RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/NOP/8
26June1996
ORGANIZATION(96-2439)
Working Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures
MEETING HELD ON6JUNE 1996
Chairman: Mr.A.Shoyer (United States)
Note bytheSecretariat
1. Theagenda fortheeighth meeting oftheWorking Group, setoutinWTO/AIR/340 of
20May1996, wasadopted.
2. Inconsidering thetime-frames forthefurther work oftheGroup, theChairman commented
thatthetimeavailable wasrapidly shrinking. After thecurrent meeting there wasjustonemeeting
scheduled before theSummer break (3July) andthen, after thebreak, work would resume on
10September and3October. Hesuggested thatthecurrent phase, thatis,theexamination ofthe
proposals should belargely completed bythemeeting on3July. Then, atthemeeting on10September,
theGroup should shifttothefinalphase -possibly tying upanyloose endsfrom theexamination
process -butprincipally concentrating ondeveloping itsrecommendations totheCTG. TheGroup
might alsowishtogivesome consideration toanyconclusions orobservations which itwould wish
toseereflected inthereport. Onthisbasis heandtheSecretariat would beinaposition todraftthe
report oftheWorking Group andframe itsrecommendations totheCTGfortheGroup 'sconsideration
on3October. Heanticipated providing theGroup withthisreport indraftform ingood timebefore
theOctober meeting. Ifabsolutely needed, anadditional informal meeting inSeptember orpossibly
some consultations onspecific points, could bearranged.
AgendaItem2A:Duplication/overlappinginNotificationObligationsintheAreaofAgriculture/Subsidies
3. TheChairman noted thatatthelasttwomeetings discussions hadfocused primarily onthe
USproposal foranotification format (G/NOP/W/10) which wasalong thesamelinesastheECproposal
(G/NOP/W/11) andwhich picked uponeoftheapproaches intheNewZealand paper (G/NOP/W/7).
Allofthepoints raised onthistopic hadbeensetoutintheSecretariat Note onthelastmeeting
(G/NOP/7) toassist theGroup initsfurther consideration ofthisitem. After hearing thecomments
atthelastmeeting, hehadcome totheconclusion thattheproposed format appeared toprovide at
leastaworking basis formoving forward. Accordingly, hehadundertaken toconsult delegations,
particularly those which hadexpressed ideasorconcerns, andwiththeircomments inmind, toprepare
atextfortheGroup 'sconsideration.
4. Theresults ofthose consultations anddrafting efforts wereprovided toparticipants inadraft
document which contained notification formats formeasures thatwere subject tothenotification
obligations andprocedures ofboththeAgreement onAgriculture, ontheonehand, andtheAgreement
onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) andArticle XVIoftheGATT 1994,
ontheother. Theyweremodified versions ofthefollowing supporting tables adopted bytheCommittee
onAgriculture (G/AG/2): Supporting Tables DS-1, DS-2, DS-3, DS-5, DS-6, DS-7, DS-8, DS-9,
ES-1 andES-2. They hadbeenmodified sothataMember could usetheformats adopted bythe
Committee onAgriculture tosatisfy theexisting requirements inG/AG/2 aswellastheelements setG/NOP/8
Page2
forthinArticle 25.3oftheSCM Agreement, Article XVIoftheGATT 1994andtherelevant portions
oftheformats adopted bytheCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures (G/SCM/6). It
wasproposed thattherecommendation totheCouncil forTrade inGoods would bethatbothCommittees
accept these formats fornotification ofmeasures subject toallthree agreements.
5. Tofacilitate theuseoftherevised formats bytheCommittee onAgriculture, heproposed the
following modifications toG/AG/2: (i)theinsertion atpage11ofan"Explanatory Note" toincorporate
inthedomestic support tables alloftheelements oftheSCM Agreement andArticle XVI:1 of
GATT 1994; (ii)theinsertion atpage24ofasimilar "Explanatory Note" toincorporate intheexport
subsidy tables alloftheelements oftheSCM Agreement andArticle XVI:1 ofGATT 1994; and(iii)the
revised supporting tables. Tofacilitate theuseoftherevised formats bytheSCM Committee, anew
paragraph would beinserted inthe"General Rules" section ofG/SCM/6 todirect Members touse
theformats inG/AG/2 when notifying certain agricultural subsidies.
6. TheChairman noted thattheproposed revisions tothenotification formats would notalter
existing deadlines; Members would continue tobesubject tothevarious deadlines fornotifications
inboththeAgreementonAgricultureandtheSCMAgreement,andthoseestablishedbytheCommittees.
Thus, Members could usetheformats tonotify measures totheCommittee onAgriculture according
tothe"intervals" determined bytheCommittee onAgriculture inG/AG/2 (according tocropyear,
marketing year, etc.), andcould submit these same notifications totheSCM Committee nolaterthan
30Juneofeachyeartosatisfy thenotification obligations andprocedures oftheSCM Agreement.
7. Some participants made suggestions fortechnical changes orcorrections intheproposed text:
(i)intheheadings tonotes 1and2oftheExplanatory NotetotheDSandESsupporting tables add
theword "also" toread"alsoinclude thefollowing information ..."; (ii)inSupporting Table DS:3
theheading ofthesecond column should referto"Article 6.5"not"Annex 6.5"; (iii)inSupporting
Table ES:1, addassecond column entitled "Description ofPolicy" aswasdone inSupporting
Table ES:2; and(iv)inadding anewparagraph totheGeneral Rules oftheSubsidies questionnaire
(G/SCM/6), thisshould beincluded inparagraph 2inorder toavoid changing allofthefollowing
numbers inthatdocument.
8. Anumber ofparticipants noted thatvarious possibilities existed tocomply withthetiming
requirements ofbothAgreements. Notifications totheCommittee onAgriculture would bemade by
theappropriate dates while thecorresponding notifications totheSubsidies Committee could bemade
atthesame timeorcould besubmitted onceeachyear, by30June. Allother subsidy notifications
would continue toberequired by30Juneeachyear. Itwasalsonoted thattheinformation required
bytherevised format might notbeaccommodated inthetabular presentation; however, additional
information could beappended tothetables. Itwasconsidered thatsome formof"dummy run"could
beundertaken toprovide anillustration ofthefinalproduct.
9. Itwasemphasized thatsome oftheinformation inthenewformats would berelevant under
theprovisions ofonlyoneofthetwoagreements andthatitshould bemade clearintheexplanatory
notes thateachCommittee would berequired toexamine onlytheinformation falling within itsmandate.
While some concern wasexpressed thatasingle format might leadtolower transparency, others
anticipated thatitwould result insaving oftimeandeffort asitismore difficult toprepare andget
approvals fortworeports atdifferent times oftheyear. Also, theadditional detail intheagriculture
notifications represented abenefit forMembers.
10. Noting thatthere hadbeennostrong objections tothecurrent approach andthatparticipants
hadexpressed awillingness toconsider modifications tothecurrent format using thisapproach, the
Chairman undertook toprepare forthenextmeeting atextthatwould illustrate howdocuments G/AG/2G/NOP/8
Page3
andG/SCM/6 would lookwiththese modifications. (Note: Thisdocument willbecirculated as
G/NOP/W/15.)
Agenda Item2B:TheQuestion ofCompliance withNotification Obligations
11. TheChairman noted thattheGroup hadavailable twodocuments prepared bytheSecretariat
toassist itsdeliberations: G/NOP/W/9 which provided ageneral overview ofnotifications submitted,
giving totalfigures andG/NOP/W/14 withextensive tables listing one-time andperiodic notifications
across thetopofeachpageandallWTO Members down thesides ofthepages, andshowing the
notification status ofindividual Members. Hestressed thatthislatter document provided alistbut
didnotattempt anyanalysis, simply setting outthesituation asitstood attheendofApril. Hepointed
outthatthere were many factors tobeborne inmind inrelation totheobligations ofeachMember
under theindividual agreements andurged Members tobearinmindtheexplanatory notesinconsidering
thetables. Heinvited participants toinform theSecretariat ofanyerrors theymight noteinthedocument
asheanticipated issuing anupdated version withtheGroup 'sreport inOctober.
12. Incommenting ontheinformation inG/NOP/W/14, some participants observed thatthislist
wasproving helpful inthecapitals, indicating where thatMember stood vis-à-vis itsnotification
obligations. Thispresentation wasalsoconsidered auseful means ofencouraging compliance through
thetransparency achieved bysuchlistings. Onthequestion ofwhysome obligations attract greater
compliance thanothers asillustrated inthisdocument, oneviewwasthatthose obligations withlegal
implications orwhere rights wereestablished would attract higher compliance ratesthanothers. Another
viewwasthatthere wasadirect correlation between therateofcompliance andthelevelofactivity
oftheMember inthecommittee concerned.
13. Itwasnoted thatbroad interpretation ofthetables wasdifficult asmany obligations, marked
inthedocument withthesymbol "0",wererequired onlyofthose Members which maintained certain
measures ortookcertain actions. Inother cases some Members weretemporarily exempted fromthe
requirements asshown withthesymbol "E". Nevertheless, thisdocument wasconsidered tobevery
helpful insetting outthetotalcompliance situation inthe"goods" areaanditwassuggested thatit
beperiodicallyupdatedtoassistbothMembersandcommittees.Itwasfurthersuggestedthatthecolumns
betotalled atthebottom togiveanindication ofthevolume ofnotifications received under each
requirement.
14. TheChairman recalled that,atthelastmeeting some veryinteresting suggestions hadbeen
made onhowtoimprove compliance -onewasthateachMember should designate anofficial oran
office inthecapital tobethecontact point andtheresponsible entity forensuring thatallnotification
requirements were metbythatMember. Thatperson oroffice would oversee theentire national
programme ofnotifications. Itwasalsosuggested thatasetofgeneral guidelines should bedeveloped
which would beapplied byeachCommittee inadministering itsownnotification process. Forexample,
ithadbeensuggested thattherecould beaguideline calling forareview ofeachCommittee 'snotification
formats every twoyears orthatthechairpersons should remind participants ofoutstanding notification
obligations ateachmeeting. Ineffect, thesubject ofcompliance withnotifications would become a
regular agenda itemforeachCommittee.
15. While merit wasseeninhaving acentral contact point ineachMember, itwasnotconsidered
possible toestablish thisasanobligation although itcould beformulated asarecommendation ofthe
Group foreachMember toconsider. Itwasfeltthatacentral contact point might beameans notonly
ofimproving compliance butalsoafocal point forchannelling technical assistance. Itwasobserved
thatinsome Members there already existsuchfocalpoints although theyfrequently wereineffective
duetoalackoftraining. Some considered thattherealfocal point should betheGeneva Missions
which maintained ongoing contacts withtheresponsible ministries.G/NOP/8
Page4
16. Asregards thesuggestion toprepare general guidelines forthereview ofnotification formats
bycommittees, many participants agreed thatcommittees should maintain anongoing overview oftheir
notification obligations andtheproblems Members might encounter. However, some considered
guidelines forstandardized procedures andtime-frames forthereview offormats etc.toberigid.
Possibly, abroad guideline allowing eachcommittee toconsider itsownneeds andconditions would
bemore appropriate.
17. Alsounder thisagenda, theChairman recalled thepotential anomaly which would existinthe
Group'sreporttotheCTGifontheonehanditdidnotmakefar-reachingrecommendationstostreamline
thesystem while ontheother handitwasclearthatthecompliance ratewaslowinsome areas. He
asked theGroup toconsider ifitshould examine thisquestion andpossibly develop some ideas on
thereasons forlowcompliance rates forinclusion inthereport. Otherwise there would bean
unexplained gapbetween theGroup 'sfindings anditsrecommendations which could arouse questions
intheCTG andpossibly atSingapore. Members decided toconsider thisquestion andcome back
toitatthenextmeeting.
Agenda Item2C:Assistance toSome Developing Countries inMeeting Their Notification Obligations
18. Referring totheproposal forapractical handbook onnotifications, theChairman reported
thattheSecretariathadassembledtwosectionsofsuchahandbooktoassisttheGroupinitsdeliberations.
These setoutnotification information ontheAgriculture andTBTAgreements, eachwithfoursections
asfollows:
SectionI(AG-IandTBT-I)-ageneraloverviewofthenotificationrequirementsoftherespective
AgreementsdrawnfromthepresentationsmadebySecretariesoftheCommitteesattheTechnical
Cooperation andTraining Division 'sNotifications Workshop heldlastFebruary.
Section II(AG-II andTBT-II) -alisting ofallnotification requirements foreachofthese
agreements drawn directly from G/NOP/W/2/Rev.1.
Section III(AG-III andTBT-III) -theactual WTO documents circulated toallMembers
containing formats, questionnaires orguidelines fortheagreement inquestion; and
Section IV(AG-IV andTBT-IV) -samples ofnotifications.
19. TheChairman commented thatthere would beabout 15sections tothismanual covering the
agreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement andwould beinaloose-leaf format tobeup-dated
asrequired. Asregards samples, heasked whattypeofsamples should beused, i.e.actual notification
documents; actual notifications, butwithcountry names andgeographical references removed; "mock"
or"constructed" models; orapageortwowithjustalistofrelevant notification numbers.
20. Several participants expressed theirsupport for"mock" samples tobeincluded. Some preferred
twotypes ofeachsample aswasusedintheAgriculture illustration before theGroup. Some preferred
samples frombothdeveloped anddeveloping countries, while others would nothavethisseparation.
Itwasconsidered thattheSecretariat should begiven some discretion inpreparing suchsamples. The
importance oftheloose-leaf format wasstressed toallow regular updating oftheinformation. Asit
wasevident thatthishandbook could encompass several hundred pages, itwassuggested thataseparate
manual should beassembled foreachagreement. Thiswould notonlymake itmore manageable, but
would alsobeapractical advantage inthecapitals aseachoffice could receive theportion appropriate
toitsneeds, rather thantheentire publication.G/NOP/8
Page5
21. Looking broadly atthisproposal, oneparticipant noted thatimproving compliance wasamany
faceted problem andtheGroup should bearthisinmind when considering solutions. Although the
handbook would obviously beveryuseful, theWorking Group should alsobethinking interms of
oneortwocomplementary measures thatitcould recommend.
22. HesaidthateveniftheGroup diditsutmost todevelop practical instruments ofassistance
likethehandbook, theleast-developed countries inparticular, would stillfinditdifficult torespond
fully. Many ofthem arenotrepresented inGeneva orarerepresented withsmall missions. Inthe
capital, theymight have only oneperson working ontheWTO aswellasanumber ofother
organizations. Forthem, thefirstproblem wasveryoften tosortoutthepriorities, tohaveasense
ofwhere tostartandtogetsome basic sense oftherequirements andprocedures.
23. Heconsidered thatitwould beuseful ifthisWorking Group were alsotorecommend that
technical missions tocapitals ofsome duration, possibly aweek ortwo,toprovide comprehensive
helptothese countries would beasound investment. Thiswassomething thatcould bedone in
cooperation withother bodies, forexample, withUNCTAD. Thisproposal, heconsidered, should
beseeninconjunction withthehandbook.
24. Hissecond proposal wasthattheGroup should lookattheformat ofreminders thatMembers
hadreceived fromtheCentral Registry ofNotifications. Keeping inmindthedifficulties ofdeveloping
countriesinprocessingthemassofinformationtheyreceivefromtheWTO,itappearedthatthereminder
fromtheCRN wasdifficult tounderstand. Hebelieved thatitwasextremely important thattheGroup
transmit amessage totheCRN that,although theyhaddoneagoodjobingetting thissystem started,
anditwasworking andbeing helpful toMembers, further work would havetobedonetomake the
reminders simpler, more understandable, andmore pedagogic.
25. Hesuggested thatthereminders fromtheCRNcould havereferences tosections inthehandbook
ortheycould themselves contain simple information onthenotification requirements suchasifthere
wasa"nil"notification tobedone, theMember could justputonesentence inaletter andsenditoff,
therebyfulfillingthenotificationrequirement.Bythismulti-facetedapproach,thehandbookplusdetailed
technical training andreminders thatwereeasytounderstand would bethesortofpractical measure
thatcould helpinimproving compliance.
26. TheChairman suggested thattheGroup consider these suggestions andrevert tothem atthe
nextmeeting.
Agenda Item2D: Notification Obligations Pursuant toDecisions bytheContracting Parties to
GATT 1947
27. TheChairman recalled thathehadraised thequestion ofcertain notification obligations
established byGATT 1947 CONTRACTING PARTIES which, withthepassage oftimeorwiththe
changes made aftertheentry intoforce oftheWTO, might nowberedundant orobsolete. These were:
(a)Items 2,3and4onpages 48and49ofG/NOP/W/2/Rev.1 onCPsDecisions relating toQRsand
NTMswhichappearstobesupersededbytheCTGDecisionsof1December1995(G/L/59andG/L/60);
(b)Item6,alsoonpage49,onImport Licensing Procedures which appears tobesuperseded bythe
WTO Agreement onImport Licensing Procedures plusthenewQuestionnaire (G/LIC/3); (c)Item8
onpage50onMarks ofOrigin (GATT Article IX)forwhich, according tothenotes inthe1995edition
oftheAnalytical Index, there hasbeennosubmissions since 1961; and(d)Item12onLiquidation
ofStrategic Stocks which dates backtoaCPsDecision in1955.
28. Onedelegation agreed thattheobligations inpoint (a)intheabove paragraph werenowcovered
bythe1995CTG Decisions, while theobligation inpoint (b)wasnowcovered bytheImport LicensingG/NOP/8
Page6
Agreement itself. Therefore, inhisview, these CONTRACTING PARTIES Decisions could nowbe
considered forremoval orcancellation. Theitems inpoints (c)and(d)remained tobeexamined.
TheChairmanaskedMemberstoconsideralloftheseitemswithaviewtopresentingspecificsuggestions
atthenextmeeting.
Agenda Item2E:Other Business
29. TheChairman reported that,inresponse tohisletterof18March tothecommittee chairpersons
onthesubject ofthescope forsimplification andstandardization, hehadreceived aresponse from
theChairman oftheWorking Party onState Trading Enterprises asfollows:
"TheWorking Party onStateTrading Enterprises isintheprocess ofexamining theadequacy
ofthequestionnaire onstatetrading (dating from1960, BISD 9S/184) withaviewtodeveloping
arevised questionnaire thattakes account notonlyoftheWTO Understanding onthe
InterpretationofArticleXVIIbutalsoofthecurrenteconomicenvironmentinwhichstatetrading
enterprises operate. While alarge partofthisexercise willnecessarily focus onareas where
thequestionnaire needs tobeexpanded inorder toelicit theinformation necessary toan
assessment ofthese enterprises 'effect ontrade, participants aremindful oftheneedtoavoid
duplicationofinformationsoughtunderothernotificationobligations.Inaddition,considerable
attention isbeing focused ondeveloping aformat thatisnotunnecessarily burdensome.
Thisrevision exercise isatarelatively early stage andiscurrently being taken upininformal
meetings oftheWorking Party opentoanyinterested delegation. Thenextsuchinformal meeting
willtakeplace on23May."
TheGroup tooknoteofthisinformation.
Next Meeting
30. Thenextmeeting oftheGroup willbeheldonWednesday, 3Julyat10a.m.