RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/NOP/W/16
21August 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3272)
Working Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures
DRAFT
Report oftheWorking Group totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
I. TheMandate andtheEstablishment oftheWorking Group
1. TheMarrakesh Decision onNotification Procedures1provides initsPartIIIforthereview
ofnotification obligations andprocedures asfollows:
"The Council forTrade inGoods willundertake areview ofnotification obligations and
procedures under theAgreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement. Thereview willbe
carried outbyaworking group, membership inwhich willbeopentoallMembers. Thegroup
willbeestablished immediately afterthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.
Theterms ofreference oftheworking group willbe:
- toundertake athorough review ofallexisting notification obligations ofMembers
established under theAgreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement, withaview
tosimplifying, standardizing andconsolidating these obligations tothegreatest extent
practicable, aswellastoimproving compliance withtheseobligations, bearing inmind
theoverall objective ofimproving thetransparency ofthetrade policies ofMembers
andtheeffectiveness ofsurveillance arrangements established tothisend,andalso
bearing inmind thepossible needofsome developing country Members forassistance
inmeeting theirnotification obligations;
- tomake recommendations totheCouncil forTrade inGoods notlaterthantwoyears
aftertheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement."
2. ThisMinisterial Decision wasadopted bytheGeneral Council on31January 1995.2On
20February 1995, theCouncil forTrade inGoods established aWorking Group onNotification
Obligations andProcedures tocarry outthetasks setbytheDecision.3Atthesame meeting,
Mr.A.Shoyer (United States) wasappointed Chairman. Thisappointment wasrenewed bytheCTG
atitsmeeting on14February 1996.4
1ThefulltextoftheDecision issetoutinAnnex I.
2Document WT/GC/M/1, paragraph 9.
3Document G/C/M/1, paragraphs 6.1-6.3.
4Document G/C/M/8, paragraphs 6.1-6.3.G/NOP/W/16
Page2
II. TheTask andOrganization oftheWorking Group
3. TheWorking Group held[eleven] meetings, on7July, 19October and28November 1995,
plus7February, 11March, 16April, 7May, 6June, 3July,13September [and30October 1996].
4. Atitsfirstmeeting theWorking Group noted thatitwasbeing called upontothoroughly review
allexisting notification obligations inthe12Agreements listed inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement,
aswellastheGATT 1994, including thesixUnderstandings interpreting certain articles thereof.
Themandate didnotinclude theAgreements onServices, TRIPs, DSU, TPRM orthePlurilateral Trade
Agreements. Thequestion arose attheoutset astowhether therecommendations oftheGroup should
focus exclusively onprocedural aspects oriftheyshould orcould extend tomatters entailing possible
changes innotification obligations. Asnoted intheGroup 's1995 report totheCTG (G/L/30,
paragraph 2),itwasconsidered thattheGroup could undertake itswork withwide scope tomake
whatever recommendations itfeltappropriate within theterms ofreference oftheMinisterial Decision.
Asisborne outinthefollowing sections, however, therecommendations oftheGroup donotextend
tothesubstantive aspects ofthenotifications, which theGroup considered bestserved bytherespective
committees.
5. Inlaunching itswork, Members wererequested toprovide written inputs identifying problems
andsuggestions, bothofageneral nature andwithrespect toparticular agreements. TheChairman
undertook tocontact thechairpersons ofvarious committees withaninterest intheGroup 'swork, to
encourage them toinform theGroup ofareas which itcould usefully examine. Following replies
received, theChairman observed atthemeeting inOctober 1995thatthecommittees werewellaware
oftheimportance anddifficulties inthenotification requirements andwereactively working towards
anefficient system ineachoftheirrespective areas ofresponsibility. Forthepurposes ofthisGroup,
however, hesuggested thatahorizontal approach across allAnnex 1Aagreements, would bethemost
productive. Forthis,ashadbeensuggested, identification ofareas forexamination would haveto
originate withMembers directly. Theindividual Members wereexposed tonotification demands across
thewhole spectrum, while thecommittees werefocusing, quite rightly, onlyontheirspecific areas
ofresponsibility.
6. Toassist theGroup initswork, theSecretariat prepared threepapers intheearly stages: (i)a
background noteonnotification procedures intheGATT since 1979; (ii)acomprehensive listof
notifications required fromWTO Members under agreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement;
and(iii)information onformats fornotifications under thecovered agreements.5
7. TheGroup 'swork consisted basically ofthree phases: thefirstentailed thedevelopment of
aninventory ofthose notification obligations orprocedures where Members considered thatproblems
might exist. Thiswasaddressed atthethree meetings in1995. Thesecond phase, forthefirsthalf
of1996, wasdedicated toadetailed examination ofthese possible problem areas. [This wasfollowed
bythethirdphase, inSeptember-October 1996, when thepresent report wasprepared andtheGroup 's
recommendations formulated.]
8. Atitsfirstmeeting theGroup heard apresentation, forinformation purposes, onthe
implementation andoperation oftheCentral Registry ofNotifications, created under PartIIofthe
Ministerial Decision. Updates wereprovided attheGroup 'smeetings inOctober andNovember 1995.
5Alistofalldocuments provided totheGroup iscontained inAnnex 2.G/NOP/W/16
Page3
III. Overall Observations
9. While thedetails ofthespecific work conducted bytheGroup, along withitsobservations
andrecommendations, aresetoutinSections AtoFbelow, theGroup considered thatthefollowing
overall observations should bebrought totheattention oftheCTG.
10. Attheoutset oftheGroup 'swork, delegations emphasized thatacredible notification process
wasessential fortheeffective operation oftheWTO. Difficulties experienced inthepastwithrespect
tonotification requirements could becompounded inthefuture bytheincreased obligations onMembers
resulting fromtheUruguay Round. Therefore, itwasimportant thattheWorking Group address aspects
ofthenotification andcounternotification process withaviewtoimproving compliance withobligations,
while alsoseeking torationalize requirements andavoid duplication. Some stressed, however, that
initsefforts towards suchgoals, theGroup should notlosesightoftheobligations andobjectives in
thevarious agreements andthespecific information required fortheproper functioning ofindividual
committees. Furthermore, theoverall contribution ofthenotification process toimproved transparency
andeffective surveillance oftrade policies andpractices should notbecompromised.
11. Anumber ofdelegations wereconcerned thatitwould bedifficult toconduct acomprehensive
examination ofthenotification situation atapoint intimewhen Members hadonlylimited experience
intheoperation ofthenotification system under theWTO. Itwasnoted thatsince theentry intoforce
oftheWTO on1January 1995, littlepractical experience hadbeengained inboththepreparation
ofnotifications andtheirexamination intherelevant Committees. Insome respects, therefore, the
work oftheGroup wasseenasbeing premature, lacking abroad overview oftherealdifficulties
Members would experience incarrying outtheirnotification obligations. Thissituation would require
thattheGroup examine thenotification obligations andarrive atconclusions andrecommendations
forimprovements more onthebasisoftheory thanfrompractical experience. Inthese circumstances,
itwould bedifficult toachieve thecompromises needed toharmonize procedures incertain areas.
12. Withrespect totherelationship withother committees, itwasalsopointed outthatthisGroup
might havecertain limitations inexpertise when itcame toexamining thespecific ortechnical details
ofthenotification obligations ineachoftheagreements inquestion. TheGroup might, therefore,
make recommendations astotheapproach orprocesses under which specific problems might bedealt
with, leaving theimplementation totherelevant committees themselves. Theviewwasgenerally shared
thatthere wasnooverlap ofjurisdiction between theGroup andthecommittees, whose respective
responsibilities differed innature.
13. TheGroup observed thatthere werethree types ofnotification obligations andprocedures in
Annex 1A:(i)adhocnotifications which arespecifically required when certain actions aretaken by
aconcerned Member; (ii)"one-time only" notifications, most ofwhich arerequired toprovide
information onthesituations existing attheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement foraMember,
orwithin aspecified period calculated from thatdate; and(iii)theregular orperiodic notification
obligations (semi-annual, annual, biennial, triennial). Ofthe175notification obligations orprocedure
found inAnnex 1A,twenty-six were deemed tobeoftheregular orperiodic type. Inlightofthe
ongoing nature ofthese obligations andprocedures, theGroup focused particular attention initswork
onthese provisions.
14. IntheGroup 'sexamination ofthespecific notification obligations andofthequestionnaires
andformats usedtopresent therequired information, thekeytopics werethepotential foroverlapping
orduplication inthenotification obligations andthepossibilities forsimplifying orstandardizing the
various questionnaires andformats. After much examination anddiscussion, theGroup found that
duplication inthereporting requirements wasnotawidespread phenomenon. Indeed, onlyinthecase
oftheAgreement onAgriculture andtheAgreement onSubsidies andCountervailing Duties wasthereG/NOP/W/16
Page4
sufficient scope forelaborating arecommendation forchange. Inallother cases theduplication was
either minor initsextent orrelated toone-time notifications which didnotwarrant change.
15. TheGroup alsofound thatthere waslittle scope, atthispoint intime, toimprove the
questionnaires andformats which hadbeendeveloped, inmany cases, veryrecently through negotiations
intheUruguay Round. Furthermore, thehighly technical nature oftherequirements intheagreements
convinced many participants thatchanges should beinitiated anddeveloped within therespective
committees where thegreatest technical expertise andsensitivity resided. Inthisregard, theGroup
noted thatsuch work wasproceeding inmany committees astheydeveloped neworamended
questionnaires andguidelines, andelaborated theirindividual reporting processes. Itbecame clear
thatthecommittees wereveryactive inthisarearendering lesscritical theneedfortheGroup tomake
recommendations.
16. AstheGroup expanded thescope ofitsdiscussions, particularly inthelatter stages ofitswork,
itbecame increasingly aware oftheimportance oftwoother topics -improvement intherateof
compliance withnotification obligations andtheneedforassistance inthisregard tosome developing
country Members. Increasingly itwasrecognized thatmuch work needed tobedone toimprove
compliance rates inallagreements, toensure theefficient operation oftheagreements, toensure
maximum transparency andtobring allMembers fullyintothefunctioning oftheWTO system.
17. Itwasfurther recognized thatthekeytoimproved ratesofcompliance, atleastwithrespect
tocertain developing country Members, wasextensive andcarefully focused technical assistance in
anumber offorms. Aconcerted attack from three sides wasconsidered toprovide thebestmeans
ofproviding thisassistance: (i)intensive training toinform Members oftheirobligations; (ii)guidance
insetting upsystems inthedomestic administration tochannel theobligations andtheresponses; and
(iii)apractical handbook toprovide detailed information onthepreparation ofnotifications.
IV. TheIndividual Areas ofExamination
18. Inthefirstyear, fourbroad areas wereidentified bytheGroup where problems might exist,
namely:(a)duplicationoroverlappingincertainnotificationobligations;(b)thescopeforsimplification
ofdatarequirements andthestandardization offormats; (c)thepossibility tocoordinate thetiming
aspects ofthereporting processes (uniform periodicity); and(d)theneedofsome developing country
Members forassistance inmeeting theirnotification obligations;
19. Asmentioned intheChairman 'sinformal updating report totheCTG on19March 19966,
discussion ofafurther issue, i.e.thequestion ofimproving Member 'scompliance withthenotification
obligations, wasatthatpointintimeinitsearlystages. Yetafurther issue, i.e.thestatus ofnotification
obligations established pursuant toDecisions oftheGATT 1947 CONTRACTING PARTIES, was
taken upasofApril 1996.
20. Thepoints raised intheGroup 'sexamination ofthese sixareas, along withitsconclusions,
observations and,where considered appropriate, recommendations aresetoutinthefollowing six
sections.
6Thetextofthisreport isre-printed asanAnnex todocument G/NOP/6.G/NOP/W/16
Page5
Section A: Duplication orOverlapping inCertain Notification Obligations
21. Participantsidentifiedfoursetsofagreementswheresomeelementsofduplicationoroverlapping
mightexist.Thesewere:(i)AgreementonTrade-RelatedInvestmentMeasures(TRIMs)andAgreement
onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures; (ii)Agreement onAgriculture andAgreement onImport
Licensing Procedures; (iii)Agreement ontheApplication ofSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
(SPS) andAgreement onTechnical Barriers toTrade (TBT); and(iv)Agreement onAgriculture,
Agreement onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures andArticle XVIofGATT 1994.
(i) Agreement onTrade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) andAgreement onSubsidies
andCountervailing Measures (Subsidies Agreement)
22. Asregards thepossible duplication oroverlapping intheTRIMs andSubsidies Agreements,
itwasnoted thattheSubsidies Agreement prohibited specific subsidies ofatypewhich might have
aparallel intheTRIMs Agreement, namely those subsidies which were contingent upon theuseof
domestic overimported goods (Article 3.1). These could notbegranted ormaintained under the
Subsidies Agreement although special provisions initsArticle 27.3indicated thatthisprohibition need
notbeapplied forfiveandeightyears toLDCs andLLDCs respectively. IntheTRIMs Agreement,
theAnnex pointed tocertain measures thatwereinconsistent withthenational treatment obligations
inGATT Article III:4andwhich might beofasimilar nature tothose covered bytheSubsidies
Agreement.
23. TheGroup noted, however, thattheTRIMs notification inthisregard wasaone-time obligation
andwasduewithin 90daysoftheentry intoforce oftheWTO followed bytheelimination ofany
measures notinconformity withtheAgreement within twoyears (fiveforLDCs andseven forLLDCs).
Atthetimeoftheexamination ofthismatter, the90-day period hadelapsed forsuchnotification while
fornewMembers theobligation would remain, butasaone-time onlyrequirement.
24. TheGroup concluded thatwhile these TRIMs measure could bemaintained bysome
Members forcertain periods oftime, theywould havetobenotified onlyononeoccasion under
thisAgreementandalthoughsomeelementofduplicationwiththeSubsidiesAgreementwaspresent,
there would belittlepurpose intheGroup taking steps toaddress non-recurring duplication.
(ii) Agreement onAgriculture andAgreement onImport Licensing Procedures
25. With respect tothepotential forduplication between theAgreement onAgriculture andthe
Agreement onImport Licensing Procedures, itwasnoted that,pursuant toArticle 7.3ofthelatter
Agreement, Members wererequired tocomplete theannual questionnaire andsubmit ittotheCommittee
onImport Licensing by30September eachyear. Thisquestionnaire required Members toprovide
adescription oftheirimport licensing system, itspurposes, coverage andprocedures andallrelated
conditions anddocumentation. Changes toaMember 'ssystem made intheinterim weretobereported
onanadhocbasis. Under theAgreement onAgriculture itwaspossible foraMember toestablish
alicensing system aspartofatariff orother quota allocation programme. Fullnotification ofany
suchquota administration system wasrequired ona"one-off" basisin1995withanysubstantial changes
inthesystem being notified adhoc. Thespecific informational requirements fornotifications under
theAgreement onAgriculture were summarized indocument G/AG/2.
26. Thisexamination aroused discussion ofthebroader question whether agriculture tariff rate
quota systems withimport licensing procedures needed tobeincluded ingeneral notification obligations
oftheAgreement onImport Licensing Procedures. Oneview wasthatsince theimport licensingG/NOP/W/16
Page6
questionnaire wasall-inclusive, alllicensing schemes,no matter whattheirsource, needed tobeincluded
inthenotifications tothatCommittee. There werenoprovisions ineither Agreement foranexclusion.
Anotherviewwasthatundertariffratequotas,wheretheimporterwasfreetomakeout-of-quotaimports,
thequota allocation wasnotaprior condition forimports andwasnotcovered bytheAgreement on
Import Licensing Procedures. Onthislatter basis, there would benooverlapping between thetwo
Agreements.
27. While bearing thisinmind, some participants wereoftheviewthattheactual extent ofoverlap
intheareas ofAgriculture andImport Licensing wasminimal. Theviewwasalsoexpressed thatthe
overlap between theAgriculture andImport Licensing Agreements reflected alegaldifference which
could entail aninterpretation ofthenotification obligations themselves. Itwasquestioned ifsuchmatters
were appropriate tothisGroup orrather should belefttotherespective committees.
28. Inconsidering allofthese points, theGroup concluded that, inthese particular
circumstances, efforts toremove thepossible duplication were notwarranted.
(iii) Agreement ontheApplication ofSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures (SPS) and
Agreement onTechnical Barriers toTrade (TBT)
29. TheGroup noted thattheTBTAgreement required notification ofproposed neworchanged
technical standards orregulations, while theSPSAgreement required thatMembers notify proposed
neworchanged sanitary orphytosanitary regulations which could significantly affect trade. Provisions
alsoexistinbothforemergency actions tobesubsequently notified. TheGroup alsoobserved that
thenotification formats andtheprocedures agreed byboththeTBTandtheSPSCommittees were
veryclosely aligned inrecognition ofthefactthatoften thesame officials were responsible for
notifications under bothagreements andthetypeofinformation requested wasalsosimilar. Itwas
clearthatthere wasthepossibility ofsome overlap inthatasingle regulation might contain elements
which were relevant totheSPSAgreement andother elements which were relevant under the
TBTAgreement. However, bothCommittees hadcommitted tocoordinate closely inthisrespect and
towork withthegovernments concerned tolimitanyduplications.
30. Infact,thepotential foroverlap between TBTandSPSnotifications haslongbeenrecognized
andinNovember 1995ajointmeeting ofthetwocommittees washeldtoexamine notification problems
(G/TBT/W/16andG/SPS/W/33).Todealwithinstanceswhereanotificationcontainedelementsrelevant
tobothTBTandSPS,twosuggestions wereadvanced: aMember could submit asingle notification
totheSecretariat tobecirculated asbothanSPSandTBTCommittee document butclearly indicating
therespective SPSandTBTelements oftheproposed regulation, orMembers could separate thesubject
matter intoindividual notifications fortheSPSandTBTCommittees eachcontaining onlytherelevant
information.
31. After examination ofthepossible duplication, theGroup wasoftheviewthatthesubject matters
andoperation ofthese twoagreements were clearly intended tobekeptseparate. Article 1.5ofthe
TBTAgreement states thattheprovisions ofthatagreement donotapply tosanitary andphytosanitary
measures asdefined inAnnex AoftheSPSAgreement. Some participants alsofelttheproblem was
being resolved overtimeasMembers became more familiar withtheoperation ofthetwoAgreements,
andthetwoCommittees were aware oftheproblem andhadbeenjointly working toresolve it.
32. Accordingly, theGroup concluded thattheproblems encountered inrespect ofthese two
Agreements were more inthenature ofapossible confusion astowhich Agreement should be
invoked inmaking thenotification, thatis,wasthematter being notified asubject appropriate
totheSPSorTBT Agreements? Itwasnotconsidered tobeaquestion ofduplication, butaG/NOP/W/16
Page7
"mechanical" problem, withthedistinction between thereporting processes ofthese twoagreements
beinggenerallyunderstoodbyMembers.NofurtheractionbytheGroupwasconsiderednecessary.
(iv) Agreement onAgriculture andAgreement onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
(Subsidies Agreement)/Article XVIofGATT 1994
33. From theoutset, itwasrecognized thatthereweredifferences intheobjectives ofthenotification
procedures ofthese agreements. IntheAgriculture Agreement, theobjective ofsubsidy notification
wastoensure compliance withthereform programme which waslargely based onquantitative
measurements while intheSubsidies Agreement andArticle XVIofGATT 19947,thenotifications
procedures hadtheobjective ofsetting outlegal, economic andother qualitative information related
tothecommitments themselves. Itwasconsidered thatitmight bepossible towork towards adegree
ofunification inthenotification formats, andperhaps acommon format. Itwasstressed thatcaremust
betaken toensure thatefforts toarrive atacommon format inthisareawould nothavetheeffect of
exempting certain products orsubsidies fromnotification. Onebenefit ofeliminating duplication would
betoencourage broader fulfilment ofthese notification requirements byallMembers.
34. After lengthy discussion ofpossible approaches tothisquestion, NewZealand provided apaper
(G/NOP/W/7) which setoutthreeoptions onhowtoapproach thequestion ofduplication/overlapping
inthenotification ofagricultural subsidies. Thefirstoption wasthatnochange should bemade to
thepresent arrangements; rather, theGroup could decide toreview thearrangements ataspecified
dateinthefuture when Members would havehadtheexperience ofafullcycle ofnotifications intheir
present format. Thesecond option foresaw thedevelopment ofarevised notification format for
agricultural subsidies which would merge thetwocurrent setsofobligations, resulting inonesingle
notification format meeting therequirements ofallthree Agreements. Thethirdoption would start
withtheAgriculture Agreement notification format andaddtoittheadditional qualitative information
required bytheSubsidies Agreement notification format torespond totheneeds ofallthreeAgreements
through oneformat.
35. Intheensuing discussions, someparticipants indicated apreference forthefirstoption ofmaking
nochange tothepresent formats atthistime. They considered thatitwastooearly toundertake a
review ofthenotification process without theexperience ofafullcycle ofSubsidies andAgriculture
notifications; some Members hadnotyetsubmitted their Subsidies Agreement orArticle XVI
notifications andmany Agriculture Agreement notifications were dueonlylaterin1996. Some
considered thattheGroup didnothaveenough basic information tomake reliable judgements or
recommendations inthismatter. Others were oftheviewthatthepresent notification requirements
hadnotpresented serious problems; thattheagreements didnothaveextensive specific overlapping;
andtherefore, theydidnotwarrant substantive changes.
36. Other participants, however, considered thatoptions twoandthree presented agoodbasisfor
asubstantive discussion intheGroup. Itwasstressed thatasingle notification format foragricultural
subsidies would simplify theadministrative process byremoving thedouble collection ofinformation
onthesame programmes. There were anumber ofdescriptive orinformation requirements inthe
Subsidies format which could beaccommodated intheformat adopted fortheAgriculture Agreement,
suchasthetitlesoftheprogrammes andinformation ontheiroperation. Itwasconsidered worthwhile
toexamine thepossibility ofadding these totheAgriculture format toarrive atasingle notification
whilenotchangingthetransparencyofsubstantiveobligationsoftheAgreementsconcerned.Inaddition,
7Notifications required byArticle XVI:1 ofGATT 1994 arecurrently subject tothequestionnaire format
developed bytheCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures (G/SCM/6).G/NOP/W/16
Page8
theUnited States suggested inapaper (G/NOP/W/8) thattheGroup consider theelimination of
requirements toprovide information onsubsidy perunitandtrade effects ofagricultural subsidies,
except where information isreasonably available forcommodity-specific programmes.
37. Toillustrate itssuggestions, theUnited States provided apaper (G/NOP/W/10) which started
withtheexisting notification requirements relating todomestic support andexport subsidies under the
Agreement onAgriculture andadded anumber ofquestions under thecolumns which required
descriptions ofpolicies. These questions were taken from thenotification requirements under the
Subsidies Agreement andArticle XVIofGATT 1994. Theobjective wastocombine thestatistical
features oftheAgriculture Agreement notifications withthedescriptive elements oftheSubsidies
requirements. Thiswould provide afuller explanation ofsubsidy policies inbothaquantitative and
contextual basis. Theproposal would apply onlytosubsidies covered bythecurrent agricultural subsidy
notifications;othertypesofsubsidieswouldremainsubjecttothenotificationproceduresoftheSubsidies
Agreement andArticle XVIofGATT 1994.
38. TheEuropean Community alsointroduced apaper (G/NOP/W/11) which went inthesame
direction asthatoftheUnited States starting withtheAgriculture format andsupplementing itwith
details from theSubsidies format. They considered thattheduplication inthese requirements could
beavoided bycreating asingle format which would beapplicable onlytoagricultural subsidies.
39. Anumber ofparticipants, including Argentina (G/NOP/W/12), commented ontheseproposals.
Inparticular, theystressed thatthegoalofanyrecommended modifications tothenotification formats
should betomeetalloftheinformational requirements oftheAgreements concerned while removing
thereporting duplication. However, simplification mustnotentail changes inthenotification obligations
themselves, norimpair theachievement oftheobjectives oftheAgreements. They observed thatthe
proposal oftheUnited States, assupported btheEuropean Community, would involve modifications
toelements found intheSubsidies Agreement.
40. Thequestion oftiming under aunified format wasalsoexamined. Itwasstressed thatthe
proposed revisions tothenotification formats would notalterexisting deadlines. Members would
continue tobesubject tothevarious deadlines fornotifications inboththeAgreement onAgriculture
andtheSubsidies Agreement, andthose established bytheCommittees. Members could usetheformats
tonotify measures totheCommittee onAgriculture according totheintervals determined bythat
Committee inG/AG/2 (according tocropyear, marketing year, etc.), andcould submit thesame
notifications totheSCM Committee nolaterthan30Juneofeachyeartosatisfy thenotification
obligations andprocedures oftheSubsidies Agreement.
41. After extensive discussion, theChairman undertook toprepare atextfortheGroup 's
consideration, drawing onthese proposals andthepoints raised intheGroup 'sdiscussions. Hisdraft
text(G/NOP/W/15) contained notification formats formeasures thatweresubject tothenotification
obligations andprocedures ofboththeAgreement onAgriculture, ontheonehand, andtheAgreement
onSubsidies andArticle XVIoftheGATT 1994, ontheother. Certain supporting tables adopted
bytheCommittee onAgriculture (G/AG/2) were modified sothataMember could usetheformats
adoptedbytheCommitteeonAgriculturetosatisfytheexistingrequirementsinthatAgreement(G/AG/2)
aswellastheelements setforth inArticle 25.3oftheSubsidies Agreement, Article XVIofthe
GATT 1994 andtherelevant portions oftheformats adopted bytheCommittee onSubsidies and
CountervailingMeasures(G/SCM/6).Nootherrevisionstothesedocumentswereproposedandnothing
wasdeleted from thedocuments. TheChairman noted thattheadoption ofthese revised documents
would notsuggest thatthescope ofreview oftherelevant Committees hadbeenmodified. Some of
theinformation inthenewformats would notberelevant under theprovisions ofalloftherelevant
agreements anditwasclearthateachCommittee would berequired toexamine onlytheinformation
falling within itsmandate.G/NOP/W/16
Page9
42. TheChairman 'sTextwaspresented attheJuly1996 meeting [andwasexamined indetail at
theSeptember meeting ...]
43. TheWorking Group recommends thattheCTG request theCommittee onAgriculture
to[consider] [implement] themodified notification formats contained inthedraft revision to
document G/AG/2, assetoutindocument G/NOP/W/15 [with aviewtoitsadoption] andthat
theCTG request theCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures to[consider]
[implement] themodified notification formats contained indraft revision todocument G/SCM/6,
assetoutindocument G/NOP/W/15 [with aviewtoitsadoption].
.
Section B: TheScope forSimplification ofData Requirements andtheStandardization of
Formats
44. TheGroup noted thatquestionnaires andformats hadbeendeveloped boththrough theUruguay
Round negotiating process andthrough thework ofsome committees tofacilitate thepresentation of
theinformation required tobenotified. Inthisregard thequestions raised intheinitial consideration
ofthistopicwere: (i)ifanyoftheseformats wentbeyond theobligations oftheagreements concerned;
(ii)iftherewereanyfurther areaswhich would lendthemselves tostandardized formats; and(iii)could
formats bedeveloped suchthatonesubmission could respond totherequirements ofmore thanone
agreement. Toassist these discussions, theSecretariat prepared alistofallagreements forwhich
notification formats hadbeendeveloped (G/NOP/W/3).
45. There wasconcern inexamining thistopicthatchanges toformats would require bothtechnical
expertise onthenature andgoaloftheagreement itself aswellasasensitivity tothenegotiation
background oftheexisting formats. Hence thesuggestion wasmade thatpossible improvements under
thistopicshould betheresponsibility oftherespective committees which possess thespecific technical
expertise. Itwasstressed that,ataminimum, thisGroup should notpropose tomodify formats without
theconsideration andinput oftheconcerned committees.
46. Itbecame clearthrough several months ofexamination andreflection thatitwould notprove
fruitful forthisGroup toconduct adetailed examination ofalltheindividual formats andquestionnaires
currently being usedinthevarious committees. Accordingly, itwasdecided thattheChairman should
sendanotetothechairpersons ofthecommittees inthe"goods" areaindicating thatthese issues had
beendiscussed intheWorking Group andwould continue tobeconsidered, butthatitmight beuseful
tohavethese questions examined intherelevant committees aswell. Subsequently, anumber of
responses werereceived indicating thatthecommittees wereconsidering, asanongoing responsibility,
thevarious aspects ofthequestionnaires andformats, adapting existing onesascircumstances warranted
and,insome cases, developing newones.
47. Toassist theGroup initsefforts tomaintain anawareness ofthework which wasbeing done
inthevarious committees onthistopic, theSecretariat assembled anoverview ofsuchdiscussions
drawing upon committee meeting reports orminutes (G/NOP/W/13).
48. Intheabsence ofanyfirm proposals under thistopic andrecognizing thatseveral
committees were actively working toimprove their ownsystems, theGroup decided totakeno
further action.
Section C: Coordination ofTiming Aspects oftheReporting ProcessesG/NOP/W/16
Page10
49. Itwassuggested thattheGroup could usefully examine thescope forimprovements inthetiming
aspects ofthenotification process astheoverall burden ofpreparing, submitting andreviewing
notifications might beeased ifthese obligations werenotgrouped atcertain times butwerestaggered
overthefullyear.
50. Toassist theGroup inthisdiscussion, theSecretariat prepared adocument (G/NOP/W/5) setting
outthetiming aspects ofthenotification requirements intheagreements inthe"goods" area. Itwas
found thattherewere175suchnotifications comprising 106adhocrequirements whereby aMember
wasobliged tosubmit anotification onlyifaspecific action wastaken and43one-time onlyobligations,
mostofwhich related totheimplementation oftheagreements in1995oruponaccession. There were
alsoafurther 26regular orperiodic requirements (3semi-annual, 17annual, 3biennial and3triennial).
51. TheGroupexaminedtheregularnotificationswithspecificreportingdates,andnotedinparticular
thatthedates setoutintheagreements hadparticular relevance totheobligations ofeachparticular
agreement andtotheneeds oftherespective committees. Itwasconsidered thatthiswasnotaquestion
forseparate examination butmight bemore appropriately included intheGroup 'sexamination oftwo
othertopics, duplication/overlapping andsimplification/standardization. Itwassuggested thatinmaking
proposals onthese twotopics, consideration ofthetiming aspects should bebuiltintosuchproposals
rather thantheirbeing dealtwithasastand-alone item.
52. Onthisbasis, theGroup decided nottopursue thetopic oftiming asaseparate matter.
Section D: TheNeed ofSome Developing Country Members forAssistance inMeeting their
Notification Obligations
53. Opening theconsideration ofthisitem, some developing country participants pointed outthat
inview oftheever-increasing workload, combined withlimited resources inthesmall delegations,
theyhadgreat difficulty inadvising theirgovernments onallaspects ofthenotifications required.
Many developing countries haddifficulty understanding thefrequently complex andhighly technical
information demanded, andtherefore faced aprohibitive taskinproviding complete responses tothe
notification requirements andformats. While theyrecognized thatthesenotifications werepartoftheir
Membership obligations andtheywereprepared torespond tothemaximum oftheirabilities, there
were serious constraints towhattheycould achieve duetotheirlimited resources. Inthisregard it
wasrecognized thattheWTO Technical Co-operation andTraining Division wasaware oftheproblem,
haddeveloped twoworkshops fordelegations onthisspecific topicin1995and1996andwould continue
toprovide assistance onnotification obligations through theirseminars andother programmes.
54. Asparticipants considered thespecific needs ofthedeveloping, andparticularly oftheleast-
developed country Members, anumber ofquestions wereraised including: whether some additional
forms ofspecial anddifferential treatment inrespect oftheobligations themselves should beconsidered
orifgreater technical assistance tomeettheexisting obligations would bethemostappropriate. With
respect totheformer, itwassuggested thatsimplified formats might bedeveloped forthedeveloping
countries withmore detailed information being provided tothecommittees onlywhen requested. In
some situations, prolonged time-frames might beconsidered.
55. Some participants didnotfavour suchapproaches, considering thattheinformation intheagreed
formats reflected theobligations which allMembers hadundertaken andwere vitaltotheefficient
operation oftheagreements andtomaintain fulltransparency. Itwasalsonoted thatseveral agreements
already included special considerations fordeveloping orleast-developed country Members, particularly
asregards time-frames fortheapplication ofsubstantive obligations.G/NOP/W/16
Page11
56. Another ideawasthatexplanatory commentaries should beprepared foreachagreement on
howtocomplete thequestionnaires/formats. Inthisconnection, theGroup agreed thatthetechnical
cooperation programmes oftheWTO wereasound vehicle forassisting developing countries inmeeting
theirnotificationobligations.Particularreferencewasmadetothetwonotificationworkshopsmentioned
above, andtoseminars which werebeing heldonthistopic intheregions. Itwassuggested that,to
maximize theeffectiveness ofthese programmes, theyshould notbe"one-off" seminars butfollowed
upandbroadened.
57. Aformal proposal made byChile andNorway wasthatapractical handbook ormanual should
bedeveloped setting outthenotification obligations, questionnaires orformats, guiding theMembers
through theinformation required tocomplete thesubmissions. Onthebasisofthisproposal, theGroup
expanded theconcept further leading tothedevelopment ofafive-part draftdocument which would
contain (i)adescription ofthenotification obligations intheagreement based onthepresentations made
bytheSecretariat staffattheFebruary 1996workshop; (ii)alistofthespecific notification obligations
intherespective agreements drawn from document G/NOP/W/2/Rev.1; (iii)alldocuments issued
bythecommittees containing questionnaires, formats andguidelines foreachagreement; (iv)mock
examples offullycompleted notifications; and(v)thetextoftherelevant agreement. Aseparate,
loose-leaf handbook would beprepared foreachagreement onthisbasis. Toassist theGroup, amodel
ofthehandbook fortwoagreements wasprepared bytheSecretariat. Itwasfurther agreed thatthe
handbook would include adisclaimer tomake itveryclearthatitwasnotalegalinterpretation ofany
agreement butwasapractical tooloftheWTO technical assistance programme. Thehandbook would
beprovided totheChairmen ofvarious committees fortheirinformation andinput.
58. Asthediscussions proceeded andthehandbook tookshape, many delegations commented that
suchahandbook could prove sohelpful thatitshould notbedelayed several months untiltheformal
conclusions oftheGroup 'swork programme, inparticular since theWTO Secretariat could undertake
suchwork anyway within itsresources. Indeed, many delegations desiring tomeettheirnotification
obligations hadalready beenseeking technical assistance inthisarea. TheGroup noted thatnoMember
appeared tohavedifficulty withtheconcept ofapractical handbook, andthatthere wasinfactbroad
agreement onitsstructure andcontents. TheGroup wasalsoinformed ofwork underway along similar
linesintheTechnical Co-operation andTraining Division inresponse torequests from Members.
59. TheGroup recognized thebenefit apractical handbook would provide tomany Members
andsupported theinitiatives toprepare andcirculate itassoonaspossible. Thisisbeing done
bytheTechnical Cooperation andTraining Division aspartofthatDivision 'sregular work
programme.
60. Onesuggestion advanced wasthatindustrialized countries could provide direct assistance to
developing countries byexchange ofvisits oftechnical experts todiscuss withandassist developing
country Members inthepreparation ofresponses tonotification obligations. After discussion onthe
possible modalities ofsuchanexchange programme, itfound littlefavour andwasnotpursued.
Section E: TheStatus ofNotification Obligations Established Pursuant toDecisions ofthe
GATT 1947 CONTRACTING PARTIES
61. TheGroup examined thelistofnotification obligations indocument G/NOP/W/2/Rev.1,
section II(b), which were created byDecisions oftheGATT 1947 CONTRACTING PARTIES. It
wassuggested thatsomeoftheseCONTRACTING PARTIES Decisions might beredundant orobsolete
inthecurrent situation. Those cited were: (a)Items 2,3and4onpages 48and49of
G/NOP/W/2/Rev.1 onCPsDecisions relating toQuantitative Restrictions andNon-tariff Measures
which appear tobesuperseded bytheCTG Decisions of1December 1995 (G/L/59 andG/L/60);G/NOP/W/16
Page12
(b)Item6,alsoonpage49,onImport Licensing Procedures which appears tobesuperseded bythe
WTO Agreement onImport Licensing Procedures plusthenewQuestionnaire (G/LIC/3); (c)Item8
onpage50onMarks ofOrigin (GATT Article IX)forwhich, according tothenotes inthe1995edition
oftheWTO Analytical Index, there have been nosubmissions since 1961; and(d)Item12on
Liquidation ofStrategic Stocks which dates backtoaCPsDecision in1995.
62. Thequestions posed under thistopicwere(i)arethese obligations nowredundant orobsolete;
(ii)arethere areothers; (iii)iftheyareredundant orobsolete howshould theybeaddressed; and
(iv)whatlegalprocess should befollowed.
63. TheGroup decided thattheCPsDecisions inpoints (a)and(b)above wereclearly superseded
bytheprocedures adopted aftertheentry intoforce oftheWTO andtheseearlier Decisions could now
beproposed fordeletion. TheCPsDecisions inpoints (c)and(d)above werepossibly obsolete but
thiswould havetobeexamined ingreater detail.
64. Accordingly, theGroup recommends thattheCTG request theGeneral Council totake
thenecessary steps toeliminate thenotification obligations intheDecisions oftheGATT 1947
CONTRACTING PARTIES (BISD 32S/92-93 andBISD 31S/227-8) relating toquantitative
restrictions andnon-tariff measures (S/R28/6 andL/3756) andrelating toimport licensing
procedures. TheWorking Party further recommends thattheCTG refer theDecisions ofthe
GATT 1947CONTRACTING PARTIES (BISD 7S/30-33) onMarks ofOrigin (BISD 3S/51) and
onLiquidation ofStrategic Stocks totheappropriate bodies forconsideration oftheneed to
continue tomaintain these notification obligations.
Section F: Improving Members 'Compliance withNotification Obligations
65. Thegoalofimproving thecompliance withthenotification obligations andprocedures under
Annex 117wasrecognized asakeyresponsibility ofallMembers tomaximize transparency oftrade
policies andmeasures. Accordingly, theGroup considered thatthequestion ofcompliance deserved
verycareful examination asittouched upontheveryfunctioning oftheWTO system. Toconsolidate
thegains oftheRound, eachandevery agreement must befullyandfaithfully implemented. That
requires verydetailed monitoring bytheresponsible committees andcouncils which, inturn, could
onlybeachieved ifthere issufficient transparency -which means compliance withthenotification
obligations.
66. Toassist theGroup inexamining thisitem, theSecretariat prepared twopapers -G/NOP/W/9
which setoutgeneral information onthevolume ofnotifications received uptomid-February 1996
withsomeanalysisofthedegreeofcompliance,andG/NOP/W/14whichlistedtheperiodicandone-time
obligations andthenotification situation inthisregard ofeachindividual WTO Member.
67. Theexamination ofthesituation incompliance asreported indocument G/NOP/W/9 involved
theexamination ofover1500 notifications received inthefirstfourteen months oftheWTO. Itrevealed
thatover 40percent ofallnotifications were oftechnical regulations under theTBT and
SPSAgreements. Thenextlargest quantities ofnotifications wereintheareasofsubsidies (10percent),
textiles (9percent), anti-dumping (8percent), safeguards andrulesoforigin (6percenteach). What
wasalsoimportant, over80percentofthenotifications received were either adhoc(required only
when aspecific action wastaken) orone-time only(usually inrelation toentry intoforce ofthe
agreements). Therefore, onlyabout 18percentofallnotifications received wereregular orperiodic.
Theexact ratesofcompliance withtheone-time andperiodic notification obligations weresometimes
difficult tocalculate asnotallMembers were obligated toprovide allnotifications atthattime;
nevertheless, itwasclear thatcompliance ratesvaried greatly andfewexceeded 50percent.G/NOP/W/16
Page13
68. Among thequestions raised inthediscussions ofthistopic: (i)wasthere alinkbetween the
volume ofnotifications tobemade byMembers andthedegree ofcompliance; (ii)didthecomplexity
ofthequestionnaires/formats reflect oncompliance rates; (iii)could thetiming ofnotifications affect
compliance; and(iv)could specific obligations thatattract aloworforthatmatter ahighcompliance
ratebeidentified? Although there were noclear replies tothese questions, thediscussion brought
outseveral points.
69. Anumber ofopinions were advanced astowhycompliance rateswere low. Onewasthat
theWTO Agreements hadbeeninplace forjustoveroneyearandthedemands attheoutset were
considerable. Notifications ofmeasures inplace upon entry intoforce oftheWTO Agreements and
oflawsandregulations, etc.added totheinitial burden. Newsystems hadtobedeveloped incapitals
tohandle thegreater demands andthese would require some timetoget"uptospeed". Itwasalso
noted thatmany administrations hadlimited resources tocoordinate thesubstantial demands bothin
theWTO andinthecapitals. Anumber ofMembers hadnomission inGeneva, which further
complicated theirtask. TheGroup considered thatcompliance frequently suffered because ofalack
ofawareness insomecapitals, particularly intheministries moreremoved fromtheoffices which usually
dealtwithWTO matters. Thiswould hinder comprehension oftherequirements anddelay oreven
prevent thesubmission ofinformation.
70. TheGroup considered thattheinformation contained inG/NOP/W/14 onallperiodic and
one-timenotificationsrequirementsandtheresponsestotheseobligationsbyallWTOMembersprovided
acomprehensive overview ofMembers 'participation andthereby improved thetransparency ofthe
system andassisted Members inseeing their ownindividual situation ataglance. Anumber of
participants commented thatthisfulllisting hadbeenfound helpful inthecapitals andwould provide
apositive impetus tothetaskofimproving compliance. [This document hasbeenupdated totheend
ofAugust 1996 andisincluded inthisreport asAnnex 3.]
71. TheGroup recommends thatacomprehensive listing ofnotification obligations andthe
compliance therewith byallWTO Members bemaintained onanongoing basis andbecirculated
[semi-annually] [annually] [atappropriate intervals] toallMembers.
72. Anumber ofsuggestions weremade onhowcompliance ratescould beimproved. Onewas
thattherecould beacentral entity oroffice ineachMember responsible forcoordinating thatMember 's
notification submissions inallareas. TheGroup fullyaccepted thatsome formofcoordination inthe
capitals toimprove theflowofinformation bothtoandfromGeneva andamong thevarious ministries
would beanimportant assistance tothenotification process. Itwasrecognized thatdifferent Members
would require different domestic structures and,indeed, somehadalready established suchcoordination
offices.
73. TheGroup recognized thatbenefits were possible both totheindividual Members and
totheWTO System from acentral national coordination ofnotification submissions, and
recommended thisforconsideration byindividual Members.
74. Another suggestion wasthattheCTG could develop guidelines toassist thecommittees in
administering thenotification system. These guidelines could include regular review oftheirnotification
questionnairesorformats,regularreminderstobemadepriortoeachmeetingonthenotificationsituation
ineachMember, andtheregular publication ofthesituation asregards compliance withthenotification
obligations. Inthisregard, theGroup observed thatthemore active committees wereinthisareaand
themore persistent inrequesting notifications, thehigher were theirratesofcompliance.G/NOP/W/16
Page14
75. TheGroup, therefore, recommends thattheCTG consider thepreparation ofgeneral
guidelines forthebodies under itspurview, providing fortheregular review ofquestionnaires
andformats andofthesituation asregards compliance withnotification obligations.
76. TheGroup alsotouched onthepossibilities forusing electronic means fortransmitting
information. Although thisconcept wasnotelaborated, itwasclear thatmany members could see
merit inhaving thepossibility tosubmit notifications electronically andtohaveaccess tothenotification
ofothers through suchmeans.
77. TheGroup alsoconsidered asuggestion concerning thesemi-annual reminders issued bythe
Central Registry ofNotifications pursuant toPartIIoftheMarrakesh Decision onNotification
Procedures. While thistopicwasoutside thepurview oftheWorking Group, inviewoftheproximity
ofthesubject matter tothetopics under discussion -improving Members 'compliance -theGroup
offered theobservation thatthereminders issued bytheCRN would beofgreater assistance to
Members iftheyprovided basic descriptions oftheinformation being sought .Thiscould take
theformofbriefdescriptions ofthenotification obligations being referred to,reference totherelated
provisions inthenotification handbook, anindication ifa"nil" report wasrequired incases where
theMember didnotmaintain themeasure inquestion, andsimilar information oapedagogic nature.
Future Work inthisArea
78. TheGroup wasoftheopinion thatthedetailed, technical review ofnotification obligations
andprocedures ineachindividual agreement should beanongoing responsibility ofthecommittees
overseeing thefunctioning oftherespective agreements. However, theGroup alsosawbenefit in
conducting periodic reviews oftheoperation oftheentire notification process fromamore detached
andglobal perspective under amandate along thelinesofthepresent Working Group. Inthefuture,
thiswork could becoordinated withareview ofnotification requirements under Annexes 1Band1C.
79. Accordingly,theGrouprecommendsthat,atanappropriatepointintime,theCTGconsider
theestablishment ofabodywithamandate along thelinesofPartIIIoftheDecision onNotification
Procedurestoconductafurthercomprehensivereviewofthenotificationobligationsandprocedures
intheagreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement. Alternatively, theCTG might recommend
thattheMinisterial Conference ortheGeneral Council consider theestablishment ofabody with
amandate toreview thenotification obligations andprocedures throughout theWTO Agreement.G/NOP/W/16
Page15
ANNEX 1
DECISION ONNOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
Ministers,
Decide torecommend adoption bytheMinisterial Conference ofthedecision onimprovement
andreview ofnotification procedures setoutbelow.
Members,
Desiring toimprove theoperation ofnotification procedures under theAgreement Establishing
theWorld Trade Organization (hereinafter referred toasthe"WTO Agreement"), andthereby to
contribute tothetransparency ofMembers 'trade policies andtotheeffectiveness ofsurveillance
arrangements established tothatend;
Recalling obligations under theWTO Agreement topublish andnotify, including obligations
assumed under theterms ofspecific protocols ofaccession, waivers, andother agreements entered
intobyMembers;
Agree asfollows:
I. General obligation tonotify
Members affirm theircommitment toobligations under theMultilateral Trade Agreements and,
where applicable, thePlurilateral Trade Agreements, regarding publication andnotification.
Members recall their undertakings setoutintheUnderstanding Regarding Notification,
Consultation, Dispute Settlement andSurveillance adopted on28November 1979 (BISD 26S/210).
With regard totheirundertaking therein tonotify, tothemaximum extent possible, theiradoption of
trademeasures affecting theoperation ofGATT 1994, suchnotification itselfbeing without prejudice
toviews ontheconsistency ofmeasures withortheirrelevance torights andobligations under the
Multilateral Trade Agreements and,where applicable, thePlurilateral Trade Agreements, Members
agree tobeguided, asappropriate, bytheannexed listofmeasures. Members therefore agree that
theintroduction ormodification ofsuchmeasures issubject tothenotification requirements ofthe1979
Understanding.
II. Central registry ofnotifications
Acentral registry ofnotifications shallbeestablished under theresponsibility oftheSecretariat.
While Members willcontinue tofollow existing notification procedures, theSecretariat shallensure
thatthecentralregistryrecordssuchelementsoftheinformationprovidedonthemeasurebytheMember
concerned asitspurpose, itstrade coverage, andtherequirement under which ithasbeennotified.
Thecentral registry shallcross-reference itsrecords ofnotifications byMember andobligation.
Thecentral registry shallinform eachMember annually oftheregular notification obligations
towhich thatMember willbeexpected torespond inthecourse ofthefollowing year.
Thecentral registry shall draw theattention ofindividual Members toregular notification
requirements which remain unfulfilled.G/NOP/W/16
Page16
Information inthecentral registry regarding individual notifications shallbemade available
onrequest toanyMember entitled toreceive thenotification concerned.
III. Review ofnotification obligations andprocedures
TheCouncilforTradeinGoodswillundertakeareviewofnotificationobligationsandprocedures
under theAgreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement. Thereview willbecarried outbya
working group, membership inwhich willbeopentoallMembers. Thegroup willbeestablished
immediately afterthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.
Theterms ofreference oftheworking group willbe:
— toundertake athorough review ofallexisting notification obligations ofMembers
established under theAgreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement, withaview
tosimplifying, standardizing andconsolidating these obligations tothegreatest extent
practicable, aswellastoimproving compliance withtheseobligations, bearing inmind
theoverall objective ofimproving thetransparency ofthetrade policies ofMembers
andtheeffectiveness ofsurveillance arrangements established tothisend,andalso
bearing inmind thepossible needofsome developing country Members forassistance
inmeeting theirnotification obligations;
— tomake recommendations totheCouncil forTrade inGoods notlaterthantwoyears
aftertheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.G/NOP/W/16
Page17
ANNEX II
ListofWorking Documents Issued bytheGroup
Document Date Title
Number
G/NOP/W/1 30/06/95 Background NotebytheSecretariat onNotification Procedures
intheGATT since 1979
G/NOP/W/2 &Rev.1 30/06/95 NotificationsRequiredfromWTOMembersUnderAgreements
&25/09/95 inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement
G/NOP/W/3 22/09/95 Information onFormats forNotifications Under the
Agreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement
G/NOP/W/4 03/11/95 Communication from theUnited States
G/NOP/W/5 21/11/95 Timing Aspects fortheNotification Requirements inthe
Agreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement
G/NOP/W/6 21/11/95 Notification Requirements intheAgreements inAnnex 1Aof
theWTO Agreements Which Appear tohavesome Elements
ofDuplication
G/NOP/W/7 14/02/96 Communication from NewZealand
G/NOP/W/8 21/02/96 Communication from theUnited States
G/NOP/W/9 08/03/96 Information onCompliance withtheNotification Obligations
Under theAgreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO Agreement
G/NOP/W/10 11/04/96 Communication from theUnited States
G/NOP/W/11 16/04/96 Communication from theEuropean Community
G/NOP/W/12 30/04/96 Communication from Argentina
G/NOP/W/13 10/05/96 Information onDiscussions Being Held inVarious WTO
Committees Related toTopics Under Examination inthe
Working Group
G/NOP/W/14 20/05/96 Information onNotifications Made Under theAgreements in
Annex 1AoftheWTO Agreement
G/NOP/W/15 02/07/96 Chairman 'sText
G/NOP/W/16 Draft Report oftheWorking Group totheCouncil forTrade
inGoods