WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED  
 G/SCM/M/42  
17 March 2003  
 (03-1529)  
  Committee on Subsidies  
and Countervailing Measures   
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON  
19 SEPTEMBER AND 31 OCTOBER 2002  
 
Chairman: H.E. Mr. Milan Hovorka (Czech Repu blic) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the "Committee") held a special 
meeting on 19 September and 31 October 2002.   
2. The proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated to Members in document 
WTO/AIR/1883 and Corr. 1.  The Committ ee adopted  the following agenda:  
A. CONTINUATION OF THE COMMITTEE 'S CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE 27.4  REQUESTS , 
AND RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS LISTED IN ANNEX VII (B) .......................  1 
B. APPROVAL OF QUALIFYING REQUESTS TO EXTEND THE TRANSITION PERIOD FOR 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PURSUANT TO 
G/SCM/39 – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ...............................  7 
C. OTHER BUSINESS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  16 
 
A. CONTINUATION OF THE COMMITTEE 'S CONSIDERATION OF ARTICLE 27.4  REQUESTS , AND 
RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS LISTED IN ANNEX VII (B)  
3. The Chairman  proposed t hat the Committee first take up those requests for which new 
documentation had been received since the Committee's last meeting.  After that, he stated that he 
intended to open the floor for any comments or questions in respect of requests or reservations of 
rights for which no new documentation had been received.   
4. The Committee turned first to the request of Colombia , and, in particular, to the new 
documentation received in respect of that request since the Committee's July meeting.  In addition to 
docume nt G/SCM/Q3/COL/15, which contained a request from the United States for the relevant 
legislation pertaining to the programmes covered by Colombia's request, he understood that 
Colombia's oral statement from the Committee's last meeting had been circulated  in document 
G/SCM/Q3/COL/16.  In addition, he stated that Colombia had provided the legislation requested by 
the United States, which was contained in document G/SCM/Q3/COL/17, although the English and 
French paper copy translations were not yet available .   
5. The delegate of the United States  expressed the United States' appreciation to Colombia for 
providing its legislation.  The United States had not yet had an opportunity to review the legislation 
but was most appreciative of Colombia's response.  He als o expressed the United States' appreciation 
to Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia and Thailand for the responses that they had provided to the 
United States' questions.  The United States would not have any follow -up questions for them at this 
time.  G/SCM/M/42  
Page 2 
 
 
 6. The delegat e of Peru thanked Colombia for the replies which had been supplied in answer to 
Peru's question put in document G/SCM/Q3/COL/9 and thanked Members for their interesting 
comments made in this transparency exercise.  Peru re -iterated some of the details and concerns 
concerning the request made by Colombia, concerning the extension of its export subsidies.  Peru 
hoped to be able to evaluate, in a constructive manner, with Colombia and with the other Member 
countries, the aspects still pending which were of par ticular interest and concern to Peru.  He stated 
that a detailed assessment of the implications of the request for extensions presented by Colombia was 
all the more important since that was a country which was going to be analyzed on the basis of its 
speci al situation because its level of share of trade in exports of goods was above 0.10 per cent and its 
GDP for 2000 was higher than US$20 billion.   
7. The delegate of Peru stated that the WTO Secretariat had carried out a study on the 
competitiveness of Colomb ian exports pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 27 of the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, for which Peru was grateful.  On the basis of that study, 
Peru had identified, on a preliminary basis, that there were certain products whic h had reached -- and 
in some cases, in fact, gone beyond -- the level of competitiveness of 3.25 per cent of trade as 
stipulated in the Agreement.  This determined the need for a more detailed analysis of Colombia's 
request.  In this regard, Peru would be grateful to Colombia if Colombia could provide a full list 
identifying all those products which would be covered by the export subsidy programme and for 
which Colombia was requesting an extension.  
8. He stated that Peru associated itself with the questions ra ised by Ecuador, contained in 
document G/SCM/Q3/COL/14, in requesting Colombia to clarify further whether there were 
agricultural products, as covered by the Agreement on Agriculture, which would also benefit from 
this programme.  Peru would be grateful to  Colombia if Colombia could give Peru detailed 
information with regard to these products and how the export subsidy programme was applied to these 
products for which an extension is requested.   
9. In posing these questions and making these comments, Peru wis hed to highlight the fact that 
this was a very sensitive issue, given the very close relations that Peru had with Colombia.  However, 
at the same time, Peru had to watch out for its own interests and be sure that Peru avoided any 
injurious effects on inves tment and trade which the granting of the extension might have.  Peru 
reiterated its wish to continue bilateral consultations with Colombia in order to reach a mutually 
acceptable solution.  Peru was convinced that the Government of Colombia, and the Commi ttee, 
would bear in mind these concerns, which Peru raised in a constructive spirit in the framework of the 
exercise, and the transparency, within the Committee.  Peru reserved its right to put new questions and 
ask for further clarifications.  
10. The delegate  of Ecuador  stated that he would link his intervention to the proposals that had 
been given to his delegation on 19 September.  Ecuador's comments at this stage were preliminary; 
his delegation might make additional comments under item B of the agenda.  Co ncerning the adoption 
of the extension requests submitted for consideration by the Committee, his delegation considered, as 
it had already expressed, that each request should be adopted separately because they were submitted 
separately and the consultation s had taken place separately.  With respect to the list of requests on 
which the concerns aired had already been resolved, a document had been circulated at the beginning 
of the Committee's meeting.  Ecuador had never been consulted on it.  It was essentia l to carry out a 
detailed consultation with the capital so as to be able to take a decision on the document.  He stated 
that the conversations that had taken place between the Colombian and Ecuadorian Governments only 
covered the SIEX programme.  Other pro grammes had not been covered.  He stated that, as the 
document just mentioned by Ecuador referred to the three programmes of Colombia, it was quite clear 
that there were still some issues which needed to be resolved with Colombia.   G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 3 
 
 
 11. The delegate of Bolivia  thanked the Colombian delegation for the information and the 
documentation which had been submitted by Colombia.  These documents were being closely 
analyzed.  The delegate stated that the Bolivian delegation also would be interested in knowing more 
about t he information requested by the delegate of Peru.   
12. The delegate of Colombia  thanked the United States for its questions.  Colombia also thanked 
the Secretariat because Colombia fully realized the enormous work that had gone into the publication 
of the Col ombian legislation which governed Colombia's programmes.  The delegate stated that 
Colombia had always wanted to facilitate and give support to this process, which had been a complex 
one and which had been a process that sturdily reflected the very legitim ate aspirations of a very great 
number of countries.  This was the reason why Colombia had always attempted to take part in these 
meetings and to take part in all the consultations which had taken place on this matter and Colombia 
had tried to be as constr uctive as possible.  Colombia had done this and would continue to do this.  
The delegate stressed what had been said by the delegates of Peru and Ecuador, i.e. that Colombia, 
Peru and Ecuador were carrying out intensive bilateral exchanges which would make  it possible to 
resolve some of the concerns of these countries.  Most of the questions raised by the delegate of Peru 
had already been submitted to this Committee; however Colombia would provide responses again, so 
that Peru would be able to study them.  
13. The Chairman  stated that he was touched by all the indications of readiness to intensify new 
efforts.  He encouraged all those delegations which had spoken to redouble their efforts with a view to 
a solution, which at the end of the day would be acceptable,  not only to them, but also to other 
Members of the Committee.   
14. The Committee next turned to the request of Papua New Guinea .  With regard to that request, 
since the Committee's last meeting, Papua New Guinea's replies to questions posed by Australia, the  
European Communities, Switzerland, and the United States had been circulated, in document 
G/SCM/Q3/PNG/5.   
15. The Chairman  believed that there was no representative from Papua New Guinea attending 
this Committee meeting, but he nevertheless invited delegati ons to take the floor to make any 
comments or raise any follow -up questions for the record concerning this request.  He stated that he 
had asked the Secretariat to remain in contact with the authorities in Papua New Guinea's capital, and 
to convey Members'  questions and comments to those authorities directly, to try to ensure that any 
necessary answers were provided as quickly as possible.  
16. The delegate of the European Communities  thanked Papua New Guinea for its replies and 
confirmed that the questions pos ed by the European Communities had been answered exhaustively 
and to their satisfaction.  The European Communities would not have any further follow -up questions.   
17. No other delegation made comments or raised questions with respect to this request.  
18. With r espect to the request of Saint Lucia , since the Committee's last meeting, Saint  Lucia 
had submitted replies to questions posed by the United States.  The questions can be found in 
document G/SCM/Q3/LCA/6, and the replies in G/SCM/Q3/LCA/7.  No Member comme nted or 
posed follow -up questions.  
19. With regard to the request of Thailand , the Chairman stated that, since the Committee's last 
meeting, Thailand's replies to questions posed by Ecuador and the United States had been circulated, 
in document G/SCM/Q3/THA/1 5.  The questions can be found in documents G/SCM/Q3/THA/13 and 
14.  The Chairman stated that the Secretariat and himself had received, on 18 September, a request 
jointly from Ecuador and Peru for an Article 27.6 export competitiveness calculation in respe ct of 
products benefitting from the programmes covered by Thailand's extension request.  The Secretariat G/SCM/M/42  
Page 4 
 
 
 had noted this request and had already begun the necessary work, which it would complete as soon as 
possible.   
20. The delegate of Peru thanked the Govern ment of Thailand for the answers given to the 
questions posed by Peru.  These answers had made it possible to better analyze Thailand's request.  
Peru was still substantially concerned by the timeframe of the subsidy programmes applied by 
Thailand for whic h an extension was requested.  In document G/SCM/Q3/THA/11, Thailand had said 
that the incentives for promotion of investments would have a phase -out period of up to thirteen years 
and that Thailand hoped to do away with this mechanism by the year 2013.  T herefore, Thailand had 
highlighted that, in the administration of the Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand, the modification 
of the law would be concluded over an approximate period of ten years.  The lack of definition of the 
period during which such e xport subsidy mechanisms would be applied, and the very extensive period 
that had been provided, took foreseeability away from any extension and would not be consistent with 
the period provided for in paragraph 2(b) of Article 27 of the Agreement on Subsid ies and 
Countervailing Measures.  Another concern related to the scope of products which would benefit from 
such subsidies, because this was not something that had been clarified in the answers given by 
Thailand to date.  Peru requested the Government of T hailand to give a full list of the products which 
currently benefited from the measure and which could benefit from all the mechanisms for which the 
extension had been requested.  Finally, the delegate of Peru stated that, according to para. (b) of 
paragra ph 6 of the Article 27 of the Agreement, on 18 September, Peru and Ecuador had requested -- 
through the Chairman -- that the Secretariat prepare an export competitiveness analysis of the exports 
of all Thai products implicated in these programmes so as to be able to ensure the implementation of 
paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 27 of the Agreement.  A similar study had been carried out in respect of 
Colombia's request and it had been extremely useful in allowing Members to be able to measure, in an 
objective ma nner, the levels of competitiveness of the exports and guarantee the implementation of 
the basic requirement provided in the Agreement for this type of extension.  Peru wished to express its 
will to continue taking part in this transparency exercise so as to really ensure a better understanding 
of the extension requests submitted by Thailand.  Peru would, if necessary, put further questions in the 
future.  
21. The delegate of Ecuador  thanked Thailand for the replies given to Ecuador's questions.  He 
stated that the replies had made it possible to contribute to the transparency process, and had helped 
the consultation process.  Ecuador considered it appropriate, given the current circumstances, to make 
new comments and to pose questions on the Thai request for ext ension.  According to what was stated 
in footnote 1 of its request, contained in document G/SCM/N/74/THA, and in its reply to Question 1, 
contained in page 3 of document G/SCM/Q3/THA/15, the Credit Refinancing Scheme, the Merchant 
Marine Financing programm e and the Machinery Upgrading Finance programme were "not 
considered to be export subsidies" and were "not relevant to the issue at stake".  If Thailand did not 
consider such programmes to be export subsidies, they should be excluded from the extension req uest 
made because Article 27.4 of the Agreement only covered export subsidies.  
22. The delegate of Ecuador stated that Question 3 contained in document G/SCM/Q3/THA/13 
had not been fully answered by Thailand in page 3 of document G/SCM/Q3/THA/15.  Ecuador 
thanked Thailand for its reply that the Investment Promotion Incentives, the Credit Refinancing 
Schemes and the Export Market Diversification Promotion, Machinery Upgrading Financing and the 
Industrial Estate Authority programmes  were specific to the operators  and not specific to the products.  
That was not, however, the information that had been requested by Ecuador in that question.  Ecuador 
wished to know what products benefited from the subsidy programmes.  Therefore, under Article 25.8 
of the Agreement, an d in order to ensure transparency in the consultation procedure, Ecuador asked, 
for a second time, that Thailand give a detailed list of all the products which did benefit, or could 
benefit, from all export subsidy programmes notified by Thailand in docume nts G/SCM/N/71/THA, 
G/SCM/N/74/THA and G/SCM/N/71/THA/Suppl.1.  Independently from this, Ecuador had made a 
request, along with Peru, under Article 27.6 (b) of the Agreement for the WTO Secretariat to calculate  G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 5 
 
 
 the export competitiveness of Thai products t hat enjoyed export subsidies.  In its reply to Question 3 
of Mexico contained the document G/SCM/Q3/THA/10 on the Investment Promotion Incentive 
programmes, Thailand had indicated that "some agro -industrial activities have benefited from the 
subsidy progra mme".  The delegate stated that Ecuador would be grateful if Thailand could answer 
the following questions:  First, could Thailand indicate all agro -industrial activities which benefit or 
could benefit from this programme?  Secondly, were agricultural prod ucts, as defined by the 
Agreement on Agriculture, in the export subsidy programmes for which an extension had been 
requested under the scope of Article 27.4 of the Agreement?  If this was the case, why had such 
products been included in the request for ext ension of the period?  Thirdly, would Thailand not 
consider that the extension request for its subsidy programmes could constitute a way of re -
introducing, extending the coverage, or extending export subsidies of agricultural products through 
the Agreement  on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which would not be in line with Thailand's 
obligation not to use export subsidies under the Agreement on Agriculture?  Ecuador requested that 
Thailand explain the reasons for the written answer it had given to the  question to which he had 
referred.  
23. Finally, Ecuador considered that the subsidies that were granted by Thailand under the 
Investment Promotion Incentives programme and the Industrial Estate Authority programme should 
not be extended beyond the last period  authorized in Article 27.2(b) of the Agreement.  Therefore, for 
the reasons which had been given, the extension of such programmes to ten and thirteen years, 
respectively, was in violation of Article 27.4 of the Agreement (the provision under which such a n 
extension has been requested by Thailand).  In this regard, Ecuador referred to the statement in 
paragraph 1 of page 3 of Thailand's request for an extension contained in document 
G/SCM/N/74/THA; to the replies to Questions 1 and 3 of the European Commun ities and Questions 1 
and 2 of the United States contained in document G/SCM/Q3/THA/10; and, more recently, the replies 
to the question put by Switzerland contained in document G/SCM/Q3/THA/12 and answer 3 to the 
question put by Peru contained in document G/SCM/Q3/THA/11.  
24. The Chairman  invited the delegation of Thailand to react, or provide some preliminary 
answers, to the questions raised by other delegations.  
25. The delegate of Thailand  stated that many questions had been posed to Thailand both from 
Peru and Ecuador.  
26. The Chairman  recalled to those delegations who had raised additional or follow -up questions 
during the Committee meeting the need to put them in writing.   
27. The Chairman stated that the request of Fiji had not been specifically referred to in the 
Airgram convening the meeting, as the new documentation had been received after circulation of the 
Airgram.  The Chairman stated that the United States had submitted a request for Fiji's legislation 
concerning the programmes included in Fiji's request, and  Fiji had provided some of the requested 
legislation, and had indicated that the remaining legislation was being compiled and would be 
forwarded in the near future.  The United States request was contained in document G/SCM/Q3/FJI/6 
and Fiji's legislation would be circulated in document G/SCM/Q3/FJI/7.  The Chairman noted that the 
delegation of Fiji was not represented in this meeting.   
28. The delegate of the United States  noted, for the record, that the United States was most 
appreciative of the legislation that Fiji had provided, particularly in the light of the fact that the 
United  States' request had actually not been circulated until 13 September.  The United States had 
obviously not had a chance to review the legislation that had been provided and the Un ited States 
would wait until it had all the legislation in order to determine whether or not there would be any 
follow -up questioning.  G/SCM/M/42  
Page 6 
 
 
 29. The Chairman  thanked the United States for its statement and for the efforts the authorities in 
Fiji had made to respond to the request.   
30. The final request for which new documentation had been received since the Committee's last 
meeting was that of Suriname .  This request was not listed in the Airgram as the new documentation -
- in particular replies to questions posed by A ustralia, Japan and the United States – had been received 
after the Airgram was circulated.  Suriname's replies were contained in document G/SCM/Q3/SUR/7.  
The Chairman stated that Suriname had not been able to send a representative to the Committee 
meetin g, and invited Members to comment or pose follow -up questions in respect of Suriname's 
request.  
31. The delegate of the United States  stated that the United States was most appreciative of the 
efforts made by Suriname and was particularly mindful that Surinam e did not have a delegation in 
Geneva.  The United States had had the opportunity to review the response that had been given.  
Members would note that, as the United States had stated in its written questions to Suriname, it was 
unclear whether the program mes for which extensions were being requested qualified for the special 
procedures in G/SCM/39.  It was recalled that this document stated that the extensions were only for 
certain export subsidies.  In the explanation provided in Suriname's most recent su bmission for the 
three laws under which exemptions were given – the Tariff Import Duty Laws, Investment Law and 
Raw Material Law – there was no indication that any of the exemptions were contingent on export.  In 
fact, in Suriname's January submission, it had stated that it had no export subsidies.  The United States 
also noted that, in an earlier submission, Suriname had stated that it had no export subsidy legislation.  
The delegate of the United States said that the United States was in a bit of a quanda ry in terms of 
how, or if, the Committee should deal with this request.  The United States would certainly need to 
reflect on it further, but the United States intended to provide additional questions to Suriname 
concerning this, and other, issues in writi ng in the near future.  
32. No further comments were made, or questions posed, in respect of Suriname's request.   
33. The Chairman  asked the United States to proceed with those follow -up questions.  He stated 
that he would ask the Secretariat to be in touch with t he Surinamese authorities with a view to 
clarifying the situation and responding to any follow -up questions the Committee might receive.   
34. The Chairman then asked whether any delegation wished to raise any oral follow -up questions 
in respect of any of the other Article 27.4 extension requests, or any of the reservations of rights by 
Annex VII(b) Members, that were before the Committee.  
35. The delegate of the United States  stated that his delegation did not have any other questions at 
this meeting with respect  to Article 27.4 requests.  However, with respect to the Annex VII countries, 
he recalled that the United States had requested legislation in Article 25 notifications from the 
Annex  VII countries that were seeking to reserve their rights.  The United State s had been pleased 
with the responses that had been received from some of these countries, most notably Honduras, 
which had been quite transparent and forthcoming in responding to the United States' requests.  The 
United States had not yet received certain  additional information, but the United States was also 
mindful that the Article  25 notification, in particular, was an item that should be taken up in the 
October Working Party meeting.  Rather than discussing any Annex VII items in the course of this 
meeting, the delegate of the United States stated that the Committee could deal with this item when 
the Article 25 notification, and hopefully the legislation, was received, as well in the October meeting 
of the Committee.  
36. The Chairman  thanked all delegations  for their constructive participation in the exchange of 
views, and particularly for the written questions and answers that had been exchanged.   G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 7 
 
 
 37. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
B. APPROVAL OF QUALIFYING REQUESTS TO EXTEND THE TRANSITION PERIOD FOR EXPORT 
SUBSIDIES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES PURSUANT TO G /SCM/39 – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES  
38. The Chairman  stated that the inclusion of this item had been requested by the United States 
and invited that delegation to take the flo or.  
39. The delegate of the United States  stated that it was correct that this agenda item had been 
placed on the agenda pursuant to a request by the United States.  As foreshadowed in the July meeting 
of the Committee, there had been an initiative on the par t of not only the United States, but also the 
European Communities, Canada, Japan, Australia and Switzerland (which he would refer to as 'the 
Members sponsoring these proposals' or 'the sponsors').  The intention had been to request this agenda 
item on beh alf of those six Members.  As noted by the Chairman at the outset of the meeting, four 
non-papers were available in the room.1  These documents reflected the thoughts of the sponsors with 
respect to taking a decision to extend certain export subsidy progra mmes for certain developing 
countries under the special procedures agreed at the Doha Ministerial Conference.  It was regrettable 
that these documents had not been available until the morning of the meeting.  The sponsors were not 
to be blamed for this.  T he sponsors had wanted all Members attending this meeting to have had the 
opportunity to review those documents and send them back to their capitals prior to this meeting.  Due 
to the summer break, however, the Members sponsoring these proposals had not ha d sufficient time to 
put them together.  In that sense, the sponsors understood that Members would need time to examine 
the documents and to reflect upon them and consult with their capitals before acting on the decision.  
The delegations that had put this  item on this agenda were certainly satisfied with it and were 
prepared to approve the programmes that were contained in the non -paper by using the draft decisions 
that all Members had received at the beginning of the meeting.  The sponsors, however, could  
understand the problems of other Members.  In earlier interventions, the sponsors had noted that, for 
at least a few of the programmes that were listed, other Members did have open substantive questions, 
so those decisions on those programmes would most p robably not be appropriate for adoption at this 
meeting.  However, the sponsors were heartened by the positive statements that had been expressed 
by other Members with respect to the work in which they were engaging bilaterally to resolve 
outstanding items .  Given that the draft decision documents had just been made available, other 
Members would not have instructions in any way to be able to comment on them, but preliminary 
comments and questions could be raised at this time.  It had been the intention of the delegation of the 
United States to go through the draft decisions and explain each paragraph, but the delegation 
considered that the decision itself was quite short and pretty self -evident.  Members would recognize 
that almost every word in the draft d ecisions was taken either from document G/SCM/39 or from the 
Ministerial Decision on Implementation -Related Issues and Concerns itself.  The sponsors had tried to 
be quite concise in the drafting and careful not to impose additional obligations on Members within 
the confines of this Committee's specific terms of reference.  If Members did have some preliminary 
comments regarding the draft, the sponsors certainly wished to take the opportunity to provide some 
responses to them.  The list of programmes that w as available reflected a list of programmes on which 
there was an agreement by the sponsors to have an "early harvest".  This did not mean that 
programmes that were not on the list would not be approved; the sponsors were talking here merely 
about an "earl y harvest".   
40. Individual Members that were within the group sponsoring these proposals were prepared to 
accept early harvest programmes that were not included on the list.  In order to simplify the process 
and to move forward as quickly as possible in deve loping the list of programmes, the Members 
 
1 The proposed draft decision texts submitted by the sponsors were subsequently circulated in 
document G/SCM/W/521.  G/SCM/M/42  
Page 8 
 
 
 sponsoring these proposals had followed a "greatest common dominator" approach.  Basically, the 
sponsors had put forward all programmes on which there was agreement among those Members.  If 
there were reservations  or the need for additional information with respect to certain programmes, the 
Members sponsoring these proposals had not "negotiated" amongst themselves.  Rather, the sponsors 
had just not put them forward at this time as it was felt that this was an "ea rly harvest" process, and 
not in any way a sort of determination of the end of the game.  The sponsors would come back to all 
programmes that the Members sponsoring these proposals were not successful on "early harvesting" 
and would work through them.  The  list included only those countries and programmes that, from the 
sponsors' prospective, had no remaining issues at this time.  It did not reflect whether or not remaining 
issues were outstanding with respect to other Members.  The list, while it appeared as a list of 
countries and programmes, should not be seen as an approval of a list.  The approval of the extension 
should be adopted separately and a decision clearly taken separately with respect to each of the 
programmes.  The listing of the programmes i n the non -paper form was for ease of presentation, so 
that Members would have the list in front of them.  The delegate of the United States requested that 
the list of programmes that were included in that non -paper, as put forward by the sponsors, be 
reflected in the minutes of this meeting.  This list, as clarified during the meeting, was as follows:  
LIST OF PROPOSED ARTICLE 27.4 "EARLY HARVEST" PROGRAMMES  
 
Antigua & Barbuda  
• Fiscal Incentive Act  
• Free Trade/Processing Zones  
Barbados  
• Fiscal Incentive Prog ramme  
• Export Allowance  
• Research & Development Allowance  
• International Business Incentives  
• Societies With Restricted Liability  
Belize  
• Fiscal Incentives Act  
• Export Processing Zone Act  
• Commercial Free Zone Act  
• Conditional Duty Exemptions Facility under Trea ty of Chaguaramas  
Colombia  
• Free Zone Regime  
• Special Import -Export System for Capital Goods & Spare Parts (SIEX)  
Costa Rica  
• Duty Free Zone Regime  
• Inward Processing Regime  
Dominica  
• Fiscal Incentives Programme  
Dominican Republic  
• Free Trade Zones  
El Salvador  
• Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act  
Grenada  
• Fiscal Incentives Act  
Guatemala  
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for 
Companies under Special Customs Regimes  
  G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 9 
 
 
 • Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Tax es for the 
Production Process Relating to Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones  
• Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the 
Production Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the 
Industrial and f ree Trade Zone  
Jamaica  
• Export Industry Encouragement Act  
• Jamaica Export Free Zone Act  
• Foreign Sales Corporation Act  
Jordan  
• Income Tax Law No. 57 – Exemption from Income Tax  
Mauritius  
• Export Enterprise Scheme  
• Pioneer Status Enterprise Scheme  
• Export Promoti on 
• Freeport Scheme  
Panama  
• Export Processing Zone  
• Official Industry Register  
Papua New Guinea  
• Section 45 of the Income Tax  
St. Kitts & Nevis  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 17 of 1974  
St. Lucia  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 15 of 1975  
• Free Zone Act  
St. Vincent & Gre nadines  
• Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 1982  
Uruguay  
• Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime  
41. The delegate of the United States  noted that there had been some feverish activity in terms of 
developing the list of programmes, as documentation had been surf acing and questions had been 
answered over the course of the last week.  The sponsors regretted any confusion that may have 
resulted.  At this juncture, the Members sponsoring these proposals did not expect a decision to 
actually be taken on this, although  they certainly welcomed one if it was possible. However, they 
understood the situation that all other Members of this Committee were in.  The sponsors welcomed 
preliminary comments and hoped that the Committee would be able to move on this list of 
program mes at its next meeting.  
42. The Chairman  stated that he took note of the comments made by the United States on the 
placement of item B of the agenda.  He thanked the delegations of the United States, Australia, 
Canada, the European Communities, Japan, and Swi tzerland for their proposals.  He stated that this 
was a very positive and encouraging sign that the Committee was making concrete progress in its 
work in pursuance of the decision of Ministers at Doha concerning Article 27.4 extensions.  At the 
same time,  he admitted that the proposals made available at the beginning of the Committee meeting 
were very detailed.  He could understand that delegations might not have had time to look at them and 
give them careful consideration.  He opened the floor for the dis cussion so that the Committee could 
have some preliminary reactions, both on the draft decision texts and on the list of programmes put 
forward by the sponsors.   G/SCM/M/42  
Page 10 
 
 
 43. The delegate of the European Communities  associated his delegation with the statements 
made b y the United States, which equally reflected in the European Communities' thinking on this 
point.  The European Communities also shared the view that WTO Members might need additional 
time to reflect on the proposals. The European Communities had been impr essed by the spirit of 
cooperation and constructive engagement that had been present in this exercise.  A lot of work had 
been put into this and had been done in a highly technical area.  The European Communities wished 
to acknowledge this effort on the pa rt of the proponents of Article  27.4 requests.  Many of them were 
in a situation with serious capacity constraints, so this was highly appreciated. The European 
Communities considered that the work on the list of programmes that was indicated in the room 
document was completed.  The European Communities had no further questions to ask and thought 
that their mandate on the Doha implementation decision on those programmes had been fulfilled.   
44. The delegate of Japan  stated that his delegation and the delegatio ns of the United States, 
Canada, the European Communities, Australia and Switzerland had had a substantial series of 
exchanges of information relating to the extension requests in connection with the G/SCM/39 
procedures.  He appreciated the tremendous effo rts made by Members requesting these extensions to 
describe and clarify the programmes during the review by the Committee.  He stated that, thanks to 
these efforts, and to the intense review pursued within the Committee, the degree of transparency had 
increased substantially during this period.  The sponsors had worked to come up with a list of 
programmes.  The sponsors thought that the time was right for the Committee to approve some of 
these programmes, those for which questions had been exhausted and whi ch were eligible for an 
extension under document G/SCM/39.  Japan wished to join the other Members sponsoring these 
proposals in proposing decisions to grant extensions under this procedure for the export subsidies 
contained in the list.  He extended Japan 's wish to Member countries for a positive spirit with which 
the Committee should make concrete progress wherever and whenever it was possible.  He 
encouraged other Members to reflect this positive spirit in the discussions of the Committee.  
45. The delegate o f Australia  expressed her delegation's support for the advance copy of the draft 
decisions and the "early harvest" candidate list as presented by the delegation of the United States. 
Australia saw both documents as constructive tools in the process of gran ting extensions under the 
procedures found in document G/SCM/39.  Australia wished to take this opportunity to express its 
appreciation for the efforts of the requesting countries during this process.  
46. The delegate of Switzerland  confirmed his delegation's agreement with the statement made by 
the delegate of the United States.   Switzerland associated itself to the position of the delegations of 
the United States, Japan, the European Communities and Australia.  
47. The delegate of Canada  expressed Canada's hope that this list would lead to discussion which 
would hopefully aid progress towards an "early harvest".  Although Canada understood that there 
were still questions on some of the programmes on the list, Canada was pleased to hear that there 
were continued b ilateral discussions.  Canada hoped that these discussions would be fruitful.  
48. The delegate of Ecuador  thanked the sponsors for the draft decisions and the list of "early 
harvest" programmes.  He stated that the documents received constituted an important i nitiative.  
Ecuador appreciated all the efforts made and work done by Members in order to move this process 
forward.  Ecuador understood that these were very important issues for developing countries; this was 
why Ecuador gave a great deal of importance to  this process.  This initiative was a very positive one.  
The delegate of Ecuador noted that the documents had not been available until the beginning of the 
Committee meeting.  Ecuador felt that these documents should be examined at length before Ecuador 
could take a clear decision and make constructive contributions to the draft decisions.  He stated that, 
even though some important progress had been made with regard to some requests, there were still 
some which were still open and pending.  For this reaso n, it was impossible to decide on the granting 
of the extensions in the course of this meeting.   G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 11 
 
 
 49. As stated by the delegate of the United States, Ecuador understood that some programmes 
should not have been on the list.  Ecuador was concerned that some progr ammes were not on the list, 
or that programmes were included but not taken on board by Ecuador.  For instance, Ecuador realized 
that the CERT, a Colombian programme, was not included in the request for extension because this 
programme had been repealed.  E cuador considered it appropriate that, in the future, Members would 
consider other programmes of other countries which had not initially been on this "early harvest" list.  
Ecuador made an appeal for draft decisions to be circulated before -hand so that the  delegations 
involved in the process could be more constructive and take a more active part in the debate and so 
that delegations could take an active part in this procedure.  
50. The delegate of Malaysia  thanked the sponsors for this very constructive move in the 
direction of what had been agreed in Doha, which Malaysia appreciated.  He had some questions to 
the sponsors.  First, did the proposals cover all of the Members that qualified for extensions under the 
Doha Decision or just some of them? Secondly, were  the programmes for which extension was 
requested by any given country listed in the non -paper or were only those programmes which, in the 
view of the sponsors, should be granted the extension listed?  For instance, in the case of Antigua and 
Barbuda, two programmes were listed in the non -paper.  Were these all the programmes for which 
Antigua and Barbuda had requested an extension?  Or, were there other programmes for which 
Antigua and Barbuda had requested an extension, but which, in the view of the spons ors, did not 
qualify for an extension?  He stated that Malaysia would appreciate it if the sponsors could inform his 
delegation of the basis on which they had selected the programmes that were contained in the non -
paper.  Thirdly, what would happen with th e other Members that had also requested an extension? 
Was there any chance for their requests to be considered?  If so, when? Malaysia also wished very 
much to see all Members that applied for an extension to be given an equal chance and similar 
treatment in the WTO.  
51. Finally, the delegate of Malaysia stated that his delegation welcomed the approval of the 
requests for an extension, a position which Malaysia already expressed in the run up to Doha.  He 
stated that the granting of the extensions should, howev er, not have the effect of creating a new sub -
category of WTO Members.  In addition, Malaysia reiterated that it should not set a precedent in other 
WTO fora.  
52. The delegate of the Dominican Republic  thanked the sponsors for their efforts in order to 
make pr ogress on this issue.  The granting of the requested extension was of vital importance for the 
Dominican Republic.  Her delegation had just been given the draft submitted by the delegation of the 
United States and wished to thank the United States for its draft decision because it was a positive 
contribution to move this process forward.  In a preliminary fashion, her delegation thought that the 
draft was correct overall.  She was concerned, however, by the sentence in paragraph 8, a paragraph 
which started  "hereby grants an extension...", where it indicated that the extension would be granted 
"until December 31, 2003, for the elimination of those export subsidies…".  Even if it was true that 
the Agreement foresaw the elimination of those subsidies, it was a lso true that, according to the 
procedures laid down in document G/SCM/39, the Dominican Republic had until 2007 to do so.  
Furthermore, paragraph 1 of document G/SCM/39 repeated the right under Article 27.4 to request that 
the extension be pursued for the  programmes in question.  The Dominican Republic hoped that 
Members of the Committee would take on board this concern so that this decision could be approved 
as soon as possible.  
53. The delegate of El Salvador  thanked the delegations of the United States, Jap an, the European 
Communities, Canada, Australia and Switzerland for submitting a draft decision and a list of "early 
harvest" programmes according to the mechanism approved in Doha.  On a preliminary basis, he 
stated that El Salvador thought that this draf t was acceptable.  El Salvador was aware of its 
obligations under Article 27.4 and of the procedure adopted in Doha.  This was why, like the 
Dominican Republic, the delegation of El Salvador was concerned with the sentence "for the G/SCM/M/42  
Page 12 
 
 
 elimination of those exp ort subsidies" in the first paragraph of the substantive part of the draft 
decision.  El Salvador wished to have greater clarity on the scope of such a sentence, as the document 
G/SCM/39 adopted in Doha established the right to an extension until 2007.  
54. The delegate of Panama  thanked the delegations of the United States, Japan, the European 
Communities, Canada, Australia and Switzerland for submitting the draft documents.  Panama had 
not had sufficient time to consult on these draft documents with its capita l.   The delegation wished to 
reserve the right to come back to these draft decisions at the next Committee meeting.  In principle, 
Panama shared the position expressed by the Dominican Republic with reference to document 
G/SCM/39.  It was quite obvious th at the consideration as far as the period adopted should also be 
taken up in these draft decisions.  
55. The delegate of Uruguay  stated that he had two comments to make in this meeting and one 
question to pose.  Firstly, his delegation wished to thank the dele gations of the United States, the 
European Communities, Japan, Australia, Canada and Switzerland for the work they had put into 
drafting these draft decisions.  He also thanked them for the support given to the request by Uruguay 
amongst the other requests  made.  Uruguay, as one of the Members which had submitted a request for 
an extension of the transition period, hoped that its request would be approved as soon as possible.  
Uruguay asked how the Chairman intended to proceed on this issue.  Uruguay though t that it was 
important that Members had a clear picture of what the next stage would be in this procedure.   
56. The Chairman  thanked the delegation of Uruguay and stated that he would come back to that 
question at a later stage.   
57. The delegate of Mauritius  thanked the United States and other delegations for putting forward 
these draft decisions.  Like the Dominican Republic, Mauritius also wished to seek clarification from 
the United States on the sentence concerning the elimination of those export subsidies mentioned in 
paragraph 8 of the draft decision.  
58. The delegate of Jordan  stated that his delegation was very much appreciative for the efforts of 
the United States, Australia, the European Communities, Japan, Canada and Switzerland for putting 
the draft docu ments in front of the Committee.  He stated that these programmes were very important 
for the development of the Members that requested those extensions.  Jordan had just received the 
draft decisions and wanted clarification of paragraph 8 on the eliminati on of export subsidies 
programmes.  
59. The delegate of Brazil  thanked the drafters of the draft text.  Brazil believed that this was a 
very positive move.  His delegation would send the document to its capital in order to examine the 
language, especially in li ght of some of the issues that had been raised in the course of the debate, i.e. 
the apparent inclusion of agricultural products in some of the programmes for which extensions were 
being requested.  In any case, like Malaysia, Brazil wished to reiterate th e Brazilian position that the 
Committee could not create a new category of Members within the WTO and, therefore, the list of 
countries that would benefit from the decision should not be used as a precedent for future cases.  
60. The delegate of Costa Rica  thanked the delegation of the United States and the other 
delegations for the proposals submitted.  Costa Rica considered that this was a very valuable 
development and helped Members to move forward with  this process through the "early harvest" of 
these progr ammes.  The delegate thought that delegations needed some time to be able to examine the 
document back in their capitals and that some delegations would have consultations in the near future 
to try and solve some pending issues.  His delegation believed th at, at the next Committee meeting, 
Members would be able to adopt these draft decisions.  On the comments by some delegations 
relating to paragraph 8 of the draft decision where mention of 31 December 2003 was made, Costa 
Rica understood that it was writte n in that way because paragraph 1 of document G/SCM/39 said that  G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 13 
 
 
 an "extension will be granted for 2003 for those programmes notified pursuant to these procedures" 
upon fulfilment of some requirements.  The delegate of Costa Rica said that, in order to mak e 
paragraph 8 clearer, the contents of paragraph 1(e) of document G/SCM/39 could be mentioned.  
61. The delegate of Colombia  thanked the United States, the European Communities, Japan, 
Australia, Canada and Switzerland -- who had submitted this draft decision -- for all the work they 
had done, and, of course, for the very precious contribution to this process which was of great 
importance for developing countries.  Given that Colombia's delegation had obtained the documents 
at the beginning of the meeting and th e importance of the subject, Colombia considered it important to 
have sufficient time so as to be able to carry out consultations and to discuss the text with capital.  
Colombia also considered it necessary to have sufficient time to carry out some bilater al processes 
which would enable Colombia to be more enlightened on the position of all countries on the subject.  
62. Given that Colombia attributed a lot of importance to this procedure, which aimed at 
achieving an "early harvest", and that Colombia wished to contribute in a positive manner to the 
process, Colombia was in the Chairman's hands as far as the way the Committee would move forward 
was concerned.  Colombia was convinced that, under the Chairman's leadership, the Committee 
would be able to take on boa rd the interests of all delegations and that the Committee would be able to 
maintain the momentum for the early adoption of decisions on this issue.  As a first preliminary 
reaction, Colombia wished to highlight the last paragraphs of the draft decision be cause they clarified 
that obligations of a country under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, or 
under any other WTO Agreement, were not to be affected as a result of this decision.  Colombia 
believed that issues such as those raised by Brazil or other delegations should be reflected in the 
decision so that all delegations were clear on the scope of such a decision and were clear on the 
obligations of all Members.  
63. The delegate of Thailand  stated that the documents presented by the sponso rs were very 
important and that more time was needed to consult with the capital.  Regarding the list proposed by 
the sponsors, he associated his delegation with the statement made by the Malaysian and Brazilian 
delegations.  
64. The delegate of New Zealand  expressed his delegation's appreciation to those Members that 
had provided the information necessary to begin to make decisions on programmes eligible for 
extension to the transition period.  His delegation agreed that it was time to start to consider approvi ng 
qualifying programmes.  His delegation's first impression of the decision and the list of programmes 
that had been circulated at the beginning of this Committee meeting was that they provided a very 
good basis to start to make decisions in this area as soon as possible.  
65. The delegate of the United States  expressed the US' appreciation for the statements and 
preliminary comments that the United States knew had to have been composed on -the-spot by 
Members.  He stated that he had been remiss in his initial statement not to express his delegation's 
appreciation to all the proponents, and to the delegations that had requested the extensions, for the 
extensive amount of work that had been done in order to arrive at this stage.  However, he thought 
that the Unit ed States had made statements to that effect for the record in the past.  He said that he 
would try to give some responses to the preliminary questions that had been raised, but was mindful 
that these answers were preliminary in nature.  
66. The delegate of the  United States stated that the questions had come in two groups.  The first 
were questions posed by the delegate of Malaysia, and also raised by some of the other delegations, 
with respect to something along the lines of selection criteria that the sponsor s had used and what this 
meant for other programmes.  He had tried to make it clear in his opening statement that this was just 
an "early harvest" process;  decisions that were taken in this meeting were not the end of the line.  The 
sponsors were continui ng to work on the remaining programmes.  The programmes that the sponsors G/SCM/M/42  
Page 14 
 
 
 had put forward in the document presented at the beginning of the Committee meeting merely 
reflected those in respect of which the sponsors were already satisfied with the informatio n that had 
been provided, and with respect to which the sponsors had no intention to provide any further 
questions.  The programmes were limited solely to requests made pursuant to either paragraph 10.6 of 
the Decision on Implementation, or to the mechanis m under document G/SCM/39.  For example, the 
delegate of Malaysia had referred to a request from Antigua and Barbuda.  In fact, the list of 
programmes ready for an "early harvest" included the two programmes for which Antigua and 
Barbuda had requested an e xtension.  In the case of Barbados, however, the delegate of the 
United  States noted that extension requests for some programmes had been made under document 
G/SCM/39, while others came under the Article  27.4 procedure.  The only real "early harvest" items  
were just those requests that were under G/SCM/39 or the Implementation Decision itself.  So, 
basically, these other programmes were not set aside, but this would perhaps explain why some 
programmes were in and some were not.  The delegate of Malaysia had  asked if these programmes 
reflected the entire range of programmes.  The answer again was "no".  The sponsors were continuing 
to work on all that had been requested.  The sponsors had until the end of the year to complete their 
work.  
67. With regard to the qu estion about what would happen with the remaining Members, the 
delegate of the United States stated that the sponsors were covering all the 27.4 requests.  The 
distinction to which the delegate of Malaysia had alluded with respect to Members that had appli ed 
basically represented the manner in which they had applied for the extension.  The documents 
presented at the beginning of the Committee meeting dealt with the requests for extension requested 
by Members under the scope of the document G/SCM/39 and the Implementation Decision.  That is, 
Members whose share of world merchandise export trade was not greater than 0.1  per cent and whose 
total GNP for the year 2000 as published by the World Bank was at or below $20,000, or else 
otherwise satisfying the decisi on in the Implementation text.  It was the obligation of the Committee, 
and it was within its terms of reference, to deal with the requests for extension of other Members.  
However, the delegate of the United States stated that the sponsors were not prepar ed, at this point, to 
include them in a list for "early harvest".  
68. Several delegations had raised questions regarding the paragraph relating to the period of the 
extension for the transition period.  The delegate of the United States  stated that, in his int ervention, 
the delegate of Costa Rica had probably hit upon the reason that this particular paragraph had been 
drafted as it was.  The delegate of the United States recalled that paragraph 1(c) of the G/SCM/39 
document directed the Committee to grant exten sions for the calendar year 2003 before the end of this 
year.  The sponsors had drafted the documents presented at the beginning of the meeting to respond to 
the mandate that had been given to the Committee pursuant to this document.  This did not in any w ay 
mean that the mechanism for future extensions would not take the form provided elsewhere in the 
G/SCM/39 document, such as in paragraphs 1(d) and 1(e).  That was not a decision to be taken this 
year, but rather that defined the mechanism that the Commit tee would use to take the decisions in 
subsequent years along the same lines.  Perhaps, reference could be made to those extension 
provisions elsewhere within the decision, something which went along the lines of what the delegate 
of Panama could perhaps h ave been suggesting.  
69. Responding to the item raised by the delegate of Brazil, the delegate of the United States  
stated that he thought that the delegate of Colombia had basically hit upon the point.  The 
United  States understood that there could be other W TO Agreements that could be involved with 
respect to certain export subsidy programmes.  He stated that the sponsors were not aware that it was 
within the competence of the Committee necessarily to act upon them.  Moreover, he stated that the 
sponsors woul d not, in any way, want to upset the balance of legal rights and obligations that could be 
involved under those other Agreements.  This was precisely why the sponsors believed that the final 
sentence of the draft addressed exactly that point.   G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 15 
 
 
 70. The delegate of the United States stated that he hoped he had given a response to all of the 
questions raised and welcomed the opportunity to speak to them.  
71. The Chairman  thanked the delegate of the United States for these replies, which were 
extremely useful in terms of better understanding the rationale for the proposal and the list of 
programmes put forward by the sponsors.   
72. The delegate of El Salvador  stated that he was grateful for the comments and explanations 
given by the representative of the United States.  He  said that perhaps he had not been clear in his first 
statement.  El Salvador and the Dominican Republic were aware of the fact that the extension was for 
one year, until 2003.  El Salvador and the Dominican Republic had doubts about what the draft 
decisio n said about the programmes that would be eliminated.  The confusion was that the 
requirement was drawn from G/SCM/39 for the purposes of standstill and transparency, but did not 
refer to the elimination of the subsidy programmes.  
73. The delegate of Ecuador  wished to give his delegation's firm support for the statement made 
by Malaysia, which was supported by Brazil, Thailand and other delegations, to the effect that it was 
essential that the draft decision or decisions include a paragraph along the lines outl ined by those 
delegations.  This was something included in decisions when they were drafted and Ecuador thought 
that, over and above what was said in the last two paragraphs of both decisions before the Committee, 
it was essential to make it quite clear th at these decisions did not set a precedent nor create a separate 
category, or a special category, of countries on the basis of which certain rights might be claimed.  
This was not the actual drafting that Ecuador was suggesting.  However, Ecuador reiterate d its firm 
support for those delegations that had flagged this particular aspect.  
74. The delegate of Chile  stated that the questions and answers by different Members, as well as 
the proposals for the "early harvest" programme, constituted a very positive con tribution.  Chile 
would send the draft decisions to the authorities in the capital in order to analyze how Chile could also 
include the elements raised, for example, by Brazil.  This was a point that Chile had also raised in the 
course of the process, i.e.  that no new categories of Members should be created.  Chile would also 
examine certain other elements which were contained in the G/SCM/39 document and which were not 
reflected in the draft decisions.  Chile would be coming back for further comments on th is issue.  
75. The delegate of Turkey  stated that her delegation agreed with Malaysia and Brazil and others 
that this decision did not create any new categories among developing countries.  
76. The Chairman  stated that the Committee had had an extremely useful exc hange of views on 
the proposal made by the sponsors, and that it was his belief that those exchanges went a considerable 
way towards clarifying and better understanding the draft decisions and the list of programmes put 
forward by Australia, Canada, the Eu ropean Communities, Japan, Switzerland and the United States.  
At the same time, those exchanges testified to the seriousness all Members of the Committee attach to 
the process of examination of all Article  27.4 requests and reservations of rights.  
77. The Cha irman stated that he clearly detected that there was good will to consider the proposal 
made by the sponsors with a view to finding a satisfactory solution in terms of applicable procedures.  
Many, if not all,  of those who had spoken appreciated the initi ative taken by the sponsors.  Some 
Members had given support in principle for the proposal but, at the same time, had indicated that they 
would need more time to review both the text and the list that followed.  Many delegations had raised 
specific questio ns and concerns and had made suggestions on the text proposed by the United States 
on behalf of the sponsors.  He thought that the Committee was moving in the right direction.  He 
believed that the discussion was evidence that the procedures, to which Memb ers had agreed, had 
been working extremely well.  The Committee had made great progress, but it was obvious at the 
same time that much remained to be done.  With respect to the question posed by one delegation on G/SCM/M/42  
Page 16 
 
 
 how to proceed further, his sense of the di scussion was that Members had created a momentum and 
that Members had to keep that momentum and build on all those achievements that had been attained.  
The Chairman refrained from commenting on specific concerns raised by certain delegations.  He 
stated t hat the Committee would have the opportunity to deal with those comments once Members 
were engaged in consultations.  The same applied to those specific concerns regarding the creation of 
a new category in the WTO.  He reminded delegations of a specific pr ovision which was contained in 
document G/SCM/39, paragraph 7(c), according to which:   
"The criteria set forth in these procedures are solely and strictly for the purpose of 
determining whether Members are eligible to invoke these procedures.  Members of 
the Committee agree that these criteria have no precedential value or relevance, direct 
or indirect, for any other purpose."    
78. The Chairman suggested not to bring this meeting to an end, but to simply suspend it. The 
Chairman would conduct some further co nsultations on how to proceed.  In these consultations, he 
would scrupulously take care of the interests of all Members of the Committee.  The Chairman 
suggested that Members suspend on this agenda item and that the Committee come back as soon as 
possible and when circumstances warranted the resumption.  In the meantime, the Chairman would 
conduct consultations with all Members in various formats with a view to finding a solution which 
was acceptable to all.  
79. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  The Committee was suspended  on this 
specific item.  
80. At the Committee's special meeting of 31 October 2002, the Chairman recalled that the 
Committee meeting of 19 September had been suspended on item 2(b).  The Chairman recalled that 
this item dealt with t he proposal by certain delegations for approval of qualifying requests to extend 
the transition period for export subsidies provided by certain developing countries provided to the 
"fast track" procedures in document G/SCM/39.  He stated that his intention  at the time was to 
reconvene that meeting as soon as possible in respect of the proposal, after informal consultations to 
try to resolve the issues identified in the discussion.  He stated that, although he had been holding 
extensive informal consultation s since then concerning the Article 27.4 process, and although in those 
consultations considerable progress had been made, he had not been able to reconvene the 
19 September meeting.  He stated that under item 2(c)(ii) of the agenda for the special meeting  of 
31 October 2002, the Committee would, in any case, revert to the 19 September proposal.  Given this, 
the Chairman stated that the most appropriate way to proceed was simply to formally close the 
19 September meeting, before opening the Committee's spec ial meeting of 31 October 2002.  
81. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Subsidy notification seminar – Statement by the Chairman  
82. The Chairman  recalled that the subsidies notification seminar was sch eduled to take place on 
29 and 30 October 2002, just prior to the regular fall meeting of the Committee.  The Chairman 
informed Members that logistical and substantive preparations for the seminar were progressing well, 
and that Members were heading for a constructive, frank and open exchange of ideas concerning 
subsidies notifications among capital -based officials from Members and Observers.  As Members 
knew, all Members and Observers were encouraged to participate in the seminar.  He stated that there 
were approximately 50 confirmed funded participants.  He wished to encourage all Members that had 
indicated a desire to receive funding to ensure that they had confirmed with the WTO Technical 
Cooperation Division the relevant capital -based official that woul d be attending the seminar.  In  G/SCM/M/42  
 Page 17 
 
 
 addition, he asked all other Members and Observers who were intending to send a capital -based 
official to the seminar to kindly inform the Secretary of the Committee of the name of the capital -
based official that would atten d.  This would aid in the smooth organization of the seminar.  In any 
event, Members would be receiving shortly more specific information concerning the scheduling and 
content of the substantive sessions of the seminar.   
83. The Committee took note  of the Cha irman's statement.  
84. The meeting was adjourned .   
__________