G/AG/W/182  
 
18 July 2018  
(18-4516) Page: 1/23 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS  
DURING THE ANNUAL DE DICATED DISCUSSIONS ON EXPORT COMPETITIO N 
COMPILATION O F RESPONSES TO QUEST IONS RAISED DURING  
THE ANNUAL DEDICATED  DISCUSSIONS ON E XPORT COMPETITION ON  11-12 JUNE 20181 
The present document compiles Members' responses to the questions raised in document 
G/AG/W/ 176 during the annual dedicated discussion on export competition . 
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 16 July 2018 : 
 
Question ID  Answer by  Question by  
87054  Indonesia  United States  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
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/182  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Contents  
1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  3 
2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  3 
3   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
4   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
5   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  9 
6   EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 11 
7   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  14 
8   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  15 
9   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  16 
10   KOREA, REPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ ..............................  16 
11   MALAYSIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  17 
12   NEW ZEALA ND ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  17 
13   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ............................  18 
14   THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  19 
15   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  20 
16   UNITED STATES OF AME RICA  ................................ ................................ ..................  21 
17   VIET NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  22 
 
 
 G/AG/W/182  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  ARGENTINA  
AG-IMS ID 87043: Questio n 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 Argen tina, 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 
definiti on appears to relate to both  BNA and BICE.  
  
According to both their websites, BNA2 and BICE3 operate export financing program mes 
for which agriculture is eligible. These program mes appear to be within the scope of the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competiti on 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 -speci fic 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 Competi tion because the "export financing conditions correspond to 
the market rates" and if so, please explain the specific basis for this.  
 
Answer by Argentina  
 
Subsequent to the circulation of document G/AG/W/125/Rev.8, Argentina submitted the 
export  competition questionnaire to the WTO Secretariat, in accordance with the monitoring 
procedure established under the corresponding Nairobi Decision. In its replies to the questionnaire, 
Argentina indicates which existing credit lines from official ba nks (Bank of the Argentine Nation 
and Investment and Foreign Trade Bank) have export financing conditions corresponding to the 
market rates. In this regard, and as indicated by the WTO Secretariat, Argentina's replies to the 
questionnaire will be published  in the next revised version of document  G/AG/W/125.  
 
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 a verage 
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 funds 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?  
                                                
2 See URL: 
http://www.bna.com.ar/Empresas/Grandes/ComercioExterior/FinanciacionDeExp ortacionesArgentinas . 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/182  
 
- 4 - 
 
  b. For Export L ine of Credit programme the maximum repayment term includes 
"extensions allowed". What is the maximum length of these extensions?  
Answer by Australia  
 
 The fees and premiums payable to Efic are above those that would typically be charged a.
by commercial credi t providers or from international credit markets.  
 The Export Line of Credit programme is a working capital facility, which is covered by b.
footnote  7 of the Nairobi Decision and  excludes working capital financing to the suppliers 
from the  definition of expo rt credits.  
3  BRAZIL  
AG-IMS ID 87004: Question by European U nion  
Why has Brazil not updated its data on PROEX Direct Financing and PROEX Interest Rate 
Support programmes?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
The replies to the 2017 ECQ were submitted on 28 May to the WTO Secretariat, and advance 
copies were sent to the E uropean Union Mission.  
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 change in policies in order to comply with t he Ministerial 
Decision. These M embers have now all notified amended draft schedules for export 
subsidies.  
 
On the other hand, after more than two years, Brazil has st ill not submitted a draft 
amended schedule for export subsidies.  
 
When will Brazil submit the amended draft schedule for export subsidies?  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
Brazil reaffirms its commitment to the elimination of export subsidies as set forth on the Minist erial 
Decision on Export Competition. In this sense, Brazil would like to remind Members that it has not 
granted export subsidies for agricultural products since 1995, when it started providing 
notifications concerning export subsidy commitments. Furthermo re, Brazil remains committed to 
not granting export subsidies and is still carrying out the internal procedures necessary to the 
internalization of the Nairobi Package as domestic law. These procedures include the approval, by 
the Brazilian Congress, of an  amended draft schedule f or export subsidies.  
 
Follow -up: Norway noted that  an informal group of Members  with export subsidies commitments  
had met after the Nairobi Ministerial Conference and already in 2016 it was  clear that Brazil had to 
undertake  the internal procedure of sending a revised schedule  to the parliament and therefore it 
would  take time. Norway asked Brazil if the  revised schedule had already  been sent to the 
parliament  or it was still under internal consultations  between ministries.  Brazil explained  that 
amending export subsidy schedule was one  part of the  Nairobi P ackage.  When the Ministerial 
Decision was adopted  there was an intense  legal debate in Brazil about the need of  sending the full 
package to  Congress or separating the schedu le from the r est of the package which  would allow 
the schedule to be  amended  more quickly.  The result of the legal debate was that the whole 
package should be submitted together to Congress . Brazil noted that at the moment it had not yet 
sent the package  to Congress  but would do it at the  earliest time possible. It also reiterated the 
fact that  Brazil had not provided any  export subsidies  since 1995.  Switzerland noted the 
importance of all Members' compliance with the Nairobi Decision.  G/AG/W/182  
 
- 5 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87044: Qu estion by United States of America   
Brazil Export Credit - 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 Fi nancing 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.  
 
Answer by Brazil  
 
The replies to the 2017 ECQ were submitted on 28 May  to the WTO Secretariat, and ad vance 
copies were sent to the U. S. Mission.  
 
4  CANA DA  
AG-IMS ID 8700 5: Question by European Union  
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 period refers t o 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 footnote  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 
before the  date of adoption of this Decision". The three latest export subsidy 
notifications by Canada before Nairobi cov ered years 2011/12, 2012/13 
and 2013/14 and no subsidised butter exports were reported by Canada for 
these years. Given that Canadian Corrigenda to its export subsidy notifications 
for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 were not examined by the CoA before Nairobi, 
why does Canada erroneously notify an export subsidy ent itlement for butter 
in 2016?  
c. Does Canada agree that its milk class system, although cons idered by Canada a 
private mechanism, could only exist by virtue of a milk quota system imposed 
by the government of Canada4[1] and therefore exporters of dairy products or 
ingredients, that were billed under milk class 7 benefit from "payments on the 
expo rt of an agricultural product that are financed by virtue of governmental 
action", as defined in Article  9:1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture? If not, 
could Canada substantiate its position?  
Answer by Canada  
 
 As per the Nairobi Decision, the new volume c ap should be based on the actual averag e a.
quantity levels in the 2003 -2005 base period. However, Canada expressed its Uruguay 
Round e xport subsidy commitments on a " dairy year " basis which runs from 1 August to 
31 July. To account for all volum es in the 200 3 and 2005 year, Canada  had to include 
the 2002 -2003 dairy year ( 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2003) and 2005 -2006 dairy year 
(1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006). Therefore, to get an accurate representation of 
the 2003–2005 base period, Canada  decided that the ave rage quantity levels of 
Canada’s export subsidies from the 2002 -2003 to 2005 -2006 dairy years (four  dairy 
years) would be used.  
                                                
4 Mandated by the Canadian Dairy Commission Act of 1966 and adm inistered by the Canadian Dairy 
Commission which is a Canadian government Crown Corporation created under the same Act.  G/AG/W/182  
 
- 6 - 
 
   The first sentence in Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Ministerial gives a developed Member the b.
flexibility to use 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 export subsidy notifications 
examined by the Committee on Agric ulture before the date of adoption of this Decision". 
Canada’s notification G/AG/CAN/92 reported that Canada used export subsidies for 
butter as did G/AG/CAN/108/Corr .1. Therefore, Canada provided export subsidies for 
butter in at least one of its three no tifications prior to the date of adoption of the Nairobi 
Decision and butter is subject to the new export subsidy limit established under it.  
 Canada does not believe that Article 9.1 (c) applies for exported dairy products or c.
ingredients that were billed under milk class 7. The usage of milk class 7 is not 
contingent on export. Goods produced under milk class 7, or any milk class other than 
milk class 5(d), can be sold by any eligible processor on the domestic or export markets, 
and do not require export p ermits. It is the business decision of the processor to either 
sell these products on the domestic market, or to export them.  
Follow -up: The European Union was not convinced by some of Canada's response s. They would 
review the responses and may follow up.  New Zealand echoed European Union's comment. In 
particular they were not satisfied with Canada's response to part c of the question which stated 
that Canada's proposal was in line with the disciplines of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
AG-IMS ID 87045: Que stion by United States of America  
Canada Export Credit - 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 program mes 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 program mes does not 
match the total value of export of agricultural products reported by Canada 
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 tho se 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 G/AG/W/182  
 
- 7 - 
 
  export) by product or product group (i.e. agricultural products as defined in 
the WTO Nairobi Decision) in 2 015 and 2016.  
b. In in previous questionnaires Canada reported data for its Foreign Exchange 
Guarantee  (FXG) and Loans program mes, which Canada described as "other 
form of governmental export credit support" and "direct financing support", 
respectively. N either of these named program mes 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 L oans 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 
program mes or is it a separa te program me 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.  
d. Can Canada please provide a br eakdown of programme use for agricultural 
products reported under a)  Commodities -Grain, Specialty Crops 
b) Commodities -Meat and c)  Processor/Elevator -Grain, Specialty Crops?  
Answer by Canada  
  a.
i. Export Development Corporation captures equipment used in the ag riculture and 
food processing sectors in each of the above industry sub -sectors and is therefore 
included in Canada's  figures reported on its  website. As such the figures Canada  
report s in the WTO Export Competition Questionnaire will not match what is pos ted 
on our website, given that equipment is not covered by Annex 1 of the Agriculture 
Agreement.  
ii. This was an oversight on Canada's  part. The Export Development Corporation will 
restate Canada's  figures in the 2015, 2016 and 2017 Export Competition 
Questio nnaire to include the relevant products (as covered by Annex 1 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture) that fall within this industry sub -sector.  
iii. Yes, as noted above, Canada  inadvertently omitted the agricultural products (as 
covered by Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture) that fall into the Export 
Development Corporation’s industry sub -sector of "Food and Beverages”. Canada  will 
restate and provi de its  figures.  
  b.
i. Foreign Exchange Guarantee (FXG) For the Export Development Corporation the  FXG 
is a working cap ital solution and as such Canada  did not include it in the responses 
to the questionnaire given that the Nairobi Decision excludes working capital 
products from the definition of export credits. Please refer to the Export 
Development Corporation website: https://www.edc.ca/en/solutions.html  Direct 
Financing Support t o provide more clarity around the products used to support the 
export of agricultural products (as covered by Annex 1 of the Agreement on G/AG/W/182  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Agriculture), Canada  decided to reference “Buyer Financing” instead of “Direct Loans” 
in the responses to the questionnaire. EDC does offer direct financing support, and 
these loans can be used for different purposes such as working capital and 
investments, a s well as direct loans to a foreign buyer to purchase exports from 
Canada which is ref erred to as Buyer Financing. Canada believe s it is clearer to use 
the product term “Bu yer Financing”. As noted in its responses to the questionnaire, 
Buyer Financing can take the form of a direct loan from EDC to the foreign buyer and 
is typically used for contract amounts >=10 million, or EDC can provide a guarantee 
to a commercial bank against the direct loan they provi de to a foreign buyer, 
typica lly used for contracts below 10  million. This product is not typically used for the 
sale of agricultural products given the nature of these products are short term and 
therefore EDC uses its credit insurance product.  
ii. EDC has n ot provided any loans to foreign buyers of agriculture products (as 
identified in Annex 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture) for several years. What was 
reported in past questionnaires under “Financing” were for working capital which is 
excluded from the Nai robi Decision.  
 See answer in b. i.  c.
 See table below (in C AD millio n). d.
Product  2015  2016  2017  
Credit 
Insurance  Buyer 
Financing  Credit 
Insurance  Buyer 
Financing  Credit 
Insurance  Buyer 
Financing  
Commodities -Grain , 
Specialty Crops  1,862  - 2,634  - 2,050  - 
Commodities -Meat 940 - 1,055  - 1,198  - 
Processor/Elevator -
Grain, Specialty Crops  469 - 611 - 475 - 
 
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 program ming 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 program ming 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 
program mes, 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, in alignment with the principles of the Food Assistanc e Convention (FAC), delivers food 
assistance programming through experienced and trusted partners to which it provides grants. 
These grants may support the direct provision of food, as well as cash and vouchers, provision of 
seeds and tools to help restart  livelihoods, and nutritional interventions (defined in the FAC as 
eligible products/eligible activities). Canada’s international food assistance activities for 2015, as 
documented in the 2015 FAC annual report, refer to activities unde rtaken by partners a s funded 
by Canada.  
 G/AG/W/182  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5  CHINA  
AG-IMS ID 87006: Question by European U nion  
Annual examination on export competition  
 
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 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 internatio nal 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 C ountervailing Measures are granted?  
c. Why has China not updated its data on agricultural exporting STEs as notified 
to the WTO STE Working Party?  
Answer by China  
 
 and c) China usually provides reply to the questionnaire  on export financing, export STE a.
and international food aid together. Since there have been significant adjustments in the 
government bodies this year, with some changes still being underway, the prepar ation 
for replying the questionnaire  was affected to certain extent. That’s why China did not 
provide the reply this year as usual. The update will be completed in the near future.  
 China  would like to provide some information regarding the average fees and pre mium b.
rates, which China  hopes could address M embers ' concern . In 2016, the average fe e of 
the export financing program me of the Agricultural Development Bank of China is 4.49%  
for 3-month repayment term and 2.84%  for 6-month repayment term . The average fees 
of export financing program me of the Export Import Bank of China is 4.46%.  
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 subm itted a report showing that 
for 2016, the Agricultural Development Bank of China, Export Import - Bank of Ch ina, 
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 pr emium rates and data on 
program me use by product or product group.  
Answer by China  
 
a. China will submit the response to 2018 ECQ in the near future.  
b. The information as requested by the United States will be provided in  the response to 
the 2018 ECQ.  G/AG/W/182  
 
- 10 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 87048: Questio n 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 Nairo bi 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 bilateral 
food aid programmes in its response to the Export Competition Questionnaire (ECQ).  
  
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[1], China provides three types of foreign aid: grants, 
interest -free loans and concessional loans.  
b. Please provide information as to wh ether bilateral food aid programmes using 
other food aid tools in addition to in "full grant form" were provided for 2016 
and 2017. If so, please provide data and a response to food aid question 
number 5.  
Answer by China  
 
Food aid provided by China, regardless of whether it is provided bilaterally or through international 
agencies such as World Food Program, is entirely on fully -grante d basis. The value for 2016 
and 2017 are RMB 1 billion and 2 billion respectively.  
Follow -up: In light of increasing non-traditional food aid donors, Australia reminded Members of 
the obligation to report  food aid in response to the questionnaire . It also reiterated  Cairns G roup's 
comment that  the response rate to the questionnaire was low , particular ly in the area of food aid .  
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 transparency, which is important in making the 
dialogue on agricultural exporting state tra ding 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 its STEs and stated, "the value and 
average price are not provided by the enterprises c oncerned due to confidentiality 
considerations".  
  
Can China please explain if any rice exports destined to developing countries were 
provided as food aid or on concessional terms?  
  
a. If so, please add any pertaining information under response to all E CQ 
questions for international food aid.  
Answer by China  
 
Besides providing emergency food aid, China also export s rice to certain developing countries. The 
food exports by state trading enterprises to developing countries were made on normal business 
terms.  
                                                
5 Source: http://www.china -embassy.org/eng/zt/bps/t943741.htm . G/AG/W/182  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6  EUROPEAN UNION  
AG-IMS ID 87050: Question by United States of America  
 
European Union Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
a. The United States notes in the Secretariat Background paper that Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, and Poland are sti ll reporting maximum repayment 
terms higher than 18  months.  
What steps is the EU taking to ensure all EU m ember States' maximum 
repayment terms are no more than 18 months?  
b. Certain EU m ember States have noted in response to missing data that there 
are n o steps planned to gather and make available certain information for 
agricultural export financing program mes because such steps are not required 
by the Nairobi Decision. However, the Nairobi Ministerial Decision states the 
following: "The Committee on Agr iculture shall monitor the implementation of 
this Decision by Members in accordance with existing notification requirements 
under the Agreement on Agriculture, as complemented by the provisions set 
out 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 maximum repayment terms of 24 
and 120  months, respectively, for its programmes.  
Do these repayment terms apply to agricultur al products? If not, what are the 
maximum repayment terms specifically 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 suppo rt for agricultural products is provided within these 
programmes".  
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 Fe deral Republic of 
Germany" suggests?  
e. According to SACE's 2016 annual report, 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 subsidiar ies exceeds EUR 1,088 
million.  
Please explain why SACE subsidiaries' export 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 Portu guese State provides Credit Insurance Line to 
Short -Term Export and Bond Insurance that in which one of the most benefited 
sectors from the coverage included food products.  
Please explain why COSEC's export financing support activities 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 G/AG/W/182  
 
- 12 - 
 
  offers refinancing to commercial banks active in export financing and the 
majority of the se transactions are short -term, up to one year.  
Please confirm whether this refinancing program me 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 In stituto de Credito Oficial's (ICO)6, Spain provides 
export financing support to the agricultural 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 agricultu ral and food export operations 
valued at EUR  422 million.  
Please explain why ICO's export financing support activities are not reported in 
the EU's  ECQ response.  
Answer by European Union  
 
 The 18 -month limit on repayment terms in the Nairobi Decision appl ies to  developed a.
Members such as the EU from the last day of 2017, purs uant to point (a) of 
paragraph  15. The questionnaire relates to activities in 2017, before the limit applied.  
The EU and its m ember States intend to respect the Nairobi Decision in its  entirety. In 
particular, please note:   
For Bulgaria: Bulgaria’s submission indicates 24 months for short -term commercial and 
political risk and 60 months for medium -term commercial and political risk. These are 
maximum terms for the deferral of payments u nder the General Terms and Conditions. 
No contracts with repayment terms higher than 18 months have been concluded by the 
Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency BAEZ. BAEZ has taken steps to amend the General 
Terms and Conditions which also requires a legislati ve change, i.e. amendment of the 
Bulgarian Export Insurance Act.  
For Croatia: The Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development HBOR is a 
development and export bank for the Republic of Croatia which provides export credit 
insurance operations on behalf  and for the account of the Republic of Croatia. For the 
purpose of securing export operations for agricultural sector HBOR did not approve 
insurance at maturity longer than 18 months.  
For Estonia: The repayment terms are now from 30 to 180 days.  
For Latvi a: The maximum repayment term for agriculture products is 18 months. In 
September 2017, Latvia amended its national legislation (in force since 6.10.2017) and 
currently it states that the guarantee in the case of primary agricultural products is 
provided f or export transactions for which the deferred payments are not longer than 
547 days (i.e. 18 months) as it was decided in  MC10 by 
decision  WT/MIN(15)/45  - WT/L/980.  
For Poland: The Polish Export Credit Insurance Corporation KUKE has implemented the 
paragraph 15(a) of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition into its 
internal regulations and procedures in 2017.  
 The EU will continue to work with its m embe r States to continue to improve b.
transparency as regards the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. As part of this 
continual process, the EU adopted in 2017 Comm ission Implementing 
Regulation  (EU) 2017/1185, Article 14 of which makes transmission of the r elevan t data 
                                                
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/182  
 
- 13 - 
 
  to the Commission by EU m ember States an explicit legal requirement and harmonises 
the format for such transmission.  
 In Estonia the repayment terms are now from 30 to 180 days.  c.
  d.
i. Euler Hermes provides cover on medium and long -term credits terms  under single 
transaction policies for agricultural machinery and equipment. These products are 
not covered by Annex 1 of the WTO sector understanding. Euler Hermes does not 
provide specific programmes/products to agriculture and food industry.  
ii. The EU will  revert with updated information about this programme in the future, 
following consultation with the EU m ember State concerned.  
 The EU will revert with updated information about this programme in the future, e.
following consultation with the EU m ember State concerned.  
 The EU will revert with updated information about this programme in the future, f.
following consultation with the EU member State concerned.  
 EXIMBANKA SR covers support for export of the agricultural products within its portfolio g.
of financing and insurance services in compliance with international regulation for export 
credits of the EU, OECD and WTO, with maximum repayment term not exceeding 
18 months, as required by the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
There are no special products designed solely for export financing support for 
agricultural products.  
Regarding EXIMBANKA SR' s refinancing loans, this product is included within the group 
of financing services. The refinancing loans could also offer export financing support for 
agricultural products,  given all the international regulations are met and the repayment 
term does not exceed 18 months. In the past, EXIMBANKA SR has used this product also 
to provide support for export of agricultural goods however, the provision of refinancing 
loans has grad ually stopped in 2016 and this trend remained unchanged in 2017.  
As there has not been any activity in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in this area, this product is 
not specifically mentioned and reported in the EU´s ECQ response.  
 The EU will revert with updated info rmation about this programme in the future, h.
following consultation with the EU m ember State concerned.  
AG-IMS ID 87051: Questi on 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 Policy 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 agr icultural exporting state trading 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 trad ing enterprises.  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
The EU has re -examined the issue in the light of the information available since the EU TPR was 
held and concludes that Altia is not a state trading enterprise falling under GATT Article XVII (and 
thus not under  the Nairobi Decision in export competition either).  
 G/AG/W/182  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Altia and Alko are separate enterprises. In 2017 (until March 2018), Altia was fully owned by the 
State of Finland. In March 2018, t he government of Finland listed Altia  on Helsinki Stock 
Exchange. The proportion of state ownership was reduced from 100 % to roughly 37 %. 
Altia operates as a normal exchange -listed company and the only role of the state is as a 
shareholder at the annual general meetings as and with other shar eholders. The company has not 
been granted any exclusive or special rights or privileges nor statutory or constitutional powers. 
The state does not have any strategic interest on its ownership and the ownership is not based on 
any special task. The ownersh ip of Altia is a financial investment for the state. The Parliament of 
Finland has empowered the Government of Finland to  sell all of its Altia shares.  
AG-IMS ID 87052: 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 m ember States have pr ovided 
in 2016 in -kind food aid strictly in emergency situations". Please provide , for each of the 
remaining 27  member States that have not been reported, all bilateral food assis tance 
programmes (including those for emergency situations).  
 
Answer by European Union  
 
As reported in the reply t o AG-IMS ID 84122, the only EU m ember State which provided in -kind 
food aid within bilateral food assistance program mes in 2016 was the Czech  Republic.  
 
7  INDIA  
AG-IMS ID 8700 7: Question by European Union  
 
Why has India not updated its data on agricultural exporting STEs as notified to the 
WTO  STE Working Party?  
 
Answer by India 
 
India would like to inform the M embers that  its notification on S TEs is under preparation  and will 
be notified soon.  
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 program mes for agricultural products in response to 
Members' questions in the 2015 Trade Policy Review (TPR) (RD/TPR/432). 
India responded to Members' questions regarding EC GC's export 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 information on ECGC's export financing support 
program mes for agricultural products, when ECGC's 2016 annual report (see 
table below) shows that export financing program me support for 
agricultural products is worth USD 3.8 billion.  
ii. For each export  financing support scheme provided by I -Eximbank and 
ECGC, irrespective of whether any program me 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 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 volumes. According to ECGC's annual reports for 2016 -2017, 
2015 -2016 and 2014 -2015 ( see table below), short -term export credit G/AG/W/182  
 
- 15 - 
 
  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 
support 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."  
 
iii. Under export financing support program mes provided by ECGC and 
I-Eximbank, please provide a response to all ECQ questions regarding any 
financing transactions for cotton.  
Answer by India 
 
  a.
i. ECGC Ltd., registered as a non -life insurance company under Insurance Regulatory 
and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), provides Export Credit insurance on 
commercial consideration. The premium rates are fixed based on actuarial evaluation 
and approved by IRDAI. ECGC generates profits and also pays dividend to  the Govt. 
of India. There is no separate product for agriculture and premium rates are the 
same as that of all other goods and commodities.  
ii. ECGC does not provide any finance to exporters. However, it provides export credit 
insurance for working capital fi nance for banks. The premium rates are fixed based 
on actuarial evaluation and approved by IRDAI. The re -insurance arrangements for 
Short Term business are on commercial terms provided by private market.  
 The figures given are the value of risk covered agai nst the payment of premium. No b.
subsidy for premium against export credit risk insurance is given by the government. 
ECGC operates in a competitive environment and compete with 30 private credit risk 
insurers. No export credit risk is covered w ithout the pa yment of premium.  
8  INDONESIA  
AG-IMS ID 87054: Questio n by United States of America  
Indonesia Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
Please provide responses to the export credit competition questionnaire (ECQ) with 
regards to any export financing supp ort program mes being operated by the Indonesian 
government -owned entities Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia (Indonesia 
EximBank) and PT As uransi Ekspor Indonesia (ASEI)) , which are reported in Indonesia's 
Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/S/278/Rev.1). Accordi ng to Indonesia EximBank's 
                                                
7 Total short -term export credit insurance policie s reported are as 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 cr edit insurance 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/182  
 
- 16 - 
 
  annual reports financing for agriculture was USD 764.6 million in 2015 and USD 818.7 
million in 2016.  
 
Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia undertook to provide a response at a later stage.  
 
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 Credit 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 me 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 product group, Japan provided only 
HS codes of agricultur al 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.  
Answer by Japan  
 
 There is a case where a part of total value of export is paid in advance, which is a.
excluded from underwritten amount by export financing entity in Japan, i.e. Nippon 
Export and investment Insurance (NEXI). Data of the advanced payment amount is not 
collected, which in t urn makes it impossible to measure total export value of agricultural 
products. 
 The maximum repayment term is no more than 18 months. The average annual b.
repayment term is unavailable because the IT system is not built to extract such data.  
 Data of the average premium rates and annual average repayment period by c.
program me are not  available because the IT system is not built to extract such data. Re -
model of the system is not planned.  
 The data is not available because the IT system is not built to extract such data.  d.
10  KOREA, REPUBLIC OF  
AG-IMS ID 87057: Questio n by United 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 G/AG/W/182  
 
- 17 - 
 
  of the top five export credit agencies in the world in terms of providing short -term 
official export credit and working  capital volumes.  
 
Please explain why the Republic of 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.  
 
Answer by Korea, Republic of  
 
EDCF, Economic Development Cooperation Fund has nothing to do with export financing support. 
It is a development assistance program me that supports mostly building socioeconomic 
infrastructure mainly in the least develope d countries in the form of long -term loan program me. As 
to the second question on K -sure’s export financing support, Korea  finds out that agriculture -
related support is actually negligible. However, Korea is  working closely with K -sure to collect 
relevant data if any.  
 
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 regarding its activities in 2016 
and 2017.  
b. Please confirm when Malaysia expects it will be providing response for 2016 
and 2017.  
Answer by Malaysia  
 
Malaysia has completed responses to the questionnaire  on export competition for both 2016 and 
2017. In addition, Malaysia is finalizing its  response to the questionnaire for 2018 which would be 
submitted soon.  
 
12  NEW ZEALAND  
AG-IMS ID 8700 8: Question by European Union  
a. New Zealand notifies that NZECO provide d support via a committed offer to 
reinsure 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 tha t repayment t erm longer than 
18 months would not apply 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 
compan y so its decisions relating to the provision 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 dow n in the Understanding on the Interpretation 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 De cision on STEs, 
including that of paragraph 20 which rules that "Members shall ensure that 
agricultural exporting state trading enterprises do not operate in a manner that 
circumvents any other disciplines contained in this Decision". Export monopoly 
right s granted to Zespri by the New Zealand's government allow Zespri to 
provide its kiwifruit nursery stock free -of-charge to growers outside New G/AG/W/182  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Zealand therefore circumventing the Nairobi commitment to ban granting 
export subsidies. Without its export monopo ly Zespri would likely not be able to 
provide 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 intends to bring itself into compliance with 
the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
 NZECO is acting in this case as the re -insurer of the Australian Export Credit agency, a.
EFIC for their contract providing risk  cover for the export  of live breeding cattle to 
Sri Lanka. NZECO’s reinsurance cover was adopted prior to the Nairobi Decision and has 
not been modified since. Paragraph 15(a) of the Nairobi Decision, enables such “existing 
contracts” to run until the end  of the contract, provided they are notified to the 
Committee on Agriculture.  
 New Zealand’s current export arrangements for kiwifru it are fully compliant with b.
New Zealand’s WTO obligations, this includes under the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing  Measures (ASCM) and the Nairobi Decision. New Zealand notifies Zespri 
as a state trading enterprise due to its automatic, but not sole, right to export kiwifruit 
from New Zealand to markets other than Australia. Zespri is a private enterprise that 
makes c ommercial decisions entirely independent ly of Government. While the 
New Zealand g overnment is responsible for the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999, it has 
no role in Zespri Limited’s commercial decisions. This includes the company’s commercial 
decisions o n the provision of proprietary kiwifruit nursery stock varieties it develops. 
Investing and partnering in third countries is not dependant on it being a state trading 
enterprise, and nothing in the Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 requires Zespri to 
engag e is such activities. Consequently, such decisions by Zespri are in no way a subsidy 
under the ASCM, or counter to New Zealand’s obligations under the Nairobi Decision.  
Follow -up: Chile supported EU's question  and express ed its  concern regarding Zespri’s  compliance 
of the obligations arising from the Nair obi commitments. Chile noted that its concern  was not new 
and it had  been expressed in numerous occasions in this meeting as well as in the context of the 
WGSTE and elsewhere. Chile noted that New Zealand  was the main exporter of Kiwifruit world -
wide, and had  increased its share over the last years. During 2013, NZ exported 26,7% of the 
world kiwifruit in terms of volume; this figure increased to 34,5% in 2017. Based on the New 
Zealand notification of STEs  (G/STR/N/17/NZL), Zespri exported between 96 -98% of the total 
exports of New Zealand Kiwifruit during the periods covered by the notification (2015 -2018). Chile 
stated that this meant  only one company (Zespri) exported  around 1/3 of the world Kiwifruit. 
Based on these facts, Chile noted that it was clear that Zespri wa s an important enterprise in the 
Kiwifruit market  but noted that Zespri also had  crops outside of  New Zealand. Looking at 
Zespri  2016/2017 annual Report, Chile pointed out approximately 10% o f the revenue from sales 
of Kiwifruit was from Non -New Zealand grown kiwifruit. As indicated in the sa me document, these 
revenues had  increased in the last years, and the company expressed that sources of production 
were likely to diversify in the coming y ears, which would complement current supply out of Italy, 
France, South Korea and Japan. Chile noted that t he issues pointed out  by the EU had become  
even more relevant. Chile  fully agree d on what was expressed by the EU regarding Zespri’s export 
monopoly rights granted by the New Zealand government. Without them Zespri would not be able 
to have the same importance it had  in the current st ate of play. The refore, in Chile's view, the 
NZ government should ensure compliance of Zespri of the commitm ents of the Nairobi Decision 
on STEs, and consider its impact on the  international kiwifruit market . The European Union voiced 
strong support of Chile's intervention.   
 
13  RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
AG-IMS ID 8700 9: Question by European Union  
 
Russian Federation has notified that JSC Eximbank of Russia [REB] provides lending 
support towards exports and that REB provides export credit guarantees and related 
financial support. Could the Russian Federation clarify if any support provided by REB is 
"direct financing support" as defined by paragraph 13(a) of the Nairobi Decision?  G/AG/W/182  
 
- 19 - 
 
   
Answer by Russian Federation  
 
Eximbank of Russia provides export credit guarantees and related financial support that 
corresponds with paragraph 13(b) of the Nairobi Decisio n on Export competition.   
AG-IMS ID 87058: Questio n by United States of 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 
agricultural 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 b etween the Venezuelan Corporation for Foreign 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.  
 
Answer b y Russian Federation  
 
As it was mentioned previously in the framework of the Committee on Agriculture and the Working 
Party on State Trading Enterprises, United Grain Company (UGC) is not a state trading enterprise 
within the meaning of the working definit ion set forth in the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XVII of GATT 1994, so there is no need to notify  UGC to the WTO as an STE. The 
government of the Russian Federation has not granted to UGC exclusive or special rights or 
privileges, statut ory or constitutional powers to exercise trade operations, including internal trade, 
export or import. UGC exercises these trade operations on the basis of equal agricultural market 
participant.  
 
14  THAILAND  
AG-IMS ID 87059: Questio n by United States of America  
 
Thailand Export Credit - G/AG/W/125/Rev.8/Add.2  
  
The United States notes that Thailand responded to the 2016 Export Competition 
Questionnaire  (ECQ) by stating, "For Export Credit and Export Credit Guarantees, 
conditions an d interest rate are determined by market mechanism". The Export -Import 
Bank of Thailand  (EBT), which is reported in Thailand's Trade Policy Review 
(WT/T PR/S/326/Rev.1) as a government -owned entity, has various export financing 
support program mes for agricu lture 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.  
 
                                                
8 The curre ncy conversion was calculated at an exchange rate of 36.05 TBH to 1 USD for 2015 and 
35.77 THB to 1 USD for 2016. See EBT's URL: 
http://www.exim.go.th/doc/en/about_exim /EXIM_Annual_Report_2016_Eng.pdf  and 
http://www.exim.go.th/doc/en/about_exim/EXIM_Annual_Report_2015_Eng.pdf  G/AG/W/182  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Answer by Thailand  
 
The Export Credit and Export Credit Guarantee programmes of the Expor t- Import Bank of 
Thaila nd are self -financing. I nterest rates and conditions are determined by market mechanisms, 
in line with the Nairobi Decisions.  
 
15  TURKEY  
AG-IMS ID 8701 0: Question by European Union  
 
Turkey has notified export credit programmes operated by the Turk Eximbank.  Some of 
these programmes appear 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/premium 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 matu rity 
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?  
 
Answer by Turkey  
 
As it is known, according to the item (k) of the Annex I (Illustrative Lists of Export Subsidies) of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), export credits granted at rates 
below the costs incurred by financial institutions in obtaining cr edits/funds are regarded as 
prohibited export subsidies. In addition, item (j) of the Annex I states that export credit guarantee 
or insurance program mes at premium rates inadequate to cover long -term operating costs and 
losses of program me are prohibited subsidies. In that regard, as all the export finance facilities are 
provided by Turk Eximbank at premium/interest rates higher than its operating and borrowing 
cost.  
AG-IMS ID 8713 5: Question by European Union  
 
The European Union notes th at 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/A G/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 export 
financing support?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
 The reason for the increase is coherent with increase in Turk Eximbank’s total credit and a.
insurance volume in 2017. In addition, during the same period, the number of exporters 
benefiting from the insurance cover rose c onsiderably.  
 Available data regarding the sectoral distribution of export financing support is b.
generated according to the NACE codes of b eneficiary exporter companies.  
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 me is "N.A." given that this programme supported $1.75 billion US in 
agricultural products in  2017.  G/AG/W/182  
 
- 21 - 
 
  b. When does Turkey anticipate being able to provide the expo rt destinations and 
programme use by product for its agricultural export financing programmes?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
 As expla ined in the first section of Turkey's previous answer , Türk Eximbank does not a.
have a sector -specific financing facility and working ca pital needs of agricultural products 
and processed foods exporters are financed by different credit program mes with varying 
maturities.  
For that reason, agricultural and processed food  exporters assume the same cost of 
finance as the exporters of other pr oducts. In that regard, over the year of 2017, the 
average interest cost of Türk Eximbank domestic credit program mes varied from 6,09 % 
to 14,15 % in TL loans and from Libor/Euribor  + 0,40% to Libor  + 2,85/ Euribor  + 3,10% 
for FX  loans according to their mat urity. In addition to the interest cost, exporter 
companies have to pay commissions between 0,5 to 4,00 % per annum for the letter of 
acceptance/guarantees they obtained from the commercial bank as collaterals required 
for the loan, leading to the final cos t of export finance to become higher.  
 As in the majority of the export credit program mes, the main aim is to provide finance b.
for the working capital needs of exporter companies and loans are not tied to a specific 
export transaction.  
16  UNITED STATES OF AME RICA  
AG-IMS ID 8701 1: Question by European Union  
 
The Nairobi Decision in paragraph  25 states that Member s are encouraged to provide 
non-emergency development food assistance where recipient countries or recognized 
international humanitarian/food entities, such as the United Nations, have requested 
food assistance. In reply to the EU question in the 85th meeting of the Committee on 
Agriculture asking the US to specify when and in which form have the recipient 
countries or international entities req uested 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  notification 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 paragraph 25 of the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The U.S. Congress annually appropriates funds for U.S. food assistance program mes, including 
non-emerg ency, in -kind assistance. U.S. g overnment agencies then solicit proposals for projects 
that address specific development or capacity building goals in food insecure locations. P rior to the 
solicitation, U.S. g overnment officials discuss needs and possible projects with officials from 
potential recipient governments. Organizations that apply for funding are also encouraged to 
discuss projects with host -country governments and outline how projects fit  with host -country 
priorities.  
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 t o comply with t he Ministerial 
Decision. These M embers have now all notified amended draft schedules for export 
subsidies.  
  G/AG/W/182  
 
- 22 - 
 
  On the other hand, after more than two years, the US has still not submitted an 
amended draft schedule for export subsidies.  
  
When  will the US submit the amended draft schedule for export subsidies?  
 
Answer by United States of America  
 
The United States is currently drafting an amended export subsidy schedule and remains fully 
committed to the Ministerial Decision.  
 
Follow -up: Switz erland reiterated the importance of implementing Nairobi Ministerial Decision by 
all Members and  looked forward to receive further news from the United States.  
 
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 not respond to the 2016 or 2017 export 
competition questionnaire (ECQ). According to Viet Nam's 2015 respo nse, Vietnam 
Northern Food Corporation  (Vinafood 1) and Vietnam Southern Food Corporation 
(Vinafood 2) account for about half of Viet Nam's rice exports 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 Vi etnam  (DBV) as the government guarantor; and currently, 
Vinafood 1 is exporting rice through a government -to-government program me to Cuba 
with credit payment terms from 360  to 720 days.  
  
Vinafood 1 and Vinafood 2 appear to fall within the definition of S CM 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 Unite d 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 regardin g 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 co nsiders Vinafood 1 and Vinafood  2 
as an agricultural exporting STE and does not consider expo rt financing support 
activities of Vinafood  1 and Vinafood 2 as measures covered by the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition.  
Answer by Viet Nam  
 
Before May 2017, Viet Nam had several policie s and regulations governing export credits, 
including:  
 
1) Decisi on 133 issued i n 2001 by the P rime Minster (PM) on  Regulation on export 
support credit,  expired on 16 January 2017; 
 G/AG/W/182  
 
- 23 - 
 
  2) Decree 151 issued in  2006 on invest ment and export credits by the g overnment. 
Then the Decree was revised and replaced by several Decree such as Decree  75 
issued in  2011 which  also expired on May 2017  
 
In those policies and r egulations, the objects for credit include exporters having export contract 
and foreign importers having contract to import good s under the list of export good  eligible  for 
export credits as stipulated under the Decree. The Decree also stipulated the conditions for 
lending, timeframe for the lending,  interest rate and the repayment.  
 
Export credits as regulated before May 2017 in Viet Nam is applicable for all organizati ons and 
enterprises engaged in export activities, NOT only for State -Trade Enterprise.  
 
However, currently, Viet Nam has a new Decree 32 issued by the PM on Government Credit, 
effective from May 2017. There is no longer provision on credit support for expo rt enterprises.  
 
For the ECQs (Export  Competition Questionnaires), Viet Nam did submit the  ECQ for 2016 
(pls. refer to its  notification G/STR/N/15/VNM and G/STR/N/16/VNM). For the ECQ 2017, Viet Nam  
confirm s that it will prepare  and submit it to WTO Secret ariat as soon as  possible.  
 
__________