|
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Decision of 14 November 2001
The
14 headings cover the following points:
General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
(section 1)
> back
to top
Balance-of-payments exception: This deals with the conditions
member governments have to meet if they restrict imports in order to
protect their balance-of-payments. The implementation decision
underscores the fact that the two relevant GATT provisions have
different wording and therefore set less stringent conditions for
developing countries.
The two provisions are Article 12, which applies to all
members, and Section B of Article 18, which applies to
developing countries. For example, where Article 12 refers to
action to prevent the “imminent threat of a serious decline in
monetary reserves”, Article 18 does not use the word “imminent”. And where Article 12 says that a member
government’s monetary reserves must be “very low” in
order to justify the imposition or maintenance of restrictions,
Article 18 refers to “inadequate” reserves as
justification for restrictions.
The implementation decision therefore serves as a reminder that
Section B of Article 18 amounts to special and
differential treatment for developing countries. If they make use of
it, the conditions are “less onerous” than those required
under Article 12.
Implemented :
immediately
> more ...
Market-access commitments: The decision directs the Market
Access Committee to give further consideration and make
recommendations to the General Council on the meaning to be given to
the phrase “substantial interest” in GATT Article 13 (on the
non-discriminatory allocation of quantitative restrictions among
supplying countries of a particular product).
The question of which countries have “substantial interest” arises
because, for example, the article says when a country allocates
import quotas, it can negotiate with other WTO members having a
substantial interest, or allocate the quotas according to those
members’ previous shares. In some cases, a country with “substantial
interest” can seek consultations with the country allocating a
quota.
Implemented: immediately
Recommendation to General Council: by
end of 2002
> more ...
Agriculture
(section 2)
> back
to top
Rural
development and food security for developing countries: Other
members are to show some restraint when it comes to challenging
measures taken by developing countries that are notified under the
Green Box and that address rural development and food security
concerns. (To
qualify as a Green Box subsidy, a measure must have no effect on
trade or production, or at most a minimal effect. It must also
conform to a number of other criteria set out in the Agriculture
Agreement. Provided these general and specific criteria are
satisfied there are no limits to the value of subsidies each member
can provide under the Green Box.)
Implemented:
immediately
Least-developed and net food-importing developing countries:
Agricultural trade liberalization could raise world food prices and
affect poorer importing countries. At the end of the Uruguay Round
negotiations in 1994, ministers reached a Decision on Measures
Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on
Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries.
Since
then, these countries have been seeking more effective action. In
the lead up to the Doha Ministerial Conference, the WTO Agriculture
Committee reached agreement on this (and on two other subjects). The
27 September 2001 decision in the committee covers food aid,
technical and financial assistance to improve productivity and
infrastructure, financing for imports, and review of follow-up.
In
the Doha decision, ministers take note of the committee’s
decision.
Implemented:
immediately
Report to General Council: late 2002,
after last Agriculture Committee meeting of the year
>
details: the
Agriculture Committee’s decision
Export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance programmes:
These come under Art.10.2 of the Agriculture Agreement, which deals
with countries finding ways to get around their commitments to
reduce export subsidies
The
Agriculture Committee’s 27 September 2001 decision
defines tasks to be undertaking within the committee — work on
circumvention of export subsidy commitments, and considering how a
possible agreement on export credits might be brought into the WTO
— while negotiations on this subject continue in the agriculture
negotiations.
Implemented:
immediately
Report to General Council: late 2002,
after last Agriculture Committee meeting of the year
>
details: the
Agriculture Committee’s decision
Tariff rate quotas: This is a follow-up to a General Council
decision on implementation on 19 December 2000. Member governments
were required to provide additional information on how they were
administering their tariff quotas by mid-2001. The objective is to
make the quota administration more transparent, equitable and
non-discriminatory.
The
Agriculture Committee’s 27 September 2001 decision list the
countries that had submitted the additional information by that
time, while also observing that the requirement should not place an
undue burden on developing countries. It commits the committee to
continue to review the situation.
Implemented:
Addenda to notifications began mid-2001
Agriculture Committee review:
continuous
> more ...
Sanitary
and phytosanitary (SPS) measures
(section 3)
> back
to top
Longer time-frame for developing countries to comply with
other countries’ new SPS measures: Where a phased introduction
is possible, the longer period for developing countries to comply is
now understood to mean, normally, at least six months. Where phased
introduction is not envisaged, but a member government has problems
complying, the two sides should consult, “while continuing to
achieve the importing Member’s appropriate level of protection.”
Implemented: immediately
“Reasonable interval” between publication of a country’s new
SPS measure and its entry into force: Now understood to mean,
normally, at least six months, subject to certain conditions. But
particular circumstances and the actions necessary to implement a
measure also have to be taken into account. If the measure
contributes to trade liberalization, it should not be delayed
unnecessarily.
Implemented: immediately
Equivalence: Where possible, governments are supposed to accept
that different measures used by other governments, which provide the
same level of health protection for food, animals and plants, can be
equivalent to their own. The SPS Agreement (Art.4) requires this,
but does not say how it is to be achieved.
In the lead-up to Doha, the SPS Committee settled this
implementation issue by deciding on an outline of steps designed to
make it easier for all WTO members to make use of the SPS Agreement’s
equivalence provisions.
In the Doha decision, ministers instruct the SPS Committee to
develop expeditiously the specific programme to further the
implementation of these equivalence provisions.
Decision: 24 October 2001
Further implementation: immediately
Review of the SPS Agreement: The Doha decision instructs the SPS
Committee to review the operation of the agreements at least once
every four years.
Implementation: every 4 years or
sooner
Developing countries’ participation in setting international SPS
standards: The Doha decision notes the actions taken by the WTO
director-general to help developing-country members participate more
effectively, including efforts to coordinate with the relevant
organizations and to identify needs for technical assistance in the
field.
The ministers go on to urge the director-general to continue with
this, and to give priority to least-developed countries.
Implementation: immediately
Financial and technical assistance: The decision calls for
members to provide assistance to least-developed countries so that
they can respond adequately to new SPS measures that could obstruct
their trade. It also calls for assistance to help them implement the
agreement as a whole.
Implementation: immediately
> more ...
Textiles
and clothing
(section 4)
> back
to top
In this section, ministers reaffirm their governments’ commitment to
“full and faithful” implementation of the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing. They refer in particular to three concerns:
-
The agreement’s provisions on the early integration of products
into normal GATT rules and the elimination of quotas. The
ministers agree that these provisions should be “effectively”
used.
-
Anti-dumping actions on developing countries’ textiles and
clothing exports, when those exports were previously restricted by
quotas under the agreement. The ministers agree that for two years
after the sector is fully integrated into GATT rules (i.e.
2005–2006) their governments will exercise “particular
consideration” before initiating anti-dumping investigations on
these products.
-
Determining where a textiles or clothing product is made, an
important issue when, for example, quotas apply to products from
particular countries. The ministers agreed to give the WTO’s
Committee on Rules of Origin a role in this. Their governments
will notify any changes in their rules of origin for these
products to the committee, which may decide to examine the
changes.
Implemented: immediately
The ministers then ask the Goods Council to examine the following
proposals and make recommendations to the General Council by 31 July
2002:
-
That small suppliers and least-developed countries should be given
the most favourable treatment available when importing countries
calculate quotas for the remaining years of the agreement (i.e. to
1 January 2005). In particular, members will use the method that
gives the largest quota sizes under “growth-on-growth” provisions
calculated from the beginning of the implementation period. Where
possible, quotas should be eliminated completely for imports from
these countries.
-
For other exporters, importing members will also provide larger
quotas than originally envisaged. Specifically, they would
calculate the quota levels for the remaining years of the
agreement as if the growth-on-growth provision for stage 3 had
been implemented on 1 January 2000 (instead of 1 January 2002 as
specified in the agreement).
Recommendation to General Council: by
31 July 2002
> more ...
Technical
barriers to trade
(section 5)
> back
to top
Technical assistance: the ministers confirm the approach
being developed by the TBT Committee, reflecting the results of the
reviews of the TBT Agreement undertaken every three years. They
mandate this work to continue.
Time to adjust to new regulations: Article 2.12 of the
TBT Agreement requires governments to allow other members —
particularly developing countries — “a reasonable interval” to adapt
their products or production methods to new regulations in importing
countries (except in emergencies, and subject to certain
conditions). The ministers agree that, if possible, this “reasonable
interval” is normally six months.
Developing countries’ participation in the work of international
standards-setting organizations: The ministers note the WTO
director-general’s efforts in helping developing countries
participate more in the work of international standards-setting
activities, and in coordinating with other organizations on
improving technical assistance. They urge the director-general to
continue this, and to give priority to least-developed countries.
Technical assistance for least-developed countries: The
ministers urge all WTO members to provide adequate financial and
technical assistance to least-developed countries so that they can
respond to new TBT measures that significantly affect their trade,
and so that they can deal with any special problems in implementing
the TBT agreement’s provisions in general.
Implemented: immediately
> more ...
Trade-related
investment measures (TRIMs)
(section 6)
> back
to top
The
Decision urges the Goods Council “to consider positively”
possible requests for extension by least-developed countries of the
seven-year transition period given to them under the TRIMs Agreement
to eliminate inconsistent TRIMs.
> more ...
Anti-dumping
(GATT Article VI)
(section 7)
> back
to top
Repeated investigations: If a government receives a request
for a second anti-dumping investigation into a product, within a
year of a first negative finding on that product, the ministers
agree that their investigating authorities must examine this request
“with special care”, and only go ahead if circumstances have
changed.
Implemented: immediately
Developing countries’ exports: Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement says developed countries must give “special regard” to the
special situation of developing countries when they consider
anti-dumping measures, and alternative “constructive remedies” have
to be explored before anti-dumping duties are applied.
The ministers underscore that this is provision is mandatory. They
instruct the Anti-Dumping Practices Committee’s Implementation
Working Group to try to clarify how it could be implemented, asking
for recommendations on how to put the provision into practice within
12 months.
Recommendations: in 12 months
Time for determining dumped volume: Article 5.8 says that if
the volume of dumped imported products is negligible, the
investigation must be terminated (and no anti-dumping action taken).
But the article does not specify the time period to be used in
determining the volume of dumped imports.
Ministers agree that this creates uncertainties in the
implementation of the provision. They instruct the Anti-Dumping
Practices Committee’s Implementation Working Group to prepare
recommendations within 12 months. The aim is to make the application
of time periods as predictable and objective as possible.
Recommendations: in 12 months
Annual reviews: Every year, the Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee reviews how the agreement has been implemented and how it
has operated. The ministers instruct the committee to prepare
guidelines to improve the reviews, and to report its views and
recommendations to the General Council within 12 months.
Guidelines, report with recommendations to
General Council: in 12 months.
> more ...
Customs
valuation (GATT Article VII)
(section 8)
> back
to top
A number of developing countries had asked to extend their
five-year transition period for implementing the Customs Valuation
Agreement’s provisions. This applied to developing countries that
had not signed the plurilateral agreement under GATT.The Customs Valuation Committee had discussed these requests, and
approved some extensions. The ministers took note of the committee’s
actions.
Effective : immediately
In addition, least-developed countries have asked for a further
delay in the deadline to implement the agreement. The Doha
Implementation Decision urges the Goods Council to consider these
requests positively, taking into account the countries’ specific
circumstances when setting the terms and conditions.
Implemented : immediately
One of the key questions in dealing with customs fraud is to
verify whether the declared value of imported goods is correct.
Cooperation with the customs authorities in the exporting country
can be important for the customs authorities in the importing
country.
The implementation decision says member governments have to
cooperate in exchanging information, including on export values,
within their domestic laws and regulations. The ministers instruct
the Customs Valuation Committee to look at practical approaches to
verifying the accuracy of declared values, including the exchange of
information on export values. The committee has to report to the
General Council by the end of 2002.
Implemented : immediately
Report to General Council:
by end 2002.
> more ...
Rules
of origin
(section 9)
> back
to top
A key area of work in the Rules of Origin Committee is harmonizing
the way WTO member governments determine where each of the hundreds
of thousands of traded products are made. This is complicated by
globalization and the way a product can be processed in several
countries before it is ready for the market. Harmonization is
required under Part 4 of the Rules of Origin Agreement. The
ministers take note of the committee’s report on progress so far,
and urge it to finish this by the end of 2001.
They agree during the transition to the new, harmonized rules of
origin, any interim arrangements that members implement must be
consistent with the agreement, particularly Articles 2 (“Disciplines
During the Transition Period”) and 5 (“Information and Procedures
for Modification and Introduction of New Rules of Origin”). The
committee can examine these interim arrangements, the ministers say.
Harmonization: by end of 2001
> more ...
Subsidies
and countervailing measures
(section 10)
> back
to top
Exempt developing countries: Normally, subsidies that require
recipients to export are banned. But some developing countries are
allowed to pay these subsidies, and they are defined in Annex 7 of
the Subsidies Agreement. Among them are a group who are only
eligible so long as their GNP stays below US $1,000 per capita.
The ministers agree that this threshold should be “US $1,000 in
constant 1990 dollars for three consecutive years”.
An outstanding question is how to calculate “constant 1990 dollars”,
and the ministers say the threshold should take effect when the
Subsidies Committee adopts a method. Failing that, if there is no
consensus by 1 January 2003, a method proposed by the committee
chairperson will be applied.
The ministers also underscore that countries in this group will
continue to be eligible “so long as its GNP per capita in current
dollars has not reached US $1000 based upon the most recent data
from the World Bank”.
In a separate paragraph, the ministers agree that a country dropped
from the list can be restored to the list if its GNP per capita
drops below US$ 1,000.
Implemented: when calculation method
agreed, or 1 January 2003
Proposal to allow certain subsidies for development: Some
countries have proposed that some subsidies in developing countries
should not have to face countervailing measures or other actions
from other governments. These are described as subsidies with
“legitimate development goals”, and include support for regional
growth, technology research and development, production
diversification, and development and implementation of
environmentally sound methods of production.
The ministers agree that this is an implementation issue to be
handled under section 13 (below), which in turn simply refers to
Paragraph 12 of the main Doha Declaration. The ministers also agree
that during the negotiations their governments will exercise due
restraint in challenging these subsidies.
Implemented: immediately, pending
negotiations
Review of countervailing duty investigations: The ministers
agree that the Subsidies Committee is to continue its review of the
agreement’s provisions on countervailing duty investigations and to
report to the General Council by 31 July 2002.
Report to General Council: by 31 July
2002
Least-developed countries’ “export competitiveness”: The
ministers affirm that least-developed countries’ governments are
allowed to pay subsidies that require recipients to export, normally
prohibited, “and thus have flexibility to finance their exporters,
consistent with their development needs”.
However, this right is qualified by two provisions. Article 27.5
says least-developed countries that have “reached export
competitiveness” in a product must phase out the subsidies on that
product within eight years. Art.27.6 defines “export
competitiveness” as 3.25% of world trade in a product, with some
details about how that is to be demonstrated. The ministers say the
eight-year period begins from the date that “export competitiveness”
exists within the meaning of Art.27.6.
Implemented: immediately
More time for some developing countries to phase out
export-contingent subsidies: The ministers instruct the
Subsidies Committee to give some developing countries more time to
phase out subsidies that require recipients to export, according to
procedures in a committee document (G/SCM/39).
For developing countries that are required to phase these out,
Art.27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement sets a period of eight years.
Extending that would be in response to specific requests. But
ministers instruct the Subsidies Committee to avoid different
treatment for countries in similar circumstances — the committee is
to take into account relative competitiveness in relation to other
developing-country members who have requested an extension.
Implemented: immediately
> more ...
Trade-related
aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS)
(section 11)
> back
to top
“Non-violation”
complaints: This deals with a government’s ability to bring a
dispute to the WTO, based on loss of an expected benefit caused by
another member’s actions — even if no WTO agreement or
commitment has actually been violated.
While
non-violation complaints are possible in the areas of goods and
services, the TRIPS Agreement set a temporary moratorium on
non-violation complaints. During that time, the TRIPS Council
started looking at the extent and way (“scope and modalities”)
non-violation complaints could be applied.
The
Doha Implementation Decision directs the TRIPS Council to continue
to discuss this and to make recommendations to the 2003 Fifth
Ministerial Conference. Until then, members have agreed not to file
non-violation complaints under TRIPS.
Implemented:
immediately
Recommendations on scope and modalities:
5th Ministerial Conference, 2003 (in Mexico)
Technology transfer to least-developed countries: Art.66.2
of the TRIPS Agreement says developed countries have to provide
incentives for their private sector and institutions, in order to
promote and encourage technology transfer to least-developed
countries.
Least-developed
countries want this requirement to be made more effective. In Doha,
ministers agreed that the TRIPS Council would “put in place a
mechanism for ensuring the monitoring and full implementation of the
obligations”. Before the end of 2002, developed-countries are to
submit detailed reports on how their incentives are functioning in
practice.
Implementation:
immediately
Developed countries reports: by end
2002
> more ...
Cross-cutting
issues
(section 12)
> back
to top
Under
“cross-cutting issues”, the Implementation Decision — like the
Doha Declaration — mandates the Trade and Development Committee to
identify which special and differential treatment provisions are
mandatory, and to consider the implications of making mandatory
those that are currently non-binding.
The
decision instructs the committee to examine additional ways in which
special and differential treatment provisions can be made more
effective, and how developing countries may be assisted to make best
use of these provisions.
The
decision mandates the committee to consider how special and
differential treatment may be incorporated in the new negotiations.
The
Trade and Development Committee will make its recommendations to the
General Council before July 2002.
Also
under “cross-cutting issues”, the decision refers to preferences
granted by developed countries to developing countries under the “Enabling
Clause”. That clause, agreed by GATT members in 1979, allows
developed countries to give non-reciprocal differential and more
favourable treatment (such as zero or low duties on imports) to
developing countries. The clause allows preference-giving countries
to unilaterally determine which countries and which products are
included in their preference schemes.
The
decision urges developed countries to grant preferences in a
generalized and non-discriminatory manner, i.e. to all developing
countries rather than to a selected group.
> more ...
Outstanding
implementation issues
(section 13)
> back
to top
This
brief section simply says that all outstanding implementation issues
are to be handled under paragraph 12 of the main Doha
Declaration.
> paragraph 12
explained ...
Final
provisions
(section 14)
> back
to top
The
ministers ask the WTO Director-General to ensure that WTO technical
assistance focuses — as a priority — on assisting developing
countries to implement existing WTO obligations, and on
increasing their capacity to participate more effectively in future
multilateral trade negotiations.
They
also say the WTO Secretariat should cooperate more closely with
international and regional intergovernmental organisations so as to
increase efficiency and synergies in carrying out this mandate.
> back
to top |
No
area of WTO work received more attention or generated more
controversy in the two years before the Fourth Ministerial
Conference in Doha, Qatar, than the issue of “implementation”
— developing countries’ problems in implementing the WTO
Agreements.
THE
DOHA TEXTS