RESTRICTED  
  
G/STR/M/37  
 
17 December 2020  
(20-9164) Page: 1/8 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
 HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2020   
CHAIR: JOHANA MÉNDEZ (PANAMA)  
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2  ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ....... 1 
3  REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  .....................  2 
4  REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE WORKING PARTY  ........  5 
5  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY BR AZIL  ....... 6 
6  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 
7  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  8 
8  ANNUAL REPORT (2020) TO T HE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ..............................  8 
9  DATE OF FOLLOWING MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..................  8 
The Chair recalled that some participants were joining the meeting in person and others online via 
Interprefy. The Chair recalled the technical arrangements that therefore applied to the meeting, 
which were also described in the Organizational and Technical Arrange ments Note sent to Members 
on 27 October 2020.  
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.  The Chair  referred to the proposed agenda contained in WTO/AIR/STR/13 , circulated on 
23 October  2020, with a corrigendum circulated on 26 October  2020 to correct certain document 
symbols and contained in WTO/AIR/STR/13/Corr.1 . The Chair asked whether any Member wished 
to propose changes to the agenda. The United  States  asked the Chair to withdraw the sixth item 
from the agenda, Continued Non -Notification of State Trading Enterprises by the 
United  Arab Emirates.  
2.  The Working Par ty on State Trading Enterprises (the Working Party) adopted  the agenda as thus 
amended.  
2  ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
3.  The Chair  recalled that following discussion of the matter during the Working Party meetings of 
July and November 2019, the Working Par ty would be electing a vice -chairperson.1  
4.  The Chair indicated that she had conducted some initial consultations on a possible 
Vice-Chairperson, recognizing that it was not possible to speak with all Members in advance. Bearing 
that in mind, the Chair pro posed the election of Ms Laura Gauer of Switzerland as the new 
Vice-Chairperson of the Working Party.  
5.  The Working Party elected  Ms Laura Gauer of Switzerland as Vice -Chairperson.  
 
1 See G/STR/24 . G/STR/M/37  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3  REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  
6.  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 submit ted by 
Members on their state trading enterprises (STEs).  
7.  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 adequately to the information 
request ed 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 their operations on internatio nal 
trade".  
8.  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 contained in document 
G/STR/N/18 , and called for Members to submit noti fications for the years 2018 and 2019 by 
30 June 2020. The Working Party would take up notifications circulated since the previous meeting 
on 1 November 2019.  
9.  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 
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 que stions 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.  
10.  No questions were posed re garding the following notifications: Albania  (G/STR/N/16/ALB  - 
G/STR/N/17/ALB  - G/STR/N/18/ALB ) ; Argentina  (G/STR/N/18/ARG ) ; Cambodia  
(G/STR/N/18/KHM ); European  Union (G/STR/N/18/EU ); Georgia  (G/STR/N/18/GEO ); Honduras  
(G/STR/N/18/HND ); Hong Kong, Ch ina (G/STR/N/18/HKG ); Indone sia (G/STR/N/18/IDN ); 
Japan  (G/STR/N/18/JPN ; Republic of  Korea  (G/STR/N/18/KOR ); Kyrgyz Rep ublic  
(G/STR/N/16/KGZ  - G/STR/N/17/KGZ  - G/STR/N/18/KGZ ); Macao, China  (G/STR/N/18/MAC ); 
Montenegro  (G/STR/N/18/MNE ); North Macedonia  (G/STR/N/18/MKD ); Panama  
(G/STR/N/15/PAN  - G/STR/N/16/P AN - G/STR/N/17/PAN  - G/STR/N/18/PAN ); Kingdom of 
Saudi  Arabia  (G/STR/N/18/SAU ); Seychelles  (G/STR/N/17/SYC ,2 G/STR/N/17/SYC/Corr.1  and 
G/STR/N/18/SYC ); Singapore  (G/STR/N/18/SGP ); Chinese, Taipei  (G/STR/N/18/TPKM ); Ukraine  
(G/STR/N/18/UKR ); United States  (G/STR/N/18/USA ); and Uruguay  (G/STR/N/15/UR Y - 
G/STR/N/16/URY  - G/STR/N/17/URY  - G/STR/N/18/URY ). 
11.  Regarding the notification of Canada (G/STR/N/18/CAN ), the European  Union  referred to the 
replies from Canada to the questions posed by the European  Union  during the previous review period 
on the role of the Canadian Dairy Commission.3 The European  Union  disagreed with Canada that the 
Canadian Dairy Commission only  had influence with respect to the import or export of butter. The 
European  Union  considered that the Canadian Dairy Commission had a significant impact with 
respect to Canada's export capacity for other dairy products, such as Milk Class 7, which affected  
Canada's export of skimmed milk powder. The European  Union  considered that the role of the 
Canadian Dairy Commission was likely to have an impact on Canadian producers' ability to export 
dairy products and on access to the Canadian market by foreign dairy  producers.  
12.  Canada  expressed surprise and disappointment that the European  Union  had not provided its 
comments and questions in advance of the meeting. Canada asked the European  Union  to submit 
its comments in writing so that Canada could prepare a respons e. Canada emphasized that the 
effective functioning of WTO committees requires that Members share information and questions 
 
2 Notification G/STR/N/17/SYC  had already been reviewed by t he Working Party . It was placed again on 
the agenda of the Working Party because of the issuance of G/STR/N/17/SYC/Corr.1 , which correct ed the years 
covered by G/STR/N/17/SYC . 
3 See G/STR/M/34 . G/STR/M/37  
 
- 3 - 
 
  sufficiently in advance to facilitate a productive exchange and  indicated that it looked forward to 
discussing the issues raised by the European  Union  in the future.  
13.  Regarding the notification of Mauritius  (G/STR/N/18/MUS ), the European  Union  thanked 
Mauritius for its notification. The European  Union  asked Mauritius to clarify how the Agricultural 
Marketing Board selected product suppliers.  
14.  Mauritius  signalled that it had technical difficulties with the connection to the meeting. It 
indicated that it understood the European  Union 's query to relate to the prices contained in Mauritius' 
notification and asked the European  Union  to submit its question in writing so that Mauritius could 
respond with more details.  
15.  Regarding the notification of Republic of Moldova  (G/STR/N/18/MDA ), the European  Union  
thanked Moldova for its notificatio n. The European  Union  noted that Moldova did not notify 
Metalferos  SDL, which purchases and recycles ferrous metal waste and scrap and non -ferrous waste 
and scrap, including batterie s and accumulators. The European  Union  asked Moldova to clarify 
whether Me talferos SDL has been granted special export or import privileges during the 2018 -2019 
period.  
16.  Moldova  responded that it did not grant any exclusive or special rights or privileges to 
Metalferos  SDL and indicated that Moldova would consult further with the  European  Union  on this 
matter.  
17.  Regarding the notification of New Zealand  (G/STR/N/18/NZL ), the European  Union  referred to 
the questions and doubts already raised within the Working Party concerning Zespri Group Limited 
(Zespri).4 The European  Union  did not share New Zealand's inter pretation, expressed in 
New Zealand's responses to those questions.5 The European  Union  recalled that Zespri was an STE, 
and therefore subject to the commitments in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, 
including paragraph 20. The Europe an Union  stated that the export monopoly rights granted to 
Zespri by New Zealand allowed it to provide its kiwi fruit nursery stock free of charge to growers 
outside New Zealand. The European  Union  believed that Zespri would not be able to do so without 
those export monopoly rights, and therefore that was a circumvention of the Nairobi commitment 
to ban export subsidies.  
18.  Chile seconded the concerns expressed by the European  Union  regarding Zespri.  
19.  New Zealand  thanked the European  Union  for its comments and indicated that it would respond 
to any questions put forward in writing. New Zealand recalled that Zespri was established under the 
Kiwi Fruit Restructuring Act of 1999, which granted Zespri the right, but not the exclusive right, to 
export kiwi fruit from New Zealand to countries other than Australia. New Zealand stated that the 
ownership of intellectual property rights, including plant variety rights, and the assistance that Zespri 
gets in the form of funding of research in plant bre eding are in accordance with Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
20.  Regarding the notification of Switzerland  (G/STR/N/18/CHE ), the European  Union  thanked 
Switzerland for its notification. The European  Union  noted that Switzerland indicated that the import 
monopoly of ethanol containing over 80% by volume was lifted on 31 December 2018. The 
European  Union  asked Switzerland to clarify how such e thanol imports were subject to prior 
authorization by the Swiss Alcohol Board and what were the reasons and conditions to obtain such 
prior authorization.  
21.  Switzerland  took note of the European  Union 's question and indicated that it would respond in 
writing . 
22.  Regarding the notification of Thailand  (G/STR/N/16/THA ), the United  States  thanked Thailand 
for its notification. The United  States  noted that the notification covered the period through 2016. 
 
4 See G/STR/Q1/NZL/19 . 
5 See G/STR/Q1/NZL/20 . G/STR/M/37  
 
- 4 - 
 
  The United  States  asked Thailand to inform the Working Party of when it would notify for the 
remaining period, through 2019.  
23.  Thailand  asked the United  States  to submit its question in writing so that it could prepare a 
response.  
24.  Regarding the notifications of Tonga  (G/STR/N/12/TON  - G/STR/N/13/TON  - 
G/STR/N/14/TON  - G/STR/N/15/TON  - G/STR/N/16/TON  - G/STR/N/17/TON  - G/STR/N/18/TON ), 
the United  States  thanked Tonga for making its first notification for review by the Working Party. 
The United  States  expressed its appreciation that Tonga provided notifications covering the period 
since Tonga's accession to the WTO, describing Tonga's notification as a go od example for other 
similarly -situated Members to follow.  
25.  Regarding the notifications of the United Arab Emirates  (G/STR/N/4/ARE  - G/STR/N/7/ARE  - 
G/STR/N/10/ARE  - G/STR/N/11/ARE  - G/STR/N/12/ARE  - G/STR/N/13/ARE  - G/STR/N/14/ARE  - 
G/STR/N/15/ARE  - G/STR/ N/16/ARE  - G/STR/N/17/ARE  - G/STR/N/18/ARE ), the Unite d States  
thanked the United Arab Emirates for making its notification for review by the Working Party. The 
United  States  indicated that it did not necessarily agree that the United Arab Emirates had no STEs 
to notify, and that it might wish to revisit the matter going forward. Nevertheless, the United  States  
expressed its appreciation for the fact that the United Arab Emirates had provided notifications 
covering the period since 1995, describing that as another good example for other similarly -situated 
Members to follow.  
26.  Regarding the notifications of Vanuatu   (G/STR/N/15/VUT  - G/STR/N/16/VUT  - 
G/STR/N/17/VUT ), the United  States  thanked Va nuatu for making its first notification for review by 
the Working Party. The United  States  expressed its appreciation for the fact that Vanuatu had 
provided notifications covering the period since Vanuatu's accession to the WTO, describing 
Vanuatu's action  as another good example for other similarly -situated Members to follow.  
27.  The Working Party took note  of the notifications, questions and answers, and statements made.  
28.  The Chair drew the attention of delegations to the document containing the Status of 
Notifications (G/STR/25 ). The Chair noted th at 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. The Chair also thanked 
Members that had notified and  observed that their contribution to transparency was important.  
29.  The United  States  expressed appreciation for the Chair's statement encou raging Members to 
make the required notifications and noted that a number of Members had either failed to make any 
notification or had not notified for some time. According to the latest data circulated by the 
Secretariat, 52 Members had not made a notific ation in the last ten years, and only 29 of 
136 Members had made 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 all 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 c ompliance 
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 som e type of action. The United  States  would fully support any initiative taken by the Chair 
or the Secretariat in this regard. The United  States  encouraged Members to think creatively about 
how to improve compliance with notification requirements. The Counci l for Trade in Goods continued 
to consider a proposal entitled "Procedures to Enhance Transparency and Strengthen Notification 
Requirements under WTO Agreements" (JOB/CTG/14/Rev.3 ), which sought to enhance transparency 
and encourage better compliance with notification requirement s in all WTO Committees – 
fundamental elements of a properly functioning WTO system. The United  States  further noted that 
the revised version of the proposal had been introduced at the June meeting of the Council for Trade 
in Goods. The revised version exe mpted LDCs from administrative measures, provided they G/STR/M/37  
 
- 5 - 
 
  requested technical assistance to meet their notification obligations. In addition, the revised proposal 
clarified how charges for late notifications would be calculated and  eliminated special treatment for 
DS:1 notifications in the provision that encouraged Members to provide an explanation for delays in 
a notification. The United  States  indicated its willingness to discuss this proposal bilaterally with any 
Member and welco med all constructive feedback.  
30.  The European  Union  thanked the other Members that had submitted their notifications since the 
last meeting of the Working Party, noting that more than 30 notifications had been submitted. The 
European  Union  emphasized the imp ortance of transparency and  encouraged Members to submit 
complete notifications of their STEs, and to complete existing notifications when questions had been 
raised concerning those existing notifications.  
31.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made . 
4  REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE WORKING PARTY  
32.  The Chair  recalled that delegations had requested that the Working Party revert to notifications 
from two Members. First, the European  Union  and the United  States  had asked the Working Part y 
to revert to the notifications of India  contained in documents G/STR/N/15/IND  and 
G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND . The 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 20 19, 
and no written response.  
33.  The European  Union  noted that India notified the Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited (ISEC) 
in its notification G/STR/N/15/IND  but did not notify ISEC in either of its new notifications 
G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND . The European  Union  asked India to explain why ISEC was not 
included in the more recent not ifications.  
34.  The United  States  recalled that it had posed written questions regarding notifications 
G/STR/N/15/IND  and G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND  in October 2019 (G/STR/Q1/IND/21 ). The 
United  States  indicated that it continued to be concerned that India was not providing sufficient or 
timely transparency on its STEs and looked forward to receiving written responses from India.  
35.  India thanked the European  Union  and the United  States  for their interest in India's STE 
notifications. India emphasised that, as a responsible WTO Member, it was fully committed to 
fulfilling its transparency and notification obligations; India's track record of complying with 
notification obligations was better than most other  Members, enabling a greater scrutiny of the 
notified information. India then addressed the United  States ' questions in G/STR/Q1/IND/21 . 
Regarding questions 1 and 2, India explained that its domestic stakeholders and agencies were in 
the process of reviewing and updating India's li st of STEs for the 2016 -2020 period. If upon 
completion of this review India found that there was a need to issue any update, it would do so. 
Regarding question 3, India explained that the export policy on onions had been changed from "STE" 
to "free" throu gh Notification No. 73 (RE -2013) 2009 -2014 dated 12 March 2014. For onions, India 
no longer maintains any STE within meaning of Article XVII of the GATT 1994 and the working 
definition set forth in the Understanding. Therefore, India had not notified the e nterprises identified 
in question 3 in its notifications G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND . Regarding question 4, India 
responded that since the 2014 -2015 sugar season, the Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited 
(ISEC) had had no preference in the export of sugar, as reflected in India's Notification 
No. 3 2015-2020 issued by India's Directorate -General for Foreign Trade on 20 April 2015. India 
indicated that it would amend its 2019 STE notification6 to reflect the export privileges granted to 
ISEC for the period from 1 April 2014 to 20 April 2015. India noted tha t this would also answer the 
European  Union 's question as to why ISEC was not included in India's 2019 notification, because the 
ISEC's operation regarding sugar was limited to a brief portion of the period covered by India's 2019 
notification. Nevertheles s, for the sake of full transparency, India would update its notifications to 
reflect the export privilege accorded to ISEC for the period from April 2014 to April 2015. Regarding 
question 5 in G/STR/Q1/IND/21 , India responded that its import policy on meslin, rye, maize, grain 
sorghum, buckwheat, millet, jawar, bajra, ragi, canary seed and other cereals was made "free" 
through Notification No. 93 dated 29 September 2014. India did not maintain any STEs for these 
products within the meaning of Article XVII of the GATT 1994 and the w orking definition set forth in 
 
6 In 2019, India submitted notifications G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND . G/STR/M/37  
 
- 6 - 
 
  of the Understanding, and therefore India had not notified Food Corporation of India (FCI) as having 
import privileges for these products in its G/STR/N/16/IND  - G/STR/N/17/IND  notifications. 
Regarding question 6 in G/STR/Q1/IND/21 , India reiterated that its domestic agencies were in the 
process of reviewi ng its list of STEs and that India would provide an update to its notifications if the 
need arose. Regarding question 7, India stated that it would provide a response in due course. 
Finally, regarding question 8, India stressed that its process of reviewin g and updating India's list of 
STEs was ongoing and involved several stakeholders, and the ongoing pandemic and ensuing 
restrictions had an impact on efforts to complete the exercise. Once the exercise was concluded, 
India indicated that it would issue any  updates and revisions that it considered necessary as a result 
of that exercise.  
36.  The United  States  thanked India for its detailed responses and looked forward to receiving 
written responses.  
37.  Regarding the notifications of Viet Nam  (G/STR/N/15/VNM  - G/STR/N/16/VNM ), the Chair  
recalled tha t 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 posed follow -up questions to Viet Nam  G/STR/Q1/VNM/6  , and since the 
1 November  2019 meeting of the Working Party, Viet Nam had responded to these questions in 
document G/STR/Q1/VNM/7 . 
38.  The United  States  thanked Viet Nam for its responses in G/STR/Q1/VNM/7  and informed the 
Working Party that the United  States  had submitted additional follow -up questions to Viet  Nam that 
day.7 The United  States  indicated that it looked forward to receiving Viet  Nam's written responses 
to its most rec ent questions.  
39.  Viet Nam  confirmed receipt of the United  States ' follow -up questions and explained that Viet 
Nam would provide responses as soon as possible.  
40.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
5  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY BRAZIL  
41.  The United  States  expressed its strong interest in ensuring that WTO Members complied with 
their notification obligations in the Working Party and referred to paragraph 4 of the Understanding. 
The United  States  recalled that, in 1996, Brazil had submitted its first notific ation to the 
Working  Party, notifying ten entities as STEs, with statistical information provided in 1997. Brazil 
did not provide any further notification until 2016, when it notified that it did not maintain any STEs 
falling within the working definition of paragraph 1 of the Understanding, without providing any 
explanation for the change. In 2018, Brazil had repeated its nil notification, again failing to provide 
any explanation for the change from its 1996 notification. The United  States  also noted that Brazil 
had not made the notification due by 30 June 2020. The United  States  had conducted its own 
research and found that publicly available information indicated that there appeared to be a number 
of entities that Brazil had failed to identify as STEs. Th e United  States  had raised the issue with 
Brazil both bilaterally and in consultations. The United  States  continued to hope that the issue could 
be resolved through bilateral discussions, but was concerned that time was running out and that if 
a resolution  could not be found soon, the United State might need to file a counter -notification with 
the Working Party.  
42.  Brazil  informed the Working Party that it had submitted its new notification for the years 2018 
and 2019 for circulation by the WTO Secretariat on 2 November 2020. Brazil noted that its 
notifications submitted in 2016 and 2018 demonstrated that Brazil remained strongly committed to 
the transparency exercise taking place in the Working Party. Brazil indicated that it had removed 
from its subsequent no tifications the 10 enterprises8 previously identified as STEs in its 1996 
notification for different reasons, mainly resulting from the significant changes that had occurred in 
 
7 These questi ons were then circulated as G/STR/Q1/VNM/8 . 
8 Brazil included the following ten companies in its 1996 notification: Computadores e Sistemas 
Brasileiros SA (COBRA); Petrobrás Química SA (PETROQUISA); ITAIPU Binacional; Industrias Nucleares do 
Brasil SA (INB); Florestas Rio Doce SA; Co mpanhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD); Companhia Nacional de 
Abastecimento (CONAB); Casa da Moeda do Brasil (CMB); BR Petrobrás Distribuidora SA; and Petróleo 
Brasileiro SA (PETROBRÁS). See G/STR/N/1/BRA . G/STR/M/37  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Brazil's energy sector. Brazil further noted that Members held different views  regarding the 
interpretation of the working definition of STEs, which hampered the work of verifying which entities 
fell within that definition. Brazil recognized the concerns raised by other Members regarding its 2016 
and 2018 notifications while also no ting that notifications by many other Members were not being 
questioned in the Working Party. Brazil also expressed the view that the re -inclusion of 
Companhia  Nacional de Abastecimento (CONAB) in its most recent notification demonstrated Brazil's 
flexibil ity to review its position in light of pertinent argumentation, even though Brazil retained 
certain doubts regarding the classification of CONAB as an STE. The notification  of CONAB resulted 
from Brazil's commitment to transparency, and Brazil expected mov ement in the same direction by 
other Members. Brazil reiterated that it remained open to dialogue with any Member that showed 
an interest in this direction, and would continue to be in a constant review process regarding this 
topic, in light not only of it s internal debate but also of the discussions held in the Working Party. 
Brazil followed with great interest other Members' notifications, many of which it found questionable 
or imprecise, which increased the degree of uncertainty of the discussion and did  not contribute to 
reverting the situation of non -compliance with the notification obligations in the Working Party.  
43.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
6  CONTINUED NON -NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES BY THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  
44.  The United States  regretted that this was the eleventh consecutive meeting at which the 
continued non -notification of STEs by the Russian Federation was on the agenda, and the eighth 
year that this issue had been raised in the Working Party. Russia had made an effort to meet its 
transparency commitments in other WTO bodies, but the United  States  regretted that this effort was 
being resisted in this Working Party. Russia had missed five consecutive notification cycles, or ten 
years, as indicated in the most recen t Status of Notifications,9 and had not fulfilled a single STE 
notification obligation since joining the WTO. The United  States  explained that transparency was an 
important WTO requirement, which Russia had agreed to abide by when it joined the WTO, and 
which served 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 Russia at the October 2016 me eting of the Working 
Party acknowledging that companies had been granted the exclusive right to export liquefied natural 
gas and would, therefore, be notified. In addition, the United  States  noted that Russia had previously 
indicated that it was planning t o notify JSC United Grain Company as an STE, and welcomed this. 
However, at the 16 July 2019 meeting, Russia had indicated that this may not be the case, although 
no explanation had been given for the change in Russia's position. The United  States  had atte mpted 
to discuss this issue bilaterally with Russia and continued to wait for an opportunity to do so. At the 
November 2019 meeting, Russia had also stated that it needed more time to complete its 
preparatory work on the notification. Russia had taken this  same position since October 2012, 
i.e. since the first meeting of the Working Party after Russia had become a Member. Given these 
and other past indications by Russia that a notification was coming, the United  States  asked Russia 
to update the Working Par ty on when its notification would be submitted for review, and on whether 
the upcoming notification would provide all of the required information for the missing years, as well 
as the most recent period.  
45.  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 rig hts to several companies, pursuant to the Order of the 
Government of the Russian Federation of 14 July 2014 No. 1277 -r and Government Regulation 
No. 2001-r of 9 October 2014. At the previous meeting of this Working Party, the Russian Federation 
had explain ed that preparation of the notification was in its final stages. The European  Union  
regretted that Russia had not yet fulfilled its notification obligations and urged Russia to transform 
its repeated announcements into concrete action.  
46.  The Russian Federati on thanked the United  States  and the European  Union  for their continued 
interest in the issue and informed Members that it continued to work with the relevant ministries 
and the respective enterprises to move forward with the issue. Despite its efforts, th e 
Russian  Federation indicated that more time was required,  and Russia would submit a full notification 
 
9 Room document G/STR/23 . G/STR/M/37  
 
- 8 - 
 
  to Members once work was completed. Regarding JSC United Grain Company, the Russian Federation 
stated that it had previously provided to this Working Gr oup as well as 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 J SC United Grain Company, both before the Working Party and the Committee on 
Agriculture and  was ready to engage bilaterally with all interested delegations to provide answers to 
any remaining questions.  
47.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
48.  The Working Party took note  that no issue had been raised under other business.  
8  ANNUAL REPORT (2020) TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
49.  The Chair noted that paragraph 5 of the Understanding instructed the Working Party to report 
annually to th e Council for Trade in Goods. At its meeting of 30 October 2012, the Working Party 
had agreed on a new format for the annual report. It was agreed to separate the draft annual report 
and the status of notifications since 1995 into two separate documents. T he draft annual report had 
been circulated as room document RD/STR/34  and the status of notifications as document  G/STR/25 , 
both on 28  October 2020.  
50.  Brazil requested the Chair to update the annual report and status of notifications to include 
Brazil's notification, which was circulated on the date of the meeting, 2 November 2020.  
51.  The Chair  proposed that the Secretariat update the annual report and the statu s of notifications 
to include Brazil's notification and that the Working Party adopt  its 2020 annual report on that basis, 
accompanied by the status of notifications.  
52.  The Working Party so agreed . 
9  DATE OF FOLLOWING MEETING  
53.  The Chair recalled the Working Par ty'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 Countervailing Measures hold their regular meetings. 
Given that,  for the spring, those meetings were scheduled for the week of 26  April 2021, the Chair 
proposed to schedule tentatively the following meeting of the Working Party for 3 May  2021.  
54.  No objections were raised, and therefore the Chair tentatively scheduled the  following meeting 
for 3 May 2021.  
55.  The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________