G/AG/W/153  
 
31 May 2016  
(16-2926)  Page: 1/15  
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 ANNUAL EXPORT COMPETITION REVIEW 
SUBMISSION FROM THE CAIRNS GROUP TO THE 80TH MEETING 
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (COA) IN JUNE 2016 
The following communication, received on 30 May 2016, is being circulated at the request of 
the Cairns Group. 
 
_______________ 
  At the 10
th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) Ministers adopted the historic Export Competition 
Decision eliminating all Members' export subsidies and establishing disciplines on export measures 
with equivalent effect (WT/MIN(15)/45; WT/L/980 of 19 December 2015). The Decision also continued the dedicated annual export competition review process in the Committee on 
Agriculture (CoA) originally established by the MC9 Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition (WT/MIN(13)/40). 
As in the reviews of 2014 and 2015 the Secretariat has circulated a background document "Export 
Subsidies, export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes, international food 
aid and agricultural exporting state trading enterprises" pursuant to the Ministerial Decision (G/AG/W/125/Rev.4, here after "the report"). 
The Cairns Group again welcomes and supports the report as an important contribution to the 
dedicated annual discussions in the CoA to ex amine developments in the field of export 
competition, and in particular to support monito ring of the implementation of the disciplines 
established in the MC10 Decision. As it has done before
1, the Cairns Group supplements the report 
with some key conclusions drawn from the analysis including the alignment of Members' policies 
with the new export competition disciplines. 
1  EXPORT SUBSIDIES 
1.1.  In the MC10 Decision Members committed to eliminate their scheduled export subsidies 
entitlements thereby locking in reforms that ha d been undertaken and eliminating those remaining 
programmes. This was with immediate effect in th e case of developed Members and by the end of 
2018 in the case of developing Members. Circumscribed implementation periods through to the 
end of 2020 were also provided for developed Members' processed products, dairy products, and 
swine meat, and through to the end of 2022 for developing Members (paragraphs 6 and 7 and 
footnotes 3-5). Developing Members are also committed to eliminating export subsidies 
permissible under Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture by the end of 2023, or the end 
of 2030 in the case of Net Food Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs) (paragraph 8).  
1.2.  The implementation periods are subject to standstill commitments; a requirement that any 
export subsidies have at most minimal trade distorting effects and do not displace or impede the 
exports of another Member; and in the case of de veloped Members, export subsidies should also 
not be applied to new markets, to new products or on products destined for least developed countries (LDCs) (paragraphs 9-11 and footnote 4) . Members also agreed to immediately eliminate 
                                               
1 Cairns Group submissions to the 2014 and 2015 a nnual export competition reviews can be found 
in G/AG/W/129 and G/AG/W/144 respectively. G/AG/W/153 
 
- 2 - 
 
  all entitlements relating to cotton export subsidies in the case of developed Members and by 
1 January 2017 in the case of developing Members. 
1.3.  Eighteen Members2 have scheduled export subsidy commitments as a result of the Uruguay 
round (Table 1). The entitlements of two of these Members have already been phased out to zero 
as a result of the Uruguay Round (New Zealand in 2000 and Panama in 2003). The remaining 
16 Members are yet to eliminate their scheduled en titlements although efforts to this end were 
reported by a range of Members in the March 201 6 meeting of the CoA. Four Members (Australia, 
Israel, South Africa and Switzerland) reported on their efforts in this direction in their responses to 
the Secretariat's questionnaire. 
Table 1 - Status of the schedules of Members with scheduled export subsidy 
commitments and their most recent export subsidy notifications3 
Member Year last notified for  Progress Eliminating Scheduled 
Commitments  
Uruguay 2015 No change 
Brazil 2014 No change 
Canada 2014 No change 
European Union 2014 No change 
Israel 2014 No change 
New Zealand 2014 At zero since 2000 
Norway 2014 No change 
Australia 2013 No change 
Iceland 2013 No change 
South Africa 2013 No change 
Switzerland–Liechtenstein 2013 No change 
Mexico 2012 No change 
United States of America 2012 No change 
Indonesia 2011 No change 
Colombia 2010 No change 
Panama 2003 At zero since 2003 
Turkey 2000 No change 
Venezuela, Bolivari an Republic of 1998 No change 
 
1.4.  In terms of outlays, of the 18 Members that had scheduled export subsidy commitments, 
eight have notified zero use of export subsidies since the Doha Round of WTO negotiations started 
in 2001: Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iceland, Indonesia, New Zealand, South Africa and Uruguay.  
1.5.  Of the remaining Members with scheduled reduction commitments, seven have notified the 
recent use of export subsidies in their last notifications: Canada, the European Union, Israel, Norway, Switzerland-Liechtenstein and Turkey (Table 2).
4 Many of the Members that are currently 
using export subsidies are doing so on a small proportion of their scheduled product lines and 
utilising a low percentage of their availabl e export subsidy budgetary entitlement.  
1.6.  The types of products for which export subs idies have been notified include dairy products, 
wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains, beef meat, pig meat, poultry, eggs and incorporated 
products. The highest total spending in absolute  numbers and in terms of percentage of total 
budgetary outlay commitments appears to be on dairy products, poultry meat, and incorporated 
products. There have been no recently notified outlays of cotton export subsidies. 
1.7.  In terms of trends, export subsidy use at  an aggregate and individual Member level has 
dramatically decreased, and in some cases has been discontinued, since notifications became 
mandatory in 1995 as part of the Uruguay Round. Exceptions to this are Canada, Norway and 
Switzerland whose most recently notified outlays were in the range of USD 32-81 million per 
annum. Israel, while accounting for much lower annual outlays of USD 2 million, notified an increase in export subsidy outlays of USD 1.2 million (201%) to non-citrus fruits in 2014, while 
                                               
2 Counting all European Union Members with  export subsidy commitments as one. 
3 As of 26 May 2016. 
4 In Mexico's notification for 2008-2012 it notified the export subsidies for wheat and maize 
under Article 9.4. G/AG/W/153 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Switzerland increased its export subsidies budget for processed products in 2015 by 
USD 21.3 million (35%).  
1.8.  Several other Members have notified the use of export subsidies (Table 2) in recent years, 
including India, Republic of Korea, Barbados, Mauritius, Morocco, and Mexico. These are up to 
USD 102 million in the case of India and cover a range of products, including sugar, fruits, 
vegetables, wheat, maize, chicken, livestock and flowers.  
1.9.  The Secretariat's report and Cairns Group conclusions herein are based on the information 
that Members have provided or notified on their export subsidy use. This does not fully capture all 
export subsidies such as those not covered by budgetary expenditure. 
  
  G/AG/W/153  
 
- 4 - Table 2 - Notified export subsidy outlay details by Member 
Member Sum of budgetary 
outlay 
(USD thousand)5 Date of latest 
information Total notified budgetary 
outlays as % total 
commitments Products the subject of export subsidies since 20046 
Scheduled 
outlays     
Canada 81,190 2014/5 19% Butter, skim milk powder (99.3%), ch eese (64.3%), other milk products 
(87.3%), incorporated products (99.5%) 
Switzerland-
Liechtenstein 75,608 2013 16% Milk products, cattle for breeding and racehorses (0.4%), fruits, potatoes, 
processed agricultural products (60.9%) 
Norway 32,267 2014 42% Swine meat (58.5%), sheep and lamb meat, eggs and egg products, butter, 
cheese (46.7%), processed agricultural products (77.2%) 
Israel 1,815 2014 4% Fresh flowers, fruit other than citrus (40.4%), fresh vegetables (0.8%), citrus 
fruits 
European 
Union 47 2014 0.0005%  Wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains, su gar, butter and butter oil, skim milk 
powder, cheese, other milk products, beef meat, pig meat, poultry meat 
(0.0002%), sugar7, eggs, wine, fruit and vegetables, incorporated products  
Turkey ?8 2013 ? Cut flowers (fresh), Vegetables, frozen (exc. potatoes), Vegetables 
dehydrated, Fruits (frozen), Preserve , pastes, Honey, Homogenized fruit 
preparations, Fruit juices (concentrate d), Olive oil, Prepared or preserved 
fish, Meat of poultry (excl. edible offals), Eggs, Pres erved poultry meat 
products, Chocolate and other food pr eparations containing chocolate, 
Biscuits, waffles, Macaroni vermicelli 
Unscheduled 
outlays     
India 102,000 2009-10 N/A Sugar, tea, animal prod ucts, plants and flowers, processed fruits and 
vegetables, fresh fruits and vegetables 
Korea, 
Republic of 28,454 2008 N/A Flowers, fruits, ginseng, kimchi, live stock, vegetables, grain and processed 
food, and traditional liquor 
Mexico 720 2012 N/A Wheat and maize 
Mauritius 300 2013  Vegetables, fruit and flowers 
Barbados  1 2006/7 N/A Chicken breast 
                                               
5 Conversions to USD from other currencies are based on the IMF's av erage annual real exchange rate s as reproduced in the USDA E RS exchange rate data sets, 
available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produ cts/agricultural-exchang e-rate-data-set.aspx#. 
6 For Members with scheduled commitments, th e budgetary outlay in the most recent notification as a percentage of product level commitments is provided in 
brackets. 
7 Only notified quantities, representing 98. 2% of the corresponding export subsidies qu antity commitment level, as expressed in G/MA/TAR/RS/357. 
8 Information based on Turkey's notifications to the SC M Committee, which do not include budgetary outlays. G/AG/W/153 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.10.  Room for improvement remains in Members' notification performance. Only 39 Members 
have submitted ES:1 notifications covering one of the last two years.9 Twenty five Members 
(19%) have a 0% compliance rate with these obligations while just 29 Members (22%) have 
submitted all their corresponding notifications.10 Of the 18 Members with scheduled commitments, 
only seven have notified their outlays in the last two years, with the most dated being Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela (1998), Turkey (2000) and Panama (2003)11 (Table 1). Turkey however 
reports in its questionnaire response that it continues to provide export subsidies to a number of 
agricultural products and that pending export su bsidy notifications will be completed. Turkey's 
export subsidy outlays for a range of agricultur al products in the period 2013-2015 were also 
notified in 2012 and 2014 to the WTO Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and reported in Turkey's 2016 Trade Policy Review (TPR).
12 
2  EXPORT FINANCING SUPPORT  
2.1.  The MC10 Decision establishes a set of di sciplines on export financing support (export 
credits, export credit guarantees and insurance programmes) for exports of agricultural products. 
Self-financing requirements apply with immediate effect while an 18 month maximum repayment 
term applies to developed Members from the last day of 2017 and is phased in for developing Members: initially 36 months; 27 months after tw o years of implementation; and 18 months after 
four years of implementation. 
2.2.  Forty nine Members
13 replied to the current questionnaire on export financing support 
provided by Members for the export of agricultural products.  
2.3.  Twenty two Members, including the Europe an Union while not counting its member States, 
replied that they provided no export financing support. In addition, three Members, 
notwithstanding having a programme available, have either not provided export financing support in recent years or it has been negligible.
14 Twenty seven Members provided replies with 
information on their export financing support programmes. Analysis here is based on these replies 
to the current questionnaire and previous ones. 
2.4.  The European Union has expanded its report ing to just over a half of its member States.15 It 
also indicated that no export financing support programmes are in operation at the 
European Union level, though we note that the European Commission is currently examining the feasibility of an export credit scheme.
16 While this enhanced detailed information is welcomed, the 
European Union is encouraged to complete it s report by providing data on the remaining 
unreported member States.17 Turkey has provided more detailed information compared to that of 
last year. Given Turkey's share in the type of programmes under study (around 20%) this has usefully broadened the scope of the report.
18 
2.5.  Of the four types of export financing su pport disciplined in the MC10 Decision, risk cover 
(comprising export credit insurance or reinsura nce and export credit guarantees) is the most 
common form of such support to agricultural good s. Of the 54 types of programmes in the sample, 
                                               
9 As of 26 May 2016. 
10 As of 24 February 2016, reported in G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.23. 
11 As of 26 May 2016. 
12 Contained in G/SCM/N/220/TUR and G/SCM/N/253/TUR and summarised in WT/TPR/S/331 
section 4.16. 
13 Counting each European Union Memb er State reply and nil replies. 
14 It is reported that Germany's support has been zero since 2011, while the Netherlands has also been 
zero in the last few years including 2015. In the case of Switzerland, it is reported that export financing has 
been negligible due to very low demand. 
15 The European Union provided responses for 15 of its 28 member States: Aust ria, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, The Netherlands, Poland, 
Sweden, United Kingdom. 
16 The European Commission press release 14 March 2016: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-
806_en.htm . 
17 The European Union did not prov ide responses for 13 of its 28 member States: Belgium, Cyprus, 
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain. 
18 Members' shares of the total are approximate becaus e of variations in time periods reported by each 
Member (e.g. financial versus calendar year, incomplete  data or average annual values), but are nonetheless 
indicative of their role in global trends in export financing. G/AG/W/153 
 
- 6 - 
 
  41 (75%) fall within the category of risk cover and 26 out of 30 (86%) Members reported having 
such programmes.  
2.6.  Over 80% of agricultural exports that received export financing in 2015 were supported by 
s o m e  t y p e  o f  r i s k  c o v e r ,  w i t h  m o s t  o f  t h i s  p r o v i d e d  b y  C a n a d a  ( 3 1 % )  a n d  t h e  
United States (28%). Comparing 2014 with 2015 data, the value of agricultural exports from 
the US supported by risk cover increased from around USD 2 billion to USD 2.5 billion while exports from Canada remained stable around USD 3 billion. 
2.7.  The second most used kind of programme within the sample is direct financing support 
(comprising direct credits/financing, refinancing,  and interest rate support). Australia, Brazil, 
Canada, European Union (Croatia, Denmark), and Malaysia (18%) provide at least one type of direct financing support and ten types of  programmes were reported in total. 
2.8.  Just under half of the programmes repo rted have repayment terms that exceed the 
18 months maximum repayment period established in the MC10 Decision. Such programmes were reported by 11 Members (Australia, Canada, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 
Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Japan). Most Members however did not provide information 
on whether the programmes are self-financing, on e of the conditions established. The report 
suggests up to four exceptions. New Zealand st ated clearly that its programme covers all 
operating costs and expected losses. Canada indicated that its official Export Credit agency is self-
financing and Australia reported the Export Financ e and Insurance Corporation (Efic) to be self-
funded. While the United States reported information on its Export-Import Bank (export credit insurance programme) it did not report – as it did in 2014 – that its GSM-102 programme must 
cover the operating costs and losses of the progra mme over 'the long term'. Thus, it remains 
unclear, as in 2015, whether this represents a change in policy or a change in reporting. 
2.9.  The export destination or group of dest inations of Members' programmes varies greatly 
without a clear pattern across them, if each programme is given equal weight. However, from an 
exports-weighted point of view, at least around 70% of financed agricultural goods are exported from a developed to a developing country. 
3  AGRICULTURAL EXPORTING STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
3.1.  The MC10 Decision includes commitments rela ting to the operation of agricultural exporting 
state trading enterprises (STEs). This includes the requirement that their operation be in conformity with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as well as Agreement on 
Agriculture (AoA) and other WTO Agreements, an anti-circumvention provision, and a commitment 
on a best efforts basis to ensure STE export monopoly powers are exercised in a manner that minimize trade distorting effects and do not displa ce or impede others' exports. Analysis in this 
section is based on replies to the current questionnaire and previous ones. 
3.2.  Seventeen Members notified or reported agricultural exporting STEs covering a wide range of 
products (Table 3). This is three fewer than reported in the two previous annual reviews. Members 
having previously notified or reported STEs that  did not do so in 2016 are Brazil, Morocco and Viet 
Nam. Of these Members, Brazil and Viet Nam clarifie d that STEs previously reported in response to 
the Secretariat questionnaire are considered not 'exporting' and therefore were not reported as such in 2016.  
3.3.  Members notified or reported a total of 60 agriculture exporting STEs, which is seven fewer 
than during the last review period. The difference is again accounted for by Brazil, Morocco and Viet Nam. China (25) and India (14) reported  by far the most agriculture exporting STEs, 
accounting for 65% of the total reported number by all Members. The distribution by product 
grouping shows a similar concentration with two product categories (fruits and vegetables and 
tobacco) accounting for 57% of the reported agriculture exporting STEs. The next most numerous 
product category is "wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains and rice" with five such STEs reported. 
3.4.  Only 10 of the 17 Members reporting agricultural exporting STEs (Australia; Colombia; 
Costa Rica; Ecuador; Indonesia; Israel; Moldova, Republic of; Tunisia, New Zealand; and Ukraine) 
responded to the section of the questionnaire requesting information on export values, prices and 
destinations. This is an improvement over the last reporting period when nine Members responded G/AG/W/153 
 
- 7 - 
 
  to this portion of the questionnaire. Notwithsta nding this improvement and the fact the responses 
may have been limited by commercial confidentiality considerations, these Members account for just 16 STEs (27% of those reported), making it difficult to assess the overall influence of agriculture exporting STEs on global markets. Where such information is provided, export volumes 
and values generally (but not always) appear small relative to overall global trade in the products 
in question.  
3.5.  In their responses to the 2016 Secretariat qu estionnaire, five additional Members confirmed 
that they do not have agricultural exporting STEs, bringing the three-year total to 36 Members.  
3.6.  A continued positive transparency development is that new and updated information was 
reported on agricultural exporting STEs by several Members as compared to current STE notifications. Nevertheless, more comprehensive data and analysis is required to better assess 
the impacts of agriculture exporting STEs on global markets. 
Table 3 - Reported Agriculture Exporting STEs by Member 
Member Number of agricultural 
exporting STEs Product Coverage 
Australia 1 rice 
Canada19 1 wheat, barley, canola 
China 25 rice, maize, cotton, tobacco, tea,  
Colombia 4 various alcoholic beverages 
Costa Rica 1 cane sugar 
Dominica 1 bananas 
Ecuador 1 maize, rice, cereals 
Fiji 1 raw sugar, molasses 
Grenada 1 cocoa beans 
India 14 onions, gum karaya, sugar,  
Indonesia 1 rice 
Israel 3 groundnuts, eggs, fru its, vegetables 
Moldova, Republic of 1 wine 
New Zealand 1 kiwifruit 
Trinidad and Tobago 1 cocoa, coffee 
Tunisia 2 snuff, leaf tobacco, cigarettes, olive oil  
Ukraine 1 undenatured ethyl alcoho l of an alcoholic strength by 
volume of 80% vol. or higher; ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength 
 
4  INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID 
4.1.  The MC10 Decision established disciplines on international food aid with the objective of 
preventing or minimizing commercial displacement resulting from such aid. Members are encouraged to provide exclusively cash-based f ood aid. Monetisation is permitted subject to 
conditions, including minimizing or eliminating disruptions to local or regional markets and impacts 
on production. 
4.2.  Thirty three Members responded to the elements of the questionnaire relating to 
International Food Aid. Of these, 13 Members are donors of international food aid
20, with Turkey 
being new questionnaire respondent. The analysis that follows here is based on these responses 
while an overview of these and previous ques tionnaire responses is provided in Table 4. 
4.3.  Based on the information available, 12 of the 13 food aid donors' programmes are consistent 
or partially consistent with the MC10 food aid disciplines. Viet Nam did not provide enough 
information to make an assessment. Ten food aid donors reported programmes that appear to be 
consistent with the disciplines (Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Turk ey and the United States). Two Members have 
programmes that are partially consistent with the disciplines, in that they have significant food aid 
                                               
19 Although Canada has notified the Canadian Wheat Bo ard in its questionnaire reply, it also notes that 
as of 30 July 2015 it became a fully independent commercial entity (G3 Limited). 
20 The European Union is counted as one Memb er for the purposes of discussing donors. G/AG/W/153 
 
- 8 - 
 
  operations that are consistent whilst also having other food aid programmes that may not be 
consistent (Japan21 and the Russian Federation22).  
4.4.  Nine Members provide untied cash-bas ed food assistance (Australia, Canada, 
European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland, and the 
United States) of which five provide cash exclusively (Australia, Canada, European Union, 
New Zealand and South Africa). In value terms, the majority of food aid that is provided by the 
donors is untied cash-based food assistance.  
4.5.  Seven Members provide in-kin d food assistance (i.e. they provide actual commodities as aid) 
(Brazil, European Union23, Japan, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, and the United States).24 Of 
these seven, four also provide untied cash-based assistance (European Union, Japan, Switzerland and the United States). Based on the information provided, it would appear that six of the seven 
Members provide in-kind food assistance in response  to emergency situations (paragraph 25 of the 
MC10 Decision) (Brazil, Japan, European Un ion, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei and the 
United States). Three Members did not provide en ough information to gauge the extent to which 
their in-kind food aid is in response to emergency situations (the Russian Federation, Turkey and 
Viet Nam).  
4.6.  Eleven donors confirmed that all of their aid is untied and in fully grant form (Australia, 
Brazil, Canada, European Union, Japan, New Zeal and, South Africa, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, 
Turkey, and the United States). Two donors did no t answer this question (the Russian Federation 
and Viet Nam). 
4.7.  Two Members permit monetization (Japan and the United States). Of these, the United States 
places conditions on monetization and has arrangements to try and avoid commercial 
displacement. Two Members did not specify whether or not they permit monetization (the Russian Federation and Viet Nam). 
4.8.  One Member did not specify whether or not they permit food aid to be re-exported 
(Viet Nam). 
4.9.  The vast majority of the reported food  aid appears to be donated on terms that are 
substantially or fully consistent with the MC10 Decision. The majority of respondents provided 
detailed answers in response to the questionnair e. Transparency would be improved if Members 
were to answer all the questions rather than ju st providing their ES:1 and ES:3 notifications. 
                                               
21 The majority of Japan's programs are consistent with the disciplines. Much food aid is donated 
through the WFP. More information on  the "counterpart funds" system should enable a complete assessment. 
22 It is possible that the Russian Federation's progra ms are entirely consistent with the disciplines. The 
Russian Federation gives much aid to the WFP. More information, particularly whether monetisation was 
permitted or re-export permitted should enable a complete assessment.  
23 The European Union provides in-kind food assistance, although only in response to emergency 
situations. 
24 The Russian Federation and Viet Nam, have not provided specific answers to this question.   
  G/AG/W/153  
 
- 9 - Table 4 - Overview of Members' food aid programmes25 
Member Is aid provided on a cash basis 
and if so how much?26 Is aid provided 'in-kind' 
i.e. actual commodities 
and if so how much? If aid is provided 'in-kind' is 
it provided to the WFP, 
relevant international 
organisation or in response 
to an emergency? Is the aid 
provided in fully 
grant form (i.e. 
not tied)? Is monetization of 
the aid prohibited 
or not possible? Is re-export of 
'in-kind' food aid 
permitted? Most Recent 
Year of 
Reporting in 
Response 
Australia Yes - AUD 360.5 million in 2013/14 No N/A  Yes Yes N/A 2013/14 
Brazil  No Yes- 2014: 12,100 metric 
tonnes of polished rice worth 
USD 5,744,58427 Yes Yes Yes No 2014 
Canada Yes - CAD 374 million in 2013 No N/A  Yes Yes N/A 2013 
Cuba No Yes- 2010: 2,500  tonnes of 
raw sugar Not specified28 Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  2011 
China No Yes- 2014: USD  6 million  Yes Yes No Yes 2014 
European 
Union Yes- amount  not specified No N/A Yes Yes N/A 2013 
Indonesia No Yes- 2,000 tonnes of rice  Yes Yes Not specified  No Not specified 
Japan Yes- amount of cash based food 
assistance not disaggregated total 
food aid in 2015: 9.5 billion Yen  Yes- amount of in-kind 
assistance is not 
disaggregated total food aid 
in 2015: 9.5 billion Yen Yes Yes No No 2015 
New Zealand Yes- 2014/2015: NZD 6 million No N/A  Yes Yes No 2014/2015 
Russian 
Federation Yes- 2015: USD 30 million Not specified  Yes Yes Not specified  N/A 2015 
South Africa Yes- 2014: ZAR 5.5 million No N/A  Yes Yes N/A 2014 
Switzerland Yes -2014: CHF 82 million Yes- 2014: 2,839 tonnes of 
dairy products Yes Yes Yes No 2014 
Chinese Taipei No Yes- 17,390 tonnes of rice  Yes Yes Yes No 2015 
Thailand No Yes- 500 metric tonnes of rice  Yes Yes Not specified  Yes 2014 
Turkey No Yes- 2015: USD 4,865,000 
(approximate) worth of food 
aid Not specified  Yes Yes No 2015 
United States 
of America Yes- 2015: USD 1.09 billion Yes- 2015: 1.09 million 
metric tonnes worth 
USD 447.25 million Yes Yes Monetization is 
permitted in certain 
circumstances No 2015 
Viet Nam Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  2015 
 
                                               
25 This summary is limited to programmes since 2010 so does not include those of Argentina and Norway which predate this. 
26 The information summarised here is on the basis of submissions made to the current and previous  export competition questionnai re and the information compiled in the 
last review period. 
27 The value or volume of aid listed herein is taken from the last  available year listed for the Me mber in document G/AG/W/125/Re v.4/Add.3. 
28 The phrase Ꞌnot specified Ꞌ means there is not a specific answer to the question for that Member in G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.3. G/AG/W/153 
 
- 10 - 
 
  5  TRANSPARENCY 
5.1.  As noted, the annual export competition revi ew process in the CoA originally established by 
the MC9 Ministerial Declaration on Export Comp etition was continued by the MC10 Decision in 
order to monitor Members' implementation of the De cision. This review is on the basis of Members' 
notifications and a Secretariat questionnaire set out in the Annex to the Decision. The 
MC10 Decision made responding to the questionnaire, like notifications, a binding obligation on developed Members and developing Members where they are in a position to do so. 
5.2.  There continues to be variability in the number and quality of notifications and replies to the 
Secretariat questionnaire from across the WTO Membership. A summary of the ES:1 notification rates for 2015 and response rates to the 2016 questionnaire is provided in Table 5, with further details in Annex 1. Sixteen Members have provided  ES:1 notifications for 2015, all of which are nil 
responses, although Canada's ES:1 notification for the 2014 implementation year details its 
outlays for the marketing year 1 August 2014 – 31 July 2015. Sixty four Members responded to the questionnaire in part or its entirety. Of thes e Members, 48 replied to the entire questionnaire, 
49 responded to the section on export financing, 64 to the section on STEs, and 61 on food aid. 
Ninety eight Members did not provide any responses. 
Table 5 - Summary of Members' questionnair e responses and notification performance 
 2015 Export Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications Export 
Financing STEs Food 
Aid 
Substantive responses 0 28 8 41 
Nil responses 16 21 56 20 
TOTAL RESPONSES  16 49 64 61 
TOTAL PROVIDING NO RESPONSES 146 113 98 101 
 
5.3.  Consequently, while the Secretariat's report is improved as compared to previous years on 
the basis of replies to multiple questionnaires, there is still room for improvement in both the 
quality and quantity of Member replies. The qual ity of replies on export financing is a good 
example of where the Secretariat report has bene fited from Members providing more information 
about their programmes when compared with 2015. It is notable that smaller developing countries 
have replied, demonstrating that the questionnaire is not overly burdensome. Despite this, a number of developed Members and larger develo ping Members provided incomplete or no 
responses at all. 
5.4.  While there have been some improvements in  the extent and quality of Members' reporting, 
Members need to make further efforts to impr ove transparency, such as submitting overdue 
notifications of export subsidies (whether or not in relation to scheduled commitments) and 
submitting outstanding questionnaire responses. This includes providing nil responses where 
appropriate and, if necessary, providing information in the first instance that it is available. 
6  CONCLUSIONS 
6.1.  While a number of gaps in Members' notifications and responses to the Secretariat 
questionnaire remain, the Secretariat's report provides Members with an informed view of the export competition landscape. This supports an informed assessment of many Members' programmes against commitments, including the MC10 Export Competition Decision. 
6.2.  The MC10 Decision requires Members with sch eduled export subsidies entitlements to amend 
their schedules to eliminate these entitlements. While a number of Members have reported moves in this direction none have made the necessary schedule amendments since MC10. Given the 
immediacy of the implementation dates, there is a pressing need for developed Members to amend 
their schedules and for all Members to amend their schedules in relation to cotton. Further, there 
is nothing to prevent developing Members amen ding their schedules to reflect the relevant 
implementation periods in advance of the ultima te deadlines. We therefore urge all Members to 
expedite the process of amending their schedules  and to keep the CoA informed of progress. 
6.3.  The report reaffirms that many of the reported policies appear consistent or moving in the 
direction of being consistent with the MC10 Decisi on. In particular, export subsidy expenditure has 
fallen significantly. This generally positive trend, however, is not without exceptions.  G/AG/W/153 
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.4.  One point of concern is that since MC9 a number of Members have increased their export 
subsidy outlays, introduced new export subsidy programmes, or are considering such moves. These developments appear inconsistent with the Bali Declaration, reaffirmed in the MC10 Decision, to exercise utmost restraint, with regard to all forms of export subsidies. 
6.5.  A full assessment of current policies against the MC10 Decision is not possible at this point 
because the report is based on pre-2016 data. Th e questionnaire response rate and quality, and 
future need for CoA to consider consistency with MC10 Decision, leads to the overarching 
conclusion that Members need to maintain and further improve their reporting to future reviews. 
_______________ 
  G/AG/W/153 
 
- 12 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
MEMBERS RESPONDING TO THE SECRETARIAT 2016 QUESTIONNAIRE 
AND PROVIDING 2015 ES:1 NOTIFICATIONS 
 = Response provided 
EU = Response provided as part of wider EU response 
EU NIL= Nil response provided as part of wider EU response Nil = Nil response provided confirming absence of relevant programmes 
X = No response provided 
Member 2015 Export Subsidy 
(ES:1) Notifications Export Financing  STEs Food Aid  
Albania X NIL NIL NIL 
Angola X X X X 
Antigua and Barbuda X X X X 
Argentina X X X X 
Armenia X X X X 
Australia X    
Austria X  EU NIL EU 
Bahrain, Kingdom of X X X X 
Bangladesh X X X X 
Barbados X X X X 
Belgium X X EU NIL EU 
Belize X X X X 
Benin X X X X 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of X X X X 
Botswana X X X X 
Brazil X  NIL  
Brunei Darussalam X X X X 
Bulgaria X  EU NIL EU 
Burkina Faso X X X X 
Burundi X X X X 
Cabo Verde X X X X 
Cambodia X X X X 
Cameroon X X X X 
Canada X    
Central African Republic X X X X 
Chad X X X X 
Chile X NIL NIL NIL 
China X X X X 
Colombia X X X X 
Congo NIL X X X 
Costa Rica NIL NIL  NIL 
Côte d'Ivoire X X X X 
Croatia X  EU NIL EU 
Cuba X X X X G/AG/W/153 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Member 2015 Export Subsidy 
(ES:1) Notifications Export Financing  STEs Food Aid  
Cyprus X X EU NIL EU 
Czech Republic X  EU NIL EU 
Democratic Republic of the Congo X X X X 
Denmark X  EU NIL EU 
Djibouti X X X X 
Dominica X X X X 
Dominican Republic X X X X 
Ecuador X NIL  NIL 
Egypt X X X X 
El Salvador X X X X 
Estonia X  EU NIL EU 
European Union X  NIL  
Fiji NIL X X X 
Finland X  EU NIL EU 
France X  EU NIL EU 
Gabon X X X X 
The Gambia X X X X 
Georgia NIL NIL NIL NIL 
Germany X  EU NIL EU 
Ghana X X X X 
Greece X X EU NIL EU 
Grenada X X X X 
Guatemala NIL X X X 
Guinea X X X X 
Guinea-Bissau X X X X 
Guyana X X X X 
Haiti X X X X 
Honduras X NIL NIL NIL 
Hong Kong, China NIL NIL NIL NIL 
Hungary X  EU NIL EU 
Iceland X X X X 
India X X X X 
Indonesia X X X X 
Ireland X X EU NIL EU 
Israel X NIL  NIL 
Italy X X EU NIL EU 
Jamaica NIL  NIL NIL 
Japan X  NIL  
Jordan X NIL NIL NIL 
Kazakhstan X X X X 
Kenya X X X X 
Korea, Republic of X X X X 
Kuwait, the State of X X X X 
Kyrgyz Republic X X X X 
Lao People's Democratic Republic X X X X 
Latvia X  EU NIL EU G/AG/W/153 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Member 2015 Export Subsidy 
(ES:1) Notifications Export Financing  STEs Food Aid  
Lesotho X X X X 
Liechtenstein X NIL NIL NIL 
Lithuania X X EU NIL EU 
Luxembourg X X EU NIL EU 
Macao, China X NIL NIL NIL 
Madagascar X NIL NIL NIL 
Malawi NIL X X X 
Malaysia NIL  NIL NIL 
Maldives X X X X 
Mali NIL X X X 
Malta X X EU NIL EU 
Mauritania X X X X 
Mauritius X X X X 
Mexico X X X X 
Moldova, Republic of X X X X 
Mongolia X X X X 
Montenegro X NIL NIL NIL 
Morocco X X  X 
Mozambique X X X X 
Myanmar X X X X 
Namibia X X X X 
Nepal X X X X 
Netherlands X  EU NIL EU 
New Zealand X    
Nicaragua X X X X 
Niger X X X X 
Nigeria X X X X 
Norway X NIL NIL NIL 
Oman X X X X 
Pakistan X X X X 
Panama X NIL NIL NIL 
Papua New Guinea X X X X 
Paraguay X X X X 
Peru X X X X 
Philippines X X X X 
Poland X  EU NIL EU 
Portugal X X EU NIL EU 
Qatar X X X X 
Romania X X EU NIL EU 
Russian Federation NIL  NIL  
Rwanda X X X X 
Saint Kitts and Nevis X X X X 
Saint Lucia X X X X 
Saint Vincent & the Grenadines X X X X 
Samoa X X X X 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of X NIL NIL X G/AG/W/153 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Member 2015 Export Subsidy 
(ES:1) Notifications Export Financing  STEs Food Aid  
Senegal X X X X 
Seychelles NIL NIL NIL NIL 
Sierra Leone X X X X 
Singapore NIL NIL NIL NIL 
Slovak Republic X X EU NIL EU 
Slovenia X X EU NIL EU 
Solomon Islands X X X X 
South Africa X NIL NIL  
Spain X X EU NIL EU 
Sri Lanka X X X X 
Suriname X X X X 
Swaziland X X X X 
Sweden X  EU NIL EU 
Switzerland X  NIL  
Chinese Taipei NIL NIL NIL  
Tajikistan X X X X 
Tanzania X X X X 
Thailand X X X X 
The former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia X X X X 
Togo X X X X 
Tonga X X X X 
Trinidad and Tobago X X X X 
Tunisia X X  X 
Turkey X  NIL  
Uganda X X X X 
Ukraine NIL X X X 
United Arab Emirates X X X X 
United Kingdom X  EU NIL EU 
United States of America X  NIL  
Uruguay NIL NIL NIL NIL 
Vanuatu X X X X 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of X X X X 
Viet Nam X  NIL  
Yemen X X X X 
Zambia X X X X 
Zimbabwe X X X X 
TOTAL  16 49 64 61 
 
__________