RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/M/40
14 March 2003
(03-1512)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
HELD ON 17 JUNE 2002
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Milan Hovorka (Czech Republic)
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the "Committee") held a special
meeting on 17 June 2002.
2. The purpose of the special meeting, as set forth in WTO/AIR/1832, was to discuss any
additional documentation, including written questions and answers, received since the Committee'sspecial meeting of 30 April – 1 May 2002 relating to the Article 27.4 requests and reservations of
rights of certain Members listed in Annex VII(b), as well as the subsidies notification seminar planned
for November 2002.  The Committee adopted the agenda as set forth in the Airgram convening the
meeting.
3. The Chairman proposed to start this session by taking up the additional documentation that
had been received since the Committee's April-May meeting in respect of the requests and
reservations of rights in respect of extensions under Article 27.4.  In particular, a number of new
written questions had been submitted, and written answers had been provided, in respect of a number
of these questions.  While most of the new questions were submitted after the deadline that had been
set, he was pleased to note that a number of the delegations receiving questions had submitted written
answers before this meeting.  Copies of all of the new question and answer documents received before
the opening of this session had been made available. He wished to remind Members of the importanceof submitting questions in accordance with the dead lines that had been set, so as to allow the
Members receiving the questions time to prepare and circulate their answers before meetings.   For
delegations that had received questions, but had not yet provided written answers, he would be
inviting them to take the floor to provide oral answers.  Of course, written answers should be
submitted as soon as possible after the meeting.  Moving to consideration of the requests andreservations of rights, he proposed to base the Committee's discussion, in the first instance, on the
new documentation received, in the order indicated in the Airgram.
I. ARTICLE 27.4 REQUESTS AND RESERVATIONS OF RIGHTS AS MEMBERS
LISTED IN ANNEX VII(B)
A. A
RTICLE 27.4 REQUESTS ON WHICH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED
SINCE THE APRIL-MAY 2002 SPECIAL MEETING
4. The first Article 27.4 request for discussion at this meeting was that of Antigua and Barbuda.
The requests and related documentation could be found in G/SCM/N/74/ATG and
G/SCM/N/71/ATG.  This request had been made on the basis of the special procedures agreed by
Ministers at Doha in document G/SCM/39.  Since the Committee's last meeting, the EuropeanCommunities and the United States had posed follow-up questions, to be found in G/SCM/Q3/ATG/6
and /7, respectively, and Antigua and Barbuda's responses can be found in G/SCM/Q3/ATG/8.  As theG/SCM/M/40
Page 2
delegation of Antigua and Barbuda was not represented at the meeting, the Chairman indicated his
intention to revert to this request at the next m eeting and to contact that delegation in the interim to
clarify the situation.
5. Concerning the request of Barbados, the Chairman recalled that this request had been made on
the basis of the special procedures in document G/SCM/39.  Since the Committee's last meeting, the
United States had posed follow-up questions, found in document G/SCM/Q3/BRB/7.  Barbados had
submitted written answers, in document G/SCM/Q3/BRB/8, a document that also contained written
replies to the questions previously posed by Australia, Japan, the European Communities and
Switzerland.  In respect of the US question as to  whether Barbados could provide the implementing
legislation and any relevant amendments for each of the programmes for which it was requesting an
extension, the delegate of Barbados stated that the relevant legislation had been submitted to the WTO
Secretariat on 6 November 2001 in the context of Barbados's trade policy review.
6. The delegate of the United States indicated his delegation's appreciation of this response.  One
of the questions his delegation had with respect to the legislation was their ability within this
Committee to be able to trace back the legislation provided to a WTO notification that would be
available on a transparent basis within this Committee.  He therefore requested Barbados to resend
that notification to this Committee, and to make a notation that the legislation had not changed.
7. The European Communities asked, as an oral follow-up question to Barbados' reply to
question 5 posed by the United States, whether Barbados could indicate the currency in which the
figures were given.  The delegate of Barbados stated that she would seek clarification on this point.
8. On the request of Belize, the Chairman noted that the request had been made pursuant to the
special procedures in document G/SCM/39.  Since the last meeting, the United States had submitted
written follow-up questions, in document G/SCM/Q3/BLZ/7.  Written answers to these questions, as
well as supplementary responses to questions previously posed, can be found in document
G/SCM/Q3/BLZ/8.  No oral questions or comments were raised in respect of this request.
9. The next request for consideration was that of Colombia, which was based on the language of
paragraph 10.6 of the Ministerial Decision on Implementation in respect of two programmes, and
based on Article 27.4 alone in respect of one programme for which Colombia was seeking an
extension.  Since the Committee's last meeting, Ecuador had submitted written questions and
comments, in document G/SCM/Q3/COL/12, and Colombia had submitted written answers, which
were contained in doc ument G/SCM/Q3/COL/13.
10. The representative of Ecuador wished to thank Colombia for its replies to Ecuador's
questions.  The replies facilitated transparency and enabled him to be in a position to make comments
on them.  His delegation believed that it was essential to spell out some points regarding theColombian replies, especially regarding Colombia's interpretation of the Doha mandate.  The
Implementation mandate of Doha explicitly referred to the special situation of certain developing
countries following the procedures contained in document G/SCM/39.  This document, when
describing the rights to extension, lay down the requirements to be fulfilled by countries asking for an
extension.  Their share of world merchandise export trade should not be over 0.10 per cent and theirGDP should be less than $20 billion.  Colombia had not met this requirement in document G/SCM/39,
and had not properly interpreted paragraph 10.6 of the Doha mandate.  Colombia could not be
considered to be at the same stage of development as countries entitled to request an extension:  its
GDP was four times too large and its export trade far exceeded that of other countries which had duly
requested an extension.  It was the responsibility of this Committee to ensure these prerequisites forimplementation were met.  Otherwise, serious injury  would be caused to the trade of small developing
countries, like Ecuador, which also met these requirements, but which did not have this type of
programme.  Consequently, it was absolutely clear that the Doha mandate should take this matter caseG/SCM/M/40
Page 3
by case, country by country, individually and separately, so that only those countries which met the
requirements agreed by Members could benefit from an extension.
11. He also wished to indicate that Colombia's replies were not satisfactory and that the
Committee would be signing a blank cheque if it allowed extensions when there was no clear
specification as to the products that would benefit from them.  The document containing the replies byColombia to Australia (G/SCM/Q3/COL/7, of 11 March 2002) indicated that the Free -Zone
programme included food.  Colombia's replies to  Japan spoke of the SIEX programme as also
including food products.  Ecuador was concerned namely that agro-industrial products were being
included.  Such products should not be covered by the SCM Agreement, but rather by the Agreement
on Agriculture.  For these reasons, Ecuador cons idered that Colombia did not meet the basic
requirements so as to allow Ecuador to give an extension for Colombia's SIEX programme.  This was
a country with which Ecuador had excellent relations and old bonds, but the countries were alsolinked by the Andean Pact.  In the WTO, Ecuado r wanted multilateral agreements to be complied
with, so as to give predictability to fair internatio nal trade; not to do so, especially in this case, would
cause injury because Ecuador would lose opportunities for investment and external trade.  Colombian
subsidies would have a devastating effect on Ecuador's domestic trade.
12. Ecuador would also comment in due course on Colombia's request in respect of its transport
compensation mechanism, under Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement.  Ecuador was analyzing the
competitiveness calculation it had requested from the Secretariat.  Nevertheless, the delegate wished
to make it clear that Colombia had mentioned a whole list of such products whereas reply number 6 of
Colombia's responses to Canada (in document G/SCM/Q3/COL/8 of 12 March 2002) reaffirmed that
non-traditional industrial and agricultural exports (other than coffee, petroleum and emeralds) wereeligible to be covered.   Although Colombia had said that they were giving a list of "industrial
products", Annex 2 of G/SCM/Q3/COL/13 (to which the reply referred) also included agricultural
products.  It was clear that this issue still had to be analyzed further in depth and Ecuador's intention
was to continue in a constructive manner with this exercise of transparency in order to get as much
information as possible.  Ecuador would therefore pose further questions.
13. The delegate of Peru wished first to thank the delegation of Colombia for having responded to
Peru's questions.  This exercise in transparency was rather productive in the sense, for example, of
finding out about the questions and responses of other trade partners.  Peru wished to reserve the right
to pose some questions relating to issues that the Ambassador of Ecuador had mentioned.  Peru was
worried about the inclusion of agricultural products in this extension requested by Colombia and
wished to revert to these matters at later meet ings once the delegation received instructions from
capital.
14. The representative of Bolivia, like the delegation of Peru, wished to express gratitude for the
information given by Colombia as well as the questions and responses which ensued.  This matter was
being closely followed in capital and Bolivia reserved  the right to revert to this with more precise
instructions.
15. The representative of Colombia wished to thank the Andean delegations that had intervened.
It appeared that their regional communications were more difficult and further behind than some of
the communications they had in Geneva.  Furthermore, Colombia had very good relations with its
neighbours.
16. The fact was that Colombia had made numerous submissions in terms of its notification, as
well as its replies to all the questions posed to it, and Colombia wanted to be absolutely transparent.
His delegation was somewhat concerned with what Colombia saw as the somewhat legalistic
approach of Ecuador that there were some alleged inconsistencies in Colombia's replies.  If that
delegation had come to Colombia and actually asked Colombia about this, Colombia would probablyG/SCM/M/40
Page 4
have been able to meet his concerns in a satisfactory manner.  Colombia had been transparent, and
had tried to collaborate as much as possible with all delegations and to answer all the questions put by
all the delegations.
17. Concerning the Transport Compensation Mechanism, the question of which products were
being granted this compensation was distinct from the question of which products could benefit fromthe programme.  Colombia wished to make it clear that, in Annex 2 of G/SCM/Q3/COL/13, it had
indicated all of the products which had benefited in 2001 from this mechanism.  Colombia had been
transparent enough to say that, in theory, any other product, if it so required, could benefit from this
mechanism.  So, there was no inconsistency, nor was it reasonable to suggest that there was such
inconsistency and to express it in these terms.
18. In addition, Colombia was not asking for any blank cheque.  Colombia was asking for an
extension for its programmes under conditions to be laid down by this house and under the sameconditions that were laid down for other countries requesting this extension.  All that Colombia was
doing was notifying what programmes it had, as other countries had done, and saying that, according
to the decision made by the Ministers in Doha regarding the possibility of extensions for export
subsidies, Colombia considered that its programmes f it the criteria laid down.  Specifically, in terms
of the Vallejo Plan and the issue of extensions for Free-Zone taxes, Colombia thought they fulfilledthe criteria under Article 27.4 and the Implementation Decision, and Colombia was just asking for
their extension.  Colombia was not asking for any sort of blank cheque.  He thought this was a term
which was not appropriate at this moment.
19. Furthermore, Colombia had emphasized the need to distinguish between the three
programmes for which it was requesting extension because of the differences regarding the basis foreach one of these requests.  On the one hand, there were the programmes in line with Article 27.4 and
the Decision on Implementation on which he had already commented, namely Free-Zones and the
Vallejo Plan from taxes on capital goods imports.  On the other hand, there was the request in respect
of the Transport Compensation Mechanism which was on the basis of Article 27.4 of the SCM
Agreement alone.  In light of the preliminary comments by Ecuador, Colombia would not give adetailed reply at this time.  Colombia asked to please be provided with a written copy of these
comments so that it could give a subsequent detail ed reply.  However, in the light of preliminary
comments made by Ecuador in past meetings, Colombia wished to make the following general points
(while recognizing the Chairman's guidelines to k eep detailed replies in writing).  On the one hand,
Colombia felt it necessary to recall the context in  which this exercise was being carried out in this
Committee.  Colombia had mentioned the Decisi on on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns
in document WT/MIN(01)/17, as approved by the Mi nisters at the Ministerial Conference in Doha.
This was the result of a process that had started in the context of debates on Implementation, where
Colombia had always participated very actively.  In this context, Colombia had first given its
assessment of criteria for eligibility for those countries that could benefit from a preferential
extension.  In a second stage, which had taken place during the second half of 2001, especially in the
days prior to the Ministerial Conference, Colombia had reiterated its argument regarding its relativecompetitiveness with the countries that would benefit from a preferential extension.  This argument
had been endorsed by the Ministerial Conference in Doha.  In the implementation package adopted in
Doha, Ministers had agreed to extend the transition period for a group of countries which met the
requirements set out in G/SCM/39, as well as for c ountries that would comply with the condition that
their relative competitiveness would potentially be affected by those Members of the WTO that wouldhave benefited as a result of such criteria.  It was quite clear that Colombia did have more than
$20 billion of GNP, and it was strange that the size of its GNP should be the criterion used to decide
the size of a country.  This was the first time he had come across such a strange economic parameter.
It was precisely for this reason that, in Doha, Members had added -- to the decision which had been
proposed in Geneva -- the inclusion of other criteria which would strike a balance between the needsof some countries which did not find room in th is overall programme but which, nonetheless, wouldG/SCM/M/40
Page 5
see their competitive position adversely affected on international markets.  This was the point that
Colombia was addressing.  Therefore, Colombia could not understand the insistence on the part of
some in saying that Colombia was not complying with the criteria.  It should be recalled that
Colombia had actively participated, since before Doha, to ensure that the decisions taken in this
Committee on the extension of export subsidies should not adversely affect certain Members andrather be in favour of other countries.  It was always the developing countries that got involved in
discussions on such a decision.  Colombia was very grateful to the countries that had given their
comments and asked them to submit them in writing so that Colombia could then supply its replies in
writing after having looked at them in closer detail.
20. The representative of Ecuador stated that his delegation had questions prepared, but they did
not really require that they be answered in a pr ecise manner now.  They would prefer that Colombia
had occasion to look at them carefully and answer them.  They would therefore submit them inwriting.  He wished to comment, very briefly, on Colombia's statement that they were "actively
participating".  Did this suggest that some were not participating actively?  This might be the case if a
country like Ecuador had suddenly woken up on this issue, but that was not the case.  Ecuador had,
and did, participate actively and when the parameters referring to GNP and participation in world
market share were established, Ecuador had actively participated in ensuring that these parameterswere both just and fair so that a country like Ecuador would find themselves within those parameters,
which was the case.  Ecuador and Bolivia were countries with a low relative level of development
within the Andean Community.  Ecuador admired Colombia greatly – they were more industrialized
than many other countries and they seemed to have a far larger trade share in Latin America.
However, Ecuador was still struck by the fact that they wanted to continue with these programmeswhich had an adverse impact other Andean economies.
21. The representative of Colombia was sure that all delegations that had concerns on this issue
had actively participated and he did not, in any way, wish to suggest anything different.   If that was
the way that his comment had sounded, he had to apologize to the Ambassador of Ecuador.  He had
just wanted to stress the fact that Colombia had always been present in discussions on how to managesubsidies.   There was major participation on the part of all delegations concerned, and not only of
Colombia, in designing and discussing this decision in various bodies, and in the Ministers adopting
the Decision in Doha (involving all Members).  It therefore had to be clearly understood amongst
Members that those which had introduced certain additional phrases in the decision text in Doha had
done so in order that the eligibility criteria would balance the interests of those countries which
simply complied with the established criteria in terms of size, share in world trade and size of their
economy with those which did not satisfy these numerical criteria, but nonetheless saw their interestsaffected.  This was the decision adopted by all Ministers.  No reservations were made to the inclusion
of a new paragraph which introduced a certain flexibility with regards to eligibility criteria.  It was
quite true that Colombia could well understand the requirements of special and differential treatment,
indeed so much so that, within the Andean Community, Bolivia and Ecuador had always enjoyed
special and differential treatment conferred by other developing countries -- including on certainissues like duties on capital goods.  It was quite clear, therefore, that the whole issue of special and
differential treatment was an important question and Colombia had dealt with it at a regional level.
This was why Colombia also believed that it certainly deserved very close attention at the multilateral
level.  The issue of special and differential treatment should involve major participation on the part of
all to ensure the application of any rule or discipline or exemption in the WTO.  In the WTO, all thecountries of the Andean Community were developing countries.
22. The Chairman thanked delegations for their statements and thought there had been some very
good exchanges which had enabled not only these two delegations concerned, but also others in the
room, to better understand each others' positions and concerns.  He was particularly encouraged by
the fact that both delegations were committed to working constructively, and with the objective offinding a solution that was acceptable, not only to both the delegations, but obviously to the wholeG/SCM/M/40
Page 6
WTO membership.  It went without saying that the Ch airman would always be at their disposal with a
view to facilitating this process.
23. The next request was that of Costa Rica, which was made on the basis of the special
procedures in G/SCM/39.  The United States had submitted written follow-up questions since the
Committee’s last meeting.  These questions were  contained in document G/SCM/Q3/CRI/4.  Costa
Rica’s written replies to these questions are to  be found in document G/SCM/Q3/CRI/5.  No oral
questions or comments were raised in respect of this request.
24. The next request was that of Dominica.  In respect of this country's request, the United States
had posed written follow-up questions since the Committee's last meeting, contained in document
G/SCM/Q3/DMA/6.  Dominica's written replies can now be found in G/SCM/Q3/DMA/7.  As no
representative of Dominica was in the room, the Chairman proposed that the Committee revert to this
request at the next meeting of the Committee. No oral questions or comments were raised in respectof this request.
25. Next on the agenda was the request of the Dominican Republic, which is on the basis of the
procedures in G/SCM/39.  Since the last meeting, the United States had posed written questions,
contained in document G/SCM/Q3/DOM/6.  The writ ten answers to these questions are contained in
document G/SCM/DOM/7.  No oral questions or comme nts were raised in respect of this request.
26. The next request was that of El Salvador.  El Salvador’s request was in two parts, one based
on the procedures in G/SCM/39 and the other based on Article 27.4 alone.  Since the Committee's last
meeting, the United States had submitted written follow-up questions, contained in document
G/SCM/Q3/SLV/6.  El Salvador’s written replie s were contained in document G/SCM/Q3/SLV/7.
No oral questions or comments were raised in respect of this request.
27. The next request was that of Grenada.  Since the last meeting, the United States had submitted
written follow-up questions.  Grenada had submitted written answers.   These were found in
documents G/SCM/Q3/GRD/6 and 7, respectively.  Although the delegate of Grenada was not in the
room, the Chairman indicated that he would still gi ve the floor to any other delegation to raise any
other point regarding the request made by this country.  No delegation raised any point.
28. The Committee next took up the request of Guatemala, which was based on the procedures in
G/SCM/39.  Since the last meeting, the United States had submitted written questions concerning this
request, and Guatemala had submitted written replies, found in documents G/SCM/Q3/GTM/9 and
10, respectively.  No oral questions or comments were raised in respect of this request.
29. Concerning the request of Jamaica, since the last meeting, the United States had posed written
follow-up questions, found in document G/SCM/Q3 /JAM/7.  Jamaica's written responses can be
found in document G/SCM/Q3/JAM/8.
30. The next request on the agenda was that of Jordan, in respect of which the United States had
posed questions since the Committee's last meeting, in document G/SCM/Q3/JOR/6.  Jordan’s written
replies to these questions are contained in document G/SCM/Q3/JOR/7.  No oral questions or
comments were raised in respect of this request.
31. The next request, that of Panama, was in two parts, one based on the procedures in
G/SCM/39, and the other based on Article 27.4 alone.  The United States had submitted written
follow-up questions since the last meeting, in document G/SCM/Q3/PAN/12.  Panama's written
replies can be found in document G/SCM/Q3/PAN/13.G/SCM/M/40
Page 7
32. Concerning the request of St. Kitts & Nevis, the delegations of Japan and the United States
had raised written questions since the Committee’s last meeting, in documents G/SCM/Q3/KNA/7 &
8, respectively.  As no written replies had been submitted by the date of the meeting and the
delegation was not represented at the meeting, th e Chairman suggested that the Committee revert to
this specific request at the next meeting of the Committee in July.  At the same time, the Chairmanwould try to get in touch with the delegation of St Kitts & Nevis with a view to clarifying the
situation.  The replies were subsequently submitted, to be found in document G/SCM/Q3/KNA/9.
33. Next up for discussion was the request of St. Vincent & Grenadines, in respect of which the
United States had submitted written questions since the Committee's last meeting, in
G/SCM/Q3/VCT/7.  As no written answers had been received by the date of the meeting and as the
representative of St Vincent & Grenadines was not present, as in the previous case, the Chairman
suggested that the Committee revert to this request at the next meeting and that he would take furthersteps with a view to reviewing this situation.  The replies were subsequently submitted, to be found in
document G/SCM/Q3/VCT/8.
34. The next request on the agenda was that of Thailand, which was made on the basis of
Article 27.4 alone, and in respect of which the delegations of Ecuador and the United States had posed
written questions since the Committee's last meeting.  These questions could be found in documentsG/SCM/Q3/THA/13 and /14.  No written answers had been received from the delegation of Thailand
prior to the meeting.  The replies can now be found in document G/SCM/Q3/THA/15.
35. The delegate of Ecuador stated that his delegation was concerned and that it believed that no
kind of subsidy, special duties, benefits or other payments as might exist or which might be granted
by Thailand in connection with two specific programmes, the BOI and the IEAT, should be extendedbeyond the last authorized period in paragraph 2(b) of Article 27 of the SCM Agreement.  Ecuador
was concerned that Thailand was increasing its request in responding to certain questions put by
delegations.  Ecuador believed that the substantial extensions sought -- of thirteen and twelve years
respectively -- went well beyond the procedure or time-period contemplated even in the special
procedures in G/SCM/39.  Ecuador realized that Th ailand was not requesting an extension pursuant to
these special procedures, but nevertheless observed that the special procedures established a period of
five years for extensions.  In this respect, Ecuador referred to the time-periods of 10-13 years, and to
what was said in paragraph 1 of page 13 of the Thailand request, G/SCM/N/74/THA and to the
responses given on a number of occasions (in part icular, in document G/ SCM/Q3/THA/10, Thailand's
replies to questions 1 and 3 put by the European Communities and questions 1 and 2 put by the
United States).  The delegate stated that he would put these concerns in writing and that there would
also be comments concerning the Article 27.6 export competitiveness calculation that Ecuador hadrequested in respect of Thailand.
36. Concerning the request of Uruguay, the delegation of the United States had posed written
questions since the last meeting, contained in G/SCM/Q3/URY/7.  Uruguay’s written answers are
contained in document G/SCM/Q3/URY/8.
37. The Committee took note of the statements made.
2. Reservations of rights as Members listed in Annex VII(b)
38. Next on the agenda were the reservations of rights of four Members listed in Annex VII(b),
pursuant to the procedures in G/SCM/39.  New questions had been received in respect of each of
these reservations of rights.
39. Turning to the reservation of rights of Bolivia , the Chairman noted, first, that Bolivia had
submitted a supplement to its original documentation in respect of its reservation of rights.  ThisG/SCM/M/40
Page 8
supplemental information could be found in G/SCM/ N/74/BOL/Suppl.1.  Since the last meeting, the
United States had submitted written questions in respect of Bolivia’s reservation of rights, and Bolivia
responded, in documents G/SCM/Q3/BOL/6 & 7 respectively.
40. Next was the reservation of rights of Honduras, in respect of which the United States had
posed written questions since the Committee's last  meeting.  These questions could be found in
document G/SCM/Q3/HND/7.  Honduras written replies can be found in document
G/SCM/Q3/HND/8.
41. Next was the reservation of rights of Kenya, in respect of which the United States had posed
written questions since the last meeting.  These questions were found in document
G/SCM/Q3/KEN/7.  Kenya's written replies can be found in document G/SCM/Q3/KEN/8.
42. The representative of Kenya stated that his delegation was compelled, for its part, to
emphasize that it recognized and respected the right of Members to ask for information relevant to the
work of this Committee.  As his delegation had stated before, it was willing to provide any
information Members might wish to seek because Kenya believed it should work constructively on all
issues under the competence of this Committee.  Ho wever, Kenya wished to stress that its delegation
might experience problems with making a linkage between its request to reserve the rights to be
exercised under the procedures in document G/SCM/39 at some future point, and the obligation it was
expected to fulfil under the SCM Agreement.  It s commitment to fulfil its obligation under the SCM
Agreement -- despite certain difficulties with lack of capacity -- should nevertheless be treated
differently from its reservation pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement.  In this regard, Kenya
wished to reiterate that the Committee was not expe cted to take any formal action, other than taking
note of its intentions.  Kenya hoped that was exactly what had transpired in the March meeting.Kenya therefore believed that Committee action would be needed only as and when Kenya graduated
from Annex VII(b).
43. In respect of the reservation of rights of Sri Lanka,  since the last meeting, the United States
had posed written questions, found in document G/ SCM/Q3/LKA/8.  Sri Lanka's written replies can
be found in document G/SCM/Q3/LKA/9.
44. The Committee took note of the statements made.
B. REVERSION TO REQUESTS OF SURINAME , FIJI AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA
45. Under agenda item B, the Committee took up the requests of Suriname, Fiji and Papua New
Guinea.  These requests had not been able to be considered at the Committee’s previous meeting, as
no written answers had been provided to the written questions received, nor were these Members
represented at the meeting, meaning that no oral answers were provided either.  The Chairman
understood that the situation remained the same, in that written responses had still not been provided
to the written questions posed so far.  None of these three delegations were present at the meeting, so
the Chairman suggested once again that the Committee revert to this item at the next meeting.
46. The Committee took note of the statement made.
C. REQUESTS WITH NO NEW QUESTIONS RECEIVED
47. The final agenda item pertaining to the Article 27.4 extension requests was simply to open the
floor for any discussion of the two Article 27.4 requests in respect of which no new questions had
been received since the Committee’s last meeting.  These were the requests of Mauritius and
St. Lucia.  The Chairman noted that written questions had been posed in respect of these requests
before the Committee’s last meeting, and that oral replies had been given at the meeting.  Both ofG/SCM/M/40
Page 9
these delegations had also submitted written replies to those original written questions (in documents
G/SCM/Q3/MUS/5 and G/SCM/Q3/LCA/5, respectively).
48. The delegate of St. Lucia explained that the reason why a number of St Lucia's sister State
representatives were not at the meeting was that several of them were non-resident; their participation
at the last meeting had been possible because "Geneva week" had been held the week before.  Thereason why the Committee had not received any written responses was that, since all the questions
were the same and the legislation was very similar, there was an attempt within the region to try to
explain that countries could use the same language and yet the way in which the legislation was
implemented meant a very different thing.  Unfortunately, as they were all limited to one person doing
trade in each country and that one person had ten different things at once, this was preventing all the
responses from being here today.  She wished to put on record that this was not due to a lack of effort,
but due to lack of resources and representation.
49. The Chairman suggested that he could get in  touch with these delegations so he could
understand the nature of difficulties that might prevent countries from participating.
50. Before concluding the discussion of the Article 27.4 requests and reservations of rights, the
Chairman wished to offer his perspective on where he thought the Committee was in its consideration
of these matters, and how he believed it would be best to proceed in the time before the Committee'snext meeting, on 25 July.  First, he thought that  the process of written questions and answers was
proving to be very successful, and he believed it had helped all to better understand the programmes
for which requests were being sought.  He believed that at the end of this process, the Committee
would have a very good base of information on whic h it could draw in the future, including in the
annual reviews to be conducted by the Committee in respect of extensions that were granted this year.Today’s oral discussion also had been extremely useful in enhancing the clarifications and adding to
the collective information base.  The written and oral question and answer process was clearly
narrowing down the areas requiring further clarific ation, and it seemed that the Committee might be
nearing the end of this clarification phase for many of the requests.
51. He had had informal discussions with a number of delegations in the period leading up to this
meeting, and he was pleased to say that the delegations with which he had spoken had indicated a
high level of satisfaction with the general degree of transparency and cooperation being offered by the
requesting Members.  He believed that there was a very constructive spirit of goodwill being
exhibited on all sides, which he was very heartened to see.  He could only assume that this boded well
for the decision-making phase of this process, which the Committee would be reaching soon.
52. Regarding decision-making, while the Committee had made excellent progress in the
consideration thus far of the Article 27.4 requests a nd reservations of rights, he did understand that a
number of Members were not yet in a position to take any decisions.  As the Committee had seen, a
number of questions remained outstanding, and he believed that it would be prudent to provide for a
further round of any additional follow-up questions and answers before the next meeting.  In this
connection, he would simply remind Members that had requested Article 27.4 extensions of the
importance of promptly providing written answers to any pending questions, as the Committee wouldnot be able to move to the decision-making phase of their requests while questions remained open.
53. In terms of deadlines for written questions and answers before the July meeting, he requested
Members that wished to pose any further written follow-up questions to submit those questions in
writing to the Member concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat, by 3 July 2002.  Written answers
should be sent directly to the Member posing the question, with a copy to the Secretariat, by19 July 2002.  To conclude, it was his hope and intention to be in contact with Members between now
and the next meeting with a view to ensuring that all pending issues and questions had been answeredG/SCM/M/40
Page 10
so all Members obtained the fullest possible understanding of the programmes for which extensions
were being requested.
54. The Committee took note of all of the statements made.
2. Subsidy Notification Seminar
55. The Chairman recalled that at the Committe e’s regular meeting on 3 May, the Committee
adopted a decision, circulated in document G/SCM/43, relating to the basis for the budget request for
the planned two-day subsidy notification seminar to be held back-to-back with the regular fall
meeting of the Committee.  As Members were aware, a list of countries seeking financial sponsorship
had been faxed to the Committee, with delegations having the possibility to object to any country on
the list.  He wished to bring some additional points to the attention of delegations.
56. First, since the list was communicated by the Secretariat on 30 May, three additional
delegations had indicated that they considered they were in need of financial sponsorship to attend theseminar.
57. Second, several delegations had indicated a difficulty with that list, as circulated by him.   In
this regard, he proposed to suspend the meeting of the Committee on this agenda item so as to give
him the opportunity to conduct consultations with the view to resolving those difficulties and to
resume the meeting no later than in two weeks ti me.  When making the suggestion, he wished to
remind delegations that what the Committee was looking to do was to identify a basis for the budget
request for the seminar.  It had always been clear that this budget request, once submitted, would go
through the regular procedures followed with respect to the financing of WTO technical assistance
activities.  Account would be taken of the possibilities resulting from the global amount available for
technical assistance.  It was therefore possible that the funds available might not fully cover all budgetrequests.  The list of countries was specifically for the purpose of planning for the budget request for
the seminar; it had no significance for the legal rights and obligations of Members under the SCM
Agreement.  To conclude, he suggested that the Committee suspend the meeting to give the Chairman
the opportunity to consult and revert to the issue in two weeks time.
58. The representative of the United States said that since the Chairman was going to be holding
consultations, his delegation thought that it might be worthwhile during those consultations to explore
possibilities for an assessment process for the results that would come out of the seminar, in terms of
positive indications as to the benefits that were being received (such as additional notifications
provided in the period subsequent to the notification, etc.).  The United States had not given this much
consideration yet, but it might be something on which the Chairman could also usefully consult
during the consultations.
59. The Chairman noted that that this course of action seemed acceptable to all.  The meeting
would thus be suspended to give the Chairman an op portunity to consult.  At the same time, in those
consultations, he would also begin to look to those prospects that had been mentioned by the US
delegation.  In this latter respect, he thought that the Committee might not necessarily complete its
discussion of this before the summer break, and might continue closer to the event.  The Chairman
indicated that he would communicate to Members the details about the resumption of the meeting assoon as possible.
60. The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed
 to proceed accordingly..
61. The meeting was therefore adjourned in respect of all items except for its suspension in
respect of the item pertaining to the subsidies notification seminar.  By fax dated 21 June 2002, the
Chairman communicated to Members that he w ould submit a budget request in relation to theG/SCM/M/40
Page 11
subsidies notification seminar on 24 June.  In view of this action, and of the fact that the 17 June 2002
meeting had been suspended solely on this item, the Chairman was of the view that he did not need to
reconvene the Committee to further discuss this issue, as had been originally suggested by him.  On
this basis, the meeting was deemed adjourned also in respect of this item.
__________