economists (a profession mo st common in some European 
countries, such as Spain, Italy and the UK), i.e.,  developing and managing of construction projects, 
conducting feasibility studies and risk analyses , providing advice on design and construction 
procurement, etc., appear to at least partially  belong to architectural, engine ering, or urban planning and 
landscape architectural services, as these services are most often provided by either architects or engineers, depending on the country.
5 
III. ECONOMIC AND TRADE PROFILE OF THE SECTOR 
A. TRADE PROFILE  
7. As observed in the 1998 Note, architectural a nd engineering services are strongly integrated 
or inter-related with physical construc tion activities and/or other business services.6  Due to this 
specific nature, measurement of the architectural and engineering services output  is not straightforward 
to the extent that, in official statistics, it is most of ten absorbed in broader cate gories of services such as 
business or construction services.7  
8. The 2008 edition of International Trade Statistics (ITS)  considers business, professional and 
technical services to be among the most thriving services se ctors in developed countries.8  A l s o ,  i n  
certain developing economies, such  as India and Brazil, these se rvices - ranging from legal to 
management services, and from archit ectural to advertising services - have become one of the main 
export sectors.  In 2007, for exampl e, they accounted for 45 per cent  of Brazil's total commercial 
services exports, totalling US$10 billion, with archit ectural, engineering and ot her technical consultancy 
services the largest subsectors, followed by legal services.   
9. With about US$257 billion worth of exports in 2006, the European Communities was the 
leading world exporter of business, professional and technical services (Annex Table 1).  Extra-EC 27 
exports represented US$121 billion, with the largest sub-sectors being architec tural, engineering and 
other technical consultancy services (19 per cent), legal, accoun ting, management, consulting and public 
relations services (18 per cent) and research and development servi ces (16 per cent).  The United States 
and Switzerland were the main de stinations, accounting for more than  one-half of the exports bound for 
                                                      
4 Revision 1 of the CPC makes some minor classification changes, but does not appear to address this 
issue.  See WTO document S/CSC/W/6/Add.11, 27 March 1998, pp. 5-6. 
5 European Commission, Panorama of EU Industry  1997 . 
6 I.e., architectural firms provide blueprints and designs for buildings and other structures, while 
engineering firms provide planning, design, construction and management services for building structures, installations, civil engineering works and industrial proc esses, etc.  Consulting engineers are involved in all 
stages of a project, and thus their services overlap substantially with those of other professionals. 
7  As noted in a paper from a recent OECD confer ence on professional services, "[t]he systematic 
documentation of the extent of international trade in arch itectural services is not yet being compiled".  The paper 
further states, "[t]o date the author has not been able to identify any surveys that document and/or rank which 
countries are the primary expo rters of architectural services.  Based on his professional experience it would be 
surmised that the major developed countries are the leadin g exporters of architectural services.  Included in this 
group would be the United States, Member States of the European Union, Australia, Japan and Canada."  
(Russell V. Keune, Architectural Services in Global Trade in Professional Services , OECD, Sixth Services 
Experts Meeting, Domestic Regulation and Trade in Professional Services Paris, 15-16 February 2007, pp. 7, 8.  
Available online, at: http://www.oecd.org/secure /pdfDocument/0,2834,en_21571361_40531731_40778743_1_ 
1_1_1,00.pdf.)   
8 Available online from the WTO website, at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2008_e/ 
its08_toc_e.htm (pp. 120-121 ). S/C/W/303 
Page 4  
 
  non-EC States.  The United  States was the second-largest expo rter of business, professional and 
technical services, at US$61 billion in 2006.
9   
10. The Architects’ Council of Eur ope (ACE), representing 480,000 ar chitects from 32 countries, in 
2008 published what it terms the first reliable study of the architectural prof ession at the European 
level.10  The architectural market in the 17 countries that responded to the ACE survey was estimated at 
€11.6 billion in 2007, corresponding to a total of €22 billi on for all 32 European countries (Annex Table 
2).  The largest mark ets were found to be Germany and the UK, accounting for over half of the total for 
the 17 countries.11   
11. In the United States, a 2005 Engineering News Re cord (ENR) survey showed that 108 of the 
largest architecture and architectural-engineering fi rms practicing in the country earned a total of 
US$3.8 billion in fees from their international work .  According to the same ENR survey, the 500 
largest design firms in the United States (architects,  engineers, engineer-contractors, environmental, 
landscape and planning) earned US$11.9 billion in in ternational billings for the year 2005, as shown 
in Table 1 :12 
Table 1.  International work by the 500 largest US design firms, 2005 
 
Region  Number of 
Firms  Revenue 
(US$ million)  Per cent of 
Total  
Europe  125 4,078.9 34.4% 
Asia/Australia  142 2,895.1 23.4% 
Canada  102 1,857.9 15.7% 
Middle East  102 1,423.2 12.0% 
Latin America  119 719.4 6.1% 
Africa  61 619.5 5.2% 
 
  Source :  Engineering News Record a 
 a As reported in Russell V. Keune, Architectural Services in Global Trade in Professional  
   Services , OECD, 2007, p. 7. 
 
B. SECTOR  COMPOSITION  
12. According to Architectural Practice around the World , the country with the highest ratio of 
architects to population is Japan, with one architect for every 416 inhabitants, followed by Italy, FYR 
Macedonia, Greece, and Luxembourg (Annex Table 4).13  With respect to architectural education, the 
countries with the highest ratio of students to existing architects are Honduras, Iran and Nigeria, with over two students per architect (Annex Table 5 ).  The publication notes that, with the exception of 
                                                     
 
9 Over 16 million people were employed in these sectors in the United St ates - more than in 
manufacturing - generating US$1,414 billion in value adde d, and representing about 11 per cent of GDP.  There 
were 3.7 million enterprises in the EC 27 in 2005 enga ged in the production of these services, employing over 
18 million people and generating US$1,628 billion in turnover and US$842 billion in value added, accounting 
for more than 6 per cent of GDP.   
10 Architects’ Council of Europe,  The Architectural Profession in Europe , 18 December 2008.  
Available online, at http ://www.ace-cae.org/MemberN/Cont ent/EN/pub/int/sectors.html. 
11 It was housing projects (both private and public) that made up the highest percentage (45 per cent) of 
that revenue.  Not surprisingly, building design generated the highest revenue to architects, at 66 per cent.  It 
was lowest in Denmark (47 per cent) and highest in Finland (78 per cent).  In some countries, the work was 
spread over more service types (e.g.  interior design, project management, or planning).  This was the case for Denmark, Malta, Slovenia, Sweden and Turkey.  As a proportion of work, the largest single project type for 
architects was individual houses, accounting for 31 per cent of the architectural market (Annex Table 3). 
12 Keune, op. cit., p.9. 
13 Collegi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya (COAC).  The publication covers 91 countries, representing 
nearly 84 per cent of world population (available onlin e, at http://www.coac.net/inte rnacional/defaultang.html).    S/C/W/303 
 Page 5 
 
 
  China - where 80 per cent of architects are employed by public institutions - self-employment is the 
most widespread form of architectural practice, while association with a university is the least 
frequent.14 
13. The main conclusion drawn from the ACE study is that the architectural profession in Europe, 
and presumably globally, is very heterogeneous.  The number of architects, their profile and their 
earnings were found to differ significantly from country to country.15  A large proportion of European 
architects operated as sole principals (24 per cent)  or as freelancers (9 per cent) (Chart I).  The 
employment picture varies strongly from country to country:  in the Netherlands, for example, 81 per cent of the respondents worked as sole principals, partners or associates, while the highest proportion 
of architects working in the public sector was found in Denmark (34 per cent). 
Chart 1:  Types of Employment of European Architects, 2008  
sole principal 
partner / director 
associate 
 private practice salaried  in - house / agency  freelance other private  local authority / government  education other public 
 
Source : Architects’ Council of Europe a 
a The Architectural Profession in Europe , 2008, p. 22. 
 
 
14. There are approximately 69,800 architectural practices in the 17 countries covered by the 
ACE study (corresponding to more than 130,000 practi ces in the 32 European countries).  More than 
half of these were one-person firms (Annex Table 6).  Only 1 per cent of architectural practices had more than 30 staff.  On the other hand, it was estim ated that 19,000 persons we re employed in the 350 
                                                     
 
14 COAC, op. cit., p. 53.  In the COAC questionnaire, an architect is defined, according to UIA criteria, 
as "[a] person who is professionally and academically qualified and generally registered/licensed/certified to 
practise architecture in the jurisdiction in which he or sh e practises and is responsibl e for advocating the fair and 
sustainable development, welfare, an d the cultural expression of society's habitat in terms of space, forms and 
historical context". 
15 In relation to the structure of the profession, the study notes that of the approximately 480,000 
architects in Europe - of which 37 per cent were female - 42 per cent of architects ar e aged under 40, and that 86 
per cent of all architectural offices em ployed 5 or less architects.  See Arch itects’ Council of Europe, op. cit. S/C/W/303 
Page 6  
 
  practices with more than 50 staff.
16  Approximately 15 per cent had formal associations with another 
practice (Annex Table 7).  European architectural practices were mainly, but not entirely, active in their domestic markets:  on average, only 6 per cent of revenues derived from export markets.  
Likewise, the weighted average of architects wo rking outside the country in which they were 
registered was 7 per cent for the 17 countries (Annex Tables 8a and 8b).   
C. R
ECENT TRENDS  
15. Technology continues to play a dramatic role in changing both domestic architectural practice 
and in facilitating the continued e xpansion of international trade in architectural services.  Rapid 
progress in the electronic technology employed in the provision of architectural services, commencing in the early 1980s, has been a significant driving force in the globalization process.  A firm’s 
commitment to, and ability to support, the ongoi ng changes in technology reportedly plays an 
increasingly important role in retaining co mpetitiveness in global architectural trade.
17 
16. Off-shoring and the outsourcing of portions of a project have become an expanding part of 
architectural trade.  With foreign commissions of ten involving large building projects, the number of 
related professions brought into the design process, both domestic and foreign, is often sizable and 
diverse.18  Recognizing that many of their most important clients were aggressively moving into a 
global market, increasing numbers of architectural firms have been developing business plans that incorporate an international component.  This is es pecially true in specialized niche markets, e.g. 
hospitals and specialized medical  facilities, high technology manufacturing facilities, luxury hotels 
and resorts, airport terminals, etc.   
17. The international provision of architectural ser vices is driven largely by the evolution of 
foreign construction project markets.  More recently , trade patterns have reportedly been influenced 
by free trade agreements which have resulted in dom estic clients taking their architects with them as 
they expand into foreign markets.  Many archit ects have sought to expand the range of professional 
services offered to clients;  their traditional role as the designer of buildings has been expanded to 
include feasibility studies, post-occupancy evaluations, facilities management, etc.
19   
                                                      
16 Almost one-quarter of European architects (23 per cent) had been fully qualified as an architect for 
25 years or more;  another 25 per cent had been qualified for between 15 and 24 years;  and 18 per cent had 
been qualified for five years or less.  The highest leve ls of the longest-serving architects were recorded in 
Estonia (36 per cent had been qualified for 25 or more years), Finland (32 per cent), Sweden (33 per cent) and Romania (30 per cent). 
17 Keune observes that, beginning in the early 1980s, computer assisted design (CAD) programs 
radically changed the manner in which architects are educat ed and worked:  no longer are they required to draw 
by hand the building design and the construction working drawings.  The complete design process can now be 
done electronically, with building speci fications also prepared electronically .  These factors play a significant 
role influencing and facilitating global practice.  He states that emerging systems, such as building information modeling (BIM), are now in the early stages of anothe r major transformation of how architects will be working 
in relation to clients, product manufacturers and contractors, both domestically and internationally.  Such 
systems electronically link all of the building project part icipants in a unified computer system, which greatly 
advances communications, expedites decision making and reduces opportunities for project errors and 
omissions, thus resulting in more cost-effective projects able to be delivered on schedule.  (This and the 
following two paragraphs are from Keune, op. cit., pp. 7-10.) 
18 While traditionally these would have included struct ural, lighting and mechanical engineers, interior 
designers, landscape architects and urban planners, international projects may also have a more substantial 
involvement with lawyers, quantity surveyors and project construction managers. 
19 Not surprisingly, there has been a steady pr ogression towards the establishment of larger 
architectural firms in many developed countries.  S/C/W/303 
 Page 7 
 
 
  IV. REGULATORY STRUCTURE AND RELEVANT TRADE RESTRICTIONS 
A. CURRENT REGULATORY PRACTICES  
18. Architectural services, as pointed out in the 1998 version of this Note, be long to the group of 
"accredited" professional services, as opposed to non- accredited business services such as marketing, 
advertising and consultancy.20  Compared to other accredited professional services, such as 
accountancy and legal services, however, architectur al services appear to be subject to fewer 
restrictive regulations. 
19. Since 1998, the Collegi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya (COAC), publisher of Architectural 
Practice around the World , has been conducting research into architectural regulation, under the 
auspices of the Professional Practice Commission of the International Union of Architects (UIA).21  
The information is organized acco rding to the main sections of a questionnaire sent out to all UIA 
member sections, i.e.:  Admittance to the profe ssion, dealing with training and internships;  
professional practice, including details about various  aspects of the profession in each country;  and 
transnational practice, regarding exercise of the profession in other countries.   
20. With respect to architectural regulation, Architectural Practice around the World  observes 
that practice of the profession is regulated in most countries, barring certain exceptions.22  Reportedly 
most countries do allow foreign architects to practis e independently, provided  certain pre-requisites 
are met (typically involving the proof of professional qualifications).  For countries not allowing foreign architects to practise independently, collaborati on with a local architect is often stipulated.  In 
approximately one-third of the countries where this  requirement exists, the association between the 
local and the foreign architect is established by mutu al agreement between the parties, with no further 
conditions;  for the rest, there are estab lished requirements that must be met.
23 
21. The OECD's  Indicators of Product Market Regulation Database  show significant declines in 
regulatory restrictiveness in architecture, as in other professional services, between 1996 and 2008.  They also show that levels of restrictiveness fo r architecture (and engineering) are lower than in 
accountacy or legal services (Annex Table 9).
24  The indicators measure entry regulations (licensing, 
                                                      
20 Regulations applied in professional services typically have as their primary objective the need to 
ensure and maintain the quality of the service, and he nce to protect consumers.  (The distinction between 
accredited and non-accredited professional services wa s discussed in the Uruguay  Round Working Group on 
Professional Services.  See document MTN.GNS/PROF/ W/1.) 
21 The UIA, created in 19 48, is the worldwide professional body for architecture.  Encompassing 
architectural organisations in 124 countries and territori es, the UIA representing more than 1.3 million architects 
worldwide (see website, at www.uia-architectes.org). 
22 These include Belgium, Finland,  Ireland, Macedonia, Netherland s, Sweden, Switzerland and the 
United Kingdom.  Belgian law, for example, regulates admittance to the profession (i.e. who may or may not 
practise), but not the profession as such;  in the United Kingdom, the use of the title of architect is protected, but 
not its function (COAC, op. cit., p. 46).   
23 (COAC, op. cit., p.74-77).  In jurisdictions where architecture is not regulated, there are obviously no 
specific requisites for practice on the part of foreign architects. 
24 Available online, together with details of the methodology used, at http://www.oecd.org/ 
dataoecd/25/19/42220487.xls.  The OECD, as mentioned in the 1998 Note,  conducted a survey of regulations on 
access to professional services in the OECD area as part of its work in preparatio n for the Second Workshop on 
Professional Services which took place in 1996.  The Indicators database is described by the OECD as a 
comprehensive, internationally-comparable set of information about the state of regulation and market structures 
in OECD countries. S/C/W/303 
Page 8  
 
  education requirements, and quotas and economic ne eds tests), and conduct regulations (regulations 
on the form of business and inter-professional c ooperation, advertising, and prices and fees).
25 
22. A recent OECD paper, OECD Policy Roundtable, Trade Associations 2007 , also addresses 
competition issues involving architectural services.26 
B. REGULATORY TRENDS  
23. It has been stated that the  "[o]ver-riding restrictiveness issue for architects is the ability to 
secure a license to practice arch itecture in a foreign country".27  The most important related issues 
include the increasing importance of having a degr ee in architecture granted by an accredited school 
of architecture, and the proper documentation of po st-degree internship experience in order to qualify 
for licensing examinations. 
24. Consequently, it is common practice for a foreign architectural firm to contractually affiliate 
with a domestic registered firm to complete a comm ission in another country.  This avoids the need 
for the foreign architect to become  licensed in the country in which a project is located.  The process 
is intended to provides the foreign architect with a partner who is experienced  and well versed in the 
broad scope of the country’s building codes, regula tions, bidding practices, construction supervision, 
etc.  However, there may be situations wher e the professional and regulatory bodies in the host 
country have a legitimate concern whether the domes tic architect is fully engaged in the process, and 
not merely serving as a “plan-stamper” on behalf of the foreign architect in order to get the project 
accepted and approved by local governing authorities.28  
25. Increased environmental concerns have resulte d in greater focus on architectural designs 
incorporating energy conservation, sustainability and green building technologies.  In the process of 
expanding architectural practices in to foreign markets, architects are responding to a rapidly changing 
set of building and code standa rds related to environment, su stainability, and disability access 
standards that are often much different from what exists in their home countries.  In a number of 
countries, national (and where relevant, state-leve l) regulatory bodies have come under pressure from 
architects and professional associations within their ju risdictions to revise laws  and regulations and to 
accommodate changing global practices in orde r to remain internationally competitive.29   
                                                      
25 The main sources of information used to constr uct the professional services indicators are the 
responses of OECD member governments to the Regu latory Indicators Questionnaire (see http://www.oecd 
.org/document/24/0,3343,en_2649_34833_35858776 _1_1_1_1,00.html).  The professional services indicators cover entry and conduct regulation in the legal, accounting, engineering, and architectural professions.  In 2008, 
these indicators were updated and re vised; they are now estimated for the years 1998, 2003 and 2008.   
26 Available online, at http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/40/28/41646059.pdf.)   
27 Presentation by Russell Keune, OECD STRI me eting, July 2009.  (Available online, at 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/54/43231867.ppt.) 
28 The adherence to well prepared and enforced professional codes of ethics is the responsibility of both 
parties in such a project partnership.  This and the following two paragraphs are based on Keune, op. cit., pp. 6-
11.   
29 For example, Keune states that, since the mi d-1960s, the National Council of Architectural 
Registration Boards (NCARB) has worked to harmonize the educational, internship, examination and licensing 
laws and regulations of the 50 states and the terr itories.  NCARB recently established a Task Force on 
Registration Impediments to identify and make recomme ndations for the elimination of existing intra-state 
registration impediments.  The impediments included: a) supplemental state examinations on specific technical 
subjects and/or state rules and regulations;  b) personal interviews;  and c) forms of practice.  Similar national 
entities are also found in Australia and Canada.  In add ition, the architectural registration examination process 
has undergone significant change where it is now administ ered as a national, computerized, standardized exam 
taken at remote sites throughout the country. (Keune, op. cit., p.14).  S/C/W/303 
 Page 9 
 
 
  26. Among the most significant changes in the rules and regulations of a number of domestic 
professional bodies have been the elimination of mandatory fee schedules, of prohibitions on advertising, and of prohi bitions on offering alternative types of professional services, e.g.,  design-
build.
30  On the other hand, there are new regulatory requirements providing for continuing 
professional education to retain membership in a professional body and, increasingly, to maintain a 
professional license to practice.  
European Communities   
27. As observed in the previous version of this Note,  efforts to facilitate  access for foreign 
architects have made substantial progress in recent years.  Within the context of regional economic 
integration, the European Communities and the Eur opean Economic Area introduced the principle of 
free movement of professionals and the mutual reco gnition of diplomas.  Di rective 85/384/EC of 10 
June 1985, the "Architects Directive", implemented this principle.  Under this Directive, as 
subsequently amended, each EC Member State recognised the diplomas, certificates and other 
evidence of formal qualifications awarded in the field of architecture by other Member States to 
nationals of Member States. 
28. The EC "Architects Directive"  was repealed and replaced by Directive 2005/36/EC, as of 20 
October 2007.31  According to the EC, the new Dir ective is a response to the 2001 Stockholm 
European Council's recommendations calling on the Commission to design a more uniform, 
transparent and flexible system with the aim of  achieving the Lisbon strategy objectives.  The 
Directive brought together in a single text the three Directives on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications (recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of 
higher education of long duration;  recognition of other diplomas, certificates and other evidence of 
other professional education and training;  and the mechanism for the recognition of qualifications for 
crafts, trades and certain services).
32  
NAFTA  
29. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (Chapter 12) contains certain 
disciplines, such as objectivity and transparency, pertaining to the licensing and certification of 
professionals, and a commitment to eliminate any citi zenship or permanent residency requirement that 
a party maintains for the licensing or certification of professional service providers of another party.  If a party does not comply with this obligation, any other party may maintain an equivalent requirement.
33  The NAFTA also encourages the relevant bodies in their respective countries to 
develop mutually acceptable standards and criteria for licensing and certification of professional 
service providers.34   
                                                      
30 Design-build is a project delivery system in which a party other than the arch itect signs a contract for 
a comprehensive service to both design and construct a building for a fixed fee.   
31 Available online at h ttp://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/educ ation_training_you th/vocational_ 
training/qualifications_recognition/c11065_en.htm. 
32 It also consolidated 12 sectoral  directives covering the professions of doctor, nurse (Directive 77/452 
/EEC), dental practitioner (Directive 78/686/EEC), veterinary surgeon (Directive 78/1026/EEC), midwife 
(Directive 80/154/EEC), architect and pharmacist (mutual r ecognition of diplomas in pharmacy and qualifications 
in pharmacy). 
33NAFTA Article 1210.3. 
34Annex 1210.5 of the NAFTA contains provisions on the development of professional standards for 
professional services.  Specifically, the Parties to the Agreement "shall encourage the relevant bodies in their 
respective territories to develop mutually acceptable st andards and criteria for li censing and certification of 
professional service providers and to provide recomm endations on mutual recognition" to the Free Trade 
Commission.  The Free Trade Commission will review the recommendation,  and based on this review, each party 
shall encourage its respective competent authorities, where appropriate, to implement the recommendation within a 
mutually agreed time. S/C/W/303 
Page 10  
 
  30. Back in 1994, based on the United States – Ca nada Free Trade Agreement, the US  
architectural profession had already concluded an ag reement with their Canadian counterparts on a 
series of requirements for certification applicable to  US and Canadian architects.  It was an agreement 
between the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB – a non-governmental, 
national federation of the official registration boa rds in 55 US jurisdictions) and the Committee of 
Canadian Architectural Councils (CCAC – a comm ittee comprising all of the Canadian Provincial 
Architectural Associations).  It is implemen ted by those States and Provinces that ratified the 
agreement, and this has meanwhile be en achieved by a majority of them.
35     
APEC  
31. Work in the Asia Pacific Economic Coopera tion (APEC) context has advanced in the 
preparation of directories on the requirements for provision of professional services, with priority on 
accountancy, engineering, and architecture.36   
32. Within the APEC Architect Framework, par ticipating economies are able to negotiate 
bilateral arrangements which fast track registration of "APEC Architects" wishing to be registered in other APEC economies.  An example of this is  the recently concluded agreement between New 
Zealand and Japan, which entitles New Zealand's APEC -registered architects to registration in Japan, 
subject only to a test that examines their knowledge  of aspects of the architectural process in Japan 
that are exclusive to that economy.  The same  situation applies to Japanese APEC-registered 
architects wishing to be registered in New Zealand.
37 
33. As stated in the APEC architect's manual, candidates for registration as an APEC Architect 
must be currently registered/licensed or otherwi se professionally recognized as an architect in the 
economy that maintains the section of the APEC Architect Register to which application for 
admission is made.  Architects must submit documen ts to the appropriate Monitoring Committee that 
show that they have completed an accredited progr amme of architectural education, fulfilled pre-
registration experience requirements, have practiced  for at least seven y ears as registered/licensed 
architects and satisfied any additional requirements, all in accordance with criteria determined by the 
Central Council.  Architects may only be enrolled in the section of the APEC Architect Register in 
their home economy.  APEC Architect Registration applies only to individual persons, not to architectural practices or firms.
38 
                                                      
35 GATS Article VII:4 requires the notification of r ecognition measures.  Most notifications to date 
pertain to the mutual recognition of diplomas between governments, but a number also relate to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications between non-governmental professional bodies.  Concerning 
architecture, the inter-rec ognition agreement between the US and Canada, as described above, was notified in 
WTO document S/C/N/52, dated 10 February 1997. 
36 Convenor's Report, 21 February 1998, Fifth Meeting of the APEC Group on Services.  APEC 
Architect Member Economies are: Australia, Canada, China, Hongkong China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, 
Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippine s, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the United States. 
37 See website of the New Zealand Registered Ar chitects Board (http://www.n zrab.org.nz/default.  
aspx?Page=105).   
38 Available online, at http://www.united-architect s.org/uploads/APEC_Manual.doc.  Currently the 
secretariat is held by the Philippines.  Documents a nd other information are available online, at http://www.  
united-architects.org/headlinersview.php?id=180.  S/C/W/303 
 Page 11 
 
 
  C. MUTUAL RECOGNITION AGREEMENTS (MRA S) 
34. Approved by the UIA General Assembly in 1999, the Accord on Recommended International 
Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice  is designed to be the basis for mutual 
recognition of architectural competences at international level.39  The Accord contains a statement of 
principles of professionalism, and a series of 16 policy issues followed by policy statements.40  The 
UIA has also adopted a Policy on Mutual Recognition Agreements , and is currently in the process of 
developing a recommended standard format for MRAs. 
35. The gradual increase in the numbers of negotia ted and signed mutual recognition agreements 
among architectural regulatory and professional bodies, since the mid-1990s, is regarded as  beginning 
to show the first signs of facilitating increased global practice.  Both developed and developing 
countries are considering whether they will need to evaluate and accredit their schools of architecture 
to a minimum standard, in order to have the degrees awarded recognized in other countries.41  
36. As noted by the OECD, however, the creation of MRAs can be a difficult, time-consuming 
and expensive process;  to date, they have primar ily been between the professional associations of 
developed countries.42  An earlier Secretariat paper, International Regulato ry Initiatives in Services , 
described the situation in architecture and other professional services.43  A recent Secretariat paper, 
Overview of Notifications made under Relevant GATS Provisions , has observed that, while 48 
notifications of recognition agreements to the WTO ha ve been made to date, only 4 notifications were 
made since 2005.44     
37. "Practice in a Host Nation" is the expression used in the UIA Accord to identify the situation 
in which individual architects or corporate entities of architects have been commissioned to design 
projects in a jurisdiction which has no free trade ag reement or mutual recognition agreement with the 
jurisdiction in which they are registered, licensed or cer tified.  In this case, to be able to carry out their 
tasks, foreign architects enter in to an agreement with a local ar chitect of similar expertise and 
experience.  At present, COAC research indicates that agreements on Practice in a Host Nation only exist bilaterally between the United States and a few other countries:  United States-Czech Republic, 
United States-Australia and United States -New Zealand.
45 
                                                      
39 The UIA Accord  and recommended policies are available on the website of the American Institute of 
Architects, in several languages, together with re lated documentation (http://www.aia.org/practicing/groups 
/international/uia/AIAP073960). 
40 The 16 policy issues are:  Prac tice of Architecture;  Architect;  Fundamental Requirements of an 
Architect;  Education;  Accreditation/Validation/Recogn ition;  Practical Experience/Training/Internship;  
Demonstration of Professional Know ledge and Ability;  Registration/Licensing/Certification;  Procurement;  
Ethics and Conduct;  Continuing Professional Development;  Scope of Practice;  Form of Practice;  Practice in a 
Host Nation;  Intellectual Property/Copyrigh t;  and Role of Professional Institutes. 
41 Keune, op. cit., pp. 1, 6.  He also states, "The  recent advent and evolu tion of mutual recognition 
agreements for the registration of architects is just beginning to diminish the historical role of applicants being required to: a) have their university academic courses ev aluated in detail for acceptance; b) passing state and/or 
national registration examinations;  and c) submitting to personal interviews.  However, for countries not entering 
into such mutual recognition agreements these will continue to be requirements." (p.14.) 
42 OECD, Service Providers on the Move: Mutual recognition agreements , Working Party of the Trade 
Committee, 2003, TD/TC/WP(2003)48/FINAL. (Circulated as WTO document JOB(03)/28, 13 February 2003).  
43 WTO document S/C/W/97, 1 March 1999, pp. 10-11. 
44 WTO document JOB(09)/10/Rev.1,  26 February 2009, p. 6.  Keune further notes that regional mutual 
recognition agreements effecting cross bo rder architectural practice have to date been limited to a few regions, 
i.e. North America, Europe and the Pacific Basin. (Keune, op. cit., p. 1.) 
45 (COAC, op. cit., p. 81.)  See the guidelines on Practice in a Host Nation of the UIA's Professional 
Practice Commission.  Available online at http://www.ai a.org/SiteObjects/files/PracticeinaHostNation.pdf. S/C/W/303 
Page 12  
 
  D. GATS 
38. In 1996, in the context of the Working Part y on Professional Services (WPPS), the UIA sent a 
letter which outlined the organization's views on the work of the WPPS, and the  Architects' Council 
of Europe (ACE) submitted a communication define d the position of the architectural profession in 
Europe on the issues being discussed in the WPPS.
46   
39. As part of the current work of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR), a number 
of architectural-related regulatory issues were pr esented.  In addition to the text of the UIA Accord ,47 
these issues are found in the document Presentation by Australian Institute  of Architects, Presentation 
to WTO Seminar on 18 July 2002 , as well as the Secretariat paper, Results of Secretariat 
Consultations with International Professional Services Associations  which contains extensive 
comments on the applicability of the A ccountancy Disciplines to architecture.48  Presentations on 
architecture were also made during the 2004 Workshop on Domestic Regulation.49 
40. Overall, the UIA has been proactive in its effo rts to include architecture in the work of the 
WPDR to develop regulatory disciplines, including holding a seminar in Geneva,50 as well as drafting 
a text for regulatory disciplines for the architectural sector.51 
V. NEGOTIATIONS ON ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AND EXISTING 
COMMITMENTS UNDER THE GATS52 
41. To date, as a result of the Uruguay Round and subsequent acc essions, 70 WTO Members have 
made commitments in architectural services.53  Among professional services as a whole (Annex Table 
10), only engineering and accountancy services, at 78 and 77 Members, respectively, have higher 
numbers of GATS commitments than architecture. 
                                                      
46 WTO document S/WPPS/M/7, 13 November 1996.  Regarding issues concerning domestic 
regulation, although the disc ussion in the WPPS centred on the account ancy sector, similar issues arise in 
architectural services. 
47 See WTO document JOB(02)/151, 21 October 2002. 
48 WTO documents JOB(02)/146, 16 October 2002, and JOB(03)/126/Rev.6, 15 September 2005. 
49 Available online, at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/workshop_march04_e/workshop 
_programme_march04_e.htm. 
50 See American Institute of Architects website, at  http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/ 
pdf/aias075932.pdf. 
51 Available online, at http://www.ace-cae.org/MemberN/Content/EN/download/position/AG2_07_ 
UIA_Dom_reg.pdf.  According to Keune, "Future action by the World Trade Organization’s Working Party on Domestic Regulation in addressing standards for the domestic regulation for the provision of architectural 
services will be welcomed by organizations such as the International Union of Architects.  Having such a 
standard being applied by the governments of WTO member states will complement the existing adopted UIA standards." (pp. 5-6.) 
52The following analysis of existing commitments under the GATS is based on information generated by 
the electronic database developed in the Secretariat.  Commitments under the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) are not covered.  Most GPA signatories  have made commitments in architectural, engineering 
and other technical services belonging to CPC Division 867. 
53 The schedules of the 15 most recent EC Members ar e counted separately, as they have not yet been 
formally integrated into the GATS sc hedule of the European Communities and its Member States.  Aruba, the 
Netherlands Antilles and New Caledonia also ha ve schedules, but are not counted separately.  S/C/W/303 
 Page 13 
 
 
  42. With regard to the level of commitments, in market access, full commit ments for the supply of 
services through commercial presence (mode 3) were made by 50 per cent of the Members who 
scheduled architectural services (Annex Table 11).54  This declines substantially to 29 per cent when 
horizontally applicable limitations are taken into account.  For cross-border supply and consumption 
abroad (modes 1 and 2), the changes are less dram atic, from 67 to 61 per cent, and from 79 to 71 per 
cent, respectively.  For the presence of natural pe rsons (mode 4), which is obviously very important for 
professional services, all Members have inscribed severe limitations.55  
43. These overall figures compare favourably with ot her professional service subsectors, however, 
and indicate that relatively liber al commitments were unde rtaken for architecture (and engineering) 
when compared with legal services or accounta ncy.  For engineering, the proportion of full 
commitments in mode 3 for market access (taking in to account the horizontal measures) is 27 per cent, 
while for legal and accounting services, the corres ponding figures are 6 and 14 per cent, respectively. 
44. Concerning the types of measures scheduled, the most commonly observed market access 
limitations specific to the sector are limitations on the type of legal entity allowed for commercial 
presence (mode 3), followed by li mitations on the participation of foreign capital.  Five Members 
(Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungar y and Jordan) have sc heduled residency or 
nationality/citizenship requirements.  With regard to national treatment limitations, the most prevalent 
are references to licensing, standards an d qualifications across all modes of supply.56 
45. Additional commitments in architectural servi ces were made by the Republic of Korea and 
Malaysia.  They concern simplified examination proc edures for foreign archit ects (Korea), holding the 
qualification examination in Englis h (Malaysia), and a commitment to allow joint contracts between 
domestic and foreign architects (Korea).  The Dominican Republic has taken an MFN exemption 
specific to architectural and e ngineering services, while Costa Ri ca, Honduras, Panama, Turkey and 
Venezuela have taken exemptions applicable to all professional services.  All these exemptions concern 
reciprocity provisions.  Other Me mbers have taken broader MFN exem ptions, e.g.  regarding taxation 
measures, which affect architectural services as well.   
46. In the context of the current GATS negotiati ons under the Doha Development Agenda, an 
Information Note addressing architectural services was prepared by the Secretariat at the request of 
Members.  Its aim is to assist delegations a nd capital-based officials in their assessment and 
consideration of sector- and mode-specific issues raised in the negotiations. 57 
                                                      
54 Such a broad categorization of co mmitments is necessarily  very crude and is intended only to provide a 
rough indication.  In practice, the economic impact of a "partial" commitment could be close to that of a full 
commitment if the limitation maintained is minimal;  on the contrary, it could be effectively close to "unbound" if the limitations are very broad and restrictive. 
55 See Presence of Natural Persons (Mode 4),  Background Note by the Secretariat, WTO document 
S/C/W/301, 15 September 2009.  
56It should be noted that such evaluation is not alwa ys straightforward, as a single measure may have 
restrictive effects in several ways, or may not be easil y classified due to its ambiguity or a large room for 
discretion. 
57 Other Professional Services , Information Note by the Secretariat, WTO document JOB(05)/206, 21 
September 2005. S/C/W/303 
Page 14  
 
  VI. CONCLUSIONS   
47. Technological changes are accelera ting the internationalization of many aspects of architectural 
services, most notably outsourcing.  At the same ti me, a significant part of this  internationalization 
derives from local firms following their domestic client s abroad.  It is difficult, however,  to trace the 
change in trading patterns in current statistics.  Despite the efforts of professional associations, such as 
the International Union of Architects (UIA), there re mains a lack of comprehensive, world-wide data on 
trade in architectural and other professional services , primarily due to gaps in reporting at the national 
level.  Consequently, a comprehensive evaluation of tr ade flows in architecture cannot yet be made.   
48.  While creative solutions – such as collaborati on with a local architect – have  helped to 
overcome certain regulatory c onstraints, time-con suming procedures and difficu lties associated with the 
recognition of foreign qualifications  continue to impede international trade in  this sector.  The 
expansion of mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) might seem  the appropriate solution;  however, 
these can  prove onerous, time-consuming and  res ource-intensive to negotia te.  Hence, increased 
cooperation between regulators and ac ademic institutions, as well as greater reliance on international 
standards, might also be required.    
49.  In terms of existing GATS commitments, architecture (together with engineering services) 
is subject to somewhat less restrictive trading conditi ons than most other professional services.  Most 
GATS commitments, however, were made nearly 15 y ears ago, and consequently may not adequately 
reflect current conditions of access.  Even in the absence of additional polic y adjustments, there may 
thus be significant scope for impr oving scheduled levels of access, especially when the effects of 
horizontal limitations are considered.  S/C/W/303 
 Page 15 
 
 
  VII. SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 
50. Relevant sources of information include  the following Internet sites:  
- African Union of Architects   (http://www.aua-architects.org/). 
- Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE)  (http://www.ace-cae.org/). 
- American Institute of Architects (AIA)  (http://www.aia.org). 
- Architect Africa Online  (h ttp://architectafrica.com/). 
- Architects Regional Council of Asia (ARCASIA)  (http://www.arcasia.org/). 
- Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ)  (http://www.aij.or.jp/aijhome.htm). 
- Architectural Practice around the World   (published by Collegi d'Arquitectes 
de Catalunya (COAC))  (http://www.ace-cae.org/MemberN/Content/EN/pub/ 
int/sectors.html).  
- Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (https://www.acsa-
arch.org/) 
- Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB-CCCA)   (http://cacb.ca). 
- Commonwealth Association of Architect s (CAA)  (http://www.comarchitect. 
org). 
- Federation of Caribbean Associations of Architects (FCAA)   
(http://www.fcaa.info/). 
- International Union of Architects / Union Internationale des Architectes 
(UIA)  (http://www.uia-architectes.org/). 
- National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB)   
(http://www.ncarb.org/). 
- New Zealand Registered Architects Board (NZRAB) (http://www.nzrab. 
org.nz/default.aspx?Page=105). 
- Pan American Federation of Architects' Associations (FPAA) (Secretaria 
General, Gonzalo Ramirez 2030, C.P. 11.200 Montevideo, URUGUAY, 
Phone: 598-2/49-34-63, Fax: 598-2/41-95-56). 
_______________  
  S/C/W/303 
Page 16 ANNEX  
 
Table 1:     Trade in Other Business Servic es in Selected Economies, by Category, 2007   
(US$ million and percentage) 
 
Miscellaneous business, profession al and technical services (%)    
 
Total 
other 
business 
services 
(US$ mn)  
 
Merchanting 
and other 
trade-related 
services 
(%)  
 
Operational 
leasing 
services 
(%)  
 
 
Total 
of  
misc.  
Legal, 
accounting, 
management 
and public 
relations  
Advertising, 
market 
research and 
public opinion 
polling  
Research and 
development  
Architectural, 
engineering and 
other technical 
services  
Agricultural, 
mining and 
other on- site 
processing 
services  
Other a 
 
 
Exporters   
EC (27) 343966 20.5 4.9 74.6 14.6 6.8 10.3 11.4 2.3 29.3 
Extra-EC 
(27)  
160688  
21.6  
3.2  
75.2  
13.7  
5.6  
12.2  
14.1  
2.6  
27.2 
United States b  
74926  
3.8  
14.8  
81.4  
17.2  
0.8  
17.4  
6.7  
0.8  
38.6 
India c 30923 4.8 0.5 94.7 25 2.3 2.8 23.8 0.3 40.6 
Japan 30677 63.1 6.4 30.5 ... ... ... ... ... ... 
China 28973 68 ... 32 27 5 ... ... ... ... 
Hong Kong, 
China  
26930  
85.2  
0  
14.8  
9  
2.1  
...  
0.6  
...  
3.1 
Singapore 22544 60 ... ... 26.4 1.7 0.6 6.2 ... ... 
Canada 14948 4.9 2 93.1 29.4 2.7 18.8 27.2 ... 15.1 
Korea, 
Republic of  
10532  
22.5  
3.9  
73.6  
6.7  
3.2  
2.7  
2.4  
0.2  
58.3 
Norway 9123 9.5 12.8 77.7 4.8 2.9 5.4 23.5 24 17.2 
Brazil 8568 11.3 0.9 87.8 16.7 1.9 1.5 35.4 0 32.3 
Russian 
Federation  
7174  
...  
5.5  
94.5  
17.5  
25  
5.8  
21.9  
3.1  
21.2 
Australia 4013 14.2 0.7 85.1 14.1 4.4 8.6 23.8 5.4 28.7 
Malaysia 3559 22.3 10.4 67.3 ... ... ... ... ... ... 
Argentina 1987 9.3 8.2 82.4 19.6 10.1 5.9 3.9 ... 42.9 
 
                      
   S/C/W/303
 Page 17Miscellaneous business, profession al and technical services (%)    
 
Total 
other 
business 
services 
(US$ mn)  
 
Merchanting 
and other 
trade-related 
services 
(%)  
 
Operational 
leasing 
services 
(%)  
 
 
Total 
of  
misc.  
Legal, 
accounting, 
management 
and public 
relations  
Advertising, 
market 
research and 
public opinion 
polling  
Research and 
development  
Architectural, 
engineering and 
other technical 
services  
Agricultural, 
mining and 
other on- site 
processing 
services  
Other a 
 
 
Importers 
EC (27) 310734 15 6.4 78.5 13.9 9.7 11.1 8.1 1.5 34.2 
Extra-EC  
(27)  117396 16 4.7 79 16.1 9.2 13.4 8.8 0.9 30.6 
United  
States b 46782 0 3.3 96.6 20.2 1.6 19.3 0.6 1.1 53.8 
Japan 29773 25 1.1 73.5 ... ... ... ... ... ... 
India c 21453 10 4.2 86.1 19.3 4.4 0.9 12.8 0.3 48.4 
China 20605 55 ... 45.3 40.7 4.6 ... ... ... ... 
Korea, 
Republic of 17705 32 6.7 60.8 7 13.5 5.2 3 0.6 31.6 
Canada 12930 5 4.8 89.9 33.7 3.3 9.2 19.8 ... 23.9 
Singapore 11919 29 ... ... 33.9 2.5 14.4 8.2 ... ... 
Brazil 8898 11 55.8 33.3 4.5 1.6 0 19.2 0 8 
Russian 
Federation 8548 1 8.8 90.1 21.3 11.8 1.6 18.9 19.3 17.2 
Norway 5972 6 1 92.8 4.7 2.9 5.1 9.7 33.2 37.1 
Hong Kong, 
China 5519 49 11.4 39.7 25.6 5.9 ... 0.7 ... 7.5 
Australia 2827 5 22.7 72.3 9.2 5.1 4.5 13.1 4.4 35.9 
Kazakhstan 2374 0 16.4  83.5 6. 6 0.6 0.3 54.3 18.2 3.4 
Croatia 1313 22 8.4 69.7 22 13.4 4.8 23.2 5 1.2 
a Covers other services not included elsewhere as well as services between related enterprises n.i.e. 
b Market research and public opinion polli ng are included in "legal, accounting,  management and public relations". 
c Secretariat estimates.  Exports  of "miscellaneous business, professional and t echnical services, other"  includes information te chnology enabled services. 
 
Note:  Based on information available to the Secretariat. 
 
Source :  WTO, International Trade Statistics , 2008, p.152 . 
 S/C/W/303 
Page 18  
 
  Table 2:  Selected European Architectural  Markets, by Country and Comparative  
                Indicators, 2008 
    (Value and percentage) 
 
 Market size 
 (€ 1,000) 
 Value per architect 
(€) 
 Value per 1000 
population  
(€)  
Architectural market as 
percentage of construction 
market 
 Austria   296,789 78,102 35,621 0.8 
 Belgium   327,108 28,444 30,666 0.6 
 Denmark   356,228 50,890 65,055 1.2 
 Estonia   27,524 39,320 20,526 1.1 
 Finland   42,580 11,828 8,033 0.2 
 France   1,103,778 37,543 17,313 0.5 
 Germany   3,988,103 41,980 48,504 1.9 
 Greece   294,149 19,610 26,228 0.9 
 Ireland   408,855 116,816 92,504 1.3 
 Luxembourg   31,828 53,047 65,788 0.7 
 Malta   13,320 26,641 32,443 3.2 
 Netherlands   901,558 99,072 54,959 1.1 
 Romania   112,659 20,484 5,233 0.7 
 Slovenia   40,501 30,001 19,992 0.4 
 Sweden   145,073 26,865 15,798 0.7 
 Turkey   726,778 22,501 10,296 1 
 United Kingdom   2,800,042 88,609 45,763 1.1 
 TOTAL  11,616,874 45,405 31,017 1.1 
 
Note:  "Market size" refers to the ar chitectural market as measured as th e sum of the revenues earned by private 
architectural practices in each country.  The market size has been estimated. 
 
Source :  Architects’ Council of Europe,  The Architectural Profession in Europe , 2008, p. 37. 
 
 
  S/C/W/303 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Table 3:     Pattern of Building Projects in Selected European Countries, 2008 
(Percentage) 
 
 
Individual 
houses   
Private 
housing*   
Offices   
Retail  
Leisure   
Industrial   
Health   
Education   
Public 
housing   
Other 
private   
Other 
public   
 TOTAL   
 Austria   20 8 11 3 4 7 7 7 13 8 11 100 
 Belgium   44 15 7 4 2 5 4 3 5 2 10 100 
 Denmark   20 11 12 5 5 8 5 6 10 8 11 100 
 Estonia   18 8 24 6 1 2 3 9 13 8 7 100 
 Finland   18 8 13 13 4 7 4 6 8 5 14 100 
 France   24 14 7 4 4 3 7 8 7 6 16 100 
 Germany   30 13 10 4 2 11 4 7 2 7 11 100 
 Greece   42 15 7 6 3 4 1 3 3 5 11 100 
 Ireland   29 11 8 9 4 3 8 7 8 10 4 100 
 Luxembourg   43 13 8 3 3 4 2 7 2 3 11 100 
 Malta   28 18 10 10 4 10 3 1 1 9 8 100 
 Netherlands   18 12 14 4 6 8 8 8 13 4 5 100 
 Romania   34 11 13 8 3 9 1 3 4 8 6 100 
 Slovenia   27 9 9 2 6 9 2 8 11 4 14 100 
 Sweden   19 14 14 4 5 6 3 7 11 7 10 100 
 Turkey   30 23 7 10 2 8 2 2 2 8 5 100 
 UK   38 16 8 4 3 2 2 11 3 8 6 100 
 TOTAL  31 14 10 5 3 8 4 6 4 7 10 100 
*e.g.  apartment buildings. 
 
Source :  Architects’ Council of Europe,  The Architectural Profession in Europe , 2008, p. 39. 
 
 
 
  S/C/W/303 
Page 20  
 
  Table 4:  Number of Architects by Country and Ratio of Inhabitants per Architect, 2005 
 
 COUNTRY    
ARCHITECTS    INHAB./ 
ARCHT.   
 Japan   307,558 416 
 Italy   111,063 516 
 FYR 
Macedonia   3,000 692 
 Greece   15,756 697 
 Luxembourg   600 728 
 Malta   515 771 
 Portugal   12,113 832 
 Denmark   6,000 887 
 Iceland   314 889 
 Belgium   11,500 901 
 Argentina   42,000 936 
 Israel   7,000 955 
 Ecuador   13,400 998 
 Spain   40,741 1,011 
 Andorra   69 1,087 
 Norway   3,800 1,176 
 Lithuania   2,700 1,260 
 Colombia   33,300 1,264 
 Serbia &  
 Montenegro   8,000 1,314 
 Switzerland   5,330 1,343 
 Croatia   3,000 1,468 
 Finland   3,500 1,493 
 Ireland   2,500 1,616 
 Slovenia   1,200 1,649 
 Germany   50,000 1,651 
 Sweden   5,376 1,655 
 Chile   9,000 1,690 
 Australia   11,605 1,731 
 Bolivia   5,265 1,736 
 Estonia   700 1,849 
 Venezuela   13,000 1,859 
 Bulgaria   4,178 1,903 
 Netherlands   8,350 1,952 
 UK   30,399 1,968 
 Georgia   2,500 2,010 
 Latvia   1,200 2,018 
 Slovakia   2,500 2,164 
 Costa Rica   2,003 2,183 
 France   26,964 2,245 
 Brazil   80,000 2,285 
 New Zealand   1,650 2,383 
 Hungary   4,000 2,446 
 Turkey   29,655 2,472 
 Armenia   1,200 2,536 
 Austria   3,104 2,603 
 Poland   13,500 2,853 
 United States   102,000 2,942 
 Singapore   1,469 2,976 
 Czech Rep.   2,921 3,497  COUNTRY    
ARCHITECTS    INHAB./ 
ARCHT.   
 Hong Kong   2,040 3,521 
 Palestine   1,074 3,552 
 Egypt   19,954 3,753 
 Puerto Rico   1,027 3,812 
 Romania   5,500 4,041 
 Canada   7,500 4,263 
 Philippines   16,000 4,728 
 Korea   10,140 4,752 
 Macao   71 6,254 
 Moldova   670 6,410 
 Tunisia   1,400 6,756 
 Ukraine   7,100 6,981 
 Neth. Antilles   30 7,467 
 Malaysia   3,167 7,997 
 Vietnam   8,500 9,193 
 Mauritius   126 9,873 
 South Africa   4,271 10,612 
 Russia   11,883 11,912 
 Trinidad &  
  Tobago   100 13,110 
 Honduras   450 16,127 
 Namibia   104 19,538 
 Morocco   1,450 20,606 
 Iran   3,400 20,787 
 Uzbekistan   1,099 24,448 
 Nigeria   4,500 28,941 
 Indonesia   6,000 35,349 
 China   36,000 36,097 
 Sri Lanka   485 39,019 
 India   25,000 40,357 
 Sudan   800 43,800 
 Congo   70 56,014 
 Kenya   500 61,338 
 Benin   107 66,383 
 Mali   200 69,145 
 D.R. of Congo  800 70,099 
 Zimbabwe   100 126,270 
 Bangladesh   1,181 129,207 
 Tanzania   171 205,374 
 Sierra Leone   20 267,000 
 Chad   20 455,850 
 Belarus       n.a.    
 Mexico       n.a.    
 
Source : Collegi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya 
(COAC), Architectural Practice around the World,  
p. 18-19.  S/C/W/303 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Table 5:     Number of Architectural Students and Ratio of Students per Architect, 2005 
 
COUNTRY    ARCHI-
TECTS   STUDENTS  RATIO  
 Honduras    450    1,300    2.89   
 Iran    3,400    8,000    2.35   
 Nigeria    4,500    10,000    2.22   
 Czech Rep.    2,921    5,000    1.71   
 Sudan    800    1,300    1.63   
 South Korea    10,140    12,000    1.18   
 Costa Rica    2,003    2,145    1.07   
 Argentina    42,000    44,000    1.05   
 China    36,000    32,000    0.89   
 Germany    50,000    41,759    0.84   
 Portugal    12,113    9,302    0.77   
 Bangladesh    1,181    900    0.76   
 France    26,964    19,000    0.71   
 Romania    5,500    3,800    0.69   
 Malaysia    3,167    1,898    0.60   
 Slovenia    1,200    700    0.58   
 Switzerland    5,330    3,000    0.56   
 Slovakia    2,500    1,400    0.56   
 Poland    13,500    6,770    0.50   
 Uzbekistan    1,099    550    0.50   
 Australia    11,605    5,486    0.47   
 Malta    515    237    0.46   
 Finland    3,500    1,600    0.46   
 Russia    11,883    5,000    0.42   
 Singapore    1,469    617    0.42   
 Palestine    1,074    450    0.42   
 Ecuador    13,400    5,250    0.39   
 US    102,000    36,300    0.36   COUNTRY   ARCHI-
TECTS   STUDENTS  RATIO  
 UK    30,399    10,000    0.33   
 Greece    15,756    5,000    0.32   
 Lithuania    2,700    838    0.31   
 Croatia    3,000    920    0.31   
 Bolivia    5,265    1,500    0.28   
 Netherlands   8,350    2,280    0.27   
 Japan    307,558    80,000    0.26   
 Egypt    19,954    5,123    0.26   
 Hong Kong    2,040    500    0.25   
 Sweden    5,376    1,300    0.24   
 Armenia    1,200    250    0.21   
 Georgia    2,500    500    0.20   
 South Africa   4,271    800    0.19   
 Turkey    29,655    5,000    0.17   
 Macedonia    3,000    500    0.17   
 Ireland    2,500    400    0.16   
 Estonia    700    105    0.15   
 Israel    7,000    1,000    0.14   
 Serbia and  
  Montenegro   8,000    1,000    0.13   
 Brazil    80,000    8,500    0.11   
New Zealand  1,650    175    0.11   
 Hungary    4,000    300    0.08   
 
Source : Collegi d'Arquitectes de Catalunya 
(COAC), Architectural Practice around the World,  
p. 22-23. S/C/W/303 
Page 22  
 
  Table 6:     Estimated Size of Architectural  Practices in Selected European Countries, 2008 
(Number, percentage) 
 
    
1 staff  2 staff  3 to 5  6 to 10  11 to 30  31 to 50  over 50   Total 
 Austria   985 299 380 94 15 0 0 1,773 
 Belgium   2,403 701 587 105 82 6 10 3,894 
 Denmark   393 64 103 81 40 18 28 727 
 Estonia   81 0 66 28 14 1 0 190 
 Finland   140 46 54 52 54 4 5 355 
 France   4,900 1,903 930 366 51 4 3 8,157 
 Germany   18,970 6,470 4,283 1,908 552 77 51 32,311 
 Greece   1,563 900 931 235 109 26 57 3,821 
 Ireland   196 142 190 92 56 10 8 694 
 Luxembourg   127 22 30 11 4 0 0 194 
 Malta   33 13 20 5 10 2 1 83 
 Netherlands   1,896 449 414 278 191 68 8 3,304 
 Romania   478 227 330 157 68 6 9 1,275 
 Slovenia   137 38 62 30 19 2 1 288 
 Sweden   360 68 80 58 44 7 14 631 
 Turkey   2,136 1,229 1,730 826 395 86 95 6,497 
 UK   2,571 918 678 992 310 132 54 5,655 
 TOTAL  37,369 13,489 10,868 5,318 2,014 449 344 69,851 
 Percentage of  
  practices   54 19 16 8 3 1 1 100 
 
Source :  Architects’ Council of Europe,  The Architectural Profession in Europe , 2008, p. 45. 
 
    S/C/W/303 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Table 7:     Proportion of Archit ectural Practices having a Formal  
       Association with Another Practice, 2008  
         (Percentage) 
 
 No formal    
  association  With formal association  
   With architect / 
practice  
in same country   
With architect /  
practice  
abroad  
 Austria   87 11 3 
 Belgium   86 10 4 
 Denmark   83 10 7 
 Estonia   75 25 0 
 Finland   38 61 2 
 France   90 9 1 
 Germany   94 4 2 
 Greece   64 30 6 
 Ireland   78 7 15 
 Luxembourg   85 5 10 
 Malta   70 24 6 
 Netherlands   85 11 5 
 Romania   59 35 6 
 Slovenia   62 30 9 
 Sweden   72 19 10 
 Turkey   89 8 3 
 United Kingdom   81 8 11 
 TOTAL  85 12 3 
 
          Source :  Architects’ Council of Europe,  The Architectural Profession in Europe , 2008, p. 56. 
 
 S/C/W/303 
Page 24  
 
    Table 8 (a):  Architectural Practice Revenue Derived from 
                        Outside of the Country, 2008 
 
 Percentage of turnover  
 Austria   4.2 
 Belgium   3.2 
 Denmark   12.4 
 Estonia   4.2 
 Finland   3.9 
 France   3.9 
 Germany   3.4 
 Greece   1.5 
 Ireland   5.3 
 Luxembourg   7.6 
 Malta   7.3 
 Netherlands   3.4 
 Romania   7.4 
 Slovenia   5.3 
 Sweden   6.3 
 Turkey   9.2 
 United Kingdom   5.8 
 TOTAL   6 
 
  Source :  Architects’ Council of Europe,  The Architectural Profession in Europe , 2008, p. 55. 
 
 
  Table 8 b:  Proportion of Architects Working/Residing Outside  
                       their Country of Registration, 2008 
  
 Percentage  
 Austria   12.5 
 Belgium   4.2 
 Denmark   3.3 
 Estonia   <1 
 Finland   <1 
 France   8.3 
 Germany   7.9 
 Greece   6 
 Ireland   18.2 
 Luxembourg   11.1 
 Malta   14.3 
 Netherlands   6.7 
 Romania   6.3 
 Slovenia   <1 
 Sweden   5.9 
 Turkey   6.4 
 UK   6.3 
 TOTAL   7 
   
  Source :  Architects’ Council of Europe,  The Architectural Profession in Europe , 2008, p. 15. 
   S/C/W/303
 Page 25Table 9:     Indicators of Regu latory Conditions in Professional Se rvice Sectors in 1996, 2003 and 2008. 
 
  Accounting Architecture Engineering  Legal Services Overall 
  1996 2003 2008 1996 2003 2008 1996 2003 2008 1996 2003 2008 1996 2003 2008 
Australia 3.2 1.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.0 1.2 
Austria 3.5 3.0 2.9 4.4 3.3 2.6 4.4 3.3 2.5 4.3 3.0 2.7 4.2 3.1 2.7 
Belgium 3.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.7 3.7 3.8 2.2 2.3 2.2 
Canada 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 2.8 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 
Czech Rep. .. 3.2 2.1 .. 1.7 2.2 .. 2. 3 2.2 .. 3.8 2. 6 .. 2.8 2.3 
Denmark 2.1 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.0 3.3 1.1 0.8 1.2 
Finland 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.0 
France 3.0 3.0 2.8 1.8 1.8 2.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.8 2.8 1.8 1.9 2.1 
Germany 5.1 2.8 2.4 3.3 2.9 3.1 3.8 3.1 2.3 4.5 3.6 3.6 4.2 3.1 2.9 
Greece 2.9 2.0 .. .. 2.8 .. .. 2.8 .. 4.9 4.5 .. .. 3.0 .. 
Hungary .. 2.0 3.6 .. 2.9 3.2 .. 2.1 2.6 .. 3.0 3.8 .. 2.5 3.3 
Iceland .. 2.1 2.1 .. 2.0 1.7 .. 2.3 1.6 .. 1.4 1.8 .. 1.9 1.8 
Ireland 2.0 1.6 .. 0.0 0.7 .. 0.0 0.0 .. 2.8 2.8 .. 1.2 1.3 .. 
Italy 1.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.1 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.8 
Japan 3.0 2.2 2.2 2.5 0.9 1.2 2.0 3.4 0.3 3.4 3.3 2.3 2.7 2.4 1.5 
Korea .. 2.0 2.0 .. 2.5 2.5 .. 2.0 2.0 .. 2.6 2.6 .. 2.3 2.3 
Luxembourg 3.3 2.8 3.3 3.1 3.3 4.0 3.2 3.2 4.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.5 
Mexico 2.8 1.9 1.8 2.3 1.2 1.8 2.6 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.3 1.6 1.8 
Netherlands 3.2 2.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 1.4 1.6 1.2 
New Zealand 2.5 1.3 3.5 1.8 1.5 0.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 3.0 3.3 3.8 2.4 1.9 1.8 
Norway 2.4 1.9 2.5 1.8 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.2 0.6 3.2 2.6 3.2 2.3 1.6 1.9 
Poland .. 2.8 2.8 .. 1.8 2.1 .. 2.1 2.1 .. 3.6 3.7 .. 2.5 2.7 
Portugal 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.3 2.2 3.7 1.7 2.2 3.4 3.6 3.5 2.8 2.2 2.5 
Slovak 
Republic .. 2.2 .. .. 2.6 .. .. 2.4 .. .. 3.7 .. .. 2.8 .. 
Spain 3.1 2.1 1.9 3.5 2.3 2.1 3.0 1.5 1.6 4.0 3.6 2.6 3.4 2.4 2.1 
Sweden 2.5 2.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 
Switzerland 1.2 0.3 1.8 1.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.4 3.7 3.0 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.2 
Turkey 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.4 3.8 4.5 4.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 
UK 3.2 2.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.1 0.3 1.4 1.1 0.7 
United States 2.6 1.7 1.7 .. 1.5 0.3 2.4 1.6 0.3 2.9 1.9 1.9 .. 1.7 1.1 
 
Note: Lower scores indicate lowe r levels of restrictiveness (see methodology at http://www.oecd.org/d ataoecd/25/19/42220487.xls ). 
          The values for Greece, Ire land and Slovak Repub lic are preliminary.  
 
Source :  OECD.   
  S/C/W/303 
Page 26 Table 10:   Summary of Specific Commitments in Professional Services 
 
Countries 01.A.a. 01.A.b. 01.A.c. 01.A.d. 01.A.e. 01.A.f. 01.A.g. 01.A.h. 01.A.i. 01.A.j. 01.A.k. Total 
Albania X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Antigua and Barbuda X X X X X     X       6 
Argentina X X   X X             4 
Armenia X X X X X X X X X     9 
Australia X X X X X X X X X     9 
Austria X X X X X X X X X X X 11 
Barbados X             X       2 
Belize               X       1 
Botswana       X X X   X X X   6 
Brazil   X   X X   X         4 
Brunei Darussalam   X           X       2 
Bulgaria X X   X X X   X X     7 
Burundi               X X     2 
Cambodia X X X   X X X X       7 
Canada X X X X X X X         7 
Cape Verde X X X X X X X   X     8 
Chile X X   X X             4 
China X X X X X X X X       8 
Colombia X X X                 3 
Congo RP               X X     2 
Costa Rica               X       1 
Côte d'Ivoire         X             1 
Croatia X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Cuba X X     X             3 
Cyprus   X X                 2 
Czech Republic X X X X X X X X X     9 
Djibouti         X             1 
Dominican Republic X X X X X X X X       8 
Ecuador X X X X X   X         6 
El Salvador X X X X X             5 
Estonia X X X X       X       5 
European Communities X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Finland X X X X X X X   X X   9 
FYR Macedonia X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Gambia X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Georgia X X X X X X X X X     9 
Guinea                 X     1 
Guyana X X   X X     X       5  
   S/C/W/303
 Page 27Countries 01.A.a. 01.A.b. 01.A.c. 01.A.d. 01.A.e. 01.A.f. 01.A.g. 01.A.h. 01.A.i. 01.A.j. 01.A.k. Total 
Haiti                 X     1 
Hong Kong   X X                 2 
Hungary X X X X X X X X       8 
Iceland X X X X X X X   X   X 9 
India         X             1 
Indonesia       X X X X         4 
Israel X X   X X X X         6 
Jamaica X X X X X   X X   X   8 
Japan X X X X X X X         7 
Jordan X X X X X   X X   X X 9 
Korea   X X X X X X         6 
Kuwait       X X X X         4 
Kyrgyz Republic X X X X X   X X X X X 10 
Latvia X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Lesotho X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Liechtenstein X X X X X X X         7 
Lithuania X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Malawi   X           X   X   3 
Malaysia X X X X X X X X       8 
Maldives   X                   1 
Mexico   X   X X     X   X   5 
Moldova X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Mongolia   X     X             2 
Morocco   X     X             2 
Nepal X X   X X X X   X     7 
New Zealand X X X X X       X     6 
Norway X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Oman X X X X X X X X X     9 
Pakistan         X X   X       3 
Panama X X X X X X X         7 
Papua New Guinea X X   X X             4 
Peru   X   X X           X 4 
Poland X X     X     X X X   6 
Qatar   X X X       X X     5 
Romania X     X X   X         4 
Rwanda X             X       2 
Saudi Arabia X X X X X X X X X     9 
Senegal       X X     X       3 
Sierra Leone X X X X X X X X X X X 11 
Singapore   X X X X     X X   X 7  
  S/C/W/303 
Page 28 Countries 01.A.a. 01.A.b. 01.A.c. 01.A.d. 01.A.e. 01.A.f. 01.A.g. 01.A.h. 01.A.i. 01.A.j. 01.A.k. Total 
Slovak Republic X X X X X X X X X     9 
Slovenia X X   X X X   X       6 
Solomon Islands X X   X X             4 
South Africa X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Swaziland         X X   X       3 
Sweden X X X X X X X X X X   10 
Switzerland X X X X X X X X X     9 
Thailand X X   X X   X         5 
Chinese Taipei X X X X X X X   X     8 
Tonga X X   X X X X X X     8 
Trinidad and Tobago X             X X   X 4 
Turkey X X   X X             4 
Ukraine X X X X X X X X X X   10 
United Arab Emirates   X X X X   X   X     6 
USA X X X X X X X         7 
Venezuela X X   X X X X         6 
Viet Nam X X X X X X X   X     8 
Zambia   X           X   X   3 
Total 66 77 53 70 78 50 53 55 43 24 8 577 
 
01.A.a. Legal Services 
01.A.b. Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping Services 
01.A.c. Taxation Services 
01.A.d. Architectural Services 
01.A.e. Engineering Services 
01.A.f. Integrated Engineering Services 
01.A.g. Urban Planning and Landscape Architectural Services 
01.A.h. Medical and Dental Services 
01.A.i. Veterinary Services 
01.A.j. Services Provided by Midwives, Nurses, Physiotherapists 
01.A.k. Other 
 
Source :  WTO.         Legend:    S/C/W/303 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Table 11:   Analysis of GATS Commitments in Architectural Services:  Comparison with 
Engineering, Accountancy and Legal Services  
                   (Percentages of full, par tial and no commitments by sub-sector and by mode of supply) 
 
Market Access 
(Number of Members 
with Commitments) Cross-border 
Supply Consumption 
Abroad Commercial 
Presence 
    
 F P N F P N F P N 
Architectural Services 
(70 commitments) 
Sectoral only 
(including horizontal 
limitations)  
 
67 
 
61  
 
17 
 
23  
 
16 
 
16  
 
79 
 
71  
 
13 
 
20  
 
9 
 
9  
 
50 
 
29  
 
47 
 
69  
 
 3 
 
3 
Engineering Services 
(78 commitments) 
Sectoral only 
(including horizontal 
limitations)  
 
62 
 
55  
 
22 
 
28  
 
17 
 
17  
 
67 
 
59  
 
21 
 
28  
 
13 
 
13  
 
54 
 
27  
 
44 
 
71  
 
3 
 
3 
Accounting, Auditing 
and Bookkeeping Services                      
(77 commitments ) 
Sectoral only 
(including horizontal 
limitations)  
  
42 
 
38 
  
  
36 
 
40  
  
22 
 
22  
  
53 
 
48  
  
36 
 
42  
  
10 
 
10  
  
29 
 
14  
  
70 
 
84  
  
1 
 
1 
Legal Services           
(66 commitments) 
Sectoral only  
(including horizontal 
limitations)  
 
23 
 
20  
 
67 
 
70  
 
11 
 
11  
 
32 
 
27  
 
62 
 
67  
 
6 
 
6  
 
15 
 
6  
 
79 
 
88  
 
6 
 
6 
 
Notes: 
 1. F: Full commitment (indicated by "none" in the market access column of the Schedule) 
 P: Partial commitment (limitations inscribed in the market access column of the Schedule) 
 N: No commitment (indicated by "unbound" in the market access column of the Schedule) 
 
2. The figures in italics  indicate the percentages taking into account horizontal commitments applicable to 
all sectors in the schedule. 
 
Source :  WTO. 
 
__________