G/AG/W/162  
 
24 May 2017 
(17-2791) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS  FOR THE ANNUAL EXAMINATION   
OF EXPORT COMPETITION, 7-8 JUNE 20171 
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretar iat by 22  May 2017, as 
specified in WTO/AIR/AG/20 . 
 
 
_______________  
                                                
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/162  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   ARGENTINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  3 
2   AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  3 
3   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  3 
4   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  4 
5   ICELAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
6   ISRAEL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
7   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  4 
8   NORWAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
9   SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  5 
10   UNITED ST ATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
 G/AG/W/162  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  ARGENTINA  
AG-IMS ID 840 65: 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 agricult ural products, including beef and 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 
Competition. 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?  
 
2  AUSTRALIA  
AG-IMS ID 8406 6: Question by European Union  
The Nairobi Decision on E xport Competition provides in paragraph 1 that "Members reaffirm their 
commitment, pursuant to the 2013 Bali Ministerial Declaration on Export Competition, to exercise 
utmost restraint with regard to any recourse to all forms of export subsidies and all ex port 
measures with equivalent effect" and in paragraph 21, that "Members shall make their best efforts 
to ensure that the use of export monopoly powers by agricultural exporting state trading 
enterprises is exercised in a manner that minimizes trade distor ting effects and does not result in 
displacing or impedin g the exports of another Member ". In 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?  
 
3  CANADA  
AG-IMS ID 8406 7: Question by European Union  
a. 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  were originally notified as 
non-subsidi zed. 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 maximi ze future entitlements 
appear s questionable. In particular , how would Canada ap ply the req uirement 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 
adoption of the Nairobi Decision ? Canadian notification G/AG/N/CAN/10 8/Corr.1 is dated 
11 April 2016 , whereas the Nairobi Decision was adopted in 19 December 2015. Does 
Canada intend to  submit other such corrigenda  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 that since no export subsidies were granted to butter in a year pre ceding 
Nairobi, butter would be a "new" product, for which payment of export 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 subsidi es 
on products destined for LDCs. Trade Data Online of the Government of Canada lists a 
number of LDCs as destinations for Canadian dairy exports in 2016, such as Sudan, 
Mauritania, Burkina Faso, etc. The full list is here:  
https:/ /www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/tdst/tdo/crtr.html?timePeriod=5|Complete+Years&reportT
ype=TE&hSelectedCodes=|402|405|406&searchType=BL&productType=HS6&currency=
CDN&countryList=DET&runReport=true&grouped=GROUPED&toFromCountry=CDN&naAr
ea=9999   G/AG/W/162  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Could Canada explain ho w it makes sure that dairy products exported to these countries 
are not subsidi zed? 
AG-IMS ID 84006: Question by New Zealand   
Can Canada update the Committee on progress towards implementing the MC10 decision to 
eliminate export subsidies; including expect ed timeframes for updating its WTO schedule to reflect 
the decision by Ministers.  
 
4  CHINA  
AG-IMS ID 8407 0: Question by European Union  
a. According to media reports, COFCO has received 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 Agreeme nt 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?  
5  ICELAND  
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; includi ng expected timeframes for updating its WTO schedule to reflect 
the decision by Ministers.  
 
6  ISRAEL  
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.  
 
7  NEW ZEALAND  
AG-IMS ID 8406 9: Question by European Union  
Does Zespri provide its nursery stock free -of-charge to growers outside New Zealand? If 
affirmati ve, how would New Zealand see this complying 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?  
 
8  NORW AY  
AG-IMS ID 84003: 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/162  
 
- 5 - 
 
  9  SWITZERLAND  
AG-IMS ID 84002: Question by New Zealand  
Can Switzerland 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 deci sion by Ministers.  
 
10  UNITED STATES OF AME RICA  
AG-IMS ID 8406 8: Question by European Union  
The United States  has in its replies to the EU questions during the 2016 dedicated discussion 
underlined that its responses or policies are "consi stent with the Nai robi Decision ". The 
European  Union underlines that the aim of its queries is not to question any Member's consistency 
with 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 competition pillar" . That said, 
and after carefully analy zing the replies provided by the Unit ed States in 2016, the 
European  Union woul d like to follow -up with some additional questions on the US food aid policies, 
as follows:  
 
a. According to the US International Food Assistance Reports the share of in -kind 
emergency food aid in total in -kind food aid has dro pped from 81% in 2014 to 78% 
in 2015. Why has the United States decided to incre ase 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 f rom 29.7% in 2014 to 21.4% in 2015. 
Could the United States  clarify , however, how the funds raised through monetization are 
spent?  
c. The European Union understands that the efficiency of the US non -emergency food aid 
programmes has increased over the last fe w years through the application of direct 
funding of programmes rather than monetizing and that the cost -recovery rate of 
monetized in -kind food 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 needs assessme nts 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. Could the United States  
provide a short description of the needs assessment per non -emergency in -kind food aid 
programme, particularly th ose 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 requireme nts?  
f. Could the United States  provide a short description of the local or regional market 
analysis per programme, completed before monetization of US in -kind non -emergency 
food aid in conformity with paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Decision?  
AG-IMS ID 84001: Q uestion by New Zealand   
Can the United States update the Committee on progres s towards implementing the MC10  decision 
to eliminate export subsidies; including expected timeframes for updating its WTO  schedule to 
reflect the decision by Ministers.  
 
_______ ___