 RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/15 6 
 
30 January 2024 
(24-0704) Page: 1/27 
Council for Trade in Services    
 
  
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 7 DECEMBER  2023 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 7 December  2023, chaired by 
Ms. Tsvetelina  Dimitrova , Permanent Representative of the Republic of Bulgaria . The agenda was 
contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/3 7. 
Under Other Business, the Chairperson  indicated that she would make a quick announcement about 
the newly developed e -Delegate platform.   
The representative of India indicated that her delegation wished to put forward its ideas about how 
to capture some of the services -related elements in the MC13 O utcome Document that was currently 
being negotiated.  
The agenda was adopted  as modified . 
The Chairperson  reminded  delegations attending in virtual mode, when taking the floor, to allow a 
few seconds of streaming before starting their intervention, in  order to ensure that the ir statement 
was heard in full. Additionally, for the benefit of the interpreters, she urged them to speak at a 
reasonable, moderate pace and, if possible, to provide to the interpreters, via the Secretariat, an 
advance copy of any  written statements they intend ed to deliver. That would help to ensure that 
interventions were properly conveyed and understood when translated into the other two official 
languages.  
1  ITEM A: ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE 
IN SERVICES  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, in accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council was 
to consider the annual reports of its subsidiary bodies. She drew Members' attention to the reports 
that had been adopted by the respective bodies : the Annual Report of the Committee on Trade in 
Financial Services ( S/FIN/38 ); the Annual Report of the Committee on Specific Commitments 
(S/CSC/29 ); the Annual Report of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation ( S/WPDR/27 ); and the 
Annual Report of the Working Party on GA TS Rules ( S/WPGR/34 ). 
1.2.  She suggested that the Council take note of the four reports, on the understanding that they 
would be annexed to the Council's own Annual Report and form an integral part of it.  
1.3.  It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B: ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES TO THE GENERAL 
COUNCIL  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, i n accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council was 
to report each year to the General Council on its activities, as well as on those in the subsidia ry 
bodies. She drew Members' attention to the draft Annual Report of the Council for Trade in Services 
on its activities in 2023, contained in document S/C/W/460 . The report was factual and self -
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 2 - 
 
  explanatory, covering the period from the 2022 report up until th e Council's previous meeting in 
October.  
2.2.  As mentioned  in the annotated agenda, two footnotes containing references to relevant 
documents had been inadvertently omitted from the draft report and should be added to the final 
version. Th ose footnotes were a reference to document JOB/SER V/CTS/10  at the end of paragraph 
2.7; and a reference to JOB/SERV/CTS/16  after the words " trade in transport and logistics services" 
in paragraph 2.9.  She proposed  that the Council adopt the draft 2023 Annual Report to the General 
Council as amended  with the inclusion of those footnotes . 
2.3.  It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C: NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III:3 OF THE GATS  
3.1.  With regard to the notifications made pursuant to Ar ticle III:3 (Transparency), the Chairperson  
drew the Council's attention to the communications received from : New Zealand (S/C/N/1142  and 
S/C/N/1143 ); Hong Kong, China (S/C/N/1144  and S/C/N/1145 ); and South Africa (S/C/N/1146  to 
S/C/N/1151 ). 
3.2.  The representative of India recalled that in the past, her delegation had drawn attention to the 
low number of notifications by developed Members in general, and, in particular, the dismal record 
in notificat ions of some prominent developed Members, who also held top ranks in global commercial 
services trade.   
3.3.  Under the discussions on WTO reform, India had recognised the need for an open, inclusive, 
and transparent functioning of the WTO. The submission by Ind ia and the African Group, Cuba, and 
Pakistan on "Strengthening the WTO to promote development and inclusivity", contained in 
document WT/GC/W/778/Rev.5 , highlighted the need for meeting the transparency obligations as 
enshrined in the GATS.  
3.4.  Those notifications were essential for Members to understand the full implications of the 
commitments made, including entry -related measures affecting the existing mode 4 commitments 
of Members. India continued to urge developed Members to lead by example in submitting 
comprehensive, timely and accurate notifications.  
3.5.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Council take note of the notification s and the statement 
made . 
3.6.  It was so agreed . 
3.7.  The Chairperson  drew the Council's attention to the fact that, at its meeting scheduled for 
March 2024 , the CRTA would consider three regional trade agreements that covered services trade. 
The agreements in question were:  (1) the Free Trade Agreement between the United K ingdom  and 
Viet Nam ; (2) the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India and the United 
Arab Emirates ; and (3) the "Pacer Plus " between Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific States.   
3.8.  She suggested that the Council take note of her statemen t. 
3.9.  It was so agreed . 
4  ITEM D:  IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS FROM MC12 MANDATES  
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, under that agenda item , the Council had addressed the MC12 
mandates relating to WTO reform and pandemic response.  
4.2.  Starting with WTO reform, at the Octobe r meeting, Members had addressed a Secretariat Note 
compiling  Members' suggestions for improvements to the functioning of the Council. Delegations 
had also considered a communication from the United Kingdom  outlining proposals to improve the 
functioning of the Council  and its subsidiary bodies. Delegations had shared additional suggestions 
for possible improvements.  It had been  agreed that the Chairperson  would prepare , under her own S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 3 - 
 
  responsibility, a report summarising the reactions to the various proposals Members had put forward. 
The report had been circulated on 24 October in document JOB/SERV/CTS/19 . 
4.3.  She recalled that an informal Council meeting had been convened on  17 November to discuss 
next step s. At that meeting, Members had shared their views on her report and deliberated on the 
way forward.  The Secretariat had also delivered a presentation on the use of eAgenda in the TBT 
Committee, which had been  subsequently circulated to all delegations.  
4.4.  While a number of reform elements had seen general convergence, Members had 
acknowledged that further discussion was needed concerning other reform aspects. Delegations had 
been supportive of the proposal that the Council  produce a report to the General Co uncil on its 
reform efforts, and it was suggested that the structure of the report of the Council for Trade in Goods 
on the same matter could offer some guidance.   
4.5.  Accordingly, a draft report to the General Council on Members' collective efforts to improve  the 
functioning of the Council  had been circulated  in document JOB/SERV/CTS/22 . It describe d the 
process followed by the Council  in implementing the MC12 mandate on WTO reform and the 
improvements to the functioning of the Council reali sed since the conclusion of MC12.  Reflecting the 
discussions at the informal meeting, it include d, in italics and double square brackets , elements 
whose inclusion in the final version of the report w ould depend on the outcome of the discussion  at 
that meeting . She invite d delegations to share their comments and reactions on the draft report , 
with a view to seeking convergence , as well as  any comments of a general nature delegations wish ed 
to share on the " reform by doing" issue.  
4.6.  The representative of India thanked the Chairperson for the  draft report on WTO reform  to the 
General Council. Regarding paragraph 3.4(g), which was  about considering  adjustme nts to  the 
procedural arrangements for the discussion of  Specific Trade Concerns  (STCs), India was of the view 
that the issue would require further discussion and clarification and  should therefore not be  included 
in the report at that stage.  
4.7.  Paragraph 3.6(a) was about the organisation of thematic sessions , seminars,  and informal 
experience -sharing events.  In that regard, India ha d raised concerns about  the engagement of 
external stakeholders in various fora. Further clarity was needed on the contours and procedures for 
organi sing such thematic seminars and experience -sharing events, as well as on its reporting , if any, 
to formal meeting s of the Council.  In the past , India had  seen informal discussions and services 
meeting s on reports which had not been  circulated to all Members, nor had there been a call  for 
discussion on them. Thereafter, t hose reports had been  presented by external stakeholders in 
informal meetings, and that was against the inclusive and transparent manner and procedure s of 
the Organization.  
4.8.  India also reiterate d its suggestion that the undertaking of joint studies between the Secretariat 
and other International Organizations be Member -driven. As India required further clarity on 
paragraph 3.6(a) , it request ed the  deletion of that paragraph , alongside paragraph 3.4(g). 
4.9.  The representative of  Japan  suggested  to delete paragraph 3.4(g)  as Members had not  had 
enough discussions on that issue in the Council . Japan was supportive of the other items.  
4.10.  The representative of Bangladesh , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , indicated that the 
Group supported improvements to the functioning of Committees, in particular those that had a 
genesis in the LDC Group submission ( JOB/GC/223/Rev.1 ). Those included the use of annotated 
agendas, expediting the production of meeting minutes, mechanisms to avoid the overlap of key 
meetings, summary notes on the same day of meetings, and translation provided for all informal 
meetings as well.  
4.11.  To complement the w ork done, the Group  had suggest ed some improvements to the reform 
process  that could be considered. For example, future proposals requiring adoption and  being  of a 
cross-cutting nature that had an  impact on the participation of LDCs in WTO bodies should be  sent 
to the General Council for discussion and decision. LDCs and small delegations were all at the General 
Council. The General Council was  the best place to evaluate the impact of reform -by-doing proposals 
on the participation of LDCs in the WTO.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.12.  Regarding s ome recent adoptions , such as  changing  the ten-day rule to 15 days  in the CTG, 
CMA, etc., the LDC Group understood that there were two sides  to that : first, receiving the  
documents earlier , which was important for STCs; and second, that LDCs needed more time to 
prepare when they brought their agenda items and circulated their documents . Some Members 
thought that the change meant more time to prepare. That was  not the case for the LDC Group . The 
LDC Group did not reverse those  adoptions so as  not to stand in the way.  However, it request ed 
that the General Council agree to implement the change of the ten -day rule to 15 days on a trial 
basis for those bodies having done so. That was similar to what had already been agreed to in some 
bodies where it had been decided  to implement  eAgenda on a trial basis. That was a good idea that 
had come from the process. Members could  also test the impact on LDCs.  
4.13.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Chairperson for all her hard work at the 
meetings and intersessionally to educate Members  on those  important reform ideas. For the most 
part, the document looked  very good and would  improve the functioning of the Council . The United 
States only wished to r aise two points.  
4.14.  Firstly, the United States joined others in supporting the deletion of paragraph 3.4(g)  on 
STCs.  Secondly, the United States reiterated its apprehension about paragraph 3.4(f)  on the neutral 
status report on each agenda item after the mee tings.  The United States felt that that might not be 
appropriate for the Council and , given  the hopefully faster  drafting of the meeting minutes,  it would 
not be a major loss if Members did not have that quick summary of meetings, which could create 
some c onfusion if not handled correctly. So , the United States requested that only paragraphs 3.4(g)  
and 3.4(f)  be deleted . 
4.15.  The representative of the European Union  appreciated the ongoing discussion on improving 
the functioning of the Council and thanked the Secretariat for its Note ( JOB/SERV/CTS/14/Rev.1 ) as 
well as the United Kingdom for its communication ( S/C/W/452 ). Firstly, the European Union 
welcomed the continuation of some good practices, including the punctual circulation of the agenda , 
the detailed minutes in reported style , the hybrid format of the meetings that allowed for Capital 
participation as well as the recently established practice of annotated agendas.  
4.16.  The European Union reiterated its support for circulating the meeting's airgram 15 calendar 
days prior to the meeting date and would find it optimal if the annotated agenda was circulated at 
the same time as the airgram. Finally, as r egard ed the suggestion that the Chairperson issue a 
factual report shortly after the meeting, the European Union was still not convinced of the added 
value but was flexible if other Members considered it useful.  
4.17.  The representative of  Switzerland  thanked t he Chairperson for the draft report which was 
concise and balanced. His delegation  agree d to the points outlined in paragraph 3.3 and paragraphs  
3.4(a)  to 3.4(d) . Switzerland could  join any consensus by the Council on the proposals  in paragraphs 
3.4(e)  and 3.4(f) . Regarding  paragraph 3.5  on eAgenda, Switzerland  could agree to that proposal 
on a trial basis if that was the  preference of the Council. Switzerland was also open to the suggestion 
made by Bangladesh.  
4.18.  The representative of  the Republic of  Korea  welcome d the draft report on improvement s in 
the functioning of the Council . He was currently experiencing  first-hand the incremental 
enhancement of the Council's function ing and, in particular, the contribution of the annotated  agenda 
in facilitati ng a clear understanding of the meeting  content . 
4.19.  Korea support ed the inclusion of paragraphs 3.4(e)  and 3.4(f) . If the agenda was circulated 
15 days prior to  the meeting  that would allow for an extended review period, contributing to a more 
thorough and productive discussion during the meeting.  The opinion of possibly restricting agenda 
submission s was not  considered a significant issue as meeting s were regularly convened. Given that 
agenda items could  be submitted for the following  meeting, there should not be any major concern.  
4.20.  A factual, concise,  and neutral status report on each agenda item was considered as beneficial 
in advancing discussion s in the following  meeting as it provide d a summary overview  of the collective 
views  of Members . Especially for Members whose native language was not English , it was deemed 
advantageous to be able to accurately confirm the content  of the  meeting without the need to verify 
each individual Member's  statement. Additionally, in cases where Member s could not  attend the 
meeting due to scheduling conflicts with other meetings, it was possible to stay informed by the S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 5 - 
 
  status  report . That could  assist non -participating Member s to prepare thoroughly  for the forthcoming  
meeting, contributing to the progre ss of the discussion. However, careful attention was required 
during the process of summari sing the meeting content to avoid distortion s. 
4.21.  Regarding eAgenda, the introduction of  an enhanced digital system was naturally meaningful. 
However, if the new system  did not offer significant advantages over the existing one, users 
accustomed to the current system might  be reluctant to adapt to the new one. Therefore, it was 
necessary to operate a new system on a trial basis for one or two years to assess user engagem ent 
and the improvement of user convenience. Korea would also like to know how much it would 
approximately cost to establish the system.  
4.22.  Finally,  Korea  also supported paragraph 3.6(a) on Member -driven thematic sessions, 
seminars,  and informal experience -sharing events with the participation of external stakeholders.  
The involvement of external stakeholders would  be beneficial in advancing discussion s given  the 
complexity of reality.  
4.23.  The representative of  Australia  thank ed the Chairperson and the Secretariat for the work on 
improving the functioning of the Council and , in particular, for the draft report, as well as the United 
Kingdom for its good work  in preparing its earlier paper. Australia was of the view  that the Council 
was the best place to consider those kinds of operational reforms  and to consider whether they 
should be adopted and reported up , given that they applied  to Members'  operations in that Council . 
4.24.  Australia welcome d the remaining five improvements detail ed in the report, including 
circulating  the airgram 15 days prior to formal meetings, provided that it did not undermine the 
ability of all Members to effectively submit agenda items. In that  respect, Australia was  flexible to 
consider  trial arrangements f or that item . Australia also supported the circulation of  a status report 
on each agenda item within two working days, provided that it did not impose an unreasonable 
burden on the Secretariat 's resources , as well as the introduction of  eAgenda on a trial basis for 
twelve  months. Australia thanked Members for their continued engagement to improve the 
functioning of the Council  in the spirit of " reform -by-doing ". 
4.25.  The representative of the United Kingdom  welcomed the discussions taking place on 
improving the ways Members conducted WTO business. The United Kingdom thanked the 
Chairperson and the Secretariat for the work they had carried out and other Members for their 
constructive ideas and approach. The United Kingdom was keen to continuously engage and share 
ideas on how to improve the day -to-day functioning of th e Organi zation.  
4.26.  The United Kingdom welcomed  the draft report to the General Council and those areas where 
Members had  already reached consensus. Looking at those elements of the draft report which were 
still in italics, the United Kingdom  support ed the following elements. Firstly, t he Council  deciding 
that its airgram would  be circulated 15 days prior to the formal meeti ngs of the Council  instead of 
the current ten days ( paragraph  3.4(e)). The United Kingdom also took note of the points raised by 
the LDC Group at that meeting.   
4.27.  Secondly, the  Chairperson circulating, within two working days of a meeting, a factual, 
concise , and neutral status report on each agenda item, indicating the issues that the Council had 
taken note of and those for which decisions had been taken, as well as the date for the subsequent 
meeting ( paragraph  3.4(f)).  The United Kingdom was of the view th at that would help  to fill a gap 
between the annotated agenda and the circulation of the minutes to help Members  to follow the 
development s, particularly those smaller delegations that could not  attend the meeting.  
4.28.  Thirdly, the Council  introducing e Agenda on a trial basis for a twelve -month period as that 
would represent a full cycle of the Council (paragraph  3.5(a)).  Fourthly, the United Kingdom believed 
that it was important to keep the paragraph on promoting substantive engagement in the Council 
(paragra ph 3.6(a)). It simply stated that the Council would continue its current practice of organising 
Member -driven thematic sessions and informal experience -sharing  events  like what had been done 
on COVID -19. The paragraph was clear that those events should be Member -driven and noted that 
Members had had external input to those informal sessions and that that  practice  should continue.  
4.29.  Fifthly, the United Kingdom welcomed f urther discussion s in the Council  in considering 
adjustments to practi ces for the discussio n of STCs ( paragraph  3.4(g)) . That had been included in a S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 6 - 
 
  joint submission to the General Council from a number of  Members, but the United Kingdom had 
heard the concerns from other Members in that meeting and was ultimately flexible if Members did 
not want to include it at that stage.  Finally , the United Kingdom  also welcome d the continuation of 
the reform discussion in that Council going forward.  That report was a stocktake of an ongoing 
process and the United Kingdom encourage d Members to keep coming forward with ideas.  
4.30.  The representative of  Canada  welcomed  the draft report and was supportive of the collective 
work t hat ha d been accomplished in the previous year and since MC12 to improve the functioning 
of the Council . On that issue, Canada again  express ed its sincere thanks to the Chair person  and the 
Secretariat for their work in preparing the draft report under JOB/SERV/CTS/22  which  capture d the 
work and discussions held in the Council  in implementing the MC12 mandate. In particular, Canada 
was pleased that certain reform elements in improving the Council's  functioning had broadly 
achieved convergence.  
4.31.  One area  that was of particular importance to Canada was the increased lead time for the 
circulation of the airgram from currently ten to 15 days before the meetings. Ensuring that those 
meetings were productive, constructive, substantive, and a platform for meaningful dialogue and to 
have sufficient time to prepare, consult, and analyse back in Capital was essential.  While that item 
was still bracketed in the report, Canada  strongly recommend ed that that item be agreed to as part 
of the final report. Also, while Canada  continue d to support eAgenda being applied in that Council , 
Canada note d and support ed the suggestion to pilot the system as a way to determine its 
effectiveness for the functioning of the Council . 
4.32.  The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Chairperson  and the Secretariat for the draft 
report on improving the functioning of the Council, and the United Kingdom for its earlier paper to 
present some of those  ideas as well. New Zealand w elcome d efforts to identify practical and 
constructive solutions to support the work of the Council  and its subsidiary bodies  the continuing 
and improved functioning of which are central to the good function of the WTO generally.  
4.33.  New Zealand  continue d to see  value in initiatives that bolster ed that objective and found  a lot 
to be supportive of in the report that the Chairperson had circulated . New Zealand found the 
annotated agenda to be a useful guide for Members'  work; it contribute d to the productivity of 
meetings. New Zealand also support ed the suggestion to use eAgenda and to circulate  the airgram 
15 days prior to  the meeting, provided it did not  impose an unreasonable burden on the Secretariat.  
4.34.  As a more general comment, New Zealand  welcome d that the services cluster s had included 
sessions on health -related and tourism services. Member -driven discussions were useful for 
exchanging views on thematic areas of services trade and New Zealand hope d that in future it would  
be possible to include additional sessions on key areas of services trade, which comprised  
environmental services. New Zealand look ed forward to further engagement with colleagues on 
those and other topics.  
4.35.  The representative of  China  appreciated the Chairperson's efforts in steering the discussions  
and thanked  the Secretariat for its efforts in compiling  Members' suggestions as well as for the  
presentation on the use of eAgenda. China also  appreciate d the proposal s by the United Kingd om. 
4.36.  China support ed the improvements to the functioning of the Council  and its subsidiary bodies, 
and commend ed the new improvements such as the annotated  agenda  as well as  the implementation 
of concrete suggestions, particularly  the earlier circulation of  the airgram  and the use of eAgenda. 
That would  facilitate Member s' preparation and engagement in the discussion. To share some 
personal observation on the work of other International Organizations  on the agenda and the  
meeting  report s, he pointed out  that the  UNCTAD e Week was taking place that week . One hour  after 
the meeting , delegations could se e the report prepared by Artificial Intelligence . He hoped  that in 
the Council's  meeting s, Members could a lso see that kind of efficiency  in the near future . 
4.37.  The representative of  Bangladesh , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , clarified that the LDC 
Group proposed that the earlier circulation of the airgram be adopted on a pilot or trial basis.  
4.38.  The Chairperson  noted that there had been  a question regarding  the additional cost of the 
introduction of eAgenda.  She assured Members that since the tool had already been developed, 
there would not be an additional financial burden in implementing it for the Council.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.39.  To conclude the discussions on  the draft report  on improvements in the functioning of the 
Council , she proposed  the adoption of  paragraph 3.4(e)  on the earlier circulation of the airgram  with 
the amendment , to be implemented on  a trial basis for one year. Similarly, the introduction of 
eAgenda, as outlined in paragraph 3.5(a), was suggested for a trial basis lasting one year.  
Concerning paragraphs 3.4(f), 3.4(g) and 3.6(a), there were remaining reservations by some 
Members . If those Members  were not willing  to reconsider, she suggested t he deletion of those 
paragraphs and the adopt ion of  the report as amended.  
4.40.  It was so agreed . 
4.41.  Turning to the pandemic response , the Chairperson  recalled that, at the October meeting, 
Members had expressed appreciation for the Council's first experience -sharing session on the impact 
of COVID -19 on trade in transport and logistics services , held  on 13 June and had taken note that 
the second session, on health services, had been held the following day. Additionally, the Council 
had addressed a communication from India on trade -related measures taken in response to the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  
4.42.  The second informal experience -sharing session on the impact of COVID -19 had focused on 
health -related services and had been held on 4 October. As  customary, the Secretariat had produced 
a summary of the deliberations at that session, contained in JOB/SERV/CTS/21 . Furthermore, the 
Council had held its third experience -sharing session, centred on tourism services, the previous day.  
4.43.  She also r ecalled that, at the informal meeting held on 17 November, she had invited 
delegations to consider how the Council might report to the General Council with regard to the MC12 
mandate on the WTO response to pandemics. Members had been  generally supportive o f the Council 
producing a factual report to the General Council that would summarise the discussions on that 
issue. Again, some delegations had mentioned that the draft CTG report on the same topic could 
provide a useful reference. Consequently, a draft CT S report to the General Council had been 
circulated, in document JOB/SERV/CTS/23 . The report was purely factual and compiled information 
on the work undertaken by the Council since MC12 on the WTO response to pandemics and 
preparedness for future pandemics.  
4.44.  The representative of India noted that, i n pursuance of the Ministerial Declara tion on the WTO 
response to the COVID -19 pandemic and preparedness for future pandemics adopted by the 
Membership at MC12, which, inter alia, underlined the critical role of services in ensuring resilience 
during COVID -19 and future pandemics, India had ma de two submissions: one on building a pool of 
health professionals to respond effectively to pandemics and natural disasters, contained in 
document S/C/W/427 ; and another delving into the role of telemedicine services in response to the 
pandemic, contained in document S/C/W/426 . 
4.45.  India had drawn  the Council's attention to the questions for further discussion  posed  at the 
end of its submissions. Those included sharing Members' experience regarding adoption of 
telemedicine; identifying challenges and opportunities for expanding telemedicine services; steps 
that Members were taking to address those challenges and harness those opportunities; what trade -
facilitating measures Members had taken to promote cross -border trade in telemedicine services; 
the role digital public infrastructure could play in facilitating technology transfer and promoting 
digital delivery of health services; and lastly, how Members could move forward in pursuance of the 
Ministerial Declaration in document WT/MIN(22)/31  and agree on the next step s to enable the use 
of cross -border supply of telemedicine services in dealing with future pandemics.  
4.46.  On the pool of healthcare professionals, similar questions had been posed, including sharing 
Members' experiences regarding planning surge capacity of hea lth professionals during the 
pandemic ; the measures that had been taken to ensure the continuity of supply of those services ; 
and the role that recognition of professional qualifications could play.   
4.47.  The Council had held its second informal experience -sharing session on the impact of COVID -
19 and trade in health -related services on 4 October . India had discussed the key challenges that it 
had encountered during the COVID -19 pandemic with respect to health -related services.  
4.48.  As hospitals had b een under severe stress to deliver their services, the role and smooth 
operation of insurance companies – as first contact point for patients – had become even more S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 8 - 
 
  important. India had continued to provide significant back -office support for major insuran ce 
companies around the world. Moreover, during the pandemic, the office of the World Bank Group 
located in India (Chennai) had contributed to several value -added operation s of the Bank that had 
earlier been handled only by the  Washington DC office . 
4.49.  The ch allenges experienced by India during the health emergency related to manpower 
availability, data connectivity, office space, infrastructure, and transport logistics. In order to 
mitigate the pandemic's impact, India had adopted a number of measures, includ ing introducing 
vaccination certification, facilitating remote work, and treating remote agents as part of the main 
Other Services Providers (OSPs) centres, which had allowed the continued provision of critical 
services by the government and the private se ctor alike . India's efforts towards services trade 
facilitation had been  integral to maintaining unhindered provision of essential services across the 
world. Given the growing importance of health -related services worldwide and the cost -saving 
opportunity that telemedicine was offering, India had circulated two papers to the Council , as 
mentioned previously . 
4.50.  India had faced various obstacles due to its geographically diverse population, federal 
healthcare system, and limited resources . The Government had la unched a "Make in India" initiative 
to boost local manufacturing of medical supplies. India had also utili sed a variety of digital tools for 
surveillance, contact tracing, logistics, clinical management, and vaccine distribution. India had also 
created eSa njeevani, the national telemedicine platform, providing free tele -consultation to patients 
directly from their home. The success of India's vaccination campaign was built on the CoWIN 
platform, a digital public good open to all countries, which also offere d comprehensive training and 
customi sation based on specific needs. The importance of risk communication strategies, proactive 
leadership, community participation, and solidarity campaigns was also underlined. The presentation  
had also emphasi sed the impor tance of global cooperation in pandemic preparedness and response, 
sustainable financing, and resilience in research and development for medical countermeasures. 
Overall, India's response to the COVID -19 pandemic had consisted of a multifaceted and proacti ve 
"whole -of-government" approach, which had contributed to sustain business continuity across 
services sectors at the global level.  
4.51.  In the experience -sharing session, India had also presented the key takeaways from its 
experience  in response to the guidin g questions and in pursuance of the response to pandemic 
guidance of Ministers at MC12 . Those  included having  a trigger -ready mechanism for all aspects of 
trade in health and health -related services , enhanc ing digital capability and infrastructure , and 
having an enabling regulatory landscape. India also emphasised the importance of mutual 
recognition, and highlighted that in the case of telemedicine, there was a need to work towards 
achieving its full potential  both domestically and cross -border, and the need to have a global pool of 
health resources and health professionals. It was in the context that , at the global level, the COVID -
19 pandemic had presented a unique situation where the surpluses and shortages of health -related 
resources existed simultaneously as the pandemic came in waves, affecting different regions of the 
world at different times . The same trend had been  witnessed within large nations too . A pandemic 
represented  a global challenge that was not confined within the borders of any specific economy . As 
pandemic s and natural disasters  did not affect all geographies at the same time  and with the same 
severity , coordinated action and burden sharing played a crucial role . 
4.52.  During the experience -sharing  session, the WHO had underscored that there  was an  urgency 
of investing in the development of mechanisms for  a rapid response to disease outbreaks, n otably 
since GAVI estimated that there was a 38% chance of a future pandemic similar to COVID -19 during 
one's lifetime . It was also noted that the enabling provision of health -related services through digital 
platforms provided an opportunity to generate significant savings in health -related costs.  
4.53.  During the same experience -sharing session, the WHO had also informed Members that they 
were developing guidance concerning the adoption of bilateral and international agreements 
covering the international mobility of health workers, with the objective of protecting the health 
workforce and the population in both countries of origin and destination . Overall, the COVID -19 
pandemic had highlighted that , when it came  to health, all countries were connected, and global 
collaboration was therefore paramount, with a responsibility on the high -income economies to 
support the development of health systems in countries with weaker structures.  
4.54.  It was also interesting to high light that the WHO presentation on telemedicine had highlighted 
the successful example of India's eSanjeevani portal , with about 100 million consultations , and S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 9 - 
 
  discussed telemedicine in a cross -border setting. Both the presentations by WHO on telemedicine 
and on the mobility of health workers lent further credence to the urgent need to discuss the 
questions raised by India in its submission s. India therefore  urged Members to have a dedicated 
discussion on those  two aspects, in pursuance of Ministers ' guidan ce at MC1 2, for better 
preparedness for future pandemics.  
4.55.  In addition , as highlighted earlier, India request ed the Secretariat to report on the key 
takeaways in each information and experience -sharing session, since that had been  the guidance of 
MC12  and had also been included in the guiding questions to the panellists for those  experience -
sharing sessions. Accordingly, the Secretariat was requested to revise the summary report of the 
experience -sharing session on health -related services held on 4 October  to clearly bring out the key 
takeaways which had been  presented by Members. Those  key takeaways might  also be presented 
in the report to the General Council on the MC12 mandate.  
4.56.  Regarding the Council's  report to the General Council as circulated in JOB/SERV/CTS/23 , as 
mentioned earlier, the mandate of Ministers ha d been on the lessons learnt , with a view to better 
preparedness for future pandemics. The questions for the information  and experience -sharing 
sessions were also in pursuance of that guidance, including  on the key takeaways. The need to 
report  on the key takeaways ha d been highlighted by India and others in the informal Council  
meeting held in November. It had also been pointed  out that that reporting was to be done annually 
to the General Council and therefore , whatever had been discussed in that year would need to find 
a reflection in the Council's  report to the General Council. However, India saw that those  key 
takeaways had not been reflected in the draft report and therefore request ed the inclusion of the 
same, both in the summary report on health -related services and in the draft report to the General 
Council  as contained in JOB/SERV/CTS/23 . 
4.57.  Further more, in the draft  report to the G eneral Council,  there was a separate section on input 
of external stakeholders.  Since the name s of the stakeholders had been mentioned in the summary 
reports  of those  sessions, India did not see any add ed value of that section. Accordingly, section 2.3 
on input from external stakeholders in JOB/SERV/CTS/23  should  be deleted.  
4.58.  The representative of the United Kingdom  welcomed the  draft report to the General Council , 
which was  well set out. It was balanced in its sum mary of the Council's work to date and reflect ed 
the views of Members at the informal sessions. The United Kingdom  consider ed that the key 
takeaways from th ose sessions had been reflected in the Chair person 's concluding  remarks . The 
structure of the report  in terms of speakers, guiding questions and concluding remarks was a high -
level summary of the discussions and the United Kingdom  support ed sticking to that structure. Apart 
from including the summary of the third experience -sharing session , the United Ki ngdom did not  
support further changes at that time. 
4.59.  The representative of Australia  thank ed Members for their presentations and contributions on 
that issue in response to the mandate, as well as the Chairperson and the Secretariat for the draft 
report. The  presentations had demonstrate d the common challenges faced by Members regardless 
of their location or level of development and the importance of working together to address the 
complexities caused by the pandemic. Australia c oncur red with the statement by  the United Kingdom 
that that was  a good draft report as it reflected the balance of interventions made in the Council  and 
across the sessions on that issue. Australia did not  consider that any changes  were required to the 
draft and  would be  happy to see it adopted and reported to the General Council.  
4.60.  The representative of  the Russian Federatio n supported the proposal by India to continue 
discussion s on health -related issues  during  dedicated sessions . His delegation  saw added value in 
that proposal and a good takeaway for further work of the Council.  
4.61.  The representative of  Bangladesh  support ed the proposal by India , and as endorsed by the 
Russian Federation , for continuation of dedicated informal sessions in the Council on health -related 
issues  to address the challenges of future pandemics . 
4.62.  The representative of  Switzerland  thanked the Chairperson  for the draft report and the 
informal experience -sharing sessions, which would continue  the following year. Those sessions had 
been very interesting,  and he congratulate d the Secretariat on the important work it had done, as 
well as  delegations that had proposed speakers who had  enrich ed the discussions.  The discussion S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 10 - 
 
  on tourism the previous day had been  extremely enlightening,  and he was  pleased  to hear that the 
Swiss project in Tanzania had been  mentioned. Switzerland agreed with Australia and the United 
Kingdom  that the report was concise and balanced, as discussed at the informal meeting on 
17 November.  The addition of the Chairperson's  summaries was helpful,  and Switzerland  agree d 
that the  key takeaways had been mentioned  there. Switzerland support ed the adoption of the report 
as proposed  with the addition of the information on the tourism session the previous day . 
4.63.  The representative of  China  pointed out  that the draft report was generally acceptable  and 
that, if there was any need to revise the report  based on Members' proposal s, the revision  should 
be factual and balanced in  the same spirit.  
4.64.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  extend ed his appreciation for the Chairperson's  hard 
work in organi sing the informal experience -sharing sessions in which his  delegation ha d also 
participated  and contributed . Those  informal session s were also meant  to facilitate the  understand ing 
of the different perspectives of different Organizations  and their members.  The r eport was factual 
and objective  and Chinese Taipei was satisfied with the current drafting of the report and did not 
suggest further revision s. 
4.65.  The representative of the European Uni on support ed the draft report to the General Council 
as presented. Since there were already summary reports of each of those experience -sharing 
sessions, the presented draft report to the General Council had an appropriate format with the right 
amount of d etail from the informal discussions.  
4.66.  The representative of  the Republic of  Korea  echoed the United Kingdom, Australia, 
Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, and the European Union and supported the current draft report.  
4.67.  The Chairperson  indicated that the general vi ew of most Members was to keep the report as 
drafted. She thus proposed to adopt the CTS report to the General Council as presented. She also 
recalled the suggestion from India, supported by two other Members , that the Council continue its 
discussions in dedicated sessions on health -related issues and  pandemic response.  
4.68.  The representative of India recalled that in paragraphs 23 , 24 and 28  of the Ministerial 
Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID -19 pandem ic, Ministers had given the guidance to 
review the lessons learnt  and it was therefore  crucial that the reporting  to the General Council  also 
took into account the lessons learnt . In the summary report o f the session on health -related services, 
at least fo r India,  the key takeaways had not been reflected.  India thus requested that the summary 
report of the session be revised to adequately reflect India's  lessons learnt  and that the revision  be 
reflected  or referenced  in the  CTS report to the General Council . Secondly, since that went beyond 
what had been mentioned in the report to the General Council on the possible way ahead or on key 
takeaways from the session, that would need to be developed further in terms of the dimensions 
captured in the current parag raph in the draft report.   
4.69.  Thirdly, India requested the deletion of section 2.3 on the input from external stakeholders 
from the report. As mentioned previously, India was wary of using the phrase "external 
stakeholders" and therefore would not endorse a separate section at that juncture. In any case, the 
names and the input provided by those external stakeholders had already been reflected  in the 
summary report s of the sessions . India did not want a separate section listing external stakeholders 
that had engaged because , being a CTS report, there was no  mandate to include that.  
4.70.  The Chairperson  said that the Secretariat would issue a revision of the summary  report of the 
session on health -related services to better reflect the key takeaways presented by India, and that 
the revised summary  report of the session would be referenced in the CTS report to the General 
Council.   
4.71.  She added that s ection 2.3 on the input from external stakeholders had been introduced 
because Members had suggested during the informal meeting in November to mirror the structure 
of the CTG report to the General Council. The CTG rep ort contained the information about  external 
stakeholders in section  2.4 (JOB/CTG/35/Rev.2 ). The paragraph  in the CTS report was very factual 
and only listed the external stakeholders that had participated in the experience -sharing sessions.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.72.  The representative of the United Kingdom  supported the Chairperson 's observation with 
respect to section 2.3 . It was simply a list  of the stakeholders that had participate d and provided 
inputs to the informal sessions. The section did  not go into the detail s of those inputs.  The United 
Kingdom was of the view that it was important  to reflect  that those  stakeholders had been involved 
in the work of the informal sessions  and thus strongly urged the section to be included in the report.  
4.73.  The representative of  the United States  asked  whether the revised report would be circulated 
to delegati ons again so that any issue could be resolved before the process was concluded and the 
report finalised. The United States also agree d with the United Kingdom that the  language  of section 
2.3 could not have been  more neutral. Taking out that section  would give readers an incomplete 
account  of what had taken place . The United States support ed keeping section  2.3 in the report.  
4.74.  The representative of  Switzerland  noted that, with respect to section 2 .3, it was a question of 
system atic treatment within th e Organization and among Members . If that was  a practice elsewhere 
and it was transparent, Switzerland did not see any harm in including that paragraph as proposed.  
Secondly, regarding the issue of including key takeaways and updating the summary reports  of the 
sessions , it was important that the point of view of any particular Member not be reflected as a 
takeaway on behalf of all participants in the experience -sharing session s. Switzerland also agreed 
with the United States that the updated report be circulated to Members before adoption . 
4.75.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  proposed to reshape section 2.3 to include a list 
of all contributors and speakers, including all Members that had contributed to those sessions and 
not only the external stake holders.  
4.76.  The representative of Australia  echoed the United Kingdom and the United States on the 
retention of section 2.3 . It was  simply a reporting to the General Council on what had been done in 
the informal experience -sharing sessions . Australia did not understand why it was not possible to 
describe the nature of those  informal sessions . A key  aspect of th ose sessions  was the participation 
of external stakeholders,  and the Council  ought to report on that. Australia also agreed with the 
United States that it would be good to see any revis ed report before it was  finalised.  
4.77.  The representative of  China  said that his delegation  supported the current  report . Meanwhile, 
in order to deal with the divergent views on  some elements, China noted tha t the summary  reports  
of those sessions were quite detailed  and reflect ed what had been done. At the same time, the CTS 
report  to the General Council should be very brief , straightforward,  and factual. China thus suggested 
that, in particular with respect to the external stakeholders , past practice could be used as a 
reference on how to deal with that issue. In any case , China believed that the report should be 
factual and balanced . 
4.78.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  recalled that his delegation was of the view that the  
report be factual and objective.  Since external stakeholders had been invited to share their views 
during the informal sessions, it was valuable to keep section 2.3 as drafted. Regarding the key 
takeaways, those varied from Member to Memb er because the purpose of informal experience -
sharing was to hear the different views and help Members deepen their understanding.  It would thus 
be difficult to find a universal takeaway on behalf of all Members.  
4.79.  The representative of  the European Union  echoed the United Kingdom, United States,  and 
other Members in supporting the current draft report , as it already contained an appropriate level of 
detail o n the informal sessions. If India wished to update the report to include its own key takeaways, 
it had  to be clear that those were the takeaways from one Member. However, if the report was re -
opened to include additional details, the European Union did not understand why section 2.3 on 
external stakeholders should be taken out. Again, those were inputs to an informal discussion 
feeding into a report. Thus, the European Union supported keep ing the report as drafted and wished 
to see any revised report before its adoption.  
4.80.  The representative of  Singapore  noted that section 2.3 was just a factual acknowledgeme nt 
of the input that had been  provided by external organizations and stakeholders, and it would be only  
fair to mention them , given that  they had participated in the session s. Singapore would thus prefer 
that the section be retained as is and to move on wi th the agenda . S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.81.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  noted that o ver-emphasi sing the opinion of a 
particular Member  in a report could  compromise objectivity. Considering the report's public nature, 
it was undesirable for a specific Member  to edit particular wording.  Given the potential differences 
in perspective s among Members , it was advisable to adopt the current report.  
4.82.  The represent ative of  the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  noted that, considering whether 
or not to include  in the report the names of those who participated in the informal sessions would 
have any important impact on the substance , Venezuela was of the view that Indi a was exercising 
its full right to request the changes expressed . 
4.83.  The representative of  India thanked all Members for their views and suggestions. Her 
delegation believed that the names of the external stakeholders had already been reflected 
elsewhere  and therefore saw no  added value in singling out the input from external stakeholders  in 
the CTS report. All the more  so because the mandate by Ministers had been to engage on lessons 
learnt  and capturing those from  the experience -sharing session s on transport  and logistics, health -
related services and tourism would  be more elaborate. That was of  higher importance than putting 
together a list of speakers . 
4.84.  India also noted the  point raised by Chinese Taipei that the key takeaways might differ from 
Member to Member . India therefore believed that it would be a useful exercise at that juncture to 
compile  a matrix o f the recommendations, takeaways or lessons learnt  presented by var ious 
Members, International Organi zations, and other participants in each of the three sessions, which 
could then be annexed to the report.  
4.85.  If the Council was ready to work on that, her delegation  could possibly consider the suggestion  
of the Russian Fede ration to attach  a factual list of all contributors and speakers as an annex . For 
India, however,  the primacy was the content and the lessons learnt . Reporting to the General Council 
should  be in pursuance of the mandate that Members had received from Mini sters. That mandate 
was very clear about the lessons learnt  and the Council had to report on those moving forward . A 
detailed matrix would be very  beneficial  in that context and in line with what had been considered 
and adopted in the CTG . 
4.86.  The Chairperson  clarified that the matrix in the CTG report  on lessons learnt  emanated from 
the work done in the CMA that  had organised a specific session on the lessons learnt . 
4.87.  The representative of India noted that her delegation was aware that the matrix  in the CTG 
report  came from the CMA , which at  some point in time had a consideration of the key takeaways  
by all Members . That would be in the flow of things and in pursuance of the MC12 mandate.  However , 
the Council had not yet had the opportunity to have those kinds of discussions  in a comprehensive 
manner  because it was still a few sessions  away from completing the cycle . At that juncture, the 
second -best thing would be  to compile all takeaways mention ed in the sessions and annex them to 
the report.  
4.88.  The representative of the United Kingdom  noted that the CMA had specifically discussed and 
agreed on the lessons learnt , which was the reason those had been included in the CTG report. The 
Council stood at a  different point and the United Kingdom agreed with other Members that the 
lessons learnt  differed from Member to Member. If Members wished that their own key takeaways  
be individually reflected, then that could be considered  but any revision of the report  should be 
circulated to delegations before adoption. However, the Council was not in a position to list or annex 
a matrix of the lessons learnt  because it did not have them.  
4.89.  The Chairperson  indicated that there would be difficulties in gather ing all the  key takeaways 
from the recordings of the sessions that had already taken place . While s ome contributions  had 
specifically referred to  the lessons learnt , others had been structured as general presentations, 
without specific identification of lesso ns learnt. It would therefore  be better to identify Members'  key 
takeaways after holding a separate  session dedicated to that. The Council could thus consider holding 
an additional session on key takeaways in the future.  As the forthcoming  experience -sharing session 
on ICT and digitally delivered  services was scheduled  for March, a session on lessons learnt  could 
logically follow  in June.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.90.  The representative of India noted that the timeframe for holding a specific session on lessons 
learnt  would be too late , as already articulated by India at the October meeting . While t he draft 
report to the General Council might be factually correct, India wondered  how the mandate in 
paragraphs 23, 24 and 28  of the Ministerial Declaration  could be taken forward . Members had to 
report on the substantial aspects and the CTS report to the General Council  was expected to show 
some kind of  reflection of the discussions that Members had  had until then . That had been reiterated  
and taken up by In dia and other delegations at the informal meeting in November . So, a very factual 
report would not  do much in terms of the mandate that Members had  received from Ministers . 
4.91.  The representative of Australia  noted  that paragraph 24 of the Ministerial Declarat ion provided 
that "relevant WTO bodies will, within their fields of competence, and on the basis of proposals by 
Members, continue or initiate work as soon as possible, to analy se lessons that have been learnt  
and challenges experienced during the COVID -19 pandemic. A stocktaking exercise will be taken of 
the work by WTO bodies under this declaration yearly at the General Council until the end of 2024, 
based on the reports of those relevant bodies."  
4.92.  That was not a specific mandate for reporting lessons learnt at the next General Council  
necessari ly; there would  be another yearly report under that mandate. Simply, that was about a 
stocktake of the work undertaken and the current draft report w as a factual stocktake of the work 
that Members had undertaken  so far . Since the second sentence of paragraph 24 required a 
stocktaking exercise of the work  that had been done , the Council should not pre -empt that.  
4.93.  The representative of  India thanked Australi a for pointing out the language in the relevant 
paragraph. It was precisely in that context that the CMA had considered the lessons learnt . They 
had had the luxury of time and opportunity to do so before the yearly update. Since the Council had 
not yet had  the opportunity to hold such a  dedicated session on lesson s learnt , and since the 
Chairperson had mentioned the technical  difficulties in pulling out all the key takeaways , India could 
for the time being  live with a reflection and reference to its own key  takeaways mentioned in the 
sessions on transport and logistics and health -related services . India had not been able to participate 
in the tourism session.   
4.94.  India also requested that, f rom the next experience -sharing session onward , the question of  
lessons  learnt  be explicitly raised and then compiled in the summary report by the Secretariat , as 
that should feed  into the final session on key takeaways.  That would be  a possible solution. Having 
said that, India's objection to a separate section on external stakeholder s remained , and India 
request ed a deletion of that  section.  
4.95.  The Chairperson  noted that India had made several suggestions. First, to better reflect India's  
key takeaways in the two summary reports o f the sessions on transport and logistics and health -
related services . Second , that the  revised summary reports on those two sessions be referenced in 
the CTS report to the General Council. As regards  the request for an explicit reference to the question 
of lessons learnt  for the next experience -sharing session, that had already been done in the past . 
Thirdly, holding  an additional session on lessons learnt  before the end of 2024.  
4.96.  Regarding the deletion of paragra ph 2.3, many Members wished  to keep at least the 
enumeration of participating International Organi zations, external participants, and business 
organi zations.  She invited  India to consider the proposals by other Members for redraft ing the 
paragraph or title of the section.  
4.97.  The representative of India reiterated that her delegation  did not see any added value in 
section 2.3 without a substantial annex on lessons learnt . So, at that juncture, India was not in a 
position to have any kind of language on external stakeholders involved. Those details were already 
available in the summary reports of those sessions.  
4.98.  The representative of the United States  noted that, before taking action  on future sessions , it 
would be useful to see any proposal in writing in order to have the opportunity to discuss.  
4.99.  The Chairperson  proposed to issue a revised CTS draft report to the General Council  for 
Members' consideration and possible adoption v ia a written procedure . She then suggested that the 
Council take note of the statements made . S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.100.   It was so agreed . 
5  ITEM E: OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that , on 5 October,  Members had held a one -day hybrid workshop on 
improving LDC s' services trade data.  The event had provided for a very rich exchange of experiences 
and sharing of expertise.  She hoped that the workshop had provided useful pointers for delegations 
as to possible ways forward  to improve services trade data for LDCs.   
5.2.  Additionally, on 6 December, the LDC Group had circulated a communication on the 
"Operationalisation of the LDC Services Waiver Preferences", contained in document 
JOB/SERV/CTS/25 . She acknowledged that the communication had only been circulated  shortly 
before the meeting but nevertheless wished  to offer an opportunity to the LDC Group to introduce 
it. 
5.3.  The representative Bangladesh , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , noted that the LDC Group 
was concerned that the mandate from Ministers regarding paragraph 8 of the MC12 Outcome 
Document was not properly listed under that agenda item. The LDC services Waiver was specifically 
referenced  in instructions to the Council, including reporting back to the General Council by MC13. 
The Group's intervention applied to agenda items D and E and the LDC Group understood that item 
E was a  standing item on the agenda due to Ministers' instructions at the Nairobi  Ministerial . 
5.4.  He indic ated that  JOB/SERV/CTS/25  contained an error. Unfortunately, the reference to  
"Türkiye" had been printed in the old fashion under footnote 10 on page 2. The LDC Group apologised  
for that oversight and thanked  the Secretariat for correcting the mist ake. 
5.5.  Communication  JOB/SERV/ CTS/25  recalled the Group's  work and efforts  during that  year, 
including the Secretariat 's efforts,  to meet the mandate by Ministers at MC12. The mandate in 
paragraph 8 was to "instruct the Council for Trade in Services to review and promote the 
operationalization of the waiver including to explore improvements in LDC services export data; to 
review information on LDC services suppliers and consumers of LDC services in preference providing 
Member markets; and to assess best practices in facilitating the use of the preferences. On this 
matter, we instruct the General Council to report to our next session on progress. " The LDC 
communication provide d a summary assessment of where the LDC Group  stood  at that time . The 
LDC Group wished to share  what it had done, notwithstanding the challenges of multiple layers of 
meetings, calling of meetings in the Organization  at the Senior Officials Meeting s and the mini-
ministerial  meetings .  
5.6.  The LDC Group had taken  its own initiat ive to design and upload an online questionnaire to 
collect information on the LDC services supplier s' side. The questionnaire sought to attract qualitative 
evidence in order to guide the LDC Group and Members on the actual realities services and services 
suppliers were confronted with.  As part of the outcome of the questionnaire assessment, it was 
notable that LDCs in their jurisdictions provide d services beneficial to , and had services suppliers 
engaged with , subsidiar ies of  service providers headquartered in preference -granting Members. For 
example, one LDC service supplier  provide d accounting and audit ing services to subsidiaries of 
foreign veterinary and drug companies. Others provide d services like the  flagsh ip registration of 
foreign vessels .  
5.7.  A more comprehensive launch of the questionnaire was needed for both LDC suppliers and 
consumers in notifying Members.  While the LDC Group had not sought  to carry out a comprehensive 
questionnaire, feedback received so far reveal ed that the questionnaire was useful , and it was 
important  to target business councils and relevant institutions to disseminate  the questionnaire and 
build awareness.  
5.8.  During workshops  the Council had held in the previous  five years, where LDC sup pliers and 
consumers in other Members share d their experiences, it was notable that , despite the common 
assertion, LDC services suppliers did not only trade with their neighbours but also  in other markets 
and through electronic and hybrid means.  
5.9.  However, after nearly ten years since the submission of the Collective Request by the LDC 
Group and the submission of preference notifications, it might prove useful to supplement the S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Collective Request, or another methodology,  to improve the preferences or  the implementation of 
the preferences, and perhaps update the 2011 LDC services Waiver itself. Perhaps other tools were 
needed,  and an MFN Waiver might  not be necessary  to meet the LDC Group 's expectations in the 
services context.  
5.10.  The LDC Group  also appealed to preference -providing Members to share information on their 
consumers of LDC services.  With the exception of India and Türkiye, no preferences had been 
notified that took up part B of the Collective Request to address issues such as temporary visas, 
work permits, residency requirements and qualification requirements.  
5.11.  In summary , the LDC Group recommend ed the following steps to report to Ministers at MC13 . 
First, the Secretariat should  establi sh and administer an online questionnaire modelled  on, among 
others, the parameters of the LDC Group 's online questionnaire covering LDC suppliers and 
consumers in other Members engaged in contracts, or transacting, with LDC suppliers.  
5.12.  Secondly , the Council should  conduct a review of the 2011 LDC s ervices Waiver decision and 
the differences between the MFN waivers in goods and that in the services context. In addition, 
Members should  examine the best tool for services preferences for LDCs. If the MFN waiver was still 
considered a useful tool, Members might consider if it should be made permanent.  
5.13.  Thirdly , the Council should hold a special meeting for Members having notified LDC 
preferences and with the LDC Group so that notifying Members could  take stock of how their 
preferences had worked for LDCs, with a view to improving notifications or the utilisation of the 
preferences. The preference -providing Member s could also explain how their notifications facilitate d 
foreign investment in LDC sectors of interest.  
5.14.  The representative of India said that at MC12  Ministers had given clear instructions to review 
and promote the operationalisation of the LDC services Waiver. In that regard, India had been 
looking  forward to the submission by the LDC Group  and wa s pleased to have it received the previous 
day. There were many interesting ideas and suggestions which were contained in the proposal and 
as detailed by Bangladesh . India would need some time to examine and offer its comments on that. 
India, however, assu red its continued support for the LDC services Waiver and its operationali sation. 
India stood ready  to engage constructively on that issue. 
5.15.  The representative of t he United States  thanked Bangladesh and the LDC Group for the 
detailed written communication rece ived the previous day . His delegation needed more time to study 
it, but the explanation s at that meeting  were very useful to understand what the LDC Group was  
looking for.  He also noted that it would be very helpful to have a cost estimate for what was being 
requested, in particular the online questionnaire , to evaluate various requests across the various 
WTO B odies.  
5.16.  The representative of  Switzerland  thanked Djibouti, Banglades h and the LDC Group for the 
communication circulated on 6 December  pertaining to the operationali sation of the LDC services 
Waiver pursuant to paragraph 8 of the M C12 Outcome Document. Switzerland took note of the 
proposals for the way forward and would study those  more closely.  As a preliminary comment, 
Switzerland also wondered what Secretariat resources would be required to administer the online 
questionnaire . 
5.17.  The representative of Bangladesh  aligned with the statement of the LDC Group  and then 
intervened in his national capacity . LDCs had been requesting a fuller and more meaningful 
operationalisation of th e Waiver  decision. Ministers had also reaffirmed the Nairobi decision on the 
LDC servic es Waiver in paragraph 8 of the MC12 Outcome Document. Bangladesh requested updated 
information from preference -providing countries on their consumers receiving or contracting LDC 
services. Bangladesh underscored the need to assess best practices in facili tating the use of the 
Waiver preferences, as instructed by Ministers at MC12. Bangladesh hoped that preference -providing 
Members would improve their schemes or programs where necessary, to ensure more LDC 
participation in services trade and to make th e Wai ver decision truly effective for LDCs.  
5.18.  In that context, Bangladesh welcomed the organisation of the workshop  on improving LDC s' 
services export data  that had been held on 5 October, as expressed by Ministers in paragraph 8 of S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 16 - 
 
  the MC12 Outcome Document. However, that should not be occasional but regular work at the WTO. 
Bangladesh looked  forward to working constructively with all Members.  
5.19.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  thank ed Bangladesh and the LDC Group for the 
submission.  His delegation was still examining the proposal, but wished to preliminarily endorse the 
idea of the questionnaire as it provide d the opportunity for a data -driven approach in further 
discussions.  He would also appreciate a clarification on the MFN waiver in goods mentioned in 
paragraph 5.1(b).  
5.20.  The representative of China  noted that his delegation supported the better operationali sation 
of the LDC services Waiver, which had always  been China's  consistent position. China echoed other 
Members' appreciation for the LDC Group's submission. China was  still in the process of consultation s 
and would come back later with detailed comments.  
5.21.  The representative of t he European Union  welcomed  the communication by the LDC Group 
and the broad set of proposa ls in relation to the LDC services Waiver. Her delegation required more 
time to study the communication and could only offer some preliminary remarks at that meeting. 
First, she reiterated the European Union's continuous support towards the objective encod ed in the 
GATS, and also as agreed at previous Ministerial Conferences, to facilitate the increasing 
participation of developing countrie s, including LDCs , in trade in services. The European Union also 
remain ed ready to discuss issues identified by  the LDCs to translate that objective into actions and 
to ensure that paragraph 8 of the MC12  Outcome Document was  implemented.  
5.22.  As regard ed the specific actions proposed under paragraph 5 of the communication, the 
European Union supported further data gathering, a s the recent seminar had confirmed the various 
challenges of that endeavour. The European Union took note of the proposal for the Secretariat to 
administer the questionnaire ; however,  further details were required, such as for example , how 
submitted data w ould be verified and what resources that might entail.  The European Union could 
support the LDCs' request for a special meeting between notifying Members and the LDC Group to 
take stock of how preferences had worked in practice.  At the same time, the European Union believed 
that it was important to keep recalling the importance of the Waiver and encou rage Members that 
had not yet notified preferences to do so.   
5.23.  Finally, as regard ed "supplementing the LDC Collective Request, improve the preferences or 
their implementation, and perhaps update the 2011 LDC services Waiver itself ", the European Union 
believed that , before engaging on that, a more solid and comprehensive overview relating to LDCs ' 
services exports would be needed and that consistency should be ensured amongst the different 
Waivers available to LDCs.  
5.24.  The representative of  the United Kingdom  echoed  those Members that had welcomed the 
communication  by the LDC Group. Like others, the United Kingdom was still analysing the document 
and would welcome hearing the responses to some of the questions raised by other  Members . The 
United  Kingdom also tha nked the Secretariat for organising the recent workshop on improving LDC 
services trade data . It had been a very useful opportunity to learn from participants' experiences, in 
particular LDCs, on the challenges that they face d. It was  important t o continue  making  progress on 
improving the data collection to ensure that Members could  test the effectiveness of the Waiver.  
5.25.  The representative of Bangladesh , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , thanked Members 
for their welcoming comments  and, as the communication had been circulated only very recently, it  
was understandable that Members might  need more time.  The LDCs had particularly mentioned 
three specific proposals  on the way forward in section 5 of the submission . The LDC Group also took 
note of the questions raised by some delegations, such as the cost estimate or the Secretariat 
resources required to administer the questionnaire. Those questions would be discussed within the 
LDC Group and with the Secretariat to understand what costs or resou rces would be required.  
5.26.  The Russian Federation had  a specific question on the MFN Waiver in goods mentioned  in 
paragraph 5.1(b). That proposal was about conducting  a review of the differences between the MFN 
Waiver in goods and services . If the Waiver for goods  worked , the question arose as to  what the 
basic problem was with services . The question by the Russian Federation would also be discussed 
within the LDC Group to provide  more details . The LDC Group w elcome d any further suggestion s 
from Member s and  any further discuss ion on  that issue. It was a very important issue, and concrete S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 17 - 
 
  and effective implementation of the M inisterial Decision  was needed . The LDC Group continue d to 
work on that important field.  
5.27.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and said that 
the Council would revert to that item at its next meeting.  
5.28.  It was so agreed . 
6  ITEM F: WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
6.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that , in October , the Council had addressed a submission by the 
African Group on "The role of transfer of technology in resilience building: Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce", in document S/C/W/450 . A couple of delegations had also shared information 
about their capacity -building efforts for developing countries in the digital sphere.  She offered the 
floor to Members wishing to intervene on the Work Programme generally or intending to share 
further e -commerce -related information or experiences as part of the sub -item on "Exchange of 
information and experiences based on submissions by Members".  
6.2.  The representative of China  wished to take the opportunity to briefly introduce China's 
experience s in rural e -commerce.  In recent years, China's rural digital infrastructure had been 
improving and the level of digitali sation of  agricultural  production and sales had been increasing.  
6.3.  In Sichuan province, Guang'an city, which had been  a national poverty -stricken area, data had 
become the new agricultur al capital ; mobile phones had become the new agricultural  tool; and live 
broadcas ting had become the new agricultur al work. For example, there was an agricultural product  
called the Long'an pomelo,  a local product of Guang'an city,  which  used to enjoy  limited sales as it 
was difficult for small rural households in remote areas to get  access to broader markets.  By relying 
on live broadcasting and e -commerce platforms, more and more Guang'an agricultural  products had 
become best -selling products.  Thanks to online sales, the average annual income in Guang'an city 
had increased nearly sevenfold, from 1,400 CNY to more than 10,000 CNY.  
6.4.  Finally, China continue d to encourage Members to exchange experience s on e-commerce for 
development under that agenda item. China believed  that that would enable Members  to better 
understand and learn from each other and help reinvigorate both the Council  and the e -commerce 
work program me. 
6.5.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Council take note of the statement made and said that the 
Council would revert to that item at its next meeting.  
6.6.  It was so agreed . 
7  ITEM G: FIFTH REVIEW OF MFN EXEMPTIONS  
7.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, in October, the Council had continued its discussions under the 
fifth review of MFN exemptions. The Council had taken note of the written responses Members had 
circulated since the dedicated session in June, as well as of the compilation of  unanswered questions 
prepared by the Secretariat. Some additional answers had also been provided orally at the meeting, 
and further questions had been circulated.  
7.2.  Since the issuance of the airgram for the October meeting, more Members had submitted 
answe rs in writing, and their communications were listed on the airgram of that meeting. She also 
recalled that, with regard to the mandate that the Council agree on the "date of any further review", 
in June Members had decided to defer that decision to 2028.  
7.3.  The representative of  the Republic of K orea thanked all Members  that had provided timely 
written responses to his delegation 's questions. Korea believed that that MFN review had been 
helpful in deepening the understanding of the background and necessity of the exemption s. The 
entire process of interaction testing the need for  such exemptions was also in line with WTO reform.  
Korea encouraged Members to keep the momentum and good practice of strengthening the 
deliberative function of the Council . His delegati on thanked all Member s for the cooperation in that S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 18 - 
 
  review process  and wished to c lose that fifth review of MFN exemption s. Korea  was commit ted to 
the sixth review  based on the outcomes of the current fifth one.  
7.4.  The representative of  Israel  thanked Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea, and Switzerland 
for the questions on Israel's  MFN exemption for financial services. The condition necessitating that 
measure still prevail ed, as contained in Article VI of the Israel Bank Licensing Law. It was a 
reciprocity condition and had not substantially affected Israel's obligations under the GATS. Israel 
had not been able to confirm yet if the exemption had been used since the previous  review, however, 
Israel  would provide a written response bilateral ly to the question s in due course.  
7.5.  The representative of New Zealand  thank ed the Republic of  Korea and India for their questions, 
which he would respond to at that meeting and would be happy to send written responses to both 
delegations after that meeting.  
7.6.  Question 20 from Korea  corresponded  to MFN exemptions in relation to Kiribati. The MFN 
exemptions that New Zealand applie d to Kiribati were an important component of how New Zealand 
approache d trade and development with its focus on the Pacific region.  That exemption provid ed 
important policy space to provide more favourable entry conditions for a limited number of Kiribati 
nationals  every year.  
7.7.  Question 21 from Korea was the same question in relation t o Tuvalu. Again, the MFN 
exemption s that New Zealand applie d to Tuvalu were an important component of how New Zealand  
approach ed development in the Pacific region . That also applie d to a limited number of Tuvalu 
nationals  each year.  
7.8.  On question 53  from Korea , New Zealand retain ed policies un der that exemption to enable 
New Zealand employers to recruit interpreters from certain listed countries to work in tourism -
related industries.  
7.9.  Question 141  from Korea  was whether New Zealand still need ed that exemption . The answer 
was "yes", New Zealand still had to retain that exemption. New Zealand continue d to be a relatively 
small economy with a limited population that might  at times need to take certain measures to 
promote local recruitment, while also having to rely on skilled individuals trained out side of 
New Zealand. That MFN exemption was designed to allow New Zealand to access individuals with 
particular skill sets that its small economy might  not be able to develop domestically, while also 
ensuring that they were appropriately qualified to meet New Zealand's  needs, e.g., to meet 
appropriate standards to ensure safety and security at sea.  
7.10.  Lastly , on India's question related to audiovisual services, the criteria for whether a film or 
television program was eligible for co -production status was contained in Section 18 of the Film 
Commission Act 1978 . New Zealand ha d co-production treaties or agreements with Australia, 
Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Poland, the Republic of 
Korea, Singapore, Spain, South Africa,  Chinese Taipei,  and the United Kingdom . He reiterated that 
he would be happy to share those  answers with the delegations of Korea and India after the meeting . 
7.11.  The representative of Japan  appreciate d all Members that had responded to his delegation's  
questions. At that moment, Japan had  received a response from almost all Members  that it had 
asked questions to, except for one Member . However, that  Member was currently working on its 
response, and Japan had  a reaction from that Member that it would  revert  as soon as possible. 
Similar to Korea, Japan was happy to close the fifth MFN review  at that meeting . 
7.12.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked Members for their active participation in the 
fifth MFN review and their useful replies to her delegation's questions in enhancing the understanding 
on the scope and purpose of the exemptions. Hong Kong, China also extended its appreciation to 
the Secretariat for its efforts in compiling  information for  the review. Hong Kong, China  had raised 
a number of questions in that review and had received most of the replies , which was very much 
appreciated. Hong Kong , China thus believed that the review could be closed.  
7.13.  Going forward, her delegation reiterated the need for a regular and ongoing MFN revie w so 
that Members could critically examine whether the conditions that had created  the need for  all the 
MFN exemptions still existed , as mandated by the GATS. The existence of close to 600 MFN S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 19 - 
 
  exemptions and the submission of 154 questions for the fifth re view were solid proofs that an 
ongoing review was necessary and well justified. The only situation where there might not be a need 
for another review was when all exemptions had been  removed. So, in line with paragraph 3 of the 
Annex on Article II exemptio ns and previous practices, Hong Kong, China was  of the view that the 
next review should be held no later than five years from the current review, i.e., by 2028.  
7.14.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Council agree to close the fifth review of MFN exemptions  
at that meeting .  
7.15.  The representative of India noted that certain questions had been circulated by her delegation 
at the previous  meeting . She thus sought a clarification on how those would be considered because , 
while one Member had responded to the question s, India was still  awaiting response s from other 
Members. Hence, if the MFN review  was closed , how would  that impact the responses that India was 
likely to receive?  
7.16.  The Chairperson  replied that responses could  be shared bilaterally , while the Council could 
still close the review.  If the Secretariat receive d new replies in writing, those would be distributed 
to all Members.  
7.17.  The representative of Switzerland  thanked those Members  that had circulated their responses 
to the different questions since the October meeting  and Israel for providing its response at that 
meeting.  He referred  to the compilation  of unanswered questions by the Secretariat , some  of which  
were Switzerland's. His delegation remained available for receiving responses to those que stions on 
a bilateral basis once the review had been concluded.  
7.18.  Since October, Switzerland had  received two additional questions by India  on audiovisual 
services and the movement of natural  persons . As regard ed the first question, the exemption was 
intended to promote common cultural objectives, such as e.g.,  historical,  geographical, or  linguistic  
objectives , in order to preserve the variety of audiovisual offer s in Switzerland in light of the small 
size of the  Swiss market.  
7.19.  As regard ed the second matter, the migration  policy of Switzerland ha d identified three circles. 
One of them was the European Community and the European Free Trade Association . The second 
circle was Central and Eastern Europe , the United States and Canada. The third circle was all other 
countries. In the past, circles one and two had been  the traditional circles within which recruitment 
had taken  place.  Switzerland consider ed that the same conditions that had applied at that tim e 
continue d to apply at present . His delegation  echoed those Members  that had  suggested concluding 
the review at that meeting . 
7.20.  The representative of  the United Kingdom  thanked  India for the supplementary question. 
India's question relate d to an exemption w hich allow ed discriminatory actions in the audiovisual 
sector to counter possible actions from other Members , to prevent, correct or counterbalance 
adverse, unfair,  or unreasonable actions by other Members. The presence of that exemption was 
designed to discourage unfair or unreasonable practices and actions.  
7.21.  Acting against unfair practices could  be considered a legitimate aim for an MFN exemption to 
serve. Until that moment , no measure had been applied on the basis of that exemption. That might  
in part be due to the fact that the MFN exemption s had served as a deterrent to unfair practices. 
The conditions which  had created the need for those  exemptions still prevail ed and, as such , the 
United  Kingdom  intend ed to maintain those  exemptions. Finally, the United Kingdom echoed other 
Members and called for that fifth review to be closed at that meeting.  
7.22.  The representative of  the European Union  noted that her delegation had  already replied  in 
writing  to questions submitted by a number of Members within the established timeframe.  In terms 
of the latest questions by India, submitted in communication S/C/W/455 , India  had raised three 
questions regarding MFN exemptions taken by the European Union  and its member states.  
7.23.  Regarding  the question on audiovisual services, the reference to certain countries in the 
exemption concern ed a number of current EU member states. The reference to the conclusion or 
completion of economic integration agreements concern ed the conclusion or completion of their 
respective accessions to the European Union.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 20 - 
 
  7.24.  Regarding  the question on the licensing of branches or subsidiaries of forei gn financial service 
suppliers, the exemption had been  taken due to the fact that it had not been possible to conclude 
the financial services negotiations in 1993.  The original aim was to ensure competitive opportunities 
for Austrian financial services pro viders, equivalent to those offered to foreign suppliers by Austrian 
law. In the meantime, and after the conclusion of the post -Uruguay round negotiations on financial 
services in 1997, respectively the entry into force of the Fifth Protocol to the GATS in  1999, the 
exemption had ceased to have any practical relevance.  
7.25.  Regarding the third question from India, the European Union had  sought clarifications from 
India bilaterally and would  follow up with its response bilaterally as well.  In general, the European 
Union  support ed the MFN review to be closed  at that meeting.  
7.26.  The representative of  the United States  noted that his delegation had also received a question 
from India , although that  had happened well past the deadline to receive questions. More 
importantly, the United States felt that the question went quite beyond the scope of that review , 
which was limited to whether the conditions which  had created the need for the exemption still 
prevail ed. The exe mption in question was on space launch services and that had been  taken with 
the need to prevent disruption of competition in the international space launch market. The 
conditions still exist ed for the United States  to maintain that MFN exemption in order to deal with 
potential market distortions by certain participants in that market.  
7.27.  The representative of  Jordan  thanked  Japan and the Republic of Korea for their interest and 
the questions  received  during that fifth MFN review. Regar ding the " Arab countries " mentioned in 
Jordan 's MFN exemption , those  referred to  countries within the Greater Arab Free Trade Area. 
Regarding the questions on the reciprocity -based MFN exemptions, most of th ose exemptions were 
not related to any internatio nal agreement other than the GATS. Finally, he thank ed all Members 
that had engaged in that exercise  and invited them  to discuss any further details bilaterally.  
7.28.  The representative of  India asked whether there was a notification requirement for Members 
that had provided their responses at that meeting. India had submitted its responses to questions 
by Hong Kong, China and others previously in the form of a communication  to have a record  for the 
purpose of perpetuity.  She asked whether that was the process which had to be followed by all 
Members to which  India had asked  questions. Also, to  further clarify , the questions  by her delegation 
had been posed  beyond the time limit  because they were follow -up questions based o n the 
discussions which had happened earlier,  and the compilation of those questions  had taken time. She 
assume d that that was  in the spirit of an MFN exemption review.  India was trying to better 
understand where Members were coming from. To conclude, s he asked how India would receive the 
replies to those questions and how they would be reflected in the documentation if the Council 
completed the review at that meeting.  
7.29.  The Chairperson  replied that there was no requirement to receive  all replies in writing. That 
was the reason for  conducting  a review and many of the replies had been  given orally at meetings.  
There was a risk that the  Council might never be able to close the review if it  had to wait for potential 
documents that might or might not be submitted . Even if some written replies were received  in the 
future , those would be distributed to all Members and included in the  documents f or the services 
meetings.  The continuation of the review by Members bilaterally on issues pe rtaining to trade in 
services and Article II exemptions did not preclude a formal conclusion of  the review.  
7.30.  She further clarified that a Member could  also decide not to reply , and there was no way to 
impose  a response . One possible way forward was to close the review,  on the understanding that  if 
additional documents  were submitted , then the Council  would re-open the agenda item to consider  
those  new documents.   
7.31.  The representative of India noted that , since there was no requirement to receive replies in 
writing, her delegation wished to keep the review open , since it was still awaiting responses from a 
few Members. Keeping the review open would provide an opportunity for other Members to respond 
at the upcoming Council meeting. In addition, as indicated by o ne delegation, there were still certain 
queries and they wished to better understand India's questions, meaning that the dialogue still 
continued. India's request was that the final responses appear  somewhere in the documentation . 
Since there was no requirement for a written reply to the questions , India felt that that forum should 
be kept alive for another meeting. That would allow Members  to come back after the bilateral S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 21 - 
 
  consultations and to have those responses discussed in the Council . Thereafter, the review could be 
closed . 
7.32.  After noting that all oral replies would appear in the meeting reports as well, t he Chairperson  
suggest ed that the Council take note of the statements made and do not close the review  yet, but 
rather revert t o that item at its next meeting.  
7.33.  It was so agreed . 
8  ITEM H: NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO GATS ARTICLE XXI  
8.1.  Statements made under this agenda item are contained in an informal document 
(JOB/SERV/CTS/26 ) and will be circulated as an addendum to this report after the conclusion of the 
Article XXI negotiations and the certification of any changes to the relevant schedule of 
commitments.  
9  ITEM I: UPDATE OF THE SECRETARIAT BACKGROUND NOTE O N MODE 4 – REQUESTED 
BY INDIA  
9.1.  The Chairperson  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of India.  
9.2.  The representative of India reiterated her delegation's  request for an update of the Secretariat 
Background Note on mode 4  and also supported work on intermodal linkages . In paragraph 10 of 
the MC12 Outcome Document, Ministers had acknowledged "the need to facilitate the increasing 
participation of developing Members, including LDCs, in global services trade, including by paying 
particular attention to sectors and modes of supply of export interest to them". Therefore, updating 
the Secretariat's Background Note on mode 4, a mode that was relevant for developing and LDC 
Members' services export interests,  had gained further justification in light of the guidance provided 
by Ministers at MC12.  In that regard, India sought  clarity on what Members  would report on  
paragraph 10 of  the MC12 Outcome Document  with respect to mode 4.  
9.3.  Specifically for mode 4, India had identified some of the possible areas that could be updated 
in the 2009 Note, which it had presented in previous Council meetings. While she welcomed the 
proposal by the United States on the issue of intermodal linkages, that should not substitute her 
delegation's request to update the separate modal Background Notes. India was of the view that 
having an intermodal linkage Note made no sense without first updating the modal Notes.  
9.4.  The representative of the United States  confirmed that his delegation's position did not change 
and reiterated that a paper on  intermodal linkage s would provide enough information on each of the 
modes of supply and would enrich the discussion. All modes of supply were of interest to Members, 
including developing countries and LDCs , and a paper on intermodal linkages  would provide  a good 
basis for discussion. The United States  had even proposed that the paper include annexes that 
describe d the particular modes of supply , which  would enrich the pap er as well.  The United States 
remained opposed to simply updat ing the mode 4 Note and preferred to focus on the concept of 
intermodal linkages that would in fact highlight all modes of supply and how they worked together.  
9.5.  The representative of Bangladesh  supported India's request for an updated 2009 Secretariat 
Background Note on mode 4 ( S/C/W/301 ) to better understand the current situation and 
commitments by Members on that issue. That request had been pending for a long time in the 
Council. That was just a re quest for a factual report, and Bangladesh did not find any problem  with 
respect to  resources or anything else . In paragraph 10 of the MC12 Outcome Document, Ministers 
had acknowledged the need to facilitate the increasing participation of developing Membe rs, 
including LDCs, in global services trade and paying particular attention to sectors and modes which 
were of export interest to them. Mode 4 was of special interest to the LDCs , including to Bangladesh . 
9.6.  Bangladesh also supported the suggestion by the Un ited States on the preparation of a separate 
Note by the Secretariat on the interlinkages between the modes of supply. Bangladesh welcomed 
any future discussion among Members on that issue and registered its interest to be a part of that 
conversation.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 22 - 
 
  9.7.  The representative of  Australia  noted that his delegation maintained the same position as in 
previous meetings and did not support the request to update the Background Note on mode 4  at 
that time. Australia acknowledge d the significance of the Background Note in interpreting Members'  
mode 4 commitments under the GATS but  saw no  practical benefit in updating that Background 
Note. 
9.8.  The representative of China  supported both proposals for an update of the Background Note 
on mode 4 and the Note on intermodal linkages and pointed out that he h ad benefitted a lot from 
the Secretariat work, including the Background Note s. All current Notes had been prepared more 
than ten years ago, and it was the right time to update all Notes rather than just individual Notes 
for one sector  or mode of supply . That update could be a kind of holistic approach , and China was 
flexible on which Note to update first . 
9.9.  The Chairperson  thanked Members for the exchange and suggested that the Council take note 
of the statements made.  
9.10.  It was so agreed . 
10  ITEM J: CYBERSECURITY MEASURES OF CHINA AND VIET NAM – REQUESTED BY JAPAN 
AND THE UNITED STATES  
10.1.  The Chairperson  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegations of Japan and the United States.  
10.2.  The representative of Japan  recalled that at previous Council meetings, his delegation had 
repeatedly expressed its concerns about China's Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, Personal 
Data Protection Law, and their relevant regulations.  However, the definition of the data to be 
regulated and the specific procedures for cross -border transfers remained very unclear . It had to be 
pointed out that foreign companies conducting business in China were forced to incur excessive costs 
when transferring data across borders due to the ambigui ties in the wording and regulations , which 
left room for arbitrary operations.  
10.3.  In particular, the data locali sation requirement in those  laws and regulations might  adversely 
affect cross -border data transfer by increasing data management costs and cybersec urity risks for 
foreign companies. Japan reiterated  that such data locali sation measures, which lack ed transparency 
and could lead to arbitrary application, were not justifiable and might  violate the National Treatment 
obligation under Article XVII of the GATS.  
10.4.  At the previous Council meeting, China had explained that it had initiated a public comment 
procedure on the "Provisions on Regulating and Promoting Cross -Border Flow of Data". Japan took  
note of China 's willingness to listen to the opinions of both domestic and international stakeholders. 
However, Japan was  concerned with Article 5 of the Provisions where the standard of the exemption 
from the application of the security assessment for cross -border data transfers was unclear. Japan 
noted that, depend ing on how the provision was implemented, there was a possibility of foreign 
companies being treated less favourably  than Chinese companies and that could constitute a 
violation of  the National Treatment obligation under Article XVII of the GATS.  
10.5.  China's previous statements had not addressed the concerns of Members that those  laws and 
regulations were intended to restrict data flows and international trade. China was proceeding with 
the establishment of relevant laws and regulations without making allowances or improvements in 
response to the concerns of Members , including Japan. Japan could not  avoid casting doubt on 
whether China actually intend ed to ensure that the measures did not discriminate against foreign 
nationals.  Japan called upon China to ensure that the relevant measures it implement ed were 
consistent with the GATS and would  not discriminate against foreign businesses both in form and 
substance.  
10.6.  With regard to Viet Nam, Decree 53 of t he Cyber security La w, which had come  into force in 
October 2022, require d domestic and foreign companies to store data in Viet  Nam and required  
foreign companies to establish a branch or representative office in Viet  Nam. Depending on how it 
was implemented, that might  discriminate a gainst foreign companies and violate d the National 
Treatment obligation under Article XVII of the GATS . Japan request ed that to be corrected.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 23 - 
 
  10.7.  With respect to the " draft Decree on Regulations on Penalties for Administrative Violations in 
the Field of Cyber security" , which Japan  understood  was currently under consideration, Japan was  
particularly concerned that Article 27.5 provide d for the deportation of foreign nationals as an 
additional sanction for violations of document retention and other obligations. I mposing additional 
sanctions only on foreign nationals that did not apply to domestic companies was likely to violate 
the National Treatment obligation under Article XVII of the GATS, and Japan  believe d that that 
provision should be deleted.  
10.8.  The Government  of Japan took note of the Vietnamese Government's stance of taking into 
account  the opinions of various stakeholders from the perspective of ensuring transparency of 
procedures when drafting relevant laws and regulations. However, Japan  request ed that regulations 
on data transfer ensure d that they did not discriminate against foreign  businesses, including those 
of Japan, in terms of form or substance, and that they were consistent with  the GATS.  
10.9.  The representative of the  United States  recalled that his delegation had raised concerns in 
the Council on various Chinese measures, includin g China's Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, 
and Personal Information Protection Law, and implementing measures for those Laws . The United 
States continued to have concerns related to those laws and measures. Unfortunately, despite the 
concerns raised at previous meetings , China continued to implement those measures in a manner 
that put constraints on the ways in which international companies were able to operate around the 
world.  
10.10.   One of China's main implementing regulations relating to cross-border data  flows was the 
Cyber security Administration's measures for security assessment for cross -border transfer of data. 
The measures , which require d security assessments for "important data" , which  China propose d to 
define in  virtually unlimited manner s, and in certain cases for personal information, had entered into 
force in September 2022. The measures had engendered some significant concerns from 
stakeholders.  
10.11.   In August , China's State Council had released opinions for further optimi sing the foreign 
investment environment and increasing the attraction of foreign investment and include d as one 
objective to explore a convenient management mechanism for cross -border data flows to establish 
green channels for qualified foreign enterprises. In September, China had re leased draft provisions 
on regulating  and promoting cross -border flows of data but unfortunately only with a two -week 
comment period. The United States had  highlighted some of the concerns with that relating  to the 
definition s of "important data ". The United States also had  concerns related to the exporting of 
personal information and some of the free trade zone provisions that provide d a free trade pilot zone 
that could  formulate its own data list to be approved by the Cyberspace Administration of Chin a 
(CAC). The United States  recommend ed that the CAC consider how to quickly promulgate any further 
conveniences across China, rather than maintaining a patchwork system among China's free trade 
zones.  
10.12.   China's framework of laws and implementing measures on those  issues continue d to raise 
significant concerns for many stakeholders, and the United States  urged China to continue to revise 
its regime to take into account th ose concerns.  
10.13.   Turning to Viet Nam, the United States ha d appreciated the opportunities ove r the previous  
few years to comment on and discuss with Viet Nam various iterations of its Cybersecurity  Law and 
the more recent Decree 53. That had include d several sets of detailed comments and letters on that 
Law and Decree, and the United States had  recently raised th ose issues bilaterally in Capital. 
Unfortunately, apart from some very minor changes, the final Cybersecurity Law was very similar to 
the initial version, and therefore the United States'  previous comments remain ed relevant.  
10.14.   In addition, Vi et Nam had issued Decree 53 without stakeholder consultation, so certain 
concerns continue d to remain, even though that D ecree ha d already gone into effect. The United 
State s had recently raised some of th ose questions and continue d to have th ose concerns regarding 
that D ecree, including how it implement ed the Cybersecurity Law. 
10.15.   The representative of  Australia  noted that his delegation, like  Japan and the United States , 
continued to have similar concerns regarding China 's and Viet Nam's cybersec urity measures, as 
reflected in its previous statements at the Council. At the previous  Council meeting , China had noted S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 24 - 
 
  that "the new draft clarified that the vast bulk of business and personal activity involving transferring 
Chinese data abroad did not n eed to file for a security assessment ", and that consultations on th ose 
provisions had been  open until the middle of October. Australia wondered  if China could provide an 
update on the feedback provided through those consultations , and in particular, feedb ack provided 
by foreign businesses operating in China , and whether and how China intend ed to respond to that 
feedback.  
10.16.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated her delegation's concerns regarding the 
cybersecurity measures in China and their imp lementation.  China's interpretation of what could 
encompass security concerns appeared to go beyond the WTO's definitions and practices . The 
European Union welcomed initiatives by China which allowed for specific types of personal data. At 
the same time, it remained concerned that the concept of "important data" as employed in existing 
and upcoming rules left considerable room for discretion by sectoral, regional, and local authorities.  
10.17.   The European Union was  also concerned that the application of a necessity test to data flows 
by Chinese regulators aim ed to make data transfers the exception rather than the rule, and that 
seem ed at odd s with international trade and the operation of multinational businesses.  
10.18.   Finally, the European Union  request ed that C hina's data laws should not be drafted or applied 
in such a way as to prevent foreign companies from strengthening their supply chain compliance 
and traceability, e.g., when seeking to avoid the use of forced labour. Her delegation welcomed the 
opportunity  for EU experts and stakeholders to provide comments on draft measures  and 
appreciated efforts by China to take those comments into consideration . The European Union 
encouraged China to define its cybersecurity measures as narrowly as possible and to ensur e that 
they did not constitute a market barrier.  
10.19.   As regards the Vietnamese cybersecurity measures, the European Union remained 
concerned by Decree  53 that had entered into force in October 2022, notably by the requirements 
for data localisation imposed by Article 26 and the ambiguously drafted provisions on when and how 
those  requirements might  be triggered by the Public Security Minister. The European Union expected 
the Law to be implemented in a manner that did not restrict trade , did not impose unnecessa ry 
constraints on the business models  of foreign companies,  and was in line with Viet  Nam's GATS 
commitments.  
10.20.   The representative of New Zealand  reiterated that, as had been stated in previous Council 
meetings, his delegation  continue d to have a strong inte rest in the implementation of China 's 
cybersecurity measures.  New Zealand also encourage d all Members to ensure that domestic 
legislation align ed with international trade commitments and to minimise  any adverse or trade 
restricting impacts. While New Zeala nd recognise d that Members might take measures to protect 
legitimate matters of public policy, New Zealand encourage d China to implement narrow and focused 
definitions that allow ed operat ors a clear er understanding of the rules under which they would  be 
operating.  
10.21.   Similar to Australia, New Zealand would welcome  an update on the consultations since the 
previous meeting and continued to  seek further clarity on how th ose cybersecurity measures were 
being implemented , particularly in relation to foreign nationals. New Zealand  encourage d China to 
implement its regulations in a manner consistent with its obligations under  the GATS.  
10.22.   The representative of China  thanked Members who had taken the floor for their  continued 
interest in China's regulatory measures related to cybersecurity. China had already responded to 
Members' remarks and questions at several previous meetings  and did not want to repeat them 
again . As emphasised previously, China's cybersecurity -related measures were based on national 
conditions and had taken into account various international practices. Those  legislations were not 
intended to hinder cross -border data flows, nor to restrict international trade, but aimed to support 
and encourage data flows and the sustainable application of business data. China had always abid ed 
by international rules and earnestly fulfilled its GATS commitments .  
10.23.   At the same time, China continue d to improve relevant regulatory systems for facilitating 
businesses operating  in China, including soliciting public opinions on the draft provisions on the 
regulation on facilitation of cross -border data flows . China reiterate d its willingness to work closely S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 25 - 
 
  with other Members and their stakeholders to promote the healthy d evelopment of the global digital 
economy.  
10.24.   The representative of Viet Nam thanked Japan, the United States, Australia, and the 
European Union for their continued interest in the implementation of Viet Nam's Law on 
Cybersecurity, including Decree 53 and Decr ee 13 on Personal Data Protection. He referred to his 
delegation's statements at previous Council meetings  concerning those  subject matter s, which had 
already offered explanations on various aspects that Members had raised.  In addition,  Viet Nam 
reiterated that its Law on Cybersecurity and Decree 53 did not impede the flow of data nor imposed 
an additional burden when enterprises complied with the Law and Decree. They were also in full 
compliance with Viet Nam's commitments under the GATS . 
10.25.   Concerning Decree 13 on Personal Data Protection, the transition  period therein was a result 
of careful analysis and stakeholder consultations in the legislative formulation process.  Article 43.2 
of that Decree state d that "Micro, small, medium -sized enterprises,  and start -ups have the right to 
choose to exempt themselves from regulations on appointing individuals and departments in charge 
of personal data protection issues during the first two years from the date of their establishment ". 
That provision was not for "those which directly engaged in personal data processing activities ", as 
clarified by Article 43.3.  
10.26.   Concerning the d raft Decree on Regulations on Penalties for Administrative Violations in the 
Field of Cybersecurity , its objective  was to ensur e uniform and effective enforcement of the Law on 
Cybersecurity and implementing legislative documents. The process of its formulation was open and 
transparent, whereby all interested stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide their 
comments.  The d rafting committee had been carefully reviewing the comments.  
10.27.   The Chairperson  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
10.28.   It was so agreed . 
11  ITEM K: 5G-RELATED MEASURES OF AUSTRALIA – REQUESTED BY CHINA  
11.1.  The Chairperson  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of China.  
11.2.  The representative of China  recalled that his delegation had raised concerns several times at 
previous meetings regarding Australia's 5G -related  restrictive measures , but the related issues had 
yet to be effectively addressed . Those measures severely restricted Chinese services suppliers' usual 
business operations in Australia and were inconsistent with Australia's commitments and obligations 
under the GATS . China urged Australia to correct  those  discriminatory practices as soon as possible.  
11.3.  The representative of Australia  indicated that China had first raised that issue elsewhere in 
the WTO in 2018. Since that time, Australia had engaged construct ively and in good faith with China 
to explain the rationale for its position. Australia also noted that other Members had made similar 
decisions on equipment for national 5G networks in their national interest. Australia reiterated that 
its position on 5G networks was country -agnostic, transparent, risk -based, non -discriminatory and 
fully WTO consistent.  
11.4.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
11.5.  It was so agreed . 
12  ITEM L: MEASURES OF THE UNITED STATES RESTRICTING TRADE IN S ERVICES – 
REQUESTED BY CHINA  
12.1.  The Chairperson  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of China.  
12.2.  The representative of China  recalled that his delegation had raised concerns several times at 
previo us Council meeting s regarding US trade -restrictive measures. Further to those measures that 
China had already expressed concerns about, o n 9 August the United States had issued an Executive S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Order that prohibit ed US direct investments or technology investme nts in Chinese enterprises  in 
sectors  of semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, citing so-called " national 
security concerns ". The United States  was using national security as a pretext to restrict US 
enterprises' investments in Ch ina, which violate d the principles of market economy and fair 
competition.  
12.3.  Those measures had significant impacts on business decision -making, disrupt ed the normal 
market order, and destabili sed global supply chain s. Those discriminatory  measures severely 
affect ed Chinese enterprises ' ability to provide services to US consumers. The US measures violate d 
the MFN principle of  the GATS, and also GATS Article VI:1, which required  that relevant measures 
"are administered in a reasonable, objec tive, and impartia l manner" . China reiterated its  strong 
concern s and urge d the United States  to immediately correct its wrongful measures, and stop 
politici sing, instrumentali sing, and weaponi zing trade issues.  
12.4.  The representative of the United States  recalled that, as stated in previous meetings of the 
Council, the actions cited by China, the narrow measures that had been taken, had been designed 
to protect the national security of the United  States.  
12.5.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
12.6.  It was so agreed . 
13  ITEM M: MEASURES OF INDIA RESTRICTING TRADE IN SERVICES – REQUESTED BY 
CHINA  
13.1.  The Chairperson  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of China.  
13.2.  The represent ative of China  stated that, since June 2020, India had taken a series of 
restrictive measures, including banning many applications with Chinese background , in the name of 
national security. Those measures had seriously disrupted Chinese enterprises' normal  activities  in 
India, undermined their legitimate interests , and violated the basic principles of the WTO as well as 
India's GATS commitments. China reiterated its concerns and urged India to stop its discriminatory 
measures against Chinese enterpris es and to create an open, fair and non -discriminatory business 
environment for services suppliers from all Members.  
13.3.  The representative of India said that, as underscored at previous Council meetings, India was 
committed to upholding its obligations at the WTO. India valued, and was committed to protecting, 
the democratic rights of its citizens, including access to goods and services, while reserving its right 
to take measures to ensure the protection of privacy, data security and national security. India fi rmly 
believed that the measures raised under that agenda item were fully consistent with its GATS 
commitments.  
13.4.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
13.5.  It was so agreed . 
14  ITEM N: OTHER BUSINESS  
14.1.  The Chairperson  alerted delegations to the fact that the Secretariat had launched a new 
platform called "e -Delegates". That platform provided a convenient, user -friendly, and flexible "one -
stop-shop" to manage access to different WTO systems, including who could be desig nated as focal 
point or receive emails. Delegations had to reach out to their respective delegation coordinators to 
be given access to the platform.  
14.2.  She stressed the importance of all delegates registering on e -Delegates. That was especially 
because, start ing from 22 December, the informal list of services contact emails maintained by the 
Trade in Services and Investment Division would be discontinued, and email communications would 
only be sent to delegates registered on the e -Delegates platform.  S/C/M/15 6 
 
- 27 - 
 
  14.3.  The repre sentative of India drew the Council's attention to two major areas that had received 
considerable attention, as Members had done a fair amount of work at the Council and its subsidiary 
bodies in recent times. One was the response to the pandemic and the ot her the issue of remittances. 
India propose d bringing a paragraph  on each of those  into the small group negotiating the Outcome 
Document. India mention ed that for information and the records  of the Council . 
14.4.  The representative of Australia  thanked India for informing  the Council of India's intention for 
the MC13 Outcome Document. He asked whether the text on the response to the pandemic was 
intended to cover all trade or only services and whether the proposal would only be brought to the 
small group without being referred to the Council. The current practice of the small group drafting 
the Outcome Document, in which he had participated, was to defer the subject matter to the relevant 
bodies. For instance, the text on environment had b een ref erred to the Committee on Trade and 
Environment. He thus asked whether India's  proposal was that only the small group would finalise 
the Outcome Document, or whether it would  first go through the Council before being reported as 
an outcome to the small gro up negotiating the Outcome Document.  
14.5.  The representative of  India replied that her delegation currently had only one sector in mind, 
namely  health and health -related services. In response to  the second question, she noted  that she 
had had a discussion with the Chair person and the Secretariat and both avenues were available, 
either through the Council or through the small group negotiations. However, as the service clusters 
had already ended , India considered  it more appropriate to table the  proposed  text for  inclusion in 
the small group negotiations . For that reason, India was proposing  that and had informed the Council 
of its intention to do so.  
14.6.  The representative of the  United Kingdom  thanked India for informing  the Council. Given the 
lengthy discussion  on the pandemic response report  that Members had had at that Council meeting , 
she was  interested in how India's  paragraph would sit alongside that document , as that had  been 
the focus of Members'  discussions in the Council . She also wished to he ar more about the proposal  
on remittances . Members had  agreed on a seminar on remittances  at the Committee  for Trade in 
Financial Services  (CTFS) , but that had not  yet taken place  and would not take place  before MC13. 
She would thus be  interested in furthe r clarification from India on what that paragraph might  say, 
so that she could  provide  background information to  colleagues in the small group negotiations . 
14.7.  The representative of  India pointed out  that the report under discussion  at that meeting was 
the CT S report to the General Council . India was yet not entirely  clear at that stage how that would  
figure in the Outcome Document. Pending that clarity and seeing  how the structure eventually 
panned out, India would propose language on the response to the pandemic at least for the sectors 
mentioned earlier.  In response to the second question , remittances  had been discussed at the CTFS 
and were of great importance to developing Members.  India was thankful that th e thematic session 
on remittances would be held in  March. However,  since that was  an important area for developing 
Members, India wished to see it  reflected in the Outcome Document.  
14.8.  The Chairperson  suggested  that the Council take note of the statements mad e.  
14.9.  It was so agreed.  
14.10.   The meeting  was adjourned . 
__________  