RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/STR/M/4
15August 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3211)
Working Party onState Trading Enterprises
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING OFTHE
WORKING PARTY HELD ON
27JUNE 1996
Chairman: Mr.Peter May(Australia)
Page
A. Adoption oftheAgenda 1
B. Review ofnotifications submitted byMembers pursuant tothe 1
request fornotifications inG/STR/N/1
C. Review oftheadequacy ofthe1960 questionnaire andthecoverage of 7
statetrading enterprises notified under paragraph 1oftheUnderstanding
D. Development ofanillustrative listshowing thekinds ofrelationships 8
between governments andenterprises andthekinds ofactivities engaged
inbythese enterprises
E. Dateofnextmeeting 9
A. Adoption ofagenda
1. TheWorking Party adopted theagenda proposed inWTO/AIR/357.
B. Review ofnotifications submitted byMembers pursuant totherequest fornotifications in
G/STR/N/1
(1) Newnotifications
2. TheChairman recalled thataccording toparagraph 5oftheUnderstanding ontheInterpretation
ofArticle XVII (the"Understanding"), theWorking Party wastasked toreview thenotifications and
counter-notifications onstatetrading submitted byMembers, andthatinthelightofthisreview, the
Council forTrade inGoods could make recommendations withregard totheadequacy ofnotifications
andtheneed forfurther information. TheCouncil forTrade inGoods, atitsmeeting on
20February1995,hadestablishedadeadlineof30June1995fornewandfullnotificationsbyMembers
ontheirstatetradingenterprises("STEs"),andaformalrequestforsuchnotificationshadbeencirculated
inG/STR/N/1 of13March 1995.
3. Hesaidthatonceagain, compliance withthisobligation -leaving asidetheissueofthe30June
deadline -wasstillfarfromcomplete, andnoted thatarequest forupdating notifications -which were
tobebased onthefullnotifications duein1995 -hadalready beencirculated (G/STR/N/2). These
updating notifications, required ofallWTO Members, were dueby30June1996.G/STR/M/4
Page2
4. Atotalof56Members (counting eachoftheEUMember states individually) hadsubmitted
afullnotification inresponse totheMarch 1995 request, andonlythree updating notifications had
beenreceived for1996. Hestressed thatthissituation wasofserious concern, given thatthere were
122Members oftheWTO, andinlightoftheneedforgreater transparency inthetrade conducted
bystatetradingenterprises.Furthermore,theinformationinthenotificationswasessentialtotheprocess
ofrevising thequestionnaire anddeveloping anillustrative list,inthecontext ofdetermining what
notifiable statetrading was. Todate, nocounter-notifications hadbeenreceived bytheSecretariat.
5. Therepresentative ofVenezuela saidthathiscountry 'snotification would besubmitted within
theweek.
6. TheChairman noted thattheairgram divided thereview exercise intotwosections: onedealing
withnewandasyetunreviewednotifications,andtheotherwithnotificationsonwhichwrittenquestions,
andinsome cases written answers, hadbeensubmitted. Hesuggested thattheWorking Party conduct
thereview inthesame manner asattheprevious meeting, i.e.withafocus ontwomain elements:
(1)whether thenotification responded adequately totheinformation requested inthequestionnaire;
and(2)whether more information wasneeded inorder topermit -inthelanguage ofparagraph 2of
theUnderstanding -"aclear appreciation ofthemanner ofoperation oftheenterprises notified and
theeffect oftheiroperations oninternational trade".
(i) Barbados (G/STR/N/1/BRB)
7. Astherepresentative ofBarbados wasnotpresent atthemeeting, theWorking Party agreed
torevert tothisnotification atitsnextmeeting.
(ii) Brazil (G/STR/N/1/BRA)
8. Astherepresentative ofBrazil wasnotpresent atthemeeting, theWorking Party agreed to
revert tothisnotification atitsnextmeeting.
(iii) Malta (G/STR/N/1/MLT)
9. AsMalta 'snotification hadonlyrecently beencirculated, duetoanerrorintheWTO processing
ofthedocument, theWorking Party agreed torevert toitatitsnextmeeting.
(iv) Morocco (G/STR/N/1/MAR)
10. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathiscountry hadsubmitted anumber ofquestions
inwriting toMorocco (G/STR/Q1/MAR/1).
11. TherepresentativeofMoroccosaidthatitsnotificationdidnotmaintainthatMoroccohadnotified
allstatetrading enterprises inthecountry, butonlythose thathadamonopoly orexclusive rightin
agiven market, ashisauthorities hadunderstood thatonlythelatterhadtobenotified. TheUSquestions
covered bothnotified andnon-notified enterprises, andMorocco waswilling toprovide information
onallofitsstatetrading enterprises.
12. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation looked forward toreceiving
Morocco 'swritten replies. IntheUSview, anyenterprise thatbenefited fromanyexclusive orspecial
privilege should benotified, andnotjustthose thatwere monopolies.G/STR/M/4
Page3
(v) Israel (G/STR/N/1/ISR)
13. Therepresentative ofNewZealand asked forfurther information onanumber ofagricultural
organizations listed inIsrael'smost recent Trade Policy Review Report, andforclarification asto
whether certain marketing boards fitthedefinition ofstatetrading enterprise.1
14. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation would submit awritten question
(G/STR/Q1/ISR/1) andexpressed interest inNewZealand 'squestions.
15. Astherepresentative ofIsrael wasnotpresent atthemeeting, theWorking Party agreed to
revert tothisnotification atitsnextmeeting.
(vi) Pakistan (G/STR/N/1/PAK)
16. Therepresentative ofNewZealand asked foranexplanation ofPakistan 'sdecision nottonotify
anumber ofagencies thatplayed amajor roleinthemarketing ofagricultural products.2
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States asked questions regarding theTrading Corporation of
Pakistan andforclarification ofcertain entities operating inagricultural trade (G/STR/Q1/PAK/1).
18. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatPakistan 's1994 Trade Policy Review Report listed a
number ofSTEs, andasked foranexplanation ofthese.
19. Therepresentative ofPakistan saidthathisdelegation would provide written replies tothe
questions. HesaidthattheTrading Corporation ofPakistan (TCP) wasnotanSTEinterms of
Article XVII. Itwasaprivate limited company whose shares were owned bythegovernment, but
ithadnotbeengranted anyexclusive orspecial privileges. Thegovernment could assign itspecific
tasksregarding import orexport inthecaseofemergencies. TheBoard ofDirectors hadtheauthority
toruntheTCP, which hadnoexclusive production ormanufacturing facilities; procurement and
distribution weremade through theprivate sector. Nogovernment official participated intheworkings
oftheTCP. Itacted asanintermediary between thebuyer andseller andthuswasnotatrading
enterprise inthesense ofArticle XVII. TheRiceExport Corporation (RCP) didnotfallunder the
provisions ofXVII asitdidnotactasanSTE; ittoowasalimited company owned bythegovernment
andhadbeengranted noexclusive orspecial rights orprivileges through which itcould influence,
through purchases orsales, thelevelordirection ofriceexports. There wasunhindered competition
between private andpublic sector enterprises. TheMinistry ofAgriculture neither procured nortraded
ingrain.
20. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatesaskedwhatpercentageofexporttradeinricewashandled
bytheRiceExport Corporation, asthiswould helphisdelegation tounderstand whether anyspecial
privilege hadbeengranted.
21. Therepresentative ofPakistan saidthathewould come backtothisquestion.
22. TheChairman invited delegations having raised questions tosubmit these inwriting directly
totheMember concerned notlaterthan19July,withacopytotheSecretariat forcirculation. Written
answers tothose questions should besubmitted directly totheenquiring country, withacopytothe
1These questions were subsequently submitted inwriting (G/STR/Q1/ISR/2).
2Thequestion wassubsequently circulated inG/STR/Q1/PAK/2.G/STR/M/4
Page4
Secretariat, assoonaspossible. Hesaidthattodate,67setsofwritten questions hadbeensubmitted
toindividual Members, and33setsofwritten answers hadbeenprovided. Delegations which had
notyetsubmitted written answers wereencouraged todosoassoonaspossible. Thequestion-and-
answerexercisewasanessentialelementinthereviewofthenotificationsandwascriticaltotheWorking
Party'saccomplishment ofitstasks -i.e.torevise thequestionnaire andtodevelop anillustrative list.
23. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatwhile theUShadreceived many written replies
within thelastfewdays, several werestilloutstanding fromthefollowing Members: Cyprus, theCzech
Republic (ononequestion), India andMalaysia. Hesaidthatingeneral, Members hadmade aneffort
tobethorough andtransparent intheirreplies; however, thereplies, while satisfactory, underscored
thatperhaps thequestionnaire wasnotasking therightquestions.
24. TherepresentativeofCanadasaidthattheconclusionhisdelegationhaddrawnfromthequestion-
and-answer exercise wasthatitwasparticularly significant forthedevelopment oftheillustrative list.
IfMembers weredeciding nottonotify certain types ofactivities, thatwasinitselfasignificant factor
intrying todelineate whatanexclusive orspecial privilege wasinthesense ofArticle XVII, andwhat
wasbeyond thatArticle 'sreach andthusnotsubject tonotification.
25. Therepresentative ofUruguay saidthathiscountry hadnotyetresponded inwriting tothe
questions fromtheUnited States butwould dososhortly. Inaddition, Uruguay 'supdating notification
would indicate thatthemonopoly onimport ofoil,oil-based products andalcohol wasnolonger
operative; starting inNovember, import, distribution andmarketing ofalcohol would becarried out
bytheprivate sector.
(2) Previously reviewed notifications
26. TheChairman saidthattheobjective oflisting ontheAirgram allthenotifications onwhich
there hadbeenwritten questions wastoprovide anopportunity fordelegations torevert tothose of
interest tothem.
(i) Canada (STR/N/1/CAN+Add.1; G/STR/W/8, 10,23,24)
27. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidthatsome ofCanada 'swritten replies werenotsufficient.
Forexample, regarding Australia 'squestions (G/STR/W/8), howwould tariffquotas beadministered
infuture anddidtheCanadian Wheat Board (CWB) guarantee wheat sales? The1.1percentdeficit
intheCWB'scurrent account was,inhisview, nottrivial. Heasked whether there wasanimplicit
policy ofdomestic pricesupport when therewasadeficit, andifso,howthiswasrecorded inthecontext
ofCanada 'snotifications totheAgriculture Committee.
28. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthatitwould helptohavethequestions inwriting, andwritten
replies would besupplied.
29. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidCanada hadindicated thatatalaterdateitwould notify
themanner inwhich theprocedures onimports bytheCWB would beapplicable, andasked ifthis
notification hadbeenmade either totheMarket Access orAgriculture Committees. Thewritten replies
(G/STR/W/24) tothequestions from Australia generated more questions thanclarification.
30. Therepresentative ofCanada saidthattheadministration ofwheat andwheat imports would
disappear entirely fromthestatetrading notification because theWTO commitments required tariffying
thatexclusionary power. Asaresult, therewasnoSTEadministering imports ofwheat, barley, wheat
products andbarley products. HesaidthatasAustralia hadnotfollowed uponitswritten question
onguarantees, Canada hadassumed thatitsresponse wassatisfactory. Regarding the1.1percentG/STR/M/4
Page5
deficit, hesaidthatgiven thevolatility andsizeoftheglobal grain market, thiswasforCanada well
within thenorm forcommercial activities. Hesaidthathewould havetotakeunder notice thequestion
ondomestic support forprices,
(ii) Czech Republic (G/STR/N/1/CZE; G/STR/W/2, 10,13,19,25)
31. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic saidthathisdelegation fullyintended tonotify the
enterprise mentioned intheUSquestion, andnoted thathiscountry wasintheprocess ofpassing a
lawonstateenterprises.
(iii) India (G/STR/N/1/IND; G/STR/W/10)
32. Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatallwritten questions hadbeensenttohisauthorities and
thatwritten replies would besubmitted within twoweeks.
(iv) Indonesia (G/STR/N/1/IDN; G/STR/W/2, 8,10,13,16)
33. Therepresentative ofIndonesia saidthathisdelegation would soonsubmit written replies to
allofthewritten questions puttoit.
(v) Japan (G/STR/N/1/JAP; G/STR/W/8, 10,13)
34. TheChairman noted thatsince thecirculation oftheAirgram, Japan hadsubmitted written
answers tothequestions fromAustralia andCanada (G/STR/W/28) andtothequestions fromtheUnited
States (G/STR/Q1/JPN/1).
35. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthatherdelegation would havelikedtohavereceived greater
transparency ontheadministration oftariffquotas bySTEs andthatthisshowed aneedformore work
onthequestionnaire.
(vi) Korea (G/STR/N/1/KOR; G/STR/W/2, 3,8,10,13)
36. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthatKorea 'swritten replies tothequestions fromAustralia,
Canada andtheUnited States hadrecently beensubmitted.
37. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidthatKorea 'swritten replies didnotanswer allofthe
questions puttoKorea byAustralia inG/STR/W/13.
38. TheChairman saidthattherewould beanopportunity atalaterstagetoassess whether Korea 's
responses wereadequate. IfArgentina wanted more information thanwhathadbeenprovided inthe
written replies, itcould submit itsownwritten questions.
(vii) Malaysia (G/STR/N/1/MYS; G/STR/W/2, 4)
39. Therepresentative ofMalaysia saidthathiscountry would notbeabletosubmit written replies
tothequestions from Japan andtheUnited States untilaftertheOlympic Games.
(viii) Norway (G/STR/N/1/NOR; G/STR/W/2, 5,8,13,18+Corr.1, 27)
40. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthathisauthorities hadjustsentwritten replies tothelast
twoquestions from theUnited States.G/STR/M/4
Page6
(ix) Philippines (G/STR/N/1/PHL; G/STR/W/10, 11,13)
41. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines saidthathiscountry would soonsubmit written replies
tothequestions fromCanada, Japan andtheUnited States, andnoted thattheNational Sugar Refining
Corporation nowhadadiminished role.
42. TheChairman suggested thatthislatter information besubmitted intheform ofanupdating
notification for1996 from thePhilippines.
(x) Switzerland (G/STR/N/1/CHE; G/STR/W/8, 10,13)
43. TheChairman noted thatsincethecirculation oftheAirgram, Switzerland hadsubmitted written
answers tothequestions from Australia, Canada andtheUnited States (G/STR/Q1/CHE/1).
44. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthatSwitzerland 'srecent Trade Policy Review Report
(segment bytheSecretariat) contained adescription oftheSwiss Cheese Union (SCU) andthatthe
latter seemed toqualify asanotifiable STEunder Article XVII forthefollowing reasons: ithadan
obligatory delivery scheme which purchased themain Swiss cheese varieties (emmenthaler, gruyère
andsbrinz) atfixed prices; itwasguaranteed acommission regardless oftheactual terms ofsale,
andanylosses werepicked upbythegovernment. InNewZealand 'sview, theSCUshould benotified,
andheasked whether Switzerland intended todoso.
45. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthattheSCUwasaprivate bodytowhich thegovernment
hadhanded overtheexclusive administration ofexport subsidies forthethreecheeses. Trade, assuch,
wasnottheobject ofanystatemonopoly inSwitzerland, andthishadbeenmade clearintheChairman 's
conclusions atthecloseoftheTrade Policy Review. Inthelightofongoing developments, anotification
oftheSCU under Article XVII might bemade in1997.
46. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthisraised thequestion astowhether STEs hadto
necessarily betheexporters orimporters ofproducts, orwhether theyengaged inactivities suchthat
theyhadasignificant impact onthelevel anddirection oftrade. Thelatter wasNew Zealand 's
interpretation oftheUnderstanding onArticle XVII. ThefactthattheSCU didnotexport wasnot
therelevant factor, asitdidpurchase fromproducers ofSwitzerland 'smain cheese varieties, andby
itspurchases andsaleshadasignificant impact onthelevelanddirection oftrade inthese products.
Thus, there wasanotification obligation.
47. Therepresentative ofArgentina readoutthetextofthedefinition inparagraph 1ofthe
Understanding onArticle XVII andsaidthatNewZealand 'scomments wereonpoint. Switzerland 's
response thatitmight notify thisSTE'sactivities wasconstructive.
48. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathisdelegation shared NewZealand 'sand
Argentina 'sinterpretation ofthenotification obligation andcoverage ofArticle XVII. Inthecontext
ofdeveloping theillustrative list,itwould bewrong toassert thatanSTEhadtoengage intrade, as
itwasverypossible forittohaveaneffect ontrade without engaging inimportation orexportation.
49. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthatitwasnotaneasymatter tonotify aregime that
wasundergoing transformation, aswastheSCU.
(xi) Thailand (G/STR/N/1/THA; G/STR/W/2, 4,10,13)
50. Therepresentative ofThailand saidthathisdelegation hadrecently submitted written replies
tothequestions received.G/STR/M/4
Page7
(xii) Turkey (G/STR/N/1/TUR; G/STR/W/2, 10,13)
51. Therepresentative ofTurkey recalled thatattheNovember meeting oftheWorking Party,
herdelegation hadresponded orally tothequestions from theUnited States andCanada. Written
responses would soonbesubmitted.
52. TheChairman stressed theneedforMembers towhom written questions hadbeenaddressed to
respond inwriting tothose questions atthelatest by19July.
53. TheSecretaryexplainedthatanewdocumentsymbolwasbeingusedforthequestion-and-answer
documents relating tothestate trading notifications. From thispoint forward, thesymbol
"G/STR/Q#/MBR/#" would carry allquestions andanswers relating toaparticular notification: "Q1"
inthesymbol would indicate aquestion oranswer relating toanotification submitted intheG/STR/N1
series (with "Q2" corresponding toanotification intheG/STR/N/2 series); thenumber following
theabbreviation fortheMember would bethatassigned toeachofthequestion oranswer documents
submitted onthatMember 'snotification.
54. TheWorking Party tooknoteofthestatements.
C. Review oftheadequacy ofthe1960questionnaire andthecoverage ofstatetrading enterprises
notified under paragraph 1oftheUnderstanding
55. TheChairman recalled thatattheFebruary meeting, itwasagreed thatwork onrevision of
the1960 questionnaire would bemostefficiently pursued inaninformal setting, rather thaninformal
plenary meetings oftheWorking Party. Since theplenary meeting inFebruary, threeinformal meetings
hadbeenheldforthepurpose ofadvancing work onboththerevision ofthequestionnaire andonthe
development ofanillustrative list.Inhisview, considerable progress hadbeenmade inthose meetings,
andtherewasnowaworking textwhich hadrecently beencirculated toalldelegations inG/STR/W/30.
56. Hemade abriefreport totheWorking Party ontheinformal meetings, forthebenefit ofthose
whohadnotparticipated inthem. Themeetings hadbeenheldon2April, 9Mayand23May. The
twoitems under consideration weretherevision ofthe1960 questionnaire andthedevelopment ofan
illustrative list.These twotasks hadbeenseenbyparticipants asinextricably linked. Thebasis of
work ontherevision ofthequestionnaire hadbeen, intheabsence ofanyother proposals, atext
submitted bytheUnited States inDecember 1995. Thatdelegation hadrecently submitted arevised
textwhich attempted totakeintoaccount theconcerns raised andcomments made byparticipants in
thecourse oftheinformal meetings. Atthemost recent ofthese meetings, theUnited States had
suggested, andthegroup hadagreed, thatoncetheDecember draftwasrevised, itwould beturned
overtotheChairman andhenceforth would bethelatter'sresponsibility, inthecontext ofanyfurther
changes. Thisrevised drafthadbeencirculated toallMembers inG/STR/W/30. Thus, thedrafttext
should nolonger beconsidered tobeaUSproposal butrather, fromthispoint forward, aChairman 's
text.
57. Heemphasized thatparticipation intheinformal meetings wasopentoanydelegation wishing
toattend, andasked delegations having comments orquestions onthesubstance ofthetextin
G/STR/W/30 toreserve those forthenextinformal meeting, which would beheldinSeptember.
58. Therepresentative ofNewZealand welcomed therevision prepared bytheUnited States even
ifhisdelegation didnotagree oncertain areas, suchasthepricing information tobesought.G/STR/M/4
Page8
59. TherepresentativeoftheUnitedStatessaidthatthedraftinG/STR/W/30wasabigimprovement
overwhathadbeentabled inDecember.He hoped thattheprocess could beexpedited intheautumn,
andaninformal USgoalwastocomplete thiswork, aswellaswork ontheillustrative list,bythe
endoftheyear. Thisdidnotseem anunrealistic goalinlightoftheimportance ofthiswork inthe
context ofpending accessions.
60. Therepresentative oftheECsaidthathisdelegation intended tocontinue toparticipate inthis
work intheautumn. Thiswasanimportant subject fortheCommunity, which alsohoped tocomplete
thework bytheendoftheyearsothatthenextround ofnotifications for1997would bedoneonthe
basis ofarevised questionnaire.
61. Therepresentative ofRomania emphasized thattheworkonthequestionnaire wasclosely linked
towork ontheillustrative listandhoped thatwork onthetwoissues would move inparallel.
62. TheWorking Party tooknoteofthestatements andagreed thattheChairman would continue
tohold informal consultations, open toanyinterested delegation, ontherevision ofthe
1960 questionnaire, using thedrafttextinG/STR/W/30 asabasis forfurther work.
D. Development ofanillustrative listshowing thekinds ofrelationships between governments
andenterprises andthekinds ofactivities engaged inbythese enterprises
63. TheChairman recalled thatattheWorking Party'sFebruary meeting, itwasagreed thatwork
ontheillustrative listwould bemostefficiently pursued inaninformal setting along withtherevision
ofthe1960 questionnaire, towhich itwasclosely linked. Atthattimehehadinvited delegations wishing
todosotosubmit written proposals regarding theillustrative listforcirculation toMembers. However,
andwhilethisissuehadbeendiscussedtosomeextentintheinformalmeetings,todatenosuchproposals
hadbeensubmitted.
64. Inlightofthissituationandinordertoadvanceworkonthisissue,hesuggestedthattheWorking
Party takeasastarting point Paragraphs 101and102oftheSecretariat background paper (G/STR/2).
Hesuggested thatdelegations reflect ontheelements intheseparagraphs andinvited specific comments
onthem. Hewelcomed andencouraged those wishing tocomment atthenextinformal meeting or
toputforward awritten proposal todoso.
65. Hestressed theimportance ofthisexercise inthecontext notonlyofwork onarevised
questionnaire, butalso-andperhaps more fundamentally -inthecontext ofdeveloping aclearer and
more precise understanding ofwhatnotifiable statetrading wasintheWTO regime. Thedelegation
ofAustralia would shortly circulate atextthatputdown some views onhowtogetthrough themaze
inthisarea.
66. Therepresentative ofCanada agreed withthose whohadsaidthatthisexercise hadtomove
inparallel withwork ontherevision ofthequestionnaire. Hestressed thatthegoalwasanillustrative,
andnotadefinitive, listofactivities andrelationships; thus, itcould berevised inlightoffuture
experience.
67. Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthatwhile itwastruethatwork ontheillustrative
listwould haveimplications fornotification obligations, conceptually itwasaverydifficult task. For
example, notalloftheactivities listed inparagraph 102oftheSecretariat paper could beconsidered
tobeofequal importance. Thishierarchy hadtoberecognized andwasthebasis ofmost ofhis
delegation 'sideas ontheillustrative list.TheUSwastrying todevelop aconceptual approach tothe
illustrative listthatrecognized themanner inwhich some ofthese activities, including thenon-tradeG/STR/M/4
Page9
ones, could haveanimpact ontrade. Hisdelegation intended totableaproposal atthenextinformal
meeting.
68. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthattheprevious discussion highlighted asignificant
distinction between thisandother illustrative lists,inthatthislistwastobeaguide tohelpgovernments
todetermine whether theoperations ofanenterprise which itgranted some privilege fellwithin the
definition ofstatetrading. Hisdelegation hadnoted intheinformal meetings thatitsupported thetwo
paragraphs from theSecretariat paper asthebasis foranillustrative list.Thelistofbothactivities
andrelationships should beascomprehensive aspossible without attempting tobeexhaustive. His
delegation hoped tomake afurther contribution onthisissue atthenextinformal meeting.
69. Therepresentative ofMexico saidthatanywork inthisareahadtohewtothedefinition laid
down inArticle XVII andtheNotes thereto, andintheUnderstanding. Care should betaken in
developing thelistnottochange thisdefinition. Hestressed that,asMexico hadsaidatprevious
meetings, activities bySTEs related todomestic production could notbeconsidered tobenotifiable
statetrading operations. Thus, paragraphs iii,iv,vandviofparagraph 102intheSecretariat paper
should notbeincluded onthelist.These activities, inrespect ofdomestic production, werenotthose
which could identify ortypify anenterprise asanSTE.
70. TheChairman suggested thatMexico putitsviews inwriting, andsaidthattheWorking Party
would haveaclearer ideaofwhatMexico thought appropriate forthelistwhen itsnotification was
received.
71. Therepresentative ofArgentina agreed thataccepted definitions should notbemodified.
However, thecoverage should beample andtheburden ofproof astowhether ornotanagency or
organization -which waseither astatemonopoly orenjoyed certain privileges -hadanimpact ontrade
would depend oneachcountry andonthereplies given tothequestionnaire. Argentina believed that
theelements inparagraphs 101and102were auseful basis foranillustrative list,butwasopen to
other views onthismatter. Itshould bekeptinmind thatthiswasonlyanillustrative list;activities
could beincluded onwhich there wasconsensus.
72. TherepresentativeofMexicosaidthatthisworkwouldbeimportantinfutureintermsofhelping
Members todetermine whatenterprises theywould notify. HesaidthattheSecretariat background
paper hadbeenneither accepted norrejected, butwasmerely onthetableforanalysis.
73. Therepresentative ofCuba saidthathisdelegation shared theconcerns expressed byMexico
andArgentina.
74. TheWorking Party tooknoteofthestatements andagreed thatthisissue would continue to
beconsidered, along withtherevision ofthequestionnaire, ininformal consultations.
E. Dateofnextmeeting
75. TheChairman proposed thatthenextmeeting beheldon26and27September 1996.