RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE S/WPPS/M/10
23July1997
ORGANIZATION
(97-3106)
Working Party onProfessional Services
NOTE ONTHE MEETING HELD ON26JUNE 1997
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheWorkingPartyonProfessionalServiceshelditstenthmeetingon26June1997.Theagenda
forthemeeting wascontained inairgram WTO/AIR/615.
Work Pursuant toParagraph 2(a)oftheDecision onProfessional Services
2. Thechairman drew theattention ofparticipants todocuments S/WPPS/W/15, S/WPPS/W/16
andS/WPPS/W/17 recently submitted bythedelegations oftheUS; Brazil, Chile, Colombia and
Mexico; andtheEUrespectively. Since thelastmeeting, andfollowing some informal consultations,
thechairman hadprepared andcirculated aninformal notedated 29May(JobNo.3008) onwork of
theWPPS between nowandtheendof1997. Inthemeantime, aletter received fromtheInternational
Federation ofAccountants ondisciplines ondomestic regulation hadalsobeencirculated toMembers.
Participants agreed tostartdiscussion onthebasisofthechairman 'snote. Themainpoints emerging
from thediscussion were thefollowing.
3. Indiscussion ofthemeaning of"transparent criteria" inthetextofArticle VI:4oftheGATS
andthepotential overlap withtheprovisions ofArticle IIIontransparency, anumber ofdelegations
made suggestions regarding theimprovement oftransparency, butthere weredifferent views onthe
extent oftheobligation implied inArticle VI:4. Onedelegation argued thatonlythecriteria needed
tobemade transparent while others thought itnecessary thatlicensing andqualification systems -or
theregulation ofthesector ingeneral -should betransparent andthatthiswasprobably required by
Article IIIoftheGATS inanycase. There wasasuggestion thatthenotification ofproposed measures
might bedesirable, butreservations were expressed ontheimposition ofheavy newnotification
obligations onMembers.
4. Indiscussion oftheconcept ofobjectivity incriteria, some argued thatthere wasastrong link
withnational treatment, inthesense thatifthesame criteria were applied toforeign suppliers asto
nationals theymight besaidtobeobjective. Others, however, maintained thatsince departures from
national treatment arecovered byArticle XVII inanycase,itwould addnothing torepeat thenational
treatment obligation inArticle VI,andthattodemonstrate objectivity involved more thanequality of
treatment. (Thedistinction between measures covered byArticles XVIandXVII andthose covered
byArticle VIwasrecognized asimportant, butitwasalsopointed outthatdomestic regulations may
infactimpinge onmarket access andnational treatment.) Itwaspointed outthatidentical treatment
wasnotnecessary: there could belegitimate grounds forimposing different requirements onforeign
suppliers tobring them uptoequal domestic standards. Itwasalsosuggested thatthere wasnoneed
toagree adefinition ofobjectivity; theeventual disciplines would make thepractical requirements
deriving from Article VI:4clear enough.
./.S/WPPS/M/10
Page2
5. Ontherequirement thatmeasures should benotmore burdensome thannecessary, itwasalso
generally thought thatthere wasnoneedtodevelop adefinition orgeneral test. Thepoint wasagain
made thatadditional testsorother requirements applied toforeigners would notnecessarily be"more
burdensome thannecessary" ifitcould beshown thattheywerenecessary toensure thequality ofthe
service -asmight bethecaseforalanguage test,forexample. There wasnoagreement ontheidea
ofdrawing uplistsof"legitimate objectives", butitwassuggested thattheremight bevalue indiscussing
theconcept oftraderestrictiveness. Ingeneral therewassupport forafocus ondisciplines rather than
onapriori definitions orattempts toharmonize regulations.
6. TheWorking Party discussed butdidnotreach adefinitive conclusion on,thequestion whether
Members should berequired toprovide onrequest ajustification fortheirregulations, whether for
existing regulations orfornewonesonly. Similarly, inabriefdiscussion ofthepossible legalforms
ofthedisciplines -whether theyshould taketheformofanannex totheAgreement, should bewholly
mandatory orinclude elements ofvoluntary guidelines -noconclusion wasreached. Itwasagreed
todefer substantive discussion ofthisquestion.
7. Since thepapers submitted bydelegations hadbeenreceived veryrecently, theWorking Party
decided topostpone substantive discussion ofthem untilthenextmeeting. However, eachpaper was
introduced andbriefly discussed. Inintroducing document S/WPPS/W/15, theUSclarified anumber
ofpoints, anditwasnoted thatthepaper addressed qualification issues inmuch more depth thanmost
hadinitially considered possible. Thedelegations ofBrazil, Chile, Colombia andMexico introduced
document S/WPPS/W/16, andinparticular theirproposals onpossible policy objectives forregulators.
Thedelegation oftheEUintroduced document S/WPPS/W/17 which addresses theobstacles inthe
wayofprofessionals inasequential order (firstqualification andthenlicensing). Onedelegation drew
attention tothedifferences existing inmany places between therequirements imposed onauditors and
onaccountants. Thescope oflicensed practice wasalsoconsidered animportant issue, aswellasthe
scope ofthedisciplines. Thepoint wasmade thatthere wasaneedtoremain realistic inwhatcould
beachieved bythedisciplines, andnottoimpose newburdens andcostsoncountries. Thedelegation
ofAustralia indicated thatittoowould submit apaper inthenearfuture.
8. Itwasagreed toresume thediscussion ofthesubmissions inaninformal meeting oftheWorking
Party tobeheldon24July, asthenextsteptowards thedevelopment ofdisciplines.
9. Theletter received fromIFAC wasalsodiscussed briefly. Delegations found ithelpful tobe
presentedwithconcreteexamplesofdisciplinesandsatisfactionwasexpressedwiththisfurtherintimation
oftheindustries interest intheobjectives oftheWorking Party.