RESTRICTED  
  
G/STR/M/30  
 
10 February 2017  
(17-0825) Page: 1/10 
Working Party on State Trading Enterpr ises    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD ON 21 OCTOBER 2 016 
CHAIR: YEILI RANGEL PEÑARANDA (COLOMBIA)  
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  1 
2   REVIEW OF NEW  AND FULL NOTIFICATIO NS SUBMITTED BY MEMB ERS .....................  1 
3   REVIEW OF NOTIFICATI ONS PREVIOUSLY REVIE WED BY THE WORKING 
PARTY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
4   STE NO TIFICATION OBLIGATIO NS OF THE RUSSIAN FE DERATION  .............................  7 
5   NON-NOTIFICATION OF STAT E TRADING ENTERPRISE S OF THE UNITED ARAB  
EMIRATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
6   EUROPEAN UNION – QUESTIONS FROM THE R USSIAN FEDERATION ON  
"ALKO INC." (FINLAND ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 
7   TRANSPARENCY IN THE WORKING PARTY  ................................ ................................ .. 9 
8   ANNUAL REPORT (2016)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN GOODS  ............................  10 
9   DATE OF NEXT MEETING ................................ ................................ ............................  10 
 
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.  The Chair referred to the proposed a genda con tained in WTO/AIR/STR/5, circulated on 
11 October  2016. Nothing was raised under Other Business. The Working Party adopted the 
agenda.  
2  REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOT IFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  
2.  The Chair  recall ed that, according to paragraph 5 of the Unders tanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XVII of GATT 1994, the Working Party was tasked with reviewing the notifications and 
counter -notifications presented by Members on their state trading enterprises  (STEs) . As 
recommended by the Working Party (G/STR/8 ) and agreed by the Council for Trade in Goods on 
22 June 2012, these new and full notifications were now presented every two years. In January, 
the most recent invitation was made to present notifications for the period 2014 -2015 
(G/STR/N/16 ), and the dea dline for their submission was 30 June 2016.  The Working Party h ad 
already reviewed a number of such notifications during its meeting in June, and this meeting's 
agenda included notifications received since that time, as well as recently submitted notifica tions 
corresponding to previous periods that the Working Party ha d not yet examined.  
3.  The Chair  propose d that the Working Party review the notifications in the same way as in 
previous meetings, focusing on two main elements: (i) whether  the notification res ponded 
adequately to the information requested in the questionnaire (G/STR/3/Rev .1); and (ii) whether  
more information was required in order to permit, in the language  of paragraph 2 of the 
Understanding , "a clear appreciation of the manner of operation of  the enterprises notified and the 
effect o f their operations on international trade ". 
4.  The Chair recalled that, a s provided in the Working Party 's 1995 Report ( G/L/35 ), Members 
wishing to raise questions on a notification under review were to  present them i n writing to the G/STR/M/30  
 
- 2 - 
 
  delegation and to the Secretariat three weeks before  the meeting. Replies were also to be 
presented in writing. Both questions and replies w ould be distributed to all Members.  
5.  No questions were raised regarding the notifications of Afghani stan (G/STR /N/16/AFG ); 
Barbados (G/STR/N/13/BRB -G/STR/N/14/BRB -G/STR/N/15/BRB) ; Brazil (G/STR/N/16/BRA) ; 
El Salvador  (G/STR/N/15/SLV -G/STR/N/16 /SLV) ; European Union  (G/STR/N/16/EU) ; 
Jamaica  (G/STR/N/13/JAM -G/STR/N/14/JAM -G/STR/N/15/JAM -G/STR/N/16/JAM ); Japan 
(G/STR/N/16/JPN ); Kazakhstan (G/STR/N/16/KAZ ); Republic of  Korea  (G/STR/N/16/KOR ); 
Liechtenstein  (G/STR/N/16/LIE ); Macao , China  (G/STR/N/16/MAC ); Mauritius  
(G/STR/N/16/MUS ); Montenegro  (G/STR/N/16/MNE ); Norway  (G/STR/N/16/NOR ); Singapore  
(G/STR/N/16/SGP ); Chinese Taipei  (G/STR/N/16/TPKM ); Ukraine  (G/STR/N/16/UKR ). 
6.  With respect to the notification of Australia (G/STR/N/16/AUS), questions were raised by the 
European Union (G/STR/Q1 /AUS/9). Australia submitted written answers (G/STR/Q1 /AUS/10) 
and presented  them orally.  
7.  Referring to the reform taking place in the Australian STE sector, the European Union  
considered that the progressive reduction in the number and the role of STEs was a positive 
development. The European Union would be waiting for the results  of the ongoing review of the 
Rice Vesting Proclamation by the New South Wales Government.  
8.  Canada  noted its particular systemic interest in the operation of agriculture -exporting STEs in 
light of its recent reform, including the elimination of single -desk export monopoly for wheat. 
Canada highlighted its interest in the review conducted by Australia and hoped that the review 
would lead to similar policy conclusions, consistent with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition.  
9.  Brazil  enquired if t he review of its notification was completed in light of the absence of 
questions from Members. The Chair stated that Brazil's notification would not be on the agenda of 
the next meeting unless any delegation posed questions regarding it.  
10.  With respect to th e notification of Canada  (G/STR/N/16/CAN ), questions were raised by th e 
United  States ( G/STR/Q1/CAN/11 ), the European Union (G/STR/Q1/CAN/12 ) and Australia 
(G/STR/Q1/CAN/13 ). Canada submitted written answers to the United States (G/STR/Q1/CAN/14), 
Australi a (G/STR/Q1/CAN/15) and the European Union (G/STR/Q1/CAN/16) and presented them 
orally during the meeting.  
11.  The United States  thanked Canada for its replies.  
12.  The European Union  thanked Canada for responding to its concerns as regards provincial and 
territor ial liquor boards and stated that it might have further follow -up questions upon studying 
the Canadian response. The European Union highlighted its interest in the other matters raised in 
the questions submitted by the United States and Australia.  
13.  Australi a had ongoing questions about the operation of the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC) 
and supported the questions posed by the United States. Australia was interested in the role that 
the CDC and the Canadian Government would play in the new Canadian Dairy St rategy, and when 
it would be implemented. Australia also highlighted its interest in the answers that Canada had 
provided to the questions by the European Union.  
14.  New Zealand  registered its particular interest in the issue of the liquor boards and their 
discriminatory mark -ups, as well as its sustained interest in the CDC. New Zealand looked forward 
to understanding the role of the CDC in the Ingredient Strategy, and how it would fit in the 
Canadian supply management programme.  
15.  With respect to the notificati on of Costa Rica (G/STR/N/16/C RI) the European Union  referred 
to the Costa -Rican Petroleum Refining Company (RECOPE) included in the notification. The 
European Union's understanding was that RECOPE had the exclusive right to manage the State 
monopoly on im portation, refining and wholesale distribution of crude oil and derivatives in order 
to satisfy domestic demand. The notification also stated that the importation and marketing of 
fuels was a strategic national interest for Costa Rica, and State interventi on guaranteed effective G/STR/M/30  
 
- 3 - 
 
  control over fuel price policy. Could Costa Rica explain how the State managed to guarantee 
effective control of the fuel prices while at the same time acting in a non -discriminatory manner?  
16.  Costa  Rica requested the European Union t o provide its question in writing. Costa Rica was 
ready to engage with the European Union bilaterally on this matter.  
17.  With respect to the notification of New Zealand, questions were raised by Chile 
(G/STR/Q1/NZL/16 ). No written answers were submitted in ad vance of the meeting.  
18.  Chile, supported by Canada , stated that it had not received replies from New Zealand to the 
questions posed on 17 October 2016. Chile highlighted the importance it attached to the issue and 
recalled that it had also submitted previous  questions to New Zealand  in the Working Party, 
including those on 27 May 2016 (G/STR/Q1/NZL/14), and in the Committee on Agriculture. Chile 
underscored the importance of implementing the Nairobi Ministerial decisions.  
19.  The European Union  supported Chile an d referred to the requirement to ensure best efforts 
that the use of export monopoly powers by agricultural STEs was exercised in a manner which 
minimized trade distorting effects. The European Union was observing with interest the review 
conducted in New Zealand of Zespri's role and was disappointed that neither had there been any 
efforts to limit or eliminate the monopoly powers of Zespri, nor had this issue been taken up in the 
review. The European Union underlined the importance of ensuring that Zespri did not abuse its 
statutory role of the single point of entry and partner in collaborative marketing agreements. The 
European Union was ready to engage with New Zealand bilaterally.  
20.  New Zealand  acknowledged the importance placed by Chile on the issue. New Zealand 
similarly took its obligations very seriously, even when they were of a "best efforts" nature. 
Referring to questions by Chile, New Zealand welcomed the acknowledgement that Zespri Group 
Ltd. was a private company owned by kiwifruit growers, and th e fact that New Zealand 
government had no ownership interest or control of the company. As New Zealand had stated 
before, Zespri did not receive trade distorting subsidies, tax advantages, special financing or 
preferential access to foreign exchange. New Z ealand had ensured that the regulatory structure 
that governed the export of kiwifruit system was consistent with its WTO obligations, including 
those introduced as a result of the Nairobi decisions. New Zealand was ready and willing to answer 
any question s that Chile or other delegations had regarding the regulation of kiwifruit exports from 
New Zealand. These regulations were set out in the Kiwifruit Export Regulations of 1999 which 
were publicly available on the New Zealand Legislation website.  
21.  Chile thanked New Zealand for its responses and requested that they be provided in writing. 
Chile retained a keen interest in the issue.  
22.  Regarding the notification from Morocco  (G/STR/N/16/MAR) , no written questions were 
received . 
23.  The European Union  congratulate d Morocco on the efforts undertaken to prepare its 
notification. It was  analysing the information provided and might  have questions for the next 
meeting . 
24.  Regarding the notification from Tunisia  (G/STR/N/15/TUN -G/STR/N/16 /TUN), no written 
questions were posed.  
25.  The European Union  reiterated the concern that it had raised during the previous meeting of 
the Working Party with reference to the operation of the Pharmacie C entrale de Tunisie , a 
company detaining a monopoly on the importation of medicines. The Europea n Union understood  
that since May  2013 exporters were forced to take charge of the appreciation of the currency - the 
dinar – over a  four-year period in order to  be able to  sell any pharmaceutical products in Tunisia . 
Also, as explained in the notification , the price of medicines was subject to the approval of the 
Minister responsible for trade, and the margins for each distribution level were also set by the 
State. As a consequence, prices were identical and standardized throughout the country. Lastly, it 
noted that the notification d id not contain certain statistics and invite d Tunisia to provide the 
relevant data and comments.  G/STR/M/30  
 
- 4 - 
 
  26.  Tunisia  stated that the Pharmacie Centrale de Tunisie  conformed to the general principle of 
non-discrimination as defined in GATT  Article XVII:1(a). No discrimination was made between 
pharmaceutical suppliers, conditions of competition were the same, and terms of purchase applied 
irrespective of the product's origin. The approval of medicine prices had been designed to improve 
acces s to healthcare. The Pharmacie Centrale de Tunisie  absorbed any price increases, whether on 
the supply side or because of exchange rate fluctuations, with its own funds. This compensation 
mechanism only applied to direct purchases in the form of commission s (as opposed to tendering 
procedures) in the secteur offici al, that resulted from bilateral negotiations between the producer 
and the Pharmacie Centrale de Tunisie . The amount of compensation ran up to 74 million dinars in 
2015 and did not affect the impo rtation of medicines into Tunisia. The figures that had been 
provided in the notification were based on the information available at the time. Tunisia was 
considering the possibility of improving the notification.  
27.  The Chair  and the European Union requested  Tunisia to provide its replies in writing.  
28.  With respect to the notification of  the United States (G/STR/N/16/USA),  the European Union  
asked the United States to clarify whether it considered that the Commodity Credit Corporation 
(CCC) fell within the defi nition of an agricultural STE and also whether it fell under the definition of 
a government body as per Article 1.1(a) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  
29.  The United States  requested the European Union to provide its question in writ ing. 
30.  The Chair noted that, i f any delegations that ha d posed  questions orally today  wished to 
receive those replies in writing, they should  send those questions directly, in writing, to the 
corresponding Member with a copy to the Secretariat for distributi on. 
31.  The Chair drew delegations ' attention to room document RD/STR/ 4, which contained a draft 
document on the status of notifications . The document showed that the majority of Members were 
not complying with their notification obligations.  Regarding the not ification requirement for 2016, 
the Working Party had to date received notifications from 31 Members . She encouraged 
delegations to improve th eir record of notifications , and remind ed Members that when appropriate 
and timely, the Secretariat could help Mem bers to improve their level of compliance.  The Chair 
stated that she would be sending letters to those delegations who had not submitted notifications 
during multiple notification cycles to remind them of their obligations.  
32.  The United States , supported by Australia , New Zealand , European Union  and Chinese Taipei , 
welcomed the Chair's initiative.  
33.  The United States  noted that a number of delegations had either failed to make any 
notification or had not done so for some time. According to the latest data circu lated by the 
Secretariat, 52 Members had not made any notifications in the past 10 years. Transparency was 
an important WTO requirement for all Members, and notifications and counter notifications were 
sometimes the only way that other Members could be pro perly informed as to a certain Member's 
activity in any given area. Low levels of compliance undermined the transparency function of the 
Working Party. Most of the information that had to be provided in the STE context had already 
been provided and discuss ed in the Trade Policy Review process, in the Committee on Agriculture, 
or otherwise provided to the WTO. Therefore, the notification process need not be cumbersome for 
delegations. Non -notification was a serious problem and required some type of action.  
34.  The Working Party took note  of the notifications , the questions and answers provided and the 
statements made.  
3  REVIEW OF NOTIFICATI ONS PREVIOUSLY REVIE WED BY THE WORKING P ARTY  
35.  The Chair noted  that this item concerned the review of notifications previously re viewed by 
the Working Party. Delegations ha d asked the Working Party to revert  to five notifications.  
36.  Regarding t he notification of Canada (G/STR/N/15/CAN),  the European Union  had posed  
questions regarding the operation of provincial and territorial liquo r control boards 
(G/STR/Q1/CAN/9). Canada had submitted written answers (G/STR/Q1/CAN/10)  and further G/STR/M/30  
 
- 5 - 
 
  follow -up answers ( G/STR/Q1/CAN/10 /Add.1). The European Union  indicated that its follow -up 
questions were taken up under the previous agenda item as perta ining to Canada's new 
notification.  
37.  Regarding t he notifications of China (G/STR/N/10/CHN -G/STR/N/11/CHN -G/STR/N/12/CHN -
G/STR/N/13/CHN -G/STR/N/14/CHN -G/STR/N/15/CHN ), written  questions  had been posed by the 
European Union  (G/STR/Q1/CHN/3), Australia (G/STR/ Q1/CHN/4) and the United States 
(G/STR/Q1/CHN/5) . China had submitted written answers to the European Union 
(G/STR/Q1/CHN/6 ) and Australia (G/STR/Q1/CHN/7). No replies were provided in respect of 
questions from the United States ahead of the meeting.  
38.  The European Union  thanked China for its replies and asked China to clarify when it would 
submit its 2016 notification.  
39.  The United States  reminded China that it had submitted 16 questions on the Chinese 
notification in June 2016, including questions on the noti fication format and the number of STEs 
notified, and had not received any reply. It asked China to provide written answers to its questions 
and to clarify when it would submit its 2016 notification.  
40.  China  thank ed the United States for its questions and pro vided oral replies as follows. 
Regarding question 1,  China attached great importance to and seriously performed its WTO 
transparency obligations. China had followed the format and guidelines circulated by the 
Secretariat in 2003, collected and sorted avail able information, which included the legal basis for 
State trading administration, the tariff lines of State trading products, import and export volumes. 
China believed that WTO Members could be very well informed by its notification.  
41.  Regarding question s 2 and 16 , as indicated in the Chinese notification since 2003, except for 
cases of cancellation or suspension of State trading administration for certain products, and the 
merger, division or name change of certain STEs, there was generally no big change i n China's 
State trading administration system. China had not simply notified 25 STEs in its notification, as 
the list of STEs exporting products such as antimony, tungsten and silver, had been released in 
MOFCOM's annual documents and included a number of enterprises. Many of the enterprises 
mentioned in the US counter notification had been STEs back in 2001 and the information was not 
updated. For the latest information, China recommended that Members refer to China's most 
recent notification covering the period 2003 -2014.  
42.  Regarding questions 3,  4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, as indicated in China's notification, the State 
trading administration on the import of vegetable oil had been lifted as of 1 January 2006, on the 
export of tea – as of 19 May 2004, on the exp ort of silk – as of 1 January 2005. China had not 
implemented State trading administration on the export of soya bean, unbleached silk, cotton 
yarn, woven fabrics of cotton since its accession to the WTO. In practice, currently all enterprises, 
not limited  to STEs, could import or export those products.  
43.  Regarding question 6 , the list of STEs exporting products such as antimony, tungsten and 
silver, was regularly released through MOFCOM's annual documents, which contained the list of 
STE names. All the docum ent numbers had been reflected in China's notifications. Since statistics 
of individual enterprises was their internal information and was considered business secrets, 
detailed information was not available.  
44.  Regarding question 7 , according to China's WTO accession commitments and related 
announcements, there were altogether 19 STEs that exported tobacco, all of which were provided 
in China's written responses.  
45.  Regarding question 12 , for the timeliness of the notification, China had notified trade 
informati on on products subject to State trading administration as of 2014.  
46.  Regarding questions 13, 14 and 15 , STEs conduct market -based operations without 
government intervention. When an STE acts as an import agency for other enterprises, the resale 
prices are CI F plus a certain proportion of the agency commission without any mark -up. When the 
STE imports goods for itself, it decides its selling prices according to domestic market wholesale 
prices and it is responsible for its own profits and losses. Since the sta tistics of the enterprises was G/STR/M/30  
 
- 6 - 
 
  their internal information and considered a business secret, related data was not available. In 
Table 1 "Statistics on Imports under State Trading" the repeated column "Average Representative 
Domestic Sales Price" should read  "Average Import Price". China confirmed that it would be 
correcting this later.  
47.  China was in the process of finalizing the 16 written answers to the United States and would 
submit them once ready. China was also in the process of preparing the 2016 notifi cation and 
would submit it once ready.  
48.  The United States  requested China to provide the replies and the notification in writing.  
49.  Regarding the notification of India  (G/STR/N/14/IND),  the Chair noted that  further questions 
had been posed by the European Uni on (G/STR/Q1/IND/ 13). No response was provided ahead of 
the meeting .  
50.  Regarding TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited) , the European Union  
had asked India  questions related to the operation of this enterprise , indicating that it should be 
notifie d as an STE under Article XVII, and was interested to hear India's comments on its 
assessment.  
51.  India thanked the European Union for its follow -up questions and reiterated its view that 
TASMAC was not an STE recognized under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) of India, which was 
available online. Under the FTP, STEs were governmental and non -governmental enterprises, 
including marketing boards, which dealt with goods for export and/or imports. Any good, import or 
export of which was governed through exclu sive of special privilege granted to the STE may be 
imported or exported by the concerned STE as per conditions specified by the Indian Trade 
Classification (Harmonized System). The list of STEs notified by the Directorate -General of Foreign 
Trade (DGFT) i s in Appendix 2 of the FTP, and TASMAC was not an STE under this Appendix. 
Further, as per the FTP, exports and imports should be free, except when regulated by way of 
prohibition, restriction or exclusive trading through STEs, as laid down in the Indian T rade 
Classification (Harmonized System, HS). The list of prohibited, restricted and STE items can also 
be viewed online. All items contained in chapter 22 that contained beverages, spirits and vinegar 
were under the "Free" category and none of the HS lines  were under the "STE" category, therefore 
there were no STEs designated for their import under the FTP.  
52.  Regarding the European Union's question on the conditions of importation under 
HS Chapter  22, India explained those were available online on the website  of the DGFT.  
53.  India confirmed that additional questions by the European Union from September 2016 had 
been referred to capital and responses were being prepared.  
54.  The European Union  requested India to provide its responses in writing.  
55.  Regarding the notific ation of New Zealand (G/STR/N/15/NZL), the Chair recalled that  Chile 
had raised additional questions (G/STR/Q1/NZL/14 ) and responses were provided by New Zealand 
(G/STR/Q1/NZL/15) . 
56.  Chile indicated that its questions were taken up under the previous agenda item as pertaining 
to New Zealand's new notification. Chile reiterated its interest in following the issue of Zespri's 
activities.  
57.  Regarding the notification s of Viet Nam (G/STR/N/15/VNM -G/STR/N/16/VNM), the Chair 
recalled that  the United States  had submit ted questions (G/STR/Q1/ VNM/1). No written answers 
were provided ahead of the meeting.  
58.  The United States  reminded Viet Nam that it had submitted its questions, including on the 
period of time for the notification and certain specific information contained therein, in June 2016, 
and had not yet received a reply. The United States  requested Viet Nam to provide written 
answers to its questions and to clarify when Viet Nam would submit its 2016 notification.  G/STR/M/30  
 
- 7 - 
 
  59.  Viet Nam  thanked the United States and confirmed that  it would consult with capital on the 
preparation of replies. The 2016 notification would be submitted once ready.  
60.  The Working Party took note  of the notifications , the questions and answers provided and the 
statements made.  
4  STE NOTIFICATION OBL IGATIONS OF  THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON 
61.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of the European  Union and 
the United  States. It had previously appeared on the agenda at meetings since June 2015.  
62.  The European Union  reiterate d its concern with the l ack of notifications of Russian STEs under  
Article XVII. At a meeting of the Working Party  in October  2014, Russia had confirmed that it had 
a certain number of State -owned and State -controlled enterprises which operated in the 
commercial sphere. The Europ ean Union would welcome further details on the STEs which were 
currently active in the Russian Federation.  
63.  The European Union noted that a t previous meetings in 2015 and 2016 , the  Russian 
Federation had stated that in accordance with R egulation s No. 1277/P  of 14  July 2014 and 
Regulation No.  2001/P of 9  October  2014, the list of companies which were authorized to export 
liquefied natural gas (LNG) had been expanded, and that under the Regulation, Gazprom was no 
longer the only company with exclusive rights t o export LNG. The European Union requested 
Russia to provide copies of Regulation No.  1277/P of  14 July 2014 and Regulation No.  2001/P of 
9 October  2014, which it underst ood were the regulations according to which Gazprom no longer 
had an exclusive right t o export LNG from Russia . As in previous meeting s, the European Union 
also ask ed Russia to clarify whether regulation No.  1277/P was the legal basis for granting the 
relevant exclusive or special rights or privileges to the Russian STEs , and whether any am endment 
or new regulation had been adopted since July 2014, which would have an impact on their 
activities. As far as the other STEs mentioned in the meeting of October  2014 were concerned, 
these STEs also need ed to be notified . Finally, the European Union  asked  Russia when it envisage d 
submitting notifications on STEs to the Working Party . 
64.  The United States  continued  to have concerns regarding Russia's non -notification of its STEs 
and believe d that such notifications should include Gazprom, given its influ ence though its 
purchases or sales on the level or direction of imports or exports. I n para. 88 of its Working Party  
report, Russia had confirmed that Gazprom w ould be notified as an  STE in accordance with 
Article  XVII of GATT  1994. Russia had also stated before this Working Party  in 2012 that its STE 
notification was nearly finalized and would be submitted in the near future. Moreover, 
paragraph  1430 of its Working Party  report state d that: "… the representative of the 
Russian  Federation confirmed that upo n the date of accession the Russian  Federation would submit 
all initial notifications required by any agreement constituting part of the WTO Agreement and 
would submit subsequent notifications in conformity with the relevant provisions and procedures of 
the WTO agreement. " The Working Party  took note of these commitments. Moreover, 
paragraph  1430 was listed in para graph  1450 of the Working Party  report, which lists Russia's 
commitment paragraphs. Thus, there c ould be no doubt of Russia's commitment to provi de the 
required STE notifications to this Working Party . 
65.  Transparency wa s an important WTO requirement that Russia agreed to abide by when it 
joined the WTO. It allowed WTO Members to better understand and evaluate a Member 's STE 
operations and its complia nce with relevant WTO  obligations. Russia had  struggled to meet its 
transparency commitments in a number of WTO bodies, but the United States  had hoped that 
these struggles would not  transfer to this Working Party . According to the data circulated by the 
Secretariat, Russia had missed three notification cycles. In other words, Russia had not fulfilled a 
single STE notification obligation since joining the WTO . It urged Russia to fulfil its notification 
obligation as quickly as possible. The United States wa s willing to further engage with Russia 
either here in the Working Party , or outside the room if that would be helpful , on helping it make 
its required  notification.  
66.  The Russian Federation  appreciated the European Union and the United States' interest in i ts 
obligations. The Russian Federation explained that according to Article 3 of the Federal Law on Gas 
Export, the exclusive right to export gas was granted to the organization being the owner of the G/STR/M/30  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Unified Gas Supply System, or to those subsidiaries ther eof in whose authorized capital the share 
of participation of this organization amounted to 100%. The Russian Federation further explained 
that Gazprom carried out functions of the organization -owner of the Unified Gas Supply System, 
holding the exclusive right to export natural gas in gaseous form.  
67.  According to changes in the regulation of export of natural gas, such companies as "Rosneft", 
"Yamal -SPG", "Gazprom -Export", "Arctic SPG -1", "Arctic SPG -2" and "Arctic SPG -3" had been 
granted the exclusive right  to export natural gas in liquid form.  
68.  Respective notifications for Gazprom in response to the request contained in document 
G/STR/N/15, and for all mentioned organizations in response to the request contained in document 
G/STR/N/16, were under internal co nsideration and more time for coordination was required.  
69.  The Russian Federation also confirmed that the requested text of the Russian regulations had 
been transmitted to the European Union in 2015. The Russian Federation reiterated its position on 
taking s eriously its WTO obligations.  
70.  The United States  requested the Russian Federation to submit the information in writing. In 
the interest of transparency, the United States invited the Russian Federation to provide the 
information with all of the elements req uired for an STE notification, and to clarify the current 
situation, as well as legislative changes, including providing specific references to legislation.  
71.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
5  NON-NOTIFICATION OF STAT E TRADING ENTERPRISE S OF THE UNITED ARAB 
EMIRATES  
72.  During the United Arab Emirates' (UAE)  trade policy review the United States  had enquired as 
to the status of the UAE's STE notifications, as the UAE ha d not submitted a notification since 
1996. The UAE had responded that it did not consider the notification a priority and that making 
the notification was a challenge because of the definition of STEs and the federal structure of the 
UAE government. The United States was concerned by this response as it gave the impression that 
the UAE did not place much value on its transparency obligations . Furthermore, with a federal  
government itself , plus 50  state governments, the United  States d id not find the UAE 's structure of 
government to be a particularly compelling reason not to notify. As to the definition issue, the 
United States urged the UAE to seek technical assistance from the Secretariat in understanding the 
provisions in Article  XVII. If it would help, and because it also ha d a federal system of government, 
the United  States  would  be willing to supplement any assistance from the Secretariat and work 
with the UAE on a technical level to help it meet this notification obligation.  
73.  The UAE thanked the United States for its interest. The UAE stated that it had had 
constructive informal dialogue with the United States on the importance of being in conformity 
with WTO rules and provisions in general. The UAE assured the United States that it had always 
been making every effort to comply with its notification requirements.  
74.  Concerning UAE's non-notification of STEs, the UAE confirmed that it had conveyed the 
message to its authorities in the capital and that they were studying all aspects of the issue. The 
UAE would keep the Council for Trade in Goods informed of any messages from the capital  that 
concerned the matter. The UAE also thanked the Secretariat for its assistance since the issue had 
been raised.  
75.  The Working Party took note of the statement  made . 
6  EUROPEAN UNION – QUESTIONS FROM THE R USSIAN FEDERATION ON  "ALKO INC." 
(FINLAND)  
76.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of the Russian Federation. 
The Russian Federation had submitted written questions ( G/STR/Q1/EU /1), to which the 
European  Union provided written answers ( G/STR/Q1/EU /2). G/STR/M/30  
 
- 9 - 
 
  77.  The Russian Federation  noted th at it had posed questions to the European Union in April 2016 
and requested the European Union to provide the results of its assessment on the status and 
activities of the Finnish company.  
78.  The European Union  thank ed the Russian Federation for its interest in "Alko Inc. ". Currently, 
the European Union was finalizing the assessment and would come back  to the matter once this 
assessment  had been completed.  
79.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
7  TRANSPARENCY IN THE WORKING PARTY  
80.  The Chair  noted tha t this item was on the agenda at the request of the United States.  
81.  The United States  explained that it had recently come to its attention that not all the activities 
that took place in the interim between Working Party meetings were being put on the agend a in a 
regular manner. For example, if one Member asked questions of another Member and that other 
Member replied or the questions remained unanswered, they were not automatically listed on the 
agenda. This, according to the United States, presented a func tional problem for the Working Party 
because, unless Members followed the questions and answers in a regular manner, it was difficult 
to determine what level of activity was taking place.  
82.  As the United States had stated previously, transparency was critica l for the functioning of the 
Working Party. The United States proposed that the notifications be automatically placed on the 
agenda of the meeting if there had been written questions for which answers had not been 
provided or where written questions and/or  answers had been submitted since the last 
Working  Party meeting. There was no additional burden on Members, but there was benefit in 
ensuring that the question and reply process was functional and fulsome. This could oftentimes 
add to Members' knowledge o f what Members as a whole were doing, or find interest in the 
notifications. The United States was interested in hearing other Members' reaction to its 
suggestions, either then or in future meetings.  
83.  Chile thanked the United States for its proposal, which  it considered to be a good initiative 
which was already followed in other WTO bodies. It welcomed the idea in principle and asked the 
United States to clarify if it intended to submit the proposal in writing.  
84.  The European Union  thanke d the United States f or its proposal and was open to looking into 
any suggestions that could assist the European Union in its participation in the Working Party, as 
well as help achieve transparency, and also suggestions which could facilitate the participation of 
capitals in the Working Party. The European Union was not ready to provide its specific views on 
the matter and requested more time for coordination with capital to be able to return with a 
position at the next meeting of the Working Party.  
85.  Chinese Taipei  appreciated the proposal made by the United States and was open to 
discussing it with other interested Members.  
86.  The Chair invited Members to consult and communicate their position to the Chair. If Members 
had interest, the Chair was ready to hold consultations in orde r to determine the best way to 
proceed on the matter.  
87.  Costa -Rica, supported by India, Hong Kong, China , stated that it did not have a specific 
position on the matter but noted that it would be useful to have the proposal in writing so that the 
consultation s could be conducted in more detail.  
88.  Chile requested that the suggestion be communicated in writing for the benefit of the 
Members, together with an explanation of the difference with the current situation.  
89.  The United States  thanked all the  delegations tha t expressed interest and initial support in its 
proposal. The United States was ready to circulate, in coordination with the Secretariat, a written 
proposal. The United States understood that there were no formal rules of procedure for the G/STR/M/30  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Working Party, w hich was one of the reasons the United States had made its suggestion. The 
United States asked the Secretariat to clarify this issue.  
90.  The representative of the Secretariat  confirmed that there were no formal rules of procedure 
for the Working Party. For va rious issues, such as written questions and answers, the 
Working  Party had taken decisions or reached specific agreements. On the issue at hand, the 
Working Party agreed in 1996 that the matter would not reappear on the agenda of the meeting 
unless it was requested to be placed on the agenda. For the moment, the Working Party continued 
to operate on this basis.  
91.  The Chair proposed to circulate the United States' proposal by e -mail to all Members with a 
deadline to provide comments. In parallel, informal cons ultations would be conducted. If Members 
approved of the proposal, the Chair would inform all Members. The Chair noted that it would be 
best to get clarity on the issue before the end of 2016 and decide on the best way to proceed 
during the next meeting of  the Working Party.  
92.  The Working Party took note  of the statements made.  
8  ANNUAL REPORT (2016)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN GOODS  
93.  The Chair noted that paragraph 5 of the Understanding o n the Interpretation of Article  XVII of 
the GATT 1994, instruct ed the Work ing Party to report annually to the Council for Trade in Goods.  
At its meeting of 30  October  2012, the Working Party had agreed on a new format for the annual  
report . It was agreed to separate the draft annual report and the table of notifications since 19 95 
into two separate documents , with both to be circulated as room documents in advance of the 
formal meeting.  
94.  The Committee adopted  its 2016 Annual Report. The Chair noted that t he table with the 
status of notifications since 1995 w ould be issued as docum ent G/STR/14 , and w ould be updated 
before the ne xt meeting of the Working Party.  
9  DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
95.  The Chair inform ed delegations that the next meeting of the Working Party wa s scheduled for 
Tuesday  9 May 2017 . The Working Party w ould of course hold ad ditional meetings if so requested 
by delegations.  The Chair urged all Members to submit their pending notifications , and request ed 
that written questions regarding notifications be presented three weeks before the next meeting, 
and that written answers to written questions be provided well in advance of the meeting.  Finally, 
the Chair requested that delegations update th e Working Party's contact list information in order to 
receive documents directly by email.  
96.  The meeting was adjourned .  
__________