REPORT TO THE TPRB FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL ON

TRADE-RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

 

(Mid-October 2014 to mid-May 2015)

Table of contents

Key findings. 2

Executive Summary. 5

1   introduction.. 6

2   Recent economic and trade developments. 8

2.1   Overview.. 8

2.2   GDP and employment 10

2.3   Merchandise trade. 10

2.4   Trade in commercial services. 15

2.5   Trade forecast and economic outlook. 17

3   TRADE AND TRADE-RELATED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS. 18

3.1   Overview.. 18

3.2   Trade-remedy trends. 20

3.3   Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) 26

3.4   Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) 31

3.5   Trade concerns raised in other WTO Bodies. 36

3.6   Policy developments in agriculture. 39

3.7   Trade financing. 43

3.8   General economic support 44

4   POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES. 45

ANNEX 1  51

MEASURES FACILITATING TRADE. 51

ANNEX 2  64

TRADE REMEDY MEASURES. 64

ANNEX 3  80

OTHER TRADE‑RELATED MEASURES. 80

ANNEX 4  92

GENERAL ECONOMIC SUPPORT MEASURES. 92

 

Key findings

104 new trade-restrictive measures (excluding trade remedy measures) were put in place in the reporting period 16 October 2014 to 15 May 2015 – an average of around 15 new measures per month.

 

This monthly rate has remained relatively stable since 2012, though the overall stock of measures nevertheless continues to rise.

 

Of the 2,416 measures recorded since October 2008, less than 25% have been removed, leaving the stock of restrictive measures still in place at 1,828. This represents an increase of 12% compared to the last report.

 

This remains a cause for concern and continued vigilance is required from WTO members.

 

More encouragingly, WTO Members have adopted more trade-liberalizing measures (excluding trade remedy actions) than trade-restrictive measures since the end of 2013. Continuing this trend, during the period under review, WTO Members implemented 114 new trade-liberalizing measures – an average of more than 16 measures per month.

 

The broader international economic context supports the need for vigilance and action with regard to trade-restrictive measures. According to the WTO's most recent forecast (14 April 2015), growth in the volume of world merchandise trade should increase from 2.8% in 2014 to 3.3% in 2015 and further to 4.0% in 2016, but remaining below historical averages.

 

The multilateral trading system has proven its usefulness in providing a predictable and transparent framework governing trade between nations and in helping Members resist protectionist pressures as a response to the global economic and financial crisis and thereafter.

 

This role in providing a stable, predictable and transparent trading environment should be kept in mind as Members prepare for the WTO's tenth Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in December.

Trade-restrictive measures, not including trade remedies

(Average per month)

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

Trade-facilitating measures, not including trade remedies

(Average per month)

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

Stockpile of restrictive measures^[1]

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

Executive Summary

This trade-monitoring report reviews trade-related developments during the period from 16 October 2014 to 15 May 2015.

The report confirms that WTO Members continue to show some restraint in introducing new trade‑restrictive measures with the introduction of such measures (excluding trade remedies) relatively stable since 2012. During the period under review, 104 new trade-restrictive measures were put in place – an average of around 15 new measures per month.

Nevertheless, the slow pace of removal of previous restrictions means that the overall stock of restrictive measures is continuing to increase. Of the 2,416 restrictions (including trade remedies) recorded by the monitoring exercise since October 2008, only 588 have been removed. In other words, the total number of those restrictive measures still in place currently stands at 1,828 – up by over 12% compared to the last report. The addition of new restrictive measures, combined with a slow removal rate, remains a persistent concern. With the share of removals of total restrictive measures still under 25%, the longer‑term trend in the number of trade‑restrictive measures remains an area where continued vigilance is required.

More encouragingly, WTO Members continued to adopt measures aimed at facilitating trade, both temporary and permanent in nature. Members implemented 114 new trade-liberalizing measures during the period under review – an average of more than 16 measures per month. When counted without trade‑remedy actions, WTO Members have adopted more liberalizing trade measures than restrictive measures since the end of 2013.

Also, in the area of trade remedies, a slight deceleration has been observed in the number of initiations of anti-dumping investigations during the period under review. Initiations of countervailing investigations and safeguard investigations have also declined recently.

The broader international economic context also supports the need for continuing vigilance and action. Trends in world trade and output have remained mixed since the last monitoring report, as merchandise trade volumes and GDP growth picked up in the second half of 2014 but appear to have slowed in the first quarter of 2015. Economic activity remained uneven across countries as the United States (US) and China slowed in Q1 while growth in the euro area and Japan picked up. Plunging oil prices and strong exchange rate fluctuations – including an appreciation of the U.S. dollar and a depreciation of the Euro – generated uncertainty to the economic outlook. Lower prices for oil and other primary commodities were expected to provide a boost to importing economies, but reduced export revenues weighed heavily on commodity exporters. In light of these developments, the Secretariat's most recent forecast (14 April 2015) predicted a continued moderate expansion of trade in 2015 and 2016, although the pace of recovery was expected to remain below historical averages. According to this forecast, growth in the volume of world merchandise trade should increase from 2.8% in 2014 to 3.3% in 2015 and further to 4.0% in 2016.

This report shows that WTO Members introduced 75 new general economic support measures. The main beneficiaries were selected industries in the manufacturing sector, activities related to the agricultural sector and a number of programmes to assist SMEs. A variety of financial aid schemes appear by design to seek to encourage or boost exports while others identify conservation and the environment as overall objectives. A significant number of programmes which seek to eliminate or reduce subsidy schemes for gasoline and other fuels were identified during the period under review.

From transparency and systemic points of view, important developments took place in the WTO's TBT and SPS Committees. The SPS Committee has witnessed a significant growth in notifications from developing countries leading to the highest number of notifications to date. An increase in the number of notifications does not, however, automatically imply greater use of measures taken for protectionist purposes. Another noteworthy development was a significant increase in the number of new specific trade concerns (STCs) raised in the TBT Committee.

A number of recent policy developments in services were recorded during the review period. These include reforms of the insurance and pension sectors and easing of the rules on foreign investment in the construction and railway transportation sectors in India, as well as the lifting of restrictions on foreign investment in several service sectors in China. Also noteworthy is the amendment of the Russian Law on Foreign Investment in Strategic Companies; several important reforms in the audio-visual and ICT sectors by Argentina, Belgium, Mexico, Madagascar, Myanmar, Poland, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone and the United States (US); and also in financial services by China, India, Myanmar and the Philippines.

 

The overall assessment of this monitoring report is that the continuing increase in the stock of new trade-restrictive measures recorded since 2008 remains of concern in the context of an uncertain global economic outlook. WTO Members – individually and collectively – must show leadership and reinforced determination towards eliminating existing trade restrictions and refrain from implementing new ones.

The multilateral trading system has proven its usefulness in providing a predictable and transparent framework governing trade between nations and in helping Members resist protectionist pressures as a response to the global economic and financial crisis and thereafter. The role of the multilateral trading system in providing a stable, predictable and transparent trading environment should be kept in mind as Members prepare for the WTO's MC10 in Nairobi in December. Decisive progress in eliminating remaining trade-restrictive measures combined with further multilateral trade liberalization would be a powerful policy response.

1  introduction

1.1.  This monitoring report^[2] reviews trade and trade-related developments during the period mid‑October 2014 to mid-May 2015.^[3] It is a mid-year preparatory contribution to the annual report by the Director-General provided for in paragraph (g) of the Trade Policies Review Mechanism (TPRM) mandate which aims to assist the TPRB in undertaking an annual overview of developments in the international trading environment that are having an impact on the multilateral trading system. This report is intended to be purely factual and is issued under the sole responsibility of the Director‑General. It has no legal effect on the rights and obligations of Members, nor does it have any legal implication with respect to the conformity of any measure noted in the report with any WTO Agreement or any provision thereof. This report is without prejudice to Members' negotiating positions in the Doha Round.

1.2.  Section 2 of the report provides an overview of recent economic and trade trends. Section 3 presents an account of the main trade and trade-related policy developments during the period under review. Policy developments in trade in services are included in Section 4.

1.3.  Information on the measures included in this report has been collected from inputs submitted by Members and Observers, as well as from other official and public sources. Replies to the Director-General's request for information on measures taken during the period under review were received from 67 Members^[4] (Box 1), which represents 42% of the membership, or an almost 14% increase over the 2014 annual report. One Observer Government also replied to the request for information. All country-specific information collected was sent for verification to the delegation concerned. Requests for verification of information were sent to 76 delegations.^[5] 37 provided replies in time for the preparation of this report. Where it has not been possible to confirm the information, this is noted in the annexes. The country-specific measures listed in the four annexes are new measures implemented by Members and Observers during the period under review.^[6] The compilation of all measures that have been covered by the trade-monitoring reports since October 2008 is available in the Trade Monitoring Database (http://tmdb.wto.org/).

1.4.  The increase in participation and the involvement of several newcomers to the monitoring exercise is a positive development. However, participation remains low, in particular of African Members. The WTO Secretariat will continue to build on its recent outreach programme to regional and other groups so as to increase Members' understanding of and participation in the trade monitoring exercise.

Box 1 Members and Observers that replied to the Director-General's request for information^[7]

Albania Argentina Australia Azerbaijan* Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Egypt European Union

Guatemala Hong Kong, China India Indonesia Japan Korea, Republic of Macao, China Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Moldova Norway Paraguay Peru

Philippines Russian Federation Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Singapore Switzerland Chinese Taipei Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United States Uruguay

*             Observer

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

2  Recent economic and trade developments

2.1  Overview

2.1.  World trade and output picked up in the second half of 2014 after a weak first half limited the potential expansion for the year. However, slumping trade flows and mixed economic data in the first quarter suggest that trade growth will remain modest in 2015. According to the WTO's most recent forecast (14 April 2015), the volume of world merchandise trade should increase by 3.3% in 2015 – up from 2.8% in 2014 – and 4.0% in 2016, slightly faster than current forecasts for world GDP at market exchange rates^[8], but still well below the average rate of 5.1% since 1990.

2.2.  Economic activity continues to be uneven across countries and regions. Most developed countries saw their economies strengthen since the last monitoring report, but the U.S. saw its pace of expansion slow, dragged down by weaker investment and falling exports. In contrast, GDP growth in the EU appears to have regained some momentum. Among EU member countries, the United Kingdom and Germany grew more slowly in the first quarter of 2015, but the pace of growth quickened in France, Italy and Spain. Among the emerging economies, Brazil and the Russian Federation have recorded weak growth since the last report, partly due to slumping commodity prices and, in the case of Russia, geopolitical tensions. China and India have continued to outpace other major economies despite slower growth recently in China.

2.3.  Large fluctuations in commodity prices and exchange rates have made the global outlook more uncertain and have strongly influenced current dollar denominated trade statistics. Of particular importance for trade is the sharp rise in the value of the U.S. dollar against other currencies, since many traded goods are priced in dollars. This is illustrated by Chart 2.1, which shows the U.S. Federal Reserve's broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar exchange rate index since the start of 2014. The U.S. currency appreciated by 16% on average against trading partners' currencies between 1 July 2014 and 15 March 2015. The index has since retreated from its peak but is still up around 10% year-on-year.

2.4.  Some bilateral exchange rates have experienced larger swings, driven by changes in monetary policy (i.e. the expectation that interest rates will soon rise in the U.S., paired with the belief that the euro area and Japan will maintain a more accommodative stance). The value of the euro against the dollar declined by 23% between 1 July 2014 and 15 March 2015 and is currently down 17% year-on-year. Similarly, the dollar value of the Japanese yen dropped 15% year‑over‑year and 23% since January 2013. In contrast, the China/US exchange rate is nearly unchanged from a year ago. Dollar appreciation may cause trade denominated in other currencies (e.g. intra-EU trade) to be undervalued, thereby distorting growth rates and other calculations. As a result, trade statistics in current dollar terms must be interpreted with caution.

2.5.  Oil prices have also fallen sharply since the last monitoring report as a result of surging production in North America and weaker energy demand in certain emerging markets. Part of the price decline reflects the increased purchasing power of the dollar, which now commands more goods and services than it did a year ago. Fuel prices fell 51% between June 2014 and January 2015, and are currently down 44% year-on-year despite a small rebound in recent months (Chart 2.2). In principle, a decline in oil prices should reduce import demand in oil exporting countries since it cuts into their export revenues, which are used to pay for imports. On the other hand, lower oil prices boost real incomes in energy intensive economies, increasing demand for all goods and services, including imported ones.

Chart 2.1 Trade weighted US$ exchange rate index, 2 January 2014‑15 May 2015

(Index, January 2014 = 100)

Source:   Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Chart 2.2 Prices of primary commodities, January 2012 – April 2015

(Indices, January 2012 = 100)

Source:   IMF Primary Commodity Prices.

2.6.  In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its latest projections for world output in 2015 and 2016, which were mostly in line with previous estimates. The IMF expects global GDP at purchasing power parity to grow 3.5% in 2015 and 3.8% in 2016. These modest gains in GDP should translate into equally modest increases in world trade. Growth is expected to accelerate in advanced economies but weaken in developing economies, reflecting a more subdued outlook for emerging markets and for oil exporters.

2.7.  Lower oil prices may provide some limited upside potential for trade if their positive impact on demand in energy-intensive economies outweighs their negative impact in oil exporters. So far in 2015, lower oil prices do not appear to have produced a strong increase in world import demand in developed countries. Consumers may believe that the recent fall in oil prices is temporary, in which case they would tend to save any windfall rather than raise their consumption. If low prices persist households may revise their expectations and start consuming (and importing) more. However, in contrast to this positive scenario most current risks to the forecast are firmly on the downside. These include disruptive financial flows stemming from divergent monetary policies, legacies from the financial crisis (including uncertainties regarding some sovereign debts), and geopolitical tensions.

2.2  GDP and employment

2.8.  Quarterly data on world GDP growth are not readily available, but aggregate figures for G-20 economies can serve as a reasonable substitute since these countries represent around 85% of world output. According to statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), output of G-20 economies grew at an average (annualized) rate of 3.6% in the second half of 2014, up from 3.0% in the first half. The increase appears to have been driven by a pickup in output of developed countries, particularly the U.S., where growth accelerated from 1.2% in the first half of the year to 3.5% in the second half.

2.9.  US GDP growth was very uneven in 2014, with a 2% decline in Q1 followed by increases of 4.5% in Q2, 4.9% in Q3 and 2.0% in Q4. Growth subsequently fell to 0.4% in Q1 of 2015, partly as a result of harsh winter weather. Despite the more recent GDP slowdown, the U.S. unemployment rate has continued to decline, dropping to 5.4% in April.

2.10.  The EU's GDP increased at a 1.2% annual rate in Q3 of last year before accelerating to 1.6% in both 2014Q4 and 2015Q1. EU-wide unemployment remained elevated at 9.8% in March, with no change in joblessness since January. By comparison, euro area GDP growth rose to 1.6% in Q1 of this year, up from 0.8% in Q3 of last year. The unemployment rate for the euro area was higher than the EU rate at 11.3% in March 2015. This was also unchanged since January.

2.11.  Japan's GDP has alternated between expansion and contraction since 2013. Output growth was negative in Q3 of last year (-2.8%) but turned positive (+1.6%) in Q4. Despite the fact that growth averaged -0.6% in the second half of 2014, unemployment has continued to decline gradually, dropping to 3.4% in March from 3.6% in January.

2.12.  GDP growth remained positive in China (7.0%), Brazil (1.0%), and India (7.8%) in the second half of last year, while the Russian Federation managed to avoid an outright decline (0.0%). Among these countries, only China has reported GDP figures for Q1 (5.3%).

2.3  Merchandise trade

2.13.  Chart 2.3 shows quarterly contributions of developed and developing economies to year‑on‑year growth in the dollar value of world merchandise trade since 2012Q1. A combination of lower oil prices and U.S. dollar appreciation certainly contributed to the declines in exports (‑3.8%) and imports (‑2.9%) in Q4. How much of this decline is attributable to changes in the quantity of goods traded is difficult to say without resorting to trade statistics in volume terms. Quarterly merchandise trade volume indices jointly prepared by the WTO and UNCTAD indicate that world trade actually rose 4% year-on-year in volume terms in Q4. On the other hand, monthly trade volume indices through February from the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) suggest that quarter-on-quarter growth in world merchandise trade may turn negative in Q1 once all data for the quarter are collected.

Chart 2.3 Contributions to year-on-year growth in world merchandise exports and imports, 2012Q1-2014Q4

(% change in US$ values)

a             Includes significant re-exports. Also includes the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Note:       Due to scarce data availability, Africa and Middle East are under-represented in world totals.

Source:   WTO Secretariat estimates, based on data compiled from IMF International Financial Statistics; Eurostat Comext Database; Global Trade Atlas; and national statistics.

2.14.  The fact that developing countries contributed less than developed countries to world import demand between 2013Q4 and 2014Q3 is striking. However, the most notable features of this chart are the large negative contributions to exports and imports from developed economies in Q4. These declines may be partly explained by the conversion of euro-denominated trade values into dollars before calculating growth rates. Recent dollar appreciation could cause identical quantities of goods to have lower dollar values Q4, thereby biasing growth rates downward. For example, Intra-EU trade was down 16% year-on-year in March when measured in dollars, but it was up 7% when measured in euros.

2.15.  Trade statistics in volume terms provide a more accurate picture of recent trade developments since they can account for strong fluctuations in prices and exchange rates. Chart 2.4 shows seasonally-adjusted quarterly merchandise trade volume indices for the U.S., the EU, Japan, Brazil and developing Asia (including both China and India) from 2010Q1 to 2014Q4.

2.16.  Extra-EU imports did turn slightly negative in the fourth quarter of 2014 (-0.6%, not annualized) and intra-EU trade was basically flat, but exports and imports of most other countries and regions actually accelerated toward the end of the year. One major exception was Brazil, where imports declined by 6.4% and exports dropped 3.7% in Q4. Overall, world trade as measured by the average of exports and imports increased by 2.0% in Q4.

2.17.  Weak EU import demand continues to weigh heavily on world trade since the EU accounts for roughly one third of world imports, including intra-EU trade. Although the decline in Brazil's imports was larger in percentage terms, it does not have as strong an influence on world trade since the country only accounts for 1.3% of global imports.

2.18.  Merchandise trade statistics in current U.S. dollar terms are more timely than those in volume terms, and are available for a larger number of countries. These data are illustrated by Chart 2.5, which shows monthly exports and imports of selected economies through March or April, depending on availability. Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Chinese Taipei have already reported data for April, while all other countries are shown through March.

2.19.  These data present a rather negative picture of trade in the first quarter, with imports of the EU, Japan, Brazil and the Russian Federation at or near multi-year lows. These data probably do portend weaker world trade volume growth in Q1, but exchange rates and commodity prices account for much of the weakness. CPB trade volume estimates for January-February suggest that world trade volume may decrease by around 1% quarter-on-quarter in Q1 unless there is a turnaround in March.

Chart 2.4 Volume of exports and imports of selected economies

(Seasonally adjusted volume indices, 2010Q1 = 100)

Note:       Data for the EU, Japan and the U.S. were obtained from national statistical sources while figures for developing Asia are seasonally adjusted Secretariat estimates that should be interpreted with caution.

Source:   WTO and UNCTAD Secretariats.

Chart 2.5 Merchandise exports and imports of selected economies, January 2010‑April 2015

(US$ billion)

 

Source:   IMF, International Financial Statistics; Global Trade Information Services GTA database; national statistics.

2.4  Trade in commercial services

2.20.  Chart 2.6 shows year-on-year growth in the dollar value of commercial services trade for selected economies from 2013Q4 to 2014Q4. These data are affected by the recent appreciation of the U.S. dollar in much the same way that the merchandise trade values are. For example, the 1% decline in service exports of the EU in Q4 becomes a 3% increase when data are expressed in euros. Consequently, these data should also be interpreted with care.

Chart 2.6 Commercial services exports and imports of selected economies,

2013Q4-2014Q4^a

a             China's figures for 2014Q2 to 2014Q4 are not available.

Source:   WTO and UNCTAD Secretariats.

2.21.  Japan recorded rapid growth in commercial services exports in Q4, with a year-on-year increase of 24%. The Russian Federation suffered a sharp decline of 11% during the same period.

2.22.  Japan also registered the fastest growth on the import side (6%), while the Russian Federation experienced the biggest decline (-19%). Exports and imports of the U.S. have continued to grow at a slow, steady pace between 3% and 5%. World commercial services exports were flat in Q4, with an increase of 0.2%, down from 5% in the previous quarter.

2.5  Trade forecast and economic outlook

2.23.  In the WTO's annual spring press release, the Secretariat predicted 3.3% growth in the volume of world merchandise trade for 2015 and 4.0% growth in 2016 based on consensus estimates of world GDP at market exchange rates (see Table 2.1). These estimates imply multiples of trade growth over GDP growth slightly greater than 1 in 2015 and 2016, above than the rough 1-to-1 ratios observed between 2012 and 2014 but well below the 2-to-1 ratios that were common before the financial crisis.

2.24.  Both exports and imports of developed countries are expected to grow by 3.2% in 2015. Meanwhile, exports of developing/emerging economies are expected to increase by 3.6% and their imports are forecast to grow by 3.7%.

2.25.  Asia should record the strongest export growth in 2015 (5.0%), followed by North America (4.5%). European exports should also pick up this year with a 3.0% increase, up from 1.9 % last year. Weaker export growth is anticipated for South America (0.2%) and "Other Regions" (-0.6%, comprising Africa, Middle East and CIS) in 2015.

2.26.  Imports should increase by around 5% in 2015 in both North America and Asia. At the same time, Europe should see solid import growth of around 3%. In contrast to these gains, South America and other regions should register declines in their imports of 0.5% and 2.4%, respectively.

2.27.  A return to higher oil prices in the neighbourhood of US$100/barrel would significantly alter the outlook for world trade and output, possibly muting the economic recoveries in energy intensive economies and boosting growth in oil exporters. A partial recovery in prices is possible as growth picks up in developed economies and as lower prices curtail investment in unconventional extraction. However, a full recovery of prices is unlikely due to the economics of shale oil (investment would likely increase once prices rose sufficiently to cover costs in new projects) and the recent relative weakness of emerging economics. The IMF is forecasting an average world oil price of US$58/barrel in 2015 and US$68/barrel in 2016.

Table 2.1 Merchandise trade volume growth, 2011-16

(Annual % change)

	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015a	2016a
Volume of world merchandise trade	5.4	2.2	2.4	2.8	3.3	4.0
Exports
Developed economies	5.2	1.1	1.6	2.2	3.2	4.4
Developing and emerging economies	5.8	3.7	3.9	3.3	3.6	4.1
North America	6.6	4.5	2.8	4.3	4.5	4.9
South and Central America	6.6	0.8	1.5	-2.5	0.2	1.6
Europe	5.6	0.8	1.6	1.9	3.0	3.7
Asia	6.4	2.7	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.4
Other regionsb	2.0	4.0	0.7	0.1	-0.6	0.3
Imports
Developed economies	3.4	-0.1	-0.2	3.2	3.2	3.5
Developing and emerging economies	7.2	4.8	5.6	2.9	3.7	5.0
North America	4.4	3.2	1.1	4.4	4.9	5.1
South and Central America	12.6	2.3	3.2	-3.0	-0.5	3.1
Europe	3.2	-1.8	-0.3	2.8	2.7	3.1
Asia	6.5	3.6	4.8	3.6	5.1	5.1
Other regionsb	7.9	9.9	3.9	0.0	-2.4	1.0

a             Figures for 2015 and 2016 are projections.

b             Other regions comprise Africa, the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Middle East.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3  TRADE AND TRADE-RELATED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

3.1  Overview

3.1.  The trade measures compiled for this report are presented in three categories: (i) measures that clearly facilitate trade (Annex 1); (ii) trade‑remedy measures (Annex 2); and (iii) other trade and trade-related measures (Annex 3).^[9] The total number of measures in these three categories recorded over the period mid-October 2014 to mid‑May 2015 is 387. This comprises 114 trade‑facilitating measures, 169 trade‑remedy measures and 104 other trade and trade‑related measures.

3.2.  The 114 trade‑facilitating measures (Table 3.1) recorded during the seven-month period covered by this report represent an absolute increase over the previous period (mid‑November 2013 – mid-May 2014), but more importantly is the highest monthly average of such measures recorded in monitoring reports since 2012. Over 73% of these trade‑facilitating measures consist of measures that provide for tariff reductions, sometimes applied on a temporary basis. These trade‑facilitating measures cover 0.7% of world merchandise imports (US$133 billion).^[10]

Table 3.1 Measures facilitating trade (Annex 1)

Type of measure	Mid-October 2011 to mid-October 2012	Mid-October 2012 to mid-November 2013	Mid-November 2013 to mid-October 2014	Mid-November 2013 to mid-May 2014 (6 months)	Mid-October 2014 to mid-May 2015 (7 months)
Import	136	101	168	81	97
- Tariff	120	82	145	63	83
- Customs procedures	13	15	18	15	10
- Tax	2	3	1	2	2
- Quantitative restrictions	1	1	4	1	2
Export	18	6	9	4	12
- Duties	7	3	4	0	7
- Quantitative restrictions	11	3	3	2	0
- Other			2	2	5
Other	8	0	0	1	5
Total	162	107	177	86	114
Average per month	13.5	8.2	16.1	14.3	16.3

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.3.  The principal sectors benefiting from the trade-facilitating measures were: machinery and mechanical appliances; precious metals (gold); transport equipment (parts and accessories of motor vehicles); precision instruments (e.g. medical); and chemical products.

3.4.  Trade‑remedy measures taken between mid-October 2014 and mid-May 2015 are listed in Annex 2.^[11] As a share of all trade and trade-related measures recorded for the review period, trade remedies make up almost 44%. Out of the 169 trade remedy measures recorded (Table 3.2), 136, or over 80%, were anti-dumping actions. In line with the trend identified in past monitoring reports, more initiations were recorded than terminations. However, the monthly average of trade remedy actions recorded for this exercise was down compared to previous reports. Out of the total number of trade‑remedy measures, 92 were initiations of new trade‑remedy investigations covering around 0.1% of world merchandise imports (close to US$16.0 billion), and 77 measures were terminations of either investigations or of existing duties covering around 0.04% of world imports (US$8.0 billion).

Table 3.2 Trade remedy measures (Annex 2)^[12]

Type of measure	Mid-October 2012 to mid-November 2013 (13 Months)			Mid-November 2013 to mid-October 2014 (11 Months)			Mid-October 2014 to mid‑May 2015 (7 Months)
	Initiations	Terminations	Total	Initiations	Terminations	Total	Initiations	Terminations	Total
Anti-dumping	156	112	268	134	133	267	74	62	136
Countervailing	24	9	33	21	15	36	13	9	22
Safeguard	37	17	54	16	18	34	5	6	11
Total	217	138	355	171	166	337	92	77	169
Average per month	16.7	10.6	27.3	15.5	15.1	30.6	13.1	11.0	24.1

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.5.  The number of other trade and trade-related measures recorded during the review period (Annex 3) was 104, compared to 74 recorded for the mid-year monitoring report in 2014. However, more interestingly, the monthly average of the introduction of such measures has gone up in the current period, although it remains below the monthly average of trade-facilitating measures. Out of the 104 measures listed in Annex 3, some 77 measures were applied to imports. The import measure of choice remains tariffs, accounting for over two-thirds of import measures in Annex 3 (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 Other trade and trade-related measures (Annex 3)

Type of measure	Mid- Oct. 2011 to mid- Oct. 2012	Mid- Oct. 2012 to mid‑ Nov. 2013	Mid- Nov. 2013 to mid- Oct. 2014	Mid- Nov. 2013 to mid- May 2014 (6 months)	Mid- Oct. 2014 to mid- May 2015 (7 months)
Import	118	153	119	48	77
- Tariff	54	106	74	26	52
- Customs procedures	38	25	26	13	10
- Tax	6	6	7	2	4
- Quantitative    restrictions	20	15	11	7	6
- Other	0	1	1	0	5
Export	32	27	36	20	18
- Duties	8	4	12	7	8
- Quantitative    restrictions	24	11	12	7	1
- Other	0	12	12	6	9
Other	14	10	13	6	9
Total	164	190	168	74	104
Average per month	13.7	14.6	15.3	12.3	14.9

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.6.  Other trade and trade-related measures recorded (Annex 3) for the review period cover a wide range of products. The main sectors targeted were: mineral products; iron and steel; vegetable fats and oils; and chemical products, accounting for 1.2% of world imports (US$225 billion).^[13]

3.7.  Continuing a positive trend identified in the annual overview last year, the number of trade‑facilitating measures remains higher than the number of other trade and trade‑related measures. In other words, as can be seen from a comparison of Table 3.1 and Table 3.3, according to the number of measures recorded by the monitoring exercise since the end of 2013, WTO Members have introduced more trade‑facilitating measures than other trade and trade‑related measures, although the value of merchandise imports covered by trade-facilitating measures is significantly lower.

3.8.  The total number of trade‑restrictive measures (including trade remedy measures) introduced by WTO Members since October 2008, and recorded by the periodic monitoring reports is 2,416.^[14] According to information recorded for this exercise, as of mid-May 2015, 588, or around a quarter, of these measures had been removed leaving the stockpile of measures still in place at 1,828 – an increase of almost 12% since October 2014. Chart 3.1 compares the stockpile of restrictive measures at mid-October 2010 with that of mid-May 2015.

Chart 3.1 Stockpile of restrictive measures^[15]

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.9.  Overall, and as indicated by the previous report, the addition of new trade-restrictive measures combined with a removal rate which fails to significantly reduce the overall accumulated stockpile of trade measures remains an area of concern for global trade.^[16]

3.2  Trade-remedy trends^[17]

3.10.  This section provides an assessment of trends in trade-remedy measures during the period October 2013 to April 2014 ("first period") in comparison with October 2014 to April 2015 ("second period").^[18] Concerning anti-dumping, the most recent data indicate a slight deceleration of initiations. Countervailing and safeguard patterns between the two periods show a decrease in initiations of both types of investigations. The number of safeguard initiations in particular in the second period is at two thirds that of the first.

3.11.  The number of initiations of anti-dumping investigations remained relatively stable over the two periods examined, with 130 initiations registered during the first period and 122 during the second (Table 3.4). However, the number of investigations initiated by individual members varied, in some cases significantly, between the periods. During the first period, the largest number of anti-dumping investigations was initiated by Brazil (35), the U.S. (23), Australia (15) and India (15). During the second period, the largest number of anti-dumping investigations was initiated by India (28), Turkey (16) and the U.S. (14). Reductions in the number of investigations initiated in the second period were seen for Brazil, the U.S. and Australia, while the number of initiations from India, Mexico and the EU increased significantly.

Table 3.4 Initiations of anti-dumping investigations

(Counted on the basis of exporting countries affected)

Reporting Member	October 2013 – April 2014	October 2014 – April 2015a
Argentina	4	5
Australia	15	11
Brazil	35	10
Canada	0	1
Chile	0	1
China	2	3
Colombia	2	1
Dominican Republic	2	0
Egypt	2	1
European Union	2	6
Guatemala	1	0
India	15	28
Indonesia	0	6
Japan	1	0
Korea, Republic of	6	2
Mexico	2	10
Pakistan	2	3
Peru	1	0
Russian Federation	4	2
South Africa	5	0
Chinese Taipei	1	0
Turkey	4	16
Ukraine	1	1
United States	23	14
Uruguay	0	1
Total	130	122

a             Data available only through April 2015. Data for January through April 2015 is partly unverified and collected from various unofficial sources.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.12.  Chart 3.2, below, shows the trends in total initiations between 2008 and April 2015.

3.13.  The distribution of anti-dumping measures across different sectors remained relatively constant across the two periods. Metals and chemicals each accounted for approximately one third of new anti-dumping investigations in both periods (Chart 3.3). Plastic related products, machinery and stone/plaster products also accounted a steady share of initiations across the two periods.

3.14.  China remains the country that is most frequently affected by the initiation of anti-dumping investigations, although the share of initiations that targeted China declined from 30% in the first period to 22% in the second period. In the first period, Japan and the Republic of Korea were then the next most affected, both with 6% of initiations. In the second period, the Republic of Korea once more was targeted next after China, along with India and the U.S., with 7% of initiations each.

3.15.  The number of initiations of countervailing investigations decreased from 19 in the first period to 14 in the second (Table 3.5). Investigations were only initiated in the first period by the U.S. (12), the EU (five) and Australia (two). In the second period, the U.S. continued to be the most active Member in this area with 10 initiations, but Brazil, Canada, the EU and the Russian Federation also initiated a countervail investigation.

 

Chart 3.2 Anti-dumping initiations by reporting Member^a

a             Data available only through April 2015. Data for January through April 2015 is partly unverified and collected from various unofficial sources.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

Chart 3.3 Anti-dumping initiations by sector

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

Table 3.5 Initiations of countervailing duty investigations

(Counted on the basis of exporting countries affected)

Reporting Member	October 2013-April 2014	October 2014-April 2015a
Australia	2	0
Brazil	0	1
Canada	0	1
European Union	5	1
Russian Federation	0	1
United States	12	10
Total	19	14

a             Data available only through April 2015. Data for January through April 2015 is partly unverified and collected from various unofficial sources.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.16.  Chart 3.4, below, shows the trends in total initiations between 2008 and April 2015.

Chart 3.4 Countervailing investigation initiations by reporting Member^a

a             Data available only through April 2015. Data for January through April 2015 is partly unverified and collected from various unofficial sources.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.17.  During the first period, metals accounted for seven of the 19 initiations, chemicals accounted for five, and textile products, three. The remaining countervail investigations were in relation to: machinery; food; animals/animal products; and stone/plaster sectors with one initiation each. In the second period, metals and plastics were the most affected sectors with four initiations each. Paper products were the subject of three investigations, chemicals were subject to two and one investigation was initiated in relation to machinery. Chart 3.5, below, provides the percentage breakout.

Chart 3.5 Countervailing initiations by sector

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.18.  Similarly to anti-dumping, China is the country most frequently subject to the initiation of countervail investigations. The share of countervail investigations of imports from China was 58% in the first period and 29% in the second. Second to China was India, which was subject to one investigation in the first period (5% of initiations), but three in the second period (21% of initiations).

3.19.  During these periods, countervail investigations were frequently initiated in parallel with anti-dumping investigations on the same product from the same country of export. In total, 15 of the 19 countervail investigations were initiated in parallel with anti-dumping investigations in the first period, while 11 of the 14 countervail investigations accompanied an anti-dumping investigation in the second period. There is a confirmed tendency for Members to initiate concurrent anti-dumping and countervail investigations in relation to China in particular.

3.20.  The number of initiations of safeguard investigations declined from nine in the first period to six in the second (Table 3.6). India initiated the most safeguard investigations in the first period (four), while only Egypt and Turkey initiated investigations in the second period, with three each. In terms of product coverage, metals and chemicals accounted for two thirds of the initiations in the first period, accounting for four and two initiations respectively. In the second period, machinery accounted for two initiations and the four remaining investigations related to the metal, stone/plaster, paper and food sectors. Chart 3.6 below, provides the percentage breakout.

Chart 3.6 Safeguard initiations by sector

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

Table 3.6 Initiations of safeguard investigations

Reporting Member	October 2013-April 2014	October 2014-April 2015a
Costa Rica	1	0
Egypt	0	3
India	4	0
Indonesia	2	0
Chinese Taipei	1	0
Thailand	1	0
Turkey	0	3
Total	9	6

a             Data available only through April 2015. Data for January through April 2015 is partly unverified and collected from various unofficial sources.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.21.  Chart 3.7 below, shows the trends in total initiations between 2008 and April 2015.

Chart 3.7 Safeguard initiations by reporting Member, 2008–2015^a

a             Data available only through April 2015; data for January through April 2015 is partly unverified and collected from various unofficial sources.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.3  Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS)^[19]

3.22.  Under the SPS Agreement, WTO Members are obliged to provide an advance notice of intention to introduce new or modified SPS measures^[20], or to notify immediately when emergency measures are imposed. The main objective of complying with the SPS notification obligations is to inform other Members about new or changed regulations that may significantly affect trade. Therefore, an increased number of notifications does not automatically imply greater use of protectionist measures, but rather enhanced transparency regarding these measures.

3.23.  In the period from October 2014 to March 2015, 814 SPS notifications (regular and emergency, including addenda) were submitted to the WTO. Notifications from developing-country Members accounted for 79% of the total number. In the previous six-month period, the proportion of measures notified by developing-country Members was considerably lower: from April through September 2014, a total of 714 notifications were submitted, of which 61% were by developing country Members. Consequently, in the period under review, there has been a 30% increase in the share of notifications made by developing-country Members as compared to the previous six‑month period.

3.24.  If we consider regular notifications (including addenda), from October 2014 through March 2015, WTO Members submitted 731 regular SPS notifications; 78% of which were submitted by developing-country Members. Compared with the previous six-month period (April‑September 2014), there was a 13% increase in the total number of notified measures, and a 35% increase in the share of notifications made by developing-country Members.

3.25.  The number of notifications of emergency measures also increased compared with the previous period (Chart 3.8). The share of emergency notifications submitted by developing-country Members was similar to that of the previous period. From October 2014 through March 2015, 86% of the 83 notifications of emergency measures were submitted by developing-country Members. For the previous period (April-September 2014), 84% of the 68 emergency notifications had been submitted by developing-country Members. This high proportion of emergency measures notified by developing-country Members might stem from the fact that they do not have extensive SPS regulatory systems as developed-country Members do, and consequently, when facing emergency challenges, they are more likely to have to introduce new regulations or change existing ones.

Chart 3.8 Number of SPS notifications

Source:     WTO Secretariat.

3.26.  Many Members are following the recommendation to notify SPS measures even when these are based on a relevant international standard, as this substantially increases transparency regarding SPS measures. Of the 626 regular notifications (excluding addenda) submitted from October 2014 to March 2015, 329 (52% of the total) indicated that an international standard, guideline or recommendation was applicable to the notified measure (Chart 3.9). Of these, 68% indicated that the proposed measure was in conformity with the existing international standard.

Chart 3.9 Regular SPS notifications and international standards

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.27.  International standards often provide useful guidance regarding measures to address disease outbreaks and other emergency situations. Indeed, 97% of the 67 emergency notifications (excluding addenda) submitted from October 2014 to March 2015 indicated that an international standard, guideline or recommendation was applicable to the notified measure (Chart 3.10). They all indicated that the measure was in conformity with the existing international standard.

Chart 3.10 Emergency SPS notifications and international standards

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.28.  Of the 626 regular notifications (excluding addenda) submitted from October 2014 to March 2015, the majority were related to food safety.^[21] The remaining notifications related to plant protection, the protection of humans from animal diseases or plant pests, animal health and the protection of the Member's territory from other damage from pests. Several of the regular notifications identified more than one objective per measure.

3.29.  Of the 67 emergency measures (excluding addenda) notified in the same period, the majority related to animal health, followed by measures related to the protection of humans from animal diseases or plant pests, food safety, plant protection and the protection of the Member's territory from other damage from pests. Similarly, the majority of emergency notifications during this period identified more than one objective per measure.

3.30.  While there is no formal provision for "counter notification", concerns regarding the failure to notify an SPS measure, or on a notified measure, can be raised as a specific trade concern (STCs) at any of the three regular meetings of the SPS Committee each year. In the two Committee meetings of October 2014 and March 2015, 9 new STCs were raised. Three of these STCs related to food safety, 2 to animal health, 1 to plant health, and 3 to other types of concerns (Table 3.7).

3.31.  One new STC which had been included on the proposed agenda for the March 2015 meeting was withdrawn following bilateral consultations: Chile's concerns regarding Viet Nam's measures on meat and dairy products.

Table 3.7 SPS specific trade concerns raised between October 2014 and March 2015

STC	Document title	Members maintaining the measure	Members raising the concern	Members supporting the concern	Date raised	Primary objective
379	Russia's market access requirements for bovine meat in compliance with OIE requirements	Russian Federation	India		15/10/2014	Food safety
380	Russia's restrictions on imports of fruits and vegetables from Poland (G/SPS/N/RUS/69)	Russian Federation	European Union		15/10/2014	Plant health
381	Russia's introduction of new requirements for veterinary certificates	Russian Federation	Ukraine		15/10/2014	Other concerns
383	China's measures on bovine meat	China	India		26/03/2015	Animal health
384	General import restrictions due to African Swine Fever	Certain Members	European Union		26/03/2015	Animal health
385	General import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza	Certain Members	European Union		26/03/2015	Food safety
386	Mexico's measures on imports of hibiscus flowers	Mexico	Nigeria	Burkina Faso, Senegal	26/03/2015	Other concerns
387	Chinese Taipei's strengthened import restrictions on food with regard to radionuclides	Chinese Taipei	Japan		26/03/2015	Food safety
388	US proposed rule for user fees for agricultural quarantine and inspection services	United States	Mexico		26/03/2015	Other concerns

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.32.  Sixteen previously raised STCs were discussed at the October 2014 or March 2015 SPS Committee meetings (twelve were discussed in both meetings). Of these, 4 addressed persistent problems that have been discussed 7 times or more. In particular, 2 STCs have been discussed on 17 or more occasions (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8 Previously-raised SPS specific trade concerns discussed in October 2014 and/or March 2015

STC	Document title	Members maintaining the measure	Members raising the concern	Members supporting the concern	First date raised	Times subsequently raised
193	General import restrictions due to BSE	Certain Members, specifically Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Rep. of, Ukraine	European Union, United States	Canada, Switzerland, Uruguay	01/06/2004	23
238	Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods	European Union	Colombia, Ecuador, Peru	Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Plurinational State of, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Philippines, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of	01/03/2006	17
330	Indonesia's port closures	Indonesia	Chile, China, European Union, New Zealand, United States	Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Rep. of, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Uruguay	27/03/2012	7
340	Requirements for importation of sheep meat	Turkey	Australia	United States	18/10/2012	7
354	Import restrictions in response to the Japanese nuclear power plant accident	Certain Members, specifically China; Chinese Taipei; Hong Kong, China	Japan		27/06/2013	4
358	Import conditions for pork and pork products	India	European Union		16/10/2013	4
359	Strengthened import restrictions on fishery products with regard to radionuclides	Korea, Republic of	Japan		16/10/2013	4
289	US measures on catfish	United States	China		28/10/2009	3
356	Phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot	European Union	South Africa	Argentina	27/06/2013	3
373	U.S. high cost of certification for mango exports	United States	India	Dominican Republic	09/07/2014	3
374	EU ban on mangoes and certain vegetables	European Union	India	Nigeria	09/07/2014	2
375	U.S. non-acceptance of OIE categorization for BSE	United States	India		09/07/2014	2
376	Australia's non-acceptance of OIE categorization for BSE	Australia	India		09/07/2014	2
378	EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic products	European Union	India		09/07/2014	2
346	Ban on Bisphenol A	France, European Union	United States		21/03/2013	1
382	EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors	European Union	United States	Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa and Uruguay	25/03/2014	1

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.4  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

3.33.  Under the TBT Agreement, WTO Members are obliged to notify their intention to introduce new or modified TBT measures, or to notify immediately when emergency measures are imposed. The main objective of complying with the TBT notification obligations is to inform other Members about new or changed regulations that may significantly affect trade.^[22] Therefore, an increased number of notifications does not necessarily imply greater use of protectionist measures. TBT notification obligations are meant to promote enhanced transparency regarding measures taken to address legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, or the environment.

3.34.  During the period from 8 November 2014 to 12 May 2015 ("reviewed period"), WTO Members submitted 702 regular notifications of TBT measures^[23], of which around 80% were submitted by developing-country Members.^[24] This overall number of 702 notifications is markedly lower than in the period November 2013 – May 2014, although the proportion from developing countries was only slightly lower.^[25] The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the U.S. submitted the highest number of notifications during this period (57 each), followed by the Republic of Korea (51), and the EU (40). A large portion (25%) of these notifications came from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members. The main objectives^[26] indicated in these notifications were: "protection of human health or safety" (70%); "prevention of deceptive practices and consumer protection" (30%); and "protection of the environment" (15%).

3.35.  Any Member may raise STCs with respect to TBT measures taken or proposed by other Members.^[27] These STCs are frequently discussed in the regular meetings of the TBT Committee. Since 1995 and up to 12 May 2015, Members have raised 461 new STCs. STCs are, however, frequently discussed in subsequent meetings to the one in which they were first raised. In 2014, a record of 47 new STCs were raised, the most in any given year since 1995. An upward trend in STCs has been observed since 2005 (see Chart 3.11). 2014 was also the second highest year in the overall number of STCs (new and previously-raised) discussed (85).^[28]

Chart 3.11 Number of STCs raised with respect to Members' TBT measures per year

Note:       This chart counts the number of TBT measures discussed as STCs per year. STCs raised in 2015 are not included.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.36.  As illustrated by Chart 3.12, below, there is a marked correlation between the number of new notifications and new STCs raised each year. On average, since 1995, 66% of STCs discussed in TBT Committee meetings relate to notified measures.

3.37.  Members raised 8 new STCs during the only Committee meeting that fell within the reviewed period (March 2015). Overall, 55 new and previously-raised STCs were discussed, keeping with the trend of a greater number of STCs being discussed per meeting as well as per year. Chart 3.13 illustrates that the volume of STCs discussed in the TBT Committee annually has grown significantly between 2005 and 2014 (from 33 to 148). This upward trend shows that the Committee has spent more time discussing STCs (only around 11 STCs were discussed per meeting in 2005 while that figure was 49 in 2014). All 8 new STCs discussed during the reviewed period were either raised by, or involved measures from, G-20 Members. Almost all new STCs (7 out of 8) targeted measures maintained by G-20 Members, significantly higher than the overall trend since 1995.^[29] The list of all new concerns raised in the March 2014 meeting is provided in Table 3.9.

Chart 3.12 Number of notifications and new STCs

Note:       STCs raised in 2015 are not included.

Source:   WTO Secretariat. See in particular Twentieth Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement – Note by the Secretariat (G/TBT/36, 23 February 2015).

Chart 3.13 STCs discussed per committee meeting, 2005-14

Note:       This chart counts the number of STCs on the agenda of the TBT Committee per meeting. Note that the same STCs can be raised at all three meetings in a year and, in this chart, is counted under all three meetings. STCs raised in 2015 are not included.

Source:   WTO Secretariat. See in particular Twentieth Annual Review of the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement – Note by the Secretariat (G/TBT/36, 23 February 2015).

3.38.  Around 30% of all 55 STCs (new and previously-raised) covered by the reviewed period involved measures dealing with nutrition (5), alcohol (5), cosmetics (4) and tobacco (3), including a proposed tobacco‑control measure taken by a Local Government within a Member. Although technical regulations taken by Local Governments are also disciplined by the TBT Agreement, they are not commonly notified and are rarely subject to STCs in the Committee.^[30] Besides these areas, STCs of the reviewed period involved measures covering a variety of other issues, including two that are becoming more frequently discussed in the Committee: IT and environment.

Table 3.9 New STCs raised during the March 2015 TBT Committee meeting

Member maintaining the measure (in alphabetical order)	STC title	Stated objective	Product coverage	Members raising the concern
Canada	Tobacco Reduction (Flavored Tobacco Products) Amendment Act, 2013 – Bill 206 (ID 463)	Protection of human health and safety	Flavoured tobacco products	Indonesia
China	Administrative Measure on Cosmetics Labelling (AMCL) (ID 456)	Integrating, summarizing and adjusting the relevant existing regulations and standards to promote the norm, healthy development of the industry.	Cosmetics	Canada; Japan; Republic of Korea; United States; European Union
China	Banking IT Equipment Security Regulation (ID 457)	To strengthen the security of the information network	IT banking system	Canada; Japan; United States; European Union
Ecuador	Emergency Technical Regulation (RTE) No. 088: "Surface tension agents", of the Ecuadorian Standardization Institute (INEN) G/TBT/N/ECU/117 (ID 458)	Protection of human health and safety; protection of the environment; prevention of deceptive practices	Surface tension agents	Mexico
Indonesia	Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture No. 39/Permentan/PD.4, 10 December 2014, concerning Importation of Carcass, Meat and/or Processed Meat Products into the Territory of the Republic of Indonesia, and Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture No. 02/Permentan/PD.4, 10 January 2015, concerning the Amendment of the Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture No. 39/Permentan/PD.4, 10 December 2014 (ID 461)	Protection of human health and safety; protection of the environment	Meat	Australia; Canada; European Union
Japan	Wood Use Points Programme (ID 459)	Protection of the environment; development in rural areas	Wood	Russian Federation
Mexico	Standard on non-alcoholic and soft drinks (ID 462)	N/A	Juices and non-alcoholic drinks	El Salvador
Russian Federation	Technical Regulations on Safety of Railway Transport (TR CU No. 002/2011 and No. 003/2011) (ID 460)	Protection of human health and safety	Railway transport	Ukraine

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.39.  Eight of the 47 previously-raised STCs (Table 3.10) discussed during the reviewed period addressed persistent concerns that have been discussed in the Committee for a number of years (10 or more times).

Table 3.10 Previously raised STCs

	Previously raised STCs (March 2015 TBT Committee meeting)	Frequency
1	India - Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles.	26 times
2	India - Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 2007.	19 times
3	China - Provisions for the Administration of Cosmetics Application.	14 times
4	India - New Telecommunications related Rules (Department of Telecommunications, No. 842-725/2005-VAS/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10-15/2009-AS-III/193 (18 March 2010); and Nos. 10-15/2009-AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25-29) (28 July 2010); Department of Telecommunications, No. 10-15/2009-AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) and accompanying template, "Security and Business Continuity Agreement").	14 times
5	China – Requirements for information security products, including, inter alia, the Office of State Commercial Cryptography Administration (OSCCA) 1999 Regulation on commercial encryption products and its on-going revision and the Multi-Level Protection Scheme (MLPS).	13 times
6	Russian Federation – Draft on Technical Regulation of Alcohol Drinks Safety (published on 24 October 2011).	10 times
7	Republic of Korea – Regulation on Registration and Evaluation of Chemical Material.	10 times
8	Indonesia - Technical Guidelines for the Implementation of the Adoption and Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety.	10 times

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.5  Trade concerns raised in other WTO Bodies

3.40.  During the period covered by this report a number of other trade concerns were raised by Members in formal meetings of various WTO bodies.^[31] With a view to increasing transparency, this section aims to provide a brief and factual overview of such concerns raised between mid‑October 2014 and mid-May 2015.^[32] As this section does not seek to reproduce the full substantive description of the trade concerns described by Members, a specific reference is made to the relevant formal meeting where a particular issue was raised. For the full amount and context of the concerns, Members are invited to consult the records of the respective WTO bodies. The list of concerns and issues mentioned in this section is not exhaustive.

3.41.  In the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG)^[33] new concerns were raised on the restrictive measures on automobiles adopted by Ecuador and on the establishment of a surcharge in the form of temporary taxes for balance‑of‑payments reasons (Japan).

3.42.  Other concerns expressed at the meeting included issues which had been previously raised on (i) Nigeria's restrictions/ban on imports of sea products (Iceland, Norway); (ii) Nigeria's local‑content measures in the energy sector, which had also been raised in 2011, 2014 and in the April 2015 TRIMs Committee (EU, U.S.); (iii) the Russian Federation's restrictive measures affecting the transit of products through its territory and the increased border controls mainly affecting Lithuanian products and trucks, as well as, its industrial assembly programme, the local content requirements to obtain preferential treatment and the subsidies provided to the local automotive producers (EU, Japan); and (iv) Indonesia's import and export restrictions, including import licensing requirements, unique technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, pre‑shipment inspection requirements, local content and domestic manufacturing requirements, pre-paid import taxes, country port restrictions, export restrictions to raw materials and export tariffs (EU, Japan, U.S.).

3.43.  At the meeting of the Committee on Market Access on 26 May 2015^[34], Switzerland requested the issue of customs duties on cigarettes implemented by the Kingdom of Bahrain to be included on the agenda.

3.44.  In the Committee on Agriculture^[35] a number of questions and concerns were raised with respect to Members' individual notifications and on implementation-related issues under Article 18.6. During the period concerned, a total of 201 questions were discussed, including questions on individual notifications (153 questions) and under Art. 18.6 (44 questions), as well as on overdue notifications (3 questions) and in relation to the NFIDC decision (1 question). Additional details regarding these questions and concerns can be found in section 3.6 of the report.

3.45.  A number of new concerns were expressed at the meeting of Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) Committee^[36] on (i) China's local content requirements for purchases of technology by the banking sector (US, Japan); (ii) Indonesia's local content requirement for 4G LTE mobile devices (US); (iii) India's local content requirement in solar power generation projects (EU); (iv) Turkey's local content requirements in the electricity generation (EU); (v) the support measures by the Russian Federation for the automotive sector (EU, Japan); and (vi) the Russian Federation's local content requirements for purchases by state-owned enterprises (EU, U.S.).

3.46.  Other concerns expressed at the meeting include issues previously raised on (i) certain preferences granted by India to domestically manufactured electronic goods and telecommunication products (EU); (ii) measures by Indonesia addressing local content in investment in the telecommunications sector (Japan); (iii) Indonesia's local content provisions in the energy sector (EU, Japan, U.S.); (iv) local content measures taken by Nigeria in the energy sector (EU); (v) local content requirements in some U.S. renewable energy programmes (India); (vi) the Russian Federation's local content requirements for agricultural equipment (EU); (vii) Indonesia's minimum local product requirements for modern retail sector (EU, Japan, U.S.); and (viii) restrictions of Indonesia's newly adopted Industry Law and Trade Law (EU, Japan, U.S.).

3.47.  At the meeting of the Committee on Customs Valuation^[37] concerns were reiterated on issues previously raised on (i) the alleged use by Armenia of reference prices (U.S.); and (ii) Indonesia's lack of notifications on Pre-Shipment Inspection measures (U.S.).

3.48.  A number of concerns were raised at the meeting of the Committee on Import Licensing^[38] on (i) Angola's Joint Executive Decree 22/15 regulating the importation, distribution and sale of food/non-food products (EU); (ii) India's import licensing system on marble and marble products (EU); (iii) Nigeria's licensing procedures on importation of maritime pelagic fish (EU); (iv) Turkey's surveillance licensing regime on import authorisation of old, second‑hand and renovated goods, and its import regime for non-fuel petroleum products (EU); (v) Mexico's automatic licensing procedures on certain steel products (U.S.); (vi) issues related to the product coverage and implementation of the import licensing regime of Viet Nam (U.S.); (vii) Brazil's non‑automatic licensing measures on the importation of nitrocellulose (U.S.); (viii) Indonesia's import licensing regime on cellular phones handheld computers and tablets (U.S.); (ix) India's import licensing requirements on boric acid (U.S.); (x) Bangladesh's import licensing procedures and in particular with respect to the importation of medicines (U.S.); and (xi) Indonesia's import licensing regulations on carcasses and processed meat products (Australia).

3.49.  In the Committee on Safeguards^[39], concerns were raised at the 27 October 2014 meeting and the 27 April 2015 meeting regarding (i) Colombia's bars and rods of low-carbon steel; (ii) Ecuador's wood and bamboo flooring and accessories thereof; (iii) Egypt's steel rebar; white sugar and; automotive batteries; (iv) India's seamless pipes, tubes and hollow profiles of iron or non-alloy steel; saturated fatty alcohols; flexible slabstock polyol and; not-alloyed ingots of unwrought aluminium; (v) Indonesia's coated paper and paperboard, not including banknotes; cotton yarn other than sewing; wheat flour; flat-rolled product of iron or non-alloy and; I and H Sections of other alloy steel; (vi) Malaysia's hot-rolled steel plate; (vii) Morocco's cold-rolled sheets and plated or coated sheets and; wire rods and reinforcing bars; (viii) Philippines' steel angle bars and; newsprint; (ix) South Africa's frozen potato chips; (x) Thailand's non-alloy hot rolled steel flat products; (xi) Tunisia's fibreboard of wood and; glass bottles; (xii) Turkey's polyethylene terephthalate; printing, writing and copying paper; terephthalic acid; wallpaper and similar wallcoverings and; transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus (cellular) portable telephone; and (xiii) Ukraine's tableware and kitchenware of porcelain; and casing and pump-compressor seamless steel pipes.

3.50.  Members also discussed the Russian Federation's alleged non-notification of certain safeguard actions initiated before its accession to the WTO and the Kingdom of Bahrain's alleged delay in notifying its safeguard legislation.

3.51.  In the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures^[40] concerns were raised at the 28 October 2014 and 28 April 2015 meetings in respect of countervailing duty actions on (i) India's investigation on imports of casting for wind operated electricity generators (China); (ii) U.S.' investigation on imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (China); U.S. measures on Turkish iron and steel products (Turkey); and (iv) Ukraine's investigation on imports of light motor vehicles (Russia). With respect to notifications, concerns were raised about the non‑notification of alleged subsidies by India and China, and requests were made to China for more information on certain alleged subsidy programmes (U.S.). On subsidies, concerns were raised on (i) certain local content requirements in renewable energy sector subsidy schemes in the U.S. (Russian Federation, India); (ii) Japan's support for the MRJ project in the aircraft sector (Brazil); (iii) India's sugar subsidies provided under its Sugar Development Fund (Australia); (iv) support provided by Canada for the development of a new cement facility in Quebec (U.S.); and (v) India's export subsidies in the textile and apparel sector (U.S.).

3.52.  At the 29 October 2014 and 29 April 2015 meetings of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices^[41] concerns were raised on (i) Argentina's investigation on imports of copper-based fungicides (Chile); review of the anti-dumping measure on air-conditioning products (Thailand) and; the sunset review and change of circumstances review on locks and chains (Peru); (ii) Australia's investigation into rod in coils (Turkey); on imports of quenched and tempered steel plate (Japan); and on steel reinforcing bar (Turkey); (iii) Brazil's investigation on biaxially-oriented polypropylene (Peru, Chile and Colombia); and on bus and truck tyres (Korea, Republic of); (iv) China's investigation on optical fibre preform (Japan); on methyl methacrylate (Japan); and sunset review on polyvinyl chloride (Japan); (v) Dominican Republic's imposition of definitive measures on steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement (Turkey); (vi) the EU's simultaneous anti-dumping and countervailing investigation on imports of stainless steel cold rolled flat products (China); the measures on ammonium nitrate, seamless pipes and tubes, welded tubes and pipes (Russian Federation) and; the investigations on aluminium foils and grain oriented flat rolled products of silicon electrical steel (Russian Federation); (vii) India's investigation on flexible slab stock polyol (Australia); on ethyl hexanol and butanol (EU); on acetone, purified terephthalic acid and phenol (Korea, Rep. of); on investigation and measures on sodium nitrate (Ukraine); (viii) Indonesia's initiation of an investigation against wheat flour (Turkey) and; the sunset review on hot rolled coil (Korea, Rep. of and the Russian Federation); and (ix) the Republic of Korea's investigation on valves for pneumatic transmissions (Japan).

3.53.  Concerns were also raised on (x) Mexico's measures on certain steel products, thick hot rolled coils, thin hot rolled coils, thick hot rolled plate and cold rolled coils (Russian Federation); and preliminary determination in the investigation on ammonium sulphate (US); (xi) Morocco's final determination regarding the investigation on imports of hot rolled steel sheets (Turkey); (xii) Philippines' provisional anti-dumping measures on wheat flour (Turkey); (xiii) South Africa's investigation on frozen chicken (EU); (xiv) Turkey's investigation on cotton (US); (xv) Ukraine's interim review of anti-dumping measures on nitrate ammonium (Russian Federation); partial interim review of measures on float glass (Russian Federation); measures on point works (Russian Federation); (xvi) the U.S. investigation on imports of grain-oriented electrical steel (Russian Federation); the great length of U.S. anti-dumping measures against certain Japanese products (Japan); the investigation on non-oriented electrical steel (Japan); (xvii) the preliminary and final determinations made by Viet Nam on exports of cold rolled stainless steel (Malaysia); and (xviii) the expiry review of the measure imposed by the EU on imports of ammonium nitrate (Russian Federation). Other trade concerns were raised in relation to certain practices of Members on product scope determinations in anti-dumping investigations by the Russian Federation. Finally, Mexico raised concerns over Colombia's investigation on DOP plasticizers, while Peru voiced concerns over Argentina's sunset review on fasteners.

3.54.  In the meeting of the Committee on Balance-of-Payments (BOP) Restrictions^[42] consultations were held with Ukraine on its introduction of an import surcharge for BOP purposes.^[43]

3.55.  At the Council for Trade in Services (CTS) meetings^[44] concerns were raised on Ukraine's reforms of its Unified Gas Transportation System (Russian Federation).

3.56.  Concerns previously raised at the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)^[45] with respect to Australia's measures related to plain packaging of tobacco products and their compatibility with the TRIPS Agreement (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Zimbabwe) were reiterated in the first meeting in 2015^[46] (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Nigeria and Zimbabwe).

3.57.  In the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD)^[47] least-developed countries (LDCs) raised concerns with the lack of progress in the implementation of the duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market access decision for LDCs (Bangladesh and Uganda on behalf of the LDC group). In the CTD's Aid for Trade meeting^[48] concerns were reiterated on the level of Aid for Trade provided to LDCs (Uganda on behalf of the LDC group).

3.58.  In the Committee on Government Procurement^[49] concerns were raised regarding a number of Made in the USA Act legislative initiatives (Canada) and were reiterated in its first meeting of 2015^[50] (Canada).

3.6  Policy developments in agriculture

3.59.  The Committee on Agriculture (CoA) provides a forum for Members to discuss matters related to agriculture trade and to consult on matters relating to the Members' implementation of commitments under the AoA, including rules-based commitments. The review work by the CoA is based on Members' notifications on their commitments. There is also a provision in Article 18.6 that allows Members to raise any matter relevant to the implementation of the commitments under the AoA.

3.60.  In the framework of the CoA meetings in November 2014 and March 2015, Members posed a total of 201 questions, including both questions on individual notifications and under Art. 18.6, with more than half of those questions (112) directed at issues related to domestic support notifications or implementation of domestic support commitments.

3.61.  In total, seven Members raised 44 questions on 26 implementation-related issues (Article 18.6) in the above‑mentioned meetings. As it can be seen in Chart 3.14, 2014 has been the year with the largest number of questions raised under Article 18.6.

Chart 3.14 Number of questions raised under Article 18.6 (1995-2014)

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.62.  Out of the 26 implementation‑related questions, 13 issues were discussed for the first time, whereas the remaining issues had been discussed one or more times in previous years under matters raised under Article 18.6. Table 3.11 indicates the specific measures relating to implementation commitments that were discussed for the first time in the CoA during these two CoA meetings.

Table 3.11 New Article 18.6 issues

COA meeting Date	Question raised by	Answer by	Question summary	Products
13/11/2014 04/03/2015	European Union, United States	Russian Federation	Agricultural support for 2015
13/11/2014 04/03/2015	New Zealand, United States	Canada	Tariff-rate quota for cheese	Cheese
13/11/2014	European Union	Brazil	Tax credit programmes
13/11/2014	European Union	Egypt	Domestic support and export subsidies
13/11/2014	Canada	Jordan	Inflation adjustments on the fixed external reference price
13/11/2014	Canada	Turkey	Agricultural credit and investment subsidies	Bovine, swine
04/03/2015	Australia, Brazil, European Union	Thailand	Sugar policies	Cane or beet sugar
04/03/2015	Australia	United States	Export Credit Guarantee Program
04/03/2015	Australia, European Union	Pakistan	Wheat export subsidies	Wheat
04/03/2015	European Union	Russian Federation	Grain exports	Cereals, wheat, corn, rice, malt, coarse grains
04/03/2015	United States	India	Cotton policies	Cotton
04/03/2015	Australia	Indonesia	Regulation on importation of meat	Bovine
04/03/2015	European Union	Angola	Angola's Joint Executive Decree on import regulation

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.63.  Some of these issues related to a request for confirmation, and additional information, regarding the implementation of measures by a WTO Member such as Brazil's tax credit programme^[51], Pakistan's wheat export subsidies^[52], Russia's grain exports^[53] and its agricultural support for 2015.^[54] Some issues related to specific policy interventions by Members such as India's cotton policies^[55], Indonesia's regulation on importation of meat^[56], Turkey's agricultural credit and investment subsidies^[57], Thailand's sugar policy^[58], and the United States' Export Credit Guarantee Programme.^[59]

3.64.  Other measures that were discussed related to follow-up questions on persistent areas of concern. Table 3.12 indicates the issues that were discussed in November 2014 and March 2015.

Table 3.12 Questions previously raised under Article 18.6

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.65.  In the area of export competition, while Members welcomed the positive trends in the reduction of the use of export subsidies, there were a number of issues raised regarding developments in some Members' policies such as Pakistan's wheat export subsidies, India's sugar export subsidies, and Switzerland's recent decision to submit to Parliament a proposal to increase the export subsidy budget for processed agricultural products for 2015 by a maximum of CHF 20 million. Switzerland noted that the budget increase was proposed in the context of the unexpected appreciation of the Swiss currency and the corresponding impairment of competitiveness of Swiss exporters following the discontinuation of the minimum exchange rate of the Euro against the Swiss Franc by the Swiss National Bank in January 2015. Both Pakistan and India noted that although the export subsidy policies were in place, no payment had been made to date.

3.66.  In the context of the review process, Members requested information on Russia's agricultural support for 2015 and noted that on 28 January 2015, the Russian government had issued its "Plan of Priority Measures to Ensure Sustainable Economic Development and Social Stability in 2015". One Member requested an overview of the specific programmes that would be funded through this plan. Russia noted that the plan was provisional and that it would be adjusted in accordance with the established schedule for the financial year. Russia also stated that the implementation of the plan did not presume the use of additional or new measures in domestic support. In addition, an assessment of the level of government support information on actually used funds was needed, which would be available at the end of the financial year after the formal implementation of the budget. Accordingly, the Russian Federation assured Members that it would present information about domestic support measures in its notification.^[60]

3.67.  Regarding the review of notifications, timely and complete notifications are fundamental for effective monitoring of the implementation of commitments. In the period reported, Members submitted 119 notifications (including addenda and corrigenda). In the same period, a total of 153 questions were raised during the CoA meetings concerning these and previously submitted notifications. As seen in Chart 3.15, during the reported period, Members continued to focus the majority of their questions on Domestic Support notifications with 73% of the questions regarding individual notifications targeted at this type of notifications. In particular, notifications by India, U.S., Canada and Brazil received a considerable amount of scrutiny by the Membership.

Chart 3.15 Number of questions raised per section (mid-October 2014 – mid-May 2015)

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

3.7  Trade financing

3.68.  Over the past 12 months, the significant reduction in the participation of global banks in the global trade finance markets, especially in lower- to middle-income countries, has been a major development. An important indicator of this trend has been the significant decline in the number of "correspondent banking" relationships with banks in developing countries, notably in Africa, Latin America and developing Asia, reflecting a continued drive by global banks to reduce trade lending exposure. Although this gap was partly filled by local and regional banks, the poorest countries are increasingly being left out.^[61] For example, the African Development Bank estimated that US$130 billion of requested trade financing had been rejected – i.e. one‑third of the total African trade finance market. In Asia, the Asian Development Bank carried out a similar survey in 2014, which estimated that in Asia US$800 billion had been rejected, with no alternative financing. The rejection rates are 7% for multinational firms and 85% for SMEs.

3.69.  The issue of trade finance has received considerable attention from WTO Members since 2008 with many pointing to the lack of trade finance as potentially important non-tariff barriers to integration into global trade. In its 2014 Report to the General Council, the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance stated that there was "the need for the WTO, including its Director‑General, to continue its diagnosis, advisory and advocacy role on the availability of trade finance in developing countries, in partnership with the IMF, World Bank Group and other multilateral development banks". The Working Group also requested a dedicated seminar on trade finance to be held in the spring of 2015 with the objective of better understanding the workings and developments in this area.

3.70.  Immediately prior to this seminar, on 26 March 2015, the Director-General's Expert Group on Trade Finance noted that although liquidity was sufficient in trade finance markets for the main trading nations, many developing countries lacked both the capacity in the financial sector to support trade and access to the international financial system. The situation had been aggravated after the onset of the financial crisis as global private financial institutions had been withdrawing from least-developed countries.

3.71.  At the WTO special meeting of the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance on 26‑27 March 2015, the Director-General acknowledged that lack of trade finance could be the equivalent of a strong non‑tariff barriers to trade. He insisted that despite the comprehensive cooperation between the WTO and multilateral development banks to foster the expansion of trade finance facilitation programmes, and with the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to lighten the regulatory burden on those institutions willing to supply trade finance in the poorest countries, much remained to be done. Discussions generally reflected the sentiment that there would be no quick fix for developing countries to expand their financial industry into providing efficient and cost-effective financial services for traders. This required specific knowledge dissemination, build‑up of institutions (including local or regional export-import banks), and specific support by multilateral development agencies.

3.72.  At the same time, several delegations urged the trade community to take ownership of the trade finance issue because of its centrality in building an overall trading infrastructure, including the physical infrastructure associated with road and shipping transport. Many felt that this effort required a broader cross‑institutional approach which allowed trade finance to be part of the wider effort to support growth through trade integration. Several examples were provided of regional integration initiatives, particularly in Africa, where efforts to build new road and rail corridors to ports had not been accompanied by improved national financial systems. There was widespread support for the Director-General's call for inclusion of the trade finance dimension into the "financing for development" agenda beyond 2015 and in the G-20 agenda as a way to establish trade finance development as part of the long‑term trade and development agenda.^[62]

3.8  General economic support^[63]

3.73.  Only five WTO Members volunteered information relating to economic support measures. As part of the verification exercise, the WTO Secretariat subsequently requested confirmation of several such measures, including many obtained from other official sources, from a broader group of WTO Members. As for previous reports, a substantial number of Members requested that such measures relating to their economies not be included in the report.

3.74.  For the review period, according to information provided to the Secretariat or obtained through other sources, 75 new general economic support measures were put in place by 40 WTO Members.^[64] For around one-third of these measures, and therefore comparable to previous reports, no confirmation or verification were received from the Member concerned.

3.75.  Just under one-third of the general economic support measures listed in Annex 4 covers the EU or its member States and reflects the availability of information regarding subsidies of this WTO Member. Although this share is lower compared to the last report, it continues to reflect the transparency practices of this WTO Member with respect to the publication of information regarding support measures, including in instances where previously‑allocated general economic support has been recovered. Although such transparency is fundamental for providing a balanced account of the overall number of new general economic support measures, the fact remains that Annex 4, to a significant extent reflects measures taken by one Member despite the fact that many others may apply similar measures.

3.76.  The monthly average of almost 11 new general economic support measures recorded by this exercise for the period under review is three times higher than the comparable figure in the June 2014 mid-year monitoring report.^[65] Although this might suggest an significant increase in the application of general economic support measures, the lack of active participation by more WTO Members has made it very difficult to assess any overall trends.

3.77.  Annex 4 covers measures that provide economic assistance and financial support targeted at certain sectors, including export credit, insurance support and various financial aid and loan programmes for specific industries or sectors. For the period under review, the main beneficiaries were selected industries in the manufacturing sector, activities related to the agricultural sector and a certain programmes seeking to assist SMEs. A variety of incentive schemes, tax rebates, loan guarantees and import duty refunds/reductions can be identified. Several of these schemes appear by design to seek to encourage or boost exports while some grant schemes identify conservation and the environment as overall objectives. An interesting new development in the context of Annex 4 is the significant number of entries which relate to the reduction in subsidy schemes for gasoline and other fuels.

3.78.  Annex 4, as well as the summary above, provides ample evidence of the challenge faced by the Secretariat in compiling information on general economic support measures. It is important to reiterate that Annex 4 has never been intended to report only on general economic support measures linked to the financial crisis. Although initial monitoring reports included a substantial number of measures which, in spirit as well as in words, were directly related to the crisis, others were not. Yet, their trade-related effects were potentially important. It is also clear that even when subsidies are duly notified to the WTO this alone does not mean that they should not feature as general economic support in Annex 4. Similarly, Annex 4 is not intended to only capture when general economic support is granted, but also when it is reduced or eliminated, e.g. in the case of the reductions of fuel subsidy programmes.

3.79.  In preparing the latest monitoring reports it has become clear, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the definition of general economic support differs considerably depending on the economy in question. In this context, it remains imperative to emphasize that the monitoring reports have no legal effects or imply no judgement with respect to any of the measures or information contained therein. As a transparency exercise the monitoring exercise depends, in large part, on the contributions of Members and Annex 4 has since the very beginning suffered from very uneven contributions by WTO Members. At the same time, there is little doubt that the format and coverage of Annex 4 and the information contained therein would benefit from a broader discussion among Members in terms of its coverage, and how to make the monitoring of this type of measure more relevant.

4  POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES^[66]

4.1.  On 13 March 2015, China issued a new Industry Catalogue for Foreign Investment, which entered into force on 10 April 2015, replacing the 2011 Catalogue. Similar to the past versions of the Catalogue, the 2015 Catalogue lists a number of industries and classifies them according to whether foreign investment is encouraged, restricted or prohibited. An industry which is not explicitly listed is deemed to be one in which foreign investment is permitted. Compared to the 2011 Catalogue, the 2015 Catalogue has substantially reduced the number of restricted industries from 79 to 38. However, certain service industries have been added to the restricted and prohibited categories. The following are the main changes in services-related industries.

Distribution services	- The wholesale and retail of tobacco, cigarettes and other tobacco products are newly added to the prohibited category. - The direct selling, mail order, online sale, distribution of audiovisual products, and the wholesale, retail and delivery of vegetable oil, sugar, crude oil, pesticides and fertilizers are reclassified from the restricted to the permitted category.
Education services	- Higher educational institutions and childcare institutions have been included in the restricted category, with the investment method limited to the formation of cooperative joint ventures controlled by the Chinese party. The same requirement for Chinese controlling shareholding applies to ordinary high school education. - Foreign investment in compulsory education remains prohibited.
Entertainment services	- Operation of entertainment places is moved from the restricted category into the encouraged category with the requirement on joint venture removed. - Brokering and agency of stage performances remains restricted with the additional requirement that the Chinese partner shall hold the majority of shares.
Financial Services	- Foreign investment in finance companies, trust companies, currency brokerage companies and insurance brokerage companies has been moved from restricted to permitted. - The business scope of securities companies has been expanded to include the underwriting and sponsoring of RMB common shares, foreign shares, government bonds and corporate bonds, the brokerage of foreign shares and the brokerage and proprietary trading of government bonds and corporate bonds. - A foreign-invested securities company may further apply to extend its business scope after two years of establishment provided certain requirements are fulfilled. - The foreign shareholding ratio allowed in securities companies has been increased from 33.3% to 49%, which is consistent with the amended Rules on the Establishment of Foreign-invested Securities Companies issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission in 2012. - No change has been introduced to China's foreign investment policy with regard to insurance companies, securities investment fund management companies and futures companies.
Health services	- Foreign investment in medical institutions is reclassified into the restricted category and is limited to the formation of equity or cooperative joint venture.
Legal services	- Consulting services on Chinese legal matters are added to the prohibited category.
Telecommunications and internet related services	- Even though value-added telecommunications industries are still listed in the restricted category, the foreign shareholding restriction on e-commerce has been removed. - Network publishing services are added to the prohibited category.
Transport services	- Railway freight transport is removed from the restricted category.

Source:   WTO Secretariat.

4.2.  The Russian Federation's amended Law on Foreign Investment in Strategic Companies (Federal Law No.343-FZ on Amending the Federal law on the Procedure for making foreign investments in companies which are of strategic importance for ensuring the country's defence and state security and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation as of 4 November 2014) now also covers acquisitions of assets in "strategic" companies if the value of these assets exceeds 25% of the total value of the company's assets. Such transactions now require prior approval by the Governmental Commission. In addition, the list of strategic activities has been amended to include services rendered in ports in the territory of the Russian Federation (a specific list of such services is to be drawn up by the Government).

Audio-visual and telecommunications services

4.3.  On 18 December 2014, Argentina enacted the "Digital Argentina" Law (Law 27078, Ley Argentina Digital), a new telecommunications law replacing the existing legislation from 1972. The new law declares Information Technology and Communications (ICT) service an "essential and strategic public service" and guarantees "equal access" of citizens across the country. The measure allows operators to provide bundled telephone, internet and cable television services, in practice opening the supply of telephony safeguarding small and medium enterprises and cooperatives. The law also establishes the Federal Authority for Information Technology and Communications (Autoridad de Aplicación de las Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones, in Spanish), the new converged regulatory body responsible for of all ICT-related matters.^[67]

4.4.  On 24 September 2014, the Belgian Institute for Post and Telecommunications (BIPT), through a Council's decision, confirmed the deregulation of fixed telephony services for residential and business customers. The watchdog also decided to lift the price control and transparency obligations imposed on fixed line incumbent, Belgacom, at the retail level, as the market was increasingly facing competition.^[68] This decision follows the EU's "recommendation on relevant markets" which defines the telecom markets subject to regulation within the EU in order to ensure sufficient competition between the operators, but also allows national regulators to remove limits on wholesale prices of a particular market if it is no longer dominated by a single operator.^[69]

4.5.  On 29 October 2014, the Ministry of Telecommunications and New Technologies of Madagascar announced the enactment of 3 decrees for the implementation of the law N° 2005‑023, passed 9 years ago and aimed to reform the telecom sector.^[70] The implementing decrees focus on the total liberalization of the telecommunications market and establish minimum fees to obtain and renew licences. Furthermore, the rules will allow the operators to introduce and provide services using new technologies like the 4G. Finally, infrastructure sharing obligations are imposed, in order to decrease the amount of pylons and reduce their impact on the environment and on public health.

4.6.  On 31 October 2014, the Regulations to the Foreign Investment Law and to the National Foreign Investment Registry of Mexico were amended. Among other issues, the amendments outline the information and documents that are necessary to obtain a favourable opinion from the National Commission of Foreign Investments (required by the Federal Telecommunications Institute) to obtain the concession for broadcasting services involving the participation of foreign investment, according to the Federal Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law. In addition, the amendments simplify the registration requirements imposed by the National Foreign Investment Registry.

4.7.  On 6 May 2015, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) of Myanmar published its latest list of licences issued.^[71] This covers licenses to provide Network Facilities Services (Individual), which permit licensees to construct networks, lease access to service providers and offer any type of public or private telecom service and Network Facilities (Class) concessions that will permit licensees to deploy and maintain passive infrastructure and to lease access to service providers. Between February 2014 and March 2015, 26 licences have been awarded to different operators.^[72] In addition, for the first time, two international mobile operators will launch services within the territory.

4.8.  On 7 October 2014, the President of the Office of Electronic Communications of Poland issued a resolution on deregulation of broadband access market in 76 municipalities. This decision was the outcome of a previous analysis of the competitive situation in each of the 3000 municipal areas in Poland. This decision regulates, for the first time since 2007, wholesale access to hi-speed internet in a more comprehensive manner.^[73]

4.9.  On 14 October 2014, the President of the Russian Federation enacted the Federal Law Amending the Law of the Russian Federation on Mass Media. According to this Law, except as otherwise provided by an international agreement to which the Russian Federation is a party, the ownership or control of the share capital of mass media companies by a foreign State, an international organisation, a citizen of the Russian Federation having the citizenship of another state, a Russian legal person having a foreign stake in its charter capital exceeding 20%, a foreign natural person, or a foreign legal person, is limited to 20%. The law will enter into force on 1 January 2016.

4.10.  On 6 March 2015, the House of Parliament of Sierra Leone adopted the Telecommunications Amendment Act 2015. The amended bill repeals section 33 of the Telecommunications Act 2006, which entrusted a monopoly over the telecommunications international gateway to the incumbent operator, the Sierra Leone Telecommunications Company (SIERRATEL). Before the liberalization, SIERRATEL had the monopoly for a decade.^[74]

4.11.  On 26 February 2015, the U.S.' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted the Open Internet Order containing new rules on net neutrality that would apply to fixed and mobile broadband service providers.^[75] The Order focusses on 4 points: no blocking, which means that internet service providers (ISP) may not restrict access to legal content, applications, services or non-harmful devises; no throttling, which means that no ISP should, intentionally, slow down the content or speed up others; and no paid prioritization, in other words, ISP wouldn't be allowed to favour specific lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic, in exchange for special consideration of any kind. The new rules also impose transparency requirements on broadband providers, forcing them to disclose such information as promotional rates, fees and surcharges and data caps. In order to apply these provisions, "broadband Internet Access service" is reclassified as a Telecommunication Services under the Title II of the Telecommunications Act.^[76]

Construction services

4.12.  India eased foreign direct investment rules for the construction sector.^[77] Under the new rules (announced in the Press Note No. 10 (2014 series)), effective 17 April 2014, 100% foreign investment, without prior approval, is now allowed in townships, housing, built-up infrastructure and construction-development projects with a minimum built area of 20,000 square metres (down from a previous 50,000 sqm threshold). Minimum capitalization of US$10 million is required for wholly owned subsidiaries, while minimum capital for joint-ventures with Indian partners amount to US$5 million.

Financial services

4.13.  According to a circular release on 22 April 2015, starting June 1^st, China's State Council will regulate the market access for bankcard transaction clearing institutions.^[78] The circular lists the requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to apply to set up a bankcard clearing institution and to conduct such business in China:

-           organizations will be able to engage in bankcard clearing business after their     applications are approved by the authorities and licenses issued;

 

-           the application requirements, covering various aspects, include a minimum of 1 billion     yuan (US$161 million) of registered capital;

 

-           the banking authorities should decide whether the applications are approved within 90 working days after receiving the applications. The applicants should complete    preparatory work within one year after approval and no clearing business is allowed    during the period;

 

-           applicants are required to officially start bankcard clearing services within six months        after receiving the business permits;

 

-           requirements are set on the organizations' business, including protecting the   information they acquire from bankcard clearing services;

 

-           overseas institutions that provide bankcard clearing services for clients in China        should establish foreign-invested enterprises in the country according to law; and

 

-           organizations that have already started business should submit applications for        business permits or report their operations to authorities within a year after the new   rule takes effect or they will be forbidden to continue the business.

 

4.14.  In March 2015, the Indian Government passed the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015^[79], which increased foreign equity ownership in Indian insurance firms from 26% to 49%.^[80] Foreign investment of up to 26% will be allowed without prior government approval, while any investment above 26% and up to the cap of 49% will require prior government approval from the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) of the Government of India. While the shareholding cap has been increased, "ownership" and "control" of the company must remain with Indian residents. Indian ownership is defined to mean more than 50% of the share equity capital in the hands of Indian residents. Control has been defined in line with the definition in the consolidated FDI Policy to include the "right to appoint majority of directors or to control management or policy decisions including by virtue of their shareholding or management rights or shareholders agreements or voting agreements." The Act also recognizes "health insurance" as an exclusive line of business, and carves it out from general insurance. The amended Law also enables foreign reinsurers to set up branches in India.

4.15.  In line with the reforms of the insurance sector, on 24 April 2015 the government of India raised the limit of foreign direct investment in the pension sector also to 49%. According to the press note No 4 (2015 Series), no government approval is required to acquire 26% of ownership. But the approval of the FIPB is needed for investment beyond 26% and up to the cap of 49%.

4.16.  On 23 April 2015, the Reserve Bank of India issued a notification (RBI/2014-15/573) requiring foreign banks that have more than 20 branches to achieve the 40% total priority sector lending target (to agriculture, small and medium sized firms and housing) by March 2019. Foreign banks with fewer than 20 branches, who were previously subject to a 32% total priority sector lending target, will now need to move to a 40% target, on a par with Indian banks, by 2020.

4.17.  In October 2014, the Central Bank of Myanmar granted provisional approval for nine foreign banks to commence limited operations, marking a resumption of such services for the first time since 1962. All nine were chosen from a pool of more than 40 lenders with representative offices in the country, more than half of which opened within the past three years. The banks, all from the Asia-Pacific region, have been given 12 months to launch operations. Under the terms set out in October, the new entrants into the market will only be able to offer wholesale banking products and services to foreign firms and local banks. They will therefore not be allowed to engage in normal retail banking. They will be allowed to provide kyat-denominated loans to domestic companies only through a partnership arrangement with a registered domestic lender, with interest rates set by the Central Bank.

4.18.  In November 2014, the Monetary Board (MB) of the Philippines released the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10641.^[81] The new law provides for the further entry of foreign banks into the Philippines and thus amends R.A. No. 7721, from 1994. With the approval of the IRR, additional foreign banks can now apply to operate in the Philippines either as a branch or as a wholly-owned subsidiary. In addition, the new law allows foreign banks to acquire up to 100% of the voting stock of an existing domestic bank. This is an increase from the 60% under the previous law (R.A. No. 7721). The R.A. No. 10641 allows foreign banks to control up to a combined 40% of the total assets of the banking system (up 10 percentage points from the previous 30% limit). The minimum capital requirements applicable to foreign bank branches have been aligned with that of domestic banks of the same category.

Health Services

4.19.  On 25 July 2014, China's National Health and Family Planning Commission issued the Notice on Establishing Wholly Foreign-Owned Hospitals, which allows foreign investors to wholly own hospitals in Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu, Fujian, Guangdong and Hainan as part of a pilot test.^[82] Foreign suppliers should have experience in medical and health investment and management, and meet one of the following requirements: a) being capable of offering advanced hospital management ideas, and management and service models; b) being capable of offering advanced medical technology and equipment; and c) being capable of improving local medical service, technology, fund and facilities. The wholly foreign-owned hospitals should meet basic national medical institute standards.

Transport services

4.20.  Australia has recently relaxed foreign ownership restrictions in the flag carrier Qantas. On 8 August 2014, the Qantas Sale Amendment Act 2014 received Royal assent. According to the Act, ownership by a single foreign investor may now exceed 25% and aggregate ownership by foreign airlines may now exceed 35%. However, foreigners may, cumulatively, still not own more than 49% in Qantas.

4.21.  Effective 17 April 2014 (Press Note No. 8 (2014 series)), the government of India permitted 100% foreign direct investment, without prior authorization, in several activities of the railway transportation sector, such as high speed train projects, railway electrification, signalling systems and freight and passenger terminals.^[83] However, FDI beyond 49% of the company in sensitive areas from a national security point of view, will be authorized by the Cabinet Committee on Security on a case-by-case basis.

4.22.  Law No. 150 of 17 July 2014 (Road Transport Code) of the Republic of Moldova requires mandatory licensing for the transport of goods in international and national traffic. Licences for international traffic are issued for a period of 8 years (Effective 1 January 2015), while licences for national traffic are valid for a period of 5 years (Effective 1 January 2016).

 Services supplied through the movement of natural persons

4.23.  On 1 March 2015, Chile introduced a new "Temporary Residence for Work Purposes" work visa category. The multiple-entry visa, which has an initial duration of one year, allows foreigners to enter the country with an employment contract and subsequently change employers, and perform unlimited work activities. It also exempts employers from paying repatriation costs once their employee leaves Chile.^[84]

4.24.  Egypt's Ministry of Manpower has announced that, starting from February 2015, new work permit applications are subject to labour market testing requirements.

4.25.  The Swiss government has set the 2015 quotas for short-term work permits (L permits) and for long-term work permits (B-permits) at 2,500 and 4,000, respectively, for non-EU/EFTA applicants, and at 250 and 2,000 for EU/EFTA applicants.^[85]

4.26.  Foreign business visitors to Thailand are allowed to perform a longer list of activities, including attending business meetings, seminars or conferences, as of 13 March 2015, without needing to obtain a work authorisation.

4.27.  Since 22 December 2014, intra-corporate transferees working in several services industries in Viet Nam may apply for an exemption from work permit requirements. The exemption is available to intra-corporate transferees that are managers, specialists or technicians who have been in the employment of the company for at least one year prior to their transfer to Viet Nam.