Concluding remarks by the Chairperson

At this twelfth Trade Policy Review of the United States, we have benefitted from the active participation of a large number of Members and the delegation of the United States. Members had sought a better understanding of the United States' trade, economic, and investment policies, including their impact on the world economy and trade. I would like to thank the U.S. delegation led by H.E. Ambassador Michael PUNKE, Permanent Representative of the United States to the WTO, for their active engagement, as well as the discussant H.E. Ambassador John ADANK, Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the WTO, in his personal capacity, for his insightful comments. The successful review was based on reports by the WTO Secretariat and the United States. A large number of questions were asked by many Members in advance and at the meeting, and timely responses to the questions were provided by the United States. We look forward to replies to remaining questions no later than one month after this meeting.

The United States was generally commended for having one of the most open and transparent trade and investment regimes. It was also noted that with the exception of the Farm Bill, most U.S. trade policies remained broadly the same with few changes since the last review. For many Members this had both positive and negative aspects, as the United States had refrained from introducing protectionist measures in the period after the global financial crisis, yet long-standing barriers in certain sectors remained a hindrance to trade.

Members reaffirmed the central importance of the United States in the world trading system, as one of the world's largest economies. It was recognized as the world's leading services exporter, the largest merchandise importer and the second largest merchandise exporter. In addition, the United States remains among the top three trading partners for over 60 WTO Members. While further clarifications were sought on the potential systemic effect of U.S. Quantitative Easing (QE) policy, Members praised its economic recovery and the expected spillover effects through increased cross border investment flows.

Many Members looked to the United States for leadership in the multilateral trading system, especially in the Doha Round and on the post-Bali agenda. Members commended the United States for the role it played in bringing a successful conclusion to the Trade Facilitation negotiations, and they looked for a continued leadership across the broader WTO agenda in the future. Within the WTO, the United States played an important role not only in the negotiations but also in the regular work of the organization, and it also was a major user of the DSB. While the United States maintained an overall good record of compliance with WTO rules and obligations, its lack of timely implementation of DSB panel outcomes was noted as being problematic. The same situation arose with respect to notifications, where a good track record was noted, but certain improvements could be made. Some delegations also referred to trade tensions in other areas.

Many Members noted that perhaps the most significant trade-related policy change since the last Review of the United States is the adoption of the new Farm Bill in February 2014. Members welcomed the elimination of price support and export subsidies for dairy products. Some Members raised, however, concerns about the moving away from direct payments to farmers (i.e. Green Box support) towards new trade and production distorting programmes of domestic support. For its part, the United States expected the 2014 Farm Bill to remain within WTO commitments, and in any case, the Farm Bill retained a so-called “circuit breaker” provision to ensure this. Members enquired how some of the new programmes would be classified and how the new Farm Bill would affect the U.S. position in the agricultural negotiations of the DDA. The United States was affirmative that the 2014 Farm Bill does not change its position. Other agricultural issues on which clarification was sought include the changes in the export credit, cotton and dairy regimes, and the reasons behind low TRQ fill rates for some products.

It was recognised that the United States was pursuing trade liberalisation on many fronts, including bilaterally, plurilaterally, and multilaterally. While clearly there were concrete benefits in terms of increased trade for FTA partners, the majority of U.S. trade still took place under the MFN regime. However, with the growing number of regional initiatives, TPP and T-TIP; this would likely alter this ratio and have a significant impact on non-participating third parties. Some Members recognised the complimentary nature of plurilateral initiatives that the United States was involved in—ITA expansion, TISA, and EGA, while others inquired how these fit in with the multilateral trading system.

While it was clear that the United States played an important role for most of the world's traders, it was even more so important to some of the world's smallest and least developed countries. Many of these countries noted the expiry of the GSP programme and encouraged the United States to re-authorise this important preference programme. Similar concerns were raised with respect to AGOA, where it was noted that it would expire in 2015 and was already causing uncertainty for traders and investors. Members encouraged the United States to renew the programme without delay and for a significant period of time. Least-developed countries inquired about the status of the Duty Free Quota Free commitment and how it would be implemented by the United States, including its relation to other preference programmes. Many were grateful for the preferences that they received, and for the bilateral aid and capacity building initiatives supported by the United States as well.

Thus, both at the meeting and in their advanced questions, Members highlighted the following new or systemic issues in which they encouraged the United States to take action; many of which the United States have also addressed in their concluding remarks, earlier.

• On trade remedies, Members raised concerns about the significant increase in antidumping and countervailing measures investigations during the review period and for the significant trend in the continued renewal of duties imposed after sunset reviews, often resulting in the remedies being applied for decades.
  
  
• While it was noted that tariffs were generally low, and that the trade-weighted average was even lower, Members encouraged the United States to address tariff peaks, as they were often applied on products of interest to developing countries, i.e. agriculture, textiles & apparel, and tobacco.
  
  
• Members recognised the importance that trade facilitating measures had on the efficient and timely clearance of goods through customs and looked forward to developments on the single window and expansion of trusted trader programmes. However, they noted that there needed to be a balance between enforcement and security, and encouraged the United States to re-examine the Secure Freight Initiative and Container Security Initiative.
  
  
• The subject of fish and fish subsidies, including the role of the United States in the “Friends of Fish”, was raised by many Members. The United States was encouraged to refrain from subsidizing the fishing industry, both directly and indirectly through the refurbishing of fishing vessels.
  
  
• The services sector was noted as an important driver of the economy, and in terms of trade, was relatively open. However, there were certain sectors, such as domestic maritime and air transport that remained virtually closed to foreign competition, in which Members sought a long-standing reversal in policy. Members also raised issues with the on‑going reforms of the financial sector, visas for foreign professionals, healthcare reform and health insurance portability, and the LNG transport regime.
  
  
• A number of Members expressed concern about certain SPS measures and sought clarification concerning the revised BSE regime and the additional requirements under the new Food Safety Modernization Act.
  
  
• Intellectual Property rights concerns were raised by a number of Members, and the United States was encouraged to reform the judicial process for patents and examine certain matters as they related to patents and the Section 337 investigative process.
  
  
• Certain government programmes, such as “Make it in America” and SelectUSA, were raised by several Members as they could have a trade-diverting impact.
  
  
• Members encouraged the United States to further promote transparency in its Government Procurement system. In addition, questions were posed regarding the “Buy America Provision” in many federal and sub-federal tendering processes.
  
  

This is not an exhaustive list of all the issues raised by Members for this review but constitutes what I consider the main points, as raised by many delegations.

In summary, the United States was applauded for its economic recovery and for maintaining open trade and investment regimes, although Members encouraged the United States to make further improvements and continue its leadership within the multilateral trading system.

This concludes our review of the United States. The substantial number of advance questions and the 51 interventions are testimony to the importance the Membership attaches to the United States.

Finally, let me thank the delegation of the United States for their dedication to this exercise, the discussant for his comments, and Members for contributing to what has been a very successful Review.