US WINS FINAL RULING IN SHRIMP-TURTLE DISPUTE. As the final ruling in the ongoing Shrimp-turtle case, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) on 22 October upheld a compliance panel’s 15 June 2001 findings, saying that the revised US measures banning shrimp imports from Malaysia are “justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in the findings of [the compliance panel] Report, in particular the ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a multilateral agreement, remain satisfied” (see BRIDGES Weekly, 19 June 2001). As the AB upheld the panel’s ruling entirely, no recommendations were made. The US regulations ban the import of shrimp caught by vessels not using turtle excluder devices (TEDs). Originally, an AB had found that the US’ application of its unilateral trade measure amounted to “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination”, leading the US to make its laws more flexible, and to become a demandeur for concluding a multilateral environmental agreement on sea turtle protection. These changes and actions were regarded sufficient by the compliance panel as long as the US continued its good faith efforts. Subsequently, Malaysia appealed the compliance panel ruling, the only country to do so from the group of countries who had brought the initial complaint to the WTO (including India, Pakistan and Thailand). Malaysia has not commented on the AB’s ruling as of press time. The AB’s report can be viewed at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/58abrw_e.pdf. “US Says Environment Wins In WTO Shrimp Ruling,” REUTERS, 22 October 2001.
WTO GOODS COUNCIL EXAMINES COTONOU AGREEMENT. On 17 October 2001, the WTO Council on Trade in Goods (CTG) set up a Working Party to examine a request by the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and the EC for a WTO waiver on their new (Cotonou) Partnership Agreement (see BRIDGES Weekly, 9 October 2001). The Working Party will be chaired by Ms. Margaret Liang, Singapore, and will report back to the CTG. Meanwhile, the EC is making efforts to enter into Regional Economic Partnership Agreements (REPAs) with ACP members based on the Cotonou Agreement — covering, inter alia, rice, bananas and sugar — which some, including Chief Technical Adviser of the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM) Richard Bernal, fear could “split up” the ACP solidarity. “Caribbean Differs with European Union On Trade Negotiations,” COMTEX, 17 October 2001; ICTSD Internal Files.
CONFERENCE ON WTO TRANSPARENCY AND REFORM. On 19 October, in Paris, France, the French non-governmental organisation Solagral organised a seminar on the theme “Improving the transparency and reform of the WTO”. The conference included three sessions relating to the participation of developing countries in world trade, ways to improve the accountability and democracy of the multilateral trading system, and ensuring a better world governance. At the end of the seminar, four criteria were identified as possible bases for the reorientation of international trade regulations. These were (i) the human and political capacity for the full implementation for developing countries of the trade agreements adopted during the Uruguay Round; (ii) the evaluation of these agreements and their pertinence with regard to their environmental and social effects; (iii) re-thinking the legal international architecture to avoid having social and environmental rights trampled by economic rights; and (iv) the institutional reform of the WTO which, according to the seminar, must permit developing countries to fully participate in the multilateral trade system as well as insure its democratic control by civil society (both elected representatives and NGOs). For more information on the seminar, see http://www.solagral.org/. ICTSD Internal Files.
WTO FINDS CANADIAN AIRCRAFT LOANS ILLEGAL. In the ongoing Canada-Brazil Aircraft dispute (see BRIDGES Weekly, 31 July 2001), a WTO panel found in its interim ruling that, inter alia, the CAD 1.7 billion in financing it provided to Air Wisconsin Inc. to acquire jets from Canada’s Bombardier Inc. were prohibited export subsidies. Canada, which was given about four months to remove the subsidies, announced that it would keep the financing for the deal in place. This would make Brazil eligible for retaliation against Canada in the event a possible appeal from both parties does not alter the report’s key findings. For its part, Canada has the right to retaliate against Brazil, which refuses to remove subsidies to its regional aircraft producer Embraer SA, which were found WTO incompatible by a previous WTO panel. The final ruling will be made public in a few weeks. “Canada Ordered To Stop Cut-Rate Jet Loans,” GLOBE AND MAIL, 20 October 2001.