RESTRICTED  
  
G/SCM/M/110  
 
13 February 2020  
(20-1193) Page: 1/16 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE SPECI AL MEETING  
HELD ON 19 NOVEMBER 2019  
 
CHAIR: MS MICHÈLE LEGAULT DOOL EY (CANADA ) 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("Committee") held a special meeting 
on 19 November  2019, convened in WTO/AIR/SCM/ 29 dated 8 November  2019.  
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   REVIEW OF 2019 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/343/...) NO T PREVIOUSLY REVIEWE D ................................ ...........................  2 
 Argentina (G/SCM/N/343/ARG and G/SCM/N/343/ARG/SUPPL.1)  ................................ ...... 3 
 Australia ( G/SCM/N/343/AUS ) ................................ ................................ ......................  3 
 Brazil  (G/SCM/N/343/BRA)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
 Chile (G/SCM/N/343/CHL)  ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
 Cuba (G/SCM/N/343/CUB)  ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
 Dominican Republic (G/SCM/N/343/DOM)  ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
 Honduras (G/SCM/N/343/HND)  ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
 Hong Kong, China (G/SCM/N/343/HKG)  ................................ ................................ .........  5 
 Indonesia ( G/SCM/N/343/IDN and G/SCM/N/315/IDN - G/SCM/N/284/IDN - 
G/SCM/N/253/IDN ) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  5 
 Macao , China (G/SCM/N/343/MAC)  ................................ ................................ ..............  5 
 Mauritius (G/SCM/N/343/MUS and G/SCM/N/343/MUS/CORR.1)  ................................ ...... 6 
 Montenegro (G/SCM/N/343/MNE)  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
 Morocco  (G/SCM/N/343/MAR)  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
 New Zealand (G/SCM/N/343/NZL)  ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
 North Macedonia  (G/SCM/N/343/MKD)  ................................ ................................ .........  6 
 Norway (G/SCM/N/343/NOR)  ................................ ................................ ......................  6 
 Paraguay  (G/SCM/N/343/PRY ) ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
 Philippines  (G/SCM/N/343/PHL ) ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
 Singapore (G/SCM/N/343/SGP ) ................................ ................................ ...................  7 
 Chinese Taipei  (G/SCM/N/343/TPKM ) ................................ ................................ ...........  7 
 Tajikistan (G/SCM/N/315/TJK - G/SCM/N/343/TJK and G/SCM/N/315/TJK/CORR.1 - 
G/SCM/N/343/TJK/CORR.1 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ . 7 
 Thailand (G/SCM/N/343/THA ) ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
2   REVIEW OF 2017 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/315/…) NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ...........................  8 
2.1   European Union (G/SCM/N/315/EU/ADD.1, pertaining to Austria)  ................................ ...... 8 G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2   Iceland (G/SCM/N/315/ISL/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
2.3   India (G/SCM/N/315/IND/SUPPL.1 – G/SCM/N/284/IND/SUPPL.3)  ................................ .... 8 
2.4   Montenegro (G/SCM/N/315/MNE)  ................................ ................................ ..................  9 
3   REVIEW OF 2015 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/284/…) NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ...........................  9 
3.1   Iceland (G/SCM/N/284/ISL/REV.1 - G/SCM/N/253/ISL/REV.1 - G/SCM/N/220/ISL/REV.1 - 
G/SCM/N/186/ISL/REV.1 - G/SCM/N/155/ISL/REV.1)  ................................ ..............................  9 
3.2   Tajikistan (G/SCM/N/284/TJK)  ................................ ................................ ......................  9 
4   REVIEW OF 2013 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/253/…) NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ...........................  9 
4.1   Tajikistan (G/SCM/N/253/TJK)  ................................ ................................ ......................  9 
5   REVIEW OF 2011 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/220/…) NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ...........................  9 
6   REVIEW OF 2009 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/186/…) NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ...........................  9 
7   REVIEW OF 2007 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/155/…) NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ .........................  10 
8   CONTINUATION  OF REVIEW OF 2017 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY 
NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM /N/315/…)  ................................ ................................ .............  10 
8.1   China (G/SCM/N/315/CHN)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 
8.2   Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/315/RUS)  ................................ ................................ .......13 
9   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2015 NEW A ND FULL SUBSIDY 
NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM /N/284/…)  ................................ ................................ .............  13 
9.1   China (G/SCM/N/220/CHN, G/SCM/N/253/CHN, G/SCM/N/284/CHN, and 
G/SCM/N/95/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/123/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/155/C HN/Suppl.1, 
G/SCM/N/186/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/220/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/253/CHN/Suppl.1 and 
G/SCM/N/284/CHN/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 
9.2   Saint Lu cia (G/SCM/N/284/LCA - G/SCM/N/290/LCA)  ................................ ..................... 14 
10   CONTINUATION OF  REVIEW OF 2013 NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIO NS 
(G/SCM/N/253/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  14 
10.1   Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS and G/SCM/N/253/RUS/Rev.1)  .......................... 14 
11   CONTINUATION OF  REVIEW OF 2009 NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIO NS 
(G/SCM/N/186/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 
11.1   Gabon  (G/SCM/N/186/GAB)  ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 
11.2   Turkey (G/SCM/N/186/TUR) ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 
 
1   REVIEW OF 2019 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/343/...) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
3. The Chair recalled that, at its April 2019 regular meeting the Committee decided to continue 
to apply the same procedures in G/SCM/117 according to which only notifications that had been 
circulated to Members in all three WTO working languages not later than 22 July 2019 could be 
reviewed at this meeting. Those notifications were listed in WTO/AIR/S CM/28 and Revision 1. Written 
questions pertaining to those notifications had been due by 19 August 2019, and written answers by 
21 October  2019.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 3 - 
 
  
Argentina (G/SCM/N/343/ARG and G/SCM/N/343/ARG/SUPPL.1)  
4. Written questions and answers concerning th ese notification s can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/ ARG/40 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/ARG/41 – Replies to  the United States  
5. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and answers . 
Australia ( G/SCM/N/ 343/AUS ) 
6. Written questions and answers concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/ AUS/60 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/AUS/61 – Replies to  the United States  
7. Australia  stated that this was an example of difficulty in coordination due to the  involvement 
of sub -federal state governments. It affirmed that, nonetheless, it was important to have the state 
governments involved to have maximum transparency  
8. The Chair noted that because the written replies had been submitted after the applicable 
deadline, the Committee would return to this notification at its spring  2020 special meeting . 
9. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions , answers,  and statements made.  
Brazil  (G/SCM/N/343/BRA)  
10. Written questions concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/BRA/53 – Questions from the United States  
11. Brazil  stated that answers had been received from capital shortly before the meeting, but that 
they had already been transmitted to the deleg ation of the United States and would be submitted to 
the Secretariat immediately after the meeting1. It then orally presented answers to the questions 
posed by the United States.  
12. Regarding the "Productive Development Policy", Brazil affirmed that support w as restricted to 
vessels covered by the Brazilian Special Register, which did not include fishing vessels. Due to this, 
the second question would not apply.  
13. With respect to the " Diesel Oil Price Equalization Scheme ", first Brazil stated that d iesel prices 
in Brazil took as a reference those practiced in international markets, adjusted per import parity 
price and that t he Equalization Scheme would bridge  occasional variations that might occur between 
domestic and international prices . Secondly, Brazil explai ned that the s cheme was under strict 
control through several Government 's registry and management systems.  
14. With regard to the " National Program for Financing the Enlargement and Modernization of the 
National Fishing Fleet ", Brazil first explained that s ome of the progra m's goals were to reduce  the 
catch pressure on overfished stocks and to promote  sustainability of the fishing fleet. As per Law 
10.849/04, Article 6, bonuses were to be  granted for payment compliance, according to 
environmental and social factors, such as the situation of the fish stocks and the improvement of 
workers ' conditions . Secondly, Brazil explained that b onuses for performance of loan repayment 
depend ed on the purpose of the financing, as well as on the fishing activity and were  regulated by 
Decree 5.474/05 . It then listed the rules of the Decree in question for (i) Financing for the 
construction and simultaneous equipping of vessels ; (ii) Financing for the acquisition of vessels, built 
no more than five years previously; and (iii) Financing for vessel modernization . Thirdly, Brazil 
affirmed that t here has not been much interest in this program by fishermen due to the program 's 
stringent qualification requirements.  Lastly, Brazil stated that the " State Fund for Economic 
 
1 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ BRA/54, circulated on 21 November 2019.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Development I ncentives (FIDEC) " and the program " Rio Invest " did not constitute subsidy programs 
and, because of that, they had not been notified.  
15. The United States  stated that it looked forward to the answers in writing.  
16. The Chair  noted that because the written replie s had not been submitted  at the time of the 
meeting , the Committee would return to this notification at its spring  2020 special meeting.  
17. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions , answers  and statements made.  
Chile (G/SCM/N/343/CHL)  
18. Written questions concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/ CHL/27 – Questions from the United States  
19. Chile stated that, because of problems in the information, the replies could not be presented 
by the applicable deadline . However, they had b een transmitted to the delegation of the United 
States and to the Secretariat just before the Committee's meeting2. Chile then orally presented the 
main parts of its answers.  
20. First, Chile affirmed that the tax benefit in the Free Zones was not subject to o r associated 
with any export requirements. Secondly, Chile explained how small -scale fishing and the categories 
of persons that carry it out were defined in Article 2.28 of the General Law on Fisheries and 
Aquaculture.  
21. Thirdly, regarding the "Small -Scale F ishing Promotion Fund", Chile stated that (i) the purpose 
of the marketing assistance provided was to enable small -scale fishers and organizations to improve 
their production and/or commercial management through the incorporation of infrastructure, 
technol ogy, technical assistance and training at the different stages of the production processes ; 
and, (ii) the program comprised a national competitive funds system and a regional agreements 
system  through which legally constituted organizations of small -scale fishers throughout Chile submit 
projects . Rules, requirements and time -frames have been establis hed through the application of 
administrative provisions and suitable publicity had been ensured to increase participation by the 
organizations.  
22. Fourthly, Chile referred to the document circulated to the Secretariat, where it described some 
examples of the  programmes and projects for the promotion and development of small -scale 
fisheries supported by the Fisheries Administration Fund and their overall and specific objectives.  
23. Lastly, in regard to the latter program, Chile (i) described some requirements est ablished by 
Article 9A of the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture on fisheries recovery programs for 
small -scale fishers, crews of special vessels and factory workers, where a fishery, in accordance with 
the established biological reference points, had been overfished or depleted, (ii) stated that once the 
fishery recovery programme had been established, it had been  evaluated in line with the frequency 
established in the respective management plan; and (iii) described how the actions of mit igation and 
compensation worked.  
24. The United States  stated that it looked forward to the answers in writing.  
25. The Chair  noted that because the written replies had not been submitted  at the time of the 
meeting , the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2020 special meeting.  
26. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions , answers  and statements made.  
Cuba (G/SCM/N/343/CUB)  
27. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
 
2 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ CHL/28, circulated on 21 November 2019.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 5 - 
 
  28. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Dominican Republic  (G/SCM/N/343/DOM)  
29. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
30. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Honduras (G/SCM/N/343/ HND) 
31. No Member raised any questions or comments about this not ification.  
32. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Hong Kong, China (G/SCM/N/343/HKG)  
33. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
34. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Indonesia ( G/SCM/N/343/IDN  and G/SCM/N/315/IDN - G/SCM/N/284/IDN - 
G/SCM/N/253/IDN ) 
35. This multi -symbolled notification was a new and full 2019, 2017, 2015, and 2013 notification , 
respectively . 
36. Written questions and answers concerning th ese notification s can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/ IDN/12 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/IDN/13 – Replies to the United State  
• G/SCM/Q2/IDN/14 – Questions from N ew Zealand  
37. Indonesia  orally presented answers to questions from New Zealand3. Regarding the " Fishing 
Ship Vessels Construction Program ", acc ording to Indonesia, it provide d fishing vessels with 
environmentally friendly fishing gear for small fishers in order to meet their daily needs. Indonesia 
stated that th ese small fishers usually did one-day fishing and did not operate outside 
territorial/ archipelagic waters. Therefore, such fishing activities would  neither potentially cause 
overfished stock nor threaten the preservation of fish stocks . Small fishers, as the specific target of 
the program in question, were defined as fishers whose fishing a ctivity was to fulfil their daily needs, 
those who did not use fishing vessels or use d fishing vessels with maximum size of 10 GT. Lastly, 
Indonesia explained that there was no specific target of species under this program  and stated that 
it would provide the answer in written and submit it to the Secretariat.  
38. New Zealand  stated that it looked forward to receiving the answers in writing.  
39. The Chair  noted that because the questions from New Zealand had been submitted after the 
applicable deadlines  and that  no written answers had been provided yet , the Committee would return 
to this notification at its spring  2020 special meeting.  
40. The Committee took note  of the notification s, questions , answers  and statements made.  
Macao , China  (G/SCM/N/343/ MAC) 
41. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
42. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
 
3 Written replies can be found in G/SCM/Q2/IDN/15 circulated on 17 January 2020.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 6 - 
 
  
Mauritius (G/SCM/N/343/MUS and G/SCM/N/343/MUS/CORR.1 ) 
43. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
44. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Montenegro  (G/SCM/N/343/MNE ) 
45. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
46. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Morocco  (G/SCM/N/343/MAR ) 
47. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
48. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
New Zealand  (G/SCM/N/343/NZL)  
49. Written questions and answers concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/NZL/30 – Questions from Chinese  Taipei  
• G/SCM/Q2/ NZL/31 – Replies to Chinese Taipei  
50. The Chair  noted that because the questions had been submitted after the applicable deadline, 
the Committee would return to this notification at its spring  2020 special meeting.  
51. The Committee took note  of the notification, quest ions, answers  and statements made.  
North Macedonia  (G/SCM/N/343/MKD)  
52. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
53. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Norway (G/SCM/N/343/NOR)  
54. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
55. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Paraguay  (G/SCM/N/343/PRY ) 
56. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
57. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Philippines  (G/SCM/N/343/PHL ) 
58. Written questions concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/PHL/11 – Questions from th e United States.  
59. The Philippines  orally presented its answers4. Regarding the "Support to Commercial Fisheries", 
the Philippines explained that the section that regulate d it was never implemented by the 
Department of Agriculture since funds had not been  appropriated by Congress for the 
aforementioned purpose. Instead, Executive Order 376 had been  implemented providing fo r the 
 
4 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ PHL/12, circulated on 22 November 2019.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 7 - 
 
  exemption from payment of tariff and duties for importation of agriculture and fisheries inputs of 
agriculture and fisheries enterprises. However, this program, according to the Philippines, had 
expired on December 31, 2015 . Since then, no funds had been appropriated for this purpose and 
there had been no proposal for future appropriation of funds . 
60. In respect to the "Regional Fish Ports, Ice Plants and Cold Storages (IPCS)", the Philippines 
stated that the Government promote d the development of the fishing industry through the 
establishment and operation of fish markets. According to the Philippines, this program was provided 
with funding support for the construction, rehabilitation and improvement of fish ports and other 
fishery post -harvest facilitie s such as ice plants and cold storage. The DA -Bureau of Fisheries and 
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) also provide d funding support for the technical assistance and capacity 
building of the fishing sector. Lastly, the Philippines affirmed that this was an ongoing  policy.  
61. As regards the other programs listed by the United States in its questions, the Philippines stated 
that they had been inadvertently missed in the preparation of its notification and then explained that 
the (i) "Sea Cage Farming Project" support was directly provided by the DA-BFAR to the 
Local Government Units and fish farmers particularly during the preparatory stage of sea cage 
projects; (ii)  the "Fisheries Resource Management Project" had been  terminated in November 2006; 
(iii) no budget had bee n appropriated to implement the "Support to Commercial Fisheries"; and, 
(iv) the "Research and Development in Fisheries"  support was also provided as part of DA -BFAR's 
research and development services . 
62. The United States  stated that it looked forward to the answers in writing.  
63. The Chair  noted that because the written replies had not been submitted  at the time of the 
meeting , the Committee would return to this notification at its spring  2020 special meeting.  
64. The Committee took note  of the notifi cation, questions , answers  and statements made.  
Singapore (G/SCM/N/343/SGP ) 
65. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
66. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
Chinese Taipei  (G/SCM/N/343/TPKM ) 
67. Written questions and answers concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/TPKM/24 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/TPKM/25 – Replies to the United States  
68. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and  answers.  
Tajikistan (G/SCM/N/315/TJK - G/SCM/N/343/TJK and 
G/SCM/N/315/TJK/CORR.1 - G/SCM/N/343/TJK/CORR.1 ) 
69. This multi -symbolled notification was a new and full 2017 and 2019 notification , respectively . 
70. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
71. The Committee took note  of the notification s. G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 8 - 
 
  
Thailand (G/SCM/N/343/THA ) 
72. Written questions and answers concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/THA/28 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/THA/29 – Replies to the United States  
73. The Committee took note  of the notification s, questions , and answers.  
2  REVIEW OF 2017 NEW A ND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION S (G/SCM/N/315/…) NO T 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
74. This was the Committee's fifth special meeting at which new and full subsidy notifications for  
2017 were reviewed. These notifications were due by 30 June 2017.  
75. The Chair  recalled that the first  item on the agenda covered 2017 new and full notifications of 
Indonesia and Tajikistan. Therefore, those notifications were not reviewed again.  
2.1  European Union (G/SCM/N/315/EU/ADD.1, pertaining to Austria)  
76. No Member raised any questions or comments about t his notification.  
77. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
2.2  Iceland (G/SCM/N/315/ISL/REV.1)  
78. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
79. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
2.3  India  (G/SCM/N/315/IND/SUPPL.1 – G/SCM/N/284/IND/SUPPL.3)  
80. This multi-symbolled notification was a new and full 2017 and 2015 notification , respectively . 
81. Written questions concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/IND/50 – Questions from Canada.  
82. India stated that the replies had been prepared after collecting them from the relevant Ministries 
and the sub -federal entities and that they would be shortly communicated to Canada through the 
Committee5. India then orally present ed some  parts of its answers.  
83. Regarding the " Enhancement of Competitiveness in the Indian Capital Goods ", India explained 
that the program was  open to all domestic industries that produce capital goods and their 
components  and that a ll the companies/instit utions and others in the supply chain of capital goods 
manufacturing sector could  apply for grants.  
84. In respect to the " Schemes of Government of Gujarat ", India explained the types of industrial 
undertakings that were eligible to qualify for the scheme, inc luding: (i) Industrial undertakings 
categorized as MSME, Large, Mega and Ultra -mega ; (ii) New Industrial Units; (iii) Existing Industrial 
Units; and, (iv) Existing Units undergoing Expansion. India then stated that more details would be 
available on the wr itten replies and that they would be available for responding additional questions 
from Canada in the Committee or bilaterally.  
85. Canada  stated that it looked forward to reviewing the written responses . 
 
5 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ IND/52, circulated on 16 December 2019.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 9 - 
 
  86. The Chair  noted that because the written replies had not been submitted  at the time of the 
meeting , the Committee would return to this notification at its spring  2020 special meeting.  
87. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions , answers  and statements made.  
2.4  Montenegro (G/SCM/N/ 315/MNE)  
88. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
89. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
3  REVIEW OF 2015 NEW A ND FULL SUBSIDY NOTI FICATIONS (G/SCM/N/2 84/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
90. This was the Committee's ninth special meeting at which new and full subsidy notifications for  
2015 were reviewed. These notifications were due by 30 June 2015. 
91. The Chair  recalled that the previous  items on the agenda covered 2015 new and full notifications 
of India and Indonesia. Ther efore, those notifications were not reviewed again.  
3.1  Iceland (G/SCM/N/284/ISL/REV.1 - G/SCM/N/253/ISL/REV.1 - 
G/SCM/N/220/ISL/REV.1 - G/SCM/N/186/ISL/REV.1 - G/SCM/N/155/ISL/REV.1)  
92. This multi-symbolled notification was a new and full 2015, 2013, 2011, 2009 and 2007 
notification , respectively . 
93. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
94. The Committee took note  of the notification s. 
3.2  Tajikistan (G/SCM/N/284/TJK)  
95. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
96. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
4  REVIEW OF 2013 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/253/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
97. This was the Committee's thirteenth  special meeting at which new and full subsidy notifications 
for 2013 were reviewed. These notifications were due by 30 June 2013. 
98. The Chair  recalled that the previous  items on the agenda covered 2013 new and full notifications 
of Iceland and Indonesia. Therefore, those notifications were not reviewed again.  
4.1  Tajikistan (G/SCM/N/253/TJK)  
99. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
100.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
5  REVIEW  OF 2011 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/220/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
6  REVIEW OF 2009 NEW AND F ULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/186/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 10 - 
 
  7  REVIEW OF 2007 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/155/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
101.  The Chair recalled that the previous  items on the agenda covered 2011, 2009 and 2007  new 
and full no tifications of Iceland . Therefore, those notifications were not reviewed again  and there 
were no additional notifications to be reviewed under agenda items 5 to 7.  
8  CONTINUATION  OF REVIEW OF 2017 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/315/…)  
102.  The Chair  noted that this agenda item was for continuation of reviews of 2017 new and full 
notifications started at prior meetings that had not yet been completed, due to late submission  of 
questions or non -submission or late submission of written replies.  
103.  The Committee also considered under this agenda item the follow -up questions that had 
been submitted in respect of certain of those notifications.  
104.  The Chair recalled that the exchange of written questions and answers was the essence of 
the review process for those notifications, as per the Committee's agreed procedures. Failure to reply 
promptly to such questions undermined transparency, and thus frustrated the purpose of the r eview. 
All Members that had not yet responded to written questions concerning their subsidy notifications 
thus should submit their answers without further delay. However, the Chair noted that a number of 
delegations with notifications under the remaining a genda items had submitted written answers to 
the questions that were pending at the end of the last special meeting.  
8.1  China (G/SCM/N/315/CHN)  
105.  Written questions concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/75 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/76 – Questions from the Dominican Republic  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/77 – Questions from Japan  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/78 – Questions from New Zealand  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/79 – Questions from the European Union  
106.  The Chair  informed that China had submitted its written replies to the questions posed by the 
United States6, Dominican Republic7, Japan8, and New Zealand9 on the same day of the meeting, 
which would be prepared for circulation by the Secretariat. The Chair noted that t he questions posed 
by the EU were still pe nding.  
107.  China  stated that it had been striving to enhance the transparency of its subsidies policies in 
recent years , but that it had submitted subsidy notifications at the central and sub -central 
government levels in accordance with the requirements of the  SCM Agreement, with full coverage of 
the provincial -level administrative units and the inclusion of fisheries subsidies . China was a vast 
country with complicated administrative levels and imbalanced regional development. Therefore, it 
had never been an e asy task for China to collect information on local subsidy policies. Nevertheless, 
the latest subsidy notification  had benefited from the support of local governments, many of which 
travelled  to the capital to submit their materials. China expected Members  to see how sincere China 
had been to resolve Member's concerns, improve the transparency of China's policies and perform 
notification obligations.  
108.  China explained that as for the EU 's questions, it was finalizing the written responses, which 
would be subm itted very soon.  
109.  Regarding the scope of the written questions, China noted  that the written questions should 
focus on the programs included in the notification submitted by a Member. With respect to the 
 
6 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ CHN/81, circulated on 20 November 2019.  
7 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ CHN/82, circulated on 20 November 2019.  
8 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ CHN/83, circulated on 20 November 2019.  
9 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ CHN/84, circulated on 20 November 2019.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 11 - 
 
  uncovered policies mentioned by other Members, China stated that it had already made explanations 
and clarifications in previou s regular meetings according to the verified information and hoped that 
Members referred to the minutes of previous meetings. China affirmed that, in order to show China 's 
effort to improve transparency and to address the concerns of other Members, it had shared the 
information it had verified with other Members in the written replies. But this would not mean that 
China agreed with the practice of raising concern s on uncovered policies in the list of written 
questions.  In China's point of view, for the so c alled non -notified policies, Members might  raise 
concern s in accordance with Article 25.8 or 25.10 of the SCM Agreement, which in fact did not require 
notifying Members to submit written replies to those uncovered policies. China then affirmed that i f 
other Members demand ed that a notifying Member made  explanations or clarifications with respect 
to the uncovered policies in the questions, it  would amount  to imposing an obligation of written reply 
into the Article 25.8 or 25.10 . 
110.  With respect to the completen ess of the subsidy notifications, China noted that this was a 
problem that all Members faced. According to China, t he Agreement require d Members to notify 
specific subsidies and made  clear that the notification of a measure did not prejudge either its lega l 
status under the Agreement or the nature of the measure itself. In other words, Members could 
notify their subsidies according to their own understanding of the Agreement. Considering the 
technical difficulties in determining the completeness of subsidy notifications , the latest version of 
the transparency proposal in the Council for Trade in Goods had been revised accordingly  (change 
from "providing complete and timely notifications " to "providing required and timely notifications "). 
Lastly, China affirmed that it was willing to join hands with other Members to discuss in depth how 
to submit required and timely notifications and welcomed other Members to share their experiences.  
111.  Regarding the question whether specific policies should  be included in the subsidy notification, 
China affirmed that, with the principle of improving the transparency, it had incorporated all the 
known central and local government subsidies into the current subsidy notification. In respect to the 
issue whether  certain tax preferences and fiscal support should be included in the subsidy 
notification, China stated that it declined to argue whether those policies were specific or not in the 
first place. Yet, even if they were not specific, it could not agree with the logic of the United  States 
that they should not be notified because the US had included certain activities in its notification which 
were not specific subsidies".  
112.  In relation to the questions over imbalance in local notifications i.e., some provinces had a 
relatively larger number of subsidy policies, while some other provinces had relatively fewer 
subsidies , China explained that this was due to variance in provinces': (i) level of economic 
development and the fiscal standing  and (ii) capacity building regarding transparency . However, 
China had striven to make improvements in the latest subsidy notification, with a view to minimizing 
the imbalances among provincial -level administrative units . 
113.  With reference to questions on the failure of notifying govern ment guidance funds, China 
stated that the government guidance funds in China had been set up jointly by government investors 
and private investors based on market -oriented, professional and voluntary consultation principles, 
and that the government invest ors did not interfere with the daily management of the funds. The 
funds employed the form of equity investment; therefore, shareholders had clear-cut financial return 
requirements. In China's view , According to Article 14 of the SCM Agreement, government p rovision 
of equity capital should  not be considered as conferring a benefit, unless the investment decision 
could  be regarded as inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors in the 
territory of that Member. Because of that, China ha d not include d the government guidance funds in 
its subsidy notifications.  
114.  In respect to questions on whether the state capital operation budget should be included in 
the notification, China affirmed that a s a shareholder, the government inject ed capital i nto the state -
owned enterprises through state capital operation budget. That was an act of raising capital 
contribution to the enterprises, and was not,  therefore , different in any way from the capital 
injections by other investors. According to China, it would be unnecessary to include such capital 
increase in its subsidy notification.  
115.  Lastly, as to questions on the reason why several service subsidies were included in China's 
notification, China stated that , in the latest trade policy review of China, the WTO Secretariat had 
requested China  to explain why China 's Income Tax Preference to Promoting Advanced Technology 
Service Enterprises had not been included in its notification. Therefore, China  included it into its G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 12 - 
 
  subsidy notification in order to improve transparency. In the meantime, China affirmed that it  had 
also found quite a few service subsidies in the U S subsidy notifications  such as for the film industry, 
and that it hoped Members could employ a uni fied standard when determining the scope of the 
subsidy notification . 
116.  The United States  stated it appreciated China's intervention, but it was unfortunate that it did 
not get the answers prior to the meeting . The United States would review them and return to China's 
answers at the next meeting. The United States, then, expressed its views on some points of China's 
statement. First, given the fact it was a common practice among Members in the Committee to ask 
questions about programs that had not been notifi ed, the United States questioned if China had a 
specific legal provision in the SCM Agreement that formed the basis of its opinion. Secondly, with 
respect to the state capital operation budget, according to the United States, these were equity 
infusions in to state owned enterprises (SOE) by the government. Additionally, even though it was 
possible that they did not constitute subsidies, some of these programs were for the restructuring of 
SOEs, what would mean a good possibility that these enterprises might  have not qualified for a 
similar investment made by a private investor.  
117.  China  stated that although there were no clear provisions in the SCM Agreement specifying 
that questions about notifications submitted by Members should only focus on notified program s, 
articles 25.8, 25.9 and 25.10 stipulated strict disciplines for the non -notified programs on which 
Members might raise questions or concerns. In order to know more details about the notified 
programs, Members should focus their questions on these progra ms, otherwise that would add a 
new obligation for Members to provide written replies on the non -notified programs. Secondly, China 
affirmed that the state capital operation budget encompassed Chinese enterprises regardless their 
ownership. In China, a good  level-playing field for the private enterprises and for the SOEs would 
have already been created.  
118.  The European Union  thanked China for the preparation of the replies to the extensive 
questions, which were submitted in order to attempt to fill gaps in the Chinese notification from 
2018. The European Union agreed with what was stated by the United States and strongly disagreed 
with China concerning its comment that the scope of the questions should be limited to the notified 
schemes. The European Union had a lready replied to many questions  posed  on its notification where, 
for whatever reason, it had omitted to include some subsidies schemes, by giving a full reply and, 
where necessary, providing a supplementary notification. The European Union considered that  it was 
essential to follow up these questions in writing, so there was on record a full transparen t detail of 
all the subsidies provided by each Member . The European Union hoped that China would include full 
replies to the questions relating to the non-notified schemes. According to the European Union, o nly 
this way, it could have a greater  understand ing of China's subsidies  notification. The European  Union 
looked forward to getting China's replies and reserved its rights to submit follow -up question s. 
119.  New Zealand  stated that it looked forward to reviewing the replies and providing any follow -up 
questions.  
120.  Japan  stated that, it had not had opportunity to review China's replies, therefore it would get 
back to China in the next Committee meeting.  
121.  China  thanked the European Union, New Zealand and Japan for their interventions. It 
apologized for the delay in replying the European Union's questions and stated that it would try its 
best to provide the written replies as soon as possible. China affirmed that it was finalizing the 
answers and that it would soon submit them. China expressed that although it had the opinion that 
Members should focus on the notified programs, it had tried its best to verify the information raised 
by the Members with the relevant d epartments and local governments so it could reply the questions 
submitted by the United States and the European Union regarding the non -notified policies.  
122.  The Chair  noted that because China had provided its written replies just before the meeting 
and beca use the questions posed by the European Union were still pending, the Committee would 
return to that notification at the spring special meeting.  
123.  The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, answers and statements made.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 13 - 
 
  8.2  Russian Federation (G/SCM/ N/315/RUS)  
124.  Written questions and answers concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/17 – Questions from Canada  
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/18 – Replies to  Canada  
125.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions , answers  and statements made.  
9  CONTINUATION  OF REVIEW OF 2015 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/284/…)  
9.1  China (G/SCM/N/220/CHN, G/SCM/N/253/CHN, G/SCM/N/284/CHN, and 
G/SCM/N/95/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/123/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/155/CHN/Suppl.1, 
G/SCM/N/186/CHN/ Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/220/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/253/CHN/Suppl.1 
and G/SCM/N/284/CHN/Suppl.1)  
126.  The multi -symbolled notifications from China covered the periods 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 
2011, 2013 and 2015, and were taken up together under this agenda item.  
127.  The Chair noted that these notifications were on the agenda of the Committee because China 
had not yet provided written replies to the follow -up questions from the United States which can be 
found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/74 – follow -up question from the United States  
128.  The Chair noted, however, that China had  submitted its written replies just before the 
meeting10. 
129.  China  stated that it appreciated the sustained concern by the United States about China 's local 
government subsidy notifications. China had organized competent authorities both at the central and 
local levels to study carefully the questions raised and had subm itted written responses before the 
meeting. China, then asked Members to refer to its written reply.  
130.  The United States  stated that it appreciated China's answers but noted that it had asked its 
questions 18 months earlier , which would be a good time period  to get answers. The United  States 
then posed two additional questions:  
131.  First, concerning the United States' question whether legal measures from sub -central 
governments in China were published in the MOFCOM gazette and China's referral to a website of 
the MOFCOM gazette, the United States affirmed that it had accessed the mentioned website multiple 
times and had not  seen, for the most part, any local measures. The United States asked China to 
respond whether, as a matter of policy, the sub -central measures  should be published in the 
MOFCOM gazette and whether in fact they were published in the mentioned gazette as a routine.  
132.  Secondly, with respect to government guidance equity investment funds, the United States 
affirmed that it had seen certain evidence th at the government had compensate d private investors 
for losses incurred or allow ed the government to relinquish its share of profits to compensate private 
investors. China had provided an answer that the questions had exceeded the scope of the subsidy 
notification and had not belong to information that China needed to submit according to the SCM 
Agreement. Noting  that the Government was compensating private investors for their losses or was 
relinquishing its profit to private investors, the United States  asked China to provide further detail 
on why it thought these measures were beyond the scope of the SCM Agreement.  
133.  Referring to the United States concerns on the timing of submitting written answers, China  
recalled that it had submitted questions on the US 2015 subsidy notification in October 2017, but it 
had received the written answers from the US only in October 2018. According to China,  Members 
should review their own practices before blaming others.  
 
10 The answers can be found in G/SCM/Q2/ CHN/80, circulated on 20 November 2019.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 14 - 
 
  134.  Secondly, regarding the publication of legal measures in the MOFCOM gazette, China affirmed 
that, since its accession to the WTO, it had tried its best to improve the transparency of its leg al 
measures, laws and regulations. So, MOFCOM had tried its best, in cooperation with relevant 
departments and local governments, to publicize policies regarding trade in goods, trade in services 
and TRIPs. China then suggested Members to carefully review MOFCOM website to see these efforts.  
135.  Regarding the government guidance investment fund, according to China, it operated in a 
market -oriented principle, meaning same returns as private enterprises. China recalled that it had 
asked questions on details of be neficiary enterprises of the subsidies in the notification submitted by 
the United States, but it had also stated that this question was beyond the scope, so it had not 
provided any answers. Lastly, China noted  that Members should follow the same rules and  principles 
in dealing with questions and answers.  
136.  The United States  asked whether, as a matter of policy, all sub -central government measures 
in China were published in MOFCOM gazette. Secondly, with respect to the guidance funds, the 
United States, contr ary to China's answer that they operated according to market -oriented principles, 
emphasized that the interventions by the government to compensate any losses of private investors 
were not consistent with market -oriented principles.  
137.  China  indicated  that in the single official journal, MOFCOM published the issues of China's trade 
policy. The journal could be subscribed by mail and was also published in MOFCOM website with 
more than 3.9 million -page views per year. China also stated that it tried its best to improve the 
transparency of its publications and in case some of the trade policies had not been publicized, after 
double check with the relevant competent authorities or local governments, China would give 
suggestions to its capital. Regarding the guidanc e funds and the compensations given by the 
government mentioned by the United States, China affirmed that it had not been aware of this kind 
of information and that written questions would be welcomed.  
138.  The Chair noted that because China had provided its wr itten replies just before the meeting, 
the Committee would return to that notification at the spring special meeting.  
139.  The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, answers and statements made.  
9.2  Saint Lucia (G/SCM/N/284/LCA  - G/SCM/N/290/LCA)  
140.  This double -symbolled notification from Saint Lucia included a transparency notification in 
respect of extensions under Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement.  
141.  Written questions and answers concerning this notification  can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/LCA/4 – Questions from Mexico  
• G/SCM/Q2/LCA/5 – Replies to Mexico  
142.  The Committee took note  of the notification, questions , and answers.  
10  CONTINUATION OF REVI EW OF 2013 NEW AND F ULL NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/253/…)  
143.  The Chair noted  that this agenda  item was for the continuation of reviews of 2013 new and 
full notifications  with respect to which questions from previous meetings remained pending.  
10.1  Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS and G/SCM/N/253/RUS/Rev.1)  
144.  Written questions  and answers concerning th is notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/16 – Questions from the European Union  
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/19 – Replies to the European Union  
145.  The Committee took note  of the notification, questions , and answers.  G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 15 - 
 
  11  CONTINUATION OF REVI EW OF 2009 NEW AND F ULL NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/186/…)  
11.1  Gabon  (G/SCM/N/186/GAB)  
146.  Pending written questions concerning this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/1 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/2 – Questions from Turkey  
147.  The Chair  noted that as no written replie s had been submitted by Gabon, the Committee would 
return to this notification at its spring  2020 special meeting.  
11.2  Turkey (G/SCM/N/186/TUR)  
148.  Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/TUR/23 – Questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/TUR/36 and G/SCM/Q2/TUR/36/Corr.1 – Replies to Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/TUR/39 – Additional replies to Australia  
149.  Australia  thanked Turkey  for the reply provided in April 2019 and noted that the information 
requested went back to 2008-2009. Australia affirmed that it might come back with an update 
request.  
150.  Turkey  thanked Australia for the interest and stated that it remained available for any further 
questions.  
151.  The Committee took note  of the notification, questions , answers  and sta tements made.  
152.  The Chair reminded the delegations that had not yet replied to questions that they had 
received in connection with this or previous meetings to provide their written responses as soon as 
possible, so that the Committee could conclude the revi ew of the notifications at its spring special 
meeting. She also reminded Members that had not yet done so to submit their 2019 new and full 
subsidy notifications as soon as possible.  
153.  All Members were required to submit their 2019 new and full notifications , not later than 
30 June 2019. The Members that already had made those notifications were to be commended. All 
other Members should redouble their efforts to notify on time, which would greatly enhance the 
transparency function of subsidy notification and review.  
154.  For new and full notifications to be placed on the agenda of the spring special meeting, the 
Chair reminded the delegations that these notifications would have to be circulated in all three 
working languages not later than 6 January 2020. Given the  time needed for translation, this left a 
narrow window to notify in time for review in the spring. The Secretariat stood ready to offer any 
assistance in this regard.  
155.  The Chair also informed delegations wishing to receive written answers to any questions 
regarding notifications reviewed at the present meeting that they should submit their questions in 
writing, to both the Member concerned and to the Secretariat. Similarly, the written answers must 
be submitted directly to the Member that posed the question , and to the Secretariat. The Chair 
emphasized that it was the responsibility of the Members submitting questions and answers to 
provide them directly to the other Member concerned, at the time it submitted it to the Secretariat 
for circulation to all Memb ers concerned.  
156.  Finally, the Chair informed the delegations that after the week's Rules Committee cluster, the 
Secretariat would circulate the usual triple -symbolled document containing all of the deadlines for 
documents to be submitted.11 
 
11 G/ADP/W/504 - G/SCM/W/579 - G/SG/W/246 . G/SCM/M/110  
 
- 16 - 
 
  157.  The meeting was closed. 
 
__________