WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/38
26 October 2001
(01-5285)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GENERAL
COUNCIL ON 2 AUGUST AND 15 OCTOBER 2001 AND IN THE 15 DECEMBER 2000
DECISION OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL
Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this report to the General Council on my own responsibility,
as Chairman of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Committee").  This
was pursuant to your 3 October 2001 request to me that the Committee continue to work on the basis
outlined in my 30 September 2001 report and that I report back to you by 26 October.  Further, inresponse to your 15 October request, the Committee considered the question of methodology to be
used in calculating GNP per capita in constant 1990 dollars, as referred to in a draft decision
contained in Annex I to the Draft Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns
(JOB(01)/139).  As per my previous reports, this is by necessity an overview of a very technically
complex set of issues.  In order to do justice to the matters covered, it should be read in conjunctionwith any referenced documents, attachments and in the context of my previous reports.
As indicated in my 30 September report, I recommended that the SCM Committee continue to
work on three issues, namely (1) seeking a solution for developing country Members with a small
percentage share of exports in import markets and in global trade, within the framework of
Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement for extensions of  the transition period for export subsidies; (2)
seeking a solution on the export competitiveness, with work on determination of exportcompetitiveness to be based on a moving-average approach to determine shares of world trade in a
product, and with work on the possibility to resume export subsidization following a loss of export
competitiveness to continue on the basis of ideas previously advanced, including the "stop-the-clock"
approach described in detail in my 31 July report; and (3) review of countervailing duty investigation
procedures, on the basis of the proposals received.  This report covers the Committee's work on all ofthese issues, as well as on the constant dollar methodology issue, since my 30 September report.
Developing country Members with a small share of world export trade
As outlined in the technical summary attached, I conducted numerous rounds of consultations
in an effort to develop a package of procedures under which developing country Members with a
small share of world export trade could obtain an extension for a defined period, pursuant to SCM
Article 27.4, of the transition period for elimination of their export subsidies.  As reflected in my
30 September report, this was the basis on which the Committee had agreed to pursue this referral
from the General Council.
It was clear that for demandeurs, automaticity and a sufficiently long period were the crucial
elements that they were seeking under any such Article 27.4 procedures.  On the other hand, other
Members were seeking sufficient assurance that the framework of the Article 27.4 extension
mechanism be respected.  Further, in order to preserve the basic disciplines of the Agreement, they
sought limitations on the length of time of any agreed extension and other aspects of the procedures,
including the number of eligible Members and programmes.  Some Members, while not objecting toG/SCM/38
Page 2
working on the basis of this approach, expressed serious concerns over the possibility that any special
procedures might create, de facto, a new category of developing country Members.  Others objected
to the basic concept underlying the issue that had been referred to the Committee, namely creating
special procedures for a group of developing country Members defined on the basis of their trade
share.
During my consultations concerning the main elements that would need to be included in any
decision on this issue, many points for clarification and elaboration were raised and discussed.  On the
basis of these discussions, I put forward a basic elements paper setting out what I saw as the
operational aspects of a possible decision by Ministers.  After consulting on these proposed elements,
and taking into account the views of Members, I converted the elements paper into a draft decision
and procedures.  The main elements of the proposed procedures were:  (1) the mechanism forextension; (2) eligible programmes; (3) transparency; (4) standstill; (5) product graduation on the
basis of export competitiveness; (6) Members listed in Annex VII(b); and (7) final provisions.  In
essence, the proposal envisaged that the procedur es would incorporate an Annex of programmes of
Members.  Listed Members would be able to invoke the procedures in respect of their listed
programmes.  To obtain an extension for any of its listed programmes, a Member would have tosubmit detailed information to the Committee for verification that the programme was of the type
covered by the proposal (exemptions from import duties and internal taxes) and that transparency
requirements were met.  On the basis of these conditions being met, an extension for calendar year
2003 would be granted.  For a certain period of years to be agreed in advance, this extension would be
subject to annual review to confirm that standstill  and transparency requirements were met, and on
that basis the extension would be continued.  I proposed the creation of the Annex to satisfy the
requirement of a number of Members that they would need to have information on the Members and
programmes that would be covered by any decision and procedures at the time the decision to adopt
such procedures was taken.
In response to some Members' suggestions I proposed, as the mechanism to gather the
information that would comprise the Annex, to send a letter to all WTO Members that met numerical
criteria in respect of share of world merchandise export trade as calculated by the WTO Secretariat
and total 2000 Gross National Income ("GNI") as published by the World Bank.  Those Members, if
they met the remaining eligibility criteria, could then choose to submit for inclusion in the Annex
information on their programmes that they considered were of the type covered by the proposal.  My
draft letter set a deadline of 2 November for submi ssion of such information, so that the Annex could
be compiled before the Ministerial Conference and attached to the proposed procedures for adoption
by Ministers.
Taking into account the results of my consultations on the first draft of the proposal, I tabled
for the Committee's consideration at its meeting of 25 October a revised version, which is containedin Appendix 1, including a copy of the letter.  I also put forward for information a list of WTO
Members that met the numerical criteria on share of world trade and total 2000 GNI as referred to in
the letter.  I made clear that I had not made any attempt to screen from this list non-developing
country Members, or developing country Members not otherwise eligible to seek extensions under
Article 27.4.  I requested the Committee's authorization to immediately send the letter to the listedMembers as, given the shortness of time before the Ministerial Conference, this was the only possible
means that I could foresee for the development of the Annex, which in turn would form an integral
part of the proposed procedures.  I emphasized that the Committee's authorization to send the letter
would be without prejudice to any Member's  final position on the decision or procedures.
Unfortunately, no consensus was reached either on the proposed decision and procedures, or
on my sending the letter.  Concerning the letter, some Members objected on the basis that creating the
Annex that would form part of the decision, when the criteria referred to in the letter had not been
formally agreed by the Committee, would create legal uncertainty as to the status of the Annex.  InG/SCM/38
Page 3
particular, one concern expressed was that even if the procedures themselves made clear that inclusion
of a programme in the Annex did not guarantee an extension, a Ministerial decision on a package
including the Annex might be viewed by some as conferring on all of the programmes in the Annex
full eligibility for an extension.  These Members sought instead a decision by the Committee
approving the eligibility criteria set forth in the letter.  Some other Members were, however, not ableto agree to this alternative suggestion of a Committee decision on criteria.  For some, no criteria could
be agreed by the Committee in the absence of an agreement on the length of time of any extension.
For others, a Committee decision to approve the numerical criteria set forth in the letter was not
acceptable because these criteria were based on shares of trade and total GNI, which these Members
considered to be an inappropriate basis for determining eligibility for special procedures.
Even if the Committee had authorized me to send the letter, the amount of time available for
gathering the information and compiling the Annex would have been extremely short.  Given the
Committee's lack of consensus on the letter, the id ea of an Annex of programmes of Members that
would form part of the decision is no longer work able.  Nevertheless, a number of Members continue
to maintain that they need to know the universe  of eligible programmes and Members before they can
be in a position to take a decision on this issue.
Concerning the procedures themselves, some Members indicated that they could not take a
position on them without knowing the length of an y possible agreed extension (see below), and some
of these also indicated that they would want the procedures to include a phase-out requirement for any
programmes that were granted extensions.  Similarly, some Members could not take a view oneligibility criteria without knowing the length of any extension.  Other Members could not accept the
procedures due to their fundamental objection to creating special procedures for a group of Members
on the basis of trade share and total GNI.  That said, a significant number of other Members indicated
that they could essentially accept the procedures as otherwise proposed, so long as the references to
the Annex were removed, and the eligibility criteria set forth in the letter were introduced into theprocedures themselves (or at the limit, reflected in a separate decision by the Committee).  Moreover,
the demandeurs generally indicated that they could accept the procedures as drafted, and were flexible
as between the Annex as proposed or the insertion into the procedures of the criteria referred to in the
letter.  Finally, some Members that were comfortable with the basic substance of the criteria and of
the procedures were nevertheless concerned over how and where the criteria would be reflected, due
to concerns over creating de facto a new category of Members within the WTO.  The emphasis of
these Members was that any decision in respect of criteria, however and wherever expressed, wouldneed to make explicit that the criteria were ad ho c, for the sole purpose of the procedures, and could
not be used by Members in any other context.
On the basis of the reactions outlined above, and in view of the shortness of time before the
Ministerial Conference, should Members wish to continue to work on this issue and on the basis ofmy proposal, in my view this would only be possib le in the following manner:  References to the
Annexes would need to be removed from the proposed procedures, with any decision instead to be in
respect of Members and programmes meeting specified criteria.  It would need to be made clear in
any decision on criteria, that whether as part of the procedures or separately, such criteria would be
entirely ad hoc, for the sole purpose of the procedures, and could not be used by Members in anyother context.  Under such an approach, the initial information on programmes thus would be
provided not later than 31 December 2002, as outlined in paragraph 1(a) of my proposal, and the
remaining procedures would operate as in the proposal.  As discussed above, this possible alternative
approach was discussed at the Committee's 25 October meeting, and a significant number of
Members, including demandeurs, indicated that they could accept both such an approach and thecriteria outlined in my draft letter.  That said, however, as also indicated above, a number of other
Members indicated that this approach would not work for them, as they could not approve criteria
without knowing beforehand the length of any agreed extension as well as the universe of eligibleG/SCM/38
Page 4
programmes and Members.  In addition, as also noted above, some Members could not accept any
special procedures for a group of Members defined on the basis of trade shares and total GNI.
The other main issue on which divergent views were expressed was in relation to the period I
proposed for the agreed extension.  I had put forward an end-date of 2005, i.e., an agreed extension ofthree years, with the final two years under Article 27.4 in the event that no prolongation of this period
was granted outside the framework of the procedures.  Thus, this approach would have amounted to
a 3+2 formulation for the extension.  Some Members, principally the demandeurs, stated that this was
an unacceptable period of time.  At the suggestion of the demandeurs and some other Members, in the
version of my proposal as appended I have replac ed the date that I orig inally proposed with two
square-bracketed dates (2004 and 2017) in paragraph 1(e).  This is the only amendment that I have
made to the proposal discussed at the 25 October Committee meeting, and it is intended simply toconvey the divide that exists on this question between the demandeurs on the one hand and a number
of other Members on the other.
I must emphasize that the absence of any other square brackets in my proposal as attached is
not meant to imply that the rest of the proposal is acceptable to all Members, for the reasons that I
have outlined above.  In fact, some Members requested that I put the entire text in square brackets.
Particular issues and concerns raised in this connection were that no decisions could be taken on
criteria and procedures without knowing what the extension period would be, and/or fundamental
objection to the entire basis of the issue that was referred to the Committee.  Others suggested putting
square brackets around paragraph 1(f) (the possibility to prolong an extension beyond the periodreferred to in 1(e)), as for them, the longer the peri od in 1(e) the less their flexibility in respect of the
possibility that it could be prolonged.  Some demandeurs indicated that they could agree to removal of
this paragraph so long as the extension period was sufficient.
Export Competitiveness
In informal consultations with Members, I pursued the two elements of the proposal on export
competitiveness.  In respect of the first elemen t – the determination of export competitiveness – a
significant number of Members indicated their support for the idea that export competitiveness would
be determined on the basis of multi-year moving averages for the two consecutive years referred to in
Article 27.5, although some Members had difficulties in accepting that this approach could be deemed
an interpretation of that provision.  The proponents indicated that, subject to the outcome on thesecond element of the proposal, they could accept the moving average approach.
Concerning the second element – the possibility to resume export subsidization following a
loss of export competitiveness – I pursued consultations on the basis of the elements identified in my
30 September report.  In those consultations, the proponents identified a number of elements that hadbeen raised in the discussions of the stop-the-clock proposal that they could not accept, while on the
other side it was clear that these were elements of considerable importance to a number of other
Members.  In addition, the proponents reiterated that  they considered the two elements of the export
competitiveness proposal to be a package.  They thus could not accept a possible solution only in
respect of the first element.
Given this apparent impasse, I asked the proponents and other Members to reflect on possible
ways forward.  I understand that consultations on this issue are continuing among interested
Members.
Countervailing duty investigation procedures (Tiret 80)
In consultations, I pursued the issues raised in  the proposals tabled by two Members, Brazil
and India.  Given the shortness of time, Brazil proposed that the Committee's mandate in respect ofG/SCM/38
Page 5
these issues be extended through mid-2002.  India sought agreement on a reaffirmation by Ministers
that only the excess amount of duty drawback can be countervailed.  While no consensus was reached
by Members in respect of the draft decision put forward by India, both India and other Members
indicated that they would continue to consult on the matter.
The Committee reached a consensus to recomme nd that the Committee continue to consider
this issue, but came to no consensus in respect of any end-date for such further consideration.
Methodology for calculating GNP per capita in 1990 constant US dollars
After consulting with the Secretariat, I proposed a methodology for performing such
calculations, and proposed in addition that the Secretariat be designated to perform them.  Myproposal is set forth in Appendix 2.
While a number of Members indicated their support for my proposal, one Member suggested
an alternative approach for determining the 1 990 base-year data.  Another Member suggested a
drafting change to clarify one aspect of step 4.  Thus, no consensus was reached in respect of thisissue.
*  *  *  *
Mr. Chairman, while it is with some regret that I am not able to report that we have reached
consensus on the implementation issues referred to the Committee, I believe that all Members
participated constructively and with a spirit of good will.  I also believe that the work undertaken by
the Committee has been very useful in clarifying a wide range of extremely complicated technical and
legal issues, which may contribute to possible future solutions.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members for cooperating at a time of
competing demands and under enormous pressure.  I would especially like to sincerely thank Clarisse
Morgan, Sameena Dost and Jesse Kreier without whos e help this could not have been at all possible.
I therefore respectfully submit to you this report in the hope that it is of assistance to the broader
process in preparing for the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
____________________________________________
Remo MORETTA
Chair
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
26 October 2001G/SCM/38
Page 6
Technical Summary
1. Procedural matters
1.  This is my third report in connection with the implementation-related issues referred to the
Committee from the General Council.  The first report (G/SCM/34, dated 31 July 2001) covered theCommittee's discussions on the issues that had been referred to it from the General Council up to that
point, namely the issues of (i) export competitiveness (SCM Articles 27.5 and 27.6); and
(ii) aggregate and generalised rates of remission of import duties, and (iii) the definition of "inputs
consumed in the production process", taking into acco unt the particular needs of developing countries.
The second report (G/SCM/36, dated 30 September 2001) covered the Committee's discussions on the
issues that had been referred to it from the Ge neral Council up to that point, namely the above-
mentioned three issues as well as two further issues referred to the Committee at the request of theGeneral Council Chair.  These two issues were (i) a review of the provisions of the SCM Agreement
regarding countervailing duty investigations; and (ii) the implementation of Article 27 of the
SCM Agreement as it relates to particular issues concerning developing country Members with a
small percentage share of exports in import markets and in global trade.
2. At its formal meeting on 28 September 2001, the Committee agreed on a work programme on
the assumption that its mandate for consideration of the referred issues would be extended.  By letter
dated 3 October 2001, the Chair of the General Council indicated to me that it would be very useful to
the General Council's ongoing process on implemen tation for the Committee to continue work on the
referred issues, with me making a further report on these matters on 26 October 2001.  Accordingly,
the Committee met in informal session on 12 and 25 October 2001, and in formal session on25 October 2001, to continue its discussion of the referrals.  In between these meetings of the
Committee, I also held informal consultations on 4, 9, 18, 23, and 24 October 2001, with a view to
advancing discussion of the referrals on the basis of the elements outlined.  These discussions were
based on the written proposals and papers submitted by delegations, as well as documents that I
prepared, including non-papers summarising the discussions at the Committee meetings.
3. On 15 October 2001, the Chair of the General Council sent me a letter, requesting that the
Committee take up the question of the methodology for calculation of constant 1990 US dollars,
which is referred to in a proposal in the Draft Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and
Concerns  (Job(01)/139) regarding the calculation of GNP per capita for the purposes of Annex VII(b)
of the SCM Agreement, and that the Committee Chair report to the General Council on this matter on
26 October 2001.  This issue was discussed in informal consultations that I held on 18, 23, and
24 October 2001, and in informal session of the Committee on 25 October 2001, and in formal sessionof the Committee on 25 October 2001.
4. In the following sections, the main points rais ed in the discussions are summarised.  In giving
due consideration to the issues, these summaries should be read in conjunction with the papers
exchanged by Members, the records of the Committee's meetings on these issues, and the other
documents referred to herein.
2. Developing country Members with a small share of trade
5. During the period following my 30 September report, the Committee continued its intensive work
on the issue of developing country Members with a small share of trade on the basis of the framework
described in paragraphs 13-16 of the report, as I had recommended in that report and as the Chairman
of the General Council had requested in his 3 October letter to me.  While the Committee agreed towork on this basis, it also was emphasized throughout that Members' participation in the discussions
was without prejudice to their final position in respect of any eventual proposals for decision that
might emerge from the Committee's work.  In this connection, some Members explicitly registeredG/SCM/38
Page 7
reservations from the outset of the discussions with the idea of creating any special procedures for
group of developing country Members identified on the basis of their share of world export trade.  For
these Members, it was more appropriate to consider the question horizontally, on the basis of
programmes.  While noting these concerns, it was nevertheless recalled by some other Members that
the issue that had been referred to the Committee from the General Council was precisely that ofdeveloping country Members with a small share of trade.  Other Members, while not objecting to
special procedures for such developing country Members, nevertheless were concerned that any such
procedures might be perceived as having de facto created a new category of developing country
Members in the WTO.
6. To recall, the approach on the basis of which the Committee agreed to continue work in respect of
the referred issue was a possible procedural framework under which certain developing country
Members with a small share of world export trad e would obtain an extension, under Article 27.4, of
the transition period for the elimination of export subsidies.  From the outset of the discussions on the
possible framework, it was clear that for the demandeurs on this issue, the main priorities were
automaticity of the process – they wished to be certain that they would in fact receive an extension for
their programmes once an appropriate decision was taken in respect of the procedures – and a
sufficiently long period of time for the extension.  The main priorities of other Members were toensure that any decision would need to operate within, and respect, the basic framework of the
extension mechanism provided for in Article 27.4, that the basic subsidy disciplines of the Agreement
be preserved, that the universe of eligible Members (and, for some Members, programmes) be clearly
defined, either on the basis of clear criteria or a closed list, and that the period of the agreed extension
be limited.  In addition, the issue of standstill was identified as critical to many Members, in the senseboth that only existing programmes could be covered, and that the packages of benefits under those
programmes could not be improved during any extension period.  In addition to these fundamental
considerations, a number of additional points were raised, as indicated in the 30 September report:
the kind of information that would be required concerning the programmes involved (i.e., format for
notifying the information), the basis and role of annual reviews, the treatment of Members listed inAnnex VII(b) in the event they graduated therefrom during the extension period granted to other
developing country Members (i.e., Members not listed in Annex VII(b)), and the need to ensure that
action could be taken to counter any trade distortion that might be caused by products being
subsidized under extended programmes.
7. To try to develop the detailed elements of a possible framework, I held many rounds of intensive
consultations with a large number of delegations.  I indicated at the outset that given the essential
concerns that had been expressed on both sides of the issue, the task as I saw it was to try to elaboratean approach that would strike the right balance between sufficient limitations to give comfort to those
Members concerned about opening wide the door to export subsidization by large numbers of
Members, while at the same time giving comfort to the demandeurs that there would be sufficient
automaticity in obtaining an extension of a meaningful length.
8. During my consultations I posed a series of de tailed questions to Members concerning a wide
range of substantive and operational issues.  During the course of these discussions, a group of
Members submitted a proposal on elements of a framework and a proposed draft decision based on
their proposed elements
1.  The following summarizes Members' views in respect of the issues raised.
These summaries are of course subject to the overall reservations noted above of certain Members in
respect of possible procedures for developing country Members with a small trade share.
• Member eligibility criteria – While those pursuing a solution based on the framework under
discussion generally agreed that any eligibility criteria should include a Member's share of trade,
different views were expressed as to the appropriate threshold level for this criterion.  The original
                                                     
1 Contained in documents G/SCM/W/468 and G/SCM/W/469, respectively.G/SCM/38
Page 8
proposal submitted by Jamaica incorporated a threshold share of world trade of less 0.05 per cent.
At the request of Members, the Secretariat circ ulated to the Committee for information a list of
individual countries' shares of world merchandise export trade.  This list, which covers all
countries and territories for which data were available to the Secretariat (i.e., it is not limited to
WTO Members) is set forth in Appendix 3.  The Committee's discussions of a threshold share ofworld merchandise export trade as a possible criterion were conducted on the basis of the trade
shares contained in this list.  In these discussions, some Members indicated that they could
support a 0.05 per cent threshold in the context of the framework under discussion, while others
felt that that level might be too high.  The demandeurs proposed a threshold of 0.125 percent.
Also discussed was whether additional criteria should be included.  Additional criteria suggested
by Members in this context were total GNI, GNI per capita, export subsidies as a percentage share
of total exports, and population.  It was pointed out by some that there were no data available onexport subsidies as a percentage share of total exports, so that this criteria could not be made
operational, and it also was pointed out that GNI per capita could prove to be very divisive.
Ultimately, in consultations, some Members suggested as two criteria a threshold share of world
trade of not more than 0.10 per cent, and a threshold share of 2000 GNI of not more than
$20 billion as published by the World Bank.  It was further noted that the procedures would ofcourse be accessible only to developing country Members meeting whatever agreed criteria, given
that Article 27.4 applies only to developing country Members.  In addition, the question was
raised as to whether developing country Members whose protocols of accession specify that they
had to eliminate any export subsidies as of accession or some other date prior to 31 December
2002 would be able to become eligible Members under the framework.  A number of Membersstated the strong view that any agreement by the Committee on procedures under Article 27.4
could not override a Member's protocol.
• Definition of eligible programmes – El Salvador's initial proposal referred to "existing"
exemptions from import duties and internal taxes for development and employment purposes, and
these criteria were suggested by proponents in the context of this discussion as well.  SomeMembers believed that such programmes be further specified being in the context of "free zones"
or "export processing zones", while proponents felt that the introduction of such terms as
additional criteria would undermine the hoped-for automaticity of the procedures, as there are no
agreed definitions for these terms, and further indicated that not all proponents have free zones,
but rather have tax and duty exemptions as part of their investment incentive programmes.  Anumber of Members felt that it would not be necessary to have as criteria that the programmes in
question be for development and employment purposes, as these terms as well are not objective
and capable of verification.  There thus was general agreement to exclude this element as a
programme criterion.
• Definition of "existing programmes – There was no objection to my suggestion that existing
programmes be defined as those in existence as of 1 September.
• Application/notification/transparency – Demandeurs noted the shortness of time before the
Ministerial Conference and before the Agreement's 31 December 2001 deadline for requests for
extension under Article 27.4, which would prevent them from providing complete notifications of
the programmes by either of those dates.  Thus, they proposed that a decision be taken to grant in
advance an extension in respect of programmes meeting the specified programme criteria, with a
full notification for transparency by 30 June 2002.  Some other Members indicated that theywould need full notifications in respect of pr ogrammes for which extensions would be granted as
of the time of the decision.  One possibility that was discussed was a two-tiered system under
general information about programmes would be submitted by 31 December 2001 to start the
"consultations" referred to in Article 27.4, with a detailed notification to be submitted in earlyG/SCM/38
Page 9
2002 to verify that the programmes in question met the eligibility criteria.  It was suggested that
the format for notifications under SCM Article 25 (G/SCM/6) be used in this context.
• Mechanism for extension – The mechanism under discussion was that Members would agree to
extend the transition period for the eligible programmes of eligible Members and would further
agree that during a fixed period of years, durin g the annual review of the extension, they would
not object to its continuation, so long as standstill and transparency requirements were met.  At
the end of that period, and assuming that there were no further extensions for that Member
pursuant to the normal Article 27.4 mechanism, th e Member would have the final two-year period
provided for in the last sentence of Article 27.4.  Demandeurs made a counter-suggestion that the
extension should be entirely agreed in adva nce, and that annual reviews would be for
transparency.  Other Members, however, while accepting that they would not be revisiting, in
annual reviews during the agreed period, the basic decision to grant the extensions, neverthelessfelt it necessary to retain the right to revoke the extension if transparency and standstill
requirements were not met.
• Standstill – The framework under discussion included a standstill requirement on the extended
programmes, but there were differing views as to how it would operate.  One view was that
standstill should be based on 1 January 1995, given the Article 27.4 standstill requirement.Another view was that the Article 27.4 standstill, which is in respect of the total level of export
subsidization, is not the same as a complete freeze on programmes as from 1 January 1995.
Another issue discussed was how standstill on an  extended programme would operate, given that
the programmes under discussion as potentially eligible were those in the form of tax and duty
exemptions.  Here it was noted that a standstill in the sense of a cap on an absolute level ofbenefits, or in respect of a fixed set of beneficiaries, would be unworkable for such programmes,
and it was suggested instead that the standstill should be in respect of the package of benefits
(intensity of subsidization) of the programmes themselves, and not in respect of the application of
the programmes in any particular period.
• Product "graduation" – Under the framework being considered, a product would no longer be
eligible for the extension if exports of that product from the Member in question reached 3.25%
of world trade.  Two approaches have been discussed (1) a cross-reference to Art. 27.5 and 27.6;
or (2) a special rule establishing this threshold as well as a basis for the calculation.  Demandeurs
proposed a cross-reference, while others preferred that a special rule be developed.
• General chapeau language – Throughout the discussions it has been noted that there should be a
general statement in the framework that it would be without prejudice Members' rights and
obligations, either under the Agreement as a whole or in respect of provisions other than those
addressed by the procedures.  While there was general support for this concept, there were
differing views on exactly how the language should be formulated.
• Late graduates from Annex VII – It was pointed out in consultations that Members listed in
Annex VII(b), which met the eligibility criteria and which might graduate therefrom during the
time of the extension, would be worse off than those that had graduated earlier and received an
extension pursuant to the framework under discussion.  The suggestion was made that any such
countries should be eligible to take advantage of the framework for the remaining time of the
agreed extension period.  The demandeurs proposed instead that such late graduates be able to
take advantage of the framework "during or after the extended transition period" so long as they
met the eligibility criteria.
• Period of agreed extension – A wide range of views was expressed in respect of the period for
which a extension would be agreed in advance (subject to the views outlined above in respect ofG/SCM/38
Page 10
the annual review, as outlined above).  Demandeurs proposed 20 years, which they said was
necessary due to their need for export diversification, away from primary products toward
manufactured goods.  A number of other Members indicated that any such agreed period would
have to be very short, citing the need to pres erve the basic disciplines of the Agreement, in
particular, the requirement to eliminate export subsidies.  Among this latter group, the most oftenexpressed view was that any agreed extension should be for a maximum of two years, followed
by the final two years provided for in the last sentence of Article 27.4.
9. Taking into account the above points, I put forward a set of proposed elements of a draft
decision and procedures.  The main points of my proposal were as follows.  First, I sought to bridge to
the greatest degree possible the identified gaps in the positions among and between various Members.
However, I left blank one major area of difference, that is, the number of years for which extensionswould be granted essentially automatically under the procedures outlined.  I deliberately did so as I
believed that the most important first step was to seek Members’ reactions to the technical aspects of
my proposal, in particular its operational aspects, so that whatever procedure might emerge from this
process would be clear, coherent and workable in practice.  Concerning the question of the number of
years that would be filled in, I had noted the wide divergence of views that had been expressed all ofthe views in the very broad spectrum of positions conveyed last Friday, as well as the explanations of
those positions.
10. In formulating the proposed elements I took into account, first, that for a number of
delegations it was imperative that any solution under Article 27.4 for developing country Members
with a small share of world trade preserve the inte grity of the extension mechanism in that Article.
Thus, I envisioned a decision by Ministers that would direct Members of the Committee to follow
detailed procedures, to be contained in a separate document, in respect of Article 27.4 extensions for
the relevant Members.  The detailed procedures, in  turn, would follow the procedural steps in Article
27.4, while building as much automaticity as possible into the process in respect of extensions for
eligible Members and programmes.
11. The second major issue that I tried to reconcile in my proposal was the need expressed by a
number of delegations to know the scope of the programmes and countries that would be covered by
the decision at the time it was taken, on the one hand, and the difficulty indicated by some potential
users of the mechanism of providing detailed inform ation in respect of their programmes either by the
Ministerial Conference or by 31 December 2001.  Picking up on some of the points that had been
raised concerning the idea of a two-stage proce ss, my proposal would operate as follows.  Between
that time and the Ministerial Conference, developing country Members meeting the eligibility criteriareferred to below would submit a list of their programmes for which they would envision making use
of this mechanism.  The resulting list of Members and their programmes would then be annexed to the
document outlining the procedures, which would be adopted by the Ministers’ decision.  This Annex
would represent the maximum universe of programmes for which the mechanism could be invoked.
Thus, Members when they took the decision at the Ministerial would know exactly in respect ofwhich programmes of which Members the mechanism could be used.  The Members seeking to use
the mechanism, for their part, would not face a burdensome notification requirement between before
the decision was taken, but rather would have only to prepare and submit a list of their relevant
programmes.
12. After the decision was taken, and no later than 31 December 2001, to fulfill the formal
requirements of Article 27.4 that Members seeking an extension must enter into consultations with the
Committee by that date, Members in the Annex woul d need to simply indicate, in a communication to
the Committee, for which of their programmes listed in the Annex they were seeking to use the
mechanism -- presumably all of them in most cases -- and would need to include with this a simple
statement that an extension under Article 27.4 was necessary in the light of their economic, financialand development needs.  In practice, therefore, this document would generally be the same list thatG/SCM/38
Page 11
was submitted to create the Annex, added to which would be the indication that it was to initiate
consultations with the Committee pursuant to the decision and the procedures adopted thereby, and
the statement regarding economic, financial and development needs.
13. Turning to the question of automaticity, it had been made clear in the discussions that for
most Members, the main requirement under the mechanism would be for transparency in respect ofthe programmes.  That is, Members would not second-guess or raise questions about economic,
financial and development needs, but rather woul d simply want to understand what the programmes
were, how they operated and what their scope, coverage and intensity of subsidization was.  Thus, my
draft foresaw, early in 2002, the submission of a notification in accordance with the agreed format for
Article 25 notifications.  This to me seemed the most suitable format as it represented a known, and
previously-agreed, benchmark for transparency in respect of subsidies.  During the prior discussions,
no Member had opposed using this format.  Once the notification was received, Members would havea chance to request clarifications and additional information as to the nature and operation of the
programmes and their scope, coverage and intensity of subsidization.  Thus, the focus of the
Committee’s consideration would be to ensure transparency; it would not involve debates as to the
appropriateness of granting extensions for this or that programme.  So long as transparency was
fulfilled (again, with the Article 25 format as a useful benchmark for judging this) Members would
not oppose the Committee's granting the extension for calendar 2003.  That is, the extension would be
automatic.  I believe that this idea of an extension for calendar 2003 is a necessary formal point
related to the operation of Article 27.4.  Given that extensions are subject to annual review by the
Committee, from the formal point of view it was legally difficult to foresee the Ministers deciding ex
ante and without reference to this provision of  Article 27.4 on extensions over a longer period .
14. That said, and again seeking to ensure the maximum possible automaticity, my proposal
foresaw the exclusive purpose of the annual reviews during the agreed period of years as being
transparency and standstill.  Thus, updating notifications would be needed each year during the
period, with information as to the coverage, scope and intensity of subsidization of the extended
programmes.  Again, Members could request clarifications and additional information, but so long asthe transparency and standstill were being respected, they would not oppose continuation of the
extension.  This approach would avoid a completely "blank check" approach, while at the same time
making clear that continuation of the extension would be automatic once the appropriate notified
information was provided.  Here it should be noted that standstill as formulated in the proposal was on
the basis of the programmes – that is the programmes could not be changed so as to improve the
benefit package thereunder.  It was clear from my consultations that given the kinds of programmes
that would be covered by the mechanism (tax and dut y exemptions), a standstill on the absolute level
of benefits would be unworkable.
15. Again to preserve the integrity of Article 27.4, the proposal explicitly recognized the right of
any Member receiving an extension under this procedure to seek a further extension once the agreed
"quasi-automatic" period was over, following the no rmal Article 27.4 procedures.  A further point in
this regard was that the proposal explicitly recognized that at the end of all extension periods, theMember in any case would have the final two years referred to in the last sentence of Article 27.4.
This was meant to capture the requirement of many Members that whatever procedure would need to
be clear as to what was the extension period and what was the final two years (the “X+2” formulation
that had been proposed by several Members).
16. Turning to eligibility criteria, I proposed th at eligible Members listed in the Annex be
developing country Members with no more than a 0.10 per cent share of world merchandise export
trade on the basis of statistics prepared by the WTO Secretariat (Appendix 3) and with total 2000 GNI
of no more than US$20 billion as published by the World Bank, which had identified programmes
that were included in the Annex.  I believe that these figures represent a fair compromise amongst theG/SCM/38
Page 12
different views that had been expressed, and I note that they had in fact been suggested to me in
consultations with Members.
17. That said, the proposal foresaw that otherwise eligible Members that had acceded to the WTO
and whose protocols committed them to eliminate any export subsidies as of a date prior to
31 December 2002 would not be eligible to be included in the Annex in respect of those subsidies.This provision was proposed because a number of Members had indicated strongly that an extension
mechanism under Article 27.4 could not overri de a Member’s protocol of accession.
18. Eligible programmes would be export subsidy programmes in the form of full or partial
exemption from import duties and internal taxes, as discussed from the outset.  This was not modified
with any further descriptors, as the creation of the Annex was intended to define the outer limits of the
universe of Members and programmes that would be covered by the decision, as this was the
underlying concern that was expressed by t hose Members who had suggested introducing such
additional descriptors.  Substantively, I was convinced on the basis of my consultations that
introducing any descriptors that would refer to pr ogrammes such as free zones or would have the
effect of limiting the mechanism to such zones would be extremely problematic, firstly because of
definitional issues and secondly because a number of the potential beneficiary countries do not
structure their programmes in that way.  Thus, the Committee might end up creating a mechanismintended to benefit a certain group of Members which ultimately excluded them.  I believe very
strongly such a result must be avoided.
19. Concerning product graduation, I proposed a simple cross reference to Articles 27.5 and 27.6.
Having listened to the comments in the various rounds of discussion, I believed that this approach
would raise the fewest issues and complications, in respect of interpretation, calculation and the like.In short, a cross reference should be completely without prejudice to anyone’s position in respect of
the interpretation of those provisions, no matter what conclusions were reached in the Committee's
work on those provisions under the export competitiveness proposal.
20. Concerning Members listed in Annex VII(b), I had introduced a first paragraph just making
clear that those who are listed therein but had already graduated on the basis of GNP per capita wouldbe fully eligible for the mechanism.  The rest of the provisions dealing with Annex VII(b) Members
were directed at those listed Members that had not graduated.  Here, on the basis of the views that I
had heard expressed, I believe that what is acceptable in respect of such Members is that they could
reserve their rights to use the mechanism if they graduated from Annex VII during the time of the
extensions granted under the mechanism, in which case they could use the remainder of the extension
period, subject to the other requirements and procedures, including transparency and standstill.  I had
taken note that the demandeur countries in Annex VII(b) were seeking considerably more than this,but my assessment was that there was no flexibility on the part of other Members to go that far, in
particular given that the extension referred to in Article 27.4 is for the eight-year period from the date
of entry into force of the Agreement, to which only developing country Members not included in
Annex VII are subject.  I also had inserted bracketed references to GNP per capita in constant 1990US dollars for three consecutive years.  These references were simply to make allowance for thepending proposal in Annex I of the General Council draft implementation text, which would interpret
the $1,000 threshold in Annex VII(b) on that basis, should that proposal be accepted.
21. Finally, in the section on final provisions, I proposed text to ensure that the decision and the
procedures established thereby were without prejudice to any requests for extensions made outside the
framework of the procedures; and further, that the decision and the procedures were without prejudiceto Members’ rights and obligations under Parts III and V of the Agreement (covering actionable
subsidies and countervail, respectively).  I limited this latter language to these two parts of the
Agreement as these seem to be the provisions of most concern to Members who signalled a need for
catch-all chapeau language.  Broadening the language to indicate that the decision and proceduresG/SCM/38
Page 13
were without prejudice to any rights and obligations  under the Agreement would not be desirable, as
such language legally could be seen to nullify the entire package of decision and procedures.
22. Following consultations on my proposed elements as described, I tabled a draft decision and
detailed procedures based on these elements.  The main change was that conditional language was
changed to affirmative language ("would" to "shall ", etc.)  In addition, I introduced certain drafting
changes to clarify the text so as to adequately reflect the intent of my proposal, on the basis of
questions and comments to the elements that I had originally proposed.
23. The one exception to this was my deletion, at the suggestion of a considerable number of
Members, of original paragraph 2(b), concerning eligibility criteria for Members under the
procedures.  The Members suggesting this deletion indicated that it was difficult to have a decision
that would appear to be defining a new category of Members.  They therefore wanted to ensure that
any list of Members that might form part of the decision would need to be simply an ad hoc listcreated exclusively for the purpose of this decision, with no indication in that decision of what the
underlying criteria were.
24. I also proposed, in addition to the draft decision and procedures, a proposed draft letter.  The
idea behind the letter was that my consultations concerning my original proposal had revealed wide
support for my proposed idea of creating an A nnex of programmes of Members, as a way of
developing an ad hoc list and avoiding the de fact o creation of a new category of Members.  In the
consultations, it also had been recognized that fo r such an Annex to be created, I would have to
engage in some outreach before the Ministerial to  ensure that potentially eligible Members were
aware, in sufficient time, of the possibility to inscribe programmes in the Annex.  Looking at the draft
procedures document after deletion of the origin al paragraph 2(b), there was no way that Members
would be able to tell from the decision itself on what basis the Annex would be created.  I therefore
drafted the proposed letter, which I envisaged as the main outreach tool.
25. There were a few difficult issues in this respec t.  First, I would have needed the Committee’s
consent at its 25 October meeting to be able to send any such letters.  Second, I believed that the letter
should, as I proposed, make clear the country and programme criteria on the basis of which Members
could inscribe programmes in the Annex.  Thus, the letter referred to the criteria that were reflected in
my original proposal, although I introduced some square brackets as described below.  Without
indicating the reason for which certain but not all Members would receive the letters, I was concerned
that the process of seeking input for the Annex would be perceived, especially by those that had not
actively participated in the detailed discussions, as arbitrary.  Third, the Committee had not agreed to
a list of Members that would be eligible to submit programmes for inclusion in the Annex, nor had I
been asked to produce one, and obviously such a list would require a number of difficult judgementcalls as to who should be included.  Thus, as drafted,  the letter would be sent to ALL Members that fit
within the relevant parameters on which the Committee could agree (those suggested being trade
share and/or total GNI).  It would be up to each Member receiving such a letter to decide whether it
was or was not a developing country, and whether it did or did not have programmes that met the
outlined criteria.
26. On the draft decision itself, the decision text was drafted in such a way that Ministers would
direct Members, rather than directing the Committee, to take certain action.  I believe that this was a
necessary element, given that it might cause legal uncertainty for Ministers to decide either in place of
or on behalf of the Committee in respect of extensions under Article 27.4.  This formulation was
repeated in the chapeau of the draft procedures document.
27. In respect of the procedures, paragraph 1(a) reflected the deletion of original paragraph 2(b)
which contained country eligibility criteria, and as a consequential change, did not refer to "eligible
Members", but rather to Members with programmes listed in the Annex.  In paragraph 1(c), I took upG/SCM/38
Page 14
the useful suggestion made in consultations to change the deadline for the grant of extensions from 31
to 15 December 2002.  also on the basis of comments made during consultations, I reformulated the
language concerning the nature of the decision that would be taken, away from the passive language
of "Members would not oppose", to an active formulation, that "Members of the Committee shall
grant" extensions where the relevant requirements are met.  A similar change was reflected in 1(e)concerning decisions to continue extensions.
28. In 2(b), I tried to clarify the reference to the date, by changing "before 31 December" to "as of
a date prior to" that date, as questions had been raised about the original wording.
29. In 3 and 4, I introduced a reference to "favourability" of programmes, to capture the idea,
which had been frequently discussed in consultations, that standstill under these procedures would be
in respect of the benefit package provided under the programmes, and not in respect of an absolute
level of revenue foregone.  In other words, for example, if a programme provided a 30 percentreduction in tax on income derived from exports, that percentage could not be increased.  If to qualify,
an enterprise had to invest $10 million, that required investment level could not be reduced, and so
forth.  Given the nature of the programmes covered by the proposal – tax and duty exemptions – and
given that such exemptions typically are set forth in investment legislation to which any eligible
enterprise can have access, I believe that it would be simply unworkable to define standstill on thebasis of an absolute level of subsidization.
30. I also inserted a sentence at the end of 4(a) to ensure that Members were not prevented, by the
mere fact of having in their legislation an expiry date, for example in anticipation of the end of the
eight-year transition period, from using the proposed procedures.
31. In paragraph 6, in both (a) and (b), I referred to Annex VII(b) Members with a small trade
share and small total GNI, without any specific cros s-reference, in keeping with the deletion of the
specific Member eligibility criteria.
32. Throughout paragraph 6, I inserted alternative texts in square brackets referring to US $1,000
on the one hand, and to $US 1,000 in 1990 constant US dollars on the other hand, the latter simply to
take account of the proposal pending before the General Council for an interpretation of the $1,000threshold in Annex VII on the constant 1990 dollar basis.
33. In 6(e), the deleted word "last" appeared in square brackets, to show that I had received this as
a specific suggestion from a delegation, but that I considered it not necessary, given the reference to
"a third consecutive year" in the second square-bracketed phrase.
34. The final provisions, in 7, I redrafted in response to comments that in my original proposal
the elements of the final provisions were too narrow.  I tried to strike a balance between not crafting
these provisions so broadly as to nullify the entire proposed package, and not crafting them sonarrowly as to exclude important provisions.
35. Concerning the eligibility criteria as set forth in the letter, these were as they had appeared
originally in my proposed elements paper, namely, no more than 0.10 percent of world merchandise
export trade, and no more than $US 20 billion in Gross National Income as published by the World
Bank.  I had put the GNI criterion in square brackets, because in informal consultations, this criterionhad been questioned by a number of Members as unnecessary.  In their view, specifying a threshold
share of world trade would be sufficient by itself as a criterion for identifying eligible Members.
While some specific comments also had been raised about the precise figure, there had been sufficient
questions about the need for this criterion at all that I sought the views of Members whether having a
GNI criterion was necessary, before looking at the specific figure.  As for the threshold of 0.10percent, while I did note at least one reservation over the idea of any specific procedure forG/SCM/38
Page 15
developing country Members with a small share of world trade, otherwise I heard no objection to this
specific threshold.
36. On the basis of the comments made in respect of my proposed draft decision, procedures and
letter, I tabled for the Committee's consideration at its 25 October meeting a revised version of my
proposal.  In addition, I made available for information of all WTO Members other than LDCMembers that met the two proposed criteria on percent share of world export trade, and total 2000
GNI as published by the World Bank.  I made no  attempt to screen out from this list any Members
who were not developing country Members or any developing country Members who were not
otherwise eligible to request an extension pursuant to SCM Article 27.4.  Thus, this was a
comprehensive list of WTO Members, other than LDCs, that met these two proposed numerical
criteria, and not a list of WTO Members that would meet all of the criteria referred to in paragraph
2(b) of the new draft.
37. While the revised proposal contained some relatively significant changes to the draft proposal
on the basis of the discussion at Tuesday’s meeting, the basic structure and operation as originally put
forward remained the same.  That is, the revised proposal envisaged the creation of an Annex of
programmes of specific Members, which would form an integral part of the package to be decided,
and would represent the maximum universe of programmes of Members in respect of which the
procedures could be invoked.  This idea of creating an Annex of programmes of Members was
intended to respond to those Members who had insist ed throughout the discussions that they would
not be able to agree to any solution on this issue unless they knew at the time of the decision in
respect of what programmes of which Members the procedures might potentially be invoked.
38. I have tried to make it very clear in the revised text, as well as in the draft letter, that
“invoking the procedures” was  not the same thing as being granted an extension.  That is, if Ministers
agreed to the proposed package, which included an Annex of programmes of Members, they wouldnot be agreeing to grant extensions in respect of all of those programmes.  Rather, extensions would
be granted by the Committee only upon verification that all of the criteria set forth in paragraph 2(b)
were met.  Thus the Annex would simply be a starting point.  If a Member that was not a developing
country Member included programmes in the Annex, or if a developing country Member had
commitments under a protocol of accession that precluded it from seeking an Article 27.4 extension,
the fact that it had included programmes in the Annex would not guarantee that it would receive the
extension when the Committee considered, during 2002, its request.
39. This raised the question of how the Annex would be created.  As in my original proposal, this
would be on the basis of information provided by Me mbers in response to a letter that I would send to
a list of Members on 26 October.  I emphasized to Members that the only way that I saw forproceeding with my proposed letter, as outlined in the first full paragraph of the second page of the
draft, was to send it to all of the Members meeting the two numerical criteria (trade share and total
GNI).  If some Members on that list did not meet the other two criteria, namely being a developing
country and being otherwise eligible to request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4, and chose
anyway to submit information for inclusion in the A nnex, they would not be screened out at the stage
where the Annex was created.  Rather, they would be screened out during the Committee’s
consideration of the detailed requests and notifications that might eventually be made by those
Members after the decision was adopted.
40. I realized from comments on my original proposed that there were a number of Members that
would have liked to have instead agreement on a closed list of Members, recognized as the only onesthat would be eligible to submit programmes for inclusion in the Annex.  It was clear from the
discussion, however, that such an agreement was not possible at that time.  While this did not
necessarily mean that agreement on criteria was impossible, agreed criteria alone would clearly not be
sufficient if Members needed also to have the pot entially eligible programmes identified.  This wasG/SCM/38
Page 16
because the agreed criteria would have to be applied so as to derive a closed list of eligible Members
who could then submit the information for the Anne x, in which case the debate would have returned
to the starting-point.
41. Therefore while I believed that it would have been extremely useful to reach a firm decision
at the meeting as to criteria, I remained of the view that whether or not that was possible, if Memberscontinued to require information about programmes before they could take a decision, I continued to
believe that the only possible way to keep the proposal alive for possible decision at Doha was for the
Committee to authorize me at the meeting to send th e letter to the entire list of Members.  The
Members on that list would, in the first instance, have to consider whether they were developing
countries, and if so, whether they were otherwise prevented from seeking an Article 27.4 extension,
because of commitments in their accession protocol, etc.  To this relatively limited extent, the Annex
would be self-selecting, but only among those Memb ers that met the numerical criteria.  Furthermore,
I emphasized that agreeing to my sending the letter would be without prejudice to any Member’s final
position in respect of the proposed package.  In practical terms, it was the only way to keep options
open for the future given the requirements repeatedly expressed by a number of Members for
information about programmes.
42. Concerning changes from the first version of my proposal, I attempted to remove all
references to  Member eligibility as such, and in stead focused on programme eligibility which in turn
included that the Member seeking the extension must be a developing country and must be otherwise
eligible to request an extension under Article 27.4.  This change was meant to address the concern
expressed by one delegation over a reference in the text to accession protocols, while preserving the
underlying limitation that there might be situations, i.e., protocols of accession, that might precludecertain developing country Members from requesting an extension.  This significant drafting change
caused consequential changes to 1(a), 1(c), and 2(b).  Along the same lines, I deleted paragraph 6(a)
as superfluous, given that the Agreement makes clear that when listed Members graduate from Annex
VII(b), they become subject to the provisions of Article 27.2(b), which in turn makes clear that the
2002 deadline for elimination of export subsidies applies to them, as does the possibility for anextension of that deadline under Article 27.4.  The remaining provisions of paragraph 6 also were
recast away from referring to eligibility criteria and toward the operational aspects, while making
clear that the listed Annex VII(b) Members that had not graduated could nevertheless include
programmes in the Annex and eventually invoke the procedures in respect of those programmes.
Footnote 1 further clarified this point.
43. In the chapeau of the paper as well as in 1(f) and 1(g), I had introduced certain changes to
clarify that the proposed procedure was a procedure that could be used to obtain extensions underArticle 27.4, that is, that it was not a framework out side Article 27.4.  Thus, extensions granted under
it would be extensions under Article 27.4.
44. Concerning annual reviews, I had introduced changes in 1(e) as suggested in informal
consultations by some delegations to clarify how annual reviews would function.  Concerning
standstill, I had introduced footnote 2, along the lines suggested on by one delegation, to clarify thebasis on which standstill would be verified.  In particular, this footnote was to make clear that the
favourability of a programme – its scope, coverage and intensity of benefits – would be determined on
the basis of the underlying legal instruments, i.e., not on the basis of an absolute level of
subsidization.
45. Concerning the number of years to be referred to in 1(e), my revised proposal suggested a
date of 2005 (i.e., a 3+2 formulation).  My rationale for putting this suggestion forward was a follows.
Views were extremely divided on the issue of the le ngth of the extension.  While most Members had
been more or less comfortable with an “X+2” formula, there were extremely different views
concerning the value of “X”.  In addition, some Members had taken the view that not only should XG/SCM/38
Page 17
be a small number, but that that period plus the final two years should be the only extension possible
under the procedures.  In other words, they would wish to foreclose the possibility that a Member
receiving an extension of X years under the procedures could come to the Committee at the end of
that period and seek a prolongation of the extensi on pursuant to the regular Article 27.4 procedures,
and only at the end of any further such prolongations, be subject to the final 2 years provided for inArticle 27.4.
46. While proponents have suggested inter alia 15 to 20 years plus 2, and one Member has
suggested 8 or 10 years, some other Members have emphasized that they could go along with only an
extremely short extension under the quasi-automatic structure that I have proposed.  Most often
mentioned, although with some Members saying even this is too long, has been 2+2 years.  Thus, it
was my judgement that the market could not bear anything very much longer than 2+2.  In addition, I
recalled that the original rationale in the export competitiveness proposal for the proposed changefrom 2 to 5 years for the determination of export competitiveness was that 5 years was a typical
transition period for developing country Members in WTO Agreements.  Finally, up to that point, the
number of years had been left blank, as the Committee concentrated on the technical aspects of the
proposal.  Nevertheless, I had been under growing pressure from Members to propose a number, as
for many, their flexibility in respect of the technical aspects including criteria and procedures wasdirectly related to the length of time of the extension.
47. After sending out the revised proposal to Members, and before the 25 October meeting, I
consulted with many Members and heard a wide rang e of views concerning the time-period that I had
proposed, many expressed in quite strong terms.  Proponents indicated that in their view, it would be
better to leave a blank in the text instead of a specific date, or if that was not possible, to put twosquare bracketed dates, one reflecting 2+2 and one reflecting 15+2, thus capturing more or less the
spectrum of views expressed but making no final proposal in this regard.  A number of other
Members supported this suggestion, and I have incorporated this change in the version of my proposal
in Appendix 1.  This is the only change I have made from the version of the proposal that was
discussed at the 25 October meeting.
48. At the 25 October meeting, unfortunately no consensus was reached either on the proposed
decision and procedures or on my sending the letter.  Concerning the letter, some Members objected
on the basis that creating the Annex that would form part of the decision, when the criteria referred to
in the letter had not been formally agreed by the Committee, would create legal uncertainty as to the
status of the Annex.  In particular, one concern expressed was that even if the procedures themselves
made clear that inclusion of a programme in the Annex did not guarantee an extension, a Ministerial
decision on a package including the Annex might be viewed by some as conferring on all of theprogrammes in the Annex full eligibility for an extension.  These Members sought instead a decision
by the Committee approving the eligibility criteria set forth in the letter.  Some other Members were,
however, not able to agree to this alternative suggestion of a Committee decision on criteria.  For
some, no criteria could be agreed by the Committee in the absence of an agreement on the length of
time of any extension.  For others, a Committee decision to approve the numerical criteria set forth inthe letter was not acceptable because these criteria were based on shares of trade and total GNI, which
these Members considered to be an inappropriat e basis for determining eligibility for special
procedures.
49. Concerning the procedures themselves, similar concerns were expressed.  Some Members
indicated that they could not take a position on them without knowing the length of any possible
agreed extension.  Further, some also indicated that they would want the procedures to include a
phase-out for any programmes that were granted an extension.  Similarly, some Members could not
take a view on eligibility criteria without knowing the length of any extension.  Other Members could
not accept the procedures due to their fundamental objection to creating special procedures for a
group of Members on the basis of trade share and total GNI.  That said, a significant number of otherG/SCM/38
Page 18
Members indicated that they could essentially accept the procedures as otherwise proposed, so long as
the references to the Annex were removed, and the eligibility criteria set forth in the letter were
introduced into the procedures themselves (or at the limit, reflected in a separate decision by the
Committee).  Moreover, the demandeurs generally indicated that they could accept the procedures as
drafted, and were flexible as between the Annex as  proposed or the insertion into the procedures of
the criteria referred to in the letter.  Finally, some Members that were comfortable with the basic
substance of the criteria and of the procedures were nevertheless concerned over how and where the
criteria would be reflected, due to concerns over creating de facto a new category of Members within
the WTO.  The emphasis of these Members was that any decision in respect of criteria, however and
wherever expressed, would need to make explicit that the criteria were ad hoc, for the sole purpose of
the procedures, and could not be used by Members in any other context.
50. Some Members requested that I introduce various square brackets into the proposed
procedures. some Members requested that I put the entire text in square brackets.  Particular issues
and concerns raised in this connection were those described above, i.e., that no decisions could be
taken on criteria and procedures without knowing what the extension period would be, and/or
fundamental objection to the entire basis of the issue that was referred to the Committee.  Others
suggested putting square brackets around paragraph 1(f) (the possibility to prolong an extensionbeyond the period referred to in 1(e)), as for them, the longer the period in 1(e) the less their
flexibility in respect of the possibility that it could be prolonged.  Some demandeurs indicated that
they could agree to removal of this paragraph so long as the extension period was sufficient.  I
informed the Committee that, as indicated above, the only square brackets that I would introduce (in
fact the only change that I would make in the ve rsion of the proposal to be appended to this report)
would be the two square-bracketed dates referred to above.
3. Countervailing duty investigation procedures
51. In his request of 2 August 2001, the Chair of  the General Council indicated that Members
were agreeable to the terms of the following referral to the Committee:
"That the Chairman of the General Council request the Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures to review the prov isions of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures regarding countervailing duty investigations, and to report
to the General Council by 30 September."
52. Pursuant to the procedures agreed by the Committee, India and Brazil submitted proposals
2 in
respect of this issue.  Following initial discussion of these proposals, both Members submitted further
papers3.
53. India has indicated that a reaffirmation of the countervailability of only the excess amount of
duty drawback was of particular priority for action before or at Doha.4  In this regard, India explained
that it was seeking a Ministerial Decision emphasisi ng the relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement.
Members indicated that they were not in a position to develop detailed positions without some more
specific indication from India as to what sort of decision it envisioned and what the substantive
content of the decision would be.  Members therefor e agreed that India should submit a proposed draft
text of a decision, which India subsequently did.5
                                                     
2 The proposals can be found in documents G/SCM/W/462 and G/SCM/W/464.
3 G/SCM/W/465-466.
4 In this regard, India clarified that this was a separate issue from that of interest, also identified in
item (a) in document G/SCM/W/466.
5 This proposed draft text can be found in document G/SCM/W/470.G/SCM/38
Page 19
54. Some Members have expressed the view that India's proposed draft text goes beyond the
provisions of the SCM Agreement.  One Member considered that the text could be misinterpreted to
require investigating authorities to operate in a manner not required under the relevant provisions of
the Agreement.  While Members expressed such concerns in respect of the text proposed by India,
they indicated that they did not object to the notion of a text per se  and were willing to continue to
work with India on the matter.  Consultations therefore continue in this regard.
55. Brazil has indicated that it considers all of the issues it has raised in its proposal on
countervailing duty procedures to be of equal importance and is not prepared to give priority to one
issue above others.  In Brazil's view, the issues require consideration in toto .  In this regard, Brazil
raised the idea of a dedicated work programme to address these issues.  Some Members expressed
concern, however, over how a work programme spa nning the course of six months would run in
parallel or be linked to any possible negotiations on rules, in which case this issue would presumablybe taken up in such negotiations.  A counter-suggestion was therefore made by a Member, that the
Committee establish a group similar to the Anti-Dumping Committee's Ad Hoc Group, with priority
to be given to the proponents' issues during its first six months of operation.  Some Members
expressed concern, however, that this would mean a considerably delayed examination of issues of
concern to them.  The proponents have also expressed reservations in respect of an Ad Hoc Group-type process, and consider that such a course of action would infringe upon any eventual General
Council decision in respect of unresolved implementation issues.
56. Following further discussion of these proposals and, in particular, of the most effective way
for the Committee to give due consideration to the complex issues raised, a consensus has emerged in
the Committee that I make a recommendation to the General Council that the mandate of theCommittee for work on these proposals be extended.  The proponents indicated that they recognised
that it would be very difficult for the Committee to make substantive progress in its work on these
issues within the limited time available to it, and were therefore prepared to accept an extension of the
Committee's mandate in respect of these issues.  One of the proponents has expressed the view that
my recommendation should indicate a time-period for extension of the mandate, for instance, throughmid-2002.  Some Members were of the view, however, that my recommendation should contain no
reference to a possible time-period for extension of the Committee's mandate on these issues, and that
the question of time-period is one on which the General Council should provide guidance in light of
possible referrals to other subsidiary bodies.
4. Constant 1990 US dollar methodology
57. On 15 October 2001, the Chairman of the General Council sent me a letter, recalling the
following draft decision of the Gene ral Council found in Annex I to the Draft Decision on
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns  (Job(01)/139):
The General Council agrees that Annex VII( b) to the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures includes the Member s that are listed th erein until their GNP
per capita reaches US$ 1,000 in constant 1990 dollars for three consecutive years.
The General Council Chairman requested that the Committee take up one particular technical issue
relating to this draft decision, i. e., the question of the methodology for calculation of constant 1990
US dollars.  The Chairman further requested that I report on this matter by 26 October 2001.
58. I emphasised to Members in pursuing consultations on this issue that the General Council
Chairman had not requested the Committee to take up the substance of the proposal in question.
Rather, the hope was that the Committee could make some headway in respect of the underlyingtechnical question that would need to be resolved if the pending proposal or any other proposal based
on constant 1990 US dollars were agreed.G/SCM/38
Page 20
59. The Secretariat reminded me that the issue of constant 1990 US dollars had first come up as
part of the preparatory process for the Third Ministerial Conference in Seattle, and at that time the
Secretariat had done some work on different possible methodologies for deriving GNP per capita in
constant 1990 US dollars.  The methodology arrive d at then, with provisional results, was made
available to Members.  Thus, in reality, neither the issue nor the methodology itself is new.  Itherefore sought the input of the Secretariat regarding a possible calculation methodology, taking into
account that any such methodology should be transparent and based upon published data.
60. On this basis, I distributed a technical paper prepared by the Secretariat outlining a proposed
methodology.
6  In particular, at my request, the Secretariat prepared calculations of GNP per capita
for Members listed in Annex VII(b), expressed in constant 1990 US dollars, based entirely on data
published by the World Bank.  The calculations were through 1999, the most recent year for which all
of the necessary data were available.  With the assistance of the Secretariat, I also put together anexplanatory note along with the underlying data used to derive the constant 1990 US dollar GNP per
capita values for each country and each year, following this methodology.
61. I believe that the methodology set forth in the documentation is the appropriate one, in the
first instance because it is transparent and is based entirely on published, readily available data.
Moreover, and very importantly, the starting-point values for 1990 from which the values forsubsequent years are calculated, are those that were used by the Uruguay Round negotiators in
developing Annex VII(b), namely the 1990 GNP per capita figures as published in the 1992 World
Bank Atlas.  The methodology takes these values as the fixed starting-point, then adjusts them for real
growth from that starting-point for each ensuing year.  The real growth rates for each year are derived
from World Bank published data on real GNP per capita, expressed in constant 1995 US dollars.Thus, starting from the original base numbers used for Annex VII(b), we arrive at real GNP per capita
expressed in constant 1990 US dollars.  I do note that revised figures or more recent data resulted in
increased GNP per capita for some Members and reduced GNP per capita for other Members.
62. On the question of who should perform the calc ulation of constant 1990 US dollars, in my
view, it is logical for the Secretariat to perform any calculation.  Its independence is guaranteed byArticle VI:4 of the WTO Agreement, and it has access to the necessary data, as well as personnel with
the necessary skills, to perform such calculations.  The Secretariat would simply update the
calculations every year when the data become available, with the results circulated to all Members.
63. I do note that there may be some Members in Annex VII whose GNP per capita when
expressed in constant 1990 US dollars is actually higher than when expressed in current US dollars.
Clearly this issue goes to the substance of the proposal rather than the methodology as such, and thus
is not something that I am in a position to consult on with Members.  Therefore, I did not seekcomments in respect of this question.  That said, I understand that the General Council Chair is aware
of this question and is considering how it could be addressed in any decision.
64. Most Members have expressed the view that they could accept this proposed methodology.
One Member has indicated, however, that irrespective of the objective of employing this
methodology, it is more appropriate to rely on more recently available data, suggesting systemic linksto other actions and measures taken in the WTO.  In particular, the Member has questioned the use of
the 1992 World Bank Atlas as the source for the 1990 base year data, on the grounds that those
numbers have been subsequently revised.  That Member proposed that the methodology refer to most
recently available World Bank data rather than to the 1992 World Bank Atlas.  Another Member
made a drafting suggestion in respect of Step 4 of the methodology, in order for the methodology totake into account evolution in a country's growth.  Another Member raised the question of whether it
                                                     
6 This paper is contained in Appendix 2 to this report.G/SCM/38
Page 21
would be appropriate for Members to change their decisions with each possible revision of data by the
World Bank, even years after the fact.  Some other Members raised points of clarification.
65. It was therefore not possible to reach a consensus on the question of methodology for constant
1990 US dollars.  It is fair to say, however, that the question to be addressed at this stage is not
whether the proposed methodology is appropriate – as the methodology appears to enjoy the supportof most Members – but whether 1990 data as referenced in the 1992 World Bank Atlas, or more
recently available data, are to be used to perform calculations thereunder.  Another unresolved
question is also that of whether a new decision would be required with each revision of data by the
World Bank.
5. Export competitiveness
66. As suggested in my 30 September report, the Committee continued its discussion of export
competitiveness in the course of its October 2001 activities.  As noted in that report, the proposal onthis topic (G/SCM/W/431/Rev.1) contains two elements:  (i) the proponents seek a change from
2 years to 5 years for the period over which export competitiveness is to be established under
Article 27.6; and (ii) the proponents seek a mechanism to allow developing countries that have
achieved export competitiveness in a product to resume export subsidisation on that product if exports
thereof fall below the export competitiveness threshold.
67. Concerning the first element of the proposal the following are the main points that have been
raised during the October 2001 discussions:
• Definition of "product" for purposes of Articles 27.5 and 27.6 – A full spectrum of views has
been expressed on this question in our discussions.  At one end of this spectrum, the proponents
argue that the definition of product as "section heading" means that, for purposes of these
provisions, a product is an HS section (group of chapters).  At the other end of the spectrum, someMembers have indicated that, for them, a necessary condition of their agreeing to any solution on
export competitiveness on the basis of the elements under discussion would be that "product" be
defined at the four-digit level.  The proponents have expressed the view that they do not see the
question of product definition and the other detailed proposed elements as trade-offs, and have
indicated that the only way out of the existing impasse is to remain silent on the matter.
• Suggestion of a moving average for determining export competitiveness – As indicated in
my previous report, the idea that I had been pursuing in respect of the determination of
export competitiveness was the calculation of each of the two consecutive years referred
to in Article 27.6 as a multi-year moving average.  This approach was supported by a
number of Members as it would have the effect of delaying the date on which export
competitiveness was deemed to be reached for purposes of Article 27.6, while notrequiring a change of the period referred to in the text of that provision, as had been
originally proposed.  On the part of the proponents, there was a concern that a moving
average approach might result in two consecutive years at or above 3.2 per cent, even
where there were no two individual consecutive years at that level.  Therefore, I had
suggested that the moving average be applied as a second step only where there were two
individual consecutive years at or above 3.25 per cent.  On the other hand, some Members
have indicated that the more complicated the moving average system becomes, the moredifficult it is to accept, as it ceases to be in their view a question of interpretation of the
relevant provisions of the Agreement.
68. Concerning the second element of the proposal, the Committee had agreed at the time of my last
report that work should continue on the basis of the elements under discussion, including, inG/SCM/38
Page 22
particular, the "stop-the-clock"7 idea.  The following are the main points that have been raised during
the October 2001 discussions:
• Suggestion of a moving average for determining loss of export competitiveness – Some
Members raised the question of whether the determination of loss of export
competitiveness – like the determination of attainment of export competitiveness – would
also be made on the basis of a moving average.  They consider that it is reasonable forthis to be the case, as they are concerned about the possibility of an endless loop of
subsidisation under the stop-the-clock idea, and a moving average for both determinations
might make the re-entry situation less likely.  The proponents have indicated that this is
not acceptable to them, and that the use of a moving average would be limited to the
calculation of attainment of export competitiveness only.
• Threshold share of world export trade in a product – The proponents have indicated that
they could accept a 3 per cent threshold, but that if a developing country's share of world
export trade in a product fell to 1.5 per cent or lower, loss of export competitivenessshould be calculated on the basis of data for one year.  Other Members, however, have
indicated that they could accept a 3.25 per cent threshold.  These Members did not accept
the 1.5 per cent threshold over one year put forward by the proponents.
• Automatic recalculation two years after loss of export competitiveness – The proponents
have indicated that they could agree to the idea of an automatic recalculation by the
Secretariat two years after loss of export competitiveness.
• Resumption of export subsidization after phase-out – Some Members have indicated that they
could not accept a resumption of export subsidisation if export competitiveness were lost after the
end of the phase-out period for export subsidies.  They could only discuss the possibility of "stop-
the-clock" idea in respect of loss of export competitiveness during the phase-out period.  The
proponents have indicated that this is not acceptable to them, and that they are willing to acceptthe stop-the-clock proposal only on the condition that a developing country has the possibility ofre-entry if it loses export competitiveness after the end of the phase-out period.
• Two-year phase-out – Under the original stop-the-clock proposal, a Member that has lost export
competitiveness would have a minimum of two years to complete the phase-out of export
subsidies on the product once export competitiveness was regained.  The proponents have
indicated that this phase-out period is acceptable to them.
• Standstill – Some Members have expressed the idea that the level of subsidisation should not
increase over its level just prior to the loss of export competitiveness.  The proponents find this
suggestion unacceptable.
• Transparency/Monitoring – Some Members have suggested that some additional transparency
mechanism would be a necessary condition of any agreement to allow resumption of export
subsidisation under the stop-the-clock proposal.  The proponents have indicated that they are
willing to accept such a mechanism as part of  the proposal, but that any such mechanism would
need to take into account the resource constraints of small delegations.
69. I must report candidly that we have arrived at something of an impasse on the issue of export
competitiveness.  While there seemed to be growing convergence of views around the moving
average approach for determination of export compet itiveness, views in respect of the resumption of
export competitiveness after a loss of export compet itiveness remained a considerable distance apart.
                                                     
7 G/SCM/W/457.G/SCM/38
Page 23
In particular, the proponents have indicated very clearly what they could and could not accept of the
elements raised in the discussions of the stop-the-clock proposal.  In addition, the proponents have
made it clear that they consider the two elements of the proposal to be a package, and could not accept
a possible solution only in respect of the first element.
70. I relayed these views to other Members, whose prevailing reaction was one of
disappointment.  They felt that they had shown a gr eat deal of flexibility first in putting forward the
stop-the-clock proposal, and second in agreeing, how ever reluctantly in some cases, to continue
discussion on that basis.  It is clear that the elements the proponents could not accept are of
considerable importance to a number of other Members.  In particular, for some, the entire issue of the
export competitiveness proposal had been extremely problematic from the outset, and what they
viewed as the relative inflexibility of the proponents so late in the Committee process on so many
basic elements led them to conclude that there did not seem to be any possible basis for a consensuson this issue.
71. The reaction of Members was reported to the proponents who in turn expressed
disappointment.  In order to advance work on the matter, I requested the proponents to consult
internally either to reconsider their position on th e elements that they found unacceptable, or to put
forward counter-proposals.  The proponents informed the Committee at its formal meeting of 25October 2001 that internal consultations as well as consultations with other Members are continuing
in this regard.
6. Definition of "inputs consumed in the production process"
72. As indicated in my 30 September report, no further substantive issues have been raised in
respect of this issue since my 31 July report.
7. Aggregate and generalised rates of duty remission
73. As indicated in my 30 September report, no further substantive issues have been raised in
respect of this issue since my 31 July report.G/SCM/38
Page 24
APPENDIX 1
Chairman's Proposal Of 24 October 2001 In Respect Of
Certain Developing Country Members With a Sm all Share Of World Merchandise Export Trade
The proposal reflected below is identical in all respects to that discussed at the Committee's
25 October 2001 meeting, with the exception of the reference in paragraph 1(e) to a time-period for
extension of the transition period, which now reflects tw o dates, rather than the single date originally
proposed.
***
Draft decision
Ministers,
Having regard for the particular situation of developing country Members with a small share
of world merchandise export trade,
direct  the Members of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to extend
the transition period, under the rubric of Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures, for certain export subsidie s provided by such Members, pursuant to the
procedures set forth in document G/SCM/…G/SCM/38
Page 25
Procedures for extensions under Article 27.4 for certain developing country Members
with a small share of world merchandise export trade
Should Ministers so direct Members, the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures ("SCM Committee") shall follow the procedures set forth below in respect of extensions ofthe transition period under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
("SCM Agreement") for certain developing country Members with a small share of world
merchandise export trade.  The developing country Members, and their programmes, to which these
procedures shall apply are those identified in the Annex to these procedures.
74. Mechanism for extension
(a) A Member that maintains programmes listed in the Annex (referred to in 2(a)) and that wishes
to make use of these procedures, shall initiate Article 27.4 consultations with the Committee in
respect of an extension for its eligible subsidy programmes as referred to in 2(b), on the basis of
documentation to be submitted to the Committee not later than 31 December 2001.  This
documentation shall consist of (i) an identification by the Member of those of its programmes listed in
the Annex to these procedures (as referred to in 2(a)) for which it is seeking an extension under SCMArticle 27.4 pursuant to these procedures; and (ii) a statement that the extension is necessary in the
light of the Member's economic, financial and development needs.
(b) Not later than 28 February 2002, the Member seeking an extension shall submit to the SCM
Committee an initial notification as referred to in  3(a) providing detailed information about the
programmes for which extension was being sought.
(c) Following receipt of the notifications referred to in 1(b), the SCM Committee shall consider
those notifications, with an opportunity for Members to seek clarification of the notified information
and/or additional detail with a view to understanding the nature and operation of the notified
programmes, and their scope, coverage and intensity of benefits, as referred to in 3(b).  The purpose
of this consideration by the SCM Committee shall be to verify that the programmes are of the typeeligible under these procedures as referred to in 2(b), and that the transparency requirement referred to
in 3(a) and 3(b) is fulfilled.  Not later than 15 December 2002, Members of the SCM Committee shall
grant extensions for calendar year 2003 for those programmes notified pursuant to these procedures,
provided that the notified programmes meet the eligibility criteria in 2(b) and that the transparency
requirement is fulfilled.  The notified information on the basis of which the extensions are granted,
including information provided in response to reques ts from Members as referred to above, shall form
the frame of reference for the annual reviews of the extensions as referred to in 1(d) and 1(e).
(d) As provided for in SCM Article 27.4, the extensions granted by the SCM Committee pursuant
to these procedures shall be subject to annual re view in the form of consultations between the
Committee and the Members receiving the extensions.  These annual reviews shall be conducted on
the basis of updating notifications from the Members in question, as referred to in 3(a) and 3(b).  The
purpose of the annual reviews shall be to ensure that the transparency and standstill requirements asset forth in 3 and 4 are being fulfilled.
(e) Through the end of calendar year [2005] [2018], subject to annual reviews during that period
to verify that the transparency and standstill requirements set forth in 3 and 4 are being fulfilled,
Members of the Committee shall agree to continue the extensions granted pursuant to 1(c).
(f) During the last year of the period referred to in 1(e), a Member that has received an extension
under these procedures shall have the possibility to seek a continuation of the extension pursuant to
SCM Article 27.4, for the programmes in question.  The Committee shall consider any such requestsG/SCM/38
Page 26
at that year's annual review, on the basis of the provisions of SCM Article 27.4, i.e., outside the
framework of these procedures.
(g) If a continuation of the extension pursuant to 1(f) is either not requested or not granted, the
Member in question shall have the final two years referred to in the last sentence of SCM Article 27.4.
75. Eligible programmes
(a) A list of programmes identified by specific Members is contained in the Annex to
these procedures.  Members are eligible to invoke these procedures in respect of their
programmes listed in the Annex.  The programmes listed in the Annex are those that
have been identified by the listed Members as being full or partial exemptions from
import duties and internal taxes which were in existence not later than
1 September 2001, as referred to in 2(b).
(b) Programmes eligible for extension pursuant to these procedures, and for which Members shall
therefore grant extensions for calendar year 2003 as referred to in 1(c), are (i) export subsidy
programmes in the form of full or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes, (ii)
provided by developing country Members which are otherwise eligible to request an extension
pursuant to Article 27.4,8 (iii) which were in existence not later than 1 September 2001, (iv) which are
listed in the Annex, and (v) in respect of which these procedures are followed.
76. Transparency
(a) The initial notification referred to in 1(b), and the updating notifications referred to in 1(d),
shall follow the agreed format for subsidy notif ications under SCM Article 25 (found in G/SCM/6).
(b) During the SCM Committee's consideration/review of the notifications referred to in
1(c) and 1(d), notifying Members can be requested by other Members to provideadditional detail and clarification, with a view to confirming that the programmes are
of the type referred to in 2(b), and to establishing transparency in respect of the scope,
coverage and intensity of benefits (the "favourability") of the programmes in
question.
9  Any information provided in response to such requests shall be considered
part of the notified information.
77. Standstill
(a) The programmes for which an extension is granted shall not be modified during the
period of extension referred to in 1(e) so as to make them more favourable than they
were as at 1 September 2001.  The continuation of an expiring programme without
modification shall not be deemed to violate standstill.
(b) The scope, coverage, and intensity of benefits (the "favourability") of the
programmes as at 1 September 2001 shall be specified in the initial notificationreferred to in 1(b), and standstill as referred to in 4(a) shall be verified on the basis of
the notified information referred to in 1(d) and 3(b).
78. Product graduation on the basis of export competitiveness
                                                     
8 As provided in 6, the fact that a Member is list ed in Annex VII(b) shall no t be deemed to make that
Member otherwise ineligible to request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4.
9 The scope, coverage, and intensity of the programmes in question will be determined on the basis of
the legal instruments underlying the programmes.G/SCM/38
Page 27
Notwithstanding these procedures, Articles 27.5 and 27.6 shall apply in respect of export
subsidies for which extensions are granted pursuant to these procedures.
79. Members listed in Annex VII(b)
(a) A Member listed in Annex VII(b) whose GNP per capita [is less than US$1,000] [has
not reached US$1,000 in 1990 constant US dollars for three consecutive years] as ofthe date of the decision by Ministers, and which has a programme identified in the
Annex, may  reserve its right to make use of these procedures, as referred to in 6(c),
by  submitting the documentation referred to in 1(a) not later than 31 December 2001.
(b) If the per capita GNP of a Member referred to in 6(a) reaches US$1,000 [in 1990
constant US dollars for a third consecutive year] during the period referred to in 1(e),
that Member shall be able to make use of these procedures as from the date at which
its per capita GNP reaches US$1,000 [in 1990 constant US dollars for a thirdconsecutive year] and for the remainder of the period referred to in 1(e), as well as for
any additional periods as referred to in 1(f) and 1(g), subject to the remaining
provisions of these procedures.
(c) For a Member referred to in 6(c), the effective date for the standstill requirement
referred to in 4(a) shall be the  year in which that Member's GNP per capita [reachesUS$1,000][has reached US$1,000 in 1990 constant US dollars for a third consecutive
year].
80. Final provisions
(a) The decision by Ministers, these procedures, and the SCM Article 27.4 extensions
granted thereunder, are without prejudice to any requests for extensions under Article27.4 that are not made pursuant to these procedures.
(b) The decision by Ministers, these procedures, and the SCM Article 27.4 extensions
granted thereunder, shall not affect any other existing rights and obligations under
SCM Article 27.4 or under other provisions of the SCM Agreement.G/SCM/38
Page 28
Centre William Rappard    Rue de Lausanne 154    Case postale    CH - 1211 Genève 21
 Téléphone:  (+41 22) 739 51 11    Fax:  (+41 22) 731 42 06
Internet:  http://www.wto.orgWORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO
Direct line:
Direct fax:
Email:          
Reference:           
Dear [Mr.][Madam] Ambassador,
On 2 August 2001, the Chairman of the General Council informed me that the General
Council had agreed to refer the following issue to the Committee on Subsidies and CountervailingMeasures for its consideration and reporting back to the General Council:
"Members request the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to
consider the implementation of Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures as it relates to particular issues concerning developing-
country Members with a small percentage share of exports in import markets and inglobal trade."
In connection with this issue, the Committee has been discussing a framework of procedures
that could be used by developing country Members with a small share of world merchandise export
trade in seeking extensions pursuant to SCM Article 27.4 of the transition period for eliminating
their export subsidies .
The Committee has recognized that for Ministers to be in a position to take a decision at the
Fourth Ministerial Conference in respect of the framework under discussion, they would need to knowwhich Members could use it and in respect of which programmes.  Accordingly, the framework under
discussion foresees that the decision and procedures would be accompanied by an Annex identifying
the programmes of specific Members in respect of which the procedures could be invoked.  TheAnnex thus would form part of the decision and would represent the maximum universe of Membersand programmes eligible to invoke the procedures.
Concerning eligible programmes of Members, the Committee has come to a working
understanding that such programmes would be export subsidy programmes (i) in the form of full
or partial exemptions from import duties and internal taxes, (ii) provided by developingcountry Members whose share of world merchandise export trade was not greater than 0.10percent on the basis of statistics maintained by the WTO Secretariat (see Attachment 1), andwhose total Gross National Income (“GNI”) in  2000 as published by the World Bank was not
greater than $US 20 billion (see Attachment 2) (iii) which were in existence not later than
1 September 2001, (iv) which were provided by developing country Members which are
otherwise eligible to request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4, and (v) which are listed inG/SCM/38
Page 29
the Annex described above. Thus, programmes of this type would need to be listed in the Annex to
be potentially eligible under the procedures.
Given the above, the Annex under discussion would need to be created, on the basis of
information provided by Members, before the Ministerial Conference, i.e., before any decision thatmay be taken there.  The Committee has come to a working understanding that, to ensure that theAnnex can be created in sufficient time, the necessary information should be submitted to the WTO
Secretariat (Ms. Clarisse Morgan, Secretary to the Committee) by eligible Members not later than
close of business on 2 November 2001 .  In the Committee's view, any programme identified by a
Member after that date could not be included in the Annex .
This letter is being sent to all WTO Members that fall within the parameters of share of world
trade and total GNI in 2000 outlined above.  No attempt has been made to differentiate betweendeveloping and developed country Members, or to ascertain whether Members receiving the letter are
otherwise eligible to request an extension pursuant to Article 27.4.
If your country (i) is a developing country Member, (ii) had in force as of
1 September 2001 export subsidies in the form of full or partial exemptions from import dutiesand internal taxes, (iii) is ot herwise eligible to re quest an extension pursuant to Article 27.4,
and (iv) wishes to have the possibility to have its programmes considered for Article 27.4
extension pursuant to the possible decision, (i.e., if your country wishes to include
programmes in the Annex), you would need to submit for inclusion in the Annex, not later than close
of business on 2 November 2001, a list of such export subsidy programmes, including the following
information:
(a) An identification and brief description of each programme, with a reference to any
underlying legal instruments (laws, regulations, etc.) governing the operation of the
programme.
(b) Where possible, a copy of the legal instruments referred to in (a).Shortly after 2 November 2001, the Secretariat will circulate a compilation of the information
received from Members for inclusion in the Annex.  This compilation would form the Annex should the
decision be adopted by Ministers.  Please be aware that, under the procedures recommended by the
Committee for adoption by Members, the Committee will grant the extension only upon verificationthat the criteria set forth in the preceding paragraph are met.
If you have any questions concerning the matters described in this letter, please do not
hesitate to call me at +41-22-799-9123, or the Committee Secretary, Ms. Clarisse Morgan, at +41-22-
739-5508.
Thanking you for your attention to this matter, I remain dear [Mr.][Madam] Ambassador,
Yours sincerely,
Remo Moretta
Chairman
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresG/SCM/38
Page 30
APPENDIX 2
Chairman's Proposal of 17 October 2001 on  Constant 1990 US Dollar Methodology
On 15 October 2001, the Chairman of the General Council sent me a letter, recalling the
following draft decision of the Gene ral Council found in Annex I to the Draft Decision on
Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns  (JOB(01)/139):
"The General Council agrees that Annex VII(b) to the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures includes the Member s that are listed th erein until their GNP
per capita reaches US$ 1000 in constant 1990 dollars for three consecutive years."
The Chairman of the General Council requested that the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures take up one particular technical issue relating to this draft decision, i.e. the question of
precisely how and by whom the calculation of cons tant 1990 dollars could be performed.  He further
requested that I report on this matter on 26 October 2001.
In my view, it would be logical for the Secret ariat to perform any calculation of constant 1990
dollars, given that its independence is guaranteed by Article VI.4 of the WTO Agreement and that it
has access to the necessary data to perform such calculations.  As the Secretariat had already done
some initial work on this issue, I sought its input regarding a possible calculation methodology, taking
into account that any such methodology should be transparent and based upon published data.  On thisbasis, I proposed the following methodology for performing this calculation.
It should be noted that the foregoing methodology could in some cases result in a figure for
GNP per capita in 1990 constant dollars in excess of GNP per capita in current dollars.  I understand
that the Chairman of the General Council has been al erted to this issue and is considering how it could
be addressed in any decision.G/SCM/38
Page 31
Proposed Methodology for Calculating Constant 1990 Dollars
Step 1
Because the World Bank does not publish GNP per capita figures in constant 1990 dollars,
the starting-point for the calculation is the dollar value of GNP per capita at 1995 prices and exchange
rates according to the Atlas method10.  These data are published annually in World Bank, World
Development Indicators, CD ROM.  The most re cent such data, drawn from World Development
Indicators 2001, CD ROM, are as follows:
A.  GNP per capita at constant 1995 dollars, 1990-1999
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Bolivia 789 815 818 834 855 872 898 914 952 931
Cameroon 733 671 641 598 561 564 579 590 612 626
Congo, Dem. Rep. 204 181 155 133 116 111 111 101 102 …Côte d'Ivoire 679 662 644 614 624 649 684 714 730 730Dominican Republic 1307 1289 1370 1345 1385 1428 1520 1619 1701 1811Egypt 948 947 983 985 998 1036 1074 1117 1160 1204
Ghana 345 353 357 364 366 370 378 385 394 403
Guatemala 1332 1356 1386 1405 1421 1452 1454 1478 1517 1528Guyana 385 357 468 539 611 659 740 762 760 771Honduras 622 619 628 674 649 654 663 686 689 662India 321 315 326 336 354 376 396 407 427 448Indonesia 746 798 841 892 953 1011 1074 1100 904 907
Kenya 338 331 322 305 311 323 333 335 335 332
Morocco 1260 1318 1245 1200 1309 1200 1329 1279 1351 1322Nicaragua 373 323 321 323 297 346 364 388 413 432Nigeria 220 229 230 230 229 233 230 232 228 229Pakistan 445 473 493 489 493 508 511 502 503 511Philippines 1091 1071 1062 1059 1088 1114 1168 1204 1182 1201
Senegal 546 532 537 505 504 519 539 552 567 582
Sri Lanka 569 586 607 645 670 700 715 752 778 799Zimbabwe 663 689 609 612 627 617 672 670 669 652
                                                     
10 According to the World Bank, the Atlas method of calculating GNP per capita converts national
currency units to dollars at prevailing exchange rates, adju sted for inflation and averaged over three years.   Full
details on this methodology can be found on the World Bank's website at: http://www.worldbank.org/data under
"Working with data".G/SCM/38
Page 32
Step 2
 The data identified under Step 1 are converted to indices, 1990 = 100.  These indices are as follows:
B. GNP per capita at constant 1995 dollars, 1990-1999
(Indices, 1990 = 100)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Bolivia 100 103.3 103.7 105.7 108.4 110.5 113.8 115.8 120.7 118.0
Cameroon 100 91.5 87.4 81.6 76.5 76.9 79.0 80.5 83.5 85.4
Congo, Dem. Rep. 100 88.7 76.0 65.2 56.9 54.4 54.4 49.5 50.0 …
Côte d'Ivoire 100 97.5 94.8 90.4 91.9 95.6 100.7 105.2 107.5 107.5
Dominican Republic 100 98.6 104.8 102.9 106.0 109.3 116.3 123.9 130.1 138.6Egypt 100 99.9 103.7 103.9 105.3 109.3 113.3 117.8 122.4 127.0Ghana 100 102.3 103.5 105.5 106.1 107.2 109.6 111.6 114.2 116.8Guatemala 100 101.8 104.1 105.5 106.7 109.0 109.2 111.0 113.9 114.7Guyana 100 92.7 121.6 140.0 158.7 171.2 192.2 197.9 197.4 200.3
Honduras 100 99.5 101.0 108.4 104.3 105.1 106.6 110.3 110.8 106.4
India 100 98.1 101.6 104.7 110.3 117.1 123.4 126.8 133.0 139.6Indonesia 100 107.0 112.7 119.6 127.7 135.5 144.0 147.5 121.2 121.6Kenya 100 97.9 95.3 90.2 92.0 95.6 98.5 99.1 99.1 98.2Morocco 100 104.6 98.8 95.2 103.9 95.2 105.5 101.5 107.2 104.9Nicaragua 100 86.6 86.1 86.6 79.6 92.8 97.6 104.0 110.7 115.8
Nigeria 100 104.1 104.5 104.5 104.1 105.9 104.5 105.5 103.6 104.1
Pakistan 100 106.3 110.8 109.9 110.8 114.2 114.8 112.8 113.0 114.8Philippines 100 98.2 97.3 97.1 99.7 102.1 107.1 110.4 108.3 110.1Senegal 100 97.4 98.4 92.5 92.3 95.1 98.7 101.1 103.8 106.6Sri Lanka 100 103.0 106.7 113.4 117.8 123.0 125.7 132.2 136.7 140.4Zimbabwe 100 103.9 91.9 92.3 94.6 93.1 101.4 101.1 100.9 98.3
Step 3
The indices identified in Step 2 are applied to the dollar value of 1990 GNP per capita at 1990 prices
and exchange rates.  Because they represented the information available at the time Members
negotiated Annex VII(b), these values are based upon the World Bank Atlas 1992, and will not be
modified to reflect any subsequent revisions to those values. The dollar value of 1990 GNP per capita
at 1990 prices and exchanges rates, as drawn from the World Bank Atlas 1992, Atlas method, appears
in italics in the first column below, and the indexed values for subsequent years appear in subsequentcolumns.  The last column represents the GNP per capita in constant 1990 dollars for each Member
listed in Annex VII(b) in 1999.
11
                                                     
11 The necessary World Bank data to perform this calculation for the year 2000 are not yet available.G/SCM/38
Page 33
C. GNP per capita at constant 1990 dollars, 1990-1999
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Bolivia 630 651 653 666 683 696 717 730 760 743
Cameroon 960 879 840 783 735 739 758 773 802 820
Congo, Dem. Rep. 220 195 167 143 125 120 120 109 110 …Côte d'Ivoire 750 731 711 678 689 717 756 789 806 806Dominican Republic 830 819 870 854 880 907 965 1028 1080 1150
Egypt 610 609 633 634 642 667 691 719 746 775
Ghana 390 399 404 411 414 418 427 435 445 456Guatemala 910 926 947 960 971 992 993 1010 1036 1044Guyana 380 352 462 532 603 650 730 752 750 761Honduras 640 637 646 694 668 673 682 706 709 681India 360 353 366 377 397 422 444 456 479 502
Indonesia 560 599 631 670 715 759 806 826 679 681
Kenya 370 362 352 334 340 354 365 367 367 363Morocco 970 1015 958 924 1008 924 1023 985 1040 1018Nicaragua 420 364 361 364 334 390 410 437 465 486Nigeria 290 302 303 303 302 307 303 306 301 302Pakistan 400 425 443 440 443 457 459 451 452 459
Philippines 730 717 711 709 728 745 782 806 791 804
Senegal 710 692 698 657 655 675 701 718 737 757Sri Lanka 470 484 501 533 553 578 591 621 643 660Zimbabwe 650 675 597 600 615 605 659 657 656 639
Step 4
The Secretariat will update its calculations and inform the Committee of the results on an
annual basis upon the release of the World Bank Indicators, CD ROM each year.  The dollar value ofGNP per capita at 1990 prices and exchange rates will continue to be based upon the World Bank
Atlas 1992.  Should the World Bank modify its statistics such that the values in Step 1 are based upon
constant dollars for a year different than 1995, the indices in Step 2 for years subsequent to the
modification would be constructed on the basis of the modified statistics.G/SCM/38
Page 34
APPENDIX 3
Shares in world exports by country and territory
(in ascending order, average 1998-2000 shares,  in per cent)
Rank Name Share
1   Tuvalu 0.002   Sao Tome and Principe 0.003   Kiribati 0.00
4   Sierra Leone 0.00
5   Comoros 0.006   Tonga 0.007   Cape Verde 0.008   Antigua and Barbuda 0.009   Samoa 0.00
10   Gambia 0.00
11   Djibouti 0.0012   Vanuatu 0.0013   St. Kitts and Nevis 0.0014   Grenada 0.0015   St. Vincent and the Grenadines 0.00
16   Guinea-Bissau 0.00
17   Burundi 0.0018   Dominica 0.0019   Rwanda 0.0020   St. Lucia 0.0021   Maldives 0.00
22   Somalia 0.00
23   Bhutan 0.0024   Solomon Islands 0.0025   Afghanistan 0.0026   Seychelles 0.0027   Belize 0.00
28   Central African Republic 0.00
29   Haiti 0.0030   Lesotho 0.0031   Chad 0.0032   Madagascar 0.0033   Albania 0.00
34   Mozambique 0.00
35   Armenia 0.0036   Georgia 0.0037   Barbados 0.0038   Burkina Faso 0.0039   Niger 0.01
40   Lao People's Dem. Rep. 0.01
41   Mauritania 0.0142   Mongolia 0.0143   Togo 0.0144   Benin 0.01G/SCM/38
Page 35
45   Malawi 0.01
46   Suriname 0.01
47   New Caledonia 0.0148   Uganda 0.0149   Congo, Dem. Rep. of 0.0150   Kyrgyz Rep. 0.0151   Ethiopia 0.01
52   Moldova, Rep. of 0.01
53   Guyana 0.0154   Liberia 0.0155   Cambodia 0.0156   Mali 0.0157   Fiji 0.01
58   Nicaragua 0.01
59   Tanzania, United Rep. of 0.0160   Nepal 0.0161   Equatorial Guinea 0.0162   Lebanon 0.0163   Tajikistan 0.01
64   Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.01
65   Guinea 0.0166   Zambia 0.0167   Panama 0.0168   Paraguay 0.0269   Bahamas 0.02
70   Swaziland 0.02
71   Senegal 0.0272   Cyprus 0.0273   Sudan 0.0274   Azerbaijan 0.0275   Bolivia 0.02
76   Myanmar 0.02
77   Netherlands Antilles 0.0278   TFYR Macedonia 0.0279   Jamaica 0.0280   Namibia 0.0281   Honduras 0.02
82   Turkmenistan 0.03
83   Cuba 0.0384   Mauritius 0.0385   Cameroon 0.0386   Ghana 0.0387   Latvia 0.03
88   Congo 0.03
89   Kenya 0.0390   Jordan 0.0391   Papua New Guinea 0.0392   Zimbabwe 0.0393   Iceland 0.03
94   Malta 0.04
95   Yugoslavia 0.04G/SCM/38
Page 36
96   Macau, China 0.04
97   Botswana 0.04
98   Uruguay 0.0499   Gabon 0.04
100   Guatemala 0.04101   El Salvador 0.05102   Yemen 0.05
103   Brunei Darussalam 0.05
104   Estonia 0.05105   Uzbekistan 0.05106   Trinidad and Tobago 0.05107   Syrian Arab Republic 0.06108   Lithuania 0.06
109   Egypt 0.06
110   Bahrain 0.07111   Bulgaria 0.07112   Côte d'Ivoire 0.08113   Croatia 0.08114   Ecuador 0.08
115   Sri Lanka 0.08
116   Dominican Republic 0.09117   Angola 0.09118   Bangladesh 0.10119   Tunisia 0.10120   Costa Rica 0.10
121   Peru 0.11
122   Kazakhstan 0.11123   Belarus 0.12124   Qatar 0.12125   Morocco 0.13126   Oman 0.14
127   Pakistan 0.15
128   Slovenia 0.15129   Romania 0.16130   Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0.16131   Greece 0.18132   Slovak Rep. 0.19
133   Viet Nam 0.20
134   Colombia 0.20135   Iraq 0.21136   New Zealand 0.22137   Ukraine 0.22138   Kuwait 0.23
139   Algeria 0.24
140   Nigeria 0.24141   Chile 0.28142   Iran, Islamic Rep. of 0.35143   Venezuela 0.39144   Portugal 0.42
145   Hungary 0.44
146   Argentina 0.44G/SCM/38
Page 37
147   Israel 0.46
148   Turkey 0.46
149   Czech Rep. 0.47150   South Africa 0.48151   Poland 0.50152   United Arab Emirates 0.56153   Philippines 0.60
154   India 0.64
155   Finland 0.75156   Norway 0.83157   Denmark 0.85158   Brazil 0.88159   Indonesia 0.91
160   Saudi Arabia 0.98
161   Australia 1.01162   Thailand 1.04163   Austria 1.10164   Ireland 1.23165   Switzerland 1.38
166   Russian Fed. 1.46
167   Malaysia 1.46168   Sweden 1.47169   Spain 1.91170   Singapore a) 2.07171   Taipei, Chinese 2.17
172   Mexico 2.39
173   Korea, Rep. of 2.56174   Hong Kong, China a) 3.16175   Belgium-Luxembourg b) 3.21176   Netherlands 3.53177   China 3.58
178   Italy 4.14
179   Canada 4.16180   United Kingdom 4.74181   France 5.21182   Japan 7.35183   Germany 9.41
184   United States 12.40
Source: WTO Secretariat
a)  Includes significant re-exports.
b) Beginning with 1999, figures refer to the sum of exports of Belgium and Luxembourg,i.e., including intra-trade.
Note:
The calculation of export shares was done based on the methodology used in International Trade
Statistics 2000, table I.5.  The world trade total used in the calculations includes EU intra-trade and
re-exports.  To reduce the effect of volatility in export values, average 1998-2000 shares are shown.G/SCM/38
Page 38
The data used in the calculations are due to be published in the International Trade Statistics 2001.
Recent figures for a number of countries and territories have been estimated by the Secretariat.
__________