G/AG/W/211  
 
11 May 2021  
(21-4019) Page: 1/102 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
 
COMPILATION OF POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE MONITORING  
OF THE DECEMBER 2015 MINISTERIAL DECISION ON EXPOR T COMPETITION1 
The present document was prepared by the Secretariat following the request made by Members at 
the 29 March 2021 informal meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (CoA) in the context of the 
second triennial review of the December 2015 Ministerial Conference Decision on Export Competition 
(WT/MIN(15)/45 -WT/L/980, The "Nairobi Decision").  
It compiles questions ask ed by Members and responses made as part of the monitoring of the Nairobi 
Decision undertaken by the CoA since its adoption and until the end of 2020, in the context of the 
annual dedicated discussions on Export Competition.2 
Annex I contained in G/AG/W/ 211/Add.1  includes questions and answers made by Members since 
the adoption of the Nairobi Decision as part of the matters relevant to the implementation of 
commitments under the reform programme raised under article 18.6 of the Agreement, and which 
include  a reference to i) the December 2013 Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition 
(WT/MIN(13)/40), ii) the Nairobi Decision, including the engagements contained therein, or 
iii) Members' replies to the annual questionnaire on export Competition compi led in the background 
documents by the Secretariat prepared before and after each annual dedicated discussion on Export 
Competition (G/AG/W/125 series).  
Annex II contained in G/AG/W/211/Add.1 includes questions and answers made by Members since 
the adopti on of the Nairobi Decision as part of the review of Tables ES:1, ES:2, ES:3 and 
NF:1 notifications using the same selection criteria as in Annex I.  
Annex III contained in G/AG/W/ 211/Add.1  lists relevant documents circulated as part of the 
monitoring of the  Nairobi Decision since its adoption.3 
The questions and replies are classified by date of meeting and name of responding Member. For 
ease of reference, detailed tables of contents listing all the questions and replies by name of 
responding Member are als o available at the beginning of this document and its addendum.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility  and is without prejudice to 
the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the  WTO.  
2 While most of the questions were asked at the CoA meetings during which the dedic ated discussions 
took place, some questions  were asked at other CoA meetings.  
3 Background documents by the Secretariat prepared before and after each annual dedicated discussion 
on Export Competition (G/AG/W/125 series) are not included in this list.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 2 - 
 
 
  
 TABLE OF CONTENTS  
SUMMARY TABLE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  6 
1   COA MEETING 7 JUNE 2016  ................................ ................................ .......................  10 
1.1   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 10 
1.2   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10 
1.3   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 
1.4   COLOMBIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 11 
1.5   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 12 
1.6   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 13 
1.7   ISRAEL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13 
1.8   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 14 
1.9   MEXICO ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 
1.10   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 15 
1.11   NORWAY ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 16 
1.12   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ .............................. 16 
1.13   SOUTH AFRICA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 17 
1.14   SWITZER LAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 17 
1.15   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 
1.16   URUGUAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 19 
1.17   UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......19 
1.18   VENEZ UELA, BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ ......22 
2   COA MEETING 9 NOVEMBER 2016  ................................ ................................ .............  22 
2.1   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 22 
3   COA MEETING 28 MARCH 2017  ................................ ................................ ..................  24 
3.1   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 24 
4   COA MEETING 7 JUNE 2017  ................................ ................................ .......................  25 
4.1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 25 
4.2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 26 
4.3   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 
4.4   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 28 
4.5   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 31 
4.6   EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......32 
4.7   ICELAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 37 
4.8   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 
4.9   ISRAEL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 39 
4.10   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 39 
4.11   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 39 
4.12   NORWAY ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 40 
4.13   SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 40 
4.14   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 3 - 
 
 
  
 5   COA MEETING 17 -18 OCTOBER 2017  ................................ ................................ .........  42 
5.1   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 42 
5.2   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 
6   COA MEETING 20 FEBRUARY 2018  ................................ ................................ ............  44 
6.1   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 
7   COA MEETING 11 -12 JUNE 2018 ................................ ................................ ................  44 
7.1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 44 
7.2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 45 
7.3   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 45 
7.4   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 46 
7.5   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 50 
7.6   EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......52 
7.7   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 55 
7.8   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 
7.9   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 57 
7.10   KOREA, REPUBLIC  OF ................................ ................................ ................................ 57 
7.11   MALAYSIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 58 
7.12   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 58 
7.13   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ .............................. 59 
7.14   THAILAND ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 60 
7.15   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 60 
7.16   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ..................... 62 
7.17   VIET NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 62 
8   COA MEETING 25 -26 SEPTEMBER 2018  ................................ ................................ ..... 63 
8.1   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 63 
8.2   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 64 
8.3   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 64 
8.4   PAKISTAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 65 
8.5   PARAGUAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 65 
8.6   THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 66 
8.7   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 66 
9   COA MEETING 26 -27 NOVEMBER 2018  ................................ ................................ ...... 66 
9.1   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 66 
9.2   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 67 
10   COA MEETING 26 FEBRUARY 2019  ................................ ................................ ..........  67 
10.1   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 67 
10.2   THAILAND ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 68 
10.3   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 68 
11   COA MEETING 25 JUNE 2019  ................................ ................................ ...................  68 
11.1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 68 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 4 - 
 
 
  
 11.2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 69 
11.3   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 69 
11.4   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 70 
11.5   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 70 
11.6   EUROPEAN UNIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ ....71 
11.7   HONG KONG, CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .73 
11.8   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 74 
11.9   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 74 
11.10    KOREA, R EPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ .............................. 75 
11.11    MALAYSIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 75 
11.12    NEW ZEALAND ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 77 
11.13    PAKISTAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 77 
11.14    RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ............................ 77 
11.15    SWITZERLAND ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 78 
11.16    THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 79 
11.17    TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 79 
11.18    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ................... 80 
11.19    URUGUAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 81 
11.20    VIET NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 81 
12   COA MEETING 30 OCTOBER 2019  ................................ ................................ ............  82 
12.1   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 82 
12.2   RUSSIAN FEDER ATION  ................................ ................................ .............................. 83 
13   COA MEETING 28 JULY 2020  ................................ ................................ ...................  84 
13.1   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 84 
13.2   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ .............................. 84 
13.3   THAILAND ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 85 
13.4   VIET NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 85 
14   COA MEETING 22 SEPTEMBER 2020  ................................ ................................ ........  85 
14.1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 85 
14.2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 88 
14.3   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 90 
14.4   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 90 
14.5   COLOMBIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 91 
14.6   EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....92 
14.7   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 94 
14.8   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 95 
14.9   ISRAEL  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 95 
14.10    NEW ZEALAND ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 95 
14.11    NORWAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 96 
14.12    PAKISTAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 97 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 5 - 
 
 
  
 14.13    RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ............................ 97 
14.14    THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 98 
14.15    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ................... 98 
14.16    VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ .. 100 
15   COA MEETING 30 NOVEMBER 2020  ................................ ................................ ....... 100  
15.1   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  100 
15.2   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 100 
15.3   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ...................  101 
 
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 6 - 
 
 
  
 SUMMARY TABLE  
ID Answer by  Question by  CoA 
Meeting 
Date  CoA 
Meeting 
Number  Reference link 
within 
document  
84065  Argentina  European Union  07.06.2017  84 4.1.1   
84114  Argentina  United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.1.2   
87043  Argentina  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.1.1   
91111  Argentina  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.1.1    
95118  Argentina  United State s of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.1.1    
84066  Australia  European Union  07.06.2017  84 4.2.1   
87003  Australia  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.2.1   
91028  Australia  European Uni on 25.06.2019  91 11.2.1    
95119  Australia  European Uni on 22.09.2020  95 14.2.2    
84115  Australia  United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.2.2   
95120  Australia  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.2.1   
RD/AG/46  Brazil  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.1.1   
87004  Brazil  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.3.1   
91055  Brazil  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.3.1    
95121  Brazil  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.3.1    
87012  Brazil  Norway  11.06.2018  87 7.3.2   
84116  Brazil  United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.3.1   
87044  Brazil  United St ates of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.3.3   
RD/AG/46  Canada  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.2.1   
84067  Canada  European Union  07.06.2017  84 4.4.1   
87005  Canada  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.4.1   
91057  Canada  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.4.1    
84006  Canada  New Zealand  07.06.2017  84 4.4.2   
84117  Canada  United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.4.3   
84121  Canada  United St ates of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.4.4   
87045  Canada  United States o f 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.4.2   
87046  Canada  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.4.3   
91112  Canada  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.4.2    
95143  China  Canada  22.09.2020  95 14.4.5    
RD/AG/46  China  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.3.1   
84070  China  European Union  07.06.2017  84 4.5.1   
87006  China  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.5.1   
91064  China  European Union  25.06 .2019  91 11.5.1    
91070  China  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.5.2    
95122  China  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.4.1    
84118  China  United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.5.2   
87047  China  United States of  
America  11.06.2018  87 7.5.2   
87048  China  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.5.3   
87049  China  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.5.4   
91114  China  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.5.3    
91115  China  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.5.4    
91117  China  United Sta tes of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.5.5    
92031  China  United States of 
America  30.10.2019  92 12.1.1    G/AG/W/211  
 
- 7 - 
 
 
  
 ID Answer by  Question by  CoA 
Meeting 
Date  CoA 
Meeting 
Number  Reference link 
within 
document  
93024  China  United States of  
America  28.07.2020  93 13.1.1    
95123  China  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.4.2    
95124  China  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.4.3   
95125  China  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.4.4    
RD/AG/46  Colombia  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.4.1   
95126  Colombia  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.5.1    
84119  European Union  United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.6.1   
84122  European Union  United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.6.2   
87050  European Union  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.6.1   
87051  European  Union  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.6.2   
87052  European Union  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.6.3   
91118  European Union  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.6.1    
91119  European Union  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.6.2    
95127  Europe an Union  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.6.1    
95128  European Union  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.6.2    
95129  European Union  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.6.3    
95130  Europe an Union  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.6.4    
95131  European Union  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.6.5    
91120  Hong Kong, China  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.7.1    
84005  Iceland  New Zealand  07.06.2017  84 4.7.1   
RD/AG/47  India Australia  07.06.2016  80 1.5.1   
RD/AG/45  India Canada  07.06.2016  80 1.5.2   
RD/AG/46  India European  Union  07.06.2016  80 1.5.3   
87007  India European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.7.1   
91072  India European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.8.1    
91073  India European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.8.2    
95132  India European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.7.1    
96002  India European Union  30.11 .2020  96 15.1.1    
84120  India United States of 
America  07.06.2017  84 4.8.1   
87053  India United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.7.2   
88088  India United States of 
America  25.09.2018  88 8.1.1   
89045  India United States of 
America  26.11.2018  89 9.1.1   
90082  India United States of 
America  26.02.2019  90 10.1.1    
91121  India United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.8.3    
RD/AG/46  Indonesia  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.6.1   
91071  Indonesia  European Uni on 25.06.2019  91 11.9.1    
95133  Indonesia  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.8.1   
87054  Indonesia  United State s of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.8.1   
88089  Indonesia  United States of 
America  25.09.2018  88 8.2.1   
RD/AG/46  Israel  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.7.1   
84004  Israel  New Zealand  07.06.2017  84 4.9.1   G/AG/W/211  
 
- 8 - 
 
 
  
 ID Answer by  Question by  CoA 
Meeting 
Date  CoA 
Meeting 
Number  Reference link 
within 
document  
95007  Israel  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.9.1    
RD/AG/45  Japan  Canada  07.06.2016  80 1.8.1   
84123  Japan  China  07.06.2017  84 4.10.1    
86052  Japan  China  21.02.2018  86 6.1.1   
87055  Japan  United States of 
America  11.06 .2018  87 7.9.1   
88090  Japan  United States of 
America  25.09.2018  88 8.3.1   
87057  Korea, Republic of  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.10.1    
91123  Korea, Republic of  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.10.1    
91069  Malaysia  European Unio n 25.06.2019  91 11.11.1    
87056  Malaysia  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.11.1    
91124  Malaysia  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.11.2    
RD/AG/46  Mexico  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.9.1   
95144  New Zealand  Canada  22.09.2020  95 14.10.2    
RD/AG/49  New Zealand  Chile 07.06.2016  80 1.10.1    
82065  New Zealand  Chile 09.11.2016  82 2.1.1   
83037  New Zealand  Chile 28.03.2017  83 3.1.1   
96003  New Zealand  Chile 30.11.2020  96 15.2.1    
RD/AG/46  New Zealand  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.10.2    
84069  New Zealand  European Union  07.06.2017  84 4.11.1    
85046  New Zealand  European Union  17.10.2017  85 5.1.1   
87008  New Zealand  European  Union  11.06.2018  87 7.12.1    
91068  New Zealand  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.12.1    
95134  New Zealand  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.10.1    
RD/AG/46  Norway  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.11.1    
84003  Norway  New Zealand  07.06.2017  84 4.12.1    
95135  Norway  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.11.1    
88091  Pakistan  United States of 
America  25.09.2018  88 8.4.1   
91125  Pakistan  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.13.1    
95136  Pakistan  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.12.1    
88093  Paraguay  United States of 
America  25.09.2018  88 8.5.1   
RD/AG/47  Russian Federation  Australia  07.06.2016  80 1.12.1    
95145  Russian Federation  Canada  22.09.2020  95 14.13.3    
RD/AG/46  Russian Federation  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.12.2    
87009  Russian Federation  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.13.1    
92044  Russian Federation  European Union  30.10.2019  92 12.2.2    
95137  Russian Federation  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.13.1    
87058  Russian Federation  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.13.2    
91126  Russian Federation  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.14.1    
91127  Russian Federation  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.14.2    
92032  Russian  Federation  United States of 
America  30.10.2019  92 12.2.1    
93175  Russian Federation  United States of 
America  28.07.2020  93 13.2.1    
95138  Russian Federation  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.13.2    
RD/AG/46  South Africa  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.13.1    
RD/AG/46  Switzerland  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.14.1    
91067  Switzerland  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.15.1    
84002  Switzerland  New Zealand  07.06.2017  84 4.13.1    
87059  Thailand  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.14.1    G/AG/W/211  
 
- 9 - 
 
 
  
 ID Answer by  Question by  CoA 
Meeting 
Date  CoA 
Meeting 
Number  Reference link 
within 
document  
88094  Thailand  United States of 
America  25.09.2018  88 8.6.1   
90083  Thailand  United States of 
America  26.02.2019  90 10.2.1    
91110  Thailand  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.16.1    
91130  Thailand  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.16.2    
93176  Thailand  United States of 
America  28.07.2020  93 13.3.1    
95139  Thailand  United States  of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.14.1    
95140  Thailand  United States of 
America  22.09.2020  95 14.14.2    
RD/AG/46  Turkey  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.15.1    
87010  Turkey  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.15.1    
87135  Turkey  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.15.2    
91065  Turkey  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.17.1    
91066  Turkey  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.17.2   
87060  Turkey  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.15.3    
88116  Turkey  United States of 
America  25.09.2018  88 8.7.1   
89046  Turkey  United States o f 
America  26.11.2018  89 9.2.1   
90084  Turkey  United States of 
America  26.02.2019  90 10.3.1    
RD/AG/47  United States of 
America  Australia  07.06.2016  80 1.17.1    
RD/AG/45  United States of 
America  Canada  07.06.2016  80 1.17.2    
84124  United States of 
Ameri ca China  07.06.2017  84 4.14.1    
95141  United States of 
America  China  22.09.2020  95 14.15.1    
96035  United States of 
America  China  30.11.2020  96 15.3.1    
RD/AG/46  United States of 
America  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.17.3    
84068  United States of 
Ameri ca European Union  07.06.2017  84 4.14.2    
85038  United States of 
America  European Union  17.10.2017  85 5.2.1   
87011  United S tates of 
America  European Union  11.06.2018  87 7.16.1    
91056  United States of 
America  European Union  25.06.2019  91 11.18.1    
95142  United States of 
America  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.15.2    
84001  United  States of 
America  New Zealand  07.06.2017  84 4.14.3    
87013  United States of 
Ameri ca Norway  11.06.2018  87 7.16.2    
RD/AG/46  Uruguay  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.16.1    
91122  Uruguay  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.19.1    
RD/AG/46  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  European Union  07.06.2016  80 1.18.1    
95063  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  European Union  22.09.2020  95 14.16.1    
87061  Viet Nam  United States of 
America  11.06.2018  87 7.17.1    
91109  Viet Nam  United States of 
America  25.06.2019  91 11.20.1    
93142  Viet Nam  United States of 
America  28.07.2020  93 13.4.1    G/AG/W/211  
 
- 10 - 
 
 
  
 1  COA MEETING 7 JUNE 2016  
1.1  BRAZIL  
1.1.1   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Brazil did not provide export subsidies to a gricultural products in the past five years as notified to 
the CoA.  
 
Given that the PROEX Direct Financing programme applies international market interest 
rates with respect to the funding currency and its maturity, how does it differ from private 
institut ion financing terms and conditions?  
  
The main difference is that the spreads charged by domestic private institutions, in addition to 
international markets interest rates, tend to be high, while PROEX allows interest rates to be 
compatible with those pra cticed in international markets.  
 
What is the total value of agricultural exports, destination countries and products groups 
subject to PROEX Interest Rate Support programme?  
 
There are no agricultural exports subject to PROEX I nterest Rate Support progra mme.  
 
What is the average interest rate charged from Brazilian exports of goods and services 
subject to PROEX Interest Rate Support programme?  
 
There are no agricultural exports subject to PROEX Interest Rate Support programme.  
1.2  CANADA  
1.2.1   Questions by the Euro pean Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
As of the date of adop tion of the Nairobi Decision, Canada eliminated its remaining scheduled export 
subsidy entitlements for all products, except for dairy products as per footnote 4 to paragraph  6. 
Canada is subject to the provisions of footnote 4 stating that the "quantity c ommitment levels shall 
be applied as a standstill until the end of 2020 at the actual average quantity levels of the 
2003-05 base period". Therefore, paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition is not applicable to Canada.  
 
What is the actual average of export subsidy quantity levels for processed products, dairy 
products and swine meat during the 2003 -2005 base period which shall be applied as a 
standstill according to footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Canada does not use exp ort subsidies for swine meat and processed products. For dairy products, 
as per the terms of the Annex of the Nairobi Decision, Canada will notify operational changes in 
measures on export subsidies. This includes its standstill quantity limits as required  for its next 
export subsidy notification, and within the context of the annual examination process through the 
next dedicated session on export competition.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 11 - 
 
 
  
 Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision creates a condition that there shall be no export 
subsidies on products destined for LDCs as of 1 January 2016. Could Canada, Norway and 
Switzerland confirm that this condition is fulfilled?  
 
Canada can confirm that as of 1 January 2016 Canada is not providing export subsidises on products 
destined for LDCs.  
 
Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision lays down that there shall be no export subsidies 
applied either to new markets or new products. In order to monitor the complian ce with 
this provision, could Canada, Norway and Switzerland indicate which where the 
destination countries of the products exported with export subsidies during a 2003 -2005 
base period?  
 
Footnote 4 does not explicitly link the limitations on export subsid ies applied to new products or to 
new markets to the 2003 -05 base period. This base period is to be used solely for the purpose of 
establishing interim quantity limits on export subsidies for applicable products during the transition 
period until the end o f 2020.  
 
Regardless, Canada confirms that there shall be no export subsidies applied to either new markets 
or to new products as of the date of entry into force of the Nairobi Decision. The destination countries 
for each of the dairy products exported with  export subsidies is confidential commercial information.  
1.3  CHINA  
1.3.1   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
Unlike previous years, China was not in the position in 2016 to provide any data in reply 
to the Secretariat's questionnaire on export competition. N evertheless, the EU would like 
to ask China to provide clarification on the following questions:  
 
Does China consider the Agricultural Produce Export Sellers' Credit programme operated 
by the China ExIm Bank falling under the definition of paragraph 13(a) of the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition?  
 
The nature of the export credit provided by  China Exim Bank is "working capital financing to the 
suppliers" as provided for in footnote 7 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
Are there any agricul ture-specific export financing risk -cover programmes operated in 
China, including by the China ExIm Bank, China Development Bank or Sinosure?  
 
There is no "agriculture -specific" export financing risk -cover program operated in China.  
1.4  COLOMBIA  
1.4.1   Question by t he European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
In the last five  notifications submitted by Colombia to the WTO for the period 2005 -2010, Colombia 
reported no use of its rights on export subsidies. Colombia is working on updating its notifications 
and is hoping to submit them shortly. Colombia will honour the commitmen ts made in the Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition adopted at the 10th Ministerial Conference in Nairobi.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 12 - 
 
 
  
 1.5  INDIA  
1.5.1   Questions by Australia ( RD/AG/47 ) 
In India's latest State Trading Enterprise Notification (G/STR/N/14/IND), Australia notes 
the Food Corporation of India (FCI) administers the imports of certain agricultural 
products, but has not been granted special export privileges.  
 
Could India please detail how much rice and how much wheat has been exported through 
the Food Corporation of India (FC I) for each year since 2012 -13 to the most recent 
reporting period?  If the FCI has exported, could India please indicate the average 
procurement price, the quantity exported, the destination and the average export price 
for each of wheat and rice?  
 
Can Ind ia confirm if any other agricultural commodity was exported through the FCI for 
each year since 2012 -13 to the most recent reporting period, and if so, provide volumes, 
and average export prices?  
 
Can India please identify, from the latest figures availabl e, the main export destinations 
for agricultural products exported under the auspices of the STEs?  
 
The two questions raised by Australia and the European Union relate to exports by the Food 
Corporation of India.  
 
Australia mentioned in the question that the Food Corporation of India administers the imports of 
certain agricultural products but has not granted special export privileges.  
 
The Food Corporation of India was set up in 1964 under the Food Corporation Act. The main 
objectives were: to provide ef fective price support operations for safeguarding the interests of 
farmers, to distribute food grain throughout the country for the public distribution system, to 
maintain satisfactory levels of operational and buffer stocks of foods grains to ensure natio nal food 
security, and to regulate domestic prices to provide food grains for consumers at reliable prices.  
 
Paragraph 19 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition mentions that "For the 
purpose of the disciplines set out hereunder in this Decision, an agriculture exporting state trading 
enterprise shall be any enterprise which meets the working definition provided for in the 
Understanding on the interpretation of Article XVII of the GATT 1994 …" which ended with 
footnote  12. 
 
Footnote 12 re peats the working definition of a state trading enterprise included in that 
Understanding "governmental and non -governmental enterprises, including marketing boards, 
which have been granted exclusive or special rights or privileges, including statutory or constitutional 
powers, in the exercise of which they influence through the purchases or sales the level or direction 
of imports or exports".  
 
The objectives of setting up the Food Corporation of India and the authorities which the government 
has given to the Corporation in no way affect the level or direction of the exports which it carries 
out. Therefore, the Food Corporation of India does not fall under the definition of agricultural state 
trading enterprises.  
1.5.2   Question by Canada ( RD/AG/45 ) 
India has not provided a response (nil or otherwise) to the Secretariat compiled document 
titled "Export Subsidies, Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees  or Insurance 
Programmes, International Food Aid and Agricultural Exporting State Trading 
Enterprises" (G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.2). However, according to pages 72 and 73 of the 
most recent Trade Policy Review Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/313) in 2015, 
insurance against export credit risk is provided by the ECGC Limited, and export finance 
is provided by the Export -Import Bank of India (Exim Bank). Replies to India's Trade 
Policy Review (WT/TPR/M/313/Add.1) state that India's Exim Bank provides export 
credits to support agricultural products (such as pulses, vegetables, spices, etc). In terms G/AG/W/211  
 
- 13 - 
 
 
  
 of ECGC Limited, although there were no specific policies to cover agriculture exports, 
certain agriculture products may have received export financing support.  
 
Regardless if the program was specific to agriculture or not, could India please provide 
the maximum average repayment terms the ECGC Limited Programs where agriculture 
products received export financing support?  
 
The question concerns information on the ma ximum average repayment under the 
ECGC  programmes. ECGC does not have any agriculture -specific programme for export credit 
insurance. The maximum repayment term for the general programmes for export credit insurance 
for exporters, is 12 months.  
1.5.3   Question by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
Food Corporation of India is a government -owned corporation which procures and 
maintains the public distribution system of food grains in India. Although India has not 
notified the FCI to the WTO Working Party on S tate Trading Enterprises, nor in its reply 
to the Secretariat's questionnaire, it has acknowledged that the operations of the FCI 
include also exports of the public stocks. This confirms the concerns of the EU on adverse 
spill-over effects public stockhold ing programmes may have on markets of other 
countries. According to the information available on the website of the FCI, the company 
exported 57.97 LMT of wheat from Central Pool stocks during the three year period 
from  2012 -2013 to 2014 -2015.  
 
Could Indi a explain how it intends to minimize the trade distorting effects of these export 
operations? Could India, in line with paragraph 20 of the Nairobi Decision, also confirm 
that the average export prices of these stocks are not lower than the comparable pric e 
charged for the like products to buyers in the domestic market, as referred to in 
Article  9:1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
 
See reply to 5.1.  
1.6  INDONESIA  
1.6.1   Question by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export s ubsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Indonesia has never granted export subsidies to rice which is the only product in its export subsi dies 
commitments.  
1.7  ISRAEL  
1.7.1   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 o f the Nairobi Decision?   
 
Paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision is not clear as regards which "past five years" should be taken 
into account.  If these five years are for export subsidy notifications examined by the CoA before 
21 December 2015 then the relev ant data is available in documents G/AG/N/ISR/46 and 
G/AG/N/ISR/52. If the five years are for the five years prior to the Nairobi Decision (i.e. 2011 -2015) 
then for 2011 -2014 the numbers are available in Israel's notifications G/AG/N/ISR/52 
and G/AG/N/ISR/ 53. For 2015 the information is not yet available.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 14 - 
 
 
  
 Which are the products or product groups for which Israel, the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela and Turkey have notified the use of scheduled export subsidies in one of the 
three latest export subsidy no tification examined by the CoA before 21 December 2015?  
 
The products and product groups which have been notified in the three latest export subsidy 
notifications can be seen in Israel's notification G/AG/N/ISR/52 of 12 June 2013 which includes all 
the thr ee years (October 2009 – September 2012):  
• Cut flowers, fresh and foliage, fresh ; 
• Vegetables 0701 -0709; 
• Fruits (not citrus) 0803 -0804, 0806 -0810; 
• Citrus fruits 0805.  
1.8  JAPAN  
1.8.1   Questions by Canada ( RD/AG/45 ) 
Japan has responded to the Addendum to the Secretariat compiled document titled 
"Export Subsidies, Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or Insurance Programmes, 
International Food Aid and Agricultural Exporting State Trading Enterprises" 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.3) that monetization of internation al food aid is permitted.  
 
Can Japan please describe how it will minimize or eliminate disruptions to the local or 
regional markets, which may include impacts on production, when providing monetized 
food aid?  
 
Can Japan please describe any local and regio nal market analysis conducted consistent 
with paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Japan provides cash -based, rather than in -kind, food aid. While Japan allows beneficiary countries 
to re-monetize the food, which is a purchase with a fund, called an acc umulated counterpart fund. 
This is different from the monetization of aid in -kind food aid.  
 
In addition, Japan provides food aid in a transparent way. Japan requires beneficiary countries to 
submit an advance report regarding the use of funds which will b e approved by Japan. Beneficiary 
countries also submit a report after implementation when they accumulate counterpart funds.  
 
Moreover, when the beneficiary countries sell food purchased with funds the price is decided taking 
into account the market price.  Thus, it does not distort the local market.  
1.9  MEXICO  
1.9.1   Question by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed acc ording to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
During the period between 2008 and 2012, Mexico provided export subsidies only under Article  9.4. 
The average outlays over that five -year period were USD  10 million for wheat and USD  2 million for 
corn.  
 
Mexico notes that the information is ready for the notifications covering the period 2013 -2015 and 
will present them in the following days. In advance, Mexico underscores that it did not provide export 
subsidies for any product, either by Article 9.4 or by i ts own entitlements. Mexico reiterates that it 
will honour its commitments made in Nairobi.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 15 - 
 
 
  
 1.10  NEW ZEALAND  
1.10.1   Questions by Chile ( RD/AG/49 ) 
To what extent is the New Zealand government involved, or what is its role, in establishing 
the target markets for Zespri  exports?  
 
Chile is interested in knowing specifically how New Zealand ensures that Zespri, which is 
an STE, is being operated in accordance with the commitments undertaken in Nairobi, in 
particular paragraph 21 of the Nairobi Declaration.  
 
New Zealand thanks the EU and Chile for their interest in the operations of Kiwifruit New  Zealand. 
In responding to their questions, it is important to clarify that Kiwifruit New  Zealand and Zespri 
Group Limited are two entirely separate legal entities, establ ished under two separate pieces of 
legislation.   
 
On 1 April 2000, the Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Act 1999 converted what was the New  Zealand 
Kiwifruit Marketing Board into a private company, Zespri Group Limited. New  Zealand, therefore, no 
longer ha s a "kiwiboard".  
 
The New Zealand Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) establish the independent 
Regulator "Kiwifruit New Zealand" and define its functions.   
 
The Regulations provide Zespri an automatic, but not exclusive, right to export k iwifruit from 
New Zealand to markets other than Australia. Further, they provide for others to export kiwifruit, to 
markets other than Australia, in collaboration with Zespri subject to approval of the independent 
body Kiwifruit New Zealand. Any marketer c an independently export kiwifruit to Australia, without 
the prior permission of Kiwifruit New Zealand.  
 
In early 2015 the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) commissioned an independent review of 
Kiwifruit New Zealand. Zespri's export authorization unde r the Regulations is not within the scope 
of the current review of the Regulations. MPI is currently analysing responses to its public 
consultation and preparing its advice to the government.  
 
New Zealand takes its international obligations seriously, incl uding those of the WTO. Any regulatory 
changes that occur as a result of the review will continue to be consistent with New  Zealand's 
obligations.  
1.10.2   Question by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
The Nairobi Decision on Export Competition provides, in paragraph 2 1, that "Members 
shall make their best efforts to ensure that the use of export monopoly powers by 
agricultural exporting state trading enterprises is exercised in a manner that minimizes 
trade distorting effects and does not result in displacing or impedi ng the exports of 
another Member". In the course of the ongoing review of the operations of its kiwiboard 
Zespri, New Zealand does not seem to have considered an option to limit the exporting 
monopoly powers of Zespri.  
 
Could New Zealand explain the reaso ns behind this decision and explain how it complies 
with the commitment of paragraph 21 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
See reply to 10.1.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 16 - 
 
 
  
 1.11  NORWAY  
1.11.1   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a produ ct basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Norway has export subsidy entitlements for 11 product groups. Four groups are covered by 
footnote  4 in the Ministeria l decision. These are swine meat, butter, cheese and processed 
agricultural products. For these products, the upper limits for export subsidies in the period 
2016-2020 are described in footnote 4 of the Ministerial decision. As to the question about the be st 
effort paragraph 10 in the Ministerial decision, actual spending of export subsidies of the last five 
years are available in Norway's updated ES 1 notifications.  
 
What is the actual average of export subsidy quantity levels for processed products, dairy 
products and swine meat during the 2003 -2005 base period which shall be applied as a 
standstill according to footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
The standstill quantities according to notifications for 2003 -2005 are:  
• Swine meat 1,898 tonne s; 
• Butter 1 ,039 tonnes ; 
• Cheese 15,929 tonnes.  
 
Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision creates a condition that there shall be no export 
subsidies on products destined for LDCs as of 1 January 2016. Could Canada, Norway and 
Switzerland confirm that this conditi on is fulfilled?  
 
The answer is yes.  
 
Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision lays down that there shall be no export subsidies 
applied either to new markets or new products. In order to monitor the compliance with 
this provision, could Canada, Norway and Switz erland indicate which where the 
destination countries of the products exported with export subsidies during a 2003 -2005 
base period?  
 
In Norway's view, the European Union is misinterpreting footnote 4 in the Ministerial decision on 
export competition from Nairobi. The expression "either to new markets or to new products" is not 
related to the 2003 -2005 reference period, but to export subsidies up to the date of the Ministerial 
decision.  
1.12  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
1.12.1   Question by Australia ( RD/AG/47 ) 
The Russian Federat ion has notified food aid worth USD 30 million to the UN World Food 
Programme in 2015 and has also provided a table outlining their food aid for 2015 in their 
answer to the Export Competition Questionnaire (G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.3). Could the 
Russian Federa tion please provide further information regarding this table, including how 
the food aid was provided (in -kind or on an untied cash -based basis)?  
 
The Russian Federation provides food aid completely in grant form. Most food aid is provided by the 
Russian F ederation through international organizations, primarily through the World Food 
Programme. Food aid is normally provided on an untied cash -based basis. In -kind food aid can only 
be provided by the Russian Federation in response to emergency situations as h umanitarian aid and, 
as can be seen, the amounts of in -kind food aid are small.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 17 - 
 
 
  
 1.12.2   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
According to the reply to the questionnaire, the Russian Federation has provided only 
cash-based food aid. However, as clarified in t he Committee on Agriculture in the context 
of the discussion on NF:1 notification, the Russian Federation provides information on 
food aid in financial equivalent. Could the Russian Federation clarify if it provides any 
in-kind food aid?  
 
Could the Russian  Federation explain why they decided not to list the United Grain 
Company as an agricultural exporting STE in their reply to the Secretariat's questionnaire? 
UGC was established by the Russian Presidential Decree, it is owned by the Russian 
government and it has been granted special rights to carry out state procurement and 
exports of grain, so it appears to be an STE within the meaning of the working definition 
set forth in the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of GATT 1994.  
 
Paragraph 19 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition states that "… agricultural exporting 
state trading enterprises shall be any enterprise which meets the working definition provided for in 
the Understanding on the interpretation of Article XVII of  the GATT 1994 …".  
 
In Russian Federation's responses to questions posed by the European Union under the Working 
Party of State Trading Enterprises (G/STR/Q1/RUS/2) the Russian Federation states that the United 
Grain Company  (UGC) is not an STE within the meaning of the working definition set forth in the 
mentioned Understanding.  
 
The Russian Federation has pointed out that UGC exercises its trade operations, export or import, 
on the basis of equal agricultural market participation. Since the UGC is not a S TE it was not listed 
in responses to the Secretariat questionnaire. In addition, the government of the Russian Federation 
has not granted UGC special rights to carry out state procurement or exports of grain.  
 
The Decree of the President of the Russian Fed eration No.  219 states that among many other main 
areas of UGC's activities there are the increase of purchases and sales of grains on internal markets 
and export of grain. If the European Union bases its conclusions on that wording, then the 
Russian  Feder ation would ask the European Union to verify why the description of main areas of 
activity should be considered as granting special rights. There are no special rights but only 
descriptions of activities.  
1.13  SOUTH AFRICA  
1.13.1   Question by the European Union ( RD/AG/ 46) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
South Africa has not used export subsidie s since the year 2001. The average level of export subsidies 
on a product level is therefore zero for the past five years.  
 
South Africa has for many years been a proponent for the full elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies and remains fully committ ed to eliminating its export subsidy entitlements as decided by 
Ministers in Nairobi in December 2015.  
 
1.14  SWITZERLAND  
1.14.1   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members app lying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 18 - 
 
 
  
 Switzerland has been informing transparently on its budgetary outlays of export subsidies. The 
necessary information with regard to past year s expenditures are therefore available either in the 
notifications or the Secretariats background reports on export subsidies.  
 
What is the actual average of export subsidy quantity levels for processed products, dairy 
products and swine meat during the 20 03-2005 base period which shall be applied as a 
standstill according to footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
In the case of processed products, Switzerland's schedules contain no quantity commitment levels. 
Therefore, the standstill on quantities of footnote 4 does not apply in this case. Regarding dairy 
products and swine meat, Switzerland does not revert the pr ovisions of footnote 4.  
 
Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision creates a condition that there shall be no export 
subsidies on products destined for LDCs as of 1 January 2016. Could Canada, Norway and 
Switzerland confirm that this condition is fulfilled?  
 
Switzerland has amended the respective legal provisions and eliminated the eligibility of exports 
destined to LDC for receiving export subsidies.  
 
Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision lays down that there shall be no export subsidies 
applied eit her to new markets or new products. In order to monitor the compliance with 
this provision, could Canada, Norway and Switzerland indicate which where the 
destination countries of the products exported with export subsidies during a 2003 -2005 
base period?  
 
Switzerland is of the view that footnote 4 does not contain any reference period with regard to the 
provision on new markets and new products. Therefore, Switzerland does not agree to monitor the 
compliance of this provision based on export destinations of  the years from 2003 to 2005 as 
proposed by the EU.  
 
1.15  TURKEY  
1.15.1   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Which are the products or product groups for which Israel, the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela and Turkey have notified the use of scheduled export subsidies in one of the 
three latest export subs idy notification examined by the CoA before 21 December 2015?  
 
As mentioned in responses to questions in the review process, these products can be found in 
Turkey's three latest export subsidy notifications issued before 21 December 2015, which are 
G/AG/N/ TUR/9, G/AG/N/TUR/11 and G/AG/N/TUR/13.  
 
Turkey notifies, for the first time, its data on food aid delivered. Could Turkey clarify if the 
donations of in -kind food aid were delivered in response to the emergency situation in the 
recipient countries or not?   
 
If the in -kind food aid was provided in response to the emergency situation, could Turkey 
clarify if an emergency was declared or emergency aid appealed by the recipient countries 
or international organizations?  
 
The donations of in -kind food aid by the  Turkish government were provided in response to the 
emergency situations declared by the recipient countries or the relevant institutions of the 
United  Nations.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 19 - 
 
 
  
 1.16  URUGUAY  
1.16.1   Question by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years  export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Uruguay's schedule gives Uruguay the right to subsidize exports of rice, butter and oilca ke but 
Uruguay has not used any type of export subsidy in the past five years. The average is therefore 
zero. No export subsidies were provided within the framework of Article 9.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
1.17  UNITED STATES  
1.17.1   Questions by Australia ( RD/AG/47 ) 
The U.S. has reported that the annual average repayment period under GSM -102 is around 
14 months, while the typical repayment period under ExIm for agricultural trade is 
180 days.  Given that many of the export destinations for ExIm are  common to GSM -102 
(as reported in G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.2), can the U.S. explain why tenor lengths vary 
so greatly between the two programs?  
 
The annual average repayment period is weighted based on program use. As reported by the U.S. 
in the survey, the m aximum repayment term for the GSM -102 program is 18 months. The maximum 
repayment term for EXIM bank is 360 days.  
 
Can the U.S. please provide a breakdown of total exports by region for the 2015 fiscal year 
for GSM -102?  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire is consistent with the structure provided 
in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.  
 
Can the U.S. please provide a breakdown of total agricultural exports by region for fiscal 
years 2013 and 2014 fo r ExIm?  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire is consistent with the structure provided 
in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.  
1.17.2   Questions by Canada ( RD/AG/45 ) 
The United States has notified the Export Credit Insurance Program of the  Export -Import 
Bank in the Addendum to the Secretariat compiled document titled "Export Subsidies, 
Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or Insurance Programmes, International Food 
Aid and Agricultural Exporting State Trading Enterprises" (G/AG/W/125/Re v.4/Add.2).  
 
Why has the United States now notified the Export Credit Insurance Program of the Export 
Import Bank of the Unites States when it has been in operation as an independent agency 
since 1945? Canada notes that the Export Import Bank was not notif ied under the 
previous compiled report by the Secretariat (G/AG/W/125/Rev.3).  
 
The United States continuously reviews the activities of U.S. government entities to determine which 
programs should be considered reportable through the Export Competition Ques tionnaire (ECQ). The 
United States determined that the U.S. Export Import Bank's export financing programs should be 
included in the U.S. submission to the questionnaire and provided data for FY  2015 as well as the 
previous two years so that its relevant a ctivity has been reported for each year the ECQ has been in 
place.  
 
Could the United States please provide the breakdown of annual value of exports by 
export destination (the same as what is shown for its response to the subheading 
"Programme use by produc t or product group")?  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 20 - 
 
 
  
  
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure provided 
in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.  
1.17.3   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
Export Financing  
 
On the export destinations of the GSM -102 programme, data about the annual value of 
exports per regions of destination seems to be missing in the current document which 
was not the case last year, could the U.S. explain the reasons for this?  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure provided 
in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.  
 
The U.S. notifies that the total value of exports of agricultural products covered by the 
GSM-102 programme for U.S. Fiscal Year 2015 was USD 1,8 26,433,581. The data provided 
by the U.S. on total value of exports of agricultural products covered by the GSM -102 
programme and programme use by product or product group differ from the data provided 
by the USDA FAS on it its webpage ( https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export -credit -
guarantee -program -gsm-102/yearly -activity -reports ). For example, according to the FAS 
web-page, total value of ex ports in FY 2015 is USD 1,810,946,469 (guarantee value) and 
USD 1,866,347,902 (port value). In the U.S. submission to the WTO, the same figure is 
USD 1,826,433,581. Could the U.S. explain these discrepancies?  
 
The Agreement on Agriculture is limited to a defined group of agricultural products. The 
United  States reported data on those products subject to the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
The U.S. notifies that the Export Credit Insurance Program of the Export -Impor t Bank 
offers four types of insurance policies that may be used to cover export of agricultural 
commodities: Short -Term Single Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policies for Exporters; 
Bank Letter of Credit policies; Financial Institution Buyer Credits; and Mu lti-Buyer 
Policies. According to the web -page of the Export -Import Bank 
(https://www.exim.gov/what -we-do/export -credit -insurance ), the bank offers other 
export financing instruments wh ich could fall under the definition of paragraphs 13 -14 of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. Such instruments include for 
example Medium -Term Export Credit Insurance and Reinsurance programmes. Could the 
export of agricultural commodi ties be covered by these measures?  
 
The Medium -Term Export Credit Insurance and Reinsurance program administered by the U.S. 
Export -Import Bank does not support agricultural commodities.  
 
The U.S. Small Business Administration offers direct financing supp ort to exporters in the 
form of the Export Express Loan and The International Trade Loan Programmes. Could the 
U.S. confirm that the programmes offered by the SBA do not fall under the scope of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition as defi ned in paragraphs 13 -14? 
 
The programs do not fall under paragraphs 13 -14 of the Nairobi Ministerial.  
 
The U.S. operates GSM -102 programme which is designed to support agricultural exports 
and is subject to disciplines of the Nairobi Decision on Export Com petition. According to 
the web -page of the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS estimates average annual 
cost of the GSM -102 programme during a 2012 -2016 period at USD 74.1 million 
(administrative costs at USD 6.8 million and default estimates of USD 89.1 million) 
against fee revenue of USD 21.8 million.4 The Nairobi Decision paragraph 15(b) requires 
the export financing risk -cover programmes to be self -financing and cover the long -term 
operating costs and losses of a programme. In the light of the FAS e stimates, how the 
 
4 FAS strategic plan for 2012 -2016: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/development/files/fas_stratplan_2012 -2016.pdf . See page 13 for relevant 
figures.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 21 - 
 
 
  
 U.S. intends to comply with the Nairobi disciplines? Why are the cost estimates of the 
GSM-102 programme missing from the FAS estimates for the 2015 -2018 period?5 
 
The United States is in compliance with the Nairobi disciplines. In the U nited States, there are a 
large number of reporting requirements for different purposes. These reports shall not in any way 
be interpreted as comparable or used as a precise reflection of long -term financial operations of the 
program for ECQ purposes.  
 
Food Aid  
 
fy_2014_ifar_ -_may_13_2016.pdf (usda.gov)  
 
The U.S. states in its submission that "during U.S. Fiscal Year 2015, the United  States 
shipped 1.09 mill ion metric tonnes  of food products with a total value of 
USD 447.25  million to meet emergency and developmental food aid needs". Could the U.S. 
clarify the exact amount of in -kind food aid delivered in emergency situations and in non -
emergency situations?  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure provided 
in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision. Additional information on U.S. food assistance programming is 
available in publicly available reporting, including the International Food Assistance Report (IFAR) 
(http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2016 -05/fy_2014_ifar_ -_may_13_2016.pdf  and 
https://www.usaid.gov/what -we-do/agriculture -and-food-security/food -
assistance/resources/united -states -international -food); and t he Narrative Report on Food 
Assistance by Members of the Food Assistance Convention 
(http://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/reports.aspx ). Please note, the 2015 reports will be 
published  later this year.  
 
The U.S. states in its submission that "monetization is permitted and used to cover 
transportation costs, support health or nutrition activities, or fund agricultural or 
development activities". Could the U.S. clarify what is the total a mount of monetized in -
kind food aid, in monetary terms and in terms of percentage of the total in -kind food aid, 
and how the funds raised are spent, broken down by "transportation costs", "support to 
health or nutrition activities", and "funding of agricul tural or development activities"?  
 
Please see reply above.  
 
Could the U.S. provide information on the cost -recovery rate of monetized in -kind food 
aid? 
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure provided 
in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision.  
 
The U.S. states in its submission under question number 5 that "Food assistance 
responses to emergencies are provided through the World Food Program, private 
voluntary organizations, and other qualified responders to eme rgencies. The 
organizations work closely with the national and local governments in the recipient 
countries to identify the recipient regions and beneficiaries who need the programs". 
Could the U.S. clarify which organization carried out the needs assessme nt for the food 
aid programmes run by the U.S. and whether the food aid provided though the 
U.S. emergency food aid programmes is responding to a declaration of emergency or an 
emergency appeal by a recipient country or by an international organization?  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure provided 
in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision. General information related to U.S. emergency food assistance 
can be found at https://www.usaid.gov/what -we-do/agriculture -and-food-security/food -assistance . 
Information on WFP operations can be found at http://www.wfp.org/ . Additional food sec urity data 
is available through the Famine Early Warnings System Network at http://www.fews.net/ . 
 
 
5 FAS strategic pl an for 2015 -2018: http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2015 -
07/administaror_approved_fas_2015 -2018_strategic_plan_15012 8.pdf. See page 13 for relevant figures.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 22 - 
 
 
  
 U.S. law requires that:  
 
a. all agricultural commodities provided for food aid be sourced from the U.S.;  
b. at least 50% of U.S. food aid must be shipped on U.S. -flag vessels;  
c. at least 20%, but not more than 30%, with a minimum of USD 350 million, of 
Food for Peace Act funding must be available for non -emergency food aid;  
d. at least 50% of any bagging must consist of whole -grain commodities bagged in 
the U.S.  
Could the U.S. explain how these requirements, as far as non -emergency food aid is 
concerned, comply with paragraph 23(d) of the Nairobi Decision which states that 
international food aid shall not be linked to the market deve lopment objectives of donor 
Members?  
 
The U.S. food assistance programs are not designed to be tied, directly or indirectly, to commercial 
exports, which is consistent with Article 10 of the AoA and paragraph 23(d) of the Nairobi Decision. 
The United State s has and will continue to meet WTO obligations.  
 
According to paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Decision, local or regional market analysis 
should be completed before monetization occurs. Has the U.S. monetized food aid after 
the adoption of the Nairobi Decisi on? If so, has such an analysis been carried out? Could 
the U.S. provide the results of the analysis?  
 
Yes, the United States has conducted monetization since the adoption of the Nairobi Decision and 
has done so consistent with the structure provided in th e Annex to the Nairobi Decision.  
 
According to paragraph 27 of the Nairobi Decision, Members may monetize international 
food aid only where there is a demonstrable need for monetization for some specific 
purposes. Could the U.S. demonstrate that such a need exist in any case where 
monetiza tion has occurred since the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Please see reply above.  
 
1.18  VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF  
1.18.1   Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46 ) 
What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying expo rt subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according to 
paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
Which are the products or product groups for which Israel, the B olivarian Republic of 
Venezuela and Turkey have notified the use of scheduled export subsidies in one of the 
three latest export subsidy notification examined by the CoA before 21 December 2015?  
 
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela undertook to provide an  answer at a later stage.  
2  COA MEETING 9 NOVEMBER 2016  
2.1  NEW ZEALAND  
2.1.1   Question by Chile  (AG-IMS ID 82065 ) 
In its answers to Chile's questions ( RD/AG/49 ) during the annual dedicated discussions 
on export competition of June 2016 ( G/AG/W/155 ) New Zealand stated: "it is important 
to clarify that Kiwifruit New Zealand and ZESPRI Limited are two entirely separate legal G/AG/W/211  
 
- 23 - 
 
 
  
 entities, established under two separate pieces of legislation" and "… (the Regulations) 
establish the independent regulator 'Kiwifruit New Zealand" and define its functions".  
  
But, Kiwifruit New Zealand's (KNZ) Board of Directors consists of five members, which 
under Article 36 (Membership) of the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 are appoint ed as 
follows:  
  
"(a) three members are to be elected by producers in accordance with regulation 37;  
 
(b) one member is to be appointed by New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Incorporated or its 
successor;  
 
(c) one member is to be appointed by the other members,  who is fully independent of the 
kiwifruit industry and who is to act as the chairperson of the Board."  
 
There is no regulatory restriction as to who may be appointed under para. 1(a) or (b) 
above. They do not need to be independent from ZESPRI, and as it appears to be the case, 
currently they are not. Even letter (c), that is supposedly destined to fully guarantee the 
Board's independence, allows that the rest of the Board designates such member (which 
according to letters (a) and (b) may already have a n interest in ZESPRI).  
  
Chile is aware that the Cabinet has agreed to changes to the Kiwifruit Export 
Regulations  1999 in relation to the KNZ's Board composition, to ensure that is comprised 
of a mix of grower and independent directors:  
  
a. How will the New  Zealand Government guarantee that the new KNZ Board 
structure is independent from ZESPRI?  
b. Which specific authority of such Board will ensure that New Zealand Government 
complies with its international commitments, specifically those established 
under Para graph 21 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
a. The New Zealand government ensures that all its regulatory structures are consistent with 
its WTO obligations, including those stemming from the outcomes of the 10th WTO 
Ministerial Conference in Nair obi. This includes the regulations that govern the export of 
kiwifruit from New Zealand.  
After considering a request from the New Zealand kiwifruit industry, completion of a government 
initiated independent review of Kiwifruit New Zealand (KNZ), and publi c submissions on proposed 
amendments to the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 (the Regulations), in July 2016 the 
New Zealand government decided to amend the Regulations. The amendments will enable Zespri to 
improve alignment of its share ownership with ki wifruit supply, confirm the scope of Zespri's core 
business activities, and improve KNZ's independence from the Kiwifruit industry and its 
accountability to government.  
 
Amendments directly affecting KNZ will require:  
 
• the KNZ Chair plus two of the five bo ard members to be from outside the kiwifruit industry, 
and to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industries, with kiwifruit growers electing the 
remaining three board members, and the Chair having a casting vote;  
• KNZ will be required to prepare three -yearly Statements of Intent that will be approved by 
the Minister;  
• the Ministry for Primary Industries will engage annually with KNZ to discuss performance 
against its Statement of Intent;  
• there will be independent reviews of KNZ's performance at six year ly intervals.  
The amendments to the Regulations are currently being drafted with implementation expected to 
occur before the start of the 2017 kiwifruit export season.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 24 - 
 
 
  
 b. In its engagement with the New Zealand kiwifruit industry or KNZ the New Zealand 
government ensures they are aware of New Zealand's WTO obligations, including those 
established under Paragraph 21 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
As set out in the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999, as the independent regulator, KNZ is required 
to monitor and  enforce the non -discrimination rule, the non -diversification rule, information 
disclosure requirements, and collaborative marketing requirements.  
 
New Zealand will ensure that any changes to the regulatory structure, including those summarised 
above, are also consistent with all WTO obligations. New Zealand's Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 
are publically available at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/ . 
 
Zespri does not receive any trade distorting s ubsidies, tax advantages, special financing, or 
preferential access to foreign exchange from the New Zealand government.  
 
Follow -up: Canada and the European Union registered interest in this subject.  
3  COA MEETING 28 MARCH 2017  
3.1  NEW ZEALAND  
3.1.1   Question by Chile  (AG-IMS ID  83037 ) 
New Zealand clarified in its replies to Chile's question s (AG -IMS ID 82065,  document 
G/AG/W/159) in the CoA Meeting in November 2016 that the amendments to the 
Regulations are expected to take place before the start of the 2017 kiwifruit export 
season. Chile kindly asks New Zealand to update on whether the chan ges to the Kiwifruit 
Export Regulations 1999 have taken place, and to provide the new legislation, if any.  
 
Specifically, concerning the KNZ’s Board composition and based on the answer provided 
by New Zealand, Chile understands that there are five board me mbers plus the KNZ Chair, 
with three board members elected by the kiwifruit growers. Could New Zealand clarify 
further on whether Chile's understanding is correct? If so, how can the New Zealand 
government guarantee the impartiality of the new KNZ Board?  
 
The proposed amendments to the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 have not yet taken place. The 
amendments continue to progress through the New Zealand legislative system, and the expectation 
now is that the amendments will be finalised and promulgated in A pril-May 2017 and implemented 
by 1 July 2017. The proposed amendments to the Regulations will enhance Kiwifruit New 
Zealand’s  (KNZ) status as an independent regulator. This is ensured through KNZ’s composition, 
governance and regulatory obligations. Under the proposed amendments to the Regulations the KNZ 
Board will be comprised of three grower -elected directors, two independent directors appointed by 
the Minister for Primary Industries, and an independent chair appointed by the Minister for Primary 
Industr ies. The independent chair will, in the case of a tied vote, have the casting vote. As an 
independent regulator, KNZ will continue to monitor and enforce the non -discrimination rule, the 
non-diversification rule, information disclosure requirements, and co llaborative marketing 
requirements, as set out under the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999. As the independent regulator 
KNZ will be required to prepare three -yearly Statements of Intent that will be approved by the 
Minister for Primary Industries. The Min istry for Primary Industries will engage annually with KNZ to 
discuss performance against its Statement of Intent. Moreover, there will be independent reviews of 
KNZ’s performance at six yearly intervals. More information about the proposed amendments are 
available on the Ministry for Primary Industries website http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news -and-
resources/consultations/proposed -amendment s-to-kiwifruit -export -regulations/  . New Zealand’s 
Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 are publically available at www.legislation.govt.nz. New Zealand 
will ensure that the regulatory structure remains consistent with all WTO obligations.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 25 - 
 
 
  
 4  COA MEETING 7 JUNE 2017  
4.1  ARGENTINA  
4.1.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 84065 ) 
According to Decree 1346/2016 of 30 December 2016, the government of Argentina 
decided to reinstall a refund of internal taxation for several agricultural products, 
including beef dairy among others. Could Argentina confirm this and if so, also provide 
more details about this  measure in order to assess its compliance with the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision on Export Competition. In particular, could Argentina provide data on 
the total budget of the measure, the products benefitting from it, the timeline of the 
measure and eligib ility criteria for receiving such subsidies?  
  
Article 825 of Law 22.415 (Customs Code) defines the export drawback system as the scheme under 
which all or part of internal taxes paid on goods exported for consumption or services supplied in 
respect of suc h goods are refunded. The various refund rates were set by Decree  1011/91, published 
in the Official Journal on 31  May 1991. Accordingly, Decree  1341/2016 did not "reinstall" a drawback 
system, but rather updated the refund amounts. This update was carried  out taking into account the 
indirect internal taxes subsumed in various agro -industrial products that Argentina exports. The 
refundable tax content was estimated by evaluating the costs of the various stages of production, 
including main raw material, inp uts (goods and services), energy costs, labour, administrative costs, 
marketing costs, contribution of capital goods (depreciation) and other costs. A calculation 
methodology was employed that standardizes the process so as to ensure neutrality in respect of 
the different sectors that make up agribusiness chains. It should be emphasized that the drawback 
system is only applicable to indirect taxes, such as, for instance: stamps, bank debits and credits, 
fuel, gross income and municipal fees. The  refund amou nt update applies to a wide range of products 
(explicitly listed at the 8 -digit level in Decree 1341/2016), such as some meats, dairy produce, 
vegetables, fruit, herbal teas, rice, etc. Although it is still too early to say, it is estimated that the 
rates update will result in an increase in the annual fiscal cost of around US D 127.5  million. 
Decree  1341/2016 does not stipulate any time -frame. Lastly, Argentina wishes to underline that 
Decree  1341/2016 is entirely consistent with both the Decision on Export  Competition adopted at 
the Nairobi Ministerial Conference and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures  (ASCM) as well as the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA ). In no event does the value 
of the indirect taxes refunded exceed the amount of t he taxes levied in respect of the production 
and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption.   
4.1.2   Question by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 84114 ) 
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
The United States would appreciate any transparency Argentina can offer to the 
discussion of export financing support p rogrammes for agriculture by choosing to respond 
the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) with information regarding any export 
financing support programmes being operated by its government -owned entities (e.g., 
Argentina's Investment and Foreign Trade B ank (BICE) and Bank of the Argentine 
Nation  (BNA)), which are reported in Argentina's Trade Policy Review ( WT/TPR/S/277 ). 
Under export financing support programmes provided by BNA and/or BICE, please provide 
a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing t ransactions for agricultural 
products in 2016.  
  
In order to complete the export competition questionnaire, particularly as regards export credits, 
Argentina conducted a survey of such programmes as might exist under the Investment and Foreign 
Trade Bank (BICE) and the Bank of the Argentine Nation (BNA ). These two banks have said that 
they do not have any export credit support programmes or lines and/or risk coverage and/or credit 
agreements that involve financial contributions from the Government or financial transfers from the 
Government or from any public body to any of the foreign currency credit lines offered for export 
financing, either at the pre -shipment or post -shipment stage. Moreover, export financing conditions 
are governed by the market .  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 26 - 
 
 
  
 4.2  AUSTRALIA  
4.2.1   Question by the European Union  (AG-IMS ID 84066 ) 
The Nairobi Decision on Export Com petition provides in its paragraph 1 that "Members 
reaffirm their commitment, pursuant to the 2013 Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition, to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of 
export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect" and in paragraph  21, 
that "Members shall make their best efforts to ensure that the use of export monopoly 
powers by agricultural exporting state trading enterprises is exercised in a manner that 
minimizes trade distorting effects and does not result in displacing or impeding the 
exports of another Member". In the light of this, could Australia explain why it has decided 
to maintain New South Wales Rice Marketing Board as Australia's sole remaining STE with 
export monopoly p owers, which seems contrary to the Nairobi political commitment 
on STEs?  
 
Australia thanks the European Union for its question regarding the New South Wales (NSW) Rice 
Marketing Board (RMB). The objects of the RMB include: to encourage the development of a 
competitive domestic market for rice; and to ensure the best possible returns from NSW grown rice 
sold outside Australia based on the quality differentials or attributes of Australian grown rice. Rice 
exports from the RMB do not displace o r impede exports of rice from other Members.   
4.2.2   Question by  the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 84115 ) 
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2  ) G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2/Corr.1  
 
a. Australia noted in the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) that its Export 
Finance Guarantee (EFG) programme falls under two different Nairobi 
definitional categories: "(b) risk cover" and "(c) government -to-government 
credit agreements". Also, Australi a noted for its EFG programme that the 
maximum repayment terms are 5 -10 years and the annual average repayment 
period is "Greater than 180 days". Please provide the maximum repayment terms 
and the average repayment period for each EFG programme and by defi nitional 
category.  
b. The United States notes that under the EFG there is an existing contract that is 
prior to the adoption of the Nairobi Decision, still in place, and is within the terms 
of paragraph 15(a). However, Australia noted in a footnote to the EC Q that 
maximum repayment term for the 2016 tranche is longer than 18 months.  
i. Please provide the figures for the specific maximum repayment term for the 
existing contract under the EFG programme.  
ii. Please provide the specific value of its annual average rep ayment period for 
all tranches financed under the existing contract.  
c. In response to the question on average annual premium rate for the 
Documentary Credit Guarantee (DCG) programme, Australia stated "Risk fee is 
calculated based on the assessed creditwort hiness of the issuing bank, the tenor 
and frequency of repayments". Please provide the specific value for the average 
fee rate of the DCG programme.  
d. Australia only provided value figures for regional products but did not provide a 
value figure for each agr icultural product or product group exported under its 
programmes in  2016.  
Please provide the figures for programme use (i.e., the monetary value of export) by 
product or product group (i.e., agricultural products) for each programme for all reported 
years .  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 27 - 
 
 
  
  
a. The 'EFG program ' is not available for agriculture exports.  For the export facility mentioned 
in the 2016 export competition questionnaire relating to dairy cattle, the draw -down (or 
availability period) was two years and the repayment period was five years.  
b.  
i. two-year drawdown; five-year repayment term.  
ii. Equal instalments in six -month intervals, e.g. AUD  8.4 million per instalment for the 
total facility size of AUD  84.3 million (exchange rate of 1  AUD:  0.75 USD).  Scheduled 
repayments are to be made in se mi-annual instalments.  
c. The risk fee for the DCG programme was 2.5% for the period of Australia 's questionnaire 
response.  
d. Monetary values of exports by product for individual programmes are listed in the second 
table on Export Financing on page 6 of Austral ia's export competition questionnaire.  
4.3  BRAZIL  
4.3.1   Question by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 84116 ) 
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/12 5/Rev.6/Add.2  ) 
 
a. The United States notes that Brazil did not respond to the 2016 export 
competition questionnaire (ECQ) but did respond in both prior years. The United 
States appreciates Brazil transparency, which is important in making the 
dialogue on exp ort financing support substantive in the Committee on 
Agriculture. Please provide the data for both the PROEX Direct Financing and the 
PROEX Interest Rates Support for agricultural products in 2016.  
b. Brazil reported in its 2015 ECQ that the PROEX Direct Fi nancing Program includes 
supplier's credit and buyer's credit. Please confirm whether the data provided by 
Brazil also includes both the supplier and buyer's credit.  
c. Under annual average premium rates/fees per programme, Brazil stated in 
its 2015 ECQ that "the PROEX Direct Financing applies international market 
interest rates with respect to the funding currency and its maturity".  
i. How does Brazil define "international  market interest rates?  
ii. Under the programme, is a separate premium rate/fee charged, in addition 
to the interest rate?  
d. According to Brazil's 2013 Trade Policy Review ( WT/TPR/S/283 ), in addition to 
PROEX, Brazil also offers the following export financing support  schemes: Export 
Financing Fund (FFEX), PROGER Export, Export Credit Insurance (SCE), and 
Export Guarantee Fund (FGE).  
The United States also notes that Brazil has not reported the export financing support 
programmes of the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDE S) or Brazilian Guarantees 
agency  (ABGF).  
 
The United States also noted that Brazil's Banco do Brasil has a direct lending portfolio 
and offers an Advance on Foreign Exchange Contract (ACC) programme, which appear to 
provide export financing support withi n the definition of paragraph 13(a) and 13(d) of 
the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 28 - 
 
 
  
 For each export financing support scheme, whether agriculture -specific or not, provided 
by BNDES, ABGF, and Banco do Brasil, please provide a response to all ECQ  questions 
regarding any financing transactions for agricultural products in 2016 or explain why they 
are not subject to the notification requirements.  
  
a. PROEX  Direct Financing: USD 141,3 million for agricultural products in 2016. There was 
no execution i n the PROEX Interest Rates Support for agricultural products in 2016.  
b. The data provided above includes both the supplier and buyer's credit.  
c. The Brazilian Export Financing Program - PROEX was designed by the Federal Government 
to provide Brazilian exporter s with credit facilities at conditions similar to those prevailing 
in international markets and uses LIBOR as reference for the international market interest 
rate. As LIBOR has different maturities and currencies, the base lending rate for PROEX 
Direct Fin ancing is the 6 -Month LIBOR in the relevant currency, or, alternatively, the LIBOR 
rate corresponding to the maturity of the credit. According to Resolution nr. 2575 of the 
National Monetary Council (CMN), under PROEX Direct Financing, in addition to the L IBOR 
interest rate, the borrower shall provide collaterals that assure the entire return of the 
credit granted and corresponding interest. The following collaterals are accepted: export 
credit insurance, letter of credit, letter of guarantee, bank endorsem ent, among others. 
Therefore, besides the LIBOR interest rate, borrowers under PROEX Direct Financing incur 
additional expenses regarding the provision of the required collaterals.  
d. Brazil has notified the PROEX program in accordance with the Nairobi Decisi on on Export 
Competition. With regard to the Export Guarantee Fund (FGE) and the Export Credit 
Insurance (SCE), as clarified in the Brazilian 2015 ECQ, no official export credit guarantee 
or insurance program applies to agricultural products. This is due t o the short -term credit 
period of operations in the agricultural sector. Furthermore, the ABGF is only responsible 
for providing services for export credit insurance activities backed by the FGE and is not a 
provider of funds. Regarding the Export Financin g Fund (FFEX) mentioned in Brazil 's 2013 
Trade Policy Review, it is not in operation and there is no expected date to start operations. 
The Federal Government has not allocated the foreseen R$ 1 billion initial contribution to 
establish the fund. The PROGE R Export is a program focused on trade promotion and 
pre-shipment operations, and, for this reason, does not qualify as an export credit 
program. Additional information on the program is available at: 
http://www.mdic.gov.br/sistemas_web/aprendex/cooperativismo/index/apexctd/id/193/t
itle/PROEX . As for the BNDES -EXIM pre -shipment program, it provides financing to 
production by offering working capital for Brazilian exporting companies. Additional 
information on the program is available 
at: http://www.bndes.gov.br/wps/portal/site/home/financiamento/ produto/bndes -exim-
pre-embarque . Finally, the Advance on Foreign Exchange Contract (ACC) program is not 
included in Brazil's ECQ since it is a standard commercial contract offered by any 
commercial bank authorized by the Brazilian Central Bank to operate i n the foreign 
exchange market. Banco do Brasil S.A. is among the financial institutions in Brazil that 
offers this product for its clients.  
4.4  CANADA  
4.4.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 84067 ) 
Canada submitted in April 2016 a corrigendum to its export subsidy notifications for 
the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 marketing years ( G/AG/N/CAN/108/Corr.1 ). This 
corrigendum adds export subsidies for butter which was originally notified as non -
subsidised. As a consequence of this step, Canadian butter would theoretically become 
eligible for  the flexibility set out in footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision. The European Union 
understands that Canada may wish to schedule export subsidies for butter. This practice 
of amending past data in order to maximise future entitlements appear questionable. I n 
particular how would Canada apply the requirement of footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision, 
that the relevant export subsidy notification for such products must have been examined 
by the Committee on Agriculture before the date of adoption of the Nairobi De cision. G/AG/W/211  
 
- 29 - 
 
 
  
 Canadian notification G/AG/N/CAN/108/Corr.1  is dated 11  April  2016 whereas the 
Nairobi Decision was adopted in 19 December 2015.  
  
a. Does Canada intend to submit other such corrigenda or amendments in the 
future?  
b. In the Canadian ES notification for 2014/20 15 (document G/AG/N/CAN/109 ) 
Canada not ifies zero export subsidies for butter. The last sentence of footnote  4 
of the Nairobi Decision prevents application of export subsidies to new markets 
or new products. Would Canada agree that since no export subsidies were 
granted to butter in a year prec eding Nairobi, butter would be a "new" product, 
for which payment of export subsidies is prohibited post -Nairobi?  
c. Canada in its reply to the EU question during the 2016 export competition 
dedicated discussion confirmed that as of 1 January 2016 Canada is n ot providing 
export subsidises on products destined for LDCs. Trade Data Online of the 
Government of Canada lists number of LDCs as destinations of Canadian dairy 
exports in 2016, such as Sudan, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, etc. The full list is 
here:  
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/tdst/tdo/crtr.html?timePeriod=5|Complete+Years&amp;reportType=
TE&amp;hSelectedCodes=|402|405|406&amp;searchType=BL&amp;productType=HS6&amp;curr
ency=CDN&amp;countryList=DET&amp;runReport= true&amp;grouped=GROUPED&amp;toFromCo
untry=CDN&amp;naArea=9999   
 
Could Canada explain how it makes sure that dairy products exported to these countries 
are not subsidised?  
 
a. Canada made an error in the information for butter in its original export subsidy 
notification for 2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014. The information was subsequently rectified in 
the relevant Corrigendum. It is Canada's long -standing  position to submit a corrigendum 
or amendment to rectify these errors and ensure data accuracy. Since 1997, Canada has 
submitted 18 corrigenda to notifications in all three pillars, i.e., domestic support, market 
access and export competition.  
b. The first sentence in Footnote 4 gives a developed Member the ability to continue to 
provide export subsidies on dairy products (or processed products and swine meat) until 
the end of 2020 when the Member "has notified export subsidies for such products or 
categorie s of products in one of its three latest export subsidy notifications" prior to the 
adoption of the Nairobi Decision. Canada provided export subsidies for butter in at least 
one of its three notifications prior to this date. Therefore, butter would not be considered 
a "new" product and would be subject to the new export subsidy limit established under 
the Nairobi Decision.  
c. The use of milk class 5(d) to all markets are tracked by the Canadian Dairy Commission 
through the issue of permits. Canada notes that some of Canada's exports of dairy 
products do not receive export subsidies and enter least developed country markets using 
milk classes other than milk class 5(d).  
4.4.2   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 84006 ) 
Can Canada update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 decision 
to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframe s for updating its WTO 
schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
  
Canada's elimination of export subsidies has a real effect on its domestic policy and domestic 
industry. Canada has implemented the Nairobi Decision and will eliminate its export subs idies at the 
end of 2020. The domestic process to modify to Canada's export subsidy schedule is underway. 
Once this process is complete, Canada will submit its modified export subsidy schedule to the WTO.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 30 - 
 
 
  
 4.4.3   Question s by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 84117 ) 
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2 ) 
  
a. For all pro grammes reported by Canada under the "Insurance" and "Bonding and 
Guarantees" categories, Canada reported "N/A" for annual average repayment 
period  2016.  
i. Please explain why the average repayment term for each programme is not 
reported and what steps Canad a is taking to gather this information.  
ii. When will Canada be able to report the average repayment term for 2016, as 
well as previous years covered by the ECQ process?  
b. For several programmes, Canada reported the maximum repayment term as 
"various" (e.g., F inancing/Loan), "N/A" (e.g., Financing/Loan, Bonding and 
Guarantees/Surety Bonding Insurance and Financial Security Guarantee), or 
with time periods that exceed the 18 months outlined in the Nairobi Decision 
(e.g.,  Insurance/Political Risk Insurance, Bondi ng and Guarantees and 
Financing/Guarantee). Further Canada reported that two Bonding and 
Guarantees programmes (Performance Security Guarantee Program and Foreign 
Exchange Guarantee Program FXG) have "tenors [that] can be up to three years, 
however, for ag ri-foods it is normally up to one year."  
Please explain how Canada ensures the maximum tenor for each of these programmes 
remains below the maximum repayment term outlined in the Nairobi Decision.  
  
c. According to the Export Development Canada (EDC) website, EDC offers as part 
of its Financing categories a Buyer Financing Program (BFP) for exports of 
Canadian products.  
Is the BFP reported in the ECQ under one of the reported Financing programmes or is it a 
separate programme not reported in the ECQ? If BFP is a separate category of support, 
does the programme cover exports of agricultural products? If so, please provide a 
response to all Export Competition Questionnaire questions.  
  
Canada undertook to  provide a response at a later stage.  
4.4.4   Question s by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 84121) 
INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.3 )  
  
In the 2015 Food Assistance Convention (FAC) annual report, Canada disclosed that cash -
based, food for consumption and nutrition intervention programming represented 26% , 
52% and 19% of the total eligible expenditures in food assistance funding. The  2015 FAC 
annual report statement seems to indicate that Canada's international food aid activities 
include a mix of tools, not only cash -based programming as indicated in Cana da's 
response in last year's Export Competition Questionnaire.  
  
Please provide additional details with regards to how Canada implements its food aid 
programs, including what other food aid tools are used in addition to on an "untied cash -
based basis and fully in grant form."  
 
Canada undertook to provide a response at a later stage.6  
 
6 See AG -IMS ID 87046 for answer by Canada.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 31 - 
 
 
  
 4.5  CHINA  
4.5.1   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID  84070 ) 
a. According to media reports, COFCO has received CNY  4.7 billion 
(USD 719 million) in gove rnment subsidies in 2015. How does China ensure that 
these subsidies are spent in compliance with Article 9:1(d) -(e) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture and paragraph 20 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition?  
b. Paragraph 9 of the Nairobi Mini sterial Decision on Cotton and paragraph  12 of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition state that with regard to 
cotton, the disciplines and commitments contained in the Export Competition 
Decision shall be implemented not later than 1 Janua ry 2017 by developing 
country Members. This also applies to the transparency commitments included 
in the Annex to the Decision, meaning that from 1 January 2017, Developing 
Country Members must provide information on export competition measures 
benefitting  cotton. Nevertheless, China appears not to have replied to the 
WTO  Secretariat questionnaire on export competition. In the absence on China's 
replies, could China provide information on export competition measures 
benefitting cotton, including agricultura l exporting state trading enterprises, 
such as for example measures applied by Chinatex Cotton Import and Export Co?  
a. COFCO received RMB 4.7 billion subsidies in 2015. Among these subsidies, 3.96  billion 
was the subsidy for the labour and storage cost occur ring in the policy business, such as 
the corn temporary procurement and reservation commissioned by China Grain Reserves 
Corporation. 110 million was provided by local governments as VAT rebate for the purpose 
of attracting investments. 50 million was the subsidy for the promotion of clean energy 
provided to bio -ethanol producers in defined regions in China; 10 million was the 
transportation subsidies provided for the subsidiary corporations of COFCO in Anhui for 
transporting corn within the province, and f or the transportation of grains from the 
northeast provinces to other provinces of China. In addition, 580  million was reward by 
local governments to the subsidiary corporations of COFCO in the regions concerned for 
their contributions in environmental pro tection, SciTech development etc. None of these 
subsidies mentioned above were provided contingent upon export performance, and 
therefore were not subject to the provisions of Article 9 of the Agriculture Agreement, or 
the Ministerial Decision on Export Co mpetition.  
b. As indicated by China's reply to the questionnaire on the export competition, China has 
not provided any export subsidies for cotton ever since its accession to the WTO. China 
didn't take any export competition measures exclusively for cotton, either. In recent years, 
state-trading enterprises of China didn't export cotton.  
4.5.2   Question by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 84118 ) 
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2 ) 
  
a. United States would appreciate any transparency China can offer to the 
discussion of export financing support programmes for agricultur e by choosing 
to respond in the annual  ECQ with information about the many types of financing 
programmes being operated today by its relevant government -owned entities, 
including China's China Export &amp; Credit Insurance Corporation (SINOSURE), 
China Exp ort-Import Bank, the Agricultural Development Bank of China (ADBC), 
and China Development Bank.  
Under export financing support being provided by SINOSURE, China Export -Import Bank 
and ADBC, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any fina ncing 
transactions for agricultural products in 2016.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 32 - 
 
 
  
 b. Paragraph 12 of the Nairobi Decision states that "With regard to cotton, the 
disciplines and commitments contained in this Decision shall be immediately 
implemented as of the date of adoption of this  Decision by developed country 
Members, and not later than 1 January 2017 by developing country Members."  
Under export financing support programmes provided by SINORURE, China Export -Import 
Bank and ADBC, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing 
transactions for cotton.  
  
a. Question related to export financing support China has alr eady submitted to the secretariat 
its reply to the export competition questionnaire, which includes information related to the 
programmes such as information on export financing entities, maximum repayment terms, 
and export destinations, etc. Please refer to the reply.  
b. For the question related to cotton, please refer to China's reply to the export competition 
questionnaire and China's reply to the question raised by the European Union.  
4.6  EUROPEAN UNION  
4.6.1   Question s by the United States of America  (AG-IMS ID 84119 ) 
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2 ) 
 
a. The E uropean Union (EU) did not report Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) for nine 
EU member States (MS) identified by the United States below. The United States 
found indications that most of these ECAs offer export financing support for 
agricultural products.  
Mem ber State: Export Credit Agency (ECA) name  
Belgium  ONDD - Office National du Ducroire  
Greece  ECIO - Export Credit Insurance Organization of Greece  
Italy SACE  
Lithuania  INVEGA credit insurance  
Luxembourg  ODD - Luxembourg Export Credit Agency  
Portugal  COSEC - Companhia de Seguro de Creditos, SA  
Romania  EXIM - Eximbank of Romania  
Slovenia  SID - SID Bank Inc  
Spain  CESCE - Compania Espanola de Seguros de Credito a la Exportacion  
  
i. Are the above ECAs offering export financing support for agricultural 
products, even if financial support has not been provided recently?  
ii. If so, please provide a response to all export competition questionnaire (ECQ) 
questions and data for 2016 to reflect these member States.  
b. The United States notes that five EU  member States that reported in the 2017 
ECQ did not provide information on their export financing support programmes 
for the following  ECAs:  
Member State: Export Credit Agency (ECA) name  
Croatia  HAMAG -BICRO - Croatia Agency for SMES Innovation and Invest ment  
Czech Republic  CEB - Czech Export Bank  
Germany  KfW IPEX -Bank 
Poland  BKG - Polish Development Bank  
Sweden  SEK - Swedish Export Credit Corporation  
  
i. Are the above ECAs offering export financing support for agricultural 
products, even if financial support has not been provided recently?  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 33 - 
 
 
  
 ii. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions and data for 2016 to 
reflect these member States.  
c. Austria responded that Oesterreichische Kontrolbank 
Aktiengensellschaft  (OeKB) export credit insurance  programmes are not specific 
to only agricultural products. The United States notes that the scope of the 
Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to agricultural -specific 
programmes. Also, Austria stated "information is not held" in respo nse to 
questions on the total value of the exports covered; annual average premium 
rate; maximum repayment term; annual average repayment period; export 
destinations; and programme use by product or product group.  
i. Does OeKB offer export financing support for agricultural products, even if 
financial support has not been provided recently?  
ii. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions and data in 2016.  
d. Croatia did not respond to several of the questions regarding its programme, 
stating "information  is not held" in response to the maximum repayment term.  
What steps is Croatia taking to gather this information and when can Members 
of this Committee expect to receive information as outlined in the Nairobi 
Decision?  
e. In response to the question on aver age annual premium rate, Denmark stated 
"Depending on the credit rating of the individual destination countries."  
i. Please provide the specific value of its programme average annual premium 
rate.  
In response to the questions on annual average repayment peri od, Denmark stated its 
response was the same as with regards to the maximum repayment term.  
ii. Please confirm the United States' understanding based on Denmark's 
response that Denmark provides the maximum repayment terms for all 
export credits. If not, please  provide the specific value of its average annual 
premium rate.  
In response to the question on export destinations, Denmark stated "countries outside of 
the EU/OECD".  
iii. Please provide the specific export destination countries.  
f. In response to the question o n export destinations Estonia stated "global 
coverage…". Please list the specific export destination countries.  
g. France reported that the annual average annual premium rate for exports to 
countries other than Cuba in 2015 and 2016, and in 2016 for Lebanese Republic, 
Algeria and Egypt, is " Ad-hoc based on the OECD".  
i. Please provide the specific annual average rate figure for 2016?  
In response to the question on programme use by product, France stated "this information 
is not held".  
 
ii. Please explain what steps France is taking to collect this information and 
when will it be made available to Members of this Committee as required by 
the Nairobi Decision.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 34 - 
 
 
  
 h. Germany responded that export credit insurance programmes are "pure cover 
only (no specific agriculture progra mme)". The United States notes that the 
scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to 
agricultural -specific programmes. Also, Germany stated that the total value of 
export of agricultural products covered by the programme was "E UR 0.0" 
according to "data available for single transaction cover" between the periods 
of 2014 through 2016.  
According to the "Export Credit Guarantees of the Federal Republic of Germany Hermes 
Cover" annual reports, the information reported by the Federal  Ministry of Economic 
Affairs and Energy (see table below) raises questions regarding the total value of export 
of agricultural products covered by single transaction covers reported by Germany in its 
export competition questionnaire (ECQ) for the last two  years. The United States also 
notes that single transaction policy for the agriculture and food industry from 2014 -2016 
has more than double in value.  
  
Annual 
Report  Single transaction policy for the 
agriculture and food industry  
(EUR)  Outstanding risk from current guarantees 
to the agriculture and food sector  
(EUR)  Report 
page(s)  
2016  326 million  1.1 billion  66 and 73  
2015  269 million  1.1 billion  66 and 73  
2014  150 million  1.1 billion  73 
Source:  https://www.agaportal.de/en/main -navigation/infocenter -konsortium/downloads -konsortium  
  
i. Please explain the differences between the export values of agricultural 
products reported in the ECQ and those reported in the "Export Credit 
Guarantees of the Federal Republic of Germany" annual reports.  
ii. What is the reason for the gap between the value of outstanding risk from 
current guarantees and the value of single transaction policy to the 
agriculture and food industry in these annual reports?  
iii. Are other medium and long term programmes to the agriculture and food 
industry being offered?  
The annual r eport lists the Euler Hermes Aktiengesellschaft offers the following export 
financing products: buyer credit cover, buyer credit cover -express, contract bond cover, 
constructional work cover, counter -guarantee, framework credit cover, KfW refinancing 
progr amme, revolving buyer credit cover, revolving supplier credit cover, securitization 
guarantee, supplier credit cover, whole turnover policy, and whole turnover policy light.  
  
iv. Please describe all programmes offering export financing support for 
agricultura l products (i.e., programmes that Germany has an outstanding risk 
from current guarantees), even if financial support has not been provided 
recently.  
v. Will this information be included as part of the EU's response to the ECQ?  
i. The Netherlands stated that th e programme use by product or product group is 
"Not  applicable."  
What steps is the Netherlands taking to gather this information and when it will be made 
available to Members of this Committee as required by the Nairobi Decision?  
j. Several EU member States, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, 
and Slovak  Republic, reported that the maximum repayment term was greater 
than 18 months. For each country please list the export destination countries 
that receive tenor greater than 18 months.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 35 - 
 
 
  
 k. In response to the questions of annual average premium rate and annual average 
repayment period EU members States, including Croatia, Poland, and the 
United  Kingdom, stated that the "information is not held" for one or both 
questions.  
For each country, wh at specific steps is each taking to gather this information and when 
will it be made available to Members of this Committee as required by the Nairobi 
Decision?  
 
l. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, 
Netherlands, Po land, Slovak Republic, Sweden, and United Kingdom did not 
provide a value figure for each agricultural product or product group exported 
under its programmes in 2016.  
i. For each country, please provide the figures for programme use (i.e. the 
monetary value of export) by product or product group (i.e., agricultural 
products) in 2016.  
ii. For each country, if the information is not readily available, what specific 
steps is each taking to gather the information and when will it be made 
available to Members of this Committee as required by the Nairobi Decision?  
a.  
i. No export financing support for agricultural products has been provided by these ECAs 
in recent  years.  
ii. See above.  
b.  
i. No export  financing support for agricultural products has been provided by these ECAs 
in rece nt years.  
ii. See above.  
c.  
i. Yes, extremely limited volume of agricultural products is covered under the general 
programme. The details concerning total value of the exports covered; annual average 
premium rate; maximum repayment term; annual average repayment pe riod; export 
destinations; and programme use by product or product group cannot be verified as 
this data is not separately recorded by the ECA.  
ii. See above.  
d. No further steps are currently planned by Croatia. Nairobi Decision does not outline that 
Committee c an expect to receive information which does not exist nor does it require 
Members to take any steps to gather information.  
e.  
i. Specific values of the programme average annual premium rate for agricultural 
products covered by both general export credit program me and for reinsurance 
programmes are not separately recorded by the ECA concerned.  
ii. The EU takes that the US is interested in the annual average repayment period for 
agricultural products rather than in the average premium rate. If so, the answer is 
yes. G/AG/W/211  
 
- 36 - 
 
 
  
 iii. Destination countries per agricultural products are not separately recorded by the ECA 
concerned.  
f. Destination countries per agricultural products are not separately recorded by the ECA 
concerned.  
g.  
i. Specific annual average rate figure for 2016 for Algeria is 1,05%. No guarantee was 
delivered in 2016 by the programs dedicated to the Lebanese Republic and Egypt.  
ii. The following data on the program use by product or product group in 2016 has 
become available:  
• Cuba: EUR 36,562,013 guaranteed for cereals (wheat and malt);  
• Algeria: EUR 500,000 guaranteed for potatoes and EUR 493,349 guaranteed for 
live animals (cows) . 
h.  
i. The figures referred to by the US do not comprise agricultural products.  
ii. The outstanding risk also includes running contracts of previous years. Th e figures, 
e.g. 326 million in 2016, do not comprise agricultural products.   
iii. Euler Hermes does not provide specific programmes to agriculture and food industry.  
iv. No export financing support for agricultural products is provided within these 
programmes.  
v. No, see above.  
i. No further steps are currently planned by the Netherlands. Nairobi Decision does not 
require that data which does not exist shall be  made available to Members of this 
Committee nor does it require Members to take specific steps to gather informa tion. 
j. Data submitted on the Slovak Republic concerns general terms. Maximum repayment term 
for agricultural products is lower than 18 months.  
Data submitted on Poland concerns general terms. Maximum repayment term for 
agricultural products is lower than 18  months. In  2016 the maximum repayment term for 
agricultural products was 360 days.  
List of export destination countries that receive agricultural products with tenor greater 
than 18 months is not separately recorded by the ECAs of other EU member States 
concerned.  
k. Annual average repayment period in Poland was 55 days in 2016.  
Concerning other EU member States, no specific steps are currently planned. Nairobi 
Decision does not require that data which does not exist shall be made available to 
Members of this  Committee nor does it require Members to take specific steps to gather 
information.  
l.  
i. Programme use by product or product group in case of Poland is the following: 
agricultural products (8%), dairy products (7%), soft drinks (1%), fruits and 
vegetables (15 %), cereals (9%), meat (18%) and other food products (42%).  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 37 - 
 
 
  
 Figures for programme use per agricultural products are not separately recorded by 
the other ECAs concerned.  
ii. No specific steps are currently planned by any of these EU member States. Nairobi 
Decis ion does not require that data which does not exist shall be made available to 
Members of this Committee nor does it require Members to take specific steps to gather 
information.  
4.6.2   Question s by the United States of America  (AG-IMS ID 84122 ) 
INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT (  
G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.3 )  
  
The United States notes that no information has been provided in response to the Export 
Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) regarding food aid programmes operated by the 
EU member States.  
  
For each of the 28 EU member States that are providing food assistance, please provide a 
response to all food aid ECQ questions and data for the mix of tools used under food aid 
programmes in 2016.  
 
Nairobi Decision is based on and refers to the Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition. The 
latter makes clear that the transparency is to be enhanced in relation to all forms of export subsidies 
and all export measures with equivalent effect. The EU is clearly of the view that, unlike in -kind non -
emergency food aid, cash -based food aid has no trade distorting effect whatsoever, let alone 
equivalent effect to export subsidies. Therefore,  the EU has always interpreted the relevant food aid 
transparency provisions of the Nairobi Decision as covering in -kind food aid only.  
 
As concerning in -kind food aid, the EU member States have provided in 2016 in -kind food aid strictly 
in emergency situations. Details of the bilateral food aid programme operated by the Czech Republic 
are below. The EU Commission currently holds no detailed data on bilateral food aid programmes 
operated by other EU member States. Without prejudice to the availability of such data in the future, 
the EU Commission will continue to provide all relevant information on international food aid 
programmes operated in  the EU.   
 
Czech Republic  
 
1. Product description : Dried milk powder . 
 
2. Quantity and/or value of food aid provided : 105,300 CZK . 
 
3. Description of whether food aid is provided on in -kind, untied cash -based basis and whether 
monetisation was permitted : In-kind, no monetisation allowed.  
 
4. Description of whether in fully grant form or concessional terms : Fully grant . 
 
5. Description of relevant needs assessment (and by whom) and whether food aid is responding to 
a declaration of emergency or an emergency appeal (and by whom) : Syrian Arabic Red 
Crescent  (SARC) . 
 
6. Description of whether re -export of food aid is an option under the terms of the provision of food 
aid: No. 
 
4.7  ICELAND  
4.7.1   Question by New Zealand  (AG-IMS ID 84005 ) 
Can Iceland update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 decision 
to eliminate export subsidies; including exp ected timeframes for updating its 
WTO  schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 38 - 
 
 
  
 Export subsidies have in practice been eliminated in Iceland. However, legislation is still in place 
allowing such support. The Ministry of Industries and Innovation ha s prepared a draft bill that will 
remove this provision from the legislation. The delegation of Iceland will send a new schedule after 
the legal basis for export subsidies has been removed. The draft bill will be presented to Parliament 
at the autumn sessi on. 
4.8  INDIA  
4.8.1   Question by the United States of America  (AG-IMS ID 84120 ) 
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT (  
G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2 ) 
  
The United Stat es would appreciate any transparency India can offer to the discussion of 
export financing support programmes for agriculture by choosing to respond in the annual 
ECQ with information about the various export financing support programmes being 
operated tod ay by its government -owned entities, i.e., the Export -Import Bank of India 
(I-Eximbank) and ECGC Ltd.  
  
In the case of I -Eximbank, India provided details about I -Eximbank's export financing 
support programmes for agricultural products in response to Membe rs' questions in the 
2015 Trade Policy Review (TPR) (  RD/TPR/432  ). In the case of ECGC, India responded 
to Members' questions regarding ECGC's export financing support that the questions were 
"not relevant," because "ECGC does not have any specific short term po licy for agricultural 
products."  
  
Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to 
just agricultural -specific programmes:  
 
a. Based on India's response in the TPR, please explain why India considers it "not 
relevant " to provide information on ECGC's export financing support 
programmes for agricultural products, when ECGC's 2016 annual report (see 
table below) shows that export financing programme support for agricultural 
products is worth US D 3.8 billion.  
b. Please exp lain whether India considers ECGC's export financing support 
activities as covered by the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
c. For each export financing support scheme provided by I -Eximbank and ECGC, 
irrespective of whether any programme is specific o r not to agriculture, please 
provide a response to all ECQ with regards to financing transactions for 
agricultural products in  2016.  
The United States notes India's ECGC is one of the top five export credit agencies in the 
world in terms of providing shor t-term official export credit and working capital volumes. 
According to ECGC's annual reports for 2015 -2016 and 2014 -2015 (see table below), 
short -term export credit insurance policies for agricultural products (including dairy and 
process foods), and cott on (fiber, yarn, fabrics made up, including handloom) are the 
following:  
 
Annual Report  Agricultural Products  
(USD)  Cotton  
(USD)  Total ST export credit support for 
agricultural products  
(USD)  
2014-2015 1.88 billion  1.67 billion  3.55 billion  
2015-2016 1.69 billion  2.12 billion  3.81 billion  
Source: See ECGC's website, https://www.ecgc.in/financial -result/ . 
  
(1) Total short -term export credit insurance policies reported are as follows: 
2015 -16 INR 135,872  crores, and 2014 -2015 INR 133,983 crores. The currency 
conversion was calculated at an exchange rate of 64 INR to 1 USD. ECGC's short -term G/AG/W/211  
 
- 39 - 
 
 
  
 export credit insurance policies for cotton represented 10% and 8% of its total short -term 
export credit insurance policies. In addition, short -term export credit insurance policies 
for agricultural represented 8% and 9%.  
  
Paragraph 12 of the Nairobi Decision states that:  
 
"With regard to cotton, the disciplines and commitments contained in this Decision shall 
be immediately implemented as of the date of adoption of this Decision by developed 
country Members, and not later than 1 January 2017 by developing country Members."  
 
a. Under export financing support programmes provided by ECGC and I -Eximbank, 
please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing 
transactions for cotton.  
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.   
4.9  ISRAEL  
4.9.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 84004 ) 
Can Israel update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 decision 
to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its 
WTO  schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
  
Israel is committed to the MC10 decision to eliminate export subsidies and will act according to the 
time schedule set in the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition ( WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980 ). 
Israel intends to submit its draft modifications and rectifications to Schedule I before MC11, in 
parallel to up dating its internal related guidelines and procedures.  
  
4.10  JAPAN  
4.10.1   Question by China (AG-IMS ID 84123 ) 
From the replies to the Export Competition questionnaire, China notices that Japan 
permits food aid to be monetized by the recipient countries.  
  
a. Could Japan explain what kind of economic and social development programmes 
have been supported by the  funds from the monetization of food aid? What 
measures has Japan taken to ensure that the monetization meet the 
requirements as set out in the Decision on Export Competition by the Ministers 
at Nairobi, notably the provisions of paragraph 28 of the decisi on?  
b. Is the rice provided by Japan as food aid originated from Japan, or imported from 
other sources?  
Food aid by Japan is not in -kind but cash -based. While we admit beneficiary countries to re -monetize 
the food which they purchase with the funds (accumulate counterpart funds), this is different from 
the "monetization of aid in kind ". Japan conducts food a id in response to the needs of recipient 
countries.   
4.11  NEW ZEALAND  
4.11.1   Question by  the European Union (AG-IMS ID 84069 ) 
Does Zespri provide its nursery stock free -of-charge to growers outside New  Zealand? If 
affirmative, how would New Zealand see this complying with the provisions of Annex  1(g) 
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,  given that producers in New 
Zealand are charged with planting fees and royalties on nursery stocks of kiwifruit?  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 40 - 
 
 
  
 Under the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994, a state trading enterprise  (STE) is defined as: "Governmental and 
non-governmental enterprises, including marketing boards, which have been granted exclusive or 
special rights or privileges, including statutory or constitutional powers, in the exercise of which they 
influence throu gh their purchases or sales the level or direction of imports or exports." New  Zealand 
takes a broad interpretation of this definition so that while Zespri Group Limited (Zespri) is not a 
'marketing board' or government owned enterprise, New Zealand has no tified Zespri to the World 
Trade Organization as an STE under GATT 1994 Article XVII:4(a) because it has an automatic, but 
not exclusive, right to export kiwifruit from New Zealand to markets other than Australia. This 
regulated right does not make Zespri a government owned commercial entity. The New Zealand 
Government has no equity shares in Zespri. When it was established in 2000, Zespri Group Limited 
shares were distributed to kiwifruit growers and ownership remains private. Given the question 
relates to  Zespri's commercial arrangements with regard to providing nursery stock, and not the 
New Zealand Government's implementation of obligations under the WTO, Annex 1(g) of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures is not relevant to such activit ies.  
4.12  NORWAY  
4.12.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 84003 ) 
Can Norway update the Committee on pr ogress towards implementing the MC10 decision 
to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its 
WTO  schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
  
Norway remains fully committed to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and expects  to notify the revised 
Schedule for export subsidies in the second half of 2017.   
4.13  SWITZERLAND  
4.13.1   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 84002 ) 
Can Switzerland update the Committee on progress towards implementing the 
MC10  decision to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating 
its WTO schedule to reflect the decision by Minist ers.  
  
In May this year, the government approved a reform package to completely eliminate all remaining 
export refunds and submitted it to Parliament. The reform package includes accompanying 
measures, namely facilitation of inward processing and additional direc t payments to milk and wheat 
producers.  
  
Together with this legislative reform, the government also submitted to Parliament the 
Nairobi  decision and the required amendments in the schedules of commitments for approval.  
  
After successful completion of the parliamentary process and the optional r eferendum, the legislative 
reform is expected to enter into force in January 2019. Within the same time frame, the government 
will be authorized to notify the amended schedules of concessions.   
4.14  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
4.14.1   Question by China (AG-IMS ID 84124 ) 
From the replies to the questionnaire, we notice that the United States permits the food 
aid to be monetized. Could the United States explain how the food aid is monetized and 
what measures are taken to ensure the monetization meet the requirements as set out in 
the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, notably the provisions of paragraph  28 of 
the decision?  
  
The United States undertook to provide a response at a later stage.   G/AG/W/211  
 
- 41 - 
 
 
  
 4.14.2   Question by the European Union (AG-IMS ID 84068 ) 
The United States  has in its replies to the EU questions during the 2016  dedicated 
discussion underlined that its responses or policies are "consistent with the Nairobi 
Decision." The European Union underlines that the aim of its queries is not to question 
any Member's consistency with Nairobi but rather to gather information for the purposes 
of increased transparency. This is in line with the Bali Declaration which rules that "the 
examination process shall prov ide an opportunity for Members to raise any matter 
relevant to the export competition pillar." That said, and after carefully analysing the 
replies provided by the United States in 2016, the European Union would like to follow -up 
with some additional quest ions on the US food aid policies, as follows:  
  
a. According to the US International Food Assistance Reports the share of in -kind 
emergency food aid in total in -kind food aid has dropped from 81% in 2014 
to 78% in 2015. Why has the United States  decided to in crease the relative share 
of trade -distorting non -emergency in -kind food aid?  
b. The European Union notes and welcomes the fact, that according to these reports 
the share of monetized in -kind food aid has dropped from 29.7% in 2014 
to 21.4% in 2015. Could the  United States  clarify however, how the funds raised 
through monetization are spent?  
c. The European Union  understands that the efficiency of the US non -emergency 
food aid programmes has increased over the last few years through the 
application of direct funding of programmes rather than monetizing and that the 
cost-recovery rate of monetized in -kind food aid has improved from the 51  cents 
per dollar spent in the past. Could the United States provide information on the 
most recent cost -recovery rate  of monetized in -kind food aid?  
d. The United States specifies that the needs assessments for the US  non-
emergency in -kind food aid programmes are, among others, also carried out by 
US Government experts. The United States however does not provide description  
of the relevant needs assessment as required in the Annex to the Nairobi 
Decision. Could the United States  provide a short description of the needs 
assessment per non -emergency in -kind food aid programme, particularly those 
carried out by US Government ex perts?  
e. Would the United States agree that its requirements for food aid that all 
agricultural commodities provided be sourced from the United States, that at 
least 50% of US food aid must be shipped on US flagged vessels and that at 
least  50% of any baggi ng must consist of whole -grain commodities bagged in 
the United States  are linked to the US'  own market development objectives? If 
not, could the United States  provide a justification for the objectives of these 
requirements?  
f. Could the United States  provi de a short description of the local or regional market 
analysis per programme, completed before monetization of US in -kind 
non-emergency food aid in conformity with paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Decision?  
a. U.S. food assistance programmes fluctuate annually ba sed on programmatic needs and 
individual budgetary appropriations. The United States does not understand the basis upon 
which the EU is making this comparison of the share of in -kind emergency food aid.  
b. Monetization proceeds have trained farmers in benefi ciary countries on animal and plant 
health standards, improved farming methods, established producer cooperatives, provided 
microcredit and small and medium enterprises financing, and developed agricultural value 
chains, among other outcomes benefitting fo od assistance recipients.  
c. The United States' food aid programmes are implemented based on the statutory language 
of the Agricultural Act of 2014.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 42 - 
 
 
  
 d. A Bellmon Determination is required for all food aid agreements and is conducted for the 
recipient country w here commodities will be distributed and/or monetized. The local and 
regional market analysis of the Bellmon Determination is conducted through market 
analysis that considers various market information such as various quantitative and 
qualitative informati on, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the 
country, suitability of commodity, and potential policy issues. Additional food security data 
is available through the Famine Early Warnings System Network at https://www.fews.net/ .  
e. U.S. food assistance programmes are not used to promote U.S. market development 
objectives. The above -mentioned requirements are U.S. legislative procurement 
mandates.  
f. See the response to part (d) of this questi on. Additionally, the United States uses 
independent third party commercial and non -profit entities to monetize in -kind food aid.  
4.14.3   Question by New Zealand (AG-IMS ID 84001 ) 
Can the United States update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 
decision to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its 
WTO schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
  
The United States has already eliminated all if its export subsidies and remains fully committed to 
outcomes in Nairobi. The United States is currently undergoing its internal process of updating its 
WTO export subsidy schedule. The United States will update the Committee when further information 
is available.  
5  COA MEETING 17 -18 OCTOBER 2017  
5.1  NEW ZEALAND  
5.1.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 85046 ) 
New Zealand in its reply to the EU question for the 84th meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture argues that since Zespri is a private organization, provisions of the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures are not relevant for Zespri  operations. 
However, paragraph 20 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition rules 
that "Members shall ensure that agricultural exporting state trading enterprises do not 
operate in a manner that circumvents any other disciplines contained in this annex". 
Paragraph 6 of the same Ministerial Decision rules that export subsidy entitlements  shall 
be immediately eliminated. Following to that, agricultural exporting STEs shall not operate 
in a manner that circumvents the commitment to eliminate export subsidies. According to 
Annex 1(g) of the ASCM exemption of indirect taxes on exported produc ts, in excess of 
those levied on domestic like products, fall under the illustrative list of export subsidies. 
Therefore, following the adoption of the Nairobi Decision, Zespri shall not grant export 
subsidies in the form of providing its nursery stock fre e-of-charge to growers outside New 
Zealand whereas planting fees and royalties are charged on the domestic like products. 
Could New Zealand confirm if Zespri provides its nursery stock free -of-charge to growers 
outside New Zealand?  
 
As New Zealand has prev iously clarified to the Committee on Agriculture, Zespri is a private 
company. Zespri's decisions relating to the provision of nursery -stock to overseas growers is a 
commercial decision and in no way involves the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand 
Government has no equity shares in Zespri. When it was established in 2000, Zespri Group Limited 
shares were distributed to kiwifruit growers and ownership remains private. Further, Zespri does not 
receive any form of support from the Government, other than h aving access to contestable Crown 
funding for research and development that is available to all companies and industries. As with any 
New Zealand company, the New Zealand Government expects Zespri to operate in a manner 
consistent with the law in all juris dictions in which it operates, including competition law and any 
laws relevant to the provision of nursery stock.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 43 - 
 
 
  
 Follow -up: The European Union noted its particular interest in the status of STEs, i.e. whether an 
enterprise needed to be government -owned  to be STE.  
5.2  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
5.2.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 85038 ) 
Ag-IMS ID 84068 – point e):  
 
The US, in reply to the EU question for the 84th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, 
stated that "U.S. food assistance programmes are not used to promote U.S. market 
development objectives. The [requirements that all agricultural commodities provided be 
sourced from the United States, that at least 50% of US food aid must be shipped on US 
flagged vessels and that at least 50% of any bagging must consist of whole -grain 
commodities bagged in the United States] are U.S. legislative procurement mandates." In 
the Hearing on the Future of International Food Aids and Agricultural Development of the 
US House Committee on Agriculture, held on 7  June  2017, the Chairman of the Committee 
stated that "(the US) international food aid programmes not only contribute to  jobs in the 
US agricultural sector but they also create American jobs in the manufacturing and 
maritime sectors as well. Eliminating such programmes seems a bit contrary to the role 
of any robust "America first" policy."  
 
a. Could the US explain how the obj ective of creating jobs in the US agricultural, 
manufacturing and maritime sectors and promoting an "America first" differs 
from an objective of promoting developments in the US agricultural, 
manufacturing and maritime markets?  
Requested Food Assistance  
  
The Nairobi Decision in paragraph 25 states that Members are encouraged to provide non -
emergency development food assistance where recipient countries or recognized 
international humanitarian/food entities, such as the United Nations, have requested food  
assistance.  
  
b. Could the US specify when and in which form have the recipient countries or 
recognized international humanitarian/food entities, such as the United Nations, 
have requested US  non-emergency in -kind food assistance?  
USDA -run McGovern -Dole Int ernational Food for Education programme  
  
The US administration announced budget proposals on 23 May 2017. These proposals 
include the elimination of the USDA -run McGovern -Dole International Food for Education 
programme and USAID -run Food For Peace, Title II programme. The budget proposal 
confirms  that the McGovern -Dole programme "lacks evidence that it is being effectively 
implemented to reduce food insecurity and that providing emergency food aid through 
International Disaster Assistance account (IDA) has been shown to allow more 
appropriate and on average more cost effective assistance than Title II food aid".  
  
c. The EU shares this assessment and asks when these ineffective and trade 
distorting food aid policies will be eliminated.  
a. As stated in the CoA in June 2017, U.S. food assistance programme s are not used to 
promote U.S. market development objectives.  
b. The United States provides required information regarding food aid in its NF:1  notifications 
and its Export Competition Questionnaire submissions to the WTO.  Additional information 
is reported a s directed by the Food Aid Convention.  
c. The United States cannot speculate on future Congressional actions.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 44 - 
 
 
  
 6  COA MEETING 20 FEBRUARY 2018  
6.1  JAPAN  
6.1.1   Question by China  (AG-IMS ID 86052 ) 
China thanks Japan for the reply to the question AG -IMS ID 84123. Regarding the food 
aid provided by Japan, China would like to raise some follow -up questions as below:  
  
a. Since the food aid is provided in cash, please explain the necessity for 
re-monetization.  
b. Is there any additional requirement for using the fund donated by Japan, such 
as purchasing commodities from Japan? If that is not the case, please clarify how 
the statistics of the quantity of food provided by Japan to each recipient country 
is made?  
a. Japan allows recipient countries to re -monetize the food which they purchase with the 
funds provided by Japan and to accumulate counterpart funds. Japan expects, throu gh 
this scheme, the funds provided by Japan not only contribute to overcoming food 
shortages but also have positive effects on the development of the recipient countries by 
allowing them to utilize counterpart funds for socioeconomic development projects.  
b. In Japan's scheme of food aid, items to procure and its place of origin are different from 
one case to another. Japan implements food aid on a cash -based basis based on the needs 
and requirements of recipient countries.  
With regard to the notification of aid performance, Japan regularly notifies the WTO of such 
performance as quantity based on the result of procurement.  
 
Food aid by Japan is not in -kind but cash -based, and this is different from the "monetization of 
in-kind aid".  
7  COA MEETING 11 -12 JUNE 201 8  
7.1  ARGENTINA  
7.1.1   Question by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 87043 ) 
Export Credit - G/AG/ W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
In responses to AG -IMS ID  84114 Argentina stated: "BNA and BICE do not have 
programmes or lines of credit support for exports and/or risk hedges and/or credit 
agreements that have financial contributions from the Government or financial  transfers 
(BICE) and Banco de la Nación Argentina, or any public body in any of the lines of credit 
in foreign currency offered for the financing of exports, both in the pre -shipment and 
post-shipment modes". Argentina also stated that "Export financing c onditions 
correspond to the market rates".  
  
The United States notes the provisions in the Nairobi Decision apply to export financing 
support "provided by a government or any public body" as referred to in the 
Article  1.1 (a) (1) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. This 
definition appears to relate to both  BNA and BICE.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 45 - 
 
 
  
 According to both their websites, BNA7 and BICE8 operate export financing programmes 
for which agriculture is eligible. These progra mmes appear to be within the scope of the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition definition in paragraph 13 (a) of direct financing 
support, comprising direct credits/financing, refinancing, and interest rate support.  
  
Noting that the scope of the Minist erial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to 
just agricultural -specific programmes nor is there any reference to being exempt from the 
commitments because of "market rates", please confirm that Argentina considers BNA 
and BICE's export financing support activities not to be covered by the Nairobi Decision 
on Export Competition because the "export financing conditions correspond to the market 
rates" and if so, please explain the specific basis for this.  
 
Subsequent to the circulation of document G /AG/W/125/Rev.8, Argentina submitted the export  
competition questionnaire to the WTO Secretariat, in accordance with the monitoring procedure 
established under the corresponding Nairobi Decision. In its replies to the questionnaire, Argentina 
indicates which existing credit lines from official banks (Bank of the Argentine Nation and Investment 
and Foreign Trade Bank) have export financing conditions corresponding to the market rates. In this 
regard, and as indicated by the WTO Secretariat, Arge ntina's replies to the questionnaire will be 
published in the next revised version of document  G/AG/W/125.  
7.2  AUSTRALIA  
7.2.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87003 ) 
a. Australia notifies three direct financing programmes (Export Contract Loan, 
Export Line of Credit, Small Business Export Loan). Are the annual average 
fees/premium rates per programm e below those which the exporters would have 
to pay for the funds so employed (or would have to pay if they borrowed on 
international capital markets in order to obtain funds of the same maturity and 
other credit terms and denominated in the same currency as the export credit). 
If yes, could Australia agree that such programmes contain prohibited export 
subsidies as defined in item (k) of Annex I to the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures?  
b. For Export Line of Credit programme the maximum repay ment term includes 
"extensions allowed". What is the maximum length of these extensions?  
a. The fees and premiums payable to Efic are above those that would typically be charged 
by commercial credit providers or from international credit markets.  
b. The Export Line of Credit programme is a working capital facility, which is covered by 
footnote  7 of the Nairobi Decision and excludes working capital financing to the suppliers 
from the definition of export credits.  
7.3  BRAZIL  
7.3.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87004 ) 
Why has Brazil not updated its data on PROEX Direct Financing and PROEX Interest Rate  
Support programmes?  
 
The replies to the 2017 ECQ were submitted on 28  May to the WTO Secretariat, and advance copies 
were sent to the European Union Mission.  
 
 
7 See URL: 
http://www.bna.com.ar/Empresas/Grandes/ComercioExt erior/FinanciacionDeExportacionesArgentinas . Also, 
under the heading "Exportación" please see "Cartas de Crédito de Exportación". See URL: 
http://www.bna.com.ar/Empresas/Grandes/Comerc ioExterior . 
8 See URL: https://www.bice.com.ar/en/productos/comercio -exterior/ . See URL: 
https://www.bice.com.ar/es/productos/expo -largo-plazo/ . G/AG/W/211  
 
- 46 - 
 
 
  
 7.3.2   Question by Norway (AG -IMS ID 87012 ) 
Brazil was a driving force behind the rapid implementation of phasing out of export 
subsidies from December 2015. Members like Canada, Switzerland and N orway had to 
implement a considerable change in policies in order to comply with the Ministerial 
Decision. These Members have now all notified amended draft schedules for export 
subsidies.  
 
On the other hand, after more than two years, Brazil has still not submitted a draft 
amended schedule for export subsidies.  
 
When will Brazil submit the amended draft schedule for export subsidies?  
 
Brazil reaffirms its commitment to the elimination of export subsidies as set forth on the Ministerial 
Decision o n Export Competition. In this sense, Brazil would like to remind Members that it has not 
granted export subsidies for agricultural products since 1995, when it started providing notifications 
concerning export subsidy commitments. Furthermore, Brazil remai ns committed to not granting 
export subsidies and is still carrying out the internal procedures necessary to the internalization of 
the Nairobi Package as domestic law. These procedures include the approval, by the Brazilian 
Congress, of an amended draft s chedule for export subsidies.  
 
Follow -up: Norway noted that an informal group of Members with export subsidies commitments 
had met after the Nairobi Ministerial Conference and already in 2016 it was clear that Brazil had to 
undertake the internal procedure  of sending a revised schedule to the parliament and therefore it 
would take time. Norway asked Brazil if the revised schedule had already been sent to the parliament 
or it was still under internal consultations between ministries. Brazil explained that am ending export 
subsidy schedule was one part of the Nairobi Package. When the Ministerial Decision was adopted 
there was an intense legal debate in Brazil about the need of sending the full package to Congress 
or separating the schedule from the rest of the  package which would allow the schedule to be 
amended more quickly. The result of the legal debate was that the whole package should be 
submitted together to Congress. Brazil noted that at the moment it had not yet sent the package to 
Congress but would do  it at the earliest time possible. It also reiterated the fact that Brazil had not 
provided any export subsidies since 1995. Switzerland noted the importance of all Members' 
compliance with the Nairobi Decision.  
7.3.3   Question by the United States of America (A G-IMS ID 87044 ) 
Brazil Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that Brazil did not respond to the 2016 or the 2017 export 
competition questionnaires, but did respond in 2014 and 2015. Brazil also recently noted 
in response to U.S.  questions that the PROEX Direct Financing programme supported 
USD 141.3 million in agricultural products in 2016.  
  
Please provide responses to the ECQ for both the PROEX Direct Financing and the PROEX 
Interest Rate support programmes for agricultural products in 2017.  
 
The replies to the 2017 ECQ were submitted on 2 8 May to the WTO Secretariat, and advance copies 
were sent to the U.S. Mission.  
7.4  CANADA  
7.4.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87005 ) 
a. The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, in footnote  4, requires 
that "quantity commitment levels shall be applied as a standstill until the end 
of 2020 at the actual average of quantity levels of the 2003/05 base period". 
A 2003/05 base period refers to three years, 2003, 2004 and 2005. Why has 
Canada based its export subsidy quantity levels for dairy products in 2016 on a 
four-year average, contradicting the Nairobi Decision?  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 47 - 
 
 
  
 b. The Nairobi Ministeri al Decision on Export Competition, in footnote  4, requires 
that footnote 4 applies on products for which a Member concerned "has notified 
export subsidies for such products or categories of products in one of its three 
latest export subsidy notifications e xamined by the Committee on Agriculture 
before the date of adoption of this Decision". The three latest export subsidy 
notifications by Canada before Nairobi covered years 2011/12, 2012/13 
and 2013/14 and no subsidised butter exports were reported by Canad a for 
these years. Given that Canadian Corrigenda to its export subsidy notifications 
for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 were not examined by the CoA before Nairobi, why 
does Canada erroneously notify an export subsidy entitlement for butter 
in 2016?  
c. Does Canada agree that its milk class system, although considered by Canada a 
private mechanism, could only exist by virtue of a milk quota system imposed by 
the government of Canada9 and therefore exporters of dairy products or 
ingredients, that were billed under mi lk class 7 benefit from "payments on the 
export of an agricultural product that are financed by virtue of governmental 
action", as defined in Article  9:1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture? If not, 
could Canada substantiate its position?  
a. As per the Nairobi  Decision, the new volume cap should be based on the actual average 
quantity levels in the 2003 -2005 base period. However, Canada expressed its Uruguay 
Round export subsidy commitments on a "dairy year" basis which runs from 1 August to 
31 July. To account  for all volumes in the 2003 and 2005 year, Canada had to include the 
2002-2003 dairy year (1 August 2002 to 31 July 2003) and 2005 -2006 dairy year 
(1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006). Therefore, to get an accurate representation of 
the 2003–2005 base period, Canada decided that the average quantity levels of Canada 's 
export subsidies from the 2002 -2003 to 2005 -2006 dairy years (four dairy years) would 
be used . 
b. The first sentence in Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Ministerial gives a developed Member the 
flexibility to use export subsidies on dairy products or processed products and swine meat 
until the end of 2020 when the Member "has notified export subsidies for such products 
or categories of products in one of its three latest export subsidy notifications examined  
by the Committee on Agriculture before the date of adoption of this Decision". Canada 's 
notification G/AG/ N/CAN/92 reported that Canada used export subsidies for butter as did 
G/AG/ N/CAN/108/Corr.1. Therefore, Canada provided export subsidies for butter i n at 
least one of its three notifications prior to the date of adoption of the Nairobi Decision and 
butter is subject to the new export subsidy limit established under it . 
c. Canada does not believe that Article 9.1 (c) applies for exported dairy products or 
ingredients that were billed under milk class 7. The usage of milk class 7 is not contingent 
on export. Goods produced under milk class 7, or any milk class other than milk class  5(d), 
can be sold by any eligible processor on the domestic or export markets , and do not require 
export permits. It is the business decision of the processor to either sell these products on 
the domestic market, or to export them.  
Follow -up: The European Union was not convinced by some of Canada's responses. They would 
review the  responses and may follow up. New Zealand echoed European Union's comment. In 
particular they were not satisfied with Canada's response to part c of the question which stated that 
Canada's proposal was in line with the disciplines of the Agreement on Agric ulture.  
7.4.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87045 ) 
Canada Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
a. The United States notes Canada stated in its export competition 
questionnaire  (ECQ) that the total value of export of agricultural products 
 
9 Mandated by the Canadian Dairy Commission Act of 1966 and administered by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission which is a Canadian government Crown Corporation created under the same Act.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 48 - 
 
 
  
 covered by its export financing programmes was CA D 4,100 million and 
CAD 5,092  million in 2015 and 2016, respectivel y. 
According to the Export Development Canada's (EDC) website Aggregate Business Volume 
by Industry Sub -sector for the periods ending 31  December  2015, 2016 and  2017 (see 
table below), the total value of agricultural products covered by its export financin g 
programmes does not match the total value of export of agricultural products reported by 
Canada ECQ. The United States also notes under the Light Manufacturing Industry, a line 
describing transactions for food and beverage that was not reported in Canada 's ECQ for 
the last three years.  
 
Overview of Industry  
Sub-sector  2015  
($ in millions)  2016  
($ in millions)  2017  
($ in millions)  
Agriculture  4,702 5,600 4,995 
Food & Beverage  1,041 974 1,401 
TOTAL  5,743  6,574  6,396  
Source:  http://www.edc.ca/EN/About -Us/Disclosure/Reporting -on-Transactions/Pages/industry -sub-sector -
2017.aspx  
  
For the agricultural sector:  
 
i. Can Canada please explain the differences between the total export values of 
agricultural products reported in the ECQ and those reported on the 
EDC website?  
ii. Can Canada please explain why the export value of agricultural products 
under the Sub -sector food and beverage was not reported in the ECQ?  
iii. Can Canada please explain if there were missing agricultural products under 
EDC's  Sub-sectors that were not included in the 2015 and 2016 ECQs? If so, 
please provide the figures for programme use (i.e. the  monetary value of 
export) by product or product group (i.e. agricultural products as defined in 
the WTO Nairobi Decision) in 2015 and 2016.  
b. In in previous questionnaires Canada reported data for its Foreign Exchange 
Guarantee  (FXG) and Loans programmes, w hich Canada described as "other 
form of governmental export credit support" and "direct financing support", 
respectively. Neither of these named programmes was described in the previous 
Canada's ECQ as Buyer Financing or provider of working capital. Also, the Loans 
programme was reported as having average repayment terms above 2.9 years 
and reported Maximum repayment terms as "various".  
i. Please explain why these programmes are not being reported and whether 
these activities are covered by the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
ii. Please explain if EDC continues to provide Loans with tenors higher than 
18 months.  
c. According to the Export Development Canada (EDC) website, EDC offers as part 
of its Financing categories a Buyer Financing Program (BFP) for  exports of 
Canadian products.  
Is the BFP reported in the ECQ under one of the reported Financing programmes or is it a 
separate programme not reported in the ECQ? If BFP is a separate category of support, 
does the programme cover exports of agricultural p roducts? If so, please provide a 
response to all Export Competition Questionnaire questions.  
 
d. Can Canada please provide a breakdown of programme use for agricultural 
products reported under a)  Commodities -Grain, Specialty Crops 
b) Commodities -Meat and c)  Processor/Elevator -Grain, Specialty Crops?  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 49 - 
 
 
  
 a.  
i. Development Corporation captures equipment used in the agriculture and food processing 
sectors in each of the above industry sub -sectors and is therefore included in Canada's 
figures reported on its website. As su ch the figures Canada reports in the WTO Export 
Competition Questionnaire will not match what is posted on our website, given that 
equipment is not covered by Annex 1 of the Agriculture Agreement.  
 
ii. This was an oversight on Canada's part. The Export Develo pment Corporation will restate 
Canada's figures in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 Export Competition Questionnaire to include 
the relevant products (as covered by Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture) that fall 
within this industry sub -sector.  
 
iii. Yes, as noted above, Canada inadvertently omitted the agricultural products (as covered 
by Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture) that fall into the Export Development 
Corporation's industry sub -sector of "Food and Beverages ". Canada will restate and 
provide its figur es. 
 
b.  
i. Foreign Exchange Guarantee (FXG) For the Export Development Corporation the  FXG is a 
working capital solution and as such Canada did not include it in the responses to the 
questionnaire given that the Nairobi Decision excludes working capital product s from the 
definition of export credits. Please refer to the Export Development Corporation website: 
https://www.edc.ca/en/solutions.html . Direct Financing Support to provide more clarity 
around the prod ucts used to support the export of agricultural products (as covered by 
Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture), Canada decided to reference "Buyer Financing " 
instead of "Direct Loans " in the responses to the questionnaire. EDC does offer direct 
financing  support, and these loans can be used for different purposes such as working 
capital and investments, as well as direct loans to a foreign buyer to purchase exports 
from Canada which is referred to as Buyer Financing. Canada believes it is clearer to use 
the product term "Buyer Financing ". As noted in its responses to the questionnaire, Buyer 
Financing can take the form of a direct loan from EDC to the foreign buyer and is typically 
used for contract amounts >=10 million, or EDC can provide a guarantee to a  commercial 
bank against the direct loan they provide to a foreign buyer, typically used for contracts 
below 10  million. This product is not typically used for the sale of agricultural products 
given the nature of these products are short term and therefor e EDC uses its credit 
insurance product.  
 
ii. EDC has not provided any loans to foreign buyers of agriculture products (as identified in 
Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture) for several years. What was reported in past 
questionnaires under "Financing " were for working capital which is excluded from the 
Nairobi Decision.  
 
c. See answer in b. i.  
 
d. See table below (in CAD  millio n). 
 
Product  2015  2016  2017  
Credit 
Insurance  Buyer 
Financing  Credit 
Insurance  Buyer 
Financing  Credit 
Insurance  Buyer 
Financing  
Commodities -Grain, 
Specialty Crops  1,862  - 2,634  - 2,050  - 
Commodities -Meat 940 - 1,055  - 1,198  - 
Processor/Elevator -
Grain, Specialty Crops  469 - 611 - 475 - 
 
7.4.3   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87046 ) 
Food Aid - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3  
 
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 84121: In the 2015 Food Assistance 
Convention  (FAC) annual report, Canada disclosed that cash -based, food for consumption G/AG/W/211  
 
- 50 - 
 
 
  
 and nutrition intervention programming represented 26%, 52% and 19% of the total 
eligible expend itures in food assistance funding. The 2015 FAC annual report statement 
seems to indicate that Canada's international food aid activities include a mix of tools, not 
only cash -based programming as indicated in Canada's response in last year's Export 
Compet ition Questionnaire.  
 
Please provide additional details with regards to how Canada implements its food aid 
programmes, including what other food aid tools are used in addition to on an "untied 
cash-based basis and fully in grant form".  
 
Canada, in alignme nt with the principles of the Food Assistance Convention (FAC), delivers food 
assistance programming through experienced and trusted partners to which it provides grants. 
These grants may support the direct provision of food, as well as cash and vouchers, provision of 
seeds and tools to help restart livelihoods, and nutritional interventions (defined in the FAC as eligible 
products/eligible activities). Canada's international food assistance activities for 2015, as 
documented in the 2015 FAC annual report, refer to activities undertaken by partners as funded 
by Canada.  
7.5  CHINA  
7.5.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID  87006 ) 
Annual examination on export competition  
 
a. Why has China not updated its data on export f inancing programmes operated 
by China Development Bank, Agricultural Development Bank of China and the 
Export -Import Bank of China?  
b. The support provided by the Agricultural Development Bank of China and the 
Export -Import Bank of China is a direct financing  support. China notifies that the 
annual average fees/premium rates per these programmes are not available. So, 
how does China ensure that the annual average fees/premium rates per these 
programmes are not below those which the exporters would have to pay for the 
funds so employed (or would have to pay if they borrowed on international 
capital markets in order to obtain funds of the same maturity and other credit 
terms and denominated in the same currency as the export credit) so that no 
prohibited export s ubsidies as defined in item (k) of Annex  I to the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures are granted?  
c. Why has China not updated its data on agricultural exporting STEs as notified to 
the WTO STE Working Party?  
a. and c) China usually provides repl y to the questionnaire  on export financing, export STE and 
international food aid together. Since there have been significant adjustments in the government 
bodies this year, with some changes still being underway, the prepar ation for replying the 
questionn aire was affected to certain extent. That's why China did not  provide the reply this 
year as usual. The update will be completed in the near future.  
 
b. China  would like to provide some information regarding the average fees and pre mium rates, 
which China  hopes could address M embers ' concern. In 2016, the average fee  of the export 
financing program me of the Agricultural Development Bank of China is 4.49%  for 3-month 
repayment term and 2.84%  for 6-month repayment term . The average fees of export financing 
programme of the Export Import Bank of China is 4.46%.  
7.5.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  87047 ) 
China Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that in June 2017, China submitted a report showing that 
for 2016, the Agricultural Development Bank of China, Export Import - Bank of China, and 
SINOSURE provided agric ultural export financing.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 51 - 
 
 
  
   
a. In light of this fact, please provide responses for the 2017 and 2018 ECQ.  
b. Noting China's previous response to the 2016 ECQ, please include in the 
2018  ECQ information on annual average premium rates and data on programme 
use by product or product group.  
a. China will submit the response to 2018 ECQ in the near future.  
b. The information as requested by the United States will be provided in  the response to 
the 2018 ECQ.  
7.5.3   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87048 ) 
China Food Aid - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3  
  
According to Xinhua press releases, China in 2016 provided bilateral in -kind food aid in 
response to emergency appeals, which is consistent with China's Nairobi commitments, 
to Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, South Sudan and Zimbabwe. 
In 2017, China also provided bilateral food aid to Afghanistan, Ethiopia, The Gambia, 
Kenya, Lebanon, Madagascar, South Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda and Zimbabwe.  
  
The United States notes that China did not provide information regarding its bilateral food 
aid programmes in its response to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ).  
  
a. Please provide in the ECQ response data for all bilateral food aid provided in 2016 
and 2017.  
According to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United  States' website10, 
China provides three types of foreign aid: grants, interest -free loans and concessional 
loans.  
 
b. Please provide information as to whether bilateral food aid programmes using 
other food aid tools in addition to in "full grant form" were provided for 2016 
and 2017. If so, please provide data and a response to food a id question 
number  5.  
Food aid provided by China, regardless of whether it is provided bilaterally or through international 
agencies such as World Food Program, is entirely on fully granted basis. The value for 2016 and  2017 
are RMB 1 billion and 2 billio n respectively.  
 
Follow -up: In light of increasing non -traditional food aid donors, Australia reminded Members of the 
obligation to report food aid in response to the questionnaire. It also reiterated Cairns Group's 
comment that the response rate to the qu estionnaire was low, particularly in the area of food aid.  
7.5.4   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87049 ) 
China State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.4  
  
The United States appreciates China's transparency, which is important in making the 
dialogue on agricultural exporting state trading enterprises substantive in the Committee 
on Agriculture. The United States notes in responses to the ECQ, China reported t he total 
quantity of rice exports through its STEs and stated, "the value and average price are not 
provided by the enterprises concerned due to confidentiality considerations".  
  
Can China please explain if any rice exports destined to developing countri es were 
provided as food aid or on concessional terms?  
  
 
10 Source: http://www.china -embassy.org/eng/zt/bps/t943741.htm . G/AG/W/211  
 
- 52 - 
 
 
  
 a. If so, please add any pertaining information under response to all ECQ questions 
for international food aid.  
Besides providing emergency food aid, China also exports rice to certain developing coun tries. The 
food exports by state trading enterprises to developing countries were made on normal business 
terms.  
7.6  EUROPEAN UNION  
7.6.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87050 ) 
European Union Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
a. The United States notes in the Secretariat Background paper that Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, and Poland are still reporting maximum repayment 
terms higher than 18  months.  
What steps is the EU taking to ensure all EU member States' maximum repayment 
terms are no more than 18 mont hs?  
b. Certain EU member States have noted in response to missing data that there are 
no steps planned to gather and make available certain information for 
agricultural export financing programmes because such steps are not required 
by the Nairobi Decision. However, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision states the 
following: "The Committee on Agriculture shall monitor the implementation of 
this Decision by Members in accordance with existing notification requirements 
under the Agreement on Agriculture, as compleme nted by the provisions set out 
in the Annex to this Decision".  
Please explain how the COA is to monitor implementation when certain Members 
will not provide such data?  
c. The United States notes that Estonia provided maximum repayment terms of 
24 and 120  mont hs, respectively, for its programmes.  
Do these repayment terms apply to agricultural products? If not, what are the 
maximum repayment terms specifically for agricultural products?  
d. In AG -IMS ID 84119 on Germany's Euler Hermes' export credit insurance 
progra mmes under single transaction covers, the EU stated: "No export financing 
support for agricultural products is provided within these programmes".  
Please explain what types of exports Euler Hermes is financing.  
Please confirm whether the German agriculture and food industry benefits as 
data from the "Export Credit Guarantees of the Federal Republic of Germany" 
suggests?  
e. According to SACE's 2016 annual report, export credit operations by Italian or 
foreign banks in support of export operations and transactio ns insured by SACE 
to benefit the agro -industry sector through its subsidiaries exceeds EUR 1,088 
million.  
Please explain why SACE subsidiaries' export financing support activities are not 
reported in the EU's ECQ response.  
f. According to COSEC's 2016 audite d financial statements (page 13), COSEC's 
activity on behalf of the Portuguese State provides Credit Insurance Line to 
Short -Term Export and Bond Insurance that in which one of the most benefited 
sectors from the coverage included food products.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 53 - 
 
 
  
 Please exp lain why COSEC's export financing support activities are not reported 
in the ECQ  response.  
g. According to the European Banking Federation's 2014 report "Funding 
Conditions in Export Credit Markets", the Slovak Republic's EXIMBANKA SR also 
offers refinancing to commercial banks active in export financing and the 
majority of these transactions are short -term, up to one year.  
Please confirm whether this refinancing programme offers export financing 
support for agricultural products and explain the basis for not  reporting this in 
the EU's ECQ response.  
h. According to data from Instituto de Credito Oficial's (ICO)11, Spain provides 
export financing support to the agricultural and food sector through Mediation 
Lines or ICO  Lines in which the ICO acts through financia l entities. In 2016, 
Spain's ICO reported a total of 5,385 agricultural and food export operations 
valued at EUR  422 million.  
Please explain why ICO's export financing support activities are not reported in 
the EU's  ECQ response.  
a. The 18 -month limit on re payment terms in the Nairobi Decision applies to developed 
Members such as the EU from the last day of 2017, pursuant to point (a) of paragraph 15. 
The questionnaire relates to activities in 2017, before the limit applied.  
The EU and its member States int end to respect the Nairobi Decision in its entirety. In 
particular, please note:  
For Bulgaria: Bulgaria's submission indicates 24 months for short -term commercial and 
political risk and 60 months for medium -term commercial and political risk. These are 
maximum terms for the deferral of payments under the General Terms and Conditions. No 
contracts with repayment terms higher than 18 months have been concluded by the 
Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency BAEZ. BAEZ has taken steps to amend the General 
Terms an d Conditions which also requires a legislative change, i.e. amendment of the 
Bulgarian Export Insurance Act.  
For Croatia: The Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development HBOR is a 
development and export bank for the Republic of Croatia which provides export credit 
insurance operations on behalf and for the account of the Republic of Croatia. For the 
purpose of securing export operations for agricultural sector HBOR did not approve 
insurance at maturity longer than 18  months.  
For Estonia: The repayment terms are now from 30 to 180 days.  
For Latvia: The maximum repayment term for agriculture products is 18 months. In 
September  2017, Latvia amended its national legislation (in force since 6.10.2017) and 
currently it states that the guarantee in the case of  primary agricultural products is 
provided for export transactions for which the deferred payments are not longer than 
547 days (i.e. 18 months) as it was decided in MC10 by 
decision  WT/MIN(15)/45  - WT/L/980.  
For Poland: The Polish Export Credit Insurance Corporation KUKE has implemented the 
paragraph 15(a) of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition into its internal 
regulations and procedures in 2017.  
 
11 Source: http://www.qcom.es/sector -agroalimentario -ico-lineas -de-mediacion -
alimentacion/reportajes/credito -oficial -para-el-mundo -
agroalimentario_32566_2_36410_0_1_in.html#lightbox[32566]/3/ . 
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 54 - 
 
 
  
 b. The EU will continue to work with its member States to continue to improve transparency 
as regards the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. As part of this continual process, 
the EU adopted in 2017 Commission Implementing Regulation  (EU) 2017/1185, Article 14 
of which makes transmission of the relevant data to the Commission by EU member Sta tes 
an explicit legal requirement and harmonises the format for such transmission.  
c. In Estonia the repayment terms are now from 30 to 180 days.  
d.  
i. Euler Hermes provides cover on medium and long -term credits terms under single 
transaction policies for agricult ural machinery and equipment. These products are not 
covered by Annex 1 of the WTO sector understanding. Euler Hermes does not provide 
specific programmes/products to agriculture and food industry.  
ii. The EU will revert with updated information about this pro gramme in the future, 
following consultation with the EU member State concerned.  
e. The EU will revert with updated information about this programme in the future, following 
consultation with the EU member State concerned.  
f. The EU will revert with updated info rmation about this programme in the future, following 
consultation with the EU member State concerned.  
g. EXIMBANKA SR covers support for export of the agricultural products within its portfolio 
of financing and insurance services in compliance with internati onal regulation for export 
credits of the EU, OECD and WTO, with maximum repayment term not exceeding 
18 months, as required by the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
There are no special products designed solely for export financing support for agricultural 
products.  
Regarding EXIMBANKA SR's refinancing loans, this product is included within the group of 
financing services. The refinancing loans could also offer export financing support for 
agricultural products, given all the international regulations are me t and the repayment 
term does not exceed 18 months. In the past, EXIMBANKA SR has used this product also 
to provide support for export of agricultural goods however, the provision of refinancing 
loans has gradually stopped in 2016 and this trend remained u nchanged in 2017.  
As there has not been any activity in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in this area, this product is not 
specifically mentioned and reported in the EU's ECQ response.  
h. The EU will revert with updated information about this programme in the future, fol lowing 
consultation with the EU member State concerned.  
7.6.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87051 ) 
European Union State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.4  
  
The United States n otes that the EU in its Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/357, page  101, 
paragraph 3.223) recognize that Finland's Altia (a leading wine and spirits company 
offering quality brands in the Nordic and Baltic countries and an exporter of alcoholic 
beverages) is a n agricultural exporting state trading enterprise and would be notifying 
them to the WTO in the future. Please provide information on Finland's Altia as part of the 
EU's response to the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) on agricultural exporting 
state  trading enterprises.  
 
The EU has re -examined the issue in the light of the information available since the EU TPR was held 
and concludes that Altia is not a state trading enterprise falling under GATT Article XVII (and thus 
not under the Nairobi Decision  in export competition either).  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 55 - 
 
 
  
  
Altia and Alko are separate enterprises. In 2017 (until March 2018), Altia was fully owned by the 
State of Finland. In March 2018, the government of Finland listed Altia on Helsinki Stock Exchange. 
The proportion of state ownership was reduced from 100% to  roughly 37%. Altia operates as a 
normal exchange -listed company and the only role of the state is as a shareholder at the annual 
general meetings as and with other shareholders. The company has not been granted any exclusive 
or special rights or privilege s nor statutory or constitutional powers. The state does not have any 
strategic interest on its ownership and the ownership is not based on any special task. The ownership 
of Altia is a financial investment for the state. The Parliament of Finland has empo wered the 
Government of Finland to sell all of its Altia shares.  
7.6.3   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  87052 ) 
European Union Food Aid - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3  
  
In responses to AG -IMS ID 84122 the EU stated: "EU member States have provided 
in 2016 in -kind food aid strictly in emergency situations". Please provide, for each of the 
remaining 27  member States that have not been reported, all bilateral food assistance 
programmes (including those for emergency situations).  
 
As reported in the reply to AG -IMS ID 84122, the only EU member State which provided in -kind food 
aid within bilat eral food assistance programmes in 2016 was the Czech Republic.  
7.7  INDIA  
7.7.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87007 )  
Why has India not updated its data on agricultural exporting STEs as notified to the 
WTO  STE Working Party?  
 
India would like to inform the Members that its notification on STEs is under preparation and will be 
notified soon.  
7.7.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  87053 ) 
India Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Re v.8/Add.2  
  
a. With regards to the Indian government -owned entities Export -Import Bank of 
India  (I‑Eximbank) and ECGC Ltd: India provided details about I -Eximbank's 
export financing support programmes for agricultural products in response to 
Members' questio ns in the 2015 Trade Policy Review (TPR) (RD/TPR/432). India 
responded to Members' questions regarding ECGC's export financing support 
that the questions were "not relevant", because "ECGC does not have any specific 
short -term policy for agricultural produ cts".  
i. Based on India's response in the TPR, please explain why India considers it 
"not relevant" to provide information on ECGC's export financing support 
programmes for agricultural products, when ECGC's 2016 annual report (see 
table below) shows that ex port financing programme support for agricultural 
products is worth USD 3.8 billion.  
ii. For each export financing support scheme provided by I -Eximbank and ECGC, 
irrespective of whether any programme is specific or not to agriculture, 
please provide a respon se to all ECQ with regards to financing transactions 
for agricultural products in 2016 and 2017.  
b. The United States notes India's ECGC is one of the top five export credit agencies 
in the world in terms of providing short -term official export credit and working 
capital volumes. According to ECGC's annual reports for 2016 -2017, 2015 -2016 
and 2014 -2015 ( see table below), short -term export credit insurance policies for G/AG/W/211  
 
- 56 - 
 
 
  
 agricultural products (including dairy and process foods), and cotton (fiber, yarn, 
fabrics made up, including handloom) are the following:12 
Annual 
Report  Agricultural 
Products  
(USD)  Cotton  
(USD)  Total ST export credit support  
for agricultural products  
(USD)  
2014-2015 1.88 billion  1.67 billion  3.55 billion  
2015-2016 1.69 billion  2.12 billion  3.81 billion  
2016-2017 1.71 billion  2.14 billion  3.85 billion  
Source: See ECGC's website, https://www.ecgc.in/financial -result/   
  
Paragraph  12 of the Nairobi Decision states that:  
  
"With regard to cotton, the disciplines and commitments contained in this Decisi on shall 
be immediately implemented as of the date of adoption of this Decision by developed 
country Members, and not later than 1 January 2017 by developing country Members."  
 
i. Under export financing support programmes provided by ECGC and 
I-Eximbank, ple ase provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any 
financing transactions for cotton.  
a.  
i. ECGC Ltd., registered as a non -life insurance company under Insurance Regulatory 
and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), provides Export Credit insurance on 
commercial consideration. The premium rates are fixed based on actuarial evaluation 
and approved by IRDAI. ECGC generates profits and also pays dividend to the 
Government of India. There is no separate product for agriculture and premium rates 
are the same as that of all other goods and commodities.  
ii. ECGC does not provide any finance to exporters. However, it provides export credit 
insurance for working capital finance for banks. The premium rates are fixed based on 
actuarial evaluation and approved by IRDAI. The re -insurance arrangements for Short 
Term business are on commercial terms provided by private market.  
b. The figures given are the value of risk covered against the payment of premium. No 
subsidy for premium against export credit risk insurance is given by the government. ECGC 
operates in a competitive environment and compete with 30 private credit risk insurers. 
No export credit risk is covered without the payment of premium.  
7.8  INDONESIA  
7.8.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87054 ) 
Indonesia Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
Please provide responses to the export cred it competition questionnaire (ECQ) with 
regards to any export financing support programmes being operated by the Indonesian 
government -owned entities Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia (Indonesia 
EximBank) and PT Asuransi Ekspor Indonesia (ASEI)), which a re reported in Indonesia's 
Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/278/Rev.1). According to Indonesia EximBank's annual 
reports financing for agriculture was USD 764.6 million in 2015 and USD 818.7 million 
in 2016.  
 
12 Total short -term export credit insurance policies reporte d are as follows: 2016 -17 
INR 141,398  crores, 2015 -16 INR 135,872 crores, and 2014 -2015 INR 133,983 crores. The currency 
conversion was calculated at  an exchange rate of 66 INR to 1 USD for 2016 -17, and 64 INR to 1 USD for 
2014-16. ECGC's short -term export  credit insurance policies for cotton represented 10%, 10% and 8% of its 
total short -term export credit insurance policies for the respective years. Meanwhile, short -term export credit 
insurance policies for agricultural represented 8%, 8% and 9%.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 57 - 
 
 
  
  
We wish to thank the US delegation for posing ques tions to Indonesia in this review. However, 
Indonesian government is still in close consultation with relevant institutions to provide response to 
those questions at later stage .  
7.9  JAPAN  
7.9.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87055 ) 
Japan Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
The United States appreciates Japan's transparency in re porting its export financing 
support for agriculture in the Export Credit Questionnaire.  
 
a. Regarding item number 3 ("Total value of export of agricultural products…"), 
Japan reports a "Total/Value of export of agricultural products" for each year, 
but also  has a note stating that, "The total export value of agricultural products 
subject to the programmes is not available". This note seems to contradict the 
provision of data. Could Japan please explain the meaning of the note?  
b. Please provide the maximum repa yment terms and average annual repayment 
terms.  
c. Japan noted in the 2017 ECQ that data on the, "average premium rates", and the, 
"annual average repayment period by programme are not available". What steps 
is Japan taking to collect this information and whe n will it be available?  
d. For export programme use by product or product group, Japan provided only 
HS codes of agricultural products for the period 1995 – 2016. Please provide 
quantity and value data on an annual basis for the 2017 ECQ response, as well 
as going forward.  
a. There is a case where a part of total value of export is paid in advance, which is excluded 
from underwritten amount by export financing entity in Japan, i.e. Nippon Export and 
investment Insurance (NEXI). Data of the advanced payment amount  is not collected, 
which in turn makes it impossible to measure total export value of agricultural products.  
b. The maximum repayment term is no more than 18 months. The average annual repayment 
term is unavailable because the IT system is not built to extrac t such data.  
c. Data of the average premium rates and annual average repayment period by programme 
are not available because the IT system is not built to extract such data. Re -model of the 
system is not planned.  
d. The data is not available because the IT syste m is not built to extract such data.  
7.10  KOREA, REPUBLIC OF  
7.10.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  87057 ) 
Korea Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
According to its 2014 Annual Report, the Export -Import Bank of Korea (KEXIM) is 
responsible for the operation of the Economic Development Cooperation Fund  (EDCF), 
under which 3.6% of loan commitments made in 2 014 were for agriculture, forestry and 
fishing. The United States also notes Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K -sure) is one 
of the top five export credit agencies in the world in terms of providing short -term official 
export credit and working capital v olumes.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 58 - 
 
 
  
 Please explain why the Republic of Korea has not reported EXIM Bank's and K -sure's 
export financing support activities in its ECQ response under the Nairobi Decision on 
Export Competition.  
 
EDCF, Economic Development Cooperation Fund has nothing  to do with export financing support. It 
is a development assistance programme that supports mostly building socioeconomic infrastructure 
mainly in the least developed countries in the form of long -term loan programme. As to the second 
question on K -sure's  export financing support, the Republic of Korea finds out that 
agriculture -related support is actually negligible. However, the Republic of Korea is working closely 
with K -sure to collect relevant data if any.  
7.11  MALAYSIA  
7.11.1   Question by the United States of Am erica (AG -IMS I D 87056 ) 
Malaysia Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that Malaysia did not respond to several questions in the 2016 
and 2017  export competition questionnaire (ECQ).  
  
a. Please explain why Malaysia has not responded regarding its activities in 2016 
and 2017.  
b. Please confirm when Malaysia expects it will be providing response for 2016 
and 2017.  
Malaysia has completed responses to the questionnaire on export competition for both 2016 
and 2017. In addition, Malaysia is finalizing its response to the questionnaire for 2018 which would 
be submitted soon.  
7.12  NEW  ZEALAND  
7.12.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87008 ) 
a. New Zealand notifies that NZECO pr ovided support via a committed offer to 
reinsure Australia's export credit office, Efic under an existing contract for the 
export of dairy cattle and that the repayment term for this programme is longer 
than 18 months. Could New Zealand confirm that repaym ent term longer than 
18 months would not apply after  31.12.2017 as required by 
the Nairobi  Decision?  
b. In reply to the EU questions raised in the recent meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, New Zealand has repeatedly stated that Zespri is a private comp any 
so its decisions relating to the provision of nursery -stock to overseas growers is 
a commercial decision and in no way involves the New Zealand Government. 
The EU does not agree with that interpretation. According to the definition of an 
STEs as laid d own in the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, private companies can also be 
STEs. Therefore, irrespective of its ownership, Zespri is an STEs and so subject 
to commitments of the Nairobi Decision on STEs, including that of paragraph  20 
which rules that "Members shall ensure that agricultural exporting state trading 
enterprises do not operate in a manner that circumvents any other disciplines 
contained in this Decision". Export monopoly rig hts granted to Zespri by the New 
Zealand's government allow Zespri to provide its kiwifruit nursery stock free -of-
charge to growers outside New Zealand therefore circumventing the Nairobi 
commitment to ban granting export subsidies. Without its export mono poly 
Zespri would likely not be able to provide kiwifruit nursery stock free -of-charge 
to growers outside New Zealand. Providing kiwifruit nursery stock free -of-
charge to growers outside New Zealand falls under export subsidies according to 
Annex 1(g) of t he ASCM. Could New Zealand explain how it intends to bring itself 
into compliance with the Nairobi Decision?  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 59 - 
 
 
  
 a. NZECO is acting in this case as the re -insurer of the Australian Export Credit agency, EFIC 
for their contract providing risk cover for the export  of live breeding cattle to Sri  Lanka. 
NZECO's reinsurance cover was adopted prior to the Nairobi Decision and has not been 
modified since. Paragraph 15(a) of the Nairobi Decision enables such "existing contracts " 
to run until the end of the contract, prov ided they are notified to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
b. New Zealand's current export arrangements for kiwifruit are fully compliant with 
New Zealand's WTO obligations, this includes under the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and t he Nairobi Decision. New Zealand notifies Zespri as 
a state trading enterprise due to its automatic, but not sole, right to export kiwifruit from 
New Zealand to markets other than Australia. Zespri is a private enterprise that makes 
commercial decisions en tirely independently of Government. While the New  Zealand 
government is responsible for the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999, it has no role in Zespri 
Limited's commercial decisions. This includes the company's commercial decisions on the 
provision of pro prietary kiwifruit nursery stock varieties it develops. Investing and 
partnering in third countries is not dependant on it being a state trading enterprise, and 
nothing in the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 requires Zespri to engage is such 
activities. Consequently, such decisions by Zespri are in no way a subsidy under the ASCM, 
or counter to New Zealand's obligations under the Nairobi Decision.  
Follow -up: Chile supported EU's question and expressed its concern regarding Zespri 's compliance 
of the obligations arising from the Nairobi commitments. Chile noted that its concern was not new 
and it had been expressed in numerous occasions in this meeting as well as in the context of the 
WGSTE and elsewhere. Chile noted that New Zealand was the main expor ter of Kiwifruit world -wide, 
and had increased its share over the last years. During 2013, NZ exported 26,7% of the world 
kiwifruit in terms of volume; this figure increased to 34,5% in 2017. Based on the New Zealand 
notification of STEs (G/STR/N/17/NZL), Zespri exported between 96 -98% of the total exports of 
New Zealand Kiwifruit during the periods covered by the notification (2015 -2018). Chile stated that 
this meant only one company (Zespri) exported around 1/3 of the world Kiwifruit. Based on these 
facts, Chile noted that it was clear that Zespri was an important enterprise in the Kiwifruit market 
but noted that Zespri also had crops outside of New Zealand. Looking at Zespri  2016/2017 annual 
Report, Chile pointed out approximately 10% of the revenue from sales of Kiwifruit was from 
Non-New Zealand grown kiwifruit. As indicated in the same document, these revenues had increased 
in the last years, and the company expressed that sources of production were likely to diversify in 
the coming years, which would c omplement current supply out of Italy, France, South Korea  and 
Japan. Chile noted that the issues pointed out by the EU had become even more relevant. Chile fully 
agreed on what was expressed by the EU regarding Zespri 's export monopoly rights granted by t he 
New Zealand government. Without them Zespri would not be able to have the same importance it 
had in the current state of play. Therefore, in Chile's view, the NZ  government should ensure 
compliance of Zespri of the commitments of the Nairobi Decision on  STEs, and consider its impact 
on the international kiwifruit market. The European Union voiced strong support of Chile's 
intervention.  
7.13  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
7.13.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87009 ) 
The Russian Federation has notified that JSC Eximbank of Russia [REB] provides lending 
support towards exports and that REB provides export credit guarantees and related 
financial support. Could the Russian Federation clarify if any support provided by REB is 
"direct financing support" as defined by paragraph 13(a) of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Eximbank of Russia provides export credit guarantees and related financial support that corresponds 
with paragraph 13(b) of the Nairobi Decision on Export competition.   
7.13.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87058 ) 
Russian Federation State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.4  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 60 - 
 
 
  
 The Decree of the President of the Russian Federa tion of 20 March 2009 No.  290, 
establishes a number of functions and priority activities to "JSC United Grain 
Company"  (UGC) such as: increasing the volume of grain purchases and sales on the 
domestic market and increasing grain export volumes. According t o UGC's website, 
OOO OZK Yug is a subsidiary of UGC and carries out commercial activities for the purchase 
and sale of agricultural products of grain, oilseeds, and groceries on behalf of UGC.  
  
In June 2017 UGC signed a government -to-government contract for the supply of 300,000 
tonnes of Russian wheat between the Venezuelan Corporation for Foreign Trade 
CORPOVEX and OOO  OZK Yug.  
  
Please explain why the Russian Federation has not reported UGC and its subsidiaries as 
agricultural exporting STEs under the  Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
As it was mentioned previously in the framework of the Committee on Agriculture and the Working 
Party on State Trading Enterprises, United Grain Company (UGC) is not a state trading enterprise 
within the meaning o f the working definition set forth in the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XVII of GATT 1994, so there is no need to notify UGC to the WTO as an STE. The government 
of the Russian Federation has not granted to UGC exclusive or special rights or privileges, statutory 
or constitutional powers to exercise trade operations, including internal trade, export or import. 
UGC exercises these trade operations on the basis of equal agricultural market participant.  
7.14  THAILAND  
7.14.1   Question by the United States  of America (AG -IMS ID  87059 ) 
Thailand Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that Thailand responded to the 2016 Export Competition 
Questionnaire  (ECQ) by stating, "For Export Credit and Export Credit Guarantees, 
conditions and interest rate are determined by market mechanism". The Export -Import 
Bank of Thailand  (EBT), which is reported in Thailand's Trade Policy Review 
(WT/TPR/S/326/Rev.1) as a government -owned entity, has various export financing 
support programmes for agriculture was USD  365.0  million in 2015 and USD  481.3  million 
in 2016.13  
  
Noting that the  Ministerial Decision on Export Competition has no reference to measures 
being exempt from the commitments because of "market rates", please explain in further 
detail the basis for why Thailand considers EBT's export financing support activities to not 
be covered by the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
The Export Credit and Export Credit Guarantee programmes of the Export - Import Bank of Thailand 
are self -financing. Interest rates and conditions are determined by market mechanisms, in line with 
the Nairobi Decisions.  
7.15  TURKEY  
7.15.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87010 ) 
Turkey has notified export credit programmes operated by the Turk Eximbank. Some of 
these programmes appear to be direct financing support as defined by paragraph 13(a) 
of the Nairobi  Decision. Turkey also notes that the annual average fees/premium rates 
for these pr ogrammes in 2017 are not available. How does Turkey ensure that the annual 
average fees/premium rates per these programmes are not below those which the 
exporters would have to pay for the funds so employed (or would have to pay if they 
borrowed on interna tional capital markets in order to obtain funds of the same maturity 
 
13 The cu rrency conversion was calculated at an exchange rate of 36.05 TBH to 1 USD for 2015 and 
35.77 THB to 1 USD for 2016. See EBT's URL: 
http://www.exim.go.th/doc/en/about_e xim/EXIM_Annual_Report_2016_Eng.pdf  and 
http://www.exim.go.th/doc/en/about_exim/EXIM_Annual_Report_2015_Eng.pdf . G/AG/W/211  
 
- 61 - 
 
 
  
 and other credit terms and denominated in the same currency as the export credit) so 
that no prohibited export subsidies as defined in item  (k) of Annex  I to the Agreement on 
Subsidies an d Countervailing Measures are granted?  
 
As it is known, according to the item (k) of the Annex I (Illustrative Lists of Export Subsidies) of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), export credits granted at rates below 
the costs incu rred by financial institutions in obtaining credits/funds are regarded as prohibited 
export subsidies. In addition, item (j) of the Annex I states that export credit guarantee or insurance 
programmes at premium rates inadequate to cover long -term operating  costs and losses of 
programme are prohibited subsidies. In that regard, as all the export finance facilities are provided 
by Turk Eximbank at premium/interest rates higher than its operating and borrowing cost.  
7.15.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS I D 87135 ) 
The European Union notes that the total value of agricultural products covered by the 
Turkish export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes, increased by 
more than 45% from approximately 2.58 billion USD to approximately 3.74  billion  USD 
between 2016 and 2017 (G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2).  
  
a. What are the reasons for the signif icant increase in the value of agricultural 
products covered by export financing support between 2016 and 2017?  
b. Which are the major agricultural products covered by the Turkish export 
financing support?  
a. The reason for the increase is coherent with increase  in Turk Eximbank's  total credit and 
insurance volume in 2017. In addition, during the same period, the number of exporters 
benefiting from the insurance cover rose considerably.  
b. Available data regarding the sectoral distribution of export financing support  is generated 
according to the NACE codes of beneficiary exporter companies.  
7.15.3   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  87060 ) 
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
a. Please explain why the annual average premium rate for the export credit 
programme is "N.A." given that this programme supported USD 1.75 billion in 
agricultural p roducts in  2017.  
b. When does Turkey anticipate being able to provide the export destinations and 
programme use by product for its agricultural export financing programmes?  
a. As explained in the first section of Turkey's previous answer, Türk Eximbank does no t have 
a sector -specific financing facility and working capital needs of agricultural products and 
processed foods exporters are financed by different credit programmes with varying 
maturities.  
For that reason, agricultural and processed food exporters as sume the same cost of 
finance as the exporters of other products. In that regard, over the year of 2017, the 
average interest cost of Türk Eximbank domestic credit programmes varied from 6,09% 
to 14,15% in TL loans and from Libor/Euribor + 0,40% to Libor +  2,85/ Euribor + 3,10% 
for FX  loans according to their maturity. In addition to the interest cost, exporter 
companies have to pay commissions between 0,5 to 4,00% per annum for the letter of 
acceptance/guarantees they obtained from the commercial bank as c ollaterals required 
for the loan, leading to the final cost of export finance to become higher.  
b. As in the majority of the export credit programmes, the main aim is to provide finance for 
the working capital needs of exporter companies and loans are not tie d to a specific export 
transaction.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 62 - 
 
 
  
 7.16  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
7.16.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 87011 ) 
The Nairobi Decision in paragraph  25 states that Members are encouraged to provide 
non-emergency development food assistance where recipient countries or recognized 
international humanitarian/food entities, such as the United Nations, ha ve requested food 
assistance. In reply to the EU question in the 85th meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture asking the US to specify when and in which form have the recipient countries 
or international entities requested US non -emergency in -kind food ass istance, the US said 
that "The United States provides required information regarding food aid in its 
NF:1  notifications and its Export Competition Questionnaire submissions to the WTO". 
Given the absence of the reply to the EU question in both the U.S. NF: 1 notification and in 
the current Export Competition document, the EU would repeat its question: could the US 
specify when and in which form have the recipient countries or international entities 
requested US non -emergency in -kind food assistance as requir ed in paragraph 25 of the 
Nairobi Decision?  
 
The U.S. Congress annually appropriates funds for U.S. food assistance programmes, including non -
emergency, in -kind assistance. U.S. government agencies then solicit proposals for projects that 
address specific development or capacity building goals in foo d insecure locations. Prior to the 
solicitation, U.S. government officials discuss needs and possible projects with officials from potential 
recipient governments. Organizations that apply for funding are also encouraged to discuss projects 
with host -count ry governments and outline how projects fit with host -country priorities.  
7.16.2   Question by Norway (AG -IMS ID  87013 ) 
Question to the annual examination of export competition  
  
The US was a driving force behind the rapid implementation of phasing out of export 
subsidies from December 2015. Members like Canada, Switzerland and Norway had to 
implement a c onsiderable change in policies in order to comply with the Ministerial 
Decision. These Members have now all notified amended draft schedules for export 
subsidies.  
  
On the other hand, after more than two years, the US has still not submitted an amended 
draft schedule for export subsidies.  
  
When will the US submit the amended draft schedule for export subsidies?  
 
The United States is currently drafting an amended export subsidy schedule and remains fully 
committed to the Ministerial Decision.  
 
Follow -up: Switzerland reiterated the importance of implementing Nairobi Ministerial Decision by all 
Members and looked forward to receive further news from the United States.  
7.17  VIET NAM  
7.17.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 87061 ) 
Viet Nam Export Credit and State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2 and 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add. 4  
  
The United States notes that Viet Nam did not respond to the 2016 or 2017 export 
competition questionnaire (ECQ). According to Viet Nam's 2015 response, Vietnam 
Northern Food Corporation  (Vinafood 1) and Vietnam Southern Food Corporation 
(Vinafood 2) account for about half of Viet Nam's rice exports and Viet Nam remains one 
of the world's largest rice exporters. Further, the United States understands that both 
entities still maintain exclusive supplier status on government -to-government contracts 
for rice exports (WT/TPR/M/287/Add.1, page 150).  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 63 - 
 
 
  
 The United States also understands that Viet  Nam's Ministry of Finance appointed the 
Development Bank of Vietnam  (DBV) as the government guarantor; and currently, 
Vinafood 1 is exporting rice through a governm ent-to-government programme to Cuba 
with credit payment terms from 360  to 720 days.  
  
Vinafood 1 and Vinafood 2 appear to fall within the definition of SCM Article 1.1(a)1 and 
both entities provide export financing support within the definition of paragra ph 13(c) 
government -to-government credit agreements of the Nairobi Decision on Export 
Competition.  
  
Based on this and other information, it is the United States' understanding Viet  Nam 
should have responded to both the 2016 and 2017 ECQs.  
  
a. Please confi rm whether Viet Nam will be providing response for 2016 and 2017 
in the near future.  
b. If not, please explain why Viet Nam has not responded regarding its activities 
in 2016 and 2017 .  
c. If Viet Nam considers it no longer has relevant data to report, please explain the 
specific basis that Viet Nam no longer considers Vinafood 1 and Vinafood  2 as an 
agricultural exporting STE and does not consider export financing support 
activities of Vinafood  1 and Vinafood 2 as measures covered by the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition.  
Before May 2017, Viet Nam had several policies and regulations governing export credits, including:  
 
1) Decision 133 issued in 2001 by the Prime Minster (PM) on Regulation on e xport support credit, 
expired on 16 January 2017;  
 
2) Decree 151 issued in 2006 on investment and export credits by the government. Then the 
Decree was revised and replaced by several Decree such as Decree  75 issued in 2011 which also 
expired on May 2017  
 
In those policies and regulations, the objects for credit include exporters having export contract and 
foreign importers having contract to import goods under the list of export good eligible for export 
credits as stipulated under the Decree. The Decree also stipulated the conditions for lending, 
timeframe for the lending, interest rate and the repayment.  
 
Export credits as regulated before May 2017 in Viet Nam is applicable for all organizations and 
enterprises engaged in export activities, NOT only for State -Trade Enterprise.  
 
However, currently, Viet Nam has a new Decree 32 issued by the PM on Government Credit, effective 
from May 2017. There is no longer provision on credit support for export enterprises.  
 
For the ECQs (Export Competition Questionnaires), V iet Nam did submit the ECQ for 2016 (pls.  refer 
to its notification G/STR/N/15/VNM and G/STR/N/16/VNM). For the ECQ 2017, Viet Nam confirms 
that it will prepare and submit it to WTO Secretariat as soon as possible.  
8  COA MEETING 25 -26 SEPTEMBER 2018  
8.1  INDIA  
8.1.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88088 ) 
Export Subsidy - G/AG/W/12 5/Rev.9/Add.1 and Export Credit - 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that government of India through the Reserve Bank of 
India  (RBI), since 2015, has implemented the scheme: Interest Equalization Scheme on 
Pre- and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credi t for eligible exporters for agricultural G/AG/W/211  
 
- 64 - 
 
 
  
 products.  The rate of interest equalization is 3% and the scheme is available to certain 
exports, including 24 HS4 digit agricultural and food products.  
  
a. Is RBI lending to exporters of agricultural products while  providing at the same 
time interest rate support?  
b. Please explain in further detail how this measure is implemented by RBI, 
including the specific eligibility criteria for payments.   
c. Please explain how this measure complies with India's WTO commitments, and 
if directly lending is providing by RBI, why  this export financing support activity 
has not been reported as part of the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
India undertook to provid e a response at a later stage.14 
8.2  INDONESIA  
8.2.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88089 ) 
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 87054:  
  
Please provide responses to the export credit competition questionnaire (ECQ) with 
regards to any export financing support programmes being operated by the Indonesia n 
government -owned entities Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia (Indonesia 
EximBank) and PT Asuransi Ekspor Indonesia (ASEI)) , which are reported in Indonesia's 
Trade Policy Review (  WT/TPR/S/278/Rev.1 ). According to Indonesia EximBank's annual 
reports financin g for agriculture was USD  764.6 million in 2015 and USD  818.7 million 
in 2016.  
  
Indonesia would like to inform the Committee that the Ministry of Trade in coordination with 
EximBank and ASEI is still working on this matter. Indonesia would like to update this committee 
with required information once the work in Jakarta has been completed.  
8.3  JAPAN  
8.3.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  88090 ) 
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
Japan noted in response to questions posed by the Uni ted States in June that average 
annual repayment term, average premium rates and programme use by year are 
"unavailable because the IT  system is not built to extract such data" . What steps is Japan 
taking to collect the required information?  
  
The date of the average premium rates and annual average repayment period by programme is not 
available because the IT system is not built to extract such data. A re -modelling of the system is not 
planned.  
  
Follow -up: The United States regretted that Japan's response  remained unchanged from last year 
and looked forward to follow -up on this matter.  
 
14 See AG -IMS ID 89045 for a nswer by India.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 65 - 
 
 
  
 8.4  PAKISTAN  
8.4.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88091 ) 
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that on 11 June 2015 Pakistan incorporated the EXIM Bank of 
Pakistan as public limited entity and would provide export credit, supplier's credit, export 
credit insurance and export credit guarantees.  The United States also notes that the State 
Bank of Pakistan provides re -financing support to banks on their financing to exporters 
under the Export Finance Scheme  (EFS) and the Islam ic Export Refinance Scheme (IERS) 
for eligible commodities.  
  
Please explain the basis for not reporting the export financing activities of EXIM Bank of 
Pakistan and the State Bank of Pakistan.  
The EXIM bank has not yet started its operations. Pakistan is currently preparing its SCM notifications 
in consultation with relevant stakeholders and the same will be notified shortly.  
8.5  PARAGUAY  
8.5.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  88093 ) 
Export Credit - G/AG/W/12 5/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
Paraguay's National Development Bank (Banco Nacional de Fomento) and the Livestock 
Fund (Fondo  Ganadero), which are discussed in Paraguay's Trade Policy Review 
(WT/TPR/M/245/Rev.1), appear to fall within the definition of Article 1.1(a)1 o f 
the SCM.   
  
Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to 
agricultural -specific programmes, please explain why the National Development Bank and 
the Livestock Fund export financing support activities have not b een reported by Paraguay 
in response to the Export Competition Questionnaire.  
  
The United States points out that Paraguay has not reported its export financing support activities 
for agricultural products in the Committee on Agriculture's Export Competiti on Questionnaire 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2 ) intended for that purpose.  
  
The United States' question arises from the Secretariat report in Paraguay's trade policy review 
(WT/TPR/S/245/Rev.1 ), in which the Secretariat refers to the National Development Bank and the 
Livesto ck Fund in the section "Measures Directly Affecting Exports".  
  
The United States also notes that the measures fall within the definition of subsidy in 
Article  1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, namely that a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if "there is 
a financial contribution by a government or any public body within the territory of a Member (referred 
to in this Agreement as 'government') …". However, Article 3 (Part  II - Prohibited Subsidies), making 
an exception for the provisions of the Agreement on Agr iculture, prohibits subsidies contingent upon 
export performance or upon the use of domestic over imported goods.  
  
In the case of the programmes offered by the institutions mentioned in the question, if they were 
subsidies, they would fall within the scop e of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision, since the time -limits 
for the repayment of loans (12 months) are shorter than the maximum established in the Ministerial 
Decision (18 months ). 
  
It should also be noted that a number of the measures and programmes men tioned in the Trade 
Policy Review of Paraguay are currently being reviewed and updated because they have fallen into 
disuse. These include some of the programmes offered both by the Livestock  Fund and the National 
Development Bank.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 66 - 
 
 
  
 In the light of its co mmitment to transparency within the WTO, Paraguay is currently in the process 
of identifying pending notifications and questionnaires, and in so doing has requested the assistance 
of the Secretariat. Once this process has been completed, if the measures me ntioned in the question 
are deemed to constitute subsidies and are still being offered, they will be reported in the 
corresponding questionnaire.  
8.6  THAILAND  
8.6.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88094 ) 
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
In response to AG -IMS ID 87058 Thailand stated that "The Export Credit and Export Credit 
Guarantee Programs of the Export - Import Bank of Thailand are Self -financing and 
interest rates and conditions are determined by market mechanisms, in line with the 
Nairobi Decisions" . 
  
Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition does not exclude 
export financing support that a Member considers to be "Self -financing," that it is not 
limited to just agricultural -specific programmes, and that  there is no reference to being 
exempt from the commitments because of "interest rates and conditions are determined 
by market mechanisms,"  
  
On what specific basis does Thailand consider that the Nairobi Decision excludes the 
Export - Import Bank of Thail and 's export financing support activities?   
  
The export financing supports provided by the EXIM Bank are consistent with the terms and 
conditions under the Nairobi decision, which are self -financing and able to cover long -term operation 
and losses, charge risk -based premiums, and interest rates based on market mechanism.  
8.7  TURKEY  
8.7.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 88116 ) 
In the export competition questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided food aid. What 
is the basis for not reporting this food aid in Table ES:3?   
  
Turkey is planning to submit all ES notifications as a package together.15 
9  COA MEETING 26 -27 NOVEMBER 2018  
9.1  INDIA  
9.1.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89045 ) 
Export Subsidy - G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.1 and Export Credit - 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.9/Add.2  
  
India has not provided a response to the questions posed by the United States 
in AG-IMS ID 88088.  Thus, the United States repeats them here:  
  
The United States notes that government of India through the Reserve Bank of 
India  (RBI), since  2015, has implemented the scheme: Interest Equalization Scheme on 
Pre- and Post -Shipment Rupee Export Credit for eligible exporters for agricultural 
products.  The rate of interest equalization is 3% and the scheme is available to certain 
exports, including certain agricultural and food products.  
  
 
15 See AG -IMS ID 90084 for answer by Turkey.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 67 - 
 
 
  
 a. Is RBI lending to exporters of agricultural products while providing at the same 
time interest rate support?  
b. Please explain in further detail how this measure is implemented by RBI, 
including the specific eligibility criteria for payments.   
c. Please explain  how this measure complies with India's WTO commitments, and 
if direct lending is provided by RBI, why  this export financing support activity 
has not been reported as part of the Export Competition Questionnaire .  
The lending to the agricultural exporters under the scheme which provide interest equalisation 
support at 3% on pre - and post -shipment rupee export credit is done by the Banks. The Scheme is 
available to all MSME exporters and exporters under 416 specified tariff lines (list at 
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id= 10159 ) but excludes merchant 
exporters. This scheme is in the nature of working capital support, which is WTO compatible. 
Regarding second part of part (c) of the question please refer to India's response to 
question  AG-IMS ID 89059 (e).  
9.2  TURKEY  
9.2.1   Question by  the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 89046 ) 
Turkey has not provided a response to the que stion posed by the United States 
in AG-IMS ID 88116.   
  
In the export competition questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided food aid. What 
is the basis for not reporting this food aid in Table ES:3?  
  
There is no specific reason for not including Turk ey's food aid in ES:3 notifications. Turkey will make 
this notification together with other export subsidy notifications which are being prepared by its 
authorities.  
10  COA MEETING 26 FEBRUARY 2019  
10.1  INDIA  
10.1.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90082 ) 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89045,  India stated that the Interest Equalization Scheme on 
Pre and Post Shipment Rupee Export Credit for eligible exporters of agricultural products 
is "in the nature of working capital support".  
 
a. Please explain the basis for considering the Scheme a working c apital support 
program, including providing specific language from relevant official government 
document that supports this claim.   
It is the United States' understanding the Interest Equalization Scheme is an 
interest rate support programme. The Interest Equalization Scheme directly 
provides a 3% rebate in the rate of interest on export credits, which incentives 
and is contingent upon export.  
b. Please provide the total value of export of agricultural products by HS code 
covered by the Interest Equalization program from 2015 to 2018.  
a. As per relevant RBI's circular available on its website https://www.rbi.org.in/ , it clearly 
provides that the scheme is intended to make short -term working capital finance available 
to expo rters.  
b. Response will be provided  in due course.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 68 - 
 
 
  
 10.2  THAILAND  
10.2.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  90083 ) 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 88094:  
  
The United States understands Thailand to be expressing its view that the export financing 
support programmes administered by the Export -Import Bank of Thailand are consistent 
with the Nairobi Decision. The United States does not consider Thailand's statement of 
this position to be a substitute for the provision of information about such programs in 
response to questionnaires.  
  
The United States requests Thailand provide information on programs operated by the 
Export -Import Bank of Thailand for years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in a response to the 
WTO  Secretariat's annual export competition questionnaire.  
 
In order to fill in the export competition questionnaire, Thailand is in the process of gathering 
information from the Export -Import Bank of Thailand. As soon as Thailand gets the information 
required, Thailand will submit the response.  
10.3  TURKEY  
10.3.1   Question by  the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 90084 ) 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 89046 and AG -IMS ID 88116, the United States would like to 
reiterate the following question, for which Turkey has not provided a written answer:  
  
In the export competition questionnaire, Turkey reported having provided food aid.  What 
is the basis for not reporting this fo od aid in Table ES:3?  
 
Since 2016 Turkey provides food aid data for export competition questionnaire in line with the Nairobi 
Decision. Turkey is in the process of collecting food aid data for the period before 2016.  
11  COA MEETING 25 JUNE 2019  
11.1  ARGENTINA  
11.1.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91111 ) 
Export Credit  
 
a. Please update respon ses to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) with 
2017 and 2018 data for the Investment and Foreign Trade Bank (BICE).  
b. Please explain why Argentina responded "not applicable" in the ECQ, for 
questions 3 through 8, regarding the Bank of the Argentine Nation (BNA's) 
export financing activities.  
"The Bank of the Argentine Nation offers different lines of credit for exporters, with the aim of 
financing working capital and the investment necessary at the various stages of the export process, 
that is, prio r to and following shipment, such as: pre ‑export financing; financing for exporting 
enterprises; and short ‑, medium ‑ and long ‑term export financing. These credit lines are trade lines 
established by the Bank of the Argentine Nation with fixed criteria base d on financial market 
conditions (...).  
  
Given the above, it should be highlighted that none of these credit lines are part of the "Export 
Support Programmes". It is for this reason that Argentina responded "not applicable" for points 3 
to 8 of the questi onnaire.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 69 - 
 
 
  
 Lastly, please be informed that the criteria/requirements of the credit lines in question, and their 
beneficiaries, can be consulted on the website of the Bank of the Argentine Nation at: 
http://www.bna.com.ar . 
 
11.2  AUSTRALIA  
11.2.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91028 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
  
Export Credit  
  
The EFIC's 'Export Contract Loan", "Export Line of Credit", "Small Business Export Loan" 
and "Export Capital Working Guarantee" notified previously by Australia have been 
excluded from the answers to the Export Competition Questionnaire th is time.  
  
Can Australia explain how those instruments qualify under footnote 7 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision and therefore need not to be notified?  
 
Australia thanks the EU for the question and opportunity to provide an additional layer of 
transpare ncy with respect to its approach towards the Export Competition Questionnaire circulated 
on 25 October 2018. Australia conducted a thorough examination of its historical answers to export 
competition questionnaires to ensure our response was consistent wit h Australia's obligations under 
the Nairobi Decision. The origins of Australia's historical answers and programme coverage date 
back to broader transparency efforts prior to the Nairobi Decision. Footnote 7 of the Nairobi Decision 
stipulates that for the p urposes of paragraph 13 of the Nairobi Decision, export credits are those 
exports of products listed in Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture that do not include "working 
capital financing to the suppliers ". Working closely with Efic, the Department of F oreign Affairs and 
Trade examined the Export Contract Loan, Export Line of Credit, Small Business Export Loan and 
Export Capital Working Guarantee programs to ascertain if they fell within the scope of the Nairobi 
Decision. This examination identified that  those programmes provide only working capital financing 
to suppliers. Therefore, Australia established that those programmes fell outside of the scope of the 
Nairobi Decision and removed them from the response to the Questionnaire.  
11.3  BRAZIL  
11.3.1   Question by the  European Union (AG -IMS ID 91055 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Credit  
 
Concerni ng PROEX Direct Financing, Brazil informs that the repayment period is up to ten 
years. In case of exports to Cuba, the notified average repayment period in 2018 was 
34 months.  
 
Does Brazil agree that this does not conform with the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Brazil does not agree with this statement. Paragraph 17, footnote 11 of said Decision states that: 
"In the event that Cuba is a recipient Member in this situation, the time frame can be greater than 
54 months and any such monitoring and surveillance shall not  apply without the prior express 
consent of Cuba".  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 70 - 
 
 
  
 11.4  CANADA  
11.4.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID  91057 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Credit  
 
Concerning repayment terms for Buyer Financing – how would Canada ensure the 
compliance with the Nairobi Decision in case of a use of this instrument for the sale of 
agricultural products?  
 
Buyer Financing products are not available for the export sale of  agricultural products.  
11.4.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91112 ) 
Internatio nal Food Aid  
  
To date, Canada has not provided updated responses to question 2 of the ECQ. Please 
provide quantity and/or value of food aid provided in years 2017 and 2018 in the ECQ. If 
Canada cannot provide, please explain why.  
  
11.5  CHINA  
11.5.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91064 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Credit Data on Export Credit Financing has not been updated since 2016.  
When will China provide the missing information for 2017 and 2018?  
 
The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 are being prepared and will be 
submitted as soon as possible.16 
11.5.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91070 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
State Trading Enterprises  
 
When will China provide answers to the Export Competition Questionnaire concerning 
agricultural exporting STEs as notified to the WTO STE working party?  
 
The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 are being prepared and will be 
subm itted as soon as possible.17 
11.5.3   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91114 ) 
Expor t Credits  
  
Please provide data updates for the export credit section of the ECQ for years 2017 
and 2018, including the annual average premium rates/fees per programme and data on 
program use by product or product group. If China cannot provide updates, p lease explain 
why.  
 
The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 are being prepared and will be 
submitted as soon as possible.   
 
16 See AG -IMS ID 95122 for a nswer by China.  
17 See AG -IMS ID 95122 for a nswer by China.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 71 - 
 
 
  
 11.5.4   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91115 ) 
State Trading Enterprises  
  
a. Based on news sources, the United States understands that t he government of 
China plans to transfer the trading assets of Sinograin, which includes its 
stockpiles and oilseed crushing capacity, to COFCO Corporation. Please explain 
the rationale behind its restructuring of assets for its agricultural state trading 
enterprises.  
b. Please provide an update to China's STE section for years 2017 and 2018 in the 
ECQ, including average procurement and export prices. If China cannot provide 
updates, please explain why.  
a. We haven't got the news as quoted by the United States.  
b. The answers to the export competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 are being prepared 
and will be submitted as soon as possible.18 
11.5.5   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91117 ) 
China – International Food Aid  
  
The United States notes that in the last two years the China has not updated the export 
competition questionnaire's (ECQ) for  the international food aid section.  
  
a. Please provide an update on quantity and/or value of food aid provided in 
years  2017 and 2018, including product description of in -kind food aid and the 
value of cash -based food assistance.  
b. Please provide a descript ion of whether monetization and/or re -exports were 
permitted for years 2016, 2017 and 2018.  
a. Responding to the request by the recipient governments, the Chinese government 
provided emergency food aid through bilateral and multilateral channels such as the WFP, 
with the total value of 2  billion RMB.  
b. Monetization and/or re ‑exports were not permitted for food aid provided by the Chinese 
government.  
11.6  EUROPEAN UNION  
11.6.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91118 ) 
Export Credit  
 
a. The United States notes that several EU members have not responded to all the 
questions in the Export Competitio n Questionnaire (ECQ).  
i. Bulgaria indicated that the maximum and average repayment terms are "not 
applicable". Please provide more specifics about this programme. Please 
explain why these terms are "not applicable."  
ii. Denmark did not provide a total value fi gure for exports of agricultural 
products in 2016, 2017, and 2018, for the reinsurance programme. Please 
explain what steps Denmark is taking to gather this data.  Can France please 
 
18 See AG -IMS ID 92031 for answer by China . G/AG/W/211  
 
- 72 - 
 
 
  
 confirm that the average fee rate for Cuba is 2.4%, and the average fee rat e 
for Greece is 6.5%?  
b. As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 87050, the United States understands that Italy's 
SACE BT is a subsidiary of SACE S.p.A., and SACE S.p.A. is a subsidiary of Cassa 
Depositi e Prestiti, which is 80% Ministry of Economy and Finance, owned b y 
SACE. The United States notes the provisions on the Nairobi Decision apply to 
export financing support "provided by a government or any public body" as 
referred to in the Article 1.1(a)1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (SCM).  
i. The United States requests Italy provide information on programmes 
operated by SACE, SACE BT and any other SACE subsidiary that have export 
credit operations benefiting agricultural exports for years 2016, 2017, 
and 2018 in the ECQ.  
c. As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 87050 and Spain's Instituto de Credito Oficial (ICO). 
The United States notes that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition is not limited to just agricultural - specific programmes, programmes 
with subsidies or any other kind of ai d, or programmes where private institutions 
negotiate the specific conditions of each contract.  
i. The United States requests Spain provide information on export financing 
programmes operated by the ICO with respect to agricultural exports for 
years 2016, 20 17, and 2018 in the ECQ.  
a.  
i. Bulgaria confirms that no export financing support with a maximum repayment term 
beyond 18  months has been in operation in 2018.  
  
Bulgaria's reply to the Export Competition Questionnaire contains information on risk 
cover program  operated by the Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency, which does not 
involve any credit instruments. Hence repayment, respectively maximum repayment 
term and annual average repayment period, are not applicable.  
ii. The data is not yet available.  
iii. France. The EU can confirm, that in France, as indicated in its reply to the Export 
Competition Questionnaire, the average fee rates for Cuba and Greece are, 
respectively  2.4% and 6.5%.  
b. The EU will revert with an answer to this question.  
c. Spain reiterates its detailed rep ly previously provided on this issue. You can find further 
details under the provided link: https://www.ico.es . 
The Instituto de Crédito Oficial, a subsidiary credit institution of the State Secretariat for the 
Economy a nd Business Support, provides products within its short -term export facility (financing of 
up to 180 days) to small and medium -sized companies and self -employed, business to facilitate 
advance payment of invoices. The purpose of the financing granted throu gh this facility (short -term 
exporters) is the advance collection of invoices/pre -financing derived from Spanish companies' 
export activity to EU and the rest of the word.   
  
This financing is provided through private financial institutions that negotiate the conditions of every 
contract directly with the client, always bearing in mind some general guidelines approved by the 
General Board of ICO and the conditions which have be en signed through a contract  between ICO 
and private  financial institutions.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 73 - 
 
 
  
 The financing funds for these operations are raised by ICO directly in the capital markets.  Interest 
rates charged by ICO to private entities are therefore calculated on the ba sis of the market cost of 
financing. There are no subsidies or any other kind of aid. The private financial institution charges 
the client an additional intermediation margin that covers, among other risks, the risk of 
non‑payment. Private financial instit utions assume therefore 100% of the risk of financing and reflect 
this risk  in the final price to be paid by the client.  Therefore, the final cost is fully fixed according to 
market parameters.  
  
Private financial institutions are not obliged to provide th ese products but do so voluntarily.  
  
There is no specific product for the agricultural sector, although ICO presents sectorial statistics of 
its operations based on the information provided by private institutions. Companies are classified 
according to t he CNAE (Spanish National Classification of Economic Activities).  
  
ICO has a catalogue of facilities both in the domestic and international markets. The short -term 
export facilities are included in the catalogue of ICO facilities to support (by providing  financing) the 
internationalisation of Spanish companies. You can find this information  at: https://www.ico.es . 
  
Given that there are no government subsidies or any other kind of aid, that there are no sector -
specific programmes for agriculture, and that private institutions negotiate the specific conditions of 
each contract, these types of operations are not subject to reporting obligations established by the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
11.6.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91119 ) 
European Union – International Foo d Aid  
  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 87052, the United States notes that Austria and the 
Czech  Republic replied to the 2018 Secretariat's Questionnaire. However, the EU response 
still does not include a reply from several EU member States that are signator ies to the 
Food Assistance Convention (FAC) and/or the Organization for Economic Co -operation 
and Development (OECD), which have reported food aid donations in recent years.  
  
Please explain why some EU member States are not responding to the food aid sect ion in 
the Questionnaire.  
All EU member States with the exception of Luxembourg have duly replied to all sections of the  2018 
Export Competition Questionnaire. Which EU member States does the US have in mind?  
Follow -up: The US clarified that as per its un derstanding all the EU member States had 
made bilateral donations to World Food Programme and other International organizations 
and sought to understand why only two member States mentioned in the question had 
reported it in the Export Competition question naire.  
11.7  HONG KONG, CHINA  
11.7.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91120 ) 
Export Cr edit  
  
The United States understands that Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance 
Corporation  (HKECIC) offers export credit insurance for agricultural products. Hong Kong, 
China indicated that the average premium rate, maximum and average repayment terms, 
are " not applicable as no repayment of loans is involved."  
  
a. Please explain why these questions are "not applicable."  
b. Please provide a response to all the questions in the Questionnaire.  
The Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation (HKECIC) provides exporters with insurance 
protection against non -payment risks arising from commercial and political events. As the HKECIC G/AG/W/211  
 
- 74 - 
 
 
  
 only provides export credit insurance which does not involve repay ment of premiums, it is considered 
that information relating to the "maximum repayment terms " and "average repayment periods " are 
not applicable in this context. That said, for the sake of transparency, we have provided updated 
information on the annual average premium rate, as well as the maximum and typical credit period 
for export credit insurance policies to the Questionnair e. For instance, the annual average premium 
rate involving agricultural products is 0.41% for the financial year ending 31 March 2018. In the 
same financial year, the maximum credit period and the typical credit period for export credit 
insurance policies involving agricultural products are 180 days and 90 days or shorter respectively.  
11.8  INDIA  
11.8.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID  91072 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
State Trading Enterprises  
 
When will India provide answers to the Export Competition Questionnaire concerning 
agricultural exporting STEs as notified to the WTO STE working par ty?  
 
Members may refer to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, wherein 
developing Members have the flexibility of responding to the Questionnaire after 2020.   
11.8.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91073 ) 
Export Competition  Questionnaire  
 
India has not provided any answers to the Export Competition Questionnai re. 
 
When will India provide the information concerning Export Financing and agricultural 
exporting STEs?  
 
Members may refer to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, wherein 
developing members have the flexibility of respon ding to the Questionnaire after 2020.  
11.8.3   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91121) 
The United States requests that India respond to the export competition 
questionnaire  (ECQ) and come up to date on its export subsidy notifications.  
 
Members may refer to footnote 17 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, wherein 
developing Members have the flexibility of responding to the Questionnaire after 2020.  
11.9  INDONESIA  
11.9.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91071 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Subsidies  
 
Over three years after Nairobi, Indonesia did not provide its updated schedule. When will 
Indonesia comply with the commitments undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
 
Indonesia has continued the issuance process of Presidential Instruction intended to el iminate its 
export subsidy entitlement under Schedule XXI, which was delayed due to the holding of 
Indonesia's  2019 general election. We believe this process will be completed in the near future.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 75 - 
 
 
  
 11.10   KOREA, REPUBLIC OF  
11.10.1   Question by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 91123 ) 
International Food Aid  
  
The United States requests that the Republic of Korea come up to date on its ECQ 
submissions, including information on food aid. The United States understands through 
WFP and OECD reports that the Republic of Korea is a party to the Food Assistance 
Convention (FAC) and has provided food aid. Additionally , the United States understands 
from Asean Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve's (APTERR) press releases (posted here: 
https://www.apterr.org/news -events ) that APTERR has provided in -kind food aid in 
recent years.  
  
Please indicate  when the Republic of Korea will provide a response to the ECQ for 
years  2016, 2017 and 2018.  
 
Korea's ES no tification for 2018 including food aid performance and response to ECQ will be 
submitted in due course after the data collection.  
 
11.11   MALAYSIA  
11.11.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91069 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Credit  
 
Malaysia claims that maximum repayment terms per programme are of no relevance to 
the facilities offered by EXIM Malaysia, as they are based on commercial basis.  
 
Are there any guaranties involved in case of non repayment by the recipients of the loans?  
 
No.  
 
• Maximum repayment terms per programme is not applicable as there is no subsidy provided 
by EXIM bank. Facilities offered by EXIM Malaysia are based on commercial basis (e.g. lending 
terms based on market rate) rather than preferential rate due to su bsidies, grants or 
equivalent.  
• In carrying the Bank 's lending activities, it sources its funds from the Debt Capital Market and 
bilateral borrowings from various lenders.  
• As for Trade Financing, the tenure for Pre -Shipment is up to 120 days and for Post -Shipment 
is up to 180 days. As for Cross Border Financing facilities, the tenure of a loan can go as high 
as up to 10 years thus the repayment period commensurate with the tenure of the loan. 
Nevertheless, for financing of projects, gestation period may be a llowed subject to the Cash 
flow projection by the customer.  
11.11.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91124 ) 
Export Credit  
  
The United States understands Malaysia did not answer questions to 4 through 8 because 
fees are based on commercial rate, or based on market rate, or that there is no specific 
program by product or destination. Th e United States notes that the scope of the 
Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to just agricultural -specific 
programmes or to programmes that do not follow commercial/market rates.  
  
Please provide responses for all missing data in the Questionnaire.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 76 - 
 
 
  
 4. Annual average premium rates/fees per program  
 
• Credit insurance/Takaful is risk priced based and according to commercial rate.  
 
Additional Answer  
 
• EXIM Bank 's pricing is based on Risk Based Pricing Model (RBPM). Each application is given 
an internal rating based on the Operating Spread + Credit Spread. The Operating Spread 
consist of Cost of Borrowing, Base Rate (LIBOR or KLIBOR), Overhead Cost and Liquidity 
Cost. The Credit Spread is basically the rate EXIM Bank charge based on the obligor 's 
credit rating/standing.  
 
• Therefore, the all in rate that the Bank charges are basically between 5% to 7% for 
USD loans and 6% to 8% for MYR loans.  
 
• As for the Bank 's Credit Insurance/Takaful Product the assessment is based on several 
factors as w ell such as the exposure country, sales turnover, number of buyers, sum 
insured and others. For Short Term, the premium/wakalah fee ranges between 0.3% to 
1% as for Medium -Long Term the premium/wakalah fee ranges between 1.2% to 2.5%  
  
5. Maximum repayment terms per program  
 
• Not applicable as there is no subsidy provided by EXIM bank. Facilities offered by EXIM 
Malaysia are based on commercial basis (e.g. lending terms based on market rate) rather 
than preferential rate due to subsidies, grants or equivalent.  
 
• In carrying the Bank 's lending activities, it sources its funds from the Debt Capital Market 
and bilateral borrowings from various lenders.  
 
Additional Answer  
 
• As for Trade Financing, the tenure for Pre -Shipment is up to 120 days and for 
Post-Shipment is up to 180 days. As for Cross Border Financing facilities, the tenure of a 
loan can go as high as up to 10 years thus the repayment period commensurate with the 
tenure of the loan. Nevertheless, for financing of projects, gestation period may be  allowed 
subject to the Cash flow projection by the customer.  
  
6. Annual average repayment periods per program  
 
• Monthly repayment applies for Export credit, Export credit guarantee and credit insurance.  
 
Additional Answer  
 
• The average repayment for Trade Financing is between three  to six months. As for Cross 
Border  Financing, the average repayment term is between four to five years.  
  
7. Export destination or group of destinations per program  
 
• No specification in relation to destinations per program.  
 
Additional Answer  
 
• EXIM Bank as at 2017 is exposed to 87 countries across the globe.  
  
8. Program use by product or product group  
 
• No program by product or product group.  
 
Additional Answer  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 77 - 
 
 
  
 • EXIM Bank's product for Banking is divided into Trade and Cross Border Financing. As for 
Credit Insurance/Takaful, the product is divided into Short T erm and Medium -Long Term. 
For more detail information on the products, please visit: Home (exim.com.my) . 
11.12   NEW ZEALAND  
11.12.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91068 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Credit  
 
New Zealand reports that the maximum credit term for the Export Credit Guarant ee 
product offered by NZEC is 15 years.  
 
How does New Zealand ensure the respect of the Nairobi Decision and the maximum tenor 
length of 18 months in case of agricultural products?  
 
With all its programmes, New Zealand Export Credit (NZEC) complies with New Zealand's 
international trade obligations and other international guidelines as they apply to export credits. As 
a result, NZEC ensures compliance with the Nairobi Decision in respect to export credit support for 
agricultural products.  
11.13   PAKISTAN  
11.13.1   Questi on by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91125 ) 
State Trading Enterprises  
  
The United States notes Pakistan replied in the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) 
that it does not have an agricultural exporting STE. However, the United States 
understands that Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation (PASSCO) 
procures and  maintains reserves of wheat, and exports grain when called upon by the 
Government of Pakistan (GOP). For example, according to notification F 
No.4 -12/2014/DFSC -II/Wheat Export dated Islamabad 12th December 2018, decided to 
sell 0.5 million metric tonnes for Export from PASSCO's reserves. The Trading Corporation 
of Pakistan Ltd (TCP), which according to the TCP website is the "principal trading arm of 
the Government of Pakistan", appears to also expo rt agricultural products.  
  
Please explain the basis for not reporting PASSCO and TCP as agricultural exporting STEs.  
 
Pakistan Agricultural Storage & Services Corporation Limited (PASSCO) manages strategic wheat 
stocks and provides it to wheat deficit ar eas of KPK, Gilgit Baltistan, AJK and Baluchistan. PASSCO 
does not import and export commodities directly. Wheat was laid off in the domestic market through 
bidding as standard practice for stock management. In 2018 the bid price was slightly higher than 
the support price of wheat.  
 
TCP is not an exporting STE, it is only involved in the import of essential commodities to address 
food shortages. All of its operations are market based and carried out through tendering and bidding.  
 
11.14   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
11.14.1   Quest ion by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91126 ) 
Export Credits  
  
a. The United States not es that the Russian Export Center (RCE) operates a 
programme called "Compensation for export credits from commercial banks" 
that subsidizes interest rates on export credits provided by commercial banks, 
which includes transactions supporting agricultural p roducts, per Resolution of G/AG/W/211  
 
- 78 - 
 
 
  
 the Government of the Russian Federation No. 620 of 24 May 2017 and in 
accordance with Federal Law of 29 November 2018 No. 459 -ФЗ.  
i. Please describe this export credit programme and whether it should be 
reported in the export comp etition questionnaire (ECQ).  
ii. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing 
transactions for agricultural products in 2017 and 2018.  
b. The United States notes that according to the website of the Russian Agricultural 
Bank (Ro sselkhozbank), Rosselkhozbank provides trade financial 
products/services for the export of agricultural products.  
i. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank's trade financing activities should be 
reported in the ECQ.  
Information about such export financing su pport was submitted to the Secretariat.  
11.14.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID  91127 ) 
State Trading Enterprises  
  
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 87058, the Russian Federation stated that the "United Grain 
Company and subsidiaries (UGC) is not a state trading enterprise within the meaning of 
the working definition set forth in the Understanding on the Interpretation of Ar ticle XVII 
of GATT 1994".  
a. Please describe Russia's State Grain Intervention Fund (SGIF) and UGC's role in 
operating the SGIF.  
b. By which government authorities does UGC operate the SGIF?  
c. In what circumstances does UGC export grain?  
a. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation organizes purchasing of agricultural 
commodities to the State Intervention Fund and selling of these commodities from the 
Fund.  
b. The purchases and the sales are carried out through an agent selected by the Ministry. 
United Grain Company (JSC UGС) is currently sole government agent in grain purchasing 
and selling interventions.  
c. Grain interventions from the Fund carried out at market prices and thereafter these 
commodities can be traded both domestic and foreign markets. It should be emphasized 
that JSC UGС do not make export transactions associated with the Fund commodities.  
11.15   SWITZERLAND  
11.15.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91067 ) 
Export Subsidies  
  
Switzerland has modified its schedule to make it compliant with the Nairobi Decision on 
Export Competition. This has required the abolition of e xport subsidies provided so far on 
basis of the "Federal Law of 13  December  1974 on the import and export of processed 
agricultural products". In parallel, Switzerland has introduced direct payments to milk 
and cereal producers. The concerned amounts, equa l to the abolished export subsidies 
are transferred from the farmers via private funds to exporters of transformed products.  
  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 79 - 
 
 
  
 Would Switzerland agree that in the light of the ruling on Canada – Dairy, which defines 
the meaning of "financed by virtue of go vernmental action", this new arrangement is 
de facto  an export subsidy and as such in breach of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
We wish to thank the EU for its question. The revised law and accompanying measures comply with 
WTO law.  
  
First, the direct payments to milk and cereal producers to which the EU refers in its question are 
made wholly independently of exports. Second, the government is in no way involved in the private 
promotional measures that might be initiated and implemented by the food processing indus try. 
There is no comparison, therefore, between this situation and the Canada – Dairy case mentioned 
by the EU.  
11.16   THAILAND  
11.16.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91110 ) 
Thailand – State Trading Enterprises  
  
The United States notes that Thailand indicated in previous responses to the export 
competition questionnaire (ECQ) it does not h ave an agricultural exporting STE. However, 
as per Thailand's last notification to the Working Party in 2014, the Public Warehouse 
Organization (PWO) and Tobacco Authority of Thailand (TOAT) were STEs that engaged 
in the export of rice and tobacco respecti vely.  
 
a. Why does Thailand consider PWO and TOAT not to be agricultural exporting 
STEs?  
b. Have the PWO or TOAT involved in the export of rice or tobacco since the 
adoption of the Nairobi Decision?  
Thailand is collecting information from related agencies and we will submit the questionnaire to the 
Committee in due course.  
11.16.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91130 ) 
Export Credits  
  
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 90083 and 88094: the United States would like to reiterate 
the following questions to Thailand, since it has not provided a written answer. The United 
States understands Thailand to be expressing its view that the export financi ng support 
programs administered by the Export -Import Bank of Thailand are consistent with the 
Nairobi Decision. The United States does not consider Thailand's statement of this position 
to be a substitute for the provision of information about such progra ms in response to 
questionnaires.  
  
The United States requests Thailand provide information on programs operated by the 
Export -Import Bank of Thailand for years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in a response to the 
WTO  Secretariat's annual export competition question naire.  
 
Thailand has submitted additional information of the Export Credits questionnaire for the 
year 2016‑2018 to the WTO Secretariat on 24 June 2019.  
11.17   TURKEY  
11.17.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91065 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Credit  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 80 - 
 
 
  
  
From the information provided, the credits provided by Eximbank have a maximum tenor 
lengt h of seven  years. How does Turkey ensure the respect of the Nairobi Decision and 
the maximum tenor length of 18 months in case of agricultural products?  
 
In the Export Competition Questionnaire, Turkey indicated that credit programs' maximum 
repayment term s is maximum seven years. However, this period of seven years is valid for 
Eximbank's support programmes aiming financing domestic investments for export. The 
beneficiaries of these support programmes which cover all the sectors are our exporters. Thus, 
Turkey would like to make a correction on her answer for the Questionnaire. Turkey would like to 
underline that it is noted that the export credits defined in 7th footnote of the 13th paragraph do not 
include working capital financing to the suppliers in the  Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition. In this respect, Eximbank's support programmes that fall under the 7th footnote of the 
13th paragraph are not required to respect to the maximum repayment term of 18 months.  
11.17.2   Question by the European Uni on (AG -IMS ID 91066 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Export Subsidies  
 
Turkey has recently  submitted their due notifications up to 2009. Over three years after 
Nairobi, Turkey still did not provide its updated schedule. Notifications 2010 -1018 are 
also outstanding. When will Turkey comply with its obligations under the Nairobi Decision 
on Expor t Competition?  
 
In accordance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on Export Competition, Turkey's revised 
schedule was circulated through the document G/MA/TAR/RS/588 dated 18 June 2019. Turkey has 
submitted Table ES:1, ES:1 -Supporting Table and Table ES:2 notifications for the period 
of 2001- 2009. We are still working on the notifications for the following years and we hope to 
complete them very soon.  
11.18   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
11.18.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 91056 ) 
Export Competition Questionnaire  
 
Food Aid  
 
The information provided by the US within the framework of the Questionnaire and in 
answer to questions posed several times by the EU in the CoA concerning in -kind food aid 
does not prove compliance with paragraph 25 of the Nairobi Decision.  
 
Could the US  specify when and in which form have the recipient countries or international 
entities requested U.S. non -emergency in -kind food assistance as required by 
paragraph  25 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
The United States' Agency for International Development (USAI D) and the Department of 
Agriculture  (USDA) issue public solicitations for applications from private volunteer 
organizations  (PVO), international organizations (IO) and other eligible implementing partners for 
development/capacity building food assistance programs in select countries. Countries are selected 
for potential development food assistance programs based on a quantitative and qualitative 
evaluation of demographic and health information, market conditions, and food and nutrition security 
indicators.  These solicitations are designed in close consultation with host country governments. All 
implementing partners enter into a Host -Country Agreement, ensuring that program activities align 
with and support national food security agendas.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 81 - 
 
 
  
 11.19   URUGUAY  
11.19.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91122 ) 
Export Credits  
  
The United States notes t hat Uruguay responded "nil" to the export competition 
questionnaire (ECQ) in the past few years. Noting that the scope of the Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition is not limited to just agricultural -specific programmes:  
  
Please explain why Uruguay does not consider the State Insurance Bank (Banco de 
Seguros del Estado) and Bank of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay (Banco de la República 
Oriental de Uruguay) export financing support activities.  
 
The export financing regime continued to exist up until 2014. Pursuant to Decree No. 147/014 of 
23 May 2014, since 1 June 2014, no operations have been established under the export financing 
regime, which was regulated by Book III of the Compilation of Operating Rules of the Central Bank, 
except for a number of  products for which the deadline for the establishment of such operations was 
31 December 2014. Regarding the activities of the State Insurance Bank (BSE) and the Bank of the 
Eastern Republic of Uruguay (BROU), it is important to recall that, while both in stitutions are owned 
by the Government, they operate on a competitive basis within the framework of private law, and 
are not financed by the national budget. Thus, there are no Government programmes on export 
credits or export credit guarantees, or insuran ce programmes, which was why Uruguay responded 
"nil" ("There are no subsidies on export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes 
for the financing of agricultural exports in Uruguay") in the second section of its questionnaire.  
11.20   VIET NAM  
11.20.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 91109 ) 
Viet Nam – Export Credits  
  
The Uni ted States notes that Viet Nam has not updated its response to the Secretariat's 
Questionnaire since 2016 and has not provided data for export financing support program 
run by The Viet Nam Development Bank for years 2016, 2017 and 2018.  
  
When Viet Nam wi ll provide data updates for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to the ECQ? If 
Viet Nam cannot provide updates, please explain why?  
 
Regarding the reply on the Export Competition Questionnaire for the period 2016 -2018, Viet Nam is 
currently finalizing this question naire and will soon send the notification to the WTO.  
 
With respect to the activities of the Vietnam Development Bank (VDB), in accordance with Decree 
No.32/2017/NĐ -CP dated 31 March 2017 on State investment credit, since 15 May 2017 until now, 
VDB has no t provided any loans for export activities. For the previous period, the providing of loans 
extended to export contracts was in accordance with the Decree No.75/2011/N D-CP dated 
30 August  2011 on State investment credit and loans extended to export contracts. Accordingly, the 
lending interest rate would be reported by the Chairman of the VDB Board of Directors to the Ministry 
of Finance to announce on the principle of matching with the market interest rate; and enterprises 
must implement loan securit y measures in accordance with the government regulations on security 
transactions. Viet Nam confirms that these loans was provided completely on market basis, not a 
Government subsidy, and did not cause market distortion. According to the VDB statistics, t otal 
loans extended to export contracts in the agricultural sector disbursed in 2016 and 2017 were 
VND 2,833 billion and VND 75.77 billion respectively . 
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 82 - 
 
 
  
 12  COA MEETING 30 OCTOBER 2019  
12.1  CHINA  
12.1.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92031 ) 
At the June 2019 Committee on Agri culture, the United States requested that China 
provide data updates for the export credit section, agricultural exporting state trading 
enterprises and food aid sections of the ECQ for years 2017 and 2018. In AG ‑IMS ID 91115, 
China responded that "the exp ort competition questionnaire for 2017 -2018 is being 
prepared and will be submitted as soon as possible" . However, the Secretariat's document 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.11 and addenda  did not included updates to China's response sections.  
  
Will China submit its ECQ r esponses for years 2017 -18? If China will not provide updates, 
could China please explain its rationale?  
 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES  
 
No export subsidy has been provided for agricultural products since China's entry into the WTO 
in 2001.  
  
EXPORT CREDIT, EXPORT CRED IT GUARANTEES OR INSURANCE PROGRAMS (EXPORT FINANCING)  
 
I. Agricultural Development Bank of China  
The trade financing programs provided in the reporting period were all short -term working capital 
financing to the suppliers, which are not subject to the pro visions of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition.  
 
II. The Export -Import Bank of China  
The trade financing programs provided in the reporting period were all short -term working capital 
financing to the suppliers, which are not subject to t he provisions of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition.  
 
III. China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation (SINOSURE)  
The export credit insurance programs provided by SINOSURE are risk cover provided on regular 
commercial terms and conditio ns. 
In 2017, the total value of export covered by export insurance is USD 13.6 billion with the annual 
average premium rates/fees of 0.31% and annual average repayment period of 75 days per 
program. The exportation destinations include: United States  of Am erica;  Japan ; Hong Kong , China ; 
United Arab Emirates  and South Korea . 
In 2018, the total value of export covered by export insurance is USD 15.95 billion with the annual 
average premium rates/fees of 0.24% and annual average repayment period of 70 days per 
program. The exportation destinations include: United States  of America;  Japan ; Hong Kong , China ; 
Indonesia and South Korea . 
  
FOOD AID  
In response to the requests for emergency food aid by the pertinent recipient countries, China 
provided food aid with the total value of 2 billion RMB to relevant countries through both multilateral 
and bilateral channels from 2017 to 2018. The aid was pro vided both in cash and in -kind. All food 
was provided on fully granted basis. Monetization and re -export were not allowed.  
  
AGRICULTURAL EXPORTING STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES  
For relevant information, please refer to the notifications on state trading (G/S TR/N/16/CHN, 
G/STR/N/17/CHN) submitted by the Government of the People's Republic of China in July 2018.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 83 - 
 
 
  
 12.2  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
12.2.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 92032 ) 
The United States would like to repeat its question in AG -IMS ID 91126, as the Russian 
Federation has not provided a response. The United States notes that the Russi an Export 
Center (RCE) operates a programme called "Compensation for export credits from 
commercial banks" that subsidizes interest rates on export credits provided by 
commercial banks, which includes transactions supporting agricultural products, per 
Reso lution of the Government of the Russian Federation No 620 of 24 May 2017 and in 
accordance with Federal Law of 29 November 2018 No. 459 -ФЗ.  
 
a. Please describe this export credit programme and whether it should be reported 
in the export competition questionn aire (ECQ).  
b. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing 
transactions for agricultural products in 2017 and 2018. The United States notes 
that according to the website of the Russian Agricultural Bank (Rosselkhozbank), 
Rosselkhozbank provides trade financial products/services for the export of 
agricultural products.  
c. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank's trade financing activities should be 
reported in the ECQ.  
1. Description of the programme:  
  
Direct financing support;  any other form of governmental export credit support: The Government 
provides financing for JSC Russian Export Center to subsidize interest rates on export credits and 
other financing products similar to loan according to the Resolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation of 24 May 2017 No. 620. In 2017 -2018 credit resources have been used mainly for 
working capital financing.  
 
2. Description of export financing entity:  
  
JSC Russian Export Center is a development institution established by the Gov ernment of the Russian 
Federation to support the development of the non -commodity exports.  
 
3. Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees 
or insurance programmes and use per programme:  
 
Nil in 2017 ( do not include working capital financing). Approximately USD 5.5 million in 2018 (do 
not include working capital financing).  
 
4. Annual average premium rates/fees per programme: Information is not held.  
 
5. Maximum repayment terms per programme: 18 months.  
 
6. Annual average repayment periods per programme: Information is not held.  
 
7. Export destination or group of destinations per programme: Information is not held.  
 
8. Programme use by product or product group: Agricultural products.  
12.2.2   Question by t he European Union (AG -IMS ID 92044 ) 
Introduction of Export subsidies  
  
Press reports on 10 October 2019 state that President Putin signed into law amendments 
to the Budget Code permitting the disbursement of subsidies to exporters of alcoholic 
beverages.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 84 - 
 
 
  
 The current version of the Budget Code prohibits subsidies to producer s of goods subject 
to excise taxes, except producers of wines from domestic grapes. According to the new 
rules, producers of all alcoholic beverages will be eligible to receive export subsidies 
covering interest rate costs on loans.  
 
a. Can the Russian Feder ation list all the products that will be covered by both the 
existing and the new rules? For which export destinations will these rules apply?  
b. Can the Russian Federation please explain how these rules are in conformity with 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decisio n on export competition - WT/MIN(15)/45?  
There is no specific list of products covered both the existing and the new rules. It may or may not 
include such products in future, it is still under discussion. We should also mention that the Budget 
Codex of th e Russian Federation does not provide for any forms of exports subsidies including for 
those to the producers of wines from domestic grapes. In case of the development of any measures 
of state support the provision of Nairobi decision on export competition  prohibiting direct export 
subsidies will be followed. We note that the Russian Federation amends the Budget Code in line with 
the WTO Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
13  COA MEETING 28 JULY 2020  
13.1  CHINA  
13.1.1   Question by the United States of America (AG-IMS ID 93024 ) 
The United States thanks China for the transparency provided in responding to the export 
competition questionnaire.  
  
As a follow up to AG ‑IMS ID 92031, China stated that SINOSURE export insurance 
programmes covered a total value of USD 13.9 billion, USD 13.6 billion and 
USD 15.95  billion of agricultural products exports in calendar years 2016, 2 017 and 2018 
respectively.  
  
Please provide the programme use (i.e., the total value of exports) by product or product 
group (i.e., agricultural products) from 2016 to 2018.  If China is unable to provide this 
data at this time, please explain if China is t aking steps to provide this data after the end 
of 2020 when the Nairobi  Decision Annex should be fully adopted by all Members.  
 
China will provide relevant data as required by the Decision.  
 
13.2  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
13.2.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93175 ) 
The United States thanks the Russian Federation for the transparency provided in 
respond ing to the export competition questionnaire.  
 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 92032, the United States would like to repeat question (c) as 
the Russian Federation has not provided a written response:  
 
The United States notes that according to the website of the Russian Agricultural Bank 
(Rosselkhozbank), the bank provides trade financial products and services for the export 
of agricultural products. Please explain whether Rosselkhozbank's trade financing 
activities should be reported in the ECQ.  
 
As it was no ted in the ECQ, in accordance with the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian  Federation of 24 May 2017 No. 620 the Government provides subsidy for JSC Russian Export 
Center for compensation interest rates on export credits and other financing product s similar to loan. 
RosSelkozBank as an authorized bank provides financing, such as export credit, to borrowers under 
the funding agreement. JSC Russian Export Center compensates interest rates on export credits and G/AG/W/211  
 
- 85 - 
 
 
  
 other financing products similar to loan for an authorized bank under agreement for payment of 
compensation afterwards.  
13.3  THAILAND  
13.3.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 93176 ) 
The United States thanks Thailand for the transparency provided in responding to the 
export competition questionnaire.  
 
The United States noted in Thailand's ECQ response that Export -Import Bank of Tha iland 
(EXIM Thailand) covered a total value of THB 5,282.49 million (USD 147.7 million), 
THB 8,322.5 million (USD 246.1 million), and THB 13,732.3 (USD 424.5 million) of 
agricultural product exports in calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.  
 
Can Thailand please provide the programme use (i.e., the total value of exports) by 
product or product group (i.e., agricultural products) from 2016 to 2018.  
 
The list of agricultural products covered by Export Credits and Export Credit Insurance Programmes 
were stated in the notification G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.2. For further information, please visit EXIM 
Bank's website at https://www.exim.go.th/th/Home.aspx . 
13.4  VIET NAM  
13.4.1   Question by the United States of Americ a (AG -IMS ID 93142 ) 
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 91109 on export competition for whi ch Viet Nam 
has not provided a written response:  
The United States notes that Viet Nam has not updated its response to the Secretariat's 
Questionnaire since 2016 and has not provided data for export financing support 
programs run by The Vietnam Developmen t Bank for years 2016, 2017 and 2018. When 
will Viet Nam provide data updates for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 to the ECQ? If Viet Nam 
is not able to provide this data, please explain why.  
Regarding the reply on the Export Competition Questionnaire for the p eriod 2016 -2018, Viet Nam is 
currently finalizing this questionnaire and will soon send the notification to the WTO.  
 
With respect to the activities of the Vietnam Development Bank (VDB), in accordance with Decree 
No.32/2017/NĐ -CP dated 31 March 2017 on State investment credit, since 15 May 2017 until now, 
VDB has not provided any loans for export activities. For the previous period, the providing of loans 
extended to export contracts was in accordance with the Decree No.75/2011/NĐ -CP dated 
30 August  2011 on State investment credit and loans extended to export contracts. Accordingly, the 
lending interest rate would be reported by the Chairman of the VDB Board of Directors to the Ministry 
of Finance to announce on the principle of matching with the market i nterest rate; and enterprises 
must implement loan security measures in accordance with the government regulations on security 
transactions. Viet Nam confirms that these loans was provided completely on market basis, not a 
Government subsidy, and did not ca use market distortion. According to the VDB statistics, total 
loans extended to export contracts in the agricultural sector disbursed in 2016 and 2017 were 
VND 2,833 billion and VND 75.77 billion respectively.  
14  COA MEETING 22 SEPTEMBER 2020  
14.1  ARGENTINA  
14.1.1   Questi on by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95118 ) 
Export Credit  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 86 - 
 
 
  
 The United States notes t hat Argentina did not provide updates since 2018.  Please update 
responses to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) with 2018 and 2019 data for 
the Investment and Foreign Trade Bank (BICE).   
 
COA – Export Competition Questionnaire 2020  
  
BANK OF THE AR GENTINE NATION  
 
1. Description of the programme (classification within the following categories: direct financing 
support, risk cover, government to government credit agreements or any other form of 
governmental export credit support) and relevant legislat ion.  
 
Regarding the Export Competition Questionnaire during 2020 the Bank of the Argentine Nation does 
not participate in any form of governmental export credit support programmes.  
 
2. Description of Export Financing Entity  
The Bank of the Argentine Nati on does not participate in export credit support programmes.  
3. Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees 
or insurance programmes and use per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Na tion does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
4. Annual average premium rates/fees per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit su pport programmes.  
5. Maximum repayment terms per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
6. Annual average repayment periods per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
7. Export destination or group of destinations per programme  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not par ticipate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
8. Programme use by product or product group  
Not applicable, as the Bank of the Argentine Nation does not participate in any form of governmental 
export credit support programmes.  
INVES TMENT AND FOREIGN TRADE BANK (BICE)  
1. Description of the programme (classification within the following categories: direct financing 
support, risk cover, government to government credit agreements or any other form of 
governmental export credit support) a nd relevant legislation  
Direct financing support.  
2. Description of Export Financing Entity  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 87 - 
 
 
  
 Investment and Foreign Trade Bank S.A.  
3. Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees 
or insurance programmes  and use per programme  
USD 141,078,295.09  
4. Annual average premium rates/fees per programme  
10.25%.  
5. Maximum repayment terms per programme  
360 days.  
6. Annual average repayment periods per programme  
180 days.  
EXPORT DESTINATION OR GROUP OF DESTINATIONS PER PROGRAMME  
PROGRAMME: DIRECT FINANCING SUPPORT  
COUNTRY  PERCENTAGE  
Algeria  1.13 
Australia  0.28 
Belgium  1.98 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  0.85 
Brazil  23.80  
Bulgaria  0.28 
Canada  2.27 
Chile 4.25 
China  3.68 
Colombia  0.57 
Comoros  0.28 
Croatia  0.57 
Denmark  0.28 
Dubai  0.28 
France  0.57 
Germany  4.82 
Hong Kong, China  0.28 
India 1.42 
Indonesia  0.28 
Ireland  0.28 
Israel  0.85 
Italy 1.98 
Japan  0.85 
Netherlands  5.38 
New Zealand  0.28 
Paraguay  1.98 
Peru 0.85 
Philippines  1.70 
Poland  1.13 
Portugal  1.42 
Russian Federation  2.55 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  1.13 
South Africa  0.85 
Spain  1.70 
Switzerland  0.28 
United Arab Emirates (Dubai)  0.28 
United Kingdom  1.42 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 88 - 
 
 
  
 COUNTRY  PERCENTAGE  
United States  of America  23.51  
Uruguay  3.40 
Viet Nam  0.57 
 
PROGRAMME USE BY PRODUCT OR PRODUCT GROUP  
PROGRAMME: DIRECT FINANCING SUPPORT  
PRODUCT (CHAPTER TARIFF NOMENCLATURE)  PERCENTAGE  
2 - Meat and edible meat offal  6.80 
4 - Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products…  3.68 
5 - Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included.  0.28 
7 - Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers.  8.78 
8 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons.  20.68  
9 - Coffee, tea, maté and spices.  6.52 
10 – Cereals  7.37 
11 - Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten.  2.27 
12 - Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; 
industrial or medicinal plants; straw and fodder.  4.82 
15 - Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their cleavage products; prepared 
edible fats...  0.85 
16 - Preparations of meat, of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic 
invertebrates.  0.57 
17 - Sugars and sugar confectionery.  1.13 
19 - Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks' products.  1.70 
20 - Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants.  12.18  
21 - Miscellaneous edible preparations.  0.85 
22 - Beverages, spirits and vinegar.  10.76  
23 - Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder.  2.83 
24 - Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes.  1.70 
33 – Essential oils and resinoids; Perfumery, cosmetic or toilet preparations  0.28 
38 – Miscellaneous chemical products  0.28 
41 - Raw hides and skins (other than furskins) and leather.  4.25 
51 - Wool, fine or coarse animal hair; horsehair yarn and woven fabric.  1.13 
52 – Cotton.  0.28 
 
14.2  AUSTRALIA  
14.2.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95120 ) 
State Trading Enterprises  
 
Regarding its notification of The Rice Marketing Board for th e State of New South Wales' 
STE activity, would Australia please provide the average exported price and the average 
representative domestic sales price for rice in marketing years 2015/2016 to 2018/19?  If 
Australia cannot provide this information, please e xplain why not.   
 
Official statistics on rice exports from Australia are not available due to confidentiality concerns. A 
description of the process used to come to that decision is available on the ABS website . That said, 
the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Science (ABARES) does  create 
estimates of rice export volume and value. Those estimates for the referenced reporting periods 
(Financial Year = 1 July - 30 June) are available on the ABARES website  and are notified as part of 
Australia 's STE notifications. Australia 's latest STE notification (G/STR/N/17/AUS) includes data for 
2015-16 through 2017 -18. Australia 's STE notification for the latest reporting period is being 
prepared for submission.  
 
The NSW Rice Marketing Board 's vesting and export arrangements apply only to rice produced and 
exported from the State of New South Wales. Rice produced in Australia 's other States and 
Territories are not subject to NSW legislation or the Rice Marketing Board 's vesting and export 
arrangements.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 89 - 
 
 
  
  
The NSW Rice Marketing Board has no privileges on rice imports - rice may be imported into and 
marketed in Australia, including into the State of New South Wales, by any entity and without any 
seasonality restrictions. Australia 's rice import market is fully liberalised, with all goods under HS 
code 1006 enjoying a 0% applied tariff rate. Given the openness of Australia 's domestic rice market 
and operation of  market -based forces on domestic prices, the capture of domestic sales price data 
is not prioritised in published government statistics.  
 
Rice is a relatively minor crop in Australia and contributed around 0.4% of the total value of 
Australia 's agricultur al production in 2017 –18. Australian farmers harvested approximately 57,000 
tonnes of rice for the 2019 –20 crop.  
 
Australians are estimated to consume about 300,000 tonnes of rice every year. Normally, about half 
of this volume comes from imports (mostly long grain rice, such as basmati and jasmine) and the 
other half from domestic production (mostly medium grain rice). Annual rice imports between 
2009-10 and 2018 –19 averaged 173,000 tonnes. However, given the current production levels, 
Australia h as had to rely even more on rice imports for domestic consumption. Australia 's imports 
represent 0.4% of world rice trade, meaning that changes in Australian import volumes result in no 
material change to world markets, noting that rice imports into Austra lia are fully liberalised and 
subject to global market forces, along with demand for numerous rice varieties that are not produced 
in Australia.  
 
Australia is a small exporter of mostly medium grain rice, representing around 5% of global medium 
and short grain rice exports and 0.4% of total global rice exports in 2019. This very small share of 
global rice exports means that Australia 's rice exports – as traded by the NSW RMB – have no 
influence over the world price of rice. Australia is a price taker. As s uch, Australian exports are fully 
subject to market forces and competition from major exporters of similar rice varieties, such as the 
United States and China.  
14.2.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95119 ) 
Australia – Follow up to question AG-IMS ID 94048 - Australia's International Freight 
Assistance Mechanism  
 
In its reply to question AG-IMS ID 94048 Australia has referred to its response to a 
question posed by Canada. This reply provides useful background information on the 
reasoning behind the establishment of IFAM. However, it does not clarify the doubts 
expressed by the EU in its question.  
 
As pointed at in question AG-IMS ID 94048, IFAM appears to be an export subsidy as 
defined in Article  9.1 (d) of the Agreement of Agriculture, which covers "the provision of 
subsidies to reduce costs of marketing exports of agricultural products (other t han widely 
available export promotion and advisory services), including handling, upgrading and 
other processing costs and the costs of international transport and freight". For Developed 
WTO  Members such as Australia, paragraph 6 of the Nairobi Ministeria l decision of 
19 December (WTO document WT/MIN(13)/40) provides for the elimination of export 
subsidies as of the date of the adoption of that Decision.  
 
a. Australia was among the strongest supporters of tightening the disciplines on 
export competition, and in fact, the first Member to modify its Schedule to comply 
with Nairobi.  
Can Australia explain how the IFAM respects its WTO obligations on agricultural export 
subsidies as set out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and the Agreement on Agriculture, 
as we ll as in its own Schedule?  
 
b. For how long will this export subsidy continue?   
IFAM is a temporary, targeted and proportionate emergency measure to try to keep open a critical 
number of pre -COVID -19 international airfreight supply chains into and out of Aust ralia. Australia is 
continually and judiciously monitoring the market for airfreight, which is heavily reliant on G/AG/W/211  
 
- 90 - 
 
 
  
 international passenger flight activity including on individual routes,  and will cease IFAM assistance 
on specific routes once the market re -adjusts .  
14.3  BRAZIL  
14.3.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95121 ) 
Brazil - Schedule update following Nairobi  
 
Over four years after Nairobi, Brazil did not provide its updated schedule. When will Brazil 
comply with the commitments undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
 
Although Brazil has not yet circulated an updated version of Part IV,  Section II of its Schedule of 
Concessions, Brazil has never used its rights to provide export subsidies for agricultural products, 
hence Brazil is in fulfilment of its obligations pursuant to the 2015 Ministerial Conference.  
 
The evaluation of the Nairobi  Decision by the National Congress, a constitutional requirement, was 
hampered by the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic, but the issue remains a priority for the 
Brazilian government. We aim at providing an updated version of Brazil's schedule of concessio n in 
the near future.  
14.4  CHINA  
14.4.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95122 ) 
China – outstanding replies to questions AG-IMS ID 91064 and AG-IMS ID 91070  
 
The EU would like to reiterate its questions AG-IMS ID 91064 and AG-IMS ID 91070 posed 
within the framework of the previous dedicated Session on Export Competition to which 
China  did not provide yet a reply:  
 
a. AG-IMS ID 91064: Data on Export Financing has not been updated since 2016. 
When will China provide the missing information for 2017 and 2018?  
b. AG-IMS ID 91070: When will China provide answers to the Export Competition 
Question naire concerning agricultural exporting STEs as notified to the WTO STE 
working party?  
According to the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted by the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in 2015, developing Members shall implement the Annex to the De cision no later than 
five years following the date of adoption of the Decision. China will provide relevant information as 
required from 2021.  
 
14.4.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95123 ) 
Export Credit  
 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 92031, the United States notes that China responded 
with 2017 and 2018 data.  However, the United States  notes that the 2020 ECQ did not 
include this notification update of China's export financing programs.   
 
a. Please update the 2020 ECQ with 2017, 2018 and 2019 data.   
b. Please explain what steps China is taking to provide programme use by product 
or product gr oup for SINOSURE.  
According to the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted by the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in 2015, developing Members shall implement the Annex to the Decision no later than 
five years following the date of adoption of the Decision. China will provide relevant information as 
required from 2021.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 91 - 
 
 
  
  
14.4.3   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95124 ) 
Food Aid  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 92031, China states that it "provided food aid with the total 
value of 2 billion RMB to relevant countries through both multilateral and  bilateral 
channels from 2017 to 2018" . 
 
Please provide the quantities of in -kind food aid provided by commodity and the values of 
all untied cash -basis food aid for each specific year.  If this information cannot be 
provided, please explain why not.  
 
The d ata is being collected.  
 
14.4.4   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95125 ) 
State Trading Enterprises  
 
a. For each exported product listed in the ECQ, please provide the average exported 
price, average procurement price, and the average representative domestic sales 
price for marketing years 2015 to 2017.   
b. If unable to provide, pleas e explain why not.  
c. Please list the export destination for rice and tobacco for year 2017; and for corn 
and cotton for years 2016 and 2017. If China cannot provide this information, 
please explain why not.  
d. Finally, please update the 2020 ECQ with 2018 and 2 019 data.  
According to the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted by the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in 2015, developing Members shall implement the Annex to the Decision no later than 
five years following the date of adoption of the Decisio n. China will provide relevant information as 
required from 2021.  
 
14.4.5   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95143 ) 
Canada notes that information for Item #3 – total value of export of agricultural products 
covered by export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes and use per 
programme has been provided for years 2015 – 2016 for programmes u nder the 
Agricultural Development Bank of China and the Export Import Bank of China.  
 
Could China indicate when it will provide more recent data?  
 
According to the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted by the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference in  2015, developing Members shall implement the Annex to the Decision no later than 
five years following the date of adoption of the Decision. China will provide relevant information as 
required from 2021.  
 
14.5  COLOMBIA  
14.5.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95126 ) 
Colombia – Follow up to question AG -IMS ID 93183 – Sugar Fund  
 
Colombia's reply to question AG -IMS ID 93183 is not complete. Could Colombia provide 
data for the three latest marketing years, 2017, 2018 and 2019 on:  
 
a. total payments made from the sugar fund for the export of sugar.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 92 - 
 
 
  
 b. The average amount per tonne of sugar paid into the fund f rom sugar sold on the 
Colombian market.  
c. It seems that due to the nature of the fund and the government's involvement in 
the establishment and its role in the committee, FEPA could be seen as a de facto  
export subsidy as referred to in Article 9.1 (c) of t he WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture (AoA). To the extent that the reference price is higher than the 
average export price, the resulting compensation paid to exporters could be 
qualified as an export subsidy even if this result is not intended.  
d. Can Columbia ex plain how it is planning to ensure compliance of FEPA with the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
14.6  EUROPEAN UNION  
14.6.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95127 ) 
Bulgaria – Export Credit  
 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, United States notes Bulgaria did not respond to 
maximum repayment terms and the annual average repayment periods in the 
2020  ECQ notification.   
 
a. Please update the ECQ with maximum terms and annual average repayment 
periods.   
The EU would note that the question is identical in substance to the  one received  from the US last 
year, and to which respons e has been duly provided in 2019.  
 
The Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency (BAEZ) reconfirms that its risk cover programme operated 
included in the EU's reply to the WTO questionnaire does not involve any credit instruments. Hence 
repayment, respectively max imum repayment term and annual average repayment period, are not 
applicable. In consequence items 5 and 6 of Bulgaria's input (page 18 of WTO document 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.2 refers) does not require an update.  
 
14.6.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95128 ) 
Denmark – Export Credit  
 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, the United States notes that Denmark has not updated 
data on its reinsurance program.   
 
a. Please explain what steps Denmark is taking to provide this data.  
 
The EU would note that the question is identical in substance to the  one received  from the US last 
year, and to which response has been duly provided in 2019.  
 
The Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency (BAEZ) reconfirms that its risk cover programme operated 
included in the EU's reply to the WTO questionnaire does not involve any credit instruments. Hence 
repayment, respectively maximum repayment term and annual average repayment period, are not 
applicable. In consequence items 5 and 6 of Bulgaria's input (page 18 of WTO document 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.2 refers) does not require an update.  
 
14.6.3   Question by the United State s of America (AG -IMS ID 95129 ) 
Italy - Export Credit  
 
The United States thanks Italy for the transparency it provided in responding to the ECQ 
by providing 2019 data for SACE Spa.  
 
a. Please provide 2016, 2017 and 2018 data for SACE Spa as well.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 93 - 
 
 
  
 b. The United States notes that in the SACE SIMEST 2018 annual report, credit 
insurance operations abroad totalled  EUR 0.8 billion where the sector for 
agri-food accounted for 10.9% of this total.   
i. Please explain why SACE subsidiaries such as SIMEST are not being reported 
in the EU's ECQ.   
a. 2016 
Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programs and use per program: EUR 2,764,211. 
 
Annual average premium rates/fees per program: 1.26% . 
 
Maximum repayment terms per program: 18 mon ths. 
 
Annual average repayment periods per program: 10 months . 
 
Export destination or group of destinations per program: Albania ; Algeria ; Armenia ; Brazil ; Chile; 
Cuba; China ; India; Israel ; Lebanon ; Malaysia ; Mexico ; Russia n Federation;  Saudi Arabia , 
Kingdom  of; Thailand ; Turkey, U nited Arab Emirates . 
 
Program use by product or product group: Insurance Policy "Supplier Credit" . 
 
2017 
 
Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programs and use per program: EUR 4,240,115. 
 
Annual average premium rates/fees per program: 1.19% . 
 
Maximum repayment terms per program: 18 months . 
 
Annual average repayment periods per program: 10.5 months . 
 
Export destination or group of destina tions per program: Algeria ; Brazil ; China ; Greece ; India; 
Indonesia ; Israel ; Lebanon ; Mexico ; Russia n Federation;  Saudi Arabia,  Kingdom of ; Serbia ; 
Thailand ; United Arab Emirates.  
 
Program use by product or product group: Insurance Policy "Supplier Credit" . 
 
2018 
 
Total value of export of agricultural products covered by export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programs and use per program: EUR 2,040,496. 
 
Annual average premium rates/fees per program: 1.14% . 
 
Maximum repayment terms per program: 18 months . 
 
Annual average repayment periods per program: 10.5 months . 
 
Export destination or group of destinations per program: Algeria ; Brazil ; China ; India; Indonesia ; 
Mexico ; Russia n Federation;  Saudi Arabia , Kingdom of ; Serbia ; Thailand ; United Arab Emirates.  
 
Program use by product or product group: Insurance Policy "Supplier Credit" . 
 
b. SACE is a joint stock company fully owned by Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (which in turn is 80% 
Ministry of Economy and Finance). As an Export Credit Agency, S ACE also benefits from the state 
guarantee on its commitments. Hence, SACE 's activities could be qualified as official support. 
However, the transactions examined by the US do not refer to SACE, but to its subsidiary SACE BT.  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 94 - 
 
 
  
 SACE BT, a wholly owned subsid iary of SACE Spa, is a market operator that applies market prices 
in a fully competitive regime with other operators. It does not benefit from state funds or from state 
counter -guarantee on its commitments. Further, it is supervised by ISVAP and it is subj ect to the 
regulation of the sector like any other private insurer.  
 
SACE BT covers short -term transactions (under 24 months) not subject to the rules of the OECD 
arrangement nor to notification obligations as it does not fall under the categories of publ ic body 
under the ASCM Agreement and is thus not covered by the Nairobi Decision either.  
 
i. In its export financing support activity SIMEST has not been requested to support agricultural 
products.  
14.6.4   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95130 ) 
Spain – Export Credit  
 
As a follow -up to AG -IMS ID 91118, United States reiterates that the Dec ision on Export 
Competition is not limited to just agricultural -specific programs.   
 
a. Please provide information for ICO export financing programs for agriculture 
that are in non -specific sector programs.   
The information will be provided once available.  
 
14.6.5   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95131 ) 
Food Aid  
 
The United States notes the European Union provided an ECQ food aid notification for 
Austria, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Sweden. However, the United States noted that the 
EU did not provided a response for the European Commission and for several other 
member states such as Denmark, Finland, France, Luxemburg, and Spain, which are all 
members of the Food Assistance Convention.  
 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 91119, 87052 and 84122, can the EU and the later mentioned 
member States please provide the total val ue of untied cash -based food aid for all 
non-notified years. If the information cannot be provided, please explain why not.   
 
European Commission: Please refer to EU NF:1 Notifications - G/AG/N/EU/60.  
 
Finland: Finland provided cash contributions ( EUR million) to the Word Food Program in the 
years  2014-2019 as follows:  
 
2014: 20,0 
2015: 22,9 
2016: 28,5 
2017: 20,7 
2018: 13,0 
2019: 13,0 
 
The remaining data will be communicated once available.  
 
14.7  INDIA  
14.7.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95132)  
India – outstanding reply to question AG -IMS ID  92007  
 
The EU would like to remind India, that its reply to point (c) of question AG -IMS ID  92007 
is still outstanding.  
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 95 - 
 
 
  
 "c. Can India indicate the quantity of sugar exported during the 2018/19 marketing year 
(total and with subsidies) and the total amount spent on subsidy for these exports (by 
both national and provincial authorities)."  
 
Export data of sugar can be accessed from: https://commerce -app.gov.in/eidb/   
 
Other required information will be submitted in India 's ES:1 notification.  
 
14.8  INDONESIA  
14.8.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95133 ) 
Indonesia – Schedule update following Nairobi  
 
Over four years after Nairobi, Indonesia did not provide its updated schedule. When will 
Indonesia comply with the commitments undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?  
 
14.9  ISRAEL  
14.9.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95007 ) 
State Trading Ent erprises  
 
Can Israel please provide the average exported price and the average representative 
domestic sales price for years 2016.  
 
Description of 
product(s)  Export value for 
state trading 
enterprise  Quantity exported 
by state trading 
enterprise  Average 
export price  Domestic average 
producer price 
(nominal)  
(million USD)  (metric tonnes)  (USD/MT)  (USD/MT)  
Groundnuts      
2013 22.1 5,393  4,102  1,036  
2014 22 6,011  3,660  1,747  
2015 19.1 6,026  3,173  1,609  
2016 22.9 7,030  3,254  1,562  
2017 23 7,159  3,242  1,667  
2018 22 6,364  3,429  1,668  
2019 23 6,801  3,416  1,681  
 
14.10   NEW ZEALAND  
14.10.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95134 ) 
New Zealand – follow up to question AG-IMS ID 94050 – International Airfreight Capacity 
schemes  
 
New Zealand has introduced the International Airfreight Capacity scheme (IAFC), by 
which it supports the export of New Zealand's product by air to export destinations. In its 
reply to EU question AG-IMS ID  94050, N ew Zealand  has provided some information on 
background and operation of the scheme, but its compliance with WTO export competition 
disciplines is not clear.  
 
a. Could New Zealand explain how IAFAC is not an export subsidy falling under 
Article 9.1(d) – "the provision of subsidies to  reduce the costs of marketing 
exports of agricultural products including (…) the costs of international transport 
and freight"  
b. For how long will this export subsidy continue?   
a. New Zealand 's temporary International Air Freight Capacity scheme is necessary to 
maintain vital air links during COVID -19. 1,700 km of ocean separates New  Zealand from 
the nearest landmass.  The only way to reach New  Zealand other than by a long sea voyage G/AG/W/211  
 
- 96 - 
 
 
  
 is by air.  Given this geographical context, New  Zealand, in company with some 17 other 
WTO Members, has implemented temporary air connectivity support.  
The EU is comparatively fortunate in its geographical location, yet some members States 
have nevertheless provided very extensive support for their air transport sectors.  The 
useful  report from OAG Aviation Worldwide Limited, 'Strapped for cash: how airlines can 
survive the winter season ' of 2 September 2020, lists the top 10 airlines by level of State 
support.  The list is headed by Lufthansa Group, followed by Air France -KLM. Air 
New Zealand is not in that top 10 list.  Given passenger aircrafts also carry freight, similar 
questions could arise with respect to any airline in receipt of any kind of government 
support.  
We note the EU has placed its air transport facilitation measures on the WTO 's COVID -19 
'services ' measures ' tracker.  Similarly, New Zealand 's air transport scheme is a services 
measure and New  Zealand will be placing it on the same tracker.  Services are outside the 
scope of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
b. This scheme is a temporary response to the current COVID -19 pandemic crisis.  The 
broader air services market is being regularly monitored to help determine when the 
scheme can be concluded.   
14.10.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95144 ) 
Export competition questionnaire - export financing  
 
Canada notes that the information provided under Item #8 program use b y product or 
product group includes a list of over 20 products from the period 2013 – 2019.   
  
What product or product group was covered by New Zealand's programmes in 2019?  
 
The agricultural products that New Zealand Export Credit supported under its shor t-term trade credit 
insurance program during 2019 were: apples, kiwifruit, wine, butter, seeds, milk powder, wool, and 
dairy cattle for breeding purposes.  
14.11   NORWAY  
14.11.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95135 ) 
Food Aid  
 
The United States notes that Norway does not respond to the food aid questions following 
the ECQ structure.  However, Norway ask Members to refer to its NF:1 Notifications, which 
does not provide the total amount of food aid provided but rather uncomprehensive data 
reported to the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC).  
 
a. Please update the 2020 ECQ and incl ude data following the Nairobi Annex 
structure, including the total value of multilateral and bilateral food aid 
from  2016 to 2019.   
Norway thanks the United States for its interest in our export competition questionnaire and 
NF:1 notification regarding fo od aid. Our NF:1 notification provides comprehensive information 
regarding our annual food aid support. Thus, we believe the reference in the ECQ to our NF:1 
provides sufficient information regarding Norway's food aid support.  
 
Please be informed that we have submitted our NF1 for 2019. We have included the total value of 
our food aid support in the notification. " 
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 97 - 
 
 
  
 14.12   PAKISTAN  
14.12.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95136 ) 
State Trading Enterprises  
 
In response to AG -IMS ID 91125, the United States notes that Pakistan did not reply to 
the question with regards to the Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd (TCP).  Therefore, we 
restate the question.  
 
a. Please explain the basis for not reporting the TCP as an agricultural 
exporting  STE. 
TCP is not an exporting STE, it is only involved in the import of essential commodities to address  
food shortages. All of its operations are market based and carried out through tendering and bidding.  
14.13   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
14.13.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95137 ) 
The Russian Federation - Follow up to question AG -IMS ID  93186 - Subsidies to 
"certification of agricultural products in foreign markets"  
 
In its reply to question AG -IMS ID 931 86 the Russian Federation has  stated that 
government support to legal entities for compensation of part of costs on certification of 
agro-industrial products to foreign markets in the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 1816 of 25 De cember 2019 is not an export subsidy within the 
meaning of Article 9.1 (d).  
 
Can the Russian Federation justify its reply by:  
 
a. Explaining how it ensures that this new subsidy does not compensate for costs 
incurred as part of and during the process of selli ng a product to foreign markets 
and is not an illegal export subsidy?  
b. Explaining how the decree in question complies with the requirements of 
Articles  8-10 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Please refer to the Russian Federation's reply to question AG -IMS I D 95037.   
 
14.13.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95138 ) 
As a follow up to AG -IMS ID 92032, the United States thanks the Russian Federation for 
its transparency regarding the JSC Russian Export Center export financing interest rate 
support program for agricultural products.  However, the United States notes that the 
2020 ECQ does not i nclude a notification of this measure.   
  
a. Please update the 2020 ECQ and also include 2019 data.   
b. No export financing support has been provided in 2019 under the Government 
Resolution No. 620 of 24 May 2017 "On approval of the rules for providing 
financing for JSC Russian Export Center to subsidize interest rates on export 
credits extended through comm ercial banks".  
14.13.3   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 95145 ) 
Export competition questionnaire:  State t rading enterprises  
 
Canada refers to the Russian Federation's responses to questions from the United States 
(AG-IMS ID  87058 and AG -IMS ID  91127) regarding the operation of the United Grain G/AG/W/211  
 
- 98 - 
 
 
  
 Company (JSC UGC) and the assertion by the Russian Federation that  this entity is not a 
State Trading Enterprise.  
 
Could the Russian Federation clarify if the status pf the JSC UGC has evolved since the 
response to the questions from the United States given the following description of the 
JSC UGC on its website (emphasis added)?  
 
JSC UGC, being a strategic state -owned operator in the Russian grain market, and acting 
in the interests of executing the state strategy for the development of infrastructure and 
logistics facilities and the export potential of agricultu ral products, implements large -
scale investment projects.   
 
The United Grain Company (UGC) is not a state trading enterprise within the meaning of Article XVII 
of GATT 1994 and paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the 
GATT 1994.  
 
The government of the Russian Federation has not granted to UGC exclusive or special rights or 
privileges, including statutory or constitutional powers, in the exercise of which UGC influences 
through their purchases or sales the level or direct ion of imports or exports.  
 
14.14   THAILAND  
14.14.1   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 9513 9) 
Export Credit  
 
The United States notes that Thailand responded to the 2020 ECQ.  
 
Please provide value of programme use by product or product group.  If the information 
cannot be provided, please explain why not and what steps Thailand is taking to provid e 
this data.   
 
Thailand thanks the United States for her interest in our Export Credit and Export Credit Insurance 
Programmes.  
 
In this regard, Thailand would like to inform the committee that Thailand had already submitted the 
export credit questionnaire  to the WTO, which states in the notification G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add .2 . 
follow the requirement of Nairobi Declaration.  
14.14.2   Question by the United States of America (AG -IMS ID 95140 ) 
State Trading Enterprises  
 
The United States thanks Thailand for its response to 2020 ECQ and the inclusion of Public 
Warehouse Organization as an agricultural exporting S TE.  
 
Can Thailand please update the 2020 ECQ and provide statistical information such as the 
quantity exported by STE, the average export price and destinations for the calendar 
years  2014 and 2019? If the information cannot be provided, please explain wh y not.   
 
The Ministry of Commerce of the Kingdom of Thailand is gathering the information from the relevant 
agencies and will inform the committee as soon as we have those information.  
14.15   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
14.15.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 95141 ) 
According to the notification of the United States on international food aid 
(G/AG/N/USA /138), a total of 414,540 tonnes of coarse grains were exported for the 
fiscal year of 2018 (from 01 -10-2018 to 30 -09-2019). However, in its replies to the Export 
Competition Questionnaire submitted in 2019 and 2020, the United States notified that G/AG/W/211  
 
- 99 - 
 
 
  
 354,700  tonnes of sorghum was provided as food aid in the fiscal year of 2018 and 
413,830 tonnes of sorghum was provided for the fiscal year of 2019. Could the United 
States clarify if there is any connection between these products and volumes as 
mentioned above ，i.e., is the sorghum part of the food aid notified as "coarse grain"? In 
addition, we fully understands that the U.S. Government chooses agricultural products for 
food aid based on detailed market analysis, and would like to ask the United States for 
furth er information regarding the destinations and usages of the sorghum provided as 
food aid, and the demand assessment for each donation?  
 
1. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 ( 1 October 2018 to 30 September 2019), the United States provided 
a total of 414,540 tonnes  of coarse grains towards in -kind food aid.  This number is inclusive of 
sorghum (413,830 tonnes ) and corn (710 tonnes ). This is the total quantity of food aid notified 
in both the 2020 ECQ and the United States ' 2018 ES:3 notification (G/AG/N/USA/138).  
 
2. In FY 2019, the United States provided in -kind sorghum to Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, 
Kenya, Madagascar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.  
 
The U.S. Government works with recipient governments and implementing organizations to analyze 
the mar kets and choose agricultural products that will not disrupt local production, prices, local 
markets, or commercial trade. Prior to the approval of a proposed U.S. food aid program in a 
recipient country, the U.S. Government must make a determination that t he recipient country has 
adequate storage facilities to prevent spoilage or waste, and that distribution in the recipient country 
will not result in a substantial disincentive to domestic production.  This analysis is based on local 
and regional market anal ysis that considers various market information such as various quantitative 
and qualitative information, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the country, 
suitability of commodity, and other policy issues. Additional food security d ata is available through 
the Famine Early Warnings System Network at  https://www.fews.net/ .  
 
14.15.2   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95142 ) 
US – Food Aid  
 
In the US Fiscal Year 2019 the US has provided 2.0 million tonnes of in -kind food aid with 
a total value of USD 741 million for which monetisation was pe rmitted.  
 
a. Can the US explain how it complies with paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Nairobi Decision, 
which defines the conditions under which monetization of in -kind food aid can take place?  
The U.S. Government works with recipient governments and implementing organizations to analyze 
the markets and choose agricultural products that will not disrupt local production, prices, local 
markets, or commercial trade. Prior to the approval of a proposed U.S. food aid program in a 
recipient country, the U.S. Government must make a determination that the recipient country has 
adequate storage facilities to prevent spoilage or waste, and that distribution in the recipient country 
will not result in a substantial disincentive to domestic production.  This analysis is based o n local 
and regional market analysis that considers various market information such as various quantitative 
and qualitative information, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the country, 
suitability of commodity, and other policy is sues.  Additional food security data is available through 
the Famine Early Warnings System Network at  https://www.fews.net/ . 
In fiscal year 2019, more than 85 % of the US in -kind commodities were provided for food aid 
emergency purposes for which monetization was not permitted.  In addition, the 2018 Farm Bill 
included key technical changes to the Food for Peace Act that increased the efficiency and improved 
the oversight and management of food assistance under Title II du ring FY 2019, including the 
following:  
"Monetization:  The elimination of the monetization requirement for USAID's Title II Food for Peace 
programming  enables more funding to go toward programs funded under Title II, which allowed 
USAID to reach more beneficiaries with food assistance ".  G/AG/W/211  
 
- 100 - 
 
 
  
 14.16   VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF  
14.16.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 95063 ) 
Venezuela , Bolivarian Republic of  - Schedule update following Nairobi  
 
Over four years after Nairobi, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela did not provide its 
updated schedule. When will the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela comply with the 
commitments undertaken in this respect in Nairobi?   
 
'Esta pregunta ha sido transmitida a nuestras autoridades nacionales para su debido análisis . Sin 
embargo, no será posible tener una respuesta para la reunión del Comité de Agricultura, debido a 
las medidas de restricciones de movilidad en Venezuela por causa de la Pandemia del COVID -19, 
cuya curva ascendente se encuentra actualmente localizada e n nuestro continente.  
 
Por otra parte, es importante informar que la República Bolivariana de Venezuela está incluida en la 
lista de Países Importadores Netos de Alimentos (PEDINA), por lo que tiene derecho a beneficiarse 
del párrafo 4 del artículo 9 del A cuerdo sobre la Agricultura, el cual permite otorgar subsidios a la 
exportación relacionados con transporte y mercadeo hasta el año 2030¨.  
  
Unofficial translation.  
 
'This question has been transmitted to our national authorities for their due analysis. H owever, it 
will not be possible to have an answer for the meeting of the Agriculture Committee, due to the 
mobility restrictions measures in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela due to the COVID -19 
Pandemic, whose upward curve is currently located in our c ontinent.  
 
On the other hand, it is important to inform that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is included in 
the list of Net Food Importing Countries (PEDINA), for which it is entitled to benefit from Article 9.4 
of the Agreement on Agriculture, which allows grant export subsidies related to transportation and 
marketing until the year 2030.   
 
15  COA MEETING 30 NOVEMBER 2020  
15.1  INDIA  
15.1.1   Question by the European Union (AG -IMS ID 96002 ) 
Follow up question AG -IMS ID 95132 - India Sugar subsidies and ES:1 notification.  
 
In it s reply to question AG -IMS ID 95132, India indicated that subsidy paid "will be 
submitted in India's ES:1 notification". The EU notes that the latest Indian ES:1 
notification G/AG/N/IND/9 dates back to 30 July 2012 covering the years 2004 -05 
to 2009 -10. 
 
a. When does India intend to submit the notifications for years later than 2009 -10? 
b. When can Members expect the notification referred to in the reply AG -
IMS ID 95132, to be submitted?  
India likes to thank the EU for its continued interest in the issue. In repl y to the question:  
 
India will submit its ES:1 notification in due course.  
 
15.2  NEW ZEALAND  
15.2.1   Question by Chile (AG -IMS ID 96003 ) 
Chile notes that exports by Zespri in terms of quantity have increased considerably duri ng 
the years 2018 -2019 (G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.4), reaching a maximum compared with 
the data on previous notifications. We also note that, at the same time, export G/AG/W/211  
 
- 101 - 
 
 
  
 destinations reported in the last three years have decreased since Zespri's last notification  
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.11/Add.4). In this context, we appreciate if New Zealand could 
provide an explanation as to why there is an increase of exports, but fewer destinations 
for it? Could these other destinations be supplied by Zespri, but the origin of these e xports 
be other than New Zealand?  
 
New Zealand thanks Chile for its question as it has highlighted an error in the data extract used in 
our response to the 2020 Export Competition Questionnaire.  New Zealand has provided an  updated 
response regarding the S TE section of the  2020 Export Competition Questionnaire to the Secretariat, 
and has requested a revision of G/AG/W/125/Rev.12/Add.4. This includes a correction to the export 
destinations for kiwifruit for the three years 2017 -2019 (as outlined in the table  below). The revised 
dataset shows that New Zealand continues to export kiwifruit to a similar range of destinations as 
during previous notified periods. The increased export quantity and value in the 2018 -2019 
production year was the result of an excellen t harvest and good prices on the major markets.  
  
The export destinations  for kiwifruit in the three years (2017 -2019) were as follows:  
 
American Samoa  
Argentina  
Australia  
Bahrain, Kingdom of  
Brazil  
Cambodia  
Canada  
China  
Cook Islands  
Costa Rica  
El Salvador  
European Union  
Fiji 
French Polynesia  
Guatemala  
Hong Kong, China  
India 
Indonesia  Israel  
Japan  
Korea, Republic of  
Kuwait, the State of  
Lebanon  
Malaysia  
Maldives  
Mauritius  
Mexico  
Micronesia  
Myanmar  
Nauru, Republic of  
New Caledonia  
Niue 
Palau, Republic of  
Papua New Guinea  
Philippines  
Qatar  Réunion  
Russian Federation  
Samoa (Western)  
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  
Singapore  
Solomon Islands  
South Africa  
Chinese Taipei  
Thailand  
Tonga  
United Arab Emirates  
United States of America  
Vanuatu  
Viet Nam  
Wallis and Futuna  
 
15.3  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
15.3.1   Question by China (AG -IMS ID 96035 ) 
China thank s the United States for the detailed reply to Question AG -IMS ID 95141.   
 
Referring to the reply mentioned above, it would be appreciated if the United States could 
provide a needs assessment report on the products (such as sorghum) provided through 
non-emergency food aid, including the reason(s) for providing the type of food product(s) 
concerned, as well as the methodology for determining the volume of the aid that is 
necessary for achieving the objectives.   
 G/AG/W/211  
 
- 102 - 
 
 
  
 The United States has provided full transparen cy regarding its food aid activities. The Nairobi 
Decision requires Members to provide a  "description of relevant needs assessment (and by whom) 
and whether food aid is responding to a declaration of emergency or an emergency appeal (and by 
whom)," and the  United States has provided responses consistent with the structure enumerated in 
the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial in its Export Competition Questionnaire.  The United States also 
provides additional information regarding its food aid activities in its WTO NF:1 notifications and as 
directed by the Food Aid Convention Narrative Report (which can be found at 
https://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/en/reports.aspx . 
 
 
__________