RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/M/39
10 October 2002
(02-5448)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 3, 8 AND 13 MAY 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Remo Moretta (Australia) (3 May);
H.E. Mr. Milan Hovorka (Czech Republic) (8 and 13 May)
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the "Committee") held a regular
meeting on 3, 8 and 13 May 2002.
2. Prior to the adoption of the agenda, the Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for the
meeting had been circulated to Members in WTO/AIR/1780.  The Chairman stated on 3 May that on
"item H" there was no consensus.  He proposed to square bracket that item, suspending it until the
meeting was reconvened on 8 May, and to deal with all remaining items on the agenda.  The
Chairman also noted that the notification of legislation of Myanmar, which indicated that Myanmar
had no applicable legislation, was inadvertently omitted from the proposed agenda.  As there were noquestions put regarding that notification, he proposed to include it in the Committee's discussions
under item A in order to avoid having to put it on the agenda for the next regular meeting in autumn
2002.
3. The Committee so agreed.
4. When the Chairman reconvened the meeting on 8 May, he recalled that the proposed agenda
for this meeting had been circulated to Members in WTO/AIR/1780 and that the regular meeting had
been suspended on 3 May on the understanding that the Committee would resume its meeting in orderto address item H on the proposed agenda.  He wished to inform delegations that he had been
conducting informal consultations with interested delegations.  While these consultations had allowed
frank and open exchanges of views among interested delegations and he believed that they had been
very constructive, more time was required in order to reach an agreement on the Committee's
approach with respect to item H on the airgram.  For this reason, he proposed that the Committee onceagain suspend this regular meeting and resume it once again on 13 May.  He indicated that he would
be conducting further informal consultations with interested delegations before the Committee
resumed, and urged all delegations to work constructively and in a spirit of cooperation in order to be
able to resolve the matter before the Committee.
5. When the Chairman reconvened the meeting on 13 May 2002, he recalled that the proposed
agenda had been circulated to Members in WTO/AIR/1780 and that the regular meeting had once
again been suspended on 8 May on the understanding that the Committee would resume its meeting
on 13 May, in order to address item H on the proposed agenda.  He wished to inform delegations that
he had conducted informal consultations with interested delegations.  He believed that these
constructive consultations had allowed delegations to arrive at an approach that permitted theCommittee to proceed with this regular meeting.  In respect of item H on the proposed agenda, the
Chairman proposed that the item be divided into two items, and the second item be reworded.  As a
result, the agenda would read as follows:G/SCM/M/39
Page 2
H. "DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ALL WTO M EMBERS "
I. "PREPARATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION "
6. The remaining items on the agenda that had already been addressed by the Committee on
3 May would be renumbered.
7. The Committee therefore adopted the following agenda:
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................2
B. S EMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 25.11) .................................3
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING ACTIONS ................................4
D. WORKING PARTY ON SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS  – CHAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON 30 APRIL
2002 MEETING .............................................................................................................................4
E. NOTIFICATION SEMINAR - BASIS FOR THE BUDGET REQUEST ......................................................6
F. CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................7
G. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS .................................................................................................7
H. DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ALL WTO MEMBERS .................7
I. PREPARATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................................8
J. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................11
K. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................12
L. ELECTION OF OFFICERS .............................................................................................................12
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
8. The Chairman noted that the Committee's review of notifications of countervailing duty
legislation and/or regulations would occur 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, there were several notifications of new or amended legislation before the Committee(Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, El Salvador, Georgi a, Grenada, India, Moldova, Myanmar, Pakistan,
Peru, Philippines and Uruguay) and questions and answers concerning Peru's previously reviewed
notification.  The Chairman noted that all of the notifications subject to review, and questions posed
with respect to the review, had also been on the agenda of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices,
and all of them had been considered at that meeting.  The Chairman noted that no Member wished to
raise any issue concerning any of the notifications listed in this agenda item.
9. The Chairman recalled that written follow-up questions concerning any legislative
notification reviewed should be submitted not later than 23 May 2002, and written answers should be
submitted not later than 3 July 2002.  Moreover, in order for a previously reviewed notification of
legislation to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in the week of
29 October 2002, questions had to be submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose
notification was in question, no later than 12 September 2002, with written answers to any suchquestions no later than 10 October 2002.  The Chairman noted that, as usual, the Secretariat would
shortly issue a reminder of all applicable deadlines for submissions for the autumn 2002 meetings ofG/SCM/M/39
Page 3
the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices, Subsidies and Countervailing Measures1, and
Safeguards.  He hoped that this would help Members in scheduling their internal work programmes
and urged all Members to take note of these deadlines, inscribe them on calendars, and to respect
them.
10. Finally, he expressed his continuing concern over the failure of some Members to submit any
notification at all concerning legislation or regu lations 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 legislation or regulation currently in effect, would be all that was required.  This seemed
to be a relatively simple matter, and he encouraged Members who had not yet done so to make this
notification promptly.
11. The Committee took note of the statement made.
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 25.11)
12. With respect to the review of semi-annual re ports of countervailing actions, the Chairman
stated that Members would recall that a request for the semi-annual report for the period 1 July –
31 December 2001, to be submitted not later than 4 March 2002, was circulated to the Members in
G/SCM/N/81, dated 3 January 2002.  As was unfortuna tely almost always the case, a number of the
semi-annual reports had been received late.  The Chairman reminded Members that semi-annualreports were always due at the end of August for th e period January through June of the current year,
and at the end of February for the period July through December of the previous year.  He again urged
all Members to take the necessary steps to submit th ese notifications on time.  Particularly for those
Members who had taken no actions, these notifications sh ould be purely a matter of routine, as all that
is required was a one-sentence letter stating that no actions had been taken.
13. Members who had submitted semi-annual reports of countervailing actions are identified in
paragraph 1 of document G/SCM/N/81 Addendum 1, dated 26 April 2002.  To the extent possible, the
semi-annual reports had been translated and circulated 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 actions, 41 Members, listed in paragraph 2 of documentG/SCM/N/81/Addendum 1, notified the Committee that they did not take any countervailing actions
during the period in question.  The Chairman noted that Indonesia and Malaysia had also submitted a
semi-annual report indicating that they did not take any countervailing actions during the period in
question.
14. While Members who took actions appear generally  to comply with this requirement, there
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/81/Addendum 1, at
paragraph 3.
15. There were no questions or comments with respect to the notifications of Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Communities, South Africa or the United States.
16. The Committee took note of the statements made.
                                                     
1 Subsequently circulated as G/SCM/W/514.G/SCM/M/39
Page 4
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING ACTIONS
17. The Chairman recalled that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final countervailing
duty actions received by the Committee were circulated to the Committee in documents
G/SCM/N/79-80 and G/SCM/N/82-85.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and
final countervailing actions had been notified by Australia, Canada, the European Communities,South Africa, and the United States.  There were no questions or comments with respect to these
notifications.
18. The Committee took note of the statement made.
D. WORKING PARTY ON SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS  – CHAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON 30 APRIL 2002
MEETING
19. The Chairman recalled that the Working Party on Subsidy Notifications had met on
30 April 2002, and that he had undertaken to report to the Committee on that meeting.
20. The Chairman stated that the Working Party ha d addressed two topics:  first, the budgetary
and other aspects of the planned subsidies notification seminar for capital-based officials scheduled to
take place in October-November 2002 (on the basis of documents G/SCM/W/ 506 and W/509);  and
second, difficulties encountered by Members in notifying subsidies and the possible structure and
content of the seminar, on the basis of document G/SCM/W/505.
21. With respect to the first topic, the Chairman recalled that he had circulated, in documents
G/SCM/W/506 and /509, budgetary estimates and other elements relating to the planned subsidies
notification seminar.  As the seminar was intended to take place in October-November 2002, and as it
was to be financed out of the Doha Trust Fund, a specific budget request would need to be developed
and approved at this regular meeting so that it  could be submitted to the Trust Fund for action
immediately thereafter.  The Working Party's task was therefore to identify a basis on which the budget
request could be presented.
22. The Chairman then recalled that most Members had indicated, in their responses to the
questions in G/SCM/W/473, that they favoured a two or three-day seminar.  As to the basis on which
to determine which participants from developing countries should receive financial sponsorship, arange of views had been expressed.  In document G/SCM/W/506, on the basis of those views, he had
set out three possible scenarios for requesting financial sponsorship.
23. The Chairman then recalled that, during the 11 April 2002 informal consultations dealing,
inter alia , with this topic, delegations that commented on these scenarios all took the view that
funding should be requested at least for one participant from each least developed country Member or
Observer.  On the other hand, some delegations commented that requesting funding for one
participant from each developing country Member would be excessive, as the focus should be onthose who really needed financial assistance.  In this connection, using a list of non-notifying
developing countries as a proxy for those needing financial assistance to attend the seminar was not
necessarily appropriate, as financial constraints very well might not be the reason for these Members'
failure to notify, and rewarding non-notifiers as such would send the wrong signal.  The suggestion
was made that one could start with funding for LDCs, and then in addition request funding for thosedeveloping country Members indicating an intention to attend the seminar and demonstrating a need
for financial sponsorship.  When asked what sort of criteria could be applied to determine need, one
Member stated that it was important to be as inclusive as possible, and suggested the following (non-
cumulative) criteria:  developing countries with small delegations; with capacity constraints; with
resource constraints; and non-resident in Geneva.  The Chairman recalled that he had urged allG/SCM/M/39
Page 5
Members to reflect on the points raised so that an appropriate decision on the basis for the budget
request could be developed for adoption at this regular meeting.
24. Within this context, and on the basis of comments by Members to date, he had indicated to the
Working Party that it might be most constructive to move forward on the basis of the scenario for
requesting financial sponsorship that he had outlined in document G/SCM/W/509 and in the WorkingParty meeting.  Because there was a separate item on the agenda devoted to the basis for the budget
request for the seminar, he intended to outline the details of this approach under that item.  The
Working Party supported his proposal that this form the basis for the Committee's decision at the
regular meeting and he then undertook to transmit this basis to the Committee for approval at this
meeting as the basis for the budget request.
25. Turning to the second item on the Working Party's agenda, the Chairman recalled to the
Working Party that he had circulated a note in G/SCM/W/505, summarizing Members' responses todate to the questions contained in G/SCM/W/473.  The note addressed Members' responses in
four general sections, that is, logistical problems; substantive problems; general points on notification
format; and specific comments on notification format.  He emphasized that the suggestions made in
the note – in particular, those pertaining to specific aspects of the subsidies notification format - were
based on the direction Members seemed to be heading with their comments, and could provide a basisfor a comprehensive and structured discussion at the seminar.
26. With regard to the seminar's structure, as he had already indicated at the 13 March meeting of
the Committee, responding delegations largely endorsed the following proposed format and content of
the schedule for the planned subsidy notification seminar, that is:  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 defini tions.  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 had been emphasized that to be effective, such follow-up
should be immediate and intensive.)  Ideas suggested to date had included establishment of informal
contacts among capital-based officials, planning of future focused technical assistance activities, etc.
One delegation was of the view that one session could, in addition, be devoted to how to estimate the
amount of a subsidy and its trade effect.
27. The question he had put to the Working Party was whether, having had an opportunity to
review document G/SCM/W/505, Members were satisfied that it provided a reasonable summary ofthe concerns and issues of Members relating subsidies notifications such that the Committee could
now move forward with more detailed plans for the format and content of the subsidy notification
seminar.  It seemed optimal to ensure – to the greatest extent possible – that the seminar was
structured so as to address these concerns, as identified by Members, thoroughly and effectively.  He
had opened the floor to comments from Members on this point, as well as welcoming anyobservations and suggestions from Members with respect to concerns that they considered might not
adequately be reflected in G/SCM/W/505.  As no Member had taken the floor, he had taken this as an
indication that the note in G/SCM/W/505 was generally viewed as containing a reasonable basis on
which to move forward with the more detailed planning of the format, structure and content of the
subsidies notification seminar, on the basis of the general framework that was already before theWorking Party, as well as on the basis of the approach to requesting financial sponsorship that had
been identified earlier.
28. There were two additional elements that he wished to touch upon in connection with his
report on the Working Party meeting and movement towards more detailed planning of the subsidiesG/SCM/M/39
Page 6
notification seminar.  First, he wished to note that this subsidies notification seminar was a technical
assistance activity of the Committee, and he recalled that there had been a suggestion made in the
Committee on Trade and Development that WTO bodies with technical assistance activities could put
technical assistance as a standing item on the agendas for their meetings throughout the year.  He
wanted to bring this suggestion to Members' atten tion in this body, and seek their views about this
suggestion.  As there was no Member wishing to take the floor, he proposed that this item be placed
on the agenda as and when it arose or was necessary.
29. The Committee so agreed.
30. The second and final point that he wished to make in this connection pertained to subsidies
notifications in general and it was simply to recall – as he had in the context of the Committee's
30 April 2002 special meeting on review of 2001 new and full notifications of subsidies - the agreed
procedures for reviewing the remaining 2001 new and full notifications, i.e. those that were receivedtoo late to be included on the agenda for the special meeting held on 30 April and any that would
arrive in the future.  For the fall special meeting, 2001 new and full notifications circulated in all
three languages at least 19 weeks before, i.e. by 17 June 2002, would be placed on the agenda of that
meeting.  An airgram listing those notifications would be circulated shortly after 17 June.  Written
questions on the notifications to be reviewed in the fall will be due no later than 15 weeks before themeeting, that is, by 15 July 2002 and written answers no later than six weeks before the meeting,
i.e. by 16 September 2002.  Discussion at the meeting should focus on follow-up issues.  Members
were not required to provide written answers in advance of a meeting to any questions received after
the deadline for questions.  A notifying Member presenting its written answers after the deadline for
answers is required to present those answers in full, orally, at the meeting.
31. The Committee took note of the statements made.
E. NOTIFICATION SEMINAR - BASIS FOR THE BUDGET REQUEST
32. The Chairman recalled the main elements of the basis for the budget request for the planned
subsidies notification seminar for capital-based officials that was before the Working Party and was
now presented to the Committee for approval.  Financial sponsorship for the seminar would berequested as follows:  Funding to attend a two-day seminar in Geneva for: one capital-based official
from 36 least developed country Members and Observers; and one capital-based official from a
certain additional  number (to be determined) of developing country Members and Observers
indicating an intention to attend the seminar and demonstrating a need for sponsorship, on the basis
of, inter alia , the following non-cumulative considerations: Members with small delegations;
Members with capacity constraints;  Members with resource constraints;  and Members non-resident
in Geneva.  As he had pointed out to the Working Party, while it was impossible to give any preciseestimate at this time of the number of additional (non-LDC) Members/Observers that might request
financial sponsorship, and of the possible costs associated with such a number – chiefly because
airfare prices ranged drastically depending upon the Members/Observers involved – the average cost
of sponsoring a single participant would seem to be approximately 7,000 CHF.  Thus, if roughly
30 additional (non-LDC) Members/Observers applied for sponsorship, the estimated total cost forthese additional participants might reach approximately 210,000 CHF.
33. Developing country Members and Observers intending to send a capital-based official to
participate in the seminar and considering that they  might be in need of financial sponsorship were
invited to identify themselves by 23 May 2002.  The Secretariat would then issue a list of Members
and Observers that had so identified themselves.  If, between the date of issuance of the list and6 June 2002 no Member indicated that it had a difficulty with the list, the Committee would then
include these countries in the budget request.  If, however, within this timeframe, a Member indicated
that it had a difficulty with the list, the matter wo uld be discussed, with a view to its resolution, at theG/SCM/M/39
Page 7
meeting of the Committee scheduled for 17 June 2002.  The Chairman asked whether this provided an
acceptable approach for the basis for the budget request.
34. The Committee so agreed.
F. CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY
35. Concerning the methodology for calculating GNI per capita in constant 1990 dollars, the
Chairman stated that Members would recall that in the Doha Ministerial Decision on Implementation-
Related Issues and Concerns (document WT/MIN (01)/17, para. 10.1), Mini sters had agreed that
Annex VII(b) to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  included the Members that
were listed therein until their GNP per capita reached US$1,000 in constant 1990 dollars for three
consecutive years.  This decision would enter into effect upon the adoption by the Committee of an
appropriate methodology for calculating constant 1990 dollars.  If, however, the Committee did not
reach a consensus agreement on an appropriate methodology by 1 January 2003, the methodology setforth in G/SCM/38, Appendix 2, would be applied.  The Chairman recalled that he had invited
Members to submit, by 4 April 2002, any proposals for methodologies for calculating GNI per capita
in constant 1990 dollars.  Noting that no proposals had been received, he proposed that the Committee
revert to this item as and when any such proposal might be submitted.
36. The Committee so agreed.
G. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS
37. The Chairman recalled that the term of office on the Permanent Group of Experts (the "PGE")
of Professor Aktan expired this spring.  No suggestions for candidates to replace Professor Aktan had
been received, in spite of the Chairman having fixed two deadlines for suggestions (indicated in
documents G/SCM/41 and 42).  As he had indicated at the informal consultations on 11 April 2002,the Committee would now need to decide how to address this situation.
38. One possibility was that the Committee re-elect Professor Aktan to serve another term
(Professor Aktan has been on the PGE for only slightly more than one year, as he was elected to
complete the term of Mr. Ganesan).  Another possibility was that the Committee leave a vacancy on
the PGE pending further consideration, or determine some other course of action.  He noted that,although he had urged Members to reflect on this situation, and to provide any views to him or to the
Secretariat as soon as possible before this regular meeting, no delegation had yet provided any views.
He asked whether there would be any objection to re-electing Professor Aktan.
39. The Committee agreed to re-elect Professor Aktan.
H. DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF NOTIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ALL WTO MEMBERS
40. The Chairman wished to recall the deadlines for submission of notifications required of all
Members under the Agreement.  Some of the notification requirements applicable to all Membersunder the Agreement were subject to deadlines set out in the Agreement itself.  Others had no
specified deadlines, but as a practical matter, had to be made at specific times in order to allow the
Committee to undertake required reviews.  The Chairman recalled that:
(a) Notifications of subsidies were required to be submitted by 30 June of each year, with
new and full notifications submitted every second year, and updating notifications inthe intervening years.  As a practical matter,  in order to be placed on the agenda for
review at the special fall session set aside for this purpose, 2001 new and fullG/SCM/M/39
Page 8
subsidies notifications had to be submitted and circulated in all three WTO working
languages by 17 June 2002.
(b) Semi-annual reports of countervailing actions were to be submitted by the end of
February of the current year for the period 1 July to 31 December of the previous
year, and by the end of August for the period 1 January to 30 June of the current year.Thus, as was the normal practice, semi-annual reports covering the second half of
2001 were on the agendas of the Committees this spring, and the semi-annual reports
for the first half of 2002 would be on the agendas of the fall meetings.
(c) Notifications of applicable legislation, regulations, or administrative procedures, or
notifications of no relevant legislation, had no specified deadlines.  Members were
requested to notify the full text of the relevant laws, regulations, and administrative
procedures when any were first enacted, and to notify any changes when made.Pursuant to the procedures for review of legislation adopted by the Committee, only
notifications circulated to Members in three working languages at least six weeks
before a meeting could be reviewed at that meeting.  Thus, for a notification to be on
the agenda of the fall meetings, it had to be circulated no later than
12 September 2002.  As a practical matter, to ensure translation and circulation bythose dates, notifications of existing legislations should reach the Secretariat by the
end of July at the latest, while nil notifications should reach the Secretariat no later
than first September.
(d) The Agreement also required a number of ad hoc  notifications, which needed only be
made if the action which had to be notified had been taken, and then generally thenotification had to be made immediately, or without delay.  Any such notifications
received in time to be considered at the Committee's meetings, pursuant to the
Committee's procedural decisions, would be considered at the fall meeting.
41. The Committee took note of the statement made.
I. PREPARATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
42. The Chairman stated his intention to give the floor first to the three delegations that had
requested that the item be placed on the agenda.  He recognized first the delegation of the United
States.
43. The delegate of the United States appreciated th is opportunity to talk in the Committee about
a matter which his delegation considered very important:  Members organizing themselves so that
they could do the best possible job with their portion of responsibility on the transitional reviewmechanism.  In his view, there were a number of things that Members needed to decide in order to
ensure that things operated smoothly.  First, of course, was the date of the meeting where the
Committee would conduct its review, so that it could en sure that that this was completed in time to get
the Committee's report to the Council for Trade in Goods, which would then have to transmit it, with
other reports, to the General Council.  Rather than proposing a specific time, he thought perhaps abetter way of proceeding would be to see if China had any views on what the best time would be that
they could share with delegations.  He had hoped that that was something the Committee might be
able to accomplish today.
44. His delegation also thought that it was very important to have some understanding of when
the necessary notifications would be received.  The Chair had already spoken (under another agendaitem) of a number of items of information that would be relevant in the review, and for which thereG/SCM/M/39
Page 9
were routine provisions that told Members when the information would be notified.  In addition to
that, the Chair had also noted that although there was not, at this point, an agreed specified time for
notification of legislation, there effectively was one:  because of agreement on the need for advance
preparation before meetings, there was some understanding on when this legislation had to be
provided in advance of the meeting for it to be translated and for it to be considered.  There was alsoone special requirement for this Committee, one special notification that China was to make under its
Protocol of Accession.  His delegation therefore t hought that, as a starting-point, it would be good to
have an understanding of when Members could expect these notifications to be received, and also of
how the Protocol envisaged answers to any questions  that delegations might raise on the basis of the
information provided in the notifications.  In fa irness to China, he thought Members should try to
have some understanding of how far in advance thes e questions would be provided so that China was
not faced with a last-minute rush of questions that would make it impossible for them to provideanswers.  Of course, it would also be important to have a sense of when the answers were going to be
provided.  Naturally, all this would be done in writing, in a WTO working language, so translation
times had to be provided for in order that Members could see the responses in all three official
languages.
45. His delegation had some ideas on a possible structure, but recognized that this was not the
only possible structure.  The main thing was for the no tifications to be received in sufficient time for
questions to be asked, and for answers to be recei ved and reviewed prior to the meeting when the
review would take place.  One option for doing this would be to agree that the notifications be made
90 days in advance of the meeting, and that questions be submitted 60 days in advance and that
written answers, or additional information, be prov ided 30 days before the meeting.  He underlined,
however, that his delegation was most interested in the underlying substance, and while there was a
logic in 30/60/90 days, there was no particular magic in it.  They wanted to make sure that there was
enough time for all Members adequately to prepare.  In  terms of the report that needed to go forward
to the General Council, they also wanted to think about how to handle the situation  where Members
might raise questions at the review session to which China was able respond, but not immediately atthe meeting.  Perhaps the most important thing was to work cooperatively, to come up with a
procedural understanding so that Members could manage their very busy workload.  He underlined
that in no way, shape or form would his delegation attempt to renegotiate the commitments that China
had undertaken in its Accession Protocol.  His delegation honoured these as they expected China
would.
46. The delegate of the European Communities expressed his gratitude to all Members, and
particularly to China, that Members were now able to discuss this point in the Committee.  His
delegation trusted that China would do what was necessary to allow a meaningful review under the
mechanism foreseen in paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People’s Republic of China.
His delegation had an idea how this could be done but  thought that it was obvious that notifications in
the usual format should take place in time to a llow for translation into the other WTO languages and
to allow for questions and answers, preferably in writing, before the meeting.  He did not want to gointo any detail on what the deadlines should be.  Although his delegation recognized that the review
mechanism under the Protocol was different from ordinary work, as far as the notification and the
substance it was the same – subsidies, semi-annual reports or legislation.  It could make sense to use
the procedures which were established in the Committee as a model.  He emphasized that he was
saying that these could be used as a model , not as the procedure that had to be applied.  There were
probably different possibilities.  These procedures had been established for purely technical reasons
because they allowed for translation and because they foresaw questions and answers.  Those
technical reasons would probably be the same for any type of notification.  However, he thought that
it was very clearly up to China to tell Members how China thought that it would prepare for the
review.  Therefore, his delegation was interested to hear how China wanted to prepare for this review.
He wished to underline that there was no intention from their side to impose any obligation on ChinaG/SCM/M/39
Page 10
going beyond what China had agreed on its Protocol of Accession.  It was merely an attempt to
organize work in the Committee for purely technical reasons.
47. The delegate of Japan wished to thank the incoming and outgoing Chairmen for hosting
informal consultations on this important issue and to thank Members for being in a position to have a
substantive discussion under this item.  In Japan' s view, the so-called transitional review mechanism
provided for in paragraph 18 of the Protocol of  Accession of the People’s Republic of China was a
very important exercise, and they wished to have an effective and fruitful exercise under this
paragraph.  As his EC colleague had mentioned, his delegation had no intention whatsoever to add
any additional or new obligations on top of what was written in paragraph 18.  On the other hand, he
realized that any exercise needed some kind of structure, and this was not adding anything on top of
anything.  His delegation trusted, as the EC delegate had mentioned, that China would sincerely carry
out its obligations under paragraph 18.  His delegation was, of course, willing to hear what China hadto say at the meeting, but trusted that further scheduling or procedures or deadlines would somehow
be clarified in the course of time, if not today.
48. The delegate of China wished to express hi s special gratitude to the Chairman and to
Members for their contribution and efforts in trying to find an arrangement for this item to be
acceptable to all, and to enable the work of the Committee to continue and the regular meeting to be
concluded.  He also wished to take the opportunity to thank the delegates of the United States, the
European Communities and Japan for their statements.  He had taken note of their comments and
remarks and was prepared to convey those comments and remarks back to capital, so that people in
capital could further study them and consider how the specific arrangement could be made for this
transitional review to take place.  As a new Member of the WTO, China took its membership veryseriously.  China was willing to fulfil its obligations and attached great importance to paragraph 18 of
its Accession Protocol.  As a matter of fact, China had been making great efforts in preparations for
the transitional review.  With the understanding and support from its trading partners and the
Members of this house, China was determined to do its utmost in trying to overcome the practical
difficulties in this regard.  However, as far as the transitional review was concerned, China had noobligation other than what had been stipulated in paragraph 18 of its Accession Protocol, and any
attempt to go beyond that and to increase the obligations of China - under whatever pretext - would be
rejected.  Since paragraph 18 had already established important guidelines on the frequency,
procedure, scope and substance of the transitiona l review, it was inappropriate for any subsidiary
body of the WTO to try to re-negotiate or re-d efine the terms of such reviews as provided in
paragraph 18.
49. According to paragraph 18, subsidiary bodies of the WTO which had a mandate covering
China’s commitments could conduct the said transitional review once a year, and China was of the
view that such a review might, in principle, take place at the last regular meeting of each subsidiary
body concerned for that year.  Once a specific regular meeting was chosen and a date was fixed for
the transitional review to be included as one of its agenda items, the WTO Secretariat should inform
China of the schedule of the meeting as soon as possible so that China could make necessarypreparations.
50. To facilitate the process of the transitional review, Members were welcome to raise relevant
questions on their concerns to China well in advance of the review, and China was prepared to do its
best to address them under paragraph 18.  On the other hand, China was also entitled under the same
paragraph 18 to raise issues and questions on its concerns to other Members who were maintainingprohibitions, quantitative restrictions and other measures against imports from China in manners
inconsistent with the WTO rules and their co mmitments with regard to China’s accession.
51. It was hoped that through this kind of exchange of views and dialogue, better understanding
would be reached among WTO Members on how to improve implementation by all Members and toG/SCM/M/39
Page 11
facilitate the faster and sounder growth of trade betw een China and its trading partners.  In this regard,
China was ready to work very closely with this Committee and the other relevant subsidiary bodies of
the WTO and to make every positive contribution it could towards the fulfilment of their shared
objective.
52. The Chairman stated that it was his understanding from what he had heard that a sensible way
of proceeding in this Committee would to be to conduct the review in the Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures at the Committee's fall meeting, which would occur in the week of
28 October, if this was agreeable to Members.
53. The Committee so agreed.
54. He asked the Secretariat to inform China’s delegation of the agreement just reached that the
review would take place at the Committee’s fall meeting.  For the remaining elements, it was his
understanding that there did not appear to be an agreement, and he thought that delegations wouldhave to reflect further on how to proceed with the pr eparations for the review.  On his part, he stated
that he would be available for consultations with a view to arriving at a mutually acceptable solution.
He wished to add that there had been an extremely useful discussion and frank exchanges on how to
proceed and that he was cautiously optimistic, based on his informal consultations, that Members
might be able to bridge the remaining differences.
55. The Committee took note of the statements made.
J. OTHER BUSINESS
56. The Chairman recalled that he had received an inquiry by the Chairman of the Committee on
Trade and Development concerning the Committee's activities in respect of special and differential
treatment provisions.  On 10 December 2001, Mr. Irumba, then Chairman of the Committee on Tradeand Development, had sent the Chairpersons of WTO bodies a letter inquiring about the activities of
those bodies in respect of the special and differential treatment provisions of the relevant Agreements.
57. He recalled that he had informed the Chairman  of the Committee's work with respect to the
special and differential treatment provisions of the SCM Agreement , including the implementation-
related issues referred to it by Ministers at Doha.  In particular, he had informed him that theCommittee had been requested to identify a methodology for calculating GNI per capita in constant
1990 dollars for the purposes of Annex VII and that the Committee was also engaged in consultations
with developing country Members in respect of reque sted extensions of the transition period for export
subsidies pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  and the special procedures agreed by Ministers
at Doha (in G/SCM/39).  In addition, he had informed  him that Ministers had agreed that the Committee
should continue its ongoing review of the Agreemen t's provisions pertaining  to countervailing duty
investigations and report to the General Council by 31 July 2002.  He had  indicated that while theCommittee itself was not engaged in a comprehensive or systematic review of the special and
differential treatment provisions of the Agreement, it was expected that such a review would take place
in the context of the negotiations on subsidies and countervailing measures launched by Ministers.  In
particular, the negotiating mandate indicated that  the needs of developing and least developed
participants shall be taken into account.  In addition, Ministers had referred the outstandingimplementation issues in the area of subsidies and countervailing measures to the negotiations.  He had
undertaken to keep Chairman Irumba informed s hould there be any further developments in the
Committee by July 2002 in respect of the Agreement' s special and differential treatment provisions.
58. The Committee took note of the statement made.G/SCM/M/39
Page 12
K. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
59. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that
regular meetings normally would be held in the last week of April and the last week of October.
Accordingly, the next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the last week of
October 2002, from 29 October -1 November 2002.
60. The Committee so agreed.
L. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
61. The Chairman recalled that, as Members were aware, the Chairman of the Council for Trade
in Goods had carried out informal consultations on the nomination of Chairpersons for the different
bodies operating under the auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  These proposed nominations
had been taken note of by the Council for Trade in Goods at its meeting on 22 and 27 March 2002.
As concerned this Committee, the Chairman of  the Council for Trade in Goods proposed the
nomination of Ambassador Milan Hovorka of the Czech Republic.
62. The Committee agreed to elect Ambassador Hovorka as Chairman of the Committee by
acclamation.
63. The Committee agreed to elect Mr. Han Soo Kim of Korea as Vice Chairperson of the
Committee, again by acclamation.
64. The outgoing Chairman expressed his thanks to all delegations and invited the incoming
Chairman to take the gavel.
65. The incoming Chairman expressed his appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Moretta for his
outstanding contribution, for all he had done at the helm of this important Committee.  He wished to
congratulate and commend Mr. Moretta for his sense of humour, efficiency, ability and wisdom inconducting the business of this important WTO body to the satisfaction of all.   He also wanted to
express his gratitude to all Members for their sup port, for the confidence they had shown in electing
him as Chair.  He had to say that he had never had illusions as to the enormity and complexity of the
work of this body, but after having had a chance to become familiar with some details, he had to
admit that the reality went beyond any imagination.  Needless to say, he remained committed andwould spare no effort to assist the Committee in performing its tasks, some of which were time-
bound.  He would be counting on Members' support and understanding.  He also wished to
congratulate Mr. Han Soo Kim from Korea on his election as Vice-Chairman of the Committee and he
looked forward to working with him.
66. The outgoing Chairman stated that it had been a tremendous year but that it would be remiss
of him not to thank the Secretariat for the dedication, the hard work and the support given to him
throughout what was a very busy year.  He also wished to thank all in the room as colleagues andfriends for helping him through a very difficult year and for working constructively together and on
reaching certain incredible outcomes in this house.
67. The delegate of Malaysia wished to thank the outgoing Chair, Mr. Remo Moretta, both from
his country’s perspective as well as from a personal point of view.  He thought that Mr. Moretta had
done an excellent job as Chairman through a very tough period and a tough year.  There were severaldifficult decisions and problems in the run-up to D oha and he thought he had done an excellent job
which would bear him in good stead in the years to come.  On a personal basis, he thought, as a
friend, that there had been many times when they had clashed when he had taken the floor but,
nevertheless, Mr. Moretta had been as professional as ever and he had never taken it to heart and forG/SCM/M/39
Page 13
that he wished to thank him.  Mr. Moretta was also leaving Geneva soon and delegations would all
miss him dearly.  However, he would not go further because it might sound like an obituary.  He was
sure that his sentiments were shared by all in the room.  It would also be amiss if he did not also
congratulate the new Chairman.  Delegations were very happy to see him as the Chairman and assured
him that they would work closely with you to try to solve the many other unresolved problems as we
go through another hard year.
68. The incoming Chairman  thanked the delegate for the kind words extended to him and
believed he would not be overly committing himself by assuring him that these sentiments with regard
to what Mr. Moretta had done were shared not only be all that were in the room, but also by many
others who had had the privilege to work with Mr . Moretta in his chairmanship of this important
WTO body.  He was confident that he, as a new Chairman of this body, would have the opportunity to
benefit a lot from his wisdom and from his knowledge of those highly complex issues falling underthe competence of this body.
69. The Committee took note of the statements made.
70. The meeting was adjourned.
__________