G/AG/W/180  
 
7 June 2018  
(18-3569) Page: 1/11 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
ANNUAL EXPORT COMPET ITION REVIEW  
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CAIRNS GROUP TO THE 87TH MEETING  
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE IN JUNE 2018 
1. At the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) Ministers adopted the Decision on Export 
Competition (WT/MIN(15)/45; WT/L/980 of 19 December 2015 henceforth the Nairobi Decision). 
The Cairns Group welcomed this historic Decision as an important milestone in the reform process. 
Importantly, the Decision represented a legally binding commitment to both eliminate export 
subsidies, and further discipline measures with equivalent effect.  
2. The following paper draws on the Secretariat 's background documents G/AG/W/125/R ev.8 
and associated papers G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/ Add.1; G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/ Add.2; 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/ Add.3; and G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/ Add.4 and is submitted with the intention of 
supporting the monitoring of the implementation of the Nairobi Decision.  
General Conclusions:  
 
 The majority of Members with scheduled export subsidy commitments are on track towards 
amending their schedules to eliminate remaining entitlements in fulfilment of the 
Nairobi  Decision.  
 Of the Uruguay Round product -level export subsidy entitlements, around 34% have already 
been eliminated through the formal amendment of schedules.  
 Around half of the original product -level entitlements can be used during a transition period, 
subject to standstill and a range of other restraints. This highlights the importanc e of 
monitoring those standstill and restraint commitments.  
 While it is not possible to put an exact figure on total export subsidy outlays since Nairobi, 
notified outlays since MC10 amounts to around USD 165 million.  Processed and incorporated 
products m ake up a large proportion of that spending.  
 Notified quantities since Nairobi are within the quantity standstill commitments in footnote  4 
of the Nairobi Decision. However there are two Members who have exceeded the previous 
five year average for outlays,  despite the requirement in paragraph  10 to seek not to raise 
export subsidies above that level.  
 The rate of response to the questionnaire is worse than it has been in previous years. This is 
a worrying trend, particularly in the context of wider calls fo r better transparency in 
the WTO.  
3. A note on transparency : Under the Nairobi Decision, Members are required to provide 
additional information in the context of the Committee on Agriculture annual review process. The 
Secretariat 's questionnaire forms part of  that process. Only 25 Members replied to the 
questionnaire. Five of the 18 Members with scheduled export subsidy entitlements did not reply, 
including one developed Member. Many other Members who have food aid programmes, export 
credits and credit guarant ees or state trading enterprises relevant to the survey also did not 
respond. We would encourage those Members to provide responses as soon as possible so that an 
updated report can be issued.  
 G/AG/W/180  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  EXPORT SUBSIDIES  
1.1  Elimination of Scheduled Export Subsidy Entit lements  
1.1.  Eighteen Members1 were conferred agricultural export subsidy entitlements under the 
WTO Agreement. Since the last Cairns Group export competition review in 2017, a further three 
Members have certified changes to their schedule, and a further four h ave tabled draft schedules 
with the intention of fulfilling the MC10 commitment.  
Table 1 - Status of Scheduled Export Subsidy Entitlements by Member  
Eliminated Entitlements Pre -MC10   
1 New Zealand  Eliminated for all products in 2000    
2 Panama  Eliminated for all products in 2003    
Amended Entitlements Post -MC10  
3 Australia  Eliminated for all products 22 May 2017  
4 Norway  Eliminated 7 of 11 products as of 28 Feb 2018; remainder by end 2020  
5 Israel  Eliminated 1  of 6 products as of 11 March 2018; remainder by end 2020  
Initiated WTO procedures to amend entitlements  
6 European Union  Draft Schedule circulated 17 Oct 2017  
7 Canada  Draft Schedule circulated 11 Dec 2017  
8 South Africa  Draft Schedule circulated 2 March 2018  
9 Switzerland -
Liechtenstein  Draft Schedule circulated 2 May 2018  
Progress Updates  
 Brazil  Informed February 2018 CoA of intention to submit an amended schedule  
 Colombia  Informed February 2018 CoA of intention to submit an amended schedule  
 Indonesia  Informed February 2018 CoA of intention to submit an amended schedule  
 Mexico  Informed February 2018 CoA of intention to submit an amended schedule  
 Turkey  Informed February 2018 CoA of intention to submit an amended schedule  
 USA Informed February 2018 CoA of intention to submit an amended schedule  
 Uruguay  Informed February 2018 CoA of intention to submit an amended schedule  
 Iceland  Informed June 2017 CoA of intention to submit an amend schedule  
 Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep. of    
 
Discussion Point : It would be useful to obtain updates from Members who have yet to submit 
amended schedules to the WTO on when they intend to do so.  
1.2.  At present, while there is partial progress towards fulfilling the elimination of commitments in 
schedules, and while certain Members have availed themselves of the 'standstill provisions ' (see 
below section on ongoing use for an explanation) it is useful to highlight the number of sector 
entitlements that remain in schedules. This should help Members to understand areas in which 
export subsidies are being phased out, or where progress with the procedure of eliminating 
scheduled entitlements lags behind the  discipline in the Nairobi Decision.  
1.3.  At a product level, 281 of the original 428 product -specific outlay commitments remain in 
Members ' schedules. At least 31 of these are nevertheless subject to immedi ate elimination under 
paragraph  6 of the Nairobi Deci sion.  
                                                
1 Counting all EU Members as a single entity.  
 
G/AG/W/180  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Figure 1  - Product Specific Export Subsidy Commitments in the WTO Agreement  
  Nr Percent  
A Eliminated from schedules as of May  2018 147 34.4%  
B Developed Member commitments subject 
to immediate elimination but not yet 
removed from schedules  31 7.2% 
C Developed Member processed product ; 
dairy; and swine meat commitments 
potentially eligible for phased elimination  
under footnote 4* 23 5.4%  
D Developed Member commitments subject 
to footnote 3 (sugar)  1 0.2%  
E cotton commitments not yet removed 
from schedules  3 0.7%  
F Developing Member commitments subject 
to phased elimination under paragraph 7 
and footnote 5  222 51.9% 
* In fact the number of commitments eligible for footnote 4 is smaller since the Member concerned 
must have notified export subsidies for that product in one of its last three notifications examined by 
the Committee on Agriculture.  
 
1.2  Outlays since MC10  
1.4.  As per  figure 2 above,  some of the  23 product -level commitments for dairy, swine meat, and 
processed products can be used until the end of 2021  subject to standstill  and the other conditions 
of footnote  4, while 2 22 are due for phased elimination by either the e nd of 2018 or  2022. All of 
these commitments are subject to 'utmost restraint ' as per the 2013 Bali Ministerial Declaration 
and as reaffirmed by the Nairobi Decision. Any export subsidies used following the Nairobi Decision 
must have at most a minimal trad e distorting effect, and must not displace or impede the exports 
of another Member.  
1.5.  Developed Members making use of footnote 4 are prevented from using export subsidies for 
exports to new markets, or new products, or for exports to Least Developed Country  Members. 
There is also a binding 'standstill ' commitment which requires that quantities do not exceed 
the 2003-2005 reference period.  Three Members have notified export subsidies under footnote  4. 
Those Members have also presented draft schedules with rev ised quantity limits.   
Table 2  - Footnote 4 Notified Export Subsidy Quantities since the 2015 Nairobi Decision, 
by product  
  Revised Quantity 
Levels  
(non -certified 
quantities in italics)  Year and Quantity 
notified  % of standstill  
Canada  Skim Milk Powder  18,147 MT  2015/16  11,321  N/S* 
 Cheese  6,041 MT  2015/16  4,382  N/S* 
 Other milk products  14,189 MT  2015/16  7,873  N/S* 
 Incorporated 
products  n/r 2015/16  n/r See discussion  
      
      
      
Norway  Butter  1,039 MT  2016 1,034 MT  99.6% 
 Cheese  15,929 MT  2016 9,868 MT  61.9%  
 Pig Meat  1,898 MT  2016 1,898 MT  100%  
      
Switzerland  Processed products  n/r 2016 n/r See discussion  
* N/S = Not Shown . Canada 's notification covers the marketing year 2015/16 only part of which falls 
after the Nairobi Decision of 19 December 2015.   
 
G/AG/W/180  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Discussion Point : while Members appear to be keeping within their quantity standstill 
commitments under footnote  4 of the Nairobi Decision , it is not possible to track the subsidised 
quantities for processed or incorporated products since there are only outlay commitments for 
those products .  
 
1.6.  Under paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision, Members must seek to keep the level of export 
subsidies lower than the average of the last five years on a product basis.  
Table 3 - Export subsidy outlays post -Nairobi as a % of the previous five year average  
  Previous 5 -year 
average  Year and Notified Levels  % of previous 
five year average  
Canada  Skim Milk Powder  CAD 31,080,600  2015/16  CAD 31,145,000  N/S* 
11,447 MT  11,321 MT  N/S* 
Cheese  CAD 14,030,400  2015/16  CAD 8,842,000  N/S* 
4,968 MT  4,382 MT  N/S* 
Other milk products  CAD 21,038,800  2015/16  CAD 21,982,000  N/S* 
6,748 MT  7,873 MT  N/S* 
Incorporated  products  CAD 19,815,000  2015/16  CAD 19,155,000  N/S* 
 n/r n/r n/r 
European  
Union  Sugar  EUR 0** 2016 EUR 0** n/r 
1,352,400 MT  1,350,000 MT  99.8%  
Israel  Fruit  1,078,166 2016 549,670  51% 
2,422.6  1,090.00  45% 
Vegetables  248,480 2016 
 31,030  12% 
1,326.4  60.00  5% 
Fresh Flowers  USD 28,772  2016  USD 40 0.1%  
604,200,000 330,000,000.00  54.6%  
Norway  Butter  NOK 1,300,000  2016 
 NOK 15,000,000  1,153.8%  
176 MT  1,034 MT  588%  
Cheese  NOK 122,260,000  2016 
 NOK 81,900,000  67.0%  
11.899 MT  9,868 MT  83% 
Pig Meat  NOK 49,020,000  2016 
 NOK 45,100,000  92.0%  
2.180 MT  1,898 MT  87% 
Processed products  NOK 27,220,000  2016 NOK 24,500,000  90.0%  
n/r n/r n/r 
Switzerland  Livestock & horses  CHF 80,800  2016 CHF 72,000  89.1%  
81 72 89% 
Processed products  CHF 75,220,000  2016 CHF 94,600,000  125.8%  
n/r n/r n/r 
* Canada 's notification covers the marketing year 2015/16 only part o f which falls after the 
Nairobi  Decision of 19 December 2015.  
** The EU does not report outlays against out -of-quota sugar exports.  Production quotas were 
abolished in 2017 . 
 
Discussion Point:  The utmost restraint commitment is not straightforward to monitor.  
 
1.7.  The Nairobi Decision also allows for certain Members during a transition period to continue 
providing export subsidies to reduce the cost of marketing, including hand ling, processing, 
international transport, freight, and subsidies for i nternal transport under Article  9.4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, also subject to standstill and utmost restraint as above. No such 
support has bee n notified for the period since  MC10.  
1.8.  As the marketing year of some Members is not aligned with the calendar year, it is not 
possible to put an exact figure on export subsidy outlays since the adoption of the Nairobi 
Decision. If notifications covering the period since the Nairobi Decision , but also including 
marketing years encompassing part of 2015 are included, outlays total approximately USD 165m  
roughly half of which is for processed products .  G/AG/W/180  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Table 4 - Total outlays covering years fully or partially post -MC10 in nominal US dollars  
Product  Member  Year  Outlays in USD2 Percentage of commitment  
Group 7: Sugar      
Sugar  EU 2016 0** 98.2% of quantity commitments  
Group 8: Butter & Butter Oil  
Butter  Norway  2016 1,824,596  28% 
Group 9: Skim Milk Powder  
 Canada*  2015/16  23,939,277  ~100%  
Group 10: Cheese      
 Norway  2016 9,852,816  33% 
 Canada*  2015/16  6,796,311  54% 
Group 11: Other Milk Products  
 Canada*  2015/16  16,896,234  98% 
Group 13: Pig Meat      
 Norway  2016 5,473,787  52% 
Group 16: Live Animals  
Livestock and Horses  Switzerland  2016 64,865  <1% 
Groups 19 -20 Fresh Fruit and Vegetables  
Fruit Israel  2016 550,000  8% 
Vegetables  Israel  2016 31,000  3% 
Groups 23+: incorporat ed products other ag products, etc. 
Incorporated Products  Canada*  2015/16  14,723,290  94% 
Processed Products  Switzerland  2016 85,225,225  82% 
Fresh Flowers  Israel  2016 40 <1% 
Total    165,377,441   
* Canada 's notification covers the marketing year 2015/16 only part o f which falls after the 
Nairobi  Decision of 19 December 2015.  
** The EU does not report outlays against out -of-quota sugar exports. Production quotas were 
abolished in 2017  
 
2  COTTON  
2.1.  It's important to highlight that cotton was dealt with expeditiously in the Nairobi Decision. 
This reflects the economic significance to a number of Least Developed and De veloping economies. 
Cotton export subsidy entitlements were immediately forfeit via the Nairobi Decision for developed 
Members. Developing Members had until 1 January 2017 to eliminate their commitments. No 
export subsidy outlays for cotton have been notif ied since 2002. In terms of scheduled 
commitments, both Israel and South Africa have submitted amended schedules.  
3  EXPORT FINANCING SUP PORT  
3.1.  The Nairobi Decision establishes a set of disciplines on export financing support (export 
credits, export credit gua rantees and insurance programmes) for exports of agricultural products. 
Self-financing requirements apply with immediate effect while an 18  months 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 two years of implementation; and 18 months after 
four years of implementation.  
3.2.  Forty three Members (including individual EU Member States) replied to the current 
questionnaire on export financing support provi ded by Members for the export of agricultural 
products.  
3.3.  Thirty eight Members3, including the EU while not counting its member States, replied that 
they provided no export financing support. In addition, eight Members, notwithstanding having a 
programme in place, have either not provided agricultural export financing support in recent years 
or it has been negligible4. Thirty four Members provided replies with information on their export 
                                                
2 Conversions to USD from other currencies are based on the IMF's average annual real exchange rates 
as reproduced in the USDA ERS exchange rate data sets, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data -
products/agricultural -exchange -rate-data-set.aspx . 
3 Counting 36 nil replies to previous questionnaires, plus 2 new nil replies to the  current 
questionnaire  (Mexico and Togo) . 
4 It is reported that Germany's support has been zero since 2011, while Iceland 's support has been zero 
for the last  eight years. In the case of Switzerland, it is reported that export financing has been negligible  due 
to very low demand.  G/AG/W/180  
 
- 6 - 
 
  financing support programmes. Analysis here is based on these replies to  the current questionnaire 
and previous ones.  
3.4.  The EU has expanded its reporting to just over a half of its member States5. It also indicated 
that no export financing support programmes are in operation at the EU level, though we note that 
in March 2016 the  European Commission reported that it was examining the feasibility of an 
export credit scheme6. This enhanced detailed information is welcomed and the EU is encouraged 
to complete its report by providing data on the remaining unreported member States7 . 
3.5.  Of the four types of export financing support disciplined in the Nairobi Decision, risk cover 
(comprising export credit insurance or reinsurance and export credit guarantees) is the most 
common form of such support to agricultural goods. Of the 59 types of programmes in the sample, 
51 (86%) fall within the category of risk cover and 31 out of 33 (94%) Members reported having 
such programmes.  
3.6.  Over 80% of agricultural exports that received export financing in 2017 were supported by 
some type of risk cover, wit h most of this provided by Turkey (36,54%), Canada (29,81% ) and 
the United States (21,59%). Comparing 2017 with 2018 data, the value of agricultural exports 
from the US supported by risk cover decreased from around USD 2.57 billion to USD  2.21 billion 
and exports from Canada supported by risk cover decreased from around USD 3.45 billion to 
USD 3.19 billion.  
3.7.  The second most used kind of programme within the sample is direct financing support 
(comprising direct credits/financing, refinancing, and interest ra te support). Australia, Brazil, 
Canada, China, Jamaica, Malaysia and Trinidad and Tobago provide at least one type of direct 
financing support and 13 types of programmes were reported in total.  
3.8.  Just under half of the programmes reported have maximum repaym ent terms that exceed 
the 18 months maximum repayment period established in the Nairobi Decision. Such programmes 
were reported by 8 Members (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, 
Trinidad  and Tobago and Turkey).  
3.9.  One of the condition s of the Nairobi Decision established with immediate effect is the 
requirement for export finance to be self -financing. This was not part of the questionnaire 
circulated by the secretariat, although four Members provided information relevant to this on a 
voluntary basis:  
 Canada indicated that its official Export Credit agency is self -financing;  
 Australia reported the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) to be self -funded;  
 New Zealand stated clearly that its programme covers all operating costs;  
 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 programme over 'the long term'. Th us, it 
remains unclear, as in 2017, whether this represents a change in policy or a change in 
reporting.  
                                                
5 The European Union provided responses for 19 of its 28 member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, The Netherlands, Lithuania, 
Poland, Romania, Slovak Re public, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  
6 The European Commission press release 14 March 2016: http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16- 
806_en.htm . 
7 It is reported that no programmes are operated in Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Malta, Spain and 
Italy. It is also reported that no data on export financing programmes  operated has been submitted by 
Luxemburg and Portugal.  G/AG/W/180  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.10.   The export destination or group of destinations of Members' programmes varies greatly 
without a clear pattern across them, if each programme is given e qual 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.  
Discussion Point:  It could be useful for Members to discuss ways of gathering informatio n to track 
the implementation of the self -financing commitment in the Nairobi Decision. Notwithstanding that 
there is a more pressing issue around the lack of information about export credit and finance 
programmes in general  and greater transparency from a ll Members will be required to gain an 
overall picture of the number and scope of programmes.  
 
4  AGRICULTURAL EXPORTI NG STATE TRADING ENT ERPRISES  
4.1.  The Nairobi Decision includes a commitment that Members shall not use agricultural 
exporting state trading enterprises (STEs) to circumvent the other disciplines in the Decision. It 
also requires Members to make their best efforts to ensure that the use of  export monopoly 
powers by agricultural exporting STEs is exercised in a manner that minimizes trade distorting 
effects and does not displace or impede the exports of another Member.  
4.2.  Since the last questionnaire, the number of STEs notified has not increa sed. Twenty one 
Members indicated they have no agricultural exporting STEs. Trinidad and Tobago and Canada 
have each indicated recent reforms of agricultural STEs. There is no evidence to suggest therefore 
that the Members which have eliminated export subs idy entitlements appear to be turning to STEs 
as an alternative means of facilitating exports for those products.  
4.3.  In the questionnaire and related notifications, 15 Membe rs notified the existence of 
59 agricultural exporting STEs.  
Table 5  - Notified Agric ultural Exporting State Trading Enterprises  
Member  # notified  Products  
Australia  1 Rice 
China  26 Rice  
  Corn 
  cotton  
  Tobacco  
  Tea 
Colombia  4 Liquor beverages  
Costa Rica  1 Sugar  
Dominica  1 Bananas  
Ecuador  1 Maize 
Rice  
Cereals  
Fiji 1 Sugar  
Grenada  1 Cocoa  
India 14 Onions  
  Gum karaya  
  Sugar  
Indonesia  1 Rice 
Israel  3 Groundnuts  
  Eggs & poultry  
  Plants  
Moldova, Republic of  1 Wine 
New Zealand  1 Kiwifruit  
Tunisia  2 Tobacco  
  Vegetable oils  
Ukraine  1 Ethanol & fruit alcohol  
 G/AG/W/180  
 
- 8 - 
 
  5  INTERNATIONAL FOOD A ID 
5.1.  The Nairobi Decision established disciplines on international food aid with the objective of 
preventing or minimising commercial displacement of international trade resulting from such aid. 
Members are encouraged to provide exclusive ly cash -based food aid. Monetisation is permitted 
subject to conditions, including minimising or eliminating disruptions to local or regional markets 
and effects upon production.  
5.2.  Twenty six Members responded to the elements of the questionnaire relating t o International 
Food Aid. Of these, 11 Members (Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Norway, 
New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States) identified 
themselves as donors of food aid8. Responses from these  Members form the basis of the 
comments below and an overview is provided in Figure 6.  
5.3.  On the basis of responses contained within G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3, the vast majority of 
reported food aid appears to have been donated on terms substantially, or fully c onsistent with, 
the Nairobi Decision.  
5.4.  Of those Members providing International Food Aid that re sponded to the questionnaire, 
ten Members provided cash -based food assistance (Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, 
New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Fed eration, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States). Of 
these, five Members provided cash exclusively (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the 
Russian Federation). In value terms, the majority of food aid provided by donors is cash -based 
food assist ance.  
5.5.  Six Members provided in -kind food assistance (i.e. they provide actual commodities as aid 
(Brazil, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States). Japan and 
the United States permit monetisation.  
5.6.  All eleven  donors responding to the questionnaire confirmed their aid is fully in grant form.  
                                                
8 The European Union is counted as one Member for the purposes of discussing donors.   
  G/AG/W/180  
 
- 9 - Table 6  - Overview of Members' food aid programmes  
Member  Is aid provided on a cash 
basis and if so how 
much?9 Is aid provided 'in-kind' i.e. 
actual commodities and  
if so how much? 10 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  Is monetisation 
of the aid 
prohibited or not 
possible?  Is re -export of 
'in-kind' food 
aid permitted?  Most Recent Year 
of Reporting in 
Response  
Australia  Yes, AUD  377.2 million 
in 2016/17  No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2016/17  
Brazil  No Yes, polished rice, 1,982 metric 
tonnes worth USD 1,458,110.10  Yes Yes Yes, monetisation is 
not permitted  No 2016 
Canada  Yes, C AD 351 million  No  Yes    
European Union  Yes – amount not specified  Yes, Ultra High Temperature drinking 
milk WFP, yes in -kind 
emergency food aid  Yes Yes, monetisation 
not permitted  No 2018 
Japan  Yen 9.4 billion in 2016.  Yes, expenditure on commodities not 
listed since 2012.   Yes No, monetisation is 
permitted.  No 2016 
New Zealand  Yes, NZD 6 million annually   Yes, to the WFP  Yes N/A No  
Norway  Yes, NOK 567 million in 
2016  Yes, to organizations 
such as the WFP  Yes   2016 
Russian 
Federation  USD 30 million in 2017    Yes N/A N/A 2017 
Switzerland  CHF 70 million in 2017 in 
addition to expend iture for 
the purchase of 
2,463  tonnes of Swiss dairy 
products in 2017  Yes, dairy products  Yes, to international 
organizations, inter 
alia, under the WFP  Yes  No  
Turkey  Yes in addition to in -kind Yes, USD 47,535,680.87 to the 
Turkish Red Crescent; 
USD 2,715,700 to the Turkish 
Cooperation and Coordination 
Agency; USD 9,214,522 to the 
Disaster and Emergency Management 
Authority; and 41,621 tonnes of 
wheat flour to the Ministry of Food, 
Agriculture and Livestock  Yes Yes Yes, monetisation 
not permitted  No 2017 
United States  USD 1.9 billion in FY 2017 
in addition to USD 826.7 
million of in-kind food aid 
in FY 2017  1.8 million tonnes worth USD 826.7 
in FY 2017 for various commodities 
including beans, corn, pulses and 
wheat  Yes, in particular WFP 
among others  Yes No, monetisation is 
permitted  No 2017 
 
 
                                                
9 The information summarised in this table has been drawn from submissions made to the export competition questionn aire and the information compi led 
in G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3. The phrase 'not specified ' implies the response could not be readily ascertained within G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.3.  
10 The value or volume of aid listed herein is taken from the last available year listed for the Member in document G/AG/W/125/R ev.8/Add.3.  G/AG/W/180  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6  POINTS FOR FUTURE CO NSIDERATION  
 Members appear to be making progress with formalising their schedules. The Committee on 
Agriculture has adapted a useful process for systematically obtaining updates from 
Memb ers. This should continue . 
 Around half of the product -level export subsidy entitlements may still be used during a 
transition period. The standstill and restraint commitments in the Nairobi Decision are 
therefore very important. Further information could b e gathered on the destinations of 
subsidies exports in order to better understand the limits that apply during the transition.  
 Developed Members making use of transitional periods under footnote 4 of the Nairobi 
Decision are keeping within the standstill commitments under that footnote. The 
commitment to seek to keep within the previous 5 year average at a product level and to 
exercise utmost restraint as per paragraphs 10 -11 of the Decision may require further 
vigilance and examination.  
 A number of Membe rs are not up to date with their export subsidy notifications, and further, 
the response rate to the Export Competition questionnaire is low and falling. This is 
particularly the case of programmes under article 9.4 of the AoA. Members who haven 't yet 
subm itted a response are encouraged to do so.  
 The current questionnaire does not include information on whether export credit guarantees, 
insurance and reinsurance programmes are self -financing as required in the Nairobi 
Decision. It would be useful to addres s this information gap so that the operation of the 
discipline can be properly assessed. Notwithstanding the more pressing priority to obtain 
information about all export credit and finance programmes beyond the 37  Members who 
responded to the survey.  
  G/AG/W/180  
 
- 11 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
 
MEMBERS RESPONSES TO THE SECRETARIAT  QUESTIONNAIRE  STATE OF PLAY  
= Response provided  to the 2018 questionnaire  (including nil reply or updated notification for export 
subsidies  for Member with scheduled export subsidies entitlements ). 
Nil = Nil re sponse provided confirming absence of relevant programmes . 
X = No response provided . 
 
 Export 
Subsidies  Export 
Financing  Food  Aid Agricultural 
Exporting  STEs * 
1. Australia      
2. Brazil     Nil 
3. Canada     Nil 
4. China  X X X  
5. Colombia   X X  
6. Costa Rica  Nil Nil  
7. Dominica  X X X  
8. Ecuador   Nil Nil  
9. European  Union     Nil 
10. Fiji X X X  
11. Grenada  X X X  
12. Hong Kong, China   Nil Nil Nil 
13. Iceland   X X Nil 
14. India X X X  
15. Indonesia  X X X  
16. Israel   Nil Nil  
17. Japan     Nil 
18. Liechtenstein   Nil Nil Nil 
19. Macao, China   Nil Nil Nil 
20. Mauritius   Nil Nil Nil 
21. Mexico   Nil Nil Nil 
22. Moldova, Rep. of  X X X  
23. New Zealand      
24. Norway   Nil  Nil 
25. Panama   Nil Nil Nil 
26. Peru  Nil Nil Nil 
27. Russian  Federation     Nil 
28. Singapore   Nil Nil Nil 
29. South Africa  X X X Nil 
30. Switzerland     Nil 
31. Togo  Nil Nil Nil 
32. Tunisia  X X X  
33. Turkey     Nil 
34. Ukraine   Nil Nil  
35. United States     Nil 
36. Uruguay   Nil Nil Nil 
37. Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep. of  X X X X 
TOTAL Nil Responses  - 15 14 21 
TOTAL Responses  27 25 25 36 
* In the case of STEs this includes all information provided by the Member and incorporated in the 
background document G/AG/W/125/Rev.8  and addendum G/AG/W/125 /Rev.8 /Add.4 . 
 
 
__________