RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/STR/M/13 
9 March 2004 
 (04-1038) 
Working Party on 
State Trading Enterprises  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORKING  
PARTY ON STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
HELD ON 11 NOVEMBER 2003 
  
Chairperson:  Ms Judith Vanková (Slovak Republic)
 
  
  P a g e
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................1  
B. REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL AND UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS 
UNDER G/STR/N/6,  7, 8 & 9 .......................................................................................................1  
C. QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO EGYPT (G/STR/W/42) ............................................4  
D. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON THE FREQUENCY OF NOTIFICATION 
(G/STR/W/40/R EV.1) .................................................................................................................4  
E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ........................................................5  
F. OTHER BUSINESS ........................................................................................................................6  
1. United States – Questions on the Canadian Wheat Board....................................................6  
2. European Communities – Absence of notification by New Zealand ....................................6  
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The United States  requested the inclusion of a point under "Other Business" in connection 
with Canada's Wheat Board. 
2. The European Communities  also requested the inclusion of an item under "Other Business" 
concerning the New Zealand's notification of state trading enterprises. 
3. The Working Party adopted  the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/2200/Rev.1, as amended. 
B. REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL AND UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS UNDER 
G/STR/N/6,  7, 8 & 9 
4. The Chairperson  recalled that, according to paragr aph 5 of the Understanding on the 
Interpretation of Article XVII ("th e Understanding"), the Working Pa rty was tasked to review the 
notifications and counter-notifications on state trad ing submitted by Members, and in the light of this 
review, the Council for Trade in Goods may make r ecommendations with regard to the adequacy of 
notifications and the need for further information. G/STR/M/13 
Page 2  
 
 5. The Chairperson suggested that the Working Pa rty conduct the review in the same manner as 
at previous meetings, i.e. with a focus on two main elements: (i) whether the notification responded 
adequately to the information requested in the qu estionnaire; and (ii) whether more information was 
needed in order to permit – in the language of paragraph 2 of the Understanding – "a clear 
appreciation of the manner of operation of the enterp rises notified and the effect of their operations on 
international trade". 
6. The Chairperson recalled that the Council for Trade in Goods, at its meeting on 
20 February 1995, had established a deadline of 30  June 1995 for new and full notifications by 
Members on their state trading enterprises ("STEs"), and that subsequently the Working Party had 
agreed to maintain 30 June as the date for further (updating) notifications.   
7. The Chairperson recalled that, on 1 March 2000,  a request for updating notifications was 
circulated in document G/STR/N/6.  On 26 February 2001, a request for new and full 
notifications was circulated in document G/STR/N /7.  On 20 February 2002, a request for updating 
notifications was circulated in document G/STR/N /8.  And, on 21 February 2002, a request for 
updating notifications was circulated in document G/STR/N/9.  These notifications, required of all 
WTO Members, were due by 30 June of the respective year.  
8. The Chairperson noted that the notification by Costa Rica in G/STR/N/8/CRI had been 
received after the Airgram setting the Agenda for the meeting was circulated.  This notification could 
be found in the document packages for the meeting.  The Chairperson asked Members if they agreed 
to include the notification by Costa Rica in the list of notifications to be reviewed at the meeting as 
they were circulated some time before  the meeting in Spanish and English. 
9. The Working Party so decided
. 
10. The Chairperson  indicated that, as agreed at the Working Party's meeting in September 1996, 
notifications that had already been reviewed and on which there may be written questions, would not 
be retained on the airgram for the Working Part y's next meeting unless a Member specifically so 
requested. 
11. The Working Party  proceeded with the review of notifications. 
12. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of China  (G/STR/N/7/CHN - 
G/STR/N/8/CHN & G/STR/N/9/CHN +ADD.1 & CORR.1). 
13. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Costa Rica (G/STR/N/8/CRI). 
14. Regarding the notification of Cyprus  (G/STR/N/7/CYP - G/STR/N/8/CYP - 
G/STR/N/9/CYP) the delegate of Australia  noted there were six entities which were listed in Cyprus's 
previous notification (G/STR/N/1/CYP) and no longer appeared in Cyprus's latest notification.  The 
entities that had been previously listed were:  Cy prus Grain Commission;  Cyprus Milk Industry 
Organization;  Fine Products Commission;  Cyprus  Potato Marketing Board;  Cyprus Carrot and 
Beetroot Marketing Board;  and Cyprus Olive Produc ts Marketing Board.  The delegate of Australia 
asked Cyprus to clarify why those entities had not been included in the most recent notification. 
15. The representative of Cyprus  said that it needed to consult with capital on this issue and 
would reply at a later date. 
16. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Guinea  (G/STR/N/7/GIN - 
G/STR/N/8/GIN - G/STR/N/9/GIN).  G/STR/M/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
 17. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Hong Kong, China  (G/STR/N/9/HKG). 
18. No questions were posed regarding the notification Hungary  (G/STR/N/9/HUN). 
19. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Jordan  (G/STR/N/9/JOR). 
20. No questions were posed regarding the notification of the Latvia  (G/STR/N/8/LVA). 
21. No questions were posed regardi ng the notification of Liechtenstein  (G/STR/N/9/LIE). 
22. No questions were posed regardi ng the notification of Macao, China  (G/STR/N/9/MAC). 
23. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Moldova  (G/STR/N/8/MDA). 
24. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Pakistan  (G/STR/N/7/PAK - 
G/STR/N/9/PAK). 
25. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Poland  (G/STR/N/8/POL - 
G/STR/N/9/POL). 
26. No questions were posed regarding the notifi cations of the Slovak Republic (G/STR/N/7/SVK 
- G/STR/N/8/SVK). 
27. No questions were posed regarding the no tifications of Slovenia (G/STR/N/8/SVN - 
G/STR/N/9/SVN). 
28. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Switzerland  (G/STR/N/9/CHE). 
29. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Thailand (G/STR/N/8/THA). 
30. No questions were posed regardi ng the notifications of Tunisia  (G/STR/N/7/TUN-
G/STR/N/8/TUN). 
31. No questions were posed regard ing the notifications of Turkey  (G/STR/N/7/TUR + CORR.1 
and G/STR/N/8/TUR + CORR.1). 
32. The Chairperson  noted that some delegations had not been able to respond fully to the 
questions raised on their respective notifications at  the present meeting, and invited delegations that 
had raised questions to submit those in writing direc tly to the Member concerne d, with a copy to the 
Secretariat for circulation.  Written responses to a ll written questions should be submitted directly to 
the enquiring country, also with a copy to the Secretariat, as soon as possible. 
33. The Chairperson reported on the status of notifications made to the Working Party.  With 
regard to new and full notifications, as of today,  only 48 out of 127 Members have responded to the 
2001 request, which is 38 per cent of Members.  Please note that the European Communities and its 
Member States are counted as one.  In the area of upda ting notifications, the situation is worse.  Only 
12 our of 131 Members have submitted notifications fo r  2003 which is barely 9 per cent of Members, 
only 29 out of 129 Members have submitted notificati ons for 2002, which is 22 per cent of Members, 
only 40 out of 124 Members have s ubmitted notifications for 2000, which is 32 per cent of Members.  
The situation had therefore deteriorated rather th an improved and this had been the case for several 
years already.  G/STR/M/13 
Page 4  
 
 34. The Chairperson expressed grave concern about the dismal state of affairs regarding 
notifications and hoped that the Working Party would be able to come to a consensus on a 
recommendation to try to improve this situation. 
35. The representative of the United States
 stated that state trading notifications was an area in 
which his Government had remised, but was pleased to  report that his capital informed that the United 
States would soon be submitting both the new and fu ll notifications and updating notifications that 
were outstanding.  
36. The Working Party took note  of the statements made.   
C. QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO EGYPT (G/STR/W/42) 
37. The Chairperson noted that this item had been included in the agenda at the request of the 
United States which had submitted a series of questions addressed to Egypt pursuant to 
Article XVII:4(c) of the GATT 1994.  The Chairper son offered the floor to the United States to 
introduce the item. 
38. The representative of the United States  noted that on 30 October 2003, questions were 
submitted pursuant to Article XVII: 4(c) of GATT 1994 with respect to Egypt's Alexandria Cotton 
Exporters Association  (ALCOTEXA).  This document had been  circulated as G/STR/W/42.  Under 
Article XVII:4(c) of GATT 1994, a WTO Member that has reason to believe that its interests may be adversely affected by the operations of a state trading enterprise may request that the Member 
establishing, maintaining or authorizing such an en terprise to supply information about its operations 
related to the GATT.  The United States asked wh ether Egypt was in a position to respond to the 
questions presented in the above-mentioned document. 
39. The delegate of Egypt
 informed that the document concer ned had already been sent to capital 
for careful elaboration.  Written replies would be provided to the Working Party as soon as they had 
been received. 
40. The Working Party took note  of the statements made. 
D. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON THE FREQUENCY OF NOTIFICATION (G/STR/W/40/R EV.1) 
41. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its informal meeting of 18 February 2003, the Working 
Party agreed to the former Chairman's proposal to draft a recommendation that would change the 
periodicity of notifications from new and full notifications every three years with updating notifications in the intervening years, to new and full notifications every two years with a de-
emphasizing of the updating notifications.  After taki ng over the chairmanship of this Working Party, 
and in continuation of the work of the previous  chair, the Chairperson had prepared the above-
mentioned draft recommendation which was circulat ed as document G/STR/W/40.  Consultations had 
been held previously on the draft to lay the ground work for a possible adoption of the recommendation at the regular meeting.  On the basis of the consultations the Secretariat had revised the draft recommendation to take into account the vi ews the were expressed, and this new version had 
been circulated as document G/STR/W/40/Rev.1. 
42. The Chairperson also recalled that, at the October consultations some Members expressed 
different views as to whether the new and full notif ications would be due every three years or every 
two as originally proposed.  The Chairperson inv ited those delegations who at the consultations 
expressed that they needed to ge t back to capital for guidance on th is issue to take the floor and 
inform the Working Party about the r esult of their contacts with capital.  G/STR/M/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
 43. The delegate of the United States  expressed that his delegation continued to be of the view 
that it would be better to maintain the 3 year peri odicity for new and full notifications but noting that 
there were a number of delegations that had a preference for 2 years, the United States would not block a consensus for a 2 year period for the full and new notifications. 
44. The Chairperson
 requested the views of the Working party on the new paragraph 4 of the 
draft recommendation. 
45. The delegate of the European Communities  said that his delegation had no objection to 
paragraph 4, but wondered to what extent it would be necessary to commit the Working Party to a 
review exercise if it was not actually demanded by anybody.  He did not understand from the United States that this was a condition for agreement to the 2 year rhythm.  Therefore, he requested 
clarification on whether it was necessary to maintain paragraph 4. 
46. The delegate of the United States
 mentioned that they still found the mandated review of the 
operation of the new frequency to be useful and woul d have a preference to leave paragraph 4 in the 
draft. 
47. The Chairperson  asked whether there were any further comments on the draft 
recommendation and whether the Working Party w as in a position to adopt the recommendation. 
48. The delegate of Japan  expressed that he was not in a positi on to join the consensus. Japan was 
of the view that the burden to change the frequency of  the notifications is much larger than the merit 
to have more accurate information of the state trad e enterprises. Japan expressed that it would like to 
have further consultations on this issue. 
49. The Chairperson  noted that the recommendation needed to be forwarded to the Council for 
Trade in Goods for its approval and that the next meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was to 
take place on 26 November 2003 and would not meet ag ain until 2004.  This left little time for further 
consultations if the recommendation was to  be approved before the new year. 
50. The delegate of the United States  suggested that, since the delegation of Japan was the only 
one to express a reservation, the recommendation could be adopted ad referendum  pending Japan's 
consultations with capital and its notifying the Secr etariat whether it would be able to join the 
consensus. 
51. The Chairperson  hoped that the proposal would be accep table to all and requested Japan to 
contact the Secretariat before the deadline for incl uding items in the Agenda of the Council for Trade 
in Goods. 
52. The Chairperson therefore proposed that  the draft recommendation be adopted ad referendum 
as amended at the meeting. 
53. The Working Party adopted  the draft recommendation ad referendum .1 
E. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
54. The Working Party adopted  the Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods which was 
circulated as document (G/L/660). 
                                                      
1 On 13 November 2003, Japan notified the Secretar iat that it was able to join the consensus for 
adoption of the draft recommendation.  The adopted recommendation was circulated as document G/STR/5.  On 26 November 2003 the Council for Trade in Goods approved the recommendation contained in document 
G/STR/5 and agreed to implement it as of the year 2004.   G/STR/M/13 
Page 6  
 
 55. Later in the meeting the European Communities
 raised a question whether items discussed 
under other business would be reflected in the Annual Report.  The Chairperson  replied that they 
could be included if it was so requested.  
56. The European Communities  and the United States  both requested that the items they raised 
under other business be reflected in the Annual Report.  Australia  questioned the appropriateness of 
including a mention of an item in the approved Annual Report without havi ng given the opportunity 
to one of the Members concerned to comment on the issue. 
57. The Chairperson  requested the Secretariat to prepare a final version of the Annual Report, 
reflecting the current meeting and the items which we re requested for inclusion.  The Working Party 
approved  the Annual Report ad referendum , pending comments by Members.  The revised version of 
the Annual Report was faxed to all Members for th eir comments, no comments were received before 
the deadline and the Annual Report became final on 14 November 2003. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. United States – Questions on the Canadian Wheat Board. 
58. The delegate of the United States  recalled that his delegation had submitted a questionnaire to 
the Working Party pursuant to Article XVII:4(c) of the GATT 1994 with respect to the Canadian 
Wheat Board.  This document was circulated on 13 January 2003, as document G/STR/Q1/CAN/6.  
The delegate of the United State noted that although almost a year had passed, Canada had declined to 
respond to the US submission.  The United States also noted that Article XVII:4(c) implied a good faith obligation to respond to such request.  Th e United States enquired whether Canada intended to 
respond to this US submission. 
59. The delegate of Canada
 took note of the statements from the United States and would report 
accordingly to capital.  He also expressed that he understood that the very detailed question posed by 
the United States ten months ago had been reviewed by his authorities in Ottawa.  In the past, his 
delegation had committed to provide a response to the Working Party on the State Trading Enterprises.  He noted, however, that these questions  related to the substance of an ongoing dispute 
between Canada and the United States which ha d been brought by the United States under the 
provisions of the Dispute Settlement  Understanding.  In this contex t, Canada had provided extensive 
answers to the questions posed by the United States and had clearly stat ed Canadian positions in that 
regard.  
60. The delegate of the United States
 noted that there was a willingn ess to at least consider this 
issue.  He pointed out that Article XVII:4(c) of  GATT 1994 and the dispute settlement process, were 
separate procedures.  Nothing in the GATT 1994 or  the Dispute Settlement Understanding indicated 
that Members could ignore an Article XVII:4 que stionnaire during a pending dispute.  Canada's 
unwillingness to provide information about the Canada  Wheat Board's operations was contrary to the 
spirit of the Article and had hindered all Memb ers' understanding of the Canada Wheat Board's 
operations. 
2. European Communities – Absence of notification by New Zealand 
61. The delegate of the European Communities  noted that his questions were addressed to the 
New Zealand delegation which was not present in the room.  He proceeded to state that at last year's meeting of 19 November 2002, his delegation had asked New Zeala nd for a notification concerning 
an enterprise, called " Fonterra ".  New Zealand had replied that the field of application and activities 
of this enterprise were not definitive yet, and di scussions were ongoing.  Th e New Zealand delegation 
had promised to communicate or notify a few months later as to the definitive position.  He noted that  G/STR/M/13 
 Page 7 
 
 
 the Working Party had not received th is notification.  Therefore, he was reiterating the EC's request 
for a notification concerning this enterprise. 
62. The Chairperson  proposed that the European Communiti es submit its question in writing to 
the Secretariat for circulation to the Working Pa rty with a copy to the New Zealand delegation. 
63. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________