KEY FINDINGS
•
Between
mid-October 2015 and mid-May 2016 ("review period"), WTO Members
applied 154 new trade-restrictive measures, amounting to 22 new measures per
month.
•
This constitutes a
significant increase compared to the previous review period, which recorded an
average of 15 measures per month. It is the highest monthly average registered
since 2011, when WTO recorded a peak in the monthly average of new trade‑restrictive
measures.
•
A total of 132
measures aimed at facilitating trade were taken during the review period,
amounting to 19 measures per month. Although this shows a slight increase
compared to the previous review period, the figure is lower than the recorded monthly
average of trade‑restrictive measures.
•
WTO Members
initiated a higher number of trade remedy investigations per month during this
review period compared to the previous period. The overwhelming majority of
these were anti-dumping measures.
•
The overall
stockpile of restrictive measures introduced by WTO Members grew by 11% during
the review period. Of the 2,835 trade-restrictive measures, including trade
remedies, recorded for WTO Members since 2008 by this exercise, only 708, or
25%, had been removed by mid-May 2016. The rate by which WTO Members have been eliminating
trade restrictions remains too low to make a dent in the stockpile. The total
number of restrictive measures still in place today stands at 2,127.
•
General economic
support measures implemented by WTO Members are on the rise. A monthly average
of 14 such measures were recorded for this review period, thus confirming an
upward trend since the end of 2013 and edging closer to the highest monthly
average of such measures recorded immediately after the onset of the global
financial crisis.
•
World trade
remained volatile in 2015 as diverging outlooks for developed and developing
economies unsettled global financial markets and prompted sharp movements in
commodity prices and exchange rates. The volume of world merchandise trade grew
2.8% last year as trade fell sharply in the first half of the year before
recovering in the second half.
•
World trade
prospects for 2016 and beyond remain uncertain. The most recent WTO trade
forecast of 7 April 2016 predicted merchandise trade volume growth of 2.8%
in 2016, at a rate unchanged from 2015. Despite a number of positive
developments, the global economic environment remains challenging and continued
vigilance is required.
•
In the midst of
this uncertainty, WTO Members must individually and collectively resist
protectionist pressures. The best safeguard we have against protectionism
is a strong multilateral trading system.
Trade-restrictive measures, excluding trade
remedies
(average per month)
Note: Values are rounded.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Restrictive measures,
mid-October 2015 to mid-May 2016
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Trade-facilitating measures, excluding trade
remedies
(average
per month)
Note: Values are rounded.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Facilitating measures, mid-October 2015 to
mid-May 2016
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Stockpile of trade-restrictive measures
Note: Stockpile of
restrictive measures includes measures listed in Annex 3 and initiations of
trade remedy actions.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This trade-monitoring report reviews
trade-related developments during the period from 16 October 2015 to 15
May 2016 ("review period").
During this seven-month period, there seems to have been a
relapse in WTO Members' efforts at containing protectionist pressures. Not only
is the stockpile of trade-restrictive measures continuing to increase, but also
more new trade restrictions were recorded during the period, covering both
import and export measures.
The
implementation of new trade-restrictive measures by WTO Members increased over
the review period. Since mid-October 2015, WTO Members applied 154 new trade‑restrictive
measures – an average of 22 new measures per month compared to 15 in the
previous interim report. Import tariff increases, customs procedures and
various local content measures constitute the main factors behind this upward
trend in the overall monthly figure. The 22 new trade-restrictive measures
adopted per month by WTO Members are close to the peak observed in 2011 of 23
new measures per month.
During
the same period, WTO Members implemented 132 measures aimed at facilitating
trade. At almost 19 trade-facilitating measures per month, this represents an
increase over the previous mid-year report's monthly average of 16 measures. However,
the trade-facilitating monthly average remains below the monthly average of
trade-restrictive measures, thus reversing the positive trend identified over
the past years.
Overall,
the stockpile of restrictive measures introduced by WTO Members continues to
grow. Of the 2,835 trade-restrictive measures (including trade remedies)
recorded for WTO Members since 2008, only 708 had been removed by mid-May 2016.
The total number of these restrictive measures still in place now stands at 2,127
– an increase of more than 11% during the review period. Although some WTO
Members have been eliminating trade-restrictive measures, the rate at which
this is done is far too low to dent the overall stockpile of restrictive
measures. Of the total number of trade-restrictive measures recorded for WTO
Members since 2008, the share of eliminations, or roll-back, makes up 25%.
World
trade was volatile in 2015 as diverging outlooks for developed and developing
economies unsettled global financial markets and prompted sharp movements in
commodity prices and exchange rates. The volume of world merchandise trade grew
by 2.8% last year as trade fell sharply in the first half of the year before
recovering in the second half. Weak import growth in developing economies
(0.2%) was cushioned by stronger import demand in developed countries (4.5%).
Import growth was particularly weak in large emerging economies such as China
(-4%) and Brazil (-15%). Meanwhile, exports grew slightly faster in developing
economies (3.3%) than in developed countries (2.6%). This was balanced by
stronger positive import growth in the United States (6.5%) and the
European Union (4.5%). Despite positive trade growth in volume terms, the
dollar value of world trade fell sharply (-13% for merchandise, -6% for
services), largely as a result of lower commodity prices and the general
appreciation of the U.S. dollar.
Prospects
for 2016 and beyond remain uncertain. The most recent WTO trade forecast of
7 April 2016 predicted merchandise trade volume growth of 2.8% in
2016, unchanged from 2015, but volatility is likely to persist. Exports of
developed and developing economies should grow at around the same rate (2.9% in
the former and 2.8% in the latter). Meanwhile, imports of developed economies
are expected to outpace those of developing countries, with an increase of 3.3%
compared to a rise of 1.8%. Preliminary trade volume statistics for the first
quarter of 2016 indicate that world trade fell around 1% in the first quarter of
2016 compared to the last quarter of 2015.
The
number of trade remedy investigations initiated by WTO Members has increased
during the review period. Metal products, and in particular steel products,
chemicals and plastics and rubber account for the largest shares of these initiations.
As for previous review periods, more initiations were
recorded than terminations, and anti-dumping measures made up the overwhelming
majority of trade remedy actions.
The
analysis of sunset reviews of anti-dumping and countervailing measures initiated
in 2008 and 2009 seems to indicate that there is no discernible change in
extensions versus expiry of measures coinciding with the financial crisis.
During the review period, the Committees on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) measures and on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) saw significant developments. The share of SPS notifications from
developing countries remained high, accounting for about two‑thirds of all
notifications, and confirming the increased participation of developing countries
in the total number of notifications since 2007. An
increase in the number of notifications does not, however, automatically imply
greater use of measures taken for protectionist purposes. In the TBT area, the
Committee has recorded a significant increase in the number of specific trade
concerns (STCs). The 116 new and previously-raised STCs discussed during review
period confirm the upward trend, observed over the past years, of a greater
number of STCs being raised in the TBT Committee.
In the area of agriculture, despite poor notifications' compliance
recorded for some Members, the whole membership continued to use Article 18.6
of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) to ask questions on the implementation of
commitments. A large number of these questions focused in particular on
Members' domestic support policies.
This report suggests that general economic support measures implemented
by WTO Members are on the rise. The monthly average of 14 such measures
recorded in the review period approaches the number recorded immediately after
the onset of the global financial crisis. However, the numerical counting of
such measures and programmes does not provide any indication regarding the
extent of these measures, nor their potential impact. The main beneficiaries of such support during the review period included
multiple sectors, infrastructure programmes (including several energy-related
projects), various industries in the manufacturing sector, the agricultural
sector and the telecommunications sector. Several programmes provided specific
support to export‑related activities or enterprises, including SMEs.
Several important policy developments in a very diverse range of
services sectors took place during the review period. The
overwhelming majority of these services measures see either further
liberalization of trade in services or the strengthening and clarification of
relevant regulatory requirements.
The OECD has contributed two topical boxes to this report. The first
looks at the evolving agricultural policies and markets and the implications
for multilateral trade reform. The second seeks to assess the gains from
implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).
Several other important trade-related
developments also took place during the review period, including in the areas
of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, the Information Technology Agreement
expansion and the Agreement on Government Procurement.
The overall assessment of this monitoring report has outlined
the profound volatility which characterizes world trade today and the current
unsettled nature of international financial markets. Despite a number of
positive developments, the global environment remains challenging. To address slow economic
growth, Members need to get trade moving again, not put up barriers
between economies. The best safeguard we have against protectionism is a
strong multilateral trading system.
1.1. This monitoring report[1]
reviews trade and trade-related developments during the period mid‑October 2015
to mid-May 2016.[2]
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.
1.2. Section 2 of the report provides an overview of recent economic and
trade trends. Section 3 presents an account of selected trade and trade-related
policy developments during the review period. Policy developments in trade in
services and trade in intellectual property are included in Sections 4 and 5,
respectively. Annexes to the report list specific trade policy measures of
individual Members implemented during the period under review in five
categories: trade-facilitating measures (Annex 1); trade remedy actions (Annex
2); other trade and trade-related measures (Annex 3); general economic support
measures (Annex 4); and services measures (Annex 5). The country-specific
measures listed in the five annexes are new measures implemented by Members
and Observers during the period under review.[3]
The compilation of all measures that have been recorded by the
trade-monitoring reports since October 2008 is available in the Trade
Monitoring Database.[4]
1.3. Specific developments related to Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)
measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) are covered separately in
Section 3.
1.4. 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
70 Members[5]
(Box 1), which represents 43% of the membership and covers almost 90% of
world imports.[6]
Two Observers also replied to the request for information. The WTO Secretariat
has drawn on these replies, as well as on a variety of other sources, to
prepare this report. Country‑specific information was sent for verification to 84
delegations. Participation in the verification process was uneven, and in
several instances the Secretariat received only partial responses and often
after the indicated deadline.[7]
Where it has not been possible to confirm the information, this is noted in the
Annexes.
Replies to the Director-General's request for
information
|
Argentina
Australia
Azerbaijan*
Botswana
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Egypt
European Union
Hong Kong, China
India
|
Indonesia
Jamaica
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea, Republic of
Macao, China
Madagascar
Mali
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldova, Republic of
Montenegro
Norway
Peru
Philippines
|
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Serbia*
Seychelles
Singapore
South Africa
Switzerland
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United States of America
Uruguay
|
* Observer
WTO Members and Observers Participating in
the WTO Monitoring Exercise
2.1. The volume of world merchandise trade partially recovered in the
second half of 2015 following a sharp decline in the first half that affected
all major economies to varying degrees. Import growth was sluggish in
developing Asia and negative in regions that predominantly export natural
resources. These slowdowns were cushioned by stronger import demand in Europe
and North America as economic activity picked up in those regions. Global trade
volume growth for the whole of 2015 was 2.8%, in line with WTO projections at
the time of the last Monitoring Report.[8]
Imports of developing
economies stagnated (0.2% growth) while those of developed countries
strengthened (4.5%). Meanwhile, exports grew slightly faster in developing
economies (3.3%) than in developed ones (2.6%). Import volume growth was
notably weak in China (-4%) and Brazil (-15%), but these declines were balanced
by stronger import growth in the United States (6.5%) and the European
Union (4.5%). Despite the modest, positive growth in global trade volumes, the
dollar value of world merchandise trade fell sharply in 2015, dropping by 13%
to US$16.0 trillion largely as a result of lower commodity prices and a general
appreciation of the U.S. dollar. The value of world commercial services
trade also declined by 6% to US$4.7 trillion in 2015.
2.2. Several factors contributed to the lacklustre performance of trade
in 2015, including: slowing economic growth in China and the rebalancing of the
country's economy away from investment and towards consumption; recessions in
other large developing economies, particularly Brazil; falling petroleum
prices, which reduced the export revenues of oil producing countries; and
volatility in exchange rates and financial markets, possibly exacerbated by
divergent monetary policies in the United States, Europe and China.
2.3. The outlook for trade this year and next remains unsettled. In its
most recent trade forecast of 7 April 2016, the WTO estimated that
merchandise trade would grow 2.8% in 2016 and 3.6% in 2017. This pace of growth
remains well below the average rate of 5.0% since 1990. WTO forecasts are
premised on consensus estimates of world real GDP at market exchange rates over
the next two years (2.4% in 2016 and 2.7% in 2017).
2.4. 2015 marked the fourth consecutive year with world trade volume
growth below 3%, as well as the fourth year in a row with world trade growing
at close to the same rate as world GDP. Growth rates for trade and output in
2015 were also below their average rates since 1990 of 5% and 2.7%,
respectively. The slow pace of trade growth relative to GDP growth over the
past four years stands in contrast to the period from 1990 to 2008, during
which merchandise trade grew 2.1 times as fast as world GDP on average.
2.5. The recent spell of slow trade growth is unusual, but not
unprecedented, and as a result its importance should not be exaggerated. World
trade volume growth was in fact weaker between 1980 and 1985, when five out of
six years saw trade growth below 3%, including two years of outright
contraction.
2.6. During the review period, economic activity continued to be uneven
across countries, regions and levels of development. In the United States, GDP
growth (seasonally adjusted and annualized) slowed to 0.5% in the first quarter
of 2016 after averaging 2.4% in the previous three quarters. Employment gains
were also smaller than expected in April, although wages have started to pick
up. Meanwhile, economic conditions in the European Union (EU) continued to
improve gradually. EU GDP growth increased to 1.9% in Q1 while the unemployment
rate dipped below 9%. Japan avoided a technical recession in the first quarter
of 2016, recording a 1.7% rise in output after a 1.7% decline the previous
period. Japan's unemployment rate also remained low, falling to 3.2% in March
2016.
2.7. Quarter-on-quarter GDP growth in China fell to 1.1% (not annualized)
in the first quarter of 2016, down from 1.5% in the fourth quarter and 1.8% in
the third quarter of 2015. The Q1 rate was equivalent to 4.5% on an annual
basis. Despite the recent slowdown, forward‑looking measures of economic
activity, including composite leading indicators (CLIs) from the OECD, suggest
that China's growth is stabilizing. Meanwhile, India's CLI pointed to a firming
of economic activity with growth rising above trend. Brazil's economic
situation has remained dire, with output falling 6% on an annualized basis in
the fourth quarter. On a more positive note, Brazil's CLI shows signs of a
turnaround in growth momentum.
2.8. Strong fluctuations in exchange rates since 2014 have had a strong
impact on nominal trade statistics, most of which are denominated in current U.S.
dollars. These developments are illustrated by Chart 2.1, which shows
nominal effective exchange rate indices for selected economies through April
2016. In January 2016, the U.S. dollar was up 19% compared to January 2014.
Although the dollar has weakened somewhat since then, it was still up 13% in
April 2016 compared to January 2014. The appreciation of China's yuan has also
moderated since the last monitoring report. Meanwhile, Japan's yen appreciated
and the euro was stable in nominal effective terms. The Brazilian real and the
Russian rouble also rebounded from recent lows.
Chart 2.1 Nominal effective exchange rate indices for selected economies,
January 2014 – April 2016a
(index, January 2014 = 100)
a Nominal effective exchange rate
indices against a broad basket of currencies.
Source: Bank
for International Settlements (BIS).
2.9. Dollar appreciation can cause trade denominated in other currencies
(e.g. intra-EU trade) to be undervalued when measured in dollar terms. As a
result, trade statistics in nominal dollar terms should be interpreted with
care under current circumstances.
2.10. Prices for oil and other primary commodities bottomed out in
January-February but have rebounded somewhat since then. These trends are
illustrated in Chart 2.2, which shows commodity price indices through April
2016. The traditional inverse relationship between the level of the U.S. dollar
and the price of oil has continued to hold, with the recent easing of the
dollar mirrored by a modest rise in fuel prices. Despite the rebound, fuel
prices were still down around 60% in April compared to the beginning of 2014.
Investment in oil production from unconventional sources in the United States
has fallen off as energy prices have eased, but output from existing facilities
remains high. Further production declines could bring about a partial recovery
in fuel prices, although a return to US$100 oil/barrel is unlikely.
Chart 2.2 Prices of primary commodities, January 2014 - April 2016
(index, January 2014 = 100)
Source: International Monetary Fund (IMF) Primary
Commodity Prices.
2.11. The IMF released its most recent economic forecasts in the World
Economic Outlook (WEO)[9] in April. A modest growth of 3.2% in world output for 2016 at
purchasing power parity is forecast, with growth picking up to 3.5% in 2017 as
emerging economies recover from recent setbacks. However, risks continue to be
mostly on the downside, and slower growth scenarios are possible as economic
and financial uncertainty remains high.
2.12. Chart 2.3 shows year-on-year growth in the dollar value of
merchandise trade (red line), as well as relative contributions to nominal
trade growth from developed and developing economies (stacked bars). The dollar
value of world trade fell sharply in 2015 and remained down around 13% year-on-year
through the fourth quarter. These declines were explained by a combination of
falling export and import prices and slow real trade growth. Under current
circumstances of strong dollar appreciation and declining commodity prices,
nominal trade statistics provide few clues about trends in the volume of world
trade. However, they are more relevant for explaining the economic situations
of natural resource exporting countries, where quantities of goods exported
tend to not fluctuate much over time.
2.13. Trade statistics in volume terms often provide a more accurate
picture of trade developments since they exclude the influence of commodity
prices and exchange rates. Chart 2.4 shows seasonally-adjusted quarterly
merchandise trade volume indices for selected economies through 2015Q4 based on
data jointly prepared by the WTO and UNCTAD. The data show that imports and
exports declined sharply in the first half of 2015, particularly in the second
quarter, but these setbacks were mostly reversed by the end of the year. A
noteworthy exception is Brazil, whose imports continued to slide over the
course of the year as the country's economic crisis deepened.
Chart 2.3 Contributions to year-on-year growth in world merchandise exports
and imports, 2012Q1 - 2015Q4
(percentage 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.
Chart 2.4 Volume of exports and imports of selected economies, 2012Q1 -
2015Q4
(seasonally
adjusted volume indices, 2012Q1 = 100)
Note: Data for the United States, Japan and the
European Union were obtained from national statistical sources while figures
for Brazil and Developing Asia are seasonally adjusted Secretariat estimates.
Source: Source: WTO and UNCTAD Secretariats.
2.14. Import volumes for the United States and Japan were mostly flat in
2015, with growth alternating between positive and negative, but intra-EU trade
continued to recover gradually. On the export side, developing Asia and Brazil saw
shipments of goods increase in the second half of the year. Seasonally-adjusted
quarterly figures for China are not available, but for the year as a whole the
country's exports were up 4.6% in volume terms, although imports were down
4.2%.
2.15. Monthly merchandise trade statistics in current U.S. dollar
terms are more timely than quarterly statistics in volume terms. These are
shown in Chart 2.5. However, since these data are subject to distortion from
commodity prices and exchange rates, they should be interpreted with caution.
Export and import values declined steadily in most countries throughout 2015,
but values appear to have turned up in many countries the first quarter.
2.16. Chart 2.6 shows year-on-year growth in the dollar value of
commercial services trade for selected economies through 2015Q4. These data are
also subject to distortion from dollar appreciation, and as a result they
should be used with care. Large declines in countries such as Brazil and the
Russian Federation mostly reflect depreciation of these countries' currencies.
There is no volume indicator for services trade akin to the WTO's merchandise
trade indices, but physical measures of services trade such as air passenger
arrivals and container port throughput point to a resumption of services trade growth
following a slowdown in the middle of 2015, similar to the trend observed for
merchandise trade.
2.17. The WTO's most recent trade forecast of 7 April 2016 predicted that
the volume of world merchandise trade would grow 2.8% in 2016 and 3.6% in 2017.
These projections depend on consensus estimates of world GDP by economic
forecasters (Table
2.1).
Exports of developed and developing economies should grow at around the same
rate in 2016, 2.9% in the former and 2.8% in the latter. Meanwhile, imports of
developed economies are expected to outpace those of developing countries in
2016, with a 3.3% rise compared to 1.8%.
2.18. Asia is expected to have the fastest export volume growth of any
region this year at 3.4%, followed by North America and Europe, each at 3.1%.
South America and Other regions[10]
will lag further behind at 1.9% and 0.4%, respectively. North America should record
import growth of 4.1% this year, while Asian and European imports should both
grow by 3.2%. Finally, imports of South America and Other regions are set to
contract again in 2016 as the prices of oil and other commodities remain low,
but the pace of contraction should be less than in 2015. Risks to the trade
forecast remain mostly on the downside due to weaker indicators of business and
consumer confidence. The financial turbulence that hit global markets in 2015
has mostly abated, but could return at any time, with negative consequences for
trade. Trade volume statistics for the first quarter of 2016 were not available
at the time of writing, but preliminary data suggest that world trade volume
fell around 1% in the first quarter of 2016 compared to the last quarter of
2015.
Chart 2.5 Merchandise exports and imports of selected economies, January 2011
– April 2016
(US$
billion)
Source: IMF International Financial Statistics,
Global Trade Information Services Global Trade Atlas database, national
statistics.
Chart 2.6 Commercial services exports and imports of selected economies,
2014Q4 - 2015Q4
(year-on-year percentage change in current US$ values)
Source: WTO and UNCTAD Secretariats.
Table 2.1 Merchandise trade
volume and real GDP, 2012-2017
(annual percentage change)
|
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016a
|
2017a
|
|
Volume of world merchandise trade
|
2.2
|
2.4
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
3.6
|
|
Exports
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed economies
|
1.1
|
1.7
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
2.9
|
3.8
|
|
Developing and emerging economies
|
3.8
|
3.8
|
3.1
|
3.3
|
2.8
|
3.3
|
|
North America
|
4.5
|
2.8
|
4.1
|
0.8
|
3.1
|
4.0
|
|
South and Central America
|
0.9
|
1.2
|
-1.8
|
1.3
|
1.9
|
1.9
|
|
Europe
|
0.8
|
1.7
|
2.0
|
3.7
|
3.1
|
4.1
|
|
Asia
|
2.7
|
5.0
|
4.8
|
3.1
|
3.4
|
4.0
|
|
Other regionsb
|
3.9
|
0.7
|
0.0
|
3.9
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
|
Imports
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed economies
|
-0.1
|
-0.2
|
3.5
|
4.5
|
3.3
|
4.1
|
|
Developing and emerging economies
|
4.9
|
5.0
|
2.1
|
0.2
|
1.8
|
3.1
|
|
North America
|
3.2
|
1.2
|
4.7
|
6.5
|
4.1
|
5.3
|
|
South and Central America
|
0.7
|
3.6
|
-2.2
|
-5.8
|
-4.5
|
5.1
|
|
Europe
|
-1.8
|
-0.3
|
3.2
|
4.3
|
3.2
|
3.7
|
|
Asia
|
3.7
|
4.8
|
3.3
|
1.8
|
3.2
|
3.3
|
|
Other regionsb
|
9.9
|
3.7
|
-0.5
|
-3.7
|
-1.0
|
1.0
|
|
Real GDP at market exchange rates
(2005)
|
2.2
|
2.2
|
2.5
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
2.7
|
|
Developed economies
|
1.1
|
1.0
|
1.7
|
1.9
|
1.8
|
2.0
|
|
Developing economies
|
4.7
|
4.5
|
4.2
|
3.4
|
3.5
|
4.2
|
|
North America
|
2.3
|
1.5
|
2.4
|
2.3
|
2.3
|
2.5
|
|
South and Central America
|
2.8
|
3.3
|
1.0
|
-1.0
|
-1.7
|
1.1
|
|
Europe
|
-0.2
|
0.4
|
1.5
|
1.9
|
1.8
|
2.0
|
|
Asia
|
4.4
|
4.4
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
3.9
|
|
Other regionsb
|
3.8
|
2.6
|
2.5
|
0.9
|
1.7
|
2.9
|
a Figures for 2016 and 2017 are
projections.
b Other regions comprise Africa, the
CIS and the Middle East.
Sources: WTO Secretariat (for trade), consensus
estimates for GDP.
3.1. The following sections provide a more in-depth analysis of selected
trade and trade-related policy developments, including some areas which saw
especially noteworthy events during the review period from mid-October 2015 to
mid‑May 2016.
3.2. 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).[11]
The total number of measures in these three categories recorded over the review
period was 460, i.e. 132 trade‑facilitating measures, 174 trade remedy
measures and 154 other trade and trade‑related measures.
3.3. The 132 trade‑facilitating measures (Table 3.1) recorded during the
period covered by this report represent a significant increase compared to the
previous interim report, confirming the accelerating trend already observed in
2015. This equates to an average of almost 19 new trade‑facilitating measures
per month and represents the third highest average recorded by the monitoring
exercise. As much as 56% of these trade‑facilitating measures are tariff
reductions, often applied on a temporary basis. The trade‑facilitating measures
recorded by this monitoring report cover 0.8% of world merchandise imports (US$148 billion)[12]
compared to 0.7% reported for the same period last year.[13]
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-October 2014 to mid‑October
2015
|
Mid-October 2014 to
mid-May 2015 (7 months)
|
Mid-October 2015 to mid‑May
2016
(7 months)
|
|
Import
|
136
|
101
|
168
|
192
|
97
|
103
|
|
- Tariff
|
120
|
82
|
145
|
160
|
83
|
74
|
|
- Customs procedures
|
13
|
15
|
18
|
24
|
10
|
23
|
|
- Tax
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
|
- Quantitative restrictions
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
|
Export
|
18
|
6
|
9
|
26
|
12
|
26
|
|
- Duties
|
7
|
3
|
4
|
13
|
7
|
7
|
|
- Quantitative restrictions
|
11
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
3
|
|
- Other
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
12
|
5
|
16
|
|
Other
|
8
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
5
|
3
|
|
Total
|
162
|
107
|
177
|
222
|
114
|
132
|
|
Average per month
|
13.5
|
8.2
|
16.1
|
18.5
|
16.3
|
18.9
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.4. The principal sectors (HS chapters) benefiting from the
trade-facilitating measures during this review period were: machinery and mechanical
appliances, mineral fuels and oils, electrical machinery and equipment, and
precision equipment.[14]
3.5. Trade remedy measures taken between mid-October 2015 and mid-May
2016 are listed in Annex 2.[15]
As a share of all trade and trade-related measures recorded for the review
period, trade remedies make up 38%, which is a slightly smaller share compared
to the 44% reported in the interim report last year. Out of the 174 trade
remedy measures recorded (Table 3.2), 133, or more than three-quarters,
were anti-dumping actions. In line with the trend identified in recent
monitoring reports, more initiations were recorded than terminations. Almost 17
trade remedy actions were initiated per month during the period under review, a
significant increase compared to the previous mid-year report's average of 13
measures, contrasting with the decelerating trend observed in 2015.
Table
3.2 Trade remedy measures (Annex 2)
|
Type of
measure
|
Mid-November 2013 to mid-October 2014
|
Mid-October 2014 to mid-October 2015
|
Mid-October 2014 to mid‑May
2015
(7 months)
|
Mid-October 2015 to mid‑May 2016 (7 months)
|
|
Initiations
|
Terminations
|
Initiations
|
Terminations
|
Initiations
|
Terminations
|
Initiations
|
Terminations
|
|
Trade remedy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-dumping
|
134
|
133
|
130
|
111
|
74
|
62
|
88
|
45
|
|
Countervailing
|
21
|
15
|
21
|
14
|
13
|
9
|
17
|
5
|
|
Safeguard
|
16
|
18
|
14
|
7
|
5
|
6
|
13
|
6
|
|
Total
|
171
|
166
|
165
|
132
|
92
|
77
|
118
|
56
|
|
Average per month
|
15.5
|
15.1
|
13.8
|
11.0
|
13.1
|
11.0
|
16.9
|
8.0
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.6. Out of the total number of trade remedy measures, 118 were
initiations of new trade remedy investigations covering 0.38% of world
merchandise imports (US$70.3 billion)[16],
and 56 measures were terminations of either investigations or existing duties
covering 0.08% of world imports (US$14.5 billion).[17]
3.7. The number of other trade and trade-related measures recorded during
the review period (Annex 3) was 154, i.e. a sharp increase in the monthly
average of the introduction of such measures. Importantly, the monthly average of
these types of measures (22) remains above the monthly average of
trade-facilitating measures (Table 3.1), thus reversing the positive trend identified
over the past couple of years. Out of the 154 measures listed in Annex 3, 116
measures were applied to imports with the remainder applied to either exports
or in the shape of local content measures. As has been the case in the past,
the most prevalent import measure remains tariffs, accounting for almost 57% of
import measures in Annex 3 (Table 3.3). The 22 new trade‑restrictive
measures adopted per month by WTO Members during the review period, fall not
far behind the peak observed in 2011 of 23 new measures per month.
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-Oct. 2014 to mid‑Oct. 2015
|
Mid‑Oct.
2014 to mid‑May
2015
(7 months)
|
Mid-Oct. 2015 to mid‑May 2016
(7 months)
|
|
Import
|
118
|
153
|
119
|
136
|
77
|
116
|
|
- Tariff
|
54
|
106
|
74
|
88
|
52
|
66
|
|
- Customs
procedures
|
38
|
25
|
26
|
20
|
10
|
25
|
|
- Tax
|
6
|
6
|
7
|
11
|
4
|
11
|
|
- Quantitative
restrictions
|
20
|
15
|
11
|
11
|
6
|
10
|
|
- Other
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
6
|
5
|
4
|
|
Export
|
32
|
27
|
36
|
31
|
18
|
24
|
|
- Duties
|
8
|
4
|
12
|
13
|
8
|
4
|
|
- Quantitative
restrictions
|
24
|
11
|
12
|
5
|
1
|
7
|
|
- Other
|
0
|
12
|
12
|
13
|
9
|
13
|
|
Other
|
14
|
10
|
13
|
11
|
9
|
14
|
|
Total
|
164
|
190
|
168
|
178
|
104
|
154
|
|
Average
per month
|
13.7
|
14.6
|
15.3
|
14.8
|
14.9
|
22.0
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.8. Other trade and trade-related
measures recorded in this review period cover a wide range of products. The
main sectors (HS chapters) targeted were iron and steel, articles of iron and
steel, machinery and mechanical appliances, and electrical machinery and
equipment, accounting for 0.5% of world merchandise
imports (US$89.9 billion).[18]
3.9. Despite registering one of the highest monthly averages of
trade-facilitating measures recorded by the monitoring exercise, the findings
of this mid-term report show a higher number of other trade and trade‑related
measures. This reverses a positive trend first identified in the 2014 annual
overview with the number of trade‑facilitating measures now lower than the number
of other trade and trade‑related measures.
3.10. The total number of what may be considered as trade‑restrictive
measures (including trade remedy measures) introduced by WTO Members since
October 2008, and recorded by the periodic monitoring reports is 2,835.[19]
According to information recorded for this exercise, as of mid‑May 2016,
708, or one-quarter of these measures had been removed leaving the stockpile of
measures still in place at 2,127 – an increase of more than 11% during the
review period. Chart 3.1 compares the stockpile of restrictive measures at
mid-October 2010 with that of mid‑May 2016.
Chart
3.1 Stockpile of trade-restrictive measures
Note: Stockpile of restrictive measures includes measures listed in
Annex 3 and initiations of trade remedy actions.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.11. Overall, the introduction of more trade-restrictive than
trade-facilitating measures during the review period has inevitably impacted
the stockpile of restrictive measures negatively. In addition, and as noted in
previous reports, existing trade restrictions are not being eliminated, or
rolled back, at a rate which reduces the stockpile of trade-restrictive
measures. This remains an issue of broad systemic concern for global trade.
3.12. This section provides an assessment of trends in trade remedy
actions during the period from January – December 2013 ("first
period") in comparison with January – December 2014
("second period") and January – December 2015 ("current
period").[21]
Anti-Dumping Measures
3.13. Concerning anti-dumping, data for the current period indicate a
relatively constant number of new investigations initiated, compared with the
second period, and a decline from the first period. Global anti-dumping initiations remained
relatively constant in the current period with 230 investigations initiated,
compared with 236 in the second period (Table 3.4). This represents a 20% decline
from the 287 investigations initiated in the first period.
Table 3.4 Initiations of
anti-dumping investigations
(counted on the
basis of exporting countries affected)
|
Reporting Member
|
Jan – Dec 2013
|
Jan – Dec 2014
|
Jan – Dec 2015
|
|
Argentina
|
19
|
6
|
6
|
|
Australia
|
20
|
22
|
10
|
|
Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait, the
State of; Oman; Qatar; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; United Arab Emiratesa
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Brazil
|
54
|
35
|
23
|
|
Canada
|
17
|
13
|
3
|
|
Chile
|
4
|
0
|
2
|
|
China
|
11
|
7
|
11
|
|
Colombia
|
11
|
6
|
7
|
|
Costa Rica
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Dominican Republic
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
|
Egypt
|
2
|
9
|
4
|
|
European Union
|
4
|
14
|
12
|
|
Guatemala
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
India
|
29
|
38
|
30
|
|
Indonesia
|
14
|
12
|
6
|
|
Israel
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
|
Japan
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
|
Korea, Republic of
|
8
|
6
|
4
|
|
Malaysia
|
8
|
8
|
14
|
|
Mexico
|
6
|
14
|
9
|
|
Morocco
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
|
New Zealand
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Pakistan
|
6
|
0
|
12
|
|
Peru
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
|
Philippines
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Russian Federation, Kazakhstanb
|
1
|
7
|
1
|
|
South Africa
|
10
|
2
|
0
|
|
Chinese Taipei
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
Thailand
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Turkey
|
6
|
12
|
16
|
|
Ukraine
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
United States
|
39
|
19
|
42
|
|
Uruguay
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Viet Nam
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
287
|
236
|
230
|
a Notified individually by these
Members, but investigations are initiated by the Cooperation Council for the
Arab States of the Gulf on behalf of all of its members collectively.
b Notified
individually by these Members, but investigations are initiated by the Eurasian
Economic Union on behalf of all of its members collectively – Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.14. During the current period, the Kingdom
of Bahrain, the State of Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and
United Arab Emirates notified the initiation of the first investigation by the
GCC on behalf of its members. In addition, Kazakhstan and the Russian
Federation notified initiations of investigations by the Eurasian Economic
Union, which acts on behalf of its members.
3.15. Chart 3.2 shows that from
their low point in 2011, the number of anti-dumping investigations initiated
increased to a peak of 287 initiations in 2013, before again declining, to 236
initiations, in 2014 and remaining essentially stable in 2015.
Chart 3.2 Total anti-dumping
investigation initiations by reporting Member (2008-15)
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.16. While anti-dumping investigations
do not necessarily lead to the imposition of measures, a rise in the number of
investigations initiated is an early indicator suggesting a likely rise in the
number of measures imposed.
3.17. Regarding the Members taking
actions, Table 3.4 shows that Brazil initiated the
most investigations (112) over the three periods and accounted for 15% of
investigations. However, Brazil's initiations declined from the first period,
in which 54 investigations were initiated, to 35 in the second period and 23 in
the third. The United States was the second largest user of anti‑dumping over
the three periods, accounting for a total of 100 investigations. U.S.
initiations declined from 39 in the first period to 19 in the second period,
before increasing again, to 42, in the current period. India was the third
largest user of anti-dumping across the three periods with 97 investigations
and Australia was the fourth largest with 52 investigations. Significant
increases in the use of anti-dumping in the current period were seen by Pakistan
and Thailand, while a substantial decline was seen by Canada.
3.18. Chart 3.3 shows that there was
little change in the breakdown of products affected by anti‑dumping
investigations initiated during the three periods examined, with the majority
of initiations focused on products in the metals, plastics and rubber and
chemicals sectors.
Chart
3.3 Anti-dumping initiations by product
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.19. Metal products were subject to the
most initiations in each period, accounting for 34% (97 initiations) of all
initiations in the first period, 38% (89 initiations) in the second period and
46% (104 initiations) in the current period.
3.20. A large and increasing proportion
of investigations in the metals' sector focused on steel products. Over the
three periods combined, the United States (74), Australia (37), Canada (30)
and Malaysia (22) accounted for more than half of the 290 initiations on
metals. These initiations targeted mostly metal products from China (80, of
which 47 involved steel products), the Republic of Korea (29, of which 20
involved steel products) and Chinese Taipei (20, of which 15 involved steel
products). Certain products were the subject of multiple investigations, in
many instances by a single importing Member. For instance, there were 19
investigations into cold-rolled stainless steel, 18 investigations into oil
country tubular goods and 12 into grain oriented electrical steel. Preliminary
data indicates that these trends in relation to the metals sector are
continuing in 2016.
3.21. Chemical products accounted for the
second largest share of initiations over the three reporting periods, with 17%
in the first period, 22% share in the second period and 17% in the current
period. India accounted for 53 of the 140 new investigations on products in
this sector over the three reporting periods, Brazil for 22, and the European
Union for nine. These initiations
targeted mostly chemical products from China (38), the United
States (16), the
Republic of Korea (11) and the European Union (eight). Similarly to the metals
sector investigations, investigations into chemical products frequently
targeted the same product from different countries – 19 products accounted for
77 of the investigations in this area over the three periods.
3.22. Plastics and rubber ranked third
over the three periods examined, accounting for 14% of all initiations in the
first period, 19% in the second period, and 10% in the current period. Half of
the 109 plastics and rubber investigations were initiated by Brazil (57), followed
by India and Egypt with eight investigations each. China was the main target of
investigations in this sector (20), followed by India (10) and the Republic of Korea
(nine).
3.23. In terms of countries affected by
new anti-dumping investigations, 47 exporting Members were affected during the
first period, 41 during the second period and 42 in the current period. China was
the Member most affected by anti-dumping initiations during the three reporting
periods – investigations of Chinese products accounted for 28% of all
investigations during these periods. The second most affected Member during the
three reporting periods – the Republic of Korea – accounted for 8% of the total
initiations during these periods, followed by Chinese Taipei and India, at 5%
each.
Countervailing Measures
3.24. Table 3.5 shows that global
initiations of countervailing duty investigations increased during the second
period, from 33 initiations to 45 initiations. However, the number of
initiations in the current period declined to a level similar to that of the
first period. The main users of
countervailing measures over the three periods were the United States and Canada.
Table 3.5 Initiations of
countervailing duty investigations
(counted
on the basis of exporting countries affected)
|
Reporting Member
|
Jan – Dec 2013
|
Jan – Dec 2014
|
Jan – Dec 2015
|
|
Australia
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
|
Brazil
|
2
|
1
|
0
|
|
Canada
|
4
|
12
|
3
|
|
China
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Egypt
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
|
European Union
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
|
India
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Mexico
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Peru
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Russian Federation, Kazakhstana
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Turkey
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Ukraine
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
United States
|
19
|
18
|
22
|
|
Total
|
33
|
45
|
30
|
a Notified individually by these Members, but investigations are initiated
by the Eurasian Economic Union on behalf of all of its members collectively –
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.25. Chart 3.4, reflecting annual
figures, shows that the number of countervail investigations generally
increased between 2008 and 2014, the peak year. In fact, the number of initiations recorded in
2014 (45) exceeds the previous peak of 41 initiations observed in 1999.[22]
The level registered in 2015 is comparable to that in 2013 and 2009.
Chart 3.4 Countervailing
investigation initiations, (2008-2015)
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.26. Among the fourteen[23]
Members using countervail measures during the three periods examined, the United States accounted for 55% of all initiations in these periods. Canada accounted
for 18% and the European Union for 8%. The remaining 20% of investigations were
conducted by ten different Members. During the current period,
investigations were initiated by the United States (22), Canada (three),
Australia (two), the European Union (two) and Turkey (one). Over the three
periods examined, 83% of countervail investigations were conducted concurrently
with an anti-dumping investigation.
3.27. Concerning the types of products
affected by countervail investigations, Chart 3.5 shows that metals accounted
for most of the initiations reported over the three reporting periods, representing
a 36% share of all initiations in the first period, a 53% share in the second
period and a 73% share in the current period. For the three periods combined,
58 of the 108 total initiations covered metals, and 38 of these focused on
steel products. The United States initiated 29 of the 38
investigations of steel products. Twelve of the 38 steel-related initiations
targeted products from China and five targeted products from India and the
Republic of Korea.
3.28. Plastics were the second
most-targeted sector with 12 initiations, followed closely by chemicals with 11
initiations, although this sector had no initiations in the current period. In
relation to plastics, investigations were initiated by Egypt (five), the United
States (four) and Brazil (three). The United States initiated five
investigations in the chemicals sector, with the remaining investigations
conducted by Australia, Canada, Mexico and Peru which each initiated one investigation
each.
Chart 3.5 Countervailing duty initiations by product
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.29. In terms of countries affected by
new countervail investigations, 12 exporting Members were affected during the
first period, 18 during the second period, and 12 during the current period.
Similarly to anti-dumping, China was the most affected Member over the three periods
reviewed, with investigations into Chinese products accounting for 34% of all
investigations. India, the second most affected Member during the three reporting
periods, was the target of 14% of all initiations, followed by Turkey (9%).
Safeguard Measures
3.30. Initiations of safeguard
investigations peaked in the second period with 23 initiations, compared with
18 and 17 initiations in the first and current periods respectively (Table 3.6).
Table 3.6 Initiations of
safeguard investigations
(number of new investigations)
|
Reporting Member
|
Jan - Dec 2013
|
Jan - Dec 2014
|
Jan - Dec 2015
|
|
Australia
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
|
Chile
|
2
|
0
|
4
|
|
Chinese Taipei
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Colombia
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
|
Costa Rica
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Ecuador
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Egypt
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
|
India
|
3
|
7
|
2
|
|
Indonesia
|
0
|
3
|
1
|
|
Jordan
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Kyrgyz Rep.
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Malaysia
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
Morocco
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
Philippines
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
|
South Africa
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Thailand
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Tunisia
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
|
Turkey
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
|
Ukraine
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
|
Viet Nam
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
|
Zambia
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Total
|
18
|
23
|
17
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.31. Chart 3.6 shows a generally downward trend
in safeguard initiations since 2012, except in 2014. It is noteworthy that the
highest levels of initiations since 2008 – 25 in 2009 and 24 in 2012 - fall
short of the peak of 34 initiations observed in 2002.[24]
The downward trend continued in 2015.
3.32. Table 3.6 shows that India was the most
active Member throughout the reporting periods, accounting for 12 of the
aggregate 58 new investigations. Chile and Turkey, with a total of six and five
investigations respectively, were also active in the periods examined.
3.33. In terms of product coverage, Chart 3.7
shows that safeguard investigations focused on a diverse range of sectors. As
with anti-dumping and countervail initiations, metal products were the most
affected by safeguard initiations and were the target of investigations in each
of the three periods. Metals accounted for 33% of all safeguard initiations in
the first period, 35% of initiations in the second period and 53% of initiations
in the current period. India (five investigations), Colombia (four
investigations) and Chile (four investigations) accounted for over half the
aggregate of 23 new investigations into metals.
3.34. Chemicals ranked as the second most‑targeted
sector overall, accounting for 17% of all initiations in the first period and 13%
in the second period, before dropping to 6% in the current period. India
initiated five of the seven total new investigations in this sector.
Chart 3.6 Safeguard
investigation initiations (2008-2015)
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Chart
3.7 Safeguard initiations by
product
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Sunset Reviews
3.35. This section examines the aftereffect of the global financial crisis
on anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing actions (CVD). It does so by analysing
the extent to which measures imposed after the financial crisis have been
extended, expired, or otherwise terminated. The underlying hypothesis is that
the financial crisis may have had an impact on the imposition of trade remedy
measures. This section, therefore, examines both the measures imposed as a
result of investigations initiated in 2008, before the financial crisis, as
well as those tracing back to investigations initiated in 2009 and 2010, when
the full effects of the financial crisis were being felt.[25] It
concludes that it is still too early to determine the effect of the financial
crisis on AD and CVD actions.
3.36. The relevant WTO Agreements stipulate that anti-dumping and
countervailing measures can remain in force only for as long as is necessary to
counteract the injury caused by dumped or subsidised imports. To this effect,
unless it is determined, through a so-called "sunset review", that
the removal of a measure will likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of
the dumping or subsidisation measure and related injury, such a measure must
expire no later than five years after imposition. In the opposite case, the
measure can be extended for up to an additional five years. Investigating
authorities will generally invite applications for a sunset review before a
measure expires and, in the absence of a review, the measure must lapse
automatically.
3.37. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed as a result of
investigations initiated in 2008-2010 are, as at 31 December 2015, in various
stages of their lifecycle – i.e. still within the initial five-year imposition
period, under review[26],
extended, or expired.
Chart 3.8 Status of measures
resulting from AD and CVD investigations initiated in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as at
31 December 2015
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.38. Most of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties applied on the
basis of investigations initiated in 2008 and 2009 have been subject to expiry
action in the form of a sunset review or have expired (Chart 3.8). This is the
case for all of the 167 measures resulting from investigations initiated in
2008 and for 150 of the 164 measures applied based on investigations
initiated for in 2009. Conversely, of the 111 measures resulting from
investigations initiated in 2010, the large majority of measures, or 79, have
not yet been subject to an expiry action.
3.39. Table 3.7 indicates the share of sunset reviews conducted for
measures imposed as a result of investigations initiated between 2008 and 2010
and that have since been due to expire.
Roughly one-third of measures imposed as a result of investigations
initiated in 2008, before the financial crisis, expired without a review. This
proportion did not differ markedly from the measures imposed as a result of the
investigations initiated in 2009 as the financial crisis set in. It is still
too early to draw any conclusions on the proportion of measures based on
investigations initiated in 2010 that have been reviewed.
Table 3.7 Proportion of expiring measures that were subject to a sunset
review for all WTO Members (based on the year the investigation was initiated)
|
Expiring measures
|
Investigation initiated
in
|
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010a
|
|
Not reviewed
|
39%
|
29%
|
25%
|
|
Reviewed
|
61%
|
71%
|
75%
|
a Only 32 measures resulting from
investigations initiated in 2010 have so far expired or been subject to review.
Source: WTO
Secretariat.
3.40. As at 31 December 2015, 89 sunset reviews had been completed for
measures resulting from investigations initiated in 2008, as compared to 20 for
2009 and 10 for 2010, as shown in Table 3.8. The measures were extended for 87%
of the 2008 measures and 90% of the 2009 measures - again showing no important
adjustment for the financial crisis.
3.41. Based on current available data, there is consequently no
significant change in trend between before and after the financial crisis, at
least as related to the extension or the expiry of anti-dumping and
countervailing actions. This does not preclude the possibility for a change in
trend brought forth by future data, as this becomes available.
Table 3.8 Results from
completed reviews (based on the year the investigation was initiated)
|
|
Investigation initiated in
|
|
2008
|
2009
|
2010
|
|
Number
of completed reviews
|
89
|
20
|
10
|
|
Measure
extended
|
87%
|
90%
|
70%
|
|
Expiry
of measure
|
13%
|
10%
|
30%
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.42. Under
the SPS Agreement, WTO Members are obliged to provide an advance notice of
intention to introduce new or modified SPS measures[28],
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.
3.43. In the period from October 2015 to March 2016[29],
678 SPS notifications (regular and emergency, including addenda) were submitted
to the WTO. Notifications from developing-country Members accounted for 64% of
the total number. In the previous six-month period, from
April through September 2015, a total of 824 notifications were submitted, of
which 70% were by developing-country Members. Consequently, in the period under
review, there has been a 9% decrease in the share of notifications made by
developing-country Members as compared to the previous six-month period.
3.44. If
we consider regular notifications (including addenda), from October 2015
through March 2016, WTO Members submitted 624 regular SPS notifications; 62% of
which were submitted by developing-country Members. Compared with the previous
six-month period (April-September 2015), there was a 16% decrease in the total
number of notified measures, and a 10% decrease in the share of notifications
made by developing-country Members.
3.45. The number of notifications of
emergency measures also decreased compared with the previous period (Chart 3.9). However, the share of
emergency notifications submitted by developing-country Members increased as
compared to the previous period. From October 2015 through March 2016, 87% of
the 54 notifications of emergency measures were submitted by developing-country
Members. For the previous period (April-September 2015), 82% of the 79
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 3.9 Number of SPS
notifications, including regular, emergency and addenda
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.46. 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 468 regular
notifications (excluding addenda) submitted from October 2015 to March 2016,
218 (47% of the total) indicated that an international standard, guideline or
recommendation was applicable to the notified measure, out of which 53% had
referred to Codex, 34% to IPPC and 13% to OIE (Chart 3.10). Furthermore, the
notification formats include an entry asking whether the notified regulation
conforms to the relevant international standard. Of the notifications that have
identified a relevant international standard, 79% indicated that the measure
was in conformity with, or substantially the same as, the existing
international standard, guideline or recommendation.
Chart 3.10 Regular SPS
notifications and international standards
Note: Codex
Alimentarius (Codex), World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.47. International standards often
provide useful guidance regarding measures to address disease outbreaks and
other emergency situations. Indeed, 98% of the 41 emergency notifications
(excluding addenda) submitted from October 2015 to March 2016 indicated that an
international standard, guideline or recommendation was applicable to the
notified measure (Chart 3.11). They all indicated that the
measure was in conformity with the existing international standard.
Chart
3.11 Emergency SPS
notifications and international standards
Note: Codex
Alimentarius (Codex), World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).
Source: WTO Secretariat
3.48. Of the 468 regular notifications (excluding
addenda) submitted from October 2015 to March 2016, the majority were related
to food safety.[30] The remaining notifications
related to plant protection, animal health, the protection of the Member's
territory from other damage from pests and the protection of humans from animal
diseases or plant pests. Several of the regular notifications identified more
than one objective per measure.
3.49. Of the 41 emergency measures (excluding
addenda) notified in the same period, the majority related to animal health,
followed by food safety, measures related to the protection of humans from
animal diseases or plant pests, 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.
3.50. 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.[31]
In the two Committee meetings of October 2015 and March 2016, 12 new STCs were
raised. Five of these STCs related to animal health, three to food safety,
three to plant health and one to other types of concerns (Table 3.9).
3.51. One new STC which had been included on the proposed agenda for the March
2016 meeting was withdrawn following bilateral consultations, namely,
Indonesia's concerns regarding exports of Indonesian mangoes to the Republic of
Korea. Furthermore, at the March 2016 meeting, two STCs were reported as
resolved.[32]
Table 3.9 SPS new specific
trade concerns raised between October 2015 and March 2016
|
STC
|
Document title
|
Members maintaining the measure
|
Members raising the concern
|
Members supporting the concern
|
Date raised
|
Primary objective
|
|
397
|
India's
amendment to its import policy conditions for apples; Restriction to Nhava
Sheva port
|
India
|
Chile, New
Zealand
|
United States,
European Union
|
14/10/2015
|
Other concerns
|
|
398
|
Viet
Nam's restrictions on fruit due to fruit flies
|
Viet
Nam
|
Chile
|
|
14/10/2015
|
Plant
health
|
|
399
|
Viet
Nam's restrictions on plant products
|
Viet
Nam
|
Chile
|
|
14/10/2015
|
Plant
health
|
|
400
|
Undue
delays in the start of Australia's risk analysis for avocados
|
Australia
|
Chile
|
|
14/10/2015
|
Plant
health
|
|
401
|
Undue
delays in Viet Nam's approval process for dairy and meat products
|
Viet
Nam
|
Chile
|
|
14/10/2015
|
Animal
health
|
|
402
|
Undue
delays in Australia's approval process for chicken meat
|
Australia
|
Chile
|
|
14/10/2015
|
Animal
Health
|
|
403
|
India's
amended standards for food additives
|
India
|
European
Union
|
Chile,
United States
|
14/10/2015
|
Food
Safety
|
|
404
|
Revised
veterinary health certificates for the import of cattle, sheep and goats from
Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland
|
South
Africa
|
Namibia
|
Botswana,
Swaziland
|
16/03/2016
|
Animal
Health
|
|
405
|
Import restrictions due to
Schmallenberg virus
|
China
|
European Union
|
|
16/03/2016
|
Animal Health
|
|
406
|
Import restrictions due to
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
|
China
|
European Union
|
|
16/03/2016
|
Animal Health
|
|
407
|
Restrictions on exports of
pork from the State of Santa Catarina
|
European Union
|
Brazil
|
|
16/03/2016
|
Food Safety
|
|
408
|
Restrictions on exports of
beef and poultry
|
Nigeria
|
Brazil
|
|
16/03/2016
|
Food Safety
|
Source: WTO
Secretariat.
3.52. Twenty-four previously
raised STCs were discussed at the October 2015 or March 2016 SPS Committee
meetings (sixteen of which being discussed in both meetings), with five having addressed
persistent problems that have been discussed seven times or more. In
particular, two STCs have been discussed on 20 or more occasions (Table 3.10).
In addition, one STC raised for the first time in October 2015 was discussed
again in March 2016.[33]
Table
3.10 Previously-raised SPS specific trade concerns discussed in October
2015 and/or March 2016
|
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 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
|
Certain Members,
specifically Australia; China; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Ukraine
|
European Union, United States
|
Canada, Switzerland,
Uruguay
|
01/06/2004
|
26
|
|
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
|
20
|
|
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
|
7
|
|
289
|
Measures on catfish
|
United States
|
China
|
|
28/10/2009
|
6
|
|
358
|
Import conditions for
pork and pork products
|
India
|
European Union
|
Canada
|
16/10/2013
|
6
|
|
373
|
United States high cost of certification for
mango exports
|
United States
|
India
|
Brazil,
Dominican Republic
|
09/07/2014
|
5
|
|
374
|
European Union ban on
mangoes and certain vegetables
|
European Union
|
India
|
Dominican Republic,Nigeria
|
09/07/2014
|
5
|
|
375
|
United States non‑acceptance of OIE
categorization for BSE
|
United States
|
India
|
|
09/07/2014
|
5
|
|
378
|
European Union
withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic products
|
European Union
|
India
|
|
09/07/2014
|
5
|
|
356
|
European Union
phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot
|
European Union
|
South Africa
|
Argentina, Brazil, Zambia
|
27/06/2013
|
4
|
|
382
|
European Union
revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors
|
European Union
|
United States
|
Argentina,
Brazil,
Canada, Chile, China,
Colombia, Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic,
Guatemala, India,
Jamaica, Kenya,
Madagascar, Malaysia,
Mexico, New Zealand,
Nigeria, Pakistan,
Paraguay, Peru, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Viet Nam,
South Africa, Egypt,
Burkina Faso, Uruguay
|
25/03/2014
|
4
|
|
387
|
Chinese Taipei's import
restrictions in response to the nuclear power plant accident
|
Chinese Taipei
|
Japan
|
|
26/03/2015
|
3
|
|
383
|
China's measures on
bovine meat
|
China
|
India
|
|
26/03/2015
|
2
|
|
388
|
United States proposed
rule for user fees for agricultural quarantine and inspection services
|
United States
|
Mexico
|
|
26/03/2015
|
2
|
|
390
|
Russian Federation's
import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia and Latvia
|
Russian Federation
|
European Union
|
|
15/07/2015
|
2
|
|
392
|
China's import
restrictions due to African swine fever
|
China
|
European Union
|
|
15/07/2015
|
2
|
|
393
|
Republic of Korea's
import restrictions due to African swine fever
|
Korea, Republic of
|
European Union
|
|
15/07/2015
|
2
|
|
394
|
Costa Rica's suspension
of the issuing of phytosanitary import certificates for avocados
|
Costa Rica
|
Guatemala, Mexico
|
South Africa,
United States
|
15/07/2015
|
2
|
|
395
|
China's proposed
amendments to the implementation regulations on safety assessment of
agricultural GMOs
|
China
|
Paraguay,
United States
|
|
15/07/2015
|
2
|
|
396
|
European Union
proposal to amend regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 to allow EU member States to
restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed
|
European Union
|
Argentina,
Paraguay,
United States
|
Brazil, Canada,
Uruguay
|
15/07/2015
|
2
|
|
294
|
Import restrictions on
plant and plant products
|
Malaysia
|
Brazil
|
Japan
|
15/7/2015
|
1
|
|
385
|
General import
restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza
|
Certain Members
|
European Union
|
|
26/03/2015
|
1
|
|
386
|
Measures on imports of
hibiscus flowers
|
Mexico
|
Nigeria
|
Senegal, Burkina Faso
|
26/03/2015
|
1
|
|
389
|
Chinese import regime,
including quarantine and testing procedures for fish
|
China
|
Norway
|
|
15/07/2015
|
1
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.53. Under the TBT Agreement, WTO Members are obliged to notify their
intention to introduce new or modified TBT measures, or to notify immediately
after adopted 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.[35] Therefore, an increased number of notifications does not necessarily
imply greater use of protectionist or unnecessarily trade-restrictive 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.
3.54. During
the period from 1 October 2015 to 30 April 2016, WTO Members
submitted 1,025 new notifications of TBT measures[36],
of which around 79% were submitted by developing-country Members.[37]
The overall number of regular notifications is only slightly lower than in the
period January – September 2015,[38]
although the proportion from developing countries is
higher. Overall, 2015 recorded the fourth
largest number of notifications since 1995.[39]
In total, 1,988 TBT notifications were submitted in 2015 by 73 Members. Since
the entry into force of the Agreement and up to 31 December 2015, a total
25,390 TBT notifications (including new notifications, revisions, addenda and
corrigenda) have been submitted by 128 Members. The United States (1,200), Brazil (533), Ecuador (529), Colombia
(323) and the European Union (307) have notified the largest number of addenda
and corrigenda since 1995.[40] Amongst the 1,438 new
notifications received in 2015 the main indicated objectives[41]
were: protection of human health or safety (71%); prevention of deceptive
practices and consumer protection (24%); quality requirements (21%); and
protection of the environment (16%).[42]
3.55. Any Member may raise Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) with
respect to TBT measures taken or proposed by other Members.[43]
These STCs are frequently discussed in the regular meetings of the TBT Committee,
with around 50 STCs discussed per meeting in recent years (Chart 3.14).
Depending on the extent of the trade-restrictiveness and importance of the issue to the
Members raising the STC, the same measure may come up at one or more meetings
of the TBT Committee. For example, a STC may be discussed at only one meeting
(as a new STC), and subsequently a resolution
to the trade concern may be found; on the other hand, an STC may be discussed
at subsequent meetings (previously raised STC),
usually reserved for long‑standing and more serious concerns.
3.56. In 2015, 37 new STCs were raised, compared with 47 in the previous
year. In addition, 49 previously raised STCs were discussed during the year,
the second highest number in any given year since 1995. Overall, 86 STCs were discussed
in 2015, the second highest peak after that of 2012. Since 1995 and up to 30 April
2016, Members have raised 501 new STCs. An
upward trend in STCs has been observed since 2005 (Chart
3.12).[44]
3.57. As illustrated by Chart 3.13,
there is a marked correlation between the number of new notifications and new
STCs raised each year. On average, since 1995, around 68% of STCs discussed in
TBT Committee meetings relate to notified measures.
3.58. Members raised in total 28 new STCs during the Committee meetings
that fell within the reviewed period (17 new STCs were raised during 4-5
November 2015 meeting of the TBT Committee, and 11 new STCs were raised during
the 9-10 March 2016 meeting). Overall, 116 new and previously-raised STCs were
discussed during review period, keeping with the trend of a greater number of
STCs being discussed per meeting as well as per year. Chart 3.14 shows the
total number of STCs discussed per Committee meeting since March 2006. This
upward trend, from 63 STCs discussed in 2006 to 161 discussed in 2015, shows
that the Committee has spent more time discussing STCs than any other item on
the agenda (only an average of around 20 STCs were discussed per meeting in
2006 while that figure was around 50 in 2015[45]).
Chart 3.12 STCs raised with
respect to Members' TBT measures
Note: This
chart counts the number of TBT measures discussed as STCs per year. The data
for 2016 include only the STCs raised at the March 2016 Committee meeting. Previously
raised concerns are counted only once even if they are raised in subsequent
meetings.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Chart 3.13 Number of
notifications versus number of new STCs
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Chart 3.14 STCs discussed per
committee meeting, March 2006 – March 2016
Note: This chart counts the number of STCs on
the agenda of the TBT Committee per meeting. Note that the same STC can be
raised at all three meetings in a year and, in this chart, is counted every
time it is discussed.
Source: WTO Secretariat. See the 21th Annual Review
of the Implementation and Operation of the TBT Agreement (G/TBT/38, 24 March
2016).
3.59. Table 3.11 shows the list of all new STCs raised during the
Committee meetings that fell within the review period.
3.60. The three main product categories subject to STCs (new and previous)
raised during the review period were cement, electronic, electrical devices and
tobacco (plain packaging). Trade concerns
related to toy safety also featured on the agenda, with a total of seven STCs
(two of which were new). Measures taken by Singapore and Hungary on tobacco
products, as well as by India and South Africa on alcoholic beverages, were the
subject of new STCs. Almost half of all new STCs raised
during the Committee meetings concerned measures aimed at the protection of
human health.
Table 3.11 New STCs raised
during November 2015 and March 2016 Committee meetings
|
Member maintaining the measure (in
alphabetical order)
|
STC title
|
Stated objective
|
Product coverage
|
Members raising the concern
|
|
Bolivia,
Plurinational State of
|
Food Labelling and Advertising Law
|
Public
health objectives of reducing obesity and related non-communicable, as well
as diet-related diseases
|
Food
|
United States;
Guatemala; European Union; Canada
|
|
Brazil
|
Toy
Certification; Ordinance No. 89, No. 310 and draft administrative rule No.
321 (ID 478)
|
Protection
of Human health or safety
|
Toys
|
Canada; United States; European
Union
|
China
|
Interim Measures for Quality Management of Commercial Coal
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1057) (ID 477)
|
Protection of Human health or safety; Protection of the
environment;
Quality requirements
|
Coal
|
Canada;
Australia
|
|
China
|
Insurance
Regulatory Commission (CIRC) Information and Communication Technology
Regulation (ID 489)
|
National
security requirements
|
ICT;
Insurance sector
|
Canada; Japan; United
States;
European Union
|
|
China
|
Guidance
for Notification and Registration for New Chemicals (ID 490)
|
Protection
of the environment; Protection of Human health or safety
|
Chemicals
|
United
States
|
China
|
Formula
Registration Regulation for Infant and Follow-up Formula (G/TBT/N/CHN/1165)
|
To
strictly control infant formula products
|
Infant
formula products
|
Republic of Korea; European
Union; Japan
|
|
Colombia
|
Testing
Requirements to be met by Toys and their Components and Accessories (ID 479)
|
N/A
|
Toys
|
Canada; United States
|
|
European Union
|
Restriction
on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Tyres as specified in Annex
XVII of REACH (ID 480)
|
N/A
|
Tyres
|
China
|
|
European Union
|
Withdrawal
of equivalence for processed organic products (ID 483)
|
Protection
of Human health or safety
|
Organic
products
|
India
|
|
European
Union
|
Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the Cloning of Animals of the bovine,
porcine, ovine, caprine and equine species kept and reproduced for farming
purposes (197) and Proposal for a Council Directive on the placing on the
market of food from animal clones (198) (G/TBT/N/EU/197 and G/TBT/N/EU/198)
(ID 492)
|
Protection of animal or plant life or health
|
Live bovine animals, live swine, live sheep and goats, live horses,
asses, mules and hinnies, other live animals.
All food from animal clones.
|
Brazil; United States
|
|
France
|
Amendment 367 on Biodiversity
Law
|
Better protection of natural resources and ecosystems
|
Palm oil used in
food
|
Indonesia; Brazil
|
|
India
|
Secondary cells and batteries containing alkaline or other
non-acid Electrolytes (G/TBT/N/IND/47/Add.1) (ID 482)
|
Protection of Human health or safety Secondary cells, batteries
|
Protection of Human health or safety Secondary cells, batteries
|
Republic of
Korea; United States
|
|
India
|
The Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2015 (ID
486)
|
Protection of Human health or safety; Quality requirements
Stainless steel sheets and strips for utensils
|
Protection of Human health or safety; Quality requirements Stainless
steel sheets and strips for utensils
|
European Union
|
|
India
|
Amendments
in the import policy conditions applicable to apples (ID 487)
|
N/A
|
Apples
|
European Union; New
Zealand; United States, Chile; Australia
|
India
|
Draft Food Safety and
Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) Regulations, 2015 (G/TBT/N/IND/51)
|
Protection of human health
|
Alcoholic beverages (spirits,
wines and beers)
|
European Union; United States; Japan; Australia; Chile; New Zealand;
Guatemala; Canada
|
|
Indonesia
|
Halal
Product Assurance Law No. 33 of 2014
|
Consumer
protection or ensuring that consumers to know whether products are halal
|
Food
and beverages, pharmaceutical and cosmetics
|
United
States; European
Union; Brazil
|
|
Hungary
|
Proposal for Government Decree
on the amendment of Government Decree 39/2013 (of 14 February 2013) on the
Manufacture, Placement on the Market and Control of Tobacco Products,
Combined Warnings and the Detailed Rules for the Application of the
Health-Protection Fine (G/TBT/N/HUN/31)
|
Public
health policy, protection of consumers from the negative effects of tobacco
products
|
Tobacco products
|
Indonesia; Dominican Republic; Guatemala; Cuba; Nigeria
|
|
Bahrain, Kingdom of; the State of Kuwait; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom
of; Qatar
|
Motor
Vehicles: General Requirements "No. GSO 42:2003" (ID 485)
|
Consumer
information, Labelling
|
Motor vehicles
|
European Union
|
|
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
|
Draft
for update of the Technical Regulation No. SASO 2857:2014 "Vehicle Tires
Rolling Resistance and Wet Grip Requirements" (ID 488)
|
Consumer
information, Labelling
|
Vehicle
tires
|
European Union
|
|
Republic of Korea
|
Standards
and Specifications for Wood Products (G/TBT/N/KOR/599) (ID 491)
|
Quality
requirements; Prevention of deceptive practices and consumer pro Forest
products (fire retardant treated wood, wood plastic composite and oriented
strand board).
|
Quality
requirements; Prevention of deceptive practices and consumer pro Forest
products (fire retardant treated wood, wood plastic composite and oriented
strand board).
|
United States; Canada
|
|
Singapore
|
Plain
Packaging for Tobacco Products (ID 484)
|
Consumer
information, Labelling; Protection of Human health or safety
|
Tobacco
|
Indonesia, Dominican
Republic, Guatemala
|
South Africa
|
Amendment to Regulations
Relating to Health Messages on Container Labels of Alcoholic Beverages
(G/TBT/N/ZAF/48/Rev.1)
|
Protection of human health
|
Alcoholic beverages
|
European Union; Canada; Guatemala
|
Russian Federation
|
Rules
of cement certification
|
To
fight against sharp decrease in cement quality in circulation in the Russian
Federation and urgent problems of safety, health and environmental protection
|
Cement
|
European Union; Mexico
|
Russian Federation
|
Implementation plan related to excise tax on palm oil and soda
products
|
N/A
|
Palm oil and soda products
|
Indonesia
|
|
Russian
Federation
|
Measure affecting the import of Ukrainian wallpaper (ID 476)
|
Protection of Human health or safety; Protection of the
environment
|
Wallpaper
|
Ukraine
|
|
Thailand
|
Milk
Code – Draft Act on Controlling to the Marketing Promotion on Food for Infant
and Young Children and Other Related Products BE (G/TBT/N/THA/471)
|
Ensuring
that marketing of infant formula did not negatively impact breastfeeding
|
Food
and other related products for infant and young children up to 36 months of
age
|
United
States
|
United Arab Emirates
|
Control
scheme to restrict the use of hazardous materials in electronic and
electrical devices
|
Protection
of human health and environment
|
Electronic
and electrical devices
|
European Union
|
|
United Arab
Emirates
|
Labelling - Energy efficiency label for electrical appliances
(ID 481)
|
N/A
|
Electrical appliances, air conditioners
|
Republic of Korea
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.61. Eight of the total 88 previously-raised STCs (Table 3.12)
discussed during the Committee meetings that fell within the review period
addressed persistent concerns that have been discussed in the Committee for a
number of years (10 or more times). The majority (more than 50%) of the
persistently raised STCs relate to the objective of the protection of human
health and safety.
Table 3.12 Persistently raised
STCs discussed during the November 2015 and March 2016 Committee meetings
|
No.
|
Persistently
raised STCs
|
Frequency
|
|
1
|
India - Pneumatic tyres
and tubes for automotive vehicles.
|
29 times
|
|
2
|
India - Drugs and
Cosmetics Rules 2007 (not
raised during March 2016).
|
21 times
|
|
3
|
China - Provisions for
the Administration of Cosmetics Application.
|
17 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").
|
17 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).
|
16 times
|
|
6
|
Indonesia - Technical Guidelines for the
Implementation of the Adoption and Supervision of Indonesian National
Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety.
|
13 times
|
|
7
|
Republic of Korea – Regulation on Registration
and Evaluation of Chemical Material.
|
13 times
|
|
8
|
Russian Federation – Draft on Technical
Regulation of Alcohol Drinks Safety (published on 24 October 2011).
|
13 times
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.62. During the period covered by this
report a number of other trade concerns were raised by Members in formal
meetings of various WTO bodies.[46] With a view to increasing transparency, this
section aims to provide a brief and factual overview of such concerns raised
between mid‑October 2015 and mid-May 2016.[47] 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 account 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.
3.63. At the meeting of Council for
Trade in Goods (CTG) on 10 November 2015[48], new concerns were raised
on (i) China's measures relating to trade in seafood, including quarantine and
testing procedures, import licences for salmon, and lack of indication about
the list of Norwegian companies authorized to export seafood to China (issue
raised by Norway); (ii) India's port closures for apple imports (Chile, China,
European Union, New Zealand and United States)[49]; and (iii) Brazil's
industrial nitrocellulose import ban/non automatic import licences[50] (European Union).
3.64. Trade concerns were also again raised on (i) Nigeria's
restrictive measures intended to preserve foreign exchange reserves which
affected imports of sea products as well as agricultural products, plastics,
aircraft and aircraft parts, and metal and metal products; (ii) Nigeria's local
content requirements in the oil and gas industry (Chile, European Union,
Iceland, Norway, Malaysia, Switzerland, Thailand, United States and Uruguay); (ii)
Indonesia's import and export restricting policies and practices (Australia,
Brazil, Canada, Chinese Taipei, European Union, Japan, New Zealand,
Norway, Switzerland and United States); (iv) Pakistan's Regulatory Order
No. 1125 on domestic sales taxes imposing a sales tax of 17% on imported
goods, while similar domestically produced goods are taxed at 5%[51] (Canada, European Union,
Japan, Switzerland and United States); (v) Ecuador's import restricting
measures on automobiles adopted since 2012 and extended to end December 2015
(Canada; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Mexico and United States); (vi) Ecuador's
balance of payment (BOP) measures[52] (Chile, Colombia, European
Union, Japan, Panama, Peru, Switzerland and United States); and (vii) Ukraine's
customs valuation issues based on Resolution 724 providing indicative prices for
customs valuation purposes (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland).
3.65. At the 15 April 2016 meeting of
the CTG[53] new trade concerns were raised on (i) the Russian Federation's
Presidential Decree No. 1 and Government Resolution No. 1 of January 2016,
banning all international transit of cargo by road and rail from Ukraine to
Kazakhstan through the territory of the Russian Federation (Australia; Canada; European Union; Jamaica; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Turkey;
Ukraine and United States)[54]; (ii) the United States' seafood import monitoring programme to prevent
the Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing[55] (Norway and Russian Federation); and (iii) India's trade restrictions,
including minimum import prices for steel products, the increase in customs
duties for tariffs for 96 tariff lines, the safeguard measures applied to the
steel sector and the conformity assessment procedures for ICT products (Australia;
Canada; Chile; China; European Union; Korea, Rep. of; New Zealand and
United States). Trade concerns were raised on six additional issues that
had already been brought to the CTG attention on previous occasions on (i)
Indonesia's import and export restrictions; (ii) China's measures applied to
seafood; (iii) Nigeria's import restricting measures; (iv) Ecuador's BOP
measures; (v) Ukraine's customs valuation legislation; and (vi) Pakistan's
discriminatory taxes.
3.66. At the meeting of the Committee on Market Access on 19 April 2016[56] new concerns were raised on (i) India's
increased import duties on certain telecommunication equipment (European Union,
Japan and United States); (ii) the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's increased import
duties on cigarettes and its potential implications on the Gulf Cooperation
Council common external tariff (Switzerland); (iii) the Russian Federation's
export ban on raw hides and skins (European Union); and (vi) the United States' restrictions on trade in sturgeon,
which include an import ban on five species for environmental reasons and
labelling requirements for certain hybrid species (European Union). Trade
concerns were raised again on the Kingdom of Bahrain's apparent violation of
bound duties on cigarettes (Switzerland).
3.67. At the meeting of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information
Technology Products[57] on 18 April 2016, trade concerns were raised regarding India's Customs
Notification No. 11/2014 on the increased 10% import duties on certain
telecommunication equipment with concessions that are bound at duty-free levels
(European Union; Japan; Korea, Rep. of and United States).
3.68. In the Committee on
Agriculture[58] 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 93 questions were discussed, including on individual notifications
(65 questions) and under Article 18.6 (27 questions on
24 implementation-related issues),
as well as one question on overdue notifications. Additional details regarding
these questions and concerns can be found in Section 3.6 of this report.
3.69. At the meeting of the Committee on Customs Valuation[59], concerns were repeated on (i) the alleged use by
Armenia of reference prices (United States); and (ii) Indonesia's lack of
notifications on Pre-Shipment Inspection measures (United States).
3.70. A number of concerns were repeated
at the meeting of the Committee on Import
Licensing[60] on (i)
Indonesia's import licensing regime for cell phones, handheld computers and
tablets (United States); (ii) Brazil's
regulatory requirements for imports of nitrocellulose (European Union); (iii) India's import
licensing requirements on boric acid (United States); (iv) Bangladesh's import
licensing procedures and in particular with respect to the importation of
medicines (United States); (v) Mexico's steel import licensing programme
(Canada and United States); and (vi) Viet Nam's importation of distilled
spirits (United States). New trade concerns were raised on (i) Malaysia's
import licensing regime on passenger and commercial vehicles, rice, round
cabbage, unroasted green beans, logs and wood, as well as its halal certificate
administration (European Union); and (ii) Morocco's import licensing requirements
on the importation of certain arms and gear wheels (European Union).
3.71. At the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures meetings[61] concerns were raised with
respect to countervailing duty actions on (i) Canada's provisional measure on
certain hot-rolled steel plate (Russian Federation); (ii) China's investigation
on imports of dried grains with or without solubles (DDGS) (United States);
(iii) the European Union's investigation on imports of aquaculture
products (Turkey); (iv) the European Union's measures on ductile cast iron
tubes and pipes (India); (v) the Russian Federation's investigation on ferrosilicon
manganese (Ukraine); (vi) India's investigation on imports of castings for
wind operated electricity generators (China); (vii) the United States' measures
on Turkish iron and steel products (Turkey); (viii) the United States' investigation
on imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (Russian Federation);
(ix) the United States' investigation on new pneumatic off-the-road tires
(India); (x) the United States' investigation on imports of hot-rolled and
cold-rolled steel products from Brazil; (xi) the United States'
investigation on imports of sugar (Mexico); (xii) Ukraine's investigation on
imports of light motor vehicles (Russian Federation); and (xiii) Peru's
investigation on imports of biodiesel (Argentina).
3.72. At the same meetings concerns were raised on subsidies regarding (i)
the non-notification of alleged subsidies by India (United States); (ii) the
non-notification of alleged subsidies by China (United States); (iii) the
non-notification of alleged subsidies in the fisheries sector by China (United
States); (iv) the requests to China for information on certain alleged subsidy
programmes (United States); (v) the government support for the Canadian
Aircraft Industry (United States); (vi) Japan's government support for the
development of regional aircraft (Brazil); and (vii) India's export subsidies
in the textile and apparel sector (United States). Additional concerns were
raised on (i) the elimination of export subsidies by the Members that received
extensions under Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement; (ii) the low and declining
level of compliance with the notification and transparency obligations in the
SCM Agreement; (iii) the requests for information pursuant to Article 25.8 and
25.9 (proposal from the United States); and (iv) enhancing fisheries subsidies
transparency (United States).
3.73. At the meetings of the Committee on Anti-Dumping
Practices[62] on 28 October 2015 and 27 April 2016, concerns were raised on i) Australia's sunset review on the
imports of ammonium nitrate (Russian Federation); (ii) Brazil's new investigation on PET sheet
(Peru); (iii) Canada's anti-dumping duties imposed on oil country tubular goods
(Korea, Rep. of); (iv) Canada's provisional anti-dumping measure imposed on
certain hot-rolled carbon steel plates and high-strength low-alloy steel plate
(Russian Federation); (v) China's investigation on unbleached sack paper (European Union and Japan); (vi) China's investigation on optical fibre
preforms (United States); (vii) China's anti-dumping investigation
conducted against acrylic fibre (Turkey); (viii) China's anti-dumping
investigation on grain-oriented electrical steel (European Union and Japan); (ix) China's
anti-dumping investigation on polyacrylonitrile fibre (Japan); (x) Dominican
Republic's investigation on steel reinforcing bar (Turkey); (xi) Egypt's
initiation of an anti-dumping investigation against wet wipes imports (Turkey);
(xii) the European Union's measure on ammonium nitrate (Russian Federation); (xiii) the European Union's investigation on cold‑rolled
steel products (China and Russian Federation); (xiv) the European Union's measures on aluminium foils
(Russian Federation); (xv) India's procedures to complete the sunset review of
the anti‑dumping measure on cold-rolled stainless steel (United States);
(xvi) India's investigations pertaining to cold-rolled flat steel
products, hot-rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel in coils, and
not in coils (Japan); and (xvii) India's investigation on seamless pipes
(China).
3.74. Concerns were also raised on (xviii) Indonesia's sunset review of
the anti-dumping measures on its imports of hot-rolled plate (Ukraine); (xix)
Indonesia's anti-dumping investigation on wheat flour (Turkey); (xx)
Indonesia's sunset review on cold-rolled steel sheet (Japan); (xxi) Indonesia's
investigation on ammonium nitrate (Australia); (xxii) Israel's investigation on
float glass (Turkey); (xxiii) Japan's investigation on potassium hydroxide (Korea,
Rep. of); (xxiv) Kazakhstan's and the Russian Federation's investigations
on bars and rods, ferrosilicon manganese and seamless pipes and tubes
(Ukraine); (xxv) Malaysia's provisional measures on pre-printed or printed
colour coated coils (Viet Nam); (xxvi) Morocco's anti-dumping investigations on
imports of hot-rolled steel sheets and refrigerators (Turkey); (xxvii)
Pakistan's anti-dumping investigations on cold-rolled coils and sheets
(Ukraine) and hydrogen peroxide (Turkey); (xxviii) Thailand's
investigation on hot-rolled non ally steel in coils and not in coils (Turkey);
(xxix) Turkey's anti-dumping investigation on hot-rolled coil (European Union); (xxx) Turkey's investigation
and preliminary measure imposed on safety glass exports (Israel); (xxxi)
Turkey's anti-dumping investigation on biaxially oriented polypropylene films (Egypt);
(xxxii) Turkey's investigation on imports of cotton (United States); (xxxiii)
Turkey's anti-dumping investigation on hot-rolled coil (Japan); (xxxiv)
Turkey's recently terminated investigation on hot-rolled coil sheet[63] (Russian Federation); and
(xxxv) Ukraine's anti-dumping investigation on certain nitrogen fertilizers
(Russian Federation).
3.75. Other additional issues and concerns were raised on (i) the recent European Union
anti‑dumping investigations, including the use of the analogue country methodology
(China); (ii) China's upcoming expiration of Accession Protocol Section 15
(a); (iii) Colombia's and United States country-wide duty practice on
Chinese products (China); (iv) the recent rapid increase in anti‑dumping
measures, especially in the steel sector (Japan, China); (v) the length of the United States
anti-dumping measures (Japan); (vi) the European Union approaches in anti‑dumping
investigations, especially with respect to the metal and steel sector (Russian
Federation), (vii) the United States' practice for determining the scope of the
product under consideration (Russian Federation) and; (viii) India's
procedures, transparency and due process in anti-dumping investigations
(Chinese Taipei and United States).
3.76. At the meetings of the Committee on Safeguards[64], concerns were
raised on specific safeguard actions on (i) Chile's investigation on steel wire
(Brazil; China; Chinese Taipei; European Union and Mexico); (ii) Chile's
investigation on steel nails (Brazil; China; Chinese Taipei; European Union and
Mexico); (iii) Chile's investigation on steel mesh (Brazil; China; Chinese
Taipei; European Union and Mexico); (iv) Chile's investigation on steel wire
rod (United States); (v) Egypt's investigation on white sugar (European
Union); (vi) Egypt's investigation on PET (European Union); (vii) Egypt's
investigation on automotive batteries (European Union); (viii) India's
investigation on hot-rolled flat products of non-alloy and other alloy steel
(China; Chinese Taipei; European Union; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Russian
Federation; Turkey; Ukraine and United States); (ix) India's investigation on
hot-rolled flat sheets and plates (Brazil; European Union; Japan; Turkey
and Ukraine); (x) Indonesia's investigation on bars and rods (Chinese Taipei; European
Union and Japan); (xi) Indonesia's investigation and coated paper and
paperboard (Japan); (xii) Jordan's investigation on writing and printing paper
(European Union and United States); (xiii) Malaysia's investigation on
hot-rolled coils (Japan); (xiv) Morocco's investigation on cold-rolled sheets
and plated or coated sheets (United States); and (xv) Morocco's
investigation on paper in rolls and paper in reams (European Union); and wire
rods and reinforcing bars (European Union; Turkey and United States).
3.77. Additional concerns were raised on (xvi) Philippines' investigation
on steel angle bars (United States); (xvii) South Africa's investigation on
certain flat-rolled products of iron; non-alloy steel or other alloy steel
(Brazil; European Union; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Turkey and United States);
(xviii) Thailand's investigation on hot-rolled steel flat products (India and
Turkey); (xix) Tunisia's investigation on ceramic tiles (European Union
and Turkey); (xx) Tunisia's investigation on glass bottles (European Union); and
MDF fibre boards (European Union); (xxi) Turkey's investigation on
porcelain and ceramic tableware; kitchenware (European Union); (xxii) Turkey's
investigation on cellular portable telephone (China; European Union; Korea,
Rep. of; United States; and Viet Nam); (xxiii) Turkey's investigation on
wallpaper and similar wallcoverings (European Union); (xxiv) Ukraine's
investigation on flexible porous plates; blocks and sheets of polyurethane
foams (European Union); (xxv) Viet Nam's investigation on monosodium
glutamate (Thailand); and (xxvi) Viet Nam's investigation on semi-finished and
certain finished products of alloy and non-alloy steel (China; European Union
and Japan). Other issues and concerns were discussed: (i) the United States
potential safeguard action on aluminium (Russian Federation); and (ii) the
increasing number of safeguard actions taken around the world (Australia;
Brazil; Canada; European Union; Israel; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Malaysia;
Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Pakistan; Chinese Taipei; and United States).
3.78. At the meeting of the Working Party on State
Trading Enterprises[65] on 12 October 2015 concerns
were raised regarding (i) the operation of Canada's provincial and territorial
liquor control authorities, differential tax treatment, variable mark‑ups and
selective criteria for the liberalization of alcohol sales; (ii) the activities
of two Indian enterprises, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited
and the Food Corporation of India; (iii) the functioning of Zespri Group
Limited, a state trading enterprise for kiwi fruit exports maintained by New
Zealand; and (iv) a counter-notification relating to the non-notification by
China of its state trading enterprises[66]; (v) the non-notification
by the Russian Federation of its state trading enterprises, including the
non-notification of enterprises considered by some delegations to be state
trading enterprises, including Gazprom and the Russian United Grain Company and
(vi) the overall poor level of compliance among Members with the notification
obligations of Article XVII of GATT 1994 regarding state trading enterprises.
3.79. At the meetings of the Committee on
Balance-of-Payments (BOPs) Restrictions consultations were held with
Ecuador[67] and concerns were repeated
by a number of Members on the introduction of an import surcharge for BOP
purposes, although some Members expressed support for the measures.
3.80. At the meeting of the Council for Trade in
Services (CTS) on 18 March 2016, concerns were raised about
regulatory measures that impeded mode 4 access to the United States and Canada,
and recommended regulatory changes that might impede mode 4 access to the
United Kingdom (India).[68] At the same meeting,
concerns were repeated about certain measures related to Ukraine's reforms of
its Unified Gas Transportation System (Russian Federation).[69] These concerns were
first mentioned in November 2014, and have been restated at all subsequent
regular meetings of the CTS.[70]
3.81. In the Dedicated Session on Small
Economies of the Committee on Trade and Development
(CTD), trade concerns were expressed on how small and vulnerable economies
could better integrate into global value chains in goods and services trade.[71] In the CTD's session on Aid for
Trade, the European Union expressed concerns with respect to the overall proportion of total Aid
for Trade going to LDCs.[72]
3.82. In the Committee on
Trade and Environment[73], discussions continued on the effect of environmental measures on
market access, including in relation to measures aimed at fighting Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. In this context, several delegations[74] underscored the environmental and socio-economic impacts of IUU
fishing, while urging Members to take the interests of developing country
exporters into consideration in their measures to combat IUU fishing.
3.83. The above section shows that WTO Members continue to use a wide
range of WTO bodies to raise trade concerns. Several WTO bodies, i.e. the Council for Trade
in Goods, the Committee on Market Access, the Committee on Anti‑Dumping
Practices and the Committee on Safeguards, saw an increase in the number of
trade concerns raised compared to the same period last year. Also, several
trade concerns were brought to the attention of more than one WTO body during
the review period suggesting the issues involved are increasingly complex and
touch upon multiple WTO agreements. It is, however, too early to draw any solid
conclusions on individual trends in this area and further analysis will benefit
from the additional data in upcoming reports.
3.84. 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 Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), including rules-based
commitments. The review work by the CoA is based on notifications Members make
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.
3.85. In the framework of the CoA meeting
in March 2016, Members posed a total of 93 questions, including both questions
on individual notifications and under Article 18.6, with almost three-quarters of
those questions directed at issues related to domestic support notifications or
implementation of domestic support commitments.
3.86. In total, nine Members raised 27
questions on 24 implementation-related issues (Article 18.6) in the March
2016 CoA meeting. As can be seen in Chart 3.15, 2014 was the year with the
largest number of questions raised under Article 18.6. These
numbers include questions that were repeated from one meeting to the next
because responses were not provided in the relevant time-frames.
Chart 3.15 Number of questions
raised under Article 18.6 (1995-2016a)
a Until 15 May 2016.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.87. Out of the 24 implementation‑related
issues raised in the CoA in the review period, 15 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 3.13
indicates the specific issues relating to implementation commitments that were
discussed for the first time in the CoA during the March 2016 meeting. The
complete questions, and answers, can be accessed through the Agriculture
Information Management System.[75]
Table 3.13 Article 18.6 new issues
|
ID number
|
CoA meeting number
|
COA meeting date
|
Question raised by
|
Answered by
|
Question Summary
|
Products
|
|
79085
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
India
|
Australia
|
Farm Insurance Advice Scheme
|
|
|
79035
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
New Zealand
|
Canada
|
New milk ingredient class
|
Milk
|
|
79003
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
United States
|
Canada
|
Wine sale policy
|
Alcoholic
|
|
79030
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Canada
|
China
|
Agriculture Policy
|
Cereals, wheat, corn, rice, malt, coarse grains
|
|
79066
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Indonesia
|
France (European
Union)
|
Amendment No. 367
to the proposed law on biodiversity
|
|
|
79051
79024
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Canada, European Union
|
India
|
New crop insurance scheme
|
|
|
79052
79025
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Canada, European Union
|
Japan
|
MARUKIN Stabilization Programme
|
Swine
|
|
79094
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Brazil
|
Peru
|
Price band system
|
|
|
79084
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Ukraine
|
Russian Federation
|
Trade measures
affecting Ukrainian transit of agricultural products to Kazakhstan
|
|
|
79005
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
United States
|
Thailand
|
Rice policies
|
Rice
|
|
79026
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
European Union
|
Turkey
|
Support scheme to
certain agricultural sectors
|
|
|
79029
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
European Union
|
Turkey
|
Rice support
|
Rice
|
|
79031
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
European Union
|
Turkey
|
Fruit and vegetable
export subsidies
|
Processed
vegetables, fruit, processed fruit or nuts, fruit and vegetable beverages
|
|
79095
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Brazil
|
United States
|
Soybean programmes
|
Seeds
|
|
79086
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
India
|
United States
|
Farm support programmes
|
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.88. More than two-thirds of the new issues raised in the March 2016 CoA meeting
related to domestic support policies. Members requested additional information
on insurance schemes allegedly implemented by Australia (farm insurance advice scheme[76])
and India (new crop insurance scheme[77]).
Members also raised questions regarding five product-specific policies
potentially benefitting producers of rice, citrus, soybeans, milk and hogs and
cattle, (i.e. Canada's new milk ingredient class[78],
Japan's MARUKIN stabilization programme[79],
Thailand's rice policies[80],
Turkey's rice support[81],
Turkey's support scheme to certain agricultural sectors[82]
and U.S. soybean programmes[83]).
Two questions were raised regarding agricultural policies of a general scope (China's
agriculture policy[84]and
U.S. farm support programmes[85]).
Other questions fell under the sphere of market access where Members requested
an explanation of measures that restricted, or had the potential to restrict,
the trade of agricultural products (i.e. France's amendment No. 367 to the
proposed law on biodiversity[86],
Canada's wine sale policy[87],
Peru's price band system[88]
and the Russian Federation's trade measures affecting Ukrainian transit of
agricultural products to Kazakhstan[89]). There
was one issue raised in relation to export subsidies (i.e. Turkey's fruit and
vegetable export subsidies[90]).
3.89. Other measures that were discussed
related to follow-up questions on persistent areas of concern. Members
requested clarification on a number of recurring concerns. More than half of
these concerns related to domestic support policies. All of the repeated issues
discussed at the March 2016 CoA meeting were also discussed at the previous CoA
meeting in September 2015. A number of these issues have been raised in the CoA
as many as 19 times (Costa Rica's compliance with AMS commitments). In the
March 2016 CoA meeting, the United States reiterated its concerns regarding
Costa Rica's continued lack of compliance with its AMS commitments, and
requested additional information on Costa Rica's new Executive Decree that is
expected to bring Costa Rica into compliance with its WTO obligation. Brazil
continued to face requests for data on domestic and international shipments of
particular products made under two of its domestic support programmes. India's sugar
export subsidies were once again the subject of questioning. Concerns were also
raised regarding Turkey's domestic support (and its pending notifications on
domestic support) and its export subsidies (Table 3.14).
Table 3.14 Questions
previously raised under Article 18.6
|
ID number
|
CoA
meeting number
|
COA
meeting date
|
Question
raised by
|
Answered
by
|
Question
summary
|
Products
|
Times
raised in the CoA (1995-2016)
|
|
79004
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Canada, United
States
|
Costa Rica
|
Compliance with AMS
commitments
|
Rice
|
19
|
|
79001
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
United States
|
Brazil
|
Domestic support programmes
|
|
14
|
|
79023
79047
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Australia, Colombia, European Union
|
India
|
Sugar export subsidies
|
Sugar, cane or beet
sugar
|
12
|
|
79033
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
United States
|
Turkey
|
Destination of
wheat flour sale
|
Wheat
|
8
|
|
79027
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
European Union
|
Turkey
|
Domestic support
and export subsidies
|
Fruit
|
6
|
|
79022
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
European Union
|
China
|
Maize Subsidies
|
Corn
|
3
|
|
79032
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
Australia, New
Zealand
|
European Union
|
Dairy policies
|
Dairy, milk, milk
powders, butter, cheese
|
2
|
|
79067
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
European Union, New Zealand, United States,
Chile
|
India
|
Importation of apples
|
Fruit
|
2
|
|
78007
|
79
|
09/03/2016
|
United States
|
India
|
Export assistance programmes
|
Meat, bovine, swine, sheep and goat, poultry, horses, milk, sugar,
cane or beet sugar
|
2
|
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.90. Regarding the review of notifications, timely and complete
notifications are fundamental for effective monitoring of the implementation of
commitments. For the period 1995-2014[91],
there were a total of 1,778 outstanding regular notifications.[92]
Twelve distinct notification requirements are applicable in the domain of
agriculture covering the following areas: market access, domestic support,
export subsidies, export prohibitions or restrictions, and the follow-up to the
Marrakesh NFIDC Decision. The applicability of a notification requirement to a
Member is largely dependent on its specific commitments under the AoA. Out of
the twelve notification requirements the following five are "regular"
or "annual" notification requirements: (i) imports under tariff and
other quotas (MA:2), (ii) Special safeguards (MA:5), (iii) Domestic
support (DS:1), (iv) Export subsidies (ES:1) and (v) Total exports (ES:2).
Annual notifications are required to be submitted no later than a certain
number of days following the end of the year in question. As shown in Chart 3.16,
domestic support (DS:1) and export subsidy notifications (ES:1) have the
highest number of outstanding notifications with 37% (769 notifications) and
35% (805 notifications) of notifications pending, respectively. While a large
number of outstanding notifications remain, there has been a concerted effort
by Members to bring their notifications up-to-date, as can be seen in Chart
3.17, where notifications reporting more than one year (which might include the
required year and/or any pending previous years) have been increasingly
submitted by Members. From 2009-2015, the average number of years reported per
notification has been close to three.
Chart
3.16 Total outstanding
notifications per type of notification requirement (1995‑2014)
Note: MA:2 - Imports under tariff and other
quotas, MA:5 - Special safeguards, DS:1 - Domestic support, ES:1 - Export
subsidies, ES:2 - Total exports. This number
represents reported years and does not necessarily match the number of
notifications submitted on the same period since some notifications covered
more than one year.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
Chart 3.17 Number of regular notifications in agriculture and years reported (1995‑2016a)
a Until 22 February 2016.
Note: The total number of years reported might include the required year and/or any
pending previous year(s).
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.91. In the review period, Members submitted 106 notifications, (including
addenda and corrigenda). In the same period, 65 questions were posed during the
Agriculture Committee meetings concerning these and previously submitted
notifications. As seen in Chart 3.18,
during the review period the majority of questions raised related to domestic support
notifications (77%). In particular, domestic support notifications by China,
Brazil, Mexico and the United States were the subject of a considerable number
of questions.
Chart 3.18 Number of questions
raised per sector (mid-October 2015 - mid-May 2016)
Source: WTO
Secretariat.
Box 3.1: Evolving agricultural
policies and markets: implications for multilateral trade reform
|
Since the latest round of WTO negotiations began in
2001, world agricultural markets have evolved significantly. Global agricultural
production has continued to increase and there have been shifts in the
relative importance of regional production centres. There has been a rise in
production in a number of developing regions, particular those of Asia and
South America. Developed agricultural producing regions, on the other hand,
have seen more modest to neutral growth.
Trade
in agro-food products has also increased at a faster pace than in the
previous decade. For agro‑food products overall, trade has become less
concentrated, with the share held by the top 20 importers and exporters
declining by around 5 percentage points between 2000 and 2013. In terms
of trading patterns, the rise of new production centres has increased trade
between developing countries.
There
has also been a significant shift in prices. The long term trend of declining
prices came to an end in the early-2000s and was followed by a number of price
spikes, most notably in 2007/08. Prices since then have generally remained at
higher levels but are expected to decline gradually in real terms over the
medium‑term on the back of sustained global productivity improvements.
On the
policy front, agricultural support policies in many countries have changed.
Domestic support policies are more decoupled from production and, in some
cases, support levels have also been reduced. However, in other countries
support has risen. Overall, there has been a convergence in both the level
and the nature of support between emerging and developed countries. That
said, across individual countries there are marked differences in support
levels within both groupings. Agro-food tariffs have also fallen globally,
but compared with other sectors they still remain high. On the other side of
the ledger, export subsidies have become less prevalenta although
new forms of interventions in export markets, such as export restrictions,
have been more widely used.
An
assessment of the impacts of current policies (OECD, 2016 forthcoming) in the
new policy and market environment (2011-14) using the OECD METRO model shows
that agricultural support and barriers to agricultural trade still create
significant distortions to world markets and that there is much to be gained
from pursuing reform.
Figure1. Impacts on agro-food trade from removing current
policies, possible reforms and policy drifts
(% change from 2011 trade levels)
Note: Four scenarios
were explored: without current policies, which represents the removal of all
trade-related and domestic support to agriculture; widespread partial policy
reform, which represents the partial removal of trade-related and domestic
support across all countries worldwide; uneven partial trade and domestic
policy reform, which sees partial removal of trade-related and domestic
support in developed countries with very limited changes in others; and
Policy drift, which sees some large emerging agricultural producers increase
tariffs and domestic support while other countries maintain their current
policies.
The
current suite of agricultural policies, both domestic support and trade
barriers, significantly negatively affects global agro-food trade and creates
welfare losses for the global economy (Figures 1 and 2). Overall,
trade in all agro-food commodities would be higher in the absence of current
support measures, particularly trade in intermediate products, suggesting the
development of agro-food global value chains has been hampered by current
policy arrangements. Proxied through private consumption, the negative effect
on welfare of current policies is now more uniform and is seen across most
countries and regions studied. Both the policy changes and the changes in
markets that have occurred since 2000 help explain these results: developed
regions have reduced and changed the nature of their support; the European
Union no longer makes use of
export subsidies; and developing countries trade much more with other
developing countries. These changes have reduced some effects observed in the
past where, due to reform, some countries lost benefits from lower food
prices or faced costs from the loss of preferences (preference erosion). At
the same time, the changes have increased the exposure of developing
countries to policies in place in other developing countries.
Policies
also affect total global production and its location. While many trade and
domestic support policies are aimed at increasing food production, from a
global perspective they do not achieve this result. If current policies were
not in place, the level of global production in agricultural products would
be virtually unchanged. That is, support provided to agriculture in some
countries does not increase production overall but rather displaces
production from elsewhere in the world. Further, when broadening the lens to
also include the production of food products, current policies are likely to
be having a negative overall effect. These conclusions throw into serious
question arguments made in favour of current trade and domestic support
policies based on the idea that such interventions promote global food
availability and thus contribute to global food security.
Figure 2. Impacts on
agro-food production, household consumption and GDP from removing current
policies, partial reforms and policy drifts
% change from 2011 levels
Reforming
current policy arrangements would yield benefits. For all countries, the
benefits from reform are created from a mix of their own actions and those in
trading partners. Changes in world agro-food trading patterns have influenced
the source of gains for some countries. For developing countries in
particular, the benefits on offer from reforms are now more critically linked
to their own actions and the actions of other developing countries and not
just actions by developed countries. The effects for developing countries
from their own liberalization and actions from other developing countries
have a greater impact than the effects of developed countries’ reforms.
Critically, trade in intermediate products between developing countries is
most hampered by current policies and the development of global value chains
in these countries could be significantly enhanced if reforms took place. For
developed countries, the impacts of reform are driven both by their own
reforms and by actions in other countries. Further, simulations of possible
policy drifts, based on observed trends, show that inaction can lead to
losses. Importantly, those most negatively affected by increases in
protection are the countries that impose such increases. For some, increases
in protection in line with current practice also decreases total agricultural
production and agricultural income. And while the actions taken have been in
the name of increasing self-sufficiency as a vehicle to deliver greater food
security, the income effects along with the effects on domestic prices from
interventions in markets work against household food security, in particular
those in rural areas who have fewer income generating options and face higher
food prices.
There
is still much to be gained for developed and developing countries from
reaching multilateral agreement on even partial reform of agricultural
markets. Gains are not only likely to result from the implementation of
better policies that improve the functioning of international markets and
promote the development of agro-food GVCs, but also from the ability of the
multilateral system to limit policy drifts towards greater levels of
intervention in agro-food markets. Such policy drifts are not only costly for
those who increase their protection of domestic markets, but are also costly
for other countries affected by the international spillovers from these
policies.
|
a In fact, export subsidies have recently
been eliminated (Nairobi Ministerial Decision).
Reference: OECD (2016,
forthcoming), Evolving Agricultural Policies and Markets: Implications for
Multilateral Trade Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris.
3.92. According to information provided to the Secretariat or obtained
through other sources, 100 new general economic support measures were put in
place by WTO Members during the review period. This corresponds to a monthly
average of 14 measures, an increase compared to the monthly average of 11 new
measures recorded in the previous annual report at the end of 2015.[94]
Out of the 100 new measures, 30 were not confirmed or verified by the Members
concerned.
3.93. Annex 4 covers various economic support measures targeting specific
sectors and industries, or multiple sectors. The main beneficiaries of economic
support measures recorded during the review period included various sectors,
such as agriculture and food, energy, automotive, infrastructure, transport,
telecommunications, electricity and pharmaceuticals. Several programmes
provided specific support to export-related activities or enterprises,
including SMEs. A significant share of measures included some form of
import-related support. Others included stimulus programmes, a buy-domestic scheme
and several tax incentive measures.
3.94. Gathering and verifying information on general economic support
measures continues to represent a significant challenge and the lack of active
participation by several WTO Members in providing relevant information on such
support remains a concern. The number of WTO Members that provided information
on new general economic support measures implemented during the review period
remained low. For the verification exercise, the WTO Secretariat reverted to a
large number of WTO Members for their confirmation of such measures, including
many obtained from other official sources. Several WTO Members requested that some
of the measures relating to support programmes in their economies not be
included in this monitoring report.
3.95. It is important to emphasize that Annex 4 of this report seeks to
cover all general economic support measures. Although initial monitoring
reports included a significant number of measures which, in spirit as well as
in substance, were directly related to the financial crisis, other measures were
clearly not. Yet, their trade-related effects were potentially important. In
addition, Annex 4 also covers those specific support programmes which have been
cancelled or reduced, e.g. in the case of energy subsidies.
General Economic Support Measures since 2008
3.96. The following section takes a closer look at the trends that have
characterized the general economic support measures captured by the monitoring
reports since October 2008.
3.97. A total of 837 general economic support measures have been recorded
by the WTO Secretariat since the beginning of the monitoring exercise. One fourth
of these measures were introduced in direct response to the financial crisis. As
of November 2009, the implementation of new general economic support measures
decelerated substantially (Chart 3.19). In the period under review, the monthly
average of 14 new measures has edged towards the peak average of 18 measures
per month recorded immediately after the onset of the global financial crisis.
Chart
3.19 General economic support measures
(average per month)
Note: Values are rounded.
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.98. According to information recorded by the WTO Secretariat,
large-scale, multi-sector or economy-wide stimulus packages constitute the bulk
of general economic support measures introduced by WTO Members since October
2008. Although these types of measures were extensively used during the first
three years of the monitoring exercise, an increase in their application was
recorded in the period under review. Multi-sector measures have been
traditionally very broad and can cover, simultaneously and under one programme,
a diverse range of sectors from agriculture and forestry to medical and
shipbuilding sectors.
3.99. The agriculture and food sectors have been the second largest
recipient of general economic support measures. A variety of objectives are
covered by these measures, including long-term improvements in productivity,
incentive packages through tax breaks and preferential credit lines. The
banking and finance sector received the bulk of the original general economic
support measures between 2008 and 2009, often in the shape of rescue-aid or
bail-outs.
Chart 3.20 Sectors covered by economic support measures, October 2008 – mid‑May 2016
(% share of total
number of measures)
Source: WTO Secretariat.
3.100. WTO Members have provided regular support to the automotive sector
since the beginning of the monitoring exercise.
SMEs have also been the beneficiaries of economic support measures, with
aid schemes, credit guarantee programmes, incentive packages and improved
access to investment and capital, representing the more prevalent assistance
provided. These measures constitute the fourth area of importance in economic
support measures since October 2008.
3.101. Other sectors which have received general economic support include
the energy and the transport sectors. The remaining areas of support cover,
amongst others, manufacturing (other than SMEs), infrastructure, export
credits, telecommunications and investment.
3.102. Typically, general economic support measures have been temporary in
character. This is especially the case for those general economic support
measures that were introduced in response to the financial crisis. Based on the
available information, the general economic support measures that have been
reduced or eliminated, aside from the financial and credit sectors, mostly are
found in the energy, food and agriculture sectors. A noteworthy example is the
reduction in 2015-2016 by several countries of various fuel price support
schemes, likely in response to the fall in the price of oil.
3.103. There is little doubt that the
universe of general economic support measures provided by WTO Members is much
greater than what this exercise has been able to record. Similarly, it has been
clear from the very beginning of the monitoring exercise that the number of
such measures recorded is very much a function of the transparency which
surrounds the granting of subsidies in individual Members. Transparency is a
prerequisite for providing a balanced account of the overall number of general
economic support measures introduced and it remains that some Members have
featured more frequently in Annex 4 because of such transparency, despite the
fact that many other Members have applied similar measures.
3.104. WTO Members participated more actively in the verification exercise
during the first three years of the WTO monitoring exercise (2009-2011). Since
October 2011, the number of non-confirmed general support measures recorded by
the WTO Secretariat has significantly increased. In the current review period,
30% of the measures in Annex 4 remained non-confirmed compared to 2% in
2009.
3.105. General economic support measures will likely remain attractive to
governments, particularly for strategic sectors, despite the often significant
financial cost of such programmes. Subsidy programmes do not per se impact on trade. However, because of their potential
to be trade distorting, guidance from WTO Members on how the trade monitoring
report might better capture such trade effects would be welcome.
3.8 Other Selected Trade Policy Developments
Trade Facilitation
3.106. Following the adoption of the amendment protocol, delegations
started to launch their domestic processes for ratifying the Trade Facilitation
Agreement. As at 3 May 2016, 77 acceptance instruments were deposited, which
represents more than 70% of the ratifications required for the Agreement to
enter into force. Members also continued to notify the commitments they
designated for implementation as of the Agreement's entry into force. As at
3 May 2016, 83 of those so-called "category A-notifications"
were presented. Delegations already started to notify the commitments they
consider to require more time ("category B") and the acquisition of
implementation capabilities through the provision of assistance and support for
capacity building ("category C"). Four such category B and C
notifications were received by time of reporting (3 May 2016).
3.107. The new WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement Facility that was launched
in 2014 was put into action in 2015 and aims to provide a platform for
information on WTO trade facilitation and to help developing and
least-developed members find the assistance they need for the preparation of
notifications, ratification of the Agreement, and for its implementation. It also aims to coordinate donor
assistance.
3.108. To achieve these goals, a new Facility website[95]
was created to provide information on donor programmes, to provide case studies
and other materials to assist with implementation and to track progress on
ratification and notifications received.
The Facility conducted, or was involved in, eight events for Parliamentarians
to help them gain a better understanding of the new Agreement. The Facility assisted Members to prepare
their category A, B and C notifications by conducting national and sub-regional
workshops; and by coordinating with partner organizations to conduct workshops.
It also assisted Members to find support
for implementation of the Agreement in a variety of ways, for example, by
providing donor information on the Facility website, by organizing workshops
featuring the available donor support, and by direct matchmaking.
Box 3.2: Assessing the gains from implementing the WTO Trade
Facilitation Agreement
|
Trade remains an important source of
growth for countries at all levels of development. Global production chains
have opened new opportunities, but also placed a premium on countries’
ability to connect seamlessly, rapidly and efficiently with the global
economy. The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) marked an important step
in countries’ efforts to increase the transparency and efficiency of customs
and other administrative procedures involved in moving goods across borders.
Addressing procedural obstacles at the border as a consistent effort across a
large number of countries, through a full and swift implementation of the
TFA, could reduce worldwide trade costs and realize important global economic
benefits.
The OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators
(TFIs) help countries identify areas for action and assess the potential
impact of reforms. Covering more than 160 countries at all levels of
development, the TFIs track the policy areas of the TFA: information
availability; involvement of trade community; advance rulings; appeal
procedures; formalities (documents, automation, procedures); border agency
co-operation (internal and external); governance and impartiality. The TFIs
reflect not only the regulatory framework in each country, but also, to the
extent possible, implementation of trade facilitation measures.
Combining the TFIs with UN ESCAP-World
Bank data on trade costs shows that implementing the WTO TFA could reduce
trade transaction costs by between 10.4% and 17.4% (Figure 1). A higher level
of ambition - implementing “best endeavour” provisions of the TFA - would
translate into more substantial benefits for all countries, but especially
for lower income countries.a The greatest cost savings from
individual components come from improvements in formalities (simplification
of trade documents would save between 0.9% and 4.2%; streamlining of border
procedures between 2.6% and 3.9%; and automation of border processes between
2.3% and 3.6%); as well as from transparency and predictability (in
particular, the availability of trade-related information and advance
rulings).
Figure 1. Overall
potential trade costs reductions by income group (%)
Note: Calculation by OECD based on
cost estimates from the updated UN ESCAP-World Bank Trade Costs Dataset, and
includes two scenarios: a) “full” implementation, where countries implement
all the provisions contained in the TFA, including “best endeavours”
provisions; and b) “limited” implementation, where countries implement only
the mandatory provisions; note, however, that this scenario takes into
account that some best endeavours measures have already been implemented by
some of countries.
Source: OECD.
Significant benefits for countries at
all levels of development also come from addressing clearance times for both
imports and exports. Clearance times are critical for trade in intermediate
goods and time-sensitive goods, such as perishable agricultural products or
high-tech manufacturing, which suffer from uncertain delivery or lengthy
export times. Delays in delivery also increase the costs of managing stocks
and undermine companies’ ability to respond rapidly to changes in consumer
preferences. By significantly reducing trade transaction costs and clearance
times, implementation of the WTO TFA has the potential to increase world
trade by 0.6% compared to the base, with LICs and LMICs experiencing the
highest growth rates (calculations based on linking the TFIs to the World
Bank Doing Business - Trading Across Borders (TAB) database on customs delays
and using the OECD METRO model).b
Analysis based on the TFIs shows that
trade facilitation measures can benefit all countries whether they are
exporting or importing goods by allowing better access to inputs for
production and greater participation in the global value chains that
characterise international trade today. Economies with the biggest challenges
in trade facilitation measures reap the greatest benefits from
implementation. But the nature and extent of benefits will depend on how much of the agreement
countries implement and the timeframes for implementation.
|
a
OECD (2015),
“Implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: The Potential Impact
on Trade Costs”, http://www.oecd.org/tad/tradedev/WTO-TF-Implementation-Policy-Brief_EN_2015_06.pd.
b METRO is OECD’s static multi-regional computable general
equilibrium (CGE) model.
Government Procurement
3.109. The membership of the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA)
continues to grow. Since the previous report, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova
have concluded the negotiations on their accessions to the Agreement. Following
the deposit by Ukraine of its instrument of accession, the Agreement came into
force for Ukraine on 18 May 2016. This brings the total number of WTO Members
covered by the Agreement to 46. The deposit of the Republic of Moldova's
instrument of accession is expected to be done by 16 June 2016.
3.110. Further additions to the membership of the Agreement are expected in
the short to medium term. Negotiations on Australia's accession are progressing
well and further discussions were held on Tajikistan's and China's accessions.
The process of the Kyrgyz Republic's accession was resumed early this year.
Four other WTO Members — Albania, Georgia, Jordan and Oman have applied to join
the GPA. Another six WTO Members have provisions regarding accession to the
Agreement in their respective Protocols of Accession to the WTO, i.e.
Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Seychelles and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
ITA Expansion
3.111. Under the newly concluded WTO ITA Expansion agreement, import duties
will be eliminated on 201 high‐tech products whose annual trade is estimated at $1.3 trillion,
accounting for approximately 10% of world trade in goods. Products covered by
the ITA Expansion include new generation multi‐component integrated circuits (MCOs), touch screens, GPS navigation
equipment, portable interactive electronic education devices, video game
consoles, and medical equipment, such as magnetic resonance imaging products
and ultra‐sonic scanning apparatus.
3.112. The ITA Expansion will result in the rapid and meaningful liberalization
of trade in new generation IT products. According to preliminary estimates by
the WTO Secretariat, customs duties on 95.4% of Participants' imports on these
products will be fully eliminated by 2019. Negotiations were conducted by 24
Participants, representing 53 WTO Members and accounting for approximately 90%
of world trade in these products. The ITA Expansion agreement is open to any
other WTO Member wishing to join it.
Dispute Settlement
3.113. During the review period, there were 13 new requests for consultations,
eight new panels established by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), five
Appellate Body proceedings, three Article 21.3(c) awards and two Article
22.6 arbitration awards. As at mid-May 2016, there were 16 active ongoing
panels, one active compliance panel proceeding under Article 21.5, three panel
requests pending before the DSB, and four panels and one compliance panel have
been established with panel composition under way. In addition, there were two
composed panels and one arbitration under Article 22.6 that were awaiting staff
to assist them. While this level of activity shows that members have confidence
in the system, the dispute settlement system is having trouble coping with the
workload. The Director-General has recently transferred 29 posts from within
the Secretariat to dispute settlement in response to current delays at the
panel and Appellate Body stages.
3.114. As in previous years, the subject-matter of WTO dispute settlement
continues to touch on many of the covered agreements: the six panel reports,
four compliance panel reports, four Appellate Body reports and three Appellate
Body compliance reports adopted over the reporting period address a wide range
of provisions in several agreements.[96]
Ongoing dispute settlement proceedings also involve claims under many of these
agreements, as well as a range of other covered agreements.[97]
Three of the eight panels established during the period under review concern
trade remedies or subsidies. Developed and developing countries continue to
participate in the WTO dispute settlement system: almost all of the Appellate
Body and panel reports adopted over this period involved at least one
developing country Member as a party, either as the complainant or the
respondent.
Aid for Trade
3.115. A new biennium Aid-for-Trade Work Programme covering the period
2016-2017, which the General Council took note of at its meeting in February
2016, provides the framework for WTO's Aid-for-Trade related work and
activities in 2016. With its theme "Promoting Connectivity", the Work
Programme was the first action to be taken in support of the Aid-for-Trade
mandate elaborated in the December 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Declaration. The
Work Programme seeks to further deepen analysis of the supply-side capacity and
trade-related infrastructure constraints faced by developing countries with an
increased focus on services trade and upgrading infrastructure. Activities
foreseen under the Work Programme will continue to support implementation of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and relevant Programmes of Action
including, inter alia, the Istanbul and Vienna
Programmes and the Samoa Pathway. The Work Programme lays the groundwork for
the Sixth Global Review of Aid for Trade tentatively scheduled to take place in
mid-2017.
3.116. While the mobilization of
Aid-for-Trade funding continues, commitments fell from their historic high in
2013 by US$1 billion to reach US$54.8 billion in 2014. Aid‑for‑Trade
disbursements, however, continued to increase in 2014 reaching
US$42.7 billion, a growth of US$2.3 billion or 5.7% compared to 2013.
Progress also continued in support for regional and global Aid-for-Trade
approaches. In 2014 approximately US$7 billion was spent on multi-country
and regional programmes, more than triple the US$2.3 billion average during
the 2002-2005 baseline period.
3.117. Middle-income countries continue to
be the main Aid-for-Trade recipients. Commitments to least-developed countries
declined by US$4 billion in 2014 to US$14.4 billion. Disbursements to LDCs accounted for 24.6% of
total Aid-for-Trade expenditure in 2014.
Trade Financing
3.118. Since the last report, the WTO has been moving forward on trade
finance and this was reflected in the Director-General's publication
"Trade Finance and SMEs", released on 4 May 2016. The
publication draws attention to the fact that globally over half of trade
finance requests by SMEs are rejected, against just 7% for multinational
companies. The poorer the country, the greater the challenges SMEs face in
accessing trade finance. The estimated value of unmet demand for trade finance
in Africa is US$120 billion (one‑third of the continent’s trade finance market)
and US$700 billion in developing Asia. The International Chamber of Commerce
and Asian Development Bank's estimate of the global trade finance gap is close
to US$1.4 trillion. Trade financing gaps arise due to a mix of structural and
development factors. In developing countries, local banks may lack the
capacity, knowledge, regulatory environment, international network and/or
foreign currency to supply import- and export-related finance. Other obstacles
include banking or country risk issues, and cost of compliance with new
prudential and other regulations.
3.119. The Director-General proposed a number of further steps in the area
of trade finance. These included: first, enhancing existing trade finance
facilitation programmes run by multilateral development banks. Currently, trade
finance facilitation programmes support trade transaction of a total value of US$30
billion annually, mostly from SMEs. The objective would be to increase this
support to US$50 billion annually. Second, reducing the knowledge gap in local
banking sectors for handling trade finance instruments by training at least
5,000 professionals over the next five years. Third, maintaining an open
dialogue with trade finance regulators to ensure that trade and development
considerations are fully reflected in the implementation of regulations. Finally, improving monitoring of trade
finance provision to identify and respond to gaps, particularly relating to any
future crises.
4.1. In the area of services, the review period witnessed several
important policy developments in such diverse sectors as distribution,
financial services, telecommunications and ICT, maritime transport services,
and in regard to the supply of services through the movement of natural
persons. The large majority of the measures adopted during the review period
move in the direction of either further liberalization of trade in services or
strengthening and clarification of relevant regulatory requirements. Annex 5
contains more in-depth descriptions of these measures.
Measures affecting various service sectors
4.2. In October 2015, China revised certain regulations and regulated
documents on registration requirements and abolished the minimum capital
requirements imposed on foreign-invested companies in the following services
sectors: auction; leasing; freight forwarding agency; wholesale and storage of
refined oil; sale and storage of crude oil; engineering and construction;
logistics; and commercial factoring. The new regulatory regime also expanded
the list of corporate forms available for the establishment of foreign
investment companies to include companies limited by shares.
4.3. In November 2015, India liberalised its FDI policy in several
important sectors. Foreign equity caps have been increased from (i) 26% to 49%
in FM Radio Broadcasting and News TV channels services (still subject to prior
authorization); and (ii) 74% to 100% in Teleports, Direct-to-Home, Cable
Networks, Mobile TV, Headend-in-the sky broadcasting services (HITS),
satellites establishment and operation, credit information, non-scheduled air
transport, and ground-handling services. Full foreign-ownership is now also
permitted in construction development projects and duty free shops. Foreign equity caps of 49% remain in force
for scheduled air transport services, domestic scheduled passenger airline
services, and regional air transport services, with no prior authorization requirement.
4.4. In January this year, as part of its implementation of the 2005
Commercial Law, Viet Nam has authorized foreign traders to establish as
representative offices and branches. Foreign traders can, however, only qualify
to apply for a representative office and branch upon having had an operating
activity in the territory of Viet Nam for at least five years from the date of
establishment or registration. Moreover, they are still prohibited from forming
more than one foreign representative office and branch in a province or city
under a similar name.
Distribution services
4.5. In the period under review, new measures affecting trade in this
sector were introduced by China, Colombia, India and Singapore. Colombia has
rendered it mandatory for foreign companies seeking to engage in multi-level
marketing and distribution of goods and services in the country to establish as
branches. However, natural persons, including foreign ones, are not allowed to
act as representatives of multi-level marketing companies or to directly carry
out such activities in Colombia. China introduced new measures on the taxation
of cross-border business-to-consumer retail sales. India
allowed 100% foreign ownership of business-to-business e-commerce under the
automatic route (i.e. without prior authorization). Singapore introduced new regulations on the sale and distribution of tobacco products.
Financial services
4.6. Important liberalization initiatives have taken place in China,
India and the Philippines. In February 2016, China broadened the scope of
foreign investors qualified to invest in the Chinese interbank bond market (the
CIBM), and removed quotas. The new measure permits most types of foreign institutional
investors (e.g. commercial banks, insurance companies, securities firms, fund
management companies and other asset management institutions, pension funds,
charity funds, endowment funds, and other mid-term or long-term institution
investors recognized by the PBOC) to invest in the CIBM. India authorized full foreign ownership of "white label ATM operations" by
non-bank entities without prior authorization, and reviewed the guidelines on
ownership in private sector banks (which envisaged diversified shareholding in
private sector banks by a single entity/corporate entity/group of related
entities). In February 2016, the Philippines announced the gradual lifting of
the ban on new banking licences. The plan envisages the removal of all
restrictions on the grant of new bank licences in 2018.
4.7. Other developments worth noting include the simplification of
licensing requirements for the establishment and operation of foreign banks and
insurance companies in Thailand, as well as new regulations on cross-border
clearing and settlement of securities in Australia and Switzerland.
4.8. New restrictions on the supply of reinsurance services have been
introduced in Indonesia. Indonesian insurers are now required to cede all risks
within motor, health, personal accident, credit, life and suretyship business
lines (so-called "simple risks") to domestic Indonesian reinsurance
companies. For other insurance business (so-called "non-simple
risks"), a minimum of 25% of risks must be placed with domestic reinsurers
and up to 75% may be placed with off-shore reinsurers. However, exceptions to
the 100% local cession requirement for "simple risks" can be granted,
but allowing a maximum offshore cession of 75%, with a minimum cession to
domestic reinsurers of 25% (similar to "non-simple risks").
Maritime transport services
4.9. In June 2015, China allowed sino-foreign joint ventures to establish
in free trade zones to supply international transport business between Chinese
ports (without limitation on share-holding) and international transport agency
services (with foreign equity limited to 51%). In addition, foreign
wholly-owned enterprises established in free trade zones are now allowed to
supply cargo handling, container station and depot services auxiliary to
international maritime transport, and international ship management services.
4.10. In October 2015, Indonesia introduced new regulation on freight
forwarding services. The new regulation contains more detailed provisions, inter alia on licensing, scope of business, foreign
investment, liability, and sanctions, and raises minimum capital requirements.
Foreign shareholding in freight forwarding companies remains limited to 49%, as
per the relevant regulation issued in 2014. Further, the new regulation
continues to limit the operational scope of a foreign invested freight
forwarding company at a number of airports and seaports.
4.11. New legislation passed by the Congress of the Philippines in June
2015 allows foreign vessels to transport and co-load foreign cargoes for
domestic transshipment.
Telecommunications/ICT/audiovisual
services
4.12. In January this year, Argentina amended its broadcast media and
telecommunications regimes, allowing cable TV owners to hold a single
nationwide license, with no regional limits, but restricting telecom companies
from participating in the TV or cable business unless they do so by associating
with cooperatives. The amendments still maintain existing restrictions on
satellite TV providers to enter the radio, broadcast TV and pay-TV markets, or
run telecommunications services.
4.13. China's authorities issued a new regulation on online publication services
in February 2016 (effective 10 March 2016).
The regulation establishes a "network publication services
license". One of the licensing
criteria is a requirement for the licensee to "have the necessary
technological equipment required to engage in network publication services, the
corresponding servers and storage equipment must be located within the
territory of the Peoples Republic of China". Article 10 provides that
"Sino-foreign joint ventures, Sino-foreign cooperative ventures and wholly
foreign owned units must not engage in network publishing services", and
that "network publishing services units cooperating on projects with
mainland Sino-foreign joint ventures, Sino-foreign co-operative ventures and
foreign businesses, or foreign organizations or individuals" shall seek
prior approval.
4.14. In May 2016, the European Union issued the General Data Protection
Regulation, which will be applicable as of 25 May 2018. The regulation applies to data processing in the context of activities
of an establishment of a company in the Union, and to processing of personal
data of data subjects who are in the Union by a company not established in the
Union where the processing relates to (i) offering goods or services to such
data subjects in the Union, or (ii) profiling or tracking their behaviour as
far as this behaviour takes place within the European Union. The
regulation dedicates a chapter to transfers of personal data to third countries
or international organizations. The system of
international transfers pursues and further clarifies the approach of Directive
95/46/EC which is based on adequacy decisions, appropriate safeguards and
derogations.
4.15. Other developments worth noting include a new regulation in India
prohibiting discriminatory tariffs for
data services on the basis of content, the adoption of new regulations
on interconnection and access to physical facilities by Oman and the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, the implementation of a new fixed-mobile number portability
system in Chile, the introduction of new regulations for the wholesale
broadband market in Spain, new regulations concerning spectrum management in
Australia and the United Kingdom, and the implementation of new
telecommunications laws in Ecuador and Tonga.
Services supplied through the
movement of natural persons
4.16. During the period under review, several Members (Azerbaijan,
Hungary, Indonesia, and Switzerland) introduced new measures relating to the
implementation of quota systems for work permits issued to foreign citizens. A
number of other Members (Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States)
modified salary requirements or visa fees for foreigners. Finally, measures
related to visa or work permit application processes were introduced by Canada,
India, Peru, the Philippines, Senegal, and Viet Nam.
Overview
5.1. The two decades since the WTO TRIPS Agreement entered into force
have seen significant developments in the interplay between patterns of trade
and trade policy, on the one hand, and the intellectual property (IP) system on
the other. The ways in which international trade and the protection and
enforcement of IP interact have grown and diversified in recent years.
5.2. The linkages between the IP system and the trading system are too complex
and multifaceted to be categorized necessarily as facilitating or restricting
trade. A balanced system for protection and enforcement of IP will facilitate
legitimate trade while ensuring measures against illegitimate, infringing
trade, particularly counterfeit trademark goods and pirated copyright goods.
This section looks to provide a broad account of trade-related developments in
IP as well as an overview of the specific trends and areas of current interest
to WTO Members in this area.
IP Developments and Trade
5.3. Some IP-related developments can have direct bearing on
opportunities for trade in particular sectors. A current example, significant
for the TRIPS legal framework and important from a public health policy
perspective, is the Article 31bis amendment
to the TRIPS Agreement agreed by WTO Members. When this amendment enters into
force it will consolidate a new legal pathway for exports of generic medicines.
Currently, 52 Members, representing around 80% of global medicine exporting
capacity in the pharmaceutical sector, are known to have introduced measures
specifically to enable exports under this system. Such developments represent
greatly expanded practical opportunities for potential exports under this
mechanism to meet future needs, in a fast evolving international trading
environment for medicines. Members have therefore used TRIPS Council work and
trade policy reviews to gain updates on progress towards implementation and
legal acceptance of this mechanism.
5.4. International treaty developments in other forums also potentially
flow through to changes in Member's IP systems, with a bearing on trade. A
recent multilateral example is the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published
Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled
('MVT'), concluded in 2013 under the auspices of the World Intellectual
Property Organization. Among other things, the MVT facilitates international
trade in published works and is designed to be accessible to the visually
impaired, by requiring Contracting Parties to allow the import and export of
accessible format copies under certain conditions. Other IP conventions which
recently have drawn particular interest from Members have included the WIPO
Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, conventions
to facilitate registration of industrial property rights such as the Madrid
Agreement and the Hague Agreement.
5.5. Another system-wide development concerns the wide range of bilateral
and regional trade agreements that include provisions on IP. As of 2015, the
WTO RTA Database contains 143 RTAs that incorporate such provisions. Such RTAs
provide, for instance, for IP enforcement measures covering the on-line
environment or applied at the border; provisions with bearing on the
examination and administration of industrial property rights; the scope of
rights accorded to IP holders; and the substantive standards defining the
eligibility for protection of certain forms of IP subject matter. Some also
deal with the question of exhaustion of IP rights, thus defining the scope for
parallel trade determined by specific, distinct areas of IP rights. A number of
these agreements also provide for competition policy measures that may have implications
for the IP system.
5.6. A key exogenous factor driving developments in the linkage between
IP and the trading system has been technological change, especially evolution
in and the global dissemination of information and communication technology.
The widespread availability of new technologies has led to new forms of trade
in IP-rich goods and services, and has created entirely new consumer markets
for IP content that can function without any physical medium.[98]
5.7. Traditionally, the measures that have been considered to have the
most direct linkage between IP and trade are those that deal with trade in
goods.[99]
Although imprecise, measurements of trade in certain categories of IP-intensive
goods have been used as a proxy for assessing the growing significance of IP in
international trade, e.g. information and communications technologies,
pharmaceuticals, and luxury goods. Work has been under way to improve the
precision and coverage of recorded trade in IP, but difficulties remain in
collecting data for intangible cross-border exchanges compared to statistics on
IP embedded in physically traded goods such as books, other publications and
recorded media. Hence, considerable gaps are apparent in the coverage of
statistics on international transactions for IP despite the economic
significance and commercially disruptive effect of this trade. As the trade and
development significance of participation in global value chains is
increasingly recognized, closer analytical work will enable clearer
understanding of the significance of IP transactions – such as licensing of
technological and design inputs, and branding – as important early and
intermediate links in global value chains.
Trends and Areas of Interest in
IP – Trade Policy Reviews
5.8. This dynamic and diversifying growth in international transactions
involving IP content, and the impact of technological change on the IP system,
have had some impact on national and international policy and legislative
processes. Through a range of notification and review processes, both under the
TRIPS Council itself and in their Trade Policy Reviews, Members have reported a
wide range of legal and policy responses concerning the changing relationship
between the IP system and the broader field of trade policy. A direct indication of the sustained interest
of Members themselves in how other Members are addressing these linkages is
provided by the range of questions on IP-related trade policy matters posed
during recent trade policy reviews. The following non-exhaustive overview covers
developments and trends that have been actively discussed in recent trade
policy reviews as well as recent notifications to the TRIPS Council and TRIPS
Council discussions that are of wider trade policy significance.
5.9. Individual trade policy reviews have covered broader questions on
the relationship between IP, trade and development, with WTO Members showing
interest in the relationship between the IP system and various aspects of
economic performance, as well as domestic innovation, the international and
national diffusion of technologies, national IP strategies and IP-related
development policies, measures to use the IP system to promote foreign direct
investment, the linkages between innovation, IP and development planning, and
specific initiatives to enable domestic firms (including SMEs) to make better
use of the IP system for economic development. Issues related to taxation, regulatory
parameters concerning IP royalties, mechanisms governing pricing of IP
protected materials particularly for lower income groups as well as competition
policy exceptions for IP licensing protection and assignment have also been
explored.
5.10. Trade policy reviews have touched upon Members' policies concerning
exhaustion of IP rights and parallel importation. Sectors of particular
interest have included parallel importation of pharmaceuticals and the
application of parallel importation mechanisms for publications also to digital
versions. Many exchanges in trade policy reviews concern enforcement mechanisms
for IP rights. These have covered the scope, impact and extent of use of border
control measures covering infringing goods, including counterfeit trademark
goods and pirated copyright goods, and including goods in transit. Recent interest has also been shown in the
nature and frequency of civil and criminal actions to protect trade secrets.
Trade policy review discussions have also considered the role of the courts,
programmes to improve the expeditious handling of civil and criminal IP
matters, the scope for specialist IP courts and related statistics on aspects
of enforcement.
5.11. The role of alternative dispute resolution (arbitration and
mediation) for IP matters and the interaction between competition policy and
enforcement of IP rights have also been prominent topics of discussion.
Reflecting the significance for IP enforcement of the digital environment, WTO
Members have considered the scope of on-line enforcement measures, particularly
for copyright works, the application of technological protection measures for
copyright works and the use of holograms and similar mechanisms to authenticate
legitimate copyright works. Equally, they have discussed programmes for
promoting consumer awareness to reduce demand for pirated and counterfeit
products. The administration of IP rights has also received considerable
attention in TPRs. Recent TRIPS notifications have included measures to
streamline industrial property application procedures and to facilitate
electronic filing, as well as new measures on time limits and for post-grant
opposition.
5.12. Concerning substantive areas of IP law and policy, WTO Members have
discussed patents, undisclosed information, trademarks, geographical
indications, and copyright. Trade policy review discussions have covered the
protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources in domestic law, and
the use of related patent disclosure mechanisms. Different approaches to the
protection of clinical trial data, including terms of exclusivity, have also
been discussed as have questions related to the approaches taken to protecting
trade secrets within the broader context of suppression of unfair competition.
Recent TRIPS Council notifications have also covered improved measures to
protect trade secrets.
5.13. Finally, in the TRIPS Council, notifications have covered protection
of non-traditional marks such as motion and sound marks. Members have explored
different approaches to the protection of geographical indications, including
in the context of bilateral agreements and specific forms such as appellations
of origin. A number of bilateral agreements on the protection of geographical
indications have been reported to the TRIPS Council in the context of its
review of the implementation of geographical indication protection. The wide
range of copyright matters raised in the TRIPS Council have included issues concerning
on-line and digital environment, the recognition, role and competition aspects
of copyright management organizations, levies on recording media, the use of
optional registration systems and compulsory licensing arrangements for
translations of copyright works for educational and similar purposes. They also
discussed copyright administration within the context of regional integration
agreements.
5.14. For LDC Members, a particular focus has been their use of the
renewed extensions of the period for implementing TRIPS, and the resource
constraints and technical and financial assistance needs they have identified.
This focus is reinforced by the reports on needs assessments that LDCs have
filed with the TRIPS Council, identifying specific areas of linkage between
individual national development priorities and continuing needs for technical
and financial assistance.
5.15. The above overview seeks to provide a brief snap-shot of the dynamic
and multi-faceted nature of discussions on IP issues among Members in the WTO
today, in the TRIPS Council as well as more broadly in the issues raised by
Members in individual TPRs. Given the increasing recognition of the knowledge
component of trade, and the impact of trade-related IP measures on the
contemporary trading system, developments in the area of IP are likely to be
the subject of increasing attention in the context of the regular monitoring of
trade policy trends.