G/STR/W/43  
 
29 May 2015  
(15-2781)  Page: 1/3  
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises  Original: English  
 
  
 SUBMISSION BY CANADA TO THE WORKIN G PARTY ON STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
AGRICULTURAL EXPORTING STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1. At the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC9) Minist ers adopted the Declaration on Export 
Competition (WT/MIN(13)/40). Among other things, this established an annual dedicated discussion during the June meeting of the Commi ttee on Agriculture (CoA). The discussion is 
structured around a report prepared by the Secretariat and updated annually based on Members 
notifications to the CoA, the Working Party on St ate Trading Enterprises (STEs) and responses to a 
questionnaire. The first iteration of this report, Export Subsidies, export credits, export credit 
guarantees or insurance programmes, international food aid and STEs (G/AG/W/125), was 
circulated to Members on 21 May 2014. 
 1.2. Addendum 4 of the report (G/AG/W/125.Add4 ) specifically addresses agriculture exporting 
state trading enterprises and therefore is directly  relevant to the work of the Working Party on 
STEs. Canada would encourage other Members to incorporate a review of this paper, and a forthcoming update, in preparation for the next meeting of the Working Party on STEs.  
2  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 
2.1. In preparation for the first annual dedicate d discussion on export competition, which took 
place during the June 2014 CoA, the Cairns Group prepared a short paper summarizing the key 
findings of the Secretariat report, Annual Export Competition Review – Submission from the Cairns 
Group to the 74
th Meeting of the Committee on Agriculture (CoA) in June 2014 (G/AG/W/129). The 
section of this paper dealing with agriculture ex porting STEs is reproduced below for reference. 
 
2.2. Twenty Members notified or reported in their reply to the Secretariat's questionnaire a total of 
77 agricultural exporting STEs covering a wide range of agriculture products. A further 20 Members also reported in their reply to the Secretariat's questionnaire that they did not have 
any agricultural exporting STEs. A positive tran sparency development was that new and updated 
information was reported on agricultural exporting STEs by several Members as compared to current STE notifications. 
 
2.3. China (25), Colombia (14) and India (14) reported by far the most agriculture exporting STEs, accounting for 69% of the total reported number by all Members. See Table 1 below. 
Table 1 – Number of agricultur al exporting STEs per Member 
Member Number of agricultural exporting STEs 
Australia 1 
Brazil 1 
Canada 1 
China 25 
Colombia 14 
Costa Rica 1 
Dominica 1 
Ecuador 1 
Fiji 1 
Grenada 1 
India 14 
Indonesia 1 
Israel 3 
Moldova, Republic of 1 G/STR/W/43 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Member Number of agricultural exporting STEs 
Morocco 1 
New Zealand 1 
Trinidad and Tobago 1 
Tunisia 2 
Ukraine 1 
Viet Nam 5 
 
2.4. The distribution by product grouping sh ows a similar concentration with two product 
categories (fruits and vegetables, and tobacco) accounting for 45% of the reported agriculture 
exporting STEs. The next most numerous product category was "wheat and wheat flour, coarse 
grains and rice" with five such STEs reported. See table 2 below.  
Table 2 – Distribution of agricultural  exporting STEs by product grouping 
Product groupings Number of agricultural exporting STEs  
Wheat and wheat flour, coarse grains and rice 5 
Oilseeds 1 
Vegetable oils 1 
Oilcakes  
Sugar 3 
Butter and butter oil  
Skim milk powder  
Cheese  
Other milk products  
Bovine meat  
Pigmeat  
Poultry meat  
Sheepmeat  
Live animals  
Eggs  
Wine 1 
Fruits and  Vegetables 14  
Tobacco 21 
Cotton 4 
Incorporated products  
Other agricultural products 20 
All agricultural products 7 
 
2.5. Only six of the 20 Members (Australia, Costa Rica, Israel, Republic of Moldova, New Zealand 
and Ukraine) responded to the section of the qu estionnaire requesting information on export 
values, prices and destinations. Notwithstanding the fact that responses may have been limited by commercial confidentiality considerations, these Members account for just eight STEs (10% of 
those reported), making it nearly impossible to assess the overall influence of agriculture exporting 
STEs on global markets. Where such information is provided, export volumes and values generally (but not always) appear small relative to overall global trade in the products in question. 
 
2.6. China reports that STEs for tea and silk were abolished in 2005 and that it has not applied state trading for soybeans since acceding to the WTO in 2001. Canada reports that the Canadian 
Wheat Board no longer has exclusive control over marketing of any grain. The CWB is in a 
transition period that may last up to five years, until no later than 31 July 2017, during which it will continue to receive government borrowing guarantees, and have its pool payment levels guaranteed by the government. Ecuador, Indonesia, Israel and Ukraine each reported the 
establishment of a new agriculture export STE (or marketing boards in the case of Israel) 
since 2001.  
2.7. Of the four developed countries that repo rted agriculture exporting STEs (one each in 
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ukraine), those in Australia, New Zealand and Ukraine appear to have export monopoly powers. Of the 74 agriculture exporting STEs reported by 16 developing G/STR/W/43 
 
- 3 - 
 
  countries, several appear to have export monopoly powers or other special privileges. The report 
does not however contain sufficiently detailed trade statistics to determine whether these STEs would meet the Rev.4 modalities general de minimis criteria (Annex K footnote 5). Similarly, while 
many of the developing country STEs would likely meet the Rev.4 modalities special and 
differential treatment criteria (Annex K paragraphs 4-6), in most cases more information would be 
required to make a complete assessment, particularly with respect to paragraph 6.  
3  CONCLUSIONS 
3.1. Some aspects of the review process under the CoA are relevant to the Working Party on STEs, 
namely the parts of the annual dedicated discussion on export competition and associated Secretariat report that deal with agriculture exporting STEs. Taking this work into account would 
help to enrich the review process under the Working Party on STEs. 
 3.2. The reporting of 77 agriculture exporting STEs across 20 Members, some of which appear to 
have export monopoly powers and/or other special privileges, suggests that these entities may 
have important impacts of global markets. However,  the extent of the impacts is nearly impossible 
to assess based on current information. This is an area that may warrant further examination. 
 
3.3. In their responses to the Secretariat’s qu estionnaire, several Members provided new and 
updated information on agricultural exporting STEs as compared to current STE notifications. While this is a positive development from an overall tran sparency perspective, it speaks to the need for 
Members to make greater efforts to comply with notification obligations within the framework of 
the WP on STEs.  
 
 
__________