|

Contents
> Director-General’s letter to journalists
> The Doha Development Agenda
> Agriculture
> Cotton
> Services
> Market access, non-agricultural products
> Intellectual property (TRIPS)
> Trade facilitation
> Rules: ad, scm including fisheries subsidies
> Rules: regional agreements
> Dispute settlement
> Trade and environment
> Small economies
> Trade, debt and finance
> Trade and technology transfer
> Technical cooperation
> Least-developed countries
> Special and differential treatment
> Implementation issues
> Electronic commerce
> Members and accessions
> Members
> Bananas
> Statistics, Textiles and Clothing
> Statistics, Facts and Figures
> Jargon buster, Country groupings
> Jargon buster, An informal guide to ‘WTOspeak’
|

The Doha mandate back to top
The declaration sets out the following mandate on the
WTO’s Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Agreements:
“In the light of experience and of the increasing
application of these instruments by members, we agree to negotiations aimed
at clarifying
and improving disciplines under the Agreements on Implementation of Article
VI [i.e. 6] of the GATT 1994 [i.e. the Anti-Dumping Agreement] and on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures, while preserving the basic concepts, principles
and effectiveness of these Agreements and their instruments and objectives,
and taking into account the needs of developing and least-developed participants.
In the initial phase of the negotiations, participants will indicate the
provisions, including disciplines on trade distorting practices, that they
seek to clarify
and improve in the subsequent phase. In the context of these negotiations,
participants shall also aim to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries
subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing
countries. We note that fisheries subsidies are also referred to in Paragraph
31.”
Since then … back to top
During the first phase of negotiations, participants
pointed to the provisions in the two WTO agreements that they would like
to clarify or improve in the subsequent phase. From the 141 submissions
tabled, most of them on the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the chairman issued
a compilation of issues and proposals. During the second phase after
Cancun, the Group began meeting in informal sessions to consider more
detailed and specific “elaborated proposals”. The frank and detailed
exchanges gave the Group a clearer idea of what exactly the proponents
were seeking, and at the same time provided the proponents valuable feedback
on what proposals may or may not attract broad support. In the spring
of 2005, the chairman launched the third phase of negotiations by adding
bilateral and plurilateral consultations for rigorous consideration of
legal texts of proposed amendments to the relevant Agreements. He also
established a technical group open to all participants to work on a standard
anti-dumping questionnaire. Such a questionnaire could significantly
reduce costs and increase predictability for both the investigating authorities
and the exporters.
Anti-dumping
More than 2,600 anti-dumping investigations have
been launched since WTO came into being in 1995. Anti-dumping initiations
rose from 157 in 1995 to 364 in 2001 but have decreased since then to
213 in 2004. In every year of the 1995-2004 period, developing countries
have been the leading users of this trade defense instrument. During
this period as a whole, developing countries (plus a few transition economy
countries) conducted 1,639 such investigations, as compared to 1,008
for developed countries.
A number of members believe that the existing
Anti-Dumping Agreement should be improved to counter what they consider
to be an abuse of the way anti-dumping measures can be applied, which
in their view is indicated by the substantial number of dumping actions
imposed each year and the growing number of WTO disputes in this area.
An informal group of 15 participants (Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa
Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Japan; Rep of Korea; Mexico; Norway;
Singapore; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and Turkey), calling
themselves “Friends of Anti-Dumping Negotiations” (FANs), have tabled
many proposals for tightening disciplines on the conduct of anti-dumping
investigations.
| Initiations of AD Investigation (1995-2004) |
| 1. India |
399 |
| 2. United States |
354 |
| 3. EC |
303 |
| 4. Argentina |
192 |
| 5. South Africa |
174 |
| 6. Australia |
172 |
| 7. Canada |
133 |
| 8. Brazil |
116 |
| 9. China |
99 |
| 10. Turkey |
89 |
| Subject
to AD Investigation (1995-2004) |
| 1. China |
412 |
| 2. EC-15 |
400 |
| 3. Korea |
207 |
| 4. United States |
151 |
| 5. Chinese Taipei |
146 |
| 6. Japan |
117 |
| 7. India |
107 |
| 8. Indonesia |
107 |
| 9. Thailand |
99 |
| 10. Russia |
94 |
The United States has emphasized
the importance of ensuring that anti-dumping actions, and for that matter,
countervailing
measures (contingency measures--usually duties--applied to offset injury
caused by subsidized imports), remain effective in addressing unfair
trade. It has proposed a number of amendments to the anti-dumping and
countervailing rules.
Developing countries are active in the negotiations,
not only as co-sponsors of FANs' proposals. Their submissions and interventions
reflect varied interests – some aim at keeping costs and burdens on administrators
to a minimum in light of resource constraints, some aim at tightening
disciplines, or elaborating rules where there are none, and some have
to do with Article 15, “Developing Country Members”. Indeed, “operationalizing”
Article 15 was one of the implementation issues that have been referred
to the
Negotiating Group.
Subsidies
While not yet attaining the same level of activity
as anti-dumping, work on the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement
has steadily progressed. More than 20 participants have identified issues
in this agreement. As of October 2005, the Group had before it 10 “elaborated
proposals” on the Agreement, five concerning subsidy disciplines and
five concerning subsidy calculation issues for countervailing measures.
On fisheries subsidies, another informal grouping
of members calling themselves the “Friends of Fish” (including Australia,
Chile, Ecuador, Iceland, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines and the United
States) say that subsidies to the fisheries sector—estimated at $14-$20.5
billion annually, or 20-25 per cent of revenues—have led to over-capacity
and over-fishing. They argue that because of the sector's special characteristics,
fisheries subsidies cause commercial harm — stock depletion which limits
other participants' access to the resource – that cannot be addressed
by the existing disciplines in the Subsidies Agreement.
Japan, the Rep.
of Korea and Chinese Taipei, on the other hand, have expressed skepticism
over the link between subsidies and over-fishing. They argue that fish
stock depletion is caused mainly by inadequate management of fisheries
resources.
The focus of the discussions has evolved significantly
since the beginning of the Round: it is no longer on whether there would
be any new disciplines but rather on the approach to, and structure
of,
such disciplines. The proponents of stronger disciplines argue for
a
broad ban on most subsidies to the fisheries sector, with limited
exceptions. The participants on the other side of the issue favour an
approach
that would prohibit an agreed list of particular subsidies with the
identified harmful effects.
Another issue that has arisen in the negotiations
is
whether, and if so how, any new disciplines should address subsidies
to aquaculture. The discussion to date suggests that participants
may
conclude that it is not necessary to include aquaculture within
the scope of the new disciplines, in part because the existing rules
of
the SCM
Agreement could be directly applied to this sector.
The Group has also discussed special and differential
treatment for developing countries. Brazil has tabled a proposal for
differentiated disciplines and transition rules on fisheries subsidies
of developing countries. In addition, a number of small coastal states
(Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominican, Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana,
Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Solomon Islands,
and Trinidad and Tobago) have jointly proposed that they be granted broad
exemptions from any new disciplines, pointing to the importance of fisheries
in their economies, and the artisanal and small-scale nature of their
fisheries sector.
The Doha mandate on trade and environment
negotiations (Paragraph 31 of the declaration) notes that fisheries
subsidies are part of the “rules” negotiations.
| Leading Exporters and Importers of Fishery
Commodities, 2002 (US$1,000)
|
| 1. China |
4,485,274 |
1. Japan |
13,646,050 |
| 2. Thailand |
3,676,427 |
2. United States |
10,065,328 |
| 3. Norway |
3,569,243 |
3. Spain |
3,852,942 |
| 4. United States |
3,260,168 |
4. France |
3,206,511 |
| 5. Canada |
3,035,353 |
5. Italy |
2,906,007 |
| 6. Denmark |
2,872,438 |
6. Germany |
2,419,534 |
| 7. Vietnam |
2,029,800 |
7. United Kingdom |
2,327,559 |
| 8. Spain |
1,889,541 |
8. China |
2,197,793 |
| 9. Chile |
1,869,123 |
9. Korea |
1,861,093 |
| 10. Netherlands |
1,802,893 |
10. Denmark |
1,805,598 |
| Source: FAO
|
For Hong Kong back to top
Participants in the negotiations have expressed
a variety of views as to how the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference can
best be utilized to facilitate a successful outcome in these negotiations.
|

Other
material:
> Rules Negotiations
> Doha
declaration
> Doha declaration
explained
> More on: anti-dumping, subsidies
and countervail
|