The Commerce investigation had been launched in response to a complaint from the Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing (CASM), a group of seven solar panel manufacturers led by SolarWorld Industries America that had together petitioned the US to investigate Chinese solar imports last October. (See Bridges Weekly, 9 November 2011)

The seven-company coalition had argued that Chinese companies were deliberately selling products abroad at below-market prices, a practice known as dumping.

In last Thursday’s preliminary determination, the US agency found that Chinese producers/exporters sold solar cells in the United States at prices that were between 31.14 and 249.96 percent lower than their normal price.

As a consequence, the majority of Chinese exporters/producers will face a cumulative duty around 250 percent to account for this price difference. Sixty-one exporters will be subjected to anti-dumping duties of roughly 31 percent.

The announcement quickly prompted outcry from Chinese government officials, who deemed the Commerce Department decision to be “unfair.”

“By deliberately provoking trade friction in the clean energy sector, the United States is sending the world a negative signal about trade protectionism,” Shen Danyang, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), said. MOFCOM has not yet outlined how it will respond.

According to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the US decision will effectively raise the price of Chinese-made panels to US$1.11 per watt, making them 17 percent more expensive than their non-Chinese counterparts.

The duties announced last week do not immediately go into effect; rather, they must be confirmed both by Commerce and the US International Trade Commission this fall. If the final determinations are affirmative, the US may enforce the duties from 19 November onwards, as well as retroactively for 90 days.

Rift intensifies within US solar industry

The case has divided the US solar industry, pitting solar panel manufacturers against companies that purchase these panels for use in solar energy projects.

For his part, Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld Industries America and the leader of the Coalition for Solar Manufacturing, praised the decision.

“Commerce’s careful measures could help thwart China’s illegal drive to control the solar market and supplant manufacturers and jobs in America,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE) - a coalition of over 100 US firms that formally opposed the CASM case - continues to campaign against the anti-dumping duties, insisting that an increase in the price of solar panels will lead to a fall in the number of service-related jobs that make up a large part of the US solar industry.

“Today SolarWorld received one of its biggest subsidies yet - an average 31 percent tax on its competitors,” Jigar Shah, president of CASE, said. “What’s worse, it will ultimately come right out of the paychecks of American solar workers.”

Final decision on countervailing duties forthcoming

In the same complaint, the CASM had also alleged that Chinese companies had received unfair government support; with regards to this second claim, the Commerce Department tentatively announced in March that it would indeed be imposing anti-subsidy, or countervailing, duties against Chinese manufacturers (see Bridges Weekly, 21 March 2012). Final determinations regarding the countervailing duties are expected by late July.

However, the legitimacy of these countervailing duties could soon be thrown into question, given an ongoing controversy over whether the Commerce Department can indeed apply these duties against imports from non-market economies (NMEs), such as China.

Earlier this year, Washington enacted a law aimed at preserving Commerce’s ability to impose countervailing duties on NMEs after the US Court of International Trade had denied this possibility in 2011. (See Bridges Weekly, 7 March 2012) However, the new law was later challenged on constitutional grounds, and has now been sent back to the Court of International Trade for review.

The case is closely tied to the issue of “double remedies” - in other words, the case where cumulatively applied countervailing and anti-dumping duties remedy the same governmental support. Double remedies could potentially occur in the current solar spat.

Proposal for US local content requirement

Additional legislation targeting Chinese solar panels could soon hit the floor of the US Congress, following the announcement last week of a proposal that would bar foreign-made solar panels from qualifying for a 30 percent tax credit.

The proposal, authored by US Senators Charles E. Schumer and Sherrod Brown - both Democrats - would see the addition of a requirement whereby 70 percent of the parts of the solar panel would need to be made in the US in order to qualify for the tax credit. Should the final point of manufacture be the US, however, then only 50 percent of the parts would need to be US-made.

“This hard-hitting plan will level the playing field for US solar producers so that they can compete, create jobs and become a global leader in this rapidly-growing industry,” Schumer explained.

ICTSD reporting; “WTO dispute strains the limits of friendship and fair trade,” PV MAGAZINE, 21 May 2012; “US ruling on solar panels ‘unreasonable’,” CHINA DAILY, 19 May 2012; “Solarworld to Lodge China Dumping Complaint In Europe Mid-Year,” BLOOMBERG, 18 May 2012; “US Solar Tariffs on Chinese Cells May Boost Prices,” BLOOMBERG, 18 May 2012; “China ‘caught red-handed’ on US solar anti-dumping charges,” PV MAGAZINE, 18 May 2012.

在此报告中，Hufbauer 及Jisun Kim两位作者将检视寻找可靠且低成本的化石燃料替代品之必要条件，着重探讨贸易政策如何有效提升发展成就，以及完成可持续能源贸易协定(SETA)过程中的几个主要议题。

此出版品由国际贸易及可持续发展中心(ICTSD)、全球绿色成长机构(GGI)以及彼得森国际经济研究所(PIIE)共同合作发行。

阅读原文，请点击这里。

阅读全文，请点击这里。

“Recognising that the establishment of an FTA … would contribute to the economic growth and prosperity of the three countries, we hereby endorsed the recommendations from trade ministers that the trilateral FTA negotiation would be launched within this year,” Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said in a joint communiqué after the meet.

The three leaders highlighted the co-operation between their countries as a reason for the region’s steady economic growth and accelerated economic integration, despite the ongoing global economic crisis; they further stressed that this co-operation would “facilitat[e] economic recovery and growth in the world.”

The proposed trade pact will “unleash the economic vitality” of East Asia, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said after the high-level gathering.

The proposed deal would bring together three markets that together constitute 19.7 percent of global GDP, according to Japanese government data. Trade between the three countries has already increased more than five-fold from US$130 billion in 1999 to US$690 billion in 2011, according to statistics from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A trilateral trade deal could increase China’s GDP by up to 2.9 percent, Japan’s by 0.5 percent, and South Korea’s 3.1 percent, according to Chinese state-run news agency Xinhua; the news agency did not cite the source for these figures.

For his part, Noda commented to the Wall Street Journal that trilateral trade negotiations “are an extremely important piece of his country’s economic strategy.”

“China is simply a huge market,” the Japanese Prime Minister said. “That’s all there is to it.” Beijing is the largest trading partner of both Seoul and Tokyo.

The three countries also signed a trilateral investment agreement at their two-day summit, a step that is designed to facilitate a future trade pact.

Other trade negotiations in the background

The announcement comes as Japan vies for entry into talks for another proposed trade pact - the nine-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. Tokyo expressed an interest in joining the TPP negotiations in November; however, whether or not Japan will indeed be able to join the proposed pact is still unclear. (For more on the TPP negotiations, see related article, this issue.)

China and South Korea are not members of the trans-Pacific trade talks.

While some observers have questioned whether Japan’s goals of entering the US-backed TPP talks while at the same time clinching a separate deal involving China are mutually compatible, Prime Minister Noda rebuffed those concerns.

“We will promote the TPP and trilateral FTA in parallel,” he told reporters on Sunday, adding that the negotiations could be “mutually reinforcing to each other.”

In a separate effort, Beijing and Seoul confirmed earlier this month that they will be launching negotiations for a bilateral FTA, following up an earlier pledge made by leaders from both sides in January of this year. (See Bridges Weekly, 11 January 2012)

ICTSD reporting; “China, Japan and S. Korea in free trade talks,” FINANCIAL TIMES, 13 May 2012; “East Asian powers set to push trade pact talks,” REUTERS, 12 May 2012; “China, Japan, Korea Agree to Trade Talks,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, 14 May 2012; “Japan’s Leader Turns Trade Focus to China, South Korea,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, 13 May 2012.

The airlines missed a 31 March deadline to submit their emissions data to the EU. New Delhi and Beijing have been vocal opponents of the EU’s decision to include aviation in its Emissions Trading System (ETS), and have banned their country’s airlines from participating in the scheme without government approval.

“It’s up to member states to apply penalties,” EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told journalists on Tuesday.

“That would be the next step,” she added, should the airlines miss the new deadline.

The ten airlines involved represent less than three percent of emissions, and less than one percent of emission reports, according to the European Commission.

EU legislation requires airlines to surrender carbon permits for the emissions they produce during all flights taking off or landing in the 27-country bloc. Under the scheme, airlines are required to buy permits for 15 percent of the carbon they emit; permits for the remaining 85 percent will be provided to them for free. Carriers will have to surrender permits for 2012 carbon production by 30 April 2013.

Airlines that fly to the 27-country EU bloc without complying with the scheme will face a fine of €100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted and for which they have not paid allowances. Persistent offenders could face a blanket ban from all EU airports.

The rule has come under fire by various non-EU governments, which argue that Brussels is exceeding its legal jurisdiction by charging for aviation emissions over an entire flight, rather than just those in EU airspace.

In February, over 20 countries, including the US, Russia, China, and India, signed a joint declaration outlining agreed countermeasures for contravening the aviation component of the ETS. (See Bridges Weekly, 22 February 2012)

China recently announced a new national plan to cut aviation emissions, which it says would make Chinese airlines exempt from the EU scheme. The EU ETS does not require countries with “equivalent measures” to participate. Hedegaard has said that Brussels is looking into Beijing’s plan.

As the pressure against the EU Commission revs up, Brussels has said it will stand by its decision to include aviation emissions in the scheme, promising to only consider changes to the rule should countries manage to put together a global aviation emissions agreement.

Industry opposition builds

Airline industry executives from both EU and non-EU countries have also lambasted the aviation emissions rule. Last week, two of Lufthansa’s top executives argued that the law would turn the European aviation industry into an uncompetitive “third league” sector in the global economy.

The German airline chiefs’ comments came while addressing shareholders at the company’s annual general meeting in Cologne, Germany last week.

The Lufthansa executives said that the inclusion of aviation in the Brussels scheme will spark a “trade war” if countries such as China and India retaliate with similar measures. Last week, Lufthansa reported a larger than expected first-quarter loss of €397 million.

The company says they expect profits for 2012 to fall to €500 million, from €820 million in 2011. Earlier this month, Lufthansa announced the retrenchment of 3,500 employees, according to the Wall Street Journal.

However, Lufthansa did not specify exactly what proportion of the losses can be attributed to the aviation clause in the ETS. Instead they aggregated the financial losses to a basket of reasons: rising fuel prices, international competition, Frankfurt’s night flight ban, air traffic taxes in Germany and Austria, the lack of a “European Single Sky,” and other regulatory costs.

The statement is the latest in a barrage of industry opposition against the inclusion of aviation emissions in the EU ETS.

Back in March, nine industry CEOs, including Airbus, Air France, and Lufthansa, wrote joint letters urging various European political leaders, including the prime ministers of the UK, France, and Spain, and Germany’s chancellor, to re-think the aviation component of the ETS. (See Bridges Weekly, 14 March 2012)

ICTSD reporting; “EU Says Nations May Penalize China, India on Aviation CO2 Data,” BLOOMBERG, 15 May 2012; “China’s Draft Climate Change Law Backs Continuation of CDM Projects,” THOMSON REUTERS POINT CARBON, 14 May 2012; “EU climate boss: studying China’s airline CO2 plan,” REUTERS, 19 April 2012; “EU climate boss: studying China’s airline CO2 plan,” REUTERS, 19 April 2012; “Lufthansa Takes EU to Task Over Regulation,” WALL STREET JOURNAL, 8 May 2012.

World Bank、IMF于华盛顿举办之「春天会议」及于墨西哥举办之G20贸易部长级会议，拉米提出警告今年经济成长相对缓慢，例如过去15年平均有6%的经济成长、去年也有5%。欧元区的经济危机为上述现象之主要原因，然而发展中国家及新兴经济体的表现亦不如往。倘若各国增加其贸易壁垒，将加剧此状况。WTO近期观测报告将会包含近来所登记的贸易限制手段，并持续对贸易保护手段提高警觉。

在WB及IMF举办的春天会议中，拉米提及在金融贸易市场的底层国家，例如非洲地区国家，深受金融部门重整的影响。而区域性的发展银行及WB的国际金融合作部门必须提供该些国家必要之协助。另外，针对金融贸易部分，重新检视巴塞尔框架协定亦有其必要性。

G20着重探讨全球价值链，及该新型贸易模式对贸易政策及贸易政治所带来的影响。与会者的共同认知为:进口及出口对创造就业及经济成长的重要性相当。我们需重新检视衡量贸易的方式，及改变传统思维模式。至少在贸易政策上，双边的贸易平衡在新型贸易模式中的重要性大幅降低。会中的讨论重点包括了贸易便捷化的手段、货品及服务的模煳界定、以及提供足够且可负担的贸易融资，旨在改善系统化地改善全球价值链。拉米强调，这并非新旧议题之争，或是优先顺序的的抉择，而是在确保全球价值链得以透过正确的贸易政策获得稳固。

各国部长认为WTO须与其他国际组织，例如OECD及UNCTAD，密切合作，共同探讨全球价值链对贸易政策所带来的可能影响。此外，各国亦支持着力于目前多哈回合中较有进展的谈判议题，例如贸易便捷化；同时研究出具新意的方式解决较具争议性的谈判项目。

目前各方均认为贸易便捷化可能替全体会员带来双赢的局面，日内瓦的工作持续进行中，针对发展中国家，特别是低度发展国家，给予技术援助及帮助其能力建构。

最后，在杜哈回合的第13届大会上，拉米再次强调贸易援助的重要性，特别是如何帮助贫穷国家整合进全球价值链并创造附加价值，同时他呼吁，援助国的财政困难不应减缓贸易援助的进程。

以下就各协商小组的进展做一报告：

1.    服务贸易协商：各会员国持续思考能够解决歧异的方法，并设法于协商中取得进展。国内法规及GATS工作小组主席，亦积极在各自领域寻求共识。

2.    规则：主席邀请各代表团进行双边磋商分享各自想法，此外，技术小组与规则委员会举行今年第二次会议讨论各会员在此领域的作为及实践。

3.    贸易便捷化：委员会顺利结束在年初第一阶段会议通过的政策措施 。协商小组同意将在修正的草桉文本中列入新的语言，且持续与S&D、transit and customs brokers、Pre-Shipment Inspection小组加速调解进展，并持续缩小下列领域的差距：包括海关合作、被授权之贸易商、手续费及其他收取费用。

4.    特殊及差别待遇：会员已恢复监测机制，同意遵照于坎昆部长会议达致的原则，并尽力完成MC8的指导方针。针对非洲集团的需求，其亦被邀请表明计画中的优先事项为何。

最后，于2月份的总理事会中，拉米已宣布于MC8会中决议成立之「定义贸易未来之WTO专家小组」。旨于分析今后贸易之原动力、提供贸易模式的新观点、开放贸易对21世纪的意义。谨记贸易对永续发展、经济成长、创造就业及减贫的贡献。此专家小组划归于拉米的权责之下，将于5月16日召开第一次会议，并预计于2013年初完成最终研究报告，在此之前，今年秋天将提供机会让各会员发表意见。

阅读原文，请点击这里。

同时，专利局当时负责此案的官员P.H. Kurian表示，求诸上诉机关是拜尔公司的权利。Natco公司，该案中获得许可的制药厂，表示暂时尚未收到通知，但是有准备出席上诉裁定。

以数量计，印度是世界第三大药物生产国。直至2005年该国加入世界贸易组织之后，印度才因遵从世贸规则开始签发药物专利。世界贸易组织的《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》（TRIPS）明确地认可满足TRIPS 条款31程序与条件的强制许可。

阅读原文，请点击这里。

这份由12个机构合作编写的报告，将于下周在墨西哥Los Cabos举办的G20农业副部长会议上呈现。 报告归纳了十条建议以促进农业生产力进步，尤其是小规模农业。各国副部长们，或者各国高级农业官员们，届时将讨论这些条目，并将结果转交给G20峰会的组织者。报告显示减少农业补贴的巨大积极作用，以及推进多哈回合的必要进。

阅读原文，请点击这里。

阅读原文，请点击这里。

阅读原文，请点击这里。