RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/NOP/4
22February 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0662)
Working Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures
MEETING HELD ON7FEBRUARY 1996
Chairman: Mr.A.Shoyer (United States)
Note bytheSecretariat
1. Thedraftagenda forthefourth meeting oftheWorking Group, setoutinWTO/AIR/247, dated
18January 1996, wasadopted.
Introduction
2. Inopening themeeting, theChairman reviewed thework programme fortheyearahead. He
considered thattheoverall programme oftheGroup consisted ofthree stages: thefirstcomprised the
work atthethree meetings in1995 atwhich theissues inthisareawere identified andaninventory
ofsubjects fordetailed examination wascreated. Thecurrent meeting began thesecond stage during
which thesubjects identified lastyearwillbeexamined individually andindetail. Thethird stage
would entail thepreparation oftheGroup 'sreport andrecommendations totheCTG. Astotiming,
heconsidered thattheWorking Group 'sreport should besubmitted totheCTG ingood timebefore
theMinisterial Conference inDecember. Hence, thedetailed examination phase should becomplete
bytheendofJulywiththereport being prepared andtherecommendations finalized inSeptember
orearly October.
3. Tothisend,theChairman advised thatmeeting dates hadbeenreserved, asdiscussed atthe
lastmeeting, foronedayintheearlypartofeachmonth: 8March1,12April, 3May, 6June, 3July,
and10September.
4. TheChairman noted thattheagenda proposed twotopics forexamination atthismeeting:
first,thequestion ofduplication oroverlapping inthenotification requirements oftheAgreement on
Agriculture andtheAgreement onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures ("Subsidies") andofthe
Subsidies andTrade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) Agreements andsecond, three aspects of
thequestion ofsimplification ofdatarequirements andstandardization offormats. Inview ofthe
considerable technical detail inherent inthese subjects, theChairman encouraged thesubmission of
material inwriting which would facilitate discussion intheGroup aswellasexamination byexperts
inthecapitals.
Agenda Item2(a)Duplication/Overlapping inNotification Obligations
5. Thedelegate ofNewZealand provided apaper which wascirculated atthemeeting andis
being reproduced asdocument G/NOP/W/7. Hesuggested thatthepaper might behelpful asastarting
1Atthemeeting thedateof8March wasmentioned, however thenextmeeting wassubsequently fixed for
Monday 11March intheafternoon.G/NOP/4
Page2
point forfurther discussions asitsetoutthree options onhow toapproach thequestion of
duplication/overlapping intheAgriculture/Subsidies Agreements. Thefirstoption would make no
change tothepresent arrangements; rather, theGroup could decide toreview thearrangements at
aspecified dateinthefuture when Members willhavehadtheexperience ofafullcycle ofnotifications
intheirpresent format. Thesecond option intheNewZealand paper foresaw thedevelopment ofa
revised notification format foragriculture subsidies, which would merge thetwosetsofobligations,
resulting inonesingle notification format meeting therequirements ofbothAgreements. Thethird
option would startwiththeAgriculture Agreement notification andaddtoittheadditional qualitative
informationrequiredbytheSubsidiesAgreementnotificationtorespondtotheneedsofbothAgreements
through oneformat.
6. Anumber ofdelegates spoke under thisagenda itemusing asabasis thethree options inthe
NewZealand paper. They emphasized thattheirviews were preliminary astheyhadjustrecently
received thepaper, andundertook tohaveitscontents carefully examined incapitals, afterwhich they
would continue thedebate atafuture meeting.
7. Several delegates indicated apreference forthefirstoption ofmaking nochange tothepresent
formats atthistime. They considered thatitwastooearly toundertake areview ofthenotification
process without theexperience ofafullcycle ofSubsidies andAgriculture notifications. Itwasnoted
inthisregard thatsome Members hadnotyetsubmitted theirSubsidies Agreement notifications and
many Agriculture Agreement notifications wereduelaterin1996. Some considered thattheGroup
didnothaveenough basicinformation tomake reliable judgements orrecommendations inthismatter.
Other views werethatthepresent notification requirements hadnotpresented serious problems: the
twoagreements didnothaveextensive specific overlapping and,therefore, didnotwarrant substantive
changes. Theviewwasalsoheldthatacceptance ofthefirstoption would notbeinconsistent with
theGroup 'smandate asthere could bearecommendation foranongoing orfurther work programme
inthisarea.
8. Some delegates werenotinfavour oftheapproach envisaged inthefirstoption, being concerned
thatmaintaining thestatus quomight giverisetodelays inexamining theduplication problem and
would notrespond totheGroup 'smandate inthisarea. They considered thatsome harmonization
andstreamlining waspossible, and,therefore, thattheGroup should move forward initssearch for
solutions totheduplication problem onthebasis oftheavailable formats andnotifications. Another
approach, inthecontext ofthefirstoption, wasthatthisexamination betaken asanongoing process
andhaving made asmuch progress aspossible initspresent discussions, partoftheGroup 's
recommendations could bethatthework betaken upagain afteraperiod oftime.
9. Some delegations considered thatoptions twoandthreepresented agoodbasisforasubstantive
discussion intheGroup. There wasscope forharmonizing theexisting formats andthese options
presented themeans. Itwasstressed thatasingle notification format fortheAgriculture andSubsidies
Agreements would simplify theadministrative process byremoving thedouble collection ofinformation
onthesameprogrammes.ThereareanumberofdescriptiveorinformationrequirementsintheSubsidies
Agreement which could beaccommodated intheAgriculture Agreement, suchasthetitles ofthe
programmes andtheiroperation. Treatment oftherequirements forinformation on"perunitsubsidy"
andontrade effects would bemore difficult todealwith. Nevertheless, itwould beworthwhile to
examine thepossibility ofadding these totheAgriculture format toarrive atasingle notification but
without changing theobligations ortheinformation requirements ofthetwoAgreements.
10. While supporting anexamination oftheseoptions, itwaspointed outthat,insuchadiscussion,
transparency mustnotbediminished andthelegalobligations mustbefullyrespected. With thisin
mind, itwassuggested thattheexamination could onlybesuccessful ifitwereundertaken asanarrow
andself-containedexercise,withdiscussionsnotgoingbeyondthespecificissue.Concernwasexpressed,G/NOP/4
Page3
however, thatoption twocould imply changes toMembers 'obligations which would betime-consuming
andverydifficult toachieve.
11. Asregards theactual procedures forsubmission ofanyunified notification, itwasquestioned
ifthere should betwoseparate notifications, onedocument withtwosymbols oracross-reference.
Another question would bethetiming ofnotifications where therearenowcertain legalrequirements.
12. Looking beyond thethreeoptions inthepaper before theGroup, itwassuggested thatafourth
approach could beconsidered, thatofproposing modifications tothetextual obligations inthetwo
Agreements, particularly iftheGroup found thattheother options wereinsufficient. Itwasrecognized
thatsuchanexamination, which waspermitted bytheGroup 'smandate, would bedifficult before a
fullcycle ofnotifications hadbeenmade, butitwasaconceptual possibility. Itwasstressed thatany
proposalstochangethenotificationsprocessesmustsafeguardthedifferentnaturesandlegalimplications
oftheAgriculture andSubsidies Agreements.
13. Thedelegate oftheUnited States provided apaper onthequestion ofduplication/overlapping
intheAgriculture/Subsidies Agreements under three headings: (i)Subsidies Agreement: Consider
eliminating requirements toprovide information onsubsidy perunitandontradeeffects, except where
information isreasonably available forcommodity-specific programmes; (ii)Thenotification format
usedunder theAgreement onAgriculture could beadapted tosatisfy thesubstantive requirements of
boththeSubsidies andtheAgriculture Agreements; and(iii)Consolidated information onagriculture
subsidy programmes should bereported, infull,toboththeAgriculture Committee andtheSubsidies
Committee. Thispaper isbeing circulated indocument G/NOP/W/8.
14. Anumber ofdelegates welcomed theUSpaper butwerenotinaposition tooffersubstantive
comments atthatpoint. They undertook toexamine itindetail andprovide theircomments atafuture
meeting.
15. Turning totheduplication oroverlapping intheAgreement onTrade-Related Investment
Measures (TRIMs) andtheSubsidies Agreement, itwasnoted thatanyduplication which existed would
havelittlepractical effect astheTRIMs notification under Article 5.1wasaone-time obligation and
wasduewithin 90daysofthedateofentry intoforce oftheAgreement. Subsequent notification of
changes under Article 5.4would beofanadhocnature, i.e.notregular orongoing. Consequently,
while TRIMs measures could bemaintained bysome Members forcertain periods oftime, theywould
havetobenotified onlyononeoccasion under thisAgreement andthere would, therefore, belittle
purpose intaking steps intheGroup toaddress suchnon-recurring duplication (seealsocomments
onthistopic inG/NOP/W/8).
Agenda Item2(b)Simplification ofDataRequirements andStandardization ofFormats
16. Inopening thediscussion, theChairman recalled thatinearlier discussions three suggestions
hadbeentabled; namely, theidentification ofanyformats/questionnaires which sought information
going beyond thespecific requirements oftherelevant agreements; suggestions astoanyadditional
areaswhereformats/questionnairescouldbedeveloped;andareaswhereformats/questionnairescommon
tomore thanonenotification obligations could becombined.
17. Acomment wasmade thattheinformation required on"perunitsubsidy" intheSubsidy
Agreement didnotnecessarily gobeyond therequirements ofthatAgreement butitdidnotappear
tobeauseful requirement inthecurrent situation andevenlesssoinrespect ofagricultural subsidies
where considerable other quantitative information wasrequired. Other delegates were oftheview
thatsince"perunitsubsidy" wasmentioned inArticle 25oftheSubsidies Agreement, theinformation
sought inthecurrent format wasdefinitely notbeyond therequirements oftheAgreement.G/NOP/4
Page4
18. Alsounder thisagenda item, itwasquestioned ifsome formofguidance could bedeveloped
toassist Members inresponding withprecision totherequirement tonotify quantitative restrictions
inthecontext oftheCTG Decision onnotification procedures forquantitative restrictions. Inthis
regard itwasasked ifsuchdiscussion would beappropriate tothisGroup ortheMarket Access
Committee.
19. Discussion thenturned totheapproach thisGroup should takeinresponding topoints raised
inrespect ofthethreesuggestions inparagraph 16.Onepossibility would betosuggest tothevarious
committee chairpersons thatthese questions beputontheiragendas fordiscussion andthatanyideas
emerging fromthisprocess beforwarded tothisGroup. Another viewwasthatthediscussion onsuch
questions should betheresponsibility oftherespective committees withtheirspecific technical expertise
rather thanthis"global" Group. Ataminimum, thisGroup should notpropose modifying formats
without theinput oftheconcerned Committee. Itwasalsoobserved thatindividual Committees might
besensitive orhesitant about making changes totheir notification formats anditwould bemore
productive toholdsuchdiscussion inthisGroup withtheoutcome being provided totheconcerned
committee, possibly asarecommendation forconsideration. Asuggested approach tothisquestion
wasthattheseproblems bediscussed intheGroup todetermine theirfeasibility andthebestapproaches
inrecognition ofthebroad mandate ofthisGroup tolookatalltypes ofconcerns anditsoverall view
ofthesituation inthisarea.
20. Inthelightofthediscussion onthisagenda item, andinresponse tothespecific suggestion
which hadbeenmade, theChairman suggested thathesendashort notetothechairpersons ofthe
concerned committees indicating thatthese issues, listed inparagraph 16above, hadbeendiscussed
intheWorking Group andwould continue tobeexamined, butthatasuggestion hadbeenmade that
itmight beuseful tohavethesesubjects discussed intherelevant committees aswell,asthecommittees
considered appropriate.
Closing Comments
21. TheChairman recalled that,inkeeping withtheproposed work programme forthesecond
stage, hewould beproposing further topics fordetailed examination atthenextmeeting on8March2.
These would beduplication/overlapping innotification obligations intheareasof(i)Agriculture/Import
Licensing,and(ii)SPS/TBT,aswellasthesubjectofassistancetosomedevelopingcountriesinmeeting
theirnotification obligations. Thiswould, hehoped, givedelegations timetoexamine thedocumentation
which ithadreceived atthismeeting andtoprepare foritsfurther consideration.
2Atthemeeting thedateof8March wasmentioned, however thenextmeeting wassubsequently fixed for
Monday 11March intheafternoon.