RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/427
6 November 2000
(00-4680)
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Working Party on Subsidy Notifications1
NOTE FROM THE CHAIRPERSON
Topic 1 – Ways to reduce the burden of notification while maintaining transparency
1. Document G/SCM/29 makes clear that the status of subsidy notifications remains very poor
and declining– so far only 21 updating notifications for 2000 have been received.  Most notifications
are received late, and many cover multiple periods, reducing the relevance of much of the information
contained, particularly by the time they are circulated and reviewed.  Thus, transparency is decliningrapidly.
2. Question – What are the reasons behind this poor and degenerating compliance?  (Examples:
human and other resource constraints; lack of understanding on the part of the officials responsible for
compiling the information as to the nature of the obligations and/or the kind of information required;
any other reasons.)
3. Given the nature of the identified problems, what solution or solutions would be most likely
to bring about an improvement?
4. In past Committee discussions concerning possible means to reduce the notification burden
while maintaining transparency, the following elements have been identified by Members:
- Changing the frequency of new and full notifications- Eliminating updating notifications
- Element of special and differential treatment
5. As background information concerning updating notifications, only a few written questions
have been posed concerning such notifications (see attachment).
Topic 2 – Procedures to be followed for the review of 2001 new and full subsidy notifications
1. Main elements of the procedures that were agreed by the Committee for the review of the
1998 new and full notifications (G/SCM/18):
                                                     
1 The terms of reference of the Working Party on Subsidy Notifications, which can be found in
document G/SCM/1, are as follows:  "To review the contents and form of the questionnaire as contained in
BISD 9S/193-194 and to undertake such other tasks as the Committee may decide."G/SCM/W/427
Page 2
• Three special meetings2 would be held for review of the notifications (October 1998, April 1999
and October 1999, i.e., in conjunction with regular meetings).
• Exchange of written questions and written answers before the meeting at which a given
notification was to be reviewed.  (Questions to be submitted not less than 15 weeks before the
meeting, and answers not less than six weeks before the meeting.)
• To allow time for formulation of the written questions and preparation of the written replies, only
notifications circulated in all three working languages at least 19 weeks before a meeting were
placed on the agenda for review at that meeting.
• Discussion at the meetings was to consist primarily of follow-up to the prior written exchange.
2. The procedures were premised on the need for all Members to respect the 30 June 1998
deadline for the submission of notifications, due to the time that would be required for translation
once notifications were received.  (G/SCM/18, para . 1.)  In fact, however, the majority of the 1998
new and full notifications were submitted well after the deadline, meaning that the review of these
notifications had not been completed by the end of the third special review meeting.  (At its
November 1999 special meeting, the Committee agreed to review the remaining 1998 notifications at
its regular meetings, subject to the same procedures and deadlines.  G/SCM/M/23, paras. 49-51.)
Moreover, because many notifications are multiple-symbolled as being both new and full andupdating notifications, in practice such notifications  sometimes are reviewed as updating notifications
rather than as new and full notifications, as the timeframes are much shorter in respect of updating
notifications.
3. Question for consideration by the Working Party:  For review of 2001 new and full
notifications, should the same procedures be followed, or should changes be made, e.g. in regard to:
• Number and timing of special review meetings
• Advance exchange of written questions and answers, with discussion at meetings focused on
follow-up issues.
• Timing issues:  minimum 19 weeks before a meet ing for circulation; minimum 15 weeks before a
meeting for written questions; minimum 6 weeks before a meeting for written answers.(Note:  shortening some or all of these periods would enable more notifications to be reviewed at
a given meeting).
                                                     
2 SCM Art. 26.1 provides that new and full notifications are to be reviewed in special sessions held
every third year.G/SCM/W/427
Page 3
Analysis of Written Questions Posed in Respect of Updating Notifications
Since 1 January 19953
Member posing questions Number of times questions posed4Recipient(s) of questions
Brazil 1 EC
EC 5 Indonesia, Korea, Nigeria,
USA
Iceland 1 ECJapan 5 EC, Indonesia, KoreaKorea 1 Indonesia
Poland 3 Czech Republic, Japan,
Turkey
Thailand 1 Indonesia
United States 8 Chile, EC, Indonesia, Japan,
Norway, Switzerland,
Turkey
__________
                                                     
3 Does not include questions posed in respect of notifications that combine a new and full notification
with one or more updating notifications.
4 Reflects the number of sets of questions posed.  Some Members have posed more than one set of
questions to a given other Member, either as follow-up questions or in respect of different notifications.