WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/STR/M/22 
17 April 2012 
 (12-2031) 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORKING  
PARTY ON STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
HELD ON 27 OCTOBER 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Mr Christian Fresard (Chile) 
 
A.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ........................................................................................................ 1  
B.  REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  .................................... 1  
C.  REVIEW OF UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  ............................................ 6  
D.  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS :  IMPROVING COMPLIANCE – ITEM REQUESTED BY 
AUSTRALIA  .............................................................................................................................. ... 7 
E.  ANNUAL REPORT (2011)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ............................................. 8  
F.  OTHER BUSINESS  ........................................................................................................................ 9  
 
 A. A
DOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the regular meeting of the Working Party on State 
Trading Enterprises and referred to the proposed  agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/3832, 
circulated on 14 October 2011.  The Chairperson reite rated that 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 a statement under "Other 
Business", relating to the date of the next regul ar meeting of the Working Party in 2012.   
3. The Chairperson reminded Members of the decision taken by the Committee on Anti-
Dumping Practices at its meeting on 21 October 2009 and contained in document G/ADP/20 pursuant 
to which Members are required to submit all thei r notifications electronically.  The Chairperson 
explained that although most of the Members submit such notifications electronically, many prefer to 
send it by fax as well to receive a confirmation that such notification was received.  The Secretariat 
had discussed this issue with the Central Regist ry of Notifications known to Members as the WTO 
CRN, and the automatic generic message which was always sent to Members once they send a 
notification to CRN had been recently replaced with  a message reflecting the subject matter sent to 
CRN.  When the exact title of the notification is indicated precisely in the subject box of the electronic message, Members will receive the needed confirmation indicating that a certain notification was sent 
and received by CRN and eliminate the need to send any such notification by fax. 
4. The Working Party adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3832. 
B. REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  
5. 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 
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 G/STR/M/22 
Page 2  
 
  Trade in Goods, to which the Working Party repor ts, may make recommendations on the adequacy of 
notifications and the need for further information. 
6. The Chairperson also reminded Members of th e Working Party that at its meeting of 
20 February 1995, the Council for Trade in Goods est ablished a deadline of 30 June 1995 for new and 
full notifications by Members on their state trading enterprises.  On 11 November 2003, the 
Working Party adopted the recommendation contained in document G/STR/5 regarding the 
frequency of notifications.  This recommendation,  approved by the Council for Trade in Goods on 
26 November 2003, was to be implemented for a tria l 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 ye ars instead of every thr ee years.  The need for 
updating notifications in the intervening years w as eliminated.  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 objective of the review was to determine 
whether to extend the application of the recommendation,  either as drafted or in a modified form, for a 
further period. 
7. 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 th e recommendation contained in document G/STR/5 be 
extended for a further period of two years.  A recommendation to that effect was subsequently 
circulated as document G/STR/6.  At a formal m eeting on 16 June 2010, the Working Party adopted a 
recommendation to extend again this less burdensom e frequency of notifications for a further two 
year period, to 30 June 2012.  The recommendation was subsequently circulated on 18 June 2010 as document G/STR/7.  The Council for Trade in Good s approved the recommendation at its meeting on 
5 July 2010. 
8. The Chairperson explained that the review of Members' notifications would be carried out 
under two separate agenda items: agenda item "B", dealing with the new and full notifications 
submitted by Members; and agenda item "C", rela ting to the review of updating notifications 
submitted by Members, applicable prior to 2004.   
9. 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 in order to 
permit – in the language of paragr aph 2 of the Understanding – "a cl ear appreciation of the manner of 
operation of the enterprises notified and the effect of their operations on international trade".  The 
Chairperson reminded Members that as agreed at  the Working Party's meeting in September 1996, 
notifications that had already been reviewed a nd on which there may be written questions would not 
be retained on the airgram for the Working Part y's next meeting unless a Member specifically so 
requests.   
10. The Working Party then proceeded with the review of the new and full notifications 
submitted by Members. 
11. No questions were posed regarding the no tifications of Bahrain (G/STR/N/7/BHR, 
G/STR/N/10/BHR, G/STR/N/11/BHR, G/STR/N/12/BHR, and G/STR/N/13/BHR);  Egypt 
(G/STR/N/13/EGY);  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (G /STR/N/13/SAU);  Moldova (G/STR/N/12/MDA, 
and G/STR/N/13/MDA);  and Nigeria (G/STR/N/13/NGA).  
12. The Chair noted that the notification from Japan (G/STR/N/13/JPN) had been reviewed at the 
meeting of the Working Party of 19 October 2020.  At the request of Australia during that meeting,  G/STR/M/22 
 Page 3 
 
 
  this item was placed again on the agenda, due to the short timeframe between the circulation of 
Japan's notification and the October 2010 meeting of the Working Party.  Aust ralia referred to its 
written questions to Japan circulated in documen t G/STR/Q1/JPN/15.  Regarding Australia's first 
question relating to the Second Report on Regulator y and Structural Reform by the Japanese Cabinet 
Office, Japan stated that it is not considering th e elimination or simplification of its state trading 
system mentioned in this report. 
13. Regarding Australia's question on how the stat e trade enterprise collects part of the out-of-
quota tariff on out-of-quota imports of rice, wheat and barley, Japan explained that out-of-quota duties 
on out-of-quota imports of rice, wheat and barley, bound in Japan's schedule, are "the sum of tariff 
and an amount collected by the Government of Japan or its agents", as is indicated in notes to Section 
I-A of PartI.3 of Japan's schedule.  Japan said that "part of the out-of-quota-tariff" referred to in the 
question is "an amount collected by the government of Japan or its agents".  This amount is collected 
by MAFF as an administrative organ and is 292 yen per kilogram for rice, 45.20 yen per kilogram for wheat, and 28.60 yen per kilogram for barley.  They are calculated as the difference between the bound out-of-quota duty and the amount of tariff prescrib ed in the domestic tariff related law.  Japan 
also stated that the amount collected is not a mark-up, but a part of the bound out of quota duty, and 
MAFF acting as a state trading enterprise does not inte rfere in out-of-quota imports of rice, wheat or 
barley.  Therefore, Article XVII of the GA TT 1994 is not applied to out-of-quota imports. 
14. With respect to the question relating to Section 3(e), page 6, Japan explained that imports of 
wheat which are used for manufacturing processed pr oducts for exports are not subject to state 
trading, and thus the mark-up is not charged fo r such imported wheat.  All the wheat imported under 
this scheme must be used for manufacturing pro cessed products that are exclusively exported. 
15. In response to Australia's question relating to  the government's connection to the National 
Rice, Wheat and Barley Improvement Association, Jap an stated that this Association is a private 
entity which operates the tender of domestically produ ced wheat.  Japan explained that the price limit 
placed is determined through the annual discussion  between agricultural producers associations and 
users associations, with a view to preventing volatil ity in prices due to the weather as well as to the 
fluctuation in the volume of production that is charact eristic of wheat.  Japan said that the government 
is not involved in this framework. 
16. Regarding the question on the mark-up for imported wheat and barley in the supporting 
table I, Japan stated that the mark-up for wheat, 17 yen/kg, is a yearly target for the General Import 
tenders, and that all imports of barley are unde r the Simultaneous Sell and Buy tender System 
("SBS").  The mark-up for barley, 7 yen/kg, is app lied for all barley tenders as the minimum amount.   
17. Regarding Australia's question on why the table lists mark-up for wheat as 17 yen/kg, despite 
the fact that Australia understands  that the STE was not able to extract mark-ups from import wheat 
under the General Import during the period September 2007 to April 2008, Japan explained that it was 
done so because the mark-up for wheat (17 yen/kg) is a yearly target.  
18. With regards to Australia's ques tion on the mark-up for barley, Japan stated that the mark-up 
for barley, 7 yen/kg, is collected as the minimum amount under SBS tenders. 
19. Regarding the question on the process undertaken by the Agriculture and Livestock Industries 
Corporation ("ALIC") to collect part of the tariff on over-quota imports, Japan explained that for designated dairy products, a part of bound out-of-quota duty is collected by the agent of the government.  More concretely, ALIC, as a governme nt agent, buys designated dairy products from 
importers, and then sells them back to them wh ile collecting the balance of buying and selling 
amounts as a part of the bound rate of duty.  Japan stated that it is exercised in line with notes to 
Section I-A of part I.3 of Japan' s Schedule.  For in-quota imports, ALIC collects the mark-up within 
the condition prescribed in Section I-B of part 1.3 of Japan's Schedule. G/STR/M/22 
Page 4  
 
  20. In response to Australia's question on why SB S tenders have been introduced for some 
designated dairy products, but not for others such as milk powders, Japan explained that in order to 
stabilize the supply and demand situation, the imports of designated dairy products are basically made 
through General tender.  SBS tenders are used for cer tain dairy products for which there are especially 
a wide variety of demand from domestic users in te rms of quality and price, such as whey, processed 
whey and dairy spreads.  In addition, SBS tenders are also used in limited occasions, when the supply 
of a certain dairy product is seriously short and it is apparent that imports are urgently needed. 
21. Regarding the question on the activation of the volume safeguard for butter only in certain 
situations, Japan said that the volume-based safegua rd is, as a matter of principle, invoked when 
import volume exceeds the trigger level since su ch a case causes serious injury to the domestic 
industries.  However, the domestic law stipulates that the volume-based safeguard may not be invoked 
in the exceptional case where there would be no potential to cause serious injury to domestic 
industries considering the import trend of th e commodity in question and other relevant 
circumstances.  Japan explained th at for butter, this year, the dema nd-supply situation was such that it 
was regarded as failing within this exceptional case.  
22. Regarding the question on why there are no mark- ups listed for any of the dairy products in 
Table I, Japan stated that, according to the guide lines for Table 1, Members may notify either the 
"average import price and average representative domestic sales price" or the "mark-up".  Japan 
notified the "average import price and average representative domestic sales price". 
23. With respect to the question on the procedure th rough which importers of "designated sugar" 
are required to sell their imports to ALIC, Japan st ated that all importers of "designated sugar" are 
required to sell their imports to ALIC under Article 5(1) of The Sugar and Starch Price Adjustment 
Law.  Japan explained that, in more precise term s, the importer submits the application form for 
selling the designated sugar to ALIC, and then ALIC purchases the sugar from the importer at the Average Import Price ("AIP") decided in  accordance with Article 7 of the Law. 
24. Regarding the question on the procedure th rough which ALIC then resells the same 
designated sugar back to the same importer, Japan stated that ALIC is required to resell the sugar 
which they bought from the importer back to the same importer under Article 8(1).  In order to do so, 
ALIC, concurrently with the purchasing at AIP, rese lls the sugar to the importer at the price provided 
for in Article 9, by which the levy is added to the AIP. 
25. With respect to Australia's final question on why this particular arrangement for sugar is not 
notified, Japan stated that these procedures are sti pulated only for collecting levy by ALIC, and that 
ALIC does not impose any restriction on the importation or sale of "designated sugar".  Therefore, 
Japan does not notify these procedures as state trading. 
26. The European Union referred to its written qu estions to Japan circulated in document 
G/STR/Q1/JPN/16.  Regarding the European Union's first question on whether Japan is considering a 
reform of its state-trading activities, Japan answ ered that, concerning dairy products, Japan is 
considering a reform of its state-trading activ ities based on the "Supplemental Policy for Regulatory 
and Structural Reform" decided by the Cabinet on 22 July 2011. 
27. Regarding the question on the tendering procedures applied by the ALIC, Japan explained 
that two systems of tendering, i.e., the so called "General tender" and the "SBS (Simultaneous Sell 
and Buy tender System)", are applied for the state- trading activities conducted by ALIC.  Japan stated 
that detailed information was av ailable on ALIC's website: 
http://www.alic.go.jp/operation /livestock/dairy-import.html. 
28. Regarding the question on whether ALIC has succeeded in its aim to stabilize supply and 
demand for milk products, Japan stated that ALIC , as a state trading enterprise, imports designated  G/STR/M/22 
 Page 5 
 
 
  dairy products, and the imports through it have b een contributing to the stabilization of the supply-
demand and mitigation of price volatilities of these essential products. 
29. On the notification of New Zealand contained in document G/STR/N/13/NZL, the 
European Union had circulated questions in  document G/STR/Q1/NZL/6.  Regarding the 
European Union's question on what is meant by New Zealand when it states that "nor does it receive 
any trade-distorting subsidies", New Zealand expl ained that the WTO classifies subsidies which 
stimulate production or affect prices as trade distortin g.  The only support provided in New Zealand is 
in accordance with Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and as such, it is deemed "non or 
minimally" trade distorting.  Therefore, Zespri do es not receive any trade distorting subsidies from the 
New Zealand government. 
30. Regarding the questions on whether Zespri receive s any subsidies that are not trade-distorting, 
and whether New Zealand could indicate their justif ication and inform in which notification to the 
WTO were these subsidies included, New Zealand st ated that its government does not provide any 
subsidies or direct support to Zespri.  New Zealand operates a research fund consistent with 2(a) General Services of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Under this programme, 
funds are provided by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (formally the Foundation for Research 
Science and Technology (FRST)) for research dire ctly related to agricu ltural production including 
forage, animal and dairy industries, horticulture, ar able and other food and be verage industries.  As 
part of this programme, research funding has been pr ovided to help develop new kiwifruit varieties.  
This is a joint government industry programme with potential to benefit New Zealand kiwifruit 
growers.  Funding is not paid to Zespri under th is programme.  This programme was notified most 
recently in G/AG/N/NZL/69.  In additional, New Z ealand explained that it also provides programmes 
aimed at pest and disease control consistent with 2( b) General Services of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  This includes respon ses to pest and disease incursions which could negatively impact 
on kiwifruit growers.  Funding is not paid to Z espri under this programme.  This programme was 
notified most recently in G/AG/N/NZL/69. 
31. Regarding the question on how the independe nce of Kiwifruit New Zealand is assessed, 
New Zealand explained that Kiwifruit New Zealand (" KNZ") has distinct regulatory functions in the 
kiwifruit industry which make it independent from othe r industry entities.  It is also independent from 
the government in the sense that there is no government representation on its board.  Its regulatory functions include approving collaborative marke ting arrangements and monitoring and enforcing 
Zespri's compliance with the Kiwifruit Export Regulati ons 1999.  In addition, New Zealand stated that 
kiwifruit growers elect three Directors of KNZ, New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Incorporated 
appoints one Director, and the four Directors in turn appoint a Chairperson who has no association 
with the industry.  The current Chair is Sir Br ian Elwood, a former Chief Ombudsmen, who has no 
commercial interests in the New Zealand kiwifruit indus try.  An election is held each year for one of 
the three Directors that is elected by growers.  New Zealand also said that KNZ has a procedures 
manual, which includes two codes of conduct, one fo r conflicts of interest, and one for trades in 
kiwifruit company securities. 
32. Regarding the European Union's question on whether the quantity of kiwifruit exported under 
the collaborative marketing regime has increased since 2009, New Zealand answered affirmatively, 
stating that in 2009 approximatel y 6 million kg of kiwifruit were e xported in collaborative marketing 
arrangements.  The volume of kiwifruit expor ted under collaborative ma rketing arrangements 
increased to approximately 9 million kg in 2010, and is expected to increase to approximately 
12 million kg in 2011.  New Zealand added that anyo ne can submit an application for a collaborative 
marketing arrangement and there are no limitations on its form, content, term or any other aspect. 
33. Regarding the question on whether Zespri's three-year rolling average contracts renew 
automatically each season, and, in the event of te rmination by the grower, whether the grower must 
supply Zespri for the remainder of the three-year  term, New Zealand explained that the terms and G/STR/M/22 
Page 6  
 
  conditions of these contracts are agreed between gr owers and Zespri on private commercial terms.  
The European Union noted that New Zealand's respon se to its last question did not exactly answer the 
European Union's question.  The European Union asked whether it was correct to understand that the 
terms of the contract are confidential and therefor e no information can be given on this matter, or 
whether the European Union should understand that th e contracts are so diverse and that there is no 
single uniform answer to its question.  New Zeala nd answered that the first understanding was correct, 
i.e., the terms of the contract are confidential.   
34. The Chairperson reminded delegations that wr itten responses to written questions should be 
submitted directly to the inquiring Member, with a co py to the Secretariat for circulation, as soon as 
possible. 
C. REVIEW OF UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  
35. No questions were posed regarding the notif ications of Bahrain (G/STR/N/8/BHR, and 
G/STR/N/9/BHR). 
36. On the notifications of Korea contained in documents G/STR/N/3/KOR, G/STR/N/5/KOR, 
G/STR/N/6/KOR, G/STR/N/8/KOR, and G/STR/N/9/KOR , Australia had circulated questions in 
document G/STR/Q1/KOR/11.  Regarding Australia' s question on why has Ko rea submitted the same 
notification as it did in 2009 without updating any of the data, Korea explained that it had not 
submitted updating notifications every year before 2 004.  However, it had included the data for any 
changes during intermediate years in the subsequent  new and full notifications.  Nevertheless, it had 
been marked in the Secretariat's document on the status of notification as Korea had not submitted updating notifications in 1997, 199 9, 2000, 2002 and 2003.  To correct this, Korea submitted 
outstanding updating notifications in December 2010 af ter consultations with the Secretariat.  Korea 
explained in the updating notifications that the content of each notification was the same as that of the 
previous respective new and full notifications whic h had already contained data for the previous 
intermediate years. 
37. Regarding Australia's statement that significant amounts of data were missing, and invitation 
to submit revised notifications, Korea stated that, as previously explained, the main reason why some 
data seem to be missing is that the data for the pr oducts which no longer fall under the authority of a 
state trading enterprise had not been included.  To be  more specific, the data for the products such as 
ginseng, natural honey, beef and citrus have not been included si nce 2000 because they have not been 
subject to state trading.  For further information, Korea referred to its previous answers to similar 
questions, publicly available at the WTO. 
38. Finally, with respect to Australia's invitation to provide separate notifications for each year, 
Korea stated that its notifications were prepared  in accordance with the document G/STR/3, and that 
the supporting tables enclosed in the notifications are classified by year. 
39. Before moving to the next agenda item, the Ch airperson drew the attention of Members to the 
notifications summary table attached to the fax sent on 30 September 2011.  The Chairperson 
explained that the table had been revised once again,  and that the latest version was attached as an 
annex to the draft annual report.  
40. The Chairperson noted that the table attempted to  record all of the notifications, including "nil 
notifications", made from N1 in 1995 to N13 in 201 0, as of 27 October 2011.  He explained that the 
same format would be used for the table to be  prepared on the basis of notifications due by 
30 June 2012.  He invited Members to contact the Secretariat directly with any amendments. 
41. The Chairperson noted that there were a large number of blank boxes in the table indicating 
that many Members remain in arrears in terms of  completing their notification obligations.  In the  G/STR/M/22 
 Page 7 
 
 
  light of the increased interest among Members re garding transparency, as well as the duty of 
Members to comply with their WTO obligations, the Chairperson encouraged Members to continue to 
work with their Capitals, and where necessary, to take  advantage of the resources of the Secretariat, to 
improve the notification record. 
42. The Chairperson then briefly reviewed the ta ble, noting that for N12, the new and full 
notifications requirement for 2008, the Working Pa rty had, to date, received notifications from 
38 Members.  As regards N13, the new and full no tification requirement for 2010, the Working Party 
had, to date, received notifications from just 28 Members.  The Chairperson urged Members to continue to make every effort to improve their pe rformance, and encouraged them to do what they 
could to ensure that they comply with their outstanding notification obligations. 
43. The Working Party took note of  the Chairperson's statement. 
D. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS :  IMPROVING COMPLIANCE – ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA1 
44. Australia took the floor and noted that it rema ins concern that compliance with state trading 
enterprise notification obligations continues to be le ss than satisfactory.  As previously noted by the 
Chairperson, for the year 2008 only 38 Members no tified, and for the year 2010 only 28 Members.  
Australia stated that this has limited the oppor tunity for a comprehensive review process.  
Transparency is central to the operation of the WT O, and in the absence of the transparency provided 
through notifications, it is not possible to access  whether WTO Members have fulfilled their WTO 
obligations and commitments, or evaluate the impact  of such activities on international trade.  The 
credibility of the WTO review process is furthe r diminished because ther e is little incentive for 
Members to scrutinize poorly-packaged or incomple te negotiations.  Australia called on all Members 
to comply with their obligations to update the WTO notifications. 
45. The United States appreciated the Chairperson a nd Australia's efforts, and supported further 
discussions on how to improve compliance with STE no tification requirements.  The United States 
appreciated the significant number of notifications th at were submitted for this meeting, and saw that 
as a positive reflection of the efforts that have be en undertaken by this Working Party to improve 
compliance with STE notification requirements.  The United States noted with concern, however, that 
there are still numerous notifications that remain  outstanding.  The United States encouraged all 
Members, both those with STEs and those without, to submit STE notifications for review.  The 
United States said it remains very interested in hearing from Members that are delinquent in their 
notifications to understand the difficulties they are experiencing in submitting the notifications.  This 
information could help determine new solutions for solving the delinquency in STE notifications. 
46. Costa Rica endorsed the statements made regard ing the update of notifications.  Costa Rica 
stated that it is one of the delegations with outst anding notifications and is working to submit very 
soon its updated notifications.  Cost a Rica explained that the main di fficulty encountered relates to the 
collection of statistical information, which is not  always accessible to the Ministry responsible for 
putting together the notification. 
47. The European Union joined the Chairperson, Australia and the United States in calling on 
Members to look into their outstanding notifications.  The European Union noted that it may be soon 
in a position to submit its notification for th e year 2010, which is still outstanding.  The 
European Union thanked Costa Rica for taking the effort to explain to the Members where their 
problems lie, and hoped that the statistical informat ion would become available so that Costa Rica 
could submit its notification. 
                                                      
1 Written questions concerning the overdue notificatio ns of Brazil and China were posed by Australia 
in advance of the meeting of the Working Party, and respectively circulated in documents G/STR/Q1/BRA/7 
and G/STR/Q1/CHN/1. G/STR/M/22 
Page 8  
 
  48. Brazil thanked Australia for its question circ ulated in document G/STR/Q1/BRA/7.  Brazil 
acknowledged that it had some pending notifications, but explained that internal consultations were 
still being made with respect to whether Brazil should maintain any state trading enterprises in 
accordance with the definition in Paragraph 1 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of 
Article XVII of the GATT 1994.  Brazil stated that it would communicate its decision as soon as the 
internal consultations  were concluded. 
49. China thanked Australia for its questions circ ulated in document G/STR/Q1/CHN/1.  China 
stated that it had notified the Working Party with respect to the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.  China 
said that it is currently working on the data for th e notifications from 2004 onwards, and that it would 
immediately notify the Working Party once the n ecessary work was concluded.  The delegate from 
China informed Members that he had already repo rted to his Capital the concerns expressed by 
WTO Members, and said he expected to receive  instructions from his Capital very soon.  
50. The Working Party took note of the statements made. 
E. ANNUAL REPORT (2011)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
51. India noted that the annual report with all its annexes was becoming rather long, and 
questioned the utility of having an annex with the list of WTO Members, and another one indicating 
the WTO Members that have already submitted thei r notifications.  India referred to the annual 
reports of other Committees, and stated that this type of annex is usually not included.  India 
acknowledged that the past practice of this Working Party was to include this type of annex, but 
recalled that India had an informal conversation w ith the Secretariat in 2010 with respect to this 
matter. 
52. As a preliminary remark with respect to the suggestion made by India, Canada noted that it 
sees value in the inclusion of at least Table 1 with lis t of Members that have already notified.  Canada 
stated that it helps improve the substance of the a nnual report, particularly when Members are trying 
to underscore the transparency objectives in their Committee work.  Therefore, Canada supported the 
inclusion of this table in the annual report. 
53. Similarly to Canada, New Zealand stated it also considers Table 1 to be useful, particularly 
because there were discussions within the Working Party in 2010 and during this meeting regarding 
the status of notifications.  New Zealand undersco red the value of including this table in the annual 
report. 
54. Australia supported the statements made by Canada  and New Zealand.  Aust ralia stated that it 
considered Table 1 to be very useful, and as such it should be maintained. 
55. The United States thanked India for its suggesti on, but noted that the United States agrees 
with Canada, New Zealand and Australia in seeing valu e in Table 1.  The United States noted that the 
Working Party was trying to improve transparency, and that Table 1 provided value to achieving that 
goal. 
56. Costa Rica supported previous statements highlighting the value of Table 1 of the annual 
report.  As a Member with outstanding notifica tions, Costa Rica stated that transparency was 
important for the work of the Working Party and for internal purposes as well. 
57. The European Union stated that it also saw va lue in having Table 1 attached to the annual 
report. 
58. The Chairperson noted that several Members suppor ted the inclusion of Table 1 in the annual 
report, and that India presented comments with resp ect to the organization of the Annual Report that  G/STR/M/22 
 Page 9 
 
 
  could be addressed at another meeti ng of the Working Party.  The Chairperson recalled that the format 
of the draft annual report followed exactly the format of previous annual reports of the Working Party.  
India stated that it agreed with the Chairperson' s suggestion to review the structure of the annual 
report at another meeting, and clarified that I ndia simply wanted to know whether there was a 
requirement to include this type of annex in the annual report. 
59. The Chairperson noted that Paragraph 4 of th e draft annual report had to be updated to 
include Bahrain and Angola, as this was the first time these Members were attending a meeting of the 
Working Party.  India noted that the structure of the annual report should be revised, including the 
verbosity of the report, as shown in Paragraph 4 that lists the Members that have attended the meeting.  
India questioned the usefulness of including this type of information.   
60. China also considered that the structure of the annual report should be revised.  China 
questioned whether it was useful to list the Members that have attended the meetings of the Working 
Party, and to include Table 1.  China considered that further discussions on the format of the annual 
report were required. 
61. The Working Party took note of the statements  made and adopted the Annual Report (2011) 
to the Council for Trade in Goods which was circulated as document G/L/971/Rev.1. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
62. The Chairperson informed Members that the next  meeting of the Working Party will be held 
during the first trimester of 2012, and that the exact date will be informed in due course. 
63. Before concluding the meeting, the Chairperson urged all Members to respect the deadline of 
30 June 2012 for submitting notifications, as emphasized  by his predecessor at the last meeting of the 
Working Party.  The Chairperson strongly emphasized  the significance of this deadline for the smooth 
sailing of the notifications review process, fo r 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.  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 notifi cations are to be reviewed.  The Chairperson also 
requested that written questions be provided 6 weeks before the date of the meeting, and that written 
answers to written questions should be pr ovided well in advance of the meeting. 
64. The meeting was adjourned. 
__________