./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/421
30 March 1999
(99-1251)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
FREQUENCY OF ARTICLE 25 SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS
Communication from the European Community
The following communication, dated 25 March 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Delegation of the European Commission.
_______________
1. The Community proposes that consideration should be given to changing the frequency of
subsidy notifications made under Article 25.1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures ("the Agreement") in order to render the procedure more efficient and at the
same time lighten the burden on Members.
It is recalled that under the current system Members need to provide a full notification every
three years and an update in each of the two inte rvening years.  The Community proposal is that
Members should consider the merits of moving to a timetable, which involves the provision of a full
notification every two years, with updates being abolished.
2. The current procedure, which essentially involves the provision of information every year, is
clearly not working.  The sheer volume of notifications, and the consequent time required for
translation and printing, allied to the lateness of many Members' new and full notifications, mean that
it is already difficult for these notifications to be reviewed in a timely manner.  Consequently,updates, for which the compliance record is far worse than for new and full notifications, cannot be
reviewed adequately before the next round of new and full notifications is due.  During the first round
of notifications, it was noticeable that very few questions were put on updates;  although these involve
almost as much work as new and full notifications for the notifying Member, far less attention appears
to be paid to them by other Members.
3. The Community considers that the current prov isions of the Agreement regarding subsidy
notifications do not lend themselves to an efficien t procedure for review.  Experience has already
shown that, even with the new "written" procedure for reviewing notifications agreed by Members in
May 1998, at least three meetings of the Subsidies Committee are necessary in order to adequately
review new and full notifications.  From a material point of view, taking account of the amount oftime that elapses between submitting questions and answering them in writing on each occasion, it is
in practice impossible to complete the process before the first update is due, particularly if
notifications are submitted late.
4. The main advantage of moving to a system of biennial full notifications and abolishing
updates is that Members will only need to prov ide information once every two years, leaving them
with a whole year for reviewing the notifications .  Thus, the requisite number of review meetings
could be held in the intervening year, and the timetable and various deadlines could be planned well
in advance.  For example, it could be decided to hold meetings in April, July and November.G/SCM/W/421
Page 2
Notifications would still be due by 30 June the previous year, but even if some notifications were a
few months late, or took some time to be distributed for material reasons, this would not disrupt the
process too much.  During the second year, Members could concentrate more resources on the review
process, since there would be no updates to work on, and consequently the quality of information
coming out of reviews should improve.  The review process would become more coherent, and theinformation to be reviewed would be more up to  date.  This approach would be in line with
Ministerial Conference recommendations on simplifyi ng notification procedures and would also be
favourable to certain Members which currently have problems in completing notifications and
participating in the reviews, since they would be able to use their often limited resources more
efficiently.
5. The Community, in conjunction with other Members, has in the past spoken in favour of a
move to biennial notifications.  In view of th e experience which Members have now gained in the
area of subsidy notifications over a period of more than four years since the entry into force of the
Uruguay Round, and in the light of the forthcomin g Ministerial Conference in Seattle, it seems
appropriate to raise this issue again.  For this reason, we propose that the Committee should discuss
the matter at the next meeting of the Subsidies Committee on 3 May 1999, in order to allow Members
to express their views on the subject of a possible move to biennial notifications and to see whether aconsensus can be achieved on this issue.
__________