 RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/151  
 
31 January  2023 
(23-0705) Page: 1/25 
Council for Trade in Services    
 
  
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8 DECEMBER 2022 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 8 December 2022, chaired by  Ambassador Long 
of Cambodia . The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/ 32. 
The agenda was a dopted . 
The Chairman 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. A dditionally, for the benefit of the interpreters, he 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 in the other two official languages.  
1  ITEM A: ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE 
IN SERVICES  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance  with WTO reporting procedures, the Council was to 
consider the Annual Reports of its subsidiary bodies. He drew Members' attention to the Reports that 
had been adopted by the respective bodies, namely the Annual Report of the Committee on Trade 
in Financi al Services (S/FIN/37); the Annual Report of the Committee on Specific Commitments 
(S/CSC/28); the Annual Report of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (S/WPDR/26); and the 
Annual Report of the Working Party on GATS Rules (S/WPGR/33).  
1.2.  He suggested tha t 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: ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES 
TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL  
2.1.  In accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council for Trade in Services was to  report 
each year to the General Council on its activities , as well as those in its subsidiary bodies. In that 
regard, t he Chairman drew Members' attention to the draft Annual Report of the Council for Trade 
in Services on its activities in 2022, contained in document S/C/W/387. The Report was factual and 
self-explanatory, covering the period from the 2021 Report up until the Council's previous meeting, 
in October . 
2.2.  The representative of Ukraine  commended the work accomplished by Members and the 
Secretariat in the Council and its subsidiary bodies throughout 2022. It was not "business as usual" 
that year, taking into account that , for the previous ten months , Russia ha d been causing a direct 
threat to the international security order and to the functioning of the rules -based multilateral trading 
system through its unprovoked brutal aggression against Ukraine.  
 
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/151  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  At several meetings of the Council  and its subsidiary bodies that year, Ukraine , with the 
unwavering support of its partners , had addressed Russi a's illegal and unjustifiable actions and their 
cross-cutting negative impact on trade in services and the whole economy, which had multip lied the 
world 's multi-crisis.  
2.4.  In that regard, Ukraine underline d the importance of the measures introduced by its partners 
in line with WTO rules and in order to protect their essential security interests in the context of 
Russia 's invasion of Ukraine.  
2.5.  Meanwhile , Russia continue d to demonstrate a flagrant disregard for international law and the 
rules-based multilateral trading system and continue d its acts of state terrorism against Ukraine and 
Ukrainians. In addition to the immense human toll, Russia 's aggression had led to the destruction of 
trade routes and logistics system s, the disruption of services supply and  the functioning of critical 
infrastructure. Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered damage or destruction of more than 
65'000 civilian i nfrastructure facilities, residential buildings and houses , including those of the 
representative's capital -based colleagues, roads and bridges, educational and medical institutions, 
and water and electricity networks.  
2.6.  The total amount of missiles fired by Russia to destroy Ukraine had exceeded 4 '700. Russia 's 
regular attacks on Ukraine 's energy grid had made  the situation in the energy sphere very critical. 
Following such massive terrorist attacks, which had taken  place on 15 and 23 November,  and 
5 December, nearly 10 million Ukrainians, the representative  and her capital -based colleagues  
included, had been  left without electricity and many of them without communication, heat, and 
water , amid freezing temperatures.  
2.7.  Regular power outages and blackout s caused by Russia 's attacks disrupt ed the  functioning of 
households, hospitals and schools, mobile and internet connection and undermine d economic activity 
and recovery. For example, the loss of public  ground transport in Kyiv had implied a cost of more 
than USD 27 million , as a result of  the prohibition to use it based on security reasons when air raid 
sirens were on. At present , due to Russia 's war of aggression, the cost of Ukraine 's reconstruction 
and recovery was preliminarily  estimated at around EUR 600 billion.  
2.8.  She concluded by  reiterating  Ukraine 's endless gratitude to its partners for their unwavering 
support . Her delegation called  on Members to continue making every effort in order to limit Russia 's 
ability to wage  that devastating war, undermine the multilateral trading system and effective 
implementation of the MC12 mandates on trade in services.  
2.9.  The representative of Australia  thanked Ukraine for its statement  at that meeting. Australia 
condemned in the strongest poss ible terms Russia's unilateral, illegal, and immoral invasion of 
Ukraine. That invasion was a gross violation of international law, including the United Nations 
Charter.  Australia strongly supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and calle d again 
on Russia to cease its attacks on Ukraine and withdraw its forces from Ukrainian territory.  
2.10.  Australia had imposed a range of sanctions to inflict costs on Russia and those responsible for 
the invasion , and those measures were wholly WTO consistent . Australia would continue its support 
for Ukraine in cooperation with its partners to promote peace and security in the region.  
2.11.  The representative of the United Kingdom  thanked Ukraine for its powerful statement and 
commend ed it for its continued commitme nt and participation in the work of the Council and the 
WTO more broadly in the face of such difficult circumstances.  
2.12.  As Ukraine had powerfully underlined,  Russia's invasion continue d to have severe 
consequences on Ukraine 's ability to participate in goods , services,  and procurement trade. Members  
had seen the direct consequences of Russia's  actions at WTO  – impeding the ability of Ukraine to 
fully participate in the work of the Organi sation.  
2.13.  The United Kingdom  agree d with Ukraine that it was not "business as usual ". As Members  
met in the Council , they could not sit by and ignore the egregious violations of international law 
committed by one Member against another.   S/C/M/151  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.14.  While  the Russian Federation  continue d to violate int ernational law, human rights and multiple 
commitments to peace and security, the United Kingdom would  work with its allies and partners 
across the multilateral system to condemn  Russia 's appalling actions and to isolate it on the 
international stage.  
2.15.  The representative of New Zealand  expressed his delegation's support for Ukraine 's 
statement. New Zealand joined  others in condemning, unequivocally, Russia's  unprovoked  and illegal 
invasion of Ukraine. Russia's  acts of aggression were a clear violation of Ukr aine's sovereignty and 
territorial integrity. New Zealand support ed collective action by the international community to 
denounce the egregious and unlawful actions taken by Russia.  
2.16.  The representative of Japan said that his delegation strongly condemn ed Russia's aggression 
against Ukraine and its missile attacks against civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine.  Japan 
was seriously concerned about Russia 's nuclear threat, which was absolutely unacceptable. He 
indicated that Russia should never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances.  
2.17.  Japan strongly urge d Russia once again to stop the aggression and immediately withdraw its 
forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recogni sed borders. Japan would  also 
continue to work firmly  on the two pillars of imposing strong sanctions against Russia and supporting 
Ukraine, in cooperation with the international community.  
2.18.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  echoed previous speakers on the situation in 
Ukraine. The Korean Government had strongly condemned Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine  as a 
violation of  the principle s of the UN Charter. The use of force that cause d innocent casualties  could  
not be justifie d under any circumstances. Also , Russia 's act was disrupting service s trade. Ukraine's 
sovereignty, territorial integrity , and political independence had to  be respected.  
2.19.  The representative of Norway  thanked Ukraine for its powerful statement. Norway joined  
others in condemning in the strongest possible terms the unprecedented military aggression of the 
Russian Federation against Ukraine. The representative expressed  Norway 's concern for the severe 
destruction and human suffering that that  illegal act of aggression was causing.  
2.20.  By its unprovoked, unjustified and premeditated military actions, and attempts to annex the 
territory of another Member, the Russian Federation had grossly violated  international  law, the core 
principles on which the international rule -based order was built, including the WTO, and the 
fundamental principles of the UN Charter that ha d prevailed since World War II . 
2.21.  All measures taken by Norway were fully consistent with its WTO obli gations.  She reiterated 
that Norway  stood  in solidarity, as long as it would take , with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.  
2.22.  The representative  of Canada  said that i t had been 287 days since the illegal, unprovoked 
and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine by the  Russian Federation. That constitute d a flagrant violation 
of international law, whose current and future humanitarian and economic consequences extend ed 
far beyond the borders of Ukraine.  
2.23.  Russia's abhorrent military actions were seriously affecting not on ly Ukraine and its people, 
but also its neighbours  and all populations around the world.  Closer to home , that war had severely 
affected the global economy and, by extension, the international trading system.  
2.24.  At the WTO, Canada would  not engage with Russia as if nothing had happened.  Moreover, 
Canada continue d to reject any suggestion that its measures against Russia were inconsistent with 
its WTO obligations. Canada was acting to protect its essential security interests, which were 
inextricably linked to a rules -based international environment.   
2.25.  Canada would  continue to work closely with its partners to promote peace and security for all 
States and their citizens.  Canada would  continue to hold the Russian leadership to account and 
strongly urge d them to abandon that path to war.  She reiterated that Canada's support for Ukraine 
and its people was unwavering.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.26.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Ukraine for its statement and commitment 
to WTO work , as we ll as its continued pa rticipation in meetings despite  the unimaginabl y difficult 
circumstances experienced.  
2.27.  Russia's invasion of Ukraine , which  had started more than nine months earlier,  had brought 
deaths, devastation,  and unspeakable suffering for millions of people , while blatantly undermining 
the rules -based international system and putting global security at risk.  
2.28.  Russia's continuous aggression against a sovereign State and attack s targeting  civilian s and  
infrastructure, cutting  millions of people from electricity , water and heating in those  cold months 
were just some of the war crimes being carried out by Russia and those responsible would  be held 
accountable . 
2.29.  Together with its international partners , the European Union would  continue applying 
sanctions on Russia and would  introduce new ones aim ed at affecting Russia's ability to finance and 
continue its illegal war . The European Union would continue providing its political, economic, 
humanitarian and military support for Ukraine for as long as it took, and as much  as needed, for 
them to win that war and rebuild their  democratic country.  
2.30.  The representative of the United States  joined others in continuing to stand with and support 
Ukraine. His delegation  condemn ed Russia's premedit ated and unprovoked attack on Ukraine and 
called upon Russia to immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine and refrain from any other 
further , unlawful threat or use of force against any UN member State. The United States  remained 
united  with their allies and partners in their commitment to ensure the Russian Government paid a 
severe economic and diplomatic price for its further invasion of Ukraine.  
2.31.  The representative of Switzerland  took note of the intervention of Ukraine and the effects of 
the ongoi ng Russian military aggression, especially on trade in services. Switzerland condemn ed 
Russia's military aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. Th at attack constitute d 
a flagrant violation of international law, in particular the prohib ition of the use of force and the 
principle of the territorial integrity of States.  
2.32.  Switzerland call ed on Russia to take de-escalading military measures, cease hostilities and 
immediately withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory. Switzerland did not re cogni se the 
integration of Ukrainian territories into the Russian Federation. Switzerland called  on all actors to 
respect international law, in particular international humanitarian law.  
2.33.  The representative of the Republic of Moldova  joined other like -minded Members and added  
words  of support to Ukraine and to Ukrainian people. Her delegation  reiterate d its serious concern s 
about  the economic and social impact of th e war initiated by Russia against Ukraine . Her country 
was also seriously affected  by that war. Currently,  Moldova was facing unprecedented challenges to 
restore  its national security,  and the  energy crisis was being amplified by the current spikes in 
inflation . Unfortunately , the situation was worsening on a day -by-day basis.  
2.34.  The Republic of Moldova  called on Russia to stop that war and withdraw its troops 
unconditionally and immediately from the territory of Ukraine . Moldova would  continue to stand  in 
solidarity  with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.  
2.35.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that it was unfortunate that some Members 
had chosen to detract attention from the mandated issues by repeating statements on irrelevant 
political matters. The Russian Federation  would like to reiterate its position that that was not the 
right place to repeatedly raise issues that were beyond the mandate of the Organisation an d the 
scope of the Council and th at agenda  item.  
2.36.  If Members  slid into political discussions,  they would  inevitably be forced to speak of more 
than 20 ongoing c onflicts worldwide , involving a number of Members and affecting the trade interests  
of all Members . The WTO , and the Council for Trade in Services in particular , were not designed to 
deal with political matters and should focus on issues dedicated exclusiv ely to international trade in 
services.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.37.  In his letter dated 21 September, the Chairman of the General Council  had called  on 
delegations  to respect  the rules 23 and 27 of the Rules of P rocedure prescribing th at delegates avoid 
repetition of statements on issues that had already been raised before. The Rules of Procedure for 
meetings of the General Council  applied  mutatis mutandis  to the meetings of the Council for Trade 
in Services. Certain Members continue d to ignore the Rules of Procedure and systematically 
undermine d the normal work of the regular bodies.  The Russian Federation u rged those  Members to 
stop promoting that reckless approach and focus on the mandated issues of the Council for Trade in  
Services.  
2.38.  If Members were in a position to engage in political discussions in that Council, Members 
should  focus on the recent unilateral economic restrictive measures that impede d the smooth flow 
of logistic and financial services , which were essential for ensuring undisrupted agri -food supplies 
worldwide. That issue was at least relevant to the mandate of the Council for Trade in Services.  
2.39.  Despite attempts to convince that restrictions were not imposed in a way that hurt other 
Members, the discriminator y legislation put international companies under the threat to be penali sed 
by the Governments to refuse to operate with Russian counterparts and shipments.  
2.40.  As a result , global value chains were disrupted,  and logistics operations were damaged , 
threatening  the sustainability of export deliveries worldwide. Due to the unavailability of traditional 
itineraries, many carriers were forced to take longer routes, which increased their lead times and 
fuel costs , leading to global price hikes and commodity  shortage s. Supplies of input services were 
suspended , resulting in a production slowdown, cancelled orders and a decrease in export shipments 
of essential products for importers.  
2.41.  To its regret, the Russian Federation  had to acknowledge that , for the most part, it was  
developing  countries , including net -food-importing developing countries , and the Least-Developed 
Countries that paid the highest price for such restrictive measures.  The Russian Federation believed  
that removing unilateral coerci ve measures and eliminating  discriminatory obstacles to trade would  
positively impact international markets and prices and  provide opportunities to face  the current 
economic and food crisis.  
2.42.  In conclusion, Russia was a responsible participant in internatio nal trade. Despite the illegal 
restrictions , Russia continue d to fulfil its contractual obligations to export essential products and met 
the demands of other Members.  
2.43.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements  made and adopt the 
draft 2022 Annual Report to the General Council contained in document S/C/W/387 . 
2.44.  It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C: NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE S III:3; V:7 AND VII:4 OF THE GATS  
3.1.  With regard to the notifications made pursuant to Article III:3 (Transparency ), the Chairman  
drew the Council 's attention to the communication s received from  Macao, China (S/C/N/1112); Hong 
Kong, China (S/C/N/1113 to S/C/N/1115); and Switzerland (S/C/N/1121 to S/C/N/1123).   
3.2.  He suggested that the Council take note of the  notification s.  
3.3.  It was so agreed .  
3.4.  With regard to the notifications made pursuant to Article V:7 (Economic Integration), the 
Chairman  drew the Council 's attention to the communication s received from : Iceland, Liechtenstein, 
Norway, Switzerland, United Ara b Emirates, Kingdom of Bahrain, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Oman, 
Qatar and the State of Kuwait (S/C/N/1111); Australia, New Zealand, Samoa, Solomon Islands, 
Tonga (S/C/N/1052/Add.1); Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People's 
Democratic Repu blic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam 
(S/C/N/1117); the United Kingdom, Liechtenstein and Norway (S/C/N/1072/Add.1); and The Un ited 
Kingdom and Iceland (S/C/N/1072/Add.2).  S/C/M/151  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.5.  The representative of New Zealand  indicated th at his delegation was delighted that Tuvalu and 
Vanuatu had ratified PACER Plus and would  become the 9th and 10th Parties to the Agreement , 
joining New Zealand, Australia, Cook Islands, Niue, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Tonga.  
3.6.  The agreement was about more than just trade. Development was a core part of the DNA of 
the agreement. Many Pacific countries were often excluded from international trade because of very 
small populations and geographical isolation. The AUD 25.5 million Development and Economic 
Cooperation Work Programme , jointly funded by New Zealand and Australia , would  support Pacific 
countries to  make the most of the opportunities under PACER Plus and grow their ability to trade 
sustainably with the world.  
3.7.  PACER Plus would  help those  countries build the capacity to produce goods and services which 
they could  sell competitively both in the Pacific and beyond , using trade as an engine of economic 
growth and sustainable development.  PACER Plus was open to all Forum Islands Countries and New 
Zealand looked forward to others joining in the future.  
3.8.  The intended benefits of PACER Plus were: a more predictable trading environment for 
businesses ; more consistent and transparent trade rules throughout the region ; more liberal rules 
of origin for trade in goods ; increased investment in the region, in part icular by New Zealand and 
Australian investors into Pacific Island countries ; greater certainty around tariffs for exporters ; and 
more opportunities for trade -related development assistance for Pacific Island countries . 
3.9.  The Chairman  suggested that the Coun cil take note of the notifications  and the statement  
made , and that the agreements notified be referred to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(CRTA) for consideration.  
3.10.  It was so agreed . 
3.11.  With regard to notifications made pursuant to Article VII:4 (Recognition), the Chairman  drew 
the Council's  attention to the communication  received from Hong Kong, China (S/C/N/11 16) and 
Switzerland (S/C/N/1118 to S/C/N/1120, and S/C/N/1124).   
3.12.  The representative of India said that, on  the issue of transparency obligations under the  GATS, 
her delegation had continued to draw attention to the low number of notifications by developed 
Members in general, and , in particular, the dismal record in notifications of some prominent  
developed Members, who also held top ranks in global commercial services.  
3.13.  The submission by India 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, 
highli ghted the need for meeting the transparency obligations as enshrined in the GATS.  
3.14.  Those  notifications were essential for Members to understand the full implications of the 
commitments made by the Members , including entry -related measures affecting existing mode 4 
commitments of Members. India continue d to urge develop ed Members to lead by example in 
submitting comprehensive, timely and accurate notifications.  
3.15.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the notification s and the statement 
made.  
3.16.  It was so agreed . 
4  ITEM D:  IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS FROM MC12 MANDATES – REPORT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that  under that agenda item at the previous  meeting, he had reported 
on the views he had heard from delegations in the course of his consultations on the MC12 
implementation matters related to the WTO's pandemic response and WTO reform. His remarks had 
been subsequently circulated in writing, in document JOB/SERV/CTS/6.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.2.  At the October meeting, delegations had provided additional inputs, and it had been agreed 
that views not already reflected in his original report would be captured in an Addendum . This had 
been circulated on 25 November , in document JOB/SERV/CTS/6/Add.1.  
4.3.  Since then, a further issue ha d been brought to his attention, namely the importance of 
ensuring that, to the maximum extent possible, meetings of the Council and its subsidiary bodie s 
were scheduled in a compact, back -to-back manner. It was felt that that would encourage capital 
participation and help reinvigorate the work of the Council  and its subsidiary bodies. He share d the 
sentiment expressed, and he had  already conveyed the requ est to the Secretariat. He had asked the 
Secretariat to try and make sure that, within existing constraints, meetings of the Council  and its 
subsidiary bodies were held consecutively. He had also asked that the Secretariat inform the 
Chairpersons of the su bsidiary bodies in that sense, to seek their flexibility in that regard.  
4.4.  Before opening the floor to hear any further views, he recapped  the items for Members' 
collective consideration that had been  suggested until then , specifically with regard to the WTO 's 
pandemic response and WTO reform. He indicated that he would not recall the suggestions made 
for delegations' individual action, as those c ould of course be taken forward at any time by interested 
Members.  
4.5.  Starting  with the pandemic response, the follow ing ideas had been mentioned:  the Secretariat 
could analyse the lessons learnt from the pandemic and provide an assessment of the status of 
measures taken during the COVID crisis;  Members could engage in informal experience -sharing 
sessions, possibly takin g inspiration from the process held by the Committee on Market Access; and  
the contribution of services trade and the GATS in facilitating trade in staple goods and addressing 
food security challenges, especially in LDCs and developing countries, could be addressed.  
4.6.  Turning to WTO reform, the  following  issues had been  brought up with regard to notifications:  
the format could be changed;  annual information -sharing events and briefings could be organised;  
delegations could discuss how to improve notification practices; and  Members could be required to 
notify their entire services regime, within a given timeframe , in a similar exercise to that undertaken 
by acceding countries.   
4.7.  Other  suggestions on WTO reform included: t he Council could make use of the information 
contained in Members' Trade Policy Reviews;  Members' applied services regimes could be mapped;  
a yearly work  plan could be set up for the CTS;  informal brainstorming sessions could be organised;  
research undertaken by the Secretariat could be p resented at the Council;  greater engagement from 
the private sector and other stakeholders could be foreseen;  Members could consider how to 
reinvigorate the work of the Council's dormant subsidiary bodies, including by potentially reassessing 
their mandate ; and  the working practices and the functioning of the Council  could be revisited, 
specifically with respect to the use of annotated agendas, the abolition of standing items, and the 
setting of ground rules for the duration of delegations' interventions.  
4.8.  He indicate d that he had been approached with an explicit request to consider the issuance of 
an annotated agenda for future Council  meetings. Regarding that request , if delegations consider ed 
it helpful, he could certainly proceed as requested starting fro m the following Council  meeting.  
4.9.  He concluded that those were the  ideas that Members h ad brought out and that could benefit 
from the Secretariat 's assistance if Members so wish ed. 
4.10.  The representative of India indicated that , under that  agenda item , her delegation wished to 
restrict its  comments to the response to the pandemic.  The COVID -19 pandemic had overwhelmed 
the capacity of healthcare systems. Social distancing measures had made  in-person consultations 
on medical issues challenging. That spurred the idea and the adoption of telemedicine services. In 
India, in November 2019 the Government had launched E -Sanjeevani, a national telemedicine 
platform  that provided an integrated telemedic ine solution for doctor -to-doctor consultations.  
4.11.  The pandemic outbreak  had witnessed two important developments. India  had notified the 
Telemedicine Practice Guidelines in March 2020, which provided comprehensive guidelines for tele -
healthcare delivery in India. Further, the E -Sanjeevani platform had evolved into a direct care 
module , i.e., the E -Sanjeevani outpatient department to facilitate doctor -to-doctor consultations.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 8 - 
 
  That web-based platform integrate d registration queue management, generation of e-prescriptions, 
short messaging service and email notifications.  
4.12.  At that moment,  E-Sanjeevani tele -consultations stood  at 6.7 million, while E-Sanjeevani 
provider -to-provider numbers were  at about 5.8 million and E -Sanjeevani OPD , the patient -to-doctor 
number s, at 0.9 million. Healthcare access across the countr y, especially  in rural and isolated 
communities, had been facilitated through a network of over 60,000 doctors and nurses connected 
over a web -based platform. That platform was designed for scale and lo w-cost uptake by health 
providers and patients.  
4.13.  Further, the Government  had launched the COVID -19 vaccine intelligence network , the 
COWIN network , the state-of-the-art digital solution for one of the world's largest COVID -19 
vaccination program mes. It was a scalable, inclusive, and open platform for universal vaccination. 
In fact, India offered technological progress  on the COWIN platform  for free to all countries in th e 
fight against COVID -19. India  had also launched the Arogya Setu App, aimed at COVID -19 contact 
tracing, self -assessment and informing citizens about best practices or relevant advisories pertaining 
to the containment of COVID -19.  
4.14.  However, as Members  were aware , cross -border trade in telemedicine face d a number of 
challenges , including regulatory bottlenecks, mutual recognition  and its coverage under  the 
insurance schemes, availability of digital infrastructure. It would be useful to delve into those  aspects 
for better preparedness for possible future pandemic deliberation s on the lessons learned , and 
sharing of best practices and experiences by the Membership  could  help build effective solutions and 
address regulatory barriers that prevent ed the  expansion  of cross -border supply of telemedicine 
services. International collaboration between Members was needed to facilitate the reliable and 
sustained cross -border supply of telemedicine services , as a credible tool to deal with future 
pandemics.  
4.15.  As part of its  response to pandemics and natural disaster s, the WTO , along with other 
international organi sations , could  also explore putting in place a pandemic response system wherein 
Members  would  create a pool of resources in terms of essential services to tackle th e pandemic or 
such natural disasters. Members might  also deliberate on the facilitation required for such essential 
services , including exploring mutual recognition agreements  for delivering such service s. 
4.16.  The representative of Malawi , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , thanked the Chairman 
for his report and indicated that they would make their statement concerning the implementation of 
paragraph 8 of the MC12 Outcome Document within agenda item F on the operationalisation of the 
LDC Services Waiver.  
4.17.  The representative of Canada  expressed her delegation's appreciation for the Chairman's  
transparency about his consultations . While Canada needed  more time to further consider the 
various proposals , she wished  to react to one specific po int that the Chair man made , as Canada  
certainly support ed the idea to have an annotated agenda for the Council . That was  a long -standing 
practice that had been implemented in other Committee s, and Canada  thought that that had been 
useful and helped with th e preparation of meetings . Canada also support ed maintaining that agenda 
item at the next meeting.  
4.18.  The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Chairman for the work that he had  undertaken  
and the  discussions with Member s. New Zealand valued his  suggestions and would  further consider 
those in more detail in the coming days  and weeks. As Canada had just said, New Zealand  also 
strongly support ed the proposal  of an annotated agenda ahead of  the Council meetings. It  would be 
conducive to encouraging meaningful participation.  
4.19.  Further to the discussions under that agenda item at the previous  Council meeting , New 
Zealand wished  to take that opportunity to outline some work that had been  done domestically on 
the impact that the COVID -19 pandemic had had on trade in services . In 2021, the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs and Trade had conducted a regular survey of New Zealand's  services export ers, 
whereas the previous  survey had been  conducted in 2017 .  
4.20.  The survey  results clearly identified the impact of COVID -19 on services exporters. Nearly 
three -quarters of the respondents  had reported that COVID -19 had impacted their own exporting S/C/M/151  
 
- 9 - 
 
  activity . Interestingly , around half of those impacted saw their export activity increase,  but half 
experienced a decline.   
4.21.  In 2021, 44% of the exporters saw their service s delivery being impacted by COVID -19. 23% 
of the respondents reported that it had been  the delivery of services itself which  was the most 
significant barrier  to continuing wi th exporting . That compared  to 4% of those who reported th e 
same issue in 2017.  
4.22.  Among other sectors hit by the COVID -19 pandemic, 88% of those delivering  education 
services had experienced changes  in the mode of delivery and challenges  in that regard . Amongst 
businesses impacted by COVID -19, 95% cited travel restrictions  as the main change , which had 
obviously provided the opportunity for engagement through digital communication services .  
4.23.  New Zealand would be happy to engage in more detailed discussions on those  trends with 
interested Members  and looked forward to hearing  from other Members in that forum or other fora 
on the ir perspectives about  how the  COVID -19 pandemic ha d affected their trade profiles  and tr ade 
in services more specifically.  
4.24.  The representative of the Philippines  thanked the Chairman for his report on that item. He 
wished to restrict his feedback to the WTO reform aspect  and highlight two ideas  that his delegation 
had proposed . 
4.25.  One was on outr each: the Philippines  encourage d the Council  to either formally  or informally  
engage with stakeholders in  the services space. T hat could include the International Chamber of 
Commerce or regional organisations . For example , in the Philippines ' case, the Asia -Pacific Services 
Coalition was quite active in terms of regional wor k. The Philippines encourage d greater engagement 
with its stakeholders to get a sense of what business was prioritizing in the services area.  
4.26.  Secondly, on transparency, the representative noted some of the suggestions made by 
delegation s, including his own , and noted  that the Secretariat had previously  done work with the 
OECD and the World Bank on the  I-TIP services database . It also tracked  changes in Members'  
policies thr ough the trade monitoring exercise . The Philippines believe d that  more engagement 
among Members with the Secretariat on that would be useful , perhaps through a voluntary exercise 
where Members  could assess the water  between their GATS commitments and actua l services 
regime. The Philippines  would be happy to explore that idea further  if there was interest . 
4.27.  The representative of Switzerland  noted that , in the Chairman's report, several delegations 
seem ed interested in the mandates given at MC12 and in working on the impact of the pandemic on 
services.  
4.28.  He thanked the Chairman for  considering measures that would help get more participation 
and engagement from all Members, in particular in Capitals. Switzerl and was interested in measures 
supporting monitoring and deliberation  in the Council , and more generally in measures facilitating 
the work of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. Such measures might  range  from the timing of 
Committee meetings, to annotat ed agendas,  to the way trade concern s were handled. Switzerland 
was a lso open to look ing at practices from other bodies.  
4.29.  Switzerland believed that there were clear lessons to be learned from the pandemic on 
services, for instance, regarding  the functioning  of all value chains. He indicated that his delegation 
would be pleased  to consider proposals. The Council could engage in monitoring and stocktaking 
work. One possible goal for Members could be to identify good practices that would be useful in the 
event such situations happen ed again.  
4.30.  The representative of China  thanked the Chairman for the comprehensive report and his 
efforts in collecting and summing up the views of various Members. China  attach ed great importance 
to the implementation of MC12 outcomes  in accordance with the MC12 mandate s. In particular , 
regarding the  response to the pandemic, China thanked India and New Zealand for the ir experience 
sharing.  
4.31.  His delegation  support ed the Chairman's  suggestion  to organise a workshop on trade in 
services  and the response to the pandemic . China believe d that that kind of discussion would  S/C/M/151  
 
- 10 - 
 
  contribute to the post -pandemic economic recovery  and promote global economic growth and 
employment. China looked  forward to contributing  to that process . 
4.32.  The representative of the United States  appreciated the experience -sharing exercise and 
welcomed India's and New Zealand 's contribution s at that meeting. He  encourage d others to share 
their experience s at future meeti ngs.  
4.33.  The United States noted  that further work in the Council  had to  be Member driven  and based 
on submissions by Members . If there was a  suggestion to undertake  further work, that should not 
be simply based on what was heard from Members , but written submissions were needed  for Capital -
based experts to be able to study the proposals  and comment on them. That would  also give 
Members a better sense of the specific issues that they would  address. He indicated that the 
suggestion of an annotated agenda  was a useful one and could help engagement at future Council 
meetings.  
4.34.  The representative of Thailand  appreciated the work by the Chairman on the implementation 
of MC12 mandates and l ooked forward to engaging with Members on the issues of the LDC services 
Waiver, the Work Programme o n e-commerce, the response to the pandemic and WTO reform , based 
on Members ' proposals.  
4.35.  Thailand believed that the Chairman's  proposal to organi se a workshop to explore the role of 
services and services trade in supporting economic activity during the pandemic and in the post -
pandemic recovery phase would be very useful. Members  could focus on mode 1 in relevant services 
sectors , such as  telemedicine , which  had been mentioned by  India. That was the mode of supply 
that had helped service suppliers to operate during the pandemic where there were lockdowns and 
travel restrictions and  had create d new opportunities for business es and SMEs ; it would continue to 
play a crucial role in the post-pandemic recovery.  
4.36.  Thailand was also of the view that with any workshop and experience  sharing  efforts , Members  
could consider coming up with best practices or recommendations as a result of the se ssion.  
4.37.  The Chairman  noted that he had  heard  that Members would agree on the use of an annotated 
agenda for the  forthcoming  Council  meetings . He therefore said that annotated agendas would be 
produced starting from the  following meeting in 2023 . 
4.38.  He also noted the experience sharing from India and New Zealand . That  kind of information 
would be useful for Members, and he had heard from Canada the suggestion to keep that item on 
the agenda for the Council. He thus proposed that the Council do so. 
4.39.  With regard to the informal engagement with stakeholders in the services  space , as suggested 
by the Philippines , and also with regard to China's and Thailand's support for organizing a workshop 
on services trade and the response to the pandemic, the Chairman  suggest ed that the delegations 
could  discuss  that matter  with him informally . He also extended  that invitation to  all other 
delegations so that Members  could  explore how to do that. For transparency purposes , he would  
then report on his  informal consultations to Members. He indicated  that he would  issue an invitation 
for consultations  on that matter.  
4.40.  The representative of Barbados  wished to raise one particular issue. The Philippines  had 
suggested the possible organization of a  voluntary exercise regarding the water between GATS 
commitments and the actual services regime s. Within the context of the discussions that Members  
had had in the past , both in the Council as well as in the CTS Special Session , her delegation  had a 
concern with that suggesti on. Barbados  did not  want to take that forward but would want to be 
engaged if there were consultations on that matter . 
4.41.  The Chairman  said that Members had heard his proposals , and if those were agreeable, the 
Council would  proceed accordingly.  
4.42.  It was so agreed .  S/C/M/151  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.43.  Before moving  on to the  next agenda item, the Chairman  recall ed that the MC12 mandate 
with regard to the WTO pandemic response stipulate d that the General Council would take a yearly 
stocktaking exercise of the work by the WTO bodies, based on the reports of relevant bodies.  
4.44.  He would  therefore be conveying to the Chairman of the General Council the broad lines of 
the Council's deliberations on that issue, for inclu sion in the report at the General Council . 
4.45.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and said that it  
would revert to that item at its next meeting.  
4.46.  It was so agreed . 
5  ITEM E: OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled  that the issues discussed under the previous agenda item, and additional 
inputs provided by delegations at the October meeting , had been reflected in the Addendum to the 
written version of his report.   
5.2.  He then briefly recalled the suggestion s for collective action by the Council that had been put 
forward  by delegations, as follows : an informal brainstorming session, focusing on specific steps and 
proposals, could be organised;  follow-up work to improve LDC services export data could  be 
undertaken, including with the assistance of the Secretariat;  the Secretariat could gather information 
on suppliers and consumers of LDC services in preference -granting Members' markets, and those 
actors could be invited to contribute to a future works hop; the Secretariat could give a presentation 
on the current status of notified preferences and collect information on their implementation; the 
Secretariat could prepare a summary report taking stock of the discussions held on the 
operationalisation of t he Waiver so far; and  preference -granting Members could hold information 
sessions on how preferences were granted and how LDCs could further make use of them.  
5.3.  He also indicated that he had heard that Members would like to see the LDC Group submitting 
concr ete and specific proposals, preferably in writing, on specific issues that were pertinent to the 
LDCs. On that suggestion, he encouraged  the LDC Group to do so and to submit any proposals, 
ideally before the convening of meetings, so that Members had sufficient time to reflect and respond.  
5.4.  The representative of Malawi , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , recalled that it was the 
LDC Group that  had submitted the text proposal  that had eventually been agreed in paragraph 8 of 
the MC12 Outcome Document. Ministers had instruct ed the General Council to report on progress 
with the implementation of the Waiver to MC13.  
5.5.  The LDC Group  had provided some ideas at the Council  meeting in October. There had been  
requests to circulate those ideas  in writing . The LDC Group would elaborate those further and 
circulate their suggestions . In the meantime, they thanked  the Secretariat for the minutes in 
document S/C/M/150 , which  faithfully include d the LDC Group 's interven tion. 
5.6.  Seven years had passed  since the Nairobi  Decision on the Waiver , and now , with the mandate 
from MC12 , there had been some calls to update the LDCs'  Collective Request , given what ha d 
happened in the world since. The LDC Group was looking into prepari ng a supplemental submission 
on some elements that challenged LDCs but also that could provide more opportunities for LDCs. 
New services might  have emerged that could be important to capture for LDCs.  However, when 
looking at the past seven years, LDCs had  ascertained  that some issues had not changed.  
5.7.  It was necessary  to consider that the Waiver itself would expire  in eight years ' time . Its original 
shelf life was only 15 years since the adoption of the decision in 2011. From 2011 to 2015 , there 
had been no notifications of preferences. Once the LDCs'  Collective Request had been  tabled, 
notifications of preferences  started being submitted . At Nairobi, the Waiver expiration date had been  
reset to start from 15 years once again.  
5.8.  The LDC Group considered  that the Waiver should be made permanent ; at the same time,  
however, the elements listed in paragraph 8 on data and exchanges of information on LDC suppliers 
and consumers in preference -granting Members, along with other concrete steps that could be taken  
to have  a greater impact from the  preferences , also had to be examined . S/C/M/151  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.9.  The representative of Bangladesh  aligned with the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of 
the LDC Group. Mi nisters  had reaffirmed the Nairobi Decision on the LDC Services Waiver in  
paragraph 8 of the MC12 Outcome Document. The LDCs had been requesting a fuller and more 
meaningful operationali sation of that Decision.  
5.10.  As the LDC Group had been emphasizing, the analytical work by the Secretariat on LDC 
services data was immensely helpf ul and his delegation request ed the Secretariat to continue that 
task.  
5.11.  In addition, his delegation also request ed updated information from preference -providing 
Members on their consumers receiving or contracting LDC services. Bangladesh underscore d the 
need to assess best practices in facilitating the use of the LDC preferences, as instructed by the 
Ministers at MC12.  
5.12.  Bangladesh hope d that preference -providing Members would  improve their schemes or 
program mes where necessary, to ensure mo re LDC participation in services trade and make the 
MC12  Decision truly effective for LDCs. His delegation would  continue to work constructively in that 
regard.  
5.13.  The representative of India noted that  Ministers had given clear instructions  at MC12  to review  
and promote the operationali sation of the Waiver.  She reiterated her delegation's  commitment to  
meaningful implementation of  the preferences granted under the LDC services Waiver by all 
preference -granting Members , with the ultimate objective of increasin g the LDCs ' share in the global 
export of services . India remained  ready to constructively engage on that issue as per  the guidance 
of Ministers at MC12  and looked forward to  a meaningful engagement with all Members on  that 
important issue.  
5.14.  The representative of the United States  welcome d the continued  engagement on the 
important issue  of the LDC services Waiver . The improvement of LDCs ' services export data  would 
be extremely useful a s the discussion continue d. The United States w ould also welcome  an 
information and brainstorming session on how to take the issue forward , as well as any future 
proposal from the LDC  Group  to review and engage constructively in the future.  
5.15.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chairman for summari sing Members' 
ideas for the possible work in the Council  on the operationalisation of the LDC services Waiver. The 
European Union attache d great importance to assisting LDCs to strengthen their economies , 
including services trade . The LDC services Waiver remain ed a very important instrument in that 
respect , in addition to development and capacity -building programmes . The European Union 
therefore strongly encourage d Members who had not  notified preferences to consider doing so.  
5.16.  The Europ ean Union also reiterate d the importan ce of  comprehensive gover nance  and 
international cooperation to advance  LDC services experts , including improving domestic conditions 
and regulatory framework s in that respect .  
5.17.  The European Union was open to  engaging on the issue s related to the implementation of the 
LDC services Waiver, and to  exchanging information o n how data collection could be improved . It 
was looking forward to receiving proposals from Members in that regard . For any future work, 
Members  should  take into account the previous discussions and outcome s of the  Council's  dedicated 
seminar  that had been  held in the past  on that issue . 
5.18.  The Chairman thanked all delegations for their interventions on  that agenda item.  As stated 
earlier, he urged  the LDC Group to prepare concrete proposal s, in writing,  and to submit  them for 
Members' consideration  in advance of the next Council meeting , so that Members had sufficient time 
to reflect and provide their response s. 
5.19.  One sugg estion  that seemed to have  reached considerable support was the follow -up work on 
the improvement of LDC 's services export data. It was proposed that the Secretariat provide 
assistance  with that. He thus suggested that the Secretariat prepare  a Note on how that work could 
be undertaken and that the Note be circulated to Members , for discuss ion at the following Council  
meeting.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.20.  Regarding  the brainstorming session suggested by one delegation  at the previous meeting , 
he indicated that two possible  approaches  could be followed . Firstly, he could invite any interested 
delegation to consult with him on how such a  brainstorming session  could be  organised , as well as  
on the substance and the guiding questions to lead  the discussion s in the brainstorming  session.  
5.21.  Alternatively, to save time, he could ask the Secretariat to prepare  a similar Note to the one 
on LDCs'  services export data, using the information and suggestion raised at the previous meeting . 
That Note would  provide  Members with the process and the substantive issues that they could  
discuss in the brainstorming session , as well as guiding questions for delegations to consider.  He 
proposed, in the interest of time, to task the Secretariat with the prepar ation of  such a Note , which 
would  be shared with Members for time -saving  purposes and for their  further input and 
consid erations.  
5.22.  The representative of the United States  sought clarification on the Secretariat Note that the 
Chairman  had proposed. He asked whether the Note aimed at  analysing  the existing preferences, or 
whether it contained a  set of questions. He indicated that it might  be best to have the information -
sharing session first to figure out if any paper by the Secretariat might be useful. The United States 
would rather take the first step of having an informal information or brainstorming  session before 
any Secr etariat paper.  
5.23.  The representative of Bangladesh  expressed his delegation's support for  either of the Chair's 
suggested approaches. He indicated that the Chair man could still open his doors for the LDC 
delegations to provide their suggestions, and the Secretariat could then circulate an outline to all 
Members for their further input.  
5.24.  The representative of Malawi , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , thanked the Chairman 
for his suggestions. The LDC Group was of the view that both approaches were feasible and could 
lead to the desired conclusion. However, the LDC Group would first like to consult with the Chairman 
before the Secretariat engaged in the preparation of such a paper.  
5.25.  The Chairman provided further clarification on his proposals . Firstly, with regard  to LDCs' 
services export data, the question was how to improve the data, so he suggested that  the Secretariat 
come  up with a Secretariat Note on improving  services export data. To that end , the Secretariat 
would  work with  the Economic Research and Statistics Division  (ERSD ) to present a possible  
methodology to improve services export data . That would be the substance of the paper.  
5.26.  Secondly, for the informal brainstorming session, the idea was to focus on specific steps and 
proposals for the operationalisation of the LDC Services Waiver. Obviously, Members could have an 
open-ended informal session , meaning  that all ideas and proposals could be he ard, but that might  
be too broad. Members might  come up with too many ideas that they could  not compile together 
and provide a basis to develop concrete action s. 
5.27.  Therefore, guiding questions would help  Members ' reflections . Providing answers to guiding 
questions would assist Members to form concrete actions that could be undertaken after the informal 
brainstorming session. Given the Member -driven nature of the WTO's work , that would not be 
something that would be  develop ed and impos ed on Members , but someth ing that could be 
facilitative.  The Secretariat  could  assist in developing a zero draft of that Note to guide the discussion 
and present it to Members for their input s. 
5.28.  He noted that those were his ideas, but that he would obviously listen to  Members ' 
suggestions  and reactions . However, a s mentioned  by Malawi, Members  could also hold informal 
consultations . He planned to hold informal consultations after the  winter break on  a number of issues 
mentioned under the previous agenda item . The informal brainstorming session could also be added 
to the  consultation process. He hoped that he had provided enough clarity and that Members  had a 
clearer picture of what he had in mind , but he was in listening mode  and the decision was up to 
Members . 
5.29.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Chairman for his clarifications and noted 
that the suggestions were now very clear. On the first suggestion , concerning a Note on LDCs'  
services export data and how to further improve it, he said that there were no objection s and that 
his delegation  clearly support ed that effort.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.30.  On the second suggestion , his delegation  was less comfortable with a  Secretariat Note for the 
brainstorming s ession . Members had heard that the LDCs were currently  preparing a paper. The 
United States , therefore , suggest ed that that paper  be reviewed  and discuss ed, and at that point 
Members could see if additional support  by the Secretariat was needed . 
5.31.  The Chairm an suggested  that, in light of the views shared by Members , the Council  task the 
Secretariat to draft a Note on the methodology for the  improvement of  LDCs' services export data.  
5.32.  Secondly, regarding  the brainstorming session, since he would  hold informal consultations on 
the previous agenda item, he would  also add that issue  to his consultation process , and Members 
could come and share their views. The results of the consultations would be shared with all Members 
for transparency purposes. Member s could  then take up the discussions on the process  at the next 
Council  meeting.  He then  suggested that the Council take note of the statement s made and said 
that it would revert to that item at its next meeting.  
5.33.  It was so agreed . 
6  ITEM F: WORK PROGRAMME ON  ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
6.1.  The Chairman  provided  an account of the views Members  had expressed on the e-commerce 
Work Programme  in the course of his consultations. The Addendum to his written report captured 
the additional inputs that Members had provided on that issue at the October meeting.  
6.2.  He briefly recalled the suggestions for Members' collective action that had been shared , as 
follows : the Council could develop a work  plan with indicative timelines, concrete and pragmatic 
proposals and problem -solving initiatives;  the Secretariat could compile previous exchanges and 
information on the scope of application of the Moratorium;  a document compiling the information 
and experiences shared by Members in the Council  could be produced; and  broade r stakeholder 
engagement, including from relevant International Organisations, businesses, and consumers, could 
be foreseen.  
6.3.  The representative of India noted  that her delegation had been a votary of the rejuvenation of 
the Work Programme on e-commerce as per the mandate in document WT/L/274 . India welcome d 
that the General Council  would meet in dedicated session to discuss issues related to the Work 
Program me on e-commerce after a gap of sev eral years. The renewed focus on the development 
dimension of e-commerce was in line with the 1998 mandate . 
6.4.  India also place d equal emphasis on the discussions of the subsidiary bodies and was working 
on various ideas to reinvigorate the Work Programme.  
6.5.  India had proposed some specific ideas on the rejuvenation of the Work Programme  at the 
General Council meeting held in October 2022, including deliberating and sharing best practices on 
issues like consumer awareness, consumer rights, public digital infras tructure that used national 
digital utilities to bridge the digital divide and drive e -commerce adoption,  and digital trade 
facilitation , including the use of electronic signatures and digital payments.  
6.6.  It had  been widely acknowledged that e -commerce ha d brought many benefits to consumers 
in the form of a wider basket of goods and services at competitive prices, ease of transaction from 
the comfort of one's home and more secure payment actions. At the same time, the higher 
complexity of the online environment and its related risks present ed new and bigger challenges to 
consumers. It would be useful to deliberate on the criticality of consum er protection in cross -border 
e-commerce and possible measures to address specific challenges for the same.  
6.7.  India remain ed ready to constructively engage under the mandate of the Work Programme on 
e-commerce and as per the guidance of Ministers at MC12. India urged all Members for the ir support.  
6.8.  The representative of Malawi , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , indicated that , at the 
previous  Council  meeting , the Group had  recalled its submission  in document WT/GC/W/787. LDCs 
had noted some key elements in their submission that were relevant to the work under the Council , 
such as the gap in online payment facilities, which was a prerequisite to conduct ing electronic 
commerce across borders. Efforts to bridge the digital divide could address the integration of LDCs S/C/M/151  
 
- 15 - 
 
  within the international financial system to facilitate cross -border payments to and from LDCs.  In 
addition, LDCs had mentioned  that exploring means of improving transfer of technology that help ed 
bridge that divide and could empower LDC entrepreneurs to participate effectively in the e -commerce 
ecosystem would add value to the work .  
6.9.  The LDC Group  invited its trade partners to consider supporting access to LDC services 
suppliers in emerging sectors of interest , such as cal l centres  and back -office operations.  At the 
same time, i t would be important to cover all modes of supply to encourage the development of 
their enterprises. That was covered in the LDCs'  Collective Request as well, but the development 
dimension of the e-commerce Work Programme should go beyond what had been  provided in  the 
Waiver notifications.  
6.10.  The Council  should interact with other institutions , including UNCTAD on the results of their 
e-trade readiness programmes, and have them present information that might be helpful in the 
Council's  discussions and that  could  support LDCs' services supply side.  
6.11.  The representative of Singapore  welcome d the exploratory discussions on relevant  issues 
under the Council  that might complement t he dedicated discussion s in the General Council . At that 
juncture, he wished to publici se the Singapore -WTO Third Country  Training Programme that 
Singapore  was organis ing in March  2023. The event was open to all Members, particularly developing 
and LDC Mem bers. In-person training would be provided in Singapore , covering themes such  as 
public digital infrastructure , e-payments, and online consumer protection.  There was a  very diverse 
range of issues that might be of interest to developing countries , particularly about how to build up 
a domestic digital industry, etc etera. Singapore hoped  that Members would  be able to sign up  and 
that the training would be useful as Singap ore's contribution to that issue.  
6.12.  The representative of the United States  expressed his delegation's support for the  
reinvigoration of the Work Programme on e -commerce , including its development dimension .  
6.13.  The United States had been an active participant  in the Work Programme for a number of 
years and had tabled  submissions and engaged in discussions in the Council. His delegation was also 
actively engaged in the cross -cutting discussions in  the General Council and encourage d the various 
subsidiary bodies  to be complementary to that process . If there were services -related aspects to the 
Work Programme, Members should put forward proposals in the CTS so that they could be discussed 
and support  the cross -cutting exercise at the General Council . 
6.14.  The United States was certainly  interested in exploring some of the ideas that India had 
expressed at that meeting  to the extent that they were services related . His delegation looked 
forward  to continu ing those discussions at future meetings . 
6.15.  The representative of the European Union  echoed  the statement  of the United States . The 
European Union  welcomed  the strong  interest of  Members to engage  in the implementation  of the 
MC12 decision on  the e-commerce Work Programme and the M oratorium, and particularly to 
intensify the engagement on development -related issues . 
6.16.  The European Union supported the  idea of engaging in cross-cutting e -commerce issues at 
the horizontal level and in dedicated e -comme rce Work Programme sessions  like the one organised 
a couple of  weeks earlier . The European Union believed  that it would be useful to  first see how the 
work evolved  in the General Council and hoped that delegations would soon get into  concrete 
discussions on specific topics of interest to Members. There were many topics of interest to Members , 
as the  ongoing consultations by the facilitator  had revealed . 
6.17.  As Members g ot into specific discussions in that setting, the European Union  of course 
remain ed open to consider complementary  work in the CTS and other Councils  on the basis of 
Members' submission s and the  issues of their interest . The European Union  wished  to see that work 
adding or complementing  the cross -cutting discussions.  
6.18.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  was of the view that sharing experience s and best 
practices was the first step in going forward . E-commerce had the potential to provide a lot of new 
opportunities for underserved groups . It could create diversification of economic activit y, entailing  S/C/M/151  
 
- 16 - 
 
  higher added value. Korea b elieve d that  all Members were interested in keeping track of that new 
source of economic growth . 
6.19.  The WTO was a valuable platform for Member s to understand each oth er's situation, explore  
ways to bridge the digital divide, and ultimately expand international e -commerce . Korea reiterate d 
the importance of capacity -building to narrow the digital divide  among countries, including increasing 
the participation of MSMEs an d wom en entrepreneurs in global trade.  
6.20.  Korea remain ed committed to  the reinvigoration of  the Work Programme on e-commerce and 
to tak ing part in discussions on cross -cutting issue s, including the Moratorium on the imposition of  
custom s duties on electronic transmission . In that regard, the Council could  complement the General 
Council  discussions  without overlapping  with those . 
6.21.  The representative of China  thank ed Members for their statements and the information shared 
under that item. His delegation supported the continuation of in -depth discussions on e -commerce 
under the  WTO framework, as mandated at MC12.  
6.22.  China believe d that the Council was  one of the most active subsidiary bodies mandated by 
the Work Programme to conduct discussion s on e -commerce , and Members had contributed a lot of 
information and experiences at previous meetings . China proposed that the  Secretariat prepare  a 
compilation of the information and experiences shared , which would contribute  to the Council's  
further dis cussions and inform the  dedicated  discussions organised by the General Council.  
6.23.  China hoped to  continue the in-depth and specific discussions on  the trade-in-services aspect s 
of e-commerce. There was a lot that the Council could do under that standing agenda item in 2023 
so as not to overload the dedicated discussion s under  the General Council.  
6.24.  The representative of the Philippines  echoed the statement by Korea,  which emphasised  the 
importance of experience  sharing and dissemination of good practices . In particular , with respect to 
the work of the Council , the Philippines  would value  an approach that fo cused on the role of financial 
services and logistics services as well as  its relationship with the e -commerce Work Programme.  
6.25.  The representative of India asked for  a clarification  on the agenda  item that Members were 
discussing . She wished to know t he contours  of the discussions under the standing agenda item  on 
the exchange of information and experiences based on submissions by Members under the Work 
Programme on e -commerce , and whether it afford ed a discussion on other aspects of e -commerce , 
including cross -cutting  issues . 
6.26.  The Chairman, in response to India's questi on, recalled that  in the MC12 Outcome Document, 
the Council  had been instructed  to explore the reinvigoration of the Work Programme, which was 
the reason Members  were discussing how to do so  at that meeting . A sub-item on experience and 
information sharing had been a standing item on the Council 's agenda  for many years and was 
therefore still on the agenda for that meeting . Discussion s under that agenda item had focused on 
the MC12 implementation matters regarding the Work  Programme on e -commerce , but Members 
were welcome  to share their experience s and best practices  on e-commerce more generally  so that 
the Council could  benefit from that information.  
6.27.  He further recalled  the idea o f a compilation o f the information and exper iences exchanged  
by Members , which  had also been mentioned at the previous Council meeting . He noted that China 
had proposed  that the Secretariat prepare  such a compilation to provide Members with more 
information  and background . If Members f elt that that would be useful, the Secretariat could  
obviously do so.  
6.28.  He noted that a lot of information and experiences  had been shared in the Council  under the 
Work Programme  over many years . In early 2021, a Chairman's report , issued under his own 
responsibilit y, had captured the information and experiences shared up to that point . Therefore, he  
wished to ask China what timeline the Secretariat should cover in the compilation  it was proposing . 
6.29.  The representative of China  suggested that the new compilation be based on new information 
and experiences shared  since the previous summary of information  in 2021 . S/C/M/151  
 
- 17 - 
 
  6.30.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council task the Secretariat to compile the information 
regarding the experience s shared by Members under the Work Programme in the Council  and take 
note of the statements made  and said that the Council would revert to that item at its next meeting.  
6.31.  It was so agreed . 
7  ITEM  G: FIFTH REVIEW OF MFN EXEMPTIONS  
7.1.  The Chairman  recalled that , at its meeting held in March, the Council  had addressed the 
question of when to hold the next review of MFN exemptions, which had been left open from the 
previous review. Members had decided to start the fifth review of MFN exemptions at the last Council 
meeting of 2022 , which was  the reas on why that item had been placed on the Council's  agenda at 
that meeting . 
7.2.  The GATS Annex on Article II (MFN) Exemptions instruct ed the Council to review all exemptions 
granted for a period of more than five years and to examine whether the conditions that had created 
the need for the exemptions still prevail ed. 
7.3.  Before the Council could  engage in the substance of its work, however, Members needed to 
decide how they were  going to proceed with the review. Therefore, for that meeting, the issue before 
Members was of an organisational nature, namely , how the Council should conduct its fifth review . 
7.4.  For delegations' background, h e recall ed how past reviews had been  organised . All four reviews 
held until then  had been  conducted in a similar manner, namely , with the  substantive part of the 
review run in dedicated meetings of the Council. As a basis for Members' discussions, the Secretariat 
had been  tasked with preparing three notes: one compiling all exemptions by sector, another listing 
them by Member and a third on e providing a statistical account of all exemptions.  
7.5.  Discussions at dedicated meetings had been  organised on a sectoral basis, through a question -
and-answer process. Delegations wishing to ask questions had been  required to submit them in 
writing, well in advance of the dedicated meeting.  Their questions had been answered by the 
Members concerned , either in writing before the meeting, or orally at the meeting itself. At the end 
of the process , Members had determined "the date of any further review", as pres cribed by the 
Annex.  
7.6.  The Chairman indicated that he would like to seek Members'  views on whether the fifth review 
should follow a similar process, or whether delegations had alternative ideas and suggestions to put 
forward.  
7.7.  The representative of Australia  thanked the Chair man for his explanation of the process 
arrangements used in previous  reviews.  As one of the proponents of that review in 2017, Australia 
restate d the value it saw  in the review, particularly in the wake of MC12 and Members'  commitment 
to progress WTO reform and improve the function ing of the services Committees, including 
promoting further transparency of Members ' applied services regimes.  
7.8.  Australia had  reviewed the 2017 procedural note prepared by the Secretariat in preparation for 
that m eeting's  discussion. She indicated that  the Q&A approach was a good model to use but 
suggest ed that  by default Members  should  provide written responses to questions and that the 
Secretariat cluster similar questions put to the same Member on the same exemp tion, to make the 
process more streamlined and easier for responding Members to prepare their responses.  Her 
delegation was  open to other ideas on the process if other Members had better ideas.  
7.9.  In terms of timing, Australia  noted that some Members had more exemptions than others and 
the workload could vary for different Members. In that context, it might be worth giving Members  
more time to prepare questions and responses.  She indicated that the timing for the submission of 
questio ns did not necessarily need to align with a Council  meeting but that the submission of 
responses probably should help Members take stock of the process and facilitate any follow -up 
required.  
7.10.  To provide a more concrete proposal on timing, her delegation sug gested submit ting 
questions by the end of March 2023 and Members aiming to provide  responses in May or June , to S/C/M/151  
 
- 18 - 
 
  align with the second Council  meeting of 2023 . However, her delegation could be reasonably flexible 
on timing if Members consider ed that a different time line was required.  
7.11.  Subject to other Members ' views, and as a next step, her delegation suggest ed that the 
Secretariat prepare a similar procedural note as it did in 2017 to outline the process arrangements 
for that review.  
7.12.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  indicated that his delegation was broadly in line with 
the suggestions of Australia  and considered  that the procedures adopted for the previous  review 
could be similarly adopted. He also expressed support for the suggestion that the Sec retariat prepare 
a procedur al note, and for the Q&A approach adopted  in previous reviews.  
7.13.  Hong Kong, China  considered it  useful to convene a dedicated Council  session to go through 
the exemptions on a sectoral basis and  to follow  up with answers, similar ly to previous review s. His 
delegation was flexible  on the timeline . Regarding the preparation of questions and answers, the 
Council  could hold a dedicated Session possibly in June or , if Members were ready , in March, but his 
delegation was not insisting on that . 
7.14.  He suggest ed giving at least a month 's time, taking into account the holiday season in 
December and early January , for Members to prepare the questions . Likewise , sufficient time should 
be given to Members receivin g questions  to prepare the replies , preferably in writing , before the 
dedicated Session.  
7.15.  Hong Kong, China r eiterate d that the MFN principle was a cornerstone of the multilateral 
trading system . Paragraph 3  of the GATS Annex on Article II Exemptions  mandat ed the review of 
any exemption  granted  for more than five years. Hong Kong, China  believe d that previous reviews 
had been  conducted but had not led to major changes in Members' positions , but Hong Kong, China  
believed  that there was value in conduct ing the review  as mandated  by the GATS.  
7.16.  Finally , Hong Kong, China  suggest ed that the Secretariat could consider taking  care of the 
coordination in collecting and consolidating Members ' questions and replies to avoid the duplication 
of efforts and to enhance t he efficiency of the whole process.  
7.17.  The representative of the United States  said that his delegation was flexible on the approach  
but wished  the process to be as efficient  as possible, given  Members' time and resource constraints . 
His sense was, as Hong Ko ng, China had  already noted , that answers were not going to be 
necessarily much different in that review . The United States would be open to a very streamlined 
approach where  Members asked new questions that they had not  raised in previous reviews, rather 
than simply repeating previous  questions. Similarly , if Members had new information  or updates 
regarding  their MFN exemptions, they should provide them and update the Council . That would allow 
for a very streamline d and efficient use of resources.  
7.18.  The representative of Canada  noted that her delegation believed  that a periodic review of the 
MFN exemption s was important, and therefore  supported  the proposal to use past practice and 
procedures to conduct the fifth  review. Canada supported  Australia's suggestion to provide 
responses in writing to the extent possible  and for the Secretariat  to prepare a procedural note. 
Canada believed that it was important to be pragmatic and establish a timeframe that allowed  
substantive enga gement by Members. Overall, Canada was flexible and was looking forward to 
engaging constructively in that review.  
7.19.  The representative of China  reiterated his delegation's  support  for the fifth review of MFN 
exemptions in accordance with Article II of the GATS and for following previous ly established 
practices and procedures. China supported the suggestions  from Australia and Hong Kong, China 
regarding the way to move  forward . It also support ed the suggestion  of the United States that the 
process be kept streamlined and as simple as possible, as not to repeat what had already been done 
five years earlier , but to provide really new information on a voluntary basis.  
7.20.  The representative  of Japan  wished to emphasi se his delegation's position that the MFN 
obligation was  a fundamental principle of the WTO system ; Japan attached great  importance to the 
review of the MFN exemption s. His delegation supported Australi a's suggestion of collecting answers S/C/M/151  
 
- 19 - 
 
  in writing and also support ed Hong Kong, China 's suggestion on the necessity to collect the questions 
with the support of the Secretariat.  
7.21.  As for the timeline, Japan  was flexible and believed that  the review should take place in early 
2023. Collecting questions by March and holding  the dedicated  session in June  was one idea to 
pursue . 
7.22.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  echoed the points made by previous delegations . 
Korea continued to support the  periodic review of MFN exempt ions. The MFN principle was the 
cornerstone of the multilateral trading system. MFN exemption s should be exceptional and 
transitional,  and holding a regular review would  help Members to understand each other 's position s 
and to take stock of their own situation. 
7.23.  Therefore , Korea support ed the periodic and regular review of MFN exemptions . Korea 
suggest ed to commence the fifth review in the first half of 2023 , considering the Council's past 
practice of conducting a review every five or six years. The review would  provide an opportunity to 
improve the transparency  and facilitation of global service s trade.  
7.24.  The representative of the European Union  indicated that her delegation  considered  the 
periodic MFN review exercise important and useful . The European Union was flexible on the 
procedur al aspects  and would  carry out the review in line with the scope  defined in paragraph 4  of 
the GATS Annex  on Article II Exemptio ns, which  was to examine  whether the condition s which had 
create d the need for the exemptions still prevailed  and to determine  a date for any further review.  
7.25.  The European Union was  open and flexible in terms of the calendar  and would  be open to 
working within  the timeline suggested by Australia and Hong Kong, China . Her delegation  also 
supported the procedural note  by the Secretariat and exchanging  questions and replies in writing 
among Members on a voluntar y basis, in line with previous practice  in tha t exercise . 
7.26.  A representative of the Secretariat  noted that there had been a lot of references to past 
practice , and, in the past , the Secretariat had update d the compilation of existing  MFN exemptions . 
She asked whether  that was something that Members would wish the Secretariat  to prepare  also for 
that review . 
7.27.  In response to the Secretariat's question , the representative of Hong Kong, China  said that it 
would be useful if the Secretariat could recirculate the compilations again.  
7.28.  The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their input  and comments on that agenda item. It 
seem ed that Members had  reached convergence regarding the review and that the process should 
follow past practice . Members were also in agreement that the Secretariat should  issue a procedura l 
note for the review . There was also  convergence that the questions should be answered in writing , 
and a  streamlined approach should be undertaken in the sense  that Members should avoid repeating  
previous questions and focus on new questions .  
7.29.  In terms of timeline, as initially suggested  by Australia , Members seemed to agree that 
questions should be submitted by end March 2023 and responses provided in May or June, which 
was when  the Council  would organi se its dedicated session. The Secretariat would help to collect  the 
questions  and circulate updated compilations of MFN exemptions . If that was  agreeable to all 
Members, the Council could proceed accordingly.  
7.30.  He also suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
7.31.  It was so agreed . 
8  ITEM H: UPDATE OF THE SECRETARIAT BACKGROUND NOTE ON MODE 4 – REQUESTED 
BY INDIA  
8.1.  The Chairman  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of India.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 20 - 
 
  8.2.  As had been emphasised by her delegation on several previous occasions, the representative 
of India reiterated its request for an update of the Secretariat Background Notes on all four modes 
of supply and also supported Secretariat work on inter -modal link ages.  
8.3.  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 mod es of supply of export interest to them". 
Therefore, updating the Secretariat Background Note on mode 4, a mode which was relevant for 
developing and LDC Members' services export interests, gain ed further justification in light of the 
guidance provided by Ministers at MC12.  
8.4.  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.  
8.5.  She reiterated that, while India welcomed the proposal by the United St ates on the issue of 
inter-modal linkages, that should not substitute  her delegation's request to update the separate 
modal Background Notes. India was of the view that having an inter -model linkage Note made no 
sense without first updating the modal Notes . India remained engaged on the issue.  
8.6.  The representative of the United States  appreciate d India's willingness to meet and discuss its 
suggestion intersessionally;  that it had been very helpful to exchange views and understand each 
other's  position.  The Un ited States had not  changed its view that work should proceed  with a Note 
on inter -modal linkages, as that would be a very interesting paper . Within that paper,  each mode of 
supply would be elaborated upon, and Members  would be free to explain the importan ce of the 
various modes  when discussing the Note  at future Council meetings . However, the United States did 
not believe that a stand -alone Note on mode 4 or update d papers on the various modes individually 
were valuable . 
8.7.  The representative of Malawi , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , indicated that the  LDCs 
continue d to support the request from India to update the Secretariat Background Note on mode 4. 
The LDC Group urge d Members to reach a solution on the request exped itiously. As Members  looked 
ahead on the work of the Council , the update of the Background Note was important for taking into 
account also trends during and after COVID .  
8.8.  The LDC Group also welcome d the proposal to cover inter -modal linkages,  but that idea should 
complement, not replace, updating the Secretariat Notes on  the different  modes of supply. The LDC 
Group was open to hearing if a compromise could be reached that would result in achieving the 
expectation of fully  updated information on mode 4.  
8.9.  The representative of Bangladesh  thanked India for its initiative . His delegation  fully support ed 
the proposal for updated Notes by the Secretariat , to better understand the current situation and 
commitments by Members. It was  just a request for a factual report and there should not be any 
problem to agree ing to that request.  
8.10.  In paragraph 10 of the MC12 Outcome  Document , Ministers  had acknowledge d "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 ". 
Mode 4 had a special importance for LDCs.  
8.11.   Bangladesh also support ed the suggestion from the United States on the preparation of a 
separate Secretariat Note on the interlinkages among the modes of supply. Bangladesh welcome d 
any future discussion among Members on that issue and register ed its interest to be part of such a 
conversation. He looked  forward to engaging with Members on that important topic.  
8.12.  The Chairman  thanked the delegations for the exchange and encouraged them to continue to 
engage with each other. He reiterated that he remained at Members' disposal to facilitate discussion s 
if they so wished . He then suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
8.13.  It was so agreed . S/C/M/151  
 
- 21 - 
 
  9  ITEM I: CYBERSECURITY MEASURES OF CHINA AND VIET NAM – REQUESTED BY JAPAN 
AND THE UNITED STATES  
9.1.   The Chairman  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.  
9.2.  The representative o f Japan  said that her delegation had repeatedly expressed its concerns 
regarding the Cyber Security Law, the Data Security Law, and the Personal Information Protection 
Law of China at previous Council  meetings.  
9.3.  Firstly, the definitions of "important inform ation infrastructure" and "important data" were not 
clear.  
9.4.  Secondly, the obligation to store data within China 's territory , which was required by those  
Laws and Regulations, could  give less favourable  treatment, in practice , to foreign suppliers than to 
domestic businesses in China. In such cases, the measures taken by China might  violate the National 
Treatment obligation under GATS Article XVII. 
9.5.  Thirdly, the Data Security Law require d a stricter management system of "national core data", 
but the Law remain ed unclear as it did not provide more concrete definitions of "national core data", 
nor did it provide more specific information about the management system.  
9.6.  Lastly, with regard to  the security assessment, those  Laws did not specify concrete procedures 
for such an assessment, and the criteria for the assessment and the management system were 
unclear. Those  Laws might  treat foreign businesses less favourably  than domestic businesses in 
China.  
9.7.  In November, China had release d the draft "Cyber Security Standards Implementation 
Guidelines - Security Certification Standard for Cross -border Processing Activities of Personal 
Information"  for public comments . However, the definitions of the terms and the specific 
requirements used in the articles were not clear, and it was also unclear how those  articles were 
related to the Personal Information Protection Law.  
9.8.  In addition, the period for the public comments was only one week, and it was difficult to say 
whether there had been  suffic ient preparation time for foreign operators to submit their opinions. 
According to Article  13 of the "Ordinance concerning the Procedures for the Formulation of 
Administrative Regulations" established by the State Council, the period for public comments should 
be no less than 30 days, and it was doubtful whether the procedures for the public comments had 
been carried out properly. From a business perspective, predictability was extremely important ; 
therefore , Japan request ed that the certification standard be administered in a transparent manner 
so that it did not become an obstacle to foreign businesses.  
9.9.  In terms of the transparency of procedures, the Government of Japan note d China's efforts to 
obtain broad opinions both domestically and from other countri es in the form of public comments. 
However, Japan was  concerned that, in reality, the relevant Laws and Regulations were still being 
developed without sufficient explanations and improvements that address ed the concerns expressed 
by many countries, includi ng Japan. Therefore, Japan  reiterate d its request that China underst and 
the concerns , provide clear explanations on all points and ensure consistency with the GATS.  
9.10.  Regarding Viet Nam 's cybersecurity measures, as had been  repeatedly pointed out in previous 
meetings, Japan request ed an update from Viet Nam on the subordinate laws of the Cyber security 
Law and the draft Decree on the Protection of Personal Information.  Japan  reiterate d its concern 
that the provisions in the draft Decree on the Protection of Personal Data might  be inconsistent with 
the National Treatment obligation under GATS Article XVII.  
9.11.  In addition, as Japan had  pointed out at the previous  meeting, the enforcement of regulations 
of the Cyber security Law, whi ch had entered into force in October, impose d the obligation to store 
data and open branches or representative offices within the territory of Viet Nam for foreign 
businesses that provide d online services to users in Viet Nam.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 22 - 
 
  9.12.  Japan was  concerned that, in  practice , those  obligations would  likely place foreign businesses 
at a competitive disadvantage compared to domestic businesses due to the additional burden they 
would  face. Japan  request ed that that system, including those  bylaws, be properly administere d so 
as not to create undue obstacles to business.  
9.13.  Japan appreciated Viet Nam's efforts to seek public comments from domestic and foreign 
stakeholders with regard to transparency. On the other hand, measures restricting data flows should 
be limited to the minimum necessity to achieve legitimate objectives and should be designed  in a 
manner that was not overly trade restrictive. Japan reiterated its request to Viet Nam to ensure 
consistency with the GATS.  
9.14.  The representative of the United States  noted  that his delegation did not have much new to 
add to the discussion at that meeting, as  not much  time ha d passed since the October meeting . 
However, the United States continue d to have concerns with both China 's and Viet Nam's efforts  in 
cybersecurity.  
9.15.  He recalled that his delegation had raised concern s in the Council with respect to China 's 
various measures , including China's Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law and Personal Information 
Protection Law, and implementing measures for those Laws, that restri cted cross -border data flows 
and required localisation of data.  
9.16.  As the United States had stated in the Council previously, his delegation did not believe that 
China should seek to require any Chinese Government security assessment for transfers of 
"importa nt data ", defined in a virtually unlimited manner under the measures.  
9.17.  The United States continued to have serious concerns that China's focus on "important data " 
would result in new restrictions and burdens on a broad range of companies.  The United States  
urged China to revise its regime taking into account the concerns that had been raised.  
9.18.  With respect to Viet Nam, Viet Nam's 2018 Law on Cybersecurity had generated significant 
concerns among a wide range of foreign and domestic service suppliers. The Uni ted States remained 
concerned about the scope of application for requirements for foreign and domestic enterprises to 
store user data within Viet Nam, and for foreign enterprises to establish a branch or representative 
office in Viet Nam.  
9.19.  Overall, the Unit ed States believed that the Decree, with its short implementation period and 
ambiguous requirements related to data localisation and local offices, would negatively impact 
foreign enterprises' ability to provide services in Viet Nam.  
9.20.  As a general note, the United States shared the concerns about cybersecurity  – all Members  
had those concerns – but there were less restrictive ways that cybersecurity could  be achieved,  and 
the United States urged Members to adopt  such less restrictive means.  
9.21.  The representativ e of Australia  echoed other Members and noted that her delegation 
continued to have concerns regarding China's cybersecurity measures, as had been reflected in 
previous statements made in the Council.   
9.22.  Australia  continue d to urge China and Viet  Nam to take into account the concerns of 
business es and Members in the implementation of those  measures and development of future 
measures.  Australia  looked forward to continuing to work closely with both Members on those  issues.  
9.23.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated  her delegation's concerns about the 
cybersecurity measures of China and their implementation.  
9.24.  China 's cybersecurity framework include d requirements and special obligations that 
concern ed critical information infrastructure protection, as well as data loca lisation and a cross-
border data transfer security assessment, a classified cybersecurity protection scheme, and a 
comprehensive certification and testing scheme for critical network equipment and specialised 
network security products.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 23 - 
 
  9.25.  The Cybersecurity La w was accompanied by a large number of supporting laws, regulations, 
and standards, most of which applied across all sectors. The European Union understood that some 
of those Laws existed only in draft format. That created a labyrinth of unclear and , from a WTO 
compliance perspective, questionable requirements that foreign companies were asked to fulfil.  
9.26.  China 's interpretation of what could encompass security concerns appear ed to go beyond the 
WTO's definitions and practices.  The European Union r eiterate d its request that China address ed the 
concerns that the European Union  and other Members had consistently raised.  
9.27.  As regarded Viet Nam's cybersecurity measures, the implementing Decree of the 
Cybersecurity Law had taken effect on 1 October. The European Uni on was concerned about what 
the Decree entailed for foreign companies. According to currently available information, the Decree 
provided for data storage and the establishment of a branch or representative office in Viet Nam. In 
particular, it required com panies to store a number of data categories in Viet Nam. The European 
Union n oted that data localisation requirements could  be detrimental for businesses, in particular for 
SMEs, as they entail ed high costs and were disruptive to a number of business model s.  
9.28.  The European Union invited Viet Nam to provide further information on the implementing 
Decree  and clarify further which sectors or types of companies were affected, what were the steps 
envisaged before any data localisation or local presence requirements were imposed, and what 
happened before the Ministry notified foreign companies of violations of  the Cybersecurity Law . 
9.29.  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.  
9.30.  On 15 August 2022, the Government of Viet Nam  had issued Decree  53/2022/ND -CP to 
implement certain articles of the Law on Cybersecurity, such as Article 26 (3) on data locali sation 
and local presence requirements.  
9.31.  According to Article 26 of Decree 53, foreign enterprises only store d data and establish ed 
branches or representative offices in Viet Nam in case the services provided by the enterprises were 
used to commit acts of violating the Law on Network Security, which had been notified by the 
Department of Cybersecurity and High -Tech Crime Prevention a nd Control  of the Ministry of Public 
Security; and were requested to coordinate, prevent, investigate, and handle in writing, but fail ed 
to comply or fail ed to comply fully , or prevent ed, obstruct ed, disable d or invalidate d network security 
protection meas ures taken by the speciali sed network security force s. Such a regulation gave 
enterprises the right to decide on that issue themselves.  
9.32.  Viet Nam believe d that the provisions as described were clear, non -discriminatory, and 
proportionate to security concerns. It also believed  that its Regulation did not hinder the flow of 
data, nor did it create additional burden s if businesses compl ied with Vietnamese laws on 
cybersecurity.  
9.33.  Viet Nam emphasise d that, in the process of formulating the legal documents, comments from 
domestic and foreign stakeholders had been taken into account.  On other aspects of the Law on 
Cybersecurity and Decree 53, h e referred to Viet Nam's statement at the previous Council meeting 
in October.  
9.34.  The representative of China  thanked the Members who had taken the floor for their  continued 
interest in China 's regulatory measures related to cybersecurity. China had already responded in 
detail to Members ' remarks and questions at sev eral previous meetings.  
9.35.  As emphas ised before, China 's cybersecurity -related measures were based on national 
conditions and had taken into account various international practices. The representative noted that 
the legislation was not intended to hinder cro ss-border data flow s, nor to restrict international trade, 
but to support and encourage the flow and application of data.  
9.36.  China had always abided  by international rules and had earnestly fulfilled its WTO 
commitments. China reiterate d its willingness to w ork closely with other Members to promote the 
healthy development of the global digital economy.  S/C/M/151  
 
- 24 - 
 
  9.37.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
9.38.  It was so agreed . 
10  ITEM J: 5G-RELATED MEASURES OF AUSTRALIA – REQUESTED BY CHINA  
10.1.  The Chairman  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of China.  
10.2.  The representative of China  recalled that at previous meetings his delegation had raised 
strong concerns several times , but the rela ted issues had yet to be effectively addressed.  
10.3.  Australia's 5G  measures severely restricted Chinese services suppliers' usual business 
operations in Australia and were inconsistent with WTO rules, particularly the MFN and transparency 
obligations of the G ATS, as well as Australia's GATS commitments.  
10.4.  China urged Australia to rectify th ose discriminatory practices as soon as possible , to live up 
to its WTO obligations and create a fair, just, and predictable business environment for all enterprises  
operating  in Australia . 
10.5.  The representative of Australia  had taken note of China 's statement. China had first raised 
that issue elsewhere in the WTO in late 2018. Since that time, Australia had engaged constructively 
and in good faith with China to explain the ratio nale for its position. Australia reiterated that its 
position on 5G networks was country -agnostic, transparent, risk -based, non -discriminatory, and 
fully WTO consistent.  
10.6.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
10.7.  It was  so agreed . 
11  ITEM K: MEASURES OF THE UNITED STATES RESTRICTING TRADE IN SERVICES – 
REQUESTED BY CHINA  
11.1.  The Chairman  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  recalle d that his delegation had expressed its concerns about  the 
US trade -restrictive measures at previous Council  meetings. However,  unfortunately, those  
measures were still in place or in effect, preventing Chinese services suppliers from conducting 
business i n the U nited States on an equal footing.  
11.3.  Those  restrictions were based on mere suspicions or speculations , without any evidence. They 
had an obviously restrictive impact on trade in services and  were not consistent with the WTO 
principles of transparency a nd equal treatment. Through those  measures, the U nited States 
continue d to abuse the concept of national security, undermining the legitimate rights and interests 
of Chinese enterprises as well as consumers, including millions of US users. They had disrupt ed the 
normal market order and violated international trade rules.  
11.4.  China once again urged the United States to immediately correct its wrong -doings, return to 
the right track of international cooperation and jointly maintain the stability of global industr ial and 
supply chains so as to work positively towards the recovery of the world economy . 
11.5.  The representative of the United States  thanked China for raising the issue. As had been said 
in the past, the United States had taken those  measures to protect the national security of the United 
States.  
11.6.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
11.7.  It was so agree d. S/C/M/151  
 
- 25 - 
 
  12  ITEM L: MEASURES OF INDIA RESTRICTING TRADE IN SERVICES – REQUESTED BY 
CHINA  
12.1.  The Chairman  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  said that, since June 20 20, India had banned many applications 
with a Chinese background in the name of national security  and continued to take further restrictive 
measures . So far, more than 200 Chinese apps had been banned.  
12.3.  Those measures had seriously disrupted Chinese enterp rises' business activities in India and 
undermined their legitimate interests and violated  the basic principles of the WTO, as well as India 's 
GATS commitments.  
12.4.  China reiterated its serious concerns and urged India to stop its discriminatory measures 
against Chinese enterprises, and create an open, fair, and non -discriminatory business environment 
for services suppliers from all WTO Members.  
12.5.  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 the right 
to take measures to ensure the protection of privacy, data sec urity and national security. India firmly 
believed that the measures raised under that agenda item were fully consistent with its GATS 
commitments.  
12.6.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
12.7.  It was so agreed . 
13  ITEM M: OTHER BUSINESS  
13.1.  Lawry from New Zealand and Frank from Hong Kong, China, who were leaving Geneva, were 
bid farewell.  
13.2.  The meeting  was adjourned . 
__________  