G/AG/W/201  
 
20 June 2019  
(19-4221) Page: 1/16 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
ANNUAL EXPORT COMPET ITION REVIEW  
SUBMISSION FROM THE CAIRNS GROUP TO THE 91ST MEETING  
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (COA) IN  JUNE 2019  
The following communication, received on 1 7 June 201 9, is being circulated at the request of 
the Cairns Group.  
 
_______________  
 
 
At the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) Ministers adopted the Decision on Export Competition 
(WT/MIN(15)/45; WT/L/980 of 19 December 2015, "Nairobi Decision "). The Cairns Group welcomed 
this historic Decision as an im portant milestone in the reform process. Importantly, the Decision 
represented a legally binding commitment to both eliminate export subsidies, and to tackle measures 
with equivalent effect.  
The following paper draws on the Secretariat 's background docume nts G /AG/W/125/ Rev.10 
(and associated papers G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/ Add.1 , G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/ Add.2, 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/ Add.3 and G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/ Add.4) is submitted with the intention of 
helping to draw out important observations about the implementation of the MC10 Decision to aid 
Members ' understanding of progress so far, and areas which require further attention.  
A note on transparency : Under the Deci sion, Members are required to provide additional information 
in the context of an annual review process. The Secretariat 's questionnaire forms part of that 
process.  We note that 21% (only 291 of the 1 362) of WTO Members replied to the questionnaire3,4. 
We would encourage those Members to submit a response prior to the end of this year.  
1  EXPORT SUBSIDIES  
1.1  Elimination of Scheduled Export Subsidy Entitlements  
1.1.  As part of the commitment by Members at MC10 to eliminate all remaining scheduled export 
subsidy entitlements, Members agreed to submit new schedules demonstrating the elimination of 
export subsidies. Eighteen Members are conferred agricultural export subsidy entitlements under 
the WTO Agreement. Since the last Cairns Group paper in 2018, six Members have certified changes 
to their schedule, one has increased the number of products for which it has eliminated export 
subsidies, and an additional one has tabled its draft schedule. This takes the total Members with 
certified and draft schedule changes to 14, leaving only four yet to submit an amended schedule.  
1.2.  Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela have not provided an update 
on their respective domestic processes since the February 2018 Committee on Agriculture.   
                                           
1 The European Union and its 28 member States are counted as one Member.  
2 The European Union and its 28 member States are counted as one Member.  
3 Refer Annex 1 for the full table of respondents. If a Member is not listed in the table, it did not provide 
a response to the export finance, state trading enterprises, or food aid sections of the questionnaire.  
4 Annex 2 provides a table showing response rates since MC10.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table 1 : Statu s of Scheduled Export Subsidy Entitlements by Member  
Eliminated Entitlements Pre -MC10  
1 New Zealand  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all products in 2000  
2 Panama  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all products in 2003  
Amended Entitlements Post -MC10  
3 Australia  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all products 22 May 2017  
4 Norway  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for 7 of 11 products as 
at 28 February  2018; remainder by end 2020  
5 Israel  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for 2 of 5 products as 
at 11 March  2018; remainder by end  2020 
6 Switzerland -Liechtenstein  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for 4 of 5  products  as 
at 2 August  2018, remainder by end  2020 
7 Colombia  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all pr oducts 22 September 2018  
8 Uruguay  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all products 26 September 2018  
9 United States  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all products 8 November 2018  
10 South Africa  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all products 29 November 2018  
11 Mexico  Scheduled entitlements e liminated for all products 10 April 2019  
Initiated WTO procedures to amend entitlements  
12 European Union  Draft Schedule circulated 17 Oct ober 2017 
13 Canada  Draft Schedule circulated 11 Dec ember  2017 
14 Iceland  Draft Schedule circulated 15 March 2019  
 
2  COTTON  
2.1.  The Nairobi Decision required developed Members to immediately eliminate their cotton export 
subsidy entitlements. Developing Members had until 1 January 2017 to eliminate their entitlements. 
This Decision also extended the transparency and monitoring proc ess initiated at the Bali Ministerial 
Conference to trade in cotton.  
2.2.  The situation for implementing this Decision in respect of scheduled entitlements for cotton 
remains the same as it was last year .  Of the four Members with scheduled entitlements, Colombia, 
Israel  and South Africa have submitted amended schedules . Brazil is yet to eliminate its scheduled 
export subsidy entitlements for cotton. N o export subsidy outlays for cotton have been notified since 
2002.  
3  EXPORT FINANCING  SUPPORT  
3.1.  The Nairobi D ecision establishes a set of disciplines on export financing support (export credits, 
export credit guarantees and insurance programmes) for exports of agricultural products.  
Self-financing requirements apply with immediate effect while an 18-month  maximum  repayment 
term applies to developed Members from the last day of 2017. A phase -in period applies to 
developing Members: initially 36 months ( from 1 January 2016); 27 months after two years of 
implementation ( from 1 January 2018); and finally 18 months aft er four years of 
implementation  (from 1 January 2020).  
3.2.  Twenty -one Members (counting the European Union as one Member) replied to the current 
questionnaire on export financing support provided by Members for the export of agricultural 
products.  
3.3.  Seventeen Members5, again counting the European Union as one Member, replied that they 
provided no export financing support. In addition, five Members, notwithstanding having a 
programme in place, have either not provided agricultural export financing support in rec ent years 
or negligible support.6 Twenty -four Members provided replies with information on their export 
financing support programmes. Analysis here is based on replies to the current questionnaire and 
previous ones that remain applicable to Members ' situat ions in 2018.   
                                           
5 Counting 28 nil replied to previous questionnaires, plus two new nil replies to the current questionnaire  
(Mexico and Togo).  
6 Germany  has notified zero  support since 2011, while Iceland  notified zero  for at least the last eight 
years. Switzerland  notified  that its export financing  support  has been negligible due to very low demand.  In 
addition, Austria and Romania have notified programmes, but did not provide any support in 2018.  
G/AG/W/201  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.4.  The European Union provided questionnaire responses for over a half of its member States.7 It 
also indicated that no export financing support programmes are in operation at the European Union 
level or for eight of its member States, though w e note that in March 2016 the European Commission 
reported that it was examining the feasibility of an export credit scheme.8  This enhanced detailed 
information is welcomed and the European Union is encouraged to complete its report by providing 
data on t he remaining unreported member States.9 
3.5.  Of the four types of export financing support disciplined in the Nairobi Decision, risk cover 
(comprising export credit insurance or reinsurance and export credit guarantees) is the most 
common form of such support t o agricultural goods. Of the 66 programmes in the sample, 41 (62%) 
fall within the category of risk cover and 31 out of 34 (91%) Members that have active programmes 
reported having risk cover programmes.  
3.6.  Over 80% of the reported agricultural exports that received export financing in 2018 were 
supported by some type of risk cover, with most of this provided by Canada (41.56%), the United 
States (25.52%), China (13.59%) and Turkey (12.83%). Comparing 2018 with 2019 data, the value 
of agricultural exports fro m the US supported by risk cover increased from around USD 2.21 billion 
to USD 2.60 billion, which is an approximate return to 2017 levels. Exports from Canada supported 
by risk cover decreased from around USD 5.88 billion to USD 5.74 billion.  
3.7.  The second most used kind of programme within the sample is direct financing support 
(comprising direct credits/financing, refinancing, and interest rate support). Argentina, Brazil, 
Canada, China, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Indonesia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Paragu ay, Trinidad 
and Tobago and Viet Nam provide at least one type of direct financing support and 17 types of 
programmes were reported in total.  
3.8.  Just under half of the programmes reported have maximum repayment terms that exceed the 
18 months maximum repayme nt period established in the Nairobi Decision for agricultural 
products.10 Such programmes were reported by four Members (New Zealand11, Indonesia Trinidad 
and Tobago and Turkey).  
3.9.  One of the conditions of the Nairobi Decision established with immediate effe ct is the 
requirement for export finance to be self -financing. This was not part of the questionnaire circulated 
by the Secretariat, although four Members provided information relevant to this on a voluntary basis:  
• Canada indicated that its official Expor t Credit agency is self -financing;  
• Australia reported the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) to be self -funded;  
• New Zealand stated clearly that its programme covers all operation costs; and,  
• While the United States reported that its Export -Import Bank (export credit insurance 
programme) is "self-sustaining ", it did not report (as it did in 2014) that 
its GSM-102 programmes must cover the operating costs and losses of the programmes 
over 'the long term '. Thus, it remains unclear, as in 2018, whether this represents a 
change in policy or a change in reporting.  
3.10.   The export destination or group of destinations of Members ' programmes varies greatly 
without a clear pattern across them if each programme is given equal weight. However, from an 
                                           
7 The European Union provided responses for 19 of its 28 member States: Austria, Bulgari a, 
Czech  Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, and United Kingdom.  
8 The European Commission press release 14 March 2016: http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-
806_en.htm . 
9 The EU responded that no programmes are operated in Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, 
Portugal and Spain. It is also reported t hat no data on export financing programmes operated has been 
submitted by Luxembourg.  
10 The financing entities of some reporting Members provide financing for agricultural products specified 
in the Ministerial Decision with a maximum repayment term of 18 m onths in compliance with the decision, 
however, for general programmes they provide support with a term of up to two years.  
11 New Zealand did not issue any Export Credit guarantee policies in support of agricultural exports 
during 2018.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 4 - 
 
  exports -weighted point of view, at least around 70% of financed agricultural goods are exported 
from a developed to a developing countr y.  
4  AGRICULTURAL EXPORTI NG STATE TRADING ENT ERPRISES  
4.1.  The Nairobi Decision includes a commitment that Members shall not use agricultural exporting 
state trading enterprises (STEs) to circumvent the other disciplines in the Decision. It also requires 
Member s to make their best efforts to ensure that the use of export monopoly powers by agricultural 
exporting STEs is exercised in a manner that minimizes trade distorting effects and does not displace 
or impede the exports of another Member.   
4.2.  Since the last que stionnaire, the number of STEs notified has not increased. Twenty -one 
Members indicated they have no agricultural exporting STEs. Trinidad and Tobago and Canada have 
each indicated recent reforms of agricultural STEs. There is no evidence to suggest theref ore that 
the Members which have eliminated export subsidy entitlements appear to be turning to STEs as an 
alternative means of facilitating exports for those products.  
4.3.  In the questionnaire and related notifications, 15 Members notified the existence of 
59 agricultural exporting STEs.  
Table 2 : Notified Agricultural Exporting State Trading Enterprises  
Member  # notified  Products  
Australia  1 Rice 
China  26 Rice  
  Corn 
  Cotton  
  Tobacco  
  Tea 
Colombia  4 Liquor beverages  
Costa Rica  1 Sugar  
Dominica  1 Bananas  
Ecuador  1 Maize  
Rice  
Cereals  
Fiji 1 Sugar  
Grenada  1 Cocoa  
India 14 Onions  
  Gum karaya12 
  Sugar  
Indonesia  1 Rice 
Israel  3 Groundnuts  
  Eggs & poultry  
  Plants  
Moldova, R epublic  of 1 Wine 
New Zealand  1 Kiwifruit  
Tunisia  2 Tobacco  
  Vegetable oils  
Ukraine  1 Ethanol & fruit alcohol  
 
5  INTERNATIONAL FOOD A ID 
5.1.  The MC10 Decision established disciplines on international food aid with the objective of 
preventing or minimising commercial displacement of international trade resulting from such aid. 
Members are encouraged to provide exclusively cash -based food aid. Monetisation is permitted 
subject to conditions, including minimising or eliminating disruptions to local or regional markets 
and effects upon p roduction.  
5.2.  Of the 29 Members that responded to the questionnaire circulated on 25 October 2018, 
11 provided responses with respect to food aid (Australia, Canada, the European Union13, Indonesia, 
                                           
12 This product no l onger appears in the responses to the Export Competition Questionnaire prepared for 
the June  2019 Review.  
13 The European Union is counted as one Member for the purposes of discussing donors.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Japan, New  Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Switzerla nd, Turkey and the United States). 
Responses from these Members form the basis of the comments below and an overview is provided 
in Table 3.  
5.3.  On the basis of responses contained within G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/Add.3, the vast majority of 
reported food aid appears to have been donated on terms substantially, or fully consistent with, 
the MC10 Decision. All 11 donors responding to the questionnaire confirmed their aid is fully in grant 
form.  
5.4.  Of those Members providing International Food Aid that responded to the ques tionnaire, eight 
Members provided untied cash -based food assistance (Australia, Canada, the European Union, 
New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States) and one (Switzerland) 
provided a mixture of untied and tied cash -based food assis tance. Of those Members providing 
cash-based assistance, six provided cash exclusively (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, 
the Russian Federation and Switzerland). There was a lack of detail in responses on whether or not 
cash-based food aid assistanc e was provided on a fully un -tied or tied basis.  
5.5.  Four Members provided in -kind food assistance (i.e. they provide actual commodities as aid - 
the European Union, Indonesia, Turkey and the United States). Japan provided food aid assistance, 
but it was not clear from G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/Add.3 if this was cash -based or in -kind food 
assistance. Japan and the United States permit monetisation.   
  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 6 - Table 3 : Overview of Members' food aid programmes  
Member  Is aid provided on a 
cash basis and if so 
how much?  Is aid provided 'in-kind' 
i.e. actual commodities  
and if so how much?  If aid is provided 
'in-kind' is it 
provided to the 
WFP, relevant 
international 
organisation or in 
response to an 
emergency?  Is the aid 
provided in 
fully grant 
form (i.e. not 
tied) ? If aid is provided 
'in-kind-, is 
monetisation of 
the aid prohibited 
or not possible?  Is re -export 
of 'in-kind' 
food aid 
permitted?  Most Recent 
Year of 
Reporting in 
Response  
Australia  Yes, AUD 84.7 million  No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2017-18 
Canada  Yes, CAN 361.8 million  No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2016 
European Union  Yes, EUR 1.71 million 
(Austria); and not 
specified  (Czechia – 
CZK 7,090,602.90 
provided as partly 
in kind/partly 
cash-based)  Yes, Ultra High Temperature 
drinking milk (valued at 
EUR 30 million in two-year period 
06/2016 -05/2018); and not 
specified (Czech Republic – 
CZK 7,090,602.90 provided as 
partly in -kind/partly cash -based  In response to an 
emergency , provided 
through international 
organisations 
(WFP,  ICRC, SARC)  Yes N/A, except for 
in-kind food aid 
provided by Czechia, 
where monetisation 
is permitted  No Mixed 
(2016 -18) 
Indonesia  No Yes, 5,000 tonnes of rice 
(HS 1006)  In response to an 
emergency  Yes Monetisation is not 
permitted  No 2017 
Japan14 not specified  not specified  Not specified  Yes Monetisation is 
permitted  No 2017 
New Zealand  Yes, NZD 6 million 
WFP core funding and 
NZD 4.05 million for 
one-off WFP funding  No N/A  Yes N/A N/A 2017-18 
Norway  Yes, NOK 277 million for 
WFP core funding and 
NOK 548.6 million for 
WFP multi -bilateral 
support   No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2017 
Russian 
Federation  Yes, US D 30 million to 
WFP in 2018  No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2018 
Switzerland  Yes, CHF  75 million to 
WFP in in 2018 of which 
CHF 4.71 million was 
tied15 No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2018 
                                           
14 Japan reported YEN 11.1 billion in food aid in 2017, however it is not clear within G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/Add.3 if this was provi ded on a cash basis or in -kind basis.  
15 In accordance with an agreement between Switzerland and the WFP, 1,883 tonnes/CHF4.71 mill ion of skimmed milk powder from Switzerland was purchased as part of 
the Swiss CH75 million WFP funding.   
  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 7 - Member  Is aid provided on a 
cash basis and if so 
how much?  Is aid provided 'in-kind' 
i.e. actual commodities  
and if so how much?  If aid is provided 
'in-kind' is it 
provided to the 
WFP, relevant 
international 
organisation or in 
response to an 
emergency?  Is the aid 
provided in 
fully grant 
form (i.e. not 
tied) ? If aid is provided 
'in-kind-, is 
monetisation of 
the aid prohibited 
or not possible?  Is re -export 
of 'in-kind' 
food aid 
permitted?  Most Recent 
Year of 
Reporting in 
Response  
Turkey  No Yes, USD 206,634,343.89 worth 
of products provided by the 
Turkish Red Crescent; 
USD 8,839,000 provided by the 
Turkish Cooperation and 
Coordination Agency; 
USD 10,089,487.45 provided by 
the Disaster and Emergency 
Management Authority; and 
47,993 tonnes of wheat by the 
Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry  Yes Yes Monetisation is not 
permitted  No. 2018 
United States  Yes, USD 1.8 billion on a 
cash basis  Yes, 1.534 million tonnes of 
commodities worth 
USD 572 million.  Yes, to WFP among 
others  Yes Monetisation is 
permitted  No 2018 
 
• The information summarised in this table has been drawn from submissions made to the export competition questionnaire circula ted on 25  October  2018 
and the information compiled in G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/Add.3.  
• The phrase 'not specified ' indicates where a relevant response or relevant data was not clear within G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/Add.3.  
• The value or volume of assistance listed is taken from the last available year listed for the Member in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.10/Add.3.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 8 - 
 
  6  TRANSPARENCY  
6.1.  There continues to be variability in the number and quality of notifications and replies to the 
Secretariat questionnaire16 from across the WTO Membership.  
6.2.  Notifications for ES have improved significantly17. At the time of publication of the 2017 report, 
only 20 Members had provided their notification for 2016. As of 24 May, 94  Members have submitted 
their ES:1 notification fo r 2016, 78 have submitted their notification for 2017 and 50 have submitted 
their notification for 2018.  
6.3.  The Secretariat received 29 responses to the questionnaire.18 
7  CONCLUSIONS  
7.1.  There is a substantial increase in Members submitting their ES:1 notification s, which is 
particularly positive. Members who have yet to submit any notifications or who are yet to submit 
their most recent notifications are encouraged to do so as.  
7.2.  The rate of response to the questionnaire is a slight improvement upon last year, howe ver, the 
continuing poor response rate, including 83 Members that have never responded to the 
questionnaire, is concerning.  
7.3.  The monitoring function of the Committee is fundamental to the transparency principle of 
the WTO. Furthermore, implementation of Ministerial Decisions is important to a well -
functioning  WTO.  The MC10 Decision made responding to the questionnaire, like notifications, a 
binding obligation. This obligation is with immediate effect for developed Members while the 
obligation applies to developing country Members with an implementation period of four years 
following the adoption of the Decision (i.e. December 2020) unless they are in a position to respond 
sooner.  
7.4.  The Cairns Group urges Members to make further efforts to i mprove transparency, including 
submitting overdue notifications, submitting outstanding questionnaire responses, and updating the 
Committee on progress on domestic implementation of MC10 commitments. The Secretariat 's 
questionnaire, the information it garners, and the resulting analysis enable robust processes in the 
WTO to empower the reform agenda.  
                                           
16 Footnote 17 of the Annex of the MC10 Decision set out that "Notwithstanding paragraph 4 of 
[the] Decision, developing country Members, unless they ar e in a position to do so at an earlier date, shall 
implement [the] Annex no later than five years following the date of adoption of this decision ". 
17 See Annex 3: Members providing ES:1 notifications for 2016 – 2018. 
18 The European Union and its 28 member States are counted as one Member.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 9 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
MEMBERS RESPONDING T O THE 2019 EXPORT CO MPETITION QUESTIO NNAIRE  
✓ = Response provided . 
EU = Response provided as part of wider EU response . 
EU NIL = Nil response provided as part of wider EU response . 
Nil = Nil response provided confirming absence of relevant programmes . 
X = No response provided . 
 
Member  Export Financing  STEs  Food Aid  
Australia     
Austria  EU EU NIL  X 
Belgium  X EU NIL  X 
Brazil   NIL NIL 
Bulgaria  EU EU NIL  X 
Burundi  NIL NIL NIL 
Canada   NIL  
Colombia  NIL X NIL 
Costa Rica  NIL  NIL 
Croatia  EU EU NIL  X 
Cyprus  X EU NIL  X 
Czech Republic  EU EU NIL  X 
Denmark  EU EU NIL  X 
Ecuador  NIL  NIL 
Estonia  EU EU NIL  X 
European Union   NIL  
Finland  EU EU NIL  X 
France  EU EU NIL  X 
Germany  EU EU NIL  X 
Greece  X EU NIL  X 
Hong Kong, China   NIL NIL 
Hungary  EU EU NIL  X 
Indonesia    NIL 
Ireland  X EU NIL  X 
Israel  NIL   
Italy X EU NIL  X 
Japan   NIL  
Latvia  EU EU NIL  X 
Liechtenstein  NIL NIL NIL 
Lithuania  EU EU NIL  X 
Luxembourg  X EU NIL  X 
Macao, China  NIL NIL NIL 
Malta  X EU NIL  X 
Mauritius  NIL NIL NIL 
Mexico  NIL NIL NIL 
Montenegro  NIL NIL NIL 
Netherlands  EU EU NIL  X 
New Zealand     
Nicaragua  X NIL NIL 
Norway  NIL NIL  
Oman  NIL NIL NIL 
Paraguay   NIL NIL 
Poland  EU EU NIL  X 
Portugal  X EU NIL  X G/AG/W/201  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Member  Export Financing  STEs  Food Aid  
Romania  EU EU NIL  X 
Russian Federation   NIL  
Singapore  NIL NIL NIL 
Slovak Republic  EU EU NIL  X 
Slovenia  EU EU NIL  X 
Spain  X EU NIL  X 
Sweden  EU EU NIL  X 
Switzerland   NIL  
Turkey   NIL  
Ukraine  NIL  NIL 
United Kingdom  EU EU NIL  X 
United States of America   NIL  
Uruguay  NIL NIL NIL 
TOTAL  28 (17%)  28 (17%)  29 (18%)  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 11 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
MEMBERS RESPONDING T O THE EXPORT COMPETI TION QUESTIONNAIRE  
SINCE THE NAIROBI MI NISTERIAL (MC10)  
Member  No. RESPONSES BY 
MEMBER  2016  2017  2018  2019  
Albania  1 ✓    
Argentina  2  ✓ ✓  
Australia  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Brazil  3 ✓  ✓ ✓ 
Burundi  1    ✓ 
Canada  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Chile 2 ✓ ✓   
China  1  ✓   
Colombia  2  ✓  ✓ 
Costa Rica  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Dominican Republic  1 ✓    
Ecuador  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
European Union1 4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Fiji 1  ✓   
Georgia  1 ✓    
Guatemala  1   ✓  
Honduras  2 ✓ ✓   
Hong Kong, China  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Iceland  1  ✓   
Indonesia  1    ✓ 
Israel  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Jamaica  1 ✓    
Japan  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Jordan  1 ✓    
Liechtenstein  1    ✓ 
Macao, China  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Madagascar  1 ✓    
Malaysia  3 ✓ ✓ ✓  
Mauritius  3  ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Mexico  2   ✓ ✓ 
Montenegro  2 ✓   ✓ 
New Zealand  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Nicaragua  1    ✓ 
Norway  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Oman  1    ✓ 
Panama  3 ✓ ✓ ✓  
Paraguay  1    ✓ 
Peru 2  ✓ ✓  
Philippines  2  ✓ ✓  
Russian Federation  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Saudi  Arabia,  Kingdom  of 1 ✓    
Seychelles  2 ✓ ✓   
Singapore  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
South Africa  1 ✓    
Switzerland  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
                                           
1 Responding on behalf of the EU -28. G/AG/W/201  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Member  No. RESPONSES BY 
MEMBER  2016  2017  2018  2019  
Chinese Taipei  2 ✓ ✓   
Thailand  2 ✓ ✓   
Togo 1   ✓  
Trinidad and Tobago  1  ✓   
Turkey  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Ukraine  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
United States of America  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Uruguay  4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Viet Nam  1 ✓    
TOTAL   36 (22%)  34 (21%)  28 (17%)  29 (18%)  
 
Members not responding to the questionnaire since the Nairobi Ministerial: Afghanistan; Angola; 
Antigua and Barbuda; Armenia; Bahrain, Kingdom of; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Benin; 
Bolivia,  Plurinational State of; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Burkina Faso; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; 
Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Congo , Democratic Republic of ; Côte d’Ivoire; Cuba; 
Djibouti; Dominica; Egypt; El Salvador;  Eswatin i; Gabon; The Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guinea; 
Guinea -Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; India; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Korea, Republic of; Kuwait, the State of; 
Kyrgyz Republic; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Lesotho; Liberia; Malawi; Maldives; Mali; 
Mauritania;  Moldova, Republic of; Mongolia; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; Nepal; 
Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; North Macedonia , Republic of ; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; Qatar; 
Rwanda; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Senegal; 
Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Sri Lanka; Suriname; Tajikistan; Tanzania; Tonga; Tunisia; Uganda; 
United  Arab Emirates; Vanuatu; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of; Yemen; Zambia; Zimbabwe . 
 G/AG/W/201  
 
- 13 - 
 
  ANNEX 3  
MEMBERS PROVIDING ES :1 NOTIFIC ATIONS FOR 2016 – 2018 
✓ = Response provided.  
EU = Response provided as part of wider EU response.  
EU NIL = Nil response provided as part of wider EU response.  
Nil = Nil response provided confirming absence of relevant programmes.  
X = No response provided.  
 
Member  2016  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2017  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2018  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  
Afghanistan  X X X 
Albania  X X X 
Angola  X X X 
Antigua and Barbuda  X X X 
Argentina  X X X 
Armenia  NIL X X 
Australia  NIL NIL X 
Austria  EU EU EU 
Bahrain, Kingdom of  NIL NIL X 
Bangladesh  X X X 
Barbados1 NIL NIL X 
Belgium  EU EU EU 
Belize  X X X 
Benin  X X X 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  NIL X X 
Botswana2 NIL NIL NIL 
Brazil  ✓ ✓ X 
Brunei Darussalam  X X X 
Bulgaria  EU EU EU 
Burkina Faso  X X X 
Burundi  NIL NIL X 
Cabo Verde  X X X 
Cambodia  NIL NIL NIL 
Cameroon  NIL NIL X 
Canada3 ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Central African Republic  X X X 
Chad NIL X X 
Chile X X X 
China  NIL NIL X 
Colombia  X X X 
Congo , Democratic Republic of  X X X 
Costa Rica  NIL NIL NIL 
Côte d'Ivoire  NIL NIL NIL 
Croatia  EU EU EU 
Cuba NIL NIL NIL 
Cyprus  EU EU EU 
                                           
1 Barbados makes its export subsidies notification on a fiscal year basis. Barbados has notified up until 
the 2016/2017 fiscal year.  
2 Botswana makes its export subsidies notification o n a fiscal year basis. Botswana has notified up until 
the 2017/2018 fiscal year.  
3 Canada makes its export subsidies notification on a marketing year basis. Canada has notified up until 
the period of 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Member  2016  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2017  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2018  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  
Czech Republic  EU EU EU 
Democratic Republic of the Congo  X X X 
Denmark  EU EU EU 
Djibouti  X X X 
Dominica  X X X 
Dominican Republic  X X X 
Ecuador  NIL X X 
Egypt  X X X 
El Salvador  NIL NIL X 
Estonia  EU EU EU 
Eswatini  X X X 
European Union4 ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Fiji X X X 
Finland  EU EU EU 
France  EU EU EU 
Gabon  NIL X X 
The Gambia  X X X 
Georgia  X X X 
Germany  EU EU EU 
Ghana  X X X 
Greece  EU EU EU 
Grenada  X X X 
Guatemala  NIL NIL X 
Guinea  X X X 
Guinea -Bissau  X X X 
Guyana  X X X 
Haiti X X X 
Honduras  NIL X X 
Hong Kong, China  NIL NIL NIL 
Hungary  EU EU EU 
Iceland  ✓ NIL X 
India X X X 
Indonesia  ✓ ✓ X 
Ireland  EU EU EU 
Israel  ✓ ✓ X 
Italy EU EU EU 
Jamaica5 NIL NIL X 
Japan  NIL NIL NIL 
Jordan  X X X 
Kazakhstan  NIL X X 
Kenya  X X X 
Korea, Republic of  X X X 
Kuwait, the State of  X X X 
Kyrgyz Republic  X X X 
Lao People's Democratic Republic  X X X 
Latvia  EU EU EU 
Lesotho  X X X 
Liechtenstein  X X X 
Lithuania  EU EU EU 
Luxembourg  EU EU EU 
                                           
4 The European Union make s its export subsidies notification on a marketing year basis. 
The European  Union has notified up until the period of 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018.  
5 Jamaica makes its export subsidies notification on a fiscal year basis. Jamaica has notified up until 
the 2016/2017 fiscal year.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Member  2016  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2017  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2018  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  
Macao, China  NIL NIL NIL 
Madagascar  X X X 
Malawi  NIL X X 
Malaysia  NIL X X 
Maldives  X X X 
Mali NIL NIL X 
Malta  EU EU EU 
Mauritania  X X X 
Mauritius6 ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Mexico  NIL NIL NIL 
Moldova, Republic of  NIL NIL NIL 
Mongolia  X X X 
Montenegro  NIL NIL NIL 
Morocco  X X X 
Mozambique  X X X 
Myanmar  X X X 
Namibia  X X X 
Nepal  X X X 
Netherlands  EU EU EU 
New Zealand  NIL NIL NIL 
Nicaragua  NIL NIL NIL 
Niger  X X X 
Nigeria  NIL X X 
North Macedonia , Republic of NIL NIL X 
Norway  ✓ ✓ X 
Oman  NIL NIL X 
Pakistan  X X X 
Panama  NIL NIL X 
Papua New Guinea  X X X 
Paraguay  NIL NIL X 
Peru NIL NIL X 
Philippines  NIL NIL NIL 
Poland  EU EU EU 
Portugal  EU EU EU 
Qatar  NIL X X 
Romania  EU EU EU 
Russian Federation  NIL NIL NIL 
Rwanda  X X X 
Saint Kitts and Nevis  X X X 
Saint Lucia  X X X 
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines  NIL NIL X 
Samoa  NIL NIL NIL 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  NIL NIL X 
Senegal  NIL X X 
Seychelles  NIL X X 
Sierra Leone  X X X 
Singapore  NIL NIL X 
Slovak Republic  EU EU EU 
Slovenia  EU EU EU 
Solomon Islands  X X X 
South Africa  ✓ X X 
Spain  EU EU EU 
                                           
6 Mauritius makes its export subsidies notification on a marketing year basis. The European Union has 
notified up until the period of 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018.  G/AG/W/201  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Member  2016  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2017  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  2018  Export 
Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  
Sri Lanka  NIL NIL X 
Suriname  X X X 
Sweden  EU EU EU 
Switzerland  ✓ ✓ X 
Chinese Taipei  NIL NIL NIL 
Tajikistan  NIL NIL NIL 
Tanzania  X X X 
Thailand  X X X 
Togo NIL X X 
Tonga  X X X 
Trinidad and Tobago  X X X 
Tunisia  X X X 
Turkey  X X X 
Uganda  X X X 
Ukraine  NIL NIL NIL 
United Arab Emirates  NIL X X 
United Kingdom  EU EU EU 
United States of America  X X X 
Uruguay  NIL X X 
Vanuatu  X X X 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  X X X 
Viet Nam  X X X 
Yemen  X X X 
Zambia  NIL X X 
Zimbabwe  NIL NIL X 
TOTAL  94 78 50 
 
 
__________