A joint report from the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warns that members of the so-called G-20 are continuing to impose new trade restrictions amid a still-uncertain global economic situation and that “the promised removal of existing restrictions is very slow.” The report calls on these countries to “redouble [...]
A joint report from the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warns that members of the so-called G-20 are continuing to impose new trade restrictions amid a still-uncertain global economic situation and that “the promised removal of existing restrictions is very slow.” The report calls on these countries to “redouble their efforts to resist protectionist pressures” and “the temptation to move toward more nationalistic and inward-looking policies,” which not only “will not solve their problems” but also risks “generating tit-for-tat reactions by their trading partners.”
The report expresses concern about a “revival of protectionist rhetoric” in some countries. For example, some G-20 leaders have made statements in favor of import substitution policies as the pillar of economic growth in their countries, a stance that is “generating regional and global trade tensions which have largely been absent since the coordinated policy responses to the global financial crisis were launched.” Some G-20 governments have raised import barriers, such as procedural 
or administrative actions to slow down border clearances, to protect domestic industries from what they may consider to be unfair competition. There has also been a reported increase in restrictions placed on government procurement activities in some countries. “With tight government budgets, high unemployment, slower growth, and the prospects of further multilateral market opening seemingly slipping away,” the report states, “the threat of protectionist pressures looms even larger.”
This increase in rhetoric has been accompanied by the “unabated” implementation of new trade restrictions. The report states that since mid-October 2011, 124 new trade restrictive measures have been recorded, affecting around 1.1% of G-20 merchandise imports or 0.9% of world imports, and that the main measures are trade remedy actions, tariff increases, import licenses and customs controls. In addition, these new restrictions seem to no longer be aimed at combating the temporary effects of the global crisis but rather at trying to stimulate recovery through national industrial planning. Many of these plans also envisage the granting of tax concessions and the use of government subsidies as well as domestic preferences in government procurement and local content requirements.
The report also points out that with the addition of these most recent barriers “the accumulation of trade restrictions is now a matter of concern.” Specifically, the trade coverage of the 802 restrictive measures put in place since October 2008, excluding those that have been terminated, is estimated to be almost 3% of world merchandise trade and almost 4% of G-20 trade. This accumulation is aggravated by the relatively slow pace of removal of existing measures, which is not only fairly low (18% as of this report) but is also slowing down.
Source: STR Trade Report
A number of food producers and organizations from multiple countries this week launched the Consortium for Common Food Names, an international initiative that seeks to stop efforts to restrict the use of generic food names, including such efforts by the European Commission. The new consortium opposes any attempt to monopolize generic names that have become part [...]
A number of food producers and organizations from multiple countries this week launched the Consortium for Common Food Names, an international initiative that seeks to stop efforts to restrict the use of generic food names, including such efforts by the European Commission.
The new consortium opposes any attempt to monopolize generic names that have become part of the public domain, such as parmesan, feta, provolone, bologna, salami and many others, as well as terms used by winemakers such as “classic”, “vintage”, “fine” and “superior”. The consortium will seek to foster the adoption of an appropriate model that protects legitimate GIs like “Parmigiano Reggiano” while preserving the right of all producers to use common names like “parmesan”.
The consortium is not opposed to proper geographical indications (GIs), like “Camembert de Normandie” and “Brie de Meaux” cheeses from France, and “Clare Island Salmon” from Ireland. For some specialized products such as these, made in a specific region, it has made sense for the European Commission (EC) to protect the regional name to help preserve the unique nature of that product. In fact, products from other parts of the world – such as Washington State Apples, Idaho Potatoes, Valle de Colchagua wine from Chile, or Thai Jasmine Rice – may also benefit from similar protection. The consortium supports these types of terms as a tool to promote distinctive products.
“No one country or entity should own common food names,” said Jaime Castaneda, executive director of the new initiative, and senior vice president of trade policy at the U.S. Dairy Export Council. “If such efforts are successful, consumers will no longer recognize many of their favorite foods. Producers around the world will be forced to consider relabeling potentially billions of dollars’ worth of food products.
“Arguing that any one group should have an exclusive right to use such names is like claiming that only Italians should be permitted to use the term ‘pizza’,” he said.
Many well-known foods trace their origins to Europe, but thanks to decades of trade and the emigration of individual food artisans, these products are now made and enjoyed throughout the world. Over time, this has greatly increased the popularity of European varietals like parmesan and salami, to the commercial benefit of European and non-European producers and consumers alike.
In fact, many producers in countries throughout Europe and around the world have been making these foods for decades, if not centuries.
“Italian, Swiss and Danish immigrants brought to our land their knowledge, traditions and names of food products,” said Miguel Paulón, president of the Argentine Dairy Industry Federation. “Many of the cheese names we use have become protected GIs in Europe, despite the fact that these names were established here for more than a century as generic names, or have become part of trademarks that identify local producers. Moreover, several of those terms were also adopted many years ago by the international food standards Codex program.” Continue reading »
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued March 30 its annual National Trade Estimate report…
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued March 30 its annual National Trade Estimate report, which describes significant foreign barriers to U.S. exports of goods and services, foreign direct investment and intellectual property rights protection as well as the actions being taken to address those barriers. The NTE report covers significant barriers, whether or not they are consistent with international trading rules, in 58 countries, the European Union, Taiwan, Hong Kong and one regional body.
USTR has also issued its second annual report focusing specifically on Technical Barriers to Trade, such as product standards and testing and certification requirements, and sanitary and phytosanitary barriers, which include measures used to ensure that foods and beverages are safe for consumers and to protect animals and plants from pests and diseases.
Note: The section of the report dealing with Canadian Trade barriers can be downloaded from our website here.
The DOC has extended from April 4 to April 18 the deadline for public comments on ways to address unnecessary regulatory divergences…
(World Trade Interactive)
The Department of Commerce has extended from April 4 (not June 1, as originally reported) to April 18 the deadline for public comments on ways to address unnecessary regulatory divergences in North America that disrupt U.S. exports. Methods under consideration include information-sharing agreements, technical assistance, memoranda of understanding, mutual recognition agreements, collaboration between regulators before initiating rulemaking proceedings, agreements to align particular regulatory measures, equivalency arrangements, and accreditation of testing laboratories or other conformity assessment bodies. Comments received will serve as a basis for discussions with the U.S.-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council and the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council.
