RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/NOP/W/7
14February 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0552)
Original: English Working Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures
Communication from NewZealand
Thefollowing communication hasbeen submitted bythedelegation ofNewZealand for
circulation totheWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures.
_______________
POSSIBILITIES FOR STREAMLINING NOTIFICATIONS ONAGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES
REQUIRED UNDER BOTH THE AGREEMENT ONAGRICULTURE AND THE
AGREEMENT ONSUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
1. Therequirement tonotify agricultural subsidies under bothArticle 18oftheAgreement on
Agriculture andunder Article 25oftheAgreement onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures hasbeen
citedbysome delegations asanexample ofoverlap andduplication which should beaddressed bythis
Working Group. Adetailed analysis ofthenotification requirements ineachcase, however, shows
clearly thatthere isinfactverylittleoverlap inthetwosetsofnotification requirements (document
G/AG/W/13 of15November refers). Moreover there aredifficult questions ofcoverage andtiming
toberesolved ifanyharmonization ofthetwonotification requirements were tobeachieved.
2. ItisclearfromtheAgreements thatthereisanobligation tonotify agricultural subsidies under
bothAgreements. Similarly, itisclearfromananalysis ofthenotification formats andthepurposes
forwhich these formats were designed, thatthere isnoeasyformula whereby anotification toone
Committee could readily serve therequirements intheotherCommittee. Thissuggests thatanyattempt
tostreamlinethetwonotificationrequirementsinrespectofagriculturalsubsidieswillrequireapragmatic
solution which willmeetthelegalandpractical requirements ofbothsetsofnotification obligations.
3. Three possibilities present themselves:
(i) Thefirstwould betomake nochange tothepresent arrangements, buttodecide to
review these arrangements ataspecified dateinthefuture when members havehad
experience ofafullcycle ofnotifications intheirpresent format. Thefirstfullround
ofArticle 25notifications under theSubsidies Agreement weredueon30June1995
andsofar26members havesubmitted notifications. Some haveyettosubmit the
agricultural subsidies sections oftheirnotifications. Inthenexttwoyears (1996 and
1997), members willsimply berequired tosubmit up-date notifications based onthis
year’sfullnotification. Under theAgriculture Agreement, afirstfullround of
notifications willnotbecompleted untiltheendof1996. Thiswould argue forany
review totakeplace aftertheendof1996.
(ii) Asecond possibility would betotrytodevise arevised notification format for
agricultural subsidies which mettheobligations andrequirements under both
Agreements.AnynotificationformateventuallyagreedbythisWorkingGroup,togetherG/NOP/W/7
Page2
withsuggestions ontheresolution ofcoverage andtiming issues, would thenneedto
beconsidered andapproved bythetwoCommittees concerned. Thenotifications made
undersuchaharmonizedformatwouldbeissuedwithtwonumbersandwouldconstitute
documents ofbothCommittees.
Devising aharmonized notification format would necessitate resolving thedifficulties
createdbythetwodifferentapproachestakeninthetwonotificationformats.Essentially
thiswould involve trying toensure thatsufficient qualitative information necessary
toallow members tounderstand howthesubsidy mechanism operates anditseffect
ontrade, required under theSubsidies Agreement, wasprovided, without losing any
ofthequantitative information vital tomonitoring theobservance ofmembers
commitments under theAgriculture Agreement. What islikely tobemostcomplicated
toresolve arethequestions ofcoverage andtiming. Apossible approach might be
toagree thatwhere amore specific requirement isfound ineither theagriculture or
subsidies context thatthishigher standard ofspecificity would prevail. Thismight
require:
- more detailed descriptions oftheobjectives andoperation ofsupport measures than
required bytheAgriculture Agreement;
- provision ofperunitsubsidy figures forsome agricultural programmes; and
- more frequent provision ofsome information, tocomply with theAgriculture
Agreement, thanisrequired under theSubsidies Agreement
(iii) Athird possibility would betoexamine whether themore detailed quantitative
notifications submitted totheAgriculture Committee might, withtheaddition ofa
relatively small amount ofqualitative information, serve thepurposes oftheSubsidies
Committee.Animportantfactorinpursuingthisoptionwouldbeformemberstosatisfy
themselves thattheform adopted (whether byappending COA notifications toSCM
Committee notifications orthrough cross-referencing) wasalegally secure means of
meeting obligations inbothCommittees.
From theanalysis indocument G/AG/W/13 of15November, itwould seem thatof
theninecategories ofinformation required intheSubsidies Article 25notifications,
threetofourcategories could possibly bemetfromexisting COA notification formats,
depending onthedetail provided intheCOA column headed “name anddescription
ofmeasure ”.Itisclear, however, thatwhile information onannual amount budgeted
forthesubsidy would, inmost cases, beavailable from theCOA formats, no
information onsubsidy perunitwould beprovided. Itwould therefore benecessary
toaddacolumn totheCOA notification formats requesting information onsubsidy
perunitwhere appropriate.
Theremaining fiveorsixcategories ofinformation notcovered intheCOA formats
arelargely ofabrief, factual nature -titleofsubsidy programme, policy objective
orpurpose, authority forsubsidy, towhom andhowsubsidy provided, dateof
commencement, duration ortimelimit, totalproduction/imports/exports ofsubsidized
product, where practicable. Thisinformation could beprovided inabriefcover sheet,
towhich thedetailed quantitative COA notification could beappended.
4. Option twowould bethemore idealsolution, sinceitwould produce asingle, harmonized
notification format tomeetthelegalandpractical requirements ofbothAgreements. ItmaytakeG/NOP/W/7
Page3
slightly longer toachieve thanthethirdoption, butasmembers willnotberequired tosubmit
new,fullnotifications under Article 25oftheSubsidies Agreement again until1998, sufficient
timeisavailable topursue thiscourse. However, difficulties indealing withcoverage andtiming
might imply thatoption three might bemore easily achieved. Thiswould, wethink, involve
membersbeingpreparedtoacceptcompromisesonthedetailofinformationrequiredbythecurrent
Subsidies Committee format.