WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/Q3/COL/16
16 September 2002
(02-4901)
Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  Spanish
SUBSIDIES
Request by Colombia Pursuant to Article 27.4 of the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Replies to Questions Posed by Ecuador1 on Colombia2
Statement by Colombia at the Meeting of the Committee
on 25 July 2002
The following statement was made by the delegation of Colombia at the special meeting of
the Committee on 25 July 2002 and is circulated at the request of that delegation.
_______________
Colombia has received Ecuador's questions and is grateful to that country for its interest in
our extension.  Colombia wishes to reply to those questions at this meeting.
Colombia wishes first of all to underscore the enormous importance it attaches to this process
of transparency and the respect that it duly accords all the questions it has received from the variousMembers.  We thank Ecuador for its interest in our request for an extension, as a neighbouring and
sister country and a trading partner.  Colombia and Ecuador face the challenge of dealing with
abundant and complex trade issues, including that of export incentives, not only within the WTO but
also in the framework of the Andean Community.  This is yet another reason for preserving an
appropriate atmosphere in which legitimate concerns can be tackled between two neighbouringcountries.
Ecuador initially questioned whether Colombia was included in the Doha mandate, which
arose from the need to address the concerns expressed by our country at the Ministerial Conference,
as Ecuador and all the other Members of this Organiza tion are aware.  It was Colombia's wish to start
a technical and constructive discussion in that regard and it put forward a series of arguments that
were neither discussed nor commented on by Ecuador.
Ecuador is now attempting to establish non-exis tent legal connections between the extension
under Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and other provisions of the Agreement and evenwith other commitments under other WTO Agreements.
                                                     
1 G/SCM/Q3/COL/14
2 G/SCM/N/74/COL and G/SCM/N/48/COL-G/SCM/N/60/COL-G/SCM/N/71/COLG/SCM/Q3/COL/16
Page 2
Colombia is deeply respectful of this process, to which it ascribes enormous commercial
importance and recognizes the role played by this extension in the process leading to and at the
Ministerial Conference itself.
Against this backdrop, we are aware of the possible negative implications of an adverse
outcome of this process.  For this reason, Mr Chairman, and out of consideration for the other
countries that are also involved in this process a nd in particular those requesting an extension of the
transition period, my country would not like to promote a debate intended to create doubts amongst
Members concerning the supposed legal implications of the extension or its scope.
It is our clear understanding that the coverage  of the extension under Article 27.4 is obviously
the Agreement on Subsidies and would not change or modify Colombia's commitments or those ofany Member under the Agreement on Agriculture or any other agreement.  A simple reading of the
Agreements leads us to that conclusion.  As we understand it, the notifications submitted by Colombia
were made in the context of the obligation to supp ly the Committee with information pursuant to the
Agreement on Subsidies, and they are never intended to establish a particular sectoral coverage in
respect of applications by Members for the extension of the transition period.
With these preliminary remarks in mind, I woul d now like to turn to questions 1 and 3 posed
by Ecuador seeking information concerning the products covered by the three mechanisms for which
Colombia is requesting an extension and the countries to which the Transport Compensation
Mechanism will be applied.
We wish to point out that Colombia already supplied that information in responding to
questions posed by other Members, specifically in the replies to question 3 from Australia and
question 3 from Japan, which can be found in document G/SCM/Q3/COL/7.  In addition to this
information, in answer to the question asked by Ecuador on 7 May this year, Colombia supplied a listof the products that benefited under the Transport Compensation Mechanism, contained in Annex 2 to
document G/SCM/Q3/COL/13.  That Annex includes al l the products, both from the industrial sector,
which make up almost all the products that benefit under the mechanism, as well as four items that
could be classified as agricultural products within the meaning of Article 2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.
As for the countries of destination of the exports benefiting under the Transport
Compensation Mechanism, please refer to the reply given to question 2 from Switzerland in document
G/SCM/Q3/COL/8.
Turning to the statements included in the second paragraph of the document submitted by
Ecuador, with the indulgence of those Members who have been part of this process from thebeginning and are thoroughly familiar with the nature and scope of this phase of transparency, I shall
make some clarifications for Ecuador's benefit.
The Article 27.4 extension does not stipulate that each Member may determine the coverage
of the products profiting from the programmes or that it may choose and decide those products towhich it may wish to apply a programme.  This has never been, nor could it be the understanding of
Members, because the extension approved at Doha is in application of Article 27.4 of the Agreement
on Subsidies and as such does not entail any modification of multilateral commitments.
Therefore, there is no truth to Ecuador's claim that Colombia wishes to use this mechanism to
cover its commitments in agriculture.  That is not, and would never be, our intention.  Besides, the
legal absurdity could never arise whereby the inclusion of the word "foodstuffs" in the reply to a
question in this process of transparency would be enough to alter a country's schedules of agricultural
commitments.G/SCM/Q3/COL/16
Page 3
It should be noted that it is not requests that determine the programmes to which an extension
is applied.  The coverage of the extension flows from a simple interpretation of Articles 27.2 and 27.4
of the Agreement on Subsidies.  Paragraphs 4(b) and 7(b) and (c), as well as footnote 4 of document
G/SCM/W/471/Rev.1 therefore clearly came about last year in that context.
It is also worth noting that page 10 of the technical summary attached to the report of the
Chairman of the Committee on Subsidies to the Ge neral Council (G/SCM/38) includes information on
the outcome of informal consultations conducted by the Chairman on some substantive and
operational matters, including implementation, notification and transparency.
In referring to this process, the above-mentioned report states that "[s]ome other Members
indicated that they would need full notifications in respect of programmes for which extensions will
be granted as of the time of the decision.  One possibility that was discussed was a two-tiered system
under which general information about programmes would be submitted by 1 December 2001 to start
the 'consultations' referred to in Article 27.4, with a detailed notification to be submitted in early 2002
to verify that the programmes in question met the elig ibility criteria.  It was suggested that the format
for notifications under SCM Article 25 (G/SCM/6) be used in this context".
In the light of the foregoing, as well as document G/SCM/W/471/Rev.1 and Article 25 of the
Agreement on Subsidies, Ecuador's suggestions lack any legal basis.  The present process is based on
notifications of subsidies applied.  It should also be noted that at no time did Colombia indicate in itsrequest set out in document G/SC M/N/74/COL that it wished to apply the extension to agricultural
products or that by applying a programme to a particular agricultural product it understood such
extension as generating legal consequences leading to the alteration of commitments.
If Ecuador wishes to raise a doubt on its part concerning the implications of the extension for
agricultural commitments, it is perfectly entitled to do so as a horizontal systemic issue that could be
tackled by the Committee if Members consider that the topic warrants some clarification or
discussion.  What Ecuador cannot attempt to do is to interpret its concerns about the legal scope of the
extension as the intention on the part of Colombia to abuse the mechanism.
Mr Chairman, Colombia has been transparent.  We have provided as much information as we
have been able to assemble given our limited human, technical and financial resources.  For beingoverly transparent, we mentioned agricultural products in the replies to the questions because
Colombia included in its agricultural schedules the possibility of maintaining support measures for
exports.  We do not intend to launch a debate in this Committee on Colombia's notifications in
agriculture for the years 1999 and 2000 as this is not the appropriate forum and we will not agree to
starting a discussion on agriculture in this context.  Nevertheless, for the information of the Members,we would like to mention that the notifications be ing referred to by Ecuador are from the years 1999
and 2000 and must be read in the context of the meetings held and questions posed to Colombia in
May last year.  In contrast, the detailed replies given by Colombia to the Committee refer largely to
the year 2001.
I should like to close by assuring Ecuador and all Members that Colombia is committed to
this process and will continue to play a role as constructive as hitherto.
__________