G/AG/W/166  
 
24 July 2017 
(17-4071) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS DU RING THE ANNUAL DEDI CATED 
DISCUSSIONS ON EXPOR T COMPETITION  
COMPILATION OF RESPO NSES TO QUESTIONS RA ISED DURING THE ANNU AL DEDICATED 
DISCUSSIONS ON EXPOR T COMPETITION ON 7 J UNE 20171 
The present document compiles Members' responses to the questions raised during the annual 
dedicated discussion on export competition . 
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 21 July 2017:  
 
Question ID  Answer by  Question by  
84115  Australia  United States of America  
84116  Brazil  United States  of America  
84117, 84121  Canada  United States  of America  
84119, 84122  European Union  United States  of America  
84120  India United States  of America  
84124  United States  China  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 
                                                
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/166  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  3 
1.1   AG-IMS ID 84065: Question by European Union  ................................ ..............................  3 
1.2   AG-IMS ID 84114: Question by United States of America  ................................ .................  3 
2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  4 
2.1   AG-IMS ID 84066: Question by European Union  ................................ ..............................  4 
2.2   AG-IMS ID 84115: Question by United States of America  ................................ .................  4 
3   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
3.1   AG-IMS ID 84116: Question by United States of America  ................................ .................  5 
4   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  6 
4.1   AG-IMS ID 84 067: Question by European Union  ................................ ..............................  6 
4.2   AG-IMS ID 84006: Question by New Zealand  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
4.3   AG-IMS ID 84117: Question by United States of America  ................................ .................  7 
4.4   AG-IMS ID 84121: Question by United States of America  ................................ .................  8 
5   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
5.1   AG-IMS ID 84070: Question by European Union  ................................ ..............................  8 
5.2   AG-IMS ID 84118: Question by United States of America  ................................ .................  9 
6   EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
6.1   AG-IMS ID 84119: Question by United States of America  ................................ .................  9 
6.2   AG-IMS ID 84122: Question by United States of America  ................................ ................ 13 
7   ICELAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  13 
7.1   AG-IMS ID 84005: Question by New Zealand  ................................ ................................ .13 
8   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  13 
8.1   AG-IMS ID 84120: Question by United States of America  ................................ ................ 13 
9   ISRAEL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  14 
9.1   AG-IMS ID 84 004: Question by New Zealand  ................................ ................................ .14 
10   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  15 
10.1   AG-IMS ID 84123: Question by China  ................................ ................................ ......... 15 
11   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  15 
11.1   AG-IMS ID 84069: Question by European Union  ................................ ........................... 15 
12   NORWAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  15 
12.1   AG-IMS ID 84003: Question by New Zealand  ................................ ............................... 15 
13   SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  16 
13.1   AG-IMS ID 84002: Question by New Zealand  ................................ ............................... 16 
14   UNITED STATES OF AME RICA  ................................ ................................ ..................  16 
14.1   AG-IMS ID 84124: Question by China  ................................ ................................ ......... 16 
14.2   AG-IMS ID 84068: Question by European Union  ................................ ........................... 16 
14.3   AG-IMS ID 84001: Question by New Zealand  ................................ ............................... 18 
 G/AG/W/166  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  ARGENTINA  
1.1  AG-IMS ID 8406 5: Question by European Union  
According to Decree 1346/2016 of 30 December 2016, the government of Argentina 
decided to reinstall a refund of internal taxation for several agricultural products, 
including beef dairy among others. Could Argentina confirm this and if so, also provide 
more details about this measure in order to assess its compliance with the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision on Export C ompetition. In particular, could Argentina provide data 
on the total budget of the measure, the products benefitting from it, the timeline of the 
measure and eligibility criteria for receiving such subsidies?  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
Article 825 of Law 22.415  (Customs Code) defines the export drawback system as the scheme 
under which all or part of internal taxes paid on goods exported for consumption or services 
supplied in respect of such goods are refunded. The various refund rates were set by 
Decree  1011/9 1, published in the Official Journal on 31  May 1991. Accordingly, Decree  1341/2016 
did not "reinstall" a drawback system, but rather updated the refund amounts. This update was 
carried out taking into account the indirect internal taxes subsumed in various  agro-industrial 
products that Argentina exports. The refundable tax content was estimated by evaluating the costs 
of the various stages of production, including main raw material, inputs (goods and services), 
energy costs, labour, administrative costs, ma rketing costs, contribution of capital goods 
(depreciation) and other costs. A calculation methodology was employed that standardizes the 
process so as to ensure neutrality in respect of the different sectors that make up agribusiness 
chains. It should be emphasized that the drawback system is only applicable to indirect taxes, 
such as, for instance: stamps, bank debits and credits, fuel, gross income and municipal fees. 
The refund amount update applies to a wide range of products (explicitly listed at the 8-digit level 
in Decree 1341/2016), such as some meats, dairy produce, vegetables, fruit, herbal teas, rice, etc. 
Although it is still too early to say, it is estimated that the rates update will result in an increase in 
the annual fiscal cost of around US $127.5  million. Decree  1341/2016 does not stipulate any 
time-frame. Lastly, Argentina wishes to underline that Decree  1341/2016 is entirely consistent 
with both the Decision on Export Competition adopted at the Nairobi Ministerial Conference and 
the Agreem ent on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) as well as the WTO Agreement 
on Agriculture (AoA). In no event does the value of the indirect taxes refunded exceed the amount 
of the taxes levied in respect of the production and distribution of like pro ducts when sold for 
domestic consumption.  
 
1.2  AG-IMS ID 84114: Questio n by United States of America  
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
The United States would appreciate any transparency Argentina can offer to the 
discussion of export financing support programmes for agriculture by choosing to 
respond the export competition questionnaire (ECQ) with information regarding any 
export financing support programmes being operated by its g overnment -owned entities 
(e.g. , Argentina's Investment and Foreign Trade Bank (BICE) and Bank of the Argentine 
Nation (BNA)), which are reported in Argentina's Trade P olicy Review (WT/TPR/S/277). 
Under export financing support programmes provided by BNA and/or BICE, please 
provide a resp onse to all ECQ questions regarding any financing transactions for 
agricultural products in 2016.  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
In order to complete the export competitio n questionnaire, particularly as regards  export credits, 
Argentina conducted a survey of such  programmes as might  exist under  the Investment and 
Foreign Trade Bank (BICE) and the Bank of the Argentine Nation (BNA). These two banks have 
said that they do not have any export credit support programmes or lines and/or risk coverage 
and/or credit agree ments that involve  financial contributions from the Government or financial 
transfers from the Government or from any public body to  any of the foreign currency credit lines G/AG/W/166  
 
- 4 - 
 
  offered for export financing, either at the  pre-shipment or post -shipment stage . Moreover, e xport 
financing conditions are governed by the market  
 
2  AUSTRALIA  
2.1  AG-IMS ID 8406 6: Question by European Union  
The Nairobi Decision on Export Competition provides in its paragraph 1 that "Members 
reaffirm their commitment, pursuant to the 2013 Bal i Ministerial Declaration on Export 
Competition, to exercise utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of 
export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect" and in paragraph 21, 
that "Members shall make their best efforts to e nsure that the use of export monopoly 
powers by agricultural exporting state trading enterprises is exercised in a manner that 
minimizes trade distorting effects and does not result in displacing or impedin g the 
exports of another Member ". In the light of this, could Australia explain why it has 
decided to maintain New South Wales Rice Marketing Board as Australia 's sole 
remaining STE with export monopoly powers, which seems contrary to the Nairobi 
political commitment on STEs?  
 
Answer by Australia  
 
Austral ia thanks the European Union  for its question regarding the New South Wales (NSW) Rice 
Marketing Board (RMB). The objects of the RMB include: to encourage the development of a 
competitive domestic market for rice; and to ensure the best possible returns fr om NSW grown 
rice sold outside Australia based on the quality differentials or attributes of Australian grown rice. 
Rice exports from the RMB do not displace or impede exports of rice from other Members.  
 
2.2  AG-IMS ID 84115: Questio n by United States of Ameri ca  
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
a. Australia noted in the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) that its Export 
Finance Guarantee (EFG) programme falls under two different Nairobi 
definitional categories: "(b) risk cover" and "(c) government -to-government 
credit agreements". Also, Australia noted for its EFG programme that th e 
maximum repayment terms are 5 -10 years and the annual average repayment 
period  is "Greater than 180 days". Please provide the maximu m repayment 
terms and the average repayment period for each EFG programme and by 
definitional category.  
b. The United States notes that under the EFG there is an existing contract that is 
prior to the adoption of the Nairobi Decision, still in place, and is within the 
terms of paragraph 15(a). However, Australia noted in a footnote to the ECQ 
that maximum repayment term for the 2016 tranche is longer than 18 months.  
i. Please provide the figures for the specific maximum repayment term for 
the existing contract under the EFG programme.  
ii. Please provide the specific value of its annual average repayment period 
for all tranches financed under the existing contract.  
c. In respo nse to the question on average annual premium rate for the 
Documentary Credit Guarantee (DCG) programme, Australia stated "Risk fee is 
calculated based on the assessed creditworthiness of the issuing bank, the 
tenor and frequency of repayments". Please pro vide the specific value for the 
avera ge fee rate of the DCG programme.  
d. Australia only provided value figures for regional products but did not provide a 
value figure for each agricultural product or product group e xported under its 
programmes in  2016.  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Please provide the figures for programme use (i.e. , the monetary value of 
export) by product or product group (i.e. , agricultural products) for each 
programme for all reported years.  
Answer by Australia  
 
Australia undertook to provide a response at a later s tage. 
 
3  BRAZIL  
3.1  AG-IMS ID 84116: Questio n by United States of America  
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
a. The United States notes that Brazil did not respond to the 2016 export 
competition questionnaire (ECQ), but did respond in both prior years. The 
United States appreciates Brazil transparency, which is important in making the 
dialogue on export financing su pport substantive in the Committee on 
Agriculture. Please provide the data for both the PROEX Direct Financing and 
the PROEX Interest Rates Support for agricultural products in 2016.  
b. Brazil reported in its 2015 ECQ that the PROEX Direct Financing Program 
includes supplier's credit and buyer's credit. Please confirm whether the data 
provided by Brazil also includes both t he supplier and buyer's credit.  
c. Under annual average premium rates/fees per programme, Brazil stated in 
its 2015 ECQ that "the PROEX Direc t Financing applies international market 
interest rates with respect to the funding currency and its maturity".  
i. How does Brazil define "international market interest rates?  
ii. Under the programme, is a separate premium rate/fee charged, in 
addition to the i nterest rate?  
d. According to Brazil's 2013 Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/283), in addition to 
PROEX, Brazil also offers the following export financing support schemes: 
Export Financing Fund (FFEX), PROGER Export, Export Credit Insurance (SCE), 
and Export Gu arantee Fund (FGE).  
The United States also notes that Brazil has not reported the export financing 
support programmes of the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) or Brazilian 
Guarantees agency (ABGF).  
The United States also noted that Brazil's Banco do Bras il has a direct lending 
portfolio and offers an Advance on Foreign Exchange Contract (ACC) 
programme, which appear to provide export financing support within the 
definition of paragraph 13(a) and 13(d) of the Nairobi Dec ision on Export 
Competition.  
For ea ch export financing support scheme, whether agriculture -specific or not, 
provided by BNDES, ABGF, and Banco do Brasil, please provide a response to all 
ECQ questions regarding any financing transactions for agricultural products in 
2016 or explain why they  are not subject to the notification requirements.  
Answer by Brazil  
 
Brazil  undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/166  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4  CANADA  
4.1  AG-IMS ID 8406 7: Question by European Union  
Canada submitted in April 2016 a corrigendum to its expor t subsidy notifications for 
the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 marketing years (G/AG/N/CAN/108/Corr.1). This 
corrigendum adds export subsidies for butter which  was originally notified as 
non-subsidised. As a consequence of this step, Canadian butter would theoretically 
become eligible for the flexibility set out in footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision. The 
European Union understands that Canada may wish to schedule export subsidies for 
butter. This practice of amending past data in order to maximise future entitlements 
appear questionable. In particular how would Canada apply the requirement of footnote 
4 of the Nairobi Decision, that the relevant export subsidy notification for such products 
must have been examined by the Committee on Agriculture before the date of adoptio n 
of the Nairobi Decision. Canadian notification G/AG/N/CA N/108/Corr.1 is dated 
11 April  2016 whereas the Nairobi Decision was adopted in 19 December 2015.  
 
a. Does Canada intend to submit other such corrigend a or amendments in the 
future?  
b. In the Canadian ES  notification for 2014/2015 (document G/AG/N/CAN/109) 
Canada notifies zero export subsidies for butter.   The last sentence of 
footnote  4 of the Nairobi Decision prevents application of export subsidies to 
new markets or new products. Would Canada agree tha t since no export 
subsidies were granted to butter in a year preceding Nairobi, butter would be a 
"new" product, for which payment of expo rt subsidies is prohibited 
post-Nairobi?  
c. Canada in its reply to the EU question during the 2016 export competition 
dedicated discussion confirmed that as of 1 January 2016 Canada is not 
providing export subsidises on products destined for LDCs. Trade Data Online of 
the Government of Canada lists number of LDCs as destinations of Canadian 
dairy exports in 2016, such as Sud an, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, etc. The full list 
is here:  
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/tdst/tdo/crtr.html?timePeriod=5|Complete+Years&amp;re
portType=TE&amp;hSelectedCodes=|402|405|406&amp;searchType=BL&amp;productT
ype=HS6&amp;currency=CDN&amp;countryList=DET&amp;runReport=true&amp;group
ed=GROUPED&amp;toFromCountry=CDN&amp;naArea=9999   
Could Canada explain how it makes sure that dairy products exported to these 
countries are not subsidised?  
Answer by Canada  
 
a. Canada made an error in the information for butter in its original export subsidy 
notification for 2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014. The information was subsequently rectified in 
the relevant Corrigendum. It is Canada 's long standing position to submit a corrigendum 
or amendme nt to rectify these errors and ensure data accuracy. Since 1997, Canada has 
submitted 18 corrigenda to notifications in all three pillars , i.e., domestic support, 
market access and export competition.  
b. The first sentence in Footnote 4 gives a developed Mem ber the ability to continue to 
provide export subsidies on dairy products (or processed products and swine meat) until 
the end of 2020 when the Member "has notified export subsidies for such products or 
categories of products in one of its three latest exp ort subsidy notifications " prior to the 
adoption of the Nairobi Decision. Canada provided export subsidies for butter in at least 
one of its three notifications prior to this date. Therefore, butter would not be considered 
a "new" product and would be subj ect to the new export subsidy limit established under 
the Nairobi Decision.  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 7 - 
 
  c. The use of milk class 5(d) to all markets are tracked by the Canadian Dairy Commission 
through the issue of permits. Canada notes that some of Canada 's exports of dairy 
products d o not receive export subsidies and enter least developed country markets 
using milk classes other than milk class 5(d).  
4.2  AG-IMS ID 8 4006: Question by New Zealand  
Can Canada update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 decision 
to elimina te export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its WTO 
schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada 's elimination of export subsidies has a real effect on its domestic policy and domestic 
industry. Canada has implemented the Nairobi Decision and will eliminate its export subsidies at 
the end of 2020. The domestic process to modify to Canada 's export subsidy schedule is 
underway. Once this process is complete, Canada will submit its modified export subsidy sched ule 
to the WTO.  
 
4.3  AG-IMS ID 84117: Questio n by United States of America  
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
a. For all programmes reported by Canada under the "Insurance" and "Bonding and 
Guarantees" categories, Cana da reported "N/A" for annual average repayment 
period  2016.  
 
i. Please explain why the average repayment term for each programme is 
not reported and what steps Canada is taking to gather this information.  
ii. When will Canada be able to report the average repay ment term for 
2016, as well as previous years covered by the ECQ process?  
b. For several programmes, Canada reported the maximum repayment term as 
"various" (e.g., Financing/Loan), "N/A" (e.g., Financing/Loan, Bonding and 
Guarantees/Surety Bonding Insurance and Financial Security Guarantee), or with 
time periods that exceed the 18 months outlined  in the Nairobi Decision 
(e.g.,  Insurance/Political Risk Insurance, Bonding and Guarantees and 
Financing/Guarantee). Further Canada reported that two Bonding and 
Guar antees programmes (Performance Security Guarantee Program and Foreign 
Exchange Guarantee Program FXG) ha ve "tenors [that] can be up to three  years, 
however, for agri -foods it is normally up to one year."  
 
Please explain how Canada ensures the maximum teno r for each of these 
programmes remains below the maximum repayment term outlined in the 
Nairobi Decision.  
 
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 programmes 
or is it a separate programme not reported in the ECQ? If BFP is a separate 
category of support, does the programme cover exports of agricultural products? 
If so, please provide a response to all Export Competition Questionnaire 
questions.   
 
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 G/AG/W/166  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.4  AG-IMS ID 84121: Questio n by United States of America  
INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID QUESTI ONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/R ev.6/Add.3)  
 
In the 2015 Food Assistance Convention (FAC) annual report, Canada disclosed that 
cash-based, food for consumption and nutrition intervention progra mming represented 
26%, 52% and 19% of the total eligible expenditures in food 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 programming as indicated 
in Canada's response in last year's Export Competition Questionnaire.  
 
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."  
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
5  CHINA  
5.1  AG-IMS ID 8407 0: Question by European Union  
a. According to media reports, COFCO has r eceived CNY  4.7 billion 
(US$719  million) in government subsidies in 2015. How does  China ensure that 
these subsidies are spent in compliance with Article 9:1(d) -(e) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and paragraph 20 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Export Competition?  
b. Paragraph 9 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Cotton and par agraph  12 of 
the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition state that with regard to 
cotton, the disciplines and commitments contained in the Export Competition 
Decision shall be implemented not later than 1 January 2017 by developing 
country Memb ers. This also applies to the transparency commitments included 
in the Annex to the Decision, meaning that from 1 January 2017, Developing 
Country Members must provide information on export competition measures 
benefitting cotton. Nevertheless, China appea rs not to have replied to the 
WTO  Secretariat questionnaire on export competition. In the absence on 
China's replies, could China provide information on export competition 
measures benefitting cotton, including agricultural exporting state trading 
enterpri ses, such as for example measures applied by Chinatex Cotton Import 
and Export Co?  
Answer by China  
 
a. COFCO received RMB 4.7 billion subsidies in 2015. Among these subsidies, 3.96 billion 
was the subsidy for the labour  and storage cost occurring in the polic y business, such as 
the corn temporary procurement and reservation commissioned by China Grain Reserves 
Corporation. 110 million was provided by local governments as VAT rebate for the 
purpose of attracting investments. 50 million was the subsidy for the p romotion of clean 
energy provided to bio -ethanol producers in defined regions in China; 10 million was the 
transportation subsidies provided for the subsidiary corporations of COFCO in Anhui for 
transporting corn within the province, and for the transporta tion of grains from the 
northeast provinces to other provi nces of China. In addition, 580  million was reward by 
local governments to the subsidiary corporations of COFCO in the regions concerned for 
their contributions in environmental protection, SciTech development etc.. None of these 
subsidies mentioned above were provide d contingent upon export performance, and 
therefore were not subject to the provisions of Article 9 of the Agriculture Agreement, or 
the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition.  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 9 - 
 
  b. As indicated by China's  reply to the questionnaire on the export competition, China has 
not provided any export subsidies for cotton ever since its accession to the WTO. China 
didn't take any export competition measures exclusively for cotton, either. In recen t 
years, state -trading enterprises of China didn 't export cotton.  
5.2  AG-IMS ID 84118: Questio n by United States of America  
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
a. United States would appreciate any transparency China can  offer to the 
discussion of export financing support programmes for agriculture by choosing to 
respond in the annual ECQ with information about the many types of financing 
programmes being operated today by its relevant government -owned entities, 
including  China's China Export &amp; Credit Insurance Corporation (SINOSURE), 
China Export -Import Bank, the Agricultural Development Bank of China (ADBC), 
and China Development Bank.  
 
Under export financing support being pro vided by SINOSURE, China 
Export -Import B ank and ADBC, please provide a response to all ECQ questions 
regarding any financing transactions for agricultural products in 2016.  
 
b. 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 tha n 1 January 2017 by developing country Members."  
 
Under export financing support programmes provided by SINORURE, China 
Export -Import Bank and ADBC, please provide a response to all ECQ questions 
regarding any financing transactions for cotton.  
 
Answer b y China  
 
a. Question related to export financing support China has already submitted to the 
secretariat its reply to the export competition questionnaire, which includes information 
related to the program mes such as information on export financing e ntities , maximum 
repayment terms, and export destinations, etc. Please refer to the reply.  
b. For the question related to cotton, please refer to China 's reply to the export competition 
questionnaire and China 's reply to the question raised by  the European Union.  
6  EUROPEAN UNION   
6.1  AG-IMS ID 84119: Questio n by United States of America   
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
a. The European Union (EU) did not report Export Cre dit Agencies (ECAs) for nine 
EU Member States (MS) identified  by the United States below. The United States 
found indications that most of these ECAs offer export financing support for 
agricultural products.  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Member State: Export Credit Agency (ECA) name  
Belgium  ONDD - Office National du Ducroire  
Greece  ECIO - Export Credit Insurance Organization of Greece  
Italy SACE  
Lithuania  INVEGA credit insurance  
Luxembourg  ODD - Luxembourg Export Credit Agency  
Portugal  COSEC - Companhia de Seguro de Creditos, SA  
Romania  EXIM - Eximbank of Romania  
Slovenia  SID - SID Bank Inc  
Spain  CESCE (Compania Espanola de Seguros de Credito a la Exportacion)  
 
i. Are the above ECAs offering export financing support for agricultural 
products, even if financial support has not been provided recently?  
ii. If so, please provide a response to all export competition questionnaire 
(ECQ) questions and data for 2016 to reflect these Member States.  
b. The United States notes that five EU Member States that reported in the 2017 
ECQ did not provide information on their export financing suppo rt programmes 
for the following  ECAs:  
Member State: Export Credit Agency (ECA) name  
Croatia  HAMAG -BICRO - Croatia Agency for SMES Innovation and Investment  
Czech Republic  CEB - Czech Export Bank  
Germany  KfW IPEX -Bank 
Poland  BKG - Polish Development Bank  
Sweden  SEK - Swedish Export Credit Corporation  
 
i. Are the above ECAs offering export financing support for agricultural 
products, even if financial support has not been provided recently?  
ii. If so, please provide a response to all ECQ questions and data for  2016 to 
reflect these Member States.  
c. Austria responded that Oesterreichische Kontrolbank Aktiengensellschaft  (OeKB) 
export credit insurance programmes are not specific to only agricultural 
products. The United States notes that the scope of the Ministeria l Decision on 
Export Competition is not limited to agricultural -specific programmes. Also, 
Austria stated "information is not held" in response to questions on the total 
value of the exports covered; annual average premium rate; maximum 
repayment term; ann ual average repayment period; export destinations; and 
programme use by product or product group.  
 
i. Does OeKB offer export financing support for agricultural products, even if 
financial support has not been provided recently?  
ii. If so, please provide a respo nse to all ECQ questions and data in 2016.  
d. Croatia did not respond to several of the questions regarding its programme, 
stating "information is not held" in response to the maximum repayment term.  
 
What steps is Croatia taking to gather this information and when can Members of 
this Committee expect to receive information as outlined in the Nairobi Decision?  
 
e. In response to the question on average annual premium rate, Denmark stated 
"Depending on the credit rating of the individual destination countries."  
 
i. Please provide the specific value of its programme average annual premium 
rate.  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 11 - 
 
  In response to the questions on annual average repayment period, Denmark 
stated its response was the same as with regards to the maximum 
repayment term.  
ii. Please confirm the United States' understanding based on Denmark's 
response that Denmark provides the maximum repayment terms for all 
export credits. If not, please provide the specific value of its average annual 
premium rate.  
In response to the question on export destinations, Denmark stated "countries outside 
of the  EU/OECD".  
iii. Please provide the specific export destination countries.  
f. In response to the question on export destinations Estonia stated "global 
coverage…" . Please list the specific export destination countries.  
 
g. France reported that the annual average annual premium rate for exports to 
countries other than Cuba in 2015 and 2016, and in 2016 for Lebanese Republic, 
Algeria and Egypt, is "Ad -hoc based on the OECD".  
 
i. Please provide the specific annual average rate figure for 2016?  
In response to the question on programme use by product, France stated "this 
information is not held".  
ii. Please explain what steps France is taking to collect this information and 
when will it b e made available to Members of this Committee as required by 
the Nairobi Decision.  
h. Germany responded that export credit insurance programmes are "pure cover 
only (no specific agriculture programme)". The United States notes that the 
scope of the Ministeria l Decision on Export Competition is not limited to 
agricultural -specific programmes. Also, Germany stated that the total value of 
export of agricultural products covered by the programme was "EUR  0.0" 
according to "data available for single transaction cov er" between the  periods of 
2014 through 2016.  
 
According to the " Export Credit Guarantees of the Federal Republic of Germany 
Hermes Cover " annual reports, the information reported by the Federal Ministry 
of Economic Affairs and Energy (see table below) rai ses questions regarding the 
total value of export of agricultural products covered by single transaction covers 
reported by Germany in its export competition questionnaire (ECQ) for the last 
two years. The United States also notes that single transaction p olicy for the 
agricult ure and food industry from 2014 -2016 has more than double in value.  
 
Annual 
Report  Single transaction policy for 
the agriculture and food 
industry  
(EUR)  Outstanding risk from 
current guarantees to the 
agriculture and food sector  
(EUR)  Report page(s)  
2016 326 million  1.1 billion  66 and 73  
2015 269 million  1.1 billion  66 and 73  
2014 150 million  1.1 billion  73 
Source:  https://www.agaportal.de/en/main -navigation/infocenter -konsortium/downloads -
konsortium  
 
i. Please explain the differences between the export values of agricultural 
products reported in the ECQ and those reported in the "Export Credit 
Guarantees of the Federal  Republic of Germany" annual reports.  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 12 - 
 
  ii. What is the reason for the gap between the value of outstanding risk from 
current guarantees and the value of single transaction policy to the 
agriculture and food industry in these annual reports?  
iii. Are other medium a nd long term programmes to the agriculture and food 
industry being offered?  
The annual report lists the Euler Hermes Aktiengesellschaft offers the following 
export financing products: buyer credit cover, buyer credit cover -express, contract 
bond cover, con structional work cover, counter -guarantee, framework credit 
cover, KfW refinancing programme, revolving buyer credit cover, revolving 
supplier credit cover, securitization guarantee, supplier credit cover, whole 
turnover policy, and whole turnover policy l ight. 
 
iv. Please describe all programmes offering export financing support for 
agricultural products (i.e. , programmes that Germany has an outstanding 
risk from current guarantees), even if financial support has not been 
provided recently.  
v. Will this informati on be included as part of the EU's response to the ECQ?  
i. The Netherlands stated that the programme use by product or pro duct group is 
"Not  applicable."  
 
What steps is the Netherlands taking to gather this information and when it will 
be made available to Members of this Committee as required by the Nairobi 
Decision?  
j. Several EU Member States, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, 
and Slovak  Republic, reported that the maximum repayment term was greater 
than 18 months. For each country please list the export destination countries 
that receive tenor greater than 18 months.  
 
k. In response to the questions of annual average premium rate and annual average 
repayment period EU Members States, including Croatia, Poland, and the  
United  Kingdom, stated that the "information is not held" for one or both 
questions.  
 
For each country, what specific steps is each taking to gather this information 
and when will it be made available to Members of this Committee as required by 
the Nairo bi Decision?  
l. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, 
Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden, and United Kingdom did not 
provide a value figure for each agricultural product or product group exported 
under its pr ogrammes in 2016.  
 
i. For each country, please provide the figures for programme use (i.e. the 
monetary value of export) by product or product group (i.e. , agricultural 
products) in 2016.  
ii. For each country, if the information is not readily available, what sp ecific 
steps is each taking to gather the information and when will it be made 
available to Members of this Committee as required by the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by European Union  
 
European Union undertook to provide a response at a later stage  
 G/AG/W/166  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6.2  AG-IMS ID 84122: Questio n by United States of America  
INTERNATIONAL FOOD AID QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/R ev.6/Add.3)  
 
The United States notes that no information has been provided in response to the Export 
Competition Questionnaire (ECQ) regarding food aid program mes operated by the 
EU Member States.  
 
For each of the 28 EU Member States that are providing food assistance, please provide 
a response to all food aid ECQ questions and data for the mix of tools used under food 
aid program mes in 2016.  
Answer by European Union  
 
European Union undertook to provide a response at a later stage  
 
7  ICELAND  
7.1  AG-IMS ID 8 4005: Question by New Zealand  
Can Iceland update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 decision 
to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its  
WTO  schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
 
Answer by Iceland  
 
Export subsidies have in practice been eliminated in Iceland. However, legislation is still in place 
allowing such support. Th e Ministry of Industries and Innovation has prepared a draft bill that will 
remove this provision from the legislation. The delegation of Iceland will send a new schedule after 
the legal basis for export subsidies has been removed. The draft bill will be p resented to 
Parliament at the autumn session.  
 
8  INDIA  
8.1  AG-IMS ID 84120: Questio n by United States of America  
EXPORT CREDIT QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT DOCUMENT 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2)  
 
The United States would appreciate any transparency India can offer to the discussion of 
export financing support programmes for agriculture by choosing to respond in the 
annual ECQ with information about the various export financing support programmes 
being operated today by its government -owned entities, i.e. , the Export -Import Bank of 
India (I -Eximbank) and ECGC Ltd.  
 
In the case of I -Eximbank, India provided details about I -Eximbank's export financing 
support programmes for agricultural products in response to Members' questions in the 
2015 Trade Policy Review (TPR) (RD/T PR/432). In the case of ECGC, India responded to 
Members' questions regarding ECGC's export financing support that the questions were 
"not relevant," because "ECGC does not have any specific short term policy for 
agricultural products."  
 
Noting that the s cope of the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition is not limited to 
just agricultural -specific programmes:  
a. Based on India's response in the TPR, please explain why India considers it 
"not relevant" to provide information on ECGC's export financing su pport 
programmes for agricultural products, when ECGC's 2016 annual report (see 
table below) shows that export financing programme support for agricultural 
products is worth US$3.8 billion.  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 14 - 
 
  b. Please explain whether India considers ECGC's export financing su pport 
activities as covered by the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
c. For each export financing support scheme provided by I -Eximbank and ECGC, 
irrespective of whether any programme is specific or not to agriculture, please 
provide a response to all ECQ with regards to financing transactions for 
agricultural products in  2016.  
The United States notes 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 
volum es. According to ECGC's annual reports for 2015 -2016 and 2014 -2015 (see table 
below), short -term export credit insurance policies for agricultural products (including 
dairy and process foods), and cotton (fiber, yarn, fabrics made up, includ ing handloom) 
are the following1: 
Annual 
Report  Agricultural 
Products  
(US$)  Cotton  
(US$)  Total ST export credit support for 
agricultural products  
(US$)  
2014-2015 1.88 billion  1.67 billion  3.55 billion  
2015-2016 1.69 billion  2.12 billion  3.81 billion  
Source:  See ECGC's website, https://www.ecgc.in/financial -result/ . 
 
(1) Total short -term export credit insurance policies r eported are as follows: 
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 64 INR to 1 USD. ECGC's short -term export credit insurance 
policies for cotton represented 10% and 8% of its total short -term export credit insurance policies. 
In addition, short -term export cr edit insurance policies for agricultural represented 8% and 9%.  
 
Paragraph 12 of t he 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 adoptio n of this 
Decision by developed country Members, and not later than 1 January 2017 
by developing country Members."  
a. Under export financing support programmes provided by ECGC and I -Eximbank, 
please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any finan cing 
transactions for cotton.  
Answer by India 
 
India undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
9  ISRAEL  
9.1  AG-IMS ID 8 4004: Question by New Zealand  
Can Israel update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 decision 
to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes  for updating its 
WTO  schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
 
Answer by Israel  
Israel is committed to the MC10 decision to eliminate export subsidies and will act according to the 
time schedule set in the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition (WT/MIN(15)/45 and 
WT/L/980). Israel intends to submit its draft modifications and rectifications to Schedule I before 
MC11, in parallel to updating its internal related guidelines and procedures.  
 G/AG/W/166  
 
- 15 - 
 
  10  JAPAN  
10.1  AG-IMS I D 84123: Question by China  
From the replies to the Exp ort Compe tition questionnaire, China  notice s that Japan 
permits  food aid to be monetized by the recipient countries.  
 
a. Could Japan explain what kind of economic and social development 
program mes have b een supported by the funds from the monetization of food 
aid? What measures has Japan taken to ensure that the monetization meet the 
requirements as set out in the Decision on Export Competition by the Ministers 
at Nairobi, notably the provisions of paragr aph 28 of the decision?  
b. Is the rice provided by Japan as food aid originated from Japan, or imported 
from other sources?  
Answer by Japan  
 
Food aid by Japan is not in -kind but cash -based. While we admit beneficiary countries to re -
monetize the food which t hey purchase with the funds (accumulate counterpart funds), this is 
different from the “monetization of aid in kind”.  Japan conducts food aid in response to the needs 
of recipient countries. . 
 
11  NEW ZEALAND  
11.1  AG-IMS ID 84069: Questi on by European Union  
Does Zespri provide its nursery stock free -of-charge to growers outside New  Zealand? If 
affirmative, how would New Zealand see this complyi ng with the provisions of 
Annex  1(g) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, given that 
producers in New Zealand are charged with planting fees and royalties on nursery 
stocks of kiwifruit?  
 
Answer by New Zealand  
 
Under the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994, a state trading enterprise (S TE) is defined as: "Governmental and 
non-governmental enterprises, including marketing boards, which have been granted exclusive or 
special rights or privileges, including statutory or constitutional powers, in the exercise of which 
they influence through their purchases or sales the level or direct ion of imports or exports." 
New Zealand takes a broad interpretation of this definition so that while Zespri Group Limited 
(Zespri) is not a 'marketing board ' or government owned enterprise, New Zealand has notif ied 
Zespri to the World Trade Organization as an STE under GATT 1994 Article XVII:4(a) because it 
has an automatic, but not exclusive, right to export kiwifruit from New Zealand to markets other 
than Australia. This regulated right does not make Zespri a g overnment owned commercial entity. 
The New Zealand Government has no equity shares in Zespri. When it was established in 2000, 
Zespri Group Limited shares were distributed to kiwifruit growers and ownership remains private. 
Given the question relates to Ze spri's commercial arrangements with regard to providing nursery 
stock, and not the New Zealand Government 's implementation of obligations under the WTO, 
Annex 1(g) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures is not relevant to such 
activities .  
 
12  NORWAY  
12.1  AG-IMS ID 8 4003: Question by New Zealand  
Can Norway update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 
decision to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its 
WTO schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
 G/AG/W/166  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Answer by Norway  
 
Norway remains fully com mitted to the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and expects to notify the 
revised Schedule for export subsidies in the second half of 2017.  
 
13  SWITZERLAND  
13.1  AG-IMS ID 8 4002: Question by New Zealand  
Can Switzerland update the Committee on progress towards implemen ting the MC10 
decision to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its 
WTO schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
 
Answer by Switzerland  
 
In May this year, the g overnment approved a reform package to completely elimin ate all 
remaining export refunds and submitted it to Parliament. The reform package includes 
accompanying measures, namely facilitation of inward processing and additional direct payments 
to milk and wheat producers.  
 
Together wit h this legislative reform , the g overnment also subm itted to Parliament the 
Nairobi  decision and the required amendments in the schedules of commitments for approval.  
 
After successful completion of the parliamentary process and the optional referendum, the 
legislative reform is expected to enter into force in January 2019. W ithin the same time frame, the 
government will be authorized to notify the amended schedules of concessions.  
 
14  UNITED  STATES OF AMERICA  
14.1  AG-IMS ID 84124: Question by  China  
From the replies to the questionnaire , we notice that the United States permits the food 
aid to be monetized. Could the United States explain how the food aid is monetized and 
what measures are taken to ensure the monetization meet the requirements as set out 
in the Ministerial Decision on Ex port Competition, nota bly the provisions of paragraph  28 
of the decision?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
14.2  AG-IMS ID 8406 8: Question by European Union  
The United States  has in its replies to t he EU questions during the 2016  dedicated 
discussion underlined that its responses or policies are "consistent with the Nairobi 
Decision." The European Union underlines that the aim of its queries is not to question 
any Member's consistency wit h Nairobi but rather to gather information for the purposes 
of increased transparency. This is in line with the Bali Declaration which rules that "the 
examination process shall provide an opportunity for Members to raise any matter 
relevant to the export c ompetition pillar." That said, and after carefully analysing the 
replies provided by the United States in 2016, the Euro pean Union would like to 
follow -up with some additional questions on the US food aid policies, as follows:  
 
a. According to the US Internat ional Food Assistance Reports the share of in -kind 
emergency food aid in total in -kind food aid has dropped from 81% in 2014 to 
78% in 2015. Why has the United States  decided to increase the relative share 
of trade -distorting non -emergency in -kind food aid ? 
b. The European Union notes and welcomes the fact, that according to these 
reports the share of monetized in -kind food aid has dropped from 29.7% in 
2014 to 21.4% in 2015. Could the United States  clarify however, how the funds 
raised through monetization ar e spent?  G/AG/W/166  
 
- 17 - 
 
  c. The European Union  understands that the efficiency of the US non -emergency 
food aid programmes has increased over the last few years through the 
application of direct funding of programmes rather than monetizing and that 
the cost -recovery rate of monetized in -kind fo od aid has improved from the 
51 cents per dollar spent in the past. Could the United States provide 
information on the most recent cost -recovery rate of monetized in -kind food 
aid? 
d. The United States  specifies that the n eeds assessments for the 
US non-emergency in -kind food aid programmes are, among others, also 
carried out by US Government experts. The United States  however does not 
provide description of the relevant needs assessment as required in the Annex 
to the Nairobi Decision. Cou ld the United States  provide a short description of 
the needs assessment per non -emergency in -kind food aid programme, 
particularly those carried out by US Government experts?  
e. Would the United States  agree that its requirements for food aid that all 
agricultural commodities provided be sourced from the United States, that at 
least 50% of US food aid must be shipped on US flagged vessels and that at 
least 50% of any bagging must consist of whole -grain commodities bagged in 
the Unit ed States  are linked to the US'  own market development objectives? If 
not, could the United States  provide a justification for the objectives of these 
requirements?  
f. Could the United States  provide a short description of the local or regional 
market analysis per programme, com pleted before monetization of US in -kind 
non-emergency food aid in conformity with paragraph 28 of the Nairobi 
Decision?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
a. U.S. food assistance program mes fluctuate annually based on programmatic needs and 
individual budg etary appropriations. The United States does not understand the basis 
upon which the EU is making this comparison of the share of in -kind emergency food 
aid.  
b. Monetization proceeds have trained farmers in beneficiary countries on animal and plant 
health st andards, improved farming methods, established producer cooperatives, 
provided microcredit and small and medium enterprises financing, and developed 
agricultural value chains, among other outcomes benefitting food assistance recipients.  
c. The United States ' food aid program mes are implemented based on the statutory 
language of the Agricultural Act of 2014.  
d. A Bellmon Determination is required for all food aid agreements and is conducted for the 
recipient country where commodities will be distributed and/or m onetized. The local and 
regional market analysis of the Bellmon Determination is conducted through market 
analysis that considers various market information such as various quantitative and 
qualitative information, timing of harvests or a close substitute of the commodity in the 
country, suitability of commodity, and potential policy issues. Additional food security 
data is available through the Famine Early Warnings System Network at 
https://www.fews.net/ .  
e. U.S. food a ssistance program mes are not used to promote U.S. market development 
objectives. The above mentioned requirements are U.S. legislative procurement 
mandates.  
f. See the response to part (d) of this question. Additionally, the United States uses 
independent th ird party commercial and non -profit entiti es to monetize in -kind food aid.  
 G/AG/W/166  
 
- 18 - 
 
  14.3  AG-IMS ID 8 4001: Question by New Zealand  
Can the United States update the Committee on progress towards implementing the 
MC10 decision to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating 
its WTO schedule to reflect the decision by Ministers.  
 
Answer by United States of Amer ica 
 
The United States has already eliminated all if its export subsidies and remains fully committed to 
outcomes in Nairobi. The United States is currently undergoing its internal process of updating its 
WTO export subsidy schedule. The United States  will update the Committee when further 
information is available.  
 
 
__________