RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/NOP/7
28May1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1984)
Working Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures
MEETING HELD ON7MAY 1996
Chairman: Mr.A.Shoyer (United States)
Note bytheSecretariat
1. Thedraftagenda fortheseventh meeting oftheWorking Group, setoutinWTO/AIR/321
of25April 1996, wasadopted.
Agenda Item2A: Duplication/overlapping inNotification Obligations intheArea ofAgriculture/
Subsidies
2. TheChairman recalled thattheGroup hadreceived fourpapers onthistopic, byNewZealand
(G/NOP/W/7),theEuropeanCommunity(G/NOP/W/11)andtheUnitedStates(G/NOP/W/8andW/10).
Inaddition, written comments onthese proposals hadrecently been provided byArgentina
(G/NOP/W/12).
3. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community noted thattheUnited States proposal
(G/NOP/W/10) followed thesame linesasthatoftheEC(G/NOP/W/11) andalthough there were
some points ofdivergence, itwassuggested thattheGroup focus thedebate ontheUSpaper. The
Chairman suggested thattheGroup nowhadbefore itafullydeveloped proposal andsuggested that
delegations should examine itindetail atthismeeting, advancing anyconcerns, questions andfurther
suggestions withaviewtomoving closer toconclusions.
4. Anotherdelegationposedtwoquestions;first,wouldtheproposedformatcoveronlyoverlapping
subsidy/agriculture notifications andtherefore would itnotapply tonotifications which werecovered
byonlyoneofthese agreements and,second, wastheproposed format tobeusedfornotifications
toboththeAgriculture andSubsidies committees? Inresponse, theUnited States delegate saidthat
theproposed format would apply toallsubsides thatwerecurrently subject tonotification under the
Agriculture Agreement. Anyagricultural subsidies notcovered bythatAgreement, suchassubsidies
toprocessors, would notbesubject tothese formats butwould besubject, astheyarecurrently, to
thenotification requirements oftheSubsidies Agreement. Theresponse tothesecond question was
affirmative -notifications using thenewformat would bemade available tobothcommittees. Another
delegationreiteratedthatnotificationswouldhavetobemadetobothcommitteesandanynewnotification
format would, therefore, havetomeettheneeds ofbothcommittees.
5. Inresponse topoints raised inthepaper byArgentina (G/NOP/W/12), theUSdelegate explained
thattheirproposal included onlythose tables proposed formodification, while thetables notincluded
would notbesubject torevision oftheirformat. Concerning comments made regarding thesuggested
footnotes, theUSdelegate explained thatthegoalwastoexpand theexisting agriculture notifications
toinclude elements from thesubsidies notification. Most ofthese were qualitative descriptions on
theoperation ofsubsidy programmes. Inresponse totheconcern thatsome obligations under the
Subsidies Agreement werenotexplicitly recreated inthenewformat, itwasnoted thatsome oftheseG/NOP/7
Page2
obligations wereonlyrequired where appropriate orwhere theMember concerned sawfittosupply
them. Inparticular, therequirement forinformation on"trade effects" hadnotserved auseful purpose
and,therefore, itwasconsidered thatthisrequirement could beremoved.
6. Another concern wasthattheUShadparaphrased some oftherequirements carried overfrom
theSubsidies Agreement rather thanliterally transposing theexisting provisions. TheUSdelegate
explained thatthere wasnointention toreduce anyobligation thatcurrently existed, nortolimitthe
information before theSubsidies Committee. Thelanguage could possibly beimproved or,ifnecessary,
theprovisions could befullyreplicated inthenewformat.
7. Itwasobserved thatArticle 13oftheAgriculture Agreement leftamargin fortheeffects of
subsidized exports onanimporter 'smarket tobeeligible forcountervailing measures. Therefore,
toconsider thetradeeffects within theSubsidies Committee would notbeirrelevant ormerely illustrative
butwould, infact,serve theneeds ofbothAgreements. Itwasalsoobserved thattheUSproposal
would actually enhance theAgriculture Agreement notifications aslongasitmetalloftheobligations
oftheSubsidies Agreement, including theprovision ontradeeffects. Onepointwhich should becovered
related tothefactthatthereweresome subsidies notcovered bytheAMS calculation andthese might
bemissed inacombined format astheAgriculture Committee format onlyrequired notification of
newormodified domestic support measures which wereexempt fromreduction commitments. Itwas
explained thatthisgapwould becovered bythefactthatanysubsidy notcaptured bythenewformat
would berequired tobenotified under theexisting Subsidies Committee format. Itwasalsosuggested
thattiming should notpresent aproblem astheexisting requirements could bemaintained.
8. Itwasproposed thattheGroup should consider theprocess bywhich itsrecommendation would
betransmitted totheconcerned Committees andhowtheywould beexpected toactupon such
recommendation. Itwasalsoconsidered thatsome provision should bemade inorder tocreate a
framework forfuture review ofthese notification formats. Provision should alsobetaken toensure
thatdelegations would notdelay presenting theirnotifications untilthisnewformat hadbeenagreed
inthetwoCommittees. Itwasalsoimportant thatanyinformation which would beprovided beyond
thatrequired under theAgriculture Agreement would notprejudice theclassification oftheprogramme
asasubsidy asdefined bytheSubsidies Agreement. Also, theadditional information must notbe
seenasareplacement forthedescription ofthemeasure asrequired bytheAgriculture Agreement.
Itwassuggested thatitmight bepossible toaccommodate theseconcerns inacover noteorasafootnote
totheformat itself.
9. Attention wasdrawn toareference inthepaper byArgentina toadocument (G/AG/W/13)
which setoutinformation onthedifferences intheobjectives served bythenotifications under the
Subsidies andAgriculture Committees. Thisdelegate expressed fullagreement bothwithArgentina
onthispoint andwiththeviewexpressed earlier thatdecisions tochange formats would bestbetaken
afterafullcycle ofnotifications hadbeencompleted.
10. Commenting onthepoints raised, adelegate stressed thatthisexercise didnotsuggest any
renegotiation oftheexisting notification formats. Itwasalsonoted thatArticle 25.3oftheSubsidies
Agreement required thepresentation ofstatistical dataalthough thiswasnuanced indocument G/SCM/6,
point 9,where theterm"totheextent possible" wasusedinrecognition ofthedifficulties incollecting
suchstatistical information. Concerning theviewthatcertain subsidies excluded fromtheAgriculture
Agreement might notbenotified toeither Committee, itwasstressed thatthese other subsidies were
clearly notifiable under theSubsidies Agreement.
11. Following thediscussion, theChairman proposed thatheprepare atextfortheGroup 's
consideration. Heunderstood from thediscussion thattheUSapproach, andthebasically similar
approach oftheECcould beatleastaworking basis formoving forward. Herecalled themanyG/NOP/7
Page3
suggestions made onseveral topics including coverage ofboththeagreements andthesubsidies
themselves; towhich committees theformat would beaddressed; themandates ofthetwocommittees
involved; theactual presentation oftheformats; thequestion oftiming; andtheprocess formaking
arecommendation. Heundertook toconsult delegations, particularly those which hadexpressed their
views andconcerns, taking intoaccount theircomments and,onthisbasis, toprepare atextforthe
nextmeeting.
Agenda Item2B: Compliance withNotification Obligations
12. TheChairman recalled thattheGroup hadreceived ageneral overview paper oncompliance
bytheSecretariat (G/NOP/W/9). Further, theSecretariat wascurrently intheprocess ofassembling
amore extensive listing oftheone-time andregular notifications byWTO Members, ashadbeen
requested atthelastmeeting. Thispaper would beready inadvance ofthenextmeeting.
13. Inthisregard, hecontinued tobeoftheviewthattheGroup should make provision initsreport
fortherather anomalous situation iftheGroup 'sexamination were topoint outthatthenotification
burden wasnotasheavy asoncethought anditwould notbemaking far-reaching recommendations
tostreamline thesystem; butnevertheless thecompliance ratewasstillquite lowinseveral areas.
Hesuggested thattheGroup exchange views onthequestion ofcompliance andatleasttrytoidentify
some possible reasons whyMembers were notmeeting theirdeadlines.
14. Inresponse, itwassuggested thatthiswasatopicwhich deserved theserious attention ofthe
Group. Insodoing, thisGroup should concentrate lessontheindividual details ofMembers '
notifications andmore onageneral approach which could helpallcommittees dealwiththisproblem.
Itwasconsidered thatacollective effort would berequired oftheWorking Group, thecommittees
andtheSecretariat todevelop solutions totheproblems ofcompliance. Intheviewofthisdelegate,
thecauses oflowcompliance atthenational level were alackofawareness oftherequirements, a
lackofsense ofdutybyofficials orthedivision ofresponsibilities among various government agencies
withtheresponsibility fornotification notresting withthemostappropriate offices. Torespond to
thissituation, itwassuggested thateachMember should berequired todesignate oneofficial oroffice
asthesingle entity responsible forthatMember 'snotifications inallareas. Thatperson oroffice would
supervise theentire notification process atthenational level.
15. Itwasalsosuggested thatthereshould beguidelines, possibly tobedeveloped intheWorking
Group, tobeapplied byallcommittees inadministering thenotification system. These guidelines might
begeneral duetothedifferences between thevarious committees. Forinstance, itcould berequired
thatcommittees review theirnotification formats every twoyears, orthatcommittees orchairpersons
remind Members ofoutstanding notifications regularly atorprior totheir meetings. Itwasalso
considered thattheroleoftheCentral Registry ofNotifications1could beincreased.
16. Itwasstressed thatnotifications should notbeconsidered onlyasatransparency exercise but
were animportant legal obligation which could haveserious consequences. Itwassuggested for
consideration ifsome form ofmechanism could becontemplated whereby Members which didnot
meettheirnotification obligations would havetobearcertain consequences.
1TheCentral Registry ofNotifications sends liststoallMembers of:(i)allunfulfilled regular notification
requirements; and(ii)allirregular notifications dueintheupcoming period, forthatMember. Thefirstseries
ofletters were sentinMarch 1996 andthesecond series willbesentduring July1996. Thereafter theywill
besentsemi-annually inJanuary andJuly.G/NOP/7
Page4
Agenda Item2C: Assistance toSome Developing Countries inMeeting Notification Obligations
17. TheChairman informed theGroup thatwork wasproceeding intheSecretariat todevelop a
sample handbook onthebasis oftheChile/Norway proposal. Herecalled thattheproposal wasfor
ahandbook which would haveaseparate section foreachagreement andeachsection would contain
(i)adescription ofthenotification obligations intheagreement based onthepresentations made by
Secretariat staffattheFebruary workshop; (ii)alistofthespecific notification obligations inthe
respective agreements drawn from document G/NOP/W/2/Rev.1; (iii)alldocuments issued bythe
Committeesprovidingquestionnaires,formatsandguidelinesforthatagreement;and(iv)someexamples
offully-completed notifications. Thegoalwastohaveanumber ofcopies ofthissample handbook
ready fortheJunemeeting toassist theGroup 'sdiscussion. Hesuggested thatitwould besufficient
forthistohavetwoorthree fullycompleted sections along withthecommentary section forallof
theAgreements.
18. Inviting further comments orsuggestions onthishandbook proposal, theChairman asked
delegations toconsider inparticular thequestion ofsamples ofnotifications: should therebe(i)certain
"complete" notifications assamples; or(ii)reconstituted samples byremoving country names or
references; and(iii)should samples forevery typeofnotification beincluded?
19. Inanextensive change ofviews, some preferred touseactual notification documents asthese
would present theleastwork inpreparation, andwerereadily available; others would delete country
names andnational references, while athirdapproach would betoconstruct a"model" notification.
Inallofthese cases, difficulties would existindeciding whatwould bethe"best" example, bearing
inmind thewiderange innotifications presented byMembers. Suggestions inthisregard included
thepossibility ofincluding arange ofsamples fromleast-developed, developing anddeveloped country
Members and,inthecaseofnotifications which repeated thesame format several times (e.g.state
trading orimport licensing) tousejustoneillustration andnotthewhole document. Another question
considered wasifallnotification obligations inrespect ofeachagreement would berepresented or
justtheperiodic orregular requirements.
20. Some delegations citedthedesirability ofavoiding avoluminous handbook bytheinclusion
oflarger numbers ofsamples asthiswould bebothdifficult touseandmore costly toproduce and
maintain. While oneoption would betoexclude samples completely, itwaswidely heldthatthese
would beveryhelpful incapitals tocomplete thepicture setoutintheother sections ofthehandbook.
Another suggestion wastoinclude withthehandbook aCD-ROM containing allnotifications made
byallMembers. While thiswould behelpful, attention wasdrawn tothecostimplications andthe
utility ofthissystem insome oftheMembers mostneeding assistance. Insumming up,theChairman
assured delegations thattheirviews would betaken intoaccount inpreparing thesample handbooks
tobemade available todelegations atthenextmeeting.
21. TheChairman alsoreverted toanother topicthathadbeenraised atanearlier meeting; namely,
thepossibility ofdeveloping arecommendation forsome formofexchange oftechnical experts between
developed anddeveloping countries. Theobjective would betohavesuchexperts made available to
guide orinstruct thedeveloping countries inthepreparation ofatleastsome oftheirnotifications.
Thissuggestion, however, wasnotpursued.
Agenda Item2D: NotificationObligationsPursuanttoDecisionsbytheGATT1947CONTRACTING
PARTIES
22. TheChairman recalled thathehadraised thissubject atthelastmeeting withtherequest that
delegations consider itfordiscussion today. Thelistofnotification obligations thattheSecretariat
hadassembled inG/NOP/W/2/Rev.1, particularly insection II(B), pages 48-52, setoutobligationsG/NOP/7
Page5
under Decisions oftheGATT 1947 CONTRACTING PARTIES. Heasked delegations toconsider
if,withthepassage oftimeandwiththenewmeasures taken intheWTO, some ofthese obligations
might beredundant orobsolete today. Asexamples, hecited:
(a) Items 2,3and4onCPsDecisions relating toQRsandNTMs which appeared tobe
superseded bytheCTG Decisions of1December 1995 (ref: G/L/59 andG/L/60 of
10January 1996).
(b) Item6onImport Licensing Procedures which appeared tobesuperseded by
WTO Agreement onImport Licensing Procedures plusthenewQuestionnaire (ref:
G/LIC/3 of7December 1995).
(c) Item8onMarks ofOrigin (GATT Article IX)forwhich, according tothenotes in
the1995 edition oftheAnalytical Index, there hadbeennosubmissions since 1961.
(d) Item12onLiquidation ofStrategic Stocks which dated backtoaCPsDecision in1955.
23. TheChairman suggested thatdelegations consider fourquestions: (i)arethese obligations
nowredundant orobsolete; (ii)arethereanyothers; (iii)iftheyareredundant orobsolete howshould
theybeaddressed; and(iv)whatlegalprocess should befollowed?
24. Anumber ofdelegations commented thattheywereintheprocess ofexamining thissubject.
Some considered thattheGroup should carefully lookatthese obligations one-by-one andweigh the
implications oftheirremoval orretention. Itwasobserved thatsome oftheobligations developed
years agoappeared tohavebeenreplaced byothers under theWTO while some hadnotbeenapplied
inmany years. Itwassuggested that,following individual examinations, andifconsidered appropriate,
theGroup could consider theappropriate procedures forremoval ofsuchmeasures andtheform of
recommendation totheCTG. TheGroup willrevert tothistopic atthenextmeeting.
Agenda Item2E: Other Business
25. TheChairman raised three points under thisagenda item. First, with respect tothe
recommendations which theGroup might wishtodevelop, herecalled thattheyhadheard anumber
oftimes thatitwasdifficult tofullyaddress themandate atthisearly stage ofimplementation ofthe
WTO Agreements. Some considered thata"fullcycle ofnotifications" should becarried outbefore
examining thissystem. Heobserved thatthislineofthinking would leadonetoanticipate thatsome
form ofrecommendation forfurther work atsome stage might beforthcoming from theGroup.
26. Onthisbasis, healsorecalled another point raised inpastdiscussions astowhich body(ies)
might beinthebestposition toeffectively carry outareview ofnotification procedures. Oneview
wasthattherespective committees, withtheirgreater technical expertise andsensitivities totheorigins
andintents oftheagreements, would bebestplaced forthistask. Another viewwasthataseparate
body along thelinesofthisWorking Group would haveabroader overview andcould carry outan
examination across allagreements aswellasbetween them.
27. Hence, ifdelegations weretoconsider whether arecommendation forfurther work might be
made, hesuggested thattheGroup should alsoponder thenature ofsucharecommendation, thatis,
should thevarious committees becharged withthisresponsibility orshould afurther working group
beconstituted? Ifthelatter were thepreferred approach, thenthenature ofitsmandate should be
considered ifthisweretobepartofanyrecommendation bytheGroup. Heasked delegations toreflect
onthispoint withaviewtotaking itupatthenextmeeting.G/NOP/7
Page6
28. Thesecond point, heinformed theGroup thathehadreceived aletter fromtheChairman of
theCommittee onTrade andDevelopment concerning theirreview oftheapplication ofthespecial
provisions intheAgreements andrelated Decisions infavour ofthedeveloping andleast-developed
country Members. Hewasasked toprovide information onthework undertaken intheWorking Group
concerning the"development related provisions" ofitsmandate. Thiswasrequired foraCTD review
totakeplace intheAutumn. TheChairman suggested that,inresponse, theGroup could provide the
CTDwithinformation ontheprogress inthework onthenotification handbook andonallother matters
before theGroup, astheywould beequally ofinterest todeveloping countries. Itwasagreed that
theresponse would beprepared bytheChairman aftertheJulymeeting toensure thefullest possible
information wassupplied.
29. TheChairman hadalsoreceived aletter from theChairman oftheCommittee onCustoms
Valuation stating thattheCommittee, atitsmeeting on25April 1996, haddiscussed theissueraised
intheWorking Group Chairman 'sletter dated 18March 1996 concerning "Simplification ofData
Requirements andStandardization" which hadsubsequently beencirculated indocument G/VAL/W/6.
Ithadbeen concluded that: (a)thechecklist ofissues annexed todocument G/VAL/5 wasa
format/questionnaire currently inuseand,while notbeing specifically required under theAgreement
onCustoms Valuation, wasconsidered necessary andshould bemaintained; and(b)therewasnoneed
todevelop anyadditional format/questionnaire intheCustoms Valuation area. TheGroup noted this
communication.
30. Thenextmeeting oftheGroup hasbeenscheduled forThursday, 6Juneat3pm.