RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/M/29
14 August 2001
(01-4005)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
HELD ON 16 MAY 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Remo Moretta (Australia)
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures held a special meeting on
16 May 2001.
2. The purpose of the meeting, as set forth in WTO/AIR/1547/Rev.1, was to continue the
Committee's discussion of steps to reduce the burden of subsidy notifications for all Members while
maintaining transparency.
3. The Chairman recalled that at the 1 May meeting of the Working Party on Subsidy
Notifications, as well as at the 2 May regular meeting of the Committee, Members had seemed to be
in agreement concerning the substantive elements of a possible package to address the problems of
subsidy notifications, with the first element having to do with practical approaches to the frequency of
subsidy notifications, the second element being a review of the subsidy notification format by the
Working Party to try to simplify the presentational aspects of the required information, and the third
element being a request to the Secretariat to look into organizing a subsidy notification seminar for
capital-based officials back-to-back with the Spring 2002 regular Committee meeting.  A draft of a
Chair's text on these elements, to appear in the minutes of a Committee meeting, had been discussed,and a number of delegations had made clear that they would need to be sure, in respect of the first
element, that any Chair's statement not be seen as changing the Subsidies Agreement in respect of the
notification obligation.  The Chairman noted that all Members of course recognized that the
Committee did not have the authority to change the Agreement.  With these concerns in mind, the
Chairman had circulated by fax to all Committee Members a revised version of the draft statement.
4. The Chairman noted that since circulating the revised draft, he had been very encouraged by
the generally quite positive feedback that he had received from Members on it.  A considerable
number of Members had indicated that they could go along with the draft as it had been circulated,
and a number of other Members had indicated that the revision had moved in the right direction fromtheir point of view.  This said, it was clear that there was a balance to be struck in terms of the
wording of the statement concerning the first element, as some other Members had indicated that they
would want to ensure that the Chairman's statement was sufficiently clear in respect of Members'
views concerning practical approaches to notification.
5. The Chairman stated that given the predominantly positive reaction, the text presented a good
basis on which to continue work, and he believed that the Committee was quite close to reaching an
understanding with which all Members could be comfortable.
6. The delegate of the United States thanked the Chairman, previous Chair of the Committee and
the Secretariat for the text, which was well drafted and came very close to the solution that was being
sought.  The United States had two small suggested additions.  The first, at the end of the thirdG/SCM/M/29
Page 2
paragraph, would reflect that the Committee was not able to change Members' rights and obligations
within the Agreement, by adding, "It would be expect ed that this would have the effect of increasing
transparency, which is the objective of the obligations in question, but none of the steps suggested is
intended to add to or detract from Members rights and obligations".  The second addition, to be
inserted in the fourth paragraph, before the last sentence, would read, "At that time, Members wouldneed to determine whether to continue thes e arrangements for any further trial period."
7. The delegate of Canada noted that Canada's reaction was similar to that of the United States.
Canada appreciated the work that had gone into the draft, and especially appreciated the reference to
the Singapore Ministerial Declaration in the revised text.  Canada nevertheless had concerns over the
question of modifications to the Agreement.  For Canada, it would go a long way in this regard if the
middle sentence in the third paragraph could be deleted, as in Canada's view this sentence reinforcedthe notion that Members would be ignoring obligations set out in the Agreement.  Canada could work
with the US suggestion concerning the affirmation that Members were not changing rights and
obligations.
8. The Chairman pointed out that the sentence referred to by Canada was a factual statement,
which had been repeated numerous times by the previous Chair, and that it actually reflected the
problems that Members had experienced.  It was his understanding that this sentence was important in
giving comfort to some Members who had sought a reinforcement of the reasons why this exercise
was being engaged in in the first place.
9. The delegate of Canada noted that, while the sentence by itself might not pose a problem, in
the context of the whole statement it implied to  Canada that the Agreement was being changed.
10. The delegate of Switzerland shared the US concerns, and welcomed the amendments to
paragraphs 3 and 4 proposed by the United States.  On the other hand, Switzerland did not see
Canada's point, and had no problem keeping that sentence in the text as it was.
11. The delegate of Brazil noted that for his delegation, the middle sentence of the third
paragraph constituted an important element of balance being sought in the text.  It was factual, and
embodied a crucial element which had motivated the whole debate.  Brazil had had a preference for
the previous text, which referred to de-emphasizing updating notifications.  Brazil did not insist on
this, but nevertheless felt that the sentence proposed by Canada for deletion was important to maintainin the text.  Brazil in principle had no difficulty with the changes proposed by the United States.
12. The delegate of Australia indicated that his delegation was happy with the draft Chairman's
statement as it was, but had no objection to the changes proposed by the United States.  On the middle
sentence of the third paragraph, Australia preferred to retain it, although as a compromise, Australiacould envision redrafting the sentence to read, "Members' experience with the notification system also
seems to show that the effort and resources required to prepare annual updating notifications are
essentially equal to those required for new and full notifications, while in practice the updates receive
little attention in the Committee review process.".
13. The delegate of Argentina indicated a strong preference for maintaining the sentence under
discussion, but could live with Australia's suggestion.  The point in that sentence was very important,
as it was the motivation for the whole process.
14. The delegate of Norway could accept the text as it was, and could also accept the amendments
proposed by the United States.  Concerning th e sentence proposed for deletion by Canada, Norway
agreed with the Chairman that this was a factual statement, and could go along with Australia's
suggestion.G/SCM/M/29
Page 3
15. The delegate of the EC noted that his delegation could have lived with the text as proposed by
the Chairman, and had no problem with the changes proposed by the United States.  Concerning
Canada's suggestion to delete the middle sentence of the third paragraph, the EC believed that it was
useful to have a reference, such as in that sentence, concerning the cause of the trouble that Members
were having with notifications.  In this respect, the EC also could go along with the change suggestedby Australia.
16. Concerning the sentence in question, the delegate of the United States could accept its
deletion, its retention as it was, or the modification proposed by Australia.
17. The delegate of Canada noted that the redraft proposed by Australia went a long way to
alleviating Canada's concerns, but that Canada would like to see the revised text in writing and have a
little time to consider it before signing off on it.
18. The delegate of Brazil also requested time to consider the revised text, to ensure that it met
Brazil's concerns.
19. The delegate of Mexico stated that her delegation had been prepared to accept the Chairman's
statement as originally proposed for this meeting, but was flexible in respect of the amendments that
had been proposed, although Mexico also wanted a short time to consider them in writing.  For
Mexico, it was important to maintain the middle sentence of the third paragraph, as it contained the
reference to the problem of notifications experienced by Members.
20. The Chairman proposed that the Committee agree ad referendum  to the text with the changes
proposed by the United States and Australia, and that the text would become final one week later if no
comments were received by that time.
21. The Committee so agreed.
22. The meeting was adjourned.
__________