RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SCM/M/72 
20 September 2010 
 (10-4744) 
Committee on Subsidies  
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING  
HELD ON 27 APRIL 2010 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Raimondas Alisauskas (Lithuania ) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the Committee") held a special 
meeting on 27 April 2010.   
2. The Chairman  recalled that the proposed agenda fo r the meeting had been circulated to 
Members in document WTO/AIR/3539, dated 16 April 2010.  As indicated in the proposed agenda, 
the purpose of the meeting was to continue to  discuss the 2009 and 2007 new and full subsidy 
notifications.  The Committee adopted the agenda as proposed: 
A. DISCUSSION OF 2009  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS NOT YET REVIEWED .................2  
1. Argentina ...................................................................................................................... .............2  
2. Australia ...................................................................................................................... ..............2  
3. Burkina Faso ................................................................................................................... ..........3  
4. Canada ......................................................................................................................... ..............3  
5. Switzerland .................................................................................................................... ............4  
6. Chile .......................................................................................................................... .................4  
7. Ecuador........................................................................................................................ ..............5  
8. European Union ................................................................................................................. .......5  
9. Hong Kong, China ............................................................................................................... .....6 
10. Honduras ....................................................................................................................... ............6  
11. Japan.......................................................................................................................... ................6  
12. Liechtenstein.................................................................................................................. ............7  
13. Malawi......................................................................................................................... ...............7  
14. Malaysia....................................................................................................................... ..............7  
15. New Zealand.................................................................................................................... ..........7  
16. Nigeria........................................................................................................................ ................8  
17. Norway......................................................................................................................... ..............8  
18. Thailand....................................................................................................................... ..............8  
19. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ................................8  G/SCM/M/72 
Page 2  
 
  20.
 Ukraine ........................................................................................................................ ..............8  
B. DISCUSSION OF 2007  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFIC ATIONS NOT  YET REVIEWED .................9  
1. Ecuador........................................................................................................................ ..............9  
2. Guatemala...................................................................................................................... ............9  
3. United States.................................................................................................................. ............9  
C. DISCUSSION OF 2007  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIF ICATIONS ALREADY REVIEWED ................9  
1. Argentina ...................................................................................................................... .............9  
D. ALLEGED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDIES PROVIDED BY SINGAPORE ...................10  
 
A. DISCUSSION OF 2009  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS NOT YET REVIEWED  
3. The first agenda item was the review of the 20 09 new and full subsidy notifications not yet 
reviewed.  The Chairman  stated that the Committee's review of the new and full subsidy notifications 
took place pursuant to procedures that had been ad opted by the Committee in 2005 which could be 
found in document G/SCM/117.  In accordance with th ese procedures, the notifications that were on 
the agenda of this meeting were notifications that  had been circulated to Members in all three WTO 
working languages not later than 28 December 2009. 
1. Argentina 
4. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Argentina was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/186/ARG.  Questions posed by the United States and the European Union regarding this 
notification had been circulated in documents G/ SCM/Q2/ARG/30 and 31, respectively.  Argentina's 
replies to these questions had been circulated in  documents G/SCM/Q2/ARG/32 and 33, respectively. 
5. The delegate of Argentina  noted that, as indicated by the Chairman, his delegation had 
provided written answers to the questions posed by the United States and the European Union, 
although these responses had been circulated outside the deadline for circulation in advance of the 
meeting.  The delegate indicated that he had in his possession a copy of the replies to the questions 
from the United States (document G/SCM/Q2/ARG/32) , which he could read to the Committee, but 
that he did not have a prepared summary of this written response.  
6. The delegate of the United States  indicated that in light of the explanations provided by the 
delegate of Argentina, it was not necessary for the delegate of Argentina to present to the Committee 
a summary of the responses and that his delegati on would examine the written answers provided by 
Argentina and return to this issue at the ne xt meeting of the Committee, if necessary. 
7. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
2. Australia 
8. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Au stralia had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/AUS.  Questions posed by the Sepa rate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu, the United States and the Europ ean Union regarding this notification had been 
circulated in documents G/SCM/Q2/AUS/38, 39 and 40, respectively.  Australia's replies to these 
questions were found in documents G/SCM/Q2/AUS /41, 43 and 42, respectively.  The Chairman  
noted that Australia's replies to the questions fro m the European Union and the United States had been 
inadvertently circulated late by the Secretariat a nd therefore did not appear in the airgram for the  G/SCM/M/72 
 Page 3 
 
 
  meeting; copies of these documents however were included in the documents distributed at the 
meeting. 
9. No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on this agenda item. 
3. Burkina Faso 
10. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Burkina Faso had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/BFA.  No delegation had submitted questi ons on this notification, and at the meeting, 
no delegation took the floor to comment or  ask questions on this notification. 
4. Canada 
11. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of  Canada had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/CAN.  Questions posed by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu, the United States, the Europ ean Union, Australia and Japan regarding this 
notification had been circulated in documents G/ SCM/Q2/CAN/34, 35, 36, 37 and 41, respectively.  
Canada's replies to the questions by the United St ates, the European Union and the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu were found in documents G/SCM/Q2/CAN/38, 39 
and 40, respectively. 
12. The delegate of Canada  noted that Canada was in the process of preparing written responses 
to the questions asked by Australia and Japan, a nd that those responses would be completed very 
soon.  She suggested that, given that both sets of responses ran several pages in length, the Committee  
wait until the written responses were finalized and review them at that point.  
13. The delegate of the United States  thanked Canada for its timely submission of answers to the 
questions posed by the United States.  His dele gation had a follow-up question with respect to 
question 5 of the United States, relating to the I nvestissement Québec programme:  This programme 
seemed to provide assistance to "specialized activiti es" or "activities that are set up in a designated 
region of Quebec" and given those two phrases, it app eared to his delegation that this programme met 
the specificity requirements of the SCM Agreement and therefore should be notified.  Secondly, with 
respect to question 7, Canada's reply mentioned various tax measures that his delegation had asked 
about in their questions.  However,  his delegation had also asked about an interest-free loan that had 
been provided and which Canada's answers did not a ddress.  He invited the delegation of Canada to 
provide any further information it may have with respect to this issue.  Thirdly, the programme discussed in the United States' question 10 seemed to be a programme administered by the federal government, providing assistance to companies in partic ular regions of Canada.  Therefore, in the 
view of the United States, this programme was regiona lly-specific and had to be notified.  He invited 
Canada to provide any comments with  respect to the US position on that programme.  Finally, in their 
questions, the US delegation had noted Canada 's 2007 Trade Policy Review which contained a 
reference to numerous provincial sector-specific pr ogrammes that had not appeared in Canada's 
subsidy notifications.  He noted that Canada indicated , in answer to the US questions in this regard 
that "Canada continues to work with its provi nces with respect to providing a more fulsome 
notification" and that his delegation appreciated Ca nada's efforts in this regard; however only two 
provinces had provided some information with respec t to programmes provided at the provincial level 
and it appeared to his delegation that there were numerous other provincial programmes that also had 
to be notified.  
14. The delegate of Canada
 noted that her delegation had provided written responses to the 
questions posed by the United States concerning In vestissement Québec and the alleged interest-free 
loan.  She encouraged the US delegation, if it c onsidered these responses to be incomplete, to submit 
additional questions in writing in this respect, which her delegation would take back to the province of G/SCM/M/72 
Page 4  
 
  Quebec and that they would have another look at the answer that had been provided.  The other 
questions raised by the delegate of the United Stat es shared a common theme, that of programmes that 
may be granted by Canada's provinces and territori es.  As had been noted by the delegate of the 
United States, Canada was involved in an exercise to ensure that the provinces and territories were 
well aware and understood their obligations with resp ect to subsidy notifications.  She indicated that 
this was an ongoing work in progress, that her delegation had received notifications from two 
provinces this year and would continue with their effort s in this respect for Canada's next notification.  
15. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
5. Switzerland 
16. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Sw itzerland had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/CHE.  Questions posed by the United States regarding this notification had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/CHE/18.  Sw itzerland's replies to these questions had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/CHE/19. 
17. The delegate of the United States  stated that certain statements in Switzerland's answers did 
not seem directly on point.  The first issue related to Switzerland's indication that the programme at 
issue was an agricultural one, and not an industri al one.  While his delegation appreciated this 
precision, he noted that the programme was nonet heless subject to the disciplines of the SCM 
Agreement.  Secondly,  he noted that while th e amount of assistance provided under the programme 
was relatively small, nonetheless, as a matter of prin ciple, his delegation believed that the programme 
could run afoul of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
18. The delegate of Switzerland  stated that the 0.6 million Swiss francs for wool production was 
an agricultural aid.  The programme in question w as given to self-help organizations of sheep owners 
and wool processors for sorted and washed wool, an agricultural good as defined in Annex 1 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Further, as noted in the answers, Switzerland would notify this subsidy in 
the domestic support notification of the aggregate measure of support to the Committee on Agriculture.  He also noted that without this suppor t, those farmers in the mountains who still wanted 
to keep sheep would have difficulty to survive.  Switzerland wanted to encourage people living in 
these less favoured areas and, without this subsidy, th e wool would be burned or destroyed, a situation 
that Switzerland wished to avoid.  For these reasons , Switzerland considered that it was not in breach 
of its WTO obligations.  
19. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
6. Chile 
20. The 2009 new and full subsidy notificati on of Chile was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/186/CHL.  Questions posed by the United States regarding this notification had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/CHL/21.  Chile's replies to these questions had been circulated in 
document G/SCM/Q2/CHL/22 dated 30 March 2010. 
21. The delegate of the United States  noted that Chile's answers cont ained a sentence to the effect 
that the US question largely relied on information provided in Chile's Trade Policy Review and that 
only one week had elapsed between the Trade Polic y Review meeting and the submission of Chile's 
subsidy notification and th at therefore there had been insuffici ent time to allow Chile to address the 
issue properly.  The delegate stated that from his delegation's perspective, Members should have some 
system in place whereby they ar e able to identify their subsidy programmes and provide a complete 
subsidy notification and not wait until their Trade Po licy Review points out particular programmes.   G/SCM/M/72 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. The Committee took note  of this statement. 
7. Ecuador 
23. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Ecuador had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/ECU.  No questions had been receive d regarding this notifi cation, and no delegation 
took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
8. European Union 
24. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of the European Union had been circulated in 
document G/SCM/N/186/EEC and addenda 1-27.  Ques tions posed by Canada, the United States,  
Australia and Japan regarding this notification had been circulated in documents G/SCM/Q2/EEC/57, 
58-59, 60 and 61, respectively.  Replies of the Euro pean Union to the questions posed by Canada and 
the United States had been circulated in documen ts G/SCM/Q2/EEC/62 and 63-64, respectively.  
25. The delegate of the European Union  stated that his delegation had already submitted replies to 
the questions received from Canada and the United States.  Australia and Japan had submitted their 
questions rather late such that his delegation was un able to provide replies at the meeting.  However, 
his delegation would do its best to provide such re plies as soon as possible after the meeting.  While 
he was ready to provide an oral statement if requ ested, he noted that the questions and replies were 
rather long documents.  
26. The delegate of Japan  noted that his delegation's questi ons mainly concerned programmes by 
France, Germany, Spain and the UK, primarily con cerning civil aircraft research programmes.  He 
acknowledged that Japan's questions had been subm itted late and indicated his appreciation for the 
EU delegate's indication that the European Uni on would provide answers to the questions as soon as 
possible and hoped the European Union would respond in writing in due course.  
27. The delegate of the United States  had one question with respect to the Common Fisheries 
Policy and the Emergency Fund: The first sentence of  the reply provided by the European Union  
mentioned that this programme had been subject to official publication.  The delegate wished to know 
whether this was part of the EU notification.  Secondly, he noted that Germany had notified 11 
subsidy programmes.  However, recently, a non-gov ernmental organization had looked at Germany's 
industrial subsidy policies and found nearly 180 programmes that possibly could be considered 
subsidy programmes.  He asked how Germany coul d reconcile notifying 11 programmes to the WTO 
while an NGO found potentially up to 180 programmes.   The response provided by Germany was that 
the NGO had taken an overly inclusive approach to listing what could be subsidy programmes under 
the SCM Agreement.  His delegation appreciated this  comment; clearly, the requirements as to what 
should be notified were complicated and technical on es that an NGO could not be expected to master 
immediately.  That said, it appeared that the st udy by the NGO did identify programmes that provided 
preferential loans and grants to German shipyards.   Other programmes provided grants to the mining 
industry; yet others provided tax incentives to user s of biofuels.  These, as well as other programmes, 
appeared, on their face, to be programmes that should be notified.  The delegate was interested in any 
explanations that the delegate of the European  Union could provide as to why these programmes had 
not been notified. 
28. As to the first question regarding the Common Fi sheries Policy, the delegate of the European 
Union  stated that the programme addressed by the United States' question had been included in the 
European Union's subsidy notification, under th e programme called EFF (European Fisheries Fund). 
He also noted that Canada had addressed the sa me issue and that his delegation had replied to 
Canada's question in this respect.  He therefore inv ited the delegate of the United States to look at the 
reply provided to Canada's question.  As regards th e contribution to the EU notification by Germany, G/SCM/M/72 
Page 6  
 
  his delegation was already aware of this study whic h, as far as he was aware, had been conducted by 
two academics.  He indicated that a workshop had b een held in order to confirm that the European 
Union had provided a full notification with respect to Germany, and that Germany's contribution had 
been re-verified.  He thus could confirm that all specific subsidies had been included in the European 
Union's notification.  He also noted that the study had followed an in dubio pro reo  approach, an 
approach for which there was no legal basis in th e SCM Agreement.  He would appreciate, if the 
United States could submit follow-up questions in writing if it was still concerned by the low number 
of programmes notified. 
29. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
9. Hong Kong, China 
30. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Hong Kong, China had been circulated in 
document G/SCM/N/186/HKG.  No questions had been  received regarding this notification and no 
delegation took the floor at the meeting to co mment or ask questions on this notification. 
10. Honduras 
31. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Honduras had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/HND.  No questions had been received regarding this notification, and no delegation 
took the floor at the meeting to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
11. Japan 
32. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of  Japan had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/JPN.  Questions posed by the Unite d States, the European Union and Australia 
regarding this notification had been circulat ed in documents G/SCM/Q2/JPN/45, 46 and 49, 
respectively.  Japan had replied to the questions  by the European Union, the United States and 
Australia through documents G/SCM/Q2/JPN/47, 48 and 50, respectively. 
33. The delegate of the United States  noted that his delegation and Japan had a continuing 
disagreement with respect to regional subsidy pr ogrammes, which his dele gation believed were, by 
their very nature, specific under the SCM Agreement.   He noted that many US programmes – 30 or 
40 per cent of state programmes - were only notified because they were regional in nature.  Were the 
United States to adopt Japan's interpretation of Ar ticle 2.2 of the SCM Agreement, its notification 
would have been much simpler and smaller.  The de legate stated that this was a continuing area of 
disagreement and expressed the hope that perhap s some day the WTO dispute settlement system 
could settle this matter.  Secondly, his delegation had raised, for the second or third time, a number of 
fisheries programmes maintained  by Japan.  His delegation hoped that at some point, these 
programmes would be part of Japan's notification be cause they appeared to meet all the requirements 
for notification. 
34. The delegate of Japan  noted that his delegation had already provided responses to the 
questions posed by Australia, the European Union, a nd the United States.  The delegate stated that the 
issue of regional specificity was a long-standing is sue between their delegati ons and, he believed, 
amongst Members too.  This was an "agree to disagree" situation.  The issue of notification was a 
separate one.  The delegate noted that his dele gation had already included a number of regional 
programmes in its notification, and encouraged Me mbers to make notifications based on Article 25.1 
of the SCM Agreement; this was Japan's consistent pos ition on notification issues.  As to the fisheries 
subsidies issue raised by the United States, this was,  as noted by the delegate of the United States, an 
issue that had already been discussed two or three times at the Committee meetings and his 
delegation's position remained the same.   G/SCM/M/72 
 Page 7 
 
 
  35. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
12. Liechtenstein 
36. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Liechtenstein had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/LIE.  No questions had been received re garding this notification.  No delegation took 
the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
13. Malawi 
37. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Malawi had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/MWI.  No questions have been receive d regarding this notification.  No delegation 
took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification.  
14. Malaysia 
38. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Malaysia had been contained in document 
G/SCM/N/186/MYS.  Questions from the United States re garding this notification had been circulated 
in document G/SCM/Q2/MYS/12.   
39. The delegate of Malaysia  regretted that his delegation was not able to provide the full written 
response as there remained a number of questions wh ich required further clarification from his capital. 
His delegation was working with the capital to pr ovide a written response and was hopeful that such a 
written response could be provided within two weeks of the Committee meeting.  
40. The delegate of the United States  thanked Malaysia for its 2007- 2009 notification, which was 
provided after a ten year period during which Malays ia had not provided any notification.  He hoped 
that Malaysia was back on track in following the appropriate schedule for submitting subsidy 
notifications; he also wished to know whether Mala ysia intended to provide notifications for the years 
1996-2006.  He also noted that his delegation had rep eated its request for answers to questions that it 
had provided to Malaysia under Ar ticle 25.8 of the Agreement.  In these questions, his delegation had 
raised several programmes that did not appear in  Malaysia's recent notification; some of these 
programmes were potentially serious in nature a nd raised questions under Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement.  He therefore encouraged Malaysia to  look at the questions presented by his delegation 
and to provide answers to such questions under Article 25.8.  
41. The delegate of Malaysia  expressed the view that the notification just submitted for 2007 and 
2009 was sufficient to cover the period prior to 2007 and 2009 because Malaysia had not introduced 
any new programmes during the 2007 and 2009 period.   She also assured the United States that her 
delegation was looking at the questions submitted by the United States under Article 25.8.  She was 
hopeful that written responses to these questions coul d be provided within two weeks, along with the 
written responses to the United States' other questions. 
42. The Committee took note  of the statements made.   
15. New Zealand 
43. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of New Zealand had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/NZL.  Questions posed by the United States and the European Union regarding this 
notification had been circulated in documen ts G/SCM/Q2/NZL/22 and 23, respectively.  
New Zealand's replies to these questions had been  circulated in documents G/SCM/Q2/NZL/24 and 
25, respectively.  No delegation took the floor to  comment or ask questions on this notification.  G/SCM/M/72 
Page 8  
 
  16. Nigeria 
44. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of  Nigeria had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/NGA.  The United States had posed ques tions regarding this notification which had 
been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/NGA/6.  No  delegation took the floor with respect to this 
notification.  
17. Norway 
45. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Norway had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/186/NOR.  No questions had been received regarding this notification, and no delegation 
took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification.  
18. Thailand 
46. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Thailand was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/186/THA.  Questions posed by the Unite d States regarding this notification had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/THA/22. 
47. The delegate of Thailand
 stated that the policy at issue had been implemented since 
1 October 2007 under the Board of Investment  Announcements which were publicly available 
documents.  Approved companies were eligible to  receive waivers on import duties for machinery, 
and an exemption on corporate income tax for periods  of 3-8 years.  Regarding the notification, his 
delegation was awaiting instructions  from capital, which he expected would come soon, and would 
then be in a position to submit a written reply. 
48. The Committee took note  of this statement. 
19. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
49. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of th e Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu had been circulated in document G/SCM/N/186/TPKM.  No questions 
had been received regarding this notification, a nd no delegation took the floor to comment or ask 
questions on this notification.  
20. Ukraine 
50. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Ukraine was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/186/UKR.  Questions posed by the United States regarding this notification had been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/UKR/5 to wh ich Ukraine had provided replies through document 
G/SCM/Q2/UKR/6.   
51. The delegate of the United States
 thanked Ukraine for their very thorough answer and 
indicated that his delegation had no further questions. 
52. The Committee took note  of the statement made.   G/SCM/M/72 
 Page 9 
 
 
  B. DISCUSSION OF 2007  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFIC ATIONS NOT  YET REVIEWED  
1. Ecuador 
53. The 2007 new and full subsidy notification of Ecuador was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/155/ECU.  No questions had been received regarding this notificati on.  No delegation took 
the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification.  
2. Guatemala 
54. The 2007 new and full subsidy notification of  Guatemala was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/155/GTM.  No questions had been received regarding this notification. 
55. No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification.  
3. United States 
56. The 2007 new and full subsidy notification of the United States was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/155/USA.  Questions posed by the Europ ean Union, Canada and Japan regarding this 
notification had been circulated in documents G/ SCM/Q2/USA/36, 37 and 40, respectively.  The 
United States' replies to the questions by Canada and the European Union had been circulated in 
documents G/SCM/Q2/USA/38 and 39, respectively.  
57. The delegate of the United States  stated that Japan's question had been received after the 
deadline and therefore his delegation did not have replies to these questions as of the date of the 
meeting, but he expected to have them shortly.  
58. The delegate of Japan  acknowledged that Japan's questi ons – which concerned energy 
conservation programmes and simila r programmes directed at energy and textiles area – had been 
submitted after the relevant deadline, and expressed his appreciation for the United States' indication 
that it would provide replies in due course. 
59. The delegate of Canada  thanked the United States for their replies to the questions posed by 
Canada, in particular those responses that  were quite candid and straightforward. 
60.  The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. DISCUSSION OF 2007  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIF ICATIONS ALREADY REVIEWED  
1. Argentina 
61. The 2007 new and full notification of Arge ntina had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/155/ARG.  The United States had asked follow-up questions regarding this notification 
which had been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/A RG/29.  Argentina's replies to these questions 
had been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/ARG/32. 
62. The delegate of Argentina  clarified that, as indicated by th e Chair, the replies from Argentina 
were provided in a single document for the quest ions posed by the United States circulated in 
documents G/SCM/Q2/ARG/29 and G/SCM/Q2/ARG/30, which corresponded to the discussion that 
had taken place earlier in the meeting. 
63. The Committee took note  of this statement.  G/SCM/M/72 
Page 10  
 
  D. A
LLEGED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDIES PROVIDED BY SINGAPORE  
64. The Chairman  noted that Australia had posed questions to Singapore, which had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/SGP/13.   
65. The delegate of Singapore  indicated that his oral response to the question posed by Australia 
would be followed in due course by a written response.  In response to Australia's first question, the 
delegate stated that Singapore did not maintain specific subsidies as defined by the SCM Agreement 
and hence did not apply incentives or  subsidy schemes solely to the pharmaceutical sector.  The sum 
of US$8 billion mentioned in Australia's comm unication referred to the Singapore government's 
public sector research and development budget for 20 06-2010 in all sectors.  This included funding 
for university research, public research institutions, and scholarships for research and development.  
These research and development support schemes were broad-based and non-sector specific, open to 
all projects, irrespective of industry, and compani es availing of these schemes were of various sectors. 
With regard to the second question posed by Aust ralia, companies applying for these research and 
development schemes needed to be Singapore-regist ered business entities.  The schemes were suitable 
for companies undertaking research and developmen t activities, companies engaged in the innovation 
of products, processes, or applications, and comp anies that were introducing or developing new 
capabilities.  Details of these schemes were av ailable on the website of Singapore's Economic 
Development Board. 
66. The delegate of Australia  thanked Singapore for their response and stated that his delegation 
was looking forward to Singapore's written responses. 
67. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
68. The Chairman  informed Members that the next spec ial meeting of the Committee to review 
subsidy notifications would take place in the week of 25 October  2010. 
69. The Chairman adjourned the meeting. 
 
__________