Governments are facing a series of “convergence challenges” on the future of the international trading system, according to a report issued on Wednesday by a 12-member panel convened by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy. The report – which was issued under the Director-General’s own responsibility – marked the conclusion of a process that was announced at [...]
Governments are facing a series of “convergence challenges” on the future of the international trading system, according to a report issued on Wednesday by a 12-member panel convened by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy.
The report – which was issued under the Director-General’s own responsibility – marked the conclusion of a process that was announced at the global trade body’s 2011 ministerial conference. The panel that prepared the report was made up of 12 members from the business sector and civil society, and had been tasked with identifying 21st century trade challenges.
The report – which takes a medium to long-term view of the trading system’s challenges – provides “food for thought” for both WTO members and other stakeholders, the Director-General told a packed conference room at the organisation’s headquarters in Geneva.
The 40-page document is divided into three chapters: one on the state of trade and its contributions to growth and development; the second on the “transformational factors” of the current global economy that have, in turn, shaped trade; and a third on the panel’s recommendations for potential action.
Click here to read a full outline of the report.
The full report The Future of Trade: The Challenges of Convergence can be accessed by clicking here.
Source: Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest | ICTSD
Despite the impressive success of trade liberalization, domestic industries continue to find ways to use the power of government to protect themselves from foreign competition. The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. This regulatory [...]
Despite the impressive success of trade liberalization, domestic industries continue to find ways to use the power of government to protect themselves from foreign competition. The practice of using domestic environmental or consumer safety regulation as a way to disguise protectionist policy has become a serious and growing problem in the United States. This regulatory protectionism harms the U.S. economy and violates our trade obligations.
A number of factors combine to explain the rise in regulatory protectionism. Economic globalization has provided Americans with access to a wide range of imported products. This has enabled consumers to demand not only high-quality products at low cost but also products that are produced according to consumers’ philosophical or ethical preferences. Simultaneously, domestic producers seeking protection from this influx of imports must find alternative shelters now that the use of tariffs and quotas is constrained by international law and economic good sense. The consequence is a perfect storm in which social welfare activists and special commercial interests join forces to promote regulatory regimes that unfairly and unnecessarily restrict imports.
There is already a system of laws in place to prevent regulatory protectionism. The rules of the international trading system recognize that domestic laws can be just as protectionist as tariffs. Many of the disciplines of World Trade Organization (WTO) law are embedded in the rules U.S. administrative agencies follow when setting new regulations.
But the U.S. government must take its WTO obligations more seriously. Prior to implementing a new regulation, federal agencies should be required to evaluate the possibility that less trade-restrictive alternatives could meet regulatory goals as effectively as their preferred proposal. Also, the U.S. government should not dilute or bypass the multilateral rules of the WTO through bilateral or regional negotiations that accept managed protectionism.
This paper uses a number of recent examples of protectionist regulations to show that the enemies of regulatory protectionism are transparency and vigilance. Policymakers should be skeptical of regulatory proposals backed by the target domestic industry and of proposals that lack a plausible theory of market failure. These are red flags that the proposal is the product of privilege-seeking special interests disguised as altruistic consumer advocates.
Click here to download the policy analysis.
Source: K. William Watson and Sallie James | Cato Institute
These days, Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) is the target of much hyperbolic and hysterical attack, based not on facts, but on myth stemming from the diverse agendas of the criticizing parties. One of the most recent attacks emanates from the Cato Institute. It is easily rebutted when one [...]
These days, Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) is the target of much hyperbolic and hysterical attack, based not on facts, but on myth stemming from the diverse agendas of the criticizing parties. One of the most recent attacks emanates from the Cato Institute. It is easily rebutted when one examines the actual facts. We summarize below the assertions, and then state the facts.
Fiction: The U.S. International Trade Commission/Section 337 is redundant.
Fact: A Section 337 complainant can have one-stop shopping within one case, to provide it relief against all infringing imports, with no need for personal jurisdiction over the defendants/respondents; and the relief in the form of an exclusion order will be enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The same relief is not available in any other U.S. forum. In other U.S. fora, an entity confronted by unfair acts from imported articles must sue multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, only where personal jurisdiction exists, enforcing the various judgments separately, on its own. Moreover, in such other fora, an entity may not be able to enforce monetary damages against foreign parties, leaving the complaining party without a remedy for the unfair act committed.
Finally, a complainant can get speedy resolution at the International Trade Commission (ITC), which often is not possible in federal district court. This is particularly so when stays pending appeal are routinely granted with respect to remedial relief granted by other U.S. fora, whereas such stays are almost never granted with respect to relief issued by the ITC.
Indeed, the importance and uniqueness of the ITC/Section 337 are clear—if Section 337 were redundant, companies would have no need to bring both a district court action and an ITC action. The fact that so many entities bring both highlights that Section 337 fulfills a different role from that of a federal district court (in fiscal year 2012, almost 85 percent of the complaints filed at the ITC also involved parallel district court proceedings).
Click here to read the complete article.
Source: National Law Journal | Alice A. Kipel and Charles F. Schill
An arbitrator with the World Trade Organization (WTO) this week set a deadline of May 23, 2013 for the United States to modify its requirements for country of origin labeling (COOL) for meat. In his ruling, the arbitrator says a period of 10 months from July 23, 2012, the date the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body [...]
An arbitrator with the World Trade Organization (WTO) this week set a deadline of May 23, 2013 for the United States to modify its requirements for country of origin labeling (COOL) for meat. In his ruling, the arbitrator says a period of 10 months from July 23, 2012, the date the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body issued its rulings on the issue, is a reasonable time for implementation.
The dispute stems from the 2009 COOL final rule, which USDA issued after Congress passed the COOL Statute. Canada and Mexico oppose the rule and filed a complaint with the WTO claiming it violates previous trade agreements by according less favorable treatment to imported livestock than to like domestic livestock. The WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico, leading to a failed appeal from the United States.
According to WTO documents, the United States has agreed to bring COOL policies into compliance with existing trade agreements, but contends that it will need at least 12 months to complete the US regulatory process due to the technical complexities of the COOL measure. Click here to read the complete article.
Source: John Maday — Drovers CattleNetwork)
In the wake of the global financial crisis, many economists and policymakers are advocating the use of regulations to control the cross-border flows of capital. However, such capital account regulations (known as CARs) often are limited or prohibited by commonly-used provisions in trade and investment treaties. This policy brief describes the outcomes of a “compatibility [...]
In the wake of the global financial crisis, many economists and policymakers are advocating the use of regulations to control the cross-border flows of capital. However, such capital account regulations (known as CARs) often are limited or prohibited by commonly-used provisions in trade and investment treaties. This policy brief describes the outcomes of a “compatibility review” between the ability to implement capital account regulations and standard provisions of the global trading system. It argues that changes should be made so that the two systems are more compatible, providing countries – especially developing countries – with the policy space to employ CARs to stabilize their economies and stave off boom-and-bust cycles and still participate in bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade and investment treaties.
This review was conducted at a workshop of the Pardee Center Task Force on Regulating Capital Flows for Long-Run Development held in June 2012 at the Center for the Study of State and Society (CEDES) in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The workshop was co-sponsored by the Pardee Center, CEDES, and the Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University, with support from the Ford Foundation. A Pardee Task Force Report that provides an in-depth examination of the issues discussed in this policy brief is scheduled for publication in 2013.
Click here to download the complete policy brief.
Kevin P. Gallagher is Associate Professor of International Relations at Boston University and Pardee Center Faculty Fellow, and a Research Fellow at GDAE.
Leonardo E. Stanley is Associate Researcher in the Department of Economics at the Center for the Study of State and Society in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
When the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] first came into being in 1948, regional arrangements were considered exceptional. Indeed, it was not until the beginnings of the European integration process in the 1950s that a significant part of international trade was to become preferential. In the ensuing years, several other preferential agreements were [...]
When the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] first came into being in 1948, regional arrangements were considered exceptional. Indeed, it was not until the beginnings of the European integration process in the 1950s that a significant part of international trade was to become preferential. In the ensuing years, several other preferential agreements were established, but it was not until the 1980s that they started to become the significant component of world trade that it is today. The major increment in the number of agreements came in the 1990s. We can count almost 400 preferential trade agreements currently in existence, and each member of the WTO on average belongs to 13 separate agreements.
A number of reasons can be adduced to explain their rising and continuing. They may serve political or strategic ends. Countries may wish to go further and faster in the direction of economic integration than they have been able to do in the WTO. They may be motivated by a fear of exclusion as competing countries secure better access to markets of interest. They may be an insurance policy against future protectionism. They may act as a signalling device to attract foreign investment. They may also serve as a vehicle for policy consolidation nationally, using an international obligation to make it harder for domestic interests to exert an influence over trade policy.
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
Increased “interdependency” in global production networks for electronics requires greater multilateral cooperation, the World Trade Organization (WTO) said, warning against supply chain disruptions for exporters. In a publication titled 15 Years of the Information Technology Agreement released last week, the WTO said countries have become more vulnerable to shocks due to the tendency to specialize [...]
Increased “interdependency” in global production networks for electronics requires greater multilateral cooperation, the World Trade Organization (WTO) said, warning against supply chain disruptions for exporters.
In a publication titled 15 Years of the Information Technology Agreement released last week, the WTO said countries have become more vulnerable to shocks due to the tendency to specialize in production tasks in which they have comparative advantages.
“This means that macroeconomic crisis or natural disasters in one country can rapidly affect factories located far away,” the WTO said. The report cited as an example the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which significantly affected production costs in most of its trading partners.
Aside from economic crises and natural disasters, protectionist policies and unilateral changes in regulatory frameworks may also disrupt supply chains, the WTO said.
The WTO report said increased trade in these goods has been facilitated by the IT Agreement signed in 1996, which requires zero tariffs on IT products.
Trade in IT products amounted to $2.95 trillion in 2010 – almost triple the 1996 value of $1.1 trillion. China was the top exporter of IT products in 2010, with $386.5 billion worth of outbound shipments. It was followed by the European Union, $267.4 billion; the United States, $133.6 billion; and Singapore, $122.5 billion.
The EU was the top importer of IT products, with inbound shipments totalling $387 billion. Next on the list was China, $291.7 billion; the US, $222 billion; and Singapore, $86.7 billion.
For nearly 80 years, dating back to the Depression-era Buy America Act of 1933, the U.S. government has had protectionist domestic sourcing – or “Buy America” – laws on the books to create jobs, maximize the use of American-made products and ensure that federal tax dollars are reinvested in the U.S. economy. To support the [...]
For nearly 80 years, dating back to the Depression-era Buy America Act of 1933, the U.S. government has had protectionist domestic sourcing – or “Buy America” – laws on the books to create jobs, maximize the use of American-made products and ensure that federal tax dollars are reinvested in the U.S. economy. To support the country’s national security capabilities, “Buy America” laws were expanded in the 1940s to apply to defence spending. In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a further expansion of “Buy America” for highway and mass transit projects that are funded by federal grants.
As one of his first domestic initiatives, in 2009, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“Recovery Act”), a sweeping $787-billion plan aimed at stimulating a devastated economy still reeling from the catastrophic meltdown of the real estate and financial markets the previous year.
The Recovery Act contained a controversial “Buy America” provision that required all iron, steel and manufactured goods used in construction projects receiving stimulus funding to be produced in the United States. This significantly expanded on existing U.S. legislation stipulating domestic preference criteria by widening the scope of products covered to include “all manufactured goods” with respect to any project funded by the Recovery Act.
Pressured by Canadian exporters complaining that the latest “Buy America” measures violated market access exemptions under the North American Free Trade Agreement and were therefore unfairly costing them business and jobs, the Harper government entered into negotiations with the Obama administration that eventually reached a procurement agreement in early 2010 which provided limited relief and access to some Recovery Act projects for Canadian goods. Key to the accord was persuading the Canadian provinces and territories to finally open up their procurement markets to U.S. suppliers by signing onto the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA); a multilateral arrangement mandating that member countries provide reciprocal access to federal procurement projects and, in some cases, at the sub-federal level (i.e. states, provinces and cities).
Although the protracted dispute over the “Buy America” provisions effectively scuttled bidding access for Canadian exporters to most Recovery Act projects – funding having already been allocated by the time waivers pursuant to the Canada-US Procurement Agreement were finalized – it was widely assumed at the time that the bilateral accord and new commitments made under the WTO GPA had largely resolved the nettlesome issue of government procurement going forward.
Evidently not. In October 2011, President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, a massive spending bill designed to inject billions of federal dollars into infrastructure projects such as the renovation of schools, the construction of roads and bridges and improving transit. Much to the surprise and frustration of the Canadian government and trade community the new bill included the exact same “Buy America” constraints of 2009’s Recovery Act. Continue reading »
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 World Trade Organization released recently a package of new and updated information on international trade and tariffs. International Trade Statistics 2010 is a comprehensive overview of world trade up to the end of 2010 that covers merchandise trade by product and trade in commercial services by category. The publication was redesigned this year to [...]
The World Trade Organization released recently a package of new and updated information on international trade and tariffs.
International Trade Statistics 2010 is a comprehensive overview of world trade up to the end of 2010 that covers merchandise trade by product and trade in commercial services by category. The publication was redesigned this year to enhance the presentation of the data, and the WTO is seeking feedback to further improve its quality. All data used in the publication, as well as additional charts, can be downloaded from the WTO Web site’s statistics page.
World Tariff Profiles, a joint publication of the WTO, the International Trade Center and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, provides comprehensive tariff information on all WTO members and other countries. For each country the report outlines the market access offered to imports and the market access conditions its products face in its major export markets. The profiles include both maximum tariff rates that are legally bound in the WTO and the rates actually applied. An electronic copy of this publication is available in PDF format here.
Trade Profiles 2011 provides the latest information on trade flows and the trade policy measures of WTO members, observers and other selected economies. The data provided includes basic economic indicators (such as gross domestic product), trade policy indicators (such as tariffs, import duties, the number of disputes, notifications outstanding and contingency measures in force), merchandise trade flows (broken down by broad product categories and major origins and destinations), services trade flows (with a breakdown by major components) and industrial property indicators. A PDF version of this publication is available here.
Pages linked via a maps gateway allow for comparison between countries or customs territories using data of the user’s choice. Options include trade per capita, trade to GDP ratio, tariff binding coverage, MFN tariffs, and imports and exports of merchandise and services.
India’s Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) last month announced a new ‘Authorised Economic Operator’ (AEO) program, with a view to give AEO-certified operators preferential treatment in terms of less Customs examination, relaxed procedural requirements, etc, subject to the operators maintaining prescribed security standards and compliance requirements. The voluntary scheme is available to importers, [...]
India’s Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) last month announced a new ‘Authorised Economic Operator’ (AEO) program, with a view to give AEO-certified operators preferential treatment in terms of less Customs examination, relaxed procedural requirements, etc, subject to the operators maintaining prescribed security standards and compliance requirements.
The voluntary scheme is available to importers, exporters, warehouse owners, custom house agents, cargo forwarders, carriers, port operators and couriers, among others in the trade community. Companies can obtain an internationally recognized quality mark, which will indicate their secure role in the international supply chain and that their Customs procedures are efficient and compliant. Thereafter, they will be considered ‘secure’ traders and reliable trading partners.
The AEO program has been developed pursuant to guidelines of the World Customs Organization’s (WCO) adoption of SAFE FoS (Framework of Standard) in 2005. The objective was ensuring security in the global supply chain from the point of origin i.e., the point of export to the point of import in the receiving country, keeping in view national requirements of respective administrations. SAFE seeks to establish standards that provide supply chain security and facilitation at a global level to promote certainty and predictability, enable integrated supply chain management for all modes of transport, enhance the role, functions and capabilities of Customs to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, strengthen cooperation between Customs administrations to improve their capability to detect high-risk consignments, strengthen Customs/Business cooperation and promote the seamless movement of goods through secure international trade supply chains. Continue reading »
(American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research – Claude Barfield) The title is harsh, but the goal is benign-save, or at least extract, the world trading system from the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations that has now dragged on for a decade without success. To achieve this end, the round should formally be ended. [...]
(American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research – Claude Barfield)
The title is harsh, but the goal is benign-save, or at least extract, the world trading system from the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations that has now dragged on for a decade without success. To achieve this end, the round should formally be ended.
Over the past several years, the possibility of a grand bargain that would produce major trade liberalization in manufacturing, services and agriculture has steadily diminished and has now disappeared. As this piece is written during the “dog days” of August, trade ministers and bureaucrats from World Trade Organization member states are engaged in a final desperate drive to come up with a face-saving “mini-package,” or Early Harvest, of trade concessions to present at a climactic meeting of WTO ministers in December. The goal of the package is to salvage benefits for the world’s poorest countries such as tariff-free, quota-free trade with developed countries, drastic reduction in subsidies for cotton, exemptions from major services trade liberalization, and trade facilitation programs such as logistical aid to move goods from farm and factory to air-and seaports.
The prospects for even a small package are dismal. The United States, through its ambassador to the WTO, Michael Punke, stated in July that a “so-called Early Harvest package is not happening and is not going to happen.” Punke urged WTO negotiators not to spend more time on this effort, but rather concentrate in the lead up to the December Ministerial on issues that look beyond the current Doha stalemate and forward to the future of the WTO itself. Punke is halfway to a sensible position-but unfortunately, he and the Obama administration stopped short of biting the bullet by calling for a definitive end to the Doha Round. Read more here.
(AFP – Fran Wang) China, under pressure to relax controls over rare earths, said Wednesday it would appeal against a World Trade Organisation ruling that it illegally restricted exports of other key raw materials. The WTO last month upheld complaints by the United States, European Union and Mexico, ruling that China had failed to abide [...]
(AFP – Fran Wang)
China, under pressure to relax controls over rare earths, said Wednesday it would appeal against a World Trade Organisation ruling that it illegally restricted exports of other key raw materials.
The WTO last month upheld complaints by the United States, European Union and Mexico, ruling that China had failed to abide by accession commitments when it imposed quotas and duties on several types of minerals. The complainants charged that export quotas and duties imposed by Beijing on the raw materials were illegal and against commitments China made when it joined the world trade body.
“China will appeal,” commerce ministry spokesman Shen Danyang told journalists at a briefing Tuesday. “We maintain that our policies do not violate WTO rules.” Read more here.
(New Europe) The European Union has requested a World Trade Organization (WTO) investigation into Ontario’s renewable-energy legislation. The EU believes that the Ontario Green Energy and Economy Act (OGEA) is in breach of Canada’s WTO obligations, claiming that it is illegal to condition access to a subsidy to the use of domestic products. The OGEA [...]
(New Europe)
The European Union has requested a World Trade Organization (WTO) investigation into Ontario’s renewable-energy legislation. The EU believes that the Ontario Green Energy and Economy Act (OGEA) is in breach of Canada’s WTO obligations, claiming that it is illegal to condition access to a subsidy to the use of domestic products.
The OGEA provides for the development of programmes to encourage the use of renewable energy and it allows for its purchase at an above-market price, which constitutes a subsidy. However, access to this programme is conditioned by the use of domestic products and services. Read more here.
(EuropeanVoice.com – Toby Vogel) The European Union has brought a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over Ontario’s renewable energy policy. In announcing the step today (11 August), the European Commission said that the subsidies provided by the Canadian government to producers of renewable energy who use domestic technology violate global trade rules. The [...]
(EuropeanVoice.com – Toby Vogel)
The European Union has brought a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over Ontario’s renewable energy policy.
In announcing the step today (11 August), the European Commission said that the subsidies provided by the Canadian government to producers of renewable energy who use domestic technology violate global trade rules. The EU has now requested consultations with Canada under the WTO’s dispute settlement procedure. Bilateral negotiations on the matter failed to resolve the issue.
Exports to Canada of equipment in wind power and photovoltaic power generation are “significant” but would be higher without the ‘buy Canadian’ provisions, the Commission says. It said it was “increasingly concerned” by similar measures by other trading partners. Japan has already complained against Ontario’s policy before the WTO. Read more here.
(Reuters – Tom Miles) The head of the World Trade Organization castigated its 153 members on Tuesday for failing to agree a watered-down global trade deal by December, and called for “an adult conversation” over what to do next. “What we are seeing today is the paralysis in negotiating function of the WTO, whether it [...]
(Reuters – Tom Miles)
The head of the World Trade Organization castigated its 153 members on Tuesday for failing to agree a watered-down global trade deal by December, and called for “an adult conversation” over what to do next.
“What we are seeing today is the paralysis in negotiating function of the WTO, whether it is on market access or on the rule-making,” Lamy told the WTO’s Trade Negotiations Committee, according to a transcript of his remarks.
WTO members have been trying to salvage a deal from a decade of fruitless talks on the Doha Development Agenda, which was billed as the next leap in global trade liberalization but which collapsed earlier this year. Read more here.
(World Trade Interactive) The U.S., Japan and Taiwan told the World Trade Organization last week that the European Union may not have complied with a WTO decision against EU tariffs on certain information technology products, as it claims it has. This case arose several years ago when the U.S. alleged that the EU had violated [...]
(World Trade Interactive)
The U.S., Japan and Taiwan told the World Trade Organization last week that the European Union may not have complied with a WTO decision against EU tariffs on certain information technology products, as it claims it has.
This case arose several years ago when the U.S. alleged that the EU had violated its obligations under the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement by imposing new duties on cable boxes that can access the Internet, flat-panel computer monitors and certain computer printers that can also scan, fax and/or copy. The EU countered that because these goods incorporate additional technologies they were objectively different from the items listed in the ITA and therefore not covered by that agreement, which eliminated tariffs on trade in covered high-tech goods. A WTO dispute settlement panel agreed with the U.S. and the EU declined to appeal, stating that it would instead focus on attempting to persuade other ITA members to engage in negotiations to update and expand that agreement and establish mechanisms to keep it up to date in the future.
The U.S. has signaled its willingness to consider an ITA expansion and recently solicited comments on that issue from the public. Read more here.
(World Trade Organization) WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, in launching the World Trade Report 2011 on 20 July 2011, warned that preferential trade agreements (PTAs) “may lock in their members to a particular regulatory regime reducing the potential for trade to prosper with countries outside the arrangement”. “The new challenge posed by deep PTAs to the [...]
(World Trade Organization)
WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, in launching the World Trade Report 2011 on 20 July 2011, warned that preferential trade agreements (PTAs) “may lock in their members to a particular regulatory regime reducing the potential for trade to prosper with countries outside the arrangement”.
“The new challenge posed by deep PTAs to the multilateral trading system is one of market segmentation because regulatory systems, which can become divergent, have now more importance on trade flows than tariffs,” he added.
