RESTRICTED  
  
G/STR/M/38  
 
17 June 2021  
(21-4955) Page: 1/6 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
HELD ON 3 MAY 2021  
CHAIR: JOHANA MÉNDEZ (PANAMA)  
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ .......................  1 
2   REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  ....................  1 
3   REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE WORKING  PARTY  ....... 4 
4   CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 
5   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6 
6   DATE OF FOLLOWING MEETING  ................................ ................................ .................  6 
The Chair recalled that the meeti ng was being held remotely via Interprefy. The Chair recalled the 
technical arrangements that therefore applied to the meeting, which were described in the 
Technical  Note on Interprefy. A link to this Note appeared in the Airgram that was  sent to Members 
on 23 April 2021. 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.  The Chair  referred to the proposed agenda contained in WTO/AIR/STR/14 , circulated on 
23 April 2021. Nothing was raised under Other Business . 
2.  The Working  Party on State Trading Enterprises (the Working  Party) adopted  the agenda.  
2  REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY  MEMBERS  
3.  The Chair  recalled that, according 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).  
4.  The Chair suggested that the Working  Party review the notifications in the same way as at 
previous meetings, focusing on: (i) whether the notification responded adequatel y to the information 
requested in the Questionnaire (G/STR/3/Rev.1 ); and (ii) whether more information was required in 
order to permit, in  the language of paragraph 2 of the Understanding, "a clear appreciation of the 
manner of operation of the enterprises notified and the effect of th eir operations on international 
trade".  
5.  The Chair recalled that new and full notifications were now presented every two years, as 
recommended by the Working  Party (G/STR/8 ) and agreed by the Council for Trade in Goods on 
22 June 2012. The most recent call for new and full notifications was contain ed in document 
G/STR/N/18 , and calle d for Members to submit notifications for the years 2018 and 2019 by 
30 June 2020. The Working  Party would take up notifications from nine Members circulated since 
the previous meeting on 2 November  2020, and one revision of Switzerland's notification reviewed 
during the previous meeting on 2  November  2020. 
6.  The Chair recalled that, as provided in the Working  Party's 1995 Report (G/L/35 ), Members 
wishing to raise questions on a notification under review were to present them in writing to the G/STR/M/38  
 
- 2 - 
 
  notifying delegation and to the Secretariat  at the latest three weeks before the meeting, and 
responses were also to be presented in writing in advance of the meeting. The Chair also reminded 
Members asking questions not already sent in writing that, if they wished to receive a written 
response, th ey would have to follow up by submitting their questions in writing to the Member 
concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat for circulation.  
7.  No questions were posed and no comments were made regarding the following notifications: 
Australia  (G/STR/N/18/AUS ); Chile  (G/STR/N/18/CHL ); Costa Rica  (G/STR/N/18/CRI ); 
Kazakhstan  (G/STR/N/18/KAZ ); and Switzerl and (G/STR/N/18/CHE/Rev.1 ). 
8.  Regarding the notification of Brazil  (G/STR/N/18/BRA ), the United  States  expressed its strong 
interest in ensuring that WTO Members complied with their notification obligations in the 
Working  Party. The United  States  recalled that, as stated in previous meetings of the Working  Party, 
it had reason to believe that Brazil had failed to notify several STEs since 1997. Since these concerns 
were first raise d, the United  States  had met several times with Brazil to discuss this issue , and Brazil 
and the United  States  were able to agree that the National Supply Company ( CONAB ) was to be 
notified. The United  States  welcomed this notification from Brazil as a positive first step to wards  
bringing Brazil into compliance with its notification obligations. However, the United  States  
expressed concern t hat there were still several entities that Brazil should notify to the Working  Party. 
The United  States  indicated that it would continue to discuss th is with Brazil. The United  States  also 
expressed concern that Brazil's most recent notification only cover ed the 2018 -2019 period. The 
United  States  asked Brazil if it also intended to provide notifications for earlier periods, recognizing 
that there may be requirements that limit the periods for which CONAB may be able to provide 
information. The United  State s continued to hope that the issue could be resolved through bilateral 
discussions but indicated that if a resolution could not be found soon, the United  State s might need 
to file a counter -notification with the Working  Party. 
9.  Brazil  thanked the United  States for its interest, indicating that a new exhaustive STE review 
process is under way, involving consultations with the supervisory MME, MAPA, and 
MCTIC  ministries, regulatory agencies, ANP and ANEEL, and concerned entities under review. 
Excluding its rev iew of CONAB, Brazil informed the Working  Party that it maintained no other STEs, 
as reflected in its 2016 and 2018 notifications. Brazil additionally stressed that CONAB did not have 
exclusive rights or privileges and had not engaged in commercial foreign  trade since 1997, and 
instead it limited its external activities to providing assistance under the World Food 
Programme  (WFP). Brazil indicated that this activity had been notified within the framework of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Brazil continued to assess the feasibility of making further notifications 
covering the 1997 -2013 period, taking into account changes to Brazil's domestic legal framework, 
and the legal status and function of concerned entities. Brazil also indicated that its 2016 notificatio n 
was not intended to cover prior years dating back to 1997, and that it was open to further 
discussions.  
10.  Regarding the notifications of Guatemala  (G/STR/N/15/GTM - G/STR/N/16/GTM - 
G/STR/N/17/GTM - G/STR/N/18/GTM ), Israel  (G/STR/N/17/ISR – G/STR/N/18/ISR ), 
Pakistan  (G/STR/N/17/PAK - G/STR/N/18/PAK ), and the Philippines  (G/STR/N/17/PHL - 
G/STR/N/18/PHL ), the United  States  expressed its appreciation for the fact that they covered the 
full peri od since each of these Members' last notification. The United  States  expressed the view that 
this was a  good example for other similarly situated Members to follow . 
11.  The European  Union  thanked the Members that had submitted their notifications since the las t 
meeting of the Working  Party. The European  Union  emphasized that increasing transparency across 
the board is crucial for the WTO and is key in an effort to increase resilience of Members' economies, 
particularly in the context of post -pandemic work. The European  Union  also expressed hope that 
transparency would feature prominently at the 12th Ministerial Conference. To maximize enhancing 
transparency and facilitate Members  in making notifications and providing other information, the 
European  Union  propose d that Members should seek to identify synergies across the work of the 
various WTO bodies. The European  Union  encouraged Members to submit their regular STE 
notifications within the deadlines and to respond to other Members' questions in a substantive and  
timely manner.  
12.  Korea  expressed support for the European  Union 's statement, echoing the view that 
transparency should be included in the outcome of the upcoming 12th Ministerial Conference. Korea 
further shared the European  Union 's view that greater transp arency could be achieved through G/STR/M/38  
 
- 3 - 
 
  identifying synergies across the work of the various WTO Committees and underscored the 
importance of transparency for Korea as a net exporting country.  
13.  Japan  thanked the European  Union  for its statement and expressed suppo rt for enhancing 
transparency as a fundamental element and as one that serves to ensure implementation of the 
current rules. Japan also encouraged all Members to submit their notifications on time and supported 
identifying synergies between the work of the  Working  Party and the Committee on Agriculture.  
14.  Canada  highlighted the importance of enhancing transparency not only in the context of the 
Working  Party but across all WTO committees to benefit all Members and support the work of 
WTO committees to monitor  the implementation of WTO commitments. Canada supported 
identifying synergies between WTO committees, such as between the Working  Party and the 
Committee on Agriculture. To that end, Canada along with Switzerland and Norway had submitted 
proposals to improve the understanding of how agricultural STEs may influence global trade.  
15.  Switzerland  expressed support for the European  Union 's propos als on enhancing transparency 
as well as identifying synergies between the work of WTO committees. Switzerland looked forward 
to further discussions on ways to streamline notification requirements and avoid duplication of 
notification efforts.  
16.  The Chair drew the attention of delegations to the document containing the Status of 
Notifications (G/STR/25 ). The Chair noted that the Status of Notifications showed that many 
Members were not fulfilling their notification obligations and observed that this prevented Members 
from enjoying the full benefit of transparency. The Chair , therefore , urged Members that had not 
yet notified to do so, and to consult the Secretariat if they had any question s. The Chair also thanked 
Members that had notified and observed that their contribution to transparency was imp ortant.  
17.  The United  States  expressed appreciation for comments made earlier by Members on enhancing 
transparency , and thanked the Chair for her statement encouraging Members to make the required 
notifications . The United  States  noted that a number of Member s had either failed to make any 
notification or had not notified for some time. Referring  to data circulated by the Secretariat,  the 
United  States  noted that  51 Members had not made a notification in the last ten years, and only 37  
out of 136  Members had m ade the requisite notification for the most recent cycle. That was the 
lowest level of compliance the Working  Party had ever seen, the previous being 45 notifications in 
1996. The United  States  stressed that transparency was an important requirement for al l WTO 
Members and notifications and counter -notifications were sometimes the only way that other 
Members could be properly informed of certain Members' activities in a given area. Low levels of 
compliance undermined the transparency function of the Working  Party. The United  States  also 
noted that much of the information to be provided in the context of STE notifications had been 
provided and discussed in the Trade Policy Review process, in the WTO  Committee on Agriculture, 
or had been otherwise provided to the WTO. Therefore, if it only required updating information, the 
notification process did not need to be cumbersome. Non-notification was a serious problem for the 
Working  Party and required some type of action. The United  States  would fully support any initiative 
taken by the Chair or the Secretariat in this regard. In addition, the United  States  consider ed that 
timely and proper submission of notifications continue d to impact the efficient functioning of the 
WTO more broadly. Th e United  States  noted that at the most recent meeting of the Council for Trade 
in Goods, the co -sponsors of the most recent revision of the proposal entitled "Procedures to Enhance 
Transparency and Strengthen Notification Requirements under WTO Agreements"  
(JOB/CTG/14/Rev.3 ) had expressed their intent to relaunch outreach to Members in the coming 
weeks as work continue d to refine the proposal and address outstanding concerns  of Members . The 
United  States  noted that wh ile notification reporting by some Members ha d improved, overall th ose 
efforts ha d yielded limited and insufficient results. Part of the inability to meet notification 
commitments result ed from capacity constraints that could  be supported through technical  
assistance, but there might  also be procedural changes that could  improve the operation and 
effective ness of notification requirements. The United  States  welcomed ideas and comments to hone 
the proposal, to balanc e benefits with obligations, and  to seek w ays to reinforce the fundamental 
principle of transparency that is at the core of the WTO and remain critical to help restore the 
negotiating function of the WTO.  
18.  The Philippines  supported the statements on the importance of identifying synergies in the wo rk 
of WTO committees to help reduce Members' workload and thanked the Chair for encouraging 
Members to keep their notifications to the Working  Party up to date.  G/STR/M/38  
 
- 4 - 
 
  19.  The Working  Party took note  of the notifications, questions and answers and statements made.  
3  REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE WORKING  PARTY  
20.  The Chair  recalled that delegations had requested that the Working  Party revert to notifications 
from three  Members. First, Australia had  asked the Working  Party to revert to the notifications of 
China  contained in document G/STR/N/16/CHN - G/STR/N/17/CHN . On 29  April 2021, Australia had 
submitted written questions, circulated as document G/STR/Q1/CHN/10 . 
21.  Australia  indicated that it was seeking further information from China regarding the activities of 
its STEs with respect to the importation of agricultural commodities, such as cotton, and coal. 
Concerning agricultural commodities, A ustralia wished to learn more about the requirements and 
conditions that enterprises other than STEs must meet in order to obtain trading rights; how tariff 
rate quotas (TRQs) are apportioned among STEs and non -STEs; whether China has a reallocation 
mechan ism to avoid underfill of the portion of a TRQ allocated to STE; and whether China had 
reviewed the involvement of STEs in its TRQs. Australia also sought an explanation from China on 
the involvement of STEs in the importation of coal into China, noting th at no STEs for coal had been 
notified, and wished to know whether formal or informal quota administration was being used to 
allocate imports to state -owned enterprises in China. For both cotton and coal, Australia sought 
clarification of whether any Chines e authority had, directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, 
instructed any Chinese STEs or other businesses to stop or limit purchases from Australia or from 
any other WTO Member. Finally, Australia indicated that it had requested some additional statistical 
information, which was not included in China's notifications, and requested an update from China on 
its overdue notifications.  
22.  China  thanked Australia for its interest in China's previous notifications and for the further 
questions. China indic ated that it was currently reviewing the questions, some of which had also 
been raised in the context of the Committee on Agriculture and the Council for on Trade in Goods, 
and would provide responses in due course. China reaffirmed that it was fully commi tted to fulfilling 
its WTO transparency and notification obligations, noting in this respect that it was finalizing its STE 
notification for the 2018 -2020 period and would submit it for review shortly.  
23.  Regarding the notifications of India  contained in docu ments G/STR/N/15/IND  and 
G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND , the Chair recalled that t he United  States  had posed written 
questions to India on these notifications on 28  October  2019, which had been circulated as document 
G/STR/Q1/IND/21 . India had provided an initial oral response at the meeting of the Working  Party 
of 1 November 2019, but no written response.  
24.  The United States  informed the Chair that it had received written responses from India just 
prior to the meeting of the Working  Party and was in the process of reviewing those responses. The 
United  States  indicated that it would follow up with India if necessary and looked forward to any 
further updated information that had not yet been provided in relation to the responses.  
25.  Australia  welcomed India's notifications in document G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND  
containing trade data for  the 2014 -2018 period. Australia noted that India's notifications did not list 
any STEs with import and/or export privileges for pulses. However, it appeared that several STEs 
listed in the notification had been granted exclusive or special rights or privi leges for pulses, which 
could influence the level or direction of imports or exports of pulses. There were also other 
enterprises not listed in the notification that appeared to have similar special rights or privileges for 
pulses. Australia observed that in July 2019 it had posed questions to India that were circulated in 
document G/STR/Q1/IND/20  and related to India's notification G/STR/N/15/IND . Australia thanked 
India for the responses it provided in the 16 July 2019 meeting of the Working  Party, and requested 
that India confirm whether the responses it provided remain accurate for the period covered by 
India's subsequent notification, G/STR/N/16/IND - G/STR/N/17/IND . Australia recalled that it had 
posed the following questions: (i) does India grant any enterprise any special rights or privileges for 
the import or export of pulses; (ii) noting some of the STEs reported in India's notif ication advise on 
their websites that they supply pulses in the domestic market, can India confirm that no STE 
exported any domestically -procured pulses; and (iii) can India confirm if its STEs disposed of pulses 
at market prices, operating according to ma rket economy principles? Australia indicated that it 
looked forward to India's responses in due course.  G/STR/M/38  
 
- 5 - 
 
  26.  India thanked the United  States  and Australia for their interest in India's STE notifications. In 
response to Australia, India indicated that it would r espond in due course but did not have a response 
at this stage. India additionally confirmed that it had submitted written replies to the United  States ' 
questions prior to the meeting and looked forward to any further enquiries from the United  States . 
In response to the United  States , India also indicated that it would submit updated information as 
necessary at an appropriate time.  
27.  Regarding the notifications of Viet Nam (G/STR/N/15/VNM - G/STR/N/16/VNM ), the Chair 
recalled that the United  States  had made a counter -notification, G/STR/Q1/VNM/4 , and that 
Viet Nam had responded in documents G/STR/Q1/VNM/5  and G/STR/Q1/VNM/5/Corr.1 . The 
United  States  had asked  follow -up questions to Viet Nam in document  G/STR/Q1/VNM/6  , and 
Viet Nam had responded to these questions in document G/STR/Q1/VNM/7 . The United  States  in 
November 2020  had posed follow -up questions to Viet Nam in documents G/STR/Q1/VNM/8  and 
G/STR/Q1/VNM/8/C orr.1. 
28.  The United  States  requested Viet Nam to provide an update as to when it would submit written 
responses to the questions. In addition, the United  States  noted that during its most recent 
Trade  Policy Review, Viet Nam indicated that it needed to consult internally to gather needed 
information before submitting the notifications due in  2010, 2012, 2018 and 2020. The United  States  
requested an update as to when Viet Nam intended to submit notifications for these review periods, 
particularly for the oldest years where information should be readily  available.  
29.  Viet Nam thanked the United  States  for the further questions in document G/STR/Q1/VNM/8  
and the related corrigendum,  as well as for its statement at the meeting. Concerning outstanding 
notifications due i n 2010, 2012, 2018 and 2020, Viet Nam reiterated that it attached great 
importance to transparency and had made best efforts in fulfilling its WTO notification obligations. 
Despite capacity constraints, Viet Nam was working hard to consult with all relevan t agencies, gather 
information and would submit notifications in due course. Regarding the United  States ' follow - up 
questions, Viet Nam indicated that it was currently holding intense consultations with concerned 
entities so as to provide the United  State s with a written reply to clarify all remaining issues.  
30.  The Working  Party took note  of the notifications, questions and answers and statements made.  
4  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  
31.  The United  States  regrett ed that this was the twelfth consecutive meeting at which the 
continued non -notification of STEs by the Russian  Federation  was on the agenda, and the ninth year 
that this issue had been raised in the Working  Party. The United  States  underst ood that the 
Russian  Federation  had made an effort to meet its transparency commitments in other WTO bodies, 
but the United  States  regrett ed that this effort was being resisted in this Working  Party. The 
Russian  Federation  had missed five consecutive notification cycles, or ten years, as indicated in the 
most recent Status of Notifications, and had not fulfilled a single STE notification obl igation since 
joining the WTO. The United  States  explained that transparency was an important WTO requirement, 
which the Russian  Federation  had agreed to abide by when it joined the WTO, and which serve d an 
important function for all WTO Members to better understand and evaluate Members' STE operations 
and compliance with relevant WTO obligations. That having been said, the United  States  welcomed 
statements made by the Russian  Federation  at the October 2016 meeting of the Working  Party 
acknowledging that co mpanies had been granted the exclusive right to export liquefied natural gas 
and would, therefore, be notified. In addition, the United  States  noted and welcomed that the 
Russian  Federation  had previously indicated that it was planning to notify JSC United  Grain Company 
as an STE. However, at the Working  Party meetings in both 2019 and 2020, the Russian  Federation  
had indicated that this may not be the case, although it had given no explanation for the change in 
the Russian  Federation 's position. The United  States  had attempted to discuss this issue bilaterally 
with the Russian  Federation  and continued to wait for an opportunity to do so. At the November  2020 
meeting, the Russian  Federation  had also stated that it needed more time to complete its 
preparatory  work on the notification. The Russian  Federation  had taken this same position since 
October 2012, i.e.  since the first meeting of the Working  Party after the Russian  Federation  had 
become a Member. Given these and other past indications by the Russian  Federation  that a 
notification was coming, the United  States  asked the Russian  Federation  to update the Working  Party 
on when its notification would be submitted for review, and on whether the upcoming notification 
would provide all the required information f or the missing years, as well as the most recent period.  G/STR/M/38  
 
- 6 - 
 
  32.  The European  Union  reiterated its concern about the lack of STE notifications by the 
Russian  Federation . During previous meetings of the Working  Party, as well as in the framework of 
the Russian  Federation 's Trade Policy Review, the European  Union  understood that the 
Russian  Federation  granted exclusive rights to several companies, pursuant to the Order of the 
Government of the Russian  Federation  of 14 July 2014 No. 1277 -r and Government R egulation 
No. 2001-r of 9 October 2014. At the November 2020 meeting of this Working  Party, the 
Russian  Federation  had explained that preparation of the notification was in its final stages. The 
European  Union  regretted that the Russian  Federation  had not yet fulfilled its notification obligations 
and urged the Russian  Federation  to turn its repeated announcements into concrete action.  
33.  The Russian  Federation  thanked the United  States  and the European  Union  for their continued 
interest in the issue and infor med Members that it continued to work with the relevant ministries 
and the respective enterprises to move forward with the issue. Despite its efforts, the 
Russian  Federation  indicated that more time was required, and the Russian  Federation  would submit 
a full notification to Members once work was finalized. Regarding JSC United Grain Company, the 
Russian  Federation  stated that it had previously provided to this Working Group as well as to the 
Committee on Agriculture a detailed explanation of why JSC United  Grain Company fell outside the 
definition of STEs. The Russian  Federation  commented that it had also provided responses to 
Members' questions regarding the activities of JSC United Grain Company, both before the 
Working  Party and the Committee on Agricult ure and was ready to engage bilaterally with all 
interested delegations to provide answers to any remaining questions.  
34.  The Working  Party took note  of the statements made.  
5  OTHER BUSINESS  
35.  No issue was raised under other business  and no statements were made . 
6  DATE OF FOLLOWING MEETING  
36.  The Chair  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 Coun tervailing Measures hold their 
regular meetings. However, because of the Ministerial Conference scheduled for the end of the year, 
the Chair noted that the autumn meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was expected to be held 
earlier than usual and the Working  Party needed to meet sufficiently in advance of the Council for 
Trade in Goods. Given that, the Chair proposed to schedule the following meeting of the 
Working  Party for 5 October  2021.  
37.  No objections were raised.  
38.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________