RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SCM/M/50 
29 July 2004 
 
 (04-3273) 
Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 29 APRIL 2004 
 
Chairperson: Ms. Olga Lozano (Colombia) 
 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the "Committee") held a regular 
meeting on 29 April 2004.   
2. The proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in document WTO/AIR/2300.  The 
Committee adopted  the following agenda:1  
A. JORDAN  – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION  
(G/ADP/N/1/JOR/2-G/SCM/N/1/JOR/2) ...................................................................................2  
B. SOUTH  AFRICA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION  
(G/ADP/N/1/ZAF/2-G/SCM/N/1/ZAF/2) ..................................................................................3  
C. CHINA  - REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE  
NOTIFICATION  (G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/SUPPL.2) .....................................................................3  
D. MEXICO  – REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE  
NOTIFICATION  (G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.2-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.1-
G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.1)......................................................................................................3  
E. PERU  – REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE  
NOTIFICATION  (G/ADP/N/1/PER/2-G/SCM/N/1/PER/2)......................................................4  
F. SEMI-ANNUAL  REPORTS  OF COUNTERVAILING  ACTIONS ..........................................4  
G. NOTIFICATIONS  OF PRELIMINARY  AND  FINAL  COUNTERVAILING  
ACTIONS ........................................................................................................................ ...........5  
H. SUBSIDY  NOTIFICATIONS ....................................................................................................5  
1. Honduras (G/SCM/N/38/HND-G/SCM/N/48/HND-G/SCM/N/60/HND-
G/SCM/N/71/HND-G/SCM/N/95/HND)..................................................................................5  
2. Croatia (G/SCM/N/71/HRV/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/95/HRV) ....................................................5  
3. Hungary (G/SCM/N/60/HUN & G/SCM/N/71/HUN)............................................................5  
                                                      
1 The OECD – as an ad hoc  observer to the Committee – had sent a communication to the WTO 
Secretariat asking to be allowed to participate in this  Committee meeting in order to inform WTO Members of 
the entry into force, in January 2004, of a revision to the OECD Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially 
Supported Export Credits (the " Arrangement "), as well as to provide info rmation on the transparency 
provisions.  The Committee agreed  to the Chairperson's suggestion to pl ace this on the agenda as an "other 
business" sub-item and, for practical reasons, to address this sub-item, followed by agenda item J, after agenda 
item E, before reverting to the remaining items in the order set out in the airgram.  The Minutes of the meeting 
retain the agenda order as set out in the airgram. G/SCM/M/50 
Page 2  
 
 4.
 Jamaica (G/SCM/N/71/JAM/Suppl. 1-G/SCM/N/95/JAM) ..................................................5  
5. Zambia (G/SCM/N/71/ZMB-G/SCM/N/95/ZMB) .................................................................5  
I. PERMANENT  GROUP  OF EXPERTS  – ELECTION  OF AN EXPERT ..................................6  
J. 2004  REVISION  OF THE  ARRANGEMENT  ON GUIDELINES  FOR  OFFICIALLY  
SUPPORTED  EXPORT  CREDITS  - ITEM  REQUESTED  BY BRAZIL..................................6  
K. OTHER  BUSINESS ...................................................................................................................9  
1. Article 27.4 extensions of the export subsidy transition period of certain 
Members' eligible programmes:  Reminder of agreed deadlines for submission of notifications and questions and answers for the Committee's review of 
transparency and standstill obligations in the decisions in (documents 
G/SCM/50-102 and 50/Add.1-/94/Add.1) relating to the Article 27.4 process – 
Statement by the Chairperson .................................................................................................9
 
2. 2004 Revision of the Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Export Credits – Statement by the OECD Secretariat..........................................................9
 
3. South Africa's Motor Industry Deve lopment Programme – Statement by 
Australia ...................................................................................................................... ............13  
L. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING ................................................................................15  
M. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS......................................................................................................15  
 
A. JORDAN  – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION  (G/ADP/N/1/JOR/2-
G/SCM/N/1/JOR/2) 
3. The Chairperson  recalled that items A and B dealt with the review of new notifications of 
countervailing duty legislation and/or  regulations, in accordance with  the procedures adopted by the 
Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 ( document G/SCM/W/293).  As indicated in the 
airgram, due to the volume of material involved, de legations were asked to bring their own copies of 
the notifications. 
4. The Chairperson noted that certain legislative no tifications that were listed on the agenda of 
the Committee were contained in double-symbolled documents and that that they referred both to 
anti-dumping measures and countervailing measures.  For this reason, these notifications had also 
been on the agenda of the Spring 2004 meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.  Some 
aspects of those notifications were already reviewed  in that meeting.  She recalled that questions 
concerning new notifications of legislation were to  have been submitted to the Member concerned and 
the Secretariat no later than three weeks before this meeting; that is, no later than 8 April 2004.  As 
provided for in the agreed procedures, Members rece iving written questions were to respond orally to 
timely-submitted questions during the meeting.  They were also subsequently to submit written 
versions of their answers to all written questions  received.  She reminded Members that follow-up 
questions could be asked in this meeting.  If a Member posed a follow-up question and wanted to 
receive a written answer, the follow-up question had to be submitted in writing no later than 
10 May 2004.  Written answers to all written qu estions were to be submitted no later than 
12 July 2004.    G/SCM/M/50 
 Page 3 
 
 
 5. The Committee turned to th e new notification from Jordan , contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/JOR/2 – G/SCM/N/1/JOR/2. which had also been reviewed in the Committee on Anti-
Dumping Practices.2  There were no further questions or comme nts with regard to this notification. 
6. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
B. SOUTH  AFRICA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION  
(G/ADP/N/1/ZAF/2-G/SCM/N/1/ZAF/2) 
7. The new notification from South Africa  was contained in document G/ADP/N/1/ZAF/2 – 
G/SCM/N/1/ZAF/2.  This notification had also been reviewed in the Committee on Anti-Dumping 
Practices.3  There were no further questions or comme nts with regard to this notification. 
8. The Chairperson  informed the Committee that, while it w as not possible at that time to offer a 
comprehensive list, she could indicate that the new legislative notifications from Argentina, Canada 
and Japan – contained in documents G/ADP/N /1/ARG/1/Suppl.7–G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.7, 
G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4–G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4 and G/ADP/ N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.4–G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.4 
and Suppl.4/Corr.1, respectively – were to be on the agenda for review at the Committee's Autumn 
2004 meeting.   
9. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
C. CHINA  - REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION  
(G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/SUPPL.2) 
10. The previously reviewed legislative notification of China  could be found in 
G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2.  Argentina had posed  questions in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/38 – 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/38.  China had responded to the questions of Argentina in G/ADP/Q1/CHN/39 – 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/39.  Those questions and replies ha d been examined in the Spring 2004 meeting of 
the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.4   
11. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
D. MEXICO  – REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION  
(G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.2-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.1-G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.1) 
12. The previously reviewed legislative notification of Mexico  could be found in 
G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.2-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1.  Argentina and the United States had posed questions in doc uments G/ADP/Q1/MEX/6–G/SCM/Q1/MEX/6 and 
G/ADP/Q1/MEX/7– G/SCM/Q1/MEX/7 and G/SCM/Q1/MEX/7/Corr.1.
5  This Member had replied 
to Argentina's questions in document G/ADP/Q 1/MEX/11–G/SCM/Q1/MEX/11 and to those from the 
                                                      
2 See questions from the European Communities a nd the United States and responses thereto in 
documents G/ADP/Q1/JOR/1 through 3 – G/SCM/Q1/JOR/1 through 3. 
3 See questions from the European Communities a nd the United States and responses thereto in 
documents G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/2 through 5 – G/SCM/Q1/ZAF/2 through 5.  The United States posed further written follow-up questions in G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/6- G/SCM/Q1/ZAF/6.  No written responses to these follow-
up questions have yet been received . 
4 The United States posed further written follow-up questions in G/ADP/N/1/CHN/44 -
G/SCM/N/1/CHN/44.   No written responses have yet been received . 
5 In English only. G/SCM/M/50 
Page 4  
 
 United States in document G/ADP/Q1/MEX/9–G/SCM/Q 1/MEX/9.  Those questions and replies had 
been examined in the Spring 2004 meeti ng of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.
6   
13. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
E. PERU  – REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION  
(G/ADP/N/1/PER/2-G/SCM/N/1/PER/2) 
14. The previously reviewed notification of Peru  was contained in G/ADP/N/1/PER/2–
G/SCM/N/1/PER/2.  The United States had posed  written questions and follow-up questions,, 
contained in G/ADP/Q1/PER/26 – G/SC M/Q1/PER/26 and G/ADP/Q1/PER/28 – 
G/SCM/Q1/PER/28, respectively.  Peru replied to these questions in documents G/ADP/Q1/PER/27–
G/SCM/Q1/PER/27 and G/ADP/Q1/PER/29–G/SCM/Q1/PER/29, respectively.   
15. The Chairperson  stated that, pursuant to the Co mmittee's procedures for review of 
notifications of legislation, in order for a previous ly reviewed notification of legislation to appear on 
the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in October 2004, questions regarding such 
notifications had to be submitted to the Secretaria t, and to the Member concerned, no later than 
16 September 2004.  As was its practice, the Secr etariat would issue a reminder note of relevant 
deadlines for this Committee, its subsidiary bo dies, and the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices 
and Safeguards.7  The Chairperson expressed her conti nuing concern over the failure of some 
Members to submit any notification at all concer ning legislation or regulations relevant to 
countervailing measures.  For many, if not most, of  these Members, it was likely that a single "nil" 
notification, indicating that there was no such legisl ation or regulation currently  in effect, would be all 
that was required.  This seemed to be a relativel y simple matter.  For those Members who conducted 
countervailing duty investigations  but had not yet notified their legislation, it was obviously 
important, from the point of view of all Members, that such legislation be notified, in the interest of transparency and better understanding.  She encouraged Members who had not yet done so to make their notification of legislation promptly.   
16. The Committee took note
 of the statement made. 
F. SEMI-ANNUAL  REPORTS  OF COUNTERVAILING  ACTIONS 
17. The Chairperson  stated that a request for the se mi-annual report for the period 1 July–
31 December 2003, to be submitted not later than 5 March 2004, had been circulated to the Members 
in G/SCM/N/106, dated 5 January 2004.  As was unf ortunately almost always the case, a number of 
the semi-annual reports had been received late.  She reminded Members that semi-annual reports were 
always due at the end of August for the period January th rough June of the current year, and at the end 
of February for the period July through December of  the previous year.  She again urged all Members 
to take the necessary steps to submit these notifica tions on time.  Particularly for those Members who 
had taken no actions, these notifica tions should be purely a matter of routine, as all that was required 
was a one-sentence letter stating that  no actions had been taken.   
18. Members who had submitted semi-annual reports of  countervailing actions were identified in 
paragraph 1 of document G/SCM/ N/106/Add.1.  These 11 Members were: Argentina, Australia, 
Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, the European Co mmunities, Latvia, Mexico, New Zealand, the 
United States and Venezuela.  The notifications of Peru and South Africa had also been received and 
included among the documents made available to Me mbers although they were "nil" notifications.  To 
                                                      
6 The United States posed further written follow-up questions in G/ADP/N/1/MEX/12 -
G/SCM/N/1/MEX/12 .  No written responses have yet been received . 
7 Circulated as document G/ADP/W/438-G/SCM/W/529-G/SG/W/197.   G/SCM/M/50 
 Page 5 
 
 
 the extent possible, the semi-annual reports had been  translated and circulat ed to the Committee, and 
were included in the documents made available for the meeting.  In addition to the Members who had 
submitted semi-annual reports of countervailing ac tions, 38 Members, listed in paragraph 2 of 
document G/SCM/N/106/Add.1, had notified th e Committee that they had not taken any 
countervailing actions during the period in question.   Albania and Iceland had also submitted "nil" 
notifications after the publication of that docum ent.  While Members who took actions appeared 
generally to comply with this requirement, ther e remained a significant number of Members who had 
not responded to the request for semi-annual reports, and had therefore failed to comply with this 
important requirement set forth in Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement .  These Members were 
identified in document G/SCM/N/106/Add.1, paragraph 3.   
19. There were no comments or questions regard ing the semi-annual reports of Argentina , 
Australia , Brazil , Canada , Costa Rica , the European Communities , Latvia , Mexico , New Zealand , the 
United States  and Venezuela . 
20. The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
G. NOTIFICATIONS  OF PRELIMINARY  AND  FINAL  COUNTERVAILING  ACTIONS 
21. The Chairperson  stated that lists of the notifications  of preliminary and final countervailing 
duty actions received were circulated in documen ts G/SCM/N/105, and 107-110.  Since the last 
meeting of the Committee, preliminary and fina l countervailing actions had been notified by 
Argentina , the European Communities , New Zealand  and the United States .  There were no comments 
or questions with respect to any of these notifications. 
22. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
H. SUBSIDY  NOTIFICATIONS 
1. Honduras (G/SCM/N/38/HND-G/SCM/N/48/HND-G/SCM/N/60/HND-
G/SCM/N/71/HND-G/SCM/N/95/HND) 
2. Croatia (G/SCM/N/71/HRV/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/95/HRV) 
3. Hungary (G/SCM/N/60/HUN & G/SCM/N/71/HUN) 
4. Jamaica (G/SCM/N/71/JAM/Suppl. 1-G/SCM/N/95/JAM) 
5. Zambia (G/SCM/N/71/ZMB-G/SCM/N/95/ZMB) 
23. Regarding the review of the new and full subsid y notifications on the agenda of the meeting, 
the Chairperson  recalled that earlier on that same day,  29 April 2004, the Committee had held its 
second special session for the review of 2003 new and full notifications.8  She stated that, pursuant to 
the special procedures adopted by the Committee in  May 2003, another special session would be held 
in conjunction with the Committee's Autumn 2004 meeti ng.  She recalled that there were notifications 
from five Members – Honduras, Hungary, Croatia, Ja maica and Zambia – on the meeting's agenda.  
With the exception of the notification from Hungary, these notifications referred both to notifications 
of subsidies for previous periods (1998 to 2001) as well as to new and full notifications corresponding 
to 2003.   
                                                      
8 See G/SCM/M/49. G/SCM/M/50 
Page 6  
 
 24. She recalled that, at the special session of the Committee on 29 April 2004, Honduras
' 
notifications corresponding to the preceding period s, contained in the multi-symbolled document 
G/SCM/N/38/HND-G/SCM/N/48/HND-G/SCM/N/60/HND-G/SCM/N/71/HND-G/SCM/N/95/HND, had already been reviewed.  There were  no additional comments or questions.  
25. Regarding the notifications submitted by Croatia
, Jamaica  and Zambia , the Chairperson 
proposed that the review of the notifications of  these Members be conducted under this agenda item 
because, due to the timing for submission and tran slation, the 2003 new and full notifications -- 
contained in documents G/SCM/N/95/HRV, G/SC M/N/95/JAM and G/SCM/N/95/ZMB, respectively 
-- would all be part of the agenda of the special session of the Committee to be held in the fall of 
2004.  As there were no requests for the floor, the Chairperson understood this way of proceeding to 
be acceptable.   
26. Croatia 's notification could be found in the double-symbolled document, 
G/SCM/N/71/HRV/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/95/HRV.  The United States had submitted questions which 
could be found in document G/SCM/Q2/HRV/1.  Replies by Croatia could be found in 
G/SCM/Q2/HRV/2.  There were no further questions or comments.  
27. Regarding the notifications of Hungary , Jamaica  and Zambia , contained in the documents 
G/SCM/N/60/HUN and G/SCM/N/71/HUN, G/SCM/N/71/JAM/Suppl. 1-G/SCM/N/95/JAM and G/SCM/N/71/ZMB-G/SCM/N/95/ZMB, respectively, no prior written questions had been received.  No questions or comments were made in the meeting.  
28. The Chairperson
 reminded Members that any additional questions in writing had to be 
submitted to the Member in question as well as to the Secretariat by 7 May 2004.  Written replies to 
any of these additional questions submitted in writing had to be submitted by 7 June 2004.   
29. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
I. PERMANENT  GROUP  OF EXPERTS  – ELECTION  OF AN EXPERT 
30. The Chairperson  recalled that the mandate of Mr. Ma rco Bronckers in the Permanent Group 
of Experts expired in Spring 2004.  As indi cated in document G/SCM/112, Members had until 
12 March 2004 to propose candidates for the vacant pos t.  As indicated in a fax sent to Members on 
16 March 2004, the European Communities had suggested Mr. Asger Petersen within that time limit.  
Mr. Petersen's curriculum vitae  had been made available to Members for consultation.  She recalled 
that, in the draft annotated agenda, she had inform ed Members of her intention to propose that the 
Committee elect Mr. Peterson at the meeting unless sh e received any objections before 16 April 2004.  
She had not received any objection within that timeframe.   
31. The Committee agreed  to elect Mr. Petersen as a Member of the Permanent Group of Experts.  
J. 2004  REVISION  OF THE  ARRANGEMENT  ON GUIDELINES  FOR  OFFICIALLY  
SUPPORTED  EXPORT  CREDITS  - ITEM  REQUESTED  BY BRAZIL 
32. The delegate of Brazil  stated that the changes in the OECD Arrangement on Guidelines for 
Officially Supported Export Credits  (the " Arrangement ") were not limited to issues of transparency.9  
He said that Brazil would be looking further into the transparency provisions and would comment at a 
later stage.  He said that he would refer to ch anges which might have serious adverse effects on the 
economies of developing countries, and which would also have important systemic implications for 
                                                      
9 As indicated supra , footnote 1, at the Committee meeting itself, this intervention of Brazil came after 
the intervention of the OECD Secretariat (agenda item K.2).   G/SCM/M/50 
 Page 7 
 
 
 the WTO.  These changes authorized developed c ountries to grant subsidies that were prohibited 
under the SCM Agreement  and had already been found by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules. 
33. The delegate of Brazil recalled th at the relationship between the Arrangement  and the WTO 
derived from the second paragraph of  item (k) in Annex I of the SCM Agreement , which, in practice, 
incorporated the OECD Arrangement  and any of its subsequent am endments as one of the covered 
agreements.  In this strange situation, internati onal law was being made without the consent of the 
parties affected.  The former version of the OECD Arrangement  had provided that:  
"The Participants may match credit term s and conditions notified (…), as well as 
credit terms and conditions not notified or t hose supported by non-Participants. (…)."  
"The Participants shall match credit term s and conditions by supporting terms that 
comply with the Arrangement , unless the initiating offer itself does not comply with 
the Arrangement ....".   
34. Article 17 of the 2004 version of the OECD Arrangement , setting out the requirements for the 
matching conditions, did not require comp liance of the initiating offer with the Arrangement .  
Moreover, it stressed that the conditions offere d by non-Participants could be matched without 
restrictions.  Therefore, he said that there we re two main aspects of the text which had been 
significantly modified to the benefit of OECD Members.  The first related to the possibility of 
matching offers which did not comply with the Arrangement .  The second referred to the possibility 
of matching not only credit terms but also financial terms.   
35. The delegate of Brazil stated that the lack of  any reference to the conditions of the initiating 
offer to be matched had significant consequences .  Any offer, from both Participants and non-
Participants to the Arrangement  -- could be matched, even if it did not comply with the Arrangement .  
Therefore, even the credit conditions offered by developing countries under Article 27.2 of the SCM 
Agreement , which currently provided for special and di fferential treatment for some of the poorest 
developing countries, in recognition of their particul ar needs, could, as per the new version of the 
OECD Arrangement , be extended to OECD Members.  In the view of Brazil, this amounted, in 
practical terms, to re-opening Annex VII of the SCM Agreement , to allow the entry of the OECD 
Members, which would therefore be entitled to gran t subsidized export credits otherwise prohibited 
by Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement .  Moreover, this would render Article 27 of the SCM 
Agreement  meaningless for developing countries.  For instance, if one of the countries listed in 
Annex VII of the SCM Agreement  granted a subsidized export credit, the OECD Members would be 
entitled to match any such offer.  A new geography under the SCM Agreement  had been devised:  on 
one side, the countries referred to in Annex VII and the OECD Members; on the other (less favourable) side, developing countries not within Annex VII. 
36. The Brazilian delegate noted th at the 2004 version of the Arrangement  mentioned that 
"financial terms and conditions" could be matched,  while the former version only authorized the 
matching of "credit terms and cond itions".  The new version of the Arrangement  therefore 
significantly broadened the scope of the general c onditions for matching, once more to the detriment 
of developing countries.   
37. The delegate of Brazil stated that OECD Members were unilaterally legislating more 
favourable conditions for themselves than those that applied to most developing countries.  The same 
countries that found it so difficult to agree to ec onomically meaningful special and differential 
treatment provisions in the Doha Round had aw arded themselves a very  substantial economic 
advantage against developing countries.  This was an instance of reverse special and differential 
treatment.  It was a reversal of the rules and principles that, within the WTO system, were designed to G/SCM/M/50 
Page 8  
 
 allow developing countries to secure a share in the growth of international trade commensurate with 
the needs of their economic development.  He stated that this was a major thr eat to the credibility of 
the multilateral trading system.  He said that OECD  Members truly committed to a rules-based trading 
system and to the notion that development was a central element of the Doha Round should strive to correct this error and to restrain in the future from introducing special and differential treatment for 
developed countries in the WTO by the backdoor.   
38. The delegate of Colombia
 thanked Brazil for having included this item in the agenda of the 
meeting.  She stated that her statement would limit itself to presenting Colombia's interpretation on 
the question of "matching" for export credit transactions .  She stated that the term "matching" had not 
been regulated within the SCM Agreement .  Colombia understood that this was an instrument that 
could only have an effect within the context of the OECD and that it could not, under any 
circumstances, be used to interpret item (k) of  the Illustrative List contained in Annex I of SCM 
Agreement .  This paragraph rendered a pplicable only the provisions on interest rates relating to 
official export credits.  Although Colombia welcomed  the concept of transparency, her delegation did 
not believe that it could affect, in any way, th e scope of the provisions which applied to WTO 
Members by virtue of item (k).   
39. The delegate of Chile  asked when the OECD workshop re lating to the database would take 
place.  
40. The OECD  Secretariat official stated that he had no authority to participate in any substantive 
debate about the effect of the Arrangement  or how it should be read and interpreted.  He said that he 
would report the strong concerns expressed by Brazil to the Participants to the Arrangement .  In light 
of these comments, he stated that there was perhap s even more need for discussion, clarification and 
explanation of the new provisions compared to th e previous ones.  He encouraged WTO Members to 
participate in the workshop that the OECD intended to  organize so that they could get the views of the 
Participants on their understanding of the new provisions .  He said that he considered that it would be 
very unfortunate if the revised Arrangement , which had been secured with a view to being more 
transparent and legally sound, was to be interpreted as broadening the scope of the "safe haven".  He 
said that he did not think that this was the intention.   However, he did not want to turn his intervention 
into a legal or technical debate.   
41. The United States  thanked Brazil for its important comments on this issue.  The United States 
understood the position expressed by Brazil, as expressed  in other fora at other times.  The 
United States delegate stated that, while the Comm ittee was unable to address these concerns directly 
in this meeting, the United States stood ready to continue discussions with Brazil on this important 
topic in other fora.   
42. The delegate of the European Communities  stated that his delegation had listened carefully to 
the interventions by Brazil and Colombia.  While th e Committee had already dealt with this issue in 
the past, and many of the arguments presented were already known, that did not mean that the 
European Communities did not take those argument s seriously.  The European Communities did not 
believe that the picture was as bleak as had been  described by other Members.  The European 
Communities believed that increased transparency vis-à-vis  non-Participants was a positive step.  But, 
echoing what the delegate from the United States ha d said, the delegate of the European Communities 
stated that a lot of work remained to be done and th is could only be a step towards the ultimate goal of 
having a uniform set of rules for all types of export financing, built on the system of the OECD, which 
would take the legitimate concerns  of developing countries into account.  He stated that the European 
Communities was committed to continue working to achieve this ultimate goal in the Negotiating 
Group on Rules and elsewhere.    G/SCM/M/50 
 Page 9 
 
 
 43. The delegate of Australia  thanked the representative from the OECD Secretariat for attending 
the meeting and explaining the amendments to the Arrangement .  She also thanked Brazil for its 
statement.  Australia had indicated in the Ne gotiating Group on Rules its willingness to consider 
further discussions on export credit and financing.   She thought that Australia shared the 
European Communities' views that the amendments to the Arrangement  were a real effort to make 
information available in this area.  These efforts s hould not be easily dismissed.  A real effort had 
been made to increase th e transparency of the Arrangement .  Australia had been actively involved in 
other fora on these matters and would continue to pa rticipate constructively an d actively and together 
within the WTO on these matters in terms of the Doha Round.  
44. The delegate of Canada  thanked Brazil for its statement and its views on the impact of the 
revisions of the OECD Arrangement .  Canada agreed with the Eu ropean Communities and Australia 
that, although there were different views on the impact of the revised Arrangement , it substantially 
improved the clarity, transparency and accessibilit y to non-OECD Participants.  Like the 
United States, Canada was certainly willing to discuss this further with non-Participants.  
45. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
K. OTHER  BUSINESS 
1. Article 27.4 extensions of the export subsidy transition period of certain Members' 
eligible programmes:  Reminder of agreed de adlines for submission of notifications and 
questions and answers for the Committee's review of transparency and standstill 
obligations in the decisions in (documen ts G/SCM/50-102 and 50/Add.1-/94/Add.1) 
relating to the Article 27.4 process – Statement by the Chairperson 
46. The Chairperson  recalled that, at the regular fall meeting of 2003, the Committee agreed on 
dates for the review of the standstill and transparen cy commitments contained in its decisions adopted 
by the Committee in the fall of 2002 and 2003, regard ing the extension of transition periods for export 
subsidy programmes for certain Members (documents  G/SCM/50-102 and 50/Add.1 - /94/Add.1).  The 
Members concerned had to submit the required inform ation by 30 June 2004.  This would make it 
possible for there to be an exchange of questions  and replies prior to the regular Committee meeting 
to be held in the fall of 2004.   Questions had to be submitted in writing by 1 September 2004 and 
written replies had to be su bmitted by 5 October 2004.   
47. The Committee took note  of the statement.  
2. 2004 Revision of the Arrangement on Gu idelines for Officially Supported Export 
Credits – Statement by the OECD Secretariat 
48. The Chairperson  recalled that the OECD Secretariat had requested participation in the 
meeting to provide some informati on regarding the 2004 revision of the Arrangement .10  S h e  
informed Members that one of the aspects of this  revision was the approval of a mechanism to 
implement the provisions relating to transparency in that Arrangement .  She stated that the OECD 
Secretariat had sent a communication to the WTO S ecretariat, dated 27 April 2004, requesting that a 
reference and a link to the new OECD database on export credits be inserted on the WTO webpage.  
Annexed to that letter, the OECD Secretariat ha d included a non-paper for the information of WTO 
Members.  The Chairperson asked  Members if they agreed that th is non-paper be made available to 
delegations.   
                                                      
10 As indicated supra , footnote 1, at the Committee meeti ng itself, the statement by the OECD 
Secretariat (in agenda item K.2) immediat ely preceded item J requested by Brazil. G/SCM/M/50 
Page 10  
 
 49. The Committee so agreed
.  The non-paper11 was accordingly distributed to the Committee.   
50. The Chairperson  asked whether Members agreed to give  the floor to an official from the 
OECD Secretariat.   
51. The Committee so agreed .  In light of this, the Chairperson  give the floor to the OECD 
Secretariat official. 
52. The OECD Secretariat  official thanked the Committee for ha ving allowed him to intervene in 
the meeting and to circulate the OECD's non- paper paper entitled "Arrangement on Officially 
Supported Export Credits: Access to OECD Export Credit Database".12  He noted that the Participants 
to the Arrangement  had taken the decision relating to the ne w transparency procedure shortly before 
the meeting.  He stated that he intended to start with a brief explanation of the Arrangement .  He 
would then focus on transparency and access to information.   
53. He stated that the Arrangement  – which was first drafted in 1978 and then reviewed several 
times – had last been reviewed, revised a nd improved in 2003.  The new text of the Arrangement  was 
available on the OECD website under "trade and e xport credits".  The purpose of the 2004 revision 
was not so much to add new sectoral disciplines or  to revise completely chapters that may have 
become outdated, but rather to increase transparency  for those who had to use the text on a day-to-day 
basis, e.g. the Participants and the private sector, but  also the non-Participants.  He stated that, by the 
term "non-Participants", he meant every non-Par ticipant WTO Member and persons that might have 
to use the Arrangement .  The purpose of the 2004 revision was th erefore to increase transparency and 
legal consistency of the text.   
54. The OECD Secretariat official noted that the text of the Arrangement  had been discussed in 
the WTO, particularly in the Brazil/Canada aircraft  disputes.  He stated that concerns had been 
expressed regarding some provisions of the Arrangement , on the basis that such provisions were not 
clear, or did not ensure non-discrimination, in particular vis-à-vis  non-Participants.  In other words, 
some criticisms had been expressed that the Arrangement  created two different levels of knowledge of 
information, depending on whether the party was a Participant or non-Participant to the Arrangement .  
In particular, non-Participants woul d not have access to the same leve l of information as Participants.  
To address this concern, the Participants had revi ewed the text completely and tried to insert new 
provisions, to revise provisions that might have b een unclear and had removed provisions that were 
not used and could therefore be considered as am biguous.  Also, Participants had added specific 
provisions with a view to increasing access to information. 
55. The 2004 revision of the Arrangement  included a new Article 4.  The placement of this 
provision as one of the first articles of the Arrangement  showed the importance given by the 
Participants to transparency and access to information.   Participants had agreed to make the database 
containing notifications relating to export credit transactions accessible to those WTO Members that may be interested in having access to it.  WTO Me mbers might wish to have access to the database 
when they would be in competition with some Participants to the Arrangement  for a given transaction.  
The only condition imposed by Participants in orde r to allow access to the database was to respect 
confidentiality.  The data on the database were comme rcially sensitive because they related to export 
finance of a given transaction that was not yet comple ted.  Those data would therefore be visible and 
readable by public authorities only.  Once commercia l confidentiality was ensured, there would be an 
exchange of letters between the OECD and w hoever wanted to access the database.  A password 
would be given.  An official from a WTO Member government should become a "contact point".  
This official would have access to the database a nd would be able to look up the data.  The OECD 
                                                     
 
11 Annexed to these Minutes. 
12 Ibid.  G/SCM/M/50 
 Page 11 
 
 
 Secretariat expected that access would technically be possible from mid-May 2004.  From a legal 
point of view, everything was ready for WTO Members to have access to the database.   
56. With regard to the information that would be available in the database, the OECD official 
stated that there were two types of notifications.  Ex post notifications were made when an export 
credit transaction had already been secured by any Participant to the Arrangement .  Export credit 
transactions made in accordance w ith the terms set forth in the Arrangement  required ex post 
notifications.  For statistical purposes, Participants  were required to notify these transactions to the 
Secretariat.  Thus, prior notification was not require d for transactions that were compliant with the 
Arrangement .   
57. On the other hand, transactions that res ponded to a particular provision of the Arrangement  
and that used a particular financial technique – e.g.  an irregular repayment profile, or a credit that was 
a little bit longer than some limits, i.e. an 8-year cred it instead of a 5-year credit,  or an export credit 
transaction for which a risk premium fee was lower than the minimum but still within a given margin – were subject to the prior notification requirement ( ex ante notifications).  In these cases, notification 
prior to securing the transaction was required because Participants might need to check and review the 
export credit transaction.  Regarding these transactions , Participants might wish to raise questions or 
request consultations before the deal was secured.   A Participant might also decide to match the 
export credit terms and conditions made available by an other Participant.  The OECD official stated 
that access to information on ex ante  notifications would be made available to WTO Members in the 
database, while information on ex post  notifications would not be in the database because it was not 
used for matching purposes.   
58. The Chairperson
 opened the floor for questions or comments. 
59. The delegate of Chile  thanked the OECD Secretariat for the presentation and the non-paper.  
Her delegation had some preliminary ques tions.  Regarding Article 4(b) of the Arrangement , 
concerning information available to non-Participan ts, the delegate of Chile asked what "on a 
reciprocal basis" meant for non-Participants.  She also asked to the OECD Secretariat official to 
provide more information on the issue of matching. 
60. The delegate of Brazil  asked the OECD Secretariat official  to explain what was contained in 
the ex post  notifications and the reason why information on ex post notifications would not be 
available in the database. 
61. The Chairperson  invited the OECD Secretariat offici al to reply to the questions posed. 
62. With regard to the question relating to  Article 4(b), the OECD Secretariat  official stated that 
the notion of reciprocity had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  He explained that there were 
two steps contained in Articles 4(a) and 4(b).  Article 4(a) was basically a commitment from the Participants to share information with non-Participants  on notifications related to official support.  To 
put this into practice, in Article 4(a), access to the database was extended to WTO Members.  As for 
Article 4(b), he stated that Participants would be r eady to offer more information than was available in 
the database on the financial terms and conditions for a specific transaction, on condition that the 
WTO Member seeking additional information was read y to offer the same.  This requirement should 
not be a source of concern between the Participants and non-Participants.  First, Article 4(b) stated 
that "a Participant shall (...) reply to a questi on from a non-Participant (....) as it would reply to a 
request from a Participant".  In other words, the un dertaking of a Participant under Article 4(b) was to 
treat a request from a competitor outside the Arrangement  in the same way as it would treat a request 
from a competitor inside the Arrangement .  Second, "reciprocity" also a pplied among the Participants.  
Thus, this requirement should not be understood as a precondition applying to non-Participants only.  G/SCM/M/50 
Page 12  
 
 63. Regarding Chile's question on "matching", he noted that this had been one of the issues in the 
Brazil/Canada aircraft disputes.  He stated that "m atching" was the right or possibility given to any 
Participant or non-Participant to offer the same financial terms and cond itions that a competitor 
offered.  Of course, to be able to match, one ha d to know what the competitor was offering; hence, the 
new access arrangements to the expo rt credits database and the possi bility of asking more questions, 
as set forth in Article 4(a).  In practice, "matchi ng" meant that if a Participant was aware that an 
exporter in country A was competing with an exporter from country B and there was an export financing package ready to be offered, but not ye t committed, to the company in country B and that 
exporter was also aware of the financial terms and conditions of that export financing package, the 
authorities responsible for official support in count ry A might consider offering the same terms and 
conditions.  If country A were not to offer exactly the same terms and conditions, but rather offered 
less generous terms and conditions, then this was not "matching".  He mentioned that the idea of 
"overmatching" also existed.  This would occur if  country A were to offer better financial terms and 
conditions then those offered by country B.  This , however, was something that did not happen in 
practice.  Or, if it happened, it would be outside the terms of the Arrangement . 
64. Regarding the question from Brazil as to what was contained in the ex post  notifications 
database, the OECD Secretariat official stated th at it contained every transaction that had been 
committed by a Participant to the Arrangement  on an ex post  basis.  As to the second part of the 
question, he replied that Participants consid ered that it would not be useful to put all ex post 
notifications on the database, knowing that they could not be used or that they could not serve as a 
basis for competition purposes.  They were of inte rest for statistical purposes only.  In numerical 
terms, there were far fewer ex ante  notifications than ex post  notifications.  But, from a competition 
and transparency point of view, ex ante  notifications were more impor tant because they would allow 
parties to make a decision in due course to match.   
65. The delegate of India
 thanked the OECD Secretariat offici al for the presentation.  In case of 
transactions where prior notification was made, he asked whether, when the transaction was 
completed, the notification would be put on the database? 
66. The delegate of Peru  thanked the OECD Secretariat official for the explanation.  She had 
several questions:  first, whether export credits Arrangement  applied to agricultural products;  second, 
whether the Arrangement  had, as its basis, commercial terms wh en determining the interest rates and 
repayment terms; and third, referring to the division  of the countries on the basis of a classification 
established by the World Bank contained in Article 10 of the Arrangement , whether the division also 
applied to the determination of the interest rate s and repayment terms and the justification for the 
different treatment provided to different countries.  
67. The delegate of Venezuela  thanked the Secretariat of the OECD for the presentation.  He 
asked whether the scope of the new provisions was li mited to ships, nuclear power plants and civil 
aircraft, or if it included other sectors. 
68. The Chairperson  invited the official from the OECD S ecretariat to reply to the questions. 
69. The OECD Secretariat  official first addressed the question posed by India.  The Participants 
considered it important to know what the terms an d conditions offered by a competitor were before 
the commitment would be sealed and secured.  Participants would not look at ex post  notifications to 
check what terms were finally offered, especia lly because there was no legal requirement in the 
Arrangement  to make ex post  notifications, provided that terms and conditions were in line with the 
Arrangement .  The OECD did not necessarily check or cross-check whether individual notifications 
reported by Participants on an ex post  basis exactly corresponded to those commitments that had been 
reported on an ex ante  basis.  It might also happen that so me transactions for which there was an ex 
ante notification were not finalized because the deal  was not secured, or because it was postponed, or  G/SCM/M/50 
 Page 13 
 
 
 because the terms offered had to be changed, etc.  Sometimes, an ex ante  notification included on the 
database might not have developed into a transaction.   
70. Turning to Peru's questions, the OECD Secretar iat official referred to Article 5(c) of the 
Arrangement .  He stated that the Arrangement  – and hence any transparency mechanism provided 
therein – did not apply to agricultural commodities.   
71. Regarding the question on the interest rate and re payment terms, he stated that the basic idea 
of the Arrangement  was that the terms and conditions should reflect, as much as possible, the normal 
life of the good and market conditions.  The phrase "terms and conditions" included, for instance, 
credit terms, maximum repayment terms, minimum inte rest rates, the obligation of cash payments and 
the obligations relating to repayment profile.  In several instances, the Arrangement  referred to the 
market benchmark or market refere nces as being the reference point .  Referring to Article 10(a), he 
stated that there were two country categories – category I and category II.  Category I countries, according to the World Bank Graduation list, were those where the creditworthiness of the buyer was 
good.  They were countries where there was quite an intensive and strong market.  For such countries, 
the credit terms that might be offered to other co untries were shorter than those for a category II 
country.  With respect to interest rates, referring to Article 18 of the Arrangement , he said that the 
basic idea was that the minimum inte rest rate should be related to th e length of credit.  The calculation 
was fairly simple:  a treasury bond, with a given maturity, plus a 100 basis points.  That was the benchmark.  If a 3-year credit were to be extende d, it was supposed to be extended with a minimum 
rate lower than would be the case for a 5- or 10-year  credit, because a 3-year credit was cheaper than a 
5- or 10-year credit.  The minimum interest rate shoul d also be floored to that extent.  Calculating the 
minimum interest rate in a given currency using the formula in the Arrangement , one would have to 
determine a minimum interest rate for a 3- to 5- year credit, another for a 5- to 7-year credit and 
another for a 7- or 8-year credit, in order to make sure that the interest rate used was -- as much as 
possible -- reflective of the term of the credit.   
72. Regarding Venezuela's question on scope, the OECD Secretariat official replied that the 
database and the commitment to show information and give access to the database applied to any 
notification that was forwarded by Partic ipants pursuant to any provision of the Arrangement , be it 
under the main Arrangement  text, or under any sectoral understandings such as those on aircraft or on 
project finance transactions.  There were requirement s in these specific annexes for prior notifications.  
In other words, the obligation or the commitment to  share information under Article 4(b) extended to 
all sorts of activities, from a sectoral point of view, that were covered by the Arrangement . 
73. Finally, the OECD Secretariat official stated that the Participants to the Arrangement  intended 
to hold a half-day or one-day information works hop or meeting in Paris to address any questions 
relating to the 2004 revision and how to use the Arrangement .  The OECD Secretariat would revert to 
the Committee when factual info rmation was available.   
74. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
3. South Africa's Motor Industry Developmen t Programme – Statement by Australia 
75. The delegate of Australia  stated that her delegation wished to bring to the attention of the 
Committee its ongoing concerns in relation to subsid ies provided by South Africa to its automotive 
industry through the Motor Industry Development Pr ogramme (the "MIDP scheme").  Australia had 
raised its concerns bilaterally with South Africa on a number of occasions.  Australia wished to take 
this opportunity to raise certain further questions and issues in relation to South Africa’s reply to 
Australia’s request for inform ation under Article 25.8 of the SCM Agreement  on South Africa’s MIDP 
scheme.   G/SCM/M/50 
Page 14  
 
 76. She noted that, as far back as October 1996, S outh Africa was asked to notify its “revised 
customs dispensation for the motor in dustry”.  Despite indicating at that time that it would include this 
in its forthcoming subsidy notification, South A frica’s subsequent notification in June 1997 did not 
contain any notification of this programme.  South Africa was again asked in October 1997 for information on why this programme was not included in its notification.  In March 1998, 
South Africa’s response – contained in document G/SCM/Q2/ZAF/6 – included an outline of the 
objective of the scheme and a brief description.  It  indicated that, due to problems related to the 
determination of the total value of components u sed, rebates were based on the value of vehicles 
produced and the value of components and vehicles expor ted.  However, South Africa also noted that, 
as the duty rebates granted were not in excess of the fu ll rate of duty, the rebate was not considered to 
be a subsidy.   
77. On 12 August 2003, South Africa had lodged its new and full subsidy notification, contained 
in document G/SCM/N/95/ZAF.  In that notification, South Africa stated that it did not grant or maintain any subsidy within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement .  On 15 October 2003, 
Australia requested further information from Sout h Africa concerning its subsidy notification under 
Article 25.8 of the SCM Agreement .  This request was contained in document G/SCM/Q2/ZAF/7.  In 
particular, Australia sought information on the na ture and extent of the MIDP scheme and drew 
particular attention to the Import Credit Certificate element of the scheme.  78. Australia noted that Article 25.8 of the SCM Agreement  required that Members that were 
requested to provide information had to do so as quickly as possible and had to provide sufficient 
details to enable an assessment of the compliance of the specific measure.  She said that Australia 
welcomed South Africa’s indication, during the special meeting held on 29 April 2004
13, that it would 
be submitting a new and full notification including – Australia hoped – information on its automotive 
assistance scheme.  
79. Australia had had the opportunity to hold furt her bilateral discussions with South Africa on 
two occasions in 2004.  Australia considered that  the MIDP scheme was a notifiable subsidy and 
wished to make a number of observations in support of this claim.  Under the provisions of the MIDP 
scheme, an Import Rebate Credit Certificate (IRCC) provided importers with a rebate on the customs 
value of imported components and motor vehicles.  The value of the rebate was the local content 
value or eligible export performance of eligible expor ts (not the customs value of imported products).  
These certificates appeared only to be granted once ther e were eligible exports.  Further, the value of 
an import rebate certificate was equivalent to the lo cal content of eligible exports.  For example, a 
certificate would not be issued for an eligible export  comprising only imported inputs.  As a result, the 
vehicle or component manufacturer would need to u se domestic instead of imported goods in order to 
obtain an import rebate certificate.  She stated that the MIDP scheme was a "specific" subsidy.  It applied solely to the automotive industry and di d not extend to other sectors of South African 
industry.  Moreover, while import re bate certificates could be traded , they were only redeemable for 
the import of certain automotive products and could not  be used for imports in general.  Australia 
understood that the MIDP scheme might be further limited, directly or in fact, to only those manufacturers of motor vehicles and components which also export.   
80. Australia's concerns related to both the expor t and local content contingency of certain 
elements of the scheme and the serious trade e ffects which the scheme was having on Australian 
motor vehicle component producers in the Australi an market, as well as the adverse and distortive 
effects the scheme was having in world markets.  The MIDP was aimed at increasing local production 
and expanding exports.  Reviews of the scheme by the South African Government had highlighted the 
substantial growth in the number of passenger mo tor vehicles manufactured in South Africa, driven 
by export growth, as well as the growth of automotive component exports.  This had been attributed 
                                                     
 
13 See G/SCM/M/49.  G/SCM/M/50 
 Page 15 
 
 
 or linked to the MIDP scheme and the earning of import rebate certificates.  Australia remained 
willing to hold further bilatera l meetings with South Africa to seek additional information and 
clarification on the operation of the MIDP schem e and aimed at finding a mutually satisfactory 
solution to address Australian concerns.   
81. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
L. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
82. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed , at its meeting on 21 February 1995, 
that regular meetings would normally be held in the l ast week of April and the last week of October.  
In view of the fact that the Committee on An ti-Dumping Practices and the Safeguards Committee 
would be meeting in the week of 25 October 2004, she suggested that the next regular meeting of the 
Committee be held in the week of 1 November 2004.   
83. The Committee took note  of the Chairperson's statement and agreed  to proceed accordingly. 
M. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS 
84. The Chairperson  recalled that the Chairman for the Council for Trade in Goods had carried 
out informal consultations on the nomination of Ch airpersons for the different bodies operating under 
the auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The Council for Trade in Goods had taken note of 
these proposed nominations at its meeting on 27 April 2004.  As concerned this Committee, the 
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had proposed the nomination of Mr. Naoshi Hirose of 
Japan.  She asked Members if they could agree to el ect Mr. Hirose as Chairman of the Committee.   
85. The Committee elected  Mr. Naoshi Hirose as Chairman by acclamation. 
86. The Chairperson  invited Mr. Hirose to the podium.  She wished him all the best as a new 
Chairman of the Committee.  She thanked Members for their work during her Chairpersonship.  She 
also thanked the Secretariat for its efforts and support. 
87. Mr. Hirose expressed his gratitude for having been  elected Chairman of the Committee.  He 
recalled that he had had the pleasure of chairing a small portion of the work of the Committee in 2003.  He enjoyed the good spirit and co-operation from all Members.  He was grateful for the 
assistance from the Secretariat.  He said that he had really enjoyed working with Ms. Lozano and 
wished her all the best.   
88. Recalling that the rules of procedure permitted the election of a Vice-Chairperson, the 
Chairperson
 proposed that this item of the agenda be su spended until the Autumn 2004 meeting of the 
Committee. 
89. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed accordingly.  The 
meeting was adjourned . 
 
_______________ 
 
 G/SCM/M/50 
Page 16  
 
 Annex relating to agenda item K.2  
Non-Paper submitted by the OECD Secretariat to the SCM Committee meeting 
 
Arrangement on Officially Supported Export C redits: Access to OECD Export Credit Database 
 
1. This Non-Paper is for the information of  the WTO Members. The Participants to the 
Arrangement  on Officially Supported Export Credits have r ecently agreed to a revised version of the 
Arrangement ; this text is available on the OECD Website: 
http://www.oecd.org/datao ecd/2/48/22452201.pdf
 
 
2. The objective of the review of the Arrangement  was twofold:  (1) to increase the transparency 
and user-friendliness of the text in order to facilitate  the awareness and the implementation of the text; 
and (2) to improve the overall consistency of the disc iplines, in particular by recalling the principle of 
a coherent application of these with a view to establishing a more effective level playing field. 
 
3. WTO Members may in this regard note Article 4 which is a new provision to foster 
transparency: non-Participant governments involved in  the provision of officially supported export 
credits may have access to information in respect of  specific transactions for which they may be in 
competition with a Participant to the Arrangement .  
 
4. The information available under Article 4 of the Arrangement  is held in an Export Credit 
Database to which WTO Members may have access. The purpose of such Database is to share information among those WTO Members that may have an interest in export credit transactions; such 
data should not be shared with the general pub lic since the data contained on the Database is 
commercially confidential.  
 
5. Against this background, the Da tabase will be managed as follows:  
  (1)  Any interested WTO Member wishing to re quest access to the Database is invited to 
indicate to the OECD Secretariat which of its officials shall become the “Contact Point”. 
 
 (2)  The interested WTO Member, represen ted by the “Contact Point”, will then be 
invited to sign a Confidentiality Letter which recalls basic principles to be respected 
when accessing/using the Database.  
 
 (3)  Upon receipt of the signed Confidentiality Letter, the OECD Secretariat will deliver a 
password that allows that Contact Point access to the Database; it is expected that the 
Contact Point will be the unique official having access to the password-protected Database.  
 
6. The registered Contact Point will find on th e Database a User’s Guide explaining in detail 
how to read and use the Database. 
 
7. In order to facilitate practical access to the Database, the OECD and the WTO Secretariats are 
working to establish a link from the WTO Website to  the OECD Website where the Database will be 
located. 
 
8. The OECD Secretariat is ready to assist any WTO Member with any question regarding 
access to the Database: mail to: Xcred.Secretariat@oecd.org
 
 OECD, Paris, 27 April 2004. 
__________