RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/432
27 March 2001
(01-1505)
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Working Party on Subsidy Notifications
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO SUBSIDY
NOTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This document is for the information of the Working Party on Subsidy Notifications at its
meeting of 2 April 2001.
2. At its meeting of 6 November 2000, the Working Party decided to conduct a survey of SCM
Committee Members concerning the reasons for their difficulties in preparing and presenting subsidy
notifications.  In question 6 of the questionnaire, Members were asked to indicate, by assigning a
score of 0 to 4, the importance of each of 12 listed possible factors as causes of their governments'difficulties in making subsidy notifications.
3. Members also were asked whether the level of effort and resources needed for new and full
notifications was greater than for updating notifications, or whether both exercises required the same
level of effort and resources.
4. As of 23 March 2001, 29 Members  had responded to the questionnaire.
5. The complete tabulation of Members' responses to question 6 is contained in the Annex.
II. ANALYSIS
A. 
LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR NEW AND FULL VS . UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS
6. Concerning the effort and resources needed for new and full compared with updating
notifications, 22 Members indicated that both types of notifications required the same amount of
effort and resources, while 5 Members indicated that more effort and resources were needed for new
and full than for updating notifications.  Two Members did not respond to this question.
B. MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS CAUSING DIFFICULTIES IN NOTIFICATION OF SUBSIDIES
1. Factors cited most often as being of moderate, significant or major importance
7. To have as comprehensive a picture as possible of the main factors behind Members'
difficulties in notifying, the questionnaire results have been tabulated by aggregating and ranking the
factors identified most frequently as being of either moderate, significant or major importance.  In
other words, this analysis takes into account as "important" or "relevant" factors those identified most
often by Members as being of at least moderate importance.
8. The complete tabulation of this analysis is set forth in the table on page 7.  An extract of this
analysis, showing the factors identified as moderately to very important by at least one-half of the
responding Members, is presented in the table below.G/SCM/W/432
Page 2
Number of Responses
Technical difficulty of developing statistical information on
expenditures or budgeted amounts of subsidies 24
Responsible staff have other more pressing priorities 23
Technical difficulty of developing statistical information on
trade effects of subsidies 22
Insufficient number of trained staff 20
Lack of understanding of SCM Agreement rules on the part of
agencies gathering information  17
Technical difficulty of preparing information in agreed format 14
(It should be noted that ranking just below the tech nical difficulty of preparing information in the
agreed format were, with 13 responses each, concerns over the legal implications of submitting
information about the existence and operation of subsidies and about the trade effects of subsidies.)
9. The above results suggest that two general, mutually reinforcing problems underlie Members'
difficulties in making notifications:  (1) technical i ssues related to the information to be notified, and
(2) human resource constraints.  The technical side encompasses difficulties both in developing the
necessary information, and in formatting it in the manner required.  The staff side encompasses too
few trained staff with too many other priorities on the one hand, and insufficient training of staff (at
least of those who gather the information), on the other.G/SCM/W/432
Page 3
Rank FactorOf moderate
to major
importance:
2, 3 or 4Of moderate
importance:
2Of
significant
importance:
3Of major
importance:
4
1. Technical difficulty of developing
statistical information on
expenditures or budgeted amounts
of subsidies24 699
2. Responsible staff have other more
pressing priorities23 11 9 3
3. Technical difficulty of developing
statistical information on trade
effects of subsidies22 499
4. Insufficient number of trained
staff20 767
5. Lack of understanding of SCM
Agreement rules on part of
agencies gathering information17 782
6. Staff turnover 17 10 6 1
7. Technical difficulty of preparing
information in agreed format14 833
8. Concerns over legal implications
of submitting information about
existence and operation of
subsidies13 562
9. Concerns over legal implications
of submitting information about
trade effects of subsidies13 562
10. Lack of understanding of SCM
Agreement rules on part of
agency preparing notification10 631G/SCM/W/432
Page 4
11. Other factors 8 312233
12. Other resource constraints4 5 154647
___________________________
1Two Members cited coordination among a number of contributors to the notification.  The third
Member cited concerns over potential use of the informatio n in countervailing duty investigations as well as the
related issue of confidentiality of information provided.
2One Member stated that some programmes cover funding for government advisory and other services
as well as goods, making it difficult to provide per unit statistics.  The second cited the need for enhancedmethodological assistance by the Secretariat on the drafting of subsidy notifications.
3One Member cited translation of documents into an official WTO language.  A second cited difficulty
in compiling information for calendar years, as it operates on a fiscal-year basis.  The third cited the need forworkshops on systemic and procedural issues relating to the implementation of the SCM Agreement.
4One responding Member listed time and scheduling under "Other resource constraints", but did not
assign a score to this factor.
5The Member assigning this score to "Other resource constraints" did not specify the resource
constraints.
6One of the Members assigning this score to "Other resource constraints" cited budgetary constraints.
A second Member cited the limited training and semina rs available to staff.  A third Member cited human
resource constraints.  And a fourth Member cited financial and electronic equipment support constraints.
7One of the Members assigning this score to "Other resource constraints" cited financial constraints.  A
second Member cited coordination among government agencies maintaining subsidy programmes, limited time,
and identification of measures that could be deemed to  be subsidies.  A third Member stated that its local
authorities are unable to collect subsidy data before 1 July of the following year.  And a fourth Member cited theneed for more intensive and specialised training of st aff directly involved in the preparation of subsidy
notifications.G/SCM/W/432
Page 5
2. Three factors cited most often as being of major importance
7. Turning to a more detailed breakout, the factors cited most often as being of major
importance were the following:
No. of Responses
Technical difficulty of developing statistical information 9
on expenditures or budgeted amounts of subsidies, AND
Technical difficulty of developing statistical information 9
on trade effects of subsidies
Insufficient number of trained staff 7
Other resource constraints84
3. Three factors cited most often as being of either significant or major importance
8. The factors cited most often as being of either significant or major importance were the
following:
No. of Responses
Technical difficulty of developing statistical information 18
on expenditures or budgeted amounts of subsidies, AND
Technical difficulty of developing statistical information 18
on trade effects of subsidies
Insufficient number of trained staff 13
Responsible staff have other more pressing priorities 12
*  *  *  *  *
9. The above two more detailed breakouts show very similar patterns to that in section 1, above.
In particular, the same general underlying problems are evident, namely technical difficulties
associated with preparing the information, and human resource constraints.  Thus, the more detailed
analysis confirms the results of the broader analysis set forth in section 1.
                                                     
8 See footnote 7, supra .G/SCM/W/432
Page 6
4. Three factors cited least often as being of moderate, significant or major importance
10. Members least often cited the following factors as being of moderate to major importance.
No. of Responses
Lack of understanding of SCM Agreement rules on part of 10
agency preparing  notification
Other factors    8
Other resource constraints    7
11. These results compared with those in section 1 suggest that lack of understanding of the SCM
Agreement's rules is much more of a problem at the level of the agencies responsible for gathering  the
necessary information than it is in re spect of the agencies responsible for preparing the notifications.
The comments submitted in respect of "other factors" also allude to this problem, as two of theMembers citing "other factors" mentioned problems of coordination among entities that contribute
information to be included in notifications.
5. Number of government agencies involved in preparation of notifications
12. The majority of responding Members indicated that they had five or fewer agencies involved
in preparing their subsidy notifications.
No. of Responses
1-5 16
6-10    4
More than 10    7
N. B. – Two responding Members did not provide a figure in answer to this question.G/SCM/W/432
Page 7
ANNEX
13. The following is a complete tabulation of 27 Members' responses to question 6.  (Two
Members did not respond to question 6, indicating that they do not grant any notifiable subsidies andhave therefore submitted nil or no subsidy notifications to date.)
No. of Members Assigning Indicated Score
No. Factor
Of no
relevance/
importance:
0Of slight
importance:
1Of moderate
importance:
2Of significant
importance:
3Of major
importance:
4
1. Lack of
understanding
of SCMAgreement rules
on part of
agency
preparing
notification1 1 6631
2. Lack of
understanding
of SCM
Agreement rules
on part ofagencies
gatheringinformation64782
3. Insufficient
number oftrained staff07767
4. Responsible
staff have othermore pressing
priorities22 1 1 93
5. Staff turnover 46 1 0 61
6. Other resource
constraints90110111412413
                                                     
9 One responding Member listed time and scheduling under "Other resource constraints", but did not
assign a score to this factor.
10 The Member assigning this score to "Other resource constraints" did not specify the resource
constraints.
11 The Member assigning this score to "Other resource constraints" did not specify the resource
constraints.G/SCM/W/432
Page 8
No. of Members Assigning Indicated Score No. Factor
Of no
relevance/
importance:
0Of slight
importance:
1Of moderate
importance:
2Of significant
importance:
3Of major
importance:
4
7. Technical
difficulty of
preparing
information in
agreed format76833
8. Technical
difficulty of
developing
statisticalinformation on
expenditures or
budgeted
amounts of
subsidies12699
9. Technical
difficulty of
developingstatistical
information on
trade effects of
subsidies14499
10. Concerns over
legal
implications of
submitting
information
about existenceand operation of
subsidies59562
11. Concerns over
legal
implications of86562
                                                                                                                                                                    
12 One of the Members assigning this score to "Other resource constraints" cited budgetary constraints.
A second Member cited the limited training and semina rs available to staff.  A third Member cited human
resource constraints.  And a fourth Member cited financial and electronic equipment support constraints.
13 One of the Members assigning this score to "Other  resource constraints" cited financial constraints.
A second Member cited coordination among government agencies maintaining subsidy programmes, limitedtime, and identification of measures that could be deemed to be subsidies.  A third Member stated that its local
authorities are unable to collect subsidy data before 1 July of the following year.  And a fourth Member cited theneed for more intensive and specialised training of st aff directly involved in the preparation of subsidy
notifications.G/SCM/W/432
Page 9
No. of Members Assigning Indicated Score No. Factor
Of no
relevance/
importance:
0Of slight
importance:
1Of moderate
importance:
2Of significant
importance:
3Of major
importance:
4
submitting
information
about trade
effects of
subsidies
12. Other factors 00 314215316
__________
                                                     
14 Two of the Members assigning this score to "Other factors" cited coordination among a number of
contributors to the notification.  A third Member cited concerns for providers over implications of preparing a
notification which is subsequently used in countervailing duty investigations as well as the related issue ofconfidentiality of information provided.
15 One of the Members assigning this score to "Other factors" stated that the nature of some
programmes which cover funding for government advisory services and services as well as goods means that it
is difficult to provide information on a per unit basis or statistical data.  The other Member cited the need for
regular meetings between experts of the Secretariat servicing the SCM Committee and Members' experts, inorder to provide methodological assistance on the drafting of subsidy notifications.
16 One of the Members assigning this score to "Other factors" cited translation of documents into an
official WTO language.  A second Member cited difficulty in compiling information on a calendar-year basis(1 January - 31 December), as it operates on a financial-year basis (1 July - 30 June).  A third Member cited the
need for workshops on systemic and procedural issues relating to the implementation of the SCM Agreement.