RESTRICTED   
  
G/STR/M/43  
 
17 November 2023  
(23-7777) Page: 1/9 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises   
 
 
WORKING PARTY ON STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
HELD ON 20 OCTOBER 2023  
CHAIR: LAURA CALLIGARO (ITALY)  
1.  The Working Party on State Trading Enterprises (the "Working Party") held a regular meeting on 
20 October 2023, in person as well as virtually via Interprefy.  
2.  The Working Party adopted  the following agenda (the proposed agenda had been circulated in 
WTO/AIR/STR/19  on 5 October 2023).  
1   ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ... 1 
2   REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  .................  1 
3   REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE WORKING PARTY  .... 3 
4   CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY  
THE RUSSIAN  FEDERATION ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
5   REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ON 
IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE WORKING PARTY  ................................ ..........  7 
6   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 
7   DATES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS IN 2024  ................................ ..........................  8 
8   ANNUAL REPORT (2023) TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ..........................  8 
 
1  ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
3.  The Chair recalled that in 2019, with the agreement of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), the 
Working Party agreed to elect a vice -chairperson moving forward. The Working Party agreed that 
the Chair would consult with Members regarding a possible vice -chairperso n, and the election of the 
vice-chairperson would take place in the Working Party.  
4.  The Chair noted that, although she had conducted initial consultations as had been done in 
selecting the previous vice -chairpersons, she was not in a position to propose a n ame for the election 
of a new vice -chairperson for the time being, based on those consultations. The Chair indicated that 
she would therefore continue her consultations.  
2  REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  
5.  The Chair  recalled that, acc ording to paragraph 5 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XVII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Understanding), the 
Working  Party was tasked with reviewing the notifications and counter -notifications submitted by 
Members on their state trading enterprises (STEs).  
6.  For the review of the new and full notifications of STEs submitted by Members, the Chair 
suggested that the Working Party conduct the review in the same way as at previous meetings, 
focusing on: (i) whether the notification responded adequately to the information requested in the G/STR/M/43  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Questionnaire on STEs ( G/STR/3/Rev.1 ); and (ii) whether more information was required in order 
to permit a clear appreciation of the manner of operation of the enterprises not ified and the effect 
of their operations on international trade.  
7.  The Chair recalled that new and full notifications were now due every two years. The most recent 
call for new and full notifications was contained in document G/STR/N/19 , and called for Members 
to submit notifications for the years 2020 and 2021 by 30  June 2022. The  Working  Party would take 
up notifications from six Members circulated since the previous meeting on 28 April  2023.  
8.  The Chair recalled that, as provided in the Working Party's 1995 Rep ort (G/L/35 ), Members 
wishing to raise questions on a notification under review were to present them in writing to the 
notifying delegation and to the Secretariat at the latest three weeks before the meeting. The Chair 
also reminded Members asking questions not already sent in writing that, if they wished to receive 
a written response, they would have to follow up by submitting their questions in writing to the 
Member concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat for circulation.  
9.  Australia , Canada , Costa Rica , the European Union , Japan , the United Kingdom  and the 
United  States  jointly emphasized the need for Members to make the required notifications, noting 
that a number of Members had either failed to make any notification or had not made any for some 
time. Referring to data circulated by the Secretariat, they noted that 55  Members had not made a 
notification in the last 10 years, and only  44 out of 136  Members had made the requisite notification 
for the most recent notification cycle. That was the lowe st level of compliance the Working  Party had 
ever seen, the previous being 45  notifications in 1996 and 2020. Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the 
European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United  States stressed that transparency was 
an important req uirement for all WTO Members and notifications and counter -notifications were 
sometimes the only way in which other Members could be properly informed of a Member's activities 
in a given area. Low levels of compliance undermined the transparency function o f the 
Working  Party. They also noted that much of the information to be provided in STE notifications had 
been provided and discussed in the Trade Policy Review process, in the WTO  Committee on 
Agriculture, in particular the yearly Export Competition Quest ionnaire, or had otherwise been 
provided to the WTO . Thus, Members could benefit from synergies in respect of information 
submitted through STE  notifications and the Committee on Agriculture reporting, which could 
contribute to greater transparency and red uce burdens for Members. Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, 
the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United  States called on other Members to 
submit their regular STE notifications within the deadlines and to respond to other Members' 
questions in  a substantive and timely manner. They also indicated that they fully supported any 
initiative that the Chair or the Secretariat might take regarding compliance with notification 
requirements.  
10.  The United States  informed Members that it had placed an item o n the agenda of the CTG 
identifying certain Members' non -notification of items whose notification is required by WTO 
obligations, including the Understanding. The United States explained that, by bringing this item to 
the CTG, its intent was to raise aware ness of this issue beyond the Working Party, with a call to 
work with the listed Members on their notifications. As stated to the CTG, the United States noted 
that many Members' notifications had been outstanding for over 25 years and urged Members with 
questions about their notification obligations to approach the Secretariat for guidance about how to 
meet the requirements under the applicable WTO agreements. Alternatively, the United States 
suggested that Members could reach out to other Members for guida nce and assistance. The 
United  States noted that all Members at some point had been in a position of having to prepare a 
WTO notification for the first time, and should therefore be sympathetic to the challenge. Finally, 
the United States stressed that it stood ready to help Members with their applicable notifications, as 
it had consistently done in the past, particularly with least -developed country Members and Members 
with small delegations.  
11.  No questions were posed and no comments were made regarding the  notifications of 
Liechtenstein  (G/STR/N/18/LIE  and G/STR/N/19/LIE)  and Uruguay  G/STR/N/19/URY ). 
12.  Regarding the notification of Burkina Faso  (G/STR/N/19/BFA ), the European Union  
commended the efforts of Burkina Faso, as a least developed country, in making its notification.  G/STR/M/43  
 
- 3 - 
 
  13.  Regarding the notification of Lesotho  (G/STR/N/19/LSO ), the United States  thanked Lesotho 
for its notification, expressing hope that it would prompt other similarly situated Members to fulfil 
their notification obligations.  
14.  Regarding the notification of Mauritius  (G/STR/N/19/MUS ), the European Union  thanked 
Mauritius for its notific ation, and asked whether the Agricultural Marketing Board, which was 
identified in Mauritius' notification, was involved in exports of any agricultural products and, if so, of 
which products and in which quantities.  
15.  Regarding the notification of the Philip pines  (G/STR/N/19/PHL ), the European Union thanked 
the Philippines for its notification and posed several questions. First, the European Union asked the 
Philippines why the administered price in table DS:5 of document G/AG/N/PHL/85  was su bstantially 
below the average representative domestic sales price as reported in G/STR/N/19/PHL.  Second, the 
European Union asked the Philippines to specify the total quantities and prices of rice and corn that 
had been purchased by the National Foo d Authority from the local farmers. Third, the 
European  Union requested details on whether state or private entities were involved in the import 
of rice. Finally, the European Union noted that according to G/STR/N/19/PHL  there had been no 
exports of rice or corn due to the lack of surpluses of either product in 2020 and 2021, and asked 
the Philippines to indicate who would export those products in the case of surpluses in 2022.  
16.  The Chair drew the attention of delegations to the document containing the Status of 
Notifications ( RD/STR/56 ). The Chair noted that the Status of Notifications showed that many 
Members were not fulfilling their notification obligations and that this prevented Members from 
enjoying the full benefit of t ransparency. The Chair, therefore, urged Members that had not yet 
notified to do so, and to consult the Secretariat if they had any questions. The Chair also thanked 
Members that had notified.  
17.  The Working Party took note  of the notifications, questions and  answers and statements made.  
3  REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE WORKING PARTY  
18.  The Chair  recalled that delegations had requested that the Working Party revert to notifications 
from four Members. First, regarding the notification of China  contained in document 
G/STR/N/18 /CHN , the Chair recalled that the United States had requested that the Working Party 
revert to it.  
19.  The United States  indicated that it continued to find China's notification to be insufficient. The 
United States stated that throughout the notification, China had failed to provide any of the required 
information on import quantity, average import price, average representative domestic sale s price, 
mark-up, average procurement price, average export price, and in some instances national 
production, instead describing the information as "not available". The United States  questioned 
whether that information could be not available to China,  noting that several entities in the 
notification were listed companies that had periodic reporting requirements and that some of the 
missing information was publicly available through other sources. At a minimum, the United States 
submitted that China coul d have reported the import quantity for the reported products. The United 
States emphasized that, given the role the State plays in many of the products reported in the 
notification, China would likely have knowledge of information regarding national produ ction. The 
United States requested that China review its notification and provide the information to the 
Working  Party for review. The United States added that China's notification was troublesome for 
systemic reasons, given the vital role of the transpare ncy function of the Working Party and the WTO 
broadly. The United States asked Members to seriously consider whether the Working Party should 
consider China’s notification as a proper notification, pointing out that notifications sometimes 
offered the only  means to learn about other Members' activity in a given area, and that all Members 
had committed to fulfilling their transparency obligations. Finally, the United States recalled China's 
statement at the 28 April 2023 meeting that China was doing its utmo st in verifying and providing 
the required data and information and  would consult with capital before providing a reply to the 
United States, but noted that China had provided no update. The United States therefore asked 
China if it had any update to share  with Members regarding its notification.  
20.  The European Union  thanked the United States for drawing attention to China's notification, 
sharing the concern that China's most recent notification appeared incomplete and did not provide G/STR/M/43  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the required information  regarding import and export quantities, price, and other elements. The 
European Union looked forward to China providing additional information in line with the notification 
requirements. In addition, the European Union asked China to provide further infor mation on the 
China Mineral Resources Group, which the European Union stated had been established the previous 
year with the purpose of buying raw materials, in particular iron ore for China's steel industry. The 
European Union requested China to provide f urther information on the function of this entity, on 
whether it operated as a state agency or otherwise had any link to the Chinese government, and 
whether its trading activities constituted state trading within the meaning of Article XVII of the 
GATT  1994. The European Union further stated that it understood that MOFCOM has still not 
published the 2023 -2024 list of state trading companies approved for critical raw materials, and 
requested China to provide an update on when this list would be published. Fi nally, the 
European  Union asked China whether STEs for raw materials were subject to the same rules and 
regulations as other market operators, notably in terms of merger control, or whether there were 
any exemptions for them.  
21.  China  thanked the United State s and the European Union for their continued concerns and 
questions. China stressed that it attached great importance to the transparency function of the WTO, 
to fulfilling its notification obligations, and to continuously improving the quality of its noti fications. 
Regarding the United States' and the European Union's concerns, China referred to the explanations 
and clarifications that it had provided at the preceding meeting of the Working Party, of 
28 April 2023, as recorded in document G/STR/M/42.  China indicated that it was in the process of 
preparing its next notification and would try its best to provide additional data and information to 
further enhance transparency, in a sincere effort to respond to Members' concerns. China also noted 
that it had pre viously expressed concerns that the United States' recent notifications, 
G/STR/N/18/USA  and G/STR/N/19/USA , lacked complete information on export volumes, average 
domestic selling prices and domestic production, noting however that no response h ad been provided 
by the United States. Regarding the European Union's questions surrounding the China Mineral 
Resources Group, China indicated that the administration of imports of products subject to state 
trading was strictly governed by Annex 2A1 of Chi na's accession protocol1, and that iron ore was not 
listed in that Annex. Regarding its state trading enterprises, China referred to its notification, and 
advised that it had no information to share on enterprises beyond the scope of its notification.  
22.  Regarding the notifications of India  contained in documents G/STR/N/15/IND  and 
G/STR/N/16/IND  – G/STR/N/17/IND , the Chair  recalled that on 28  October  2019 the United  States 
had posed written questions to India on these notifications, which had been circulated as document 
G/STR/Q1/IND/21 . On 9 June 2021, India had submitted written responses to the United States' 
questions, which had been circulated as document G/STR/Q1/IND/22 . The European Union had also 
asked the Working Party to go back to India's notifications contained in G/STR/N/16/IND  – 
G/STR/N/17/IND . On 5 April 2022, the European Union had posed written questions in connection 
with these notifications,  circulated as G/STR/Q1/IND/24.  
23.  The United States  thanked India for its responses provided until then but also noted that 
responses to several questions concerning the 2016 -2018 period remained substantively 
outstanding. The United States recalled that India had previously indicated that reviews and 
responses were still be ing worked on at the time of its June 2021 reply and that a revised notification, 
if needed, would be provided once that review process was completed. The United States noted that 
over two years had passed since India had promised such an update and that, since the questions 
concerned the 2016 -2018 period, India should have had the information readily available at that 
point. The United States requested an update as to when finalized responses and an updated 
notification were expected, noting that India's n on-response had also been placed as an agenda item 
before the CTG.  
24.  The European Union  also expressed concerns with India's notification, noting that at the meeting 
of the Working Party on 15 October 20212, the European Union had requested information regarding 
the state -owned enterprise Vijaya Dairy located in the Indian state of Telangana. The 
European  Union noted that it had subsequently submitted those questions in writing in document 
G/STR/Q1/IND/24  on 6 April 2022, and had also requested an update from India as to when a 
response could be expected at the meetings of the Working Party of 13 May 20223, 
 
1 WT/L/432 , pp. 20 -23. 
2 G/STR/M/39 , para.22.  
3 G/STR/M/40 , para. 30.  G/STR/M/43  
 
- 5 - 
 
  21 October  20224, and 28 April 2023.5 The European Union expressed concern that such a delay 
was not in the spirit of the transp arency requirements of the Working Party, and indicated that it did 
not understand what could cause such a long delay for replying to its enquiry. The European Union 
reiterated its request for a written response to its questions regarding Vijaya Dairy.  
25.  India thanked the United States and the European Union for their questions and interest in 
India's notifications, and indicated that it was working on a response and would share its response 
as soon as it was available.  
26.  Regarding the notification of Mexico  contained in document, G/STR/ N/16/MEX,  the Chair  
recalled that on 29 September 2023, Canada had posed written questions related to this document. 
These questions were circulated as document G/STR/Q1/MEX/5.  
27.  Canada  echoed previous statements of  Members on the importance of notifications, 
emphasizing that transparency was an important WTO requirement for all Members and that 
notifications were sometimes the only way that other Members could properly be informed as to 
certain Members' activities i n a given area. Bearing this in mind and noting that Mexico had provided 
as its last notification G/STR/N/16/MEX,  Canada asked Mexico whether it intended to notify the 
Working Party regarding the years between 2016 and 2021. Canada additionally ask ed Mexico to 
confirm whether Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) was Mexico's solitary STE, as notified in document 
G/STR/N/16/MEX.  
28.  Mexico  thanked Canada for its interest in Mexico's notification and its questions. Regarding 
Canada's first question, Mexico responded that it was in the process of consulting with the relevant 
entities and authorities t o obtain the necessary information and would submit its updated notification 
once that process was completed. Regarding Canada's second question, Mexico confirmed that both 
Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) and the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE)  were notif ied in 
G/STR/N/16/MEX,  but the designation of existing STEs would be confirmed following the completion 
of the on -going consultations on Mexico's upcoming notification.  
29.  Regarding the notification of Viet Nam  contained in documents G/STR/N/15/VNM  and 
G/STR/N/16/VNM,  the Chair  recalled that on 29 September 2023, Canada had posed a written 
question related to these notifications. This question was circulated as document G/STR/Q1/VNM/11 . 
30.  Canada  reiterated its view on the importance  of notifications for transparency. With this in mind 
and noting that Viet Nam had provided as its last notification G/STR/N/16/VNM , Canada asked 
Viet Nam whether it intended to notify the Working Party regarding the years between 2016 and 
2021.  
31.  Viet Nam  thanked Canada for its questions and reiterated its commitment to fulfilling its 
notification obligations. Viet Nam recalled that the United States had indicated at the preceding 
meeting that it had no further follow -up questions regarding V iet Nam's most recent notifications.6 
In the light of this, Viet Nam suggested that, if there were no other questions regarding Viet Nam's 
previous notifications, Members could be understood to have reached a shared understanding of the 
scope of Viet Nam' s notifications, and asked interested Members to confirm that was the case. 
Viet Nam indicated that this would facilitate its notification process going forward, by allowing its 
domestic coordinating agency to focus on consultations with relevant enterpris es to obtain the 
necessary information to make a new notification as soon as possible.  
32.  The Working Party took note  of the questions and answers and statements made.  
4  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  
33.  The United States  expressed regret that this was the seventeenth consecutive meeting at which 
the continued non -notification of STEs by the  Russian  Federation was on the agenda and the 
eleventh year the issue had been raised. However, the United States stated that as a result of the 
 
4 G/STR/M/41 , para. 35.  
5 G/STR/M/42 , para. 37.  
6 G/STR/M/42 , para. 33. G/STR/M/43  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Russian Federation's premeditated and unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine and the 
unspeakable horrors being inflicted on the people of Ukraine by the Russian Federation's military, 
the United States would not engage in "business as u sual" for matters concerning the 
Russian  Federation. The United States stated that the actions of the Russian  Federation were 
incompatible with the rules -based system that Members had built in the WTO and had worked to 
improve. Therefore, the United States  indicated that it would not make a fuller intervention and 
instead referred Members to its prior statements at the 20157, 20168, 20179, 201810, 201911, 202012, 
202113, 202214, and 202315 meetings of the Working Party.  
34.  The European Union  condemned in the strongest terms the Russian Federation's unprovoked 
and unjustified military aggression in Ukraine. The European Union submitted further that the actions 
of the Russian Federation had increased energy prices worldwide, impacting the globa l market. In 
this regard, the European Union explained that the energy imports of all WTO Members had been 
affected, including Members whose oil imports were handled by STEs, referring to the notifications 
by Uruguay and Mauritius that were on the agenda o f 20 October 2023 meeting of the Working  Party. 
The European Union called on the Russian Federation to immediately end its acts of aggression, to 
withdraw its troops and to fully respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence 
within its internationally recognized borders. The European Union indicated that it stood firmly by 
Ukraine and its people, and remained firmly committed to supporting Ukraine in political, financial, 
military and humanitarian terms. Regarding the specific agenda  item, the European Union referred 
to its statement made at previous meetings of the Working Party, including its statement on 
5 October 2021.16 
35.  Australia  indicated that it joined other Members in refusing to engage in "business as usual" 
regarding the Rus sian Federation, in light of the Russian Federation's illegal and immoral invasion 
of Ukraine. Australia condemned the invasion of Ukraine as a gross violation of international law, 
including the Charter of the United Nations and the principles and values of the WTO. Aside from the 
terrible damage and loss of life in Ukraine, Australia noted that the Russian Federation's war was 
further exacerbating the global food security crisis and inflating already high prices of food and 
agricultural inputs. Australia indicated that it stood with Ukraine and a broad coalition of international 
partners in unequivocally condemning the Russian Federation's illegal and immoral war against 
Ukraine. Australia called on the Russian Federation to immediately end its aggression.   
36.  The United Kingdom  referred Members to its previous statements in the Working Party and 
other WTO forums condemning in the strongest possible terms what it considered the 
Russian  Federation's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine, which had by then lasted for 
more th an 600 days. The United Kingdom joined other Members in observing that the 
Russian  Federation's illegal invasion continued to impact global trade and security, including severely 
aggravating the global food crisis. The United Kingdom promised to continue t o work with its allies 
and partners across the multilateral system to condemn those appalling actions and to stand with 
Ukraine. Regarding the specific agenda item, the United Kingdom referred other Members to its 
previous statements before the Working Par ty, including its statement on 5  October 2021.17 
37.  Japan  expressed support for the Chair's statement encouraging Members to fulfil their 
notification obligations, in turn calling on all Members to submit their notifications within the 
prescribed deadline. Ja pan also joined other Members in strongly condemning the 
Russian  Federation's aggression against Ukraine and its attacks against civilian infrastructure and 
cities across Ukraine. As the only country to have ever suffered from a nuclear attack during warti me, 
Japan condemned the Russian Federation's nuclear threats or use of nuclear weapons under any 
circumstances. Japan urged the Russian Federation to stop the aggression and immediately withdraw 
its forces from the internationally recognized borders of Ukr aine. Japan further indicated that it would 
 
7 G/STR/M/27 , para. 27 and G/STR/M/28 , para. 37. 
8 G/STR/M/29 , paras. 73 and 74 and G/STR/M/30 , paras. 64 and 65.  
9 G/STR/M/31 , para. 36 and G/STR/M/32 , para. 28. 
10 G/STR/M/33 , para. 36 and G/STR/M/34 , para. 29. 
11 G/STR/M/35 , para. 35 and G/STR/M/36 , para. 27. 
12 G/STR/M/37 , para. 44.  
13 G/STR/M/38 , para. 31 and G/STR/M/39 , para. 28. 
14 G/STR/M/40 , para. 39 and G/STR/M/41 , para. 41.  
15 G/STR/M/42 , para. 35.  
16 G/STR/M/39 , paras. 28 and 30.  
17 G/STR/M/39 , para. 29.  G/STR/M/43  
 
- 7 - 
 
  continue to work firmly on imposing strong sanctions against Russia while also providing robust 
support to Ukraine in cooperation with the international community.  
38.  Canada  also indicated that it would not engage i n "business -as-usual" activities with the 
Russian  Federation. Canada signalled that the Russian Federation's war of aggression, now 
underway for almost two years, was not only an attack on Ukraine and its people but was a blatant 
violation of international  law and the rules -based international system. Canada emphasized that 
respect for the rule of law was the basis of the international system and that without it, the WTO 
and the global economy would not be able to function. Canada further stated that the 
Russian Federation's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine was the greatest shock to global food and 
energy security in years, noting that consequences of the Russian Federation's actions extended well 
beyond Ukraine's borders and were, as such, a direct concern to  all WTO Members. Canada 
condemned the Russian Federation's aggression in the strongest possible terms and called on the 
Russian Federation to immediately cease all hostile actions against Ukraine.  
39.  Ukraine  thanked the United States, the European Union, Au stralia, the United Kingdom, Japan 
and Canada for their statements of unwavering support during the very difficult and tragic period of 
Ukraine's history, condemning the brutal invasion and on -going military actions of the 
Russian  Federation in Ukraine. Uk raine further condemned the Russian Federation for intentionally 
targeting and destroying Ukraine's industrial and transport infrastructure, noting that the 
Russian  Federation's actions had had very significant repercussions on international trade, includi ng 
for agricultural products. Regarding the specific agenda item, Ukraine further noted that the 
continued non -notification of STEs by the Russian Federation was not in compliance with the 
obligations contained in Article XVII of the GATT 1994 and paragrap h 1 of the Understanding.  
40.  The Russian Federation  reiterated its position that WTO was not the right platform to raise 
issues such as the Ukrainian crisis, which fell outside the scope of the WTO and the mandate of the 
Working Party. The Russian Federation stated that efforts by Members to promote their political 
agenda in the Working Party misused the platform of the Working Party, and that endless repetition 
of political statements served only to disrupt work on mandated issues and undermined the normal 
work of the regular bodies. The Russian Federation indicated that such political matters should 
instead be raised in other international organizations and diplomatic agencies, such as the 
United  Nations General Assembly. Regarding its STE notification proces s, the Russian Federation 
thanked the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom for their interest and 
indicated that the Russian Federation remained committed to its WTO obligations. However, the 
Russian Federation indicated that it would n ot provide a response or update on the status of its 
notifications due to statements that were being made, which demonstrated Members' intention to 
misuse the platform of the Working Party to further their political interests, instead of discussing the 
actual process of notification by the Russian Federation that was in the subject of the agenda item. 
The Russian  Federation believed that, by doing so, Members were not only showing a lack of respect 
for WTO principles and rules of procedure, but also to the other Members of the Working Party. While 
the Russian Federation noted that it was always willing to discuss the status of its STE notification 
with all interested delegations and provide answers to any questions about the current state of 
process, the Uni ted States, the European Union and the United Kingdom had at this meeting showed 
neither interest nor readiness to interact with the Russian Federation on any issues. The 
Russian  Federation concluded by stating that it respected all the WTO notification pr ocedures, 
strongly believed that transparency was of utmost importance, and would gladly continue the 
dialogue on the matter with all those delegations, once they were in a position to cooperate.  
41.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
5  REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ON 
IMPROVING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE WORKING PARTY  
42.  The Chair recalled that in the context of the WTO reform process, the Chairperson of the CTG 
had requested all CTG subsidiary bodies to submit written reports to the CTG describing the 
discussions held and the steps taken to improve the functioning of these bodies.  
43.  The Working Party considered a draft report which the Chair had distributed on 5 October 2023 
as room document RD/STR/54 . The draft report refl ected five improvements that had already been G/STR/M/43  
 
- 8 - 
 
  approved by the Working Party18 as well as reflecting three possible additional steps to improve the 
functioning of the Working Party that had not garnered consensus but remained under discussion.19 
44.  The Chair a sked whether any delegation wished to further discuss any of those steps which had 
not garnered consensus but remained under discussion, before turning to discuss whether to adopt 
the draft report to the CTG that had been proposed. No Member indicated a wi sh to do so.  
45.  The Chair therefore proposed that the Working Party turn to consider its report to the CTG on 
the basis of the draft distributed as room document RD/STR/54 . 
46.  The European Union  welcomed the draft report. The European Union also recalled its propos al 
to establish deadlines for Members to submit responses to written questions submitted by other 
Members. The European Union noted that there were sometimes significant delays in providing 
responses to questions raised in the Working party and also to one s submitted in writing. In general, 
the European Union would expect replies to written questions by the next meeting of the 
Working  Party. The European Union therefore was of the view that the Working Party should develop 
additional guidance and establish a deadline for Members to provide full written responses prior to 
the date of the next meeting of the Working Party, and to require Members to provide explanations 
in case they fail to respond in a timely manner.  
47.  The Chair proposed to switch temporarily t o informal mode for a discussion. When the 
Working  Party then resumed the meeting in formal mode, there was consensus on the adoption of 
the report as drafted.20  
48.  The Working Party adopted  its report to the CTG  on improving the functioning of the 
Working  Party.  
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
49.  No issue was raised under other business.  
7  DATES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS IN 2024  
50.  The Chair  recalled that as one of several additional steps that Members of the Working Party 
had agreed upon to improve the functioning of the Working Party, Members had decided to agree 
on the dates of both formal meetings of each year at the autumn meeting of the  previous year. The 
Chair additionally recalled the Working Party's practice of holding its regular meetings either 
immediately before or immediately after the week during which the Committees on 
Anti-Dumping  Practices, on Safeguards and on Subsidies and C ountervailing Measures held their 
regular meetings. Given that, the Chair proposed to schedule the Working Party's spring meeting on 
19 April 2024, and the autumn meeting on 4 November 2024.  
51.  The Working Party so agreed . 
8  ANNUAL REPORT (2023) TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
52.  The Chair noted that paragraph 5 of the Understanding instructed the Working Party to report 
annually to the CTG. At its meeting of 30 October 2012, the Working Party had agreed to separate 
the draft annual report and the status of notif ications into two separate documents. The draft annual 
report had been circulated as room document RD/STR/55  and the status of notifications as document 
RD/STR/56,  both on 5 October 2023.  
 
18 The five improvements are set out  in document G/STR/33 . 
19 The three possible additional steps that did not garner consensus  but remained under consideration 
are listed in document RD/STR/52 . 
20 The proposal to set deadlines for responses to ques tions had been discussed during the informal portion 
of the previous meeting of the Working Party on 28 April 2023, and at a subsequent informal meeting held on 
9 June 2023 . The proposal had been one of three that had not garnered consensus at those meetin gs but 
remained under discussion. This situation was reflected in paragraph 2.1 of the draft report contained in 
document RD/STR/54 , and the proposal was specifically listed in document RD/STR/52 , which was in turn 
referred to in footnotes 6 and 10 of the draft report.   G/STR/M/43  
 
- 9 - 
 
  53.  The Chair  took into account comments from Members suggesting changes to some  of the 
language in the report, after which the Working Party adopted  its 2023 annual report21, accompanied 
by the status of notifications22. 
54.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________  
 
21 G/STR/35 . 
22 G/STR/36 .