RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SCM/M/11
24October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4449)
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD
ON22-26 JULY 1996
Chairman: Mr.V.doPrado (Brazil)
1. TheCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures ("the Committee") heldaspecial
meeting on22-26 July1996.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
A. Notifications ofsubsidies pursuant toArticle XVIofGATT 1994 andArticle 25.2
oftheAgreement:
(i) EC(G/SCM/N/3/EEC AND Corr.1)
(ii) United States (G/SCM/N/3/USA)
(iii) Brazil (G/SCM/N/3/BRA)
(iv) Malaysia (G/SCM/N/3/MYS)
(v) Philippines (G/SCM/N/3/PHL)
(vi) Canada (G/SCM/N/3/CAN/Rev.1)
(vii) Czech Republic (G/SCM/N/3/CZE)
B. Notifications thataMember doesnotmaintain anynotifiable subsidies:
(i) Botswana (G/SCM/N/3/BWA)
(ii) Dominican Republic (G/SCM/N/3/DOM)
(iii) Honduras (G/SCM/N/3/HND)
(iv) Hong Kong (G/SCM/N/3/HKG)
(v) India (G/SCM/N/3/IND/Suppl.1)
(vi) Liechtenstein (G/SCM/N/3/LIE)
(vii) Mauritius (G/SCM/N/3/MUS)G/SCM/M/11
Page2
(viii) NewZealand (G/SCM/N/3/NZL)
(ix) Nicaragua (G/SCM/N/3/NIC)
(x) Suriname (G/SCM/N/3/SUR)
(xi) Swaziland (G/SCM/N/3/SWZ)
(xii) Trinidad &Tobago (G/SCM/N/3/TTO)
(xiii) Zambia (G/SCM/N/3/ZMB)
C. Second Special Session toreview subsidies notifications
D. Permanent Group ofExperts -Rules ofProcedure
A. Notifications ofsubsidies pursuant toArticle XVIofGATT 1994 andArticle 25.2ofthe
Agreement
3. TheChairman explained theprocedures fortheconduct ofthereview. EachMember whose
notification wasbeing reviewed would haveanopportunity, ifdesired, tomake ageneral statement.
Anyother Member could alsomake ageneral comment onthenotification orrespond tothegeneral
statement ofthenotifying Member. NexttheMember would respond tothespecific questions posed
toit.Ifadelegation planned torespond toquestions received inanorder which wasdifferent from
thatinthewritten questions themselves, forexample, ifitgrouped together questions from various
other Members regarding particular programmes ormeasures, thedelegation should provide asaroom
document anoutline oftheorder inwhich itwould provide itsresponses. Itwould behelpful ifa
written textoftheoralanswers could bemade available forthetranslators andasaroom document.
While written questions weredue10June1995, delegations werefreetoposeoralquestions atthis
meeting. TheChairman trusted thatdelegations would dotheirbesttorespond toanyoralquestions,
although itwastoberecognized thatadelegation might nothavethenecessary information fora
complete reply. Inanyevent, thedelegation which desired awritten response tooralquestions should
submit those questions inwriting atalaterstage.
4. TheCommittee proceeded tothereview ofthenotifications ontheagenda.
5. Thequestions posed regarding theEuropean Community 'snotification canbefound inthe
following documents:
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/1 (Submitted byKorea)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/2 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/2/Rev.1 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/3 (Submitted byArgentina)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/4 (Submitted byUS)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/4/Suppl.1 (Submitted byUS)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/5 (Submitted byIndia)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/6 (Submitted byCanada)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/6/Suppl.1 (Submitted byCanada)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/7 (Submitted byThailand)G/SCM/M/11
Page3
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/8 (Submitted byCanada)
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/9 (Submitted byUS)
Theanswers provided bytheEuropean Communities tothese questions canbefound inthe
following document:
G/SCM/Q2/EEC/10 (Toallquestions)
6. Thequestions posed regarding theUnited States 'notification canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/SCM/Q2/USA/1 (Submitted byKorea)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/2 (Submitted byNorway)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/3 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/3/Rev.1 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/4 (Submitted bytheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/5 (Submitted byArgentina)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/6 (Submitted byIndia)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/7 (Submitted byCanada)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/7/Suppl.1 (Submitted byCanada)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/8 (Submitted byThailand)
G/SCM/Q2/USA/9 (Follow-up questions bytheEC)
Theanswers provided bytheUnited States tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
[NOREPLIES TODATE.]
7. Thequestions posed regarding Brazil 'snotification canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/1 (Submitted byKorea)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/2 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/2/Suppl.1 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/2/Suppl.2 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/3 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/3/Rev.1 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/4 (Submitted bytheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/5 (Submitted byCanada)
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/6 (Submitted bytheEC)
Theanswers provided byBrazil tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing documents:
[NOREPLIES TODATE.]
8. Thequestions posed regarding Malaysia 'snotification canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/1 (Submitted byKorea)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/2 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/2/Suppl.1 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/3 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/3/Rev.1 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/4 (Submitted bytheEC)G/SCM/M/11
Page4
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/5 (Submitted byArgentina)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/6 (Submitted byThailand)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/7 (Submitted byTurkey)
G/SCM/Q2/MYS/8 (Submitted bytheEC)
Theanswers provided byMalaysia tothesequestions canbefound inthefollowing documents:
[NOREPLIES TODATE.]
9. Thequestions posed regarding thePhilippines 'notification canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/1 (Submitted byKorea)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/2 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/2/Suppl.1 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/3 (Submitted bytheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/4 (Submitted byThailand)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/9 (Follow-up questions from theEC)
Theanswers provided bythePhilippines tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/5 (TotheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/6 (TotheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/7 (ToKorea)
G/SCM/Q2/PHL/8 (ToThailand)
10. Thequestions posed regarding Canada 'snotification canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/1 (Submitted byNorway)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/2 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/2/Rev.1 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/3 (Submitted bytheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/4 (Submitted byArgentina)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/5 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/5/Suppl.1 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/6 (Submitted byThailand)
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/7 (Submitted bytheEC)
Theanswers provided byCanada tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/8 (Toallquestions)
11. Thequestions posed regarding theCzech Republic 'snotification canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/1 (Submitted byKorea)
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/2 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/2/Rev.1 (Submitted byJapan)
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/3 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/3/Suppl.1 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/4 (Submitted byArgentina)G/SCM/M/11
Page5
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/5 (Submitted byThailand)
G/SCM/Q2/CZE/6 (Submitted byTurkey)
Theanswers provided bytheCzech Republic tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
[NOREPLIES TODATE.]
B. Notifications thataMember doesnotmaintain anynotifiable subsidies
12. Thequestions posed regarding Honduras 'notification canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/SCM/Q2/HND/1 (Submitted bytheEC)
Theanswers provided byHonduras tothesequestions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/SCM/Q2/HND/2 (TotheEC)
13. ThequestionsposedregardingHongKong'snotificationcanbefoundinthefollowingdocuments:
G/SCM/Q2/HKG/1 (Submitted bytheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/HKG/2 (Submitted byThailand)
TheanswersprovidedbyHongKongtothesequestionscanbefoundinthefollowingdocuments:
[NOREPLIES TODATE.]
14. Thequestions posed regarding India'snotification canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/SCM/Q2/IND/1 (Submitted bytheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/IND/2 (Submitted bytheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/IND/3 (Submitted bytheEC)
Theanswers provided byIndia tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing documents:
[NOREPLIES TODATE.]
15. Thequestions posed regarding Mauritius 'notification canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/SCM/Q2/MUS/1 (Submitted bytheUS)
Theanswers provided byMauritius tothesequestions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/SCM/Q2/MUS/2 (TotheUS)
16. Thequestions posed regarding New Zealand 'snotification canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/SCM/Q2/NZL/1 (Submitted bytheEC)
G/SCM/Q2/NZL/2 (Submitted bytheUS)G/SCM/M/11
Page6
Theanswers provided byNew Zealand tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/SCM/Q2/NZL/3 (TotheUS)
G/SCM/Q2/NZL/4 (TotheEC)
17. Thequestions posed regarding Nicaragua 'snotification canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/SCM/Q2/NIC/1 (Submitted bytheEC)
[NOREPLIES TODATE.]
18. TheCommittee decided thatanyoralquestions forwhich awritten response wasdesired would
beprovided directly tothedelegation concerned andtotheSecretariat byFriday, 6September 1996.
Written responses byMembers toallquestions would bedueby18October 1996.
19. TheChairman noted that,ingeneral, thereview hadbeenconducted inaspirit ofcooperation
andgoodwill. Ithadbeenhelpful infocusing eachMember onavariety ofprogrammes thathadnot
previously beenidentified asnotifiable, andhadhelped Members toprepare aninventory oftheirown
measures subject totheAgreement, which inturnwould beuseful tothem astheyassessed their
obligations under theAgreement.
20. TheChairman considered thatthereview haddemonstrated thattheremight bejudgement calls
withrespect towhether aparticular programme wasorwasnotnotifiable. Itwasalmost always possible
tocraftanargument thatameasure didnotconfer abenefit, wasnotspecific etc.However, some
delegations hadindicated theirwillingness toerronthesideofcompleteness andtonotify programmes
where thequestion ofnotifiability wasaclose one.Thiswasauseful approach which wasreasonable
inlightoftheclearlanguage ofArticle 25.7oftheAgreement thatthenotification ofameasure did
notprejudge itsnature orlegalstatus.
21. TheChairman remarked thatoneissue onwhich there wasclarity wastheobligation that
Members report allspecific subsidies atalllevels ofgovernment. While noMember oftheCommittee
haddenied thislegalobligation, thenumber ofsubnational programmes notified wasverysmall. This
wasaveryserious situation. Ifitwasnotrectified, there wasaserious riskthatthecompleteness
ofnotifications insubsequent reviews would beworse rather thanbetter. Hetherefore requested that
allMembers fulfiltheirclearlegalobligation tonotify subnational programmes. IfeachMember relied
onthefactthatsome other Member orMembers hadnotmade acertain typeofnotification asareason
nottodosoitself, theCommittee would quickly arrive atthelowest common denominator which in
thiscasewould benonotifications atall.TheChairman intended toholdinformal consultations on
thisissue.
22. Therepresentative oftheECconsidered thatthereview hadbeenaproductive exercise and
hadfacilitated alively exchange ofviews onsome matters. Theissues ofspecificity andsub-federal
schemes identified bytheChairman wereextremely important, andtheECwould behappy tocooperate
inanyconsultations onthelatter issue. TheECreserved therighttoposequestions inwriting with
regard toMembers whose notifications hadbeensubject toreview thisweek, butwithregard towhich
theEChadnotduetotimeconstraints yethadthepossibility toposeanyquestions. Finally, theEC
remained veryconcerned about thenumber ofnon-notifiers. Sixty-eight Members hadnotnotified
more thanoneyearafterthedeadline. TheECreserved thepossibility ofmaking counternotifications
especially withrespect tomajor traders which hadnotsubmitted notifications andmight raisethematter
atoneoftheregular meetings oftheCommittee.G/SCM/M/11
Page7
23. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesagreedthatthereviewhadbeeninstructive.Thequestions
hadhelped theUnited States tofocus onthescope ofwhat hadtobenotified. Itwasadifficult
identification exercise andtheChairman 'sexhortation toerronthesideofinclusion wasencouraging.
Theissueofsubcentral subsidy programmes wasimportant andtheUnited States wanted towork with
others toaddress it.However, there were other important issues regarding thequantity andquality
ofnotifications, andtheUnited States hoped thattheChairman would address alltherelevant issues
inhisinformal consultations.
24. TheChairman stated thathisintention wastoaddress allissues relating tothequantity and
quality ofnotifications inhisinformal consultation.
C. Second Special Session toreview subsidies notifications
25. TheChairman recalled thatthefollowing notifications ofsubsidy programmes remained to
bereviewed: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hungary, Indonesia, Japan, Korea,
Morocco, Norway, Nigeria, Peru, Singapore, theSlovak Republic, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey
andVenezuela. Heproposed thatwritten questions regarding these notifications beprovided by
20September 1996. Notifying Members would thenprepare theirresponses forameeting intheweek
of20October 1996.
26. TheChairman noted that68Members hadnotyetsubmitted anynotification tothisCommittee
inspiteofthefactthatthese notifications were due13months ago. These Members were Antigua
andBarbuda,Bahrain,Bangladesh,Barbados,Belize,Benin,BruneiDarussalam,BurkinaFaso,Burundi,
Cameroon,CentralAfricanRepublic,Chile,Côted'Ivoire,Cuba,Cyprus,Djibouti,Dominica,Ecuador,
Egypt, ElSalvador, Fiji,Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Republic ofGuinea,
Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Macau, Madagascar, Malawi,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Pakistan, Papua
NewGuinea, Paraguay, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saint KittsandNevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent
&Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, SriLanka, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia,
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay andZimbabwe. TheChairman asked whether delegates of
these Members present intheroom hadanynews onthestatus ofpreparation ofthese notifications
andinparticular whether anynotifications could beexpected inthefollowing fewweeks.
27. Therepresentative ofPoland stated thathisgovernment 'snotification wasdelayed due
organization reforms ofgovernment andtothechange intheinstitution which coordinates subsidy
issues. Poland wasworking hardandwould submit afullsubsidy notification thisyear.
28. Therepresentative ofRomania stated thathisgovernment alsowasworking hardtoprepare
afullnotification onsubsidies. Hehoped thatitwould beavailable inSeptember andapologised for
thedelay.
29. TheChairman recalled thatmany Members hadpresented notifications andhadgonetogreat
effort torespond toquestions regarding them. Thisrepresented asubstantial commitment infavour
oftransparency. Itwasdifficult forthese Members toobserve other Members whohadsimply not
presented anynotification. TheChairman assumed thatallgovernments from Members which had
notyetnotified wereintheprocess ofpreparing notifications inconformity withtheirlegalobligations
andthatacertain number ofnotifications could beexpected inthenearfuture. TheChairman would
liketheCommittee tobeabletoreceive andreview asmany 1995 notifications aspossible in1996.
Otherwise, theCommittee would beintheembarrassing situation ofhaving toreport toMinisters at
Singapore thatnothing lessthan60percentoftheMembers oftheCommittee hadnotcomplied with
thekeystone notification obligation oftheAgreement. TheChairman sought theviews oftheCommitteeG/SCM/M/11
Page8
regarding whatshould bedoneandinparticular howifatalltheCommittee could review thesubsidy
programmes ofMembers whohadnotprovided anynotification untilnow.
30. Therepresentative oftheECechoed theChairman 'sconcern astothepresent situation. The
EChadmade averyconsiderable effort tocoordinate withMember States, prepare itsnotification
andrespond toquestions. Ifagame weretobeplayed ithadtobeplayed byeverybody, yetbarely
40percentofMembers hadmade anotification, nottomention theissue ofquality ofnotifications.
TheAgreement created thepossibility ofcounternotifications anditwastheintension oftheCommunity
tomake useofthattool. TheECasked allMembers, andparticularly largetrading countries, tomake
aneffort topresent notifications. While theECunderstood theproblem forcertain Member countries
whose participation inworld trade waslimited, Members whohadaconsiderable share ofimport and
exports intheworld trade inparticular should submit notifications.
31. Therepresentative oftheUnited States shared theviews oftheEC.Throughout thereview
Members hadsought tostrike abalance between transparency andunderstanding ofthedifficulties,
andhadacted inacooperative spirit. Inthislight, itwasnotterribly difficult toatleastbegin to
comply withthenotification requirement, andthrough theprocess ofnotification andexamination
Members could allimprove their compliance. Henoted thepossibility forcounternotifications,
particularly withrespect toMembers which wererelatively major players intheworld ofinternational
trade, insome cases signatories oftheTokyo Round Subsidies Committee, andwhich werefamiliar
withthese kinds ofnotification obligations. Itmight bethetimeforsuchcounternotifications, atleast
inorder tocatalyse thediscussion.
32. TheChairman agreed thatitwasnotaterribly difficult taskatleasttosubmit aninitial
notification. Thegeneral atmosphere intheCommittee wasnotoneoffingerpointing, butwasrather
anexercise intransparency. Theexercise wasnotaimed atclassifying programmes, andhadhasno
legalconsequences initself.
D. Permanent Group ofExperts -Rules ofProcedure
33. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee hadatitsprevious meeting considered thedraft
Rules ofProcedure forthePGEcontained indocument G/SCM/W/365. ThePGEhadtaken careful
notes ofthecomments ofMembers andhadintroduced changes intheoriginal draftwhich initsopinion
would strike afairbalance between thesometimes diverging views expressed byMembers ofthe
Committee. Thisrevised drafthadbeencirculated upon request ofthePGE(G/SCM/W/365/Rev.1).
TheChairman personally considered thatthePGEhadtaken intoaccount theguidance provided by
theCommittee andthattheCommittee should decide nowwhether itcould approve those Rules of
Procedure. There werethree alternatives fortheCommittee: (a)toapprove theRules ofProcedure
astheycurrently stood; (b)toapprove themsubject toamendments agreed bytheCommittee; or(c)
toagree thattheRules beapplied provisionally untilournextregular meeting. Theneedforprompt
action bytheCommittee washighlighted bythefactthatthere were nowconsultations taking place
under Article 4oftheAgreement regarding alleged export subsidies.
34. Therepresentative oftheECconsidered thatthetextwasanimprovement bycomparison with
theprevious draft. Further, delegations should adopt aconstructive approach, because thefirstinstances
ofconsultations wereoccurring andRules ofProcedure might soonbenecessary. However, Rules 2(2)
and19wereinterconnected provisions which required work. Rule19referred tothepossibility that
Members ofthePGEwhich werenationals ofaparty toadispute could beexcluded ifoneoftheparties
tothedispute sorequested. Thisprinciple assuchwasnotacceptable. Experts were appointed as
independent individuals, chosen byvirtue oftheirpersonal ability. Their nationality should notbe
grounds forexclusion. Apossible solution would betoestablish more detailed rulesregarding conflicts
under Rule2(2). Itwasnecessary toestablish more detailed rules forconflicts sothatparties whichG/SCM/M/11
Page9
hadmisgivings about theobjectivity orlackofobjectivity ofanExpert inconnection withagiven dispute
could availthemselves oftheirrights. However, tosuggest thatnationality assuchcould begrounds
forexcluding Experts wasagainst thespirit andtheverytextoftheAgreement.
35. Therepresentative ofCanada considered thatthere wasaninternal incoherence within the
proposed Rules inthatRule19afforded aparty arighttoobject toanExpert 'sparticipation inPGE
decision-making onthebasisofnationality, while Rule2,which addressed conflicts ofinterest based
forexample onfinancial activities, didnotprovide asimilar right, notwithstanding thefactthatthe
latter could beasormore egregious thantheformer. Onewaytodealwiththese concerns would
betoreplace therightinRule19toobject toanExpert 'sparticipation onthebasisofnationality with
amore generic provision which would afford aparty toadispute theright toraiseanobjection to
anExpert 'sparticipation inPGE deliberations onanygrounds which gave risetoareasonable
apprehension ofbias. Thiswould address Canada 'sconcerns regarding Rule19andalsoeliminate
theinternal incoherence between Rules 2and19.
36. Therepresentative ofMexico stated thathisgovernment wasstillexamining thedraftRules
andwasnotyetinaposition tojudge whether ornotitcould support theirapproval.
37. Therepresentative ofKorea recalled thattheCommittee hadasked thePGEtoestablish its
ownRules ofProcedure. Thus, thePGEhadsome scope fordiscretion inestablishing these Rules
ofProcedure which should berespected. TheExperts werehighly experienced, highly-educated people
whohadrespect forcommon sense. Ifproblems arose withrespect totheRules, theCommittee could
askthePGEtorevise them. Ifapproval wasdelayed anyfurther, itwould seriously discourage the
PGE'sefforts tocontribute tosomething tothisCommittee. Accordingly, Members should reconsider
theirhardpositions inorder toachieve rapid approval ofRules ofProcedure forthePGE.
38. TheChairman asked thedelegates ofCanada andtheECwhether theycould present some
language thatwould address theirconcerns.
39. Therepresentative ofCanada agreed todraftsome language andother suggestions asnecessary
inorder tohavetheRules putintoplace inadvance ofthenextregular meeting oftheCommittee.
40. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thathisgovernment hadexpressed some
reservations about the"nationality" provisions ofthedraftRules andwasprepared tolookatwhatever
language Canada wanted topropose. TheUnited States might havedrafting suggestions ofitsown
onvarious points. While theCommittee should finalized theRules asquickly aspossible, itshould
notaccept draftRules thatwere inadequate incertain respects.
41. Therepresentative ofJapan considered thatthedraftRules could beadopted astheystood.
42. Therepresentative ofIndiastated thathisdelegation hadnothadtimetoreview thedraftRules
andthuswasnotinaposition toadopt them today. Herequested thatthematter betaken upatthe
regular meeting oftheCommittee.
43. TheChairman noted thatthisitemhadbeenintheagenda since themeeting wasconvened.
Heproposed thattheCommittee decide thatthedraftRules ofProcedure beapplied provisionally until
thenextregular meeting oftheCommittee. Intheinterim hewould conduct informal meetings to
trytoresolve outstanding issues andifpossible callaspecial meeting oftheCommittee toapprove
theRules ofProcedure assoonaspossible.
44. Therepresentative ofCanada sought clarification regarding howthePGEwould operate in
theabsence ofapproved rules?G/SCM/M/11
Page10
45. Therepresentative oftheECinquired whether onecould distinguish between whatwerestrictly
internal Rules ofProcedure ofthePGEandRules which werenotintrinsically internal totheGroup.
Asunder Rule19therewasapossibility thatanExpert might beobjected to,thisRulesettheframework
inwhich thePGEmight work andthuswasnotapurely internal rule. Ifso,purely internal rulesfor
thePGEcould bemade operational while theCommittee continued toexamine various proposals.
46. TherepresentativeofKoreasupportedtheprovisionalapplicationofthedraftRulesofProcedure.
47. Therepresentative ofThailand stated thatsome developing countries werehaving difficulties
incertain aspects ofinterpretation oftheAgreement andwould liketoseektheassistance ofthePGE.
However, thatwould notbequitepossible iftheRules ofProcedure werenotadopted. Thus, hejoined
Korea insupporting theprovisional adoption ofthedraftRules ofProcedure.
48. TheChairmannotethattherehadalreadybeenexpressionsofintentiontoseekadvisoryopinions
fromthePGE. TheCommittee could decide thatthedraftRules beapplied provisionally andinthe
meantime work fasttogetthenecessary amendments which would make itpossible tohavefinalRules
approved ataspecial meeting oftheCommittee rightafterthesummer break orattheregular meeting.
49. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thathisdelegation hadnoobjection tothe
provisional useofthedraft Rules until aspecified timesuchasthenextregular meeting ofthe
Committee. TheUnited States would notgoalong withindefinite useofthem onaprovisional basis.
50. Therepresentative ofNewZealand concurred, withtheunderstanding thatfinalapproval of
theRules ofProcedure would nottakeplace untiltherehadbeenanopportunity forfurther discussion.
51. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic alsosupported theproposal.
52. Therepresentative oftheECwasconcerned thatRule19asitwaswritten nowmight becontrary
totheAgreement. TheECproposed theprovisional application ofthedraft Rules excluding the
application ofRule19.
53. TheChairman reformulated hisproposal asfollows. There would beprovisional application
ofthedraftRules butwithout anylegalprejudice interms oftheAgreement. Thisapplication would
bestrictly time-limited andtheCommittee would engage inaspeedy process toagree onthefinaltext.
54. Therepresentative oftheECproposed thattheCommittee takenoteofthefactthatthePGE
hadprepared draftRules andthatthePGEmight beusing those rulesuntilsuchtimeastheCommittee
approved finalRules.
55. TheChairman asked whether theEC'sproposal wasacceptable.
56. Therepresentative ofIndia stated thathewasnotinaposition totakeadefinite viewatthis
time. Hesought more information about requests forassistance fromthePGE. Where therequests
byPanels orMembers? Iftheywere requests from Panel there wassome urgency.
57. TheChairman stated thatthere wereconsultations going onunder Article 4.Apart fromthat
some Members hadexpressed anintention toresort tothePGE. Sothematter wasurgent andthis
waswhytheChairman wasworking sohardtohavethePGEoperational immediately. Hereturned
totheEC'sproposal andsuggested thatthePGEbeinformed thattheycould startworking whenever
theywere formally requested todosoinaccordance withthedraftRules andtheprovisions ofthe
Agreement.G/SCM/M/11
Page11
58. Therepresentative ofCanada asked whether thePGEwould alsobeadvised thattheoperation
ofthedraftRules would continue tobesubject toapproval offinalRules bytheCommittee?
59. TheChairman responded intheaffirmative. ThePGEwould alsobeadvised thattheCommittee
wasworking fastonhaving thedraftRules finalized andapproved assoonaspossible.
60. TheMeeting wasadjourned.