Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 10 • Number 40 • 29th November 2006

EU Decision Not To Appeal Biotech Ruling Attracts Criticism

Do More

Subscribe to Bridges

* required

Email Address: *

Country: *
Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democractic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Islands Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong S.A.R. Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Korea, North Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau S.A.R. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, The New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua new Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis And Futuna Islands Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe

Employment Sector: *

First Name:

Last Name:

Organisation:

Enter the letters shown above:*

Download this issue

See also

MEMBERS AGREE IN PRINCIPLE TO EXTEND KIMBERLEY PROCESS WAIVER

WTO Members have agreed in principle to renew for six years a decision allowing countries to block trade in conflict diamonds.

At a meeting on 20 November, the Council for Trade in Goods accepted the text of a draft deal (G/C/W/559) that would allow parties to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds to continue to waive WTO rules in order to restrict trade in uncertified diamonds. The draft must now be formally adopted by the General Council, the WTO’s top permanent decision-making body. The original waiver, approved in early 2003, was scheduled to expire on 31 December 2006 (see BRIDGES Weekly, 27 February 2003).

The Kimberley Process excludes conflict diamonds from legal international markets through a series of certification requirements and trade restrictions. Participant countries must certify that diamonds produced on their territory do not finance rebel groups seeking to overthrow UN-recognised governments. Diamond trade with countries that are not members of the scheme is completely banned.

In order to comply with Kimberley Process requirements, Members require recourse to some measures that would ordinarily violate WTO obligations. Specifically, they need to be able to discriminate between diamonds based on their country of origin (which runs counter to the most-favoured nation principle in GATT Article I). They also must have the ability to place outright bans on diamond exports and imports — and apply them selectively on only some WTO Members (Article XI bans quantitative restrictions in most circumstances; Article XIII says that they should be non-discriminatory). The original waiver was hailed as an example that WTO strictures were flexible enough to accommodate other international rules.

The process was the product of cooperation among governments, the diamond industry, and the advocacy groups that first drew public attention to the fact that diamonds were being used to fuel armed conflict. Kimberley Process members are believed to account for 98 percent of legal international trade in diamonds.

The waiver decision covers Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States and Venezuela.

ICTSD reporting; "Goods Council considers new EC enlargement, extends Kimberley waiver," WTO NEWS, 20 November 2006.

Several civil society groups have sharply criticised Brussels’ decision not to appeal the WTO ruling against the EU’s application of its approval procedures for biotech products in response to a complaint from the US, Canada and Argentina (see BRIDGES Weekly, 4 October 2006).

Following the release of the dispute panel’s report in September, GeneWatch, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security and the GM Freeze campaign had urged EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson to appeal the ruling, pointing to "serious errors" in its interpretation of trade law.

Specifically, the groups warned that the ruling could undermine the precautionary principle, because the panel concluded that it was not obliged to take other international treaties into account if not all parties to the dispute were also parties to these treaties. "The precautionary principle is a key element of national environment and health policy and should not be dispensed with by the WTO," said Alex Gonzalez-Calatayud, Trade Policy Officer of the RSPB.

Their sentiments were echoed by Greenpeace, which fears that the ruling could lead to the further fragmentation of international law. "Governments must take urgent action to restrict the power of the WTO, so it cannot be used to undermine environmental laws," said Trade Policy Advisor Daniel Mittler. In a letter addressed to WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, Greenpeace called for environmental disputes to be removed from the global trade body "as the WTO is not equipped to deal with such cases effectively".

The legal analyses released by the civil society groups are available at http://www.trade-environment.org/page/theme/tewto/biotechcase.htm.

ICTSD reporting.

US ANTIDUMPING DUTIES ON SHRIMP FACE NEW CHALLENGE

The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on 21 November set up a panel to examine India’s claim that the US is placing WTO-inconsistent bond requirements on importers of certain kinds of goods facing antidumping or countervailing duties, particularly shrimp. The US had vetoed India’s first request for the creation of a dispute panel, but countries are prohibited from doing so a second time.

Under current legislation, the US may require importers of certain goods subject to antidumping or countervailing duties to furnish bonds (a sum of money) worth more than the total value of such duties on imports during the preceding twelve month period. These bond requirements only apply to goods designated as a ’special category’ or a ‘covered case’ within a ’special category.’ At present, agriculture and aquaculture goods are the only designated special categories, and shrimp the only ‘covered case’.

Prior to amendment of the bond rules in 2004, India argues, US importers were required to submit continuous entry bonds of substantially lower amounts as security for compliance with US customs regulations — equivalent to only 10 percent of the duties, taxes and fees levied on the same good in the year before.

India believes that the new bond requirements unfairly render its shrimp exports uncompetitive. In its complaint, it argued that the amendment bonds directive violates provisions of both the Antidumping Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

According to the request, the US has only applied the new bond requirement on importers of frozen warmwater shrimp from India subject to antidumping duties. India further notes that the singling out of one good emphasises the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the amended directive (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 16 June 2006).

A separate WTO dispute panel has already been established to examine Thai complaints against the amended bond directive and the US’s methodology for calculating antidumping margins (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 28 April 2006).

ICTSD reporting.

.