RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE S/CSC/M/4
4December 1997
ORGANIZATION
(97-5334)
Committee onSpecific Commitments
REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON29OCTOBER 1997
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onSpecific Commitments helditsfourth meeting on29October 1997 under
theChairmanship ofMrAsoke Mukerji ofIndia. Theagenda ofthemeeting wascontained inairgram
WTO/AIR/697.
I. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
A. Assessment oftheRelevance oftheAdoption ofCPCrev1forTrade Negotiating purposes
1. TheCommittee heard apresentation byrepresentatives oftheUnited Nations Statistical Division
andoftheVoorburg Group ontheprinciples followed intherevision oftheclassification, onitsmain
modifications andonitscalendar ofpublication. Thisstatement willbecirculated shortly.
2. Memberswelcomedthisstatement.Inanswertoquestions,additionalexplanationsonthecontent
ofthenewclasses andonthetitlesoftheheadings wereprovided. TheUNSD representative added
thattheUNSD wasadministering aseries ofgroups whose functions wastoaddress thiskindofproblem.
Shealsomentionedtheexistenceofan"hotline"andofawebsite
(www.un.org/depts/unsd/class/class1.htm). Shefinally recalled thattheWTO waswelcome toattend
theVoorburg Group works ifitsowished.
3. Inanswer toaquestion, theVoorburg Group representative indicated thattherewasnocross-
index available forrev1yetbutthatthere wasaproject tothateffect. AMember inquired about the
extent oftheuseofrev1bynational statistical offices, notably inthesectors offinancial services and
telecoms. TheVoorburg Group representative replied thatthose offices were notequally advanced
intheuseofrev1, butallwereprogressing inthesamedirection. Inthefinancial services sector, where
beforehand therewasnocommon framework ofmeasurement, rev1hadanappendix asanagreement
tointegrate itinthenewclassification hadnotproved possible. Intelecommunications sherecognized
thatthespeed oftechnological evolution tended tooutdate anywork onclassification.
4. TheSecretariat thenintroduced document S/CSC/W/9 "AQualitative Assessment ofthe
Relevance ofthechanges resulting fromCPCrev1fortrade negotiating purposes" andexplained the
methodology followed. Members found thepaper useful. OneMember underlined thefactthatCPC
wasonlyasecondary source ofclassification, functioning asacross reference ofGNS/W/120 which
wasthebasic document .ThisMember considered thattheCommittee hadtomake adecision onits
objectives andonapossible restructuring ofW/120. Several delegations indicated thattheyconsidered
thestudies oftheSecretariat onrevision 1ofapurely informative andpreliminary nature andthat
itwaspremature toenvisage aconversion fromCPCprovisional toCPCrev1asabasisforscheduling.
TheviewoftheSecretariat thatmost ofthechanges would beneutral ineffect hadtobestudied in
detail. Thedefinition oftheobjectives would follow thisanalysis. OneMember recalled thatthere
wasnocompulsory classification whatsoever. ThisMember sawrev1asadefault mechanism tobe
usedwhen aproblem ofscheduling wasencountered. Thework oftheSecretariat onrev1wasthereforeS/CSC/M/4
Page 2
useful asithelped thecomprehension ofrev1rather thanpro-actively promoting it.Another delegation
recalled thatevenW/120 wasnotanagreed basisforscheduling. TheChairman concluded thatwork,
ofaninformative nature, would continue onthissubject.
B. Treatment ofnewservices
5. TheChairman introduced hisInformal Noteonthequestion ofnewservices (JobNo.5719).
OneMember indicated thatinitsviewthework onnewservices wasstilllacking aclear definition
ofitsobjectives andunderlined theneedforpragmatism andconcrete examples. Thispleaforconcrete
examples wasechoed byseveral other Members .
6. Onthefirstquestion oftheinformal paper ("Isitnecessary andappropriate todealwiththis
question now?"), oneMember judged thatitwaspremature toreach conclusions; thesingle example
given wasinsufficient toformanopinion. Members generally considered thatitwastooearlytoreach
definitive conclusions onthequestion.
7. Onthequestion ofhownewservices should beidentified anddefined andwhatwould betheir
relationship withexisting commitments, oneMember considered thattheinformal notedidnotstress
sufficiently theimprecision oftheconcept ofnewservices. Forinstance thefactthataservice isnot
listed intheCPCdoesnotmake itautomatically a"new" service; itmaypre-exist butnotbeidentified
assuchinCPC dueforinstance tolackofstatistics. Thequestion ofthedifference between anew
service andavariant ofanexisting service wasalsorelevant since presumably most"new services"
were avariant orasubset ofexisting services.
8. Areflection wasalsoneeded onthemeans ofsupplying aservice since insome cases, such
asCD-ROM testing, theonlything thathadchanged compared totheprevious situation wasthe
appearance ofanewtechnological means ofproviding aservice. Cable television wasprobably inthe
same situation. Finally thisMember suggested tostudy theprecedent ofnewfinancial services. A
Member noticed thatthisprecedent entailed twolimitations: therequirement ofanestablishment and
theexistence ofaregulatory framework intheMember inquestion. Another Member indicated that
initsviewthenature oftheservices wasmore important thanthetechnological means toprovide it
inassessing thenovelty oftheservice. Thebuilt-in flexibilities ofW/120 andCPCsuchastheexistence
ofthe"other" categories, hadtobetaken intoaccount before looking foraspecific solution fornew
services, aproblem forwhich concrete examples were stillneeded.
9. Members generally considered thataservice which wasnotforeseen orknown atthetime
ofthecommitments could notbeconsidered asbound evenifthewording ofCPCmight possibly cover
it.TheCPC wasbynature statistical andevolutive, whereas thecommitments were bynature fixed
andnonevolutive. New commitments could notbecreated bytheevolution oftheclassification.
Therefore newservices iftheyexisted hadtobeincorporated inthelistsinanexplicit manner.
10. AMember pointed outthatinthecaseofadisagreement onthecoverage ofacommitment
theprocedures ofdispute settlement were available.
11. Onthequestion oftherelationship between newservices andnational regulations, Members
underlined theimportance oftaking national regulations intoaccount. OneMember pointed outthat
indeveloping countries thedevelopment ofmarkets wasquicker thanthedevelopment ofregulations.
Therefore forthisMember acountry could notbeconsidered asbound because anitemseemed to
becovered bytheCPC when theservice wasnotcontemplated innational regulation.S/CSC/M/4
Page 3
12. Another Member pointed outthatnewservices wereconstantly emerging intheareaofvalue
added telecoms services andwerelargely unregulated. However theattitude ofMembers towards those
serviceswasvariable:certainMemberswereregulatingthem,otherMemberswerenot.Financialservices
andbasic telecom services, where newservices alsoappeared, were more regulated. However new
services were ingeneral nonregulated services anddidnotpresent practical problems.
13. Onthequestion ofwhoshould decide whether agiven service isnew, Members agreed that
thisshould bedonebyconsensus, taking intoaccount national regulations.
14. Onthequestion oftheprocedures forthedefinition ofnewservices Members weregenerally
oftheviewthatthisshould bedoneinapragmatic way, onthebasis ofconcrete examples brought
byMembers. AMember indicated itfavoured asystematic process ofdefinition during therevision
oftheclassification ofservices inW/120.
15. Onthequestion offurther disaggregation oneMember reiterated itsreluctance towards itas
agoalinitself, asitmayhamper liberalization.
16. TheChairman concluded thathehoped Members would bring forward specific concrete cases
which would becirculated tohelptodiscuss thesubject atafuture meeting oftheCommittee.
C. "Ad-hoc" Sectoral Scheduling
17. TheChairman introduced thebackground document S/CSC/W/11 "ABriefAnalysis ofCases
ofAdhocScheduling inPastServices Negotiations". AMember noted thatthose adhocclassification
systems alsoneeded tobeclarified bycross-reference totheCPC. CPC wastherefore essential.
II. PROCEDURAL AND COST IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ELECTRONICALLY MAINTAINED SCHEDULES
18. TheSecretariat explained that,duetobudget constraints, theactual consolidation ofthe
commitmentsandtheprintingandcirculationoftheresultsofthisconsolidationcouldnotbeprogrammed
in1998.Thiswouldhowevernotpreventpreparatoryworkin1998withinexistingresourcesifMembers
sowished. TheSecretariat alsoexplained thattheelaboration ofastandard format ofconsolidated
schedules, including thedates ofthecommitments, hadproved legally andtechnically more complex
thanexpected andthatadditional work wasneeded inthatrespect before aformat could besubmitted
toMembers.
19. Members agreed thatoneshould waitfortheentry intoforce ofthenewcommitments on
financial services before printing consolidated schedules. However theyconsider possible theelaboration
ofanelectronic schedule in1998. Members alsounderlined thattheformat required theirapproval.
Onedelegation requested anartificial example ofsuchaformat. Onedelegation asked ifthere was
stillabudgetary possibility in1998 through theuseofcontingency funds. TheSecretariat indicated
itwould inquire astothose possibilities. AMember inquired about theproperty rights intheschedules.
TheChairman concluded thattheSecretariat would draftaformat forapproval bytheMembers during
thecourse of1998 andpursue preparatory work inorder totakefulladvantage ofabudget allotment
in1999, forwhich proposals willbeprepared.S/CSC/M/4
Page 4
III. SCHEDULING GUIDELINES
20. TheChairman presented thebackground notebytheSecretariat S/CSC/W/12 andrecalled
hisrequest forcontributions byMembers onquestions andproblems encountered asregards scheduling
inorder toserve asbasisforageneral discussions onthose questions. Hethanked theSwiss delegation
foritscontribution contained ininformal document JobNo.5628. TheSwiss delegation indicated that
itspaper contained nojudgement orfirmposition ondisputed issues andthatitwasmeant tohelp
reflection rather than providing ready made solutions.
21. Members underlined thattherewasnodecision taken torevise theguidelines butonlyadecision
toprovide examples ofproblems andthattherefore anywork could onlybeofapreliminary nature.
Certain Members commented onthesubstance oftheSwiss paper. Twodelegations indicated thatthey
didnotconsider alanguage requirement asadiscrimination andrecalled thedeclarations made inthe
samesense byseveral Members inthecontext oftheWorking Party onProfessional Services. Another
Member indicated thatinitsview thequestion ofvisas wasadequately covered bythescheduling
guidelines, aswellasthelicensing requirement when discriminatory. There washowever aproblem
ofdelineation formeasures falling under Article XVIandXVII. TheChairman concluded thatthe
Swiss paper would bediscussed again inafurther meeting andasked other Members toprovide
contributions onscheduling questions.
IV. STATISTICS
22. TheChairman recalled thatthisitemhadbeenkeptontheagenda tomonitor progress. He
indicated thattheSecretariat waspreparing apaper onservices trade flows fortheCouncil forTrade
inServices intheframework oftheexchange ofinformation exercise.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
23. TheCommittee agreed toadopt theannual report oftheCommittee totheCouncil forTrade
inServices byawritten procedure.