RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSS/M/5
1 December 2000
(00-5195)
Council for Trade in Services
Special Session
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5 AND 6 OCTOBER 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a Special Session on 5 and 6 October 2000.  The
agenda for the meeting is contained in  documents WTO/AIR/ 1395 and WTO/AIR/1395/Add.1.
2. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the agenda as circulated.
3. The Council so agreed.
I. ITEM A:  NEGOTIATING GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE XIX OF THE GATS
4. The Chairman recalled that, at its last Special Session, the Council had held a discussion on
the guidelines and procedures for the negotiations as required by Article XIX of the GATS.  The
discussion had focused on the elements that may be included in the guidelines, based on a note by the
Secretariat, in Job No. 3820, and the informal paper submitted by the European Communities entitled
"Negotiating guidelines:  drafting elements" in Job No. 4406.  The Secretariat note contained a list of
items, as well as background material on previous relevant texts.  It had been agreed at the end of the
discussion that the Secretariat would prepare a revision of the list of elements contained in pages 2
and 3 of that document, taking into account the views expressed at the meeting.  Accordingly, the
Secretariat had produced a revised list of elements, contained in the note Job No. 5658 dated19 September 2000.
5. A representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that the paper tried to take account of the
points made at the previous meeting.  The material was inevitably familiar, as the basic objectives and
many of the guiding principles for the negotiations were laid down in the GATS and had been taken
up in the draft prepared the Seattle Ministerial as well as in the road-map, which was effectively theguidelines for the first phase of the negotiations.  Any added value had to come from Members'
inputs.
6. The Chairman drew Members' attention to a communication submitted by Mauritius on behalf
of the African Group contained in document S/CS S/W/7 on negotiating guidelines and procedures.
He also indicated that Hong Kong, China intende d to speak under this item to a communication that
they had submitted also under item D of the agenda, contained in document S/CSS/W/6.  He believed
that Members should aim to reach an agreement on the elements that should be contained in the
guidelines and procedures for negotiations and on how each of these elements should be reflected in a
first draft of the guidelines.  He recalled that there was only one more Special Session meeting before
the end of the year and that, according to the agreed road-map, a stock-taking exercise was scheduledfor March 2001, by which time guidelines and procedures should ideally be agreed.  He asked thatS/CSS/M/5
Page 2
Members give sufficient guidance for the Secretariat to  produce, ideally, a first draft of the guidelines
which could be discussed in December and perhaps refined further before the stock-taking meeting of
2001, when it could be adopted.  Such an arrangement would not imply that additional proposals and
submissions by delegations would not be welcome.
7. The representative of Hong Kong, China explained that the submission by his delegation,
document S/CSS/W/6, covered both their position on the negotiations and what they suggested should
be reflected in the negotiating guidelines.  Under this agenda item, he drew out those issues which
should be reflected in the guidelines.  His delegation's overall aims were not dissimilar to those set out
in the draft Seattle text and echoed the main premis es in the road-map.  The negotiations had to be
balanced and take into account the aspirations of all Members.  The guidelines should flag up the
relevant and important parts of the GATS, including the appropriate flexibility for developing
countries.  Request-offer should remain the main negotiating modality, supplemented by otherapproaches, such as clusters, model schedules and additional commitments.  Detailed requests should
be tabled by late 2001;  before then, Members would put forward and discuss approaches in specific
sectors, modes or activities.  No service sector should be excluded a priori .  Rule-making work should
proceed together with the negotiations of specific commitments and be completed prior to the end of
the negotiations.  Substantial agreement on disciplines should be reached by late 2001.  Within therule-making work, the guidelines should flag up the importance of work under Articles VI:4 and XIII.
The guidelines should refer to some  MFN-related issues, such as the need to negotiate the elimination
of MFN exemptions within ten years, a review of whether the conditions which had created the need
for an exemption continued to prevail and consideration of the systemic issues that had arisen from
the review.  A provision on technical review of the GATS should also be included in the guidelines.
8. The representative of Mauritius said that he tended to agree with the Chairman's statement.
Speaking on behalf of the African Group, he presented the African position on negotiating guidelines
and procedures as contained in document S/CSS/ W/7.  He explained that the proposal had been
submitted in accordance with the programme of mandated services work, which underscored the need
for timely establishment of the guidelines, and taking into account the GATS architecture andobjectives as stipulated in the preamble and Articles IV and XIX.  While appreciating that there
should be progressively higher levels of liberalization through the reduction or elimination of the
adverse effects of measures as means of providing effective market access, the proposal underscored
the need for the negotiations to take place with due respect for national policy objectives and the level
of development of individual Members.  Negotiations also had to be premised on the satisfactory
completion of the assessment of trade.  Special attention and priority had to be given to the needs of
least-developed countries, taking into account the difficulties they faced in accepting negotiated
commitments because of their specific economic situation.  Necessary flexibility for individual
Members had to be allowed in the negotiations and special attention devoted to sectors and modes of
interest to developing countries.  It was necessary to develop and improve Africa's services capacity,
efficiency and competitiveness, and to enhance access to technology, distribution channels and market
information.  He expressed concern that existin g differences in the supply capacities between
developed and developing countries would widen further and in the process deepen structural
inequalities.  He stressed that the GATS architecture  had to be preserved.  He said that confidence in
the multilateral trading system could be strengthened only through the realization of the benefits
which had been promised.  The paper had been submitted by the African Group as a positive
contribution to the negotiations, without prej udice to the position of individual Members.
9. The representative of Brazil, speaking on behalf  of MECOSUR, said that he would revert to
the paper submitted by Hong Kong, China and the one by the African Group at future meetings.  With
respect to the proposal by the European Communities, he was pleased to note that the first paragraph
included some of the language of the road-map and was thus generally consistent with the principles
of Articles IV and XIX of the GATS, which were the guiding lines of the negotiations.  However, hehad also noted some discrepancies.  For example, paragraph 2(a) of the EC proposal stated that theS/CSS/M/5
Page 3
negotiations were aimed at reducing the imbalances in commitments, whereas their main objective, as
set out in Article XIX, was the progressive liberalization of trade in services.  He noted that the
reference in the GATS to the balance of rights and obligations, which had to be interpreted in the light
of the flexibility granted to developing countries by Article XIX, had not been reflected in the EC
proposal.  Furthermore, the last sentence in paragraph 2(d) suggested that the negotiations shouldclose the gap between current commitments and actual market practices;  however, Article XIX:3 did
not establish any link between autonomous liberalization and the binding of the status quo, but rather
mandated the establishment of modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalization, whereby
Members would get negotiating credit for liberalization carried out autonomously.  He also noted that
no reference was made in the EC proposal to the link between the conclusion of the market access
negotiations and the conclusion of the rule-makin g work under the GATS;  the proposal only referred
to expediting the negotiations on rules.  In item 3(c), the European Communities suggested deadlinesfor the submission of initial proposals and also proposed that, in March 2001, the Special Session
establish the date for the submission of initial offers .  In this regard, he recalled that MERCOSUR did
not see the services negotiations as running in isolation;  the proposed benchmarks were ambitious
and did not have any parallel with the negotiations in agriculture.  He was concerned by the
suggestion that the guidelines evolve and be amended over time, as a number of questions existedwhich had to be clarified before the guidelines coul d be established;  he said that MERCOSUR would
be submitting a proposal.
10. The representative of Chile said that the main purpose of the negotiations was set out in
Article XIX, namely to achieve a progressively higher level of liberalization, but that the guidelines
should address the issue in greater detail.  With respect to autonomous liberalization, the United Statespaper in document S/CSS/W/4 contained a specific proposal, which however had to be analysed in
greater detail, in conjunction with other possible options.  One difficulty with the US proposal was
that credit for autonomous liberalization would be given through bilateral negotiations, which would
put small countries at a relative disadvantage.  The results of the review of MFN exemptions and the
review of the Annex on Air Transport had to be re flected in the guidelines.  Bound commitments, and
not existing restrictions, were the starting-point of the negotiations.
11. The representative of the European Communities supported the Chairman's proposal that the
Secretariat prepare a draft of the guidelines.  He would revert to the submissions by Hong Kong,
China and by the African Group.  With respect to the note prepared by the Secretariat, he said that the
reference to air transport was too modest, as the obj ective of the review of the Annex was to decide
whether more of sector should be subject to the GATS;  the guidelines should therefore allow for such
a possibility, or at least not rule it out.  With respec t to modalities for the negotiations, he said that the
guidelines should indicate that the main approach was the request-offer process, which could be
supplemented by other methods.  On autonomous liberalization, he said that establishing exhaustive
modalities would be difficult at that stage and suggested that such modalities be developed in the
course of the negotiations and that the guidelines be open and allow for further discussion on the
issue.  He supported the proposal by Hong Kong, China that a Special Session meeting be held onautonomous liberalization.  He was also in favour of the guidelines containing a provision for a
possible technical review of the GATS.  Respond ing to comments by MERCOSUR, he explained that
the notion in paragraph 2(a) of "reducing the imbalance in commitments" had emerged from the
assessment of trade;  however, he was flexible and could accept that the language of Article XIX be
used.  On the absence of a link between the end of the rule-making work and of the market accessnegotiations, he indicated that the two phases should indeed proceed in tandem and that there should
be no dividing line between them.  Finally, with respect to the possibility that the text of the
guidelines be altered during the negotiations, he emphasised the need for flexibility, for example on
the issue of autonomous liberalization.
12. Commenting on the Secretary note, the representative of New Zealand said that the paper
appeared to touch upon all of the issues that Members would need to bear in mind when developingS/CSS/M/5
Page 4
the guidelines, but said that an explicit reference to the review of the Annex on Air Transport Services
had to be included.  In this regard, the paper by the European Communities contained a useful
reference in paragraph 3(b), as did the proposed by the African Group in paragraph 11(ix).  The paper
by Hong Kong, China usefully complemented the Secretariat note, and he would revert to it under
agenda item D.  As to structure and scope of the guidelines generally, he believed that the generalstructure of the draft text for Seattle could be replicated, as it confirmed that no services sector would
be excluded from the negotiations and that the negotiations themselves would be conducted by way of
the request-offer technique, as well as any other negotiating modalities, applied on a horizontal or
sectoral basis, that Members might agree on.
13. The representative of Poland was in favour of early establishment of negotiating guidelines
and procedures and would revert to the submissions by Hong Kong, China and by the African Group.
The guidelines should include elements of the road-map, be flexible and well-balanced, and present acomprehensive approach to the negotiations.  His delegation endorsed the communication by the
European Communities as a basis for Members' discussion.  As regarded the Secretariat note, in a
preliminary manner he supported request-offer as the essential modality for the negotiation, which
could be supplemented by other facultative methods.  The issue of autonomous liberalization required
further discussion;  he was therefore in favour of the proposal that a Special Session meeting bedevoted to the issue.
14. Responding to the Chairman's proposal, the representative of India said that delegations were
still reacting to each other and that one more meeting in December would be required before the
Secretariat could draw up a draft for the guidelines, which could be produced by January 2000.  His
delegation would also be submitting a contribution.  As concerned the Secretariat paper, he felt that itwas a good list, but observed that a reference to Article IV was missing and should be included, and
wondered also which delegation had suggested that pro-competitive elements be included in the
guidelines.  In a preliminary manner, he expressed strong support for the paper submitted by the
African Group.  On the European Communities comment about autonomous liberalization, he
observed that the issue of modalities could not be worked out during the negotiations, as Article XIXmandated that such modalities be set up before the negotiating guidelines could be established.  With
respect to the European Communities comment that an imbalance in commitments had emerged as a
conclusion from the assessment of trade, he noted that the assessment had not been concluded.  His
opinion was that sectors and modes of interest to developing countries had not been liberalized
sufficiently by developed countries, as, given the positive list approach, these countries had chosen to
commit in areas of interest to them;  the result was that Article IV of the GATS had not been fulfilled.
He therefore disagreed with the EC statement that the imbalance in commitments had to be reduced in
the negotiations.  As concerned the paper by Hong Kong, China, he agreed that the logical starting-
point for the negotiations were Members' current schedules.  He also welcomed that a priori  there be
no exclusion in the negotiations of any sector or mode, and that request-offer be the main modality,
even though he would have preferred the term "principle" to "main".  The timing for tabling detailed
requests, by late 2001, was realistic, and he welcomed the holding of a Special Session meetingdevoted to autonomous liberalization.  He could not agree with the open-ended statement about a
review of the GATS.  His delegation had always felt that the GATS did not need a substantive review;
it was willing to consider the possibility of a tech nical review, provided that its implications were
clear.  On the suggestion that government procurement be brought within the ambit of the GATS, he
noted that Members had recently held lengthy discussions on the mandate in Article XIII, so that sucha suggestion was ambitious.  In paragraph 23, the suggestion for phase-in periods for developing
countries' commitments appeared to depart from Article XIX, which clearly stated that developing
countries could open fewer sectors, fewer transactions and take commitments in fewer areas.  In
paragraph 12, Hong Kong, China's objective was that, when market access was provided under
mode 3, full national treatment be granted;  whereas this could be striven for in bilateral negotiations,it could not be agreed in multilateral context.  He sought clarifications on the proposal for an
agreement on the scope and reach of national treatment in modes 1 and 2, and for a comprehensiveS/CSS/M/5
Page 5
and balanced set of commitments in vital infrastructural sectors across all Members mentioned in
paragraph 10, as he wondered how such individual objectives would fit into the guidelines, which
applied to all Members.
15. Commenting on the Secretariat note, the representative of Hungary stated that Article XIX
contained two negotiating principles, namely the respect for the level of development of individual
Members and the respect for their national policy objectives, but that the document contained a
reference only to national policy objectives.  He also recalled that the same point had been made
previously, as well as in the communication by Bu lgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Latvia and Estonia contained in Job No. 3077.  On the paragraph dealing
with the rule-making work, he said that the wording of this paragraph did not fully reflect the more
positive text which had been agreed in paragraph (f) of the road-map.  With respect to the submission
by Hong Kong, China, he shared many of the elemen ts put forward therein:  the objectives mentioned
in paragraphs 3(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f); the current schedules being the starting-point for the
negotiations of specific commitments; the "no a priori exclusion of sectors or modes of supply";
bilateral request-offer as the main negotiating techni que; rule-making work being as important as, and
proceeding in tandem with, the negotiation of spec ific commitments and being concluded as soon as
possible, but no later than by the end of the negotiation;  pursuing work on transparency and necessityfor Article VI:4 disciplines.  He sought further clarification on the suggestion in paragraph 13 that a
reference paper similar to the telecom Reference Paper be worked out for electronic commerce.  He
expressed full support for the Chairman's sugges tion on how to move forward on the work on the
guidelines, and said that he would revert to the submission by the African Group.
16. The representative of Indonesia stressed the importance of the guidelines.  By way of
preliminary comments on the Secretariat note, he emphasised that the negotiations should not exclude
any service sector or mode of supply, especially those of interest to developing countries, so as to
enable Members to promote their interests and to secure an overall balance of rights and obligations.
With regard to the treatment of autonomous liberalization, he said that credit should be granted, so as
to encourage Members to unilaterally liberalize beyond their commitments.  He stressed that thenegotiations had to be based on bound commitments and not on other bases, such as existing rules and
regulations.
17. The representative of Switzerland said that he would revert to the submissions by Hong Kong,
China and by the African Group.  On the Chairman's proposal for a Secretariat draft, he said that the
end of January 2001 was a realistic time-frame, in view of the fact that many Members were still
examining proposals.  As Members were not making fast progress on substance, he doubted whether a
deadline for the negotiations could be established.  He therefore supported paragraph 20, but did notendorse paragraph 21 of the submission by Hong Kong, China, as the guidelines should not contain
any deadline;  in that sense, in a preliminary manner he could support to paragraph 11 of the African
Group paper.  He concurred that the starting-point for the negotiations were current commitments.  On
autonomous liberalization, he noted that Members had been unable to establish modalities due to the
difficulty of defining the notion of credit; he therefore endorsed Hong Kong, China's proposal that ameeting of the Special Session be held on the issue.  He also supported the standstill proposal made
by the United States, and the fact that no sector or mode would be excluded from the negotiations.  On
modalities, his delegation was open and willing to consider methods beyond the traditional request-
offer approach.
18. The representative of Korea said that he woul d revert to the submission by the African Group.
On the paper by Hong Kong, China, he sought clarification on the proposal in paragraph 21, and in
particular on the mention "whichever is later", as well as on the mention of anti competitive behaviour
in paragraphs 3 and 13.  With regard to paragraph 22, he stressed that rule-making work should be
expedited.  He supported the suggestion that the Secretariat prepare a draft of the guidelines for the
December meeting.  Commenting on the Secretariat note in Job No. 5658, he said that the paper wasS/CSS/M/5
Page 6
quite comprehensive as concerned the scope of the negotiations.  Korea's position, which was well
reflected in paragraph 25 of the minutes of the previous meeting, was that no sector be excluded a
priori  from the negotiations, that MFN exemptions be subject to negotiations, that they include a
technical, not a whole, review of the GATS.  As fo r the reviews of the air transport Annex and of the
Understanding on accounting rates, it was too early to take decision; setting a deadline for thenegotiations was also premature.  The work of the subsidiary bodies had to be expedited, and no link
established with the negotiations on specific commitments, as the rule-making work had to be
completed before meaningful negotiations on specific commitments could begin.  Request-offer was
the main negotiating modality, which could be supplemented by other approaches, and the starting-
point for the negotiations were existing commitments.  As for autonomous liberalization, his
delegation attached great importance to the issue and supported the proposal by Hong Kong, China.
19. The representative of the Slovak Republic said that the guidelines were a necessary element
for successful negotiations, that they should be based on the language agreed in the road-map and be
short and simple, while preserving the interest of all WTO Members.  In this light, the proposal of the
European Communities was a good building block, and he stressed in particular the importance of the
proposal in paragraph 2(a), concerning the reduction of the imbalance in commitments across
Members, sectors and modes, in securing a balance of rights and obligations.  Market-accesscommitments should be deepened, while allowing flexibility for developing countries.  Her delegation
was in favour of the request-offer approach, but was prepared to consider alternative approaches,
provided that individual Members' national policy objectives and level of development were taken
into account.  She said that conducting the negotiations on market access in tandem with those on
rule-making could have synergy effects in the first phase of the negotiations, but that concluding firstthe work on rules could positively influence market access negotiations, by providing legal guidance
and certainty.  She added that existing schedules were the appropriate starting-point for the
negotiations and concurred with the time-framed for the negotiations proposed in paragraph 3 of the
EC proposal.
20. Commenting solely on the Chairman's procedural  suggestion, the representative of Argentina
noted that Members had just started analysing wr itten submission, which were not many, and that
substantial oral comments had also been made which deserved detailed analysis.  His assessment was
that the debate was still evolving and that more proposals were needed before proceeding to a drafting
stage.  Hence, another meeting was needed at the very least in order for the Secretariat to produce a
draft of the guidelines.
21. The representative of Japan supported the Chairman's suggested time-frame for the
establishment of the guidelines and the proposal that the Secretariat prepare a first draft.  Commenting
on the Secretariat note, he said that he was unsure about including pro-competitive disciplines in the
guidelines.  As for the paper by Hong Kong, China, he felt that setting time-frames for the
negotiations was premature, as Members had agreed in the road-map that they would consider how to
move forward at the stock-taking session in March 2001.
22. The representative of Pakistan shared India's view that a specific reference to Article IV of the
GATS had to be included in the Secretariat note and supported the thrust of the paper by the African
Group.  As regarded the Chairman's proposal, he said that asking the Secretariat to engage in a
drafting exercise while Members were still submitting proposals was premature, and therefore
supported India's proposal in that respect.  He would be providing specific comments on the
submissions by the European Communities, the United States and Hong Kong, China, but stated thathis delegation's reactions would be along the same lines as those of India and Brazil on behalf of
MERCOSUR.
23. The representative of Jamaica said that she supported many of the elements contained in the
submission by the African Group;  to their comments, in paragraphs 10 and 11, on how the pace ofS/CSS/M/5
Page 7
work and the deadlines affected developing country delegations, she added the concerns of smaller
developing country delegations.  She took note of th e suggestion by India and agreed that the Special
Session would benefit from continuing discussion on the guidelines at its December meeting.
24. Responding to the Chairman's proposal on how to  proceed, the representative of Norway fully
supported the Secretariat producing a first draft of the guidelines for the December meeting.  He said
that it would also be useful to consider again the draft guidelines prepared for the Seattle meeting, as
many of the items and issues which had been raised were also reflected there.  His delegation would
welcome a reference in the guidelines to the respect for national policy objectives and to the fact that
no service sector nor mode of supply would be excluded a priori .  He supported the submission by the
European Communities and would revert to the contributions by the African Group and Hong Kong,
China.
25. The representative of Uruguay wished to add two points to the statement by Brazil on behalf
of MERCOSUR, which contained his delegation's pos ition.  With respect to the third point in the
Secretariat note on the scope of the negotiations, he suggested that the words " a priori " be added.  As
concerned the Chairman's proposal that the Secretariat prepare a first draft of the guidelines for the
December meeting, his delegation's position was similar to that of Argentina.  The guidelines had be
worked out on the basis of Members' proposals and ideas;  only a very small number of proposals hadbeen tabled until then, so that drawing up a first draft of the guidelines was premature.  MERCOSUR
would be making a specific contribution on the guidelines, and the delegation of India might do
likewise.  Members had to wait for new proposals and contributions before deciding when it would be
appropriate to start on a first draft of the guidelines.
26. The representative of Hong Kong, China firmly  supported the Chairman's suggestion that the
Secretariat be tasked to produce an outline of draft negotiating guidelines, also in view of the fact that
Members had been dealing with the issue for as much as two years and it was unlikely that new issues
would spring up.  He said that the Secretariat no te, Job No. 5658, could be worked into a draft,
perhaps flagging up where delegations had made either written or oral proposals.  He welcomed the
communication by the African Group, and in particular what they wished to see included in theguidelines as set out in paragraph 11.  In a preliminary manner, with respect to the comment in
paragraph 12 that developing countries should not be expected to undertake commitments beyond
those of interest to them, he said that greater liberalization would be in the interest of developing
countries;  still, he did acknowledge the point in paragraph 10 that a number of arrangements had to
be in place domestically before liberalization could take place.  Reacting to some of the comments
made on his delegation's submission, he said that paragraph 19 dealing with the review of the GATS
had to be read in conjunction with the statement that the basic structure of the GATS should not bechanged.  On government procurement, his view wa s that the negotiations on the issue might continue
for some time and he therefore hoped for real progress over the years.  As for Korea's question on
"whichever is later" in paragraph 21, it was intended to avoid a procedural debate in case a deadline
were to be agreed for services which did not to coincide with the deadline for a wider round of
negotiations.
27. With regard to the proposal that the Secretariat prepare a draft text of the guidelines for the
meeting in December, the representative of Brazil echoed the statement by Argentina.  He said that
more time was necessary to react to the proposals on the table and that his own delegation might also
make a contribution on the subject, so that at least another meeting was necessary before embarking
on a drafting exercise.
28. The representative of Egypt welcomed the Chairman's proposal on the organization of work
and said that the proposal by India was helpful.  He felt that more work was necessary before the
Secretariat could be asked to embark on a drafting process.  By way of preliminary comments on the
submission by Hong Kong, China, he said that the paper concentrated on issues relating to marketS/CSS/M/5
Page 8
access and national treatment, elimination of MFN exemptions, comprehensiveness of the scope of
negotiations, higher level of commitments and disciplines in the rules area.  He appreciated some
positive elements, such as the request-offer approach as basis for negotiations, the proposal for
autonomous liberalization and the starting-point of negotiating being existing commitments.
However, other important elements existed that could increase developing countries' participation inservices trade, grant them the flexibility to liberalize fewer sectors and progressively open markets in
line with their level of development and national policy objectives.  The assessment of trade in
services was an important ongoing process;  an emergency safeguard mechanism should be
emphasized as one of the priorities in the rules negotiations;  the liberalization of sectors and modes of
supply of interest to developing countries had to be stressed and barriers to mode 4 reduced or
eliminated.  The request-offer approach was the basis for the market access negotiations and might be
supplemented, as necessary and upon agreement by Members, by other approaches.  The technicalreview of the GATS was limited to improving the clarity and the legal consistency of the Agreement.
Discussions on autonomous liberalization had to be aimed at its recognition so that credit could be
granted.  Flexibility for developing countries was an important element in the GATS and should be
implemented as stipulated in the Agreement itself.  Deadlines and the duration of the negotiations had
to be realistic in order to meet the ambitious obje ctives of the negotiations.  He shared the concern
raised by the delegation of India regarding government procurement and national treatment in
paragraph 12 of the submission by Hong Kong, China.  His delegation's views were also well
reflected in the paper submitted by the African Group.
29. With respect to the Chairman's proposal on ho w to move forward, the representative of the
United States said that it was a slower plan than they would have liked but were willing to agree to it.
The contribution by the African Group contained a number of interesting ideas that were worthy of
consideration in the formulation of negotiating guidelines and procedures.  There had been a number
of useful oral contributions, and while he understood that delegations wished to submit their views in
writing, he underscored the importance of keeping the good momentum in the services negotiations.
Responding to the point raised by Chile on their suggestion with regard to autonomous liberalization,he explained that the approach that was being proposed was a combination of a multilateral and a
bilateral approach;  bilateral negotiations would try to anticipate the individual circumstances of
countries and be complemented by the possibility raising those same issues in the Special Session, the
multilateral body overseeing the negotiations.  With respect to the Secretariat draft, he said that,
especially in view of the discussions held, Members had gone beyond such a document, as they were
engaging in discussions of the substance of the subject-matter to be included in the negotiating
guidelines, as opposed to merely listing the subject headings as in the Secretariat document.  He alsoobserved that the Secretariat document did not refer to the importance of including timeframes in the
guidelines, as had been stressed by a number of delegations, including his own.
30. The representative of Australia said that he would revert to the paper by Hong Kong, China
and to the submission by the African Group.  He strongly supported the Chairman's proposal that the
first draft of the negotiating guidelines and procedures be prepared for the December meeting.  Anydraft guidelines should contain three elements which were not currently covered in the note produced
by the Secretariat.  Firstly, with regard to the scope of the negotiations, no sector should be excluded a
priori .  Secondly, there should be a reference to the reviews under way, namely the reviews of the
Annex on Air Transport Services, of the Understanding on Accounting Rates and of MFN
exemptions;  in that respect, paragraph 3(b) of the paper by the European Communities in JobNo. 4406 provided a good basis.  Thirdly, the draft guidelines could usefully contain some reference
to timeframes;  an important distinguishing feature between the "road-map" and the proposed
negotiating guidelines and procedures was the inclusion of some parameters regarding timeframes for
the various phases of the negotiating process.
31. The representative of Mexico stressed the importance of distinguishing Members' individual
wishes and negotiating objectives from the final negotiating guidelines as agreed by all Members.S/CSS/M/5
Page 9
The fact that some delegations had suggested an element for inclusion in the guidelines was not
sufficient for the Secretariat to automatically incorpor ate that element in a draft text of the guidelines.
He said that Members were not starting from scratch with the establishment of the guidelines;
although the Seattle draft did not have any status, it did constitute a fundamental guide as to what the
negotiating guidelines might look like.  On the Secretariat note, he observed that reference had to bemade to the fact that a priori  no services sector would be excluded from the negotiations.  A reference
to MFN exemptions also had to be included.  Due account had to be taken of the results of the review
of the Annex on Air Transport Services;  that, howeve r, was different from stating that there would be
negotiations on air transport services as such.  On the review of the Understanding on Accounting
Rates, his delegation did not have a final position, but it was clear that the Understanding did not
imply negotiations.  As to the treatment of autonomous liberalization, Article XIX required that
modalities to that effect be drawn up as part of the guidelines.  He supported the suggestion that aSpecial Session be devoted to discussion of the issue before agreeing to negotiating guidelines.  With
regard to the rule-making work, he felt that the draft Seattle text might be appropriate.  He was
concerned by the suggestion that the possible establishment of pro-competitive disciplines be included
in the guidelines, noted that there was no basis for the suggestion, either in Article XIX or in
Members' proposals, and that sectoral pro-competitive disciplines might result in fragmentation.Furthermore, timeframes should not be part of the guidelines, as these had to be considerd from the
broader viewpoint of the whole work in the WTO services negotiations.  As additional proposals had
been announced by Members, they had to be considered before the Secretariat could be asked to
prepare a draft text for the guidelines.  He therefore said that one further Special Session meeting was
necessary before a first draft was drawn up.
32. Reacting to India's comment about the assessment of trade, the representative of the European
Communities explained that he did not view the exercise as completed and that Members would revert
to it throughout the negotiations, as a tool to determine their negotiating position.  As for the reference
to imbalance in commitments in their paper, he indicated that it had been extracted from a Secretariat
paper on the assessment of trade.  On autonomous liberalization, he wondered what could be includedin the guidelines;  the United States submission contained a number of good suggestions, in particular
on transparency, but there were also a number issues of substance which required further reflection,
such as the notion of credit.  In that respect, he welcomed Hong Kong, China's proposal to devote a
Special Session meeting to the question.  By way of preliminary comments on the submission by
Hong Kong, China, he shared many of the view s on the approach to the negotiations.  He echoed
comments by Hungary and Korea on the part of th e paper dealing with scope and modalities for the
negotiation.  He supported the suggestion that the concept of a reference paper to address competitionissues be explored.  He was also sympathetic to the ideas of a reference paper on electronic commerce
and of additional commitments on transparency, but sought further elaboration from Hong Kong,
China on what the suggestion meant in practice.  Wi th respect to MFN exemptions, he did not see the
need for the guidelines to address the issue in grea t detail, as the Annex was sufficiently explicit.  He
welcomed the paper by the African Group, and noted in particular paragraph 11 as containinginteresting ideas which merited further discussion.  He also sought further clarification from the
United States delegation on their suggestion that the guidelines contain a timeframe for the
negotiations, and in particular on whether that would also include a closing date for the negotiations.
33. As for the Chairman's procedural proposal, the representative of the Philippines said that at
least another meeting was needed to discuss fully the proposals which had been tabled and the ones
which had been announced before a first draft of the guidelines could be drawn up. He therefore
concurred with the proposal that a first draft be prepared for late January.  Commenting on the
Secretariat paper, he said it was rather comprehensive, but shared previous comments that a reference
to Article IV was missing and that the item on pro-competitive disciplines appeared misplaced.  By
way of preliminary remarks, he supported the general thrust of the African Group submission and thestatements in the Hong Kong, China paper that the logical starting-point for the negotiation were
Members' current schedules and that there be no a priori  exclusion of any sector or mode of supply.S/CSS/M/5
Page 10
He agreed that request-offer approach was the main negotiating modality, and had no strong
opposition to discussing the issue of autonomous liberalization at a dedicated Special Session, as the
issue had to be resolved before guidelines could be agreed.  He sought clarification from Hong Kong,
China on their proposed aims insofar as national treatment was concerned;  his view was that these
should be left to the negotiations themselves rather  than included in multilaterally agreed guidelines.
His delegation likewise had serious reservations on their suggestions on government procurement.
On the proposed timing and duration of the negotiations, he said that the fixing of such dates should
be await developments in other areas of WTO work.
34. Commenting on the submission by the European Communities, he observed that it appeared
to attach great importance to redressing the imba lance in commitments across Members, sectors and
modes.  He highlighted that such a perception was shared by developing countries, albeit from a
developing country's perspective;  while the negotiations should be comprehensive, they had to betake place in the context of the flexibility granted to developing countries by Article XIX and with
particular consideration to their overall development interests, which might not solely be of an
economic nature.  In paragraph 2(c), he wished for a clearer understanding of what would be covered
by a technical review of the GATS.  As for the reference in paragraph 3(a) to the conduct of the
negotiations in the Special Session and subsidiary bodies, he indicated that the mandate for thenegotiations rested with the Special Session alone, and not with any of the subsidiary bodies.  He
could agree in principle with the residual responsibility vested with the Special Session to review
progress in the subsidiary bodies, but had serious reservations, also from a practical perspective, about
an amendment of their mandate or the creation of additional subsidiary bodies.  Likewise, the
proposal to create subsidiary bodies empowered with negotiations in specific sectors wasunacceptable at that stage.  In paragraph 3(b), his delegation had serious reservations about the
suggestion that the results of the review of MFN exemptions be included in the negotiations, as the
underlying premise of the review was that it was an information-gathering exercise with an educative
purpose.  The deadlines proposed in paragraph 3(c) were also quite unacceptable;  it had been made
clear in the course of the road-map discussions that Members could not accept December 2000 as thedeadline for submission of initial proposals.  The December 2000 benchmark in the road-map referred
to proposals to move the negotiations forward, not to market access negotiations;  besides, it was not
even certain that the guidelines for considering such proposals would be in place by that date.
Similarly, it was premature to agree that a date for launching all initial offers would be decided at the
stock-taking exercise in March 2001.
35. Responding to a question raised by several delegations, a representative of the WTO
Secretariat explained that the reference to pro-competitive disciplines in the Secretariat note had been
included following the suggestion made by the Ambassador of Bolivia at the Special Session meeting
in July, when no objections had been raised.  The issue had also been discussed previously, in relation
to the possibility that pro-competitive disciplines similar to those in the telecom Reference Paper
might be negotiated for certain sectors.
36. With respect to the Chairman's proposal that the Secretariat draw up draft guidelines, the
representative of Peru concurred that it would be premature.  Delegations should have the opportunity
of further discussion and of submitting additional detailed proposals at the Special Session meeting inDecember.  Without prejudice to later additional comments, he fully supported Hong Kong, China's
position that the starting-point for the negotiations were Members' commitments.  On autonomous
liberalization, he concurred that the complexity and importance of the issue merited a dedicatedSpecial Session meeting, to discuss issues such as the definition of autonomous liberalization, of
credit and the establishment of modalities;  he stressed that a multilateral approach had to be
maintained in dealing with the issue.  The discip lines contained in Article IV of the GATS had to be
made operational;  he was grateful for the concrete measures suggested in paragraph 5 of the African
Group proposal.  He agreed with Hong Kong, China that restrictive practices in services should beaddressed, so as to ensure that the benefits of any liberalization be fully reaped.S/CSS/M/5
Page 11
37. The representative of Singapore said that he would revert to the submissions by Hong Kong,
China and the African Group.  He strongly supported the Chairman's suggestion that the Secretariat
prepare a first draft of the guidelines for the Spec ial Session meeting in December, as a draft would
help to focus the discussion.  The Secretariat note was a comprehensive compilation which, together
with Members' proposals and comments, provided e nough material for a first draft.  Such a draft
would also not foreclose the possibility for Members to submit additional proposals, but could rather
evolve in the light of Members' further comments and proposals.
38. The representative of Malaysia indicated that his delegation's position was reflected in the
statement made by ASEAN at the previous meeting.  On the Chairman's procedural suggestion, he
said that it was necessary for Members to be engaged longer in the discussion on the guidelines, as
there were numerous issues which still needed to be clarified and as some delegations had announced
additional submissions.  Hence, another meeting in December was needed before a decision could betaken that the Secretariat be tasked with drawing up a first draft.  As for the objectives and legal basis
for the negotiations, the guidelines had to take into  account Articles XIX and IV of the GATS and the
respect for national policy objectives.  In terms of scope, there should be no a priori  exclusion of
sectors, taking into account the flexibility for developing countries clearly stated in Article XIX:2 and
the fact the developing countries often could not bear the pace of liberalization.  There should be noconfusion between Members' individual ambitions and the guidelines.  As for the assessment of trade,
he was concerned by suggestions that the objectives of the assessment had been reached;  he added
that the assessment should run concurrently to the negotiations.  In terms of modalities, request-offer
should be the principle method, with the possibility of using other modalities, which would have to be
agreed upon first.  He could in principle support Hong Kong, China's suggestion for a dedicatedsession on autonomous liberalization, but cautioned against isolating and endlessly discussing the
issue without arriving at concrete results.  As far as credit for autonomous liberalization was
concerned, he stressed that this had to be granted irrespective of whether such liberalization had been
bound.  On the possibility for a technical review of the GATS, he said that, even if the notion had
appeared in the draft Seattle text and in the road-map, his delegation still had difficulties with the idea,unless it was made clear that it would in no way change or undermine the architecture of the GATS.
By way of preliminary remarks, he supported the submission by the African Group, which touched
upon the economic realities of the services sector in developing countries.  His delegation still had
reservations about the inclusion of pro-competitive disciplines, refered to in the Secretariat note, in
the guidelines.  He sought more clarification from the delegation of Hong Kong, China on their
proposal for a reference paper for electronic comm erce and for additional commitments in the area of
transparency.  In his delegation's view, the transparency element was already present in the GATS,and no additional compliance burdens should be placed on developing countries.
39. The representative of Nigeria expressed support for the African Group submission.  On the
Chairman's suggestion that the Secretariat prepare an initial draft of the guidelines, he noted that the
debate was still evolving. In a preliminary manner, he indicated that the guidelines had to include an
appropriate framework for liberalization, with due recognition of the flexibility accorded todeveloping countries, of their level of development and national policy objectives.  An appropriate
framework had to operationalize Article IV of the GATS, and comprise modalities for giving credit
for any autonomous liberalization already undertaken.  In that respect, he expressed serious
reservations on suggestion by the European Communities.  He supported Hong Kong, China's
proposal for a dedicated Special Session meeting on the issue, but welcomed the note of cautionexpressed by Malaysia.  He concurred that request-offer was the main negotiating modality, which
might be complemented by other approaches which, however, should in no way undermine
developing countries' ability to take advantage of the flexibility provisions accorded to them.  While
he welcomed holding a mid-term review in the negotiations, as stated in the United States proposals,
he wondered about the merits of establishing deadlines for the conclusion of the negotiations.  He alsosubscribed to the suggestion that the starting-point  for negotiations had to be the commitments made
at the end of the Uruguay Round.S/CSS/M/5
Page 12
40. The representative of Canada said that she would further reflect and revert to the proposal by
the African Group.  Commenting on the Secretariat document, she said that it appeared to be an
accurate reflection of Members' views.  Much of the language had been borrowed from the GATS,
notably from Articles XIX and IV, and developing consensus language should be relatively easy.  In
other areas, however, she felt that consensus might be harder to obtain, and highlighted specificallyfour points:  first, on the scope of the negotiations, she suggested the addition of the words " a priori ";
on the technical review of the GATS, she could support the possibility of reviewing existing
provisions of the Agreement, specifically to improve clarity and legal consistency, while proceeding
cautiously;  on MFN exemptions, she could support a reference to negotiations on MFN exemptions
pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Annex, without prejudice to Canada's position in the negotiations;
finally, on pro-competitive disciplines, her delegation did not see the need of including such a
reference in the guidelines and she stated that Members had negotiated the telecom Reference Paperwithout a specific mandate.
41. With respect to Hong Kong, China's submission, she said that it contained a number of
positive suggestions, including the emphasis on transparency.  She could support the possibility of
clarifying certain GATS provisions, but said that references to individual articles should be avoided.
She supported the proposal for a dedicated Special Session meeting on autonomous liberalization.  Onthe suggestion that the rule-making work should be completed prior to the end of the negotiations, she
considered this to be fairly optimistic, especially given the state of play in government procurement
and subsidies, and suggested that a distinction be made between safeguards and the rest of the rule-
making work.  On government procurement, the Canadian view had been expressed in the Working
Party on GATS Rules, namely that rules should be developed first, and then the work should takeplace on scheduling.  The reference to a possible reference paper for electronic commerce was
interesting and should be explored further, and in  this respect she underscored the importance of the
timely resumption of the WTO work programme on e-commerce within a horizontal non-negotiating
group.  On the European Communities paper, she said that the words " a priori " should be used in
paragraph 2(a), as the term "comprehensive" prejudged some of the elements of the review of the airtransport Annex;  in this regard, she endorsed the wording in paragraph 11.9 of the African Group
submission.  As concerned the United States suggestion, she appreciated three key points in
particular:  the recognition, in paragraph 2, of Members' right to regulate to meet their national policy
objectives;  in paragraph 12, the high levels of protection for consumers, health, safety and the
environment;  and, in paragraph 10, the reference to transparency.  On the assessment, she echoed to
the proposal by Hong Kong, China.  She supported the United States suggestion for further
consideration of the relationship between services trade and the environment in the appropriate forum.She sought clarification on the mention, in paragraph 12, of "full bindings" with reference to
improved market access and national treatment commitments.  In a dedicated meeting on autonomous
liberalization, she would also explore additional questions on the United States suggestion on the
issue.  As concerned the Chairman's proposal, her delegation was in favour of having an initial draft
of the guidelines for the December meeting, given the number of substantial oral and writtencomments and the fact that additional contributions could be added.  A draft would facilitate the
identification of areas of consensus and help Members focus on the areas where more discussion was
needed.
42. The representative of Kenya fully endorsed the statement by Mauritius on behalf of the
African Group.  He supported Hong Kong, China's proposal for a Special Session meeting devoted to
autonomous liberalization, while being sympathetic to Malaysia's comment on the issue.  As for the
European Communities proposal, he said that the reference, in paragraph 2(a) to an "imbalance in
commitments" was at variance with the principle of progressive liberalization in Article XIX.  He said
that the main negotiating modality was the request-offer approach, supplemented by other approaches
as necessary.  With respect to paragraph 2(d), he noted the reference to "special attention" in the firstsentence, which he hoped would result in the granting of credit for autonomous liberalization;  asS/CSS/M/5
Page 13
concerned the second sentence of the same paragraph, he believed that it impinged on governments'
ability to pursue national policy objectives.
43. The representative of Guatemala welcomed the United States proposal, which was broad and
ambitious in scope, but did not consider that the standstill concept in paragraph 14 should be included
in the guidelines.  The starting-point for the negotiations were existing commitments, and shesupported the proposal for a Special Session meeting devoted to autonomous liberalization.  Various
modalities existed to achieve progressive liberalization as stated in Article XIX, but the one finally
chosen should respect the principles contained in Article IV.  Her delegation was interested in the idea
of carrying out an assessment of the needs of developing countries, and sought clarification from the
United States on who would be providing the necessary technical assistance.  With regard to the
proposal by the European Communities, she concurred with most of the concerns flagged by Brazil on
behalf of MERCOSUR, and in particular that the se rvices negotiations were not isolated from other
exercises underway in the WTO.  Her delegation was still examining some of the other proposals
submitted and would revert to them;  until Members had had an opportunity to comment on the
various submissions, she felt that the Secretariat could not be tasked with drawing up a first draft of
the guidelines.  As for the Secretariat note, she sought Members' views on the inclusion of a provision
on transparency as an element which should be maintained throughout the negotiations;  she alsosupported the proposal that a specific reference to the provisions of Article IV be included.
44. In response to the Chairman's proposal that the Secretariat draw up a first draft of the
guidelines, the representative of El Salvador concurred that it was premature, as more discussion was
needed on existing and future proposals.  He would revert in detail to the submissions tabled, but byway of preliminary comments on the guidelines, he said that the objectives in the Preamble to the
GATS and in Articles IV and XIX should be incl uded.  No sector or mode of supply should be
excluded a priori  from the scope of the negotiations.  Progressive liberalization, the flexibility
accorded to developing countries and credit for autonomous liberalization should be included, as well
as an opportunity to discuss pro-competitive disciplines.  He said that the time-frame had to be
realistic, and could not agree that December 2000 be established as the deadline for the start of themarket access negotiations.
45. The representative of the Dominican Republic endorsed the statements made, inter alia , by
Brazil, Cuba, India as regarded the need for more time before a first draft of the guidelines could be
drawn up.  He also fully supported the suggestion th at the development of pro-competitive disciplines
be included in the guidelines.
46. The representative of Thailand said that she would revert in detail to Members' submissions.
With respect to the Chairman's proposal that the Se cretariat draw up a draft of the guidelines, she said
that, while supporting the idea of establishing negotiating guidelines as soon as possible, it was
premature at that juncture, also in view of deve lopments in committees and working parties, and in
particular in the Working Party on GATS Rules, which Members had to take into account before
drafting a set of guidelines.  As for the Secretariat paper, she said that a reference to pro-competitive
disciplines should not be incorporated in the guidelines.
47. The representative of Turkey welcomed the Chairman's proposal that the Secretariat prepare a
first draft of the guidelines;  commenting on just one text would facilitate the preparation of the final
guidelines and avoid unnecessary delay in the first stage of the negotiations.  However, he also
believed that the Members' submission should be taken into account throughout the discussion on the
draft text.  The guidelines should include the following elements:  the negotiations should beconducted on the basis of request-offer, possibly supplemented by other approaches;  the architecture
of the GATS should be preserved and the negotiations be conducted within that architecture;  all
sectors and modes should be covered, to promote the interests of all participants on a mutually
advantageous basis and as a way of securing an overall balance of rights and obligations; the currentS/CSS/M/5
Page 14
imbalance in Members' schedules should aim to be reduced;  in line with the objectives in Article
IV:1, developing countries' concerns and interest should be taken into account carefully;  and
acceptable and realistic deadlines should be established.
48. The representative of Ghana said that the Secretariat note was a useful contribution, which
could assist delegations in drawing up the guidelines.  He supported the paper of the African Group,
which fully reflected his delegation's position on the various issues, and would revert to the other
submissions.   By way of preliminary comment, he noted the reference to reducing the imbalance of
commitments in paragraph 2(a) of the submission by the European Communities;  while it was true
that developing countries, especially African ones, had undertaken relatively few commitments during
the Uruguay Round, he observed that this was in line with the provisions in Articles XIX and IV.  He
also stated that sectors of interest to developing countries had remained closed.  The negotiations
could therefore be "ambitious", as proposed by the United States, but had to take into account theflexibility accorded to developing countries in Article XIX, in particular as concerned the respect for
their national policy objectives and their level of development.  With respect to the Chairman's
proposal, his delegation was of the view that a firs t draft of the guidelines should be drawn up only
after Members had sufficiently discussed the various proposals.  As additional proposals were
forthcoming, he suggested that a decision on a draft be taken at the end of the December meeting.Alternatively, a first draft could be produced for December on the basis of the proposals submitted
and be amended in light of discussions at the December meeting;  his delegation was flexible in that
respect.
49. The representative of Mauritius said that he would revert to Members' comments on the
submission by the African Group which he had introduced.  He was pleased to learn that more
submissions were forthcoming and reiterated his delegation's full support and cooperation in the
establishment of the guidelines.
50. The Chairman explained that he had put forward his procedural suggestion in view of
Members' previous and existing work on the guidelines, given that further exchanges or proposals
would not be foreclosed, and in view of the time-frame until the stock-taking exercise in March 2001.However, given the number of Members who had said that they could not lend support to his proposal
and given that additional submissions were forthcoming, he concluded that his suggestion had not met
with the approval of the Council and that the Secret ariat would not be producing a draft.  Hong Kong,
China's proposal that a Special Session meeting be devoted to the issue of autonomous liberalization
had been widely supported.  He therefore proposed that the meeting on autonomous liberalization be
held back-to-back with the meetings in December.
51. The Council so agreed.
II. ITEM B:  ASSESSMENT OF TRADE IN SERVICES
52. The Chairman said that he had both good and bad news as concerned the assessment of trade.
As for the bad news, the Secretariat regretted that, contrary to its initial intentions, it had proved
impossible to prepare an update of the 1997 note on services statistics, document S/C/W/27, for that
meeting.  The delay was due mainly to the non-availability in time of relevant data from otherorganizations.  However, the data gaps were being filled the document would be made available well
before the Special Session meeting in December.  Besides, despite positive indications at the previous
meeting, the Council was still awaiting further co ntributions from delegations concerning their five-
year experience with the operation of the GATS.  He  said that the mandate in Article XIX essentially
called for inputs of a political nature;  statistical data might help to underpin the assessment exercise
but it was not a substitute.  In terms of the good news, he recalled that at its previous meeting, the
Council had agreed on the organization of a seminar on services statistics based on a CanadianS/CSS/M/5
Page 15
proposal.  He was pleased to report that the seminar had been held on 3 October and had been well-
attended.  He offered the floor for any Members wishing to share their views on that meeting.
53. The representative of Thailand said that the seminar had been timely and useful.  She
observed that, although the collection of services statistics, both at the international and domestic
levels, was complex and resulted in rather sketchy statistics, the seminar had shown that such datawas available, and that it was just a matter of time before useful services statistics could be produced
and used for future negotiations.  She had been particularly impressed with the efforts made by India
and Trinidad and Tobago in collecting services statistics and believed that many developing countries'
statistics were not such a big problem.  She had also noted that Trinidad and Tobago had obtained
very preliminary statistical data by mode of supply, and wondered whether other developed and
developing countries have done likewise.
54. The representative of India concurred that the seminar had been important and had pointed to
difficulties in the collection of services statistics, consequently making the issue of the assessment of
trade more difficult.  He then informed Members that his authorities had collected rough statistics,
which he wished to share with the Council.  He sa id that there had been a considerable expansion in
world services trade, from around US$ 1.18 trillion in 1995 to US$ 1.34 trillion in 1999-2000.
However, the pattern of growth remained uneven;  there had been no significant change in the sharesof developed and developing countries in world trade in commercial services between 1995-2000, the
five years of existence of the GATS.  The degree in concentration, in terms of the shares of developed
countries in world services trade, was quite high and had not undergone any significant change.  Since
1995, developed countries had remained the top 15 exporters and importers of world commercial
services.  According to available data, in 1998, world exports of travel services amounted to US$430billion, transport services US$320 billion and other services US$560 billion.  With respect to "other
sectors", no disaggregated data were available. Hence, both on the export and import side, the
category "other services" accounted for the largest share, almost 40 per cent.  Overall, trade statistics
revealed that, barring a few countries from the As ian region, most countries from North America and
Western Europe held the largest share in world services trade.  A study undertaken by Mr. Hoekmanin 1995, on the revealed comparative advantage of developed and developing countries in services
trade, showed that many developing countries had export potential for services produced by skilled
and semi-skilled labour and for knowledge-intensive services;  however, that potential had not been
brought to fruition.  There had been only marginal changes in the comparative advantage of
developed and developing countries.  Another indication of the inadequate participation of developing
countries in services trade was the asymmetry of co mmitments in the four modes of supply.  Both the
WTO and UNCTAD Secretariats papers on the assessment indicated that mode 4 tended to be farmore restrictive than the other modes;  it was characterized largely by horizontal commitments,
amounting to around 100 as compared to, for example, 20 for mode 2, and very few commitments had
been undertaken for movement of persons unrelated to mode 3.
55. In terms of sectoral statistics, there was an overall paucity of disaggregated services data.  He
said that the assessment of trade had to take into account not only the period 1995-2000, but also lookat whether given sectors were liberal even prior to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, as was the
case for tourism services.  Many commitments had been undertaken in the sector, more than half of
which without limitations for mode 2, the main mode for tourism trade;  hence, liberalization was not
very valuable, as the mode was already very liberal.  In health and related services, very few Members
had undertaken commitments in the Uruguay Round, a nd they were normally without limitations for
mode 2, but only a limited number of economically advanced developing countries might have
benefitted significantly from mode 2 in this sector.  In construction services, 69 Members had
undertaken commitments;  however, from the perspective of developing country suppliers, the pattern
of entries in the main subsectors was disproportionate, as full commitments amounted to 70 per cent
for mode 2, around 60 per cent for mode 3 and about 30 per cent for mode 1, while mode 4, whichwas important for developing countries, had hardly been liberalized.S/CSS/M/5
Page 16
56. India's experience had been that services exports as a whole had increased over the period
1995-1999.  However, a more substantial increase could have taken place if greater liberalization
commitments had been undertaken in mode 4, especially for the movement of professionals.  India's
share in world trade in commercial services had shown a marginal increase, from 0.6 per cent to 1 per
cent from 1995 to 2000.  According to available data, in 1998, out of India's total services exports,worth US$11.6 billion, exports of transport, trav el and other services amounted to US$1.8 billion, 3
billion and 7 billion, respectively.  He indicated that global statistics were available, and it was now a
question of obtaining data at a more disaggregated level.
57. The representative of Indonesia said that his authorities attached great importance to the
assessment of trade in developing their position in the negotiations.  It was important to determine
whether liberalization commitments had been beneficial so that Members could to be more
forthcoming in the negotiations.  Like many developing countries, Indonesia had serious difficulties ingathering statistical information on services trade;  in that respect, the seminar on statistics had been a
useful exercise.
58. The representative of Canada indicated that, until then, the assessment exercise had
comprised several Secretariat documents as well as the statistics seminar that had been conducted on
3 October.  In addition, work had been carried out by UNCTAD, inter alia , regarding the modes and
services sectors of interests to developing countries.  Canada recognized the importance of the
assessment exercise, and was in the process of conducting its own.  It was a complex and sensitive
exercise, which comprised the basis from which Canada would determine its negotiating position,
which was a matter of national sovereignty.  She said that the lack of ideas about how to further the
assessment could stem from the fact that Members did not want to encroach upon each others'autonomy in conducting their assessment, which would help inform their negotiating positions.  In
searching for ideas about how to further the assessment, her delegation had thought that services
statistics were a useful topic, and in that regard she wished to thank the United States, the European
Communities, India, Trinidad and Tobago, and th e UN and WTO Secretariats for their help and
participation in the seminar.  She thought that the event had provided delegations with practical toolsand contact points and referred in particular to the experience of Trinidad and Tobago.  The Indian
experience had shown that countries could usefully develop their own approaches to statistics
collection.  India, Trinidad and Tobago and other developing and developed countries were also
active at the international level in developing the United Nations Manual for Services Statistics, which
would take into account the needs of GATS negotiators from all countries and assist with the
development of statistics by modes of supply, a concern which had been raised by Thailand  She
appreciated India's intervention, which showed how individual countries could usefully proceed with
the assessment.  She welcomed suggestions for furthering the assessment exercise, but also
emphasized that services trade was a new and dynamic area for all Members and that each Member's
assessment and understanding of services trade differed and was ultimately a matter of national
sovereignty, so that the exercise should appropriately continue within national contexts.
59. The Chairman drew Members' attention to a paper circulated by the delegation of Korea
entitled "Korea's Liberalization of Trade in Services and its Impacts", and offered the floor to the
Korean delegation to present the basic contents of the paper.
60. The representative of Korea underscored the importance of the assessment of trade and
wished to share with the Council an assessment of liberalization of services trade in Korea, which had
been carried out by independent researchers.  He therefore passed the floor to one of the authors of thestudy, to present the paper.  The researcher stressed that the views expressed in the paper were his
own personal views and did not reflect the position of the Korean government.  The paper aimed to
evaluate the economic effects of the liberalization of services trade on the Korean economy.  Amongst
the various variables, they had focused on changes in productivity, which they believed to show
changes in efficiency more effectively than any other variable.  The paper was composed of threeS/CSS/M/5
Page 17
parts:  the first part summarized the liberalization of service sectors in the 1990s and resulting
increases in services trade;  the second part tabulated the changes in productivity growth rates; and the
last part presented the experiences of two specific sub-sectors, distribution and telecommunication
services.  He introduced the first two parts.  Since the mid-1990s, the Korean government had
gradually opened its service sector following the Uruguay Round negotiations and OECD accession.As a result, distribution, business and other personal services, among others, had been almost
completely liberalized.  The financial crisis of 1997 gave further momentum to the removal of market
access restrictions, in sectors such as transportation, financial and telecommunications services.
Thanks to this accelerated liberalization, Korea's trade in services increased sharply in the 1990s,
growing, for all modes but commercial presence, from US$ 22.8 billion in 1991 to US$ 49 billion
in 1998.  As a proxy for the commercial presen ce, FDI inflows in services increased from
US$ 1.6 billion in 1982-90 to US$ 6.3 billion over the past three years.  Services liberalization waspresumed to bring productivity gains in the service sectors and in the manufacturing sectors which
used liberalized services as inputs.  By examin ing the changes in productivity in the service and
manufacturing subsectors in 1970-97, they argued that liberalization might have positively
contributed to the productivity of service subsectors, even though the causal link was difficult to
demonstrate.  In particular, transport and communication services showed a gain in total factorproductivity (TFP) growth from 2.2% in 1990-95 to 4.12% in 1995-97. Also, the distribution sector,
which was almost completely opened in 1996, showed  an increase in TFP in the late 1990s compared
with the early 1990s, whereas financial services, which had been nearly closed until the late 1990s,
showed negative TFP growth rates throughout the periods studied.
61. With reference to the hypothesis that services liberalization might increase the productivity of
the manufacturing sector, they examined the growth rates of productivity and input coefficients.
Unfortunately, no consistent patter was found, but the sectors which used the liberalized services less
intensively than others showed poorer performance compared to other manufacturing sectors.
Liberalization of trade in services was also presumed to have a positive impact on other
macroeconomic variables, such as real GDP.  Acco rding to a simulation carried out in another study,
services liberalization in the form of a 25% reduct ion in barriers would increase real GDP by almost
0.5%, and the gain to consumers would be about 1.6% increase in total utility.  Considering the
positive impact of services trade liberalization on the domestic economy, it was in the interest of
Korea to continue its liberalization process and refrain from retreating.  The study raised two points as
policy implications for the Korean government.  First, entry barriers had been widely removed, but
obstacles remained in the form of internal barriers, faced by both foreign and domestic suppliers, such
as ambiguous laws and regulations.  This implied that efforts had to focus on enhancing transparentenforcement and on reducing excessive regulation:  for instance, minimum capital requirements in
financial services might act as a deterrent to small-sized investment in this area.  The second
implication concerned labour market flexibility.  Limitations on layoffs existed which might
discourage foreign suppliers from establishing local affiliates, which could otherwise create
employment.  An adequate social safety net and effective re-training programmes needed to beestablished, not only to enhance labour market flexibility but also to prepare for the liberalization of
mode 4 trade.
62. Concluding the discussion, the Chairman said that the Council would take note of the
comments and papers presented and revert to this item at its next meeting.
III. ITEM C:  TOURISM SERVICES
63. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had discussed the organization of
a symposium on tourism.  The proposal that such an event be held had enjoyed broad support as a
way of deepening Members' understanding of the sector.  The point had been made by a number of
delegations that the symposium should focus on issues relevant to the services negotiations.  The
Council had discussed a note produced by the Secretariat, Job No. 4112, which contained ideas on theS/CSS/M/5
Page 18
organization as well as the substantive content of the symposium.  It had been agreed that the event
would be held in early 2001 and that the Secretariat would produce a revised agenda for the
symposium.  Accordingly, the Secretariat had produced the note circulated as Job No. 5842.
64. A representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that the revised note had taken into
account Members' discussion at the previous meeting.  It tried to identify issues relevant to the GATS,
but further guidance from Members on making the event GATS-specific would be welcome.  He
indicated that the note contained a long list from which Members could choose.  The content of the
actual final agenda depended in part on how long the symposium would be;  given time pressures on
delegations, Members might consider holding a one-day, rather than two-day, event.  Besides, to
allow sufficient time for interchange and discussion, the number of presentations would have to be
limited and he sought Members' guidance also on this issue.
65. The representative of Chile said that his authorities believed that a point on transparency in
the sector, particularly in the hotel sector, should be added.  In order to improve transparency in the
tourism sector, consideration could be given, for example, to issues such as quality certification and
hotel classification.  It was further suggested that the speaker on this item be an expert from the World
Tourism Organization.
66. As for duration of the symposium, the representative of Japan said that one day would be
enough.  The objective of the symposium was to  gather information which would inform the
negotiations on the sector, but the event should not prejudge the result of future negotiations on
tourism.  The symposium should focus on identifying what kind of impediments existed for consumer
safeguards and the competitive environment in the sector, as this was indispensable to decide whether
a new tourism annex was needed.  On the agenda, he said that, given the discussion of air transport inthe review context, the presentation on air transport in session III be eliminated.  He also stressed that
session V should not prejudge the result of the negotiations.
67. The representative of the Dominican Republic concurred that the symposium should in no
way prejudge the negotiations or the review of the air transport Annex.  He welcomed the minimalist
approach of the draft agenda prepared by the Secretariat, and suggested that additional detail could beworked out by a group of interested delegations, so that the Secretariat could start with the practical
organisation of the event.  He stressed that sufficient time had to be allowed under each session for
questions and answers, and for the presentation of national experiences.  He had no objection to the
speakers being from international organizations or academia, but it was important that delegations had
time to share their national experiences.
68. As for the content of the symposium, the representative of Argentina said that his delegation's
position was spelled out in paragraph 79 of the report of the previous meeting, namely that it be
strictly related to the objectives of WTO and that it focus on issues related to services trade
liberalization within the framework of GATS.  On  the proposed agenda, he noted that session I
referred to an analysis of GATS commitments and limitations;  he hoped that this session be more
precise, focusing on limitations in the GATS and non-GATS barriers which nonetheless had an
impact on the development of the sector at an international level.  He expressed support for session II,and said that the first point under session III could be analysed with the first point of session IV.  He
noted that document S/C/W/149, in points 35 to 41, set out useful elements, and in particular the
reference to the increase in requests for tourism servi ces through the Internet, so that he believed that
the second point in session III could be considered together with the first and the first in session IV.
As for session IV, he said that the last point should dropped from the agenda.  Under session V, hewondered whether a discussion of implications for negotiations of new GATS commitments was an
appropriate topic for the symposium, given that, as a negotiation topic, it should be dealt with in the
Special Session.  He also wondered whether the proposed speaker for the third item of session III andS/CSS/M/5
Page 19
for the first item of session IV should not be inverted, and suggested that a representative of IATA
possibly speak alongside an ICAO representative on item 3 of session III.
69. The representative of Mexico said that the symposium should not be formally linked to the
work of the Special Session, as both Members and non-Members will participate in the event;  hence,
the Chairperson's summary proposed in the draft agenda should not contain any recommendation tothe Council.  Similarly, the presentations at the symposium could be distributed to Members in
unofficial documents, but should not bear a WTO document number.  As for the proposed agenda, he
noted that the third point in session I involved a presentation by the WTO Secretariat;  he felt,
therefore, that it should not touch upon limitations, but be limited to an objective description of what
was contained in the GATS.  On the second point of session IV, he said that the reference should be to
anti-competitive practices in international tourism, rather than to their prevention per se .  He also fully
shared Argentina's comment that the third item in session IV, which was not relevant from a WTOstance, be removed.  The first item of session V was also not appropriate, given that the symposium
should not have any implications for the work of th e Council.  It was for each Member to draw its
own conclusions as to what the implications were.  Once the points mentioned were eliminated from
the agenda, sufficient time would be available for detailed discussions of the remaining topics.
70. The representative of Hong Kong, China concurred that a one-day event would be
appropriate.  On the agenda, he said that the preamble to session I should include construction
services, which were highly relevant for tourism services.  In order to allow time for interchange and
for the presentation of national experiences, he felt that session II might be just a written presentation.
On session III, he said that air transport services were key for tourism and he was in favour of
discussing the problems that were encountered in that sector.  As for session IV, he agreed that thelast point was only tangential to Members' work under the GATS and might be eliminated.  On the
last session, he felt that some discussion of where Members might be going would be appropriate and
suggested that the wording could be change d to "scheduling of new GATS commitments".
71. The representative of the European Communities sa id that he was flexible as to the duration
of the symposium, and could agree to a one-day event.  As to the draft agenda, he concurred that the
symposium should be GATS-focused, but noted the usefulness of national experiences.  He felt that
session V was the most important one and should be devoted sufficient time;  he therefore proposed
that sessions I to IV be dealt with in the mornin g and that the whole afternoon be devoted to the last
session.
72. The representative of Brazil echoed Argentina's comments with regard to session III and
concurred that the third item in session IV was inappropriate.  As for the third item in session I, he
stressed that the focus should be on the limitations scheduled by Members for tourism services and forother services sectors which might affect trade in tourism.
73. The representative of Australia said that the symposium should last one day, in order to keep
the event focused.  She suggested that an introduction be added on the GATS context of the
symposium.  On the proposed agenda, she suggested that sessions I and II be kept short and observed
that the discussion of the Tourism Satellite Accounts might be superfluous and better dealt with inwriting.  She endorsed Argentina's comments as concerned sessions III and IV, and said that the third
item in session IV was not relevant.  As for session V,  she saw merit in dealing with such issues in the
Special Session, especially if the symposium was held just before a Special Session meeting, and felt
that Hong Kong, China's suggestion could help bring things together.  She stressed the fundamental
importance of air transport services for tourism, and said that the relevant item should not be removedfrom the agenda;  its elimination, and not its inclusion, would prejudge the outcome of the review of
the Annex on Air Transport Services.S/CSS/M/5
Page 20
74. The representative of Guatemala underscored Argentina's comments on session III and
supported the participation of a representative of IATA to look into the regulation of travel
distribution systems.  She also noted the usefulness of identifying anti-competitive practices in the
tourism sector.
75. The representative of Indonesia concurred with the Dominican Republic that the purpose of
the symposium was to raise Members' understanding of the sector and that it should not prejudge
negotiating positions or in any way be a negotiating forum.  He sought clarification on the mention to
"new round" in session V and was informed that  it referred to the current round of services
negotiations.
76. The representative of Norway could support the draft agenda as proposed by the Secretariat.
He said that the third item in session IV was relevant and should not be deleted, but wondered if a
representative from UNEP would shed light on the issue, and suggested that a member of aninternational research institute working on environmen tal standards be invited;  he said that work in
these areas was important and gave suppliers a competitive edge.  He said that national experiences on
each item would be useful and that session V should be expanded to analyse the implications for the
negotiations.
77. The representative of Venezuela said that the symposium was an academic event, not an event
for negotiations, and she could therefore support the proposal for session III in the draft agenda, in
view of the close relationship of air transport with  tourism, without prejudice to the review of the
Annex on Air Transport Services.  She also concurred that session II could be dealt with in writing
and that national experiences were important;  she suggested that also regional experiences be
included.  She informed Members that the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA) hadprepared a paper on the effects of free trade agreements on trade in tourism, analysing how tourism
was negotiated in the GATS framework.  The paper concluded that, while the tourism sector could
take advantage of the GATS structure, the sector continued to be a poorly defined and dispersed
sector, where it was difficult to have a more integrated approach and a proper link with the interests in
the sector.  She also drew Members' attention to the Andean Community Decision 643, which dealt
with the development and integration of tourism, and which, along with the LAIA paper, could help
shed light on the symposium.
78. The representative of Jamaica welcomed the holding of the symposium.  On the draft agenda,
she said that, under the third item of session I, it was possible for the Secretariat to provide an
objective description of the limitations inscribed in Members' schedules.  As concerned session IV,
she concurred with Mexico's comment on anti-competitive practices.  On session V, she wondered
what was meant by "implications" and felt that this element was probably not necessary.  Sheconcurred that discussing developing countries' national experiences was helpful, as examining the
problems they had encountered could work towards increasing their participation in services trade in
light of Articles IV and XIX of the GATS.
79. The representative of the United States concurred that the symposium should last one day.
He said that the agenda could be shortened by eliminating the item on anti-competitive practices, as,
while noting the interest expressed by delegations, he wondered whether competition policy should be
discussed in the context of tourism services.  On session V, he said that Members should focus on
what was relevant to tourism and what was not, and in this regard he observed that issues such as
consumer rights, ethics, environment, transparency in government regulation, quality certification and
hotel classification had been brought up;  on the latter two elements, he sought further elaborationfrom the delegation of Chile.  He said that national experiences were important in bringing problems
to the fore, even if tourism was one of the most libe ral services sectors, and that they might reveal the
uneven way in which tourism affected different Members.S/CSS/M/5
Page 21
80. The representative of Canada said that the agenda proposed in the Secretariat note was too
full to be compressed in a one-day event, and observed that Members' experiences were also useful.
As for session V, her delegation was flexible, but felt that discussions could be useful to understand
the relevance of the various issues for work under the GATS, and suggested that discussions be at any
rate held at the end of each session.  She would reflect on Norway's comment with respect to the thirditem in session IV, which her delegation thought was important and should not be removed from the
agenda.
81. The representative of Switzerland noted that the communication from the Dominican
Republic contained a reference to sustainable development and environmental aspects in several
occasions, and he was therefore puzzled by and wondered about the consistency of concerns with the
mention of sustainable development in the third item of session IV.
82. The representative of the Dominican Republic suggested that informal discussions might be
helpful in terms of agreeing on the agenda for the symposium and proposed that interested delegations
meet the following day before the resumption of the meeting.
83. A representative of the WTO Secretariat said that session V had been inserted in order to
provide delegations with an opportunity to draw whatever own conclusions they wished from the
event.
84. The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat prepare a revised draft agenda for the following
meeting of the Special Session.  He then invited dele gations to turn to the initial proposal on tourism
submitted by the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Honduras in document S/C/W/127.  He also
drew delegations’ attention to the paper submitted by the European Communities and circulated as
document S/CSS/W/5.
85. The representative of the European Communities flagged-up three points of the submission:
first, the need of distinguishing between core-tourism services and tourism-related services.  On
core-tourism services, referred to in Section III as comprising hotels and restaurants, travel agencies
and tour-operators, and tourist guides, he proposed that Members examine remaining restrictions.  He
concurred that tourism was a sector where there were high levels of commitments, but in many casessuch commitments were negatively affected, if not undermined, by horizontal restrictions.  Second, it
would be useful to explore the concept of a checklist of sectors related to tourism in order to facilitate
the work of the negotiators, as suggested in Section IV and in the annex to the communication, which
was based on the Dominican Republic paper.  He indicated that their proposal was based on the
concept of cluster elaborated in another submission of theirs.  Third, regulatory issues were important,
and two should be considered in particular:  sustainable development and trade in tourism, as the
expansion of trade in tourism had to be consistent with the objectives of sustainable development;and competitive safeguards in the sector, for which the telecommunications Reference Paper could be
used as an example.
86. The representative of the United States said that the paper by the European Communities was
helpful in structuring the discussion and said that he would revert to it.
87. The representative of Switzerland concurred with the European Communities that the list of
tourism-related services put forward in the submission by the Dominican Republic was too broad.  He
said that the work on tourism had to be carried out in accordance with the review of the Annex on Air
Transport Services.  He emphasised the importance of the link between sustainable development and
trade in tourism, as environmental damage could undermine the viability of the sector.  He echoed the
European Communities’ comment that the development of tourism had to be linked with access tohigh quality environmental services, which would help achieve sustainable development of the sector.S/CSS/M/5
Page 22
As for Annex I in the EC proposal, he shared the definition of core-tourism sectors and sub-sectors
and welcomed the tentative tourism checklist, which, however, still had to be examined in detail.
88. By way of preliminary comments, the representative of Argentina said that item 5 of the
submission by the European Communities on sustainable development and regulatory aspects had to
be looked at in great detail.  He noted that the measures, which were implicitly addressed inparagraph 15 of the paper, were covered by Article XIV of the GATS and fell under a government’s
regulatory power to protect the environment.  As for paragraph 16 on competitive safeguards, the
suggestion seemed to be that an assessment of the basic telecom reference paper had to be carried out,
in order to see how it could apply to tourism.  His delegation’s approach was the reverse, namely to
analyse first what the specific problems in the sector were, and then, if necessary, what type of
principles should be applied.  That was why they had suggested that the symposium allow for
sufficient time to consider barriers to trade under Articles XVI and XVII and barriers which did notfall under that purview and where additional disciplines might possibly be necessary.
89. The representative of Poland said that the paper by the European Communities was a good
basis to structure the discussion.  In particular, it was possible to consider tourism as a cluster as long
as the cluster approach was seen as a checklist to assist negotiators.
90. Commenting on the European Communities paper, the representative of Japan said that he
concurred that core tourism services were limited in scope to the sub-sectors listed in
MTN.GNS/W/120, that tourism-related sectors should be used as a checklist, taking into account the
consistency with the coverage of GATS, and that an overlap with work in other WTO bodies should
be avoided.  As for paragraphs 15 and 16, further discussion was needed on whether such issues were
relevant for the tourism sector and careful examination had to be carried out of the types ofcommercial transactions performed and the kind of impediments which existed.
91. The representative of New Zealand said that the paper by the European Communities
contributed to a more structured analysis of the proposal for an annex on tourism.  He felt that the
discussion could be separated into a number of distinct areas such as classification, the reference
paper, clusters.  As for paragraph 9 of the EC paper, he said that, while it was undisputed that someair transport services were presently excluded from the coverage of the GATS, the proposal did not
take account of the fact that three services were already explicitly covered by the GATS, and that two
of them, sales and marketing and computer reservation services, were integral to the provision of
tourism services.  Accordingly, at a minimum those two services had to be considered part of any
indicative listing of tourism-related services.
92. The representative of Panama expressed general support for the proposal for an annex on
tourism tabled by the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Honduras.  As for the European
Communities paper, he said that Annex I was valuable as a means of organizing the issues in the
original proposal and seeing them from a different angle.  However, he said that the scope of core
tourism sectors was timid, as, for example, it left out many sectors that had been considered core
sectors in the original proposal, such as those related to hotel and tourism schools or transport
services.
93. The representative of the Slovak Republic indicated that tourism had recorded substantial
growth in her country, especially over the 1990s, and its development was among the priorities of her
authorities.  Tourism was related to many other sectors and had a great potential for job creation and
economic growth.  Core-tourism services and services related to the sector were an extensive and
heterogeneous group, which needed clear and stable rules to ensure effective trade liberalization,balanced and sustainable development, and to prevent anti-competitive practices.  She concurred that
a large number of limitations still existed, especially for modes 2 and 3, and that these should beS/CSS/M/5
Page 23
examined at an early stage.  She agreed that preparing a checklist would be a useful tool for
negotiators and felt that the proposal from the European Communities offered a good basis.
94. The representative of Hungary said that he broadly shared the points made in the submission
by the European Communities.  The fact that, during the Uruguay Round, over a hundred Members
had undertaken commitments on tourism services showed the great interest in the sector;  he believedthat, in the current negotiations, scope existed for further liberalization.  He concurred that one of the
most important characteristics of the sector were its links with several other sectors, and said that a
clear distinction should be made between tourism-characteristic, or core tourism services, and
tourism-related services.  He tended to agree with  the European Communities that the services listed
in Chapter 9 of the W/120 list formed the core of tourism services and that the listing of tourism-
related services in the communication by the Dominican Republic seemed too broad.  He agreed that
tourism and tourism-related services could be considered a cluster insofar as such a cluster was usedas a checklist, a memory tool for negotiators;  in that respect, he was sympathetic to the proposal by
the European Communities that the cluster be used as an aide-mémoire  during the negotiations and
felt that Annex I of the EC paper could serve as a good basis for further discussion.  He also believed
that the air transport services covered by the GATS, referred to by New Zealand, could be relevant to
the checklist.  Regarding competitive safeguards, his delegation was ready to examine whether and
which competitive safeguards would be necessary to supplement the commitments in tourism, and
said that a good start to the discussion could be basic telecom Reference Paper.
95. The representative of Australia said that the European Communities paper was a useful
contribution to the discussion on tourism.  In particular, he expressed support for the preference to
examine a checklist or cluster approach to tourism negotiations as opposed to creating an annex ontourism, for the recognition of the sensitivities in bringing passport and visa-issuing services into the
discussion and for the need to ensure that any list of sectors included in a checklist or cluster be
manageable.
96. Commenting on the European Communities paper, the representative of Hong Kong, China
echoed Argentina’s view that Article XIV dealt adequately with environmental and sustainable
development issues.  He also shared most of H ungary’s comments, and in particular that the core
should be limited to the W/120 list and that the checklist should be an aide-mémoire .  He also stressed
that there should be no fragmentation in core infrastructure sectors, where he hoped for deeper
commitments.  He observed that most of the areas in the checklist did not carry CPC numbers and
were sub-sectors of particular sectors, perhaps with the exception of recreation and culture.  He had
also noted the European Communities’ comment on the telecom Reference Paper, and wondered if
Members should also look at MFN exemptions and the paucity of commitments in audiovisualservices.
97. By way of preliminary comments, the representative of Korea said that the submissions by the
Dominican Republic and by the European Communities were different in that the former proposed the
establishment of an annex and contained a detailed definition of tourism, whereas the latter did not.
His delegation did have some concern with the defi nition of tourism and was unclear whether it was
needed.  With respect to sustainable developmen t, the perspective of the two proposals was quite
different, so that more discussion was necessary.  He noted that the issue had also been discussed in
the APEC context and that a Ministerial Conferen ce on Tourism Sector had been held in Seoul in
early July, and said that he would look into the outcome of the discussion.  His delegation was also
concerned about the scope of core tourism services and said that more discussion was needed on theissue.
98. The representative of the Dominican Republic, speaking also on behalf of the delegations of
El Salvador and Honduras, noted the broad degree of support for consideration of tourism in the
Special Session, in view of the importance of the sector as employment and growth generator andS/CSS/M/5
Page 24
foreign currency earner.  With respect to sec tion 3 on competition safeguards, he observed the
positive reaction of many delegations to the proposal and its link with the precedent set by the telecom
Reference Paper.  His delegation's view was that achieving sustainable development in tourism
required addressing barriers to trade which resulted from anti-competitive practices in network
services, such as transport and travel distribution systems, as such barriers had a considerable impacton international tourism and as a concrete way of applying the provisions of Article IV.  Several
delegations had stressed that tourism had generated the greatest number of bindings in the GATS;  it
was paradoxical that such a high level of bindings co-existed with a process of mergers and
acquisitions between tour-operators and airlines that subjected tourist destinations to the abuse of
dominant positions without any possibility for reco urse to internationally-binding mechanisms of
redress.  This had been documented by the Expert Meeting in UNCTAD in June 1998, as stated in
document S/C/W/149, and concrete cases had also been presented at the latest UNCTAD ExpertMeeting on electronic commerce and tourism;  hence, the need for the adoption of new disciplines
applicable to the cluster of tourism industries.  However, he stressed that his delegation's intention
was not to indirectly generate negotiations on air traffic rights.
99. With respect to section 5 on access to and use of information, some delegations had indicated
that certain aspects had to be discussed in the Working Party on Domestic Regulation;  however,delegating matters to the subsidiary bodies was not appropriate because it was only the Special
Session that had received the mandate from the General Council to negotiate on services.  The
purpose of that section was to ensure access to and use of information based on transparent
reasonable, objective and non-discriminatory criteria.  Such objectives were consistent with the codes
of conduct which had been adopted on a voluntary basis by a large number of WTO Members, andwere necessary in order to comply with Article IV regarding access to information networks.  As for
the reference to computer reservation systems, which some delegations felt was for the review of the
Annex on Air Transport Services, the objective was not to call into question the Annex, but to achieve
minimum regulatory commitments to operationalize Article IV in the case of tourism.  With respect to
section 7 on sustainable development of tourism, the aim was to follow the provisions in Section 6 of
the Annex on Basic Telecommunications;  however, differently from the Annex, their proposal was
not about a transfer of technology but was just seeking to achieve co-operation for the competitive
supply, regulation and sustainable development of tourism.  As to internationally recognized
standards, he pointed to the growing demand fro m tourists and said that co-operation in the
application of such standards could be an important element in the sustainable development of
international tourism.
100. As for the Appendix, he concurred that it was too broad.  It was based on the version of the
Tourism Satellite Account that had been agreed at the Nice conference in 1999, but which was not the
final, consensus-based definition adopted in March 2000 in New York.  He indicated that they would
be submitting a new version of the Appendix, which would contain the final version of the Tourism
Satellite Account.  With respect to the suggestion th at the cluster and core tourism services be used as
a checklist, he had no objections, as long as consideration was given to specific commitments.  As toregulatory disciplines, he stressed that these had to apply to the whole tourism cluster, as had been the
case for the Annex on Financial Services.
101. The representative of Brazil reiterated his delegation's support for the proposal tabled by the
Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Honduras, which was being examined in detail by his
delegation.  As for the European Communities paper, we was unsure that the services listed inChapter 9 of the W/120 list could be considered core services, and suggested that further analysis was
necessary to decide whether the core could be expanded, as well as to see whether the list of tourism-
related services could be reduced.  He noted the importance of determining what was already covered
by the CPC and the W/120 and what eventual additions could be considered, bearing in mind the need
to avoid fragmentation, duplication and overlaps.  On sustainable development and the environment,he expressed caution and concurred that in principle Article XIV of the GATS dealt appropriatelyS/CSS/M/5
Page 25
with such concerns.  As for competitive safeguards, he stressed the importance of analysing first the
sector and its peculiarities, in order to identify impediments arising from restrictive business practices
which might have a bearing on market access and national treatment, before considering the need and
eventual format of competitive safeguards for tourism.  Therefore, his delegation was of the
preliminary view that the Reference Paper in basic telecom was not necessarily the starting point forsuch an exercise since it had been devised for a different sector.
102. The representative of Venezuela reiterated her delegation's support for the proposed annex on
tourism and wished for her delegation's comments to be taken into consideration in the revised
proposal.  As concerned tourism-characteristic services in point II:1(3), her delegation, having taken
into consideration domestic and ANDEAN Community regulations, believed that these should include
also certain types of private tourist housing, tour operators not yet contemplated, for example for the
organization of congresses, exhibitions and others, transport not only of passengers, and the rental ofdifferent forms of transport for tourist purposes.  As for section II:1(4), it was important to understand
which services were tourism-related services, and not just to have a definition.  As concerned anti-
competitive safeguards, it had to be borne in mind that an Annex already existed for air transport
services, so that a definition of tourism suppliers had to be included to limit anti-competitive practices
to those suppliers alone.  With respect to co-operation and sustainable development, she felt that thenotion of sustainable development had not been developed correctly, as it included several variables
which, although necessary to ensure sustainable development, were not its main characteristics, such
as construction services.
103. The representative of Mexico reiterated that his delegation was not prepared to work on
cluster-type approaches, but was nonetheless ready to engage in discussions on core tourism services,
namely Chapter 9 of the W/120 list, so as to establish a basis for further liberalization in the sector.  In
that respect, he shared the emphasis placed on Chapter 9 of the W/120 in the European Communities
proposal.  As to the possible use of checklists in the negotiations, he noted that the issue had to be
discussed generally, beyond the purview of the tourism proposal.  He shared the comment that
sustainable development should be not viewed at a sectoral level as it was an issue of generalapplication, which was addressed in the Committee on Trade and Environment and which in practice
was already covered by Article XIV of the GATS.  As concerned competitive safeguards, his
delegation did not favour having a multilaterally established annex on the issue.  In that respect, he
noted that the telecom Reference Paper, which had been quoted as a possible example, had been
negotiated in response to the specific characteristics of the telecom sector and was not an annex, but
had been subscribed to by some, and not all, WTO Members under their additional commitments.
104. By way of preliminary comments, the representative of India concurred that Article XIV
sufficed with respect to environment and sustainabl e development and also indicated that the telecom
Reference Paper had been negotiated in a context where governments were the services suppliers and
he was unsure that the concept could readily be transported into other areas.  With respect to
sustainable development in tourism in the European Communities paper, the representative of
Malaysia said that Article XIV would be applicable to the question of sustainable development and
that there should be no link between trade and the environment.
105. The Chairman drew delegations' attention to a one-page draft of the agenda for the
symposium on tourism, which had been produced as the result of an informal meeting of interested
delegations that same afternoon.  following the suggestion of the Ambassador of the Dominican
Republic, the Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the draft on the basis of a written procedure.He therefore proposed that, if no comments on the text were communicated to the Secretariat by 27
October, the draft agenda be adopted;  otherwise, the Council would revert to the draft at the
December meeting.  Concluding the discussion, he said that the Council would take note of the
comments made and revert to this agenda item at the following Special Session meeting.S/CSS/M/5
Page 26
IV. ITEM D:  OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE NEGOTIATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE XIX OF THE GATS
106. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had held a discussion on two
documents, submitted by Australia and the European Communities, on the use of a clusters approach
in the negotiation of specific commitments.  Questions  and concerns had been raised with regard to a
number of issues, including the implications of using cluster approaches for the architecture of the
GATS and the built-in flexibility for developing countries.  It had been agreed that the Secretariat
would prepare a note providing more focus to the discussion;  this was contained in Job No. 5832.
The delegation of the United States had also introduced a paper, entitled "Framework for
negotiations", circulated as document S/CSS/W/4.  The Chairman drew delegations' attention to two
further submissions, by Hong Kong, China, entitled "Scope and coverage of the services negotiations
and their guidelines" and circulated as document S/CSS/W/6, and a joint document on thenegotiations on maritime transport services circulated as S/CSS/W/8.
107. The representative of Japan, speaking also on behalf of the European Communities and their
Members States;  Hong Kong, China;  Japan; Republic of Korea; Norway and Singapore, introduced
the joint statement in document S/CSS/W/8 on the ne gotiations on maritime transport services.  The
statement had been submitted to remind all WTO Members of the importance of maritime transportservices and of liberalization in the sector.  Maritime transport services were essential infrastructure
that sustained smooth and efficient economic activities.  As much as 80 per cent of world trade in
volume terms was carried by vessels and for an increasing globalizing world economy, the existence
of safe, reliable and competitive maritime transport services was essential, in the interest and to
benefit of all WTO Members.  Members' attention was also drawn to the fact that the maritimeservices negotiations had been suspended in 1996 by a Council decision, but that, in that same
decision, it had also been agreed that they  would resume with the commencement of the
comprehensive negotiations on services.  Given that the services negotiations had already started and
were being conducted in accordance with the road-map, it was high time for Members to address
maritime transport services in the framework of the current services negotiations.  Given the crucialimportance of maritime transport services in world trade, appropriate attention needed to be paid to
the sector, so that real and meaningful liberalization could be achieved in the course of the
negotiations.  It was also important to try to build future work upon the results of the work done in the
run-up to the decision in 1996.  He encouraged delegations' views and proposals, and hoped for a
meaningful exchange of views before the second phase of the negotiations.
108. The representative of the United States drew Members' attention to the fact that their
submission contained two parts:  the elements pro posed for inclusion in the guidelines, namely the
eight items identified at the July meeting under item A of the agenda, and the statement of United
States interests, objectives and approaches for the negotiations.  The latter part belonged to this
agenda item, as here Members could state their priorities for the negotiations, whether in a particular
mode, sector, negotiating modality or, possibly, treatment of autonomous liberalization.  His
delegation intended to follow up the submission with additional negotiating proposals on particularsectors of priority for the negotiations.  In that context, he welcomed the statement by the
representative of Japan.
109. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that their submission also contained both
suggestions for the guidelines and their position a nd aspirations for the negotiations.  He indicated
that some areas in the paper which referred to th eir aspirations were not meant for inclusion in the
guidelines, such as the request for full binding of national treatment in mode 3.
110. The representative of the Dominican Republic expressed full support for the paper presented
by Japan on maritime transport.S/CSS/M/5
Page 27
111. Commenting on the United States paper, the representative of Hungary, speaking also on
behalf of the Czech Republic and Latvia, concurred that the services negotiations should result in the
broadening and deepening of specific commitments.  He also attached great importance to the
progressive nature of liberalization, explicitly mentioned in Article XIX:1, which was missing from
the United States paper, and to Members' right to regulate and meet their national policy objectives.However, he pointed out that, in accordance with the first sentence of Article XIX:2, liberalization
had to take place with due respect not only for national policy objectives but also for the development
of individual Members, both overall and in individual sectors, and that this important principle was
not explicit in the US paper.  He shared the view that all Members had an important stake in the
outcome of the negotiations and that their scope should be comprehensive;  in that regard he favoured
the formulation that no sectors or modes should be excluded a priori .  He wished to see the
outstanding work on GATS rules and domestic regulation included in the negotiating package, andwas inclined to think that the negotiations on rules and market access should proceed in parallel.
Ideally, the rule-making work would be completed before the conclusion of the market access
negotiations.  As for the starting-point of the negotiations, he did not share the United States proposal
in paragraph 14, as existing schedules had to serve as the starting-point.  He stressed that nothing in
Article XIX committed Members to binding their exis ting services regimes, that the United States
proposal was a departure from the Uruguay Round negotiations and that no similar approach had ever
been used.  Regarding the timeframe, he hoped that a new comprehensive round of negotiations could
be launched soon, so that the services negotiations would fit into the overall timeframe of the round.
Hence, setting an end-date for the negotiations or a deadline for the submission of offers was
premature;  however, the adoption of a date for initial requests could be considered.  He lookedfavourably at the proposed mid-term review, but believed that a date could not be fixed as yet.  On
negotiating modalities, while acknowledging that other negotiating techniques existed in addition to
bilateral request-offer, he expressed a strong preference for the use of request-offer, as a tested and
democratic method capable of taking account of market realities.  As for the standstill proposal, he
could agree to a political commitment, as long as it did not hinder the process of accession to theEuropean Union, which included legislative and harmonization steps.  The proposed treatment of
autonomous liberalization was interesting and could be explored further, and he was in favour of a
Special Session meeting dedicated to the issue, as had been proposed by Hong Kong, China.  He also
concurred with paragraph 10 of the United States submission advocating a strong guiding rule for the
Council in Special Session throughout the negotiations.
112. The representative of Panama said that his delegation could endorse the statement made by
Japan on maritime transport services.  The call to resume negotiations on the sector was timely;  in
accordance with the decision of 28 June 1996, the negotiations should have been resumed with the
start of the services negotiations, making maritime services one of the few specifically mandated
issues in the negotiations.  His delegation attached great importance to the success of the negotiations
on the sector.  Paragraph 1 of the decision on maritime transport services specified that the
negotiations on the sector had to be held within the framework of the GATS and that the resultsshould be fully subject to GATS disciplines, obligati ons and rights.  Although the starting-point of the
negotiations could be the 1996 decision, he felt that Members should not restrict themselves to the
framework imposed by the decision.  Negotiations that resumed strictly on the basis of the 1996 offers
could result in reduced scope results, which would be contrary to what was mandated by paragraph 1
of the decision.  The work done in the period running up to the decision was valuable and should notbe set aside, but his delegation would not feel constrained by that work or initiate discussions based
strictly on the offers which existed when negotiations were suspended, also because Panama was not a
WTO Member at the time and had therefore not participated in the previous negotiations.  Time had
passed since 1996 and changes had taken place in maritime services trade as well as in the
constellation of negotiating WTO Members.  He noted that, in paragraph 4 of the 1996 decision, theCouncil was instructed to keep under supervision the effects of the continued suspension of
application of Article II to maritime transport services, which was a different exercise from the review
of Article II exemptions, as it involved examinin g the effect of the suspension and not whether theS/CSS/M/5
Page 28
reasons for the exemption still prevailed.  He sought clarification from the Secretariat on whether such
work had already started;  if not, he requested that the Chairman hold consultations to determine the
best way to proceed with the mandate.  A representative of the WTO Secretariat indicated that the
Council had not started the examination mandated by the decision.
113. The representative of Norway echoed the statement on maritime transport services.  It was
important that such a large sector be included in th e multilateral trading system for both trade and the
environment, as shipping was an environmentally-friendly form of transportation and by removing
market access restrictions on the sector more of the world's transport needs could be met by ships.  In
that respect, his delegation saw a potential for a win-win scenario.  He hoped for a constructive
dialogue to promote liberalization in the sector and thus in the whole multilateral trading system.
114. The representative of Bulgaria fully supported Hungary's statement.  On the US proposal for a
standstill, he reserved his delegation's right to undertake steps, within the limits of their WTO
obligations, dictated by national policy objectives, which might be undertaken not to improve the
negotiating position but because of the reasons outlined by the representative of Hungary and because
of the process of change that Bulgarian legislation was undergoing.
115. Commenting on the United States paper, the representative of Thailand said that her
delegation had found the proposal reasonable, but that it would be better balanced if more flexibility
for developing countries were added to certain elements, such as implementation, autonomous
liberalization, modalities for liberalization.  Her delegation had a number of specific concerns.  One,
on the scope and deadlines for negotiations, the paper seemed to suggest that the liberalization
resulting from the negotiations would be comprehens ive, just like the scope of the negotiations.
Although her delegation agreed that the negotiations be comprehensive in scope, not excluding anysector or any mode a priori , GATS Articles IV and XIX, and the principle of progressive
liberalization contained therein, should not be forg otten, so that developing countries were under no
obligation to liberalize sectors or modes.  As for the timeframe for negotiations, her delegation
considered the setting of a deadline as premature at that stage, and suggested that Members wait until
the situation with respect to other issues became clear, although her authorities were not opposed tosetting a deadline as such.   Two, on the starting-point of the negotiations, she concurred that it should
be existing commitments.  Three, she welcomed the US statement that the assessment of trade be on
the agenda of the Special Session, but could not agree that the assessment exercise had achieved its
central objective;  the assessment of trade was an on-going process and should not be hastily drawn to
a close.  As a fourth point, her delegation strongly disagreed with paragraph 11, where the relationship
between services trade and the environment was referred to;  the matter had been taken up in the
Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) and belong ed in that committee.  While recognizing that
services trade could have an impact on the environment, her delegation felt that bringing the issue in
the services negotiations would only complicate them and add confusion to the consultations on-going
in the CTE.  Also, she sought more clarification from the US on the meaning of "non-trade
objectives" in reference to MFN treatment.  Six, on classification, she agreed that the existing
classification might be improved to reflect market realities by way of adding sub-sectors where aconsensus existed that it was necessary.  Any such s ub-sectors would however only be core activities;
clusters could be employed in the negotiations as long as they were for delegations' own internal use
and were not imposed upon negotiating partners.  As further comment, she reiterated that standstill
was a concept of good intention, non-binding in the negotiations and at the same time political in
nature;  her delegation wished to reflect further on the concept and how it could be applied in thenegotiations.  Eight, she stressed the importance of establishing modalities for the treatment of
autonomous liberalization, as mandated by Article XIX, and asked for further clarification on the
methodology proposed by the US, and particularly on the last sentence of the second bullet.  Next,
under modalities for liberalization, request-offer had to be the principle negotiating modality, but her
delegation was open to supplementary negotiating approaches except for the cluster approach, whichshould only be employed as an internal negotiating tool.  Ten, on technical assistance for developingS/CSS/M/5
Page 29
countries, she believed that technical assistance was not an end in itself, but should be provided with
the objective of implementing the provisions of Article IV.  She welcomed the US intention to work
productively towards the deadline on emergency safeguard measures, notwithstanding the
reservations that the United States delegation had on the issue;  her delegation hoped to achieve
concrete results on the issue in the near future.  Finally, on negotiating guidelines in general, herdelegation remained fully committed to the statement made by ASEAN at the previous meeting.  She
would revert to other Members' proposals and to the Secretariat paper at future meetings.
116. The representative of the European Communities said that he looked forward to having a
constructive discussion on the joint statement on maritime transport services.  In that regard, he drew
Members' attention to the "International Understanding on Maritime Transport Practices", issued by
the OECD on 17 November 1999.  He welcomed the announcement that the United States and Hong
Kong, China would be tabling sectoral proposals in the coming months;  the EC was also planning tosubmit sectoral proposals in the near future.  Commenting on the US paper, he said that he broadly
agreed with the objectives set out therein, and flagged up first a number of points which he had found
useful.  He agreed with the proposal for a standstill, but had noted Hungary's statement and concurred
that a standstill had to be compatible with the process of EU enlargement.  He found the concept of
progressive implementation a useful concept to explore in market access negotiations.  He shared theUS suggestion with respect the treatment of autonomous liberalization;  it was first of all a question of
transparency, to ensure that negotiating parties were aware of when the status quo in a given sector
was more liberal than the commitments undertaken.  He agreed with the proposal to include a specific
item for needs-assessment for developing countries and with the concept of a flexible time-frame for
least-developed countries.  On four points, however , he could not share the US position.  First, the
starting-point of the negotiations were existing commitments, and not current restrictions.  Second,
request-offer had to be the main modality for the negotiations and was the only one which could
ensure a broad-based negotiation, where no sector or mode would be excluded.  He did not rule out
the recourse to alternative methods, such as modal se ts of commitments or clusters, to facilitate the
conclusion of the negotiations, but not to commence them .  In that respect, the remark in the US paper
that Members with fewer resources might not be able to lodge requests did not seem relevant, as it
applied probably more to the establishment of modal sets of commitments.  Third, he had noted the
exclusion of air transport from the negotiations, but said that Members should be open and not
prejudge the outcome of the review of the Annex;  as stressed by New Zealand, a part of air transport
was already covered by the GATS and hence by the scope of the negotiations.  Finally, on the time-
frame of the negotiation, he reiterated that the EC was one of those Members who wished to launch a
comprehensive round of trade negotiations and who saw a clear link between the services negotiationand the launch and completion of a new round.  Therefore, setting a deadline for the completion of the
service negotiations was premature.
117. Commenting on the United States submission, the representative of Romania stressed that the
negotiations had to take into account national policy objectives and the individual level of
development of each Member.  The objective of the negotiations was an increased level ofliberalization, but this had to be achieved in a progressive manner.  No sector or mode should be
excluded a priori .  The starting-point for the market access negotiations were Members' current
schedules of commitments and request-offer had to be the basic negotiating method.  He agreed with
the US proposal for a standstill, by which Members would not take measures to improve their
negotiating position, as long as such a standstill was of a political nature.  However, it should notinterfere with Members' rights to adopt and implement the necessary measures for developing and
regulating their national services sectors or their ri ght to adopt those measures needed in the process
of regional integration or as international commitments.  His delegation was flexible and interested in
further discussion of proposals on the treatment of autonomous liberalization.  With respect to the
maritime transport declaration, not only should no sector be a priori  excluded from the negotiations,
but his delegation also considered favourably any proposal to negotiate on maritime transport
services.S/CSS/M/5
Page 30
118. The representative of Singapore underscored the importance of the maritime transport
services negotiations and looked forward to a c onstructive discussion with Members on how to move
the process forward.  Commenting on the United States proposal, he said that it was a good attempt to
provide a framework for the services negotiations.  The overall objective of the negotiations was to
achieve progressively higher levels of liberalization through the reduction or elimination of theadverse effects on service trade of measures, as mandated by Article XIX.  To accomplish this
objective, the scope of the negotiations had to be comprehensive, with no a priori  exclusions.  He
concurred with the United States as concerned the need to achieve meaningful liberalization, broader
sectoral coverage and improved classification, and was in principle supportive of the proposed
objectives for the negotiations.  However, he had reservations about the proposal that Members take
on bindings by mode that allowed service consumers and suppliers to choose commercially desirable
ways of purchasing and selling services, as it was uncertain what new services might emerge due torapid technological developments, particularly in the telecom sector, and because differences in
Members' commitments across modes might reflect national policy objectives.  On modalities for
negotiations, he said that request-offer should be the primary approach;  other modalities, such as a
cluster approach, could be explored, as long as the participation in such supplementary approaches
remained voluntary.  His delegation could support the proposed deadlines of December 2002 for theconclusion of the negotiation, even though possibly too ambitious, and of the 2001 mid-term for
agreement on modalities for liberalization, and was interested in discussing the proposal by Hong
Kong, China that detailed requests be tabled by late 2001 and be followed by intensive negotiations
lasting for up to two years or until the end of the new round, whichever was later.  The starting-point
for the negotiations should be current schedules, and not current restrictions.  The treatment ofautonomous liberalization was an important aspect of the negotiations and credit had to be given to
Members who had undertaken such liberalization;  he welcomed the US suggestion in this regard and
looked forward to discussing it at the dedicated Special Session meeting in December.  He also
welcomed the US proposal for a needs-assessment  for developing countries and special treatment for
least-developed countries, to help developing countries participate fully in the negotiations.
119. The representative of Switzerland welcomed the statement on maritime transport services and
said that his delegation would revert to it and to the note by the Secretariat, on which they were still
reflecting.
120. The representative of Slovenia said that his delegation shared almost completely the views
expressed by Hungary under items A and D of the agenda.  He then outlined his delegation's position
on the guidelines.  The starting-point for the negotiations of specific commitments were Members'
current schedules;  the negotiating modality was the request-offer approach, which could be combinedwith other approaches that Members agreed to.  The negotiations on specific commitments and on
rule-making should proceed in parallel.  About the timing of the negotiations, he shared the views
expressed by Hungary and European Communities.  Regarding the standstill, his delegation was
flexible, but he observed that it was unclear wh ether those Members who had proposed a standstill
viewed it as a political or lega l commitment.  The Uruguay Round experience in this respect had not
been very good as, without a clear back-up, a standstill commitment was empty.  As for autonomous
liberalization, he concurred that the concept, as well as terms of credit, needed to be elaborated and
made clear.  His delegation also supported the joint statement on the negotiations on maritime
transport services.
121. The representative of Brazil, speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR, made preliminary
comments on the Secretariat note.  He said that the definition of clusters in paragraph 4 of the note
was appropriate.  As to the multilateral use of cluster, he echoed the statement in paragraph 5(a) that
all services sectors linked to a core could be defined multilaterally with the status of checklist, to be
used as a tool for negotiations based on the request-offer approach, which was the main negotiating
modality.  A cluster did not necessarily lead to a model schedule, but was rather an aide-mémoire  to
be used voluntarily.  He was in general agreement with paragraph 6 of the note, but highlighted that,S/CSS/M/5
Page 31
with respect to point (c), the cluster served as a methodology for the identification and classification
of the core, so that the services in the cluster would not be the subject of a multilaterally agreed
classification;  this did not prevent any Member from undertaking specific commitments for the
sectors in the cluster.  He said that the questions raised in paragraph 7 were of great interest and their
implications needed to be carefully assessed.
122. Commenting on the United States proposal, he noted that the proposal in paragraph 5 that the
guidelines be completed at the October Special Session meeting was premature.  As concerned the
strong guiding role for the Services Council advocated in paragraph 10, he stressed that the General
Council had an important role to play as the only  body where the balance and progress in the built-in-
agenda negotiations could be assessed.  As for the US objectives for the negotiations in chapter III, he
noted the emphasis laid on domestic regulation and the fact that GATS rules had not been given the
same priority under this heading;  he stressed th at for MERCOSUR all the topics of the GATS built-in
agenda should be given the same level of priority and that the completion of the rule-making work
should be linked to the conclusion of the market access negotiations.  On chapter IV, he said that the
time-frame for the services negotiations had to take  into consideration the time-frame established for
other negotiations under the built in agenda and the overall context of the WTO, that the dates
proposed by the US were ambitious and that setting an intermediate benchmark would be appropriate.
123. The starting point for the negotiations were Me mbers' exiting schedules of commitments.  As
to negotiating modalities, the preferred approach was request-offer, to which others, such as voluntary
clusters or model schedules for subscription on a voluntary basis, could be added if Members so
agreed.  It was important to maintain negotiating flexibility, without in any way jeopardizing the
GATS architecture by laying an excessive emphasis on modalities, as in the US proposal.  Onautonomous liberalization, the suggestion to hold bilateral negotiations on the credit to be given for
such liberalization was not appropriate;  the establishment of a methodology to assess the value of
autonomous liberalization should be explored.
124. Commenting on the joint statement on the negotiations on maritime transport services, the
representative of Chile said that, given the geographical situation of his country, maritime transport
was of extreme importance to Chile, not only for domestic but also for international trade.  His
country's policy for the sector was very liberal, including even cabotage in specific circumstances.
His delegation, therefore, supported the joint stat ement and the full inclusion of maritime transport
services under the GATS.  With respect to clusters, his delegation's preliminary view was that the
request-offer method was the best way of ensuring progressive liberalization and that a cluster
approach could be a good complement to such a method.  A clear distinction had to be drawn between
the revision of the services classification, which was a technical issue, and the clusters negotiations,even if the two were linked.  His view was that a cluster approach could be applied to all services
sectors but that, in order to be efficient and feasible, clusters should be used only in those sectors
where there were classification problems or for closely related sectors.  As concerned point 5 in the
Secretariat note, he believed that appropriate time should be devoted to sectors which would come
under a cluster and importance attached to the overall liberalization in the sectors, as clusters were areflection of trade realities.  With regard to item 7 in the Secretariat note, in response to (b) he said
that it should be possible to undertake commitments on construction services without having a general
commitment on the sector, even if domestic regulations were often general in scope and not specific
to a sub-sector.  He felt that liberalization in a sub-sector could in fact lead to liberalization in the
sector as a whole.
125. The representative of New Zealand welcomed the comprehensive negotiating proposal
submitted by the United States and had found their proposals on market access, national treatment and
progressive implementation worthy of further co nsideration.  However, one significant concern
related to air transport services, which the paper suggested were excluded from the negotiations.  His
delegation could neither share this view nor find it appropriate that Members gave countenance to anyS/CSS/M/5
Page 32
such proposals in advance of the completion of th e review of the Annex on Air Transport Services.
No sector should be excluded a priori  from the negotiations;  in this regard, he welcomed and
endorsed the joint statement on maritime services.  He added that the paper submitted by Hong Kong,
China closely resembled his delegation's thinking on the scope and coverage of the negotiations and
that his delegation continued to adhere to the paper jointly submitted with Australia and Chilein 1999, contained in document WT/GC/W/204, as embodying their objectives for the mandated
negotiations.
126. Commenting on the United States submission, the representative of India concurred with most
of the points made by Thailand.  As specific observations, he said that he was struck that the mandate
of progressive liberalization was not adequately reflected in the proposal.  The term "progressive"
appeared in a different context, associated to implementation, rather than to liberalization.
Paragraph 12, on the US objectives for the negotiations, also raised concerns, in that it seemed tosuggest that in a particular scheduled sector or sub-sector the United States would seek commitments
in all modes, which would certainly go against the basic flexibility in Article XIX:2.  One
classification, he concurred that substantive changes to the W/120 list might not be desirable.  As
concerned section 4, it was probably premature to lay down a timetable and, in that regard, he said
that the mid-term time-frame suggested for the work on domestic regulation was different from theone agreed in the road-map, namely that it be concluded with the other mandated areas prior to the
conclusion of the negotiations.  Regarding the starting-point of the negotiations, this were existing
commitments and not actual restrictions.  As for autonomous liberalization, he echoed the sentiment
expressed by Brazil on the suggested bilateral approach;  a multilateral approach to this issue was far
more desirable.  On the needs-assessment for developing countries, he said that, apart from technicalassistance, which seemed to be suggested in this proposal, what was more important was to
effectively operationalize Article IV of the GATS, in particular with respect to sectors and modes of
interest to developing countries.  On the Secretariat note, in a preliminary manner he would have
reservations on the multilateral approach in 5(b), as clusters should in no way change the basic
architecture of the GATS or take away the flexibility guaranteed by Article XIX.  He concurred withthe distinction drawn between the model schedule  used in basic telecommunications, largely for
uniformity and clarity purposes, and the use of clusters in general.  He also generally concurred with
the points raised in paragraph 6, and, with respect to paragraph 7, he said that the basis architecture of
the GATS had to be borne in mind while considering such questions.
127. The representative of Canada offered preliminary comments on the Secretariat note.  With
respect to point 6(c) that clusters were negotiating tools distinct from the technical work on
classification, she said that clusters should not be used for scheduling purposes.  Members shouldrather reflect on whatever liberalization was agreed to in the negotiations on the basis of the W/120
list, irrespective of the approach taken to the negoti ations, as this was important to maintain the legal
certainty of Members' commitments.  Secondly, she was unclear about how model schedules, which
had been referred to by some Members, would be distinguished from clusters.  She said that model
schedules had until then been used within a sector, and not across sectors, whereas clusters were bytheir nature cross-sectoral.
128. The representative of Australia welcomed the joint statement on the maritime services
negotiations.  It was timely and important.  His delegation would revert to the submission, but by way
of preliminary comments, he said that the inclusion of maritime services in the GATS negotiations
was consistent with the proposition that no sector should be excluded a priori .  He also concurred that
maritime transport was important for international tr ade and that multilateral liberalization should be
achieved in this sector.  With regard to the United States paper, he welcomed in particular the
commitment to achieve meaningful liberalization, broader sectoral coverage and to improve
classification.  He also supported the development of GATS disciplines to promote greater
transparency, although transparency had to be supplemented by necessity in the disciplines.  The USproposals for the treatment of autonomous liberalization, modalities for liberalization, a needs-S/CSS/M/5
Page 33
assessment for developing countries and special treatment for least-developed countries were useful
starting points for debate and worthy of close examination.  He also welcomed the prospect of sectoral
proposals.  One concern related to the exclusion, in paragraph 2, of air transport services.  While
acknowledging the wording in the Annex on Air Transport Services, he noted that the Annex was
under review and in that respect echoed comments by the European Communities and New Zealandthat the outcome of the review should not be pre-empted.  As for the Secretariat paper, his colleague
said that a cluster approach could be a very useful tool for negotiators in a limited number of sectors,
where a variety of up-stream and down-stream activities affected the effectiveness of commitments on
core sectors.  She said that her delegation's thinking was evolving and that she would be presenting
some further ideas at the December meeting.  For example, it would be necessary to be flexible on the
cluster approach as the negotiating process unfolded, particularly because common problems might
emerge which would benefit from common solutions.  In that respect, she referred to paragraph 6(c)
of the Secretariat paper, as she believed that in some cases improved classifications might obviate the
need for a cluster technique, and to paragraph 7(e), where she felt that some of the negotiating
proposals foreshadowed could offer concrete examples which could help clarify where
complementary negotiating methodology might be indicated.  Regarding Hong Kong, China's
submission, she said that a horizontal requirement to grant full national treatment in mode 3 in eachsector where mode 3 market access commitments were undertaken represented a significant
upgrading of Members' commitments.  On ad ditional commitments, she was unclear about how
Hong Kong, China viewed a reference paper approach applied generally to electronic-commerce and
would welcome further elaboration.  As for para graph 18, she sought further clarification on how to
coordinate GATS government procurement work with work elsewhere in the WTO.
129. With respect to the United States submission, the representative of Norway said that he shared
many of the views laid out therein.  On the progress and structure of the negotiations, he agreed that
work in the Council, and in its subsidiary bodies, had laid a good basis for the services negotiations
and he also envisaged a strong guiding role for th e Council in Special Session, to oversee, monitor
progress and solve problems arising from work in the bodies that Members decided to establish.  Hewelcomed announcements that some Members would be submitting sectoral proposals.  He concurred
that the relationship between trade in services and the environment should be treated in the
appropriate forum.  On the objectives of the negotiations, he echoed the US viewpoint;  his delegation
also attached great importance to the MFN principle,  but felt that non-trade objectives existed, such as
the preservation of cultural identity, that had to be taken into consideration.  As for the sectoral
coverage, he said that the coverage of Members' schedules was often incomplete and that GATS
scheduling should be broader and more transparent.  On the time-table, he believed that the issueneeded be seen in the context of the possibilities of a broader round of WTO negotiations.  With
respect to the starting-point for the negotiations, he realised that individual Members might take
current restrictions as the starting-point for requests, but existing schedules represented a reality in the
negotiations, so that it was necessary to take into proper account any autonomous liberalization
undertaken;  in this regard, he supported Hong Kong, China's proposal.  He added that a scheme forassistance should be established, to ensure that a ll Members participated fully in the negotiations, and
that his delegation would contribute constructively in such endeavours.
130. The representative of Jamaica offered some initial comments.  On the United States paper,
she said that the starting-point for negotiation were Members' existing commitments and that setting a
time-table for the negotiations was premature.  She sought further elaboration on the US proposedtreatment for autonomous liberalization.  She had taken note of their comment on technical assistance
for full participation of all Members in the negotiations and reiterated the importance to her delegation
of the principles in GATS Articles IV and XIX, particularly XIX:2.  On the Secretariat note on
clusters, her delegation could support of the general thrust of clusters being used as an aide-mémoire
and as an information tool for effective negotiations, to assist delegations in understanding the valueof an offer and therefore how to respond.  Her delegation looked forward to further discussion on the
questions raised in point 7 and to the provision of concrete examples with sector-specific attention.S/CSS/M/5
Page 34
131. The representative of Korea said that his delegation attached great importance to the
negotiations  on maritime transport services and hoped for more detailed discussion, including on
modalities, scope and agenda, at the following Special Session meeting.  In that regard, he appreciated
Panama's statement recalling the status of the negotiating group on maritime transport services.  As
concerned the Secretariat note, he said that, even if the paper mentioned that there should be nofragmentation of infrastructure services, such fragmentation might be unavoidable.  He also felt that,
if a cluster approach in the negotiations were to be followed, Members would need to consider how
the results of such negotiations would be scheduled.  He hoped for more detailed discussion on the
issue, probably in the Committee on Specific Commitments.  He also wondered if the Secretariat had
made any progress on their research of how new and old commitments had been incorporated in past.
A representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that the Secretariat was still working on the issue,
which was a complicated one, and would be providing a note by the following meeting.
132. The representative of Japan provided specific comments on the United States paper.  He
appreciated the reference to the standstill, an important principle which he hoped that Members would
focus on during the negotiations.  In that regard, his delegation was carefully following the
developments in the United States legislative process which could affect the United States position in
relation to telecommunications.  The starting-point for the negotiations were Members' existingcommitments, and not current restrictions.  As for autonomous liberalization, he said that under the
GATS this had legal consequences only if it was bound.  He also concurred about the importance of
sharing information on autonomous liberalization and, in this respect, believed that the notification
obligations under Article III:3 were important from a negotiating viewpoint.  Members needed to
consider further how to treat such information in the negotiations.  He supported the US proposal forphasing in commitments and for transition periods for developing countries.  As for the time
framework, a separate deadline for the conclusion of the services negotiation was not acceptable to his
delegation, as they were working towards launching a comprehensive round of negotiations in the
WTO.
133. With respect to the United States communication, the representative of Poland said that the
starting-point for the negotiations were existing commitments.  Second, he had no objections to their
suggestion concerning a timeframe for special treatment of least-developed countries.  Third, on the
standstill proposal, he sought further clarificatio n on whether the purpose of such a clause was to
prevent Members from introducing new limitations on market access and national treatment and on
what the status of a standstill clause would be, whether a political or a legal commitment.  With
respect to autonomous liberalization, he reiterated his support for Hong Kong, China's proposal to
organize a Special Session meeting dedicated to the issue.  Fifth, on modalities, his delegationstrongly supported request-offer as the essential negotiating method, which could be supplemented by
others, such as clusters.  As concerned the Secretariat note, he had two questions on point 6.  First, he
sought clarification of what was meant by infrastructural sectors in point (d).  Second, on point (f), he
wondered about the meaning of the statement that "the result of any possible negotiations based on
clusters would be applied on a multilateral basis".  His delegation's preliminary approach to clustersconsisted of seven elements:  the term "clusters" had to be defined;  the services sectors to which
clusters would apply needed to be indicated;  clusters could be a supplementary negotiating tool
distinct from classification issues;  clusters should be developed where it was necessary to better
reflect market realities;  the development and use of clusters should not undermine the architecture of
the GATS;  the use of clusters should be voluntary;  and the use of clusters in the negotiations shouldnot undermine the legal certainty of existing commitments.
134. Responding to the questions raised, a representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that
"infrastructural sectors" referred to sectors such as transportation and telecommunications, for which a
reclassification of some parts might fragment the overall structure of the sector.  With respect to the
second question, the multilateral application of the results meant that, whatever Members decided atthe end of a clusters-based negotiating process, the results would be included in commitmentsS/CSS/M/5
Page 35
applicable to all Members and did not imply that those Members who had not participated in the
cluster negotiations would have to adhere to th e commitments.  The point was meant to address a
concern that a cluster approach might lead to a series of plurilateral arrangements in which the MFN
principle would not apply, and to indicate that al l Members would benefit from the outcome of cluster
negotiations.
135. The representative of Brazil offered some preliminary comments on the Hong Kong, China
paper.  He agreed that current commitments were the starting points for the negotiations.  With regard
to paragraph 12, he concurred that agreeing on the scope of national treatment in modes 1 and 2 was a
conceptual question of relevance both for the negotiations of specific commitments and for other on-
going work in the services context, such as the negotiations on subsidies, where the mode-specificity
of national treatment was an important point to tackle.  With regard to the rule-making work, he
shared the view that this was linked to the market access negotiations and that such a link had to bereflected in the negotiating guidelines, but differed on some of the substantive positions, in particular
with regard to government procurement.  On autono mous liberalization, he welcomed the proposal for
a Special Session meeting dedicated to the issue.  His delegation was concerned by the emphasis
placed, in paragraph 9, on the liberalization of certain sectors, like maritime transport and audiovisual
services.  He understood this to be Hong Kong, China's aspiration, but nonetheless favoured abalanced approach to all sectors.  In paragraph 13, a reference paper on electronic commerce would
be premature, as electronic commerce was under discussion in the General Council, in the context of
the work programme, and hence suggestions for fu rther work should come from there.  He was
concerned by the proposal for a review of some GATS provisions and called for a clear indication of
what such a review implied, as his delegation's understanding was that it would be merely a technicalreview.  On the timetable for the negotiations, even though the end-date proposed was less ambitious
than in the United States proposal, he still felt that any decision on the matter was premature.
136. The representative of Pakistan offered some preliminary comments on the United States
paper.  On the introductory part, he would have preferred the language of Article XIX, which laid
down very clearly the parameters for the conduct of the negotiations.  As regarded the completion ofthe work on the guidelines, he observed that events had overtaken the ambitious deadline spelled out
in paragraph 5.  On paragraphs 6 and 7, he was concerned by affirmative assertions that the Council
had conducted an assessment of trade in services, as the exercise was only in its initial stages.  He
sought further elaboration on what the "central obje ctive" of the assessment was.  On paragraph 12, he
wondered why Members should reach an agreement only on domestic regulation and not also on other
areas of the rule-making work.  As for paragraph 14, his authorities were still examining the issue of
standstill, but wondered how the issue would rela te to any autonomous liberalization which Members
might undertake during the negotiations.  On the timetable, his delegation could look positively at a
three-year proposal, on the understanding that the countdown would start in January 2001.  As for the
starting-point of the negotiations, this were Members' current commitments.  On autonomous
liberalization, he had no problem with the idea that autonomous liberalization measures be known to
interested trading partners, or, in the interest of transparency, to all WTO Members.  As concernedmodalities for the treatment of such liberalization, he acknowledged that it was a complex issue and
would welcome further discussion at the dedicated Special Session meeting.  On negotiating
modalities, his delegation strongly supported the request-offer approach, which would be
supplemented by other methods only if so agreed by Members.  As for the needs-assessment for
developing countries, he welcomed the offer, but believed that the need for such a proposal wouldhave been obviated had the provisions of Article IV been fully implemented since the conclusion of
the Uruguay Round.  He sought further clarification of the meaning of the mention of "degree of
flexibility" with reference to other parts of the GATS.  He said that he would revert to the Secretariat
note.
137. The representative of Mexico said that paragraph 19 of the Hong Kong, China paper stated
that the negotiating guidelines should contain a reference to a review of the GATS.  His delegationS/CSS/M/5
Page 36
had always opposed such a suggestion.  In previous discussions, this had been referred to as a
technical review, not related to the negotiations, differently from what was being proposed in the
Hong Kong, China submission.  While he believed that the draft Seattle declaration was a useful
reference point, he stressed that a technical review did not belong in the guidelines by definition, but
could be examined in the course of the ordinary work  of the Council for Trade in Services.  As for the
Secretariat note on clusters, he observed that it did not indicate that some delegations, including his
own, had problems beyond those referred to in paragraph 7.  One was the difficulty that would arise in
the negotiations themselves:  as clusters would not be established for all sectors, they would benefit
those Members who were net exporters of such servi ces.  Another problem was that the use of clusters
would reduce the possibilities for exchanging concessions:  clusters would include sub-sectors in a
more restricted manner than if sectors were negotiated on the basis of the existing classification.  If
the example in paragraph 7(b) were subjected to a cluster approach, instead of seeking commitmentson construction services some Members might be interested solely in concessions in construction
services of sewers.  In the light of paragraph 5, there was no need to agree to clusters if the definition
in paragraph 4 was followed, which was indeed probably the best one.  Commercial linkages existed
because of the characteristics of the activities involved and did not require an agreement amongst
Members;  it was for each Member to decide which linkages it wished to secure in view of the uniquecharacteristics of its own economy.  In addition, the use of clusters would be on a voluntary basis.  He
recognized the right of every Member to negotiate whichever way it preferred, but saw no reason why
multilateral approval from other Members would need to be secured.
138. The representative of the Philippines reiterated his delegation's serious reservations on the
multilateral use of clusters as a negotiating technique.  He welcomed the statement on negotiations on
maritime transport services and would revert to it.  Focusing on the United States submission, he said
that a lot of the elements therein merited serious consideration.  On a number of issues, however, his
delegation held a different view.  The United States seemed to have an ambitious approach to the
negotiations, in that it called for significant liberalization through, among others, the removal of
restrictions across all services sectors.  He explained that for certain developing countries, the servicesnegotiations were ambitious in the sense that they should achieve liberalization in sectors and modes
of interest to them, and in particular in mode 4.  In paragraph 2, he sought clarification on the
reference to measures not subject to GATS disciplines which Members should potentially address.  In
paragraph 6, he wondered what the central objective that the assessment had supposedly achieved
was, and recalled that Article XIX provided that the assessment be carried out by the Council for the
purpose of establishing the guidelines, which did not prevent Members from carrying out their own
assessment to determine the extent of liberalization to pursue in the negotiations.  Likewise, on theproposal that Members might undertake liberalization in a phased manner, he pointed out that
Article XIX provided developing countries with the flexibility of opening fewer sector, liberalizing
fewer types of transactions and progressively extending market access in line with their development
situation.  He felt that liberalization in a phased manner might be applied to those sector in which a
developing country chose to undertake further commitments in the negotiations.  In paragraph 13, hewondered whether the proposal that scheduling be broader and more transparent implied that, when a
sector was unbound, the specific limitations should be entered in the schedule, in which case his
delegation would have serious concerns, as the proposal would impact on the architecture of GATS.
On the time-frame for the negotiations, he stressed that, while in principle not opposed to having a
deadline, his delegation believed that the issue should be considered in light of developments in otherGATS-related areas and in the WTO as a whole.  The deadline for an agreement on modalities for
liberalization by the 2001 mid-term was premature, given that the guidelines would not be agreed
upon at that meeting, and he suggested that the deadline be rolled over.  On the starting point for
negotiations, this should not be current restrictions, but rather Members' existing schedules.  As for
the treatment of autonomous liberalization, he said that the mechanism involving notification by the
Member having autonomously liberalized, and as well as the discussion of the value of such
liberalization should allow for the participation of other Members and not be limited to interested
trading partners.  Moreover, credit for liberalization autonomously undertaken might be invoked vis-S/CSS/M/5
Page 37
à-vis another Member.  On technical assistance for developing countries, while not disagreeing with
the aim of helping developing countries specify th eir interests in the negotiations, he believed that
technical assistance should be provided with the objective of implementing the provisions of Article
IV.  Developing country Members were not ready for an arrangement where assistance to build up
their regulatory capacity was meant merely to a ccompany greater market openness.  As to the
establishment of the guidelines, he said that an additional meeting was necessary before drawing up a
first draft.
139. The representative of Malaysia said that individual Member's ambitions for the negotiations
could not be agreed to by other Members.  He then highlighted his delegation's parameters for the
negotiations.  First, national policy objectives had to be considered;  second, the flexibility for
developing countries in Article XIX:2 had to be underscored;  and, third, Article IV of the GATS had
to be made operational.  Any liberalization had to take into account the development of Members'domestic economy and domestic industries, and could not lead to economy upheavals.  Consideration
had to be given to sectors of importance to developing countries, as prescribed by Article IV.
Speaking on the United States proposal, he agreed that setting deadlines was premature, and that
developments in services and in the WTO as a whole had to be taken into account.  Still, he could not
agree with the European Communities that the services time-frame was linked to the launch of a newround of negotiations, as his delegation did not share the idea of a comprehensive new round of
negotiations.  In terms of the standstill, he noted that it had existed during the Uruguay Round
negotiations and, in light of that experience, he did not see much purpose in having such a clause:
even if acceptable as a political gesture, it did not make much difference in the negotiations and just
added to the burden of the negotiations.  As for progressive implementation, he noted that itsunderpinnings were different from those of progressive liberalization and stressed that the two
concepts should not be confused.  He expressed serious concerns if progressive implementation
implied that all Members would liberalize across the board and obtain some flexibility only in terms
of a phased implementation, as this would run counter to the principles of progressive liberalization
and flexibility for developing countries in Article XIX:2.  His delegation also had serious problemswith the environment being included in the negotiations and could not support consideration of the
issue.  On the concerns of developing countries , he appreciated the emphasis and the proposal for
technical assistance in the United States paper, but stressed that technical assistance was not an end in
itself, but just a way of putting special and differential treatment in practice.  As for clusters, his
delegation had difficulties with the issue, especially if clusters had to be agreed to on a multilateral
basis;  any decision to use clusters should be voluntary and have no repercussions on bilateral
negotiations.
140. The representative of Ghana said that his delegation would revert to the United States paper in
detail.  By way of general comments, he said th at the United States proposal contained a number of
positive elements, particularly in regards to the needs-assessment for developing countries.  The
proposal reflected the provisions of Article XIX in a number of respects, but some aspects were
worrisome, such as the expectations of far-reaching liberalization.  Because of the weak nature of theservices sector in the majority of developing countries, as recognized by Articles IV and XIX,
developing countries had been accorded flexibility to liberalize at a pace commensurate with their
national policy objectives and level of development, to open fewer sector and liberalize fewer
transactions and to progressively extend market access in line with their development situation.
Hence, he stressed that, as stated in Article XIX, liberalization had to be progressive rather thanradical and ambitious, at least for developing countries.  On the cluster approach, his delegation was
concerned that it might undermine the flexibility enjoyed by developing countries in Article XIX.
However, his delegation might be more prepared to consider clusters as checklists which, if adopted,
would be used on a voluntary basis and not be binding on Members.  Still, the issue that remained to
be resolved was whether negotiations based on the cluster approach would be multilateralized tobenefit all Members.S/CSS/M/5
Page 38
141. The representative of the Slovak Republic reserved her delegation's position with regard to
the concept of standstill, which should not prevent Members from pursuing national policy objectives
or have a negative impact on such objectives.
142. By way of preliminary comment on the statement on the negotiations of maritime transport,
the representative of Venezuela expressed his delegation's support for the submission and underscored
the role of maritime transport in promoting interna tional trade.  With reference to the United States
paper, he said that the starting point for the negotiations had to be existing commitments, and not
current restrictions.  Article XIX stated that the process of liberalization had to be carried out with due
account for the level of development of individual Members and their national policy objectives.  As
concerned the timeframe of the negotiations, he said that the United States proposal was very
ambitious;  any timeframe had to take into account the constraints faced by developing countries.  On
modalities, he indicated that the request-offer method would offer more flexibility.  He agreed thattechnical assistance was important, but that the effective implementation of Article IV had to be
included in the evaluation of the needs of developing countries.  He stressed that the structure and
principles of the GATS should be preserved.  With regard to a cluster approach to the negotiations, he
said that the use of clusters should in no way undermine the basic architecture of the GATS;  a cluster
should be only as an illustrative list of related services, its use had to be voluntary and circumscribedto a limited number of sectors.
143. Commenting on the United States proposal, the representative of Nigeria echoed the
comments made by Hungary, Thailand and Bulgaria on the standstill, the assessment of trade, the
linkage of services trade with the environment, the timetable and deadline for the negotiation, its
starting point, as well as the request-offer approach.  His delegation did not agree with the notion thatthe assessment of trade had been concluded, nor did it subscribe to the linkage between services trade
and the environment, as the issue was being handled by the Committee on Trade and Environment.
On the timetable for the negotiations, his delegation was not satisfied with the usefulness of setting
deadlines, but welcomed the idea of reviews at the appropriate time.  The starting point for the
negotiations were Members' commitments, and negotiations had to be based on request-offer as theprimary approach;  his delegation was open to considering the merits of other approaches, particularly
with respect to the capacity constraints of developing countries and the flexibility provisions in
Article XIX.  His delegation was in serious disagreement with the United States proposal for a
bilateral approach on autonomous liberalization.  On needs-assessment, he welcomed the idea and
looked forward to further clarification of the concept;  at the same time, however, he said that
developing countries did not need technical assistance to identify their needs in the negotiations,
which were the achievement of improved market access in modes and sectors of export interest tothem.  He totally concurred with the proposal for special treatment for least-developed countries.
With respect to the Secretariat note on the cluster approach, it was a useful reference, and he had
noted with particular interest the questions raised in section 3, which appeared to be confirming his
delegation's scepticism over the workability of a cluster approach.
144. The representative of Guatemala expressed support for the proposal on negotiations on
maritime transport services.  As to the adoption of a cluster approach, she felt that the issue needed to
be clarified before such an approach could be used;  she said that sectoral examples were difficult to
identify but would be useful for the discussion.  Clusters could be envisaged only as a memory tools
to help negotiators, to be used only on a voluntar y basis, in order to reflect market realities and
without leading to an undesirable fragmentation of infrastructural sectors.
145. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that he looked forward to having a detailed
discussion on maritime transport at the December meeting.  On the Secretariat note, he was puzzled
by the reference, in paragraph 5, to clusters as "agreed" checklists, given that paragraph 6(e) indicated
that clusters would be used on a voluntary and non- binding basis.  His delegation shared that position,
and viewed clusters as an aide-mémoire  for use only in a limited number of activities.  He was alsoS/CSS/M/5
Page 39
perplexed by the question in paragraph 7(b), as he saw no reason why a Member could not undertake
a commitment in construction services of sewers just by inscribing it under the "construction services"
heading.  With respect to the United States paper,  he said that the suggestions for broader sectoral
coverage, the need for more transparency, for better classification, request-offer being the basis plus
other methods, commitments in government procurement, and the use of a political standstill were allcommendable elements.  His delegation also welcom ed the contribution on autonomous liberalization,
and stressed that more discussion was needed on the issue and in particular on the concept of credit
and its recognition.  On a number of issues, however, his delegation's position differed.  They
believed that, in addition to transparency, necessity was an essential aspect of the work on Article VI
disciplines, that subsidy disciplines were important and that the rule-making work should proceed
together with the market access work;  that the deadline suggested by the United States was
unrealistic;  and that the starting point for the negotiations were existing schedules.  He soughtclarification on the meaning "measures not currently subject to GATS disciplines" in paragraph 2, on
the sentence “full bindings aimed at reduction of measures” in paragraph 12, where he felt that the
term should have been "elimination", and by the mention of non-trade objectives under the MFN sub-
heading, where he wondered what, apart from Article XIV, the United States could be referring to.
146. He then responded to some of the comments on his delegation's submission.  On
paragraph 10, he explained that having a comprehensive and balanced set of commitments in those
key infrastructure sectors was one of his delegation's aspirations, but that he believed this to be in the
interest of all Members.  Similarly, in paragraph 12, full national treatment in mode 3 was an
aspiration, and not something he envisaged for inclus ion in the guidelines.  With respect to “the scope
and reach of national treatment in modes 1 and 2", his delegation was thinking about the difficulties inthe financial services negotiations, about electronic commerce, as well as about subsidies.  On
paragraph 13, the comment on restrictive business practices meant that a sectoral approach should be
adopted to tackle such practices, and only where it had been identified that such practices existed;  his
delegation had not intended to link electronic commerce with restrictive business practices.  They had
suggested that a reference paper approach could be applied to electronic commerce;  they were notthinking about market access and national treatment commitments, but rather about a favourable
environment for electronic commerce, with transp arency in regulations governing e-commerce, due
diligence in consumer protection in terms of information about sellers, terms of contracts, quality
assurance, perhaps an agreement to implement the UNCITRAL model law, and access to networks.
They were considering matters falling outside the scope of Articles XVI and XVII, but which could
nevertheless be considered as possible additiona l commitments.  On government procurement, some
Members had suggested that their approach was ambitious;  he said that Members had at least threeyears to take this matter forward and hoped for some real progress.  With respect to the review of the
GATS, he stressed that the submission stated clearly that the basic structure of the GATS should not
be altered.  As for the comment that the matter should not be dealt with in the Special Session, he said
that, as work in the Committee on Specific Commitments had shown, some Members could deem
given issues to be simply technical, whereas others considered them to have serious implications forthe commitments themselves, such as Article XX:2.  Hence, the review of the GATS was an
appropriate matter for inclusion in the guidelines.  As for the suggestion in paragraph 23 that the best
way to deal with flexibility for developing countries were realistic phase-in periods, he stressed that
they had clearly stated their wish to discuss how Articles IV and XIX should be best taken account of,
and that they fully subscribed to flexibility for developing Members.  His delegation firmly believedthat the right conditions, such as good domestic regulations, internal competition which allowed for a
change in ownership, were necessary before developing Members could undertake liberalization, but
also that the best way to perform this was to provide for realistic phase-in periods.
147. The representative of the United States responded to some of the comments made on his
delegation's submission.  He reiterated that much of the paper concerned the United States priorities in
the negotiations, rather than elements intended for in clusion in the guidelines, such as the proposal on
the starting point for the negotiations.  He explained that the suggestion was that the starting point forS/CSS/M/5
Page 40
requests be the current situation;  if the starting-point were existing commitments, he wondered how
Members could be assured that the mandate in Articl e XIX that the negotiations result in the removal
of restrictions, and not just in changes in bindings, would be met.  As to the request-offer approach, he
said that it was one important way to achieve liberalization, as it allowed negotiating partners to focus
directly on a particular restriction and to request its removal;  however, using only the request-offerapproach would be a step backwards, as in the Uruguay Round and in the extended negotiations
alternatives had already been used.  He was also concerned with comments that implied that
consensus would be needed to adopt any approach alternative to, or supplemental to, request-offer,
which he said would be a precedent in the GATS, and in that respect stressed the need to maintain
flexibility and make the best use of the GATS structure.  On the standstill, he indicated that it would
be a political understanding, and recalled that it had been used in other negotiations, including in a
services context.
148. As for autonomous liberalization, he clarified that the final phrase in the second bullet on this
issue was intended as an analogy to the benchmark used on the goods side for measuring autonomous
liberalization, which would be reaching zero tariff  level.  His delegation was trying to develop a
services equivalent, something generally approaching an open services regime, a model schedule for a
services regime.  With regard to concerns about the reference to trade and environment, he felt thatthe views of Thailand and Nigeria might not be too different from his own.  On MFN exemptions, he
explained that the mention of non-trade objectives referred to reasons for MFN exemptions which
were completely unrelated to trade, such as tax issues or to address money laundering or terrorism,
but which, because of potential GATS implications, had required the listing of an exemption.  As to
the scope of the negotiations excluding air transport services not covered by the GATS, as indicated in
the Annex, this was a statement of fact, a description of the current situation and did not intend to pre-
judge the outcome of the review.  As for proposals for timeframes, he welcomed statements from
Singapore, Thailand and Brazil.  His delegation's view was that the guidelines should include
timeframes, just as the road-map had.
149. With regard to their proposal for a needs-assessment, he explained that it was meant to
address some of the questions about the availability of assistance from governmental or non-
governmental organizations, the interest in sharing information on which particular types of assistance
had proved helpful and which not, and to identify gaps in assistance.  The reference to full bindings in
paragraph 12 was not proposed for inclusion in the guidelines;  this was an objective for the
negotiations and it followed, to some extent, the language in Article XIX.  As to the meaning of “full
bindings aimed at the reduction of measures", he indicated that it referred to phased-in commitments,
such as those inscribed by some Members under their telecommunication commitments.  On theassessment of trade having reached its objective, he said that this was stated in Article XIX;  the
assessment exercise was meant to look at the extent to which the GATS had met its objectives,
including those under Article IV.  Information had been provided through the information exchange
programme, with Secretariat documents, country  submissions and UNCTAD Secretariat submissions.
The information presented had allowed his delegation to make its own assessment, but if otherMembers believed that more time and resources were appropriate, his delegation had never intended
to prevent them from making additional contributions and looked forward to their submissions.  The
reference to "measures not currently subject to GATS disciplines" in paragraph 2 was meant to
anticipate possible results in the subsidiary bodies, such as new disciplines relating to transparency, or
new regulatory principles for individual sectors, a nd to include them in a negotiating package.  With
respect to "scheduling transparency", he said that in some GATS schedules no information was
provided on the extent of openness in a sector because a sector had not been scheduled;  an
appropriate objective was that all such sectors be scheduled so that information be provided on the
extent of Article XVI or XVII limitations.
150. Turning to the paper by Hong Kong, China, he  said that in a preliminary manner he could
agree with a great many elements.  He concurred with the statement in paragraph 3 that the results ofS/CSS/M/5
Page 41
the negotiations should meet the aims and aspirations of all Members.  He welcomed the statement, in
paragraphs 9 through 12, of Hong Kong, China's priorities for the negotiations.  In paragraph 7, he
supported supplementing and complementing the request-offer method with other approaches;  he
also welcomed the proposal for a timeframe.  While he supported the emphasis on transparency in
paragraph 14, he sought clarifications on the statement that Members should pursue transparency inboth the Working Parties GATS Rules and in the negotiations.  He sought further elaboration on what
trade-distortive subsidies in paragraph 16 were, and, in paragraph 17, on the trade barriers to be
addresses by a proposed necessity test.
151. Commenting on the Secretariat note on clusters, he concurred that discussions on clusters
might be better addressed on the basis of concrete examples and with sector-specific attention.  He
also echoed Australia's reference to concrete examples, Jamaica's focus on the use of clusters to
conduct effective negotiations and Hong Kong, China’s statement that the use of clusters did not needto be agreed upon and might only apply to a number of activities.
152. Commenting on Hong Kong, China’s statement, the representative of Thailand said that
paragraph 5 on rule-making work lacked an important reference, to emergency safeguard measures.
She took note of the fact that safeguards were not a priority for Hong Kong, China but urged them, as
well as other delegations, to engage constructively in the negotiations on emergency safeguards.
153. Concluding the discussion on this agenda item, the Chairman said that the debate had been
thorough and valuable, and helped with the establishment of the guidelines under item A.  He said that
the Council would take note of the statements made and revert to the item at its next meeting.  The
representative of Hong Kong, China asked that, in view of their close link, items A and D be placed
subsequently on the agenda of the next meeting, and the Council so agreed.
V. ITEM E:  WORK OF SUBSIDIARY BODIES – REPORTS BY CHAIRPERSONS
154. The Chairman said that he had consulted with the Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies.  He
informed Members that the Chairman of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services was unable to
report given that the formal meeting of the Committee had not taken place yet.  In order to treat all the
subsidiary bodies alike, he suggested that the reports be distributed in writing.
155. The representative of India agreed with the Chairman's suggestion.  He further proposed that,
for the December meeting, the meetings of the subsidiary bodies be scheduled over a whole week and
the special and normal sessions of the Services Council during the following week, in order to have
more time for discussion.  The Chairman said that he  had met with the Chairpersons of the subsidiary
bodies and the Secretariat to try to schedule meetings  in the best interest of the whole Membership.
156. The Council agreed that the reports of the subsidiary bodies be distributed in writing.  They
are hereto attached.
157. The Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Lofty-Abdel-Hamid of Egypt,
reported that, since the Special Session in July, the Committee on Trade in Financial Services had
held one informal meeting on 20 September and one formal meeting on 9 October.  The informal
meeting was convened at the request of delegations to follow up on the discussion of how to proceed
with:  (a) the proposal to request information regard ing developments in regulatory issues on financial
services from international organizations;  and (b) the request for observer status from the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors.  At the formal meeting, the Committee considered
the acceptance of the Fifth Protocol to the GATS and the classification of financial services, in
addition to the two issues aforementioned.S/CSS/M/5
Page 42
158. With respect to the acceptance of the Fifth Protocol, Nigeria and Poland announced the
progress made in their ratification processes, which might make it possible for these two delegations
to accept the Protocol before the end of the year.  Jamaica informed the Committee that its ratification
of the Protocol continued to be delayed by the ongoing reforms of its financial system.
159. Regarding the classification of financial services, the delegations of Canada and Japan
indicated that the issue of the coverage of new activ ities by the existing classification contained in the
Financial Services Annex was still under consideration in Capital.  Japan gave some interesting
examples of such activities and might be able to present a contribution on the matter by the following
meeting.  The Committee agreed to continue discussing  this issue in future meetings allowing time for
delegations to consult with Capital and among themselves.
160. Regarding the proposal to request information from International Organizations working on
financial services regulatory issues, the Committee based its deliberations on an informal paperpresented by Japan. While some delegations would accept an information-gathering exercise with no
links to any discussion of prudential measures, others strongly opposed such an exercise regardless of
how it might be conducted.  The latter expressed concerns as to the objectives of the proposal as they
failed to see the relevance of the information that  could be gathered to the Committee's work.  They
also felt that such an exercise could develop into a discussion on the legitimacy of Members’prudential regulations and thus have implications for the prudential carve-out.
161. In view of the fact that some delegations considered the granting of observer status to be an
issue with systemic implications, the Committee de cided to defer its decision on the request by the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors until the conclusion of the ongoing discussion on
the observership of intergovernmental organization in the General Council.
162. The Chairman of the Committee on Specific Commitments, Mr. Tomo Uyama of Japan,
reported that, since his last report, the Committee had held one formal meeting on 4 October 2000 and
one informal meeting on 3 October 2000.  The Committee was currently working on two items: (a)
the revision of the guidelines for the scheduling of specific commitments; and (b) possible
amendments to the existing services sectoral classification.
163. Since his last presentation there had been some progress in the revision of the scheduling
guidelines, although there were still a small number of outstanding contentious issues, which
Members were trying to overcome as they approached the best endeavour deadline of March 2001.
At its last meeting the Committee began discussions on a first draft of the revised scheduling
guidelines, with a view to reaching an agreement over the last contentious issues and over a number
of technical modifications to the text.  Although some obstacles still existed, he was hopeful that the
Committee might conclude its work on this issues by March 2001.
164. The work on classification had seen another round of informal discussions on services sectors
and namely: environmental services, energy services, legal services, postal and courier services and
construction services.  At the last meeting, Members also continued their discussions on the issue of
“production on a fee or contract basis”, which was re levant to the classification of some of the sectors
under examination.  In all sectors, Members focused their discussions on the classification of “core”sectors, with the objective of amending the current sectoral classification, where necessary and
justified.  Discussions on possible “clusters” in th e environmental sectors were proceeding at a slower
pace, also in consideration of the link with the general debate on clusters, which was taking place in
the Special Session.
165. In the sectoral discussions Members continued to discuss the classification of environmental
services on the basis of a proposal by the European Communities.  At the end of this discussion,
differences still remained on the classification of three sub-sectors: water distribution services,S/CSS/M/5
Page 43
recycling services and operation, maintenance and repair services;  on energy services work advanced
on the basis of a proposal by the United States, which linked a number of activities in the energy
sector to existing entries in the W/120 and in the CPC provisional.  At the last meeting the United
States also proposed the creation of a new category in the W/120 titled “energy services”;  on legal
services, different views existed on whether to adopt a new detailed classification based on the placeof jurisdiction or whether to keep the current W/120 aggregated entry on “legal services”;  on postal
and courier services the debate continued to focus on the proposals by the European Communities and
the United States and on construction services on a proposal by New Zealand.
166. In concluding his remarks, he said that the Committee was doing its best in order to complete
its work on scheduling guidelines and classification by March 2001.  In order to facilitate this task, he
was considering whether to hold some informal consultations before the next formal meeting in
December.  In the case of the scheduling guidelines, where Members' objective was clearly defined,he was hopeful that the Committee would be able to meet its best endeavour deadline.  He believed
this also to be the case for classification, although, in order to ensure such a result in this area, it was
important that Members set themselves a clear and attainable objective, such as a revision of the
W/120.  On-going discussions on the sectors with no agreed objective in sight had the merit of
enriching Members' knowledge of sector specific issues, but did not in themselves address the needfor a better classification.  For this reason the Committee was trying to give priority in the various
sectors under scrutiny to possible and necessary amendments to “core” classification entries in the
W/120, while leaving the door open to technical discussions on “clusters”, as it was the case in the
environmental sector.
167. The Chairman of the Working Party on GATS Rules, Mr Tony Sims of the United Kingdom,
reported that, since the last Special Session, the Working Party on GATS Rules had held one formal
meeting on 27 September, where it discussed the three issues on its agenda: safeguards (Article X);
subsidies (Article XV);  and government procurement (Article XIII).
168. On safeguards, delegations reverted in informal mode to the issues of "domestic industry" and
"acquired rights", as contained in the Chairperson's Note Job No. 1979.  The delegation of theRepublic of Korea presented an informal communication on a possible definition for "domestic
industry".  Delegations also exchanged views on:  the concept of "unforeseen developments", as
contained in GATT Article XIX, and special and differential treatment in the context of an ESM.
This discussion was based on two informal papers prepared by the Secretariat (Job No. 5077,
18 August 2000 and Job No. 5539, 15 September 2000).  Delegations decided to expand the
Chairperson's Note Job No. 1979, which served as a basis for the thematic discussion on emergency
safeguard measures.  A revised version would be ci rculated in the near future (Job No. 1979/Rev.1).
169. The Working Party also agreed to hold an informal meeting on the issue of emergency
safeguard measures from 1 to 3 November.  The purpose of this informal meeting would be to work
through the themes listed in Job No. 1979, as revised, as well as to examine any new contributions
made available by the meeting.  Finally, keeping in mind the 15 December negotiating deadline, he
informed Members that he intended to conduct informal consultations on this question.
170. With respect to subsidies, delegations addressed in informal mode the first item contained in
the "Checklist on Subsidies", he had circulated in July under his own responsibility (Job No. 4519,
17 July 2000), i.e. "Definition of a Subsidy in Serv ices (including relevance of the definition in the
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measur es)".  The delegation of Hong Kong, China
presented an informal communication on the definition of subsidies in services (Job No. 5870,27 September 2000).  There was one suggestion to amend the checklist;  a revised version would be
circulated in the near future (Job No. 4519/Rev.1).S/CSS/M/5
Page 44
171. On government procurement, the Working Party gave further consideration to the informal
communication on "Government Procurement of Servi ces – Possible Developments of Multilateral
Disciplines", which had been circulated by the European Communities and their Member States at the
previous meeting (Job No. 4021, 26 June 2000).
172. The next formal meeting of the Working Party would take place on 30 November 2000.
173. The Chairman of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation, Mr. Sergio Escudero of Chile,
reported that, since his previous report to the 12 July meeting of the Special Session, the Working
Party on Domestic Regulation had held one informal and one formal meeting, both on 2 October.  The
informal meeting was held to allow Members to di scuss the substantive issues identified in the
Secretariat "Checklist of Issues for WPDR".  The formal session focused on Members' domestic
consultations with professional services organizations, as well as the issue of Secretariat consultations
with international professional organizations.
174. With respect to discussions of concepts relatin g to the development of regulatory disciplines,
Members agreed to have the Secretariat list examples of the kinds of measures that would be
addressed by disciplines under GATS Article VI:4, based on contributions by Members and a review
of the Working Party on Professional Services accountancy materials by the Secretariat.  Interest was
also expressed in having the Secretariat compile  information on jurisprudence relating to the
application of necessity provisions in the WTO.  Australia and Korea presented useful new papers on
necessity and transparency.
175. Informal discussions on the "Checklist" could not be completed in the morning session, so
Members resumed discussions after the conclusion of the formal meeting.  A three-page summary of
the discussions was subsequently circulated by the Secretariat, and would be included in the meeting
minutes.
176. With respect to the development of general disciplines for professional services, Korea
presented a second paper, concerning its domestic consultations with professional organizations
regarding the applicability of the accountancy disciplines to other professions.  This was followed by
verbal reports from Chile, Canada, Switzerland and Argentina.  Members then accepted theChairman's proposal to have the Secretariat compile a synthesis of Member responses to date, on the
understanding it would be revised as additional responses became available.  The suggestion of one
delegation that the Secretariat also draft elements for possible new regulatory disciplines was not
accepted by Members.
177. On the parallel issue of Secretariat consultations with international professional services
organizations regarding the accountancy disciplines, some delegations felt the domestic consultations
should be completed first, despite the fact that the initially agreed deadline to complete consultationshad long expired.  Members were able to accept the Chairman's suggestion that the Secretariat listing
of international organizations to be consulted, containing organizations selected by Members, be
revised to remove regional organizations not open to all WTO Members.
178. Under "Other issues", considering that the issue of observers remained deadlocked due to
systemic considerations, Members agreed to temporarily remove from future meeting agendas therequest for observer status of the International Organization of Insurance Supervisors (IAS).  The next
WPDR meeting was tentatively scheduled for 29 November.
VI. ITEM F:  OTHER BUSINESS
179. The Chairman drew Members' attention to the fact that negotiating proposals in agriculture
had been posted on the WTO web-site as they had been circulated as "unrestricted", whereas theS/CSS/M/5
Page 45
services proposals had not.  He indicated that there might be a problem of parity and of public
perception, and invited Members to give some thought to the issue and offer guidance on whether
they wished to correct the situation.
180. The representative of Mexico sought confirmation of the fact that it was up to individual
Members to decide whether they wished their submissions to be circulated as unrestricted and hence
posted immediately on the WTO web-site.  A representative of the WTO Secretariat confirmed that
there was no obligation on Members to make their submissions public, but invited delegations to givesome thought to the issue.  The representative of the United States concurred that it was an important
issue and said that his delegation had asked that their submission be circulated as unrestricted.
__________