RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/NOP/2
3November 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3402)
Working Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures
MEETING HELD ON19OCTOBER 1995
Chairman: Mr.A.Shoyer (United States)
Note bytheSecretariat
1. Thedraftagenda forthesecond meeting oftheWorking Group, setoutinWTO/AIR/176 was
adopted.
Introduction
2. TheChairman noted thatthereport ofthefirstmeeting wascontained inG/NOP/1. Twonew
Secretariat documents contained: (i)arevision tothelisting ofnotifications required from
WTO Members under theagreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement (G/NOP/W/2/Rev.1);
and(ii)information onformats fornotifications under these agreements (G/NOP/W/3).
3. TheChairman recalled thatsome delegates hadsought clarification astowhether the
recommendations oftheGroup should focus exclusively onprocedural aspects suchassimplifying
andstandardizing formats oriftheyshould orcould extend tomatters entailing possible changes in
notification obligations. Assuggested, thequestion hadbeenputbefore theWTO legal advisors
accordingtowhomnothinginthemandateappearedtopreventtheGroupfrommakingrecommendations
which would imply achange totheprovisions oftheAgreements. Onthisbasis, theChairman
considered thattheGroup hadawidescope tomake whatever recommendations itfeltappropriate,
within theterms ofreference setoutintheMinisterial Decision.
4. TheChairman alsoinformed theGroup thathehadcontacted thechairpersons ofWTO
committees withaninterest intheGroup 'swork inviting anycontributions theymight wishtomake.
Fivereplies hadbeenreceived, among theircomments were thefollowing: (i)theachievement of
fullobservance ofnotifications obligations wasvitalasthesewerespecifically tailored tocommitments
whose implementation thecommittees werecharged withreviewing; (ii)procedures fornotification
wereunderconstantreviewbytheCommitteesconcerned;(iii)practicalarrangementsshouldbeexplored
toavoid, oratleastminimize, overlap; (iv)Members themselves werebestplaced toidentify overlaps
anddevelop ideas tostreamline theprocess, based ontheiractual experience; (v)inthecaseofthe
SPSandTBTcommittees, aspecial jointmeeting hadbeenscheduled todiscuss notifications andother
transparency requirements; (vi)theCommittee onImport Licensing hadexamined licensing aspects
associated withtariffication inAgriculture todealwithpossible cases ofduplication; and(vii)the
Agriculture Committee hadrequested theSecretariat toprepare anotecomparing thenotification
requirements oftheAgriculture andtheSubsidy Agreements.
5. Based ontheabove, theChairman observed thatthecommittees were wellaware ofthe
importanceanddifficultiesinthenotificationrequirementsandwereactivelyworkingtowardsanefficient
system ineachoftheirrespective areas ofresponsibility. Forthepurposes ofthisGroup, however,
hesuggested thatahorizontal approach, across allAnnex 1Aagreements, would bethemostproductiveG/NOP/2
Page2
andforthis,heagreed withthesuggestion thatidentification ofareas forexamination would haveto
originate withMembers. Theindividual Members wereexposed tonotification demands across the
whole spectrum, while thecommittees were focusing, quite rightly, ontheir specific areas of
responsibility.
6. Inhisview, there wasnooverlap ofjurisdiction between thecommittees inthe'goods 'area
andthisGroup, which wasofadifferent nature, detached fromday-to-day matters andconcentrating
ontheoverall issues setoutintheMinisterial Decision. ThisGroup, forexample, might wishtodiscuss
compliance onthebasisofpastexperience andmight relate compliance tonotification formats; whereas
thecommittees referred today-to-day issues, specific legalobligations andtheirimplications.
Examination oftheIssues Before theGroup
Duplication/Overlapping ofNotification Obligations inAnnex 1AAgreements
7. Delegations recalled thatsome possible examples hadalready been identified, i.e.
Agriculture/Subsidies,TRIMS/Subsidies,Agriculture/ImportLicensingandSPS/TBT.Othersuggested
areas ofpossible duplication mentioned atthepresent meeting were regional arrangements/enabling
clause andquantitative restrictions/obligations inanumber ofagreements andunderstandings. In
addition, certain obligations inGATT 1947 might overlap withobligations inGATT 1994. Itwas
alsonoted thatsome notification obligations established anumber ofyears agomight nolonger be
required.
8. Itwasalsonoted thatthequestion ofduplication andthatoftiming orperiodicity (see
paragraphs 15-17), should beconsidered together asthetiming aspect would havearoletoplayin
theavoidance ofduplication aswellasinthesimplification ofnotification obligations.
9. Thesuggestion wasmade thatsome duplication could beeliminated bycross-referencing one
notification tomore thanonecommittee. Itwaspointed out,however, thatthiswould bedifficult
toachieve unless theexisting datarequirements andformats were adjusted torespond totheneeds
ofmore thanoneagreement orifnotification requirements were combined orunified tocreate a
consolidated format. Some delegates wereconcerned thatextensive useofcross-referencing torespond
todifferent committees 'requirements through onenotification would reduce thevalue ofthese
notifications.
10. Some delegates wereoftheviewthattheactual extent ofoverlap intheareas ofAgriculture,
Subsidies andImport Licensing wasminimal, given thattheinformation wasrequired fordifferent
purposes. Another comment wasthatthisGroup should notenter intotheday-to-day aspects of
examining notifications butleave specific questions ofinterpretation totherelevant committees.
11. Theobservation wasalsomade thatconsideration ofthistopic wasdifficult inview ofthe
relatively short experience thusfarintheoperation ofthenotification provisions andthatlonger-term
experience under thevarious agreements would behelpful.
12. TheChairmanrecalledthecommentthatdelegations,whichmustactuallypreparenotifications,
were bestplaced toappreciate theburden andimplications ofanyactual duplication. Asastarting
point formore detailed examination therefore, heurged Members toprovide written input. Healso
requested theSecretariat toprepare apaper onthenotification requirements which appeared tohave
some element ofduplication ascited intheGroup, assembling therelevant language from the
Agreements.G/NOP/2
Page3
Simplification ofDataRequirements andStandardization ofFormats
13. TheChairman suggested twoquestions: (i)arethere anyfurther areas which would lend
themselves tostandardized formats; and(ii)could formats bedeveloped suchthatonesubmission
could respond totherequirements ofmore thanonecommittee?
14. Apart fromcomments made inparagraphs 9-11above, itwasobserved thatinsome instances
theformatsdevelopedsofarappearedtogofurtherthanthebasicobligationsoftheagreementconcerned.
Requests forsuchadditional information created anincreased burden forMembers. Theviewwas
alsoexpressed, however, thatadditional information wassometimes necessary toensure full
understanding andaccurate interpretation oftherequired data. Asageneral observation, itwaspointed
outthatlessthanhalfofthetotalnotification obligations currently hadstandard formats. With this
inmind, efforts tosimplify notifications might usefully beextended beyond anexamination ofexisting
formats toalsoconsider standardized formats inadditional areas.
Improvement intheTiming oftheReporting Process -Uniform Periodicity
15. TheChairman recalled theviewexpressed atthelastmeeting thattheoverall notification burden
could beeased ifobligations were notgrouped atcertain times butwere staggered overthecourse
ofthefullyear. Inthisrespect, henoted thatacount ofthenotification obligations inG/NOP/W/2/Rev.1
showed thatthere were atotalof175occasions when notifications wererequired. Ofthese, 106or
almost two-thirds wereadhocrequirements, thatis,aMember wasobliged tonotify onlyifaspecific
action wastaken. Afurther 43wereone-time onlynotifications, almost allfor1995oruponaccession.
That left26notification requirements orabout 15percentofthetotalwhich comprised regular,
semi-annual, annual, biennial andtriennial notifications invarious areas. These numbers didnot,of
course, indicate thecomplexity ofindividual notification provisions, buttheywereabasic indication
ofthetotalpicture.
16. Theviewwasexpressedthatimprovementsinthetimingorperiodicityofnotificationobligations
should beconsidered asasecondary matter tobeaddressed afterthequestions ofduplication and
simplificationhadbeenexamined.Itwasalsonotedthatthenumerous"one-time"notifications,generally
occurring atthetimeofimplementation oftheWTO orataccession, neednotbeexamined inthis
Group asmost ofthem should havealready beencarried out. Referring tothework involved in
preparing notifications inthecapitals, thepoint wasalsomade thatsome synergy could beachieved
ifreduced duplication waslinked tothequestion oftiming. Ineffect, twoseparate butpossibly
overlapping notifications could leadtotworequests being directed tothecapital atdifferent times.
Iftheduplication wasremoved, thetiming should alsobeharmonized. Another aspect, related tothe
committee examination stage, wastoconsider whether itwould bemore efficient torequest less
information inthequestionnaires andleave Members toraiseadditional questions asnecessary.
17. Inthelightofthisdiscussion, theGroup agreed torequest theSecretariat toprepare afactual
paper ontiming aspects intheexisting notification requirements.
Assistance toSome Developing Countries inMeeting theirNotification Obligations
18. TheChairman referred tothepoints inthisregard which theGroup hadtouched upon atthe
lastmeeting, including thepossibility ofspecial treatment forcertain Members, specific technical
assistance, orsimplified formats insome cases.
19. Some developing country Members stated that:(i)small delegations haddifficulty inadvising
theirgovernments ofthefullrange ofnotifications required; and(ii)many developing countries had
difficulty understanding, andtherefore providing, complete responses tothecomplicated notificationG/NOP/2
Page4
requirements andformats. While theyrecognized theirobligations, there were limits towhat they
could achieve duetolimited resources, andtechnical assistance inthisareawould behelpful. Inthis
regard itwasrecalled thattheWTO Technical Cooperation andTraining Division wasaware ofthe
problem, hadprovided aworkshop fordelegations onthistopic earlier thisyearandwould continue
toprovide assistance inthisfield. Inviewoftheimportance ofthistechnical assistance, itwassuggested
that,forthenextmeeting oftheGroup, theTechnical Cooperation andTraining Division beinvited
toaddress theGroup todescribe theiractivity inthisarea.
20. Asregards possible approaches tosimplifying obligations forcertain Members, itwassuggested
thateither theformats themselves oranyguidelines could besimplified. Onemeans would betoprovide
anexplanatory commentary describing howtocomplete thequestionnaire. Some formofcomputerized
programme containing suchguidance ondiskette might alsobeprepared tofacilitate thepreparation
andtransmission ofnotifications. Thepoint wasmade thatthisparticular areamight bewellsuited
fortechnical assistance totheleast-developed country Members.
Future Work oftheGroup
21. TheGroup agreed toholditsnextmeeting on28November. TheChairman expressed the
hopethatMembers would bring forward suggestions bothofageneral nature andwithrespect tospecific
Agreements forexamination atthattime.
22. TheChairman recalled thattheGroup 'srecommendations aretobeprovided totheCTG by
theendof1996. Inpractical terms, theGroup should work towards submitting itsfinalreport in
September/October 1996 intimefortheCTG toconsider itprior totheMinisterial Conference later
intheyear.
Other Business
Central Registry ofNotifications
23. TheChairman recalled that,atthelastmeeting, theSecretariat hadmade apresentation on
theprogress inimplementing theCentral Registry ofNotifications (CRN). Although examination of
theCRN wasnotapartoftheGroup 'smandate, theGroup hadshown interest initscomplementary
function ofassembling andproviding information ontheoverall notification situation andinrespect
ofindividual Members. Accordingly, heprovided theGroup with anupdate onthecurrent
implementation situation, assummarized below.
24. TheMinisterial Decision onNotification Procedures required theestablishment ofaCentral
Registry ofNotifications under theresponsibility oftheWTO Secretariat, toprovide: (i)aninventory
ofallnotification requirements; (ii)anindex ofallnotifications received bytheSecretariat from
Members;and(iii)informationoncompliancebyMemberswithnotificationrequirementsuponrequest.
Aninitial prototype registry hadbeensetupearlier thisyearandwasnowfullyoperational. Staff
members hadbegun inputting thedataonnotifications received. Thenumber ofnotifications received
bytheSecretariat hadreached almost 1,000, while theCRN currently heldover500records. Divisions
were expected toenter theremaining notifications intotheCRN within thenextfewweeks.
25. WorkonthedevelopmentofthepermanentcomputerprogrammefortheCRN wasbeingcarried
outbyaconsulting company andwascurrently atthehalf-way stage. Itwasexpected thatthisfinal
system, which would takeupalloftheinformation putintothetemporary system andcarry onfrom
there, would beavailable forusebytheSecretariat inmid-December 1995. Under thisschedule, by
theendoftheyearthere would beafullyfunctioning system toserve individual Members 'needs in
thisareaandtoprovide thisGroup withuseful information inthecoming year.G/NOP/2
Page5
26. Some delegations stressed theimportance ofhaving theRegistry fullyoperational assoonas
possible asitwasanimportant toolfortheexamination ofoverall developments intheWorking Group
andforusebyallWTO Members individually. Itwasagreed that,forthenextmeeting, aSecretariat
member from theCRN should provide theGroup withanupdate ontheimplementation ofthe
programme.
Annual Report totheCTG
27. TheChairman informed theGroup thatinformal discussions hadbeen heldbetween the
CTG Chairman andthechairpersons ofsubsidiary bodies under theCTG. Thelatterhadbeenrequested
toprovide totheCTG abrief, factual report ontheprogress intherespective work programmes.
Assuchareport might havetobeforwarded wellbefore thedatesetfortheGroup 'snextmeeting,
theChairman requested theauthorization oftheGroup toprovide theCTG withabriefsummary of
thework carried outsofar.Thiswasagreed.