RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/M/88 
13 June 2007 
 (07-2474) 
Council for Trade in Services  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 7 JUNE 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. On 7 June 2007, the Council for Trade in Serv ices held a meeting under the chairmanship of 
Ambassador C. Trevor Clarke (Barbados).  The agenda for the meeting was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/3023.   
2. The Chairperson
 said that, under "Other Business", he intended to make a brief statement 
regarding the next formal meeting of the Air Transport Review. 
3. The representative of Colombia  said that, under "Other Busine ss", his delegation wanted to 
make a statement regarding the designation of chairs to the subsidiary bodies. 
4. The agenda was adopted , as modified. 
I. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLES III:3, V:7 AND VII:4 OF THE GATS 
5. The Chairperson  drew the Council's attention to no tifications made pursuant to GATS 
Article III (transparency).  A notification by Bo livia was contained in document S/C/N/390 and a 
notification from Switzerland in document S/C/N/396.   Switzerland had also made a notification 
pursuant to GATS Article VII:4 (mutual recognition) , contained in document S/C/N/395 + Corr. 1 (in 
French only). 
6. The representative of the United States  thanked Bolivia for its communication.  She indicated 
that her delegation had a few questions on the s ubstance of this communication and would follow up 
with Bolivia bilaterally.  She also thanked Sw itzerland for this communication and commended the 
spirit of transparency in which it was submitted. 
7. The Council took note  of those notifications. 
8. The Chairperson  also drew attention to several notifications made pursuant to GATS 
Article V:7 (Economic Integrati on):  communication from the United States, the Dominican Republic, 
El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemal a (S/C/N/391);  communication from Panama and 
Singapore (S/C/N/392);  communication from India and Singapore (S/C/N/393);  and communication 
from Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore (S/C/N/394). 
9. The representative of Dominican Republic  stated that the Free Trade Agreement between the 
Dominican Republic, Central America and the United States had came into force for the Dominican 
Republic on 1 March 2007.  This Agreement was unlimit ed in time and was intended to contribute to 
increasing free trade between parties in all areas, in cluding trade in goods, trade in services as well as 
intellectual property.  The Agreement would be ex amined at the proper time in the Committee on 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/M/88 
Page 2  
 
  RTAs.  The text of the Agreement and its Annexes was available in electronic form on the web sites 
of the various ministries, as noted in the notification. 
10. The representative of New Zealand
, speaking on behalf of the four countries concerned, 
referred to the notification contained in document S/ C/N/394.  She said that, in keeping with the high 
quality and comprehensive nature of the Trans-Pa cific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement 
("P4") overall, the services chapter in P4 sought to  facilitate expansion of trade in services between 
New Zealand, Chile and Singapore – and Brunei Darussalam, which would submit its services 
schedule in due course in 2008.  This was achieve d through provisions maximising transparency and 
the potential for progressive liberalisation.  The key mechanism was the "negative list" approach.  If a 
service sector was not listed in the services schedules  (or excluded by provisions in the services or 
general exceptions chapters), then it was bound by  the "national treatment", "market access" and 
"most favoured nation" (MFN) obliga tions.  The P4 Agreement also placed disciplines on the partners' 
ability to require a foreign service provider to have a commercial presence as a precondition to 
operating in the market when the services could be de livered in other ways.  With trade in services an 
increasingly significant element of trade in the As ia-Pacific region, capturing commercial presence in 
services was an important outcome of the P4 Agreement. 
11. The representative of Panama  noted that that the FTA between Singapore and Panama had 
been notified on 4 April 2007, in line with Article V:7 of the GATS.  It had come into force on 24 June 2006 with an unlimited period to reinfo rce trade relations between the countries and to 
liberalize markets in terms of goods and services, and to expand investment.  The Agreement had 
eighteen chapters with substantial commitments on market access in various aspects of services for 
both countries, including financial services a nd telecommunications.  Greater detail would be 
provided on this Agreement at the Committee on RTAs. 
12. The representative of Singapore
 echoed the statement made by New Zealand with respect to 
the P4 Agreement.  Turning to the Panama-Singapor e Free Trade Agreement (PSFTA), he said that it 
was Singapore's first bilateral FTA with a Latin American country.  Panama ranked as Singapore's 
largest trading partner in Latin America.  Bila teral trade amounted to $3.26 billion in 2005, an 
increase of 47.1 per cent from 2004.  By providing Singapore traders and investors with a more favourable operating environment in Panama, the PSFTA would enhance trade and investment flows 
between Panama and Singapore.  The PSFTA was a comprehensive agreement, covering a number of 
areas, including services and investment.  With regard to services particularly, both Parties agreed to bind their current levels of liberalisation, as well as any future liberalisation in most services sectors.  
The services chapter guaranteed service suppliers from Panama and Singapore access to each other's 
markets, and provided Singapore companies with favourable access to the Panamanian market in 
many aspects.  This Agreement would greatly  facilitate trade for both countries.   
13. Referring to the Indian – Singapore Comp rehensive Economic C ooperation Agreement 
(CECA), he said that the Agreement had come into force on 1
st August 2005.  The CECA was the first 
ever comprehensive economic agreement between Singapore and a South Asian country.  As the 
name suggested, CECA was comprehensive, coveri ng goods, services, investment and a host of other 
issues.  Built on WTO concessions, the CECA was si gnificantly GATS-plus and was consistent with 
various WTO provisions.  India was Singapore's fourteenth largest trading partner in 2004 and bilateral trade had nearly tripled in the past decade.  Over the last year, sin ce the entry into force of 
the Agreement, Singapore's bilateral trade with I ndia had increased by almost half, from S$7-8 billion 
in 2003, making India Singapore's fastest grow ing trading partners among the major economies. 
14. Echoing the statement by Singapore, the representative of India
 noted that the CECA was 
India's first comprehensive economic cooperation agre ement with any country.  He confirmed that the 
Agreement had a huge component on services – th e most redeeming feature of the services 
component was the strong Mode 4 element.  Th e Mode 4 element extended to mutual recognition  S/C/M/88 
 Page 3 
 
 
  agreements in a number of professional services, which had not been signed yet, but were close to 
being sealed up.  There were a number of innovativ e ideas to expand mode 4 trade.  The Agreement 
was available on the website of the Departme nt of Commerce, Government of India – 
www.commerce.nic.in . 
15. The representative of the United States  said her delegation thanked the Dominican Republic 
for presenting the CAFTA-DR notification.  The Un ited States wished to express its willingness to 
contribute to the process of examination in accordance with the procedures agreed upon in the 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements. 
16. The Council took note  of the notifications and of th e statements made, and referred  the 
agreements notified to the Committee on Regi onal Trade Agreements for examination. 
II. NOTIFICATION FORMAT FOR REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
17. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its 44th Session, on 13 October 2006, the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) had agreed  to recommend the introduction of a common and 
simplified format for the notification of regional tr ade agreements, including those under Article V of 
the GATS (WT/REG/16).  In forwarding its recommendation, the CRTA had indicated that the 
proposed format would facilitate the task of the par ties to comply with the requirement to notify an 
RTA while making available to other WTO Members the necessary basic elements in a systematic 
and coherent way.  Moreover, on 14 December 2006, the General Council had adopted a Decision 
establishing, on a provisional basis, a Transparency  Mechanism for RTAs (WT/L/671).  It was his 
understanding that the proposed new format for RTA notifications was in line with the overall 
approach to RTAs that Members agreed to adopt in that Decision.  He also recalled that the CTS had 
already considered the proposed new format at its last  formal meeting, in February.  At that meeting, 
no delegation had objected to this new format.  Bu t, upon request by some delegations, it had been 
decided that the Secretariat would prepare a draft decision for the purpose of adopting the proposed new format for RTAs – and formally modifying S/ L/5 as far as notifications made pursuant to GATS 
Article V:7 were concerned.  This draft decision had been circulated in document S/C/W/282.  He 
added that, since the last meeting of the CTS, both the Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee 
on Trade and Development have adopted this notif ication format.  He asked the Secretariat to 
introduce the draft decision. 
18. A representative of the Secretariat
 said that the draft was self-explanatory.  The main purpose 
of the decision was to clarify the relationship be tween the new format and the old guidelines for 
notifications that had been adopted in 1995 and were  contained in document S/L/5.   He noted that 
there was a typographical error in the beginning of the third line – where the word "paragraph 1" was 
repeated superfluously a second time.  This would be  rectified when the document was adopted in its 
final format.   
19. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation supported the adoption of the 
common format for notification of RTAs as a me ans of enhancing transparency and assuring the 
relevant information concerning the entry into force of an RTA provided to the Secretariat.  The draft 
format was simple and straightforw ard, and provided a useful template  for Members' notifications of 
RTAs.  The structure and provisions of future RTAs  might, however, require use of additional and/or 
alternative formats.  In the interest of ensuring reasonable flexibility for all possible agreements, the 
United States proposed that the language of the dr aft Council Decision be amended as followed:  in 
the last paragraph the expression "will be made " should be changed to "may be made". 
20. The representative of Brazil  asked what the objective of th e proposed amendment was.  He 
noted that the format had been discussed at le ngth in the CRTA, and that it would be a common 
format for the notification of all regional agreemen ts.  In the previous meeting, his delegation had S/C/M/88 
Page 4  
 
  expressed certain reservations about a selective quotati on of the format with regard to the enabling 
clause.  He sought clarification from the United States on the proposed amendment.  He wondered 
whether it was aimed to water down a decision taken by the CRTA.   
21. The representative of the United States
 reiterated that the structure and provisions of future 
RTAs "may" require use of additiona l and/or alternative formats.  Therefore, in the interest of 
ensuring reasonable flexibility for all possible ag reements, the United States proposed that the 
language of the draft Council Deci sion be amended from a "will be" to a "may be".  If Brazil was 
suggesting that the proposed change contravene d what the United States had already agreed, her 
delegation wished to consider it.   
22. Referring to the minutes of the Council's last meeting, the representative of Australia  asked 
whether the draft decision covered labour  integration agreements (Article V bis).   
23. A representative of the Secretariat  noted that this question had been raised previously and that 
Members had been invited to express views in this re gard.  In the absence of feedback, the Secretariat 
had examined the matter internally.  He noted that, in the case of Article V bis agreements, there was 
no requirement of examination of the agreements themselves, contrary to what was required under 
Article V.  One might conclude that they were not identical or analogous to the point that the format 
should be amended to include Article V bis agreements.  However, it was up to Members to take 
decision. 
24. The representative of Brazil  said that he would need more time to consult with his experts on 
RTA issues to see if the proposed change would be compatible with what had been decided in the 
CRTA and the decisions taken both in the CTD and in the CTG.  He suggested that the Council 
postpone the adoption of the decision until its next meeting. 
25. The Chairperson  said that the CTS would revert to this issue at its next meeting.  It was so 
agreed . 
III. NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO GATS ARTICLE XXI 
26. Statements made under this agenda item are c ontained in an informal  document and will be 
circulated as an addendum to this report after th e conclusion of the Article XXI negotiations and the 
certification of any changes to the relevant schedule of commitments. 
IV. OTHER BUSINESS 
27. The Chairperson  said that, as indicated at the beginning of this meeting, he intended to make 
a brief statement regarding the next formal meeting of the Council dedicated to the Review of the Air 
Transport Annex.  He recalled that the CTS had he ld an informal meeting on 13 March 2007, for the 
purpose of discussing organisational matters related to  the third meeting of the Review.  On that 
occasion, it had been agreed that the meeting would be  held during the first week of October.  He was 
pleased to announce that the third meeting of th e Air Transport Review would start on Tuesday 
2 October, and continue on Wednesd ay 3 October, if necessary.  Also, at the March 13 informal 
meeting, it had been agreed that the date of the third meeting of the Review would be taken as the 
deadline for Members' submission of corrections and complements to their bilateral air services 
agreements included in the "quantitative air serv ices agreements review" (so-called "QUASAR").  
Hence, Members were kindly invited to submit thei r corrections and complements to the Secretariat 
by 2 October.  S/C/M/88 
 Page 5 
 
 
  28. The representative of Colombia  requested that the statement made by his permanent 
representative during the informal meeting of the Council, on 14 March 2 007, dedicated to the 
selection of chairpersons to the subsidiary bodi es, be included in the minutes of this meeting. 
29. During the informal meeting of 14 March 2007,  the permanent representative of Colombia 
stated that, as a former chairperson of the CTS, sh e was aware that the appointment of chairpersons to 
the subsidiary bodies of the Council was a thankles s and difficult task.  She recalled that GRULAC, 
made up of twenty-four WTO Members, had suppor ted only one candidate for the chairmanships of 
the subsidiary bodies of the Council.  This candidate was part of her delegation.  When her delegation 
had been consulted during this process, she had been  told that the Colombian candidate, who was also 
the GRULAC candidate, met all the requirements to be  appointed chair, as well as the candidate that 
the Chairperson of the CTS was now presenting for the Working Group on GATS Rules.  
Nevertheless, preference had been given to this candi date because of her gender and due to the fact 
that 2007 was her last year in her mission in Gene va.  GRULAC and Colombia  had expressed that no 
GRULAC representative had been elected as chairperson of subsidiary bodies in the last three years, 
and that there were two candidates of the same con tinent for the two positions allocated to developing 
country Members.  In GRULAC's understanding, such  a situation generated a regional imbalance and 
took away the legitimate aspiration of the region.   She also wanted to express GRULAC's concern 
because this year in general, the composition of  chairmanships lacked any regional balance.  
Nevertheless, as she had stated during the cons ultation process, neither GRULAC as a group, nor 
Colombia as a WTO Member would oppose the consen sus reached by the rest of the membership.  
Colombia would submit its candidate again next year  and certainly trusted that he would succeed in 
being elected given the wide support that he had recei ved this year.  She requested that this statement 
be included in the minutes of the next formal session of the CTS. 
30. Referring to paragraph 20 of document S/C/M/86, the representative of Australia  reminded 
the Council that his delegation remained concerned th at there was still no clarity as to when the EC-25 
schedule resulting from the extended Article XXI nego tiations over the last three years would enter 
into force. 
31. The representative of the European Communities  referred to the statement his delegation had 
made at the Council's last meeti ng on  1 March 2007.  He further informed the Council that, following 
the signature of the relevant agreements with th e affected WTO Members and the completion of the 
WTO certification procedure in December 2006, th e Commission had formally proposed a conclusion 
of the agreements to the EC Council of Minister s on 27 March 2007 by means of a proposed Council 
decision which was currently examined by the EC Council of Ministers.  The text of the proposed 
decision was publicly available on the EUR-Lex website of the Commission. 
32. The Council took note  of the statements made.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________