RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/482
6 February 2002
(02-0562)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
MEMBERS' DIFFICULTIES IN MAKING SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS,
AND THE PLANNED SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION SEMINAR
Reply to Questions in document G/SCM/W/473
of 18 December 2001
Paper Submitted by Romania
The following communication, dated 5 February 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission or Romania.
_______________
B. QUESTIONS CONCERNING DIFFICULTIES IN NOTIFYING
Q1. Does your government face resource constraints in trying to make subsidy notifications?
If so, what are the major bottlenecks in the notification system of your government?  Is the
problem primarily an insufficient number  of staff to handle the notifications, or is it more a
question of insufficiently trained  staff?
Reply
Yes, both number of staff and their training.
Q2. Depending on your answer to question 1, above, if the notification questionnaire format
could be simplified, would this make a difference to your government’s ability to make the
required subsidy notifications?
Reply
A simplified format would be of significant importance.
Q3. Balancing your government’s needs for as simp le a format as possible against its needs
to be able to understand other Members’ notifications when it reviews them, how much
simplification could be introduced without sacrificing transparency?
Reply
We have to maintain a balance between simplification and transparency needs.
Q4. Considering the notification format itself, and the concepts underlying it as found in
SCM Articles 1-3, in your government’ s experience, do individuals responsible for makingG/SCM/W/482
Page 2
notifications have difficulties understanding the requirements due to the language used in the
Agreement to define “subsidy”, “specificity”, etc. ?  For example, do these individuals believe
that subsidies are in the nature of cash grants  only, and do not encompass revenue foregone via
tax and duty incentives?  Could some sort of explanation be introduced into the questionnaire
format to make more clear the scope of measures that are subject to notification?  How mightsuch an explanation be worded?
Reply
Supplementary training is needed and this can avoid too many explanations on the
questionnaire.
Q5. Does your government experience general pr oblems due to the formatting requirements
of the notification questionnaire?  In particular, does your government maintain any pre-
existing information that addresses the substance of the notification questionnaire, but does not
correspond to the questionnaire’s format?  If so, what are the specific problems that your
government encounters when it tries to fo rmat the information as required by the
questionnaire?  If the information were to be notified in its pre-existing format, could it
nevertheless be keyed to the data elements of the subsidy questionnaire?
Reply
The clarity and simplicity of the questionnaire's format would be of great importance to fill it
in.  The Romanian authorities support the need of preserving transparency.
Q6. In reviewing other Members’ notifications, would your government find it problematic
to review information that was formatted in a way other than the way foreseen in the subsidy
questionnaire, but that comprehensively ad dressed the substantive elements of the
questionnaire?  How important would it be for this information to be keyed or coded to the
questionnaire format?
Reply
We support a standard format, one for all the WTO Members.
Q7. Does your government maintain any info rmation about its subsidy or incentive
programmes on official web sites?  How much wo uld your notification of subsidies be simplified
if such information could be submitted in its pre-existing format?  As a reviewer of
notifications, what sorts of limits should there be to the substitution of information from websites for completed notification questionnaires?  Would references to web sites be a useful
supplement to substantive information provided in a notification?
Reply
On the web site of the Competition Office, there is some general information on state-aids,
but these are referring to a large range of aspects not entirely subject to SCM notification.  Therefore,
the direct use of this web site is not enough for the examination of the notification.
Q8. Concerning General Rule 6, which requires that  notification of subsidies provided “to
specific products or sectors” be organized on a product- or sector-specific basis, does this rule
pose problems for your government when notifying subsidies that are provided on a horizontal,
rather than a product- or sector-specific basis?   What are the specific steps and difficulties in
preparing sector- or product-specific informatio n for subsidies provided on a horizontal basis?G/SCM/W/482
Page 3
Reply
The General Rule No. 6 does not pose any major problems due to the requirement of
providing sector- or product-specific information.
Q9. Does this rule present problems for notifi cation of subsidies that are provided on a
product- or sector-specific basis (e.g., some agricultural subsidies)?
Reply
No.
Q10. Would a redrafting of General Rule 6 to refer to subsidies "provided on the basis of
specific products or sectors" help to resolve this  problem?  (The idea would be to clarify that
programme-based information, rather than product- or sector-specific information would be
required for subsidies provided on a horizontal basis, which product- or sector-specificsubsidies would continue to need to be notified on that basis.)
Reply
See the answer to question 8.
Q11. Would such a redrafting pose problems for the review of subsidy notifications, and if so,
what would those problems be?
Reply
See the answer to question 8.
Q12. To what extent does the general requirement to provide statistical information on the
trade effects of notified subsidies (chapeau of item 9) impede or delay the presentation of
subsidy notifications?
Reply
To a great extent.
Q13. To what extent does the need to compile the specific kinds of statistical information
referred to in items 9(a) and 9(b) impede or delay the presentation of subsidy notifications?
Reply
To a large extent.
Q14. How important is this statistical informat ion about other Members’  subsidies to your
government when reviewing subsidy notifications?  Could these reporting requirements be
made less stringent in some manner?  If so, how?
Reply
As important as for any WTO Member, mainly in the process of evaluating the observance of
commitments.G/SCM/W/482
Page 4
Q15. Does your government find, in preparing s ubsidy notifications, that there is conceptual
overlap or redundancy in some of the information elements as currently drafted?
Reply
Yes, as far as agriculture is concerned.
Q16. If your government believes there to be overlap, how might this be eliminated?  What
drafting improvements might be introduced to clarify such situations, while preserving the
substantive requirements of Article 25 from which the questionnaire is drawn?
Reply
We suggest that agricultural notifications be presented only to the Committee on Agriculture.
Q17. Do the requirements to provide information on the policy objective or purpose of the
subsidy, its background and authority, and to whom and how it is provided pose significant
difficulties to your government in preparing its subsidy notifications?  How might these
requirements be simplified?
Reply
Not for actual state-aid forms, but some difficulties could appear for previous state-aid forms.
Q18. Does the requirement to furnish an explanation where a particular element of
information cannot be provided pose particular difficulties to your government in preparing itsnotifications?  If so, is there a way to simplify this requirement while preserving its substantive
content?
Reply
The lack of certain information poses major difficulties to our authorities.  We do not
consider that simplified procedures could replace "explanations" needed to cover the lack ofinformation.
Q19. Is there sufficient flexibility in item 7 of the subsidy questionnaire (information on the
amounts of subsidies provided) for your government to be able to notify such information
without undue difficulty?  If not, is there a way to simplify this requirement while preserving itssubstantive content?
Reply
We are satisfied with the provisions of item 7.
C. QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION SEMINAR
Q1. Concerning the number and nature of pa rticipants in the seminar, how many
individuals in your government have day-to-day responsibility for gathering information about
subsidies and for preparing and submitting subsidy notifications based on that information?  Ifmore than one, please describe the differen ces in these individuals ’ responsibilities.G/SCM/W/482
Page 5
Reply
Three.  Two persons from the Competition Office, in charge of gathering the information on
state-aid, and one person from the Department of  Foreign Trade, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
responsible for the team preparing and submitting subsidy notifications.
Q2. Would it be sufficient for your government to have two participants in the seminar?  If
not, why not, and how many participants would be optimal from your government’s point of
view?
Reply
No, because there are at least three persons directly involved in the process of notification.
Q3. Would two days be a sufficient/appropriate length for the seminar?  If not, what would
be more appropriate?
Reply
No, an appropriate length for the seminar should be four days.
Q4. Would the following schedule be appropriate:  First session:  detailed presentation of the
basic definitions in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the SCM Agreement, and presentation of the subsidy
notification obligations in the light of these definitions.  Second session:  Presentations by
Members concerning the specific problems they experience in preparing subsidy notifications.
Third session:  Information-sharing and brainstorming among Members as to possible practical
solutions for the identified problems (ways to coordinate and streamline gathering and
formatting of subsidy information).  Fourth session:  Follow-up steps to ensure that information
shared and lessons learned would be retained and implemented.  (It has been emphasized thatto be effective, such follow-up should be immediate and intensive.)  Ideas suggested to date have
included establishment of informal contacts am ong capital-based officials, planning of future
focused technical assistance activities, etc.
Reply
We agree with the proposed schedule.
Q5. Does your government normally send capital-based representatives to the Committee’s
regular meetings?  If not, why not?
Reply
Sometimes, due to the budgetary restraints.
Q6. Does your government view this subsidy noti fication seminar as an important event in
improving its ability to understand the subsidy rules, and to make subsidy notifications in a
complete and timely manner?  (That is, does your government view the seminar as a priority
event for its participation?)  Does your government  plan to send capital-based participants to
the seminar?  If so, how many and what are their functions?  If not, why not?G/SCM/W/482
Page 6
Reply
In our view this seminar is very important and we would appreciate the WTO financial
support.  We plan to send three capital-based participants, as follows:
- Adina STANA, Attaché DCEPE-MAE;
- Irinel NICULESCU, Counsel lor, Competition Office
- Iuliana MUNTEANU, Inspector, Competition Office
Q7. In the view of your government, would financial sponsorship only of participants from
least-developed country Members be appropriate?  If not, why not?  What other objective
criteria for eligibility for financial sponsorship could be developed that might be moreappropriate?
Reply
In our view the financial sponsorship would be appropriate for all developing countries,
which encountered financial difficulties.
Q8. If your government would be prevented from sending participants to the seminar due to
financial constraints, what is the minimum level of financial sponsorship that would make it
possible to send participants (e.g., airfare only, airfare and subsistence for the days in Geneva,etc.)?
Reply
We consider the minimum level of financial sponsorship necessary for sending participants is
for airfare and accommodation.
Q9. Assuming that it is not possible to finance the seminar out of existing trust funds in the
WTO (a possibility currently being explored), and assuming a total budget of approximately
CHF 225,000, would your government consider making  a donation to finance it?  If so, how
much would your government be in a position to contribute?
Reply
Unfortunately, Romania as a developing country is not in a position to make a donation.
Q10. If the seminar were financed by earmarked contributions from individual Members,
and there were a surplus in the budget for the seminar (due to fewer than expected participants
from Members eligible for financial sponsorship,  however they might be identified), how should
any such surplus be disposed of?  Two possible  options have been discussed (I) returning the
surplus to the sponsors on a pro-rata basis; or (ii) making the surplus available on a first-come,
first-served basis to other developing countr y Members.  Are there other, more appropriate,
options?
Reply
10. We consider option (1) more appropriate.
__________