G/AG/W/155  
 
10 August 2016 
(16-4315) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
RESPONSES TO POINTS RAISED BY MEM BERS  DURING THE ANNUAL DE DICATED 
DISCUSSIONS ON EXPOR T COMPETITION  
COMPILATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED DURING  THE ANNUAL DEDICATED  
DISCUSSIONS ON EXPOR T COMPETITION ON 7 JUNE 20161 
The present document compiles Members' responses to the questions raised during the annual 
dedicated discussion on export competition . 
 
Written responses to the following questions were not provided before 10 August 2016 : 
 
Question ID  Answer by  Question by  Document symbol of 
questions  
18.1.1 
18.1.2  Venezuela , Bolivarian 
Republic of  European Union  RD/AG/46  
 
_______________  
                                               
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/155  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
1.1   Question s by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ...............................  4 
2   CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
2.1   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ...............................  4 
3   CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
3.1   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ...............................  5 
4   COLOMBIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
4.1   Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46) ................................ ................................ . 6 
5   INDIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  6 
5.1   Questions  by Australia (RD/AG/47)  ................................ ................................ ..............  6 
5.2   Question by Canada (RD/AG/45)  ................................ ................................ .................  7 
5.3   Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46) ................................ ................................ . 7 
6   INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  7 
6.1   Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46) ................................ ................................ . 7 
7   ISRAEL  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
7.1   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ...............................  8 
8   JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
8.1   Questions by Canada (RD/AG/45)  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
9   MEXICO  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
9.1   Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46) ................................ ................................ . 9 
10   NEW ZEALAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  9 
10.1   Questions by Chile (RD/AG/49)  ................................ ................................ ..................  9 
10.2   Question by the European  Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ..............................  10 
11   NORWAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  10 
11.1   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ............................  10 
12   RUSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  11 
12.1   Question by Australia (RD/AG/47)  ................................ ................................ .............  11 
12.2   Questions by the European U nion (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ............................  11 
13   SOUTH AFRICA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  12 
13.1   Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ..............................  12 
14   SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  12 
14.1   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ............................  12 
15   TURKEY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  13 
15.1   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ............................  13 
16   URUGUAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  13 
16.1   Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ..............................  13 
17   UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14 
17.1   Questions by Australia (RD/AG/47)  ................................ ................................ ...........  14 
17.2   Questions by Canada (RD/AG/45)  ................................ ................................ .............  14 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 3 - 
 
  17.3   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ............................  15 
18   VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIA N REPUBLIC OF  ................................ ................................ . 18 
18.1   Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  ................................ ............................  18 
 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  BRAZIL  
1.1  Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
1.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according 
to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?   
Answer by Brazil  
 
Brazil did not provide expo rt subsidies to agricultural products in the past five years as notified to 
the C oA. 
1.1.2   Given that the PROEX Direct Financing programme applies international market 
interest rates with respect to the funding currency and its maturity, how does it differ 
from private institution financing terms and conditions?   
Answer by Brazil  
 
The main difference is that the spreads charged by domestic private institutions, in addition to 
international markets interest rates, tend to be high, while PROEX allows interest rates  to be 
compatible with those prac ticed in international markets.  
1.1.3   What is the total value of agricultural exports, destination countries and products 
groups subject to PROEX Interest Rate Support programme?   
Answer by Brazil  
 
There are no agricultural expor ts subject to PROEX I nterest Rate Support programme.  
1.1.4   What is the average interest rate charged from Brazilian exports of goods and 
services subject to PROEX Interest Rate Support programme?  
Answer by Brazil  
There are no agricultural exports subject to PROE X Interest Rate Support programme.  
2  CANADA  
2.1  Question s by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
2.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according 
to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?   
Answer by Canada  
 
As of the date of adoption of the Nairobi Decision, Canada eliminated its remaining scheduled 
export subsidy entitlements for all products, except for dairy products as per footnote 4 to 
paragraph 6 . Canada is subject to the provisions of footnote 4 stating that the " quantity 
commitment levels shall be applied as a standstill until the end of 2020 at the actual average 
quantity lev els of the 2003 -05 base period ". Therefore, paragraph 10 of the Nairob i Ministerial 
Decision on Export Competition is not applicable to Canada.  
2.1.2   What is the actual average of export subsidy quantity levels for processed 
products, dairy products and swine meat during the 2003 -2005 base period which shall 
be applied as a stands till according to footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision?   G/AG/W/155  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Answer by Canada  
 
Canada does not use export subsidies for swine meat and processed products. For dairy products, 
as per the terms of the Annex of the Nairobi Decision, Canada will notify operational c hanges in 
measures on export subsidies. This includes its standstill quantity limits as required for its next 
export subsidy notification, and within the context of the annual examination process through the 
next dedicated session on export competition.  
2.1.3   Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision creates a condition that there shall be no 
export subsidies on products destined for LDCs as of 1 January 2016. Could Canada, 
Norway and Switzerland confirm that this condition is fulfilled?   
Answer by Canada  
 
Canada can co nfirm that as of 1 January 2016 Canada is not providing export subsidises  on 
products destined for LDCs.  
2.1.4   Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision lays down that there shall be no export 
subsidies applied either to new markets or new products. In order to monitor  the 
compliance with this provision, could Canada, Norway and Switzerland indicate which 
where the destination countries of the products exported with export subsidies during a 
2003 -2005 base period?  
Answer by Canada  
 
Footnote 4 does not explicitly link th e limitations on export subsidies applied to new products or to 
new markets to the 2003 -05 base period. This base period is to be used solely for the purpose of 
establishing interim quantity limits on export subsidies for applicable products during the tra nsition 
period until the end of 2020.  
Regardless, Canada confirms that there shall be no export subsidies applied to either new markets 
or to new products as of the date of entry into  force of the Nairobi Decision. The destination 
countries for each of the  dairy products exported with export subsidies is confidential commercial 
information.  
3  CHINA  
3.1  Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
Unlike previous years, China was not in the position in 2016 to provide any data in reply to the 
Secretariat's questionn aire on export competition. Nevertheless, the EU would like to ask China to 
provide clarification on the following questions:  
3.1.1   Does China consider the Agricultural Produce Export Sellers ' Credit programme 
operated by the China ExIm Bank falling under the de finition of paragraph 13(a) of the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
Answer by China  
 
The nature of the export credit provided by  China Exim Bank is "working capital financing to the 
suppliers"  as provided for in footnote 7 of the Nairobi Decision on  Export Competition.  
3.1.2   Are there any agriculture -specific export financing risk -cover programmes 
operated in China, including by the China ExIm Bank, China Development Bank or 
Sinosure?  
Answer by China  
 
There is no "agriculture -specific"  export financing ri sk-cover program operated in China.  
 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4  COLOMBIA  
4.1  Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
4.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed accordin g 
to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Colombia  
 
In the last five notifications submitted by Colombia to the WTO for the period 2005 -2010, 
Colombia reported no use of it s rights on export subsidies. Colombia  is working on updating its 
notific ations and is hoping to submit them shortly. Colombia  will honour the commitments made in 
the Ministerial Decision on Export Competition adopted at the 10th Ministerial Conference in 
Nairobi.  
5  INDIA  
5.1  Questions by Australia (RD/AG/47)  
In India's latest State  Trading Enterprise Notification (G/STR/N/14/IND), Australia notes the Food 
Corporation of India (FCI) administers the imports of certain agricultural products, but has not 
been granted special export privileges.  
5.1.1   Could India please detail how much rice and  how much wheat has been exported 
through the Food Corporation of India (FCI) for each year since 2012 -13 to the most 
recent reporting period?  If the FCI has exported, could India please indicate the average 
procurement price, the quantity exported, the de stination and the average export price 
for each of wheat and rice?  
5.1.2   Can India confirm if any other agricultural commodity was exported through the 
FCI for each year since 2012 -13 to the most recent reporting period, and if so, provide 
volumes, and average e xport prices?  
5.1.3   Can India please identify, from the latest figures available, the main export 
destinations for agricultural products exported under the auspices of the STEs?  
Answer by India  
 
The two questions raised by Australia and the European Union relate  to exports by the Food 
Corporation of India.  
 
Australia mentioned in the question that the Food Corporation of India administers the imports of 
certain agricultural products but has not granted special export privileges.  
 
The Food Corporation of India w as set up in 1964 under the Food Corporation Act. The main 
objectives were: to provide effective price support operations for safeguarding the interests of 
farmers, to distribute food grain throughout the country for the public distribution system, to 
maintain satisfactory levels of operational and buffer stocks of foods grains to ensure national food 
security, and to regulate domestic prices to provide food grains for consumers at reliable prices.  
 
Paragraph 19 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export  Competition mentions that "For the 
purpose of the disciplines set out hereunder in this Decision, an agriculture exporting state trading 
enterprise shall be any enterprise which meets the working definition provided for in the 
Understanding on the interpr etation of Article XVII of the GATT 1994 …" which ended with 
footnote  12. 
 
Footnote 12 repeats the working definition of a state trading enterprise included in that 
Understanding – "governmental and non -governmental enterprises, including marketing boards,  
which have been granted exclusive or special rights or privileges, including statutory or G/AG/W/155  
 
- 7 - 
 
  constitutional powers, in the exercise of which they influence through the purchases or sales the 
level or direction of imports or exports ". 
 
The objectives of setti ng up the Food Corporation of India and the authorities which the 
government has given to the Corporation in no way affect the level or direction of the exports 
which it carries out. Therefore, the Food Corporation of India does not fall under the definiti on of 
agricultural state trading enterprises.  
 
5.2  Question by Canada (RD/AG/45)  
India has not provided a response (nil or otherwise) to the Secretariat compiled document titled 
"Export Subsidies, Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or Insurance Programm es, 
International Food Aid and Agricultural Exporting State Trading Enterprises" 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.2). However, according to pages 72 and 73 of the most recent Trade 
Policy Review Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/313) in 2015, insurance against expo rt credit 
risk is provided by the ECGC Limited, and export finance is provided by the Export -Import Bank of 
India (Exim Bank). Replies to India's Trade Policy Review (WT/TPR/M/313/Add.1) state that India's 
Exim Bank provides export credits to support agric ultural products (such as pulses, vegetables, 
spices, etc). In terms of ECGC Limited, although there were no specific policies to cover agriculture 
exports, certain agriculture products may have received export financing support.  
5.2.1   Regardless if the program  was specific to agriculture or not, could India please 
provide the maximum average repayment terms the ECGC Limited Programs where 
agriculture products received export financing support?  
Answer by India  
 
The question concerns information on the maximum a verage repayment under the ECGC 
programmes. ECGC does not have any agriculture -specific programme for export credit insurance. 
The maximum repayment term for the general programmes for export credit insurance for 
exporters, is 12 months.  
 
5.3  Question by the E uropean Union (RD/AG/46)  
Food Corporation of India is a government -owned corporation which procures and maintains the 
public distribution system of food grains in India. Although India has not notified the FCI to the 
WTO Working Party on State Trading Ente rprises, nor in its reply to the Secretariat's 
questionnaire, it has acknowledged that the operations of the FCI include also exports of the public 
stocks. This confirms the concerns of the EU on adverse spill -over effects public stockholding 
programmes ma y have on markets of other countries. According to the information available on 
the website of the FCI, the company exported 57.97 LMT of wheat from Central Pool stocks during 
the three year period from 2012 -2013 to 2014 -2015.  
5.3.1   Could India explain how it i ntends to minimi ze the trade distorting effects of these 
export operations? Could India, in line with paragraph 20 of the Nairobi Decision, also 
confirm that the average export prices of these stocks are not lower than the 
comparable price charged for the like products to buyers in the domestic market, as 
referred to in Article 9:1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
Answer by India  
 
See reply to 5.1.  
 
6  INDONESIA  
6.1  Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
6.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export su bsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed according 
to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi  Decision?  G/AG/W/155  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Answer by Indonesia  
 
Indonesia has never granted export subsidies to rice which is the only product in its export 
subsidies commitments.   
 
7  ISRAEL  
7.1  Question s by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
7.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed accordi ng 
to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?   
Answer by Israel  
 
Paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision  is not clear as regards which "past five years"  should be 
taken into account.  If these five years are for export subsidy notifications examined by the CoA 
before 21 December 2015 then the relevant data is available in documents G/AG/N/ISR/46 and 
G/AG/N/ISR/52. If the five years are for the five years prior to the Nairobi Decision (i.e. 2011 -
2015) then for 2011 -2014 the numbers are available in Israel's notifi cations G/AG/N/ISR/52 and  
G/AG/N/ISR/53.  For 2015 the information is not yet available.  
 
7.1.2   Which are the products or product groups for which Israel, Venezuela and Turkey 
have notified the use of scheduled export subsidies in one of the three latest export 
subsidy notification examined by the CoA before 21 December 2015?  
Answer by Israel  
 
The products and product groups which have been notified in the three latest export subsidy 
notifications can be seen  in Israel's  notification G/AG/N/ISR/52 of 12 June 2013  which includes all 
the three years (October 2009 – September 2012):  
 
 Cut flowers, fresh and foliage, fresh  
 Vegetables 0701 -0709 
 Fruits (not citrus) 0803 -0804, 0806 -0810 
 Citrus fruits 0805 . 
8  JAPAN  
8.1  Questions by Canada (RD/AG/45)  
Japan has responded to the Ad dendum to the Secretariat compiled document titled "Export 
Subsidies, Export Credits, Export Credit Guarantees or Insurance Programmes, International Food 
Aid and Agricultural Exporting State Trading Enterprises" (G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.3) that 
monetization of international food aid is permitted.  
8.1.1   Can Japan please describe how it will minimize or eliminate disruptions to the 
local or regional markets, which may include impacts on production, when providing 
monetized food aid?   
8.1.2   Can Japan please describe any lo cal and regional market analysis conducted 
consistent with paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Japan  
 
Japan provides cash -based, rather than in -kind, food aid. While Japan allows beneficiary countries 
to re-monetize the food, which is a purch ase with a fund, called an accumulated counterpart fund. 
This is different from the monetization of aid in -kind food aid.  
 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 9 - 
 
  In addition, Japan provides food aid in a transparent way. Japan requires beneficiary countries to 
submit an advance report regarding  the use of funds which will be approved by Japan. Beneficiary 
countries also submit a report after implementation when they accumulate counterpart funds.  
 
Moreover, when the beneficiary countries sell food purchased with funds the price is decided taking 
into account the market price. Thus, it does not distort the local market.  
 
9  MEXICO  
9.1  Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
9.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis for 
Members applying export subsidies, which Membe rs shall seek to not exceed according 
to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Mexico  
 
During the period between 2008 and 2012, Mexico provided export subsidies only under 
Article 9.4. The average outlays over that five -year period were US D 10 million for wheat and 
USD 2 million  for corn.  
 
Mexico notes that the information is ready for the notifications covering the period 2013 -2015 and 
will present them in the following days . In advance , Mexico underscores that it did not provide 
export subsidie s for any product, either by Article 9.4 or by its own entitlements. Mexico reiterates  
that it will honour its commitments made in Nairobi.  
 
10  NEW ZEALAND  
10.1  Questions by Chile (RD/AG/49)  
10.1.1   To what extent is the New Zealand government involved, or what is its ro le, in 
establishing the target markets for Zespri exports?  
10.1.2   Chile is interested in knowing specifically how New Zealand ensures that Zespri, 
which is an STE, is being operated in accordance with the commitments undertaken in 
Nairobi, in particular paragraph  21 of the Nairobi Declaration.  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
New Zealand  thank s the EU and Chile for their interest in the operations of Kiwifruit New  Zealand. 
In responding to their questions it is important to clarify that Kiwifruit New  Zealand and Zespri 
Group Limited are two entirely separate legal entities, established under two separate pieces of 
legislation.    
 
On 1 April 2000, the Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Act 1999 converted what was the 
New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board into a private company,  Zespri Group Limited. 
New Zeala nd, therefore, no longer has a " kiwiboa rd".  
 
The New Zealand Kiwifruit Export Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) estab lish the independent 
Regulator "Kiwifruit New Zealand" and define its functions.   
 
The Regulations provid e Zespri an automatic, but not exclusive, right to export kiwifruit from 
New Zealand to markets other than Australia.  Further, they provide for others to export kiwifruit, 
to markets other than Australia, in collaboration with Zespri subject to approval of  the independen t 
body Kiwifruit New Zealand. Any marketer can independently export kiwifruit to Australia, without 
the prior permission of Kiwifruit New Zealand.  
 
In early 2015 the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) commissioned an independent review o f 
Kiwifruit New Zealand. Zespri 's export authori zation under the Regulations is not within the scope 
of the current review of the Regulations. MPI is currently analysing responses to its public 
consultation and preparing its advice to the government.  G/AG/W/155  
 
- 10 - 
 
   
New Zealand takes its international obligations seriously, including those of the WTO. Any 
regulatory changes that occur as a result of the review will con tinue to be consistent with 
New Zealand's obligations.  
 
10.2  Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
The Nai robi Decision on Export Competition provides, 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 di storting effects and does not 
result in displacing or impeding the exports of another Member". In the course of the ongoing 
review of the operations of its kiwiboard Zespri, New Zealand does not seem to have considered 
an option to limit the exporting mono poly powers of Zespri.  
10.2.1   Could New Zealand explain the reasons behind this decision and explain how it 
complies with the commitment of parag raph 21 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by New Zealand  
 
See reply to 10.1 .  
 
11  NORWAY  
11.1  Questions by the European Union ( RD/AG/46)  
11.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis 
for Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed 
according to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Norway  
 
Norway has export subsidy entitlements for 11 product groups. Four groups are covered by 
footnote 4 in the Ministerial decision. These are swine meat, butter, cheese and processed 
agricultural products. For these products, the upper limits for export subsidies in the period  
2016-2020 are described in footnote 4 of the Ministerial decision. As to the question about the 
best effort paragraph 10 in the Ministerial decision, actual spending of export subsidies of the last  
five years are available in Norway's  updated ES 1 notific ations.  
 
11.1.2   What is the actual average of export subsidy quantity levels for processed 
products, dairy products and swine meat during the 2003 -2005 base period which shall 
be applied as a standstill according to footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by N orway  
 
The standstill quantities according to notifications for 2003 -2005 are:  
 
 Swine meat 1 ,898 tonnes  
 Butter 1039 tonnes  
 Cheese 15 ,929 ton nes. 
 
11.1.3   Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision creates a condition that there shall be no 
export subsidies on products des tined for LDCs as of 1 January 2016. Could Canada, 
Norway and Switzerland confirm that this condition is fulfilled?  
Answer by Norway  
 
The answer is yes.  
 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 11 - 
 
  11.1.4   Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision lays down that there shall be no export 
subsidies applied either to  new markets or new products. In order to monitor the 
compliance with this provision, could Canada, Norway and Switzerland indicate which 
where the destination countries of the products exported with export subsidies during a 
2003 -2005 base period?  
Answer by Norway  
 
In Norway's  view, the European Union is misinterpreting footnote 4 in the Ministerial decision on 
export competition from Nairobi . The expression " either to new markets or to new products"  is not 
related to the 2003 -2005 reference period, but to  export subsidies up to the date of the Ministerial 
decision.  
 
12  RUSIAN FEDERATION  
12.1  Question by Australia (RD/AG/47)  
12.1.1   The Russian Federation has notified food aid worth USD 30 million to the UN 
World Food Programme in 2015 and has also provided a table outlini ng their food aid for 
2015 in their answer to the Export Competition Questionnaire 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.3). Could the Russian Federation please provide further 
information regarding this table, including how the food aid was provided (in -kind or on 
an unt ied cash -based basis)?  
Answer by the Russian Federation  
 
The Russian Federation provides food aid completely in grant form. Most food aid is provided by 
the Russian Federation through international organizations, primarily through the World Food 
Programme.  Food aid is normally provided on an untied cash -based basis. In -kind food aid can 
only be provided by the Russian Federation in response to emergency situations as humanitarian 
aid and, as can be seen, the amounts of in -kind food aid are small.  
 
12.2  Questions  by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
12.2.1   According to the reply to the questionnaire, Russia has provided only cash based 
food aid. However, as clarified in the Committee on Agriculture in the context of the 
discussion on NF:1 notification, Russia provides inform ation on food aid in financial 
equivalent. Could Russia clarify if it provides any in -kind food aid?  
12.2.2   Could  Russia explain why they decided not to list the United Grain Company as 
an agricultural exporting STE in their reply to the Secretariat's questionnai re? UGC was 
established by the Russian Presidential Decree, it is owned by the Russian government 
and it has been granted special rights to carry out state procurement and exports of 
grain, so it appears to be an STE within the meaning of the working defin ition set forth 
in the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of GATT 1994.  
Answer by the Russian Federation  
 
Paragraph 19 of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition states that "… agricultural exporting 
state trading enterprises shall be a ny enterprise which meets the working definition provided for in 
the Understanding on the interpretation of A rticle XVII of the GATT 1994 …" . 
 
In Russian Federation's responses to questions posed by the European Union under the Working 
Party of State Tradi ng Enterprises (G/STR/Q1/RUS/2) Russia states that the United Grain 
Company (UGC) is not an STE within the meaning of the working definition set forth in the 
mentioned Understanding.  
 
The Russian Federation has pointed out that UGC exercises its trade oper ations, export or import, 
on the basis of equal agricultural market participation. Since the UGC is not a STE it was not listed 
in responses to the Secretariat questionnaire. In addition, the government of the Russian 
Federation has not granted UGC special  rights to carry out state procurement or exports of grain.  G/AG/W/155  
 
- 12 - 
 
   
The Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No.  219 states that among many other main 
areas of UGC's activities there are the increase of purchases and sales of grains on internal 
marke ts and export of grain. If the European Union bases its conclusions on that wording, then the 
Russian Federation would ask the European Union to verify why the description of main areas of 
activity should be considered as granting special rights. There are  no special rights but o nly 
descriptions of activities.  
 
13  SOUTH AFRICA  
13.1  Question by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
13.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis 
for Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek  to not exceed 
according to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by South Africa  
 
South Africa has not used export subsidies since the year 2001. The average level of export 
subsidies  on a product level is therefore zero for the past five years.  
 
South Africa has for many years been a proponent for the full elimination of all forms of export 
subsidies and rema ins fully committed to eliminating  its export subsidy entitlements as decided by 
Ministers in Nairobi in December 2015.   
 
14  SWITZERLAND  
14.1  Questio ns by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
14.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis 
for Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed 
according to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
Switzerland has been informing transparently on its budgetary outlays of export subsidies. The 
necessary information with regard to past years expenditures are therefore available either in the 
notifications or the Secretariats background repo rts on export subsidies.  
 
14.1.2   What is the actual average of export subsidy quantity levels for processed 
products, dairy products and swine meat during the 2003 -2005 base period which shall 
be applied as a standstill according to footnote 4 of the Nairobi Deci sion?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
In the case of proces sed products, Switzerland 's schedules contain no quantity commitment levels. 
Therefore, the standstill on quantities of footnote 4 does not apply in this case. Regarding dairy 
products and swine meat, Switz erland does not revert the provisions of footnote 4.  
 
14.1.3   Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision creates a condition that there shall be no 
export subsidies on products destined for LDCs as of 1 January 2016. Could Canada, 
Norway and Switzerland confirm that this  condition is fulfilled?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
Switzerland has amended the respective legal provisions and eliminated the eligibility of e xports 
destined to LDC for receiving export subsidies.  
 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 13 - 
 
  14.1.4   Footnote 4 of the Nairobi Decision lays down that there shal l be no export 
subsidies applied either to new markets or new products. In order to monitor the 
compliance with this provision, could Canada, Norway and Switzerland indicate which 
where the destination countries of the products exported with export subsidi es during a 
2003 -2005 base period?  
Answer by Switzerland  
 
Switzerland is of the view that footnote 4 does not contain any reference period with regard to the 
provision on new markets and new products. Therefore, Switzerland does not agree to monitor the 
compliance of this provision based on export destinations of the years from 2003 to 2005 as 
proposed by the EU.  
 
15  TURKEY  
15.1  Question s by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
15.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis 
for Members a pplying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed 
according to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
15.1.2   Which are the products or product groups for which Israel, Venezuela and 
Turkey have notified the use of scheduled export subsidies in one o f the three latest 
export subsidy notification examined by the CoA before 21 December 2015?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
As mentioned in responses to questions in the review process, these products can be found in 
Turkey's three latest export subsidy notifications is sued before 21 December 2015, which are 
G/AG/N/TUR/9, G/AG/N/TUR/11 and G/AG/N/TUR/13.  
 
15.1.3   Turkey notifies, for the first time, its data on food aid delivered. Could Turkey 
clarify if the donations of in -kind food aid were delivered in response to the emergen cy 
situation in the recipient countries or not?  
15.1.4   If the in -kind food aid was provided in response to the emergency situation, 
could Turkey clarify if an emergency was declared or emergency aid appealed by the 
recipient countries or international organizati ons?  
Answer by Turkey  
 
The donations of in -kind food aid by the Turkish government were provided in response to the 
emergency situations declared by the recipient countries or the relevant institutions of the 
United  Nations.  
16  URUGUAY  
16.1  Question by the Europea n Union (RD/AG/46)  
16.1.1   What is the average level of past five years export subsidies on a product basis 
for Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed 
according to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by Uruguay  
 
Uruguay' s schedule gives Uruguay the right to subsidize exports of rice, butter and oilcake but 
Uruguay has not used any type of export subsidy in the past five years. The average is therefore 
zero. No export subsidies were provided within the framework of Article  9.4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture . 
 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 14 - 
 
  17  UNITED STATES  
17.1  Questions by Australia (RD/AG/47)  
17.1.1   The U .S. has reported that the annual average repayment period under GSM -102 
is around 14  months, while the typical repayment period under ExIm for agricultural 
trade is  180 days.  Given that many of the export destinations for ExIm are common to 
GSM-102 (as reported in G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.2), can the U .S. explain why tenor 
lengths vary so greatly between the two programs?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The annual average r epayment period is weighted based on program use. As reported by the U .S. 
in the survey, the maximum repayment term for the GSM -102 program is 18 months. The 
maximum repayment term for EXIM bank is 360 days.   
 
17.1.2   Can the U .S. please provide a breakdown of to tal exports by region for the 2015 
fiscal year for GSM -102?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire is consistent with the structure 
provided in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.   
 
17.1.3   Can the U .S. please pro vide a breakdown of total agricultural exports by region 
for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for ExIm?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire is consistent with the structure 
provided in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.   
 
17.2  Questions by Canada (RD/AG/45)  
The United States has notified the Export Credit Insurance Program of the Export -Import Bank in 
the Addendum to the Secretariat compiled document titled "Export Subsidies, Export Credits, 
Export Credit Guarant ees or Insurance Programmes, International Food Aid and Agricultural 
Exporting State Trading Enterprises" (G/AG/W/125/Rev.4/Add.2).  
17.2.1   Why has the United States now notified the Export Credit Insurance Program of 
the Export Import Bank of the Unites States wh en it has been in operation as an 
independent agency since 1945? Canada notes that the Export Import Bank was not 
notified under the previous compiled report by the Secretariat (G/AG/W/125/Rev.3).  
Answer by the United States  
 
The United States continuously  reviews the activities of U.S. government entities to determine 
which programs should be considered reportable through the Export Competition Questionnaire 
(ECQ). The United States determined that the U.S. Export Import Bank's export financing 
programs sh ould be included in the U.S. submission to the questionnaire and provided data for 
FY 2015 as well as the previous two years so that its relevant activity has been reported for each 
year the ECQ has been in place.  
17.2.2   Could the United States please provide the  breakdown of annual value of exports 
by export destination (the same as what is shown for its response to the subheading 
"Programme use  by product or product group")?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure 
provided in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.   G/AG/W/155  
 
- 15 - 
 
  17.3  Questions by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
Export Financing  
17.3.1   On the export destinations of the GSM -102 programme, data about the annual 
value of exports per regions of desti nation seems to be missing in the current document 
which was not the case last year, could the U .S. explain the reasons for this?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure 
provided in the Annex to the Nairobi Ministerial.    
17.3.2   The U .S. notifies that the total value of exports of agricultural products covered 
by the GSM -102 programme for U .S. Fiscal Year 2015 was USD 1,826,433,581. The data 
provided by the U .S. on total value of expo rts of agricultural products covered by the 
GSM-102 programme and programme use by product or product group differ from the 
data provided by the USDA FAS on it its webpage 
(http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/export -credit -guarantee -program -gsm-
102/yearly -activity -reports ). For example, according to the FAS web -page, total value of 
exports in FY 2015 is USD 1,810,946,469 (guarantee value) and USD 1, 866,347,902 
(port value). In the U .S. submission to the WTO, the same figure is USD 1,826,433,581. 
Could the U .S. explain these discrepancies?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The Agreement on Agriculture is limited to a defined group of agricultural products . The 
United  States reported data on those products subject to the Agreement on Agriculture.   
17.3.3   The U .S. notifies that the Export Credit Insurance Program of the Export -Import 
Bank offers four types of insurance policies that may be used to cover export of 
agricultural commodities: Short -Term Single Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policies for 
Exporters; Bank Letter of Credit policies; Financial Institution Buyer Credits; and Multi -
Buyer Policies. According to the web -page of the Export -Import Bank 
(http://www.exim.gov/what -we-do/export -credit -insurance ), the bank offers other 
export financing instruments which could fall under the definition of paragraphs 13 -14 
of the Nairobi Ministerial De cision on Export Competition. Such instruments include for 
example Medium -Term Export Credit Insurance and Reinsurance programmes. Could the 
export of agricultural commodities be covered by these measures?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The Medium -Term Expo rt Credit Insurance and Reinsurance program administered by the U.S. 
Export -Import Bank does not support agricultural commodities.   
17.3.4   The U .S. Small Business Administration offers direct financing support to 
exporters in the form of the Export Express Loan and The International Trade Loan 
Programmes. Could the U .S. confirm that the programmes offered by the SBA do not fall 
under the scope of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition  as defined in 
paragraphs 13 -14? 
Answer by the United States  
 
The programs do not fall under paragraphs 13 -14 of the Nairobi Ministerial.  
17.3.5   The U .S. operates GSM -102 programme which is designed to support agricultural 
exports and is subject to disciplines of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition. 
According to the w eb-page of the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, FAS estimates 
average annual cost of the GSM -102 programme during a 2012 -2016 period at 74.1 
million USD (administrative costs at 6.8 million USD and default estimates of G/AG/W/155  
 
- 16 - 
 
  89.1 million USD) against fee reven ue of 21.8 million USD.2 The Nairobi Decision 
paragraph 15(b) requires the export financing risk -cover programmes to be self -
financing and cover the long -term operating costs and losses of a programme. In the 
light of the FAS estimates, how the U .S. intend s to comply with the Nairobi disciplines? 
Why are the cost estimates of the GSM -102 programme missing from the FAS estimates 
for the 2015 -2018 period?3 
Answer by the United States  
 
The United States is in compliance with the Nairobi disciplines.  In the Un ited States, there are a 
large number of reporting requirements for different purposes. These reports shall not in any way 
be interpreted as comparable or used as a precise reflection of long -term financial operations of 
the program for ECQ purposes.     
Food Aid  
17.3.6   The U .S. states in its submission that " during U .S. Fiscal Year 2015, the 
United  States shipped 1.09 million metric tons of food products with a total value of 
USD 447.25 million to meet emergency and developmental food aid needs" . Could the 
U.S. clarify the exact amount of in -kind food aid delivered in emergency situations and 
in non -emergency situations?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure 
provided  in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision . Additional information on U.S. food assistance 
programming is ava ilable in publicly available reporting, including the International Food 
Assistance Report (IFAR) ( http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2016 -05/fy_2014_ifar_ -
_may_13_2016.pdf  and https://www.usaid.gov/what -we-do/agriculture -and-food-security/food -
assistance/resources/united -states -international -food); and the Narrative Report on Food 
Assistance by Members of the Food Assistance Convention 
(http://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/reports.aspx ). Please note, the 2015 reports will be 
published later this year.  
17.3.7   The U .S. states in its submission that " monetization is permitted and used to 
cover transportation costs, suppo rt health or nutrition activities, or fund agricultural or 
development activities" . Could the U .S. clarify what is the total amount of monetized in -
kind food aid, in monetary terms and in terms of percentage of the total in -kind food aid, 
and how the funds  raised are spent, broken down by "transportation costs" , "support to 
health or nutrition activities", and "funding of agricult ural or development activities"?  
Answer by the United States  
 
Please see reply above.  
 
17.3.8   Could the U .S. provide information on the  cost-recovery rate of monetized in -
kind food aid?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure 
provided  in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision.  
17.3.9   The U.S. states in its submission und er question number 5 that " Food assistance 
responses to emergencies are provided through the World Food Program, private 
voluntary organizations, and other qualified responders to emergencies. The 
                                               
2 FAS strategic plan for 2012 -2016: 
http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/development/files/fas_stratplan_2012 -2016.pdf . See page 13 for relevant 
figures.  
3 FAS strategic plan for 2015 -2018: http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2015 -
07/admini staror_approved_fas_2015 -2018_strategic_plan_150128.pdf . See page 13 for relevant figures . G/AG/W/155  
 
- 17 - 
 
  organizations work closely with the national and local gove rnments in the recipient 
countries to identify the recipient regions and beneficiaries who need the programs" . 
Could the U .S. clarify which organization carried out the needs assessment for the food 
aid programmes run by the U .S. and whether the food aid p rovided though the U .S. 
emergency food aid programmes is responding to a declaration of emergency or an 
emergency appeal by a recipient country or by an international organization?  
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. response to the Export Competition Questionnaire  is consistent with the structure 
provided  in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision.  General information related to U.S. emergency food 
assistance  can be found at https://www.usaid.gov/what -we-do/agriculture -and-food-security/food -
assistance . Information on WFP operations can be found at http://www.wfp.org/ . Additional food 
security data is available through the Famine E arly Warnings System Network at 
http://www.fews.net/ . 
17.3.10   U.S. law requires that:  
a. all agricultural commodities provided for food aid be sourced from the U .S.; 
b. at least 50% of U .S. food aid must be shipped on U .S.-flag vessel s; 
c. at least 20%, but not more than 30%, with a minimum of USD 350 million, of 
Food for Peace Act funding must be available for non -emergency food aid;  
d. at least 50% of any bagging must consist of whole -grain commodities bagged in 
the U .S. 
 
Could the U .S. explain how these requirements, as far as non -emergency food aid is 
concerned, comply with paragraph 23(d) of the Nairobi Decision which states that 
international food aid shall not be linked to the market development objectives of donor 
Members?  
 
Answer by the United States  
 
The U.S. food assistance programs are not designed to be tied, directly or indirectly, to commercial 
exports, which is consistent with Article 10 of the AoA and paragraph 23(d) of the Nairobi 
Decision . The United States has and will con tinue to meet WTO obligations.  
17.3.11   According to paragraph 28 of the Nairobi Decision, local or regional market 
analysis should be completed before monetization occurs. Has the U .S. monetized food 
aid after the adoption of the Nairobi Decision? If so, has such  an analysis been carried 
out? Could the U .S. provide the results of the analysis?  
Answer by the United States  
 
Yes, the United States has conducted monetization since the adoption of the Nairobi Decision and 
has done so consistent with the structure provided in the Annex to the Nairobi Decision.    
17.3.12   According to paragraph 27 of the Nairobi Decision, Members may monetize 
international food aid only where there is a demonstrable need for monetization for 
some specific purposes. Could the U .S. demonstrate that  such a need exist in any case 
where monetization has occurred since the Nairobi Decision?   
Answer by the United States  
 
Please see reply above.  
 G/AG/W/155  
 
- 18 - 
 
  18  VENEZUELA, BOLIVARIA N REPUBLIC OF  
18.1  Question s by the European Union (RD/AG/46)  
18.1.1   What is the average level of pa st five years export subsidies on a product basis 
for Members applying export subsidies, which Members shall seek to not exceed 
according to paragraph 10 of the Nairobi Decision?  
Answer by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
Venezuela  undertook to provid e an answer at a later stage.  
 
18.1.2   Which are the products or product groups for which Israel, Venezuela and 
Turkey have notified the use of scheduled export subsidies in one of the three latest 
export subsidy notification examined by the CoA before 21 December  2015?  
Answer by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
Venezuela  undertook to provide an answer at a later stage.  
 
__________