G/AG/W/176  
 
29 May 2018  
(18-3211) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Agriculture   
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS FOR THE ANNUAL EXAMINATION OF EXPOR T 
COMPETITION, 11 -12 JUNE 20181 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by 28 May 2018 as specified 
in WTO/AIR/AG/27.  
 
 
_______________  
 
  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  3 
2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  3 
3   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  3 
4   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
5   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
6   EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7 
7   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  9 
8   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  10 
9   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  10 
10   KOREA, REPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ ..............................  10 
11   MALAYSIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  10 
12   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  11 
13   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ............................  11 
14   THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  11 
15   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  12 
16   UNITED STAT ES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ..................  12 
17   VIET NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  13 
 
  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  ARGENTINA  
AG-IMS ID 87043: Question by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
In responses to AG -IMS ID 84114 Argentina stated: "BNA and BICE do not have programmes or 
lines of credit support for exports and/or risk hedges and/or credit agreements that have financial 
contributions from the Government or financial transfers (BICE) and Banco de la Nación Argentina, 
or any public body in any of the lines of credit in foreign currency offered for the financing of 
exports, both in the pre -shipment and post -shipment modes". Argentina also stated that "Export 
financing conditions correspond to the market rates ". 
 
The United States notes the  provisions in the Nairobi Decision apply to export financing support 
"provided by a government or any public body " as referred to in the Article 1.1 (a) (1) of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. This definition appears to relate to 
both BNA and BICE.  
 
According to both their websites, BNA2 and BICE3 operate export financing programs for which 
agriculture is eligible. These programs appear to be within the scope of the Nairobi Decision on 
Export Competition definition in paragraph 13 ( a) of direct financing support, comprising direct 
credits/financing, refinancing, and interest rate support.  
 
Noting that the scope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to just 
agricultural -specific programmes nor is there any reference to being exempt from the 
commitments because of "market rates ", please confirm that Argentina considers BNA and BICE's 
export financing support activities not to be covered by the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition 
because the "export financi ng conditions correspond to the market rates " and if so, please explain 
the specific basis for this.  
 
2  AUSTRALIA  
AG-IMS ID 8700 3: Question by European Union  
a. Australia notifies three direct financing programmes (Export Contract Loan, Export Line 
of Credit, Small Business Export Loan). Are the annual average fees/premium rates per 
programme below those which the exporters would have to pay for the funds so 
employed (or would have to pay if they borrowed on international capital markets in 
order to obtain fund s of the same maturity and other credit terms and denominated in 
the same currency as the export credit). If yes, could Australia agree that such 
programmes contain prohibited export subsidies as defined in item (k) of Annex I to the 
Agreement on Subsidies  and Countervailing Measures?  
b. For Export Line of Credit programme the maximum repayment term includes "extensions 
allowed" . What is the maximum length of these extensions?  
3  BRAZIL  
AG-IMS ID 8700 4: Question by European Union  
Why has Brazil not updated its da ta on PROEX Direct Financing and PROEX Interest Rate Support 
programmes?  
AG-IMS ID 87012: Question by Norway  
Brazil was a driving force behind the rapid implementation of phasing out of export subsidies from 
December 2015. Members like Canada, Switzerland and Norway had to implement a considerable 
                                                
2 See URL: 
http://www.bna.com.ar/Empresas/Grandes/ComercioExterior/FinanciacionDeExportacionesArgentinas    
Also, under the heading "Exportación"  please see  "Cartas de Crédito de Exportación",  See URL: 
http://www.bna.com.ar/Empresas/Grandes/ComercioExterior  
3 See URL: https://www.bice.com.ar/en/productos/comercio -exterior/ .  See URL: 
https://www.bice.com.ar/es/productos/expo -largo-plazo/   G/AG/W/176  
 
- 4 - 
 
  change in policies in order to comply with the Ministerial Decision. These members have now all 
notified amended draft schedules for export subsidies.  
 
On the other hand, after more than two years, Brazil has still not submitted a draft amended 
schedule for export subsidies.  
 
Question: When will Brazil submit the amended draft schedule for export subsidies?  
AG-IMS ID 87044: Questio n by United States of America  
Brazil Export Cr edit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that Brazil did not respond to the 2016 or the 2017 export competition 
questionnaires, but did respond in 2014 and 2015. Brazil also recently noted in response to U.S. 
questions that the PROEX Direct Financing programme supported USD 141.3 million in agricultural 
products in 2016.  
  
Please provide responses to the ECQ for both the PROEX Direct Financing and the PROEX Interest 
Rate support programmes for agricultural products in 2017.  
 
4  CANADA  
AG-IMS ID 8700 5: Question by European Unio n 
a. The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, in footnote 4, requires that 
"quantity commitment levels shall be applied as a standstill until the end of 2020 at the 
actual average of quantity levels of the 2003 -05 base period" . A 2003 -05 base p eriod 
refers to three years, 2003, 2004 and 2005. Why has Canada based its export subsidy 
quantity levels for dairy products in 2016 on a four year average, contradicting the 
Nairobi Decision?  
b. The Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition, in foot note 4, requires that 
footnote 4 applies on products for which a Member concerned "has notified export 
subsidies for such products or categories of products in one of its three latest export 
subsidy notifications examined by the Committee on Agriculture be fore the da te of 
adoption of this Decision ". The three latest export subsidy notifications by Canada before 
Nairobi covered years 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 and no subsidised butter exports 
were reported by Canada for these years. Given that Canadian Cor rigenda to its export 
subsidy notifications for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 were not examined by the CoA 
before Nairobi, why does Canada erroneously notify an export subsidy entitlement for 
butter in 2016?  
c. Does Canada agree that its milk class system, alth ough considered by Canada a private 
mechanism, could only exist by virtue of a milk quota system impo sed by the 
government of Canada4 and therefore exporters of dairy products or ingredients, that 
were billed under milk class 7 benefit from "payments on the export of an agricultural 
product that are financed b y virtue of governmental action ", as defined in Article  9:1(c) 
of the Agreemen t on Agriculture? If not, could Canada substantiate its position?  
                                                
4 Mandated by the Canadian Dairy Commission Act of 1966 and administered by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission which is a Can adian government Crown Corporation  created under the same Act.  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 5 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87045: Question by U nited States of America  
Canada Export Cr edit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
a. The United States notes Canada stated in its export competition questionnaire  (ECQ) 
that the total value of export of agricultural products covered by its export financing 
programs was CAN  4,100 million and CAN  5,092 million in 2015 and 2016, respectively.  
According to the Export Development Canada's (EDC) website Aggregate Business 
Volume by Industry Sub -sector for the periods ending 31 December  2015, 2016 
and 2017 (see table below), the total value of agricultural products covered by its export 
financing programs does not match the total value of export of agricultural products 
reported by Ca nada ECQ. The United States also notes under the Light Manufacturing 
Industry, a line describing transactions for food and beverage that was not reported in 
Canada's ECQ for the last three years.  
Overview of Industry  
Sub-sector  2015  
($ in millions)  2016  
($ in millions)  2017  
($ in millions)  
Agriculture  4,702  5,600  4,995  
Food & Beverage  1,041  974 1,401  
TOTAL  5,743  6,574  6,396  
Source:  http://www.edc.ca/EN/About -Us/Disclosure/Reporting -on-Transactions/Pages/industry -
sub-sector -2017.aspx   
 
For the agricultural sector:  
i. Can Canada please explain the differences between the total export values of 
agricultural products reported in the ECQ and  those reported on the EDC website?  
ii. Can Canada please explain why the export value of agricultural products under the 
Sub-sector food and beverage was not reported in the ECQ?  
iii. Can Canada please explain if there were missing agricultural products under 
EDC's Sub-sectors that were not included in the 2015 and 2016 ECQs? If so, please 
provide the figures for programme use (i.e. the monetary value of export) by 
product or product group (i.e. agricultural products as defined in the WTO Nairobi 
Decision) in 2015  and 2016.  
b. In in previous questionnaires Canada reported data for  its Foreign Exchange 
Guarantee  (FXG) and Loans programs, which Canada described as "other form of 
governmental export credit support " and "direct financing support ", respectively. Neither 
of these named programs was described in the previous Canada's ECQ as Buyer 
Financing or provider of working capital. Also, the Loans programme was reported as 
having average repayment terms above 2.9 years and reported Maximum repayment 
terms as "various ". 
i. Please explain why these programmes are not being reported and whether these 
activities are covered by the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
ii. Please explain if EDC continues to provide Loans with tenors higher  than 18 months.  
c. According to the Export Development Canada (EDC) website, EDC offers as part of its 
Financing categories a Buyer Financing Program (BFP) for exports of Canadian products.  
Is the BFP reported in the ECQ under one of the reported Financing programs or is it a 
separate program not reported in the ECQ? If BFP is a separate category of support, 
does the program me cover exports of agricultural products? If so, please provide a 
response to all Export Competition Questionnaire questions.  
d. Can Canada please provide a breakdown of programme  use for agricult ural products 
reported under a)  Commodities -Grain, Specialty C rops b)  Commodities -Meat and 
c) Processor/Elevator -Grain, Specialty Crops?  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 6 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87046: Questio n by United States of America  
Food Aid - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3  
 
The United States resubmits AG -IMS ID 84121: In the 2015 Food Assistance Convention  (FAC) 
annual report, Canada disclosed that cash -based, food for consumption and nutrition intervention 
programing represented 26 %, 52% and 19 % of the total eligible expenditures in fo od assistance 
funding. The 2015 FAC annual report statement seems to indicate that Canada's international food 
aid activities include a mix of tools, not only cash -based programing as indicated in Canada's 
response in last year's Export Competition Questio nnaire.  
  
Please provide additional details with regards to how Canada implements its food aid programs, 
including what other food aid tools are used in addition to on an "untied cash -based basis and fully 
in grant form ". 
 
5  CHINA  
AG-IMS ID 8700 6: Question by European Union  
a. Why has China not updated its data on export financing programmes operated by China 
Development Bank, Agricultural Development Bank of China and the Export -Import Bank 
of China?  
b. The support provided by the Agricultural Development Bank of  China and the Export -
Import Bank of China is a direct financing support. China notifies that the annual 
average fees/premium rates per these programmes are not available. So, how does 
China ensure that the annual average fees/premium rates per these progr ammes are not 
below those which the exporters would have to pay for the funds so employed (or would 
have to pay if they borrowed on international capital markets in order to obtain funds of 
the same maturity and other credit terms and denominated in the sa me currency as the 
export credit) so that no prohibited export subsidies as defined in item (k) of Annex I to 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures are granted?  
c. Why has China not updated its data on agricultural exporting STEs as notified to the 
WTO STE Working Party?  
AG-IMS ID 87047: Questio n by United States of America  
China Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that in June 2017, China submitted a report showing that for 2016, the 
Agricultural Development Bank of China, Export Import - Bank of China, and SINOSURE provided 
agricultural export financing.  
  
a. In light of this fact, please provide responses for the 2017 and 2018 ECQ.  
b. Noting China's previous response to the 2016 ECQ,  please include in the 
2018 ECQ information on annual average premium rates and data on program use by 
product or product group.  
AG-IMS ID 87048: Question by United States  of America  
China Food Aid - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3  
 
According to Xinhua press releases, China in 2016 provided bilateral in -kind food aid in response 
to emergency appeals, which is consistent with China's Nairobi commitments, to Ethiopia, Lesotho, 
Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, South Sudan and Zimbabwe . In 2017, China also provided 
bilateral food aid to Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Lebanon, Madagascar, South Sudan, 
Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda and Zimbabwe.  
  
The United States notes that China did not provide information regarding its bilatera l food aid 
programmes in its response to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ).  
  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 7 - 
 
  a. Please provide in the ECQ response data for all bilateral food aid provided in 2016 
and 2017.  
According to the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States' 
website5, China provides three types of foreign aid: grants, interest -free loans and 
concessional loans.  
b. Please provide information as to whether bilateral food aid programmes using other food 
aid tools in addition to in "full grant form " were pro vided for 2016 and 2017. If so, 
please provide data and a response to food aid question number 5.  
AG-IMS ID 87049: Questio n by United States of America  
China State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.4  
 
The United States appreciates China's transp arency, which is important in making the dialogue on 
agricultural exporting state trading enterprises substantive in the Committee on Agriculture. The 
United States notes in responses to the ECQ, China reported the total quantity of rice exports 
through it s STEs and stated, "the value and average price are not provided by the enterprises 
concerned due to confidentiality considerations ".  
  
Can China please explain if any rice exports destined to developing countries were provided as 
food aid or on concessio nal terms?  
 
a. If so, please add any pertaining information under response to all ECQ questions for 
international food aid.  
 
6  EUROPEAN UNION  
AG-IMS ID 87050: Questi on by United States of America  
European Union Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
a. The Un ited States notes in the Secretariat Background paper that Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Estonia, Latvia, and Poland are still reporting maximum  repayment terms higher than 
18 months.  
What steps is the EU taking to ensure all EU Member States' maximum repayment terms 
are no more than 18 months?  
b. Certain EU Member States have noted in response to missing data that there are no 
steps planned to gather and make available certain informatio n for agricultural export 
financing programs because such steps are not required by the Nairobi Decision. 
However, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision states the following: "The Committee on 
Agriculture shall monitor the implementation of this Decision by Mem bers in accordance 
with existing notification requirements under the Agreement on Agriculture, as 
complemented by the provisions set ou t in the Annex to this Decision ". 
Please explain how the COA is to monitor implementation when certain Members will not 
provide such data?  
c. The United States notes that Estonia provided maximu m repayment terms of 24 and 
120 months, respectively, for its programmes.  
Do these repayment terms apply to agricultural products? If not, what are the maximum 
repayment terms specifical ly for agricultural products?  
d. In AG -IMS ID 84119 on Germany's Euler Hermes' export credit insurance programmes 
under single transaction covers, the EU stated: "No export financing support for 
agricultural products is provided within these programmes ". 
                                                
5 Source: http://www.china -embassy.org/eng/zt/bps/t943741.htm . G/AG/W/176  
 
- 8 - 
 
  i. Please explain what types of exports Euler Hermes is financing.  
ii. Please confirm whether the German agriculture and food industry benefits as data 
from the "Export Credit Guarantees of the Federal Republic of Germany " suggests?  
e. According to SACE's 2016 annual r eport, export credit operations by Italian or foreign 
banks in support of export operations and transactions insured by SACE to benefit the 
agro-industry sector through its subsidiaries exceeds EUR 1,088 million.  
Please explain why SACE subsidiaries' expor t financing support activities are not 
reported in the EU's ECQ response.  
f. According to COSEC's 2016 audited financial statements (page 13), COSEC's activity on 
behalf of the Portuguese State provides Credit Insurance Line to Short -Term Export and 
Bond Insu rance that in which one of the most benefited sectors from the coverage 
included food products.  
Please explain why COSEC's export financing support activit ies are not reported in the 
ECQ response.  
g. According to the European Banking Federation's 2014 report "Funding Conditions in 
Export Credit Markets ", the Slovak Republic's EXIMBANKA SR also offers refinancing to 
commercial banks active in export financing and the majority of these transactions are 
short-term, up to one year.  
Please confirm whether this ref inancing program offers export financing support for 
agricultural products and explain the basis for not reporting this in the EU's ECQ 
response.  
h. According to data from Instituto de Credito Oficial's (ICO)6, Spain provides export 
financing support to the a gricultural and food sector  through Mediation Lines or 
ICO Lines in which the ICO acts through financial entities. In 2016, Spain's ICO reported 
a total of 5,385 agricultural and fo od export operations valued at EUR  422 million.  
Please explain why ICO's export financing support activiti es are not reported in the 
EU's ECQ response.  
AG-IMS ID 87051: Questio n by United States of America  
European Union State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.4  
 
The United States notes that the EU in its Trade Polic y Review (WT/TPR/S/357, page 101, 
paragraph 3.223) recognize that Finland's Altia (a leading wine and spirits company offering 
quality brands in the Nordic and Baltic countries and an exporter of alcoholic beverages) is an 
agricultural exporting state trad ing enterprise and would be notifying them to the WTO in the 
future. Please provide information on Finland's Altia as part of the EU's response to the export 
competition questionnaire (ECQ) on agricultural exporting state trading enterprises.  
 
AG-IMS ID 8 7052: Questio n by United States of America  
European Union Food Aid - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.3  
  
In responses to AG -IMS ID 84122 the EU stated: "EU Member States have provided in 2016 
in-kind food aid s trictly in emergency situations ". Please provid e, for each of the remaining 
27 Member States that have not been reported, all bilateral food assistance programmes 
(including those for emergency situations).  
 
                                                
6 Source: http://www.qcom.es/sector -agroalimentario -ico-lineas -de-mediacion -
alimentacion/reportajes/credito -oficial -para-el-mundo -
agroalimentario_32566_2_36410_0_1_in.html#lightbox[32566]/3/  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 9 - 
 
  7  INDIA  
AG-IMS ID 870 07: Question by European Union  
Why has India not updated its data on agricultural exporting STEs as notifie d to the 
WTO STE Working Party?  
AG-IMS ID 87053: Questio n by United States of America  
India Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
a. With regards to the Indian government -owned entities  Export -Import Bank of 
India (I-Eximbank) and ECGC Ltd: India provided details about I -Eximbank's export 
financing support programs for agricultural products in response to Members' questions 
in the 2015 Trade Policy Review (TPR) (RD/TPR/432). India responded to Members' 
questions regarding ECGC's exp ort financing support that the questions were "not 
relevant ", because "ECGC does not have any specific short term policy for agricultural 
products ".  
i. Based on India's response in the TPR, please explain why India considers it "not 
relevant " to provide info rmation on ECGC's export financing support programs for 
agricultural products, when ECGC's 2016 annual report (see table below) shows that 
export financing program support for agricultural products is worth USD 3.8 billion.  
ii. For each export financing suppo rt scheme provided by I -Eximbank and ECGC, 
irrespective of whether any program is specific or not to agriculture, please provide a 
response to all ECQ with regards to financing transactions for agricultural products in 
2016 and 2017.  
b. The United States not es India's ECGC is one of the top five export credit agencies in the 
world in terms of providing short -term official export credit and working capital volumes. 
According to ECGC's annual reports for 2016 -2017, 2015 -2016 and 2014 -2015 (see 
table below), sho rt-term export credit insurance policies for agricultural products 
(including dairy and process foods), and cotton (fiber, yarn, fabrics made up, including  
handloom) are the following:7 
Annual Report  Agricultural Products  Cotton  Total ST export credit 
supp ort for agricultural 
products  
2014-2015 USD 1.88 billion  USD 1.67 billion  USD 3.55 billion  
2015-2016 USD 1.69 billion  USD 2.12 billion  USD 3.81 billion  
2016-2017 USD 1.71 billion  USD 2.14 billion  USD 3.85 billion  
Source:  See ECGC's website, https://www.ecgc.in/financial -result/   
  
Paragraph  12 of the Nairobi Decision states that:  
  
"With regard to cotton, the disciplines and commitments contained in this Decision 
shall be immediately implemented as of the date of adoption of this Decision by 
developed country Members, and not later than 1 January 2017 by developing country 
Members."  
i. Under export financing support programs provided by ECGC and I -Eximbank, please 
provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any financing transactions for 
cotton.  
                                                
7 Total short -term export credit insurance policies reported are a s follows : 2016 -17 
INR 1,41,398  crores, 2015 -16 INR 1,35,872 crores, and 2014 -2015 INR 1,33,983 crores. The currency 
conversion was calculated at an exchange rate of 66 INR to 1 USD for 2016 -17, and 64 INR to 1 USD for 
2014-16. ECGC's short -term export credit insur ance policies for cotton represented 10 %, 10% and 8 % of its 
total short -term export credit insurance policies for the respective years. Meanwhile, short -term export credit 
insurance policies for agricultural represented 8 %, 8% and 9 %. G/AG/W/176  
 
- 10 - 
 
  8  INDONESIA  
AG-IMS ID 87054: Questio n by United States of America  
Indonesia Export Credi t - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
Please provide responses to the export credit competition questionnaire (ECQ) with regards to any 
export financing support programs being operated by the Indonesian government -owned entities 
Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia (Indonesia EximBank) and PT Asuransi Ekspor Indonesia 
(ASEI)) , which are reported in Indonesia's Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/278/Rev.1). According 
to Indonesia EximBank's annual reports financing for agriculture was USD 764.6 million in 2015 
and USD 818 .7 million in 2016.  
 
9  JAPAN  
AG-IMS ID 87055: Questio n by United States of America  
Japan Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
The United States appreciates Japan's transparency in reporting its export financing support for 
agriculture in the Export Credi t Questionnaire.  
  
a. Regarding item number 3 ( "Total value of export of agricultural products… "), Japan 
reports a "Total/Value of export of agricultural products " for each year, but also has a 
note stating that, "The total export value of agricultural products subject to the 
programmes is not available ". This note seems to contradict the provision of data. Could 
Japan please explain the meaning of the note?  
b. Please provide the maximum repayment terms and average annual repayment terms.  
c. Japan noted in the  2017 ECQ that data on the, "average premium rates ", and the, 
"annual average repayment period by program are not available ". What steps is Japan 
taking to collect this information and when will it be available?  
d. For export programme use by product or produ ct group, Japan provided only HS codes 
of agricultural products for the period 1995 – 2016. Please provide quantity and value 
data on an annual basis for the 2017 ECQ response, as well as going forward.  
10  KOREA, REPUBLIC OF  
AG-IMS ID 87057: Questio n by Unite d States of America  
Korea Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
According to its 2014 Annual Report, the Export -Import Bank of Korea (KEXIM) is responsible for 
the operation of the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF), under which 3.6% of loan 
commitments made in 2014 were for agriculture, forestry and fishing. The United States also notes 
Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K -sure) is one of the top five export credit agencies in the 
world in terms of providing short -term official export credit a nd working capital volumes.  
 
Please explain why Korea has not reported EXIM Bank's and K -sure's export financing support 
activities in its ECQ response under the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
11  MALAYSIA  
AG-IMS ID 87056: Questio n by United States  of America  
Malaysia Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that Malaysia did not respond to several questions in the 2016 and 2017 
export competition questionnaire (ECQ).  
  
a. Please explain why Malaysia has not responded regardin g its activities in 2016 and 2017.  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 11 - 
 
  b. Please confirm when Malaysia expects it will be providing response for 2016 and 2017.  
12  NEW ZEALAND  
AG-IMS ID 870 08: Question by European Union  
a. New Zealand notifies that NZECO provided support via a committed offer to rei nsure 
Australia's export credit office, Efic under an existing contract for the export of dairy 
cattle and that the repayment term for this programme is longer than 18 months. Could 
New Zealand confirm that repayment term longer than 18 months would not ap ply 
after 31.12.2017 as required by the Nairobi Decision?  
b. In reply to the EU questions raised in the recent meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture, New Zealand has repeatedly stated that Zespri is a private company so its 
decisions relating to the provis ion of nursery -stock to overseas growers is a commercial 
decision and in no way involves the New Zealand Government. The EU does not agree 
with that interpretation. According to the definition of an STEs as laid down in the 
Understanding on the Interpretat ion of Article XVII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994, private companies can also be STEs. Therefore, irrespective of its 
ownership, Zespri is an STEs and so subject to commitments of the Nairobi Decision on 
STEs, including that of paragra ph 20 which rules that "Members shall ensure that 
agricultural exporting state trading enterprises do not operate in a manner that 
circumvents any other discipl ines contained in this Decision ". Export monopoly rights 
granted to Zespri by the New Zealand's government allow Zespri to provide its kiwifruit 
nursery stock free -of-charge to growers outside New Zealand therefore circumventing 
the Nairobi commitment to ban granting export subsidies. Without its export monopoly 
Zespri would likely not be able to pro vide kiwifruit nursery stock free -of-charge to 
growers outside New Zealand. Providing kiwifruit nursery stock free -of-charge to 
growers outside New Zealand falls under export subsidies  according to Annex 1(g) of 
the ASCM. Could New Zealand explain how it i ntends to bring itself into compliance with 
the Nairobi Decision?  
13  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
AG-IMS ID 870 09: Question by European Union  
Russia n Federation  has notified that JSC Eximbank of Russia [REB] provides lending support 
towards exports and that REB provid es export credit guarantees and related financial support. 
Could the Russia n Federation  clarify if any support provided by REB is "direct financing support" as 
defined by paragraph 13(a) of the Nairobi Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 87058: Questio n by United States o f America  
Russian Federation State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.4  
 
The Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 20, 2009 No. 290, establishes a 
number of functions and priority activities to "JSC United Grain Company" (UGC)  such as: 
increasing the volume of grain purchases and sales on the domestic market and increasing grain 
export volumes. According to UGC's website, OOO OZK Yug is a subsidiary of UGC and carries out 
commercial activities for the purchase and sale of agric ultural products of grain, oilseeds, and 
groceries on behalf of UGC.  
  
In June 2017 UGC signed a government -to-government contract for the supply of 300,000 tonnes 
of Russian wheat between the Venezuelan Corporation for For eign Trade CORPOVEX and 
OOO OZK Yug.  
  
Please explain why the Russian Federation has not reported UGC and its subsidiaries as 
agricultural exporting STEs under the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
14  THAILAND  
AG-IMS ID 87059: Question by United States of Americ a 
Thailand Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 12 - 
 
    
The United States notes that Thailand responded to the 2016 E xport Competition 
Questionnaire  (ECQ) by stating, "For Export Credit and Export Credit Guarantees, conditions and 
interest rate are determined by market mechanism ". The Export -Import Bank of Thailand  (EBT), 
which is reported in Thailand's Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/326/Rev.1) as a government -
owned entity, has various export financing support programs for agriculture was USD  365.0  million 
in 2015 and USD 481.3 million in 2016.8  
  
Noting that the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition has no reference to measures being 
exempt from the commitments because of "market rates ", please explain in further detail the basis 
for why Thailand considers EBT's export financing support activities to not be covered by the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
15  TURKEY  
AG-IMS ID 870 10: Question by European Union  
Turkey has notified export credit programmes operated by the Turk Eximbank. Some of these 
programmes a ppear to be direct financing support as defined by  paragraph 13(a) of the 
Nairobi  Decision. Turkey also notes that the annual average fees/premium rates for these 
programmes in 2017 are not available. How does Turkey ensure that the annual average 
fees/pre mium rates per these programmes are not below those which the exporters would have to 
pay for the funds so employed (or would have to pay if they borrowed on international capital 
markets in order to obtain funds of the same maturity and other credit terms  and denominated in 
the same currency as the export credit) so that no prohibited export subsidies as defined in 
item (k) of Annex  I to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures are granted?  
AG-IMS ID 8713 5: Question by European Union  
The Euro pean Union notes that the total value of agricultural products covered by the Turkish 
export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes, increased by more than 45% 
from approximately 2.58 billion USD to approximately 3.74 billion USD between  2016 and 2017 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2).  
 
a. What are the reasons for the significant increase in the value of agricultural products 
covered by export financing support between 2016 and 2017?  
b. Which are the major agricultural products covered by the Turkish e xport financing 
support?  
AG-IMS ID 87060: Questio n by United States of America  
Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
 
a. Please explain why the annual average premium rate for the export credit program is 
"N.A." given that this programme supported $1.75 bil lion US in agricultural products 
in 2017.  
b. When does Turkey anticipate being able to provide the export destinations and 
programme use by product for its agricultural export financing programmes?  
16  UNITED STATES OF AME RICA  
AG-IMS ID 870 11: Question by Europ ean Union  
The Nairobi Decision in paragraph  25 states that Members are encouraged to provide non -
emergency development food assistance where recipient countries or recognized international 
humanitarian/food entities, such as the United Nations, have reques ted food assistance. In reply to 
the EU question in the 85th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture asking the US to specify 
                                                
8 The currency conver sion was calculated at an exchange rate of 36.05 TBH to 1 USD for 201 5 and  
35.77 THB to 1 USD for 2016.  See EBT's URL: 
http://www.exim.go.th/doc/en/about_exim/EXIM_Annu al_Report_2016_Eng.pdf  and 
http://www.exim.go.th/doc/en/about_exim/EXIM_Annual_Report_2015_Eng.pdf  G/AG/W/176  
 
- 13 - 
 
  when and in which form have the recipient countries or international entities requested US non -
emergency in -kind food assistance, the US said that "The United States provides required 
information regarding food aid in its NF:1 notifications and its Export Competition Questionnaire 
submissions to the WTO" . Given the absence of the reply to the EU question in both the U.S. NF:1 
notific ation and in the current Export Competition document, the EU would repeat its question: 
could the US specify when and in which form have the recipient countries or international entities 
requested US non -emergency in -kind food assistance as required in par agraph 25 of the Nairobi 
Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 87013: Question by Norway  
Question to the annual examination of export competition  
 
The US was a driving force behind the rapid implementation of phasing out of export subsidies 
from December 2015. Members like Canada, Switzerland and Norway had to implement a 
considerable change in policies in order to comply with the Ministerial Decisio n. These members 
have now all notified amended draft schedules for export subsidies.  
 
On the other hand, after more than two years, the US has still not submitted an amended draft 
schedule for export subsidies.  
 
Question: When will the US submit the amend ed draft schedule for export subsidies?  
 
17  VIET NAM  
AG-IMS ID 87061: Questio n by United States of America  
Viet Nam Export Credit and State Trading Enterprises - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2 and 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.4  
  
The United States notes that Viet Nam did n ot respond to the 2016 or 2017 export competition 
questionnaire (ECQ). According to Viet Nam's 2015 response, Vi etnam Northern Food 
Corporation  (Vinafood 1) and Vietnam Southern Food Corporation (Vinafood 2) account for about 
half of Viet Nam's rice export s and Viet Nam remains one of the world's largest rice exporters. 
Further, the United States understands that both entities still maintain exclusive supplier status on 
government -to-government contracts for rice exports (WT/TPR/M/287/Add.1, page 150).  
  
The United States also understands that Vietnam's Ministry of Finance appointed the Development 
Bank of Vietnam  (DBV) as the government guarantor; and currently, Vinafood 1 is exporting rice 
through a government -to-government program to Cuba with c redit pay ment terms from 
360 to 720 days.  
  
Vinafood 1 and Vinafood 2 appear to fall within the definition of SCM Article 1.1(a)1 and both 
entities provide export financing support within the definition of paragraph 13(c) government -to-
government credit agreements  of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
  
Based on this and other information, it is the United States' understanding Viet Nam should have 
responded to both the 2016 and 2017 ECQs.  
  
a. Please confirm whether Viet Nam will be providing response for 2016 and 2017 in the 
near future.  
b. If not, please explain why Viet Nam has not responded regarding its activities in 2016 
and 2017.  
c. If Viet Nam considers it no longer has relevant data to report, please explain the specific 
basis that Viet Nam no longer c onsiders Vinafood 1 and Vinafood 2 as an agricultural 
exporting STE and does not consider export financing  support activities of Vinafood  1 
and Vinafood 2 as measures covered by the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
 
 
__________