RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/504
20 March 2002
(02-1438)
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 Switzerland
The following communication, dated 19 March 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Switzerland.
_______________
B. Q UESTIONS 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
Switzerland does not face major constraints in submitting the notification.  Main challenge in
preparing the notification relates to the co-ordination of all government offices involved.  The offices
responsible for the subsidy programmes’ notified bear the responsibility for the contents of the
notification, i.e. they will have to respond to the questions any members subsequently submits.  This
approach ensures their active participation.  The WTO division has the overall responsibility for
submitting the notification in a correct format and on time; it will assist the offices concerned whenencountering difficulties of a technical nature.
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
No.
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?G/SCM/W/504
Page 2
Reply
Switzerland remains open to discuss any suggestion that may facilitate the submission of the
requested notification as long as the transparency requirements of Art. 25 SCM are fulfilled.
Furthermore, we would welcome any efforts in avoiding duplication in the notifications, which have
to be submitted to different WTO bodies (subsidy and agriculture committee in this case).
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 making
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
No. Regarding additional explanations in the questionnaire Switzerland remains open to any
suggestion.  Maybe some references to explanations found elsewhere (WTO website etc.) are
sufficient in order to help the persons responsible.  This would prevent overloading the questionnairewith too much text.
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 yourgovernment 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
No.
Q.6 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
Switzerland finds it helpful to have a single format when searching for specific information in
the notification of an other member.  If changes are ma de to the format it should be applicable to all
notifications submitted.  This said, we remain open to any changes improving the format of the
questionnaire as long as they continue to comprehensively reflect the substantive elements.
Q.7 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 webG/SCM/W/504
Page 3
sites for completed notification questionnaires?  Would references to web sites be a useful
supplement to substantive information provided in a notification?
Reply
Website references are certainly useful as an additional information tool but, in the opinion of
Switzerland, not sufficient for fulfilling solely the notification requirements.
Q.8 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?
Q.9 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)?
Replies
No, general rule 6 does not pose specific problems to Switzerland.
Q.10 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 berequired for subsidies provided on a horizontal basis, which product- or sector-specific
subsidies would continue to need to be notified on that basis.)
Reply
Switzerland provides a programme-based notification where the subsidy is horizontal in
nature.  We would be ready to explore any such possibility mentioned in this question.
Q.11 Would such a redrafting pose problems for the review of subsidy notifications, and if so,
what would those problems be?
Reply
Switzerland feels that to the extent this product- or sector-specific information is gathered it
should be made available. In our reading general rule 6 provides enough flexibility as it is.
Q.12 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
It does generally not delay the presentation of the subsidy notification, although it is
considered to be the most demanding part of the notification.
Q.13 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?G/SCM/W/504
Page 4
Reply
Same reply as above.
Q.14 How important is this statistical information about other Members’ subsidies to your
government when reviewing subsidy notificati ons?  Could these reporting requirements be
made less stringent in some manner?  If so, how?
Reply
The statistical information is considered by Switzerland to be an essential element of any
notification reviewed.  If a Member faces difficulties in providing this statistical information it should
make a best effort, as described with “to the extent possible” in the chapeau of no. 9 of G/SCM/6.
Q.15 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
No.
Q.16. 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?
--
Q.17 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
No, it does not pose difficulties.
Q.18 Does the requirement to furnish an explanation where a particular element of
information cannot be provided pose particular difficulties to your government in preparing its
notifications?  If so, is there a way to simplify this requirement while preserving its substantive
content?
Reply
No.  In the opinion of Switzerland, it is only adequate that an explanation should be given if a
particular information can not be provided.
Q.19 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 its
substantive content?G/SCM/W/504
Page 5
Reply
The problem lies in the notification of programmes, which are horizontal in nature. However,
item 7 allows for notifying the total amount of the subsidy and grants therefore a sufficient degree of
flexibility.
C. QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SUBSIDY NOTIFICATION SEMINAR
Q.1 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?  If
more than one, please describe the differen ces in these individuals ’ responsibilities.
Reply
One person has on a part-time basis the overall responsibility.
Q.2 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
One person would probably be sufficient.  However, no decision has so far been taken in this
respect.
Q.3 Would two days be a sufficient/appropriate length for the seminar?  If not, what would
be more appropriate?
Reply
Switzerland feels that two-day woul d be sufficient, as long as it is organized back to back to
the committee’s regular fall meeting.  This will enable capital based persons to profit from both, theseminar and the regular meeting.
Q.4 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
Switzerland supports the proposed schedule.
Q.5 Does your government normally send capital-based representatives to the Committee’s
regular meetings?  If not, why not?G/SCM/W/504
Page 6
Reply
Yes.
Q.6 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 priorityevent 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?
Reply
Switzerland sees the participation of representatives from those members facing difficulties in
submitting the notifications as primordial.
Q.7 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 objectivecriteria for eligibility for financial sponsorship could be developed that might be more
appropriate?
Reply
This criterion would be acceptable for Switzerland.
Q.8 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.)?
--
Q.9 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
As it seems that the seminar will be financed out of the Doha Trust Fund the question is not
relevant anymore.
Q.10 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?G/SCM/W/504
Page 7
Reply
Switzerland could go along proposition (ii).
__________