|
home > trade topics > doha agenda > explanation |
The
Doha implementation decision explained
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. Around 100 issues were raised. The decision, combined with paragraph 12 of the main Doha Declaration, provides a two-track solution: > More than 40 items under 12 headings were settled at or before the Doha conference, for immediate delivery.> The vast majority of the remaining items are immediately the subject of negotiations. This is an unofficial explanation of what the decision says.
|
Issues > GATT |
IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED
ISSUES AND CONCERNS The 14 headings cover the following points: 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). > more ... 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 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 > details: the Agriculture Committee’s decision
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 > details: the Agriculture Committee’s decision
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 > more ... 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
Implemented: immediately
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
Implementation: every 4 years or sooner
The ministers go on to urge the director-general to continue with this, and to give priority to least-developed countries. Implementation: immediately
Implementation: immediately > more ... 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:
Implemented: immediately
Recommendation to General Council: by 31 July 2002 > more ... 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.
> more ... 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 ... 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
Recommendations: in 12 months
Recommendations: in 12 months
> more ... 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 : immediatelyIn 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 : immediatelyOne 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 : immediatelyReport to General Council: by end 2002. > more ... 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 ... 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.
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
Report to General Council: by 31 July 2002
> more ... “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
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 > more ... 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 ... 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 ... 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. |
|
contact us : World Trade Organization, rue de Lausanne 154, CH-1211 Geneva 21, Switzerland