RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/M/27
20 April 2001
(01-1996)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
HELD ON 9 FEBRUARY 2001
Chairperson:  Ms. Usha Dwarka-Canabady (Mauritius)
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures held a special meeting on
9 February 2001.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
(a) Process for Consideration of Implementation-Related Issues Referred to the
Committee by the General Council.
(b) Election of a Member of the Permanent Group of Experts.
(c) Issues Concerning Subsidy Notifications (Including Results of the Survey on
Difficulties in Preparing and Presenting Notifications)
(a) Process for consideration of implementation-related issues
3. The Chairperson recalled that in its decision of 15 December 2000, the General Council
decided as follows:
"6.2 The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures (SCM Committee) shall examine as an important part of its
work all issues relating to Articles 27.5 and 27.6 of the SCM
Agreement, including the possibility to establish export
competitiveness on the basis of a period longer than two years.
6.3 The SCM Committee shall examine as an important
part of its work the issues of aggregate and generalized rates of
remission of import duties and of the definition of "inputs consumed
in the production process", taking into account the particular needs of
developing-country Members."
4. The Chairperson noted that following the referr als of these decisions to the Committee, the
Committee had held informal consultations on 26 January 2001 to discuss how to proceed in
considering these issues.  On the basis of that discussion and on the basis of the general understanding
among Members that had emerged during these consultations, the Chairperson had circulated a fax to
the Committee dated 26 January proposing as the basis for a decision, the following three elements.
5. The first element was that these issues should be examined on the basis of a written process
involving submissions by Members. During the consultations, Members had noted that these papersG/SCM/M/27
Page 2
should address the technical aspects of the issues, describe Members' experiences with and/or
concerns over the identified provisions, and propose any solutions.
6. The second element was that the Committee should conduct its substantive work in a series of
informal meetings, the first of which would be held on Monday, 2 April 2001, with formal meetings
of the Committee to be convened as and when necessary.  The proposed date for the first meeting,2 April, had been identified on the basis of the time that Members indicated they would need to
prepare their own submissions, and the time that Members indicated they would need to analyze and
react to the written submissions of other Members.  It was also, in keeping with the expressed concern
of certain Members to avoid conflicting meeting schedules, the earliest date within those time frames
on which there were the fewest other meetings already scheduled.
7. The third element was that any written submissions to be considered at the first meeting
should be due by Thursday, 8 March 2001.  This proposed deadline had been identified on the basis ofthe time that Members indicated they would require in order to prepare those written submissions.
8. The Chairperson also recalled that at the informal consultations, the Committee had discussed
the question of interim deadlines for reporting to  the General Council.  In the course of that
discussion, the Committee had considered that for the time being it could keep in mind the date of
31 July 2000 as an indicative deadline by which the Committee's substantive consideration of the twoissues referred to it so far would hopefully be completed. The Committee had also felt that this
"mental deadline" would be further guided by any decision that the General Council might take in
respect of reporting by subsidiary bodies.  The Chairperson had informed the Committee that she
would of course keep abreast of, and inform th e Committee about, any such developments in the
General Council, so that the Committee could make any necessary adjustments to its workprogramme.
9. The Chairperson noted that as the Members were no doubt aware, the General Council had
held informal consultations the previous Monday concerning the organisation of its further work in
respect of implementation. At the General Council's formal meeting held the day before, the General
Council Chairman had reported that the issue of deadlines had been raised at the Mondayconsultations, and that he felt that further reflection was necessary in this regard.  Nonetheless, the
General Council had conveyed to the Committee and to all subsidiary bodies the urgency which
Members attached to the work which those bodies were being asked to undertake on implementation.
The Chairperson stated she would continue closely to follow developments in the General Council on
that issue, and that she believed that what should be retained was the sense of urgency which the
General Council had conveyed to the Committee.
10. Thus, in the absence of a specific decision from the General Council as of that point, the
Chairperson suggested that the Committee proceed with its decision as set forth in the Chairperson's
fax of 26 January, which decision the Committee could revisit as necessary in the light of any new
guidance or requests that it might receive from the General Council concerning reporting.
11. The Chairperson thus proposed that the Committee decide: (i) that implementation-related
issues referred to it in the General Council's decision of 15 December 2000 would be examined on thebasis of a written process involving submissions by Members;  (ii) that the Committee would conduct
its substantive discussions in a series of inform al meetings, the first of which would be held on
Monday, 2 April 2001, with formal meetings of the Committee being convened as necessary; and (iii)
that any written submissions by Members to be considered at the first meeting would be due by
Thursday, 8 March 2001.
12. The delegate of Panama stated that he was very grateful for the detailed explanation which the
Chairperson had just provided as Panama had not had the opportunity of participating in the informalG/SCM/M/27
Page 3
consultations where these three points had been drawn up.  In general, Panama thought that it was
advisable to take on board these points, with one or two small changes.  On the first point, Panama
proposed a change such that, while the process should be primarily written, this should not preclude
the possibility of proposals being presented orally during meetings.  Given staff time and problems it
was sometimes difficult for Panama to prepare written submissions, and so Panama wished to havesome flexibility on this point.  On the second point, that discussions would be held in a series of
informal meetings, Panama agreed, but suggested that there be some sort of written record of these
informal meetings or some sort of report of the discussions.  For Panama, the issues were too
important just to remain without any sort of record of the points and counter-points actually discussed
during the informal meetings and what the dynamics were in those meetings.  On another point, the
Chairperson had mentioned the statement by the Chairman of the General Council at the meeting the
previous day.  No deadlines had been fixed there to complete this work, but the General CouncilChairman had stressed the urgency and the importance of the work assigned to the Committee.
Panama entirely subscribed to the Chairman's comments regarding the urgency and importance of this
work, and noted that the fact that there was no deadline for its completion should not be an excuse or
a reason to delay things too much, especially if it was borne in mind that the input of this Committee
would be valuable to the General Council.  The General Council was not prevented from acting andthere might come a point in time where the pressure s within the General Council were such it would
be urged to go forward without the valuable input the Committee might provide.
13. The Chairperson requested comments on Panama's suggestion that the process be primarily
although not exclusively written.  She recalled that the purpose of having a written proposal as it had
arisen from the consultations was that the Committee should try to encourage people to explain theirdifficulties in detail, and not just to repeat positions previously taken.  On the question of a written
record of meetings, it was not the practice, as the Chairperson understood, to have a written record of
informal meetings.  But the Committee would remember that these informal meetings would be
punctuated by formal meetings, which would be convened as and when necessary.  The Committee
could follow the informal meetings with formal m eetings, at which any statements made in informal
session could be recorded.
14. The delegate of Panama agreed that the forthcoming submissions should not be a mere
repetition of earlier postures, and that they should be detailed, but suggested that the procedure should
essentially, although not exclusively, be based on written proposals.  Concerning the idea that
informal meetings be followed by a formal sessions , the delegate noted that often what happened in a
formal meeting was that a decision was merely communicated, thus formalising the result of an
informal sitting.  For Panama, it was very importa nt that at least during any formal meeting the
Committee might have a statement by the Chair summing up what had taken place in the informal
setting, including the subjects covered, the postures adopted, and progress or lack thereof.  This would
provide a written reflection of the essence of what went on in the informal setting.
15. The Chairperson responded that it was unlikely  that any Member would have an objection to
oral presentations by Members.  Concerning reporting by the Committee Chair at formal meetings,
the Chairperson agreed that this was part of the normal responsibility of a Chair.
16. The delegate of Malaysia agreed with both points raised by Panama, especially the first point,
that one should not exclude or preclude the possibility of even oral proposals.  On the second point,
the delegate agreed with the proposal for a summary of the informal discussions by the Chair at
formal meetings, given that informal meetings normally do not have records. Concerning the otherpoints for decision, Malaysia had not heard the Chairperson say anything on any deadline, and
thought that it would be useful to establish some so rt of deadline in the decision, be it mental, oral or
verbal or some other kind of soft deadline, and in any case always subject to any decision that the
General Council might take in this regard.  For Malaysia, the important point was that the deadline,
whether soft or firm, should be inscribed somewhere in the decision.G/SCM/M/27
Page 4
17. The delegate of Bulgaria recalled, as expressed at the 26 January informal consultations, that
Bulgaria was very flexible in respect of deadlines and format of meetings, although it had a slight
preference for either formal sessions or informal sessions with interpretation.  Bulgaria agreed that
there should be submissions by Members, althoug h it would not be making such a submission.
Nevertheless, Bulgaria was interested in the subject, and as it had said repeatedly on other occasions,it would follow it very closely, particularly in respect of any solutions that might eventually be
proposed.  In particular, Bulgaria wanted to ensure that any new rights or flexibilities were given only
on the basis of objective criteria.  In the General Council's decision, there was a mention of
developing countries.  Bulgaria had accepted the decision on the basis of assurances that it was a
procedural decision, which did not exclude the problems of, for example, countries in transition.
Therefore, Bulgaria wanted to make it very clear that it would be following very closely any proposed
solutions.  Bulgaria would be very flexible and understanding in respect of any problems, but wouldimmediately look to see if those problems were of relevance also to it.
18. The delegate of Egypt stated that Egypt could agree with what had been proposed in the fax
of 26 January, and also with the modifications just proposed by Panama, as there was a need to allow
for oral submissions, especially for delegations that did not have enough time or resources to submit
written submissions.  Egypt could be very flexible regarding deadlines, whether for informal meetings
or for submissions.  The only thing that Egypt wished to place on record was that it hoped to avoid the
scheduling of meetings of the Committee that would conflict with other meetings, given the limited of
small delegations, an issue of which the Chairperson was aware.  Egypt also very much agreed with
the points raised by Malaysia regarding deadlines.  Egypt could be very flexible on this point, and
thought that perhaps an indicative deadline might be of merit.  Egypt also endorsed what Panama hadsaid regarding having a record for the informal m eetings and thought this was not the first precedent
in this house – i.e. the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, when the Dispute Settlement
Understanding was being reviewed.  Egypt's recoll ection was that a record for each meeting had been
the responsibility of the Chair, and the idea of having a report on the Chair's own responsibility was
very good.
19. The delegate of Pakistan commented that when the Members were discussing the possible
referral of certain implementation issues to subsidiary bodies for reflection and necessary input, he
recalled that there had been a phrase having to do with specific mandates and specific time frames.  In
the case of issues referred to this Committee, it  had perhaps been an oversight that the General
Council did not establish a specific time-frame.  It would be a good idea, as Malaysia had suggested
and Egypt had endorsed, for the Committee to have some sort of mental time-frame.  It was possible
that at the next meeting of the General Council, the issue would be raised and the General Councilwould come up with some specific time-frame for the Committee to conclude its work on these
implementation issues.
20. The Chairperson proposed that in light of comments made, the Committee should move ahead
and try to adopt the decision, which initially had three elements in it, taking into account the following
points: (i) That the modification proposed by Panama be incorporated, so that the Committee wouldunderstand that while this remained primarily a written process, this would not exclude any Member
from coming forward with an oral report or submi ssion that could eventually be converted to written
form if necessary.  Thus, there would be no exclusion of oral interventions, presentations or
submissions.  (ii) Concerning the dates and timing, that it had not be possible to choose a different
date for the first informal meeting within the rele vant time frames.  The Secretariat had looked for a
date that coincided as little as possible with other meetings.  Only one other meeting had been
scheduled for 2 April.  (iii) That, based on the intervention by Malaysia, a new element should be
added to the effect that there should be an indicative interim deadline of 31 July, a date which had
been discussed in this context at the 26 January informal consultations, and which would be guided by
any further decision that might be taken at the level of the General Council.G/SCM/M/27
Page 5
21. The delegate of the United States stated that the United States could go along with the
proposals made by Panama.  With respect to the last proposal, he recalled that at the informal
consultations there had been a discussion regarding a deadline for a report from the Chairperson.
During this discussion, there had been agreement that 31 July could be a date on which the Chair
would submit, as the Chair, a report on interim prog ress that had been made within the Committee.  In
his view, this had not been intended to be a deadli ne for completion of the work, but rather a deadline
for reporting on the status of the work within the Committee.  In particular, his recollection was that
an interim deadline of June 30 initially had been proposed for a report from the Chairperson to the
General Council or to whomever she felt she had to  make the report, but that another delegation had
proposed a later date.  In response then, the Chairperson had said perhaps the later date was a better
idea because hopefully there could be completion of the work by then, but the delegate was not aware
that there had ever been any kind of agreement with in the consultations to actually complete the work
by that date.
22. The Chairperson stated that in the Secretariat's record of the meeting, the date of 31 July 2001
had been discussed as an indicative deadline by which the Committee's substantive consideration of
these issues would hopefully have been completed, bu t that it remained an interim deadline to be
guided by further consideration of the Committee.  That is, the sense of the meeting had been that 31July was the mental deadline that the Committee would keep in mind for trying to complete the work
by that time.  The Chairperson noted that in any case, completion of the work would very much
depend on how far the Committee progressed in its discussions.  She asked whether it would be a
difficulty for the United States if the Committee di d set an interim deadline of 31 July to try and
hopefully complete the work by that time.  This would after all be an interim deadline and not a finaldeadline, and the Committee's consideration or completion of the two items referred to it might not
have been completed by then in practice.  It was only a guideline that the Committee would be
instituting.
23. The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation could accept having a deadline of
31 July for a report from the Chairperson on the status of the work within the Committee.
24. The delegate of India noted that the idea was that the Committee should work toward
completing the work, and that it was only an interim deadline which the Committee would set, subject
to the decisions of the General Council.  If the Committee went by the idea that it would only be
setting a deadline for an interim report, the Committee would be accepting at that moment that the
work would not be completed by 31 July in any case.  The delegate thought that the sense of the
Committee at the consultations had been that all Members should endeavour to complete the work by
31 July, and that according to the stage of the progress on that date, the Chairperson would make theappropriate report to the General Council.
25. The delegate of Malaysia agreed with India, and noted if the Committee were to start the way
the US delegate had suggested, there would be no mood, spirit or sense of urgency.  He wanted the
Committee to work towards the deadline, and reit erated his point from the informal consultations
which had been supported by several Members, that this would not be a firm deadline.  But there hadto be a deadline toward which the Committee would work.  Of course, while he had originally
suggested a deadline of 30 June, upon having heard some arguments from the delegation of the
European Communities, he had been flexible to move  to 31 July.  This was already flexibility on the
part of Malaysia, as it was a date that was past the middle of the year.  In any case, at the end of the
day, by 31 July if there was not much progress, the Committee could react accordingly.  TheChairperson could submit a report that this was as far as the discussions had gone, that there had not
been many substantive discussions, or that there had been substantive discussions but no conclusions
or recommendations, or whatever the situation actually was at that time.  But certainly the Malaysian
delegation could not accept the proposal by the United States.G/SCM/M/27
Page 6
26. The delegate of Egypt stated that there was no point in setting deadlines for everything such
as submissions and formal and informal meetings, without also setting a deadline, even something
indicative, as to when the Committee was going to finalise this work.  The delegate recalled the points
raised by developing countries within the framework of the General Council implementation
mechanism, when referring some of the items to  some of the technical committees.  Egypt did not
want to feel that it had been wrong when it joined the consensus to refer some of these items to the
technical committees to make their own elaborations.  The delegate stated that Egypt was flexible
about the date, but there would have to be at least an indicative deadline.
27. The Chairperson suggested that there were two elements to the discussion and she wondered
whether it would be possible to combine something that might satisfy both.  That is, the Committee's
decision could have a fourth element noting 31 July as an interim deadline to try to complete the
work, and for a substantive progress report to be made by the Chairperson at the time.
28. The delegate of Canada asked the Chairperson for a clarification of whether the proposal was
that the substantive progress report would be made on 31 July or 30 June.  Further, in terms of trying
to complete the work, she recalled from the inform al consultations that Members had been talking
about a progress report determining where the Committee was at a point in time, and that some had
even noted that it was not with the view of conc lusions or necessarily even recommendations to the
General Council, but that it would be a report on the Committee's discussions up until that point.  If
that was the case, given some delegations' need for a deadline, if this element of the decision could be
framed in terms of a report on the discussions by 31 July, Canada would feel more comfortable.
29. The Chairperson stated that it she understood Canada to propose that, rather than to say
something like a "substantive progress report" Canada would prefer a "substantive report on the
discussions".  The Chairperson felt that a progress report would basically be reporting on the situation
as it had happened by then. If there had only been discussions by then, this would be what the
progress report would be about.
30. The delegate of the European Communities stated that the EC was very flexible and had no
problems with the deadline, but considered that concerning the substance, much remained to be done.
A report on progress of work within the Committee would doubtless be of use in due time.
31. The delegate of Japan stated that he regretted this kind of debate because it was precisely
what he thought the Committee should  be avoiding.  He did not believe that there was any Member in
the room objecting to the urgency of the nature of the discussion the Committee was facing.  In fact, if
the General Council itself indicated that it was urgent and the ambassadors were mandating this
urgency, the Committee should not be discussing what the deadline was or what kind of decisions the
Committee had or had not made previously. His fear was that if the Committee came up with somekind of date, as that date drew near there undoub tedly would be another discussion of whether some
report of the Chairman was precisely what the Members wanted or expected, and regarding what
should go into this report.  He was not saying that the Committee should be dragging its feet, and as
he had mentioned in the informal consultations, Japan was more than willing to sit down and get
serious on this issue as it had always been.  There was in any case no way for anyone in the room toget away with dragging feet because it was the General Council that was monitoring this body and if
any of the Members felt that this Committee was for whatever reason dragging its feet, the General
Council could always come back and ask for a report  by the following week, or whatever it might be.
In Japan's view, the best suggestion was to just start the substantive discussion.  The delegate took
note of the concerns of Malaysia and Pakistan for some kind of benchmark to work with.  Of course ifthe latest Chairman's suggestion stood, he was more than happy to go along with that.  Perhaps the
Chairperson could simply state what Malaysia had mentioned, i.e., a mental or interim deadline.  He
believed this was along the lines that had been discussed in the informal consultations.  He did notG/SCM/M/27
Page 7
wish the Committee to be bogged down in what kind of deadlines should go into the formal decision
of the Committee, since the General Council controlled the pace of this Committee.
32. The delegate of Pakistan noted that he failed to understand why the Committee had any
problem agreeing to an interim deadline.  It was not a final deadline;  as the Chairperson had rightly
said, it was an interim deadline, a mental deadline.  The General Council in its decision had clearlystated that the Committee needed to complete the work  by the fourth Ministerial.  He thought that the
31 July deadline was a fairly reasonable deadline, although it might be an interim deadline, for the
Committee to report to the General Council on the progress on these issues.  Most of the developing
countries had voiced apprehensions that if issues were relegated to the sub-committees they would
never come back.  There was a fear that this would materialise, so the Committee had to have a
deadline.  The Committee should try to work with a mental deadline, try to resolve these issues and
make some progress on them. The delegate of Japan had said that there was a sense of urgency, theambassadors had agreed to it and it was being monitored in the General Council. However, the
delegate of Pakistan thought that if Members did not agree to try to complete the process of the work
by a set date, the Committee would be more prone to letting it drag on indefinitely.
33. The delegate of Switzerland supported the Chairperson's proposal and agreed with the point
made by Japan.  Switzerland knew that a sense of urgency had been acknowledged.  The Swiss
delegation had been looking forward to examinin g the questions in front of the Committee - the
substantive matters.  His delegation had to admit to having little understanding of the questions raised
by point 6.2 and 6.3 of the General Council's decisi on.  Therefore, Switzerland suggested taking up
the Chairperson's proposal and leaving it principally to the General Council to discuss at its level the
question of deadlines for all the subsidiary bodies.
34. The delegate of Malaysia could agree with the delegates of Japan and Switzerland but he did
hope that the sense of urgency, which every delegation had expressed at that meeting, was then
manifested in what was said in the house and was not to the contrary.  Having said that, he requested
that the Chairperson amend her proposal.  Basically, Malaysia could agree with the proposal, but
wished for a slight amendment, namely that there would just be a 31 July deadline and a substantive
report by the Chair, full stop, and then one more sentence to say that "nevertheless this decision will
still be guided by any decision made by the General Council in this instance," or something to that
effect.
35. The Chairperson thanked the delegate of Malaysia for the constructive suggestion, which was
that the fourth element of any draft decision that the Committee could take would read that it had an
interim deadline of 31 July and a substantive progress report by the Chairman at that time.  This
deadline would be guided by any decision of the General Council on this issue.
36. The delegate of Panama stated that Panama could support the proposal the Chairperson had
just made and concurred that it was not merely a matter of accepting guidance from the General
Council to the effect that this was a question of urgency.  The Members of the Committee had to show
that they recognised that urgency and set goals for themselves, which Panama could support.
37. The delegate of the United States stated that at the consultations it had been noted that the
first real and substantive discussions on these proposals would be likely to take place at the May
meeting, when Members had capital-based experts in Geneva.  The feeling at those consultations had
been that it was very unlikely that any kind of decision could be reached, at least in June, and that
there had also been some question about whether decisions could even be reached in July, which was
the reason that Members had discussed an interim report at that time.  He noted that there had beendiscussions about having a report from the Committee, but that it had been recognized by those
present that drafting a Committee report would take even more time away from the work Members
were trying to do to address these issues.  He also noted that the whole timeframe had been based on aG/SCM/M/27
Page 8
written process, and that thus Members would know what was coming in advance of meetings.  As of
8 March, Members would know the exact specific items that would need to be addressed.  He could
certainly understand the concerns of delegations with limited resources to have an oral process, that it
would be difficult for them to move only through a written process.  But by having an oral process, it
could very well be that suggestions and proposals would not even come in until 2 April, which wouldpush back the ability of the Committee to even take up those items.  To try to impose any type of
deadline to complete the work by 31 July would be unrealistic.  In his view, what all Members could
agree on, based upon what he had heard from the delegation of Japan, Switzerland and others, was
that the Committee could note in the decision the mandate that had been given to it by the General
Council, and could reaffirm that Members would devote appropriate energies to ensure that these
issues were addressed on an urgent basis.
38. The Chairperson noted that whatever happened she would be propose that the Committee
adopt the three elemental decisions she thought all Members had agreed upon.  Members needed to do
this to move ahead with the work.  On the question of an interim deadline, she did not sense that there
was a strong objection to it.  The proposal made by Malaysia was useful in the sense that it did not
mention the question of completion of work but it si mply said that there was an interim deadline of
31 July and a substantive progress report by the Chairman at that time, this being subject to decisionsof the General Council.  The Chairperson asked whether it might be possible to add this as a fourth
element of the decision.  If there was not agreement on this, she suggested that the Committee adopt
its decision based on three elements and continue consulting on this element.  However, she liked to
think that the Committee could agree to the proposal made by Malaysia about having an interim
deadline of 31 July and a substantive progress report by the Chairperson.
39. The delegate of the United States stated that he would welcome the opportunity to consult
further regarding the deadline issue, and that the United States would support the Chair's proposal to
take a decision on the first three elements.
40. The delegate of Malaysia sincerely regretted that the Committee had come to that point,
where there was only one delegation that refused to go along with a consensus.  Of course, he
respected that delegation's decision which it had every right to make.  The Malaysian delegation could
not go along with any decision on the first three elements with the fourth element being subject to
some informal consultations, as this woul d mean that there would be no deadline.
41. The delegate of the United States stated that perhaps he was a bit confused about whether a
special meeting was an informal or a formal meeting.  The agenda only had three items on it; there
was no fourth agenda item.  In his view, it was only appropriate that the Committee consult on this
fourth decision proposal before going ahead, if this were a formal process.
42. The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee had discussed and consulted on the
issue of a deadline at the 26 January informal consultations.
43. The delegate of India associated his delegation with the statement made by Malaysia, and
requested that either the decision be taken on all the four elements of this agenda item or the decision-
making postponed to a later date.
44. The delegate of Colombia noted that she had been in the informal consultations and
remembered very well that this issue had been addressed and there had been consensus.  It had not
been reflected in the fax, which might have given rise to this misunderstanding.  If the problem was in
respect of oral submissions, Colombia could agree to an initial deadline of 31 July deadline; only if at
that time the quantity of oral proposals was such that it had been impossible to review all of themshould the Committee revise this date.  However, the question of oral submissions was the new
element since the consultations, so Members should try to start working and see what happened alongG/SCM/M/27
Page 9
the way and then decide if there were so many oral presentations that it was impossible for the
delegations to deal with the work.
45. The Chairperson suspended the meeting, to see if a short break would enable Members to
make progress on how to proceed on this decision.
46. After reconvening the meeting, the Chairper son thanked Members for their patience, and
noted that the extended coffee break had been very constructive.  She believed that some draft
language had been found that could be accepted by all Members.  The proposed language was:
47. "The Committee will be guided by deadlines established by the General Council on
implementation issues.  The Committee will direct the Chair to provide an interim report to the
General Council with a view to concluding work by 31 July 2001."
48. She formally proposed that this should be the fourth element of the decision and asked
whether the Committee could move forward then to adopt the decision.
49. The Committee adopted the following decision, which was subsequently circulated in
G/SCM/30:
"1. The implementation-related issues referred to the Committee in the General
Council's decision of 15 December 2000 will be examined primarily on the basis of a
written process involving submissions by Members.  This does not precludesubmissions made orally at meetings.
2. The Committee will conduct its substantive discussions in a series of
informal meetings, the first of which will be held on Monday, 2 April 2001.  At
formal meetings of the Committee to be convened as necessary, the Chairperson will
report to the Committee, on his or her own responsibility, on the discussions heldduring the informal meetings.
3. Any written submissions by Members to be considered at the first informal
meeting are due by Thursday, 8 March 2001.
4. The Committee will be guided by deadlines established by the General
Council on implementation issues.  The Committee will direct the Chairperson toprovide an interim report to the General Council with a view to concluding work by
31 July 2001."
(b) Election of a Member of the Permanent Group of Experts
50. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee was to elect a member of the Permanent Group
of Experts to replace Mr. Ganesan, who had resigned from the PGE the previous year upon his
appointment to the Appellate Body.  This issue had been on the agenda of the Committee's last regular
meeting, in November 2000.  Two candidatures had been put forward to fill this vacancy, those ofProfessor Okan Aktan and of Mr. Jorge Castro Bernieri.  At that time, the Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson had consulted informally with delegations as to their views.  However, on the basis of the
consultations, they had not felt that they were in a position to make a recommendation to the
Committee at the time of the November meeting as to the election of a new PGE member.  In view of
this, the Committee had agreed that the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson should continue informalconsultations with a final cut-off date for expressions of views early in 2001, and that the Committee
should convene a special meeting shortly thereafter for the PGE election.  As Members were aware,
the final deadline for expressions of view had been 22 January 2001.G/SCM/M/27
Page 10
51. The Chairperson was pleased to inform the Committee that 69 Members had expressed views
in this matter.  Very importantly, Members expressing views uniformly had noted their appreciation
of the excellent qualifications of both candidates.  In no case had any Member objected in any way to
either of the candidatures put forward.  Of those Members expressing a view, many had indicated that
they could join a consensus in support of either one of the two candidates.  However, among thosewho did express support for one or the other of the two candidates, there had been a clear
preponderance of support for Professor Aktan.  On this basis, the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
proposed that the Committee elect Professor Aktan to the PGE for the remainder of Mr. Ganesan's
term, which would expire in Spring 2002.
52. The Committee elected Professor Aktan to the PGE.
53. On behalf of the Committee, the Chairperson welcomed Professor Aktan to the PGE and
asked the Turkish delegation to extend to him the Committee's very best wishes.  She thanked boththe delegations of Venezuela and Turkey for having put forward such excellent candidates.
54. The delegate of Turkey stated that on behalf of Professor Aktan and his delegation, he wished
to extend his thanks and appreciation to the Chairperson and to the Secretariat for having tirelessly
carried out the long-lasting consultations on this issue.  He also thanked all Members of Committee.
He especially wished to thank those, of course, that had given their valuable support to thecandidature of Professor Aktan for having expressed their views on this matter so that this election
could be finalised.
55. The delegate of Venezuela thanked the Chairperson and stated that the results of the
consultations carried out by her and the Secretariat were very clear.  The Venezuelan delegation
wished also to congratulate Turkey and Professor Aktan, who clearly had very good credentials.Venezuela also thanked delegations for their support for the Venezuelan candidate.  Venezuela
wished as well to reiterate its interest in pursuin g Mr. Castro Bernierni's candidacy in the case of
another opening on the PGE.
56. The Chairperson reminded Members that in the spring of 2001, a vacancy would arise in the
PGE following the expiry of Mr. Gary Horlick's term  of office.  The election to replace Mr. Horlick
would be on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting of 2 May 2001.  In this regard, a
document requesting suggestions of individuals to fill this vacancy would circulate the following
week to Members.  The document would indica te a deadline of Friday 9 March 2001 for the
submission of any candidatures.
(c) Subsidy Notification Issues
57. The Chairperson recalled that this item, which had been discussed at the November meeting
of the Working Party, had been included on the agenda of this current meeting to take advantage of
the fact that the Secretariat had now compiled the results of the questionnaires sent out to Members in
late 2000.  She thought that it would be useful for the Committee to take advantage of this occasion to
have a preliminary look at those results.  The questionnaires had had a due date of 26 January, and the
Secretariat had received and compiled about 28 responses.  She urged Members that had not yet
submitted a questionnaire response to please do so, as the Committee would certainly return to thismatter in future discussions of notification-related issues in the Working Party on Subsidy
Notifications and the Committee.
58. Concerning the compilation of the questionnaire responses, the Chairperson noted that factors
cited most often as being of major importance as problems in making notifications were the technical
difficulty of developing statistical information on expenditures or budgetary amounts of subsidies, andan insufficient number of trained staff.  These same factors were also cited most often as being ofG/SCM/M/27
Page 11
either significant or major importance.  Turning to the factors cited most often as being of moderate,
significant or major importance, these were that responsible staff have other more pressing priorities,
the technical difficulties of developing the two kinds of statistical information, and an insufficient
number of trained staff.  Turning to the other end of the spectrum, the factors cited most often as not
being relevant or important were lack of understanding of the Agreement's rules on the part of theagency preparing the notification, concerns over the legal implications of submitting information on
the trade effects of subsidies, and the technical difficulty of preparing information in that agreed
format.  A further interesting result was that, as shown in the middle of page 5, the large majority of
responses indicated that the level of effort and resources was about the same for updating notifications
as for new and full notifications.  Finally, most respondents indicated that a relatively limited number
of agencies were involved in the preparation of their notifications, most quoting one to five agencies.
59. There were no requests for the floor concerning this agenda item.  The Chairperson again
encouraged Members to provide more responses and thought the Committee should be in a position to
try and use the questionnaire responses as a basis to guide the Committee's discussions at the next
meeting of the Working Party.
60. Considering more broadly the next steps for the Committee's work on subsidy notifications,
particularly in the context of the Working Party, the Chairperson recalled that at the Working Party's
last meeting in November, two main issues had been left pending.  These were the question of
possible ways to reduce the burden of notification while maintaining transparency, of which the
questionnaire that had just been discussed was a sub-issue.  Second was the question of procedures for
the review of the 2001 new and full notifications that would be due on 30 June 2001.  At that time, the
Working Party had concluded that it should hold its meetings back-to-back with meetings of the
Committee, and that its next meeting therefore should be held just before the May 2001 regular
meeting.
61. The Chairperson proposed that given that the Committee would be meeting in informal
session on 2 April to discuss the implementation-related papers, it could be useful to the Committee's
work on subsidy notification issues to hold a meeting of the Working Party on the same day.  By thenhopefully the Committee would have a more complete picture of the situation on the basis of
questionnaires received.  That would allow the Secretariat to produce an updated version and perhaps
an expanded version of its compilation of the questionnaire responses.  If the Committee was to hold a
Working Party meeting on 2 April to further discuss those results and the two pending issues, this
would leave still one month before the Committee's next regular meeting, which would allow more
time for the development of any specific proposal s that the Committee might wish to adopt at the
regular meeting as regards updates.
62. The Committee so agreed.
63. The meeting of the Committee was adjourned.
__________