RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/STR/M/21 
24 November 2010 
 (10-6325) 
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WORKING  
PARTY ON STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES 
HELD ON 19 OCTOBER 2010 
 
Chairperson:  Ms Doris Jurado (Colombia)
 
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICAT IONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS ......................................1  
C. REVIEW OF UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS ..............................................7  
D. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS : IMPROVING COMPLIANCE  –  ITEM REQUESTED BY 
AUSTRALIA ............................................................................................................................... ...8 
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE WORKSHOP HELD ON MONDAY , 18 OCTOBER 2010 .............................9  
F. ANNUAL REPORT (2010)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS .............................................10  
G. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................10  
 
A. ADOPTION 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/3627/Rev.1, circulated on 8 October 2010.  The Chairperson reiterated that the Working 
Party was open to all Members of the WT O indicating their wish to serve on it. 
2. The Chairperson informed the Working Party that she would make two statements under 
"Other Business".  The first related to the date of  the next regular meeting of the Working Party in 
2011; and the second pertained to a communication from the Chair of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology, and her subsequent response.   
3. The Chairperson reminded delegations to speak at a reasonable pace to aid translation and to 
provide copies of written statements to the Secretar iat.  The Chairperson also indicated that a contact 
list was going around the room seeking emai l addresses which would facilitate document 
dissemination to Members of the Working Party by email, as well as the usual means by fax. 
4. The Working Party adopted
 the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3627/Rev.1, as amended. 
B. REVIEW OF NEW AND FULL NOTIFICAT IONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS  
5. Before starting the substantive discussions under this agenda item, the Chairperson  recalled 
that, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII of the GATT 
1994, the Working Party is tasked with reviewi ng 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/21 
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 tradi ng enterprises.  On 11 November 2003, the Working 
Party adopted the recommendation contained  in 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 trial phase of 4 years, co mmencing 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 y ears.  The need for updating notifications in the 
intervening years was 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 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.  At a formal meeting on 16 June 2010, the Working Party adopted a recommendation to extend again this less burdensome frequency of notif ications for a further two year period, to 
30 June 2012.  The recommendation was subsequen tly circulated on 18 June 2010 as G/STR/7.  The 
Council for Trade in Goods approved the reco mmendation 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".  She 
reminded Members that as agreed at the Working Party's meeting in September 1996, notifications 
that had already been reviewed and on wh ich there may be written questions would not
 be retained on 
the airgram for the Working Party'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. The Chair noted that the notification from Albania  for the period G/STR/N/12/ALB had been 
submitted in a previous period but had not appeared on the agenda for review in a previous period.  
No questions were posed regarding this notification. 
12. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Australia  (G/STR/N/13/AUS). 
13. No questions were posed regard ing the notifications of Canada  (G/STR/N/12/CAN and 
G/STR/N/13/CAN).  G/STR/M/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
  14. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Chile  (G/STR/N/13/CHL). 
15. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Colombia  (G/STR/N/13/COL). 
16. No questions were posed regard ing the notifications of Ecuador  (G/STR/N/4/ECU, 
G/STR/N/7/ECU, G/STR/N/11/ECU, G/STR/N/12/ECU and G/STR/N/13/ECU). 
17. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of El Salvador  (G/STR/N/7/SLV, 
G/STR/N/10/SLV, G/STR/N/11/SLV, G/STR /N/12/SLV and G/STR/N/13/SLV). 
18. The Chair noted that the notifi cations from the European Union , G/STR/N/10/EEC/Suppl.1 
and G/STR/N/11/EEC/Suppl.1 had been submitted in  a previous period but had not appeared on the 
agenda for review in a previous period.  No questions were posed regarding these notifications. 
19. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Grenada  (G/STR/N/13/GRD). 
20. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Honduras  (G/STR/N/13/HND). 
21. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Hong Kong, China  
(G/STR/N/13/HKG). 
22. On the notifications of India  contained in documents G/STR/N/10/IND and 
G/STR/N/11/IND, Australia had circulated qu estions in document G/STR/Q1/IND/3.  The 
representative from Australia  congratulated the Chair on her appointment to the Chairmanship.  
Australia had provided questions to India with regard to notifications submitted by India covering the 
periods 2001/2002 to 2005/2006.  The representative from Australia thanked India for submitting the 
notifications and expressed his appreciation for India's efforts.  Australia looked forward to the timely 
submission of India's outstanding notifications.    
23. The delegate from Australia  then summarized the questions it had posed in writing to India.  
First, could India provide further details to e xplain how agricultural goods imported by STEs are 
resold on the domestic market based on commercial  considerations.  There was also a question 
relating to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and its role in administering the purchase and distribution of certain agricultural products fo r the purposes of achieving food security.  How did 
India determine the price of agricultural goods intend ed for such purposes?  Then, there were a series 
of questions relating to India's tariff quota arra ngements.  The delegate from Australia recalled 
document WT/Let/440, dated 4 April 2003, regard ing the certification of modifications and 
rectifications to India's Schedule 12 for certain  tariff quota arrangements for agricultural items.  
Australia was seeking clarification regarding STE involvement in how these tariff quotas were administered.  There was a further question on Indi a's State Trading Corporation (STC) and its role 
with regard to the importation of agricultural products.   
24. The representative of India
 noted that the questions asked by Australia under this agenda item 
also related to G/STR/N/8/IND and G/STR/N/9/IND,  a separate agenda it em under 2C.  India's 
understanding was that in responding to Australia  under this agenda item it was also responding on 
behalf of agenda item 2C.  The Chairperson  confirmed that was the case. 
25. The representative of India  thanked the representative from Australia for providing a brief 
summary of its questions on the notifications subm itted by India during the past period, and for the 
questions on India's outstanding notifications.  At th e outset, the delegate from India wished to inform 
Members that the process of compiling the informati on required for India's overdue notifications was 
ongoing and efforts were being made to file notifications as soon as possible.   G/STR/M/21 
Page 4  
 
  26. Regarding Australia's first question on the price of agricultural goods, the delegate of India
 
recalled that in its notification it had provided in formation on the price of agricultural goods imported 
by STEs and resold on the domestic market.  Such  prices were determined by market forces of 
demand and supply.     
27. Regarding the question on FCI, the delegate fro m India responded that the Indian government 
decides on the support price for various agricu lture commodities, taking into account the 
recommendations of the Commission of Agricultural Cost and Prices, the views of the state governments and the central ministri es, as well as other relevant factor s.  The information regarding 
the minimum support prices were available on the We bsite of the Department of Agriculture and 
Corporation:  www.agricoop.nic.in.   
28. The representative of India explained that the administration of the agricultural tariff quota 
was done in accordance with the procedures in the handbook entitled "Procedures of the Department 
of Commerce", which is available on the Website of the Directory-General of Foreign Trade: 
www.dgft.gov.in.  The delegate from India noted that  Australia's question on the products in question 
under the FCI was something that fell within the purview of the Committee on Agriculture.  Such 
details would be provided in India' s notification to that Committee.  
29. The delegate from India explained that from ti me to time the government of India asked the 
STC to undertake imports of bulk commodities such as wheat, edible oils, pulses, sugar and fertilisers 
to meet domestic shortages.  The volume of imports of these items was often decided by the government.  The role of the STC was to ensure  easy and timely availability of essential mass 
consumption items to the population at large.  The STC negotiated the most competitive rates for 
these imports in a transparent and efficient manner.   Quantities of the imported goods were delivered 
to the nominated agencies of the government for fu rther distribution.  Some of the imported quantities 
were disposed of in the open market.  The delega te from India said that the STC did not enjoy any 
special privileges regarding the imports of these ite ms as there were no import restrictions on these 
products.   
30. With regard to the role of the National Ag ricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of 
India (NAFED), the Minerals and Metals Tradi ng Corporation (MMTC), and the Project Equipment 
Commodities Ltd (PEC), the representative of Indi a noted that his government had to import around 
three to four million tonnes of pulses to meet the ga p between domestic produc tion and consumption.  
Pulses were a staple food in India and hence th e government had nominated agencies such as MMTC, 
NAFED, PEC and STC to import those kinds of pro ducts.  Certain quantities of imported pulses were 
also released to the open market to arrest unus ual prices which might otherwise have a negative 
impact on the poor population.  Information regarding the export role played by NAFED was available on the Website: www.nafed-india.com.  Fi nally, the representative from India said that the 
import of wheat was not a regular phenomena and as of now there were no subsidized sales of wheat 
through any state trading enterprises.   
31. The representative of Australia
 thanked India for its oral reply and requested that the 
responses be provided in writing to the Working Party as soon as possible.   
32. The Chair  also asked India to provide a written vers ion of the replies it had provided in the 
meeting.  
33. The delegate from India  noted that he did not indicate he would be submitting responses in 
writing as he had no clearance from his Capital to do  so.  For transparency purposes India was sitting 
in the meeting room where minutes from the meeti ng would be prepared and replies recorded.  Web 
addresses would be provided directly to Australia.  G/STR/M/21 
 Page 5 
 
 
  34. The delegate from Australia  expressed his surprise at India's response and thought India and 
other Members fully understood and would embrace the need for transparen cy in all Committees and 
Working Parties across the WTO.  The representative of Australia urged the delegate to seek advice 
from Capital to be able to submit the replies to questions in writing as soon as possible. 
35. The delegate from India  noted that there were various ways to look at the transparency 
obligation and various best practices.  India refe rred to the Workshop on the notification obligation 
the preceding day.  India noted that responses by a Member in a formal Meeting, which would be recorded in the minutes, was a fo rm of transparency.  The represen tative from India noted that he 
would await instructions from Capital but wanted  to note again that minutes were a form of 
transparency.  
36. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Jamaica
 (G/STR/N/12/JAM). 
37. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Japan  (G/STR/N/13/JPN).1  
38. No questions were posed regard ing the notifications of Korea  (G/STR/N/11/KOR, 
G/STR/N/12/KOR, G/STR/N/13/KOR). 
39. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Macao, China  (G/STR/N/13/MAC). 
40. No questions were posed regardin g the notifications of Malaysia  (G/STR/N/4/MYS, 
G/STR/N/7/MYS, G/STR/N/10/MYS). 
41. Australia  expressed its thanks to Namibia  for its notifications (G/STR/N/7/NAM, 
G/STR/N/10/NAM, G/STR/N/11/NAM, G/STR/N/12/NAM, and G/STR/N/13/NAM). 
42. The Chair noted that the notification from Nigeria  for the period G/STR/N/12/NGA had been 
submitted in a previous period but had not appeared on the agenda for review in a previous period.  
No questions were posed regarding this notification. 
43. Australia  had posed a question to Norway  in G/STR/Q1/NOR/7 dated 17 September 2010 
regarding overdue notifications.  Since posing th at question Norway had submitted its outstanding 
notifications, which Australia welcomed (under this agenda item, G/STR/N/10/NOR, 
G/STR/N/11/NOR, G/STR/N/12/NOR and G/STR/N/13/NOR).  Australia had a follow up question to 
Norway:  "What role does the Norwegian Dairies A ssociation play in the planning, marketing and 
export of Norwegian Dairy products?"2  The delegate from Australia noted that this had been 
submitted to Norway in writing the preceding day, but given the short timeframe Australia did not 
expect a reply at this meeting. 
44. The representative from Norway  noted that the question would be forwarded to Capital and a 
response provided as soon as possible.3 
45. No questions were posed regard ing the notifications of Qatar  (G/STR/N/12/QAT and 
G/STR/N/13/QAT). 
46. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Singapore  (G/STR/N/13/SGP). 
47. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Switzerland  (G/STR/N/13/CHE). 
                                                      
1 See paras. 60 to 62. 
2 This was subsequently circ ulated as G/STR/Q1/NOR/8. 
3 The response from Norway was subsequently circulated as G/STR/Q1/NOR/9. G/STR/M/21 
Page 6  
 
  48. The Chair noted that the notification from Switzerland
 for the period G/STR/N/12/CHE had 
been submitted in a previous period but had not a ppeared on the agenda for review in a previous 
period.  No questions were posed regarding this notification. 
49. No questions were posed regardi ng the notification of Chinese Taipei  (G/STR/N/13/TPKM). 
50. No questions were posed regarding th e notification of Trinidad and Tobago  
(G/STR/N/12/TTO and G/STR/N/13/TTO). 
51. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Turkey  (G/STR/N/13/TUR). 
52. No questions were posed regarding the notification of the Ukraine  (G/STR/N/13/UKR). 
53. No questions were posed regarding the notification of the United States  (G/STR/N/13/USA). 
54. Before proceeding, the Chairperson  offered the floor to Australia  who had circulated a written 
follow up question to Japan concerning Japan's notification in G/STR/N/12/JPN. 
55. The representative of Australia  noted that it had submitted follow-up questions to Japan in 
G/STR/Q1/JPN/10 dated 17 September 2010.  The questions were as follows:   
(i) Further to Australia's question to Japan in  2009 regarding the provisions for imported 
wheat destined for US military bases a nd luxury hotels under the New Staple Food 
Law Enforcement Ordinance, Article 13-2 and the New Staple Food Law 
Enforcement Regulations Article 25, Aust ralia requests further details including: 
- What import volumes are permitted under each of these instruments? 
- Can Japan explain the eligibility re quirements needed to access these 
provisions? 
(ii) Japan will recall its response to Australia's  questions regarding ALIC's role in 
importing sugar into Japan.  Australia noted that Japan's reply set out in 
G/STR/Q1/JPN/9 asserted that ALIC is not an STE for sugar, but still collects revenue in connection with the importati on of sugar for those importers seeking 
preferential market access. 
- Can Japan explain whether it considers th e revenue collected by ALIC to be 
"other duties and charges (ODC)"? 
56. The representative from Japan
 congratulated the Chair on her appointment and offered the 
following responses to Australia's questions.  Rega rding Australia's question on the provisions for 
imported wheat destined for US military bases, th e delegate from Japan noted that there were no 
import restrictions on such wheat.  This was in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article XI of the 
"Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mu tual Cooperation and Security between Japan and 
the United States of America Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed 
Forces in Japan".  The delegate from Japan explained that the total quantity of wheat flour imported in 
2006 was 9 metric tonnes.  There had been no further import record since then. 
57. On question two, the delegate from Japan refe rred to his previous response and referred to 
paragraph 2 of the "Agreement under Article VI of  the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security 
between Japan and the United States of America."  The delegate from Japan added that when wheat 
flour was imported for use in registered internationa l tourist hotels, such wheat flour was imported in  G/STR/M/21 
 Page 7 
 
 
  accordance with the certification requirements issued  by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and 
Fisheries of Japan.  The importation would be grante d on the condition that it be used in international 
tourist hotels registered under Article 3 of the "Dev elopment for International Tourist Hotels" Act.   
58. On question three, the delegate from Japan e xplained that the revenue collected by the 
Agriculture and Livestock Industries Corporation (ALI C) was part of "the sum of tariff and levy" 
bound in Japan's schedule.   
59. The representative of Japan noted that detailed written responses would be provided.4 
60. The representative of Australia  asked if Japan's most recent notification, G/STR/N/13/JPN 
circulated on 11 October 2010, would be subject to re view at the next meeting of the Working Party 
given the short timeframe between receipt of the no tification and this meeting.  Australia thanked 
Japan for its responses and looked forward to se eing the replies in writing as soon as possible.  
Australia posed a follow up question regarding ALIC .  Could Japan explain what was meant by levy 
in its response regarding the revenue collected by ALIC?  Could Japan explain how it reconciles that 
levy or those charges with its goods schedule which binds the ODC at zero for sugar.5 
61. The representative of Japan  noted that he would consult with his Capital on a response, and 
would provide the reply in writing on receipt of the question in writing.6  
62. The Chairperson  offered the floor to the Secretariat.  The Secretariat  confirmed that should a 
Member wish to have an item that had already a ppeared on the agenda to appear again on the agenda, 
a Member could make such a request.  Assuming that request was being made by Australia, it had been noted.  Australia
 confirmed that given the short turn around between the circulation of Japan's 
most recent notification and the meeting of the Wo rking party, it was requesting that the item be 
placed on the agenda again in 2011.  The delegate from Australia also noted that it would submit its 
follow-up question to Japan in writing.  With rega rd to Australia's written questions circulated on 
17 September, the delegate from Australia asked if Japan would be providing written responses to 
those written questions. 
63. The representative of Japan  took note of Australia's statement. 
64. The Chairperson  reminded delegations with written res ponses to written questions to submit 
them 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  
65. No questions were posed regard ing the notifications of Ecuador  (G/STR/N/2/ECU, 
G/STR/N/3/ECU, G/STR/N/5/ECU, G/STR/N/6/ECU, G/STR/N/8/ECU and G/STR/N/9/ECU). 
66. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of El Salvador  (G/STR/N/2/SLV, 
G/STR/N/3/SLV, G/STR/N/8/SLV and G/STR/N/9/SLV). 
67. The Chairperson  noted that the notificati on from the European Union , 
G/STR/N/9/EEC/Suppl.1, had been submitted in a previous period but had not appeared on the 
agenda for review in a previous period.  No questions were posed regarding these notifications. 
                                                      
4 Japan's written reply was subsequently  circulated as G/STR/Q1/JPN/12. 
5 This was subsequently circulated as G/STR/Q1/JPN/13. 
6 Japan's response was subsequently circulated as G/STR/Q1/JPN/14. G/STR/M/21 
Page 8  
 
  68. The Chairperson
 noted that the notifications from India  in G/STR/N/8/IND and 
G/STR/N/9/IND had already been considered under age nda item B.  No further questions were posed 
regarding these notifications. 
69. No questions were posed regardin g the notifications of Malaysia  (G/STR/N/2/MYS, 
G/STR/N/3/MYS, G/STR/N/5/MYS, G/STR/N/6/M YS, G/STR/N/8/MYS and G/STR/N/9/MYS). 
70. No questions were  posed regarding the notifications of Namibia  (G/STR/N/8/NAM and 
G/STR/N/9/NAM). 
71. No questions were posed regarding the notifications of Norway  (G/STR/N/8/NOR, and 
G/STR/N/9/NOR). 
72. Before moving to the next agenda item, the Chairperson  drew the attention of Members to the 
notifications summary table attached to her fax of  26 August 2010.  The Chairperson explained that 
the table had been revised once again, and that the la test version was attached as an annex to the draft 
annual report.  
73. The Chairperson noted that the table attempted to  record all of the notifications, including "nil 
notifications", made from N1 in 1995 to N13 in 2010, as of 6 October 2010.  She explained that the 
same format would be used for the table to be  prepared on the basis of notifications due by 
30 June 2012.  She invited Members to contact the Secretariat directly with any amendments. 
74. 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 
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.  
75. 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 
35 Members.  As regards N13, the new and full no tification requirement for 2010, the Working Party 
had, to date, received notifications from just 21 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. 
76. The Working Party took note  of the Chairperson's statement. 
D. OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS : IMPROVING COMPLIANCE  –  ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA7 
77. The representative of Australia  took the floor and noted that Australia had originally 
requested this item be part of the agenda to pose questions to India and Norway, but also to make a 
general point about compliance and transparency i ssues.  Since posing this question Australia noted 
that it had received notifications from both India an d Norway.  Australia thanked Norway for having 
responded in writing already.8  Australia also acknowledged that while India still had some 
outstanding notifications, India had made great e fforts to bring itself up to date.  The Australian 
                                                      
7 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/3 and 
G/STR/Q1/NOR/7. 
8 Circulated as G/STR/Q1/NOR/10.  G/STR/M/21 
 Page 9 
 
 
  delegate noted that Australia placed great value on the need for transparency and noted that most 
Members understood its importance to a robust multilateral trading system.    
78. The delegate from Australia recalled that the preceding day a Workshop had been organized 
by the Chair and the Secretariat which provided an  opportunity for Members to ask questions and to 
better understand STE notification requirements.  In the afternoon the Chair had offered her time and 
the Secretariat's time to assist on a bilateral b asis, which Australia welcomed and commended.  The 
delegate from Australia observed that in a numbers of cases where there were outstanding notifications there were in fact no STEs in the Me mber concerned.  The representative of Australia 
reminded Members that a nil notification was a simple process which would bring those Members without any STEs up to date with their notificati on obligations.  The representative from Australia 
observed that the Chairperson had reminded Member s' at the beginning of the meeting that the 
notification requirements have been reviewed, and had been adjusted to make them less burdensome.  
The delegate urged Members to submit outstanding  notifications as soon as possible, and strongly 
encouraged Members to respond to all questions in writing as a best practice process in line with that 
undertaken in other WTO Committees. 
79. The representative of the United States
 expressed appreciation for Australia's efforts and 
supported further discussions on how to improve comp liance with the notification obligation to the 
STE Working Party.  The United States encouraged  all Members, both those with STEs and those 
without, to submit STE notifications for review.  The delegate from the United States extended his 
thanks to the Chair and to the Secretariat for the Workshop the preceding day which he thought was 
very helpful. 
80. The representative of the European Union  also praised the Workshop, which he thought was 
very useful.  When negotiations in the Doha R ound were very active there might be less time to 
consider the notification obligation regarding STEs.  But, in the current clim ate the DDA was not as 
demanding which made more time available to attend  to the STE obligation.  The representative from 
the EU thought it was useful to have  replies to questions in writing. 
81. The representative of India  noted that he had already responded to Australia's question 
regarding its overdue notifi cations and that there was nothing further to add.9  
82. The representative of Norway  thanked Australia for its question on previous outstanding 
notifications to the Working Party on State Trad ing Enterprises.  Norway had recently submitted 
notifications to the Secretariat with the document symbols listed under agenda points 2B and 2C.  The 
lack of attention by Norway to the notification oblig ation of the Working Party could be attributed to 
the absence of any State Trading Enterprises in No rway.  Norway took its notification obligations 
seriously, and steps had been taken to ensu re continued compliance in the future.  
83. The Working Party took note  of the statements made. 
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE WORKSHOP HELD ON MONDAY , 18 OCTOBER 2010 
84. The Chairperson  recalled that the preceding day, 18 Oc tober 2010, a Workshop had been held 
on the notification obligation to the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises.  The Workshop was 
organized on the Chair's initiative following info rmal discussions with delegations.  Delegations 
wanted to have further opportunities to explore the problems being experienced by Members and 
discuss the challenges in meeting their notification obligations.  The Workshop was an opportunity to 
hear from two delegations on their experiences in pr eparing notifications for the Working Party, and 
                                                      
9 See paragraph 25. G/STR/M/21 
Page 10  
 
  to hear from the Secretariat on the substantiv e rules regarding STEs as well as the notification 
obligation. 
85. The Chairperson noted that she had found the Workshop to be very useful and she hoped that 
the many who attended also found it helpful, and th at the information would be communicated back to 
Capitals.  The Chair reminded Members that the presentations made at the workshop would be 
available on the Members' Website.  Should any Member wish to follow up on any of the material 
presented at the workshop they should feel free to  contact any of the presenters or the Chair.
10  
86. The Working Party took note  of the Chair's statement. 
F. ANNUAL REPORT (2010)  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
87. The representative from India  asked if the annual report was intended to reflect all discussions 
that had taken place in the Working Party.  The Chairperson  offered the floor to the Secretariat to 
respond to India's question.  The Secretariat  noted that the annual report was meant to be a factual 
description of the activities that had taken place over the relevant period.  Discussions from the meetings were reflected in the minutes. 
88. The representative of Australia
 asked when the draft minutes of the meeting would be 
available for comment, and when would they be finalized.  The Chairperson  offered the floor to the 
Secretariat.  The Secretariat  responded that draft minutes would be prepared as soon as possible. 
89. The Working Party adopted  the Annual Report (2010) to the Council for Trade in Goods 
which was circulated as document G/L/934.   
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
90. The Chairperson  made two statements under this agenda item.  The first concerned the date of 
the next regular meeting of the Working Party in  the second half of 2011.  The second related to a 
communication from the Chair of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology and her subsequent response. 
91. 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 Work ing Party be held on Thursday, 20 October 2011.  
She stated that the airgram convening the meeting would be circulated to all Members on Monday, 
10 October 2011, and that the last date for inscripti on of items on the agenda of the meeting would be 
Monday, 3 October 2011 by close of business.   
92. The Chairperson urged all Members to respect  the deadline of 30 June 2012 for submitting 
the notification covering the next relevant period.   She strongly emphasized 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 th e meeting in their preferred WTO working language, 
and for allowing the Secretariat to carry on with th e 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 w eeks prior to the date of the meeting at which the 
notifications are to be reviewed. She requested th at written questions be provided 6 weeks before the 
date of the meeting, and that written answers to written questions be provide d well in advance of the 
meeting.   
                                                     
 
10 Reference kits had also been provided to delega tions to aid in the preparation of notifications.  G/STR/M/21 
 Page 11 
 
 
  93. Secondly, the Chairperson informed Members' of the Working Party that she had received a 
letter from the Chair of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer or Technology on 13 August 2010.  The Chair of that Working Group had requested in formation on any discussions, submissions and/or 
other developments relating to tr ade and technology transfer that may have taken place in the STE 
Working Party since the last report in 2002.  The Chairperson noted that she had written to the Chair 
to inform him that there had been no discussions, s ubmissions and/or other de velopments relating to 
trade and technology transfer in this Working Party, and that there were no plans for any such activity.  
The Chairperson noted that copies of the letter and her response had been included in the materials 
distributed to Members. 
94. The meeting was adjourned
. 
 
__________