G/AG/W/164  
 
2 June 2017  
(17-2965) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
ANNUAL EXPORT COMPET ITION REVIEW  
SUBMISSION FROM THE CAIRNS GROUP AND THE  RUSSIAN FEDERATION T O THE 84TH MEETING  
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (COA) IN  JUNE 2017  
The following communication, received on 1 June 2017, is being circulated at the request of 
the Cairns Group and the Russian Federation . 
 
_______________  
 
 
At the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) Ministers adopted the historic Export Competition 
Decision eliminating all Members' export subsidies and establishing disciplines on export measur es 
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 E xport Competition 
(WT/MIN(13)/40 ). 
As in the annual reviews since 2014, the Secretariat has circulated a background document 
"Export subsidies, export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes, international 
food aid and agricultural export ing state trading enterprises" pursuant to the Ministerial Decision 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6, hereafter "the report").  
The Cairns Group and Russian Federation again welcome and support the report as an important 
contribution to the dedicated annual discussions in  the CoA to examine developments in the field 
of export competition, and in particular to support monitoring of the implementation of the 
disciplines established in the MC10 Decision.  As the Cairns Group has done before, the report is 
supplemented with som e 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 l ocking in reforms that had been undertaken and eliminating those remaining 
programmes.  This was with immediate effect in the case of develop ed 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 eliminatin g 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 comm itments; 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 developed 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 
all entitlements relating to cotton export subsidies in the cas e of developed Members and by 
1 January  2017 in the case of developing Members.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3.  Scheduled export subsidy commitments were established for eighteen Members1 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 th e Uruguay Round (New Zealand in 2000 and Panama in 2003).  
Australia is the only Member to have submitted an amended schedule to the WTO since MC10 
eliminating all of its export subsidy entitlements, which became effective as of 22 May 2017.  The 
remaining 1 5 Members are yet to eliminate their scheduled entitlements although efforts to this 
end are progressing. Four Members (Canada, Israel, South Africa and Switzerland) reported on 
their efforts in this direction in their responses to the Secretariat's questi onnaire.  Canada 
eliminated its export subsidies on wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains, oilseeds, vegetable oils, 
oilcakes and vegetables with effect from 1 January 2016.  Elimination of Switzerland’s export 
subsidies is planned for 1 January 2019.  
Table 1  - Status of the schedules of Members with scheduled export subsidy 
commitments and their most recent export subsidy notifications2 
Member  Year last notified 
for Progress Eliminating Scheduled 
Commitments  
Uruguay  2015 No change  
Brazil  2015 No change  
Canada 2015 No change  
European Union  2016 No change  
Israel  2015 No change  
New Zealand  2016 At zero since 2000  
Norway  2015 No change  
Australia  2015 At zero since 22 May 2017  
Iceland  2016 No change  
South Africa  2014 No change  
Switzerland –Liechtenstein  2015 No change  
Mexico  2015 No change  
United States of America  2014 No change  
Indonesia  2015 No change  
Colombia  2011 No change  
Panama  2003 At zero since 2003  
Turkey  2000 No change  
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  1998 No change  
 
1.4.  In terms of outlays,  of the 18 Members that had scheduled export subsidy commitments, ten 
have notified zero use of export subsidies since MC10: Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iceland, 
Indonesia, Mexico3, New Zealand, South Africa, Uruguay and the United States of America.  
1.5.  Of the remaining Members with scheduled reduction commitments, seven have notified the 
use of export subsidies in their most recent notifications: Canada, the European Union, Israel, 
Norway, Switzerland -Liechtenstein and Turkey (Table 2).  The Bolivarian Republ ic of Venezuela 
remains an outlier in that it has not submitted an export subsidies notification since 1998, and 
Panama’s last notification was a nil return in 2003 when its export subsidy commitments went to 
zero. Most of those Members recently notifying the use of export subsidies are doing so on a small 
proportion of their scheduled product lines and utilising less than a third of their total available 
export subsidy budgetary entitlement.  
1.6.  The types of products for which export subsidies have been notifi ed 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 cas es 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 16 -89.7 million per 
annum.  It is worth noting that Norway decreased its total export subsidies outlays by 
                                                
1 Counting all European Union Members with export subsidy commitments as one.  
2 As of 22 May 2017 . 
3 In Mexico's notification for 2008 -2012 it notified the export subs idies for whe at and maize 
under  Article 9.4.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 3 - 
 
  USD 7.6 million (47%) in 2015.  Conversely, Switzerland increased its export subsidies outlays for 
processed products in 2015 by USD 21.3 million (35%) which appears inconsistent with the MC 9 
Declaration, reaffirmed in the MC10 Decision, to exercise utmost restraint, with regard to all forms 
of export subsidies.  
1.8.  Several other Members have notified the use of export subsidies (Table 2) in recent years, 
including India, Republic of Korea, Barba dos, Mauritius, Mexico, and Morocco. 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 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/164  
 
- 4 - Table 2 - Notified export subsidy outlay details by Member  
Member  Sum of 
budgetary outlay  
(USD thousand)4 Date of 
latest 
information  Total notified 
budgetary 
outlays as % 
total 
commitments  Products the subject of export subsidies since 20045 
Scheduled 
outlays          
Canada  67,695  2014/5  19% Butter, skim milk pow der (100%), cheese (54.5%), other milk products (97.7%), incorporated 
products (94.5%)  
Switzerland -
Liechtenstein  89,771  2015 22% Milk products, cattle for breeding and racehorses (0.3%), fruits, potatoes, processed agricultural 
products (83.2%)  
Norway  16,347 2015 27% Swine meat (5%), butter (11.3%), cheese (39%), processed agricultural products  (70.9%)  
Israel  1,133  2015 3% Fresh flowers (0.2%), fruit other than citrus (12.7%), fresh vegetables (21.7%)  
Turkey  ?6 2015 ? Cut flowers (fresh), Vegetables, fr ozen (exc. potatoes), Vegetables dehydrated, Fruits (frozen), 
Preserve, pastes, Honey, Homogenized fruit preparations, Fruit juices (concentrated), Olive oil, 
Prepared or preserved fish, Meat of poultry (excl. edible offals), Eggs, Preserved poultry meat 
products, Chocolate and other food preparations containing chocolate, Biscuits, waffles, 
Macaroni vermicelli  
European Union  0 2016 0% Wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains, sugar, butter and butter oil, skim milk powder, cheese, 
other milk products, beef me at, pig meat, poultry meat, sugar7, eggs, wine, fruit and 
vegetables, incorporated products  
Unscheduled 
outlays          
India 102,000  2009-10 N/A Sugar, tea, animal products, plants and flowers, processed fruits and vegetables, fresh fruits 
and vegetabl es 
Korea, Republic of  28,584  2013 N/A Flowers, fruits, ginseng, kimchi, livestock, vegetables, processed food, and traditional liquor  
Mexico  720 2012 N/A Wheat and maize  
Mauritius  300 2013 N/A Vegetables, fruit and flowers  
Morocco  13,655  2011 N/A Flowe rs, Vegetables, Fruit, Olive oil  
Barbados  1 2006/7  N/A Chicken breast  
                                                
4 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 . 
5 For Members with scheduled commitments, the budgetary outlay in the most recent notification as a percentage of product leve l commitments  is provided in brackets.  
6 Information based on Turkey's notifications to the SCM Committee, which do not include budgetary outlays.  
7 Only notified quantities, representing 98.2% of the corresponding export subsidies quantity commitment leve l, as expressed in G/MA/TAR/RS/357.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 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.8 Eighty six Members (63%) 
have a 0% compliance rate with these obligations while just 20 Members (15%) have submitted all 
their corresponding notifications.9 Of the 18 Members with scheduled commitments, only three 
have notified their outlays in each of the last two years, with the mos t dated being Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela (1998), Turkey (2000) and Panama (2003) (Table 1).  Turkey however 
notifies export subsidies to the SCM Committee and reports in its questionnaire response that it 
continues to provide export subsidies to a num ber of agricultural products and that pending export 
subsidy notifications will be completed.  
2  EXPORT FINANCING SUP PORT  
2.1.  The MC10 Decision establishes a set of disciplines on export financing support (export 
credits, export credit guarantees and insurance pr ogrammes) for exports of agricultural products. 
Self-financing requirements apply with immediate effect while an 18 month s maximum repayment 
term applies to developed Members from the last day of 2017 and is phased in for developing 
Members: initially 36 m onths; 27 months after two years of implementation; and 18 months after 
four years of implementation.  
2.2.  Forty nine Members10 replied to the current questionnaire on export financing support 
provided by Members for the export of agricultural products.  
2.3.  Thirty s even Members11, including the European 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 su pport 
in recent years or it has been negligible.12 Thirty two 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 m ember States.13 It 
also indicated that no export financing support programmes are in operation at the European 
Union level, though we note that in March 2016 the European Commission reported that it was  
examining the feasibility of an export credit scheme.14 While this enhanced detailed information is 
welcomed, the European Union is encouraged to complete its report by providing da ta on the 
remaining unreported m ember States.15  
2.5.  Of the four types of export  financing support disciplined in the MC10 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 61 types of programmes in the sample, 
44 (72%) fall within the category of risk cover and 26 out of 32 (81%) Members reported having 
such programmes.  
2.6.  Over 80% of agricultural exports that received export financing in 2016 were supported by 
some type of risk cover, with most of this provided by Ca nada (35%), Turkey (26%) and the 
                                                
8 As of 16 March  2017.  
9 As of 22 May 2017. These figures include compliance for the 2016 year. The Secretariat’s report on 
compliance with notification obligations ( reported in  G/AG/GEN/86/Rev.27  and presented at the Ma rch 
2017 CoA) takes into account the period 1995 -2015.  
10 Counting 29 replies to the current questionnaire (that includes  each European Union m ember State 
reply) plus 19  nil replies.  
11 Counting 32 nil replies to previous questionnaires, plus 4 new nil repli es to the current questionnaire 
(Colombia, Fiji, Peru and the Philippines), plus the EU nil reply.  
12 It is reported that Germany's support has been zero since 2011, while Iceland’s support  has been 
zero for the last 8  years. In the case of Switzerland, it is reported that export financing has been negligible due 
to very low demand.  
13 The European Union provided responses for 16 of its 28 member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, T he Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovak Republic , Sweden,  and the  United Kingdom . 
14 The European Commission press release 14 March 2016: http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-
806_en.htm . 
15 The European Union did not provide responses for 12 of its 28 member States: Belgium, Cyprus, 
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, and Spain.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 6 - 
 
  United States (26%). Comparing 2016 with 2017 data, the value of agricultural exports from the 
US supported by risk cover increased from around USD 2.5 billion to USD 2.57 billion while exports 
from Canada increased from ar ound USD  3 billion to USD 3.45 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, Jamaica, Malaysia and Tri nidad and Tobago provide at least one type of direct financing 
support and 11 types of programmes were reported in total.  
2.8.  Just under half of the programmes reported 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, 
Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Japan, and Trinidad and Tobago).  Most Members however did not provide 
information on whether the programmes are self -financing, one of the conditions established with 
immediate effect.  The report suggests up to four exceptions. New Zealand stated 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 Finance 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 programme over 'the long 
term'.  Thus, it remains unclear, as in 2016, whether this represents a change in policy or a change 
in reporting.  
2.9.  The export destination o r group of destinations 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 EXPORTI NG STATE TRADING ENT ERPRISES  
3.1.  The MC10 Decision includes commitments relating to the operation of agricultural exporting 
state trading enterprises (STEs).  This includes the requirement that their op eration 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 powe rs are exercised in a manner that 
minimise trade distorting effects and do not displace or impede others' exports.  Analysis in this 
section is based on replies to the current questionnaire and previous ones.  
3.2.  Sixteen Members notified or reported agricultura l exporting STEs covering a wide range of 
products (Table 3). This is one fewer than reported in the previous annual reviews. The Member 
having previously notified or reported an STE that did not do so in 2017 is Trinidad and Tobago, 
which no longer consid ers the Cocoa Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago  (CDCTT) to be 
an agriculture exporting STE.  
3.3.  Members notified or reported a total of 59 agriculture exporting STEs, one fewer than during 
the previous review. The difference is accounted for by Trinid ad and Tobago. China (25) and India 
(14) reported by far the most agriculture exporting STEs, accounting for 66% of the total reported 
number by all Members. The distribution by product grouping shows a similar concentration with 
two product categories (fr uits and vegetables and tobacco) accounting for 58% of the reported 
agriculture exporting STEs.  
3.4.  Ten of the 16 Members reporting agricultural exporting STEs (Australia, Colombia, 
Costa  Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia, Israel, Moldova, Republic of, Tunisia, New Zea land, and Ukraine) 
responded to the section of the questionnaire requesting information on export values, prices and 
destinations. This is same number as during the previous reporting period. Notwithstanding 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 volum es and values generally (but not always) appear small relative to overall global trade 
in the products in question.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.5.  In their responses to the 2017 Secretariat questionnaire, six additional Members confirmed 
that they do not have agricultural exporting STEs , bringing the four -year total to 42 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 com prehensive 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 
Canada16 1 wheat, barley, canola  
China  25 rice, maize, cotton, tobacco  
Colombia  4 various alcoholic beverages  
Costa Rica  1 cane sugar  
Dominica  1 bananas  
Ecuador17 1 maize, rice, cereals  
Fiji 1 raw sugar, molasses  
Grenada  1 cocoa beans  
India 14 onions , gum karaya, sugar  
Indonesia18 1 rice 
Israel19 3 groundnuts,  eggs and poultry, fruits and vegetables  
Moldova, Republic of  1 wine 
New Zealand  1 kiwifruit  
Tunisia  2 cigarettes, cigars, tobacco and tumbak, snuff (Neffa), soy 
bean oil, palm oil, olive oil  
Ukraine  1 undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by 
volume of 80% vol. or higher; ethyl alcohol and other 
spirits, denatured, of any strength  
 
4  INTERNATIONAL FOOD A ID 
4.1.  The MC10 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 exclusively cash -based food aid. Monetisation is permitted 
subject to conditions, including minimising or elimi nating disruptions to local or regional markets 
and effects upon production.  The vast majority of reported food aid appears to have been donated 
on terms substantially, or fully consistent with, the MC10 Decision.  
4.2.  Thirty four Members responded to the eleme nts of the questionnaire relating to Inte rnational 
Food Aid. Of these, 12  Members identified themselves as donors of food aid20. Members’ responses 
form the basis of the discussion below, while an overview of these and previous questionnaire 
response s are provided in Table 4 below.  
4.3.  Drawing on information available, the food aid donors’ programmes of all 12 Members which 
responded (Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, the European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, 
Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turk ey and the United States) appear consistent with 
MC10 food aid disciplines.   
4.4.  Eleven Members provided untied cash -based food assistan ce (Australia, Canada, 
European  Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turkey 
                                                
16 Although Canada has notified the Canadian Wheat Board in its questi onnaire reply, it also notes that 
as of 30 July 2015 it became a fully independent c ommercial entity (G3 Limited).  
17 Ecuador’s STE is the National Warehousing Unit (UNA EP). It did not have exporting activities. At 
present it focuses on support for the dom estic marketing of agricultural staples for food sovereignty purposes, 
the management of temporary warehousing, and transport and marketing of the harvest.  
18 As indicated in Indonesia’s notification ( G/STR/N/16/IDN ), Perum BULOG as a state trading enterprise 
has an exporting function. However, since 1999 BULOG has not exported any commodities.  
19 Israel reply to the questionnaire included one STE, for groundnuts. The Egg and Poultry Board, and 
the Plants Production and Marketing Board are not actively engaged in export, rather they have  the legal 
authority to grant licenses to private exporting entities.  
20 The European Union is counted as one Member for the purposes of discussing donors.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 8 - 
 
  and the United States) of which six provide cash exclusively (Australia, Canada, Iceland, New 
Zealand, Norway and Russian Federation).  In value terms, the majority of food aid provided by 
donors is untied cash -based food assistance.  
4.5.  Six Members provided in -kind fo od assistance (i.e. they provide actual commodities as aid 
(Chinese Taipei, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States)).  Japan 
and the United States permit monetisation.   
4.6.  All 12 donors responding to the questionnaire confirmed al l of their aid is untied and in fully 
grant form (Australia, Canada, Chinese Taipei, the European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, 
Norway, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States). 
  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 9 - Table 4 - Overview of Members' food aid progra mmes  
Member  Is aid provided on a cash basis 
and if so how much?21 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 
emergenc y? 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 386.6 million in 
2014/15  No N/A Yes Yes N/A 2014/15  
Brazil  No Yes- 2014: 12,100  metric 
tonnes of polished rice 
worth USD  5.74 million22 Yes Yes Yes No 2014 
Canada  Yes - CAD 331.5 million 
(estimated)  No N/A Yes Yes N/A 2015 
Cuba  No Yes- 2011: 2,500 tonnes 
of raw sugar  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  2011 
China  No Yes- 2014: USD 2 million  Yes Yes No Yes 2014 
European 
Union  Yes- amount not specified  Yes Yes Yes Yes No 2013 
Iceland  Yes – USD 0.44 million annually to 
WFP; USD 0.24 million to Syria 
(2017), USD 0.2 m illion to 
Uganda/South Sudan (2017); and 
USD 0.15 million to Nigeria (2017)  No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2017 
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 tota l food 
aid in 2015: 
9.5 billion  Yen Yes Yes No No 2015 
New 
Zealand  Yes- 2015/2016: NZD 0.241 
million  No N/A Yes Yes No 2015/2016  
Norway  Yes – NOK 644 million to WFP in 
2015, and NOK 253 million in 2015 
food-related emergency relief aid 
to LDC  No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2015 
Russian 
Federation  Yes- 2016: USD 30 million  No N/A Yes N/A N/A 2016 
                                                
21 The information summarised in this table  has been drawn from submissions made to the export competi tion questionnaire and the information compiled in 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.3 . The phrase ‘not specified’ implies the response could not be readily ascertained within G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.3.  
22 The value or volume of aid listed herein is taken from the last ava ilable year listed for the Member in document G/AG/W/125/ Rev.6/ Add.3 .  
  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 10 - Member  Is aid provided on a cash basis 
and if so how much?21 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 
emergenc y? 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  
Switzerland  Yes -2012-16: CHF 20 million  Yes- 3,010 tonnes in kind 
(2015) and 3,976  tonnes 
(2016)  Yes Yes Not specified  Yes 2014 
Chinese 
Taipei  No Yes- 17,300 tonnes of 
rice Yes Yes Yes No 2016 
Thailand  No Yes- 500 metric tonnes 
of rice  Yes Yes Not specified  Yes 2014 
Turkey  Yes – USD 37,680  Yes- 2016: 
USD 34.1 million of food 
in-kind 20.196 MT of 
wheat flour.  Not specified  Yes Yes No 2016 
United 
States of 
America  The US provided USD 941 million 
in 2016 through cash transfers, 
vouchers or locally and regionally 
procured food through the 
Emergency Food Security Program.  Yes both cash an d 
in-kind. In 2016 2.05 
million tonnes worth 
USD 925 million  Yes Yes Monetisation is 
permitted  No 2016 
Viet Nam  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  Not specified  2015 
  
 G/AG/W/164  
 
- 11 - 
 
  5  TRANSPARENCY  
5.1.  As noted, the annual export competit ion review process in the CoA originally established by 
the MC9 Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition was continued by the MC10 Decision in 
order to monitor Members' implementation of the Decision.  This review is on the basis of Members' 
notificati ons 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.  This 
obligation is with immediate effect for developed Members while the obligation applies to 
developing country Members five years following the adoption  of the Decision 
(i.e. December  2020) unless they are in a position to respond sooner.  
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 2016 and response rates to the 2017 questionnaire is provided in Table 5, with further 
details in  Annex 1.  Twenty Members have provided ES:1 notifications for 2016, all but one of 
which are nil responses.  Sixty eight Members responded to the questionnaire in part or its entirety.  
Of these Members, 49 responded to the section on export financing, 68 to the section on STEs, 
and 34 on food aid.  Ninety four Memb ers did not provide any responses.  Moreover, there has been 
a notable decline in response rates as compared to 2016 for Food Aid (34 versus 61 responses - 
44%).  The response rates for Export Financing remained the same in 2017 as in 2016 and are only 
a mar ginal improvement since 2015 (49 in 2017 and 2016, versus 47 in 2015).  
Table 5 - Summary of Members' questionnaire responses and notification performance  
  2016 Export Subsidy (ES:1) 
Notifications  Export 
Financing23 STEs24 Food Aid25 
Substantive responses  1 28 15 12 
Nil responses  19 21 53 22 
Total responses  20 49 68 34 
Total providing no responses  143 114 95 129 
  
5.3.  Consequently, while the Secretariat's report is improved as compared to previous years on 
the basis of replies to multiple questionnaires since  2015, there remains significant room for 
improvement in both the quality and quantity of Member replies. The quality of replies on export 
financing is a good example of where the Secretariat report has benefited from Members providing 
more information abo ut their programmes when compared with 2015 and 2016. 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 developing 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 improve transparency, such as submitting overdue 
notifications of export subsidies (wh ether 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.  Reporting by Members and the Secretariat reveal a similar situation to that in previous years.  
A number of gaps in Members' notifications and responses to the Secretariat questionnaire remain, 
but 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 scheduled export subsidies entitlements to amend 
their schedules to eliminate these entitlements.  While a number of Members have reported moves 
in this direction, Australia is the only Member, out of 16 such Members, to have made the 
necessary schedule amendments.  Given the immediacy of the impl ementation dates and the fact 
                                                
23 Counting one EU nil response plus substantive responses from 16 member States (Austria, Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovak Republic, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  
24 Counting one EU nil response plus nil responses for all 28 member States.  
25 Counting one substantive response for the EU but not the member States as no detail is provided in 
questionn aire response.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 12 - 
 
  that Ministers will be reconvening in six months at MC11, 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 amending their schedules to 
reflect the relevant implementation periods in advance of the ultimate deadlines.  We therefore 
urge all Members to expedite the process of amending thei r schedules and to keep the 
CoA informed of prog ress. 
6.3.  The report reaffirms that many of the reported policies appear consistent or moving in the 
direction of being consistent with the MC10 Decision.  In particular, export subsidy expenditure has 
fallen significantly.  This generally positive trend, howeve r, is not without exceptions.  
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 M C9 Decl aration, reaffirmed in the 
MC10  Decision, to exercise utmost restraint, with regard to all forms of export subsidies.  
6.5.  While the above conclusions can be drawn from the Secretariat’s reporting, there is a 
persisting transparency shortfall, which in s ome cases is worsening as questionnaire response 
rates have dropped in some areas since the 2016 review.  The dedicated annual export competition 
review in 2017 is based on Members’ reporting of their programmes in 2016.  It therefore 
represents the beginnin g of the CoA’s assessment of Members’ implementation of the MC10 Export 
Competition Decision adopted in December 2015.  This reaffirms the overarching conclusion that 
Members need to maintain and further improve the response rates and quality of their repor ting to 
future reviews.  Members continue to fall short of the reporting requirements, even where some 
have reported in past years, and an extra effort is needed in this area across developed and 
developing Members.  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 13 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
MEMBERS RESPONDING T O THE SECRET ARIAT 2017 QUESTIONN AIRE 
AND PROVIDING 2016 E S:1 NOTIFICATIONS  
. 
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  2016 Export 
Subs idy (ES:1) 
Notifications  Export 
Financing  STEs  Food Aid  
Afghanistan  X X X X 
Albania  X X X X 
Angola  X X X X 
Antigua and Barbuda  X X X X 
Argentina  X X NIL NIL 
Armenia  X X X X 
Australia  X    
Austria  X EU EU NIL  X 
Bahrain, Kingdom of  X X X X 
Bangl adesh  X X X X 
Barbados  X X X X 
Belgium  X X EU NIL  X 
Belize  X X X X 
Benin  X X X X 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  X X X X 
Botswana  NIL X X X 
Brazil  X X X X 
Brunei Darussalam  X X X X 
Bulgaria  X EU EU NIL  X 
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 NIL X X X 
Chile X NIL NIL NIL 
China  X X  X 
Colombia  X NIL  NIL 
Congo  X X X X 
Costa Rica  NIL NIL  NIL 
Côte d'Ivoire  X X X X 
Croatia  X EU EU NIL X 
Cuba X X X X 
Cyprus  X X EU NIL  X 
Czech Republic  X EU EU NIL  X 
Democratic Republic of the Congo  X X X X 
Denmark  X EU EU NIL  X 
Djibouti  X X X X 
Dominica  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 EU NIL  X 
European Union   NIL NIL  
Fiji X NIL NIL NIL 
Finland  X EU EU NIL  X 
France  X EU EU NIL  X 
Gabon  NIL X X X 
The Gambia  X X X X G/AG/W/164  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Member  2016 Export 
Subs idy (ES:1) 
Notifications  Export 
Financing  STEs  Food Aid  
Georgia  X X X X 
Germany  X EU EU NIL  X 
Ghana  X X X X 
Greece  X X EU NIL  X 
Grenada  X X  X 
Guatema la 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 EU NIL  X 
Iceland  X  NIL  
India X X  X 
Indonesia  X X  X 
Ireland  X X EU NIL  X 
Israel  X NIL  NIL 
Italy X X EU NIL  X 
Jamaica  NIL X X X 
Japan  NIL  NIL  
Jordan  X X X X 
Kazakhstan  NIL 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 EU NIL X 
Lesotho  X X X X 
Liechtenstein  X NIL NIL NIL 
Lithuania  X X EU NIL  X 
Luxembourg  X X EU NIL  X 
Macao, China  X NIL NIL NIL 
Madagascar  X X X X 
Malawi  NIL X X X 
Malaysia  X  NIL NIL 
Maldives  X X X X 
Mali NIL X X X 
Malta  X X EU NIL  X 
Mauritania  X X X X 
Mauritius  X NIL X NIL 
Mexico  X X X X 
Moldova, Republic of  X X  X 
Mongolia  X X X X 
Montenegro  NIL X X X 
Morocco  X 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 EU NIL  X 
New Zealand  NIL    
Nicaragua  NIL X X X 
Niger  X X X X 
Nigeria  X X X X 
Norway  X 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 NIL NIL NIL 
Philippines  X NIL NIL NIL 
Poland  X EU EU NIL  X 
Portugal  X X EU NIL  X 
Qatar  X X X X 
Romania  X X EU NIL  X 
Russian Federation  NIL  NIL  G/AG/W/164  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Member  2016 Export 
Subs idy (ES:1) 
Notifications  Export 
Financing  STEs  Food Aid  
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 X X X 
Senegal  X X X X 
Seychelles  NIL NIL NIL NIL 
Sierra Leone  X X X X 
Singapore  X NIL NIL NIL 
Slovak Republic  X EU EU NIL  X 
Slovenia  X X EU NIL  X 
Solomon Islands  X X X X 
South Africa  X X X X 
Spain  X X EU NIL  X 
Sri Lanka  X X X X 
Suriname  X X X X 
Swaziland  X X X X 
Sweden  X EU EU NIL X 
Switzerland  X  NIL  
Chinese Taipei  NIL NIL NIL  
Tajikistan  X X X X 
Tanzania  X X X X 
Thailand  X  NIL NIL 
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia  X X X X 
Togo NIL X X X 
Tonga  X X X X 
Trinidad and Tobago  X  NIL NIL 
Tunisia  X X  X 
Turkey X  NIL  
Uganda  X X X X 
Ukraine  NIL NIL  NIL 
United Arab Emirates  X X X X 
United Kingdom  X EU EU NIL  X 
United States of America  X  NIL  
Uruguay  X NIL NIL NIL 
Vanuatu  X X X X 
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  X X X X 
Viet Nam  X X X X 
Yemen  X X X X 
Zambia  X X X X 
Zimbabwe  X X X X 
TOTAL  20 49 68 34 
 
 
__________