RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/CSC/M/56 
10 February 2011 
 (11-0655) 
Committee on Specific Commitments   
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 NOVEMBER 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC ) held a meeting on 16 November 2010, 
chaired by Ms. Natalie Burke from Barbados.  The agenda for the meeting, contained in 
WTO/AIR/3657, was adopted.  
A. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES  
2. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed to carry out informal discussions on 
classification issues based on the Secretariat's se ctoral Background Notes, focusing on the gap 
between market realities and the current classifica tion system under the GATS.  The Secretariat had 
prepared a compilation (JOB/SERV/22) of classificati on issues raised in these Notes, which had been 
circulated at the last meeting.  To facilitate di scussions, the Committee had agreed to invite experts on 
CPC to give a presentation at this meeting, highlight ing important developments in the latest version 
of CPC, i.e. CPC version 2.  She invited Mr. Andreas Maurer, chief of the WTO International Trade 
Statistical Section, to make the presentation.   
3. Mr. Maurer  stated that the CPC was a classification of all outputs of economic activities.  It 
provided a reference classification for services in th e context of national statistics and also linked to 
other product classifications, such as HS, SITC, BOP and EBOPS.  In services trade, the latest version 
of EBOPS, i.e. EBOPS 2010, was based on CPC version 2.  W/120 was drafted on the basis of the 
CPC provisional and its purpose was to  facilitate services negotiations.   
4. The review of the CPC which let to the CPC ve rsion 2 was aimed at providing better coverage 
of outputs, reflecting new services, offering more precise description of services, and facilitating 
reporting by business and economic analysis.  The classification of services was contained in sections 5-9 of the CPC version 2.  The CPC constituted a comprehensive classification of all goods and 
services within the production boundary of the Syst em of National Accounts.  Goods were physical 
objects for which demand existed, on which ownership could be established a nd transferred, and the 
production and sale of which were separable activiti es.  Services were not separate entities for which 
ownership could be established; they were produced by order, changed the condition of the 
consuming units, and when production was complete d, the product had already been delivered.  
However, there were outputs of economic activities th at did not fit the definition of goods or services 
in the System of National Account; these included original manuscripts, sound and video recordings, 
results of research activities, results of geologi cal surveying activities, product design specifications, 
trademarks and franchises.  These were neither goods nor services, but still considered as products 
and covered by the CPC version 2 as intellect ual property products a nd similar products.   
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/CSC/M/56 
Page 2  
 
  5. The refinements in the CPC version 2 in cluded updating the language used, as well as 
correcting and amending the explanatory notes.  Main changes relating to services involved more details at lower levels of the classification and reorganization of some classes or sub-classes.  There was a change in terms of scope in Section 5 (cons truction and construction services).  A new concept, 
"original" was introduced.  Transportation services were restructured, and  significant new details 
were introduced in financial and related service s, business and production services, health services, 
environmental services and audiovisual services.   
6. Transportation services (Division 64-67) were gr ouped in a way that was more useful for 
analysis, which consisted of passenger transport services (Division 64), freight transport services 
(Division 65), rental services of transport vehi cles with operators (Division 66), and supporting 
transport services (Division 67).  The division be tween passenger and freight transport services was 
made at the 2 digital level and the breakdown by mode  of transport was made at lower levels.  At the 
3 digital level, passenger transport services were furt her divided into local and long-distance transport 
services.  A separate sub-class, "sightseeing tr ansportation services" (CPC 6413), was introduced, 
which was broken down by mode of transport.  Ai r transport services of passengers were classified 
under long-distance transport services of passengers, which were further divided into domestic and 
international services.  This restructuring of tran sportation services was different from the ISIC where 
transport services were classified first by mode of transport and then by passenger vs. freight.   
7. The CPC version 2 grouped financial and relate d services in Division 71.  There had been 
significant increases in detail since the CPC version 1. 1.  Other structural changes included: pension 
fund management were moved from portfolio manage ment to services auxiliary to insurance and 
pension; and a new group on holding ser vices on financial assets was introduced. 
8. Division 84 dealt with telecommunications, broadcasting and information supply services, 
which consisted of six groups: telephony and other telecommuni cation services (841); internet 
telecommunication services (842); on-line content (843); news agency services (844); library and archive services (845); and broadcasting, programmi ng and programme distribution services (846).    
Changes in this division reflected the restructuring of the industry.    
9. With respect to manufacture, a distinction was made between the principal and the contractor.  
The principal outsourced part of the manufacturing process to the contractor who produced services on a fee or contract basis for the principal, for ex ample, the assembly.  For the purpose of the national 
statistics, the principal reported goods while the co ntractor reported services.  Compared to previous 
versions, services relating to outsourcing in the CP C version 2 had been much more aligned with 
classes in ISIC with more sub-classes at the 4/5 digital level.  Division 88 grouped manufacturing 
services on physical inputs owned by other ( 881-889), while Division 89, other manufacturing 
services, dealt with non-physical inputs (891-894).         
10. Human health and social care services were grouped in Division 93 where the classification 
had been adapted to economic reality.  There were a number of new categories, such as: human health 
services (931);  residential care services for the elderl y and disabled (932);  other social services with 
accommodation (933);  social services without accomm odation for the elderly and disabled (934);  
and other social services without accommodation (935).  Veterinary services which had been in this 
division before had been moved to professional services.   
11. Important changes were introduced in Division 94 "Sewage and waste collection, treatment 
and disposal and other environm ental protection services".  The division consisted of six groups: 
sewerage, sewage treatment and septic tank clean ing services (941), waste collection services (942), 
waste treatment and disposal services (943), remediation services (944), sanitation and similar services (945) and other environmental protection services (949).  The number of subclasses increased  S/CSC/M/56 
 Page 3 
 
 
  from 9 to 28, which mainly reflected the changes in  ISIC rev.4.  In classifying the waste collection 
services,  the focus was on the procedure of collection rather than on the typ es of waste collected.   
12. The CPC version 2 introduced an important new concept: the original, which referred to 
outcomes of intellectual or creative activities before copying or distribution, such as research results, 
product design, sound/video recordings, trademarks/fra nchises, and computer software.  The value of 
originals lied in their information content, not thei r physical form.  When an intellectual or creative 
activity was carried out on its own account, the original was considered the output of that activity.  However, when the activity was carried out for someone  else, i.e. on a fee or contract basis, the output 
of the activity was considered a service.  In this case, the original was considered the output of the 
client.  A distinction was made between originals and content.  Originals were neither goods nor 
services, though they were classified in the services pa rt of the CPC, close to the services with which 
they were related.  For example, research  a nd development originals were found in Division 81 – 
research and development services.  Copying an orig inal was an act of production and the copy was a 
new product, a content  product.  Content could be presented on physical media (e.g. disks, books, 
etc.).  In this case, the products were classified in  CPC part 0-4 as tradable goods.  Content could also 
be provided in a non-physical form over the Intern et.  Then the products were found in group 843 – 
"On-line content".   
13. The EBOPS (Extended Balance Of Payments Cl assifications) was being used in the Manual 
on Statistics of International Trade in Services (MSITS).  EBOPS 2010, whose final version was 
available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/cpc- 2.asp, was described in terms of CPC version 2.  
However, most distribution services were incl uded in EBOPS, and there was no one-to-one 
correspondence between EBOPS and the CPC.  The emphasis of EBOPS was on mode of 
consumption and/or transactors rather than type of  products consumed.  The MSITS tried to link to 
EBOPS 2010 which tried to link to W/120.  Ho wever, W/120 was based on CPC provisional while 
EBOPS 2010 was drafted based on CPC version 2.   While there was no one-to-one correspondence 
between EBOPS and W/120, efforts were being ma de to establish a link between the two, which 
should be analytically useful for trade negotiators.     
14. The representative of Switzerland
 noted the changes of classification in transportation 
services where the division between passenger and freight transport services came before the breakdown by mode of transport.  He wondered whet her this new structure was more helpful for the 
purpose of scheduling commitments.  Regarding the con cept of original, he asked where an architect's 
design should be classified.  He also wished to know how the outcomes of economic activities 
referred to in Slide 7 (original manuscripts, sound an d video recordings, results of research activities, 
results from geological surveying activities, produc t design specifications, trademarks and franchises) 
were reported in the national statistics.    
15. Mr. Maurer
 explained that the purpose of the CPC was to describe services in more detail.  
The approach used in the classification of trans portation services in the CPC version 2 was in line 
with this objective.  Members were free to choo se the classification system they deemed appropriate 
when making commitments.  The CPC version 2 was a reference classification a nd could be helpful in 
describing services that were availa ble in the market.   In respondi ng to the question on an architect's 
design, he thought that it fell under architectural services.   The outcomes referred to in Slide 7 were recorded under loyalties and licence fees.  In EBOPS,  there was a further clarification of loyalties and 
licence fees.   
16. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that the presentation was the first step for 
delegates to understand the CPC version 2.  He looked forward to future discussions on relevant 
classification issues in various sectors.  Experts on CPC could be invited to cont inue to brief delegates 
on the development of classification in specific sect ors.  Referring to Slide 10 of the presentation, he 
asked whether e-banking had been captured in th e CPC version 2.  Noting that EBOPS 2010 was S/CSC/M/56 
Page 4  
 
  based on the CPC version 2, he wondered what imp lications the CPC version 2 might have on the 
services negotiations.  
17. The representative of Turkey
 noted that the classification of services was very complicated 
and subject to constant changes; even CPC vers ion 2 was not final.  Members should maintain 
flexibility as to how to use the CPC version 2.  His delegation had two specific questions on the 
presentation:  (1) When a Member introduced a new classification in its offer, would it change the 
scope of commitments or lead to rollback?  (2) Could the CPC version 2 complement the 
classification in the Annex on Financial Services?         
18. The representative of Hong Kong, China  asked whether there was any annotation that could 
help delegations to better locate where services had been  described in previous versions of the CPC.  
On the relationship between making commitments a nd classification systems, including CPC version 
2, Members should first decide what commitments th ey want to undertake, they would then need to 
find the right descriptors for these commitments.  The CPC version 2 might facilitate Members to make new commitments, but it should not affect existing commitments, nor have any authoritative 
role in describing offers in the current negotiations .  Classification issues might appear confusing, but 
in so far as Members knew what they would offer,  classification issues should be transparent to the 
process.          
19. The representative of Argentina
 stated that the topic of the presentation was of great 
importance to his delegation and that the presentati on was highly informative and comprehensive.  He 
suggested that the Committee be informed on a re gular basis of changes and developments in the 
statistical system.   
20. In response to questions and comments, Mr. Maurer  stated that regarding e-banking, the CPC 
did not refer to the means of supply of services.   He shared the view expressed by Hong Kong, China 
that the CPC version 2 was helpful for Members to find the right descriptors for commitments.  There 
was ongoing interagency work to describe EBOPS 2010 in terms of the CPC version 2.  His Section 
would be glad to report regularly to the Committee on  developments in classification and in statistical 
systems.     
21. The Chairperson  thanked Mr. Maurer for an informa tive and comprehensive presentation.  
Regarding future informal discussions under this  item, she proposed that at each meeting the 
Committee pick up one sector which would be decided at  the previous meeting.  She would, with the 
support of the Secretariat, describe the specific issu es for discussion in the annotated agenda for each 
meeting.   The discussion would be conducted in info rmal mode.  In order to have a more meaningful 
exchange, she encouraged delegations to engage ac tively, ideally with written contributions.  After 
each meeting, an informal, non-attributable summary  would be circulated under her responsibility.   
22. There was no objection to this proposal.  The Chair  suggested that the Committee proceed as 
she had described and discuss classification issues in computer and related services at the next meeting.  She also suggested that the Committee take  note of the statements made and revert to this 
agenda item at the next meeting. 
23. It was so agreed
.  
B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OLD AND NEW COMMITMENT  
24. The Chairperson  recalled that while delegations c ontinued to have divergent views on 
whether there was a need to include certain language in the protocol to preven t rollbacks, at the last 
meeting they had also expressed their willingness to explore the scope for compromise.  At the same 
time, delegations had started to look at procedural issues related to verification, based on an informal  S/CSC/M/56 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Note by the Secretariat "Roadmap for the Verification Exercise", contained in document  
JOB/SERV/21.  A number of important issues had been ra ised in this context.  It had been agreed that 
the Committee should continue this discussion and that  the Secretariat would prepare a revision of the 
roadmap for the verification exercise for that purpose.  The revision had been circulated to 
delegations, which was contained in document JOB/SERV/21/Rev.1 
25. The representative of the Secretariat  stated that the revision (JOB/SERV/21/Rev. 1) was self-
explanatory with two scenarios presented in detail.  The main difference between them was the timing 
of the verification exercise.  One of the points clar ified in this Note was what the conclusion of the 
negotiations meant.  Once Members completed the bargaining process, the results would be 
consolidated in what was referred to as a "draft sche dule".  On this basis, the results would be adopted 
in the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Se rvices.  This formally concluded the negotiating 
process.  Between the end of the bargaining pr ocess and the adoption of the results, each Member 
would consolidate the outcome of the request-offer ne gotiations in a draft schedule.  That draft would 
be subject to verification.   
26. The representative of Hong Kong, China  noted that the verification process was one of the 
most important stages when the negotiations were approaching the end.  He recalled the question 
raised at the last meeting concerning the c onsequences if Members disagreed on whether some 
commitments in the draft schedules constituted rollback .  He noted that in the two scenarios presented 
in the Secretariat's Note, only Scenario B provid ed the opportunity for Members to hold further 
bilateral and/or plurilateral consu ltations with a view to reaching agreement on any adjustment.  On 
this basis, it would be possible for Members to agr ee on the substance of the commitments in the draft 
schedules in case of rollbacks.  From this perspec tive, Scenario B seemed to be a better option for a 
thorough and meaningful verification exercise.  However, the consultations, especially those 
involving discussions on substantive issues regarding rollbacks could protract the verification process.  
Therefore, how to put an end to that process and set  a credible deadline for the adoption of the final 
results by the Special Session of the Council for Tr ade in Services required further consideration.  
While Hong Kong, China was keen to have a thorough and meaningful verification exercise, he 
wondered whether the exercise itself would be water tight to prevent all cases of rollback.  He invited 
Members to consider this question.    
27. The representative of the Republic of Korea  focused on whether and why the verification 
process in this round should be different from that in  the previous round.  The verification exercise 
was not part of the substantive negotiation and its  objective was to ensure the technical and legal 
soundness of schedules.  This basic aspect of the ex ercise should not be changed.  In addition, the 
exercise itself could not identify and prevent all pote ntial rollbacks.  Members' main concern was how 
to ensure the absence of rollback s from the existing commitments in the DDA negotiations.  This 
issue would be better addressed by agreeing on general principles in a certain legal form rather than 
resorting to the verification exercise.  Therefore it would be desirable, as before, to undertake the 
verification exercise after the conclusi on of the negotiations.      
28. The representative of India  stated that his delegation was still examining both options 
presented in the Secretariat's Note before giving its  final view.  The option of having the verification 
before the formal conclusion of the negotiations ga ve more space and flexibility to Members in terms 
of holding consultations and making agreed changes,  though clarifications were needed in various 
aspects.  It was not clear what would happen in both scenarios if there was no agreement on the 
changes or rectifications to be carried out even afte r consultations.  In case of Scenario A, if there was 
no agreement, would the only recourse be DSU? In case of Scenario B, if there was no agreement, would the schedules not be presented to the Special Session of the CTS for adoption?  He also asked 
why there was no mention of the Secretariat providi ng technical assistance to developing countries in 
Scenario B, while it was mentione d in Scenario A.  In any scenario, there should be a provision on S/CSC/M/56 
Page 6  
 
  technical assistance to developing countries in view of their limited resources.  India reserved the 
right to make further comments at a later stage. 
29. The representative of China
 echoed Hong Kong, China's view concerning the preference for 
Scenario B.  China attached great importance to the verification process, believing that a thorough and 
complete verification process was the best way to prevent rollbacks.  While open to various proposals 
submitted by Members, China was not convinced of th e need to include particular language into the 
protocol, as it could create legal uncertainty and pe rhaps open the door for future disputes.  China 
preferred a single and clear negotiating result replaci ng the old schedule, and in this round Scenario B 
was the best way to proceed.  
30. The representative of Mexico  stated that Scenario B would be most appropriate if it was 
understood not to be part of the negotiations but, ra ther, an agreed process to  ensure that the new 
commitments would not be less ambitious than the pr evious ones.  Referring to the last sentence in 
paragraph 6 of Scenario B, she asked what w ould be the follow-up process if Members were not 
satisfied with the outcome.  With respect to the plur ilateral or bilateral consu ltations referred to in 
paragraph 7 of Scenario B, it w ould be important to establish a fo rmat for such consultations and 
clearly state their objectives.  Scenario B should have a reasonable time frame within which the 
verification exercise would be concluded.  In this  regard, Mexico would favour the proposal made 
earlier for a six-month period.  During the exerci se, any questions regarding schedules should be 
submitted in writing, and the Secretariat could comp ile them.  Mexico reserved the right to make 
further observations or comments at future meetings. 
31. The representative of Japan  noted that although Scenario A had the advantage of prompt 
adoption of the results of the negotiations, in this  Scenario the verification after the adoption might 
merely be a formality.  Therefore, Scenario B woul d be desirable in view of a full and substantive 
verification exercise.  It was also important to ha ve a parallel discussion on the definition of rollback. 
If Members could not reach agreement on the existence of rollback, it would be difficult to finish the 
verification process within a fixed period without certain mechanism to solve the problem.   Further 
discussions were needed from both a legal and practical perspective.        
32. The representative of Thailand  noted that the verification exercise would take place in the 
Special Session of the CTS and that in Scenario B,  Members could still negotiate, as reflected in the 
sentence "Members are satisfied with the outcome , including any agreed changes".  He understood 
that, in this connection, a parallel process of bila teral and/or plurilateral consultations was still 
available, which was deemed a more appropriate fo rum for negotiation rather than for the verification 
exercise.  He hoped that the Secretariat would provi de assistance upon request to developing country 
Member.       
33. The representative of Colombia  stated that his delegation had not yet determined its position 
concerning the preferable scenario.  He noted that Members had opted for certainty and insisted that 
there should be no rollbacks in the final schedules.  His delegation  always sought for the greatest 
possible certainty of the commitmen ts since it was a very important element in a rule-based system.  
The difficulty in choosing between the two scenario s was that the services negotiations were not an 
isolated process and that negotiations in other areas would also lead to certain outcomes which would 
be subject to verification as well.  It was not cl ear what would happen in other areas and how those 
outcomes would be coordinated with  the outcome in services.   He however believed that all those 
processes should be dealt with in a coordinate d manner.  He hoped that the discussion would 
continue, bearing in mind that the ultimate goal w as to achieve certainty without rollbacks.   The 
instruments or procedures for verification should ta ke into accout Members' different abilities to 
undertake this exercise.    S/CSC/M/56 
 Page 7 
 
 
  34. The representative of Angola  stated that his delegation was not  yet able to choose between the 
two scenarios.  The reference to developing count ries and, in particular, least developed countries 
which appeared in Scenario A, should also be mentioned in Scenario B. 
35. The representative of Argentina  noted that the verification roadmap was work in progress, 
which would be increasingly refined until Members we re assured with certainty.  He recalled the 
concern expressed at the last meeting regarding a scenario where verification took place after the 
adoption of the negotiation results, particularly  in cases where commitments were ambiguous or 
eroded.  It was essential to have a thorough and comprehensive verification exercise in order to 
identify and resolve technical problems or possible ro llbacks.  Scenario B seemed most appropriate to 
achieve those goals.  In that scenario, the Speci al Session was open to all Members, which would 
consider the schedules of specific commitments a nd the lists of MFN exemptions.  The meeting 
would only conclude when all such documents had been examined and Members were satisfied with 
the outcome, including any agreed changes.  Such exercise would take some time, as suggested by 
Mexico.  He shared the view expressed by Colo mbia as to the coordination between the services 
negotiations and other areas.  Members should also  bear in mind the content of the Hong Kong 
Declaration.  Referring to paragraphs  6, 7 and 8 in Scenario B, he noted that the satisfaction with the 
outcome could not be established be fore bilateral or plurilateral c onsultations had been undertaken.  
Only after Members had expressed their satisfac tion with the outcome the CTS could adopt the 
protocol, the schedules of specific commitments and the list of MFN exemptions. 
36. The representative of Zambia  stated that the two scenarios provided some clarity on the 
options available and were being studied further.  As preliminary comment, she thought that Scenario 
B was preferable as it provided an opportunity for Members to look at the draft schedules before their 
adoption.  She shared the concerns raised by India especially with regard to timelines.  In both cases, 
there was a need to avoid an excessively burdensome exercise. 
37. The representative of Australia  reiterated that verification was key to preventing rollbacks.  
Undertaking verification before the adoption of th e schedules would be most appropriate as provided 
for in Scenario B, because that would provide for a thorough verification process addressing both 
substantive and technical issues.  The bilateral and plurilateral consulta tions as provided for in 
paragraph 7 of Scenario B were the process seeking agreement regarding possible rollbacks.  As to the 
timing of these consultations, Australia tended to agree with Argentina that Members would only be 
satisfied with the outcome after those consulta tions had been undertaken.  While it would be 
important to have sufficient time for the verificati on exercise, to some extent the timeframe would be 
dictated by the negotiations in other areas as everything would have to finish at the same time.  A 
period of three to six months might be needed betw een the circulation of the draft schedules and the 
adoption of the final schedules. 
38. The representative of Chile  noted that the Secretariat's Note  provided an excellent basis for 
discussion.  His delegation did not have particular preference yet for one of the scenarios presented in 
the Note.  The scenarios should be c onsidered in the light of the reality of the negotiations.  It might 
be premature at this stage to determine which scenario was better without a clearer idea about the 
progress of the negotiations.    Referring to paragra phs 6, 7 and 8 in Scenario B, he did not see a 
necessary sequence between the three steps which coul d actually take place concurrently in order to 
adjust or refine the content of the schedules.   Once Members had expressed their satisfaction with the 
outcome, the schedules would be ready for adoption by the CTS.  The Committee had made progress 
in clarifying various steps of the verification pro cess and needed to continue the discussion.  Members 
would then be in a position to select the most appropriate scenario. 
39. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation did not ha ve a conclusive opinion on the 
two scenarios yet. However, there should be a clear  distinction between the verification exercise and 
the negotiating process.  The verification exercise was not a continuation of negotiations.  In this S/CSC/M/56 
Page 8  
 
  respect, the most appropriate scenario should make th e distinction clearer.  Some items of Scenario B 
could be included in Scenario A, for exampl e item 7 concerning bila teral and plurilateral 
consultations.  He echoed the c oncerns expressed by Colombia and Chile on the importance of 
coordinating the verification exercise in services w ith what happened in other areas of the Doha 
Round. 
40. The representative of New Zealand
 noted that the roadmap for verification helped clarifying 
the options, indicated the progress made, and highli ghted the importance of taking time to make the 
right decision.  As Argentina had noticed, it remained a work in progress.  The verification exercise would be critically important to minimize the occu rrence or even perception of rollbacks. When her 
delegation had consulted the first draft of the ro admap, the preliminary reaction had been that 
verification could not begin until the market access negotiations had been concluded.  The focus had 
solely been on ensuring that th e agreements reached during the negotiations would be correctly 
reflected in Members' schedules.  This view had been shared by a number of Members at the last 
meeting.  Her delegation now  had taken time to consider the Secr etariat's explanations on how, when, 
and where the verification differed from that in th e Uruguay Round, especially on the situation where 
Members were engaged not just in a process of ch ecking technical and legal correctness but also 
substantive content and what might be identifie d as rollback.  This might require changes in 
substance.  Therefore, sufficient time and an ad equate process were needed to fully satisfy all 
Members with the substance of the schedules before the gavel went down.  In light of the discussions 
at the last meeting and further explanation provided , her delegation was inclined to support Scenario 
B in the latest draft.  It seemed somewhat aligned with the two-stage process envisaged by 
Switzerland and supported by Pakistan at the last meeting.  The dedicated meeting should be open-
ended and take as long as needed.  The transparency element in the process as set out in paragraph 5 
involving the submission and circulation of questi ons in advance should allow for a more focussed 
and organized discussion.  Her delegation appreciated  that the Secretariat had built into Scenario B 
the suggestion of some Members, supported by he r delegation, that time and space be allowed for 
supplementary bilateral and plur ilateral meetings to facilitate agreement on rectifications and 
adjustments.  She shared the concerns raised by so me Members that the adoption of the results and the 
conclusion of the round might be held  up by failure to reach agreemen t.  Therefore, there was a need 
to set a deadline after which the results were adopt ed and possible outstanding amendments after that 
stage might have to be pursued via rectificati on under the Vienna Convention process or even by 
dispute settlement.  This issue should be under furthe r discussion.  Finally, she noted that the question 
of timing for each stage of the process and for the ex ercise as a whole had been raised previously and 
again at this meeting.  Members needed to devel op a holistic view of the verification exercise across 
the single undertaking.  In this regard, she note d that the initial discussion in the goods context 
envisaged a process of around nine months be tween the adoption of modalities and the final 
schedules, with around five months of this being dedicated to verification. 
41. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation had a preference for 
Scenario B.  Time was essential for the verificati on process, but no timeframe had been indicated in 
the roadmap yet.  In the Uruguay Round, the exer cise had taken six weeks.  More time would be 
needed for this round.  She wondered whether there w as one step missing after step 7 or 6 in Scenario 
B, i.e. to clarify what should be done in case of c ontinuous disagreement.  It would be helpful to have 
further discussion in this regard.  
42. The representative of Turkey  stated that the verification pr ocess should not be a continuation 
of market access negotiation.  It would not be appropria te to have bilateral or plurilateral consultations 
while undertaking the verification exercise.  Member s needed to verify the commitments that would 
be adopted by the Special Session of the CTS.  That  adoption should take place before the verification 
process.  Scenario A was desirable for Turkey.  Scen ario B would take more time than Scenario A.  S/CSC/M/56 
 Page 9 
 
 
  43. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation was still studying the roadmap 
and would need to consult further.  It had initial sy mpathy for Scenario B.  On the other hand, some 
time parameters would be needed in coordination with negotiations in other areas.  Should written 
questions or comments be submitted in the process, what would happen to the outcome?  Would there 
be any kind of record of what Members clarifie d and agreed?  If a Member were to update its 
commitments from the Uruguay Round and move to a classification found in CPC version 2, if there 
was some protocol language giving standing to  the Uruguay Round commitments, what would that 
mean for that Member's commit ments? Would that Member be considered to be bound by two 
different definitions of its commitments?  Ap art from questions surrounding rollback, there was a 
serious problem of legal certainty.  That was not acceptable.  
44. The representative of Canada  stated that conducting the verification exercise after the 
conclusion of the negotiations might not help to a void rollbacks.  Ideally Scenario B might be the 
course to follow.  She suggested, however, that dele gations be open to other options as negotiations 
could move very quickly at a certain  point.  In Canada's view, verifi cation and protocol language were 
not an either/or option.  Both would be necessar y, since there would always be a possibility of 
verification.  Even if it was undertaken in a Scenar io B context, it would not capture or adequately 
address every possible instance of rollback, particularly if time was short at the end.  With regard to 
Scenario B, Canada supported other Members' comme nts on the absence of a timeline for each of the 
steps.  While the exercise needed  sufficient time to be thorough and allow for the examination of all 
documents put forward, Members should consider how  to interpret the notion "sufficient time".  For 
example, would there be a possibility of extension?   Canada would also be interested in hearing 
Members' and the Secretariat's view on whether it would be feasible to conduct such an examination 
in a large group or, as suggested by Australia, wh ether some work should be given to a smaller 
working group of representative Members.  In that case, certain aspects had to be considered:  How 
would Membership be established? Would it be open  to any Member wishing to participate?  How 
would it be deemed to be representative?  How woul d transparency be ensured?  What would be the 
procedures for the group's operation and how would d ecisions be made?  Cana da would also welcome 
the Secretariat's view in terms of suggested timefra me.  Noting that some delegations proposed three 
to six months, Canada would appreciate views on whether this would be coordinated with other 
groups, given that a notional timeline was being di scussed on the goods side.  In addition, Canada 
wished to discuss whether there would be requirement  to make changes in the verification exercise or 
whether there would only be suggestions.  If the latter was the case, protocol language would be 
necessary to ensure that Members' rights were respected.    
45. The representative of Indonesia  noted that the matrix contained in the Secretariat's Note was 
very informative.  It provided Members with a be tter understanding of every step of the verification 
process.  The two scenarios helped identify the pros and the cons of having the verification process 
before or after the conclusion of the negotiations.  Indonesia would examine both options carefully 
and reserved the right to give comments at a later stage.  Indonesia shared the concerns expressed by 
other Members on the cases where disagreement remained  even after the consultations had been held 
and wished to see more clarity on this issue.  As al ready mentioned, it was important to keep in mind 
that the process was linked to the negotiations in other areas.     
46. The representative of Egypt  stated that her government had not decided yet between the two 
scenarios.  She reiterated her delegation's support for a verification process that avoided rollbacks. 
47. The representative of El Salvador  shared the view that developm ents in other areas should be 
taken into account, which in one wa y or another had an impact.  She reiterated that any verification 
process should take place after the conclusion of the negotiations.  Scenario A was therefore preferable.  The Committee should continue to focu s on the various stages of the process, bearing in 
mind that the concerns of all Members should be taken into account. S/CSC/M/56 
Page 10  
 
  48. The representative of Tanzania
 considered that Scenario B would be the better option because 
it offered some flexibility.  Her delegation reserved th e right to come back later after having consulted 
capital.  The provision of technical assistance to developing countries should be mentioned in 
Scenario B as had been done in Scen ario A.  Scenario B should also have a paragraph on LDCs as in 
most cases LDCs needed technical assistance in the process.  Finally , she asked what would happen i 
no agreement was reached during the verification exercise.       
49. The representative of Switzerland  noted that the main difference between Scenarios A and B 
was the beginning and the end of the verification process.  He wondered what was more important, 
the timing or the content of the exercise, be it Scenario A or B.  He wondered why item 6 of Scenario B could not be included in Scenario A, if the Memb ers so wished or why item 8 of Scenario A could 
not be included in Scenario B.  If Members could not reach agreement in Scenario B, by default the 
situation would resemble item 8 of Scenario A: some Members would submit the schedules that they deemed appropriate, especially as there would be a d eadline.  In other words,  the effectiveness of the 
verification exercise depended on the will of Member s as well as external elements related to overall 
decision making in the context of the Round rather than on the choice between A and B.  Like 
Canada, while Switzerland preferred a verificatio n process with bite, it still wanted to have a 
provision in the protocol.  Members could start addressing specific situations where rollback was 
expected, if they so wished.  Regarding the discuss ions in the dedicated meeting as mentioned in item 
6 of scenario B, Switzerland preferred that they we re formal sessions.  Finally, for those Members that 
did not ratify the results of the negotiations, he asked  what would be the ensuing obligations and what 
would be the rights of other Members.   
50. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 asked the Secretariat to sp ecify the time needed for each 
step of the verification process as set out in the roadmap, taking into account previous experiences. 
His delegation wished to have a better idea in this  regard. He understood th at bilateral/plurilateral 
consultations would be held as suggested in step 7 of  Scenario B which thus might require more time.  
Regarding the terminology used in the roadmap, he noted that "draft new schedules" was used in the 
previous version while this versi on referred to "draft schedules".  He recalled that the terminology 
used in Annex C of Hong Kong declaration was "f inal draft schedule" and wondered whether these 
terms were referring to the same th ing.  He asked whether the verifi cation exercise could start with the 
revised offers rather than await until the submission of final draft schedules.     
51. The representative of the Secretariat  said that the roadmap sought to identify the steps 
Members might want to think about in terms of th e two scenarios.  Indeed, each step would need a 
timeframe, however, it might not be appropriate to specify it in the current version so as not to 
complicate the discussion.  Once Members agreed on the architecture of the process and the steps to 
go through, they would then consider how much  time was needed for each of the steps.   
52. He added, the services negotiations were part  of the single undertaking as one of the three 
market access negotiations. One could reasonabl y assume that this would require commensurate 
progress across the three areas.  This might suggest that there would be a common date for ending the 
"bargaining" process in the three areas as well as fo r delivering the documents containing the results 
to be incorporated in the final in strument of the DDA.  What happened before need not necessarily be 
coordinated in any aspect.  The services negotia tions were a request-offer process, while the 
negotiations in other areas were modalities-based .  In services, on the basis of a template 
consolidating all existing schedules, Members made offers based on the common editorial 
conventions to introduce changes to their schedules.   In Agriculture and NAMA, Members would still 
have to construct the schedules, once they agr eed on modalities.  The dynamics and the processes 
were different, so there was no need to draw proce dural step by step parallels between the different 
processes.   Members needed to keep in mind that the bargaining process would end on the same date and that the final delivery of the consolidated/a dopted results to be incorporated in the final 
instrument would also be on the same date.  What happened up to the date of concluding the  S/CSC/M/56 
 Page 11 
 
 
  bargaining process, and between the conclusion of this process and the adoption of the results was up 
to Members to decide.  In this regard, coordina tion was not necessary in any aspect.  It might be 
useful to explain these general points in the cover note of the second revision of the roadmap.   
53. The roadmap had been prepared based on the assumption that the verification exercise would 
start after the conclusion of the bargaining process.  At that stage, Members deemed that they had 
reached a satisfactory package of commitments wh ich would represent the results of the market 
access negotiations.  This was why the reference to re vised offers did not appear in the roadmap, and 
the exercise would start with the submission of draft schedules.  The prior process of negotiations might involve more than one revision of offers and at some point towards the end of the negotiations, 
revised offers might come in an uncoordinated way.   
54. Regarding those questions on technical assistance, he said that the Secretariat would stand 
ready to provide technical assistance throughout all stages, though it was not mentioned in Scenario 
B.  It could be added in a further revision.   
55. Concerning the question on the sequence between pa ragraphs 6, 7 and 8 in Scenario B,  he 
agreed that the "satisfaction with  the outcome" and the conclusion of that dedicated meeting would 
come after the conclusion of consultations.  Ther e were two reasons why the roadmap was in its 
current form.  First, it was meant to describe th e dedicated session and what it would entail in one 
place.  Second, what was set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 might not necessarily materialize in practice,    unless during the dedicated meetings some instances of  rollbacks in the draft schedules were raised.  
Again, two scenarios might then prove relevant.  The Member concerned would agree to introduce 
necessary adjustments, thus there was no need to go to steps 7 and 8, or there were divergent views on 
rollbacks which required further consultations.  Steps 7 and 8 would then kick in.  Based on previous 
experience, before the verification exercise most cases of rollbacks would be discovered as Members 
kept examining all revisions of the offers.  Member s might reach the verification stage with very few 
instances of rollbacks, if any, and be able to  agree on adjustments during the meeting.  The 
consultative process would be a deterrent to introducing any rollbacks.  This led to the next point: the 
major difference between the two scenarios was th at in Scenario B pressure could build up as 
rollbacks contained in schedules could hold up the adoption of the results of the negotiations.  
Consultations would continue until there was a resolution and Members we re under pressure to 
conclude the process as soon as possible.  The dynamic behind Scenario B thus differed from Scenario A.  That pressure at the same time could also result in draft schedules containing minimal 
rollbacks because each participant in  the negotiations would be fully aware that rollbacks in the 
verification process could hold up the adoption of th e results of the negotiations.  There was no such 
dynamic in Scenario A, where the comments by other Members were purely consultative and it was up to the Member concerned to introduce changes or not.  Nothing prevented Members from holding consultations in Scenario A, but the practical need fo r such consultations had not arisen in the past.   
56. Regarding the question of whether clarifications  of any particular issues in the negotiations 
could be recorded, he recalled previous negotiati ons on basic telecommunications, for example, where 
two Chairman's Notes with respect to technological  neutrality and classification had been issued to 
clarify the commitments and the way schedules had been drafted.  It would be up to Members to determine the need for any kind of record, be it th e record of the dedicated meeting or an agreed 
Chairman's Note.   
57. He added that the issue of changing classifications should preferably be discussed during the 
negotiating process rather than being brought up at  the end of the negotiations in the verification 
exercise.  This was mainly because it required expl anatory discussions about the possible implications 
of such changes for the sectoral scope of a pre-existing commitments.     S/CSC/M/56 
Page 12  
 
  58. Regarding the time needed for the exercise, it c ould certainly be less than six months if the 
prior negotiating process proceeded as normally expected .  After all, it was up to Members to take the 
decision.  
59. The roadmap did not refer to LDCs because it did not want to interfere with the assumption 
that LDCs were not expected to make commitment s.  In any event, technical assistance would be 
available for LDCs.   
60. The representative of Switzerland
 referred to the expectation of the Secretariat that Scenario 
B would create considerable pressure.  He wondered who would feel pressured, those who wished to 
maintain their schedule despite criticism or  those who sought changes?  He suspected that pressure 
would work in either direction.   Unfortunately, there was always a tendency in negotiations to fall 
short of certain expectations.   
61. The representative of Argentina  suggested that the cover note of the further revision of the 
roadmap include the linkage to the negotiations in other areas.  He referred to the Secretariat's 
statement that all the bargaining processes would conclude  at the same time and that in both scenarios 
the verification started with the submission of the draft schedules.  However, according to paragraph 
11 of Annex C of the Hong Kong Declaration, th e submission of the second revised offers and the 
submission of the final draft schedules would take pl ace, respectively, three and six months after the 
Agriculture and the NAMA process had been concluded.   He sought further clarifications in this 
regard.    
62. The representative of the Secretariat  said that if there was an alleged rollback, the pressure 
normally would be on the Member whose schedule was claimed to contain that rollback.  The fact that 
the discussion would take place in an open-ended meeting of the Special Session of the Council 
would provide a certain level of accountability and invol ve the Membership collectively.  The dates in 
the Hong Kong Declaration had been set in view of  a common point of conclusion.  However, the 
Hong Kong Declaration itself did not cover the entire process up to its final stage.  In the Uruguay 
Round, the results of the negotiations had been  adopted in December 1993, while the Marrakesh 
Conference had taken place in April 1994; in the in terim there had been verification exercises until 
everything had been put into a final p ackage in the form of a treaty paper. 
63. The representative of Chile  stated that in the cover note to a further revision of the roadmap, it 
would be inappropriate to specifically mention the deadlines contained in paragraph 11 of Annex C of 
the Hong Kong Declaration.  The roadmap wa s dealing with a different situation. 
64. The Chair  noted that the Committee had an interesting discussion on various steps of the 
verification exercise and the timing.  While some delegations kept both options open, a number of 
Members had indicated their preference for Scenarios A or B.  Several issues had been raised, such as 
how to deal with disagreement on rollbacks; the linka ge to negotiations in other areas and the overall 
development of the Round; technical assistance, etc.   She suggested that the Secretariat provide a 
second revision of the Note and that the Committee c ontinue the discussion.  Finally, she suggested 
that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to this agenda item at its next meeting.   
65. It was so agreed . 
C. SCHEDULING ISSUES  
66. Due to lack of time, the Chair  suggested that the Committee reve rt to this item at the next 
meeting. 
67. It was so agreed .  S/CSC/M/56 
 Page 13 
 
 
  D. OTHER BUSINESS  
68. The representative of Turkey  clarified that her delegation had stated at the last meeting that it 
had no objections to the sequence listed in the S ecretariat's Note, but believed that the verification 
exercise would be a long process and that deci ding on the timelines was the major issue.   
 
__________