WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/STR/M/19 
25 January 2010 
 (10-0367) 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORKING  
PARTY ON STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
HELD ON 16 OCTOBER 2009 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Haitao ZHU (China) 
  
Page 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ........................................................................................................ 1  
B. REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS UNDER 
G/STR/N/4,  G/STR/N/10,  G/STR/N/11  AND G/STR/N/12 ......................................................... 1  
C. REVIEW OF UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS UNDER G/STR/N/2,  
G/STR/N/3,  G/STR/N/5  AND G/STR/N/6,  G/STR/N/8  AND G/STR/N/9 ................................... 7  
D. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS :  IMPROVING COMPLIANCE – ITEM REQUESTED BY 
AUSTRALIA  .............................................................................................................................. ... 8 
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS HELD ON 1 APRIL 2009 ......................... 9  
F. SECRETARIAT REPORT ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED CONCERNING STE  
NOTIFICATIONS  ........................................................................................................................... 9  
G. ANNUAL REPORT (2009)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ............................................. 9  
H. OTHER BUSINESS  ...................................................................................................................... 10  
 
 A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairperson referred to the proposed agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/3445, 
circulated on 6 October 2009, and reiterated that membership of the Working Party was open to all 
Members of the WTO indicating their wish to serve on it. 
2. The Chairperson informed the Working Party that he would make two statements under 
"Other Business".  The first related to the need to  review the frequency of no tifications, as required in 
G/STR/6 before June 2010;  and the second pertained to the date of the next regular meeting of the 
Working Party in autumn 2010. 
3. The Working Party adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3445, as amended. 
B. REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS UNDER G/STR/N/4,  
G/STR/N/10,  G/STR/N/11  AND G/STR/N/12 
4. Before starting the substantive discussions under this agenda item, the Chairperson recalled 
that, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Understandi ng on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the G/STR/M/19 
Page 2  
 
  GATT 1994, the Working Party is tasked with review ing the notifications and counter-notifications 
submitted by Members on their state trading enterprises.  In the light of this review, the Council for Trade in Goods, to which the Working Party repor ts, may make recommendations on the adequacy of 
notifications and the need for further information. 
5. The Chairperson reminded Members of the Working Party that at its meeting of 
20 February 1995, the Council for Trade in Goods es tablished a deadline of 30 June 1995 for new and 
full notifications by Members on their state tradi ng enterprises.  On 11 November 2003, the Working 
Party subsequently adopted the recommendation contained in G/STR/5 regarding the frequency 
of notifications.  This recommendation, a pproved by the Council for Trade in Goods on 
26 November 2003, was to be implemented for a tr ial phase of 4 years, commencing on 30 June 2004.  
The recommendation modified the frequency of state trading notifications so that new and full 
notifications on state trading were due every two years instead of every three years.  It also eliminated 
the requirement of updating notifications in the intervening years.  Paragraph 4 of the 
recommendation directed the Working Party to review compliance with the new notification 
obligation at the end of the four year trial phase to  determine whether to extend the application of the 
recommendation, either as drafted or in a modified form, for a further period. 
6. The Chairperson reminded Members that the October 2008 meeting of the Working Party 
concluded that it would be desirable to exte nd the application of the recommendation for two 
additional years to 30 June 2010.  On 3 October 2008 the Working Party recommended to the Council 
for Trade in Goods that the application of the r ecommendation contained in G/STR/5 be extended for 
a further period of two years.  A recommendation to  that effect was subsequently circulated as 
G/STR/6. 
7. Accordingly, the Chairperson explained that th e review of Members' notifications would be 
carried out under two separate agenda items:  agen da item "B" concerning new and full notifications 
and agenda item "C" concerning upda ting notifications, applicable prior to 2004.  The Chairperson 
stated that while 2009 is an "off year" – i.e. a year  no notifications were due – it had been reassuring 
for him to note that certain Members had taken the opportunity to bring themselves up-to-date with 
their notification obligations. 
8. The Chairperson suggested that the Working Party conduct its review in the same manner 
used for the review of notifications at previous m eetings, that is, with a focus on two main elements:  
(i) whether the notification responds adequately to  the information requested in the questionnaire 
contained in document G/STR/3/Rev.1;  and (ii) whet her more information was needed to permit – in 
the language of paragraph 2 of th e Understanding – "a clear apprecia tion of the manner of operation 
of the enterprises notified and the effect of their operations on international trade".  He reminded 
Members that, as agreed at the Working Party's meeting in September 1996, notifications that had already been reviewed and on which there may be  written questions would not be retained on the 
airgram for the Working Party's next meeti ng unless a Member specifically so requests. 
9. The Working Party proceeded with the review of  the new and full notifications submitted by 
Members under G/STR/N/4, G/STR/N/10, G/STR/N/11 and G/STR/N/12. 
10. No questions were posed regarding the no tification of Colombia (G/STR/N/12/COL). 
11. No questions were posed regarding the no tifications of Croatia (G/STR/N/11/HRV, 
G/STR/N/12/HRV).  G/STR/M/19 
 Page 3 
 
 
  12. No questions were posed regarding th e notification of EC (G/STR/N/12/EEC).1 
13. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Honduras (G/STR/N/4/HND, 
G/STR/N/10/HND, G/STR/N/11/HND, and G/STR/N/12/HND). 
14. On the notifications of Indonesia contained in documents G/STR/N/11/IDN and 
G/STR/N/12/IDN, the representative of Australia th anked and commended Indonesia for its efforts in 
submitting what he described as a comprehensive no tification of STEs that furnished both sufficient 
and up-to-date information.  The representative of Australia explained that its questions, circulated 
ahead of the meeting in document G/STR/Q1/IDN/11, sought to clarify a number of terms used in the 
notifications and certain information on ri ce imports by the STEs and the private sector. 
15. The representative of Turkey thanked Indonesia fo r its notification, and recalled that it had 
also posed several questions to Indonesia in the document circulated ahead of the meeting as 
G/STR/Q1/IDN/12.  The representative of Turkey th anked Indonesia in advance for its replies. 
16. The United States asked the Indonesian representati ve two oral questions relating to certain 
information contained in the notifications on rice imports in 2006 and 2007.2 
17. The representative of Indonesia thanked Austra lia, Turkey and the United States for their 
interest in the Indonesian notifications.  He reiterated Indonesia's strongest commitment to the 
transparency process in the WTO, in accordan ce with paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the 
Interpretation of Article XVII of the GATT 1994.  The representative of Indonesia replied to the 
written questions posed by Australia3 and Turkey4, and took note of the questions asked by the 
United States, explaining that he would forward the latter to his Capital once they were received in 
writing. 
18. On the notification of Japan contained in document G/STR/N/12/JPN, the representative of 
Australia recalled that it had circulated questions in  document G/STR/Q1/JPN/7 ahead of the meeting, 
noting that they were self-explanatory and stati ng that his delegation looked forward to Japan's 
replies. 
19. The United States asked the representative of Japan  two oral questions relating to the role of 
the Agriculture and Livestock Industries Corporation (ALIC) in the marketing of imported sugar, as 
well as the market for imported and domest ically produced high-fructose corn syrup.5 
20. The representative of Japan replied to the questions posed by Australia6, and took note of the 
questions asked by the United States, explaining that  he looked forward to receiving a written copy of 
the questions, which would be forwarded to his Capital for a reply. 
                                                      
1 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community.   
2 The United States' questions were subsequently circulated in document G/STR/Q1/IDN/13. 
3 Indonesia's replies to Australia's questions were subsequently circulated in document 
G/STR/Q1/IDN/14. 
4 Indonesia's replies to Turkey's questions were subsequently circulated in document 
G/STR/Q1/IDN/15. 
5 The United States' questions were subsequently circulated in document G/STR/Q1/JPN/8. 
6 Japan's replies to Australia's questions were subsequently circulated in document G/STR/Q1/JPN/9. G/STR/M/19 
Page 4  
 
  21. The representative of Australia thanked Japan for its answers to th e questions posed, and 
asked two follow-up questions.  In relation to the first series of answers about the administration of 
the quotas for imported wheat, the Australian represen tative noted that Japan had referred to various 
regulations.  He asked Japan if it could give  any more detail on how those quotas are actually 
administered.  As regards the questions on sugar, the representative of Australia noted that Japan's 
reply asserted that sugar importation through ALIC does not involve an STE.  He explained that 
Australia had a query about the collection of revenu e that occurs though this system, and therefore 
asked Japan whether it considered that sort of reve nue as in the nature of "other duties and charges" 
and, if so, how Japan reconciled those charges w ith its goods schedule which binds the ODC at zero 
for sugar. 
22. The representative of Japan took note of the follo w-up questions, and said that once they were 
received in writing, he would forwar d them to his Capital for review. 
23. On the notifications of Korea contai ned in documents G/STR/N/7/KOR and 
G/STR/N/10/KOR, the representative of Australia recalled that it had circulated a series of questions 
ahead of the meeting in document G/STR/Q1/KOR/7.  The representative of Australia explained that 
the questions were aimed at obtaining greater clar ity as it had found the notifications a little hard to 
interpret. 
24. The representative of Turkey thanked Korea for its notification, and stated that it looked 
forward to Korea's replies to Turkey's ques tions, circulated ahead of the meeting as 
G/STR/Q1/KOR/8. 
25. The United States asked the representative of Ko rea a series of oral questions concerning 
certain information contained in the notifications on  the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry (MAF), the Agricultural and Fishery Marketing Corporation (AFMC), the Livestock 
Products Marketing Organization (LPMO), the Na tional Livestock Coopera tive Federation (NLCF) 
and the Korean Ginseng Cooperative Federation.7 
26. The representative of Korea expressed his appr eciation to Australia and Turkey for their 
questions. 
27. In response to the Australian question concerni ng the MAF, the Korean representative stated 
that, on the understanding that Australia is interested  in knowing what other factors can be attributed 
to the difference in price between import price and th e representative domestic price, some factors are, 
among others, transportation costs, storage fees, insu rance, taxes and other expenses related to sales. 
28. As regards the nine written questions from Australia concerning the AFMC, the 
representative of Korea answered them one by one.  In response to the firs t question, the Korean 
representative stated that the data on capsicum, gar lic, onions, soya beans and small red beans contain 
quantities imported by private companies as out-of-quota trade.  He explained that the Total Quantity 
Imported is larger than the Quantity Imported by th e STE since it is a combination of in-quota imports 
by the AFMC through state trading and imports by private companies.  In response to the second 
question, the Korean representativ e stated that Section 3.C indicates that sesame seeds, ginger, 
buckwheat and ground nuts can be imported by private compan ies within quota quantities.  In the case 
of five other commodities such as capsicum, gar lic, onions, soybeans and sm all red beans, private 
companies were allowed to import at out-of-quota ra tes, with the balance being what was imported in 
such a way by these companies.  The representative of Korea answered  the third question by stating 
that capsicum, garlic, onions, soybeans and smal l red beans are open to importation by private 
companies at out-of-quota rates since the markets fo r these products were opened in 1995.  As regards 
                                                      
7 The United States' questions were subsequently circulated in document G/STR/Q1/KOR/9.    G/STR/M/19 
 Page 5 
 
 
  the fourth question, on garlic, the representative of Korea stated that it is because the HS code for 
Garlic (HS 0703.20.0000) was divided into two lines in the year 2000:  HS 0703.20.1000 and HS 0703.20.9000.  For reference, the import volume for HS 0703.20.0000 until 1999 was 25,633 tons in 
1998, and 14,355 tons in 1999. 
29. The Korean representative answered the fifth and sixth questions together, stating that for the 
purpose of notification, Korea had collected data from the AFMC, which is responsible for the state 
trading of capsicum, garlic, onions, sesame seeds, ground nuts, soybeans, small red beans, buckwheat 
and ginger.  He explained that trouble had been enco untered in collecting the data in some areas but if 
there is any available data to enhance the accuracy of the data set, Korea would make sure that they 
are notified in due course.  In r esponse to the seventh qu estion, the representative of Korea explained 
that when importing in-quota volumes, the AFMC do es not limit its source of imports to any specific 
group of nations, and the agency sets a global quota whereby all nations can enter into a bid.  The bid is awarded to the lowest bidder.  As regards the eighth question, the Korean representative noted that 
the mark-up is calculated by subtracting product cost s, transportation costs, storage fees, insurance, 
taxes and other expenses from sales proceeds.  Fi nally, on the ninth question, the representative of 
Korea stated that at the time of importation, Ko rea does not apply mark-up charges as part of its 
border measures.  The objectives of mark-ups are to stabilize the market by ensuring that there is no 
disruption to the domestic market from the sales of imports.  Another purpose of mark-ups is to give 
back to society the proceeds from the sale of impo rts.  The Korean representative explained that 
Korea is of the view that mark-ups are designed to  ensure the stability of the market, not to impede 
imports. 
30. Concerning the Australian written questions  in respect of the LPMO, the Korean 
representative answered the first question by stating that beef imports into Korea were liberalized 
under a tariff-only system on 1 January 2001, in accordance with Korea's WTO Schedule for agricultural products.  He explained that it is no longer subject to state trading.  Therefore, there is no 
record of state trading beyond year 2000.  Res ponding to the second and third questions posed by 
Australia in respect of the LPMO, the Korean repr esentative noted that since 1 January 2001, beef 
imports into Korea were liberalized under the ta riff-only system, in accordance with Korea's WTO 
Schedule for agricultural products.  Therefore, the la nguage in 3H is not relevant anymore and bears 
no relation to current market situations. 
31. The representative of Korea then went on to answer the four written questions posed by 
Australia in relation to the NLCF and the Nati onal Agricultural Cooperatives Federation (NACF).  
The Korean representative responded to the first qu estion by explaining that since the year 2000 
private companies can import ginseng by winning a share of quota at auctions, as well as through state trading as confirmed by section 3.c.  In addition, he noted that since 2000, private companies have imported ginseng by winning the right at quota auctions on total in-quota quantities.  The Korean representative stated that this was the reason ther e is no data beyond year 2000.  Responding to the 
second question the representative of Korea stated that the reason is the same as the first one.  Since 
the year 2001, private companies can import natural honey by acquiring a share of quota through auctions, as well as by state trading as confirmed by section 3.c.  Since 2001, private companies have imported natural honey by winning the right at quota auctions on total in-quota quantities.  That is 
why there is no data beyond year 2000.  The Korean  representative answered the third question by 
stating that the NACF is the designated state trading enterprise to manage tariff rate quotas for natural 
honey, and it is not designated as STE on other agricultural commodities.  Finally, on the fourth 
question, the Korean representative explained th at the NACF took over the responsibilities for state 
trading of honey from the NLCF.  Its merger with the NLCF was notified in the attached document to 
G/STR/N/7/KOR & G/STR/N/10/KOR. 
32. As regards the two written questions asked by  Australia concerning the CCGAC, the Korean 
representative answered the first by once again no ting that since 2001 private companies can import G/STR/M/19 
Page 6  
 
  citrus by winning the right at quota auctions, as well as by state trading as confirmed by section 3.c.  
Since 2001, private companies have imported citrus by winning the right at quota auctions on total in-
quota quantities.  That is why there is no data be yond 2000.  The Korean representative responded to 
the second question by stating that for the purpose of notification, Korea had collected data from the CCGAC, which is responsible for the state tradi ng of citrus.  However, he explained that trouble 
had been encountered in collecting the data in some areas but if there is any available data to enhance 
the accuracy of the data set, Korea would make sure that they are notified in due course. 
33. The representative of Korea then  turned to respond to the fi ve written questions posed by 
Australia in respect of the National Forestry  Cooperatives Federation (NFCF).  The Korean 
representative answered the first question by explai ning that the data on pine nuts contain quantities 
imported by private companies as out-of-quota trade.   He explained that the Total Quantity Imported 
is larger than the Quantity Imported by the STE sinc e it is a combination of in-quota imports by the 
NFCF through state trading and imports by private companies.  The Korean representative's answer to 
the second question was that private companies were  allowed to import at out-of-quota rates, saying 
that the balance represents private importation.   The Korean representative responded to the third 
question by explaining that private companies are presently allowed to import at out-of-quota rates in 
accordance with Korea's Uruguay Round commitments .  On the fourth question, the Korean 
representative stated that data was collected from th e NFCF, which is the responsible agency for the 
state trading of pine nuts, for notification purposes.   However, the representative of Korea explained 
that trouble had been encountered in collecting the data  in some areas but if there is any available data 
to enhance the accuracy of the data set, Korea woul d make sure that they are notified in due course.  
Finally, the Korean representative answered the fifth question by stating that the domestic sales prices 
of pine nuts include transportation costs, storage fees, insurance, taxes and other expenses related to 
sales. 
34. The representative of Korea next addressed th e general written questions posed by Australia, 
which he answered by stating that even though Korea endeavoured to coll ect data from agencies 
responsible for state trading and to make accurate notifications, some difficulties were encountered in 
collecting the data in some areas.  The Korean repre sentative stated that if there is any available data 
to enhance the accuracy of the data set, Korea woul d make sure that they are notified in due course.  
He reiterated Korea's commitment to meeting its oblig ation for STE notifications within the specified 
time frame, reassuring Members that Korea would sp eed up the process of STE notifications for the 
period from 2004 to date and circulate them as soon as possible. 
35. The representative of Korea answered two written questions posed by Turkey.  In response to 
the first question, the Korean representative expl ained that the phrase at issue means that Korea 
administers global quotas that are open to fair co mpetition among all willing bidders, not just a small 
number of countries.  To ensure the impartiality or fairness of the bid, Korea does not award long-
term contracts to any specific nation.  The Ko rean representative answered the second question by 
stating that before 2001, the LPMO had imported beef as the designated STE.  However, since 
1 January 2001, beef importation in Korea was liberalized with a tariff-only system, in accordance with Korea's WTO Schedule for agricultural products.  He explained that private companies are now 
allowed to import beef as much as they  wish, not designated by the MAF. 
36. The Korean representative took note of the ques tions asked by the United States, explaining 
that he looked forward to receiving a written copy of the questions, which would be forwarded to 
Capital for a reply. 
37. The representative of Australia thanked Korea for providing such a detailed response to the 
questions.  He noted that in his answers, the Kor ean representative referred in a number of instances 
to difficulties in collecting the necessary data, expl aining that if, in future, more data became 
available, it would be notified.  The Australia n representative asked whether Korea could provide  G/STR/M/19 
 Page 7 
 
 
  some details of the causes of the troubles it experien ced in respect of data collection, and what, if 
anything, Korea was putting in place to  try to address those difficulties. 
38. The representative of Turkey also posed a fo llow-up question, asking the representative of 
Korea to indicate whether the LPMO was still author ized to import beef, since beef importation was 
liberalized in 2001. 
39. The representative of Korea said that he woul d convey the questions from the United States 
and the additional questions to his Capital and answer  in writing to the relevant Members.  Regarding 
Turkey's follow-up question, the representative of  Korea explained that the LPMO was abolished 
in 2000, and that presently any private company can import beef from any countries. 
40. No questions were posed regarding the notif ication of Liechtenstein (G/STR/N/12/LIE). 
41. No questions were posed regarding the notif ication of Mozambique (G/STR/N/12/MOZ). 
42. As regards the notifications of New Zealand contained in documents G/STR/N/11/NZL and 
G/STR/N/12/NZL, the representative of the Unite d States asked an oral question concerning 
New Zealand's STE for kiwi fruit.8 
43. The representative of New Zealand thanked the Un ited States for its question, and said that 
she looked forward to receiving a written copy, which would be forwarded to her Capital for a reply. 
44. No questions were posed regarding the notif ication of Saudi Arabia (G/STR/N/12/SAU). 
45. No questions were posed regarding the no tification of Suriname (G/STR/N/12/SGP). 
46. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Chinese Taipei 
(G/STR/N/10/TPKM/Corr.1, G/STR/N/11/TPKM/Corr.1 and G/STR/N/12/TPKM/Corr.1). 
47. The representative of China informed the Work ing Party that China was finalizing its STEs 
notification and explained that it would cover data and information from the years 2000 to 2008.  She 
stated it would be submitted to the Secretariat for circulation once completed. 
48. In the light of the fact that some delegations were not able to respond fully to the oral 
questions raised on their respective notifications  at the meeting, the Chairperson invited the 
delegations that raised oral questions, and wished to have written answers, to submit those questions 
in writing directly to the Member concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat for circulation.  The 
Chairperson noted that written responses to all writt en questions should be submitted directly to the 
inquiring country, also with a copy to the Secretariat for circulation, as soon as possible. 
C. REVIEW OF UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS UNDER G/STR/N/2,  
G/STR/N/3,  G/STR/N/5  AND G/STR/N/6,  G/STR/N/8  AND G/STR/N/9 
49. No questions were posed regarding the no tifications of Honduras (G/STR/N/2/HND;  
G/STR/N/3/HND;  G/STR/N/5/HND;  G/STR/N/6/HND;  G/STR/N/8/HND;  and G/STR/N/9/HND)  
50. Before moving on to the next agenda item, the Chairperson drew the attention of Members to 
the notifications summary table attached to his fax of 14 September 2009, a first draft of which was made available to Members in April 2009.  He e xplained that the table had been revised once again 
since then and that the latest ve rsion was attached as the annex to  the draft annual report that was 
made available for Memb ers on 25 September. 
                                                      
8 The United States' question was subsequently circulated in document G/STR/Q1/NZL/5. G/STR/M/19 
Page 8  
 
  51. The Chairperson noted that the table attempte d to record all notifications, including "nil 
notifications", made from N1 in 1995 to N12 in 20 08, as of 18 September 2009.  He explained that the 
same format would be used for the table to be prepar ed on the basis of notifications due next year.  He 
invited Members to contact the Secretariat di rectly with any corrections or amendments. 
52. The Chairperson noted that there were a large number of blank boxes in the table indicating 
that many Members remain in arrears in completi ng their notification obligations.  Considering the 
increased interest among Members regarding transpar ency, as well as the duty of Members to comply 
with their WTO obligations, the Ch airperson encouraged Members to continue to work with their 
Capitals, and where necessary, taking advantage of the resources of the Secretariat, to improve the 
notification record. 
53. The Chairperson then briefly reviewed the ta ble, noting that for N11, the new and full 
notification requirement for 2006, the Working Party had, to date, received notifications from 30 Members.  As regards N12, the new and full no tification requirement for 2008, the Working Party 
had, to date, received notifications from 28 Members.   The Chairperson urged Members to continue to 
make every effort to improve their performance, and encouraged them to do what they can to ensure 
that they comply with their outstanding notification obligations. 
54. The Working Party took note of  the Chairperson's statement. 
D. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS :  IMPROVING COMPLIANCE – ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA9 
55. The representative of Australia took the floor a nd endorsed the Chairperson's comments about 
the need for the Members to do  all they can to improve their notifications.  The Australian 
representative recalled that all Members have a commit ment to transparency, and notifications are the 
concrete deliverable that allows th at transparency to take effect.  Without the transparency provided 
by notifications it was simply not possible to assess whether Members have fulfilled their WTO 
obligations and commitments, or to evaluate the impa ct of their activities on international trade.  The 
representative of Australia noted that notifications are central to the credibility of the WTO's review 
processes.  Like the Chairperson, the Australian representative urged Members to do all they can to 
provide outstanding notifications as soon as possible. 
56. The representative of Norway thanked Australia fo r its intervention and the question raised in 
respect of its overdue notifications on STEs.  The Norwegian representative ex plained that Norway's 
updated notifications were under preparation by the appropriate Norwegian authorities and that they 
would be submitted as soon as possible. 
57. The representative of the United States supported th e statements made by Australia and by the 
Chairperson.  The United States' representative said that it took the matter of notifications in the 
Working Party very seriously and encouraged Me mbers both with and without STEs to submit their 
STE notifications for review. 
58. The Chair stated that the Working Party would inform India of the deliberations under this 
agenda item. 
59. The Working Party took note of the statements made. 
                                                      
9 Written questions concerning the overdue notifications  of India and Norway were posed by Australia 
in advance of the meeting of the Working Party and re spectively circulated in doc uments G/STR/Q1/IND/2 and 
G/STR/Q1/NOR/6.  G/STR/M/19 
 Page 9 
 
 
  E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS HELD ON 1 APRIL 2009 
60. The Chairperson reported on the informal cons ultations held on 1 April 2009.  He recalled 
that on 26 February 2009, his predecessor re ceived a request from the Chairman of the 
General Council, initiated by the Chairman of the Trade Policy Review Body, to hold consultations 
with Members on ways to improve the timeliness and completeness of notification obligations and 
other information flows in the Working Party.  The Chairperson noted that this was a timely request 
given the focus of the Working Party on notifications, and the ongoing discussions within the Working Party on these very issues. 
61. The Chairperson stated that he was very pleased  to see that Members were supportive of the 
discussion and engaged constructively in the inform al consultations.  He recalled that, at his 
suggestion, Members attending those informal cons ultations were agreeable to building on current 
practices in the Working Party to seek to improve Members' performance in meeting the notification obligations.  These steps included:  support for a ta ble (prepared by the Secretariat) recording all 
notifications made to the Working Party since 199 5;  reminders to be sent to Members once the 
notification deadline has passed (in addition to re minders currently sent prior to the deadline), 
including an offer of support from the Secretariat to  provide assistance in completing the notifications 
and reminding that a nil notification should also be submitted; circulation of a list of those Members 
who had submitted notifications in that calendar year ;  and setting aside time for technical assistance 
around the time of the regular meeting of the Worki ng Party to coincide with possible Capital-based 
attendance (in addition to assistance being ava ilable from the Secretariat at any time). 
62. The Chairperson reported that there had also b een a suggestion from the floor that delegations 
be reminded on a regular basis to submit questions on  notifications well before the regular meeting.  
He noted that a number of these actions had already been initiated, in an effort to improve the 
notification record of Members. 
63. The Chairperson explained that consultations we re also an opportunity for Members to share 
their experiences in respect of the difficulties encountered in completing notifications.  In this regard, 
the Chairperson noted that delegations did not comme nt on technical difficulties.  Rather, in sharing 
their experiences some delegations noted that th e DDA negotiations had created pressures on carrying 
out normal WTO business.  Completing the notification was not necessarily technically challenging, but could prove burdensome for smaller systems.  The Chairperson reported that delegations also 
observed that once a Member had caught up with its notification obligations it was much easier to 
continue to comply. 
64. The Working Party to took note of the Chairperson's report. 
F. SECRETARIAT REPORT ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED CONCERNING STE  
NOTIFICATIONS  
65. The Secretariat reported that one Member had sought assistance prior to the meeting of the 
Working Party.  In addition, the Secretariat explai ned that technical assistance had also been provided 
in 2009 to approximately 10 representatives of leas t developed countries par ticipating in the Dutch 
Trainee Programme run through the WTO Institu te for Training and Technical Cooperation. 
66. The Working Party took note of the Secretariat’s report. 
G. ANNUAL REPORT (2009)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
67. The Working Party adopted the Annual Report (2009) to the Council for Trade in Goods 
which was circulated as document G/L/898. G/STR/M/19 
Page 10  
 
  H. O
THER BUSINESS  
68. The Chairperson made two statements under this ag enda item.  The first related to the need to 
review the frequency of notifications, as require d in G/STR/6, before June 2010.  The second 
concerned the date of the next regular meeting of  the Working Party in th e second half of 2010. 
69. The Chairperson recalled that in 2003, the Working Party adopted the recommendation 
contained in G/STR/5 regarding the frequency of notifications.  This recommendation was to be 
implemented for a trial phase of 4 years, co mmencing on 30 June 2004.  The recommendation 
modified the periodicity of state trading notifications so that new and full notifications on state trading 
enterprises were due every two years instead of ever y three years and that the requirement of updating 
notifications in the intervening years was eliminat ed.  Paragraph 4 of the recommendation directed the 
Working Party to review the situation with regard  to compliance with the new notification obligation 
at the end of the four year trial phase.  The Oc tober 2008 meeting of the Working Party concluded 
that it would be desirable to extend the applicati on of the recommendation for two additional years to 
30 June 2010.  A recommendation to that effect was subsequently circulated as G/STR/6. 
70. Therefore, the Chairperson stated that early next year, prior to the 30 June deadline, the 
Working Party will need to review the situation thro ugh informal consultations and decide whether to 
extend the application of this recommendation, either as presently drafted or in a modified form, for a 
further period.  The Chairperson explained that he  expected that his successor would contact Members 
early next year to confirm the date for those consu ltations which, at this stage, he considered could 
likely take place in early May. 
71. On the issue of the date of the next regular meeting of the Working Party, the Chairperson 
proposed that the next regular meeting of this Wo rking Party be held on Friday, 22 October 2010.  He 
stated that the airgram convening the meeting wo uld be circulated to all Members on Tuesday, 
12 October 2010, and that the last date for inscripti on of items on the agenda of the meeting would be 
Tuesday, 5 October 2010 by close of business. 
72. Finally, the Chairperson urged all Members to respect the deadline of 30 June 2010 for 
submitting their notifications.  He strongly emphasi zed the significance of this deadline for the 
smooth sailing of the notifications review process, for giving Members ample opportunity to study the 
notifications ahead of the meeting in their pr eferred WTO working language, and for allowing the 
Secretariat to carry on with the translation and circulation of documents in a timely and efficient 
manner.  The Chairperson then explained that in  case of delays, Members should endeavour to submit 
their notifications at least 10 weeks prior to the date of the meeting at which the notifications are to be 
reviewed.  He requested that written questions shou ld be provided 6 weeks before the meeting, and 
that written answers to written questions should be  provided well in advance of the meeting.   
73. The Working Party took note of  the Chairperson's statements. 
74. The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________