| Attached File Name: |
 SCSCM22.doc
World Trade
Organization RESTRICTED S/CSC/M/22
21 May 2002 (02-2779) Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 MARCH 2002
Note by the Secretariat
The Committee on Specific Commitments held a meeting on 11 March 2002.
Her delegation proposed hat each of those areas of law be classified to accommodate the two types of services mentioned, providing flexibility to commit on advisory and/or representational services for each area of law.
The current classification of Postal (CPC 7511) and Courier (CPC 7512) Services in W/120 as separate categories was inadequate, given the lack of any difference in the way in which both postal service operators and "courier" firms provided postal services.
There could be an additional phase that would involve a link to incorporation of new commitments because clearly the commitments that Members might have taken in individual sectors would need an examination to see how the new classification would fit and to ensure that everything was still included.
Of these, the Committee had decided to consider the question of how to incorporate new commitments into Members' schedules and look at the approaches to scheduling additional commitments under Article XVIII of the GATS.
From that brief discussion two possible alternatives seemed to have emerged: a) to have further addenda or supplements to existing schedules or b) to submit new schedules consolidating existing commitments,
That would mean that Uruguay Round commitments, those contained in supplements resulting from the extended negotiations after the Uruguay Round, and the commitments resulting from the present process would be in a single document at then end of the current round of negotiations.
It might be helpful if the membership could agree on an approach by March 2003, when the offers were to be tabled, so that an informal clarification process of the consolidated schedules and proposed commitments could start in advance of the completion of the negotiations.
The representative of Uruguay felt that rather than waiting until March 2003, given the need to present initial offers by that date, it would seem more appropriate to solve this issue this year.
As a matter of fact, delegations would need at least three months to prepare offers for which they need to know first the format they should follow, that was, either a schedule with new commitments only or a schedule including existing commitments and the new ones offered.
In addition, a single schedule for each Member would not only facilitate market access negotiations per se, but make it easier for delegations to compare the level of progress that was being achieved overall in the services negotiations.
The supplementary list would assist Members in verifying in a more systematic manner the accuracy of the draft consolidated schedule and ensuring that existing commitments would not be undermined in the process of consolidation.
They included the relationship between old and new schedules; how to prepare the consolidated schedules, including whether the Secretariat could assist in that process; the comparability of old and new commitments; whether technical changes to existing commitments consistent with the new guidelines could be introduced and how these could be distinguished from new commitments; and how to deal with any changes in the classification, that might be agreed.
He invited more views on why it would be desirable to decide on this point as quickly as possible.
Multiple schedules or addenda would be a much more difficult to handle, than a simple consolidated schedule with strike-outs and bolds indicating changes.
For instance, a delegation could indicate in Article XX:2 cases, whether a restriction applied to both market access and national treatment, and state that such indication was in line with the new recommendations in the scheduling guidelines.
A note could be requested from the Secretariat, exploring the options already mentioned, identifying the issues to be considered in the services context, and attempting to respond to some of the questions raised in today's discussion.
As to the relationship between old schedules and new ones, it was necessary that Members decided how to integrate the new commitments into their schedules; such a decision could be made at the end of the negotiations but preferably prior to that.
In the case of financial services, Members had decided and stated in the first paragraph of the relevant protocols that the new schedules of commitments and MFN exemptions lists annexed to the protocol on financial services would "replace" the sections on financial services of pre-existing schedules and MFN exemption lists.
For example, in the Marrakesh Protocol, under the GATT 1994, paragraph 7 provided for specific situations where a schedule annexed to it had tariff concessions that provided less favourable treatment than what had existed before.
Those were only technical tools that could be used but would not obviate the need for a decision by Members on the relationship between old and new schedules to avoid problems of interpretation in the future.
As to the outcome, the majority seemed to favour a single consolidated schedule, but some delegations needed more time for reflection on the pros and cons of each option, bearing in mind that the issue should be resolved as soon as possible.
The second approach consisted of presenting the initial offer of commitments, which would be some sort of addendum to existing schedules and, thus, not consolidate existing commitments, negotiate on the basis of that offer and proceed to consolidate once the negotiations would be concluded.
For instance, the reference paper on telecommunications covered a wide range of issues other than market access and national treatment, including certain areas which were also covered by Article VI:4.
Members could add to the discussion possible
approaches in
their
negotiating proposals
and could share their views on when and where they envisage
d
additional commitments or how
these related
to the on-going work in other areas
.
The representative of the United States appreciated the clarification and felt that a note looking at the past would be very useful and educational, in terms of how delegations could approach issues associated with additional commitments in the current negotiations, and how the thinking might evolve during the course of these negotiations.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The Chairperson proposed that, in accordance with the practice of grouping meetings of subsidiary bodies close to meetings of the Council, the next meeting be held during the week just before the next formal meetings of the Council for Trade in Services and its Special Session.
|
